tth edition 2nd edition
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
1/62
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
2/62
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENTTEAM:
Chief Executive Officer (Outgoing)
Mizel DjukicChief Executive Officer (Incoming)
and Executive Editor-in-ChiefManisha BhattacharyaChief Operating Officer N.
AmericaAkash Shah
Chief Operating Officer EuropeChristopher Stainton
Chief Operating Officer AsiaXavier Vanessa Anne Jia Min
Executive Production EditorsJason Belsky and Christine Chu
Editor-in-Chief, E-publishingKate Neafsey
Chief Internal Affairs Officer
Haritha DasariChief Technical Officer
Nick TatonettiChief Human Resource Officer
Ani Ramesh
NORTH AMERICA DIVISION:Executive Director, Chapter
OperationsErnest (Ted) Gomez
Executive Director, Business
DevelopmentArjun NaskarExecutive Director, MarketingCatharyn Howard-Teplansky
Executive Director, High
School OperationsSonia Sarkar
Marketing AssociatesAlexandra Szulc, Carolyn DaviesDirector of Library Distribution
Gabriel Kim
Business and MarketingDivision
Alex Ip, Margot Kabalkin,Anjali Verghis, Viraj Mehta,
Vijeth Iyengar, Star Li, Mahesh
Madhavan, Nicole Hui, Sean
Yue, Christopher Louie,Gabriel Kim, Carolyn Davies,Allie Schnidman, Alessandra
Szulc, Jenny Lee
EUROPE DIVISION:Executive Director, Business
DevelopmentMichelle Lam
ASIA DIVISION:Executive Director, Internal
AffairsChan Hei Ching
AUSTRALIA DIVISION:Executive Director, Business
Donald Tsang
GLOBAL LITERARY &PRODUCTION:
Senior Literary EditorsKristina Liu, Winnie Tsang,
Garrett R. Leonard, Stephen
Ra, Ruchira SrinivasakrishnanProduction Advisor
Erwin WangProduction Site Director,
UC Berkley
Stephanie ChaioManaging Production Editors
Bradley French, KaitlynMitchell, Kim-Yen Nguyen,
Alvin Chen
Senior Production EditorsAngela Liou, Benjamin Tzou,
Christine Russell, David Liang,James Yeh, Kelly Koay,
Michael Leung
Production EditorsYang Gu, Austin Ihm, Michael
Turchin, Brian Yoo, Claire J. Lee,Yang Zhang, Franny Buderman,Justine Olszewski, Yee Ling Lam,
Mira Patel, Elise Christensen,
Dustin Hange, James Liao,Jennifer Kao, Joanne Cheung,Lindsay Parish, Victoria Chu,Steven Schlansker, Zoe Doyle
E-PUBLISHING & TECHNOLOGYDIVISION:
Technology DirectorBasil Carr
Associate EditorsJennie Wang
Budri Abubaker-SharifAssistant Editor
Aris BarasGraphics EditorGarrett Leonard
Multimedia Director
Nikhil Shyam
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Chairman
Kevin Hwang
Vice ChairmanErwin WangSecretary
Melissa Matarese
Alumni ChairJoel Gabre
Finance ChairKalil Abdullah
UNIVERSITY OFMELBOURNE CHAPTER
EXECUTIVE BOARD:President
Terry ChangEditor-in-ChiefCeleste Leong
Vice PresidentMandy Zhang
SecretaryStephanie QuekFinance Director
Chrystal Fernandez
Finance AdvisorDonald Tsang
Marketing DirectorZoe WongHR Director
Ben Loe
IT DirectorRonny Chieng
SENIOR STAFF:
Editorial AssociatesMaryam Jahanshahi
Krystin LowMichael Lee
Bonnie EspositoAaron Mentha
Isaac Dunn
Elizabeth ZuccalaRuby Murray
Vivien LiJade Lao
Finance DivisionJoelle Lim
Mandy ZhangYing Li Ng
Vishala Vasandani
Pasam InterangsiYing YiPing Lu
Marketing Division
Nicole TeoKevin TanWeiNa KeLisa Lee
HR DivisionSophia Gutkin
Sarah WendlandtAnnamae Wong
SUPPORT STAFF:Chief Operating Officer
Kym HuynhSenior Literary Editor
Ruchira SrinivasakrishnanAdvisor
Sook Jin Ong
CONTRIBUTING WRITERS:Hannah Harnstad
Jade Lao
Vivien LiRuby Murray
FACULTY REVIEW BOARD:Professor Joe Proietto
Professor Rachel Webster
SPECIAL THANKS TO:Professor Ian Frazer
Professor Peter McPhee
Similar staff exists at all chaptersof The Triple Helix, a truly
international organisation withan active membership of over
1,000 students around the world.
Arizona State UniversityUC Berkeley
Brown UniversityUniversity of Cambridge
Carnegie Mellon UniversityColumbia University
Cornell UniversityDartmouth University
UC DavisEmory University
Georgetown University
Harvard UniversityThe University of Hong KongJohns Hopkins UniversityKings College London
London School of Economics
Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology
Monash UniversityNorthwestern University
National University of SingaporeUniversity of Melbourne
University of OxfordUniversity of Pennsylvania
Peking UniversityUniversity of Sydney
University of Chicago
University College London
UC Los AngelesUC San Diego
University of North CarolinaChapel Hill
Yale University
THE TRIPLE HELIXA global forum for science in society
2007 The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved. The Triple Helix at the University of Melbourne is an independentchapter of The Triple Helix, Inc., an educational 501(c)3 non-profit corporation. The Triple Helix at the Universityof Melbourne is published once per semester and is available free of charge. Its sponsors, advisors and the Unit-ersity of Melbourne are not responsible for its contents. The views expressed in this journal are solely those of therespective authors. To the fullest extent permitted by law, neither The Triple Helix nor any of its members will beliable for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the contents included in this publication.
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
3/62
Table of
ContentsA Review of the 5th World Conference of Science Journalists 3A Conversation with Ian Frazer 6
Roll up your Entertainment 11Rebecca Krall, Carnegie Mellon University
Human Computer Symbiosis 15Pranai Tandon, Cornell University
The Case of the Pillow Angel 18
Julia Piper, UC BerkeleyTransgenic Animals: Paving the Way to New Frontiers in Medical and Scientific Research 21Margaret Mallari, University of Chicago
Superorganisms 25Yvette Han, Carnegie Mellon University
Animal Rights, Human Wrongs: A Rational Examination of Ethics Concerning Animals 26
Are You What You Eat? 29Hayley Hernstadt, University of Melbourne
Martha Stewart to 50 Cent: A Debacle of the Social Construction of Race 34Ariana Younai, UC Berkeley
Revisiting the Ruler: The Metamorphisis of Progress in the Modern World of Medicine 37Nisha Narayan, UC Berkeley
The Cultural and Evoluntionary Basis of Sound Perception 41Zara Khan, UC Berkeley
Why Pluto Should Be Plutoed 43Jade Lao, University of Melbourne
Do We Need to Explore Space? 47Karavya Vyas, UC San Diego
The E.O. Wilson Model for successful engagement between religious and scientific communities 50Richard Milford, Arizona State University
Chinas economic and environmental footprints in Africa 53Caroline Lee, University of Georgetown
The Stuff of Nightmares 56
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
4/62
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
2
Message from the CEODear Readers,
For e Triple Helix, 2008 brings with it a variety of interesting projects and opportunities. One of our
main goals for the New Year is to encourage more collaboration and intellectual discussion between individualchapters within the Triple Helix network. We have already made progress by holding the first-ever TTH event
designed to bring members from different chapters together in one place to share their scholarly work. We are
pleased to announce that this February in Boston, Massachusetts, TTH authors presented eighteen unique
pieces of research in an exclusive poster session at the annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science. In addition, they attended the Triple Helix Member Workshop and Leadership
Summit, an event designed to both educate and inspire our students to maintain a high quality of journalism
and take their chapters in new directions. is event not only established a tradition of TTH interacting with
the larger academic community, but also stimulated the flow of ideas within the student membership.
I am confident that great things will come from collaboration between our students at chapters around the
world. As we continue to establish our science policy division, the cultural diversity of our member universitieswill serve to educate TTH members and general audiences alike in the significant similarities and differences
that characterize public attitudes towards science in different regions. We aim to spark discussion and provide
factual analysis of the issues that will affect our society with a rapidly changing world and so many new
scientific advances; it is essential that we all understand what is at stake.
Sincerely,
Manisha Bhattacharya
Chief Executive Officer, e Triple Helix
Message from the Chapter Presidente Triple Helix, Inc. aims to provide an innovative outlet for undergraduates to voice their opinions
about cutting-edge issues in science and the intersection of such issues with society and law. e University
of Melbourne chapter is proud to release our second edition which we believe showcases the caliber of our
students. is is a truly remarkable achievement for a student-run organisation to facilitate such a high-level
exchange of interdisciplinary ideas amongst undergraduates around the globe.
e second edition highlights the international presence of e Triple Helix through a broad spectrum of
international undergraduate writers and where students from the University of Melbourne fit. Furthermore,
this second edition demonstrates that undergraduate students are more than capable of thinking outside the
confines of their disciplines and contributing original thoughts to the discussion scientific issues with broadersociety ramifications..
I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone in the organization, as well as those who have sup-
ported us. It has been a wonderful experience as this chapters president, but it would not be half as memorable
without the display of teamwork and togetherness that persisted through the good times and the hard times.
Dear readers, as you browse through this journal, we hope the articles inform you of recent scientific devel-
opments and, more importantly, inspire you to consider the implications such developments for you and those
around you.
Kindest Regards,
Terry ChangPresident, e Triple Helix, Inc.
e University of Melbourne Chapter
WELCOME MESSAGES
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
5/62
As growing mainstream media interest in climate
change, stem cell research, patenting and a plethora
of other issues has shown, science is fast becoming
an integral part of public dialogue. Yet despite the
obvious centrality of science to these issues, those
making decisions relating to scientific research rarely
seem to have a scientific background. Increasingly,it is falling upon the already burdened shoulders of
scientists to educate both politicians and the general
public. Or, more specifically, it is falling upon that
rare breed, the science journalist.
e Triple Helix was fortunate in being able
to attend the 5th World Conference of Science
Journalists, and presents here a few brief summaries
of selected events. Somewhat predictably, certain
themes ran through many of the panels. Climate
change and related discussions on the presentationof the environmental sciences were popular, hardly
surprising given the current political dialogue on
policy surrounding environmental governance both
nationally and globally.
In a world where media portrayal has become
paramount, one of the biggest challenges facing sci-
entists today is that of being able to communicate
their research. Accordingly, the ethics and mechan-
ics of scientific journalism also played an important
role at the conference, with many sessions focussingon the way in which science can be presented and
sold to a consumer public.
Wise Up: The truth about TV sciencePRODUCER: Sonya PembertonCHAIR: Graham PhillipsSPEAKERS: Peter Rees, Catherine Marciniak, Nalaka
Gunawardene, Sonya Pemberton
Television shows such as MythBusters have proved
that, contrary to popular belief, science can sell. etrick, as creator Peter Rees claimed in this session,
lies in not labelling the material as science. Other
panellists seemed to agree, discussing how success-
ful shows present narratives which integrate research
seamlessly, turning science into entertainment.
A different perspective was provided by TVE
Asia Pacific producer Nalaka Gunawardene, who dis-
cussed the broadcasting model adopted by developing
countries when dealing with science based shows.
Gunawardene described what he called the digital
model, as opposed to the traditional lineal narrative
broadcasting model used in the developed world and
epitomised by the science documentary. is digital
model has been used to attract those under 30s to sci-
ence broadcasting, a group of media consumers more
familiar with eclectic models of presentation.
Mythbusters official website :http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/NOVA (popular science TV program in the US) officialwebsite: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/A new kind of science mediator:http://ec.europa.eu/research/headlines/news/article_04_09_08_en.htmlResearch-TV: promoting research excellence :http://www.research-tv.com/
A review of the5th World
Conference of
ScienceJournalists
In April 2007, while we were sitting in the librarydully staring out at the end of summer, Melbournewas hosting the 5th World Conference of ScienceJournalists. The conference, which spanned twodays and included guest speakers and panellistsfrom around the world, provided participants withthe chance to engage with one of the most urgentquestions facing modern society: how should
science be communicated?
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
6/62
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
7/62
5
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
5TH WORLD CONFERENCE OF SCIENCE JOURNALISTS
Biasing Scientific InformationPRODUCER: Tim waites, Melissa TrudingerCHAIR: Robyn WilliamsINTRODUCTION: John Brumby,
SPEAKERS: Chris Mooney, Jia Hepeng
British chemist George Porter once asked if
we should force science down the throats of those
who have no taste for it, if it was our duty to drag
people kicking and screaming into the twenty-firstcentury. He concluded, quite rightly, that it was.
e panellists in this session would have agreed
with him. Chris Mooney and Jia Hepeng discussed
the contrasting problems faced by American and
Chinese scientists in trying to communicate with
the government over scientific issues. Mooney
suggested that, in America, where science is forced
to compete with a deaf political structure and a
media culture more interested in Anna Nicole
Smith than geology, scientists need to take up a
new approach, one akin to ultimate fighting. Only
in this way will scientists defend their research and
prevent it from being misused or suppressed.
In contrast, Jia Hepeng described how the
Chinese government uses science journalism as
a propaganda tool, strangling true research and
hindering interaction between the scientific com-
munity and the general public. Perhaps it truly is
time to develop a team of International Ultimate
Science Fighters who will defend the integrity of
scientific research.
e Crisis in Chinas Science Journalism http://www.scidev.net/Opinions/index.cfm?fuseaction=readOpinions&itemid=578&language=1Science Journalism: A Bias in Favour of Truth
Who Owns Science?PRODUCER: Richard Jefferson
Richard Jefferson proposes a radical idea: do
away with the current patent regime by patenting
everything. While this might sound counter-intui-
tive, Jefferson claims that patenting everything, butmaking patent use dependent on a code of behaviour
rather than cash based transfers could create a form
of open-source access that would benefit everyone,
especially those involved in the life sciences. At pres-
ent, the emphasis in biotechnology lies on the tools
rather than the building which creates an envi-
ronment that prevents growth, as those who most
need access to resources cannot get it. Sound com-
plex? It is, but its also a fascinating proposal. For
more information, see his comprehensive website at
www.patentlens.net.
Stem Cells and BioethicsPRODUCER: Chee Chee LeungCHAIR: Robin Marantz HenigSPEAKERS: Geoff Carr, Mal Washer, Janet Salisbury,
Peter Mountford
No conference on science journalism would be
complete without a discussion of the controversialtopic of stem cell research. Topics examined by pan-
ellists in this session varied widely, from the origin
of the controversy as a Western or Christian phe-
nomenon, to the need for reporters to focus more on
the ethics of the research itself rather than substi-
tuting such a discussion for one based on a discourse
of potential benefit.
e Skeptical Christian: Embryonic Stem Cell Research:http://www.skepticalchristian.com/embryonicstemcellrese
arch.htmHuman Stem Cell Research - All Viewpoints: http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htmEthics of Stem Cell Research: http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/human/ethicssc.cfmWhat are Some Issues in Stem Cell Research: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/stemcells/scissues/
Reporting Climate ChangePRODUCER: Simon TorokCHAIR: Wilson da SilvaSPEAKERS: Kevin Hennessy, Geoff Love, Ian Lowe
PANEL: Chris Mooney, Simon Torok
Reporting on climate change has had a patchyhistory, not least because much of the science
involved is so complex that science journalists
have had trouble distilling it into forms that the
general public can digest. is session provided
a brief look at the troubling trends in reporting,
notably the skewing of scientific evidence which
results in public misconceptions. One such ex-
ample is the continual focus on the role of land
rather than ocean masses with regards to climate
change. e differences between reporting in thedeveloped world and the developing world were
also discussed.
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
8/62
In our first edition, The Triple Helix (University of Melbourne) published a
thought-provoking article considering the potential and obstacles facing ahuman papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program. Since that article, theAustralian Government has initiated the National HPV Vaccination Programto provide the HPV vaccine Gardasil free to all females aged between 12and 26. In this edition, Vivien Li of The Triple Helix spoke to Professor IanFrazer, 2006 Australian of the Year and co-inventor of the HPV vaccine,about his career, vaccine policy and the future of medical research.
A conversationwith Ian Frazer
CareerTTH: What has being awarded Australian of
the Year meant to you? Has it given you a greater
platform on which to influence health policy or
research?
Prof Frazer: It has certainly made my life a lot busier
and I have become rather more of a politician and
rather less the scientist over the course of the last
couple of years. Ive used the opportunity of being
Australian of the Year to promote things important
to me, including what it means to be an Australianand why science is important in society. It has
also given me the opportunity to talk about the
importance of medical research and looking after
the health of the community, and to address the
community about how we should make sure that
the benefits of medical research are made available
all the way across the world.
TTH: Your thoughts on other medical researchers
and importance accorded to science and medical
research in Australia? Prof Frazer: My contribution to medical research
has been fairly small in comparison with the medical
researchers in Australia who have won Nobel Prizes
such as Barry Marshall, Robin Warren and PeterDoherty, each of whom stand out as people who have
made significant changes in the way that we think
about how the bodys defence against infections
work and how infection causes diseases. Its
interesting to note Australias research strength in
infectious diseases and in the bodys defence against
such diseases. Its a great privilege to have been given
the opportunity to take part in the exciting scientific
environment that has been set up by the opinion
leaders and inspiring researchers of the past.
TTH: How much clinical work did you do whilst
conducting research?
Prof Frazer: Ive done quite a lot of clinical work while
Ive been doing my research. Indeed I looked back and
counted up and thereve been about 16 different clinical
trials over the course of the last 25 years. Ive always
seen the translation of basic laboratory research into
something useful in clinical practice as particularly
important, and have given that a high priority in my
scheme of things, so that until about 1999, I was stillpracticing as a clinician on a regular basis. I have to
say these days I dont see patients except in the course
of the clinical trials Im involved with.
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
9/62
7
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
A CONVERSATION WITH IAN FRAZER
Research and VaccinesTTH: How did you first enter into your research in
cervical cancer?
Prof Frazer: e research work that I was doing
in the early 1980s was focused on viral infectionsand particularly in persisting viral infections. I
was looking at a cohort of men who had persisting
hepatitis B virus infection and many of them were
at risk for what was subsequently found out to be
HIV/AIDS. When we realised these men were
significantly immune suppressed, it provided an
opportunity to study diseases that were enhanced
by immunosuppression.
One of the findings of the study of these patients
was that they were having great difficulty getting
rid of Papilloma virus infections and indeed were
developing pre-cancer around the back passage
as a consequence of the infection. is was really
interesting because first of all, papilloma virus had
recently been identified as the virus responsible
for cervical cancer, and therefore there was a great
interest in persisting papilloma virus infections as
linked to cancer. Secondly, this was the first time to
my knowledge that it had been shown that taking
away the immune system encouraged the growth of
a cancer in humans, and indeed both in humans andanimals that still remains a relatively controversial
area. So this was, if you like, a low hanging fruit
to target for cancer control where there was some
prospect of doing something because a vaccine
might be able to prevent the infection responsible
for the disease.
TTH: Could you briefly describe the research
process involved in developing Gardasil? What
sorts of difficulties did you face?
Prof Frazer: We set out to work on the virus by tryingto build a Papilloma virus. en and currently we
cant grow this virus in the lab. Whenever you want
to study an immune response, you would need to
have a source for the virus. So we used then relatively
novel recombinant DNA technology to build
the building blocks of the virus and much to our
surprise, the building blocks which comprised the
shell of the virus assembled themselves into what we
now call virus-like particles, in other words empty
virus, without us having to do very much about it,
except to use the right expression system and the
right bit of the virus genes. is had to be done to
some extent by trial and error, and it took about a
year for my colleague, the late Dr Jian Zhou, and I
to come up with a means where you could produce
virus-like particles. e biggest problem was not
knowing for sure that the process could succeed
and we had to do all sorts of quite complex things
to make the virus-like particles. In fact, when wegot the recipe right, they made themselves, and that
was just as well, because there wouldnt have been a
vaccine if that had not been the case.
TTH: How did you go from the discovery in the
laboratory to actual production of the vaccine? What
insights did your gain from the commercialisation
process?
Prof Frazer: We used the virus-like particles in the
laboratory to show that they were immunogenic
in other words, you got an immune response
if you injected them into an animal. Having done
that, there real ly wasnt very much more that could
be done by us and we passed the technology on
through CSL limited, an Australian biotechnology
company, to Merck & Co., Inc., because it was clear
that if there was to be a vaccine against cervical
cancer it would be based on the virus-like particles;
the precedent was the hepatitis B vaccine made by
similar technology.
Most of the process of commercia lisation washanded over to the companies, as they clearly had
an interest. We consulted with them extensively,
perhaps most about the nature of the disease and
what we understood of that. But a lot of what we
thought we knew in those days was wrong, and we
relied considerably on the companies to fund the
very extensive epidemiological studies undertaken
to define the natural history of papilloma virus
infection and its association with cervical cancer.
Along the way of course we learnt quite a lot about
what was necessary to make a commercial product.e driving force for commercialisation is whether
the product can be made at a cost that will allow the
company to make money off it, and whether there
is a large enough market to ensure that they do.
is is rather different from the scientist and the
clinicians point of view as they are seeking effective
interventions and treatments, and the cost and
commerciality are not the highest priority.
TTH: Did the drug discovery and commercialisation
processes in your case differ from the current
processes facing Australian biotech? Are there any
lessons for aspiring researchers?
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
10/62
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
8 A CONVERSATION WITH IAN FRAZER
Prof Frazer: Not really. e bottom line for this was
that we had developed a mature product. It wasnt
really a platform technology and there wasnt too
much further basic science development that needed
to be done. is enabled us to license the technology
directly to the big pharmaceutical companies in
the way that might not be so possible these days
for a product still in preclinical development. e
companies still faced the problems of production
scale-up and phase 1, 2, 3 clinical testing, as would
have been the case for us, if we had done the work
in Australia.
I think that the most important lesson that I have
learnt throughout all this is that you have to have
a product in mind when commercialising research,
rather than an idea, and that you have to consider
what clinical trials you would do to validate that
product for the label that you would want to see on
the bottle. If any of the clinical trials are going to
be long and expensive then the product will have to
be particularly useful and valuable, and have a largeand widespread market. Products with more defined
niches might require simpler clinical trials being
developed in a less expensive and extensive way. I
think that the most important thing is to evaluate
both the science and commerciality at an early stage
in the process of product commercialisation .
TTH: Given your involvement in developing
Gardasil, do you feel that you have an obligation to
ensure equitable access to the vaccine in Australia
and overseas?Prof Frazer: I think that any scientist that is involved
in developing a biological or other pharmaceutical
product has an obligation to ensure that everything
possible is done to ensure equitable access to the
product. Around the world, the reality is that
future wars, if there are wars, will be fought over
access to food, water, education and health, rather
than over territory, and if we build divides between
the developing and developed world in access tohealthcare, then were not doing anybody any
favours.
We need a new model for the commercialisation
of biotechnology one which allows the companies
that do the work to make the money back in the
developed world, and which will also enable the
developing world to get the benefit. ere arent
easy models for this in the current economic system,
apart from improving the health and welfare of the
countries that are currently relatively impoverished
through providing fair opportunity for them to
make wealth for themselves, and unfortunately this
is a slow and uncertain process. We as individuals,
governments, and nations must see it as a moral
imperative to make the new health care products
available in the developing world at costs that they
can afford. e cost differential will be a tax of some
sort on prosperity of the developed world.
TTH: What are your current research interests?
Prof Frazer: I focus very largely on developingimmunotherapy for persisting viral infections. We
are working still on papilloma virus, but also thinking
about hepatitis C and herpes viruses. e problems
in this area are to work out technologies that will
allow therapeutic vaccines to work, since the current
model seems to be wrong. e simple approach of
immunising to introduce cytotoxic T cells doesnt
seem to be sufficient, at least in human disease.
TTH: What are your thoughts on some peoples
fears of the potential dangers of vaccines? Given that
some of these beliefs are prevalent even in highlyeducated parents, what do you think can be done to
counter such fears?
Prof Frazer: e dangers of vaccines are in my opinion
grossly overstated. e vaccines that we already have
go through extensive clinical trials to demonstrate
not only efficacy but safety. Whilst it is true that
there will be potential side effects for any vaccine,
these will be very rare relative to the severity of the
diseases we are trying to prevent. Polio vaccines are
very effective at preventing polio howver the live
polio vaccine, which is the cheapest and easiest to
use, occasionally causes polio. Its far better to have
a very occasional case of polio due to a vaccine strain
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
11/62
9
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
I think that we need to make our future scientists into the equivalentof movie stars and sports stars. The solution to future problems will
come from science and we really need to make scientists realisethat theyre appreciated in the community.
A CONVERSATION WITH IAN FRAZER
or a reassortment between vaccines and wild strains,
than to have epidemics of polio throughout the
world with a significant number of deaths as a result.
So its not so much a matter of potential danger of
vaccines, but the relative risk of the vaccines versus
the risk of not having the vaccines. I think that weneed to make sure we do everything we can to make
vaccine products safe, but we need to remind people
that the consequences of being not vaccinated are
very significant indeed. For the HPV vaccine, the
risk is of death from HPV associated cancer, and
the available vaccines can prevent 70% of that risk.
TTH: Do you think current efforts to develop
vaccines are adequate? Similarly, what are your
thoughts on the current state of vaccine research,
funding, availability and distribution around the
world, especial ly in developing countries?
Prof Frazer: Worldwide, I think that the development
of vaccines has become a high priority, and both big
pharma and biomedical research people continue to
see the potential in vaccines. New vaccines that have
become available for rotavirus, against meningococcal
C, against pneumococcus, against papilloma virus
have shown that there is still potential to develop
many useful vaccines for significant global markets.
I think that we could always spend more on vaccinedevelopment. At the moment, the critical thing
is also to spend more on understanding the basic
science underlying technologies that lead to good
vaccines, because I think we have probably broken
off most of the low-hanging fruit now and the future
is going to involve developing new vaccine strategies
of which we are an integral part and that includes
the basic research that underpins the practical and
applied aspects of vaccine development.
TTH: You are involved with the World Health
Organisations (WHO) Expanded Vaccine Initiative.How does this help to improve the access to and
affordability of vaccines in the developing world?
Prof Frazer: e WHO is a useful policy setter,
though it has limited resources at its disposal. By
getting expert opinions together, it can achieve a
consensus that a particular product or the means
of delivering the product is useful in a way that
allows countries, emerging nations particularly,
to use that information to leverage support for the
use of that product in their country. Its important
for health ministers in emerging nations to see that
the consensus expert opinions that the WHO put
together can be useful.
TTH: If you were the Federal Health Minister,
what sorts of initiatives would you undertake?
Prof Frazer: I am not the Federal Health Minister,
so fortunately I dont have to consider and prioritise
the entire spectrum of initiatives desirable to ensure
the future health of our nation. One thing that any
federal Health Minister is likely to wish to do is tostrengthen government support of basic biomedical
research, and another is to maintain and enhance the
National Health and Medical Research Council as a
means of public health education. e initiatives that
have been put in place to encourage the translation
of research into practical products through the
which will produce better immune responses of the
sort we need to protect against infections where the
virus either changes very rapidly or where it can hide
itself from the immune system.
TTH: In particular, do you think Australia has a
responsibility in the Asia-Pacific region in relation
to vaccine research, manufacture and deployment?
Do you think Australias participation in the GAVIalliance is the correct first step, and what other
initiatives do you think Australia could take?
Prof Frazer: Clearly, Australia has a responsibility to
promote the development of appropriate vaccines in
Australia, for Australians and also presumably for the
South East Asian region. We have nevertheless to be
careful not to be patronising. Its up to each country
to decide what vaccines they need and what they
want, but if there were, for example, the potential to
develop a malaria vaccine, I think its a responsibility
of countries with the resources and expertise to try
and do that. e GAVI alliance is an important partof that, but I think that the critical thing is for our
government to invest in biomedical research it
will benefit not only Australia, but also the region
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
12/62
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
10
various federal government initiatives schemes for
translational research such as targeted research grants
should also be maintained. Also, the issue of health
care inequities, particularly in aboriginal communities
and immigrant communities, must be addressed.
The FutureTTH: Many recent breakthroughs in medicine,
including yours, have been in the area of immunology. Do
you think this is a particularly promising field currently?
Prof Frazer: Immunology offers a solution to a
large part of health problems in the future because
inflammation is behind many chronic diseases
including cardiovascular disease and degenerative
diseases in the brain, and because immunotherapy will
be the potential solution for many of the other problems
we face, including cancer and chronic infectious
disease. I think in the next 25 years, there are going
to be significant breakthroughs in the understanding
of the human genome and how the variability that
exists in all of us is an important determinant of what
diseases we are at risk for. By modifying peoples risk
for a disease through environmental changes, we can
already achieve a lot and if we understand who are
particularly at risk, then we can certainly move the
field forward faster in terms of prevention of disease.
TTH: In your speech to the Queensland Media
Club last year, you noted that Australia produces
3% of the worlds biomedical scientific output from
0.5% of the worlds population, and yet we only
manage to translate this into rather less than 1% of
the worlds pharmaceutical sales. Do you see this
situation changing anytime in the near future?
Prof Frazer: I think in the future well do better in
translating our biomedical research. In Australia,
there has been a major cultural shift over the last 10
to 15 years towards applying basic research for thebenefit of human kind. ere is a long lag time when
that sort of change takes place, because basically it is
25 years from the time you start to develop products
before you see them. I think that now the message
has got across that the basic research we do should
wherever possible actually be applied.
TTH: Do you think enough emphasis is given in
schools and universities to motivate todays youth
into undertaking medical research?
Prof Frazer: I think that we need to make our future
scientists into the equivalent of movie stars and sports
stars. e solution to most problems society faces will
come from science and we really need to make scientists
realise that theyre appreciated in the community.
TTH: Is there any particular national or state
model (either in Australia or overseas) that you
would consider particularly successful or conduciveto scientific research and worthy of emulation?
Prof Frazer: I think that Australias model in basic
and applied research is now a good one. I think that
the most important thing is to encourage people to
go into science. One problem lies in the dropping
participation rate in high school science education.
We need to encourage people to realise that science
is actual ly the way that the world works, and that it
tests hypothesis and comes up with answers. It is
not received wisdom and its not divine inspiration
that produces answers to problems; rather its
experimental research, which requires people to be
trained as scientists. erefore, we need to increase
scientific literacy in the whole community and at the
same time increase the number of people who might
wish to train to be applied and basic scientists in the
future, by making careers in science more attractive,
more secure, and more financial ly rewarding .
The Triple Helix is grateful for Professor
Frazers kind assistance with this interview.
A CONVERSATION WITH IAN FRAZER
Are you interested incontributing to The TripleHelix? We look forwardto hearing from you at
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
13/62
Roll up your Entertainment
Did you ever wish that you could roll up your television and take itwith you? Or have a television that covers an entire wall like GuyMontag in Fahrenheit 451? Were you amazed by the transparentcomputer screens in Minority Report? These products may not betoo far-fetched thanks to a device known as an OLED.
Just as floppy disks were replaced by CDs and
VCRs by DVDs, OLEDs may be the next revolution
in the video screen industry. e television and com-
puter screens would be made up of organic light-emit-ting diodes, or OLEDs. OLEDs are semiconductors
which emit light when organic materials are subjected
to an electric current. is procedure is called elec-
trophosphorescence [1]. Currently, video technology
is composed of man-made materials, but what makes
OLEDs fascinating is that they are built with organic
compounds. Even with competition from current
television technology, OLEDs have the potential
to revolutionize the television industry. One of the
OLEDs main competitors is the LCD (liquid crystaldisplay). ough it may seem as if OLEDs and LCDs
would be similar because they are both video technol-
ogy, they are different in respect to their structure,
energy usage, overall quality, and manufacturing pro-
cess. Instead of blocking light like inorganic LCDs,
OLEDs emit light [2]. Because LCDs block light
from a backlight, they require forty percent more
energy than OLEDs on average [2]. e reason for
this large difference is that OLEDs do not consume
energy when not in use [2]. A black OLED pixel is
truly black because it does not emit light; however, ablack LCD pixel wastes energy by blocking the back-
light behind it [3]. In fact, an OLED display only
needs between two and ten volts to operate [1].
Since OLEDs do not have a backlight, can
be supported on a thin, flexible plastic substrate,
and are made from thin organic layers instead of a
thicker liquid crystal component, they are thinner
than LCDs. Consequently, an OLED television
weighs about forty percent less than a comparable
LCD television [4]. A drawback of LCDs is that
they are viewing angle dependent, which means that
if the screen is viewed outside of a maximum angle,
the image will be distorted. However, OLEDs are
not viewing angle dependent, and have a far superior
viewing angle of 170 degrees [5]. Compared to the
video response rate of a millisecond of other televi-
sion technologies in the market (plasma and cathoderay tube), LCDs are slow [2]. However, the Kodak
active matrix OLED can refresh two hundred times
a second [5]. OLEDs are brighter and have more
contrast than LCDs and can be used in a wider range
of temperatures [2]. In addition, OLEDs are capable
of displaying 16 million colors, while a typical cam-
era LCD can only display 262,000 colors [6].
OLEDs even outperform LCDs in the manufac-
turing process. Although the manufacturing pro-
cess and components for televisions made with these
two technologies are similar, the production process
for OLED televisions is easier because OLEDs are
composed of fewer parts [10]. It is easier to apply
Rebecca Krall, Carnegie Mellon University
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
14/62
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
12
the organic compound to the substrate of an OLED
than it is to apply the liquid crystals to the substrate
of an LCD. In a similar way as a home inkjet printer
prints a page by spraying the ink, the OLEDs can be
applied to the substrate using an inkjet printer [13].
Most importantly, because they are organic, OLEDsare environmentally friendly.
Besides televisions, OLED technology has
other practical applications, such as light fixtures,
keyboards, and bookmarks; and innovative uses
including Post-It OLEDs, OLEDs in clothing,
and a breaking-news OLED newspaper. By creat-
ing an OLED with a flexible substrate, a foldable
OLED is produced. Foldable OLEDs have many
potential uses because they are resilient and light.
Any electronic device that is transported often, suchas a cell phone, could benefit from a flexible OLED
because the screen would not be as likely to crack
[2]. Bookmarks are another application of flexible
OLEDS. Avnish Gautam designed a concept prod-
uct called the MARK bookmark, which is a regular
bookmark during the day, but glows to the desired
preference at night. is year, the bookmark won
the Red Dot Award in the category of best design
[7]. OLEDs in clothing and OLED newspapers can
be created from foldable OLEDs as well [2].
White OLEDs only emit white light, and they
are superior to the current methods of lighting like
fluorescent and incandescent. Light emitted by a
white OLED is true-color, brighter, and more effi-
cient than white light emitted by these other sources
[2]. White OLEDs could be used to make a window
that is transparent in the daytime and emits light at
night. ese windows would save money and energy
per watt, whereas the typical incandescent bulb pro-
duces between 10 and 15 [8]. OLED lights would
even be a better alternative to fluorescent bulbs
which are hard to recycle because of their harmful
chemicals [8]. OLED lights could help reduce the
price of lighting, which costs U.S. consumers $58billion a year, and reduce the amount of energy used
for lighting, which constitutes twenty-two percent
of electricity used each year in the United States [8].
Despite the fact that OLEDs have this potential,
it will be hard to convince people to invest in this
technology when incandescent bulbs continue to be
so inexpensive, the prices of fluorescent bulbs con-
tinue to drop, and the revenue from OLED lights
is predicted to be less than the revenue from other
OLED products [8]. is does not entice producers
to concentrate on this application.
The ArtLebedev Studio has designed a keyboard called
Optimus Maximus whose keys have OLED lights.
e keys are customizable, and can display a picture
of the current key function. For instance, pushing
the shift key causes the letter keys to change from
lower case to upper case. Letters of a different lan-
guage or musical notes could even be programmed
to display on a key without having to buy a new key-
board. Two hundred keyboards were available forpreorder earlier this year at a cost of $1,564 and are
now completely sold out. However, cheaper models
will be offered, but a limited number of features wil l
be available [9].
Every innovation comes with its own battles and
obstacles. is is true for OLED technology as well.
A major concern is its composition of organic mate-
by acting as a regular window if there is enough sun-
light outside [8]. OLED lights are being considered
as an alternative to incandescent and fluorescent
bulbs especially since energy is becoming more ex-
pensive and people are becoming more concerned
about global warming [8]. OLED lights would bemore efficient than incandescent lights, whose main
emission is heat, not light [8]. A prototype white
OLED by Universal Display produced 31 lumens
rials that decay over time, but other problems plague
the widespread production of OLEDs. Currently,
the red, green, and blue pixels age at differing rates
because of their unique compositions. is implies
a gradual distortion of the image as time progresses
[10]. Inclement weather exposure can also ruin thistechnology. e brightness of each pixel is deter-
mined by a transistor backpane. As larger screens
have more pixels they need more transistors. is
Currently, video technology is composed of man-made
materials, but what makes OLEDs fascinating is that theyare built with organic compounds. Even with competition from
current television technology, OLEDs have thepotential to revolutionize the television industry.
ROLL UP YOUR ENTERTAINMENT
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
15/62
13
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
leads to a greater chance of a transistor failing, and
distortion of the screen [2].
Besides production dilemmas, price is also influ-
encing companies decisions to produce OLED tele-
visions. e price of LCD televisions is falling; for
$1,000, less than the price of what a small OLED
television would cost, a consumer could buy a forty
inch plasma television [10]. Overall, manufacturers
need to find a way to reduce the cost of production,
so the retail price of an OLED TV can compete
with LCD and plasma screens, and simultaneously
improve the technology. Samsung may have a lead
in this area because their OLED screens are created
by using the existing LCD manufacturing process.
us, if the company decides to produce more
OLED screens a new factory is not required [11].On December 1, 2007, Sony was the first com-
pany to sell an OLED television commercially when
they released the XEL-1 television in Japan. eir
XEL-1 has an eleven inch screen size, and its thin-
nest point is .12 inches. However, this television still
suffers from the short lifetime of OLEDs, and will
only work for 30,000 hours [2]. e televisions cost
approximately $2,500, and have been available in the
United States since the 2008 Consumer Electronics
Show [12]. A twenty-seven inch prototype has beenshowcased by Sony, but it was composed of four in-
dividual displays [2]. is method is not very effec-
tive because it is hard for each display to have exactly
the same colors. Samsung demonstrated televisions
that were bigger than Sonys by five inches, but some
of the pixels were locked to one color [11]. Seiko
Epson Corporation also tried their hand at the new
technology. Although their televisions had no de-
fects, they only had an eight inch screen size [11].
e Sony televisions will face competition in 2009
when a thirty inch television is anticipated to belaunched by Toshiba [10]. Currently, OLED screens
are used in some Nokia cell phones, iriver digital au-
dio players, and the Kodak EasyShare camera [2,5].
ough OLEDs have not come into the mainstream,
NanoMarkets has predicted that the market for
OLEDs will reach $10.9 billion by 2010.
e success, profitability, and sustenance of
OLEDs will be largely determined by consumer
response. If consumers do not show interest in
OLEDs, producers will not improve them and offerupdates. Additional ly, companies do not produce
products with every component the best of its kind
because the average person does not find it necessary
to own such a product. erefore, unless consumers
find that OLEDs are much better than current tech-
nology or find the price of an OLED product com-
mensurate with its quality, companies do not want
to invest in designing new OLED products. is
may result in this new technologys potential being
wasted. Currently, the production of OLED televi-
sions by Sony - the first big OLED product - and
consumers response to the TVs will send signals to
other companies and will influence whether OLEDs
will become part of our future or part of a history
book.
References:
[1] http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/oled.htm[2]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&ref=feedburner&articleId=71057FFB-E7F2-99DF-31F90CA4C7EB060B[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_light-
emitting_diode[4] http://lifestyle.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=11112[5] http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=1473/1492&pq-locale=en_US[6] http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=1473/1683/1485&pq-locale=en_US[7] http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/oled[8] http://www.news.com/Tripping-the-lights-organic/2100-1008_3-6111872.html[9 ]http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/[10] http://www.news.com/Still-waiting-for-OLED-TVs/2100-1041_3-6203556.html[11] http://www.pcworld.com/printable/
articleid,138864/printable.html#[12] http://www.news.com/Picture-fuzzy-for-organic-thin-TVs/2100-7353_3-6225133.html?tag=newsmap
[13] http://www.oled-display.net/oled-making
A 3.8 cm (1.5 in) OLED Screen (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OLEDScreen.jpg)
ROLL UP YOUR ENTERTAINMENT
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
16/62
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
17/62
HumanComputer
Symbiosis
In 1769 Wolfgang von Kempelin builtthe worlds first chess playing automa-tion, a humanoid wooden device calledThe Turk. He toured the world with his
artificial chess player, defeating notableplayers such as Napoleon Bonaparte,Thomas Edison, and Edgar Allen Poe. Thecatch, of course, was that the Turk wasntan automaton at all: it was powered bya small flesh-and-blood chess master sit-ting inside, controlling the mannequinsmotions [1].
In 2005, Amazon.com released the second
coming of the Turk, called Amazon MechanicalTurk. e Mechanical Turk is Artificial Artificial
Intelligence, a service that lets programmers create
computer programs that simulate genuine intelli-
gence by performing complex tasks that traditional
computer systems cannot, for example extracting
artist and album information from a picture of a CD
cover. Such programs contain tasks that cannot read-
ily be performed by todays computers, which range
from reading text, to identifying images, to tran-
scribing audio. Nevertheless the computer simulates
performing these Human Intelligence Tasks bydelegating them to live human workers. e human
workers have no idea what they are doing, as they are
only extensions of the machine [1, 2].
Humans and machines have lived in close proxim-
ity since the invention of tools, and computers have
been widely used to solve problems since their incep-
tion. However, the relationship between humans and
computers is one sided. Computer programs exist as
extensions of human minds, carrying out processes
originating in the minds of their programmers- theydo all the work as part of a human controlled sys-
tem. e two Turks turn this relationship upon its
head, so that human intelligence is harnessed as part
of a larger automated system integrating humans
into algorithms. In this mechanism humans and
computers both have contributions to the task at
hand, forming a mutualistic symbiotic relationship.
For historical reasons, this goal is called Human
Computer Symbiosis.
Human Intelligence vs. ComputerIntelligence: Symbiosis
e irony of the two Turks is that after 200 years,the field of artificial intelligence has created the ma-
chine that von Kempelin could only fake. Now thereare several chess computers that can defeat humanmasters, but even these powerful computers cannottell a King and Queen apart by looking at them. eproblem lies in that humans and computers excelin different areas of intelligence. In activities that
humans do with ease, like reading, or identifyingobjects in images, computers fail. In activities thatcomputers dominate, such as gathering and storinginformation, or carrying out numeric computation,people fail [3]. is is addressed in the symbioticrelationship of the Mechanical Turk.
As early as 1960, J.C.R. Licklider noted thiscomplementary nature of human and computerintelligence, and suggested a symbiotic relationshipbetween the two, in which humans and computerswould each contribute their own expertise to solve
problems together. is kind of mutual system pro-vided an alternative to hard theories of artificialintelligence, which dictated that computers should
replace humans entirely [4].
Pranai Tandon, Cornell University
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
18/62
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
16
Lickliders seminal paper went largely unnoticed,
and until very recently the only attempts to include
humans inside intelligent computer systems were
industrial algorithms to optimize factory schedules
or obscure topics like genetic algorithms [3]. Now
his idea is finally coming to fruition in the omnipres-ence of online CAPTCHAs.
First Steps into the PublicSuch symbiosis is no longer found only in ab-
stract thought experiments and research fields. In
fact, the first attempts at bringing symbiotic systems
in the general public were games. Luis von Ahn et
al., pioneers in the nascent field of human based
computation, started by introducing the ESP Game.
In this game, two randomly connected players are
shown the same picture and have to submit as many
keywords for it as possible. As soon as the two play-
ers agree upon a keyword, they each receive points
and move on to the next picture [7].
It is not obvious that the players are doing workfor the game, but the keywords they produce tend tobe excellent keywords for the content of the picture.
anks to some clever anti-cheating measures, theplayers quickly and accurately make labels for theimages. Its even less apparent that the players arein the same situation as the theoretical CAPTCHAsweatshop. e computers cannot label images justas they cannot read CAPTCHAs, while people per-form these tasks easily. e individual players func-tion as problem solving units in the larger system ofthe ESP Game, and put their own expertise to work but they dont even get paid for it.
e same game-based model for using human
intelligence for problem solving is used by Google intheir popular Google Image Labeler game. However,Google actually puts the results to work: the playersin the Google game produce image labels used toimprove Google Image Search.
OmnipresenceIts not even necessary for end users to take the
initiative to play a game in order to be involved in asymbiotic system. ere is already a spate of web ser-vices that harness the intellectual power of unwittingusers. e most famous is the Google PageRank AI,which ranks web pages fetched for a specific querybased on votes that humans submit by creatinghyperlinks on their own web pages [2]. Even moredirect are tag based sites. A tag is a short summaryof information presented in any medium, be it text,audio, or visual. An example is Flickr, at www.flickr.com, a website that hosts user photographs so thattheir friends can view, comment upon, and tag them.Another is Del.icio.us, at www.del.icio.us, that usesthe same mechanism as Flickr, but users post theirfavorite web sites instead of their photos. ese
numerous tag sites use the tags that users create topower their prominent search functions, which ac-
curately find user submitted content for strangers.
CAPTCHA: A Case Study in Symbiosis.e classic CAPTCHA is the blurred image of
a word that must be entered before obtaining a free
email account. A CAPTCHA, or a Completely
Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers
and Humans Apart, is a kind of Turing Test, a
test used to determine whether an entity tak-ing the test is a human or a computer. e idea is
that humans can read the blurred word with ease,
while computers cannot at all . is precludes auto-
mated programs from running over and over and
registering hundreds of email accounts. Bypassing
CAPTCHAs is of paramount importance to spam
companies, who need these accounts to send mail
in bulk [5].
Automated bypass of CAPTCHAs is the ideal
symbiotic task because both human and computerintelligence is required. Spam corporations have
allegedly set up CAPTCHA sweatshops in de-
veloping countries [5, 6]. e idea behind such
an attack is a highly useful as a way to explore the
possibilities of symbiosis. Here, an automated
computer program fills out an e-mail registration
form, and then sends the CAPTCHAs it cannot
solve to human workers who can solve them. Both
parties contribute their respective abilities to be-
come one coherent problem solving unit. Licklider
affirms that, It seems likely that the contributionsof human operators and equipment will blend
together so completely in many operations that
it will become difficult to separate them neatly in
analysis [4]. In this respect his prediction became
true the two entities merge into one hybrid sys-
tem that is neither computer nor human. Together
the computers and human workers pass the Turing
test on a scale unattainable to either party alone.
By definition, it is no longer possible to differenti-
ate between the automated hybrid sweatshop and
regular human users. As such this kind of activity
is difficult to monitor, so there have been no proven
cases of such CAPTCHA sweatshops.
HUMAN COMPUTER SYMBIOSIS
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
19/62
17
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
Social RamificationsIts unlikely that players of the Google Image
Labeler game, avid users of Flickr, or Del.icio.uswill ever see a cent in return for the their work assymbionts. Is this fair? ese websites make vast
sums of money based on content specific ad revenue.e targeted advertisements that appear at the sideof Google and Flickr rely upon the tags that userscreate, though users do not receive any of the moneythey produce. All participation on such websites isvoluntary; users need not use Flickr and it is evenpossible to disable Google from searching a website.ere must be another incentive for workers to keepon working, one that does not involve pay. Socialanalysis is critical to the success of symbiosis.
ere are two viable methods of keeping people
involved. e first is participatory, where participantswork for free because they desire to; the second iscontractual, where participants work for pay under aformal contract between employer and employee [8].
e first method requires the system to be ap-pealing and enjoyable. e image labeling games are
just that games. People play these games for fun,and complete intellectual work only as a byproduct oftheir enjoyment. Flickr and Del.icio.us are marketedas social networks, in which friends digitally interactwith each other. Participants in both systems never
realize they are doing work. Although players andusers unintentionally generate millions in ad rev-enue, they continue working for fun. ey cede theirprofit interest in order to join in on the game.
e second method, working for compensation,tends to elicit an unfounded adverse reaction [5].e Mechanical Turk is derided all over online fo-rums as a sweatshop, but in symbiotic principle itis no different from games and social networkingsites. What makes the Mechanical Turk especiallythreatening is the idea and the economics of having
a computer in command.
However, the socioeconomic model created bythe Mechanical Turk is no different from trends inmechanization and computerization that have beenoccurring for the past twenty years. Historically,mechanization increases demand for high levelanalytic jobs to plan overall operations, decreasesdemand for middle organizers who store informa-tion, and increases demand for manual labor thatcannot be mechanized [9]. A canonical example isthat a single modern desktop computer can hold
more information than an army of bookkeepers,and can retrieve any piece of data far more quicklythan any human. What the computer cannot dois produce the information to be stored, or physi-
cally act using the information. In short, demand forhigh and low level jobs is increased, but middle levelorganization jobs are eliminated. e MechanicalTurk does this as well there is increased demandfor high level programmers who create Mechanical
Turk programs and the low level workers who solveproblems the computers cannot, but the demand formiddle organization is eliminated by the computerprogram. ere is little to fear of the MechanicalTurk, it is only more of the same.
ConclusionFrom the original Turk to the Mechanical
Turk, the ideas of human computer symbiosishave remained almost the same, though the fieldof computer science has considerably advanced thecause. Lickliders vision of a seamlessly integrated
living and working experience between humans andcomputers seems to be coming true: it is no longerpossible to draw a clear cut line between human andcomputer contributions in some commonplace ac-tions, like Google searches. But even though thereare many hybrid systems deployed at present, truesymbiosis has not yet developed between humansand computers. e overall goal of symbiosis shouldnot be forgotten; mutalistic symbionts cannot livewithout each other, and are better off because of
their relationship.
References
[1] Barr, Jeff and Cabreara, Luis. AI Gets a Brain.ACMQueue 4.4 (2006): 24-29.[2] Williams, Sam. Pennies for Web Jobs. TechnologyReview March 2006: [3] Lesh, N. Marks, J. Rich, C. Sidner, C. L. Man-Computer Symbiosis Revisited: Achieving NaturalCommunication and Collaboration with Computers.IECE Transactions on Information and Systems E Series87.6 (2004):1290-1298.[4] Licklider, J.C.R. Man-Computer Symbiosis IRETransactions on Human Factors in Electronics HRE-1
(1960): 4-11.[5] Von Ahn, Luis. CAPTCHA, e ESP Game,and Other Stuff. Keynote speech in the Proceedingsof the Fifteenth Innovative Applications of ArtificialIntelligence Conference. Available at < http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~biglou/research.html>[6] Connor, Allen. Are You Googles Gopher? BBCNews September 2006: < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5336284.stm>[7] von Ahn, Luis. Labeling Images with a ComputerGame. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference onHuman factors in computing systems, (2004): 319-326.[8] Kosurokoff, Alexander. Human Based GeneticAlgorithms IEEE Conference on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics. 5 (2001): 3464-3469.[9] Autor, David. Computerization and the Division ofLabor: How Computerization Changes what People DoKeynote lecture at the Seventh Annual NBER-NCAER
Neemrana Conference.
HUMAN COMPUTER SYMBIOSIS
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
20/62
en, in 2004, Ashley began showing signs
of puberty. Her parents presented her case to the
Childrens Hospital of the University of Washington,
requesting a hysterectomy and estrogen therapy to
stunt her growth. e reasons were complicated, the
precedents unset, and after much consideration, the
hospital s institutional ethics committee authorized
the performance of the procedures. For the remain-
der of her life Ashley will retain the appearance of
being nine. She will never develop sexually, and wil lforever have the mental capacity of a three month
old [1]. In 2006 her parents wrote a blog in response
to ethicists criticisms of what is now termed the
Ashley Treatment. e world responded with a
barrage of opinions, suggestions, congratulations,
and fears. e controversy of Ashleys story revolves
around questions, not of medicine, but of morals. It
has caused society to redefine specific rights for dis-
abled persons, reevaluate the perception of human
dignity, and, ultimately, face the shortcomings of a
societal system that fails to meet the needs of not
only those who are disabled but those who seek to
ensure health and happiness for the disabled.
The
Caseof thePillowAngel
Julia Piper, UC Berkeley
In January 1997 a pillow angel was born. Her parents named herAshley. Three months later her brain stopped developing and she wasdiagnosed with static encephalopathy. She smiled and grew like anynormal child but six years later she still could not talk, walk, or eatwithout assistance. Completely dependent on her parents, she is a pil-low angel, a nonambulatory child that sweetly and quietly rests when
placed on any pillow.Static encephalopathy is a non-degenerative
condition encompassing a wide range of disabilities
generally defined by brain damage that interferes
with development and function. e symptoms can
range from spastic movements and speech delay
to mental retardation, with the type and extent of
damage varying greatly [2]. Ashley is an extreme
case with symptoms including an inability to sit
up, ambulate, survive without a gastrotomy-tube,
or use language. However, she is able to respond toothers through smiling and vocalization, and prior
to undergoing any treatment, experienced normal
physical development [1].
It was when Ashley first entered puberty, that
her parents approached the Childrens Hospital in
Seattle with a request for surgical procedures and
hormone treatment. In conjunction with the hos-
pital, Ashleys parents and a board of physicians
and ethicists eventually developed a series of pro-
cedures that they felt would improve the conditionof Ashleys life [3]. A hysterectomy was performed
with the intent to alleviate monthly menstrual pains
and bleeding that may frighten a disabled patient;
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
21/62
19
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
Ashleys breast buds were removed to decrease the
possibility of molestation by a caregiver; estrogen
was administered to stunt her growth and her ap-
pendix was removed purely as a precaution. For
Ashley, being small will help decrease bedsores, a
major problem for non-ambulatory patients, andallow her to continue being an active part of her
familys life [1]. By ensuring that Ashley will never
exceed the physical maturity of a nine year old, her
parents have enabled themselves to continue caring
for her without the need of an impersonal moving
apparatus or additional assistants.
Because Ashleys treatment was the first of its
kind to be publicly announced, her doctors, Dr.
Gunther and Dr. Diekema, were careful to explain
their justification for performing these controversialprocedures. While they acknowledge the historical
stigma around hysterectomies and their association
with forced sterilization, they write that because
Ashley has no realistic reproductive aspirations,
sterilization is irrelevant. ey claim that the pro-
cedure has many advantages, including the possible
reduction of the risk of thrombosis and uterine and
cervical cancer, and minimal long-term complica-
tions. Although Dr. Gunther and Dr. Diekema
attempt to introduce a new option for parents ofdisabled patients, they explicitly state that each case
should be reviewed on an individual basis [1].
With the publication of Dr. Gunther and Dr.
Diekemas medical paper and Ashleys parents
blog, there came a wide array of responses, includ-
ing much criticism regarding the rights of disabled
people and the violation of human dignity. e
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
was one of the first to strongly comment against the
procedure, stating that Ashley had been denied herbasic human rights through draconian interventions
with her person [4].
In addition, 580 individuals and over 133 or-
ganizations signed an online document, entitled A
Statement of Solidarity for the Dignity of People
with Disabilities, stating that although Ashleys
parents love her, the procedure is unethical because
it strips Ashley of her dignity. Although this docu-
ment wields no legal power, it is indicative of a strong
interest to ensure the well-being of the disabled, andthe need for society to provide better support for
the care of the disabled and stronger laws to ensure
their dignity [6].
When it became apparent that a societal whip-
lash against Ashleys treatment was occurring,
many bioethicists responded by arguing in favor of
the morality and the compassion of the treatment
Ashley received. George Dvorsky, of the Board of
Directors for the Institute for Ethics and EmergingTechnologies, has been an adamant defender of
Ashleys parents stating that, the concept of hu-
man dignity must be coupled with cognitive capac-
ity if it is to have any meaning at all. Clearly this girl
has dignity of some kind, but it does not diminish
her dignity for decisions to be made on her behalf ...
she will never regret those decisions, and her quality
of life will be much better because of the decision
of her parents [7]. Peter Singer, famed bioethicist
and author of Writings on an Ethical Life, agrees
with Dvorsky on this point and further argue that it
is an illogical objection to say that the treatment is
unnatural, as all medical treatment is unnatural to
some degree [8].
Dr. Wilfond, Director of the Treuman Katz
Center for Pediatric Bioethics at Childrens Hospital
in Seattle, approaches Ashleys case of growth at-
tenuation as a health care issue rather than one
revolving around a question of dignity. He reminds
us that pediatricians are responsible for constantly
monitoring and manipulating all patients growth.In Ashleys case, this is particularly relevant as she is
dependant on a feeding tube. Her parents and doc-
tors have complete control over the amount of food
and nutrients she intakes, and consequently they de-
termine how much she can grow. Dr. Wilfond sug-
gests that one of the main reasons Ashleys growth
attenuation has been met with criticism is because,
while it is normal for doctors and parents to control
a large amount of their childrens growth, the gener-
ally held perception is that more growth is better.
Dr. Wilfond attests, however, that while this is usu-
ally the case, more growth would actually be worse
for Ashley. He reiterates that a pediatricians job is
to do what is best for the child, whether it is more
growth or less growth, and that due to the rarity of
Ashleys case, usual approaches did not appropri-
ately apply [9].
While some believe that these procedures were
beneficial in Ashleys case, many emphasize the
possibility of misuse. Pediatricians Dr. Brosco and
Dr. Feudtner warn that if this procedure is to bepracticed, it must be done with the strictest legal
and ethical regulations. While they do not specify
what these regulations should be, Dr Brosco and
THE CASE OF THE PILLOW ANGEL
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
22/62
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
20
Dr Freudtner explicitly state that the collective
community response ought to be the deciding voice
[5].
Generally, the objections and justifications for
Ashleys treatment revolve around the concept of
a loss versus a gain. ose in opposition tend to,
though not universally, believe that by permanently
altering Ashleys physical state without her consent
there is a loss of dignity and therefore a violation of
her human rights [4]. ose in support of the treat-
ment tend to argue, though again not universally,
that there is no loss of dignity, because she will men-
tally and emotionally gain happiness and comfort
from the procedure. Despite the polarity of opinions,
most reasonable sources, regardless of their stance,
agree with Arthur Caplan, director of the Center forBioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, when
he states that keeping Ashley small is a pharmaco-
logical solution for a social failure [10]. From this
acknowledgment of a fundamental societal failure
there grows a real possibility for societal change,
especially as more and more people pursue options
similar to the Ashley Treatment.
While the procedures Ashleys parents pursued
have sparked heated controversy, such a strong re-
sponse from all sides indicates that society cares andis invested in the ease and dignity of not only Ashleys
existence but that of the entire disabled community.
Whether society agrees on how to treat her or not,
those who are voicing their opinions are united in
that they believe they are speaking and working for
the betterment of those who are disabled and de-
fenseless. From these differences we can only hope
that there will be a united effort at some point to
bring societal, governmental, and medical benefits
to those who require it most, to those most quali-
fied for these medical treatments and least capablein deciding their futures, to Ashley and her fellow
angels.
References:
[1] Diekema, Douglas S; Gunther, Daniel F. AttenuatingGrowth in Children With Profound DevelopmentalDisability: A New Approach to an Old Dilemma.Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 160(2006): 1013-1017[2] Hitzfelder, Nancy. Static Encephalopathy: ABasis Explanation for Parents. Easter Seals. July1999. [3] Ashleys Mom and Dad. e Ashley Treatment.25 Mar. 2007. [4] Modify the System, Not the Person. DisabilityRights Education and Defense Fund. 7 Jan. 2007. [5] Brosco, Jeffrey P; Feudtner, Chris. GrowthAttenuation: A Diminutive Solution to a DauntingProblem Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine160 (2006):1077-1078[6] Fitzmaurice, Susan. Statement of Solidarity for theDignity of People with Disabilities. 2007 A DisabledCommunitys Response to Ashleys Treatment [7] Dvorsky, George. Helping Families Care for theHelpless Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies11 Jun. 2006 [8] Singer, Peter A Convenient Truth. e NewYork Times 26 Jan. 2007 < http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/opinion/26singer.html?ex=1327467600&en=7a4359e1131b4fc3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>[9] Wilfond, Benjamin. Phone interview. 20 Apr. 2007.[10] Caplan, Arthur. Is Peter Pan Treatment a MoralChoice? MSNBC 5 Jan. 2007 [11] Elliott, Francis. Allow Active Euthanasia forDisabled Babies, Doctors Urge, e Independent. 5Nov. 2006. [12] Convention on the Rights of Persons withDisabilities. Office of the United Nations HighCommissioners for Human Rights. 2007 http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/disabilities-convention.htm#10[13] Nichols, Michelle. Nations quickly sign U.N.disabled rights treaty. Reuters 30 Mar. 2007
THE CASE OF THE PILLOW ANGEL
Are you interested inproviding financial support to
The Triple Helix? If so, we lookforward to hearing from you at
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
23/62
Transgenic AnimalsPaving the Way to New Frontiers inMedical and Scientific Research
Margaret Mallari, University of Chicago
A transgenic animal is one that carries a foreigngene (called transgene) that has been deliberatelyinserted into its genome using recombinant DNAtechnology, allowing foreign DNA to be incorporat-ed into the DNA of a recipient animal and expressed
in its cells. Transgenic animals such as geneticallymanipulated mice, pigs, goats, sheep, and chickensare blazing a genetic trail that continues to improvethe realms of science, medicine, and the economy.Today, these animals play vital roles in medicine al-lowing researchers to observe, understand, prevent,and perhaps even cure diseases, particularly those
with largely genetic components.
Playing God: How Transgenic Animalsare Created
A mouse that functions as a model for human can-cer? How can one create such a frankenanimal? Mosttransgenic animals are designed using two methods:the embryonic stem cell method and the pronucleus
method. In the embryonic stem cell method, embry-onic stem cells (ESCs) are grown in tissue culturewith the desired foreign DNA. First, the gene desired(for example, a gene responsible for specific proteinsregulating insulin production) is isolated and vec-
tored into a transgene. In the construction of a trans-gene, the donor animal s promoter sequence, a regionof DNA that regulates gene transcription, is replacedby promoter and enhancer sequences that guaranteeproper function of the gene in the tissues and organsof the recipient animal [1]. ese sequences ensurethat insulin is produced in a transgenic cows milk byexpressing the foreign DNA for insulin productionin the cows mammary glands.
Once the transgene has been created, the ESCs
are exposed to the DNA in tissue culture and somewill incorporate the foreign DNA. en, the suc-cessfully transformed animal ESCs, or those thathave incorporated the foreign DNA, are injected into
A small, furry animal with beady anxiouseyes and a tapering tail may just be the key
to curing a plethora of diseases rangingfrom cancer, Alzheimers and Huntington s,to cystic fibrosis and hemophilia.
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
24/62
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
22
the inner cell masses of the host animals blastocysts,which develop into embryos that are implanted intothe receptive uterus of the pseudopregnant host fe-male (accomplished by mating a female animal witha vasectomized or sterilized male of the same species)
[1]. e mating triggers the secretion of hormones inthe female animal required to make her uterus recep-tive to the implanted embryo. e second method of
[6]. ere are a couple of methods for creating trans-genic mice that function as human cancer models. Onemethod involves removing specific proteins linked toT cell lymphocyte (white blood cells responsible forcellular immunity) formation in the animal remov-
ing one gene produces a knock-out animal, while re-moving both genes produces a double knock-out [4].Another method of creating mice cancer models is to
TRANSGENIC ANIMALS
creating transgenic animals is the pronucleus methodwhere eggs are harvested from host females and fertil-ized in vitro, outside the females womb. Using mi-
croinjection, 200-300 copies of the foreign DNA areinjected into the pronucleus (the nucleus of a gameteduring fertilization) of the male host animals sperm[2]. e altered sperm is then able to fertilize the egg.e embryo that develops from this fertilization is im-planted in a pseudopregnant foster mother, as in theESC method. e pronucleus method produces onlya small percentage of transgenic animals that carry andpass the added gene from one generation to the next.ese animals are called founder animals. To establisha transgenic strain, founder animals are crossed with
non-transgenic animals to produce animals that areheterozygous for the transgene. ese heterozygousanimals, or those that carry one copy of the desiredforeign gene from a founder parent and one copy of thenormal gene from a non-transgenic parent of the samespecies, can then be mated with one another to pro-duce transgenic animals that are homozygous for theforeign inserted gene. ese homozygous transgenicanimals fully express the inserted foreign DNA.
Both the embryonic stem cell method and the
pronucleus method have been successful in pro-ducing transgenic mice. However, transgenic live-stock such as pigs, sheep, cows, and chickens havepresently only been created using the pronucleusmethod. Genetic manipulation is less efficient, moreexpensive and time consuming in the production oflarger animals, thus the pronucleus method is moreeffective of the two [2].
Transgenic Mice: Models for CancerDespite an evolutionary distance of 75 million
years between the two species, the mouse genome isremarkably similar to the human genome (90% of themouse genome can be lined up with large segmentsof the human genome and over 80% of mouse genesfunction precisely in the same way as those in humans)
insert specific genes that cause cancer development orinhibit T cell formation into mouse genomes.
In both cases, mouse cancer models (either car-rying cancer-triggering transgenes or with knocked-out genes) serve as vital constructs in the observa-tion of cell development, tumor formation, and celldeath. is work is fueling one of the most importantrevolutions in twenty-first century medicinethe ul-timate understanding of cancer as a genetic disease.e very concept of placing cancer in a genetically in-herited disease category introduces new and contro-versial questions into the foreground. If cancer has agenetic component, can one place genetic markers on
potentially cancer-causing genes? Can these genes bespliced, deactivated, or kept in control to preventthe onset of cancer? If the technology were availableto go through with such a procedure, would it beethical? Would the public approve or disapprove?
Biomedical researchers at the University ofKentucky have engineered a transgenic mouse thatis resistant to cancer and holds much applied clinicalpromise. Dr. Rangnekar, Ph.D., of the Universityof Kentucky reported in the Oct. 1 issue of CancerResearch that the transgenic mice created have in-
corporated Par-4, a tumor suppressor gene, and asresult are resistant to both induced and spontaneoustumors in several tissues [7]. In addition, the expres-sion of the Par-4 transgene in the transgenic micehas shown very little to no effect on their health, fer-tility, or life span. In fact, the transgenic mice withthe Par-4 incorporated transgene were shown to livelonger lives than their non-transgenic counterpartsperhaps because the Par-4 transgene prevented thedevelopment of tumors (hepatocarcinomas andlymphomas) as the mice aged [7]. Dr. Rangnekar
explains, e interesting part of this study is thatthis kil ler gene (the tPar-4 transgene) is selective forkilling cancer cells. It will not kill normal cells andthere are very, very few selective molecules out therelike this. [7]
Are humans playing God by manipulating DNA,life itself, and tampering with something
God did not intend humanity to meddle with?
-
8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition
25/62
23
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
e discovery of the effects of Par-4 protein ontransgenic mice as models of human cancer holdsmuch promise in applied medical treatments forhuman cancer without the harmful consequencesof chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Since the
Par-4 prot