Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Quiz Feb4

Research

Today in Bioethics we'll talk "research." Things like clinical trials and research involving animals and their rights, and genetics, and epidemiology. We'll look at the funding gap between what we need to cure and where our research dollars are actually going, and at the moral imperative of genuine and informed consent. We'll look at disturbing instances of fraudulent and dishonest research. And we'll consider Peter Singer's claims about "speciesism."


The future of research is a daunting source of apprehension and speculation. Michael Sandel and Bill McKibben have aired serious concerns about genetic and other "enhancement" research as potentially catastrophic for our capacity to achieve or even recognize "meaningful" lives. Enhanced may not mean improved.

1. Name one of the basic requirements agreed upon by all codes devised to protect individuals from malicious research.

2. What decree states that consent must be gained in all experimentation with human beings?

3. Name one of four areas of research discussed in the book.

4. Which famous contemporary philosopher coined the term speciesism?

5. Name one of four R's used in international legislation pertaining to animal rights in research?

6. What is the term for altering the numbers in a calculation to make the hypothesis more convincing, with no justification form the research findings for such members?

BONUS: What is the "10/90 Gap"?

DQ:

  • Can there really ever be "fully informed" voluntary consent, given the many unknown variables and unpredicted consequences involved in most research?
  • Discuss: "Trials of pharmaceuticals may be driven as much by commercial considerations as by the likelihood of real therapeutic gain." 122
  • What concerns do you have about the use of animals in medical research? Is speciesism one of them? 10 medical breakthroughs due to animal testing... PETA... Touring an animal research facility
  • What limits, if any, would you like to see imposed on genetic research and the uses to which it may be put?
  • Were ethical improprieties committed in the case of Henrietta Lacks, whose cells (HELA cells) were harvested without her consent? (Rebecca Skloot... BBC...CBS...)
  • If "dreams of perfect health by the better-off will determine the research agenda" in the future, resulting in soaring health care costs and greater health "enhancement" opportunities for the wealthy, what should be done to insure adequate attention to "the health problems of most of the world's population"? 129
  • Should we be worried about a "Prozac revolution" and a "brave new world" of somatically-induced apathetic bliss? 130
  • Would you give special priority to any of Campbell's five enhancement categories (130)? Is "Transcendence"-style enhancement beyond the realm of reasonable concern (given the considerable monied interest of people like Larry Page)? 
  • Comment: "Why would we want such a 'posthuman' future? Are our lives better if we become physically stronger or more agile, or have an increased intelligence, or live for centuries?" 131
  • Is the outsourcing of clinical drug trials to developing countries ethically defensible? 132
  • How would you propose making research priorities "aligned to the needs of the majority"? 133
  • Is it likely that biobanks and other communitarian initiatives will in the future "prioritize health research according to need rather than profit," particularly in the U.S.? Would you support such a reprioritizing? How?
  • Have you seen Sicko? Care to share a review? Or of Michael Moore's latest doc'y?
==
Also of note:

To enhance our SuperBowl experience-
The New York Times (@nytimes)
N.F.L. Great Ken Stabler Had Brain Disease C.T.E. nyti.ms/1R1vYYw
==
It's the birthday of the first woman to graduate from medical school, Elizabeth Blackwell, born on this day in Bristol, England, in 1821. She wanted to become a doctor because she knew that many women would rather discuss their health problems with another woman. She read medical texts and studied with doctors, but she was rejected by all the big medical schools. Finally the Geneva Medical College (which became Hobart College) in upstate New York accepted her. The faculty wasn't sure what to do with such a qualified candidate, and so they turned the decision over to the students. The male students voted unanimously to accept her. Her classmates and even professors considered many medical subjects too delicate for a woman, and didn't think she should be allowed to attend lectures on the reproductive system. But she graduated, became a doctor, and opened the New York Infirmary for Women and Children. WA Feb3

32 comments:

  1. DQ: Can there really ever be "fully informed" voluntary consent, given the many unknown variables and unpredicted consequences involved in most research?

    Answer: The idea of “fully informed” voluntary seems absolute, and personally, I feel that due to the nature of medical research involving humans— extraneous variables, unforeseen contingencies, various levels of researcher coercion— “fully informed” voluntary consent cannot be 100% given. Each clinical patient differs in some degree, so I feel that it would be unjust to assume that this level of “informed” consent can be reached or even maintained throughout various researches. Additionally, the type of study being conducted would need to be taken into careful consideration before anyone could make a practical assumption about this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Quiz Question:
    What method of clinical trails is thought to be the most likely to produce scientifically valid results?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here is the full story of Woo Suk Hwang's fraudulent stem-cell research "breakthrough" of 2004, as mentioned by in the book. It shows that falsifying scientific research is unethical, and that you will get caught eventually.

    http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051219/full/news051219-3.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. DQ: What concerns do you have about the use of animals in medical research? Is speciesism one of them?

    My concern with the prolonged use of animals in medical research would be based more around the issue of safety in regards to human treatment as opposed to the ethical scope (I.E: Speciesism) behind using animal as test subjects. For instance, I feel as though testing a particular drug effect in an animal is not a surefire method as to being able to reproduce the same effect in a human being. Having said that, medical technology and research has begun to advance to the point in which alternative means can be used to test a particular treatment method (I.E: Microdosing and Cell Culturing) for more accurate predictions of a particular drug's/medicine's response(s) within our bodies. Obviously, this technology is not at the point in which animal testing can be disregarded entirely; but, it is definitely on the right track!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Quiz Question:

    Which English philosopher stated of animals that: "The question is not, Can they reason? Nor can they talk?, but can they suffer?"

    (pp. 122)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Quiz Question: Alastair V. Campbell mentions how, “an array of drugs originally developed to treat medical conditions have been used to enhance athletic performance…” What are the five categories that he speaks of? (pp. 130)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Physical enhancement, lifespan enhancement, cognitive enhancement, mood enhancement, moral enhancement

      Delete
  7. DQ: Is the outsourcing of clinical drug trials to developing countries ethically defensible?

    Personally, I do feel that this is very possible. However, depending on the country itself, the level restriction will vary.

    Here is a 5+ min video link about outsourcing in relation with India.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoMnvUyCPuE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  8. Quiz question: The (blank) states this principle that "the well-being of the individual research subject must take precedence over all other interests"

    ReplyDelete
  9. "What limits, if any, would you like to see imposed on genetic research and the uses to which it may be put?"

    Well obviously we should not be creating real life chimeras, like the ones in Greek myths,but on the other hand finding ways to lessen or remove serious genetic abnormalities sounds like a noble pursuit. While making a creature with the body of a lion, head of a goat, and a snake for a tail would be impressive we should consider that the genetic material used could have unknown repercussions, like the movie splice. The very same can be said about tampering with the genetic abnormalities, we probably cannot know what affect it will have. That's we I said "sounds" earlier because we just don't know the effect practical application would have, for now at least. Which is why I think for now we should be focusing on genetic research instead of applications.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What limits, if any, would you like to see imposed on genetic research and the uses to which it may be put?

    As far as research is concerned, there shouldn't be any limits set on how deeply scientists seek to understand the human genome as long as it excludes the harm of human subjects. However, I would like to limit the extent of this acquired knowledge being used to "create" perfect babies based on parental,physical, or social preference. Outside of the "playing God reason", This could have detrimental social and genetic effects on the population. Any lack of variation in a population will lead to the amplification and evolution/strengthening of any negative components. Social unrest would be inevitable due to the inequality created as families with the financial means to have these perfect offspring being to stand out from the ones who cant leading to obvious problems which need no explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Why would we want such a 'posthuman' future? Are our lives better if we become physically stronger or more agile, or have an increased intelligence, or live for centuries?"

    I don't exactly believe in a "post human" future but if we were to have one it would depend on the means as far as bettering our lives. Artificial enhancement of our physical abilities while dehumanizing ourselves in the process would probably make life(as we currently know it) much worse considering certain abilities to feel, empathize, etc may be degenerated. If our humanity can be retained then sure bring on the next generation of genetically superior human ,but we must always consider when discussing such issues-at what cost?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Quiz Question: What are paranoid delusions?

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/oct/15/pharma-industry-neglecting-tropical-diseases-snake-bite

    This news article is about the 10/90 gap, it's dated October/2015. It refers to the pharmaceutical company Sanofi Pasteur, they stopped producing Africa's only snakebite anti-venom. It's an interesting look at the pharmaceutical industry's drive towards producing only higher margin drugs and their interest in profit over actually helping people.

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2016/02/animal_rights_activists_file_c.html

    This is a news article on a very recent issue at the University of Washington, there was a large protest about the building of a new animal research laboratory. The group holding these protests is asking a judge to rule against executives involved and their neighbours, who are trying to get an injunction against the protesters as they are protesting outside of their homes.

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://qz.com/609291/this-indian-biotech-firm-is-the-worlds-first-to-ready-a-zika-vaccine-for-testing/

    This link leads to an article on pharmaceutical research. Bharat Biotech, in India, has two vaccine candidates for the Zika virus. They are currently in preclinical testing and are going to start testing the vaccines on animals. One uses recombinant DNA and the other uses an inactivated version of the virus.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Comment: "Why would we want such a 'posthuman' future? Are our lives better if we become physically stronger or more agile, or have an increased intelligence, or live for centuries?" 131

    I personally believe that our lives would be improved by having an increased intelligence, being stronger and more agile. Certainly, we could use more "great minds" in all of our professions and more so, we could benefit greatly from them living longer and sharing that wisdom and intelligence for a longer time.

    I honestly have to wonder at anyone who would not want to be smarter, have a greater capacity for knowledge and want to improve themselves overall. Is that not, after all, the entire point of being a member of society? To be better, more helpful, more useful...a better part of the machine. You don't have to like the machine to realize that there is no successful community without it, the rules, regulations and governing body keeping it all together. Furthermore, couldn't we benefit from a smarter machine, which is after all, made up of people?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Quiz Question:

    What percent of clinical trials sponsored by the US pharmaceutical companies take place outside of the country?

    ReplyDelete
  18. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2016/02/why-edited-embryos-wont-lead-to-designer-babies-or-eugenics-unless-we-want-it-too/

    Here is an article that discusses the UK's new lead on "designer babies." The just passed the "OK" on doing the research for the project. They are however disputing the fact about what their research will lead to in the scientific community. They deny that the research will lead to the production of designer babies because this research is not intended for reproduction purposes. This article is jumping ahead in our class discussion but I think it has some great ideology about research.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Discussion from yesterday on body exhibit. Possibly Chinese political prisoners or poor people:

    http://www.brandoneley.com/where-do-the-bodies-come-from/

    Question: Should bodies be donated that are unidentified bodies?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "What concerns do you have about the use of animals in medical research? Is speciesism one of them?"

    I may get some backlash here but it is just my honest opinion. When it comes to animals and medical research I'm not 100% for it but I can't say that I'm 100% percent against it either. We have to test medicine some way before human trials but I don't think that if it involves the torture of animals that it is right. I know most people would say doing it period would be torturing an animal but I don't think unless they are physically harmed than it is torturous. I know I sound very cruel and hate animals but I don't. I have pets of my own and I love them and I am greatly attached to them but I do not believe that an animal life holds the same significance as human life. That's where I think speciesism is right. I know that may be cruel and I seem like an evil human being but it is true. Really, the only concern I have with animal testing is the fact that I don't believe animals should be tortured and also the fact that just because an animal trial works for a drug doesn't mean that it necessarily will work the same for humans.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "What concerns do you have about the use of animals in medical research? Is speciesism one of them?"

    I may get some backlash here but it is just my honest opinion. When it comes to animals and medical research I'm not 100% for it but I can't say that I'm 100% percent against it either. We have to test medicine some way before human trials but I don't think that if it involves the torture of animals that it is right. I know most people would say doing it period would be torturing an animal but I don't think unless they are physically harmed than it is torturous. I know I sound very cruel and hate animals but I don't. I have pets of my own and I love them and I am greatly attached to them but I do not believe that an animal life holds the same significance as human life. That's where I think speciesism is right. I know that may be cruel and I seem like an evil human being but it is true. Really, the only concern I have with animal testing is the fact that I don't believe animals should be tortured and also the fact that just because an animal trial works for a drug doesn't mean that it necessarily will work the same for humans.

    ReplyDelete
  22. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2016/02/why-edited-embryos-wont-lead-to-designer-babies-or-eugenics-unless-we-want-it-too/

    Here is an article that discusses the UK's new lead on "designer babies." The just passed the "OK" on doing the research for the project. They are however disputing the fact about what their research will lead to in the scientific community. They deny that the research will lead to the production of designer babies because this research is not intended for reproduction purposes. This article is jumping ahead in our class discussion but I think it has some great ideology about research.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Is the outsourcing of clinical drug trials to developing countries ethically defensible?

    I believe that it is very possible for this to be defensible. An example of this would be to conduct a clinical drug trial in African countries for a drug dealing with malaria. This is where malaria is most expected to be diagnosed as compared to other regions of the world. Researchers need to have a population where it is more likely to produce results in order to determine if the drug is truly beneficial. It is interesting how people will be so against drug trials, but great things have came from them such as the polio vaccine. People aren't nearly as against them when they work. I think the best thing for these trials is the proper convincing data and test to support that a drug trial is the next appropriate step.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Quiz Question:
    After what major event in history were major research scandals revealed that made bio-medical research regulation a necessity.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Lee Gish, Phillip Shackelford, Darcy Tabotabo
    We discussed the elongation of life and how life shouldn't be prolonged.

    ReplyDelete