Her catalogue of Republican interference with science included: allowing political appointees to censor studies on climate change, muzzling global warming experts, overruling doctors and the FDA on emergency contraception, suppressing and manipulating data on mercury pollution, manipulating scientific advisory committees, and censoring government websites on breast cancer research, contraception, climate change, "and so much else". ~ AP, Oct 4
Science has a serious marketing problem, Google co-founder Larry Page told scientists earlier this year. He even suggested that the solution was tying tenure and grants to the media impact of research. Without going this far, communications expert Matthew C. Nisbet, of American University, has created a stir amongst US scientists by urging them to "frame" their messages so that the public will buy them.
"If scientists don't evolve in their strategies, they will essentially be waving a white flag, surrendering their important role as communicators," he writes in the magazine The Scientist. In recent times, sailing has not always been smooth in areas like evolution, plant biotechnology, nanotechnology, and climate change.
"For example, when scientists are speaking to a group of people who think about the world primarily in economic terms, they should emphasise the economic relevance of science -- such as, in the case of embryonic stem cell research, pointing out that expanded government funding would make the United States, or a particular state, more economically competitive," he writes.
Is this just gilt-edged spin-meistering? Not at all, says Nisbet. The facts must always be presented truthfully, but they do not speak for themselves. Most people prefer to make up their minds on the basis of what they already believe. This leaves scientists with little choice but to connect with the public by framing the debate in terms which laymen can understand.
The stem cell debate is one of the few issues in which scientists have successfully used framing, says Nisbet, although he acknowledges that some of its supporters have "gone too far in employing the social progress frame, giving the impression that research advances are right around the corner." ~ The Scientist, October
British scientists cheer government climb-down on hybrids
While we're on the topic of flag-waving, British stem cell scientists are waving one, but it's not the white kerchief of surrender, but the Union Jack of victory. Back in December a government white paper recommended that all hybrid embryos be banned. Scientists were outraged. But now, after extensive lobbying, the UK government is about to grant them nearly everything on their shopping list.
This includes all types of inter-species embryos, ranging from "true" hybrids (embryos created by the mixing of human and animal gametes), "cytoplasmic hybrid" embryos (embryos created by the insertion of a human nucleus into an enucleated animal egg); human transgenic embryos (human embryos modified by the addition of animal DNA); and human-animal chimera embryos (embryos created by the addition of animal cells to a human embryo).
The news was welcomed by the Academy of Medical Sciences, which crowed that there never had been any "substantive ethical or moral reasons not to proceed" and hailed as a "success" by the Royal Society.
Embryo research was not the only other contentious issue on which the government retreated. Up to now, IVF clinics have been required to take into account a child's need for a father. This has been deemed too discriminatory in a society where lesbian parents and single mothers are common. The final bill will probably eliminate the fatherhood requirement and replace it with a more tactful wording, such as the need for "a second parent". Clinics will only be required to take into consideration "the welfare of the child".
The ambit of "saviour siblings" will also be expanded. Formerly it was lawful for parents to create a child in order to harvest stem cells from the umbilical cord to cure a sick brother or sister. Now it will be possible to create a child to harvest "other types of tissue and cells".
The government did hold firm on a ban on sex selection for non- medical purposes. However, it acknowledged that "in some circumstances we recognise that it may not do harm", so further developments can be expected on this issue.
The UK's fertility regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, was the a big winner because it successfully fought off the government's attempt to merge it with another agency. In its view the amended bill is a step towards "an updated, clear framework that is fit for the scientific, moral and ethical pressures of the 21st Century".
It is also an example of science outpacing, not just ethics, but public relations. Earlier in the year the HFEA published a glossy pamphlet about hybrids and chimeras to sooth a wary public. Its focus was on cytoplasmic hybrids and true hybrids were barely mentioned. Why? Because "None of the scientists that we consulted could see a purpose for carrying out such research using human gametes." How much has changed in six months.
Drug companies warm to drug tests with embryos
Three leading European pharmaceutical companies have teamed up with the British government to investigate the usefulness of embryonic stem cells for drug testing. GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Roche have each contributed £100,000 and the government £750,000 to form a consortium. This body will develop effective ways of using human embryonic stem cells to screen for potentially lethal side effects of new drugs before they are used in clinical trials. Other companies are expected to join the initiative soon. It is called Stem Cells for Safer Medicines Ltd.
One benefit of this approach is to make it less necessary to use animals in drug testing. Predicting the effects of drugs on humans using results from rats or monkeys can be difficult. "It's a problem area where things can be totally silent pre-clinically in an animal and then, as soon as you go into a patient, you get a reaction," said Dr Ian Cotgreave, a toxicologist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden who also works at AstraZeneca. Although the use of human embryonic stem cells is ethically controversial, science minister Ian Pearson cited the new collaboration as an example of his government's commitment to this avenue of research. ~ Scientific American/AP, Oct 2; Guardian, Oct 3
Fairness is in your genes, not your morals
More news from the everything-is-genetic camp. According to an article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Bjorn Wallace, of the Stockholm School of Economics, a sense of fairness is not based upon culture, but upon your genes.
He recruited dozens of identical twins and fraternal twins for an experiment called the ultimatum game. In this, one player divides $15 and offeres a share to the other player. If the responder rejects his share, both players get nothing. This is used as a gauge of fairness. Almost always, people reject a share lower than 20%, apparently to punish the greed of the person making the offer. Dr Wallace found that there was no correlation among fraternal twins but a 42% likelihood that identical twins would make the same choices.
The researchers' findings suggest that genetic influences account for as much as 40% of the variation in how people respond to unfair offers. "This raises the intriguing possibility that many of our preferences and personal economic choices are subject to substantial genetic influence," says Dr Wallace. ~ Economist, Oct 4; First Science, Oct 1;
Amnesty condemns doctors who execute
Amnesty International is keeping its hand in bioethical debates. Not long after endorsing abortion as a woman's right in certain cases, it has condemned doctors who participate in lethal injections. On the 25th anniversary of its first use in the United States, AI has issued a report arguing that these physicians should be punished by their professional bodies. There have been 919 executions by lethal injection in the US since 1977 to July this year and thousands in China. Although nearly all professional ethical codes forbid doctors and healthcare professional to help in executions, none have ever been disciplined, according to AI.
"The involvement of health professionals in carrying out an execution, particularly by a method using the technology and knowledge of medicine, is a breach of medical ethics," said Jim Welsh, Amnesty International's Health and Human Rights coordinator. "Professional bodies have spoken strongly about this abuse of ethics, but governments want to hide the identity of participating doctors to shield them from the scrutiny of professional colleagues." ~ BMJ, Oct 6; Amnesty.org
Organ donation a Christian duty, says CofE
The Church of England in the UK has declared that organ donation is a Christian duty. This supports the government's desire to establish a presumed consent (or opt-out) policy to solve the shortage of organ donors. However, it still opposes selling organs for commercial gain.
"Christians have a mandate to heal, motivated by compassion, mercy, knowledge and ability," says the Church's Mission and Public Affairs Division. "The Christian tradition both affirms the God-given value of human bodily life, and the principle of putting the needs of others before one's own needs."
However, the Church refused to endorse an opt-out system, leaving that as a private decision for its members. It warned that an opt- out system could lead to a " changed relationship between persons and the State."
But both systems have their merits. The opt-in system, where organs can be harvested only with the donor's prior consent, reflects Christian concern "to celebrate and support gracious gifts, freely given". An opt-out approach, where consent is presumed, highlights Christian concern for human solidarity and living sacrificially for others. ~ BBC, Oct 8
Disbursing stem cell boodle
The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine will soon have US$3 billion to spend -- but it is already having trouble handing out the loot. One grant application has been withdrawn by the applicant and another grant rescinded by the CIRM after further investigation. One recipient, the CHA Regenerative Medicine Institute of Los Angeles, has turned down a $2.6 million grant following allegations of plagiarism. Another grant for $638,000 was approved, but a last-minute administrative check found that the principal investigator was not an on-site, full-time employee, as stipulated by the CIRM. Critics of the CIRM blame its secretive grant-award process for the mistakes. ~ Wired, Oct 5
Government too lax on conscientious objectors, complains BMA
The British Medical Association and the UK body which disciplines doctors have clashed over conscientious objection. The General Medical Council is drafting new guidelines on which treatments doctors must provide and which they can refuse on ethical grounds. However, the BMA claims that the new guidelines go far beyond a doctor's right to opt out of certain life-and-death procedures such as abortion, contraception and withdrawal of life support. It wants a list of clearly defined procedures.
"This guidance is confusing and inconsistent and will not benefit doctors or patients," says the chairman of the BMA's medical ethics committee, Tony Calland. "On the one hand doctors are being advised not to discriminate on the basis of their personal beliefs regarding a patient's gender, sexual orientation, or race, but on the other hand the guidance seems to give doctors a mandate to opt out of any procedure to which they have an ethical objection. The BMA is extremely concerned about how far these objections could extend. For example, could a doctor refuse to refer a lesbian couple for fertility treatment, refuse to carry out a sexual health test on a homosexual, or object to treat a Jehovah's Witness who has refused a blood transfusion?" ~ BMJ, Oct 6
How to support BioEdge
BioEdge and ABI's other services rely completely upon the generosity of private benefactors and volunteer workers. ABI has no institutional backing. If you would like to support the best bioethics news service on the Web, you can do it painlessly through Paymate, a thoroughly reliable payment service which is affiliated with the internet auction site eBay.
Just access the Paymate website and follow the instructions. You will need to fill in our email address, which is bioedge@australasianbioethics.org. You will also have to give your credit card details and an amount in Australian or US dollars. Thanks!
|
To subscribe to our weekly email newsletter,
click here for the HTML version.
click here for the text version.
To cancel your newsletter subscription, click here.
Australasian Bioethics Information
ISSN 1446-2117
Website:www.australasianbioethics.org
BioEdge editor: Michael Cook
New Zealand Contributing Editor: Carolyn Moynihan
The BioEdge privacy policy
Your subscription information will be kept private and is not publicly accessible.
Your email address and other information will never be sold to a third party or given out
without your consent. You may cancel your subscription at any time.
|
US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has vowed to lift restrictions on embryonic stem research should she be elected. This was the first of a number of issues she used to attack the Bush administration's track record on science. "For six and half years under this president, it's been open season on open inquiry," Mrs Clinton told an audience of scientists at the Carnegie Institution for Science. "By ignoring or manipulating science, the Bush administration is letting our economic competitors get an edge in the global economy." She described Bush's limits on funding for embryonic stem cell research a "ban on hope".