Rachel Lee - DNA Turning Human Story Into a Tell-All

Scientists have recently discovered the tip of a girl's 40,000 year old pinky finger in a Siberian cave. Using advanced technology, they found out that modern humans have encountered at least two groups of ancient humans. They encountered the Neanderthals and the Denisovans The Neanderthals lived in Europe and Asia and the Denisovans lived in Asia. Both groups disappeared around the same time which was 30,000 years ago. Scientists have compared different genomes and have come to the conclusion that people outside of Africa have an average of 2.5% Neanderthal DNA, and people from parts of Oceania have about 5% Denisovan DNA. This is the result of modern humans interbreeding with the Neanderthals and the Denisovans. Scientists are trying to figure out where the mating took place, and are also trying to find out more information about the Denisovans.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/science/gains-in-dna-are-speeding-research-into-human-origins.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=health

Do you find this article very interesting? Why or why not?

Unnatural selection: Is evolving reproductive technology ushering in a new age of eugenics?

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/pregnancy/pregnancy-trends/unnatural-selection-is-evolving-reproductive-technology-ushering-in-a-new-age-of-eugenics/article2294636/singlepage/#articlecontent

Summary: Like the movie Gattaca, we are now moving into a time where people are able to make babies that have certain features.  For instance, a couple could choose to have their baby be male, blue eyes and brown hair.  Like in the movie, DNA readers a being made to read what traits the baby would have.  The ability to have such power of a future child blurs the line between health and enhancement.  However, with this technology, the world would be free of genetic diseases and other such problems.  This defies the natural selection order, and it will be our next step in evolution.

Question: Should humans use the ability to defy natural selection?

No Transplant for Dying Illegal Immigrant Dad

Link: http://www.mercurynews.com/census/ci_19856536

Summary: This article features an Oakland man who is denied a kidney transplant because of his legal status as a citizen. According the the article, UC San Francisco Medical Center administrators are denying a transplant because they are afraid that the man would not receive enough care after the transplant. The man, Jesus Navarro, has private medical insurance, and his wife is willing to give up her kidney. Navarro has a wife, and a three year old daughter.

Question: Why pay for medical insurance, when one would be denied a transplant, due to their legal status? Do insurance companies do a background check for its insureds?

Marion Cunnane- Bioethics of Human Engineering


Article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4958965


Summary:
This article and podcast discuss the bioethics of human engineering.  It discusses the advances in medicine and technology, giving us the ability to genetically alter things like height or weight.  Also, it states how in the near future we will be able to fix our babies before they're born, if they have a deformity or a disease.


Question:
This article immediately brought me to question the fiscal impact of genetic engineering, how much will these processes cost?

Aerial Williams: Bioethics and Child Testing By: Jennifer Ludden

Summary: 
Ever since 1981, children were allowed to participate in studies that determines whether or not a certain product or drug can be put out on the market. There are no age limits to whoever can participate, meaning that the younger they are, the harder it would be to explain them the risks of the product or drug. In order for a child to participate in a study,  all there needs to be is the child's permission as well as the parent's. There has been regulations from both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration that makes sure that children are getting protected during those services.


Question:
Do you think that children that are between the ages of 5-7 years old should be allowed to participate in drug studies? Why or Why not?

Link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4662113

Monkey Embryo Mashup Results In First Primate Chimeras

 http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-01/monkey-embryo-mashup-results-first-primate-chimeras

Scientists in some lab have recently been able to create monkey chimeras (conceived with different sex cells ) using stem cells gathered from two different rhesus monkeys. By combining the stem cells while the monkey was still a zygote (early stage of an embryo) a chimera primate was born. A specific type of stem cell was needed for the chimera to be produced, totipotent cells. Totipotent cells have the possibility to form any cell of the body. The stem cells made in laboratories, pluripotent cells, do not have the same capibility. While pluripotent cells can form into cells a body can use, it cannot form a whole new animal as shown in the monkey chimera.

This experiment shows that grown stem cells are not the same as embryonic stem cells. If so, is it still ethical to to use embryonic stem cells in research? would it be ethical to create a human chimera?

Margaret Chu: Gingrich's Views on Stem-Cell Research

Margaret Chu 

NEWT GINGRICH'S VIEWS ON STEM-CELL RESEARCH

LINK:  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-vows-to-ban-embryonic-stem-cell-research-questions-in-vitro-practices/2012/01/29/gIQAIO9saQ_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop


SUMMARY:  
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich explains why he is completely against stem-cell research.  As a strict Catholic, Gingrich is against stem-cell research, a process by which  multipurpose cells of embryos are used to help the sick (brain damage, bone marrow transplantations, etc.)  Stem-cells are special because these are cells that can eventually develop into any type of cell (once a cell becomes a heart cell, a skin cell, etc, it can no longer become another type of cell). Gingrich vows that he would not allow or fund any more stem-cell research, even if the research is done on embryos that would eventually be thrown away.  


QUESTION:
Do you think that it is ethical for doctors to possibly save someone else's life at the price of an embryo's life?  Some claim that embryos are not humans because they have not developed yet, while others claim that an embryo is considered alive from the day that it was conceived.  Is it fair to take away the life of an embryo, a possible human being in order to save the life of someone that has already lived?  

Forced abortion for a mentally ill woman?

Article link:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10192109-forced-abortion-for-a-mentally-ill-woman-no-way-says-mass-appeals-court#.Txh_rZfx678.mailto

Summary:
 This article is about a mentally ill women being forced to get an abortion. People were angered by this, stating that a woman should be able to control what she wants to do with her body. Since the drugs that stablalize this mentally ill women will harm the baby, doctors had suggested that stopping her psychiatric medications. However, that would put her at serious risk and plunge her "deeper into madness."

Question:
If a mentally ill person is incapable of being stable without drugs, should an abortion be forced upon her in order not to harm herself and the baby?

Cynthia Kenyon: Experiments that hint of longer lives

Video Link:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/cynthia_kenyon_experiments_that_hint_of_longer_lives.html

Summary:
Cynthia Kenyon is a biochemist that found a gene mutation that can double the lifespan of a tiny worm called C. elegans. In an experiment, Kenyon has discovered that Daf-2, the mutation gene, is what caused the worm's lifespan to double. She discovered that certain hormones control the aging process. She has proposed, with this new knowledge of prolonging life, that one day scientists will be able to prolong life. Her experiment was not made to eliminate death but to "extend youthful human life."

Question:
If scientists discover a way to prolong human life, what positive/negative effects will it have on society?

Military Masks Could ‘Give Injured Soldiers Their Faces Back’

Link
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/military-biomask/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Summary
So in the article I read its talking about how the military has been working on how to reconstruct the human face of those soldiers that have received severe burns from the war. The Scientist have developed a double layered mask that the patient will wear for a few months until the dammaged tissue is fully healed. The results from undergoing this process is said to completely regenerate the damaged portion of the face and have it looking like it did before. Doctors say it is better than the treatment they go now which is surgery that usually leaves the patient with deformaties or handicaps. This new procedure will be fully operational in military hospitals by 2017. 


Would you not agree that this is pretty awesome? why or why not?

The Ethics of Translational Research

Info: The Bioethics Channel Podcast - 7/8/11 - from iTunes

Summery: This Podcast discusses a program in Kansas that is part of the National Institutes of Health to help with clinical and translational research, which would translate lab research and findings to the world outside, sothat people can benefit from it. It is important for ethics to be a major part of this because the drugs and lab experiments and research may not work on humans, so it must still be tested. One of the most important vehicles of translational research is the CTSA (Clinical and Translational Science Awards) which provides the funds and other things to help advance science and keep risks to the public low. Basically, such research, experiment, and education groups look for ways to work together with the Ethics Committee to help with the advancement of science with humans.

Question: Is it possible for translational research to be effective and fast, yet still be ethical?

Obama’s higher education reform is misguided - Julian Gaskins

Link: http://www.usforacle.com/opinion/obama-s-higher-education-reform-is-misguided-1.2691976#.Tydhj-PC5Rg

Summary: This article focuses on the issues with Obama's plan to help out financially with students attempting to make their way through college.  His plan is to reward the schools for having their tuition low instead of those that have it high like it currently is.  He wants to make choosing schools easier by giving them a "shopping list" in which they could compare the schools financial packages and more in an easier fashion.  Obama also plans on helping students that have to take out student loans and while this is fantastic for those who really need it, it doesn't benefit the students who work their way through college without loans.

Question: How are schools that have higher tuition costs rewarded by the current financial aid system?

Ruling on Contraception Draws Battle Lines at Catholic Colleges

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/health/policy/law-fuels-contraception-controversy-on-catholic-campuses.html?ref=us

Fordham University has a health care plan that covers medicine, like birth control, for employees and could be extended to students, without extra fees on the side, due to the new health care law; however, the university refuses to do so because it would go against their Catholic teachings.  The Obama Administration has statistical information from the Institute of Medicine that proves birth control is vital and medically necessary because studies have shown that women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to be depressed, smoke, drink alcohol, skip prenatal care, and deliver an underweight baby.  In addition, current GOP candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have stressed their intention to remove government funding from organizations like Planned Parenthood from giving out contraceptives and birth control pills.  A Georgetown University student was denied coverage for her prescription; she has polycystic ovary syndrome and is gay.  After a while, she was unable to pay for her medicine and developed a huge cyst on her ovary that had to be surgically removed.  

Should we let religious beliefs of a specific denomination become law of the land when America is known for being a melting pot or a religiously diverse country?  Should we force people who do not believe in the same religion, practice the beliefs of another religion by forcing the beliefs upon them in the form of laws?  

I personally believe that America was established as a country where everyone could practice their own religious beliefs and that the Church is separated from the state; however, it is apparent that more and more people are bringing in beliefs of Catholicism or Christianity into politics when they should not be.  How can the government impose laws on people when people don't believe in them?  Although some may abuse their rights by spending government money to get prescriptions they need, the government should not use religious beliefs as support for denying people their rights to get the medicine they need.   

Antonio Reybol- Stanford Takes Online Schooling To The Next Academic Level

Antonio Reybol


Summary:

Stanford is now starting to offer free classes online, for free!  However, people who take these classes are not receiving credit but do earn grades for the course.  Many think this is going to be the new way of teaching because many can access the internet.  The students who do complete the course do get a letter of completion, but does not state the universities name.  This was a debate because the course was not paid for, so the professors teaching the course(s) applaud the students themselves. 

Link:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2012/01/23/145645472/stanford-takes-online-schooling-to-the-next-academic-level

Question:

Do you think in the future that classes are just going to be on line?  Do you think it will cost as much as it would be to be in a classroom having lectures?  Why or why not? 

Education

Link : http://www.edarticle.com/article.php?id=17507 author : Karen Wilson


Summary : This article is about kids starting to learn through digital ways. They're saying that teachers would start preparing lessons through online in hopes that it'll engage the students. " No longer are students expected to attend school burdened with expensive, hardbound textbooks — instead information is being transmitted in form of open-source digital textbooks, accessible through various digital devices." They said that the good thing about "Flexbooks" are cost savings, easy learning for special need students and improve students engagement of learning. 


Questions : Do you think this will benefit our future or ruin it? Why or why not?

It's time to question bio-engineering

christina mincin :)



SUMMARY

Bioethicist Paul Root Wolpe brings to light how science today focuses on the ability to both manipulate and engineer artificial life-design our evolution. Scientists have not only genetically enhanced animals with certain chemicals in order to make them larger and what not, but have now learned to control certain organs, specifically the brain, with technology, so that humans can control these “robots”. Experiments range from controlling the brains of moths, growing human organs from the bodies of mice, to cloning various species. Paul touches on the single concern of when humanity will draw the line and say enough is enough. Because not only are animal lives involved with these experiments, but now, humans are as well.

QUESTION

They say that the end justifies the means. With science, do the discoveries that benefit and aid humanity justify the experiments done?

Priscilla De La Rosa- Euthanasia

Link: http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/euthanasia/index.htm

Summary: This article focuses on the idea of euthanasia and the pros and cons about it. Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve their suffering. Some deontologists believe that the phrase, "Do not kill" is something to live by and there is an extent towards it. However, teleologists, consider there are times when 'the end justifies the means'. Euthanasia is a topic of bioethics that is a difficult one because it is illegal to kill someone but is it not fair to take them out of their misery?

Question: Should it be legal for euthanasia to be allowed when the people are dying in their own misery? Or should they still be kept on life support?

Kristy Owyang - BIOETHICS IN A LIBERAL SOCIETY


site:
http://www.bioethics.org.au/Resources/Online%20Articles/Book%20Reviews/BR%20Bioethics%20in%20a%20liberal%20society.pdf


Summary:
This article was about a book someone reviewed that talked about bioethics and what that person thought of it. Max Charlesworth talks about how each human being should not be controlled and told what to do. He says that we are our own person and that we should be able to think anyway that we want and believe in anything we want also. He also mentions about health care and how people should somewhat focus on it and distribute it to the people who need it and not let them be left out of it. He wants people to understand the concept that we are human and should be treated like an individual and not anything else. 


Question:
Is it really important that the people today be prepared for what is happening with bioethics in the society?

Charlotte McGeever - "'Three-parent IVF' may be made legal in UK, says minister"

My January article is titled "'Three-parent IVF' may be made legal in UK, says minister" written by Jeremy Laurance of The Indepenent - a prominent British newspaper.


Link
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/threeparent-ivf-may-be-made-legal-in-uk-says-minister-6292254.html?origin=internalSearch


Summary
Laurance's article reports on the current state and legality of a special treatment option for the rare, devastating, and inheritable mitochondrial disease in the United Kingdom. The treatment involves helping to stop the inheritable disease through an In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) process with three parents. The procedure involves removing the nucleus of an infected egg and placing it into an egg of a female donor surrounded by healthy mitochondria, followed by fertilization of sperm from biological father into the donor, thus allowing the baby to have genetic characteristics from it's biological parents, in addition to the beneficial mitochondria from the donor. IVF and embryo experimentation are already controversial practices - opponents (as cited in the article from "The society for the protection of unborn children") question whether research scientists and medicine should be allowed "to play God" and they also believe altering unborn life to be a completely unethical practice; many would rather promote adult stem cell research. The treatment would disrupt the disease, potentially curing it, alleviating the suffering felt by too many families, as cited by a 33 year old mother whose family carries the disease.


One Question I have


I struggle to understand why people have a problem with this procedure. Those who support the sanctity of life and who so fiercely fight for unborn children don't seem to see the connection between unborn life and mitochondrial diseased infants. Protecting unborn children from being deprived of the opportunity to life is the same as allowing a young infant with this deadly mitochondrial disease to receive this treatment so that they as well have the opportunity to life instead of dying because the treatment is not available or legal. I'm not empathetic towards unborn children, I just believe that a child already born and who has the full potential to live if treated should have priority. I hope that doesn't sound mean, but who knows whether that unborn and undeveloped egg if fertilized will have it's own problems in the future - a serious and debilitating disease preventing it from full quality of life. So the main question I have come up with is:  


If opponents to this procedure believe so strongly in life of unborn children, what about the life of an already born and sick child...don't they have an equal if not greater right to life, no matter the conditions?

What are we doing here?

What does it mean to be human? What technologies, medical advanced, research, etc. may change our understanding of what it means to be human in the 21st century? This space is designed for you to engage with the latest research in the wide world of bioethics, technology, etc.  It's a place where you can engage the philosophical questions that we encounter in our literature as it meets the reality of 2012.  It's a place for you to explore what interests and engages you in our world today.


Review the detailed assignment expectations for posting an article review and commenting on other stories in the full handout on the website and posted here.