when “is” meets “ought”...when “is” meets “ought” marcus moretti t he fifth...

THE SCIENCE IN SOCIETY REVIEWSpring 2011 | NUS A Production of The Triple Helix

The International Journal of Science, Society and Law

When “Is” Meets “Ought”

Why Do They Not Believe in God?Value of Doubt and the Scientific Method in Scientists’ Community

Insects as Food for Thought

ASU • Berkeley • Brown • Cambridge • CMU • Cornell • Georgetown • Harvard • JHU • NUS • Penn • UChicago • UCL • UNC Chapel Hill • University of Melbourne • UCSD • Yale

NUS.indb i 4/7/2011 11:59:44 AM

THE TRIPLE HELIXA global forum for science in society

EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM

Chief Executive OfficerBharat Kilaru

Executive Editor-in-ChiefDayan Li

Chief Production OfficerChikaodili Okaneme

Executive Director of E-PublishingZain Pasha

Executive Director of Science PolicyKaren Hong

Chief Operations Officer, North AmericaJennifer Ong

Chief Operations Officer, EuropeFrancesca Day

Chief Operations Officer, AsiaFelix Chew

Chief Financial OfficerJim Snyder

Chief Marketing OfficerMounica Yanamandala

INTERNATIONAL STAFF

Senior Literary EditorsDhruba BanerjeeVictoria PhanRobert QiLinda XiaAngela Yu

Senior Production EditorsAdam EsmailIndra EkmanisLaura TiedemannRobert TinkleSia Sin WeiJovian Yu

Senior E-Publishing EditorsAnna Collins Jae Kwan Jang Rahul Kishore John Lee Jacob Parzen

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

ChairmanKevin Hwang

Erwin WangKalil AbdullahMelissa MatareseJoel GabreManisha BhattacharyaJulia Piper

TRIPLE HELIX CHAPTERS

North America ChaptersArizona State University Brown University Carnegie Mellon University Cornell University Dartmouth College Georgetown University Georgia Institute of TechnologyHarvard UniversityJohns Hopkins University Massachusetts Institute of Technology Northwestern University Ohio State UniversityUniversity of California, BerkeleyUniversity of California,San Diego University of Chicago University of North Carolina, Chapel HillUniversity of Pennsylvania Yale University

Europe ChaptersCambridge University University College London

Asia ChaptersNational University of Singapore Peking University Hong Kong University

Australia ChaptersUniversity of Melbourne University of Sydney Monash University

The Triple Helix, Inc. is the world’s largest completely student-run organization dedicated to taking an interdisciplinary approach toward evaluating the true impact of historical and modern advances in

science.

Work with tomorrow’s leadersOur international operations unite talented undergraduates with a drive for excellence at

over 25 top universities around the world.

Imagine your readershipBring fresh perspectives and your own analysis to our academic journal, The Science in Society Review, which publishes International Features

across all of our chapters.

Reach our global audienceThe E-publishing division showcases the latest in scientific breakthroughs and policy developments through editorials and multimedia

presentations.

Catalyze change and shape the futureOur new Science Policy Division will engage students, academic institutions, public leaders, and the community in discussion and debate about the most pressing and complex issues

that face our world today.

All of the students involved in The Triple Helix understand that the fast pace of scientific innovation only further underscores the importance of examining the ethical, economic, social, and legal implications of new ideas and technologies — only then can we completely understand how they will change our everyday lives, and perhaps even the norms

of our society.

Come join us!

NUS.indb 2 4/7/2011 11:59:54 AM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NUSSSUUUU

Cover Article4 When “Is” Meets “Ought” Marcus Morett i, Yale

Local Articles7 Drugged-up Superbrains Koh Wan Zi

11 TO CLONE OR NOT TO CLONE: Endangered Species Conservation Sudha Sundaram

14 Insects as Food for Thought Emelyne Teo

16 I Recognize You: Not Just Skin Deep Zhang Qiong

18 Why Do They Not Believe in God? --Value of Doubt and the Scientifi c Tommy Shi Zheng Method in Scientists’ Community

International Features 22 Cash for Kidneys, or, How Do We Solve the Doni Bloomfi eld, UChicago Kidney Shortage Problem?

26 Your Genes Belong to Us Gengshi Chen,Cambridge 28 The Ethics of Research and Clinical Trial Outsourcing Dayan Li, Harvard

30 Science Research Papers: Can You Always Trust Chikaodili Okaneme, Cornell What You Read?

Cover design courtesy of Natalie Koh Ting Li, University of Melbourne

To Clone or Not to Clone: Current limitations and its possible ramifications11

Your Genes?Reasons why they might not actually be yours26

Science of Morality: A Darwinian account for the repulsion we feel at suffering4

NUS.indb 1 4/7/2011 11:59:58 AM

2 THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011 © 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

INSIDE TTH

2 THE TRIPLE HELIX S

INSIDE TTH

STAFF AT NUS

PresidentMabel Seah

Chief Operating OfficerChin You Chuen

Editor-in-ChiefSia Sin Wei

Managing EditorRebecca Tan

IT DirectorsJiao Meng Lu

SecretariesLow Mary-Ruth Ern-LynZhang Qiong

WritersZhang QiongEmelyn Teo Sudha SundaramKoh WanziTommy Shi Zheng

Faculty AdvisorProf Andrew Wee T SAssoc. Prof Chin Wee Shong

Message from the Incoming Chief Operating Officer, Asia It is my great honour to lead The Triple Helix, NUS chapter for the next academic year. Through the years, The Triple Helix has become a more established and recognized organization both in the local and international context. Such extensive outreach has allowed and encouraged discussion and debate on multidisciplinary issues in the triad of science, society and law.

It is my hope that the TTH-NUS chapter will be able to have a wider outreach into the community at large and to reach out to other Asian universities to promote the same sort of multi-disciplinary discussions. We are also currently building up on our online presence and trying to collaborate with other organizations. This year will also see more projects to be initiated and undertaken by our chapter executive board and members.

Last but not least, I would like to thank all our Advisors and Readers for your continued interest and support.

Best Regards,

Chin You ChuenCOONational University of Singapore (NUS)The Triple Helix, [email protected]://triplehelixnus.wordpress.com/

Message from the Incoming Editor in ChiefIn my capacity as editor in chief of our local chapter, I am pleased to present our latest issue of our publication of our local chapter. I wish to thank our local literary and business team that have contributed to our journal for their hardwork and effort.

Our articles for this issue covers a diverse range of modern issues in the sciences, especially in the life sciences. For example, our local contributors have covered topics as diverse as conservation biology, the science-religion relationship, neuropharmacology, entomology and cognitive psychology. Taken together, they provide support to the notion that societal issues cannot be separated from scientific issues. For almost every scientific finding and development, the societal impact cannot be underestimated.

Thank you for reading and supporting us. If you are interested in becoming a part of a team which examines the science-society relationship, please drop us an email. Thank you.

Sia Sin WeiEditor-in-ChiefThe Triple Helix ,[email protected]

NUS.indb 2 4/7/2011 12:00:00 PM

INSIDE TTH

3THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

Message from the CEOIn tandem with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference in Washington D.C., The Triple Helix hosted its largest Leadership Summit with close to a hundred students in attendance from nearly fifteen chapters across three different continents. From professional speakers to an international poster competition, the experience was a paragon of the passion we demonstrate in every division of our young organization: from science policy events and freelance e-publishing work to the scholarly literary work ahead.

Before you look through The Science in Society Review issue awaiting you, I hope to share with you my insight into the level of work behind every word. The articles in the following pages are derived from an outstanding level of editorial and literary commitment. Each piece represents not only the work of the writer, but also the work of one-on-one associate editors, a highly effective editorial board, astute international senior literary editors, an impressive faculty review board, and an imaginative production staff that reinvents the journal every issue. As you read the following pieces, we hope you will come to appreciate the truly professional level of work that goes into every paragraph. And it is with that same dedication to improvement that every division of The Triple Helix creates progress every day.

The last year has been a transitional one as we established a fresh new online presence, brought back divisions in finance and marketing, and established a whole new standard for internal communication. We have truly come a long way from the handful of students meeting in coffee shops not even four years ago. But we have so many more dreams for TTH ahead. We invite you as readers and supporters to come forward and develop new visions that will push us to the next level. The opportunity is upon us and I hope that you will join us in our work towards a global forum for science in society.

Sincerely,Bharat Kilaru, CEOThe Triple Helix, Inc.

Message from the CPO and EEiCWe are proud to present you with another edition of The Science and Society Review! Over the past year, the Literary and Production departments have taken great care in ensuring that our science articles were published at their utmost quality. In order to achieve this, our staff members have invested a tremendous amount of time into editing and designing all the journals for publication. Realizing that coordination between Literary and Production throughout all steps of journal development is paramount for an efficient process, our departments collaborated with each other more than ever. Ultimately, our joint efforts have resulted in a publication that we feel best displays the talent of our student writers and the professionalism of our organization. As both of us prepare to graduate this May, we hope that the upcoming EEiC and CPO continue to strengthen our departments’ teamwork and overall productivity. Although handling a large number of articles and journals each semester can be a challenge, we trust that by sharing our expertise and experiences with our staff, future Literary and Production leaders will be more than ready to create the next series of outstanding Science and Society Review publications. It was certainly a pleasure serving The Triple Helix during our undergraduate careers, and we hope that you enjoy reading the Spring 2011 issue. Please continue to participate in this important dialogue on the role of science in society, whether through The Triple Helix or beyond. Sincerely,

Chikaodili Okaneme and Dayan LiChief Production Officer and Executive Editor-in-Chief

NUS.indb 3 4/7/2011 12:00:00 PM


YALE

When “Is” Meets “Ought”Marcus Moretti

The fifth anniversary of the Afghanistan War loomed when Sgt. 1st Class Jared Monti and his troops were fatally exposed to the enemy. The roaring blades of

an American helicopter, sent to resupply Sgt. Monti’s unit near the Afghan-Pakistan border, roused lurking Taliban forces nearby. The ensuing storm of AK-47 rounds sent the unit scurrying behind the largest boulders within sight. After Sgt. Monti secured him-self, he spotted one of his men downed and vulnerable. On his first two attempts to ditch his cover and rescue the downed comrade, he was thwarted by incoming fire. His third go was

stopped by a grenade that exploded just close enough to kill him instantly.

At Sgt. Monti’s Medal of Honor ceremony three years later, President Obama, presenting the award for the first time, asked in his panegyric, “Do we really grasp the meaning

of these values? Do we truly understand the nature of these virtues, to serve and to sacri-fice?” [1]. For millennia, phi-losophers have wrestled with questions like these, which seek explanations for why acts like Sgt. Monti’s so imbrue the soul. But the discipline argu-ably making the most strides toward such explanations at

Evolutionary scientists are looking for evidence in favor

of a Darwinian account for the repulsion we feel at perceiving

human suffering. Some call this search the “science of

morality”

NUS.indb 4 4/7/2011 12:00:16 PM

YALE


present is not philosophy, but biology.Evolutionary scientists are looking for evidence in favor

of a Darwinian account for the repulsion we feel at perceiv-ing human suffering. Some call this search the “science of morality” because it may ultimately usurp philosophy’s dominion over ethics. As you read this, experiments that will accelerate this transfer of power are nearing completion all over the globe.

The most common participants in these types of experi-ments are rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees, primates with whom we share up to 98% of our DNA, and our closest animal relatives. Their behavior defies the old anthropocentric claim that other apes, unlike us, are incapable of ignoring their own interests in order to protect those of another ape. Our language manifests this presumed hierarchy of creatures: when we call people “animalistic,” “reptilian,” or “Nean-derthals,” we mean that they are stupid and self-centered.

Believers of said anthropocentric claim may be said to be, as the writer Douglas Foster put it, in “anthropodenial.” Their hierarchy has been discredited, and a new spate of experiments hammers what may be the final nails into its coffin. In one experiment (Palagi et al., 2009), gelada baboons were shown images of conspecifics—members of the same species—yawning in hopes of finding a tendency for lower primates to identity with conspecifics [2]. As the experi-menters predicted, when these animals observed yawns, they yawned back.

This mimicry evinces a tendency to self-identify with conspecifics, which is the precondition for empathetic rela-tions. Empathetic behavior in apes has indeed been well documented. In one study (Carter, J.D., 2008), a society of chimps was shown to be especially accommodating toward one of its members afflicted with cerebral palsy [3]. Not one of the disabled chimp’s neighbors exploited his deficiencies, which would be expected from truly solipsistic organisms. In fact, the group’s alpha male paid special attention to the needs of the disabled chimp and groomed him more gently than he did the others.

These studies revive the evolutionary theory of altruism that is known as the “group-selection” theory. Its guiding rule is that animal communities in which members are cooperators will win out over communities of selfish creatures. The theory was discredited in the 1970s by biologist Richard Dawkins who posed a problem that he termed that of “subversion from within.” The problem is that some members may enjoy the spoils of others’ sacrifices without sacrificing anything themselves. These free-riders have a fitness advantage over the cooperators because they would enjoy, for instance, the protection afforded by those who stand guard, but never risk injury or death to fend off predators themselves. It appears that the free-riders would then win out over cooperators under group-selection theory, and cooperation would not be selected for.

What may allow group-selection theory to overcome this worry is the observed tendency of primates to recip-rocate negatively, that is, to take retributive action against free-riders. Primates may construct revenge systems, as they have been called in recent studies [4]. Premier primatolo-gist Frans de Waal identifies partner selection as the chief method of enforcing the revenge system. If a partnered male

ape reveals himself to be selfish and uncaring, his lady will promptly dump him. This also happens at the group level: if a member of the community is discovered to be free-riding, then the others may be unwilling to share their food with him.

De Waal, in a recent paper that surveys developments in intra-group cooperation among primates, distinguishes between two types of evolutionary causes for action that are essential to group-selection theory: proximate and ultimate causes [5]. Proximate causes proliferate when the actions they entail immediately benefit the actor. An example of a proximate cause would be thirst. Quenching thirst requires the beast to hydrate itself, a biological necessity. Ultimate causes arise when an action helps the survival of the species, not just the organism, and may not provide any immediate benefits to the actor itself.

Sex drive is a potent example of an ultimate cause. Humans mostly go at it in pursuit of the sensation of stimu-lation and (hopefully) orgasm. Sensual pleasure may be a proximate cause, but one’s body could go on without having sex. The broader survival of the species is what is at stake. Our sex drives are ultimate causes because they make sex something we all feel compelled to do, thereby ensuring homo sapiens’ perpetuation. A lustful population is more likely to thrive and persist than a more subdued one, hence the often gratuitous human sex drive.

Evolutionary biologists have used this distinction be-tween proximate and ultimate causes to explain altruistic acts. The selfless act—the donation of food or the forfeiture of one’s life to save another’s—can be explained by ultimate causes. The tendency for communities with intra-altruism to outcompete less selfless groups, ceteris paribus, allows the altruistic gene to proliferate. The short-term, proximal causes for such sacrifice, if they do exist, are often insuf-ficient to overwhelm the grand loss. The larger force that keeps the population afloat explains the preponderance of behaviors whose personal costs are significantly higher than their personal benefits.

In light of biology’s growing encroachments onto moral territory, a large swath of philosophy may face redundancies. If we are programmed to feel certain ethical obligations and not others, and those obligations have contributed to our species’ success, then what is the use in trying to propose an alternate set of ethical principles? Of course cultures are free to decide on their own positive values (honor, intelligence, etc.), but if there are at base some discoverable, proscriptive maxims, why busy over another set?

Proponents of science’s annexation of moral terri-tory cite the failure on the part of philosophers to reach a consensus on ethics after millennia of deliberation. But this debate is not one-sided. In a 2009 issue of Newsweek,

Proponents of science’s annexation of moral territory

cite the failure on the part of philosophers to reach a consensus on ethics after

millennia of deliberation. But this debate is not one-sided

NUS.indb 5 4/7/2011 12:00:17 PM


YALE

References1. Elliott, Philip. “MoH ceremony honors Monti’s sacrifice.” ArmyTimes, 20 Sep. 2009. Accessed 29 Oct 2010. <http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/09/ap_medal_of_honor_monti_091709/>.2. Carter, J.D. “A Longitudinal Study of Social Tolerance by Chimpanzees Towards a Conspecific with Cerebral Palsy.” International Primatological Society XXII (August 2008), presentation.3. Palagi, E. et al. “Contagious yawning in gelada baboons as a possible expression of empathy.” PNAS 106 (November 2009), 19262-7.

4. Jensen, K. “Punishment and spite, the dark side of cooperation.” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365 (2010), 2723-2735.5. de Waal, Frans B. M. & Malini Suchak. “Prosocial primates: selfish and unselfish motivations.” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365 (2010), 2711-22.6. Begley, Sharon. “Why Do We Rape, Kill, and Sleep Around?” Newsweek, 20 Jun 2009. Accessed 28 Oct 2010. < http://www.newsweek.com/2009/06/19/why-do-we-rape-kill-and-sleep-around.html>.7. http://nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/chimp_health3_h.jpg

science editor Sharon Begley launched a two-tiered attack against evolutionary psychology. She claimed first that the science was reprehensible in itself because it vindicates the “evolution made me do it” excuse [6]. Case in point: a 2000 book called A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion argued that rape is a naturally selected sexual strategy because it improves gene survival. Begley also attacked the field’s premise. Humans, she argued, never stayed in one environment long enough for psychological traits to compete in the epochal contest of natural selection, so what arose instead was a versatile mind that could adapt to inconstant circumstances.

The first of these attacks is not well-grounded. As Begley herself seems to admit in her article, an attempt to discredit a science because its findings depress us is simply bad science. A condition of genuine scientific inquiry is the willingness to accept hard facts if valid experiments uncover them. If evolutionary psychology finds that troubling beliefs and desires come inbuilt, so be it. Even so, that evolution-ary psychology produces repugnant findings is less of a concern than Begley made it out to be. That book that gave rape an evolutionary defense was later disproven by other studies, which pointed out the overwhelming odds against the survival of genes that bestow proclivities toward sexual coercion. Just as one would not expect a community to look fondly on free-riders, one would not expect community members to help a known rapist find food.

The field’s most recent embarrassment was Harvard biologist Marc Hauser’s conviction on eight counts of scien-tific misconduct in his studies of primate morality. Hauser designed his experiments with the hope of identifying more human characteristics in primates, as several of his valid studies did before. His data-fudging was taken by some religious figures, philosophers, and even other scientists as an invalidation of the entire project.

Many scientists, however, have come to the field’s defense. De Waal has pointed out that many areas of sci-entific study have had their fair shares of frauds, including chemistry and physics, but those anomalies did not shutter entire disciplines. Hauser’s misconduct was one unfortunate instance of malpractice and should not be taken to debunk the connection between evolution and morality. De Waal and other primatologists like Jane Goodall should not go unemployed because of one colleague’s misdoings.

Setting these procedural complaints aside, evolution can still only go so far to answer the biggest questions of human existence. As Harvard professor of linguistics Steven Pinker argues, if evolution were the only source of life’s purpose, a man would be wholly fulfilled spending his afternoons at the sperm bank. But this is not so. Even if one believes that sex drive is at root the motive behind all action—whether it’s reading philosophy or playing the violin—a human needs more than science to find his interests and purpose. We search for more than just reproductive success in life, so

evolution could only illuminate our biological proclivities, not our particular hobbies and tastes.

To quarrel with this constraint on science, which holds it to providing knowledge about what is the case and not about what ought to be the case, would be to commit the notorious naturalistic fallacy. The fallacy holds that any statement about how things are cannot be used in an argu-ment that concludes with a statement on how things should be. It highlights a salient gap between facts and obligations, and has been a trump card in moral philosophy since its 1903 articulation by the English philosopher G.E. Moore.

Yet even this hitherto axiomatic principle is under attack. Neuroscientist Sam Harris seeks to refute the naturalistic fallacy in his new book The Moral Landscape, in which he proposes a moral system founded on scientific understandings of well-being. Morality, he argued, is the study of how to improve well-being, so why not use experimentally verified links between behavior and well-being to write social rules? While Harris acknowledges that science has the bulk of its work in this area ahead of it, he insists that science must be what guides ethical discussions in the 21st century.

The viability of arguments like this and of the greater science of morality remains to be seen, but there are some present indicators of the direction of its course. If the innate-ness of our basic moral intuitions receives more and more evidentiary support—and if the present trend continues, it will—then the ancient conflict between evolutionary theory and religion may become more acute. Internationally re-nowned preacher Ravi Zacharias spoke at Yale recently and proselytized on behalf of Christ, citing him as the needle in Western civilization’s moral compass. Harris, a public atheist, takes this argument head-on and asks, why bother to pore through Christ’s teachings when moral standards are inbuilt? It is yet unclear how a complete set of morals could derive from evolutionary theory, but many scientists and philosophers nonetheless pray—or, hope—that a universal set of maxims will one day be found.

As the minds of our fellow apes are shown to have more and more in common with our own, the traditionally clear-cut distinction between man and ape will blur. Since Copernicus, science has consistently reduced the importance of human beings’ role in the universe. Progress will likely devalue our race further, but that could do us some good. Man may be the most sophisticated around, and he has a long way to go before he figures himself out. Conveying pithily this critical truth, the 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was prescient to let his Zarathustra muse, “Man is more ape than many of the apes.”

Marcus Moretti is a sophomore studying Humanities and Political Science at Yale University.

NUS.indb 6 4/7/2011 12:00:17 PM

NUS


Drugged-Up SuperbrainsKoh Wan Zi

The disheartening perception of intellectual inadequacy or lack of capability is no stranger to the scores of workers in today’s rat race and students in increasingly

grueling modern education systems. Certainly, many of us have wished to be just that little bit smarter, or be endowed with better focus and memory to finish the task at hand or ace that test. Thus far however, often the only recourse has been to compensate by redoubling our efforts, or struggling to concentrate while battling countless distractions. Certain cognitive enhancers called nootropics offer the potential for a cognitive boost when we need it, providing a ramping up of focus or creative thought and greater retentive capacity. However, healthy persons are still relatively restricted to access to such approved cognitive boosters. For example, Ritalin and Adderall are prescription only drugs that are used to improve focus and treat patients with attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD). This raises the inevitable question: should nootropics be actively developed and made widely available to the general population? On the individual level, this could lead to greater personal satisfaction, while on a macro level, the economy stands to benefit from greater worker productivity and the potential knowledge gains to society are inestimable.

What Are Nootropics?The word “nootropics” comes from the Greek root noos for mind and tropein for toward [1]. Nootropics are not to be crudely lumped together with all drugs that enhance cognition as they possess characteristics unique to them. This field of mental performance boosters is actually nothing new. It was first coined by Romanian psychologist and chemist Corneliu E. Giurgea in a 1972 paper, which sets out the properties of nootropic drugs as follows:

1. They enhance learning and memory.2. They facilitate the flow of information between the cerebral hemispheres.3. They protect the brain against certain physical or chemical injuries.4. They cause few side effects and have low toxicity, lacking the usual pharmacology of other psychotropic drugs such as sedation or motor stimulation. [2]

It is important to note however, that the above features are not binding and do not absolutely include or exclude a substance as a nootropic drug.

The mechanism of action and molecular basis of many

of these cognitive enhancers are often not clearly known. These drugs are thought to alter the balance of chemicals in the brain by either regulating the release of neurotransmitters involved in information processing, modulating ion chan-nels and receptors, or affecting neuronal gene expression. For example, neurons that respond to the neurotransmitter acetylcholine are involved in concentration, focus, high-order thought processes and formation of new memories. Therefore, drugs that inhibit the breakdown of acetylcholine offer cognitive benefits in terms of increased alertness [3]. Cholinesterase breaks down acetylcholine, and in a similar vein, several cholinesterase inhibitors used in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease have been found to enhance learn-

ing and memory in older, healthy subjects [4].

The oldest of these drugs is Piracetam, which inspired the coining of the term nootropics. First synthesized in 1964, it was originally developed by Belgian pharmaceutical company UCB Group to prevent motion sickness [5]. Piracetam has since surpassed its original purpose and has being used in treating neurological dis-eases such as dementia and Parkin-son’s disease. It has also improved aphasia after stroke and reportedly increases reading comprehension and accuracy in dyslexic children [6]. In addition, it exhibits the protective quality that has come to characterize nootropic drugs, drastically increasing the survival rate of mice that were given the

short acting agent oxydipentonium to halt breathing [7]. Piracetam has also been shown to have certain anti-aging properties. When aged mice were treated orally with high doses of Piracetam for two weeks, they displayed a 30-40% increase in the density of acetylcholine in the frontal cortex, equivalent to the levels found in healthy young mice [8].

Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that Pirace-tam not only helps neurologically impaired individuals, but healthy ones as well. In a double blind, placebo controlled study conducted by neuroscientists Dimond and Brouwers, a group of healthy college students were given 3 x 4 capsules of 400mg Piracetam or an identical dosage of the placebo per day. The subjects were tested three times, once before administration of the drug, the second time a week after drug administration and the third time two weeks after. The study noted a significant increase in verbal learning at the final testing 14 days after Piracetam was first taken. More significantly, the authors go on to conclude in their discus-sion that Piracetam is “a substance that in a specific respect is capable of extending the intellectual functions of man”,

Reprodued from [21]

NUS.indb 7 4/7/2011 12:00:17 PM


NUS

positioning it as the forerunner of a class of performance enhancing drugs [9]. Piracetam possibly heralds the field of nootropics, encapsulating the potential benefits it could yield to individuals and society as a whole if more such drugs were developed and made widely available.

Some of the cognition enhancing psychopharmaceutical products already on the market are prescription drugs that were originally used to treat ADHD but have known off-label uses as study aids that decrease the need to sleep and increase concentration and focus [10]. Modafinil, a drug originally

developed to treat narcolepsy, for instance has being used for non-medical purposes to improve the working memory of healthy individuals. Further adding to its credentials as a cognitive enhancer, modafinil has been found to improve visual pattern recognition, spatial planning, and reaction time. It also improved attention and working memory in sleep-deprived physicians and aviators, exhibiting potential utility outside the laboratory and in real world situations [11].

Doped Up SuperbrainsWith many nootropic drugs specifically enhancing memory or focus, it is no surprise that students subjected to the academic rigours of increasingly competitive education systems are gradually discovering their uses and turning to them for that extra capacity to focus, learn and remember. The most commonly cited reason for using these stimulant drugs is to enhance concentration (58%) and increase alertness (43%), indicating that people are indeed using them for their mental performance enhancing qualities [12]. A 2007 study at a large Midwestern public college in USA found that the lifetime prevalence of non-medical use of prescription stimulants was 8.5%, up from 6% the past year [13]. Furthermore, in a 2005 study of a nationally representative sample of 10 904 randomly selected students across 119 colleges, it was found that 4.1% of American undergraduates had used prescription stimulants for non-medical purposes in the past year. At 12 schools, this figure was greater than 10% and at one school as high as 25% [14]. In an informal poll conducted by Nature that surveyed 1400 people from 60 countries on their attitudes towards cognitive enhancers and whether they had taken them, one out of five respondents responded in the affirmative. With regards to whether healthy adults should be able to take cognitive boosters if they wish to, a high 80% of respondents said yes [15]. Clearly, the support for and use of cognitive stimulators is not a fringe phenomenon and there is a serious possibility that the socially

accepted use of nootropics could gain greater traction. People looking for that extra brain boost are also likely to face no shortage of choice, going by a 2008 working group report from the Academy of Medical Sciences in England which estimates that of the more than 600 treatment compounds being assessed worldwide for neurodegenerative disorders, a large number of cognitive enhancers will emerge over the next few decades [16].

One of the currently most oft used nootropic drugs is Adderall. Ostensibly developed and marketed to treat ADHD, it has sales figures that suggest an alternative use as a cognitive enhancer for healthy individuals. In a 2006 study that found a past year prevalence rate of 5.9% for non-medical use of prescription stimulants in college students, three quarters reported using Adderall [17]. In addition, an article published in The New Yorker cites the anecdotal case of “Alex”, a Harvard graduate who as a student took Adderall to juggle the academic demands placed on him and maintain a social life at the same time. Alex took Adderall regularly during his college years, which gave him the intense focus needed to rush out papers within tight deadlines while managing multiple commitments [18]. McCabe et al. found that the use of Adderall and similar stimulants was more common among students with low grade point averages, and also in colleges with more competitive admission stan-dards, further evidence of a trend among college students to use nootropics to boost their academic performance [14].

Nootropics: Is it Fair?The ground that these smart drugs is gaining among students has led University of Sydney researcher Vince Cakic to put out the possibility that authorities could start testing students for drugs before exams. Cakic recognizes the increasing use of nootropic drugs among students to enhance academic performance. He cites drugs such as selegiline, normally prescribed to treat Parkinson’s disease, as being used as a motivation enhancer, and modafinil, used to treat narcolepsy, for staying alert [19]. Opponents of nootropics have drawn parallels with doped up athletes, saying that these drugs give students an unfair advantage. An inherent problem of this argument is that it implicitly assumes that without nootropics, a level playing field among students is possible or even exists. However, this is problematic as there are genetic factors and numerous social and environmental factors that produce myriad inequalities and make the academic playing field anything but level. Studies have shown that IQ is 50% heritable, and cognitive ability is a significant predictor of academic performance. In addition, resources such as home computer access, private tuition, and better childhood nutrition also contribute to improving academic performance, but they are disproportionately concentrated among the socioeconomically privileged [20]. Clearly, even without nootropics, academic competition is hardly fair, and nootropics could be viewed as simply another factor that contributes to uneven competition grounds. However, while other factors that contribute to inequality are hard to control and level across the board, nootropics can be relatively easily controlled by tighter regulation. This raises the question as to whether nootropics as an additional source of inequality should be allowed to proliferate, when it can instead be more strictly regulated.

On the individual level, [cognitive enhancers] could

lead to greater personal satisfaction, while on a macro level, the economy stands to benefit from greater worker

productivity and the potential knowledge gains to society are

inestimable

NUS.indb 8 4/7/2011 12:00:19 PM

NUS


Another problematic issue associated with noo-tropic use is that like other resource factors that can influence academic performance, nootropics tend to be more common among the affluent. Traditionally less affluent commuter schools have less than one fourth the rate of past year compound use compared with residential campuses that tend to be populated by a richer demographic, and at three historically black colleges, there were no reports of past year non-medical use at all. White students were deemed overall more likely than other ethnicities to engage in nootropic use. Furthermore, as noted previously, students at more competitive and selective colleges were more likely to use cognitive enhancers than those at less selective schools. If the general assump-tion is made that these students, that is, white and enrolled at competitive, prestigious colleges, are wealthier than their counterparts elsewhere, there is cursory evidence to support the claim that non-medical use of cognitive enhancers is indeed more prevalent among the more affluent [16]. Further adding to this disproportion is also the high prices of these drugs that place them outside the means of the less wealthy. This potentially adds additional distance to the divide between the socioeconomic levels in terms of academic performance insofar as these variables influence performance, making it more difficult for the less privileged to keep up with their wealthier peers.

It is also important to consider the explicitly unfair advantage healthy individuals on drugs like Adderall would have over individuals with disorders like ADHD who actu-ally need the drugs to function at the normal baseline. One Ivy League student with attention deficit disorder (ADD) cited in a 2009 review said that if someone without ADD were to take Adderall to gain improved focus, he would never be able to match them even on Adderall himself [16]. In these situations, it is clear that ethically, we cannot say with certainty that healthy students should be allowed to put their brain on steroids and gain an edge over their peers with ADD or other disorders. It is not difficult to see similari-ties between this and competitive sporting arenas, where athletes’ consumption of performance enhancing drugs is deemed as cheating. If use of nootropics should find trac-tion among greater swathes of the college population, and the trend does point in that direction, drug testing before exams could be seriously considered.

Outside of academia, the governing bodies for games such as chess and bridge have recognized the potentially unfair advantage cognitive enhancers could give players in a competitive setting, and have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code in an effort to gain inclusion into the Olympic Games. Under the Code, these organizations test their competitors for drug use before international competitions. Stimulants such as Adderall and Provigil are prohibited, unless taken for medical uses [16]. If these sporting bodies deem it neces-sary to test for drugs, it possibly brings us one step closer to the controversial issue of drug testing before examinations.

What are the Risks?As with any other pharmaceutical substance, nootropics drugs have the potential for abuse. Ritalin and Adderall are regulated by the US federal government as Schedule II

controlled substances, whereby they are considered to have a high potential for abuse and consequent severe psychological and physical dependence. Provigil, a drug that has found off-label to enable mental alertness for extended periods of time, is a Schedule IV drug. It is also deemed to have potential for abuse, albeit to a lesser degree than Ritalin and Adderall. There are also risks associated with abruptly cutting drug intake if already on a regular regimen of the enhancers, and there is a very real possibility that healthy individuals could become over-dependent on the drugs and be unable to function without them [16].

It has also been noted that the enhancement of certain cognitive functions can only be realized at the expense of others. For example, transgenic mice with improved learning and memory function also display greater ability to recall aversive events. Therefore, while exam material might be more easily recalled, with it would also come the burden of easily remembering negative experiences better forgotten. This would have less than desirable effects on mental well being [20]. More pertinently, these drugs have even been used for purposes other than non-medical performance enhancers. There are reports of the pills being crushed into a powder and snorted for a drug-induced high [16]. Clearly, off-label uses of nootropic drugs are not entirely benign and they are certainly not a panacea for individuals seeking mental performance boosts.

A Double-edged SwordHowever, while nootropics may seem to only confer unfair advantages, widen social disparities in terms of school performance, and put users at risk of addiction and over-dependence, it would be foolish to overlook the potential benefits it could offer to society if managed properly. In fact, the selective use of nootropics among those with lower intellectual capacity or from deprived backgrounds has been advocated as a way to enhance educational opportunities for these groups. There are also those who say that the risk of cognitive enhancers fostering inequality is in fact remote, because of the number of studies suggesting that neuroenhancers work best with a low baseline and are less helpful for people who score above average [16]. For example, studies show that with modafinil, the greatest improvement is seen in people with lower IQs. In this way, nootropics might allow underperforming students to better compete with

Reprodued from [22]

NUS.indb 9 4/7/2011 12:00:19 PM


NUS

their peers. Instead of propagating greater inequality, they would paradoxically create a more even playing field in the process and raise academic performance standards. In fact, one review predicts that if nootropics were to be the most cost efficient means of enhancing academic performance, social programmes might push to make them accessible to the under privileged [20]. As the larger portion of benefits is reserved for low performing individuals rather than those who are already doing relatively well, nootropics seem a lot more equitable in this light.

Furthermore, social disparities aside, it would seem counterintuitive to limit the use of cognitive enhancers in insti-tutions of learning. Education, especially in universities, is all about encouraging students to develop and expand their po-tential. It would be difficult to condemn a student for taking cognitive enhancers if he learns more than he would have other-wise. How well a student does in high school and university has significant influence on career opportunities, success in later life and future earnings [16]. If nootropics allows students to perform better in these crucial phases in their education and secure better standards of living later on, the social benefits would be very real. Similarly, if a worker becomes more productive and accomplishes more with the help of neuroenhancers to the benefit of himself and the company, it is difficult to fault him. Zack Lynch, who co-founded NeuroInsights, a company that advises investors on developments in brain-science technology, puts it very nicely when he says that neuroenhancers are not so much about “enhancing”, but rather “enabling” [18]. Nootropics can enable people to accomplish more, empowering less privileged individuals to greater heights.

It is almost hypocritical to prohibit nootropic use on the basis of unequal distribution as other socioeconomic inequalities in education are readily tolerated and we do not see the banning of strategies such as private tuition which is clearly more readily available to the rich [20]. The key here is moderation and control, and also being aware of the potential risks. In fact, the largest benefit nootropics, when taken in moderation, can claim to confer would be to society as a whole rather than to the individual. While nootropics do propagate advantages that not everyone can enjoy and certain individuals will inevitably lose out, society will reap

overall net gains. It would be counterintuitive to deny ben-efits to the whole simply be-cause not everyone can enjoy the boons directly.

Currently, one of the larg-est barriers to greater cultural acceptance and practicality of nootropic use is that they carry inherent risks and are not free from side effects. However, as drug development progresses

and more upcoming nootropics are developed specifically for healthy individuals, tested, and proven to be safe, greater acceptance of nootropics will not be far off. With the ap-propriate safety and regulatory measures in place, there is insufficient reason as to why we should actively resist the proliferation of nootropics in academia or society to accomplish more. As science progresses and we gain new and safer drugs and a better understanding of the work-ings of these cognitive enhancers, nootropics could possibly contribute to a more equitable and productive society.

Koh Wanzi is a student studying Life Sciences and English Literature at the National University of Singapore.

References1. Lanni C, Lenzken SC, Pascale A, Del Vecchio I, Racchi M, Pistoia F, Govoni S. Cognition enhancers between treating and doping the mind. Pharmacol Res. 2008 March; 57(3): 196–213. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2008.02.004. 2. Giurgea C. Pharmacology of integrative activity of the brain. Attempt at nootropic concept in psychopharmacology (Vers une pharmacologie de l’active integrative du cerveau: Tentative du concept nootrope en psychopharmacologie) (in French). Actual Pharmacol (Paris.) 1972; 25: 115–56.3. Cognitive enhancement: All on the mind. The Economist [Internet]. 2008 May 22 [cited 2010 Dec 17]. Available from: http://www.economist.com/node/114027614. Jones R, Morris K, Nutt D. Cognition enhancers. In: Nutt D, Robbins TW, Stimson GV, Ince M, Jackson A, editors. Drugs and the Future: Brain Science, Addiction and Society. New York. Academic Press; 2007.5. Shurte N. What are Nootropics? Smart Drugs to Supercharge Your Brain. Associated Content [Internet]. 2005 Jul 14 [cited 2010 Dec 17]. Available from: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5139/what_are_nootropics_smart_drugs_to_pg2.html?cat=56. xPharm: The comprehensive pharmacology reference. Elsevier Ltd; 2008.7. Giurgea C, Salama M. Nootropic drugs. Prog Neuro Psychopharmacol. 1977; 1:235–247. doi:10.1016/0364-7722(77)90046-7.8. Pilch H, Mueller W. Piracetam elevates muscarinic cholinergic receptor density in the frontal cortex of aged but not of young mice. Psychopharmacology. 1988; 94(1): 74–78. doi: 10.1007/BF00735884.9. Dimond SJ, Brouwers EM. Increase in the power of human memory in normal man through the use of drugs. Psychopharmacology. 1976 Sept 29; 49 (3): 307–9. doi: 10.1007/BF00426834.10. Carey B. Brain enhancement is wrong, right? New York Times [Internet]. 2008 Mar 9 [cited 2010 Dec 17]. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09carey.html. 11. Bostrom N, Sandberg A. Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Sci Eng Ethics. 2009 June 19; 15: 311-341. doi: 10.1007/s11948-009-9142-5.12. Teter CJ, McCabe SE, LaGrange K, Cranford JA, Boyd CJ. Illicit use of specific

prescription stimulants among college students: prevalence, motives, and routes of administration. Pharmacotherapy. 2006 Oct; 26 (10), 1501–1510. doi: 10.1592/phco.26.10.1501.13. McCabe SE, Teter CJ. Drug use related problems among nonmedical users of prescription stimulants: A web-based survey of college students from a Midwestern university. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2007 Nov 2; 91(1): 69-76. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.05.010.14. McCabe SE, Knight JR, Teter CJ, Wechsler H. Non-medical use of prescription stimulants among US college students: prevalence and correlates from a national survey. Addiction. 2005 Jan; 100(1): 96-106. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.00944.x.15. Maher B. Poll results: look who’s doping. Nature news [Internet]. 2008 April 9 [cited 2010 Dec 18]. Available from: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080409/full/452674a.html16. Solomon LM, Noll RC, Mordkoff DS. Cognitive enhancements in human beings. Gender Medicine. 2009 Jul; 6(2): 338-344. doi:10.1016/j.genm.2009.06.00317. de Jongh R, Bolt I, Schermer M, Olivier B. Botox for the brain: enhancement ofcognition, mood and pro-social behavior and blunting of unwanted memories. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008; 32(4):760–776. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.12.00118. Talbot M. Brain gain: The underground world of “neuroenhancing” drugs. The New Yorker [Internet]. 2009 April 27 [cited 2010 Dec 19]. Available from: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/04/27/090427fa_fact_talbot. Accessed May 5, 2009.19. Medew J. Call for testing on “smart drugs”. WA today [Internet]. 2009 Oct 1 [cited 2010 Dec 19]. Available from: http://www.watoday.com.au/national/call-for-testing-on-smart-drugs-20091002-gf8t.html20. Cakic V. Smart drugs for cognitive enhancement: ethical and pragmatic considerations in the era of cosmetic neurology. J Med Ethics. 2009; 35: 611-615. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.03088221. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2007/115-6/pills.jpg22. http://healthit.ahrq.gov/images/oct27cdswebconference/images/image10.png

If nootropics allow students to perform better in...crucial

phases in their education and secure better standards of living later on, the social benefits would be very real

NUS.indb 10 4/7/2011 12:00:20 PM

NUS


TO CLONE OR NOT TO CLONEEndangered Species Conservation

Sudha Sundaram

When Hans Spemann proposed his novel concept of cloning organisms in 1938, he could not be blamed for not choosing his words with more precision:

“Fantastical Experiment” [1]. The concept of cloning indi-viduals seems to be drawn right out of a vivid imagination, ‘fantastical’ indeed! Cloning has come a long way since then, though it has not lost out on being one of the most controversial sciences and today we have reached a stage in its advancement that we can talk about its practical applications and uses. At large, cloning is one of two types either therapeutic or reproductive. Therapeutic is for medicinal purposes whereas reproductive involves duplicating organisms.

The first major successful case of cloning that caused a lot of excitement and a stir throughout the world was that of the creation of Dolly, the first living cloned sheep, produced by Ian Wilmut in 1997, as mentioned by Rifkin in his article ‘Society should ban animal cloning’. It is stated in the article:

‘Dolly’s arrival has sparked much debate about cloning’s potential benefits, as well as dangers, to humans. What has been lacking, however, is discus-sion of how this affects the well-being of animals – as individuals and as species.’ [2]

A recent area in cloning that has lately created a lot of sensation is that of cloning endangered species as an initiative towards their conservation. Ethics aside, cloning of endangered species is neither profitable nor sensible. This article proceeds to explain in greater detail why cloning is not a rational first choice in conservation.

THE SCENARIO SO FARThe basic idea behind the novel principle of cloning conservation is that in extremely small populations - especially ones on the verge of extinction - there is minimum genetic variation, hence surfacing the urgent need to ensure no further loss of genetic diversity. Cloning in such a case would be beneficial or at least a coping strategies to mitigate the loss of diversity.

Cloning of organisms is done by a technique known as nuclear transfer. All cloning experiments till now have used variations of this very technique. It requires two cells - a donor and an oocyte or egg cell. The egg cell is enucleated (its nucleus is removed), eliminating majority of its genetic information (nuclear DNA), so it passes down only the mito-chondrial DNA into the clone. The donor cell is required to be forced into a dormant phase of cell division known as the G0 phase, causing the cell to shut down. The nucleus of the donor cell is then transplanted into the egg cell (cell fusion

can also be done instead), which is then prompted to form an embryo. An essential step here is reprogramming the genes of the donor cells by the oocyte cytoplasm. The embryo is then implanted into a surrogate mother. The offspring produced from cloning have the same genetic constitution as the implanted donor nucleus and not of the surrogate mother [3]. There are two techniques of nuclear transfer that have met with considerable success: the Roslin and the Honululu

technique. The former per-formed by Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell led to the creation of Dolly in 1997 [1].

For endangered species, the procedures for cloning are basically the same, albeit with some variations. During cloning of endangered spe-cies, the nucleus is provided

by the endangered organism, whereas, the cytoplasm of the egg cell used to form the embryo is usually derived from common domestic species such as a cow or goat. In other words, interspecific cloning (cross-species nuclear transfer) is performed. This is usually done due to a lack or low availability of donor cells, oocytes or surrogate mothers of the endangered species [4].

WHY WAS CLONING INITIALLY CONSIDERED?Captivity programs-wherein species are bred in humanly controlled environments such as zoos and conservation facilities - have been the traditional method of biological conservation. Captive propagation schemes, however, suffer from restricted physical space and even genetic reproductive failure. This is one major claim in favour of using assisted reproduction, which conservational cloning falls under.

However cloning, with its research being just in its infancy stage, does not yield large numbers of offspring nor does it necessarily provide any healthy and viable offspring. If such offspring are created, they would be genetically simi-lar (as clones have been produced from a small remaining population), following which a natural population cannot be created because of the drawback of inbreeding.

Despite these hurdles, the main thrust for the concept of cloning is that it will someday be perfected. “Clearly there is some way to go before it can be used effectively, but the advances in this field are such that we will see more and more solutions to the problems faced” as so optimistically predicted by Professor Miller in the article ‘Extinct ibex is resurrected by cloning’ [5].

LIMITATIONS OF CLONINGRegardless of the noble reasons for pursuing cloning of endangered species, the practice has not gained support among scientists nor conservationists. The following sections

Despite these hurdles, the main thrust for the concept

of cloning is that it will someday be perfected

NUS.indb 11 4/7/2011 12:00:20 PM

12 THE TRIPLE HELIX Sprimg 2011 © 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

NUS

elucidate the arguments of scientists against the usage of cloning for endangered species.

Inefficiency of ProcedureThe whole basis of using cloning as a conservation tool relies on the hope that cloning will reduce loss of diversity, but this would only be a practical approach if cloning efficiency were to be 100%, which it is presently not. Presently, the success rates for nuclear transfer in mammals are very low, with less than 0.1–5% of reconstructed embryos resulting in a live birth, considering statistics from the experiments performed on mice by Wakayama & Yanagimachi in 2001 [1]. That is, 200 to 1000 nuclear transfers are necessary for every viable offspring which may or may not survive to be an adult. An example would be that of Noah, the first interspecies gaur (a rare Tibetan antelope) clone - 692 skin cells were fused with cow eggs, 81 developed into embryos, 44 were implanted into cows of which 8 resulted in pregnancies. Five of these miscarried, two were induced to abort and one gave birth to Noah who went on to live for forty-eight hours after birth [6,7]. Considering the whole spectrum of species on earth, cloning has been performed mostly only on mammals; with not many efforts made to clone other vertebrates or even invertebrates for that matter, hence success rates in these organisms has not even been measured. Hence it may be that applying cloning technology for conservation is ‘hopelessly optimistic’ given the current efficiency.

Additionally, some argue that we should try out new ways to better the processes employed in cloning. If we were to look at ways to maximise success using the meth-ods we employ today, we would be directed to focus on poly-ovulatory, many litter bearing species. This rules out popular and media-enchanting mammals such as the giant panda and instead directs attention to species such as ro-dents. Ironically previously successful and tried traditional methods of conservation such as semen freezing, embryo transfer have not been applied to endangered rodent species (whose number surprisingly counts up to a 330). We set out instead to apply cloning - only a developing technique with extremely low success rate - for this purpose. However, if conservation is what we truly have in mind, should we not first make an effort to properly conserve these endangered species using traditional practices [8]?

Therefore, to encourage cloning for direct use in con-servation as of now may not be the best option, as cloning is faced with many other setbacks.

Lack of Adequate Information for Creating a CloneAn important setback that cannot and must not be overlooked is that of the dearth of information and knowledge on endangered species. The fact that their numbers are rare, means that, there is not much of research animals to observe; hence research tends to move if not slowly, only at a modest rate when contrastingly the term ‘endangered’ itself screams out urgency and the immediate need for protection and

conservation. An undertaking of a cloning project for a specific species would require specific and accurate details relating to the physiology of the organism including development, maturation, gestation periods, oocyte recruitment and more which has never been studied before in most cases, with knowledge on most species being minimal, sometimes even non-existent.

Perhaps the best example, paradoxically, would be to show endeavours of conservation programmes from the past. In 1994, a research programme for developing in vi-

tro fertilisation and embryo transfer for breeding in snow leopards was embarked upon. Even as of 2004, the use of hormones in managing the ovulation and quality of oocytes for leopards had not been mastered completely [8].

Detailed information about the species reproductive system, in-depth knowledge of the cellular and development processes of the species are imperative before getting started on a conservation programme by cloning. Additionally, in many cases the donor has to be from a different species but interspecific differences do not make the process easier. It creates a further hindrance of having to choose an organism available in sufficient numbers and also close bio-

logically to be a suitable oocyte donor as well as recipient female [3]. As an example, though the gaur may have the cow as related species in the animal kingdom, there aren’t any strong surrogate candidates for the rare antelope [7].

Abnormalities in the CloneThe obstacles faced with cloning of organisms are not only in the first few stages of impregnating the organism (which itself shows statistical figures as low as one in 277 in case of Dolly), but also later after the animal is born.

Several studies cited in ‘Wildlife conservation and re-productive cloning’ show that nuclear transfer technology in its current state can lead to significant abnormalities in offspring including large birth weight, extended gestation, severe pulmonary and cardiac diseases, histological and placement disorders in many organs including kidney, brain, heart and muscle. The article also states that the health ef-fects have been ascribed to ‘inefficient reprogramming and imprinting of nuclear DNA’, a process that would naturally occur during gametogenesis and early development and would govern whether certain genes are expressed from the maternal or paternal chromosomes [8]. Recent research in 2002 reported that the genomes of cloned mice are compromised by this very inefficient imprinting, and an analysis of more than 10,000 liver and placenta cells of the mice revealed that up to 4% of genes functioned abnormally [9].

Cloning Creates a Situation of ReintroductionWhile recent developments in cloning suggest the benefits of cloning, there is a need to consider the concerns of conservationists. The cloning of an extinct species and release into a natural habitat is equivalent to its reintroduction to a new environment. After a species is ‘rescued’ by cloning it would need to be re-established into the wild. One would

Reproduced from [15]

NUS.indb 12 4/7/2011 12:00:20 PM

NUS


then be introducing it into a stressed ecosystem which is why it became endangered to begin with; such a reintroduction would be considered by many as an act of cruelty [6].

Ecologists in favour of reintroduction as a conservation phenomenon contend that if attempted carefully it could be successful. For example, the Mauritius kestrel whose population which was declining to about nine individuals, revived to almost 700-800 when relocated to the island of Mauritius (cited in Groombridge et al. 2000). However, further analysis reveals that compared with pre-crash individuals, the population is now extremely homogeneous and is poorly equipped for adapting to environmental changes. Hence, a cloned species if introduced into the environment might very well be incapable of survival by acclimatization to its surroundings (a case similar to that of the kestrel mentioned above), but it could also have negative repercussions on species native to the environment it is being introduced to.

Cloning: To be Used as An Excuse?Many Scientists and ecologists fear that cloning used in this field would be perceived as a method for fixing species loss; that it would provide a ‘silver bullet solution’, without an effort to prevent the loss in the first place. As concisely put by John Rennie: “The danger is that this could be seen as an alternative, but cloning is just one more tool to use along with the rest of the measures we already take to preserve species” [10]. Having cloning as an alternative could cause loss of vigour in the traditional conservation front, resulting in the public disregarding the importance of protecting the remaining individuals of endangered species. Moreover money and resources pooled into high-profile breeding projects maybe

better spent on cost-effective activities such as preserving certain pockets of habitat where rare species survive [11].

Considering that many species of animals are ex-tremely difficult to breed, and attempts are unsuccessful more often than they are successful, it is probably wiser if other conservation practices are given more importance. Habitat preservation and prevention of poaching can go a long way in preserving rare species. Moreover, as exhibited by the recent ibex ‘resurrection’ only frozen DNA samples are required for cloning, we can always preserve tissues of animals in gene banks for future harnessing by clon-ing [5]. Also if assisted reproduction is looked upon as an absolute necessity for conservation, other approaches are more likely to yield productive results. Examples include artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilisation, embryo culture, and artificial implantation (from Smith and Brandhorst, 1999 cited in Wilmut and Paterson, 2009).

In spite of the optimism offered by Professor Miller with regard to the advances in cloning unlocking solutions as mentioned earlier, there is no verification for this claim that solutions will open up for the problems posed. In fact, the multitude of problems faced by cloning endangered species remains as large as it was at the start.

WHERE DO WE STAND NOW?Issues surrounding cloning have triggered controversies among the public and scientific communities. Most of the attention is focused on the ethical dimensions. This essay has not delved into ethics but instead, privileged the biological viewpoint. It has been argued that is it justifiable not to adopt cloning as a full-fledged conservation strategy, at least, in the immediate context. We need to give due importance to the fact that by manipulating the genome, the biological diversity within each species is put at stake. With current low success rates of implantation and survival of clones, lack of information, prevailing abnormalities in offspring and other negative results, reproductive cloning does not have a strong case as of yet. However, there are incipient benefits of cloning now but until methods are more reliable, it appears more prudent to formulate realistic strategies for species and wildlife conservation, using what we have at hand.

Sudha Sundaram is studying Life Sciences at the National University of Singapore.

References1. Bailey, B. (2000). Cloning the Gaur. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http://environmentalcommons.org/cetos/index.html: http://environmentalcommons.org/cetos/articles/cloninggaur.html2. BBC. (2003, July 18). ‘Scientists ‘to clone mammoth’’. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3075381.stm3. BERIS, U. D. (2009, May 11). Cloning Fact Sheet. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http://genomics.energy.gov/: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml4. Dobson, R. G. (2009, January 31). ‘Extinct ibex is resurrected by cloning’. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/4409958/Extinct-ibex-is-resurrected-by-cloning.html5. Durnan, K. (2001, January 12). Cloned Ox, from Rare Species, Dies. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http://www.grg.org/ACTgaur2.htm6. Holloway, G. (2002, May 28). ‘Cloning to revive extinct species’. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/: http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/05/28/aust.thylacines/7. Lisa Mastny, W. W. (2010, September 25). ‘Scientists clone endangered species’. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6376/is_1_14/ai_n28848134/

8. News, A. G. (2010, September 25). ‘CLONING: Bringing Back Endangered Species’. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DED/is_3_21/ai_66520544/9. Paterson, I. W. (2009). ‘Conservation and Cloning: the challenges’. In O. R. George Amato, Conservation genetics in the age of genomics. (pp. 204-209). Columbia University Press.10. Perlman, H. B. (2000, Oct 8). ‘Scientists Close on Extinct Cloning’. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20001008/aponline171938_000.htm11. Rifkin, J. (1998). ‘Dolly’s legacy: The implications’ The Animal’s Agenda. In G. E. McCuen, Cloning science and society (pp. 80-85). Gary E. McCuen publications.12. Rojas, M., Venegas, F., Montiel, E., Servely, J. L., & Vignon, X. &. (2005). ‘Attempts at applying cloning to the conservation of species in danger extinction.’. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v23n4/art08.pdf13. Techniques. (1998). Retrieved from Conceiving a clone: http://library.thinkquest.org/24355/14. William V Holt, A. R. (2004). ‘Wildlife conservation and reproductive cloning’. Retrieved from http://www.reproduction-online.org: http://www.reproduction-online.org/cgi/reprint/127/3/31715. http://images.nigms.nih.gov/imageRepository/2690/Dolly_the_sheep.jpg16. http://www.dna.gov/rawmedia_repository/


NUS.indb 13 4/7/2011 12:00:21 PM


NUSCORNELL

Insects as Food for Thought Emelyne Teo

The concept of what is not acceptable as food in English culture is well conveyed by an age-old conundrum: ‘What is worse than finding a maggot in your apple?’

– ‘Finding half a maggot’ [1]. Indeed, food choices are often associated with cultural identity [2]. With the classification of insects as pests and Western stereotype of indigenous people who consume insects as primitive or uncivilized, one can hardly accept the inferiority of eating insects. However, is entomophagy purely a barbaric act [2]?

Let us begin searching for an answer with a brief over-view of entomophagy. There are approximately 1500-2000 species of insects consumed by over 3000 ethnic groups across 113 countries. You may have heard of chawanmushi; but have you heard of zaza-mushi? Cooked in soy sauce and sugar, zaza-mushi – the larvae of aquatic caddis flies (order Trichoptera) – is a delicacy in rural Japanese towns. There is even an elite group of licensed Japanese hunters, who collect up to five pounds of zaza-mushi each per day. The hunters in turn sell their catch to insect canners for about $40 per pound. Since 1956, canning has become the fate of most harvested insects in Japan. Apart from zaza-mushi, canned insects such as baby bees, silkworm pupae and grasshoppers are common in Japanese retail shops [3].

Perhaps tarantulas are the most unimaginable arthropod dish that you would have ever heard. Surprisingly, tarantulas make a favourite dish in Venezuela and Cambodia. Thera-phosa leblondi, the biggest spider in the world, is a popular dish in Venezuelan restaurants. The big-sized spider often occupies one whole dinner plate [3]. In a remote province in Cambodia, deep-fried tarantulas are sold for 500 riels ($0.20 U.S). The business is brisk and all the customers are men, as they think that tarantulas are good for their virility [3].

A quick glance at the commercialized practice suggests that entomophagy is not purely a barbaric act. The diverse and long established cultures of eating insects have made this practice a norm in many countries across the world. This phenomenon opens up a huge market for industries to harvest and serve insects for human consumption. Nonetheless, the scale of insects market in Japan and Cambodia may be too small to conclude the economic benefit of entomophagy. The first case study of mopane worm trade in Botswana will thus be a convincing illustration of the economic importance of entomophagy.

Mopane Worm Trade in Botswana – A Source of Income In Botswana, mopane worm not only serves to satisfy hunger, but it also represents an important commercial enterprise. Mopane worm belongs to the order Lepidoptera. It is a caterpillar that feeds on mopane trees and has two seasonal outbreaks per year in April and December. The worms have thorn-like points on their backs that are sharp enough to slice unwary fingers. Yet women and children are daring enough to take the risk of harvesting them. Mopane worms offer a lucrative trade – women in Botswana sell loaded sacks full of dried mopane worms to trailers; trailers sell the worms to wholesalers, who resell them to merchants, who resell them again in the market [3]. As a country with the knowledge and tradition of harvesting the insects, mopane

worm trade has long been an economy booster for Botswana. A good worm harvest in a year is estimated to be worth US $3.3 million, providing employment to 10,000 people [4].

To achieve greater economic benefits, much research has been poured into the study of mopane worm. In 2001, the Department for International Development (DFID) , a United Kingdom government department responsible for promoting development and the reduction of poverty, funded a three year research that sought to increase the under-standing of mopane worm biology and its management as a valuable natural resource. Various harvesting and storage techniques have been developed through the research. Some of them include the development of a low-cost hand-held degutting device that can be made at village level and a novel dry roasting cooker that removes all the brittle spines of mopane worms [5]. These inventions have saved much work for harvesters. In particular, poor farmers, landless families and rural artisans of mopane woodland-dwelling communities in rural places such as Zimbabwe, South Africa and Botswana have benefited from the introduction of these inventions [4]. The increasing labor participation in mopane worm trade can thus alleviate poverty in these rural areas.

Chongcha and Ant Wine – Eating Insects for Their Medicinal and Nutritional ValuesOn top of underpinning major economic sectors of several African countries, the use of insects as traditional medicine exemplifies health benefits of entomophagy. Travelling north, the rich use of insects in traditional Chinese medicine is well documented. In China, insect excrement is often made into medicinal tea. Chongcha, a black fragrant tea that aids digestion, alleviate diarrhoea, and treat bleeding haemorrhoids, is made from tiny hard pellets of caterpillar (Hydrillodes morose) excrement. The medicinal properties of Chongcha are suggested to arise from the presence of pharmacologically active substance, ellagic acid, which is found in the caterpillar’s diet and excreted out intact [3]. Hydrillodes morose feeds mainly on the leaves of Platycarya stobilacea, a plant that is rich in ellagic acid [6]. This substance is found to have antiproliferative and antioxidant properties that account for the anti-haemorrhoids properties of Chongcha. Apart from medicinal tea, ant wine is also widely used in traditional Chinese medicine. The formic acid and various minerals in ants are said to be effective against Hepatitis B and rheumatism [4]. As a result of its health benefits, ant wine becomes so popular that it places the medicinal ant genus, Polyrhachis, in the threat of extinction [3].

Along with their medicinal properties, insects are also consumed for their nutrients. Insects are generally rich in minerals. For instance, crickets contain more than 1,550 mil-ligrams of iron, 25 milligrams of zinc and 340 milligrams of calcium per 100 grams of dry tissue [7]. Three of them would provide an individual’s daily iron requirement. In addition, many insects have a fairly high concentration of the eight essential amino acids that cannot be synthesized in human body. In Uganda, termites are the main source of lysine and tryptophan, two essential amino acids that are limited in the country’s staple food [3]. Given their high nutrient and

NUS.indb 14 4/7/2011 12:00:22 PM

NUS


protein level, insects should indeed be included in our diets.

Grasshopper Control in Mexico – Ecological Benefit of EntomophagyEcologically, the consumption of plant pests is advocated as a means of pest control [9]. In the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley in Mexico, predominant crops such as alfafa, bean, corn, squash and broad bean are routinely attacked by the grasshopper Sphenarium purpurascens, an edible species [10]. It was reported that 30,339 ha of land in the state of Tlaxcala has been infested with the grasshopper. The application of insecticides, mainly parathion and malathion, is used as the primary method to control the pests. However, it has resulted in the escape of organophosphorate residues into water bodies which are lethal to many fish species. Moreover, the farmers often apply insecticides without proper personal safety equipment. Direct contact of insecticides introduces harmful effects such as respiratory disorders and toxicity that results in chromosome deviation and abnormal sperm counts of affected farmers. In view of the negative impacts of such a chemical control, the manual harvesting of S. purpurascens for consumption is preferred as an environmentally friendly way of controlling the pest. In addition, the replacement of insecticides by manual harvesting of the insect generates economical benefits. For the residents of Puebla, grasshopper harvesting has become their principal source of income. Sale of grasshoppers as food to the states of Oaxaca, Morelos and Mexico City yields annual profits of US $3000 per family. In contrast, insecticide application costs US $150 per farmer [10]. This adds up to a net gain of US3150 per farmer who adopts manual harvesting in pest control.

As an energy-efficient source of protein, insect consump-tion can potentially alleviate some of the problems associ-ated with livestock production. Currently, there has been much concern regarding raising livestock for consumption. First, livestock production takes up a considerable amount of land, which is approximated to be 30% of the land surface area on earth [11]. Secondly, the process of raising livestock generates a large source of greenhouse gases. Ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of meth-ane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities [12]. On the other hand, insects are small organisms that do not take up much space or generate much greenhouse gases. Therefore, us-ing insects as an alternative source of protein will not only generate ecological benefit, but also alleviate the existing environmental problems concerning livestock production.

Mexican Jumil Day – Learning about Other Cultures through an Insect Feast

Finally, let us examine Mexican Jumil day, which features a ritual that is associated with a bug feast. This case study demonstrates that we can learn about other cultures through an insect feast. Mexican Jumil day falls on the first Monday after Day of the Dead, a special day when family and friends gather around for remembrance of loved ones that have already passed away. On Jumil day, Mexicans gather on a mountaintop between Mexico City and Acapulco [14]. As a ritual dating from pre-Aztec times, the townspeople eat jumiles (Euchistus taxcoensis), a type of stink bug which is half-inch long [3]. Jumiles migrate annually to the mountaintop and reproduce there between September and the next February [8]. The bugs are traditionally believed to be the souls of ancestors returning to the living [3]. Eating these symbolic bugs could mean to combine one’s body and the ancestor’s soul as one. This unorthodox ritual of eating bugs has also left a deep impression on people, making Mexican culture more well-known.

Still, Why Not Eat Insects?Despite the establishment of multiple benefits of entomophagy, there is still a major attitudinal barrier to the use of insects as human food in western societies. The limited interest arises from hygienic concerns that view insects as a transmitter of disease. Interestingly, most people in western societies inadvertently consume insects from various food products. In fact, the United States’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has permitted certain levels of insects to be found in food products. In the United States, the allowable amounts of insect per 100 g of processed food products are as follow: 80 insect fragments for chocolate, 60 aphids, thrips or mites for frozen broccoli, 100 insect fragments for macaroni and other noodle products, 60 insect fragments for peanut butter and 150 insect fragments for wheat flour [9]. Therefore, education on nutritional, health and ecological issues associated with entomophagy can partly overcome the aversion towards insects.

Insects as Food for Thought To sum up, this essay has established economic, health, ecological and cultural benefits that justify entomophagy. Yet in reality, entomophagy will hardly be accepted in Western culture. At the end of this essay, you may be tempted to try the grilled witchetty grubs, or you may be appalled by the fried tarantulas. After all, insects are food for thought – food that is worth exploring into for some, while for others, only in their imagination.

Emelyne Teo is a student studying Life Sciences at the National University of Singapore.

References1. Holt VM. Why Not Eat Insects. Dorchester: Great Britain; 1998.2. Wood JR and Looy H. My Ant is Coming to Dinner. Culture, Disgust, and Dietary Challenges. Proteus: A journal of ideas: 5.3. Menzel P and Aluisio FD. Man eating Bugs: The Art and Science of Eating Insects. California: Ten Speed Press; 1998. 4. Knell R. Mopane Woodlands and the Mopane Worms [Internet]. United Kingdom; [publisher unknown]. [cited 2011 February 12]. Available from http://www.mopane.org 5. Stack J and Ghazoul J. Mopane woodlands and the Mopane worm: Enhancing Rural Livelihoods and Resource sustainability. Forestry Research Programme [Internet]. [place unknown]; [publisher unknown]. [updated 2002 June 15; cited 2011 February 12]. Available from http://www.mopane.org/Workshop.pdf 6. Seeram NP, Adams LS, Henning SM, Niu Y, Zhang Y, Nair MG and Heber D. In vitro antiproliferative, apoptotic and antioxidant activities of punicalagin, ellagic acid and a total pomegranate tannin extract are enhanced in combination with other polyphenols as found in pomegranate juice. The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry: JNB. June 2005: 16(6): 360-367.

7. Raloff J and Menzel P. Insects: The Original White Meat. Science News. 7 June 2008: 173(18): 16-21. 8. Kurt and Mondloch P. Dining Adventure: El Dia del Jumil [Internet]. [place unknown]; [publisher unknown]. [date unknown, cited 2011 February 20]. Available from http://plateinternational.com/diningadventures/daeldiadeljumil.html.9. Yen AL. Edible Insects: Traditional Knowledge or Western Phobia. Entomological Research. 16 July 2009: 39(2009): 289-298.10. Cerritos R and Santana CZ. Harvesting grasshoppers Sphenarium purpurascens in Mexico for human consumption: A comparison with insecticidal control for managing pest outbreaks. Crop Protection.1 August 2007: 27(2008): 473-480.11. Yen AL. Entomophagy and insect conservation: some thoughts for digestion. The Journal of Insect Conservation. 30 December 2008: 2009(13): 667-670. 12. Gunning P. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Ruminant Livestock [Internet]. Washington; [Publisher unknown]. [updated 2007 March 22, cited 2011 February 20]. Available from http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html.

NUS.indb 15 4/7/2011 12:00:22 PM


NUS

I Recognize You Not Just Skin DeepZhang Qiong

I watched my lab partner attentively as she collected the experimental data. However, after I stepped out of the lab and thought of her, I could no longer remember any

part of her face, despite the strong impression her attitude and rigorous arguments had left while she was interpreting the results. And I am not alone in encountering this; there are situations where people incorrectly judge a familiar face thus greeting a wrong person, or simply fail to recognize even a close friend until seconds later. Yet, it is commonly believed that having the ability to quickly and accurately identify people around you is one of the basic social skills that one ought to be equipped with. Recognizing faces, like memorizing names, has always been playing an important role in maintaining well functioning social networks. Medi-cines can get us nowhere in ameliorating a relatively poor situation of an individual’s ability to identify faces and more often than not it is purely regarded as a gift we are born with [9]. But is face recognition really as significant as people always assume it to be, or is it somehow plays a role but with its significance overemphasized by us all?

The Superficial Nature of What Face Recognition is Based OnFace recognition is a process that should not be overemphasized because of the superficial nature of what face recognition is based on. It is a process of identifying a person by analyzing selected features in a face [6]. Face features constitute of shapes and positions of major parts on the face such as eyes, nose, mouth, cheeks and forehead, with the original bony skull structure as the basis. And it is believed that almost all the visible facial appearances and important facial features can be accurately extrapolated and reconstructed just from a skull alone with elements such as emotions excluded in the face recognition process [2]. Smiles and frowns take longer to take effect compared with the required instantaneous response to a face when we want to make a quick judgment whether we know this person or not. The totality of a person’s personality could not be communicated via these face features alone. The familiarity of two persons cannot be directly reflected in the instantaneous process of face recognition because the biological ability to recognize faces is limited by the inability to recognize emotions. Thus, we can see that the role face recognition plays in maintaining a social network is not supposed to be as significant as nowadays people assume it to be.

Face Blindness Renders Us Different in the Starting LineFace recognition is a process that should not be overemphasized because disease like face blindness renders us different in the starting line. There are people in the world to whom everyone looks similarly blank at first sight. They see facial features, but cannot perceive faces like normal people do even after encountering the same face repeatedly. It is a disorder of perception, either caused by brain damage or genetic abnormalities, called Prosopagnosia, where there is disproportionate impairment for faces as compared to non-face objects [5].

The significance of face recognition people take for granted put those who suffer from face blindness under great pressure. People with face blindness encounter multiple situations that develop social awkwardness and security concerns in their daily life. They simply walk right past people they know without greeting, they repeat the same introductory words to those they regard as new but actually have just talked minutes before, and they fail to become alert even when an unfriendly, strange face approaches them. As years go by, suffers of the disease regard themselves as social eccentrics isolated from the public [3].

Moreover, face recognition has been over-prioritized considering some individuals’ lack of this perceptual skill, comprising about one in forty of the entire population.


NUS.indb 16 4/7/2011 12:00:22 PM

NUS


Psychologist Ken Nakayama, at Harvard’s Vision Sciences Laboratory, claims that an even larger proportion of the world population, which is around ten percent, is suffering milder versions of face blindness [1]. Since many of us are different in the starting line in terms of how well we recognize faces, it is not an appropriate standard of judgment to people’s familiarity with each other or to how deep an impression a person had made in another’s mind. When people will also exclude you from the reach of their network the same way they think you do, if you are unfortunately lack such perceptual skill. We would like to ask, is face recognition an indispensible component in maintaining well-functioning social networks, or is this simply just a seemingly more effective method of recognizing people from the crowd?

Last but not least, the significance of face recognition is not to be over emphasized because there are alternatives of recognizing people besides the face recognition alone. We can rely to a certain extent on these features to recognize people in our daily life, but we can still live a normal life if we are not as sensitive and accurate by not emphasizing the significance of face recognition too much. It is not as sympathetic if you grow up with the fact that everyone looks no different to you when you are trying hard to recognize their faces, compared with your reputation developed for arrogance when you pass by them without a greeting with-out a smile, in a world where people only recognize faces. Though the entire face is somehow not “visible”, detailed features and other parts of the body are still visualized. People suffering face blindness can actually live a normal life by relying on subtle cues and secondary clues as long as they do not rely too much on face recognition alone [4]. You can recognize your friends by the hairstyle they usually wear, their unique face expression and body language, and their voices as well. If your young sister has a mole on her left cheek, you can also recognize her that way.

Face Recognition Challenged in the Case of Capgras DelusionOpposite to Prosopagnosia, Capgras delusion refers to a syndrome where people recognize faces and appearances quite well but have the wrong belief with strong conviction that a close friend or spouse has been replaced by a double, even in the presence of strong evidence to the contrary [10]. Reliance on face recognition is challenged here. They are actually able to consciously recognize faces, but an emotional response of a familiar face is somehow impaired. This explains the delusionary belief they have, where they can recognize their family members and friends but at the same time feeling something wrong, due to the loss of an emotional response. Though the example of Capgras delusion only represents certain clinical cases and is not a general one, the alarming delusionary world all made of doubles illustrates

the confusion of identity and the necessity to reconsider the essence of familiarity. And it seems to them as if the face features are the least reliable cues to rely on. We could actually tell from this case that, the region of brain recognizing face features is distinct from that responsible for the emotional response. Face recognition is a process that should not be overemphasized because in doing so we are assuming that the process of face recognition plays a determinative role in triggering a subsequent emotional response.

The Defects of the Face Recognition SystemAnother reason why the role of face recognition is not to be overemphasized lies in the defects of the face recognition method itself. We might well assume the accuracy and effectiveness of the face recognition systems built on computer programmes that are designed to compare selected features on a digital image with the stored database, with the aim of timely identification and thus arresting of criminals. However, such verification processes may turn out to be less useful than most imagine. Hairs and spectacles can be rather distracting, as well as the angle of the camera’s projection. A case has been reported in the police department in Tampa, Florida, United States, where an experimental face recognition system could not correctly identify a single face in its database of suspects during its two-month trial period in 2001 and was discontinued eventually [7]. Besides, issues of identity theft are raised in which case people with clever disguises would be able to elude such systems. More effective methods like fingerprint identification and iris identification have be developed and applied [8]. Thus we can well see the downside of overestimating and overemphasizing the role of face recognition in a computational system. The defects in computational face identification system might not be directly comparable to that in a human social network, however, the doubts it raises about the effectiveness as well as the significance of the face recognition process is much like the same issue with human social networks. As in the case of Facebook, people bring the emphasis on the role of face recognition and post pictures of their faces on their profile pages. However, when the time comes and when we encounter our Facebook friends in real life, what makes both side recognizable to each other would be our daily acquaintance rather than just several Facebook visits.

To sum it up, face recognition is a process that should not be overemphasized considering the superficial nature that it is based on, certain groups of individuals who are lack of this perceptual skill, and the underlying defects of the recognition method itself.

Zhang Qiong is a student studying Computational Biology at the National University of Singapore.

References1. Bradt, S. (2006, June). Harvard University Gazette. Retrieved March 2010, from http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/06.01/05-faceblind.html.2. Dataface. (2007, May). Retrieved April 2010, from http://www.face-and-emotion.com/dataface/physiognomy/physiognomy.jsp.3. Davis, J. (2006, November). Face Blind. Retrieved March 2010, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/blind.html.4. Health Jockey. (2008, November). Retrieved March 2010, from http://www.healthjockey.com/2008/11/28/new-research-gives-an-insight-on-face-blindness/.5. Isabel Gauthier, M. B. (July 1999). Can face recognition really be dissociated from object recognition? Journal of Cognitive Neoruscience , 349-370.6. ITS Psychology Dictionary. (2005, Semptember). Retrieved March 2010, from http://www.tuition.com.hk/psychology/f.htm.

7. Jay Stanley, B. S. (2002, April). BNET. Retrieved March 2010, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_2_62/ai_83794480/.8. NEUROtechonology. (2010, Janauary). Retrieved March 2010, from http://www.neurotechnology.com/megamatcher.html.9. Page, L. (2009, September). Articlesbase. Retrieved March 2010, from http://www.articlesbase.com/disabilities-articles/autism-and-face-blindness-1211176.html.10. Young, G. (2009 September). In what sense ‘familiar’? Examining experiential differences within pathologies of facial recognition. Consciousness And Cognition , 628-638.11. http://utilities.columbus.gov/Water/images/ToothySmile.jpg

NUS.indb 17 4/7/2011 12:00:22 PM


NUS

Why Do They Not Believe in God?Value of Doubt and the Scientific Method in

Scientists’ CommunityTommy Shi Zheng

One of the most exciting politicians of our time, Barack Obama wrote in his almost centrist book, appealing to the less liberal conservatives, that he is a Christian,

and in the same book (in fact, the same chapter) he is also a skeptic who believes in “evolution, scientific inquiry, and global warming” [1]. The friendly, if not welcoming pos-ture to the religious and conservative right-wingers in the presidential election seem to have rewarded Mr. Obama. This political practicality of claiming to be both a believer and a scientific man may win electorates, but it obscures the intense conflict between the two competing camps of values an individual faces. Outside the ballot, the war between the religious and the scientific is a fixture in American news, on issues ranging from embryo and stem cell research to how to teach about religion in public schools. The latter is also an unsolved problem of Singapore educators, whose last attempt to incorporate religious study ended in a sour note after encountering objections from science teachers, angry parents and increasingly dividing student body under zealous preaching from different sources. The balance or even harmony of Obama’s claim is rarely a practical reality. Instead, within a person or a community, there seems to be an innate conflict for religion and science to co-exist, or at least a dilemma that perplexed many great minds.

In fact, many great scientists’ autobiographies would be quite incomplete without mention of their struggle with their religion-by-birth, their religious family upbringing,

or fierce conflict with vocal religious institutions. Many scientists such as Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and Feynman share a similar label that suggests unorthodox religious interpretations: at one point in their lives they were labeled as a deist, an atheist, a free thinker, or a heretic radical unaccepted in most religious temples. Einstein was ‘not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere’, whereas Feynman claimed ‘God was invented to explain mysteries’, and God is not needed when you dis-cover a law about how things actually work [2]. Although not all the predominant scientists aforementioned intended to fight against a religious establishment, their scientific work undermined some of the very foundation of Religion, the most well-known example being Darwin’s Evolution Theory challenging a Holy Creator by countering the story in Genesis. Similarly, Einstein and Feynman may have no intention to be anti-religion, yet their work indicates inac-curacy or doubt of how world came into being. Work such as Darwin’s or Einstein’s suggests the possibility of falsehood, or at least raises reasonable doubt to the absoluteness of certain religious text. To understand scientists’ cynical at-titude towards religion or at least the hostility from religious bodies towards certain scientific theories, we shall study the nature of the scientists’ work.

From Copernicus, Newton, to Darwin and Einstein, the most acclaimed scientists of modern history was remem-bered not only for their ground-breaking scientific work,

but for another reason. These scientists’ work either defied the then church interpretations of the Bible, or offered more detailed account of nature once accounted only by a line in the holy text. Such opposition would lead to a last-ing combat for supporters thereafter, between religious bodies who once ruled unchallenged with the Book of Genesis and scientific com-munity who now proposed a more detailed and better proved story. It is now clear that religious bodies if not failing, are evolving in the combat. Modern churches are changing their ways of preaching, integrating work of scientists and archeologists and getting more tolerant to doubt. Churches that once firmly state ‘Doubt is the enemy of Faith’ now accept a half-seeing, half-believing attitude and increasingly uses certain scientific findings to backup their once-unchallenged books. The war of modern science versus religion, or the former’s increasing presence are so characteristic of our century, that religious teachings are now more open to adaption and alternative interpretation based on latest scientific findings. Without claiming Reproduced from [9]

NUS.indb 18 4/7/2011 12:00:23 PM

NUS


either side as victory, this paper will examine core values of scientists and dominant research method in the scientific community. This paper aims to bring insights on the deeper reasons in the conflict of Science and Religion, and why scientists seem inclined to dispose religion.

How does the Scientific Method work? (Code of Conduct for Scientists: The Scientific Method)Modern science is a field of experimental work. A theory must survive peer review and vigorous testing by the most updated technology available, before it is established and recognized as a working theory or a scientific law. If new instruments or technology is invented, a new round of refutation will be tried on. Here religious believers may argue, science is not absolutely true at any point of time because it constantly updates its experimental method and adjusts its stand on old theories. The argument is partly reasonable because in every age, scientific research is restricted by experimental instruments. For example, 50 years ago when Quantum Mechanics was firstly proposed, it was established as a reasonable estimation to explain matters and particle movements under atomic levels. It was accepted back then because no instruments can observe accurately to the range of an atom. Over the next decades, Quantum Theories are gradually accepted but also modified again and again through the process, based on new models and new experimental evidence. To religious believers, this changing process seems exhausting and gives little assurance. However, scientists and their supporters would argue, even if scientists are merely approaching the absolute truth and may never reach, to follow a simple biblical story without questioning and accumulative scientific research would simply be medieval absurdity. Scientists would argue despite the current lack of devices and experiments to fully prove a theory of the origin of universe, quantum theories which explores the smallest particles of matters are constantly challenged and adapted to provide more accurate information. The ultimate question about the origin of universe may be out of reach for scientists for some years, but for scientists to study quantum theories would be valuable progress towards finding the final answer of where Earth and Human Beings came from.

Simply put, the Scientific Method states that any theory or law to explain natural phenomenon must be assumed false, endure the most rigorous experiments and can be accepted as true only when all observable results confirm the theory. By facilitating accumulative development of human under-standing through the Scientific Method, scientists may start at a very basic theory, but understand more and more about how nature works without assuming a supernatural will.

The Scientific Method eliminates, or aims to minimize subjectivity. For example, force of gravity, a now commonly accepted but once revolutionary idea proposed by Newton, will not become a scientific rule taught by all science teachers if someone on earth observes a motionless apple flying away eternally without external force, never falling down. This early example illustrates how straightforward science is in proving something: the same phenomenon observed by a renowned physicist would occur the same way observed by a layman. Even in a time like now where instruments may be too expensive for an individual scientist to own, two people would observe the same thing using the same

instrument and therefore avoid wrong conclusions due to subjectivity and acceptance of a theory purely based on hierarchy of the two observers.

The heavy use of mathematics and statistics by scientists also reflects how objectiveness and logic centers in science. Mathematical language is innately precise and against ob-scurity, because its symbols and formats are well-defined compared to more descriptive language. Mathematical equa-tions are also clear in stating its assumptions and applicable range, so it leaves little room for subjective interpretation of language or elaboration of contexts. The objective accuracy of science is re-enforced by the use of this most objective language. Mathematical language is now a fundamental tool to science because it offers a simple and clear way to express various complicated scientific models.

The unassuming tradition of scientific research comes from a simple reasoning: seeing is believing. An ordinary man, with the right setup and instruments, can make the same observations as a more established academic to verify or disprove the latest or oldest scientific theory. The tra-dition nurtures a community of accumulative knowledge where every member may check on another’s work i.e. peer review. Meanwhile, the scientists are rewarded on the basis of their original findings. The first publisher of a new theory usually claims most of the credit for discovery and this fact encourages scientists to adventurous detours and a constant urge to push new limits. To many aspiring scientists, such simplicity lures them to science and sends them to fields where little is known.

The meticulous emphasis on observations cultivates a type of materialism close to skepticism among scientists. To every statement and every explanation, the scientist’s mind demands verification or observable manifestation. Without observing and recording of incidents, no theory is accepted to be taken more truthful than the other. The contrast with religion is sharp; the latter constantly requiring a person to believe the unseen and feel the untouchable. Neither the strong calling of church in its heyday nor a moderated preaching blending science and faith is convincing enough for the critical thinking scientists who are trained not to believe in anything until it is tested or proved.

What is the Value of Doubt? (The Prize of Doubt and Uncertainty)Established findings or theories seem hard to disprove given the scientific method. But although it is true that established theories have once survived vigorous testing, introductions of revolutionary apparatus and observing instruments will enable the ingenuous minds of great thinkers to find new theories or update old ideas in science.

Before the introductions of new tools, it is especially challenging to prove a new theory. For example without microscopes few would take the existence of cells for granted. Even the brightest minds could not confirm the structure of organisms, existence of tiny cells, or minuscule texture of a surface. The shadow or unknown territory due to machinery limitations can be vast. For example, until the invention of the telescope, the record of planetary movement was simply not accurate enough to reach more elaborate and conclusive theories about the universe.

Thus, in any era, the scale of ignorance recognized by

NUS.indb 19 4/7/2011 12:00:23 PM


NUS

scientists is huge, maybe imposing and demoralizing to the ordinary men. The scientists however, find consolation, hope, or inspirations in the unknown realm. Effectively, in the scientific community, attention goes to the person who first points out something nobody knows or understands before. Such attention later brings vigorous testing with ef-forts to prove or disprove the original theory. If the member who speaks up about an original theory also succeeds in establishing facts, statistics or proofs to support his theory, he may rise up to the peak of his professional community.

Therefore, if the Scientific Method commands strong critical analysis and a never-confirmative doubt to scientific theories, the rewards for originality lends further weight to such doubt. If something is taken for granted yet proven wrong by a person, the person will win fame and fortune in the scientific community for his ability to discern and point out the flaws.

To conclude, scientists are meticulous in their work-ing methods and appreciate the value of doubt greatly. It is unlikely for scientists to accept a conclusive story to ac-count for everything, if the story has no strong supporting evidence and there are plenty of similar counterparts. Thus, rather than picking a book among all holy books by different religions, scientists prefer to accept a simple yet well-tested theory even though it may be inaccurate and incomplete at the time. A simple yet well-tested theory is preferred by scientists because they can always raise the doubt and modify the theory through experiments to make it more accurate. If the Scientific Method is a code of conduct forced upon all workers of Science, to ensure quality standard of the factory of scientific theories, then the encouragement of doubt and challenge provide strong motivations to each individual. There is “great value in doubt”, said Richard Feynman a Nobel Prize Laureate for Physics. Feynman, also an acclaimed atheist, points to the lure of fame and pleasure in scientific discoveries guarded by admiration of doubt, even if the discovery defy teachings of religious authorities [3]. Trained by the Scientific Method and motivated by the value of doubt, scientists simply will not entertain a story full of mysteries, make-believe assumptions and closed endings. Scientists believe in the world that they can see and verify,

and in the field of ignorance lies not fear, but the glory for pioneers who can establish new laws and make new discoveries.

Faith of Scientists and the Modern Man To conclude, the specific methodology and tolerance of doubt and challenges are congenial to scientific discoveries and innately unbeneficial to re-enforcements of religious beliefs and values. Religion relies on an unquestioned belief in holy texts for moral judgment and a hierarchical organization for effective preaching. Religion’s firm reliance on an unquestionable almighty commands faith and caste organization, but defies the critical mind and individual interpretation against authority [4]. The requirement of any religion for its believer to take certain statements without questioning may help form a more uniformed collective conscious within the caste and motivate the believers

to do good deeds under organizational pressure. However, such blindness to unproven facts would more or less limit the scope and potential of a scientist.

As the modern generation is increasingly exposed to the way of scientific inquiry, organizational hierarchy and rituals alone can no longer convince individuals as effec-tively as in the past to fear the creator or a supernatural will in the holy text. As a result, modern churches may have adapted their teachings and sometimes use scientific work to backup certain claims. However, their use of facts and scientific evidence is selective and biased. The fact that some religious leaders now cite scientists’ work only shows a weakening effect of the same preaching materials in the presence of countering evidence from science and does not suggest the preachers are neutral and scientific. Suited for a different goal, religion does not apply the method and values of science. The high tolerance level for doubt and radical thinking among scientists and intellectuals is unmatchable in religious temples.

A frequently quoted opponent of conflict between sci-ence and religion is Prof. Stephen Jay Gould. According to Gould, the ruling area of science and religion can be nicely divided. Science is mostly applicable to answer questions about facts and scientific theories, whereas religion gives guidance in morality and ultimate meanings. Such opinion may seem simple and sound as an argument, but Gould’s argument is severely flawed if examined closely. First, Gould’s ‘theory’ of non-overlapping ruling realm of science and reli-gion was proposed under a public atmosphere for evolution biologists to reach out to a seemingly God-believing but factually agnostic American population [5]. His diplomatic stance may work for public relations as it is intended, but that is all it does. Moreover, the clear-cut line to separate a factual and moral statement simply does not exist as Gould assumes [6]. The strength of a religious calling to follow certain values or rules is largely founded on the reverence of an almighty creator and fear of his punishments. If such creator is proven non-existent or not the most powerful of all by scientific evidence, the morality asserted by a priest is no different from that by other role models such as intellectuals,

Reproduced from [9]

NUS.indb 20 4/7/2011 12:00:23 PM

NUS


NUS

References1. Obama, B. “Prologue” In The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. Crown Publishing Group, Random House. Inc. 2006. 2. Davies, P.C.W. and Brown, J. R, editors. Superstrings : A Theory of Everything. Cambridge University Press. 1988. 3. Feynman, R.P. In Richard Feynman on doubt, uncertainty and religion, Interview with BBC, retrieved from youtube on 28 Feb 2011 with the link of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zi699WzAL0.4. Einstein, A. The World as I See It. Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press. 1999. 5. Gould, S.J. Evolution and the 21st Century. Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. March 2000. Retrieved on 28 Feb 2011 from http://

client.blueskybroadcast.com/AIBS/2860/index.html. 6. Dawkins, R. When Religion Steps on Science’s Turf. Free Inquiry. 1998. Retrieved on 28 Feb 2011 from http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_2.html.7. Feynman, R.P. In The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman. Helix Books. 2005.8. Steering Committee on Science and Creationism. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences”. NAS Press. 1999.9. http://photos.state.gov/libraries/czech-republic/119398/Events%202010/kostel-sv-matouse-religion3.jpg10. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/conflict/images/religion_2009.jpg

philosophers, entrepreneurs or even rock stars. Thus, the fields of science and religion are not far away. The threat from science towards religion is imminent, because science is evolving and constantly gives different factual accounts from the mostly static, unchangeable holy books. Lastly, as a biologist, Gould’s paper of non-overlapping magisteria is in fact a social science theory. In a sense, Gould’s theory is largely a personal opinion taken seriously because of his work in another field. His non-overlapping magisteria theory is unrealistic on its assumptions and bears no stringent analysis as his scientific work. His friendly stance seems only reason-able if he believes in his goodwill that withdrawing direct contact of Darwin’s work against Genesis would stop the battering of religious forces against scientific community.

Even if Gould had his point in raising the possibility of following different rulers in two overlapping fields, he misses the absolute belief in a creator that a person requires to follow the relevant set of rules. The interesting case of the southern church boy goes to college illustrates a personi-fied conflict between the values of church and science in an individual [7]. A boy may grow in mid-west or the south of United States, where religion offers strong connections in the community and strength in facilitating social cohesion. Yet, when he goes to a college to study science or engineering, his way of thinking is transformed by his pursuit of scien-tific knowledge, and his old values and faith is challenged gradually. The compelling force to follow religious rules is weakened once the story of a divine almighty is chal-lenged or the possibility of the holy text being inaccurate revealed. When a believer became skeptical or even slightly uncertain about the idea of the almighty creator, his/her will to abide the rules stated in holy text withered because the imminent fear of hell or eternal punishments disappeared if the punisher does not exist in the first place. The culture shock of the church boy is in fact a shared experience of modern man, faced first by scientists and thereafter by lay people who read scientists’ work. Human beings since 20th century more often than their counterpart centuries ago are torn between the good words of faith and increasingly troubling evidence against a Creator, Genesis and Christmas. Not necessarily holding a science degree, a modern man will encounter another problem unmet by his ancestors: a man in our age is showered by books of different religious figures and comparative studies of world religions. Unlike his ancestors who may see only one kind of culture or is born into a more homogenous religious community, the modern man is confused, by the similarity yet exclusive calling of each religion. The kaleidoscope viewed by modern human beings raises the question: if each story is true and self-explanatory, which story-teller is to believe upon others?

Well, nobody has the perfect answer. Each individual

may make his/her own choice. A scientist can be religious as well. Newton is deeply religious and in fact he wrote extensively on biblical studies. However his interpretation is too radical to be considered mainstream and made no significance compared to that of his scientific achievements. Notably even when a scientist is religious, if he makes the most pioneering work in science (which are more tolerant to challenges and therefore more updated than religion), such work would unlikely match the account of church on the same issue. In essence, it is in the method a person takes and his tolerance of doubt that mark him as a scientist or a religious person. That perhaps explains why the more ground-breaking a scientist’s work is, the more likely the scientist is deemed as non-religious or an atheist: the scientist may be open-minded, his religion is not. By acknowledging the nature of a scientist work and code of practices of the scientific community, it helps appreciate their ethics and choice in a seemingly cynic attitude, formed by a profes-sionalism centered on pursuit of empirical knowledge.

Sometimes, scientists are completely drawn to the value of doubt and the material-based Scientific Method in and out of their professional life. Other times, like any confused modern individual, the scientists’ faith reflects a balance of what they believe more spiritually, or realistically. Knowing more about the mysteries once all claimed to a divine power, the scientists are usually people who admire nature and its complex ways [8]. The analogy of a Creator playing dice, or make clay dolls, mirrors the scientists’ doubts about the simple Creation story, but also reverence in how nature as a whole came into existence and the uncertainty (of course) in a confirmative exclusion of divine power in the process not yet figured out. A scientist’s image of God and definition of faith is unlikely to be same to that of a lay person due to their Scientific Method and Value of doubt. However, their approaches in the conflicting dilemma are similar, resulting sometimes in a matter of how much faith they have, not a matter of whether they have faith or not: many prominent scientists are confirmed deists, humanists or free thinkers, instead of atheists.

In this aspect, The scientist in the dilemma is similar to a common man who approaches religion with both respect and doubt, who has his own religion but does not hate the others, a family man who tells white lies to his daughter about the Santa as kind and ‘not fictional’, a man who cel-ebrates December holidays as Chrismukkah, or an Obama who believes in both Christianity and Scientific Inquiry and Evolution.

Tommy Shi Zheng is a studying Electrical Engineering at the National University of Singapore.

NUS.indb 21 4/7/2011 12:00:23 PM


UCHICAGO

Cash For Kidneys: How Do We Solve the Kidney Shortage

Problem?Doni Bloomfield

Twelve patients filed into six operating rooms; nine surgical teams set to work and ten hours later six people emerged with new, working kidneys [1]. Si-

multaneously transplanting six kidneys is an extraordinarily convoluted operation, and would only take place in the dismal context in which the United States finds itself: a desperate shortage of kidneys. The situation has degraded to such an extent that, as with the case above, patients and potential donors are resorting to bartering with their organs. Five of the six recipients had relatives who were immunologi-cally unable to donate to them and, with the addition of an altruistic donor, were able to mix and match types so they all received kidneys. The operations were performed simultaneously so none of the parties could back out [1].

This extraordinary story is just one sign of our current medical crisis. The dire shortage of kidney donations leads to nearly 4,000 deaths annually in the US [2]. And that’s a

low bound; some estimates reach as high as 9,000 deaths per year [3]. Currently over 86,000 people are waiting for a donation, but perhaps the most fearful statistic is the change in death rate for people on the waiting list which, between 1998 and 2007, rose 76% [4,5]. While the demand for kidneys grows daily, many economists and medical professionals are exploring innovative and controversial solutions, like the kidney exchange above, which may reduce some of these disturbing statistics. While many of these solutions appear to be at least somewhat effective, they carry a number of moral concerns that must also be addressed.

The first kidney transplant was performed in Bos-ton in 1954. This new operation would, over the next half century, save thousands of lives. The introduction of im-munosuppresants in the 1970s dramatically popularized the procedure [2]. The increasing safety of donation from live donors prompted a widespread fear that impoverished citizens from abroad would be shipped into the U.S. to have their organs snatched. In response, in 1984 Congress passed the National Organ Transplant Act, barring the sale of organs for any reason, only permitting altruistic donations [6]. The only way to receive an organ under the current system is from a living donor who decides to donate an organ without any compensation, or from a cadaver whose family decides to donate, also without compensation. As we have seen, demand has soared and supply stagnated. Since 1988 the number of dialysis-dependent individuals

Before us is a real tragedy, one that confronts us with powerful moral difficulties


NUS.indb 22 4/7/2011 12:00:23 PM

UCHICAGO


(those with severe kidney disease who are unable to find a transplant) has tripled [7].

The situation may appear bleak but to an economist this is a clear problem of misaligned incentives. Currently the only incentive for unrelated donors to donate is pure altruism, which goes a long way in explaining why about 80% of living donors are related to the recipient and the declining numbers of cadaveric donations relative to living donations [2,3]. In the current U.S. system, which requires potential donors to opt-in to allow their organs to be harvested after death, large swaths of the public neglect to do so, contributing to a situation in which less than one half of potential cadaveric donors donate [8].

To change the amount supplied we need to shift incentives for donating or remove potential barriers to altruism. The first place to look is within the current sys-tem, especially where there are inefficiencies that don’t require systematic change to correct. A suggestion currently being tested is the aforementioned kidney exchange. If two individuals each need a kidney, and each has a willing donor who is unable to donate to them for immunological reasons, the donors can swap kidneys by giving to the recipient whom they are compatible with, thereby prolonging their lives and removing them from the waiting list [9]. In order to prevent reneging on this exchange, all four individuals typically have surgery simultaneously. This kidney barter maintains the basic altruistic incentives while allowing more people to donate. Efforts are ongoing to create regional exchanges to allow for these trades to be set up, and some economists envision taking this to a new level, with long chains of donors organized around anonymous donors who have no preference to whom their kidney goes, allowing for non-simultaneous trades [10]. While this op-tion has the fewest legal barriers, it remains uncertain how effective these exchanges, which thus far have been rare, are in mitigating the overall problem [12].

A number of countries worldwide have taken a larger scale approach, putting the opt-in system on its head with a system known as presumed consent, whereby possible donors are assumed to permit donation unless they have specified otherwise [13]. In other words, any cadaver coming into the hospital with harvestable organs is presumed to consent to harvesting unless written documentation asserts otherwise. This form of incentivizing is known as liberal paternalism: systems need to be set up with some default assumptions and, the reasoning goes, it’s better to set up systems that lead to better outcomes overall [14]. On the other hand, some find this an overreach that removes personal autonomy and can lead to hostility to the healthcare system – like Brazil encountered when they recently attempted a system of presumed consent [15]. Empirical evidence suggests that, in the aggregate, presumed consent raises donation rates by about 30% [16].

Somewhere between these two options lies the novel Israeli approach, instituted in January 2010, wherein donors receive priority for future receipt of organs. If an individual

donates an organ, for instance a kidney, they are automati-cally placed higher on the waiting list if they should need to receive in organ themselves in the future. No money changes hands but an added incentive is thrown in to boost supply [17]. An effort to enact similar legislation is underway in the U.S. [3]. While this system of incentives may help alleviate some of the pressure on the waiting list, some experts believe that any deviation from a strict needs-based approach leads to undesirable outcomes, as sick patients “may end up be-ing pushed to the back of the queue,” in favor of those who

have donated [18].While all of these remedies

may depart from traditional al-truistic donations, they do not radically change the basic system: no money changes hands between the donor and the recipient, and the only form of compensation comes through barter of organs. However, because these solu-tions do not completely bridge the supply-demand gap, some

economists suggest a more radical departure: an explicit monetary market for organs. How this market would work is highly contested, with views ranging from almost completely laissez faire to a single payer who would then distribute the kidneys based on need [19,20]. The essential point of the market, though, is that monetary compensation would be offered as an incentive to donate. In general terms a marketplace would target two groups: those who would donate upon death and those who would, because they have two viable kidneys, donate while alive. The first group would likely be incentivized by payments, paid while the individual is living, to permit harvesting upon death if the organs were to prove viable [6]. Alternatively, heirs would be paid if they agreed to allow donations from their already deceased relations [3].

Because there is greater demand for kidneys than there are harvestable organs from cadavers, we need living donors to make up the slack [2]. Moreover, organs from living donors lead to better long-term health than do cadaverous organs [20]. In a market system, living donors would be paid for their lost wages, the risks associated with the surgery, and potential hampering of their future living standards. Recent leaps in transplantation have reduced the risks from surgery to around a .03% mortality rate and minimized long-term declines in the living standard of the donor [18]. Given these advances, economists Becker and Elias estimate the price of a kidney to be between $7,700 and $27,700, with more confidence in the lower value [2]. Because this would only constitute a 12% increase in the total cost of surgery, the increased supply would well exceed the decrease in demand caused by the price bump [2].

Before enacting such a major change we want to be confident in the efficacy of a market system. Fortunately, there is a large case study: the country of Iran. As the only country in the world that permits the sale of kidneys, Iran is also the only country with a surplus of kidneys: there are no major shortages [7, 21]. The market, at least in theory, is a highly regulated and hierarchical system that attempts to decouple potential conflicts of interest. The process begins

[A]ny cadaver coming into the hospital with harvestable organs is presumed to consent

to harvesting unless written documentation asserts

otherwise

NUS.indb 23 4/7/2011 12:00:25 PM


UCHICAGO

with the medical centers that identify viable sellers; these are staffed by volunteers and not compensated by the number of sellers they produce. To ensure the health of the seller, a doctor with the right to veto the procedure conducts a second examination. If the seller is approved a fixed sum is paid to him or her by the government with the rest being made up by the recipient or, if they are unable to afford it, a number of official charities [7].

This system is a useful proxy for observing the good and ill of legalizing financial incentives to donors. The benefits came over a decade, as Iran gradually cleared all shortages in kidneys, the only country worldwide to achieve this feat [7]. This is the primary aim of any kidney system, but there are major concerns about how the market operates. For one, the Iranian system may not be as efficiently regulated as it appears; those who cannot afford kidneys are sometimes not subsidized by charities and must wait for a cadaverous organ to become available [21]. Moreover, data suggests that most sellers are young men in extreme poverty, many of whom eventually regret having sold their kidneys [21]. This is coupled with some very troubling long-term health problems that sellers face [7]. These problems may be endemic to kidney markets in general but relative to more advanced economies the negative long-term health effects seems to be a particular Iranian phenomenon.

If a market in organs is highly successful at prevent-ing deaths, as the Iranian system appears to demonstrate, it raises the question of why such a system, or a similar

one, hasn’t been instituted elsewhere. There are two main responses. The first, as posited by economist Gary Becker, is that several groups have an interest in maintaining the status quo ban on selling kidneys. He proposes several pos-sible groups, among them insurance companies, who under a market system would have to pay for many new kidney transplants, which in turn would include the additional cost of compensating the donor [22]. Another possible interest group are surgeons who have specialized in rapid-response transplants, a field which would be of much smaller relevance in an Iranian-type system under which transplants could be scheduled in advance.

The second answer, proposed by economist Alvin Roth, is that there is a widely held repugnance towards compensating organ donors, much as people find raising prices in the face of a natural disaster distasteful, or how many reacted to the introduction of an all-volunteer army [22,23]. Repugnance seems to spring from a mingling of activities normally considered altruistic or familial, such as giving supplies during a disaster or sexual relations, and those considered commercial, like cash transfers. This may in part explain why price gauging and prostitution are both illegal in much of the world [23]. The same idea would seem to lie at the root of distaste for introducing monetary compensation into what might otherwise be considered an altruistic activity, the donation of a kidney. These two explanations, of course, are not mutually exclusive: interest groups may take advantage of moral intuitions to promote


NUS.indb 24 4/7/2011 12:00:25 PM

UCHICAGO


References1. Rose, D Six-way kidney transplant goes ahead as volunteer donor steps in. The Times 2008 April 10. 2. Becker GS, Elias JJ. Introducing Incentives in the Market for Live and Cadaveric Organ Donations. J of Economic Perspectives 2007; 21(3):3-24.3. Tabarrok A. Life-Saving Incentives: Consequences, Costs and Solutions to the Organ Shortage. Library of Economics and Liberty [homepage on the Internet]. 2009 [cited 2010 Nov 1]. Available at: htt p://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2009/Tabarroklifesaving.html4. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network A. Current U.S. Waiting List, Overall By Organ. [homepage on the Internet]. 2010 [cited 2010 Nov 1]. Available from: U.S. Government, Health Resources and Services Administration, Depart-ment of Health and Human Services Web site: htt p://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/latestData/rptData.asp5. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network A. Annual Report of the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Scientifi c Registry of Transplant Recipients: Transplant Data 1998-2007. [homepage on the Internet]. 2008 [cited 2010 Nov 1]. Available from: U.S. Government, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Division of Transplantation Web site: htt p://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/ar2008/chapter_iii_AR_cd.htm?cp=46. Schwindt J, Vining AR. Proposal for a Future Delivery Market for Transplant Organs. J of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1986; 11(3):483-500.7. Hippen BE, Organ Sales and Moral Travails: Lessons from the Living Kidney Vendor Program in Iran. Cato Institute’s Policy Analysis 2008; (614):1-20.8. Sheehy E, Conrad SL, Brigham LE, Luskin R, Weber P, Eakin M, et al. Estimat-ing the Number of Potential Organ Donors in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003; 349(7):667-74.9. Roth AE, Sonmez T, Unver MU. Kidney Exchange. Qrtly J of Econ 2004; 119(2):457-488.10. Roth AE, What Have We Learned From Market Design? The Economic Journal, 2008; 118: 285–310.11. Rees MA, Kopke JE, Pelletier RP, Segev DL, Rutt er ME, Fabrega AJ et al. A Nonsimultaneous, Extended, Altruistic-Donor Chain. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:1096-101.

12. Elias JJ, Roth AE. A Market for Kidneys? Wall Street Journal Online 2007 Nov 713. Abadie A, Gay S. The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: A cross-country study. J of Health Econ 2006; 25:599–620.14. Sunstein CR, Thaler RH. Libertarian Paternalism is Not an Oxymoron, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies at The University of Chicago Law School 2003; :1-43.15. English V, Wright L. Is presumed consent the answer to organ shortages? BMJ 2007; 334:1088-89.16. Rithalia A, Mcdaid C, Suekarran S, Myers L, Sowden. Impact of presumed con-sent for organ donation on donation rates: a systematic review. BMJ 2009; 338:1-8.17. Lavee J, Ashkenazi T, Gurman G, Steinberg, D. A new law for allocation of donor organs in Israel. The Lancet 2009; 375(9772):1131–33.18. Brimelow A, Israeli organ donors to get transplant priority. BBC 2009 Dec 1719. Epstein RA, The Human and Economic Dimensions of Altruism: The Case of Organ Transplantation. JOHN M. OLIN LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 385 2008; :1-48.20. Richards JR, Erin CA, Harris J. Commentary. An ethical market in human organs. J Med Ethics 2008; :139-40.21. Griff en A, Kidneys on Demand. BMJ 2007; 334:502-505.22. Becker G. Interviewed by: Bloomfi eld D. 22 November 201023. Roth AE, Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets. J of Econ Perspectives 2007; 21(3):37-58.24. Yandle, B, Bootleggers and Baptists in Retrospect. Regulation 1999; 22(3)25. Richards JR, Nepharious Goings On: Kidney Sales and Moral Argument. J of Med and Philosophy 1996; 21:375-416.26. Resnick DB, Regulating the Market for Human Eggs. Bioethics 2001; 15(1):1-25.27. Wartner, TJ, Asch, BJ, The Record and Prospects of the All-Volunteer Military in the United States. J of Econ Perspectives 2001; 15(2) 169-19228. Watkins, SJ, Sherk, J, Who Serves in the U.S. Military? Demographic Characteristics of Enlisted Troops and Offi cers. Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation 2008; 1-29. Available at: htt p://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-offi cers 29. htt p://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/kudiseases/pubs/transplant/.30. htt p://www.maricopa.gov/safety/tips/images/aug03surgery.JPG

their own agenda. This intuition of repugnance is not the only source of

moral objection to a market in organs. There are two types of moral problems: first, what might be considered the intel-lectual support for repugnance, categorical moral problems with the very act of selling an organ as dehumanizing, and second, unfair or distasteful outcomes that result from al-lowing organs to be sold. Often these two are confused and it would be best to separate them at the outset.

Many argue that we find paying for organs repugnant because it is an act that reduces human dignity. This argu-ment runs that by selling the organs that constitute our bodies we are engaging in commodification of our bodies, which is destructive to human dignity [25]. By parceling out our organs, we are implicitly saying that the human being is just another good that can be bought and sold, akin to slavery [25]. Opponents of this view counter that we are currently operating markets in human reproductive material, apparently without major negative consequences, and that people trade parts of themselves when they work for a wage [26,18]. Still, if one considers the human body sacrosanct, a market in organs might be morally untenable.

Others believe that while selling a kidney per se is not immoral, the consequences of a market would be unfair and exploitative. We have already seen that the poor do donate disproportionately in Iran, and quite possibly this would occur elsewhere. A free market in a more developed country, however, might lean towards healthy, less impoverished individuals, as has happened in the case of the Army, which, despite expectations to the contrary, has received higher quality recruits as a volunteer force than it did under the draft, and actually gets a higher proportion of its soldiers from the highest-earning quintiles than the lowest [2, 27, 28]. Moreover, other markets engage in offering less pleasant jobs

to poorer individuals because they have fewer opportuni-ties – this is overall a good thing for the poor, because they lack many alternatives. Likewise, the huge cash boost after selling a kidney could allow a poorer individual to buy a new home, invest in a college education, or help a relative pay for necessary surgery, among many praiseworthy reasons to accept the tradeoff [25]. We allow individuals to accept compensation for risky activities, such as logging and fish-ing, because the social welfare is on balance benefited. The wages in these occupations are commensurately higher than similarly skilled, but less dangerous occupations; likewise here some risks would be accepted in return for payment. It appears that while there are fairness objections, many could be overcome with education, a required cooling off period before donation, and a single buyer [2,6].

Before us is a very real tragedy, one that confronts us with powerful moral difficulties. To bridge the current kidney shortage we can turn to working within the system, whether by switching to presumed consent, crafting sophisticated swaps, or giving donors priority to organs. While these all may be productive, they seem ultimately insufficient to clear waiting lists, which leaves us with the contentious possibility of a financial market in kidneys. Economic analysis suggests that this would be very effective at eliminating shortages, potentially saving thousands of lives, and possibly redounding to the benefit of the sellers. Ultimately, however, economics cannot inform us as to the morality of this decision. We can arbitrate the facts by economic analysis; the moral truth lies in the vast realm of human subjectivity.

Doni Bloomfield is a freshman studying Economics and History at the University of Chicago.

NUS.indb 25 4/7/2011 12:00:25 PM


CAMBRIDGE

Genae Girard, a 39-year-old woman living in the US, had to pay a staggering $3200 for a single genetic test for the BRCA gene associated with breast and

ovarian cancer, only to find that she was unable to request a second opinion upon receiving the positive test result. After consulting with doctors, Ms Girard was advised to have her ovaries surgically removed in order to diminish the 60% risk of developing ovarian cancer indicated by the genetic test. Because Myriad Genetics, which holds a patent on the BRCA genes, is the only laboratory to provide the genetic test, Ms Girard had to undergo the life-changing surgery without knowing for certain whether it was absolutely necessary [1].

Ms Girard is only one of tens of thousands of women in this situation, left with no choice but to accept the outcome of a single indeterministic genetic test result, which in addi-tion is subject to human errors in the test laboratory. Other companies are unable to provide an alternative method of diagnosis because the gene in question is protected under patent laws [2]. Currently 20% of human genes are “owned” by individual biotechnology companies and research labs, making it illegal for others to carry out diagnosis and therapy, and limiting research using those genes [1,3].

The underlying principles of patents are to promote

openness of publically beneficial findings, and to reward investors for the capital endowed in innovating and de-veloping a product. In return for disclosing the details of an invention and paying a maintenance fee, the patentee receives a 20-year monopoly over the patented product or process [4]. This argument has an appreciable value when considering inventions such as Tetra Pak® or SuperGlue. However, is the patenting of human genes a step too far? Do gene patents deprive the public of cost-effective health care, and what impact do they have on research in public institutions and competing companies?

The history of the British patent system as we know it today started in the 19th century, when the granting of patents became independent of the crown and turned into a regulatory matter for the state. With the passage of the Patent act in 1977, patent rights became an integrated part of British law.

It is worth noting that patents are country-specific, and the laws regulating them vary from country to country [4]. Generally, US patent laws are more liberal in the consideration of patentable matters than the European equivalent, allowing more gene patents to be approved [5]. The European Patents Office (EPO), an intergovernmental patent approval organ-

isation, has 3 main criteria for the patent-ability of an invention: it has to be new, be susceptible to industrial application and involve an inventive step. In addition, the Biotech Patent Directive adopted in 1998 by the EPO contains further criteria and restrictions to clarify the patentability of biotechnological matters [6].

The association of BRCA1 with breast and ovarian cancer was discovered in 1994 by Mark Skolnick, founder of Myriad Genetics. He patented the gene and was granted a monopoly for the use of the gene in genetic testing, gene therapy, protein replacement therapy and the screening of drugs for cancer therapy [7]. In 1995, BRCA2, a related gene, was discovered and the patent rights were purchased by Myriad Genetics. The patents have allowed Myriad to, in effect, control the research and genetics testing of the BRCA genes in the US [8]. The BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents were approved by the EPO in 2001 and 2003 respectively, but cover a more restricted scope of rights than the US patents [1,9].

A law suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) resulted in the invalidation of the BRCA gene patents in March 2010 at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court decision taken by Judge Sweet

Your Genes Belong To UsGengshi Chen

©Gengshi Chen

NUS.indb 26 4/7/2011 12:00:25 PM

CAMBRIDGE


was based on the argument that the isolated DNA is not markedly different from the natural state and that “DNA … should be treated as the physical embodiment of … nature”. In other words, although DNA is a chemical molecule, it should not simply be treated as other chemical compounds, since it also carries information and knowledge, which is not patentable. This is the first time an American court has found it unlawful to patent genes, a decision which could lead to the invalidation of 18.5% of the current patents of human genes [5,8].

Opponents to human gene patenting are concerned in principle by the action of owning genes – DNA is intrinsic and not an invention. The patents monopolise the gene test market and inhibit competition-derived reduction of health care costs. The revenue of Myriad Genetics in 2009 was $326 million, most of which came from their BRACAnaly-sis gene test [8]. Another problem arising from the nature of the monopolised market is that patients are prevented from receiving a second opinion on their test results. The intellectual property rights allow the patent holder to deny licensing the usage of the gene for the development of al-ternative diagnostic tests, in order to retain their monopoly of the test market. Critics also argue that the current patent system (especially in the US) is unfair, because it allows a gene to be patented before a working product has been developed. Moreover, even if only a single function of a gene is understood at the time of patenting, the patent may cover all other functions of the gene yet to be discovered. This is something that has become increasingly significant as we discover the complexity of gene function and regulation [4].

One of the main arguments against gene patenting is that it stifles research, prevents scientific advances and stops the development of new therapies. To limit the ex-tent of this effect, there are research exemption rules in the patent laws of many European countries and in the US, which allow “pure” research to use patented genes without the need for a licence [10]. Hundreds of research papers on patented genes such as the BRCA genes prove that the concept works; researchers are making use of the exemp-tion rule [8]. To further reduce the research dampening effect, some biotechnology companies provide subsidised licensing to research labs [11]. In a statement by Myriad Genetics, the company said, “It is important for us to point out that research activities with the patented technologies are not limited in any way by Myriad and are encouraged through subsidised costs for testing from the company to

researchers.” Although this might encourage research on patented genes in non-profit labs, it is unlikely that com-petitors are using these free licences, since new products developed with the gene may be under the protection of the existing patent, allowing Myriad to claim royalties on their research [12]. Other organisations, such as the not-for-profit Cancer Research UK, take a similar approach by granting free licences to all reputable research labs, and in doing so preventing research on the gene in question from becoming stagnant [11].

On the other side of the debate are supporters of gene patenting, who argue that patents are needed to provide an incentive for capitalists to invest in research. Due to the long process between the initial discovery of a gene and the commercialisation of the final diagnostic or therapeutic product, gene patenting is needed in addition to product patenting in order to drive initial research. A major problem with ending gene patenting is the risk of increased secrecy in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries as well as in academia, which would hinder research and result in wasteful research duplications. Gene patenting allows academics to publish their research openly, enabling further development [8,13].

The controversy of human gene patenting has been difficult to solve, partly due to the complexity of genetic material in terms of its function and regulation. New find-ings are constantly revealed, making it difficult for the law and ethics to keep up to speed with patentability criteria and case law. All gene sequence patents were granted prior to the completion of the first draft of the human genome project in 2000 by which time all human genome sequenc-es became publically available [14]. The 20-year validity of patents means that the last gene sequence patent is going to expire in 2020, effectively solving the dilemma [8]. How-ever, scientific advances continuously generate new uses and applications of already sequenced genes, such as ge-netic tests and drug screen targets, which may well be pat-entable. The scientific society and the general public should continue the debate in order to influence the way EPO and other patent offices are building up case law for the patent-ability of human genes, striving to achieve a balance between the incentive to invest in research, scientific progress and fair health care services.

Gengshi Chen is a second year student studying Natural Sciences at Selwyn College, Cambridge University.

References1.The New York Times [online]. 2009 May 12 [cited 2010 Oct 24] Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13patent.html 2. Australian Broadcasting Corporation Transcripts. 2009 Sep 29 [cited 2010 Oct 28] Available from: ULR: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2700099.htm 3. Young D. ACLU, Other Groups File Suit to Challenge BRCA Patents. BIOWORLD Today 2009 May 14; 20(92) 4. Bently L, Sherman B. Intellectual Property Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 20015. Kaufman R J, Storey H M. Ruling against BRCA gene patent now on appeal; At issue is district court finding that isolated DNA constitutes unpatentable subject matter. The National Law Journal 2010 Aug 16: 32(49)6. The European Patent Office [online]. 2010 Jul 7 [cited 2010 Oct 18] Available from: ULR: http://www.epo.org/topics/issues/biotechnology.html7. Shattuck-Eidens et al., Myriad Genetics Inc. et al., 1997. Linked breast cancer and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene. US patent 5,693,473.8. Flam F. The case for and against the patenting of genes. The Philadelphia Inquirer 2010 Jun 21; sect. E019. The EPO patent only covers the fragment of BRCA gene sequence used as a probe in the genetic test, whereas the US equivalent covers the DNA sequence

of the entire BRCA gene. Therefore a licence is not needed in Europe in order to develop a new BRCA gene tests using an alternative fragments of the BRCA gene: Diagnostic Testing and the Ethics of Patenting DNA [online]. 2010 December 5 Available from: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/diagnostic-testing-and-the-ethics-of-patenting-70910. Hemphill T A. Gene patents, the anticommons, and the biotechnology industry. Research-Technology Management 2010 Sep 1;53(5)11. The independent [online]. Threat to breast cancer testing after controversial patent ruling. 2008 Sec 4 [cited 2010 Oct 28]; Available from: ULR: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/threat-to-breast-cancer-testing-after-controversial-patent-ruling-1050586.html12. Irish Times [online]. Cashing in on your genes. 2010 May 28 [cited 2010 Oct 28]; Available from: ULR:http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/innovation/2010/0528/1224270972712.html13. Nature [online]. Europe to pay royalties for cancer gene. 2008 Dec 2 [cited 2010 Oct 28]; Available from: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081202/full/456556a.html14. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome [online]. 2010 November 30 Available from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html

NUS.indb 27 4/7/2011 12:00:25 PM


HARVARD

The globalization of science and medical services is a double-edged sword. On one hand, the diffusion of knowledge and health amenities from industrialized

to industrializing countries facilitates access to health care technologies for the populations most in need. On the other hand, the increasing ease of information and service exchange between countries allows scientists and pharmaceutical compa-nies to tap into and take advantage of those needy populations for research and clinical trials. It is the latter consequence of globalization that treads the fine line between the need for scientific advancement and the need to safeguard human welfare. This moral quandary is not new, and ever since the Tuskegee syphilis experiment in Alabama revealed the horrors of withholding available treatments to unsuspecting test subjects, multiple regulatory measures have been implemented to prevent medical research from purposefully jeopardizing the health of human subjects.

In the international arena however, vague standards for research on human subjects and the different national policies for subject protection has made transgressing moral boundaries much easier. “Tuskegee-like” experiments can still be seen today. For example, in one study funded by the National Institutes of Health, investigators from Uni-versity of Washington and University of Nairobi allowed HIV-positive pregnant women in Nairobi to go untreated in order to study the correlation between the viral loads in

the mother’s genital tract and transmission of HIV to the offspring [1]. This study continued despite the availability of an antiviral drug called AZT that could have prevented mother-to-child HIV transmission. Certainly, such ethically questionable study would not have been done in the United States, but in African countries where regulatory measures are more lax, experiments like these are more common.

The practice of extending biomedical research to developing countries in order to circumvent prohibitory ethical regulations is remarkably analogous to a common

economic phenomenon known as job outsourcing, a strategy through which companies exploit cheap labor of populous countries to maximize revenue. From this comparison emerges a double-standard that scien-tists in these research projects

could use to argue that researchers are not obligated to provide first-world treatment to third-world subjects. Just as science enlists subjects from countries with lax ethical regulations to generate new findings, so too does businesses take advantage of surplus labor in places with poor worker protection to churn out new products. Why are scientists obligated to assure the best proven diagnostic and therapeutic method to their foreign subjects while businesses are not required to adhere to the minimum wage and employee compensa-tion standards of developed countries? What does it mean for human rights to be universal if they are not uniformly

applied from business to science? Proponents of subjects’ rights would

probably respond by noting that the matter of life and death in research – especially in the HIV research in Africa – differentiates research from business. Because human life is at stake, researchers are morally responsible to enact the highest ethical values in spite of local stan-dards. But how are scientists to judge to what extent human life is at risk? How accurately can scientists assess the risk of harm or death in research in other societies especially since Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have too little familiarity with developing countries? This nagging ambiguity suggests a clear-cut solution of doing unto others as we do unto ourselves may not practically or adequately redeem the shame of medical research.

In research with humans as subjects, one ideal is predominant: The well-being of the subjects should take precedence over the interests of science and society. However, in advocating for the uncompromising applica-

The Ethics of Research and Clinical Trial Outsourcing

Dayan Li

What does it mean for human rights to be universal if they

are not uniformly applied from business to science?

Reproduced from [2]

NUS.indb 28 4/7/2011 12:00:25 PM

HARVARD


tion of Western and American ethical practices to research in developing countries, we make the assumption that 1) Western and American ethical practices are the most ideal and 2) that uniform application of these practices in different societies is equally beneficial, or at least will generate the most beneficial outcome. Absent from his proposal is the consideration that local biologies and local moral worlds may affect the way human rights practices meet human rights standards.

For instance, official Ugandan policy advises against partner notification when the other partner is tested as HIV-positive. In compliance with U.S. ethical practices, the uninfected partner would most likely be notified. However, in countries like Uganda that lack the same civil protections and HIV education as United States, labeling someone as HIV-positive could expose them to spousal abuse and severe social injustices. In addition, when offering the best possible Western treatment (e.g., AZT) to subjects, scientists should take into account factors like the drug’s toxicity and the

need for constant medical monitoring in context with the work demands, living conditions, limited funds, and the local values of the native population.

This is where ethnography may aid in the most sensible application of human rights practices in research. Instead of complacently accepting the fact that IRBs are ill-equipped to differentiate among the values and customs of foreign societies and therefore broadly applying Western human rights practices everywhere, ethics committees should eth-nographically understand the complex interplay between social and cultural values, and the impacts of Western-derived approaches in such context. While human rights standards are universal, practices that safeguard those standards are not. Hopefully, with ethnography, biomedical research in developing countries can achieve culturally pertinent benefits and turn research outsourcing into research outreaching.

Dayan Li is a senior at Harvard University.

References1. Rothman, D. J. (2000, November 30). The shame of medical research. The New York Review of Books, Retrieved from http://www.nybooks.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/articles/archives/2000/nov/30/the-shame-of-medical-research/2. Training to enhance clinical research involving human subjects in the developing world is being supported with Recovery Act funding [image fom the internet]. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. [Cited 2011 Mar

1]. Available from: http://www.fic.nih.gov/news/publications/global_health_matters/2010/1010_recovery-human-subjects.htm3. Nasteha Mohammed, of KBC, and Bevin Bhoke, of Citizen Radio, interview a scientist with the Kenya AIDS Vaccine Initiative [image fom the internet]. USAID. [Cited 2011 Mar 3]. Available from: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/News/photo_gallery/africa/africa06.html

Reproduced from [3]

NUS.indb 29 4/7/2011 12:00:26 PM


CORNELL

30

CORNELLScience Research Papers:

Can You Always Trust What You Read?Chikaodili Okaneme

Scientists have developed principles and methods meant to ensure that reliable scientific knowledge is com-municated to the public.

Robert Merton’s Norms and David King’s Universal Ethical Codes for Scientists promote the production of sound sci-ence, and peer review aims to ensure that scientists publish research papers of the highest quality. Nevertheless, time and time again, false or mislead-ing scientific information slips by peer review and is widely published. Despite established ethical codes, major issues in science communication still exist.

Codes of Ethics in ScienceThere are two major social doctrines that embody the ethical standards expected of all scientists. The earliest is Robert Merton’s Normative Structure of Science, which states that science as a whole should function based on four values:

1. Communalism: scientists should make scientific information fully accessible to other scientists. 2. Universalism: all scientists should be given an equal and unbiased opportunity to make scientific contributions despite certain factors (e.g. personal relationships, institution affiliation, race, etc). 3. Disinterestedness: scientists should be de-tached from their work and have little interest in “seeing [his/her] particular claim judged to be true.” 4. Organized skepticism: scientists are encour-aged to question their work as well as the work of others [1].

Merton believed that science, as a social institution, could “maximize the contribution of qualified scientists to [produce] … knowledge, to ensure the reliability of knowledge generated and to make it as widely available as possible” [1]. Though Merton’s Norms are not actual laws that all scientists are mandated to follow, these Norms have been accepted by scientists as a set of moral standards that foster the creation and distribution of meaningful scientific knowledge.

A current alternative to Merton’s Norms is David King’s Universal Ethical Code for Scientists. King’s code of ethics similarly states that “scientists should accurately and honestly present scientific evidence, declare conflicts of interest, and prevent professional misconduct” [2]. Overall, the Code calls for all scientists to act with (1) rigor, honesty and integrity, (2) respect for life, the law and the public good

and (3) responsibility when listening to the ideas of others and informing society on scientific issues [3]. As a whole,

the Code is meant to depict scientists as respectable and trustworthy figures in society.

Codes of Ethics in Practice?Regardless of Merton’s or King’s ideals, there are still many problems associated with scientists producing reliable science,

especially during the peer review process. Peer review is a method widely used to minimize faulty and/or completely false information from large pools of scientific research. Although low acceptance rates for journals that publish research papers seem to suggest that peer review is highly effective in ensuring quality, research shows that many journals accept less than 30% of the papers they receive. The exception is the Journal of the American Medical Association, which has an acceptance rate as low as 9% [4]. All in all, peer review’s efficiency can be considered relatively high. Unfortunately, low-quality and fraudulent papers are still frequently published.

Though a number of factors can jeopardize the quality of scientific knowledge in peer reviewed journals, journal editor subjectivity may be the greatest cause for concern. While it is generally presumed that editors are well-experienced professionals, flawless peer review editing can be quite rare. Certain elements of a paper may cause a reviewer to make inaccurate assumptions. For example, reviewers “appear to base their judgments on cues that have only a weak relation to quality. Such cues include (1) statistical significance, (2) large sample sizes, (3) complex procedures and (4) obscure writing” [6]. In other words, points (1) and (2) imply that peer reviewers often consider statistical significance (e.g. statistical tests) and large sample sizes (e.g. surveying one thousand people when a sample size of 100 would be more appropriate) to be sufficient evidence, even if this informa-tion is not central to the study’s findings. Furthermore, in the case of (3) and (4), reviewers are more likely to accept a paper that is highly complex and difficult to understand. Comprehension difficulty often “leads the reader to conclude that the writer must be very intelligent” [6]. This so-called “intelligent writing,” however, may contain significant er-rors that are missed due to its complexity [6].

Acceptance rate in peer reviewed journals is also a cause for concern. A study included in Scott Armstrong’s collection of research findings indicates that out of 28 papers published in the British Journal of Surgery, “four of the papers should have been rejected, seven needed major revisions, and 11

Regardless of Merton’s or King’s ideals, there are still

many problems associated with scientists developing reliable science, especially during the

peer review process

NUS.indb 30 4/7/2011 12:00:26 PM

CORNELL


needed minor changes” [6]. Essentially, “only 21% of the papers passed post-publication peer review without the need for changes” [6]. In another study, John Darsee, a scientist who was eventually accused of fraud, published 16 papers that contained an aver-age of12 errors per page [6]. Along with other flaws revealed about peer review, these shocking findings reflect that selective peer review system is often not selective enough.

A Case of Science FraudAnother major factor affecting the quality of scientific knowledge is the occurrence of fraud and misconduct. The Hwang Woo-Suk scandal is one of the more recognized controversies concerning the integrity of scientific work. In this case, a large motivation for publishing fraudulent cloning research was nationalism. Hwang’s acclaimed career accomplishments include research papers discussing his production of the NT-1 stem cell line and “of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst’’ [7]. After publication, questions began to surface around the validity of this research, and Hwang’s papers were accused of containing erroneous and misleading information. Later, further investigation revealed that nearly all research featured in Hwang’s major papers was fraudulent. Most of the data and images in Hwang’s papers were intentionally fabricated; he even admitted that he ordered members of his research team to fabricate this information [7]. Reproduced from [9]


NUS.indb 31 4/7/2011 12:00:27 PM


CORNELL

Though one might judge Hwang’s actions as completely inexcusable, consider the tremendous amount of pressure he faced as a scientist. In South Korea, Hwang Woo-Suk was revered not only by other scientists, but by his entire nation for his groundbreaking work. Overall, “South Ko-reans viewed Hwang as holding the hopes of the world” and believed that “to further Hwang’s research was to further South Korea” [7]. Realizing that his country had high expectations for him, Hwang felt compelled to succeed by any means necessary. Hwang mentioned that his research on patient-specific stem cells was meant to be ‘‘the proud technology of [his] nation;” he even promised to one day clone the nation’s holy Mount Paektu tiger as a sign of his patriotism [7]. Although the country’s faith in Hwang was well-intentioned, the role of the media intensified the need for Hwang to produce results. Most of the media coverage about Hwang often made highly speculative claims and emphasized that his research would “change the future of humankind,” creating a false hope among his people [7].

With the daunting task of living up to his country’s expectations, Hwang took such drastic measures to avoid being considered a failure.

Although Hwang’s case is a more well-known instance of scientific fraud and misconduct, such ethically questionable practices are not especially uncommon. For example, a survey taken by sci-entists at the National Institute of Health (NIH) shows that 1.5% of the surveyed participants confessed to falsifying or plagiarizing data [7]. Since publishing papers leads to opportunities for funding and for recognition in widely acclaimed journals, many scientists are pressured to go to any means necessary to publish their research. Even in writing a paper based on sound research, scientists may overstate their findings because “groundbreaking papers are more likely to secure a major journal, attract more public and/or com-mercial interest and be favoured by investors” [7]. Another strategy used by scientists to increase publication number is to promptly submit papers with underdeveloped research. In other words, “some researchers may start the publication pro-cedure before they have results to support their assertions – believing that they can predict the outcome from their preliminary findings” [7]. As the stakes for scientists to produce influential research increase, so does the pressure for scientists to turn to disreputable means.

ConclusionsWhile scientists have certainly made major contributions to society, the legitimacy of published information circulating through its audience

may not always be entirely trustworthy. At times, ethical standards are ignored by others in order to compete for recognition and success. Although Robert Merton’s Norms and David King’s Universal Ethical Code for Scientists are meant to enforce such standards, following them is easier said than done. There are certainly a number of scientists who produce honest and reliable research, but for others who are desperate to publish or keep their funding, the opportunity to outshine other scientists is at times all too tempting. Ultimately, while ethics plays an important role in the scientific community, many factors can still jeopardize the quality of scientific research.

Chikaodili Okaneme is a senior studying Biology & Society and Science & Technology Studies at Cornell University. She is a Meinig Family National Scholar and she is the Chief Production Officer of The Triple Helix. She is graduating in May and will be attending Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.

References1. Holliman, Richard, Jeff Thomas, Eileen Scanlon, Elizabeth Whitelegg, Sam Smidt. “ Practising Science Communication in the Information Age : Theorising Professional Practices”. Oxford University Press. 2009.2. Pang, Ching Ling. “A code of ethics for scientists”. The Lancet. 2007.3. OSI “‘Universal Ethical Code for Scientists’:Research Councils Current Policies and Procedure Upholding the Provisions of the Code”. 2006.4. Hojat, Mohammadreza,Joseph Gonnella and Addeane Caelleigh. “Impartial Judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process”. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2003.5. Kassirer, Jerome and Edward Campion. “Peer Review: Crude and

Understudied, but Indispensable”. JAMA. 1994.6. Armstrong, Scott.“Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation”. Science and Engineering Ethics.1997.7. Saunders, R and J. Savulescu. “Research Ethics and Lessons from Hwanggate: What Can We Learn from the Korean Cloning Fraud?”. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2008.8. http://live.gothamgazette.com/article/iotw/20090824/200/29999. http://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/oct2004/oct04lebx8x1.jpg10. http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/mass-marketing-fraud/fraud11. http://decisionstats.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/ethics.jpg


NUS.indb 32 4/7/2011 12:00:28 PM

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are pleased to announce the launch of our new website at htt p://triplehelixnus.wordpress.com/

Please visit our webpage often to fi nd out about our latest activites.

If you are interested in contributing your support to The Triple Helix’s mission, whether fi nancially or otherwise, please feel free to visit our website at htt p://nus.thetriplehelix.org.

© 2011 The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved. The Triple Helix at the National Univeristy of Singapore is an indepen-dent chapter of The Triple Helix, Inc., an educational 501(c)3 non-profi t corporation. The Triple Helix at the National University of Singapore is published once per semester and is available free of charge. Its sponsors, advisors, and the National University of Singapore are not responsible for its contents. The views expressed in this journal are solely those of the respective authors.

The Triple Helix at the National Univeristy of Singapore would sincerely like to thank the entire TTH

NUS staff for their generous and continued support.

NUS.indb 1 4/7/2011 12:00:29 PM

Leadership: Organize, motivate, and work with staff on four continents to build interchapter alliances and hold international conferences, events and symposia. More than a club.

Innovation: Have a great idea? Something different and groundbreaking? Tell us. With a talented team and a work ethic that values corporate effi ciency, anyone can bring big ideas to life within the TTH meritocracy.

A Global Network: Interact with high-achieving students at top universities across the world—engage diverse points of view in intellectual discussion and debate.

Science PolicyBring your creativity to our newest division, reaching out to students and the community at large with events, workshops, and initiatives that confront today’s hardest and most fascinating questions about science in society.

Business and MarketingInterface with corporate and academic sponsors, negotiate advertising and cross-promotion deals, and help The Triple Helix expand its horizons across the world!

Literary and ProductionLend your voice and offer your analysis of today’s most pressing issues in science, society, and law. Work with an international community of writers and be published internationally.

For more information and to apply,visit www.thetriplehelix.org.

Come join us.

NUS.indb 2 4/7/2011 12:00:29 PM

when “is” meets “ought”...when “is” meets “ought” marcus moretti t he fifth...

Documents