November 2007
Following up: robot marriage, political (neuro)science and stem cell politics
Here are a few updates and extensions to earlier posts on blog.bioethics.net:
And you thought gay marriage was controversial
Back in October we posted an item about one researcher's speculation that human-robot marriage was at most 50 years away. Of course, this prompts the question that also sounds like a bad realty TV stunt: Who would want to marry a robot? Well, Wired's Regina Lynn says she might:
I don't plan to marry again, but if for some reason I must, I might consider tying that knot with a robot.
As Dave Barry says, I am not making this up. Artificial-intelligence expert David Levy's new book, Love + Sex With Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships, makes a compelling case for the development of real human-robot partnerships -- by 2050.
I'll be 80 by then, but who cares? With the help of aphrodisiac pharmaceuticals, I'll be as randy and functional as ever, with a wealth of experience I absolutely plan to gain between now and then.
Lynn goes on to list 10 reasons why'd she'd consider it. Among them, "If your spouse is a robot, your in-laws also have off switches."
Swing voters in the scanner
A few weeks ago we linked to Martha Farrah's skeptical take on a NYT piece detailing the results of fMRI scans of swing voters. In the time since, many other have joined Martha in her skepticism. Of the piece Daniel Engber wrote at Slate, "Don't believe a word of it. To liken these neurological pundits to snake-oil salesmen would be far too generous." At the Mind Hacks blog, Vaughn Bell called the piece "essentially PR for FKF Applied Research, a 'neuromarketing company' who will carry out bespoke brain scan marketing studies for a price." And writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, Megan Garber pointed out that the graphics accompanying the NYT piece portrayed the info incorrectly.
Politics and cell reprogramming
The news about induced pluripotent stem cells has prompted everyone's favorite game of punditry "Yes, it is! No, it's not!" Among the players this time are Charles Krauthammer and Michael Kinsley. In the Washington Post, Krauthammer writes that iPS cells are a vindication for President Bush. And in Time, Kinsley counters that the praise for Mr. Bush on this issue is just another form of hypocrisy.
Art Caplan at MSNBC: Despite AIDS vaccine failure, quest must go on
Art writes that the fight against HIV/AIDS requires time, persistence -- and taking some risks:
This year's World AIDS Day is coming at a time of extremely mixed emotions - staggering disappointment, cautious optimism and a resolve to remain vigilant.
Some want to use the occasion to remind people at high risk to practice safe sex, noting a bump in the number of gay men infected with the disease. Others point out how India, China and some other nations - hoping to prevent new, massive explosions of the disease - are responding with aggressive public health and education campaigns. Still others are simply satisfied to note that existing drugs have transformed AIDS from a death sentence into a miserable chronic disease.
But the biggest challenge against the wily, rapidly evolving virus that causes AIDS is the fallout from a catastrophic setback in developing a vaccine -- grumbling that perhaps it is time to give up the effort all together.
Doctors who refuse care because of moral objections
The moral objections of pharmacists have gotten a lot of attention over the last few years, but according to a recent CNN report moral objection is increasingly an issue in doctors' offices. From a transcript of the segment:
RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In June, this 24- year-old from Texas asked her doctor for birth control pills, and got an earful.
"MELISSA," WAS REFUSED CONTRACEPTION: He told me that he didn't believe in prescribing birth control. He thought it was morally wrong, that I shouldn't be having sex. And he launched into a lecture about, you know, ethically, you know, how I need to rethink things.
KAYE: She doesn't want to share her doctor's name or her own, so we will call her Melissa. She told us her doctor was Catholic.
MELISSA: I have no problem with a doctor being a practicing religious person. But they do not have a right to impose that on their patients.
KAYE (on camera): Yet, more and more patients are getting a dose of religion in the exam room. Doctors are rejecting patients whose care throws their moral compass off course. In a study published this year in "The New England Journal of Medicine," 63 percent of the doctors surveyed said it was OK to voice their moral objections to patients.
DR. SCOTT ROSS, FAMILY PHYSICIAN: The struggle is always there.
KAYE (voice-over): Dr. Scott Ross, a Catholic family physician in Virginia, believes contraception interferes with God's plan to breathe life into us, so he doesn't prescribe birth control.
(on camera): So, if someone came to you today and said they would like contraception or the morning-after pill, what do you tell them?
ROSS: I'm very frank with them and say, that's something that I don't do. It's not part of my practice.
KAYE (voice-over): Dr. Ross says he has denied contraception to at least a dozen patients.
(on camera): Do you ever feel as though you're playing the role of judge, too?
ROSS: No.
KAYE: But when you're denying someone something that they're requesting, aren't you making a judgment on whether or not they should have that care?
ROSS: I don't know that I'm making a judgment on whether or not they should have the care. It's just the judgment of, I can't provide that care.
Is there a way to resolve this issue? One answer might be some kind of disclosure -- something along the lines of "Welcome to my practice, let me tell you up front about the procedures that I don't do." Of course, that doesn't address the issue of how to provide care to people in areas where a particular doctor's office -- or pharmacy -- is the only outlet around. And there are also those situations that are time sensitive, which has led some states to require that emergency contraception be made available in emergency departments to victims of sexual assault.
-Greg Dahlmann
(via)
Speed reading the November 28 Republican debate
The Republicans running for the presidential nomination got together in St. Petersburg, FL Wednesday for another debate. We've pulled highlights from the transcript that might be of interest here at our little intersection of the web. Topics included spending on health care, torture, the death penalty, and charging doctors or women with crimes for abortions. The breakdown is after the jump.
Do iPS cells mean an end to stem cell federalism? It might just mean the opposite
By James Fossett
There’s been enormous speculation about the scientific and political consequences of the development of “induced pluripotent stem cells” (iPSC) by labs in Wisconsin and Japan for the entire stem cell research enterprise. One line of speculation, as described in an article by Rick Weiss in the Washington Post, centers around the state funded stem cell research programs that we’ve been so vocal about. If the Bush Administration embraces iPSC and induces NIH to support this method of making stem cells in a serious way, some claim, then the feds could become major players again in the stem cell research arena and all the problems of the “patchwork” of state regulation would disappear.
Not surprisingly, we’re dubious.
Stem cell searches trending upward again
Back in July we noticed that Google searches for the term "stem cells" were just about at their lowest level over the past 3.5 years. As you can see from the most recent chart above, it looks like that trend has turned around. That's not really surprising given all the recent news. But the number of the searches was trending upward even before the last month.
A few more details -- including the #1 city for stem cell searches -- after the jump.
Induced pluripotent stem cells: one week later
A little more follow up to all the news from last week:
+ While most of the popular coverage of stem cells focuses on using them as a therapies or replacement tissues, it's looking like, at least right now, the most promising application of iPS cells will be for modeling human disease. Over at the Stem Cell Blog, Eric Chiao explains why that's so important.
+ Speaking of using stem cells as therapies, Andrew Pollock reports in NYT today about why that's still a long way off. The potential of the cells to turn cancerous is one of the big obstacles.
+ Low in that NYT article there's mention of another important aspect of this issue: intellectual property. Pollack reports that WARF will not be requiring academic scientists to get a license to use Wisconsin's version of the cell reprogramming technique.
+ Rick Weiss reports in WaPo that last week's news "generated economic and geopolitical tremors through California, New York and about half a dozen other states that have invested -- in some cases heavily -- in embryonic stem cell programs and research centers." Look for more about this here on the blog-dot this week.
+ The "President Bush helped bring this advance about" story line (alluded to in a White House statement, and touted by an administration official in NYT) seems to have become a conservative talking point. See Michael Gerson in WaPo and Rich Lowry in the National Review.
+ And about maybe finding some kind of lasting political and cultural piece on this topic, John Tierney writes that we shouldn't bet on it.
-Greg Dahlmann
Earlier coverage of induced pluripotent stem cells on blog.bioethics.net
Call for contest submissions: The Method in Bioethics Research
A group of journals that includes AJOB, Bioethics, Cambridge Quarterly of Healtcare Ethics, Journal of Medical Ethics, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Nursing Ethics, and Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics is sponsoring a competition to answer the question "What are the methods of theoretical bioethics?" The five winning entries will be published in all of the above mentioned journals. The deadline is February 1, 2008.
Here's how John Harris described the details of the competition in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics:
Weekend reading: doctors pitching drugs, ethics in med school, and East-West divides over biotechnology
NYT Mag: Dr. Drug Rep
Daniel Carlat, a psychiatrist, recount his year as a "Lunch and Learn" speaker for Wyeth:
Was I swallowing the message whole? Certainly not. I knew that this was hardly impartial medical education, and that we were being fed a marketing line. But when you are treated like the anointed, wined and dined in Manhattan and placed among the leaders of the field, you inevitably put some of your critical faculties on hold. I was truly impressed with Effexor’s remission numbers, and like any physician, I was hopeful that something new and different had been introduced to my quiver of therapeutic options.
At the end of the last lecture, we were all handed envelopes as we left the conference room. Inside were checks for $750. It was time to enjoy ourselves in the city.
Lancet Student: Letter to a new medical student
Daniel Sokol encourages medical students to keep ethics in mind:
Throughout your training, you will be exposed to the scientific and technical components of medicine. You will wonder at, and on occasion curse, the sheer volume of medical and biochemical knowledge acquired over the centuries. We have come a long way from the days of supernatural explanations of disease, and Galen’s long-standing belief that illness was caused by an imbalance of four humours. The ethical aspect will not feature as much as the technical and the temptation will be to dismiss ethics as irrelevant, unimportant or inconvenient to the immediate task of helping the patient.
My message is this: do not yield to this temptation, however strong, but take the ethical issues in medicine as seriously as you do the technical ones. This doesn’t mean devouring textbooks on medical ethics. It means simply seeing ethics as integral to the proper care of your patients. Just as you want to increase your understanding of the factual aspects of medicine, so should you want to deepen your moral understanding. Your ability to perceive moral issues, to reason through ethical problems in search of a solution, and to act upon your decision is inextricably linked to your future success as a doctor
NYT: Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion
John Tierney looks at religious -- and geographical -- differences in how people view biotechnology:
Asia offers researchers new labs, fewer restrictions and a different view of divinity and the afterlife. In South Korea, when Hwang Woo Suk reported creating human embryonic stem cells through cloning, he did not apologize for offending religious taboos. He justified cloning by citing his Buddhist belief in recycling life through reincarnation.
When Dr. Hwang’s claim was exposed as a fraud, his research was supported by the head of South Korea’s largest Buddhist order, the Rev. Ji Kwan. The monk said research with embryos was in accord with Buddha’s precepts and urged Korean scientists not to be guided by Western ethics.
“Asian religions worry less than Western religions that biotechnology is about ‘playing God,’” says Cynthia Fox, the author of “Cell of Cells,” a book about the global race among stem-cell researchers. “Therapeutic cloning in particular jibes well with the Buddhist and Hindu ideas of reincarnation.”
Politics and cell reprogramming
The political world is starting to weigh in on induced pluripotent stem cells.
+ The AP reports that some in the Republican party are calling the news the end of the discussion on the ethics and funding of embryonic stem cell research.
+ Among the GOP presidential candidates, it seems that Mitt Romney is making the most of the news (background on Romney and stem cell research). Romney's people are saying this latest research has their guy feeling vindicated, according to the Boston Globe, and they've been circulating a piece by Thomas Berg in NRO praising the candidate.
+ According to a piece by Sheryl Gay Stolberg in NYT, the White House had been following the reprogramming research for a number of months, with the President getting updates from Elias Zerhouni. The administration is even claiming some credit for the advance. "I don’t think there’s any doubt that the president’s drawing of lines on cloning and embryo use was a positive factor in making this come to fruition," Bush adviser Karl Zinsmeister told the NYT.
+ In that same NYT article, Arlen Specter -- a Republican -- says he will continue pushing in Congress for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
+ Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette, who has sponsored embryonic stem cell research funding legislation, said in a statement: "Politicians should not be cherry-picking the preferred method of stem cell research; the soundness of the science should be dictating the form of research under strict ethical guidelines."
+ There's yet to be word from the Democratic candidates for president. (If you see something, please pass it along)
How much do the politics of all this really matter? Yesterday in a teleconference with reporters, James Thomson said that the political controversy surrounding this research set the field back five years.
-Greg Dahlmann
Earlier on blog.bioethics.net:
+ Art Caplan at MSNBC: 'Panacea' cells revive ancient hopes
+ Looking ahead: induced pluripotent stem cells
+ Cells that look and act like human embryonic stem cells created from skin cells
Art Caplan at MSNBC: 'Panacea' cells revive ancient hopes
Art writes that today's news about induced pluripotent stem cells shouldn't be the end of research on cloning:
In the Middle Ages, the alchemists believed someday they’d find a magical tool that could transmute lead into gold, metals into medicines and plants and animal tissues into powerful elixirs — a panacea that would cure all diseases and prolong life indefinitely.
This week, it appears that the object of their long-ago yearnings has been discovered.
Looking ahead: induced pluripotent stem cells
The papers have been published, so what's next? Here are a few questions to keep an eye on:
Can cells be reprogrammed into embryonic-like stem cells without the use of retroviruses?
Quick biology overview: the teams in Japan and Wisconsin were able re-program skin cells by inserting four genes into the DNA of the cells (the genes involved varied between the two teams) and they used retroviruses to do this editing. The problem is that during this editing, retroviruses can also introduce random disruptions in to the DNA and those disruptions can cause tumors. Rick Weiss reports in the Washington Post that both teams are already working on this challenge. "I don't think it is a big hurdle," Whitehead's Rudy Jaenisch told Weiss.
Yamanaka's going to California, what does that say about state funding and regulation of stem cell research?
Shinya Yamanaka
What are the intellectual property implications?
In the teleconference this morning with reporters, James Thomson confirmed that WARF would be patenting the Wisconsin's team's work. And he predicted that the patent situation would be "very complicated." Remember, WARF holds the patent on embryonic stem cells in the United States, which has been a source of controversy.
When -- and how -- are the politicians going to get involved?
The White House issued a statement today about the research, that when read between the lines, says something to the effect of 'see, we told you so':
President Bush was the first president to make federal funds available for human embryonic stem cell research -- and his policy did this in ways that would not encourage the destruction of embryos. In July 2006, the President highlighted research into the possibility of reprogramming adult skin cells into pluripotent stem cells without intruding on human embryos or eggs. The President's Executive Order issued in June 2007 was intended to accelerate precisely the kind of research being reported today. One of the studies announced today was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health operating under the President's stem cell policy.
Stem cell research was a big issue during the last presidential election, probably in the Democrat's advantage. How will today's developments shape the issue during this next cycle? In an interview with Wired, Fr. Thomas Berg of the Westchester Institute (a Catholic think thank) predicted that Mitt Romney will "very vocally" embrace cell re-programming and that the other Republican candidates for president would "be stupid not to." It will be interesting to see how the Democratic candidates respond, given that they have been more supportive of therapeutic cloning.
-Greg Dahlmann
photo of Yamanaka: Kyoto University
Induced pluripotent stem cell press coverage roundup
+ In the Washington Post, Rick Weiss reports that scientists are talking about the news "with stunned elation reminiscent of scientists' reactions in 1997 to the cloning of Dolly the sheep."
+ "Everyone was waiting for this day to come. You should have a solution here that will address the moral objections that have been percolating for years," the National Catholic Bioethics Center's Tadeiusz Pacholozyk told Gina Kolata in the New York Times. Also quoted in the article is Douglas Melton, who called this approach "ethically uncomplicated."
+ "Any scientist with basic technology in molecular and cell biology can do reprogramming," Yamanaka is quoted as saying in a Wall Street Journal article by Gautam Naik.
+ Robert Lanza tells MSNBC's Alan Boyle that "This work represents a tremendous scientific milestone, the biological equivalent of the Wright brothers' first airplane. It's a bit like turning lead into gold. But this is not over by a long shot. It's extremely important to temper this announcement with caution."
+ Reuters Maggie Fox highlights comments from Yamanaka about a potential ethical issue arising from this new approach: "Our technology, however, create a new ethical concerns. It might be possible to generate sperm and eggs from skin cells, via iPS cells. This might help people with infertility problem, but it will be essential to have a proper regulation regarding the generation and usage of human iPS cells to avoid misusages of this technology."
+ Jim Battey, vice chair of Stem Cell Task Force at the National Institutes of Health, in a San Francisco Chronicle story by Sabin Russell, "We would be quite enthusiastic to fund this research in the future."
+ Alta Charo tells the UW-Madison news service that this development begins to redefine the political and ethical discussions surrounding stem cell research. She adds, "It's going to fuel those who call for preferential federal funding only for non-embryonic stem cell research and it will certainly complicate any efforts to expand funding for embryonic stem cell research at the federal level."
(last updated 12:05 pm EST)
Earlier on blog.bioethics.net:
+ Cells that look and act like human embryonic stem cells created from skin cells
+ Are we in the middle of a shift in stem cell research?
Cells that look and act like human embryonic stem cells created from skin cells
As mentioned over the weekend, the papers reporting that scientists in Japan and Wisconsin have re-programmed human skin cells to become virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells were published today. The Yamanaka team reports in Cell (pdf) (updated link) that it was able to create "induced pluripotent stem" cells using the same method that had previously been shown to work in mice. When placed in culture, these cells differentiated into neurons and heart cells. A team led by James Thomson and Junying Lu at Wisconsin is reporting similar, independent results in Science. (updated link)
In a teleconference with the media today, Wisconsin's James Thomson predicted that these results marked the beginning of the end of the controversy surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells. "The world has changed because of this result," he said, adding that human embryonic stem cells are still important for research and "it's not the time to abandon embryonic stem cell research." In a press release, Shinya Yamanaka emphasized that more testing is necessary to verify that iPS cells are in fact the equivalent of embryonic stem cells. It would be "premature to conclude that iPS cells can replace embryonic stem cells," Yamanaka is quoted as saying.
This development is still a long way from leading to therapies. Thomson predicted that iPS cells probably solve problems related to immune rejection, but there's still a lot to be understood about how disease works and how these cells might be introduced to provide treatment. "We have a lot of work to do," he said.
-Greg Dahlmann
Earlier on blog.bioethics.net:
+ Are we in the middle of a shift in stem cell research?
Weekend reading: genetic testing, enhancement
NYT: My Genome, Myself: Seeking Clues in DNA
Katie Hafner continues her "DNA Age" series with a story about getting in touch with her own SNPs by taking a commercially available genetic test:
Offered the chance to be among the early testers, I agreed, but not without reservations. What if I learned I was likely to die young? Or that I might have passed on a rogue gene to my daughter? And more pragmatically, what if an insurance company or an employer used such information against me in the future?
But three weeks later, I was already somewhat addicted to the daily communion with my genes. (Recurring note to self: was this addiction genetic?)
For example, my hands hurt the other day. So naturally, I checked my DNA.
Was this the first sign that I had inherited the arthritis that gnarled my paternal grandmother’s hard-working fingers? Logging onto my account at 23andMe, the start-up company that is now my genetic custodian, I typed my search into the “Genome Explorer” and hit return. I was, in essence, Googling my own DNA.
Globe and Mail: Faster, taller, stronger, smarter ... better?
Arthur Schafer reviews John Harris' book "Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People":
It's fallacious to equate what's natural with what's good. Sometimes they coincide; often they diverge. For example, painless childbirth was regularly denounced as a blasphemy against God until, in 1853, Queen Victoria set an example by delivering a child under chloroform. Only then did religious opposition fall silent. Today, no one worries much about the ethics of analgesics or eyeglasses. Quite the opposite: You'd seem a complete idiot if you rejected all artificial aids to better living.
So why is there so much fear and fretting about the present and future use of biotechnology to make ourselves healthier, stronger, smarter and longer-lived?
Are we in the middle of a shift in stem cell research?
Just a week after the news came out that embryonic stem cells had been derived from a cloned primate embryo, the stem cell research scene could be experiencing another significant shift. The UK's Daily Telegraph reported late last week that Ian Wilmut, the scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep, is dropping cloning in favor of an approach that reprograms adult cells. This "de-differentiation" method is the work of a team led by Shinya Yamanaka at Kyoto University. Earlier this year Yamanaka's team, along with others at Whitehead, MIT and UCLA, announced that they had coaxed adult mouse skin cells into acting like embryonic stem cells. That's a big deal, in large part because it bypasses having to use cloned embryos to create the cells.
Of course, what works in mice doesn't necessarily work in people. But as mentioned in that Daily Telegraph story about Wilmut, there is now word that Yamanaka has gotten this method to work with human cells. The Kyoto team will apparently be publishing a paper this Tuesday detailing what they've accomplished.
If this news turns out to be true, it will almost surely have a significant effect on the ethical and political discussions surrounding stem cell research. But don't forget about what's pushing the research in this direction -- the science itself. Wilmut told the BBC that ethics didn't have anything to do with his team's switch. Rather, he and others think that de-differentiation currently has a better chance of ultimately leading to therapies.
-Greg Dahlmann
Speed reading the November 15 Democratic debate
The Democrats running for the presidential nomination got together in Las Vegas Wednesday for another debate. We've pulled highlights from the transcript that might be of interest here at our little intersection of the web. Topics included universal health care, Medicare funding, torture and birth control. The breakdown is after the jump.
The hospital as magazine design
Over at the appropriately titled Designing Magazines blog Jandos Rothstein recounts his recent experience navigating a hospital. "Awkward" is one of the words he uses. That leads Rothstein to speculate what an appropriate design might be for a magazine aimed at hospital administrators:
Nearly all hospitals are as byzantine as this one—hapless patients and visitors, many under stress, are forced to following colored dots or stripes or Latinate signage down miles of twisting corridor, all for the privilege of giving a urine sample. Why? One is forced to conclude that doctors, unlike mere people, find this all intuitive—perhaps even comforting and nurturing. Perhaps it seems simple, as compared to the majesty that is the circulatory system.
So, given this, how would you organize a theoretical magazine for hospital administrators?—they are probably baffled by the Dick and Jane simplicity of ordinary magazine and newspaper structure. I’m thinking there would need to be a separate numbering system for the tops and bottoms of pages; a supplement that could only be accessed when the main book is turned to page 43; and probably interwoven articles that one could read by following a color-coded text. But what mere designer has a mind, um, “scientific” enough to design it? The only option might be to hire an MD to [design director].
Of course, for an another explanation there's Foucault. He argued that the design of hospitals was just another way of exerting control.
-Greg Dahlmann
Where the leading presidential candidates stand on cloning
Now that cloned monkey embryos have been created, the issue of creating cloned human embryos for the purposes of research and potential therapies moves back to the forefront. As a representative of the National Catholic Bioethics Center recently told the New York Times, "I certainly think that this represents a new threshold in the entire discussion." If so, it will be interesting to see how it plays out during the presidential campaign (remember the role that embryonic stem cell research played the last time out). So where do the leading candidates for president stand on the issue? A breakdown of the front runners follows after the jump. Like almost all politicians, each of the candidates appears to be against reproductive cloning of humans. If you've found any information to bring this assessment into greater focus, please pass it along.
Monkey cloning follow up
Semos, the monkey whose skin cells were used to create the cloned embryos
A lot of details have shaken out since The Independent dropped the news that a team in Oregon had successfully created cloned monkey embryos:
+ The research was scheduled to be published in Nature later this month. But with the news circulating all over the web, Nature has posted the paper online.
+ Trying to avoid another Hwang situation, the researchers sent their stem cells out for independent confirmation that they were, in fact, cloned. (Nature)
+ Shoukhrat Mitalipov, the research team's leader, told the New York Times that he is sure their technique will work for human cells.
+ The success rate at creating cloned embryos and extracting stem cells from those clones is still very low. Of the Oregon team's 304 attempts at creating a monkey clone, 213 resulted in embryos and just 35 of those became blastocysts and only two of those yielded stem cells. (WP)
+ The Oregon team's effort toward reproductive monkey cloning seems to have been overstated in the original report from The Independent. According to Mitalipov, the team's leader, 77 embryos had been implanted in a dozen surrogates -- no embryo made it day 25. (Nature)
+ Treatments for humans based on this technology are still a long way off, Stanford's Irving Weissman told NPR. The more immediate promise is the use of cloned cells for modeling and studying disease.
+ ACT's Robert Lanza told Nature that repeating this feat in humans will be difficult because of a lack of donated eggs. He says rules against compensating donors are holding things back.
+ Religious groups have responded to the news with a bit of optimism for better treatment and a lot of wariness about human reproductive cloning. "This breakthrough is a double-edged sword," said the executive director of a Catholic think tank to the Washington Post. And the director of education for the National Catholic Bioethics Center told the New York Times, "At this point, it becomes essential to ask a question as a society: Are there ever going to be circumstances where it is morally justifiable to clone human beings?"
Earlier on blog.bioethics.net:
+ Art Caplan at MSNBC: Monkey cloning a reason to pause, not panic
photo from the supplementary materials to the paper by Byrne, J. A. et al.
The value of lives lost and extended
Recently on Portfolio's Odd Numbers blog, Zubin Jelveh pointed to a working paper from two economists at the University of Chicago (pdf) that examined the costs and benefits of an FDA program aimed at speeding up the review process of new drugs. The authors figure that the benefit of this program has been somewhere between $18 billion and $31 billion, while the cost has been 55,600 life-years lost (worth somewhere between $5.6 billion and $16.6 billion). And given the difference in the cost and benefit, they conclude the program has been a good thing.
Let's look at this a little differently, though. We're essentially talking about trading a certain group of life-years that probably wouldn't have otherwise been in jeopardy for another set of life-years that probably weren't going to otherwise exist. And that prompts the question: is a life-year taken worth the same as a life-year added? They may be equal economically, but are they morally?
-Greg Dahlmann
Art Caplan at MSNBC: Monkey cloning a reason to pause, not panic
Art writes that the news out of Oregon should prompt thought about laws and policies that will keep the door open for therapeutic cloning:
For quite some time many important and influential people have been freaking out over the prospect of cloning a human being. When Dolly the cloned sheep's existence was revealed to the world 10 years ago, panic ensued. World leaders - including the president, the pope and numerous prime ministers - condemned Dolly's creation as a regrettable and dangerous step toward cloning a human being.
At the time my view was there was no reason for panic. It took more than 250 pregnancies to produce Dolly and the odds of that same cloning process working in humans were not great. In the years since Dolly was born, the only scientist who claimed any success in cloning human embryos was in Korea, and it quickly was proven that Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk and his team had lied when they claimed success. In fact, no scientists anywhere in the world had managed to clone any sort of primate. No monkey, gorilla, chimp or orangutan embryos or adults were ever successfully cloned. So there was no reason for popes and presidents and potentates to worry.
Now, news has broken that a team at the Oregon National Primate Research Center in Beaverton, Ore., has succeeded in cloning 20 macaque monkey embryos. The techniques they used to achieve this monumental breakthrough in cloning work were the same as were used to make Dolly the sheep, but with fewer toxic chemicals. This is so significant because what works in monkeys usually works in people.
But there still is no reason to panic.
What should be the state's role in keeping us healthy?
That's the question taken up by a report out today from the UK's Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The committee behind the report recommends a "stewardship" model for the government. From the report's executive summary (pdf):
The concept of ‘stewardship’ is intended to convey that liberal states have a duty to look after important needs of people individually and collectively. It emphasises the obligation of states to provide conditions that allow people to be healthy and, in particular, to take measures to reduce health inequalities. The stewardship-guided state recognises that a primary asset of a nation is its health: higher levels of health are associated with greater overall well-being and productivity.
And according to the chair of the report's committee, if that means keeping us from doing some things we might want to do, so be it. Said Lord Krebs in a press release, "People often reject the idea of a ‘nanny state’, but the Government has a duty to look after the health of everyone and sometimes that means guiding or restricting our choices."
Specifically, the committee recommends tighter laws for the sale of alcohol, urban planning aimed a fighting obesity and continued voluntary vaccination programs with no penalties for non-compliance.
-Greg Dahlmann
Earlier on blog.bioethics.net:
+ Fast food off the menu?
Organ sales gain support
The Wall Street Journal has a long article about the growing (cautious) support for organ sales in the United States:
"There's one clear argument for sales," [transplant surgeon] Dr. [Arthur] Matas told a gathering of surgeons earlier this year. The practice, currently illegal in the U.S., "would increase the supply of kidneys, save lives and improve the quality of life for those with end-stage renal disease."
The doctor supports a regulated market only for kidneys, since live donors can give one up and survive without excessive health risks. (Transplants of other organs, such as livers and lungs, pose greater complications to a living donor.) And Dr. Matas doesn't rule out financial incentives for the families of deceased donors.
Among his opponents on the issue is a friend and colleague, Francis Delmonico. A Harvard University professor who has played a central role in shaping national transplant policy, the 62-year-old physician has several objections to organ sales. He fears such a system would attract the poor, vulnerable and unhealthy, and that altruistic donations might wither away.
"Payments eventually result in the exploitation of the individual," says Dr. Delmonico, who also worries about encouraging black-market sales both here and in developing countries. "It's the poor person who sells."
A few facts pulled from the the article by Laura Meckler:
+ Al Gore introduced the legislation banning organ sales in 1984
+ In 1988 there were 14,000 people on dialysis waiting for a kidney and 7000 deceased-donor kidneys. There are now more than five times that many people on the waiting list, yet just about the same number of available deceased-donor kidneys.
+ A dozen states offer tax deductions of up to $10,000 to help defray the costs of donating a kidney
+ Iran is the only country with a government-sanctioned organ market
It was interesting to read how many of the experts quoted in the story had an initial gut reaction to strongly oppose organ sales. But after thinking about it (often for years), that opposition began to soften, if not turn around.
-Greg Dahlmann
Breaking down what really happened in NJ
By James Fossett
Now that the dust has settled a bit and some of the pundits have weighed in, it might be interesting to figure out why the New Jersey stem cell bond proposal got beat. Polls up until the week before the vote were showing strong, but not overwhelming, public support for the measure, so its defeat came as something of a surprise. Three things appear to have been important factors in contributing to the defeat of the bond proposal, which would have authorized $450 million in spending over ten years.
NYT: In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice
Amy Harmon continues her series of articles about the DNA age with a piece about concerns prompted by research into genetic variation between ethnic groups. From the piece:
Such developments are providing some of the first tangible benefits of the genetic revolution. Yet some social critics fear they may also be giving long-discredited racial prejudices a new potency. The notion that race is more than skin deep, they fear, could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all fundamentally equal.
“We are living through an era of the ascendance of biology, and we have to be very careful,” said Henry Louis Gates Jr., director of the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University. “We will all be walking a fine line between using biology and allowing it to be abused.”
Certain superficial traits like skin pigmentation have long been presumed to be genetic. But the ability to pinpoint their DNA source makes the link between genes and race more palpable. And on mainstream blogs, in college classrooms and among the growing community of ancestry test-takers, it is prompting the question of whether more profound differences may also be attributed to DNA.
Swing voters in the scanner
Maybe you saw that piece in the New York Times this past weekend about using fMRI to gain insight into the minds of swing voters. (Mitt Romney stimulates amygdalas!) And maybe, after reading that piece, you were thinking, "Really?" Well, you're not alone. Over at Adam Kolber's great Neuroethics and Law Blog Martha Farrah has some great analysis. Here's a snip:
So why do I doubt the conclusions reported in today’s Op Ed piece? The problems I see have less to do with brain imaging per se than with the human tendency to make up “just so” stories and then believe them. The scattered spots of activation in a brain image can be like tea leaves in the bottom of a cup – ambiguous and accommodating of a large number of possible interpretations. The Edwards insula activation might indicate disgust, but it might also indicate thoughts of pain or other bodily sensations or a sense of unfairness, to mention just a few of the mental states associated with insula activation. And of course the possibility remains that the insula activation engendered by Edwards represents other feeling altogether, yet to be associated with the insula. The Romney amygdala activation might indicate anxiety, or any of a number of other feelings that are associated with the amygdala – anger, happiness, even sexual excitement.
Some of the interpretations offered in the Op Ed piece concern the brain states of subsets of the subjects, for example just the men or just the most negative voters. Some concern the brain states of the subjects early on in the scan compared with later in the scan. Some concern responses to still photos or to videos specifically. With this many ways of splitting and regrouping the data, it is hard not to come upon some interpretable patterns. Swish those tea leaves around often enough and you will get some nice recognizable pictures of ocean liners and tall handsome strangers appearing in your cup!
The whole post is well worth reading.
-Greg Dahlmann
Return of the clones
The Independent (UK) is reporting that a research team at the Oregon National Primate Research Center has successfully created multiple cloned embryos of a rhesus macaque. If this is true -- the paper describing this research hasn't been published yet -- it would mark the first time someone has created multiple cloned embryos from an adult primate. The Independent reports that the same team has also extracted stem cells from these embryos and subsequently gotten them to develop into heart cells and neurons. The Oregon team has also reportedly implanted 100 cloned embryos into surrogate rhesus macaques, but they've yet to have a birth.
It's worth noting that this research hasn't been published, yet -- apparently it's due to show up in Nature later this month. And keeping the events of a few a years ago in mind, healthy and respectful skepticism isn't a bad thing.
While we wait for this latest cloning research to be published, the UN would like to us to be thinking about the ethical and regulatory implications. A report out this past weekend from the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies urges the international community to get its act together on the formation of cloning regulation. From the report's conclusion:
Public policy demands that the international community show itself as capable of espousing an effective and pragmatic approach with respect to both reproductive and research cloning as a matter of urgency before the birth of a human being from a cloned embryo. This would have a deterrent effect on the publicised efforts of several groups to produce a cloned human being. On the other hand the delay in arriving at a consensus at the international level may encourage forum shopping by determined proponents of reproductive cloning.
The full report is available as a pdf.
-Greg Dahlmann
Craig Venter on Stephen Colbert
Colbert asks Venter such pressing questions as "When you decoded your genome was there any marker there proving that you're some sort of narcissistic egomaniac?"
Thanks to Gillian for the pointer!
Earlier on blog.bioethics.net:
+ Craig Venter on the ethics of creating synthetic organisms
+ What is Craig Venter up to now?
Does afternoon tea count as 'cognitive enhancement'?
Viewing the rise of cognitive enhancement as "imminent and inevitable," the British Medical Association released a paper this week surveying the ethical challenges prompted by our pursuit of better memory and focus. Said the chairman of the BMA's medical ethics committee in a press release:
This is a fascinating area that has not been debated by the public. On the one hand, it may all seem very harmless – how many of us take omega 3 supplements to prevent memory loss? On the other hand, we need to consider where this search for optimum brain performance will lead. Should drugs or medical procedures that are designed to treat medical conditions be used by healthy people who simply want to be better than normal?
We know that there is likely to be a demand by healthy individuals for this ‘treatment’. However given that no drug or invasive medical procedure is risk free, is it ethical to make them available to people who are not ill? Also, how much brain power is enough? There is a concern that there may be undue pressure, perhaps from employers, to ensure that workers are even more effective and productive. The BMA does not have the answers to these questions but we think it is very important that the issues are debated.
The hospital's velvet rope
The Dallas Morning News reports today that the UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas keeps an extensive list of influential people who are supposed to get a little extra attention when they come to the hospital for treatment. The perks reportedly include preferential allotment of appointments, free parking and personal escorts through the medical center. Here's how one of the hospital's executive vice presidents defended the program:
"There are patients who are friends of the university, including major donors. Like every other hospital, we have an ability to make sure they don't have any service letdowns. We are not ashamed of having this program. If you have people who are important to your business, you're going to treat them well when they walk through the door."
In other words, it's just good business, a way to keep donors donating. But does that make it right? If a hospital has the "ability to make sure" there aren't "any service letdowns," is that something everyone walking (or being carried) into the hospital deserves? Does it matter that this is a public institution?
Apparently this issue will be a big part of a whistle-blower lawsuit against the hospital filed by a doctor on the center's faculty. Said the doctor's attorney to the Dallas Morning News in the same article, "I hate it that rich people are treated differently than poor people. It's wrong. It's just flat wrong."
Of course, things can look a little different on the other side of the velvet rope. Here's how former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk responded when the Morning News told him he was on the Very Important Patient list: "I wish somebody had told me. I haven't been over there. Sounds cool."
-Greg Dahlmann
Stem cell federalism flunks in NJ? Not.
by James Fossett
One of the noteworthy things about American federalism is that one defeat is seldom decisive. What loses in one state can easily win in others where political conditions are more propitious, and the fate of any particular enterprise doesn’t rise or fall on centralized national decisions. So Jonathan Moreno’s epitaph for stem cell federalism in the aftermath of the surprising defeat of a New Jersey bond issue to support stem cell research is premature and, as Mark Twain would have it, greatly exaggerated. The New Jersey vote was surprising to most observers, but it’s hardly a decisive defeat either for federalism or the stem cell cause.
Craig Venter on the ethics of creating synthetic organisms
Over at Bloggingheads.tv Carl Zimmer interviewed Craig Venter recently about a wide range of topics, from personal genome sequencing to Venter's work on synthetic biology. Venter tells Zimmer that the reports a few months back that his team was right on the verge of creating a synthetic microbe were wrong, stating flatly, "We don't have a synthetic organism." He did say he's "confident" it could happen in the next "several months." Zimmer also asked Venter about the ethics of creating synthetic life (that link should play the relevant 4 minute portion of the video -- it starts at 40:05). Venter's answer is interesting in that he says his team takes the ethical questions "extremely seriously," but he also sidesteps a bit by comparing the potential problem of a synthetic pathogen to that of naturally emerging diseases. "If you're dying from a virus I don't think it matters a whole lot whether it's man-made or occurring because of overpopulation and unhealthy conditions," Venter says and then he shifts the conversation toward the lack of funding for research into new antivirals and antibiotics.
-Greg Dahlmann
Earlier on blog.bioethics.net:
+ What is Craig Venter up to now?
+ Venter team claims to have created a synthetic chromosome
screen grab from bloggingheads.tv
Maren Grainger-Monsen on her work with film and medicine
She talks with the San Francisco Chronicle about her films (The Vanishing Line, Hold Your Breath, and others) and her work with the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics:
I was a resident in emergency medicine at Stanford hospital. In the emergency department I found that the staff would all lead resuscitations and we'd all say, 'I never want that done to myself.' I thought, 'I need to make a film about that.' The public doesn't understand what a resuscitation is like.
There is this perception that you can just get your heart started again and everything is fine, so why would you die if you could survive? The issue is the consequences of being resuscitated and having your heart come back somewhat, but not your brain, and months and months in the hospital, or just a prolonged death.
I realized that it was a much bigger issue. It was all about our own fear of death. I met this amazing hospice social worker, Jim Brigham, and went with him on home visits to patients that were dying.
When there is no further treatment, the doctors usually become scarce. It is hard for them to know how to interact at that point. They don't feel like they have anything left to offer. Doctors are all about cure, but you can treat the symptoms. You can also help them know what's ahead and walk them through that.
Earlier on blog.bioethics.net:
+ Hold Your Breath
+ Dr. Maren Grainger-Monsen in San Francisco Chronicle
Following up on the NJ stem cell funding defeat
Over at Science Progress, Jonathan Moreno argues that the Garden State's "no" vote on stem cell funding is evidence that federalism might not be the best way to approach biomedical research funding:
The New Jersey vote demonstrates that state-based investment in long-term science can easily get caught up in local politics. Garden State voters apparently decided the issue not on ideology but on the finances. They’re concerned that the state’s fiscal house is in disorder and don’t want Trenton to borrow more money, at least until matters get sorted out.
...
So enthusiasm about state stem cell initiatives needs to be tempered by the New Jersey experience, as well as by the inefficiencies that can arise from doing basic biomedical research without coordination by the National Institutes of Health. As I and my colleagues have written before, the states can’t go it alone.
The state finances explanation for the defeat was repeated in much of today's coverage, but at the Star Ledger's New Jersey Voices blog Terry Golway cautions not to overlook another explanation:
Most political observers, I would argue, fail to take into account the many conversations that took place in and around houses of worship before Election Day. [Seton Hall] Professor Marbach noted that some voters may have been influenced by clergy who oppose stem cell research, or who believe that such research requires a broader discussion of ethical implications.
I think he's absolutely right.
And, by the way, there's nothing wrong that that. When the sacred intersects with the secular, clerics have every right to speak up from the pulpit.
Bonding with robots
This week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Science includes a paper describing how toddlers bonded with a robot. Researchers at UC-San Diego placed a humanoid robot in a day care center for five months. And what they found is that the children seemed to bond and socialize with the robot when it was responsive to their actions (e.g., giggling when a toddler touched its head [mpeg movie]). By the end of the five months, the researchers report that the kids treated the robot more like another child than they did a toy.
-Greg Dahlmann
(via)
photo from the paper by Tanaka, et al
Earlier on blog.bioethics.net:
+ Robots Are a Soldier's Best Friend
Stem cell funding goes down in New Jersey
In what the New York Times is calling "a stunning defeat," voters in New Jersey rejected a ballot measure that would have allowed the state to borrow $450 million over 10 years to fund stem cell research. The Star-Ledger reports that the defeat doesn't seem so much about stem cells as it is about voter frustration over the state's fiscal condition. The measure had been opposed by conservatives, anti-abortion groups and the Roman Catholic Church. Said the head of New Jersey Right to Life to the AP, "This was an ill-conceived plan from the beginning. In the end, New Jersey citizens saw through this loan-to-clone scheme and soundly rejected it."
Knocking back a few beers with Aubrey de Grey
Joel Garreau spends some time with Aubrey de Grey, prophet of the 1000 year lifespan, for the Washington Post:
"Another thing that's going to have to change completely is retirement. For the moment, when you retire, you retire forever. We're sorry for old people because they're going downhill. There will be no real moral or sociological requirement to do that. Sure, there is going to be a need for Social Security as a safety net just as there is now. But retirement will be a periodic thing. You'll be a journalist for 40 years or whatever and then you'll be sick of it and you'll retire on your savings or on a state pension, depending on what the system is. So after 20 years, golf will have lost its novelty value, and you'll want to do something else with your life. You'll get more retraining and education, and go and be a rock star for 40 years, and then retire again and so on."
The mind reels. Will we want to be married to the same person for a thousand years? Will we need religion anymore? Will the planet fill to overflowing?
But first -- why are these questions coming up now? And why are we listening to answers from Aubrey de Grey?
Garreau -- who's done a fair share of thinking about these topics -- concludes that de Grey may be a little crazy -- but, you know, in that paradigm-shifting good way. (Others aren't so sure.)
-Greg Dahlmann
Beliefs and blood transfusions
The British press has been following an emotional story about religious belief and patient autonomy. In October Emma Gough gave birth to twins. Complications from the delivery led to bleeding and her doctors said she'd need a blood transfusion to survive. But Gough and her husband are devout Jehovah's Witnesses and she refused the transfusion. She died hours later.
The case has led to a range of reactions in the UK -- from accusations that doctors made mistakes resulting in the complications to disbelief that a mother would choose to forgo treatment in this way. Others are trying to get a better understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses and their beliefs.
Did Gough's doctors do the right thing by not providing the transfusion? Here's what the head of ethics at the British Medical Association told the BBC about situations involving an adult who refuses treatment on religious grounds:
"It's something we just have to live with - the alternative would be to change the law, change the human rights law. It's just too important that we all as individuals are able to make our own decisions."
A hospital in Dublin, Ireland faced a similar situation last year -- and it took the case to court, ultimately being granted the authority to provide treatment. The justice in that case ruled that the interests of the newborn were "paramount" and they superseded that of the mother. Jehovah's Witnesses in Ireland called that decision "akin to rape."
-Greg Dahlmann
Reading McLuhan today
From a Nick Carr piece in the Guardian about reading Marshall McLuhan in light of the modern internet (emphasis added):
Although he is often presented as a glorifier of technological progress, he painted a subtle, sometimes disturbing picture of the future. In one striking sentence from Understanding Media, he offered a dark view of the commercial exploitation of electric media: “Once we have surrendered our senses and nervous systems to the private manipulation of those who would try to benefit by taking a lease on our eyes and ears and nerves, we don’t really have any rights left.”
The focus of the piece is on media, but when reading that McLuhan quote I couldn't help but also think of neuromarketing.
-Greg Dahlmann
photo: MarshallMcLuhan.com
Glenn McGee in The Scientist: Devil and the Deep Blue Sea?
In his column for November, Glenn argues that scientists and industry shouldn't be the only ones making decisions about nanotechnology:
Just because I am an ethicist does not mean I am opposed to making money, particularly when it comes with solid scientific discoveries that benefit human kind. The field of nanotechnology carries that promise. Unfortunately, many ecorestoration, environmentalist, or "green movement" corporations are more concerned with greener wallets than a greener world.
Planktos is a for-profit ecorestoration company, based in San Francisco, which aims to restore damaged habitats. Its plan is to release "forest-sized areas" of nano-sized particles of zero-valent iron (ZVI) into the ocean, with the hope that plankton will take up that iron, engage in enhanced photosynthesis, consume greater quantities of carbon dioxide from the environment, and curb global warming.
Planktos is not the only group seeking to capitalize upon the convergence of the green movement. Green building, using the advances of nanotechnology, could make our houses better insulated, more brightly lit with less energy, more efficient in countless ways, or nearly indestructible. This fall, the Green Technology Forum, a research and advising firm on nanotechnology, released a report that lauded "how a single nanotech innovation is saving one company $2.6 million in energy costs and reducing their carbon dioxide emissions by 35 million pounds per year."
This all sounds great, but early findings about Planktos' technology have not produced encouraging results, and multiple prominent scientists and environmental groups have debunked or dismissed the company's claims. Planktos is promoting bad science, which gives good and important science, namely nanotechnology, a bad name.
Weekend reading and listening: lie detection
This past week NPR's Morning Edition carried a three-part series about lie detection reported by Dina Temple-Raston. (The segments are posted as both audio and text, so they're easy to scan if you can't listen.) The series covers the questionable accuracy of polygraphs, the emerging field of lie detection by fMRI, and the examination of facial "micro expressions" for hints of lies.
One of the most interesting ideas in the series is that these new techniques for lie detection just seem more modern and scientific. From that second segment about fMRI:
Nathan was accused of setting fire to his restaurant in 2003. A judge eventually dismissed the charges, but Nathan's insurance company wouldn't pay up. Nathan read about the fMRI in the newspaper and thought it could provide proof positive that he had nothing to do with the deli fire.
Nathan had thought about subjecting himself to a polygraph, but experts he talked to said the machine was too unpredictable and could end up indicating he was lying even when telling the truth. Most courts don't view the polygraph as a scientific test, so taking one — and getting some inconclusive result — wasn't worth the risk, Nathan concluded.
Because the fMRI seemed more scientific, last year Nathan flew to California to climb into the No Lie fMRI and answered questions about the fire. The scan indicated that he wasn't lying and passed the test.
"If I hadn't passed, I would have jumped from the 17th floor window of the hotel where I was staying," Nathan said. "How could I have gone back to South Carolina if I hadn't passed?"
Buoyed by the results of the brain scan, Nathan said he is planning to do two more with other companies. He also plans to go for a polygraph test.
The problem with all this, of course, is that there's not a whole lot of good data indicating that these new techniques actually are better and more accurate. They could be, but there's still a lot research that needs to be done.
It will be interesting to see how quickly these new approaches filter into the popular consciousness -- and whether that awareness arrives before the data backing up the techniques. Who wants to bet Jack Bauer puts a terrorist in a scanner next season on 24?*
By the way, if all this seems familiar, there was a story in the New Yorker this past summer that covered much of the same ground. That article even included a reference to AJOB. And in the NPR series, be sure to catch the comments by Paul Root Wolpe.
-Greg Dahlmann
*Not that this would work. As Temple-Raston notes in her series, even the slightest of movements can throw off a scan, so it would make scanning a hostile or uncooperative subject very difficult.
For sale: breast milk
Via Art Caplan comes this AP story about a woman in Iowa who has a surplus of breast milk, so she decided to sell it -- 100 ounces for $200, or best offer. Apparently there are no laws regarding the sale of breast milk in Iowa, but the AP reports that the state department of health there advises against it.
As strange as this story might seem, it's not without precedent. There's actually a company in California -- Prolacta -- that acquires and sells human break milk and products derived from it. And there are individuals who have set up breast milk donation programs, though some have generated controversy.
What is Craig Venter up to now?
by Andrea Kalfoglou
A little less than a month ago, J. Craig Venter, told the Guardian that he was very close to announcing that he and his scientific research team have created the first artificial life form (we're still waiting). His team has already created the world's first synthetic chromosome. Venter stayed quiet about the synthetic bacterium, developed from Mycoplasma genitalium, until the patent application made its way through the US bureaucracy and became public in May. A Canadian bioethics institute ETC Group picked up on the patent application and publicly called for Venter to withdraw it.
In response, Dr. Venter told the Guardian he thought this landmark would be "a very important philosophical step in the history of our species. We are going from reading our genetic code to the ability to write it. That gives us the hypothetical ability to do things never contemplated before."
His goal is to improve the environment by creating a clean, sustainable biofuel. Venter is very aware of the ethical, legal, and social implications of his research. On October 17th, the J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, MD, released a report reviewing these issues that was funded by the Sloan Foundation.
You can watch Venter talk about his work to catalog all the microbial species in the oceans and a bit about synthetic DNA and his vision for improving the environment in a lecture he gave in 2005. It was made available this April through TED.
You would think that sailing around the world on a yacht collecting unknown species, developing synthetic chromosomes and maybe even a new life form would have been enough for one person, but Venter also just published his autobiography with his vision for the future. He's launching his book tour today.
Andrea Kalfoglou is an Assistant Professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Comment highlights
A post earlier this week about the Pope's comments regarding pharmacists and conscientious objection prompted a string of comments that are worth checking out. It's great to see people going back and forth like this on an issue.
A few other highlights from recent comments:
Laura(southernxyl) on "Speed reading the October 30 Democratic debate":
"And when George Bush requests $196 billion for next year's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is seeing a flat-lining of investment in science research, that makes it more difficult for us to encourage our children to go into sciences."
Yes, every high school student I know reasons this way. I'd major in biology, but George Bush wants to spend money warring in the Middle East, so I guess I'll major in English instead.
emily on "Watson retires; search for "foot in mouth" gene continues":
Yeah, women scientists are clearly more difficult than men--if you are a misogynist. We're funny like that.
One more time -- should docs take freebies from drug companies?
By James Fossett
In an article in the most recent New England Journal of Medicine, Eric Campbell has some new data on an old question -- how many doctors take things from drug companies and what effects does taking things have on prescribing patterns? (free access). Campbell reports these connections are pervasive--a recent survey which he co-authored found that over 90 percent of physicians take something from drug companies. By far the most common freebies are food and drug samples, which around 80 percent of physicians report receiving. Smaller, but still significant numbers of physicians (in the 25-35 percent range) report more substantial payments---reimbursement for professional travel, consulting, and serving on speakers bureaus or advisory boards.
Campbell is careful to note the potential benefits of relationships between physicians and drug companies. Patients may well benefit from physicians participating in clinical trials and advising on drug development, and marketing may lead to greater use of underprescribed drugs--though why such activities require trips to Hawaii or expensive meals to happen isn't really clear. Relationships with drug companies, however, may also induce doctors to cost their patients money by overprescribing brand names rather than generics, ignore evidence based practice guidelines that don't feature the drugs being touted, and possibly encourage off-label use and novel treatments which may present risks for some patients. As they have in these pages, individual physicians angrily and adamantly deny that their prescribing behavior is influenced by drug company largesse, but an increasing amount of empirical work suggests that it is. Campbell cites some of this work, some of it's been published in AJOB, and more can be found on the web site of the group No Free Lunch. Campbell quotes an estimate that drug companies spend in the vicinity of $20 billion per year on marketing to physicians, which strongly suggests that they believe they're getting something for all this money.