Could Spider Silk Save Your Life?
Posted today at Nanotech-Now.com, Summer Johnson has written a column on the ethical issues with the new polymer nanocomposites that material scientists have created and their appropriate and inappropriate uses inside (and outside) the human body for the Lifeboat Foundation's column called "Scenarios and Solutions for a Nano-World".
To read the column, click here.
These columns are the result of a collaboration between the Lifeboat Foundation, Nanotechnology-Now, and The American Journal of Bioethics. Podcasts for these columns will soon be available at podcast.bioethics.net. So stay tuned!
Summer Johnson, PhD
Wolpe on "60 Minutes": Reading Minds for Cookies and Car Accidents
If you missed it this Sunday, as our own Dr. Paul Wolpe himself did for being in an airplane, you can catch it again here--the 13-minute segment from this past Sunday's "60 Minutes" where neuroethics is the focus. Leslie Stahl discusses the present and future potential of "mind reading" technologies, neuromarketing, and the ethics of a future where thoughts, intentions, and our minds are no longer private with AJOB's own, Paul Wolpe.
The title of this post only makes sense if you watch the video all the way to the end--but trust me--it's worth it. Then ask yourself, will Dr. Wolpe be one of the early adopters of the first "mind reading" machines to really find out which of his daughters dinged his car? (Just kidding...)
Summer Johnson, PhD
Thrill Seeking Brains and the People Who Have Them
Researchers from Vanderbilt University have found that some brains process dopamine differently resulting in greater "thrill seeking" behavior, says BBC News. Essentially, these individuals have fewer dopamine "autoreceptors" in their brains, which would normally result in a feedback loop that would stop the release of dopamine when stimulating events occur.
However, in thrill-seekers, free-spenders, and those who are impulsive, the regulatory cycle is inhibited due to the lack of autoreceptors meaning that the thrill is all the more thrilling, the reward all the more rewarding--thus making the person wanting to do it again.
Does this mean that the impulse buyer is not responsible for the $60,000 sports car he bought because he can blame it on his lack of dopamine autoreceptors? I'm not so sure. But it helps his wife, if it is the case that his brain is built that way, be more forgiving when he comes home with the keys in his hand.
Summer Johnson, PhD
The Nose Knows (Or Why Smoking Should Be Banned Everywhere)
According to a recent Harvard study, published in this month's journal of Pediatrics, there isn't just first-hand and second-hand smoke, now there is another kind of smoke to fear: third-hand smoke. As the New York Times described it, it's "the invisible yet toxic brew of gases and particles clinging to smokers' hair and clothing, not to mention cushions and carpeting, that lingers long after smoke has cleared from a room." It's that smell that non-smokers can distinctly pick out when the go to a hotel room that has been declared a "non-smoking room" but they know it recently has been occupied by a smoker.
So what's the big deal anyway? So there are these lingering odors that remain? As long as children and other non-smokers aren't present for the actual puffing away--are they actually at risk for unhealthy exposures? The simple and unequivocal answer is: YES.
As the New York Times explained:
Among the substances in third-hand smoke are hydrogen cyanide, used in chemical weapons; butane, which is used in lighter fluid; toluene, found in paint thinners; arsenic; lead; carbon monoxide; and even polonium-210, the highly radioactive carcinogen that was used to murder former Russian spy Alexander V. Litvinenko in 2006. Eleven of the compounds are highly carcinogenic.
That's enough for me to say: third-hand smoke can kill. And to also argue that smoking isn't safe for anyone, anywhere. It's effects are long-lasting and deadly.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Son, Just Tack Your Ritalin onto Your Tuition Bill
John Harris has publicly proclaimed that university students should be allowed to take cognitively enhancing drugs, such as Ritalin, to boost academic performance, says the Times Online. This view is precisely the one that he and his colleagues espoused last month in an article in Nature that was discussed right here on blog.bioethics.net.
Yet, Harris goes on to say that only should students at university be allowed to take these drugs, but they should be available without prescription, simply over the counter, or at least for them to be prescribed for non-therapeutic purposes. The interesting angle here is the over-the-counter bit. I worry that 18 to 21-year-old would be running to the pharmacy downing Provigil to turn their 48-hour stint into a 96 hour one without regard for their bodily needs or any side-effects or that they would ignore even the most conscientious pharmacist's instructions.
Prescribing cognitive enhancing drugs for non-therapeutic purposes is fine--we use all sorts of drugs for non-therapeutic purposes, particularly enhancement all the time.
The reality is that this era has come and that college students will--whether by prescription or some other means--use enhancing substances to improve their academic performance. The key is how to do it.
It would seem preferable and safer to promote a scenario by which these drugs could be easily procured from a physician, given in doses that require monthly follow-up visits (i.e. with 1 or no refills), and that physicians, parents, and society all accept that cognitive enhancement is going to be part of the 21st century.
Summer Johnson, PhD
The American Journal of Bioethics Editors' Blog Top 20 Essays of 2008
Below are the 20 most viewed essays on blog.bioethics.net for 2008.
#3: Is Being Infected With Malaria Worth $2000?
#4: The World Waits Breathless as Nebraska Considers Banning Cloning
#5: Bioethics Abandons Creationism Debate
#6: Forum on Nanotechnology in Consumer Products
#7: Jim Fossett Election Roundup on States, Bioethics & Stem Cells
#8: Where the Presidential Candidates Stand on Cloning
#9: Weekend reading: organ donation, designer babies
#10: The Pregnant Transgender Man Talks to Oprah
#11: Do Nerds Have a Different Sense of Empathy?
#12: Suzanne Somers Stem Cell Master
#13: A Comment from Paul Gelsinger on Gene Therapy and Informed Consent
#14: Money! Turns Out It's Bad for You...
#16: How Many in The US Un/Underinsured?
#17: A Pregnant Father
#18: Symposium to Examine Flu Pandemic Prep and Pharmaceuticals
#19: Men and HPV
#20: Art Caplan on Oscar Pistorious, the Double Amputee Sprinter
Electronic "Sex Chips"
Scientists in the UK are working on methods to stimulate the brain, specifically in the orbitofrontal cortex, the part of the brain that feels pleasure from eating and sex. According to The Telegraph, implantation of a chip into that area of the brain is expected to result in increased sexual pleasure. Previous studies in one woman with very low sex drive becoming one with a very active sexual appetite. However, the scientists reported, "She didn't like the sudden change, so the wiring in her head was removed."
Using this chip technology, deep brain stimulation may be used to revive or enhance areas of the brain that are lacking. This is already done for Parkinson's disease, and it would appear now that researchers are looking to do the same for pleasure enhancement. Even better, scientists believe it may be able to work on an electric switch to be used as needed.
As the Oxford researcher Aziz stated:
"When the technology is improved, we can use deep brain stimulation in many new areas. It will be more subtle, with more control over the power so you may be able to turn the chip on and off when needed. In 10 years' time the range of therapies available will be amazing - we don't know half the possibilities yet."
In fact, this is the frightening part. Turning on sexual stimulation with the flip of a switch--like with the Clapper? Of course, such a device has the potential to be abused just as erectile dysfunction medications are used by those without ED, just for enhancement. But when one is talking about implanting a chip in the brain--aren't the concerns about risks and abuse greater? How would doctors be able to tell the difference between those suffering from true anhedonia, the inability to experience pleasure, from those who can and who want to be enhanced? Or should they have to? Is the brain exceptional in this way?
These are tough neuroethics questions for which we need answers soon. As in, before someone develops an Orgasmatron chip that's ready for consumers--and that is certain to be in high demand.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Is A New DSM Written in Secret Necessarily Unethical?
Sarah Rubenstein from the Wall Street Journal Health Blog has explained that there is a concerning development regarding the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: it's being written in secret.
The authors of the entries for this latest version of the Bible of mental health has been asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The burning question is: why? The second question, of course: is it ethical?
There are many reasons for why a NDA could have been asked of the DSM authors--the APA surely knows that leakage of what authors wrote in the new DSM is bound to cause controversy and the slow trickle of that controversy over time, as each author reports what he or she wrote would cause real political problems for the APA and put a cloud over the DSM-V.
Moreover, unpopular opinions voiced by authors, disclosed before the manual was published, could result in pressure being put on the APA to retract or revise that entry before the 5th version is even printed. History has certainly seen its ups and downs with a variety of entries related to controversial topics classified as "mental defects". Perhaps the APA is hoping to avoid such controversy by releasing the manual all at once--avoiding many of these problems.
The ethical question is much tougher to answer. Asking clinicians and academics to remain silent is, of course, their choice. It is not a breach of academic freedom if they freely choose to sign the NDA. Nor does it suggest that they have something to hide--simply that they will not discuss their opinions until the entire manual is released. In a way, it's not that different from a medical journal article being embargoed until the journal is released and a press release is sent out to the press.
Given the fact that this version of the DSM will be taking on such controversial topics such as "gender identity and addictions such as shopping and eating", it is no wonder that the APA would prefer to keep the lid on until the entire manual is released and let its critics attack the manual in its entirety rather than piecemeal. A political tactic, for sure, but I'm not so sure it's an unethical one.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Move Over CoverGirl and Revlon. Here Comes Latisse.
Here is one enhancement I think the world could have lived without. From the makers of Botox, Allergan, Inc, comes a drug that will make your lashes--longer, thicker, darker, Latisse.
According to the Washington Post, the FDA has approved this drug for daily use on the upper (but only the upper) eyelid and in a miraculous 16 weeks women (and men) can have the lashes of their dreams.
With such a pretty name, who could have a beef with a drug that just wants to make eyelids more beautiful? Beware, the chemical in Latisse is simply a hair follicle stimulant--so if it gets anywhere else on your face, you could be in for a hairy surprise. Better yet, there's no guarantee that the rate of growth of your lashes will be the same on each lid or even on the same lid. You could end up looking like you have Chewbacca's eyelashes.
For those of you in search of the perfect lash: go for the fake ones or a good mascara wand. It's guaranteed to be cheaper, effective, and with no fear of side effects or unwanted Wookie hair.
Summer Johnson, PhD
When It Comes to Nano, Feds are Passing the Buckyball
According to an article from Scientific American, the National Research Council has weighed in on the regulatory efforts of the federal agencies responsible for monitoring the safety and use of nanoparticles and objects using nanotechnologies.
For the more than 800 consumer products using nanotechnology, the NRC has said that no federal agency including FDA and EPA "has failed to prove that the diminutive particles are not dangerous." Of course, this isn't the same as saying the particles ARE dangerous. But if the standard being used by the government is to prove that nanotechnologies are SAFE, not just that they aren't harmful. Then no agency has proven that yet.
Moreover, the NRC has said that National Nanotechnology Initiative, the overarching government plan to fund and oversee nanotechnology in the United States, "lacks a coherent plan for ensuring that current and future uses of nanotechnology do not pose a risk to human health or the environment."
So what does this mean for the average human being? Well, we know that there are exposures to nanoparticles in everyday life--but we simply don't know what significance that risk has. Without that data, regulation to ensure that those levels aren't breached or that certain products do not contain to great a level of a certain chemical or compound does not do much good.
So really there are two problems here: lack of research funding for risk assessment and epidemiological data regarding what we know about the nanoparticles already released in the environment and then the regulatory framework to enforce reasonable policies based on that data.
So it's time for the federal government to start spending the research dollars in the right areas, then pass the regulations necessary, and to stop passing the buckyball.
Summer Johnson, PhD
