The Nuremberg Code isn’t just for prosecuting Nazis − its principles have shaped medical ethics to this day; The Conversation, August 29, 2024

 George J Annas, Director of the Center for Health Law, Ethics & Human Rights, Boston University, The Conversation; The Nuremberg Code isn’t just for prosecuting Nazis − its principles have shaped medical ethics to this day

"I remain a strong supporter of the Nuremberg Code and believe that following its precepts is both an ethical and a legal obligation of physician researchers. Yet the public can’t expect Nuremberg to protect it against all types of scientific research or weapons development. 

Soon after the U.S. dropped atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki – two years before the Nuremberg trials began – it became evident that our species was capable of destroying ourselves. 

Nuclear weapons are only one example. Most recently, international debate has focused on new potential pandemics, but also on “gain-of-function” research, which sometimes adds lethality to an existing bacteria or virus to make it more dangerous. The goal is not to harm humans but rather to try to develop a protective countermeasure. The danger, of course, is that a super harmful agent “escapes” from the laboratory before such a countermeasure can be developed.

I agree with the critics who argue that at least some gain-of-function research is so dangerous to our species that it should be outlawed altogether. Innovations in artificial intelligence and climate engineering could also pose lethal dangers to all humans, not just some humans. Our next question is who gets to decide whether species-endangering research should be done, and on what basis?"

A.I. Could Solve Some of Humanity's Hardest Problems. It Already Has.; The New York Times, July 11, 2023

The Ezra Klein Show, The New York Times; A.I. Could Solve Some of Humanity's Hardest Problems. It Already Has.

"Since the release of ChatGPT, huge amounts of attention and funding have been directed toward chatbots. These A.I. systems are trained on copious amounts of human-generated data and designed to predict the next word in a given sentence. They are hilarious and eerie and at times dangerous.

But what if, instead of building A.I. systems that mimic humans, we built those systems to solve some of the most vexing problems facing humanity?"

Top prize in Bioethics Cartooning Contest considers substance and style in publishing; Morgridge Institute for Research, April 11, 2022

Mariel Mohns , Morgridge Institute for Research ; Top prize in Bioethics Cartooning Contest considers substance and style in publishing

"Five prizes were awarded in the fifth annual Morgridge Institute for Research Ethics Cartooning Competition, which invites participants to make a cartoon on any ethical issue related to biomedical research.

This year’s competition drew 61 entrants from 41 different departments and programs at UW-Madison and affiliated research institutions.

A panel of judges applied the following criteria to the competition: depiction and analysis of a research ethics issue, humor, and artistry. A popular vote by the public also contributed to the results. The following winners were selected:

• First Prize: Logan Keding, School of Medicine and Public Health, Endocrinology and Reproductive Physiology Program
• Second Prize: William Mayner, School of Medicine and Public Health, Neuroscience Training Program
• Third Prize: Natalie Schudrowitz, School of Medicine and Public Health
• Honorable Mentions: Sydney Hoel, School of Medicine and Public Health, Infectious Disease; Mikaela Seemann, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Biochemistry
• Logan Keding, a graduate student in the Ted Golos Laboratory at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center at UW-Madison, took the top prize.

Keding works with rhesus macaques as a non-human primate model, and hopes to better understand fetal growth restriction during pregnancy.

“I love illustrating and frequently create figures for Golos Lab publications,” Keding says. “I have no formal training, but I have always loved creating all types of art.”

His winning cartoon addresses the balance of substance and style that researchers must often consider when publishing their researching findings.

“If your research is great and sexy, you are more likely to successfully publish in a high impact journal,” he explains. “Creating relevant, engaging, visually pleasing work is not necessarily a bad thing—but it does create an accessory incentive, outside the quality of the work at hand, for scientists to consider when pursuing research or publication.”

As a first-year PhD candidate, Keding says his laboratory colleagues are invaluable in shaping his perspective on research and ethics.

“I often turn to more senior graduate students, colleagues, or mentors to discuss questions I have about research philosophy or bioethical issues,” he says. “I often get good, candid feedback this way.”

The Morgridge Ethics Cartooning Competition, developed by Morgridge Bioethics Scholar in Residence Pilar Ossorio, encourages scientists to shed light on timely or recurring issues that arise in scientific research.

“I love seeing when our artists get to talk to others about ethical issues and what their intentions were, and the experience of making their cartoons,” says Ossorio. “I think it’s another way for them to have an impact on the world and to bring their scientific knowledge to the broader public. It’s been really great.”

The top five winning cartoons are depicted below. Ossorio’s team thanks all the contest entrants for their creative works that addressed important ethical issues in biomedical research."

Top prizes in ethics cartooning contest address COVID-19 and more; Morgridge Institute for Research, May 6, 2021

Mariel Mohns, Morgridge Institute for Research; Top prizes in ethics cartooning contest address COVID-19 and more

"Five prizes were awarded in the fourth annual Morgridge Institute for Research Ethics Cartooning Contest, which invites participants to make a cartoon on any ethical issue related to biomedical research. The competition drew 56 entrants from 35 different departments and programs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and affiliated research institutions.

A panel of judges applied the following criteria to the competition: depiction and analysis of a research ethics issue, humor, and artistry. A popular vote by the public also contributed to the results. The following winners were selected:

• First Prize: Alyssa Wiener, School of Medicine and Public Health
• Second Prize: Vivian Hsiao and Madhuri Nishtala, School of Medicine and Public Health
• Third Prize: Anjalie Schlaeppi, Morgridge Institute for Research
• Honorable Mentions: Da-Inn Lee, Wisconsin Institute for Discovery; Noah Trapp, School of Medicine and Public Health

Alyssa Wiener, a first-year postdoctoral research fellow and general surgery resident at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, took the top prize.

“Bioethics comes up a lot in my day-to-day work,” says Wiener, who does human subjects research in her postdoc. “Being involved clinically also demands bioethical consideration, because what is ‘right’ for a patient, population, or system is often not straightforward.”

Wiener’s winning cartoon explores the ethical and existential challenge of communicating scientific findings to society at large in order to effect practical change.

“This challenge can sometimes escalate to the proportions of an ‘epic battle’ with tremendous collateral damage, as I think is the case with the COVID-19 pandemic response,” says Wiener. “Just as comics function on both an emotional and intellectual level, I hope we can communicate the scientific process and research findings in an impactful but accurate manner.”

The Morgridge Ethics Cartooning Competition, developed by Morgridge Bioethics Scholar in Residence Pilar Ossorio, encourages scientists to shed light on timely or recurring issues that arise in scientific research.

“Ethical issues are all around us,” says Ossorio. “An event like the competition encourages people to identify some of those issues, perhaps talk about them with friends and colleagues, and think about how to communicate about those issues with a broader community of people.”

The COVID-19 pandemic served as a major influence on the competition this year, with many submissions focused on COVID-related topics. Many researchers needed to reassess their day-to-day engagement with ethics issues as they worked remotely away from colleagues and the university research environment."

Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties; The New York Times, October 4, 2019

Tara Parker-Pope and Anahad O’Connor, The New York Times;

Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties

The lead researcher, Bradley C. Johnston, said he was not required to report his past relationship with a powerful industry trade group.

"In an interview, Dr. Johnston said his past relationship with ILSI had no influence on the current research on meat recommendations. He said he did not report his past relationship with ILSI because the disclosure form asked only about potential conflicts within the past three years. Although the ILSI-funded study publication falls within the three-year window, he said the money from ILSI arrived in 2015, and he was not required to report it for the meat study disclosure.

“That money was from 2015 so it was outside of the three year period for disclosing competing interests,” said Dr. Johnston. “I have no relationship with them whatsoever.”"

In China, Gene-Edited Babies Are the Latest in a String of Ethical Dilemmas; The New York Times, November 30, 2018

Sui-Lee Wee and Elsie Chen, The New York Times;
In China, Gene-Edited Babies Are the Latest in a String of Ethical Dilemmas

"China has set its sights on becoming a leader in science, pouring millions of dollars into research projects and luring back top Western-educated Chinese talent. The country’s scientists are accustomed to attention-grabbing headlines by their colleagues as they race to dominate their fields.

But when He Jiankui announced on Monday that he had created the world’s first genetically edited babies, Chinese scientists — like those elsewhere — denounced it as a step too far. Now many are asking whether their country’s intense focus on scientific achievement has come at the expense of ethical standards.

 

“He studied in the United States, why did he only do this in China?” said Wang Yifang, a medical ethics expert with the School of Medical Humanities at Peking University. “It may still be related to the fact that we have a gap in our ethical supervision — it is not very strict, and some people think it’s dispensable.”"

'One of the boys': lost narwhal finds new home with band of beluga whales; The Guardian, September 13, 2018

Greg Mercer, The Guardian; 'One of the boys': lost narwhal finds new home with band of beluga whales

[Kip Currier: Check out the fascinating video clip in this article too. Another example of how drones are being utilized for scientific research, such as wildlife monitoring and conservation, and yielding intriguing information and insights.]

"Whale researchers in Quebec’s St Lawrence River are celebrating a remarkable discovery: a juvenile narwhal far from its arctic home, that appears to have been adopted by a band of beluga whales.

The narwhal, more than 1,000km outside its typical range, was filmed by a drone swimming and playing with dozens of belugas that were treating it as one of their own."

North Carolina, Warned of Rising Seas, Chose to Favor Development; The New York Times, September 12, 2018

John Schwartz and Richard Fausset, The New York Times; North Carolina, Warned of Rising Seas, Chose to Favor Development

[Kip Currier: Food for thought for all stakeholders (--particularly anyone, anywhere, concerned and involved with matters of scientific research, data, modeling, ethics, law, and policy--) as the Carolinas prepare for the arrival of Hurricane Florence.

The article's takeaway insight is in the last three sentences, excerpted and highlighted in bold below.]

"The leading scientific model used to forecast storm surge and its effect on coastal areas, known as Adcirc, was created in large part by Rick Luettich, director of the institute of marine sciences at the University of North Carolina.

In a telephone interview during a break from boarding up the windows of his home in Morehead City, on the coast, Mr. Luettich noted that before 2012, the state pursued progressive policies that put it in the forefront of coastal management. When the legislature pushed back against the clear scientific evidence underlying climate change, he said, “it came as a shock.”

There is a lesson in that, he said.

[Bold and red added for emphasis] “The process of converting scientific research into policy is one that we take for granted at times,” Mr. Luettich said. “What we learned is that you can’t take that for granted. We need to have a closer dialogue with policymakers, to make sure we’re on the same page.”

Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?; Guardian, June 27, 2017

Stephen Buranyi, Guardian; Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

"The idea that scientific research should be freely available for anyone to use is a sharp departure, even a threat, to the current system – which relies on publishers’ ability to restrict access to the scientific literature in order to maintain its immense profitability. In recent years, the most radical opposition to the status quo has coalesced around a controversial website called Sci-Hub – a sort of Napster for science that allows anyone to download scientific papers for free. Its creator, Alexandra Elbakyan, a Kazhakstani, is in hiding, facing charges of hacking and copyright infringement in the US. Elsevier recently obtained a $15m injunction (the maximum allowable amount) against her.

Elbakyan is an unabashed utopian. “Science should belong to scientists and not the publishers,” she told me in an email. In a letter to the court, she cited Article 27 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asserting the right “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”.

Whatever the fate of Sci-Hub, it seems that frustration with the current system is growing. But history shows that betting against science publishers is a risky move. After all, back in 1988, Maxwell predicted that in the future there would only be a handful of immensely powerful publishing companies left, and that they would ply their trade in an electronic age with no printing costs, leading to almost “pure profit”. That sounds a lot like the world we live in now."

Stand Up for Open Access. Stand Up for Diego.; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 8/9/16

Ana Acosta and Elliot Harmon, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Stand Up for Open Access. Stand Up for Diego. :

"The movement for open access is not new, but it seems to be accelerating. Even since we started following Diego’s case in 2014, many parts of the scientific community have begun to fully embrace open access publishing. Dozens of universities have adopted open access policies requiring that university research be made open, either through publishing in open access journals or by archiving papers in institutional repositories. This year’s groundbreaking discovery on gravitational waves—certainly one of the most important scientific discoveries of the decade—was published in an open access journal under a Creative Commons license. Here in the U.S., it’s becoming more and more clear that an open access mandate for federally funded research will be written into law; it’s just a matter of when. The tide is changing, and open access will win.

But for researchers like Diego who face prison time right now, the movement is not accelerating quickly enough. Open access could have saved Diego from the risk of spending years in prison.

Many people reading this remember the tragic story of Aaron Swartz. When Aaron died, he was facing severe penalties for accessing millions of articles via MIT’s computer network without "authorization." Diego’s case differs from Aaron’s in a lot of ways, but in one important way, they’re exactly the same: if all academic research were published openly, neither of them would have been in trouble for anything.

When laws punish intellectual curiosity and scientific research, everyone suffers; not just researchers, but also the people and species who would benefit from their research. Copyright law is supposed to foster innovation, not squash it."

Marine biologist could get 20 years in prison for feeding whales; Yahoo News, 1/6/12

Eric Pfeiffer, Yahoo News; Marine biologist could get 20 years in prison for feeding whales:

"A California marine biologist is facing up to 20 years in prison and half a million dollars in fines for allegedly feeding a group of killer whales and then altering footage of the incident and lying to authorities."