Human Nature

Re: all this

NickD — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:06:43 GMT

reddot99:
but think if they did get a mouse or something tht could talk, would that not be cool?

Actually that would be the biggest nightmare of all.

all this

reddot99 — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:21:01 GMT

but think if they did get a mouse or something tht could talk, would that not be cool?

Re: lion, tigers, and mad scientists, oh my!

momofone — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:04:40 GMT

This is exactly what I was thinking - just in the past few years, there have been several instances of apparent negligence by the FDA in pursuit of a new market for a big pharma product (just say "Vioxx"). Unless there is some other body that the writer had in mind, I cannot see how our current system is set up to do anything other than allow for the maximum profits at the minimum ("don't get caught or we'll lose our shorts") cost. Has anyone read a pharma insert lately? Or the two pages of fine print alongside the ads for the latest designer pharmaceuticals? All that fine print serves to cover the backsides of the pharmaceutical companies, "nothing more, nothing less".

I do think the original article made some valid points, not all of them about how "scary" the science is. Most of all, I came away from reading it a little wiser, and just a little bit uneasy, about the breaking down of boundaries that have been thought inviolable for millenia. I don't think jumping to the defense of science is necessary or productive in this case; it's a distraction from the main issue: when is a human not quite human? When is a mouse not a mouse anymore, but a hybrid human/mouse? (Think of the fascinating photo that circulated a few years back, of the mouse with a human ear growing out of it. Okay, don't think about it. Yuck!)

momofone

Re: lion, tigers, and mad scientists, oh my!

bogus — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:41:42 GMT

As to the "passionate, properly educated people" who work for such charitable, loveable outfits as pharmaceutical companies portray themselves, I pity them if they think they'll be able to crack the corporate mentality that puts human life - or saving it - as part of a balance sheet that has to please the people who own the most stock. We've all read about the drugs that were not quite "exactly what was intended, nothing less, nothing more." Whether a drug comes from a hamster or a chem lab is immaterial. dick brandlon

Re: lion, tigers, and mad scientists, oh my!

ru.empeirikos — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:57:14 GMT

>>the cutting edge of biomedical treatments are always inherently dangerous as they have not been tested but standard practice is (for many people) to weigh how much danger the patient is in from disease and how much danger there is from the treatment.<<

Yeah fine, but those many people can be wrong. The 1976 swine flu fiasco is another good example. The infectious disease experts worried that a particularly fatal form of flu was on its way after a single Fort Dix soldier died of the disease. Worried that another 1918 pandemic may result, the infectious disease experts convinced Ford of the threat, who then asked Congress to appropriate 135 million dollars to be used to make enough vaccine for the American population of 215 million. Parke-Davis made the vaccine and the Swine Flu vaccination program officially commenced on Oct 1, 1976. On Oct 11 two elderly people died shortly after getting the vaccine, which resulted in headlines that severely diminished the vaccines demand. By Oct 15 only 40 million had been vaccinated; it was estimated that an 85% vaccination rate was required to prevent the pandemic. Mid-January the CDC reported that the falls pneumonia and flu-associated deaths was the lowest since 1972. The first case of Guillain-Barre syndrome appeared the third week of November; a disease that causes weakness, poor reflexes and can progress to paralyze. On Christmas Eve the CDC revealed that 172 cases of Guillain-Barre cases had turned-up, including 6 deaths. In the end the US government would settle 393 claims.

The dread Swine Flu never materialized but because the experts hyped the fear a vaccine was pushed onto the American public that caused several deaths and paralyze or paralyze-like syndrome in hundreds.

The detail of this story (and a few lines lifted) from Laurie Garrett’s The Coming Plague.

Re: lion, tigers, and mad scientists, oh my!

Sawbones — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:51:32 GMT

I'm not certain whether you don't see the part that is creepy about this, or whether you are consciously glossing over it. The (or at least my) problem is not with a bacterium genetically engineered to be a nonsentient replication machine for a specific protein; rather, it is with the quite logical progression that Saletan posits and the unwillingness of the research establishment to consider ruling anything off-limits. If our goal is to create as close a facsimile to human consciousness as possible in a rodent for the purposes of research, it calls into question why we would differentiate between human and animal subjects for research at all. This is not my wish, but rather the logical end of the argument.

It is exceedingly unhelpful to brush this thought off with "but we don't really have that capability yet." The precise problem is the natural human tendency to delay considering the ethical implications of an action until the moment we are actually able to pursue it (or more often, afterward). And at that point, the genie is out of the bottle, and there is no stuffing it back in.

For this reason, it is also unhelpful to say "well, there are people more knowledgeable about the field who are better qualified to answer these questions than I am." Those who hold the steering wheel of this sort of thing are exactly the wrong people to decide its ethical implications. I currently work in an NICU, where I witness some of the worst abominations of modern medicine performed in the name of "saving" infants that would in a more merciful world be allowed to die with comfort and peace. But it is a truism that an intensive-care physician is exactly the worst person to decide whether a radical therapy should be used for a patient who appears to have little or no hope - intensive care attracts those who do, those who tinker, those who believe that by exercising maximum control over as many aspects of a patient's function as possible, they can restore function to what has been broken. This will always be the last person in the room to admit "defeat" and say "we will go no further."

It is a similar kind of person who engages in research science. The hyperspecialization involved in this kind of endeavor makes it increasingly difficult to maintain perspective of that research in its broader context. And when that context involves something as breathtaking as the idea of experimenting on an unwilling possessor of human or semi-human consciousness, anyone with a sense of that broader context automatically begins to lean backward. It is not fear of progress, but rather the natural response of a consciousness with recognition of its own limits, frailties, blind spots and forbidden zones.

Re: lion, tigers, and mad scientists, oh my!

im1 — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:46:03 GMT

true the consequences of an economic disaster are considered less dangerous (whether that is true or not I'll leave for another day). However, there are extensive regulatory committees that review all non-standard practices and new techniques before they ever start.

as for tuskegee, that was clearly against the hippocratic oath and the problem was not giving some bad treatment but NO TREATMENT AT ALL.

honestly, scientists do care, but we don't appreciate articles that go all Micheal Crichton without even mentioning the extensive regulations (and checks to make sure regulations are being compiled with) that are in place already.

DocMWood:
"When people don't understand science they have a hard time trusting the people who do to stay in control and within ethical bounds. Tough!"

See, the problem isn't with people who “stay in control.” It is those who are so arrogant they think that they are in control; that is really scary and where the true problem arises. As was pointed out previously regarding economics, the good folks in charge of Enron thought that they were in control too. And while financial woes can certainly hurt folks, it won’t spread like biologicals have the potential to do. True, chances are pretty small that such a thing would or could ever happen, but they’re not “zero” as any good scientist would have to agree to. And seeing arrogance on the part of those doing the research…well, events like Tuskegee do come to mind pretty quickly. It’s a lot easier to trust people to “stay in control and within ethical bounds” if they at least pretend like they care about such things…”tough” is an unacceptable answer to these questions.

Re: lion, tigers, and mad scientists, oh my!

im1 — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:39:04 GMT

ok, tough was harsh, but my point is really that this is a technical field that is already heavily regulated by scientific review boards with scientific experts, bioethicists, and lay members. the article throws all this "scary" stuff out there but barely gives a whif of how can and should are separated and public safety is 99.9999999999999999% assured. the cutting edge of biomedical treatments are always inherently dangerous as they have not been tested but standard practice is (for many people) to weigh how much danger the patient is in from disease and how much danger there is from the treatment.

as for rogue infectious agents breaking into the community due to scientific, purely in the lab experiments, which is the VAST majority of what was talked about in the article, there are so many safe guards to keep our experimental animal colonies free of infection. Barriers, gown up, gloves, bleach (really enough bleach kills almost anything but a prion and as long as you don't eat or inject yourself with prion you are OK.) and we never eat anything that has been in contact with our animals: first cause that is gross, and second because it is against the rules. also we try our damnest to never inject ourselves with stuff for self preservation reasons.

Don't you wonder how those scientists study HIV, flu, every bug under the sun and with the exception of cases so rare as to not be epidemiologically significant don't manage to infect themselves much less anyone else.

You want to worry about an infectious agent, worry about getting HIV from a sexual partner or the flu from the guy next to you on the plane, not some lab created super infection.

Re: lion, tigers, and mad scientists, oh my!

im1 — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:24:22 GMT

how many people died of polio, how many people died of SV40 contaminated polio vaccine, nuf said.

Re: lion, tigers, and mad scientists, oh my!

FBH — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:29:00 GMT

Your answer to those of us who don't perfectly trust scientists to be ethically and morally pure in all this is "tough"?

Let me summarize my view of your position. That's simply not good enough. Scientists are not some elite class. Nor are they inherently wise and sage in their judgments. They are people of whom we should be exceedingly skeptical.

Why? Because skepticism is pure and right in this instance. Every single human being ought to smirk and mock scientists at every point. Scientists may be on the cutting edge of medical breakthroughs and so forth. But until they stand on absolutely solid ground, every thought, every word, every proposition should be frightening to them, more than to us. We should hold them accountable to an enormous degree. If they fail at any point, scientists should be labeled as quacks, shysters, and idiots, and publicly mocked. That way they might begin weighing the significance of their findings, and seeing their true value in its valid light...

Re: lion, tigers, and mad scientists, oh my!

ru.empeirikos — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:25:32 GMT

When Salk made the first polio vaccine using Vero cells I'm sure he and the regulators thought it would be safe. It was later learned those cells contained the SV40 virus, which was not always completely inactivated with the formalin viral inactivation treatment. Currently SV40 has been implicated in causing cancer by suppressing the tumor-suppressor p53. The arrogance of those on this thread asking to be trusted, especially the immunologist that should know better, is baffling.

Re: lion, tigers, and mad scientists, oh my!

DocMWood — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:53:45 GMT

"When people don't understand science they have a hard time trusting the people who do to stay in control and within ethical bounds. Tough!"

See, the problem isn't with people who “stay in control.” It is those who are so arrogant they think that they are in control; that is really scary and where the true problem arises. As was pointed out previously regarding economics, the good folks in charge of Enron thought that they were in control too. And while financial woes can certainly hurt folks, it won’t spread like biologicals have the potential to do. True, chances are pretty small that such a thing would or could ever happen, but they’re not “zero” as any good scientist would have to agree to. And seeing arrogance on the part of those doing the research…well, events like Tuskegee do come to mind pretty quickly. It’s a lot easier to trust people to “stay in control and within ethical bounds” if they at least pretend like they care about such things…”tough” is an unacceptable answer to these questions.

Re: lion, tigers, and mad scientists, oh my!

the true conservative — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:16:49 GMT

[When people don't understand science they have a hard time trusting the people who do to stay in control and within ethical bounds. Tough. I don't understand the economy but I don't spend tons of time freaking out about new and scary financial derivatives created on wall street but those are honestly more likely to actually effect our well being than the vast majority of biomedical research. Why not worry? There are people who do that, who are passionate about it, and my uneducated opinion probably wouldn't bring much insight on the matter.]

Okay, let's think this thing through a minute. We the people would never let the financial "experts" just do whatever they wanted and trust them to do what's ethical, fair, and good for society. We hem them in with all kinds of rules, regulations, and oversight by the public. No one would dream of saying that just because they CAN do something, it automatically means they SHOULD.

I fail to see why this is any different. Sure, the Syphillis experiments on blacks in the '70's were carried out by scientists and professionals. That didn't mean that we the people shouldn't have put a stop to it. Being an expert and a proffessional in your field is no guarrantee that you are ethical or even a decent human being. Society has not only the right, but the obligation, to provide oversight of science.

If people have concerns about biological experiments, explain WHY they are harmless, or the good outweighs the harm. But spare me this patronizing nonsense about how we commoners couldn't possibly understand what the experts are doing and have no role in deciding what should and should not be allowed. Yes we do. It's our country.

I'm thinking about primates.

TenaciousK — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 04:44:12 GMT

Yeah, well, I'm certainly no immunologist. I'm thinking I can predict the storyline of Michael Crichton's next novel, though. Think I could whip something out and beat him to the punch? Doubtful - its probably already at the publisher's.

Somehow I'm thinking this doesn't enhance my credibility a whit.

Cross-contamination with primates occurs far more often than, say, with avians, because of the degree of genetic similarity, right? Also, an infection may be pathogenic in one species but relatively benign in another, right? My concern is that lowering the bar of cross-species contamination might prove problematic even without the large populations interacting with each other, with free exchange of body fluids. While I understand there are appropriate safeguards in place, it does occur to me that in this big wide wonderful world of ours, should this activity become relatively commonplace, both laxness and abuse are more likely inevitable than predictable.

If genetic relatedness isn't an issue, then why all the focus on primates for cross-species infection?

Re: What I don't understand...

ru.empeirikos — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 04:37:18 GMT

So, because it's uncommon for a bug to cross the species barrier we shouldn't worry? By your reasoning it should be safe to make a classic vaccine in a monkey brain, right?