Ker Than, Stanford News; AI and gene-editing pioneers to discuss ethics at Stanford
"Upon meeting for the first time at a dinner at Stanford earlier this year, Fei-Fei Li and Jennifer Doudna couldn’t help but note the remarkable parallels in their experiences as scientists.
Both women helped kickstart twin revolutions that are profoundly
reshaping society in the 21st century – Li in the field of artificial
intelligence (AI) and Doudna in the life sciences. Both revolutions can
be traced back to 2012, the year that computer scientists collectively
recognized the power of Li’s approach to training computer vision
algorithms and that Doudna drew attention to a new gene-editing tool
known as CRISPR-Cas9 (“CRISPR” for short). Both pioneering scientists
are also driven by a growing urgency to raise awareness about the
ethical dangers of the technologies they helped create."
Showing posts with label scientists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scientists. Show all posts
Thursday, November 14, 2019
Monday, November 4, 2019
Scientists With Links to China May Be Stealing Biomedical Research, U.S. Says; The New York Times, November 4, 2019
, The New York Times; Scientists With Links to China May Be Stealing Biomedical Research, U.S. Says
"The investigations have fanned fears that China is exploiting the relative openness of the American scientific system to engage in wholesale economic espionage. At the same time, the scale of the dragnet has sent a tremor through the ranks of biomedical researchers, some of whom say ethnic Chinese scientists are being unfairly targeted for scrutiny as Washington’s geopolitical competition with Beijing intensifies...
"The investigations have fanned fears that China is exploiting the relative openness of the American scientific system to engage in wholesale economic espionage. At the same time, the scale of the dragnet has sent a tremor through the ranks of biomedical researchers, some of whom say ethnic Chinese scientists are being unfairly targeted for scrutiny as Washington’s geopolitical competition with Beijing intensifies...
The alleged theft involves not military
secrets, but scientific ideas, designs, devices, data and methods that
may lead to profitable new treatments or diagnostic tools.
Some
researchers under investigation have obtained patents in China on work
funded by the United States government and owned by American
institutions, the N.I.H. said. Others are suspected of setting up labs
in China that secretly duplicated American research, according to
government officials and university administrators...
The real question, [Dr. Michael Lauer, ] added, is how to preserve the open exchange of
scientific ideas in the face of growing security concerns. At M.D.
Anderson, administrators are tightening controls to make data less freely available."
Monday, April 22, 2019
Wary of Chinese Espionage, Houston Cancer Center Chose to Fire 3 Scientists; The New York Times, April 22, 2019
Mihir Zaveri, The New York Times; Wary of Chinese Espionage, Houston Cancer Center Chose to Fire 3 Scientists
"“A small but significant number of individuals are working with government sponsorship to exfiltrate intellectual property that has been created with the support of U.S. taxpayers, private donors and industry collaborators,” Dr. Peter Pisters, the center’s president, said in a statement on Sunday.
“At risk is America’s internationally acclaimed system of funding biomedical research, which is based on the principles of trust, integrity and merit.”
The N.I.H. had also flagged two other researchers at MD Anderson. One investigation is proceeding, the center said, and the evidence did not warrant firing the other researcher.
The news of the firings was first reported by The Houston Chronicle and Science magazine.
The investigations began after Francis S. Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, sent a letter in August to more than 10,000 institutions the agency funds, warning of “threats to the integrity of U.S. biomedical research.”"
"“A small but significant number of individuals are working with government sponsorship to exfiltrate intellectual property that has been created with the support of U.S. taxpayers, private donors and industry collaborators,” Dr. Peter Pisters, the center’s president, said in a statement on Sunday.
“At risk is America’s internationally acclaimed system of funding biomedical research, which is based on the principles of trust, integrity and merit.”
The N.I.H. had also flagged two other researchers at MD Anderson. One investigation is proceeding, the center said, and the evidence did not warrant firing the other researcher.
The news of the firings was first reported by The Houston Chronicle and Science magazine.
The investigations began after Francis S. Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, sent a letter in August to more than 10,000 institutions the agency funds, warning of “threats to the integrity of U.S. biomedical research.”"
Thursday, April 4, 2019
Highly Profitable Medical Journal Says Open Access Publishing Has Failed. Right.; Forbes, April 1, 2019
Steven Salzberg, Forbes; Highly Profitable Medical Journal Says Open Access Publishing Has Failed. Right.
"What Haug doesn't mention here is that there is one reason (and only one, I would argue) that NEJM makes all of its articles freely available after some time has passed: the NIH requires it. This dates back to 2009, when Congress passed a law, after intense pressure from citizens who were demanding access to the research results that they'd paid for, requiring all NIH-funded results to be deposited in a free, public repository (now called PubMed Central) within 12 months of publication.
Scientific publishers fought furiously against this policy. I know, because I was there, and I talked to many people involved in the fight at the time. The open-access advocates (mostly patient groups) wanted articles to be made freely available immediately, and they worked out a compromise where the journals could have 6 months of exclusivity. At the last minute, the NIH Director at the time, Elias Zerhouni, extended this to 12 months, for reasons that remain shrouded in secrecy, but thankfully, the public (and science) won the main battle. For NEJM to turn around now and boast that they are releasing articles after an embargo period, without mentioning this requirement, is hypocritical, to say the least. Believe me, if the NIH requirement disappeared (and publishers are still lobbying to get rid of it!), NEJM would happily go back to keeping all access restricted to subscribers.
The battle is far from over. Open access advocates still want to see research released immediately, not after a 6-month or 12-month embargo, and that's precisely what the European Plan S will do."
"What Haug doesn't mention here is that there is one reason (and only one, I would argue) that NEJM makes all of its articles freely available after some time has passed: the NIH requires it. This dates back to 2009, when Congress passed a law, after intense pressure from citizens who were demanding access to the research results that they'd paid for, requiring all NIH-funded results to be deposited in a free, public repository (now called PubMed Central) within 12 months of publication.
Scientific publishers fought furiously against this policy. I know, because I was there, and I talked to many people involved in the fight at the time. The open-access advocates (mostly patient groups) wanted articles to be made freely available immediately, and they worked out a compromise where the journals could have 6 months of exclusivity. At the last minute, the NIH Director at the time, Elias Zerhouni, extended this to 12 months, for reasons that remain shrouded in secrecy, but thankfully, the public (and science) won the main battle. For NEJM to turn around now and boast that they are releasing articles after an embargo period, without mentioning this requirement, is hypocritical, to say the least. Believe me, if the NIH requirement disappeared (and publishers are still lobbying to get rid of it!), NEJM would happily go back to keeping all access restricted to subscribers.
The battle is far from over. Open access advocates still want to see research released immediately, not after a 6-month or 12-month embargo, and that's precisely what the European Plan S will do."
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Scientists Raise Concerns About Revisions to Human Research Regulations; The Scientist, February 19, 2019
Katarina Zimmer, The Scientist; Scientists Raise Concerns About Revisions to Human Research Regulations
"When Henrietta Lacks visited the Johns Hopkins Medical Center in the 1950s to be treated for cervical cancer, she had no idea that some of her cancer cells would be used to create one of the most scientifically valuable and financially profitable cell lines that is used in labs today. Nor was she asked for permission.
Lacks’s experience has become nationally acknowledged as a shameful episode in the history of biomedical research in the US—particularly after the publication of a popular book about Lacks and her family—and forced the scientific community to consider how to conduct ethical research with human samples. The case was one of the reasons for a heated debate during a recent, six-year-long process of revising the Common Rule, a package of regulations adopted in the 1990s intended to ensure that all federally funded research conducted on human subjects is done ethically.
The revisions, enacted last month, are an attempt to strike a better balance between patients’ need for privacy and the benefits of using their tissue for research. In a paper published January 31 in JAMA Oncology, a group of clinicians and ethicists from the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania argue that the revisions could have unintended consequences for research with various types of biospecimens, and propose that regulators should consider them differently when creating research protections."
"When Henrietta Lacks visited the Johns Hopkins Medical Center in the 1950s to be treated for cervical cancer, she had no idea that some of her cancer cells would be used to create one of the most scientifically valuable and financially profitable cell lines that is used in labs today. Nor was she asked for permission.
Lacks’s experience has become nationally acknowledged as a shameful episode in the history of biomedical research in the US—particularly after the publication of a popular book about Lacks and her family—and forced the scientific community to consider how to conduct ethical research with human samples. The case was one of the reasons for a heated debate during a recent, six-year-long process of revising the Common Rule, a package of regulations adopted in the 1990s intended to ensure that all federally funded research conducted on human subjects is done ethically.
The revisions, enacted last month, are an attempt to strike a better balance between patients’ need for privacy and the benefits of using their tissue for research. In a paper published January 31 in JAMA Oncology, a group of clinicians and ethicists from the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania argue that the revisions could have unintended consequences for research with various types of biospecimens, and propose that regulators should consider them differently when creating research protections."
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
The Lab Discovering DNA in Old Books Artifacts have genetic material hidden inside, which can help scientists understand the past.; The Atlantic, February 19, 2019
Sarah Zhang, The Atlantic;
The Lab Discovering DNA in Old Books
"Artifacts have genetic material hidden inside, which can help scientists understand the past.
"But Collins isn’t just interested in human remains. He’s interested in
the things these humans made; the animals they bred, slaughtered, and
ate; and the economies they created.
That’s why he was studying DNA from the bones of livestock—and why his
lab is now at the forefront of studying DNA from objects such as
parchment, birch-bark tar, and beeswax. These objects can fill in gaps
in the written record, revealing new aspects of historical production
and trade. How much beeswax came from North Africa, for example? Or how
did cattle plague make its way through Europe? With ample genetic data,
you might reconstruct a more complete picture of life hundreds of years
in the past."
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
A.I. Shows Promise Assisting Physicians; The New York Times, February 11, 2019
Cade Metz, The New York Times; A.I. Shows Promise Assisting Physicians
"Each year, millions of Americans walk out of a doctor’s office with a misdiagnosis. Physicians try to be systematic when identifying illness and disease, but bias creeps in. Alternatives are overlooked.
Now
a group of researchers in the United States and China has tested a
potential remedy for all-too-human frailties: artificial intelligence.
In a paper published on Monday in Nature Medicine, the scientists reported that they had built a system that automatically diagnoses common childhood conditions — from influenza to meningitis — after processing the patient’s symptoms, history, lab results and other clinical data."
Monday, January 21, 2019
Scientist Who Edited Babies’ Genes Is Likely to Face Charges in China; The New York Times, January 21, 2019
Austin Ramzy and Sui-Lee Wee, The New York Times; Scientist Who Edited Babies’ Genes Is Likely to Face Charges in China
"Dr. He’s announcement raised ethical concerns about the long-term effects of such genetic alterations,
which if successful would be inherited by the child’s progeny, and
whether other scientists would be emboldened to try their own
gene-editing experiments.
Scientists
inside and outside China criticized Dr. He’s work, which highlighted
fears that the country has overlooked ethical issues in the pursuit of
scientific achievement. The Chinese authorities placed Dr. He under
investigation, during which time he has been kept under guard at a guesthouse at the Southern University of Science and Technology in the city of Shenzhen."
Sunday, December 9, 2018
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
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.
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Facing Backlash, Chinese Scientist Defends Gene-Editing Research On Babies; NPR, November 28, 2018
Rob Stein, NPR; Facing Backlash, Chinese Scientist Defends Gene-Editing Research On Babies
"University of Wisconsin bioethicist Alta Charo, who helped organize the summit, issued an even harsher critique of He's work, calling it "misguided, premature, unnecessary and largely useless."
"The children were already at virtually no risk of contracting HIV, because it was the father and not the mother who was infected," she said.
"The patients were given a consent form that falsely stated this was an AIDS vaccine trial, and which conflated research with therapy by claiming they were 'likely' to benefit," Charo said. "In fact there is not only very little chance these babies would be in need of a benefit, given their low risk, but there is no way to evaluate if this indeed conferred any benefit."
She spoke after Harvard Medical School Dean George Daley alluded to He's claims as "missteps" that he worried might set back a highly promising field of research. "Scientists who go rogue carry a deep, deep cost to the scientific community," Daley said.
Still, Daley argued that He's experiment shouldn't tar the potential work of other scientists. "Just because the first steps into a new technology are missteps, doesn't mean we shouldn't step back, restart and think about a plausible and responsible path forward," Daley said.
"The fact that the first instance came forward as a misstep should in no way leave us to stick our heads in the sand and not consider the very, very positive efforts that could come forward," Daley said. "I hope we just don't stick our heads in the sand."
Daley stressed that the world hadn't yet reached a scientific consensus on how to ethically and safely use new gene-editing techniques to modify embryos that become babies.
But Daley argued that a consensus was emerging that "if we can solve the scientific challenges, it may be a moral imperative that it should be permitted." The most likely first legitimate use of gene-edited embryos would be to prevent serious genetic disorders for which there are no alternatives, Daley said.
"Solving and assessing these deep issues [is] essential," Daley says.
Daley also defended the fact that scientists have long relied on self-regulation to prevent the abuse of new technologies. He's claims represented "a major failure" that called for much stronger regulation and possibly a moratorium on such research, Daley said. "I do think the principle of self-regulation is defensible.""
"University of Wisconsin bioethicist Alta Charo, who helped organize the summit, issued an even harsher critique of He's work, calling it "misguided, premature, unnecessary and largely useless."
"The children were already at virtually no risk of contracting HIV, because it was the father and not the mother who was infected," she said.
"The patients were given a consent form that falsely stated this was an AIDS vaccine trial, and which conflated research with therapy by claiming they were 'likely' to benefit," Charo said. "In fact there is not only very little chance these babies would be in need of a benefit, given their low risk, but there is no way to evaluate if this indeed conferred any benefit."
She spoke after Harvard Medical School Dean George Daley alluded to He's claims as "missteps" that he worried might set back a highly promising field of research. "Scientists who go rogue carry a deep, deep cost to the scientific community," Daley said.
Still, Daley argued that He's experiment shouldn't tar the potential work of other scientists. "Just because the first steps into a new technology are missteps, doesn't mean we shouldn't step back, restart and think about a plausible and responsible path forward," Daley said.
"The fact that the first instance came forward as a misstep should in no way leave us to stick our heads in the sand and not consider the very, very positive efforts that could come forward," Daley said. "I hope we just don't stick our heads in the sand."
Daley stressed that the world hadn't yet reached a scientific consensus on how to ethically and safely use new gene-editing techniques to modify embryos that become babies.
But Daley argued that a consensus was emerging that "if we can solve the scientific challenges, it may be a moral imperative that it should be permitted." The most likely first legitimate use of gene-edited embryos would be to prevent serious genetic disorders for which there are no alternatives, Daley said.
"Solving and assessing these deep issues [is] essential," Daley says.
Daley also defended the fact that scientists have long relied on self-regulation to prevent the abuse of new technologies. He's claims represented "a major failure" that called for much stronger regulation and possibly a moratorium on such research, Daley said. "I do think the principle of self-regulation is defensible.""
'Of course it's not ethical': shock at gene-edited baby claims; The Guardian, November 27, 2018
Suzanne Sataline, The Guardian; 'Of course it's not ethical': shock at gene-edited baby claims
"Scientists have expressed anger and doubt over a Chinese geneticist’s claim to have edited the genes of twin girls before birth, as government agencies ordered investigations into the experiment.
A global outcry started after the genetic scientist He Jiankui claimed in a video posted on YouTube on Monday that he had used the gene-editing tool Crispr-Cas9 to modify a particular gene in two embryos before they were placed in their mother’s womb.
He said the genomes had been altered to disable a gene known as CCR5, blocking the pathway used by the HIV virus to enter cells.
Some scientists at the International Summit on Human Genome Editing, which began on Tuesday in Hong Kong, said they were appalled the scientist had announced his work without following scientific protocols, including publishing his findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Others cited the ethical problems raised by creating essentially enhanced humans."
"Scientists have expressed anger and doubt over a Chinese geneticist’s claim to have edited the genes of twin girls before birth, as government agencies ordered investigations into the experiment.
A global outcry started after the genetic scientist He Jiankui claimed in a video posted on YouTube on Monday that he had used the gene-editing tool Crispr-Cas9 to modify a particular gene in two embryos before they were placed in their mother’s womb.
He said the genomes had been altered to disable a gene known as CCR5, blocking the pathway used by the HIV virus to enter cells.
Some scientists at the International Summit on Human Genome Editing, which began on Tuesday in Hong Kong, said they were appalled the scientist had announced his work without following scientific protocols, including publishing his findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Others cited the ethical problems raised by creating essentially enhanced humans."
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Arguments over European open-access plan heat up; Nature, November 12, 2018
Richard Van Noorden, Nature; Arguments over European open-access plan heat up
"Debate is intensifying over Plan S, an initiative backed by 15 research funders to mandate that, by 2020, their research papers are open access as soon as they are published.
The Europe-led statement was launched in September, but details of its implementation haven’t yet been released. And while many open-access supporters have welcomed Plan S, others are now objecting to some of its specifics.
On 5 November, more than 600 researchers, including two Nobel laureates, published an open letter calling the plan “too risky for science”, “unfair”, and “a serious violation of academic freedom” for the scientists affected; more than 950 have now signed."
"Debate is intensifying over Plan S, an initiative backed by 15 research funders to mandate that, by 2020, their research papers are open access as soon as they are published.
The Europe-led statement was launched in September, but details of its implementation haven’t yet been released. And while many open-access supporters have welcomed Plan S, others are now objecting to some of its specifics.
On 5 November, more than 600 researchers, including two Nobel laureates, published an open letter calling the plan “too risky for science”, “unfair”, and “a serious violation of academic freedom” for the scientists affected; more than 950 have now signed."
Thursday, August 30, 2018
AI Ethics: Silicon Valley Should Take A Seat At The DoD Table; Breaking Defense, August 29, 2018
Jonathan D. Moreno, Breaking Defense;
AI Ethics: Silicon Valley Should Take A Seat At The DoD Table
"As well as their role in the work, scientists and engineers need to consider the consequences of their deliberate absence from a conversation. If they don’t insist on building acceptable and verifiable safeguards for their work into a system someone else will, and not necessarily in a form they would endorse. To have a voice at the table, you need to have a seat at the table."
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
When Scientists Develop Products From Personal Medical Data, Who Gets To Profit?; NPR, May 31, 2018
Richard Harris, NPR; When Scientists Develop Products From Personal Medical Data, Who Gets To Profit?
"If you go to the hospital for medical treatment and scientists there decide to use your medical information to create a commercial product, are you owed anything as part of the bargain?
That's one of the questions that is emerging as researchers and product developers eagerly delve into digital data such as CT scans and electronic medical records, making artificial-intelligence products that are helping doctors to manage information and even to help them diagnose disease.
This issue cropped up in 2016, when Google DeepMind decided to test an app that measures kidney health by gathering 1.6 million records from patients at the Royal Free Hospital in London. The British authorities found this broke patient privacy laws in the United Kingdom. (Update on June 1 at 9:30 a.m. ET: DeepMind says it was able to deploy its app despite the violation.)
But the rules are different in the United States."
"If you go to the hospital for medical treatment and scientists there decide to use your medical information to create a commercial product, are you owed anything as part of the bargain?
That's one of the questions that is emerging as researchers and product developers eagerly delve into digital data such as CT scans and electronic medical records, making artificial-intelligence products that are helping doctors to manage information and even to help them diagnose disease.
This issue cropped up in 2016, when Google DeepMind decided to test an app that measures kidney health by gathering 1.6 million records from patients at the Royal Free Hospital in London. The British authorities found this broke patient privacy laws in the United Kingdom. (Update on June 1 at 9:30 a.m. ET: DeepMind says it was able to deploy its app despite the violation.)
But the rules are different in the United States."
Monday, June 4, 2018
China Issues Rules to Get Tough on Academic Integrity; Reuters, May 30, 2018
Reuters via New York Times; China Issues Rules to Get Tough on Academic Integrity
"China has issued new guidelines to enforce academic integrity in science that include plans to "record and assess" the conduct of scientists and institutions and punish anyone guilty of misconduct, state news agency Xinhua reported.
The guidelines, released on Wednesday by the ruling Communist Party and the State Council, or cabinet, prohibit plagiarism, fabrication of data and research conclusions, ghost-writing and peer review manipulation, according to Xinhua."
"China has issued new guidelines to enforce academic integrity in science that include plans to "record and assess" the conduct of scientists and institutions and punish anyone guilty of misconduct, state news agency Xinhua reported.
The guidelines, released on Wednesday by the ruling Communist Party and the State Council, or cabinet, prohibit plagiarism, fabrication of data and research conclusions, ghost-writing and peer review manipulation, according to Xinhua."
Friday, March 2, 2018
A code of ethics to get scientists talking; Nature, February 27, 2018
Editorial, Nature; A code of ethics to get scientists talking
"“Pursuing the truth means following the research where it leads, rather than confirming an already formed opinion.”
That statement opens one of seven presentations in a ‘Code of Ethics for Researchers’ produced by a group of scientists convened by the World Economic Forum. These scientists, drawn from many countries, are all under 40 but well established in career terms, with decades of research and leadership ahead of them. This combination makes them well qualified to explore the realities and pressures of modern lab life, so their ideas deserve to be considered by the scientific community...
As the authors state, their purpose is to stimulate open conversations “to safeguard a positive and sound research environment”. Accordingly, Nature readers may do themselves and others some good by visiting http://wef.ch/coe and providing feedback. Even better, they might discuss the ideals expressed, and consider how to live up to them in their own lab, research institution or funding agency. We at Nature are trying to do so, too."
"“Pursuing the truth means following the research where it leads, rather than confirming an already formed opinion.”
That statement opens one of seven presentations in a ‘Code of Ethics for Researchers’ produced by a group of scientists convened by the World Economic Forum. These scientists, drawn from many countries, are all under 40 but well established in career terms, with decades of research and leadership ahead of them. This combination makes them well qualified to explore the realities and pressures of modern lab life, so their ideas deserve to be considered by the scientific community...
As the authors state, their purpose is to stimulate open conversations “to safeguard a positive and sound research environment”. Accordingly, Nature readers may do themselves and others some good by visiting http://wef.ch/coe and providing feedback. Even better, they might discuss the ideals expressed, and consider how to live up to them in their own lab, research institution or funding agency. We at Nature are trying to do so, too."
Sunday, February 11, 2018
SCIENCE’S PIRATE QUEEN; The Verge, February 8, 2018
The Verge; SCIENCE’S PIRATE QUEEN
"The legal campaigns against Sci-Hub have — through the Streisand effect — made the site more well-known than most mainstay repositories, and Elbakyan more famous than legal Open Access champions like Suber. The threat posed by ACS’s injunction against Sci-Hub has increased support for the site from web activists organizations such as the EFF, which considesr the site “a symptom of a serious problem: people who can’t afford expensive journal subscriptions, and who don’t have institutional access to academic databases, are unable to use cutting-edge scientific research.”
The effort may backfire. It does nothing to address disappointment scientists feel about how paywalls hide their work. Meanwhile, Sci-Hub has been making waves that might carry it further to a wider swath of both the public and the scientific community. And though Elbakyan might be sailing in dangerous waters, what’s to stop idealistic scientists who are frustrated with the big publishers from handing over their login credentials to Sci-Hub’s pirate queen?"
"The legal campaigns against Sci-Hub have — through the Streisand effect — made the site more well-known than most mainstay repositories, and Elbakyan more famous than legal Open Access champions like Suber. The threat posed by ACS’s injunction against Sci-Hub has increased support for the site from web activists organizations such as the EFF, which considesr the site “a symptom of a serious problem: people who can’t afford expensive journal subscriptions, and who don’t have institutional access to academic databases, are unable to use cutting-edge scientific research.”
The effort may backfire. It does nothing to address disappointment scientists feel about how paywalls hide their work. Meanwhile, Sci-Hub has been making waves that might carry it further to a wider swath of both the public and the scientific community. And though Elbakyan might be sailing in dangerous waters, what’s to stop idealistic scientists who are frustrated with the big publishers from handing over their login credentials to Sci-Hub’s pirate queen?"
Monday, August 7, 2017
Gene Editing for ‘Designer Babies’? Highly Unlikely, Scientists Say; New York Times, August 4, 2017
Pam Belluck, New York Times; Gene Editing for ‘Designer Babies’? Highly Unlikely, Scientists Say
"In the future, will there be nations that allow fertility clinics to promise babies with genetically engineered perfect pitch or .400 batting averages? It’s not impossible. Even now, some clinics in the United States and elsewhere offer unproven stem cell therapies, sometimes with disastrous consequences.
But R. Alta Charo, a bioethicist at University of Wisconsin-Madison, who co-led the national committee on human embryo editing, said historically ethical overreach with reproductive technology has been limited.
Procedures like I.V.F. are arduous and expensive, and many people want children to closely resemble themselves and their partners. They are likely to tinker with genes only if other alternatives are impractical or impossible.
“You hear people talking about how this will make us treat children as commodities and make people more intolerant of people with disabilities and lead to eugenics and all that,” she said.
“While I appreciate the fear, I think we need to realize that with every technology we have had these fears, and they haven’t been realized.”"
"In the future, will there be nations that allow fertility clinics to promise babies with genetically engineered perfect pitch or .400 batting averages? It’s not impossible. Even now, some clinics in the United States and elsewhere offer unproven stem cell therapies, sometimes with disastrous consequences.
But R. Alta Charo, a bioethicist at University of Wisconsin-Madison, who co-led the national committee on human embryo editing, said historically ethical overreach with reproductive technology has been limited.
Procedures like I.V.F. are arduous and expensive, and many people want children to closely resemble themselves and their partners. They are likely to tinker with genes only if other alternatives are impractical or impossible.
“You hear people talking about how this will make us treat children as commodities and make people more intolerant of people with disabilities and lead to eugenics and all that,” she said.
“While I appreciate the fear, I think we need to realize that with every technology we have had these fears, and they haven’t been realized.”"
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Quiet Please, Episode 89: "If I Should Wake Before I Die"; Old Time Radio Downloads, Air Date: February 27, 1949
Old Time Radio Downloads; Quiet Please, Episode 89: "If I Should Wake Before I Die"
[Kip Currier: Heard this cautionary tale--first aired in 1949--on Radio Classics this weekend. Especially prescient and timely, in light of real-world stories like this one, calling for ethics education in IT programs: Lack of ethics education for computer programmers shocks expert]
"Plot: He is the epitome of the word "mad scientist." This top scientist doesn't care whether his inventions have already vastly altered the world, all that he cares about is the vast amount of knowledge that he acquires in his research. What the world sees as a destructive weapon is nothing more but a mere scribble of equations for him. The world is starting to reach a crucial point when human knowledge has become dangerous and unwise."
[Kip Currier: Heard this cautionary tale--first aired in 1949--on Radio Classics this weekend. Especially prescient and timely, in light of real-world stories like this one, calling for ethics education in IT programs: Lack of ethics education for computer programmers shocks expert]
"Plot: He is the epitome of the word "mad scientist." This top scientist doesn't care whether his inventions have already vastly altered the world, all that he cares about is the vast amount of knowledge that he acquires in his research. What the world sees as a destructive weapon is nothing more but a mere scribble of equations for him. The world is starting to reach a crucial point when human knowledge has become dangerous and unwise."
Friday, January 20, 2017
Scientists Needn't Get A Patient's Consent To Study Blood Or DNA; NPR, 1/18/17
Rob Stein, NPR;
Scientists Needn't Get A Patient's Consent To Study Blood Or DNA
"The Obama administration has dropped a controversial proposal that would have required all federally funded scientists to get permission from patients before using their cells, blood, tissue or DNA for research.
The proposal was eliminated from the final revision of the Common Rule, which was published in the Federal Register Wednesday. The rule is a complex set of regulations designed to make sure federally funded research on human subjects is conducted ethically. The revision to the regulations, set to go into effect in 2018, marks the first time the rule has been updated in 26 years.
The initial proposal that researchers be required to get permission before using a patient's tissue sample for research came out of the desire to avoid repeating what happened to Henrietta Lacks, an American who died of cervical cancer in 1951. Some of the cells from Lacks' cancer were kept alive for decades, used in research and for commercial purposes without her consent or her family's knowledge.
But scientists have argued that the mandate for consent in the initial Obama proposal was unnecessary and would hinder crucial research...
The final decision was welcomed by scientists and universities."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)