tth edition 2nd edition

8/14/2019 TTH Edition 2nd Edition

1/62


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.


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


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


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?


6/62


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.


8/62

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.


9/62

7


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?


10/62


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


11/62

9


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.


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


12/62


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.


Are you interested incontributing to The TripleHelix? We look forwardto hearing from you at

[email protected]


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


14/62


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


15/62

13


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


16/62


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


18/62


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


19/62

17


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


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;


21/62

19


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


22/62


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

[email protected]


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.


24/62


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?


25/62

23


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

tth edition 2nd edition

Documents