Skip to content

Ethics

Academic freedom isn’t free

Should scientists be allowed to publish anything, even when it is wrong? And should there be journals willing to accept everything, as long as it seems interesting enough? That is the core of a debate that has blossomed since the journal Medical Hypotheses published two aids-denialist papers. Medical Hypotheses is a deliberately non-peer reviewed journal: the editor decides whether to publish not based on whether papers are true but whether they are bold, potentially interesting, or able to provoke useful discussion. HIV researchers strongly objected to the two papers, making the publisher Elsevier withdraw them. Now there are arguments for removing Medical Hypotheses from PubMed, the index of medical literature. Ben Goldacre of Bad Science and Bruce G Charlton, editor of Medical Hypotheses, debate the affair on Goldacre's blog. Are there scientific papers that are so bad that there should not be any journal outlet for them?

Read More »Academic freedom isn’t free

Longer life, more trouble?

An article in the Times argues that life extension will bring us problems: long-lived people will bankrupt the NHS, pensions would become expensive, the pension age would need to be changed, there would be a pressure for resources and life would become meaningless. It is a surprisingly common criticism that would never be levelled at… Read More »Longer life, more trouble?

Premature death or wrongful death?

A headline in the Daily Mail from yesterday highlights the cost of over treatment for extremely premature and marginally viable infants.

    “Parents cause infant to suffer by forcing doctors to give futile treatment”.

Despite doctors counselling a set of parents that their 22 week gestation premature infant (born 4 ½ months early) had virtually no chance of survival, the parents insisted that Warren* be actively resuscitated and treated in intensive care and threatened legal action if doctors refused. Warren received chest compressions in the delivery room and was put on a breathing machine. He developed holes in his fragile lung and had multiple drain tubes inserted into his chest. Warren’s thin skin tore and broke even with gentle handling, and he developed patches of skin loss, like second degree burns, on his trunk and limbs. He developed bleeding in the centre of his brain, and on the 5th day of life perforated his bowel from infection. He died the following day. Meanwhile, 2 infants born prematurely in the same hospital were unable to be accommodated in intensive care because of lack of beds and had to be transferred to another hospital 1 hour away. One of those infants became unstable during the ambulance transfer and developed additional complications. Lawyers representing Warren are now considering legal action against the doctors and against his parents.

But of course, that wasn’t the real headline or case in the Daily Mail, and legal action such as that described is not likely to take place.

Read More »Premature death or wrongful death?

Telling porkies: should the doctor tell her patient where the medicine comes from?

In a column in the New York Times this week Randy Cohen fields a question from an anaesthetist. Should the doctor ask a devoutly religious patient whether he minds that his anticoagulant (heparin) is derived from pigs? In reply Cohen suggests that the doctrine of informed consent requires the doctor to consider the non-medical preferences of the patient and make sure Muslims, Jews and vegetarians know where their medicine is coming from.

Read More »Telling porkies: should the doctor tell her patient where the medicine comes from?

Non-lethal, yet dangerous: neuroactive agents

An article and editorial in Nature warns about the militarization of agents that alter mental states. While traditional chemical weapons are intended to hurt or kill people, these agents are intended to disable. For example, they might induce confusion, sleepiness or calm. The Chemical Weapons Convention contain a loophole for using biochemical agents for law enforcement including domestic riot control, and there is a push from some quarters to amend it to allow novel incapacitating agents. Is disabling agents just an extension of other forms of non-lethal force, or is this a slippery path we should avoid?

Read More »Non-lethal, yet dangerous: neuroactive agents

Should we forget about organic food?

A recent
report by the Food Standards Agency argues that organic food doesn’t bring any
substantial nutritional benefits compared to conventionally produced food.
This contradicts the conclusions of previous studies suggesting organic food to
be nutritionally superior. As one might have expected, supporters of organic
farming have been critical of the report, yet it is unfortunate that the media
coverage on this issue often gives the impression that organic food has been
shown to be a sham (some consumer groups thus expect shoppers to now “think
twice before buying organic”)
and that its advocates are now reduced to using any bad argument they can think
of to prove the contrary. This impression is understandable but misleading.

Read More »Should we forget about organic food?

Four… three… two… one… I am now authorized to use physical force!

Noel Sharkey, Professor of Artificial
Intelligence and Robotics at the University of Sheffield, warns that we are well on our way to get military killer robots that have great autonomy in applying deadly force. Current military "robots" such as UAVs have limited autonomy. They are
remotely controlled by humans, but increasingly given ability to
patrol, find targets and attack on their own. It would be a natural
progression to give them increasingly free reign, with the humans
merely granting permission – but in an active situation human reactions
might be too slow. Will the current convention that a properly trained
military human operator has to make the final decision still hold true
in the future?

Read More »Four… three… two… one… I am now authorized to use physical force!

What’s special about selling gametes?

Dominic Wilkinson posted yesterday on the issue of whether payment for egg and sperm donation should be legalised. This question attracted significant media attention yesterday after Lisa Jardine, of the HFEA, called for debate on the existing UK ban on payment for donors. Today's Guardian contains a piece highlighting several ways in which people can already sell their bodily parts or products, ranging from livers to breast milk, and from blood to hair. Sale of many of these bodily parts/products is regarded is ethically problematic, and is, in many cases, illegal. But not in all cases. For example, few would have a problem with the sale of hair for use in wigs.

Read More »What’s special about selling gametes?

A tiny step forward

Researchers have managed to produce live-born mice (original article) descended from induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS cells), cells taken from adult animals and treated to become stem cells. That individuals could be produced from embryonic stem cells was already known, but this proves that the IPS cells can produce all kinds of cells in an adult body. Good news for people uneasy about the need for embryonic stem cells… or is it?

If one argues that it is wrong to use embryonic stem cells because embryos carry moral rights, then the question is whether the creation of IPS cells produce something that also has moral rights.

Read More »A tiny step forward

Hunger for long life: the ethics of caloric restriction experiments

This has been a good week for life extension research, with the Nature paper Rapamycin fed late in life extends lifespan in genetically heterogeneous mice by Harrison et al. (free News and Views) showing that the drug boosts lifespan in middle aged mice, and Science countering with Caloric Restriction Delays Disease Onset and Mortality in Rhesus Monkeys by Colman et al. showing that in a 20-year longitudinal study rhesus monkeys do seem to benefit from caloric restriction (CR). CR involves keeping the energy intake low, but not so low that it induces starvation.

Not everybody seems to like the experiment. The Swedish major newspaper Dagens Nyheter had an article by Per Snaprud
that appeared to criticise the monkey experiment on ethical grounds. He
quotes Mats Spångberg, chief veterinarian at the Swedish Institute for
Infectious Disease Control, who doubts the experiment would have been
approved in Sweden. The only use of monkeys in Swedish research is AIDS
vaccine research. The article concludes by stating that the virus kills
2 million people every year, 270,000 of whose are children.

But ageing kills 100,000 people worldwide each day directly or indirectly. 100% of humans and monkeys are "infected".

Read More »Hunger for long life: the ethics of caloric restriction experiments