Have We Learned from the Mistakes of the Past? – Author: Deepa Dhungel

There is no doubt that science has advanced outstandingly. This would not be possible without the substantial researches done in the past. However, there have been so many incidences that have overlooked humanity in the pretext of science. For examples: the human radiation experiments, the infamous Tuskegee study, the case of tobacco etc. They are questionable not just on ethical but also on moral grounds. We do not hesitate to criticize the past incidences and condemn them for being unethical and heinous. We point out the scientists’ mistakes of doing science unethically and question their ways of conducting the research. Making mistakes is inherent in human nature and we learn from the mistakes. However, the question is “have we really learnt from those mistakes of the past?” Looking at the cases of unethical researches that have been circulating every now and then, looks like we are good at putting blame on others, but we repeat the same mistakes.

There are so many disturbing examples of how ethics has been continuously violated in the modern-day science. For an instance, a recent incidence of gene editing in unborn Chinese twin babies to prevent HIV. It instilled a debate all around the world for being unethical since it is very new concept that has not even been proved to be effective, let alone the knowledge about the side effects. On top of that it involves unborn human babies who belong to protected classes of research subjects. This resonates with the plutonium injection experiments to some extent. We criticize about the human radiation experiments and potential nuclear terror. On the other hand, the modern-day scientists are conducting studies on human transmissible virus and even trying to enhance viruses as weapon [1]. They are similar experiments in different forms because both involve use of high risk substances that have more risks than benefits. Similarly, so many nuclear reactor plants are being built all over the world including earthquake and Tsunami prone areas. This shows the ignorance of the people towards the disasters that occurred in the past. Did we forget the mistakes of committing the devastating Three Mile Island disaster?

Likewise, there was an outbreak of news about the potential health effects of vaping, an alternative for smoking advertised as being totally harmless. However, it is found that it is not just as addictive as the traditional smoking but also has adverse effects on heart and lungs and could also be potentially carcinogenic [2]. This seems similar to the case of tobacco which was also advertised as being harmless and not addictive when in reality tobacco is the cause lung cancer. Ironically, tobacco and cigarettes are still easily available in the market. Despite being debated for several decades, hazardous fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides are still being used. Industrial pollution has not been decreased rather increased by several folds. Risky technologies are still being developed and made available to the public without doing enough research.

The reason for continuous violation of ethics is not because we do not have enough policies. There are several rules and regulations, several principles and ethical considerations enforced. Research journals also pay extra attention to ethical issues before publishing the research articles. However, there have been incidences wherein prestigious scientific journals have published ethically questionable articles even very recently. One such example is a case of new surgical techniques applied in infants with cataract with the hope of lens regeneration. The study was published in a very prestigious journal and was later criticized by the doctors for not just being unethical but also not being scientifically sound [3]. The impact of publishing such questionable research can be very devastating risking the health of so many people.

The examples presented here are just few representative cases that have been made public. There several unethical and risky researches and scientific activities happening every day. This is happening not because we are unaware of the mistakes that have been made in the past but because we did not learn from the mistakes. We still have the same zeal of excelling that sometimes jeopardizes our ability to feel things not just think. To be a good scientist, we need to think ethically and more importantly we need to feel the human emotions. It is true that with every invention new problem also come along. But again, the question is “Have we learned from the mistakes of the past?”

References

[1] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/white-house-announces-review-process-risky-virus-studies

[2] http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/5-truths-you-need-to-know-about-vaping

[3] inewsource.org/2019/07/25/china-baby-study-ucsd-research/

An Emotionless Science – Author: Jennyffer Smith

Science is cold like an operating table, sharp like a scalpel, and unforgiving like animal experimentation. Emotion, on the other hand, is empathetic. It is concerned. It is kind. Many think that science and emotion are antagonistic. From the above descriptions, it would appear they are quite opposite. It would even seem like the attempt to blend emotion into science would only dilute and soften the latter. However, this is not the case at all. In fact, scientific exploration is at its best when the two work in harmony.  Indeed, emotion may soften science, but this makes science both humane and human.

A repeating theme in the Ethics in Science course has presented itself over and over again. This theme revolves around the fact that if the “wrong doer” felt either guilt or empathy during his/her study, the potential to discontinue would have been much more plausible. For example, when the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment began to be recognized by the public, the outcry was enormous. People were horrified and disgusted. Emotions ran high. However, the health professionals running the experiment did not have such emotions about the study. Had they felt similarly as the rest of society, would the study have continued for 40+ years? Would the means justify the ends? Hardly. Here, the decision to slowly watch human beings die showed the cold, sharp, and unforgiving side of science.  Can science perpetuate this way with its deceiving methods and countless casualties? This isn’t necessary. With emotion comes reduced harm and unnecessary suffering. And even so, the methodologies of science needn’t suffer. P values can remain strict and scientific strategies can remain revered because “ethical science is good science”.

Even before this course, common sense said that unnecessary harm or sacrifice of humans or animals is wrong.  However, we’ve seen time and time again that these scientific measures persist. While the Tuskegee experiment was decades ago, modern corruption continues today even when science is truly on the side of truth. Big tobacco has taken millions of lives. Federal regulations and public policies have made it more inconvenient for big tobacco through curbing their marketing strategies and limiting locations legal to smoke. However, the number of lives tobacco steadily takes is nothing short of staggering. The interesting aspect about the legality behind smoking arises from the fact that smoking is legal, but not wearing a seatbelt is against the law. While I absolutely agree all individuals in a vehicle should buckle up, unlike smoking, you can get ticketed for something that only harms yourself and increases your own risk for death. Thus, smoking is the safety equivalent of driving without a seatbelt, but one is punishable, while the other is free and clear, yet causes even more preventable deaths. Where are the emotions of the tobacco companies? Is their science blind to the inevitable data? Or maybe it is just that their science is perpetually cold, sharp, and unforgiving.

Be it the men in Tuskegee, lung cancer, or the piles of literature recounting the horrors of bad science, these failures all lead to the now necessary implementation of an ethical course in research. Ethical research courses do not prevent all unethical practices in science, but they do give all scientists historical exposure. At least with classes like these, individuals training in STEM and other disciplines are not ignorant to the unethical practices that have led to suffering in the past. A grain of emotion may be instilled in these students such that the feelings behind their future studies may give them pause when necessary or act as a catalyst to propel them in the ethical direction. Either way, knowledge on ethics in science will hopefully set the stage for more empathetic, concerned, and kind scientists.

The Importance of Social Responsibility in Science and Technology – Author: Linjiang Lou

We live in an age where science, medicine and technology are rapidly advancing. Such rapid advancements in these fields means more knowledge, and with more knowledge comes great power. For example, with technologies such as artificial intelligence, we have the ability to design self-driving cars or autonomous weapons. With genome editing technology, we have the power to modify DNA for treating diseases or creating designer babies. As science and technology become more advanced, it becomes even more critical to understand the responsibility of both the scientists and society as a whole.

Many historic cases of scientific research that resulted in the loss of lives or harm to society have demonstrated how social responsibility is important for ethical research. Scientists working with industry have a responsibility to inform the public of the potential dangers in their products, but more importantly, they have a responsibility to ensure that their product does not cause harm to society. Similarly, when conducting experiments, researchers have a responsibility to inform subjects of any potential risks and to ensure that the risks do not outweigh the benefits. When such responsibilities are blatantly disregarded, it can lead to great harm to society or to the loss of trust in science. Prime examples of this are seen in the human radiation experiments and the Tuskegee study, as well as in the cases of tobacco and lead. In all of these cases, some scientists deceived the public and failed to inform society of the risks of their experiments or the dangers of their products, resulting in the loss of many lives.

One key question to consider is how such important social responsibilities get overlooked. To understand this, it is essential to consider the priorities of the unethical scientists. In the human radiation experiments and Tuskegee study, the scientists prioritized scientific advancement at the expense of human lives. In the cases of tobacco and lead, the industries prioritized saving their public image and money over their responsibility to society. But perhaps one of the most devastating cases was the Challenger disaster when the managers who decided to launch the shuttle prioritized their organizational goals over the safety of the passengers. Thus, in order to conduct ethical research, scientists must understand and prioritize the responsibility we have to society to do no harm.

The importance of social responsibility not only applies in science, but also in technology. With the rise of artificial intelligence and genome editing technologies, we must address the ethical questions that are raised. For example, if an artificial intelligence system makes a mistake that results in the loss of lives, who then, bears the responsibility? If we have the capability to alter the genome, is it then ethical to genetically alter embryos? While scientists are currently debating these ethical questions, it is also important to consider the responsibility of the rest of society to understand the implications of these technologies. We have to live with the choices we make, so it is up to society as a whole to decide the kind of world we want to live in.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of scientists, doctors, engineers, etc. to prioritize the safety of society when conducting research or designing technologies, to minimize harm, and to inform the public if there are any potential risks. However, society as a whole also has a responsibility to understand the potential ethical issues involved to avoid misusing the technologies. If we have learned anything from the unethical experiments of the past, it is that scientists are not perfect. Science is for the benefit of the whole of society and thus scientists and the rest of society should work together to ensure that current and future advancements in science and technology maintain certain ethical and moral standards.

Science Ethics Blog – Author: Francisco Guzman

Throughout the course, I learned of many case studies where techno-scientific experts engaged, often unwittingly, in unethical behavior. Early in the semester, I was taught that science was not a “value-free”production of knowledge; rather, it is a career that can be subject to scientists’ emotions, conflicts, biases and failings. With this in mind, I questioned how in each of the cases, individuals could hold strongly to their paradigms and beliefs despite evidence refuting their positions and warning of harm. My initial impression was that the experts dehumanized subjects and needlessly harmed them, but this answer proved too simplistic and dismissive.

Were I in the camp of the scientists dismissing the evidence of tobacco and lead’s harms, the NASA managers pressing for Challenger’s uncertain launch conditions, or physicians examining syphilitic men in a post-penicillin world, I would have been overcome by feelings of unease. I recognize that my response to these scenarios originate from my family and my own analogous experiences, not from meta-analysis or debates. I have seen my grandfather suffer with emphysema and repeatedly fail to quit smoking. I remember my other grandfather describe health problems he endured as a lead welder in the 1950’s. As a kid, I ruined my RC car by driving it in the rain, untested weather conditions. Presently as a student wanting to become a physician, I consider denying healthcare as reprehensible. However, I also recognize that my experiences are limited since they are not generalizable and are limited in scope to health and mechanical problems. So in scenarios foreign to my experiences, such as the nuclear power plant proliferation, I doubt I could recognize ethical missteps as a contemporary.

Consequently, I believe the role of ethics in STEM is to ensure techno-scientists scrutinize their professional work and scientific positions by considering how their science will affect others. I can see how posing this question may come off as patronizing, but I do not mean others in a broad, societal sense. Rather, by others I mean for techno-scientists to consider themselves, their family and loved ones as direct participants in the process of advancing science as research subjects or users of novel technologies. To exemplify this, consider the case of Barry Marshall who inoculated himself with H. pylori, developed ulcers and treated himself to disprove the medical dogma that dissociated the bacteria from disease. In contrast, the case of radiation injection experiments on civilians highlight the most stark difference: a complete detachment between scientists and dehumanized research subjects. I am sure that if the STEM experts investigating the effects of plutonium considered themselves or their families as research subjects, they would have radically reconsidered their experimental design if not eliminated it altogether.

However, in the real world, techno-scientists do not recruit themselves or their loved ones as research subjects. So what else, besides hypothetically considering themselves as subjects, can help ensure more ethical science? The answer, I believe, is learning from past cases in which contrasting positions, ethical and unethical, are adopted as one’s own. This exercise then helps to recognize, without integrating, unethical choices and beliefs which may in turn guide future ethical decision-making. For example, a graduate student may regard C. C. Little’s hubris and strict adherence to a singular scientific discipline (genetics) when dismissing robust evidence as mistakes to avoid in his or her career. Another may learn that conflict of interest may arise from research hoping to validate a personally-held (a priori) belief when confronted with opposite findings.

The cases examined in the course share the quality of having concluded with clear ethical and unethical positions. In contrast we presently face seemingly new cases: vaping and lung disease, climate change, 5G cellular technology, and consumer genetic testing. Nevertheless, past lessons are generalizable not only to the process in which techno-scientists refine research but also in how to better recognize and anticipate ethical questions that exist surrounding novel technologies, its investigators and the people it will affect.

 

Sources

Brandt, Allan M. The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America. New York: Basic Books, 2007. Print.

Charisius, Hanno. “When Scientists Experiment on Themselves: H. Pylori and Ulcers.” Scientific American Blog Network, 5 July 2014, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/when-scientists-experiment-on-themselves-h-pylori-and-ulcers/.

Walker, J S. Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Print.

Welsome, Eileen. The Plutonium Files: America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War. New York, N.Y: Dial Press, 1999. Print.

 

Publish, Perish, and Cookie-Cutter Research: The Catch-22 – Author: Andrews Nartey

The mantra ‘publish or perish’ originally coined by Archibald Coolidge¹ in 1932, though dreaded, is now a reality. Contemporary academic life has become largely a negotiation with the ‘regime of publication’, resulting in another maxim: ‘publish and flourish’. It seems then that to remain a competitive academic means an upgraded understanding of the game: to make it through the maze of high impact factors, large citation numbers, an increasing h-index, and all without falling into the trap of cookie-cutter research. To some, the pressure to publish is necessary to motivate academics early in their careers to focus on research advancement. To others, it is an unhealthy practice that has adverse implications for ethics in science. I tend to agree with the latter school of thought because I think that the longer the culture of ‘publish or perish’ persists, the greater the risk to research integrity.

Often, the ‘game’ metaphor is used to describe the ‘publish or perish’ world of academics. In this publishing game, I daresay that as the players begin to suffer and the cracks begin to appear, we are bound to wake up to the realization that ‘publish or perish’ is no sport. First, the over-emphasis on publishing and evaluating academics based on journal publications can provide the impetus for cookie-cutter research. With increasing pressure on academics and a relentless focus on publications as a performance indicator, scholars are likely to scramble to publish whatever they can manage – no matter how banal – instead of spending several years to develop a significant research agenda that will benefit the society.

In the world of ‘publish or perish’, time, speed, and quantity are of essence, and this may compel academics to skew their research priorities. For instance, it is common knowledge that to reduce the risk of rejection, many researchers tailor their papers, including their analyses and results, to suit the expectations of their (prestigious) target journals. To net a large number of publications in the publishing game, one has to be strategic and tactical; so if a researcher reckons that certain (new) findings may face resistance from editors/reviewers, s/he may report those (e.g. established findings with a slight twist) that s/he feels are likely to be endorsed by reviewers/editors. Having the potential to discourage the dissemination of useful discovery and original research findings, the system of ‘publish or perish’ with its focus on numbers, metrics, rubrics, statistics, etc., can decrease the value of scholarship rather than promote good science. That is, it is likely to make academics more concerned about addressing issues in the journal world instead of tackling issues in the real world, which is what good science is about.

The metaphorical use of ‘perish’ in ‘publish or perish’, beyond its stylistic rhetorical effect, can mean a number of things. For doctoral students, it may mean you are not likely to get a job in academia if you graduate without publishing. For early career researchers, it may mean a denial of tenure, and for established academics, it may mean loss of grants/funding or even the termination of appointment. All these increase the desire to publish at all cost, even if it means compromising the science and ethics of the ‘trade’. The relentless pressure to publish can encourage unethical research practices such as publication bias (i.e. reporting only positive results), salami slicing (i.e. unnecessarily slicing up project results to generate multiple articles), duplicate publication, multiplication of authorship, fabrication or falsification of research results, (self-) plagiarism, and ghost authors, among others.

These dubious practices corrupt the scientific literature and allow flawed research to enter the academy. Admittedly, these dubious practices can be nipped in the bud by enforcing stern penalties. However, if the current trend of ‘publish or perish’ continues to drive research agenda, these practices are likely to persist. In the race to ‘produce’ several publications for promotion, tenure, grants, etc., academics may be forced to ‘create’ publishable (not necessarily quality) research and fraudulent work is likely to become widespread, which leads us to the issue of predatory journals. The emergence of predatory journals can be inextricably linked to the ‘publish or perish’ concept as the over-emphasis on publication record as the benchmark for reputation, credibility, and impact is arguably what has fueled the rise of such journals.

The reality, however, is that number of publications, citations, h-index, etc. does not necessarily correlate with (social) impact. ‘Publish or perish’ puts scientists and academics in a logical dilemma  from which there is no escape. So sure, there’s a catch – only one catch – “the catch-22” as coined by American author, Joseph Heller² in his 1961 novel. Even though the culture of ‘publish or perish’ is currently dominant in academia, I hope it is not here to stay. Therefore, it is high time that the powers that be (TPTB) took the bull by the horn and recognized that ‘the publish or perish’ system does more harm than good. But would they?

 

References

1. En.wikipedia.org. (2019). Archibald Cary Coolidge. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Cary_Coolidge [Accessed 25 Nov. 2019].
2. Catch-22 and Heller, J. (2019). Catch-22 (Catch-22, #1). [online] Goodreads.com. Available at: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/168668.Catch_22 [Accessed 25 Nov. 2019].

I Think, Therefore I Am or I Feel, Therefore I Am: My Take on the Conundrum – AuthorL Prince Kwaku Akowuah

On one side of the debate are scientists, who for centuries have pioneered the argument “I think, therefore I am”. Their fundamental argument has been that science is a discipline built on logic but not one built on emotions or feelings. Science has been heralded as a strictly evidence based discipline. On the other side of the debate are philosophers or social scientists, who favor the argument “I feel, therefore I am”. The stand of those who favor the argument “I feel, therefore I am” is perhaps best personified by the statement of the writer Milan Kundera; “I think, therefore I am is the statement of an intellectual who underrates toothaches. I feel, therefore I am is a truth much more universally valid, and it applies to everything that’s alive”.

Personally as a clinician and scientist in training, I believe that the stand taken by people on both sides of the debate is extremely naïve, myopic and hypocritical. It is not that I am saying science is not an evidence based discipline or a discipline built n logic, but science is definitely not a discipline devoid of emotions. From the bias of scientist towards a specific theory to their preference for a particular latex gloves, emotions are woven into the day to day operations of science. It is also not that I am saying humans don’t feel but that our total being and existence are not solely dependent on our feelings. Logical and evidence based reasoning is an integral part of our day to day living and survival. I guess what I am saying is, there is some amount of truth in both I think, there I am and I feel, therefore I am and it is only when both are seen as being complimentary to each other that sense can be made from each of them. My view on this debate was best summarized by Aristotle in his famous saying that “Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all”. I guess I will flip Aristotle’s saying to produce my own which is meant to be complimentary to Aristotle’s. “Educating the heart without educating the mind is no education at all”.  We are because we feel and think. No single human being can operate on logic or feelings alone and in all our day to day dealings, we makes decisions based on both our feelings and our thought. If not to exaggerate, I would say a person only attains a true form of humanity if he or she is able to find a perfect balance between his/her thoughts and emotions.

Science Ethics Blog – Author: Christina Nnabuife

Scientific ideas and concepts contribute to progress and the greater good. Scientists have a duty to inform the public about their findings regardless of whether they are positive or negative. Therefore, ethics in the STEM field is extremely indispensable in a variety of ways.

STEM ethics involve what is right and what is wrong when executing research. Having ethical guidelines help researchers act in an appropriate way and avoid misconduct. Furthermore, performing ethical experiments, or experiments that follow the rules, can maintain or improve the reputation of the investigation team. Moral research behavior can also contribute to public trust in the STEM field. Ethical standards also ensure that no harm is done to animals and human beings. For example, the animal research field has a set of ethical principles called the “3Rs.” The first R, reduction, describes the standard of using fewer animals. The next R, replacement, indicates techniques that prevent the use of animals in research. The last R, refinement, explains ways to lower the instance/severity of unpleasant procedures.

Moreover, an ethical researcher can serve as a model to others and inspire those around him/her to act the same way. Rachel Carson, the author of Silent Spring, is a great example of an ethical scientist. Even though the findings were negative, Carson still fulfilled her scientific duty of informing the public about the environmental effects of pesticides. As a result, she contributed to expanding the social responsibility of scientists and helped initiate the environmental movement in the 20^th century.

However, ethics in STEM can also become complicated due to individual and organizational factors. Such aspects include stress, pressure, lack of rule enforcement and ineffective mentoring. All these factors can increase the possibility of research misconduct. For example, a university professor wants to increase his/her chances of getting tenure. This can make the professor anxious and tense. Thus, he/she becomes more likely to engage in fabricating and falsifying data, so more papers can be published. Moreover, conflicts of interest may arise. This occurs when a researcher has financial or other outside commitments that may interfere with the study. For instance, a drug experiment can be led by an investigator that is also an employee of that drug’s pharmaceutical company. This might skew results and create bias in the study’s findings.

Ethics is highly essential in the STEM field, and science cannot be devoid of ethical guidelines. Scientists are human and thus have a sense of right and wrong. Research is also conducted in several cultural contexts, each with its own set of values. Furthermore, scientific experiments can be performed to deal with actual human issues. To be an ethical STEM researcher is to be committed to integrity, reliability and validity regardless of the consequences.

Shared Responsibility in a Global Community: Why Do Care About CRISPR/Cas9? – Author: Xiao Lin

When we talk about how bacteria survive from virus infection, people might think: who cares? But when it comes to “designer babies” and gene-edited food in supermarkets, it is undeniable even non-scientific laymen would care as it pertains health care and daily life. Apparently, doctors, engineers and decision makers worldwide are sharing responsibility in this era when harness technique derived from prokaryotes becomes so popular and the pace of advancement is unimaginably fast.

In the past years, studies in bacteria and yeast genetic and immune systems have provided us with fundamental tools to do gene targeting, ranging from pioneer studies of microinjection of exogenous DNA in 1980s, to more advanced gene edition with enhanced frequency of success by nucleases such as Zinc-Finger Nucleases (ZFN), Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nucleases (TALENs), and CRISPR/Cas9. The idea behind gene targeting by nucleases is taking advantage of cells’ repair machinery after endogenous or induced DNA break events to acquired desired results, and the modification can be achieved in every cell within an organism that derived from the targeted embryonic stem cells. These enable us to generated transgenic organisms, be it prokaryote or vertebrate such as mice. With these tools, we can solve research questions not only on interrogating gene function and modeling certain human diseases such as sickle cell anemia, but also on re-establishment of normal gene resulted from genetic mutations to boost agricultural production and progression of gene therapy for human.

Among newly developed nucleases in genome editing, CRISPR/Cas9 was a breakthrough in this area. CRISPR/Cas 9 presents a great example of human beings’ ability to adapt immune system in bacteria to solve problem of human diseases by precise gene editing. CRISPR stands for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats in E. coli, which was suggested to come from foreign genetic materials. CRISPR works with Cas9 that makes double strand breaks. Compared with ZFN and TALENs that need designing of new modular DNA-binding proteins for each gene target, CRISPR/Cas9 has the advantages of simplicity as a programmed gRNA that replace function of small CRISPR RNAs and trans-activating small CRISPR RNAs in the bacteria system. Injection of gRNA and Cas9 together would guide Cas9 to any predetermined site. In addition, it also allows application in adult organisms. Furthermore, it works almost in any organisms which is unprecedented.

This promising technique attracted worldwide attention at its discovery and numerous applications are ongoing, with debates and ethical concerns. By October 2018, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has given the green light to a CRISPR developed drought-tolerance soybean variety and an important oilseed crop that yields omega-3 oil. Although the U.S. Department of Agriculture decided the plant products by CRISPR will not be considered as genetically modified products and millions of dollars economic benefits, different opinions and decision makers have existed in Europe that stringently regulate these products. Despite extended applications in USA, one of the co-inventers Dr. Jennifer Doudna from University of California asked the scientific community to pause and discuss the ethics of using this new tool in clinical trials especially on human embryos. It was not unexpected that universal condemnation and criticism arose when He Jiankui announced twin girls born in China had been genetically edited by CRISPR-Cas9. The pause of advancing CRISPR/Cas9 into clinical application mostly due to the consideration of its off-target frequency and possible allergy reaction in humans due to foreign protein Cas9. Now cancer patients being treated by CRISPR for the first time in the USA in 2019, and we have to admit that the result of this clinical trial is still uncertain even with advancement in recognition of off target sites by CRISPR-Cas9 system.

Look at the history of genome engineering ever since it has been developed, there is a time when scientists called for a pause of molecular cloning in 1970s. We now have benefits from reproductive animals cloning and industrialized cloning insulin production, but human reproductive cloning remains controversial and unacceptable and we have laws to regulate this. Regulation in reproductive human cloning, swift action by Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences in proposing prohibition of productive-oriented genetic manipulation, and statement by researchers calling for more specific standards and principles that can be applied worldwide after the CRISPR edited babies all gave us good examples of brining ethic concerns into reality. As science progress, the connection between society is growing intensely as well, a researcher would have to think apart from research that might have extended influence outside lab, a policy maker would have certain knowledge and understanding to make a reasonable policy, a business owner would have to think more than profits when investing new technique etc.. It would not be easy for anyone, but we can achieve better outcomes with awareness and shared responsibility.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy – Author: Bhavatharini Ramakrishnan

It was just another night. But not for people in Bhopal(Madhya Pradesh, India). It was the night of December 2 1984 when the unexpected and tragedy occurred. This event is still considered as world’s worst industrial accident. On this night, the poisonous Methyl Isocyanate gas(MIC) leaked from the Union Carbide India Limited pesticide plant and made its way into the small towns around the plant. By the time the alarm went off, it was too late. The gas leak incident claimed 1000s of life immediately after it occurred and many more died days after the incident because of the exposure. Close to a million people sustained injuries and other health issues because of the incident. The toxic waste seeped into the soil which affected the future generation that this cursed land carried.

The cause of this utterly horrifying tragedy was disputed so much. The local activists argued that the incident occurred because of management issues and poor maintenance of the plant. Investigative reports suggested that, the plant had 6 safety systems which failed to work and a refrigeration system which would have been sufficient enough to resolve the problem was out of order. But the Union carbide company claimed that the events occurred due to a sabotage by a “disgruntled employee”. The industry was so keen in absolving themselves from taking responsibility for the event, that they wanted refused to give the chemical composition of the gases released, which made the job of doctors treating the affected people more difficult. This shows the extent to which the industry can steep down their standards that even after such an horror, they are much interested in saving themselves from the blame. Even though Union carbide was a major shareholder of the plant, they refused it and made a statement that their relationship to the Indian branch was a distant one.

The industry did not even care to accept their flaws in maintaining the plant that the Indian government has to take up the responsibility and compensated the families which were affected by the gas leak with a cash as much as 500$. A spokeswoman from the company even commented that this amount was good enough for an Indian family which shows that humans are becoming more cruel and heartless. Many families lost a father, son or a mother and the industrial people think that replacing humans with money would make everything alright. Any amount of money would never be enough to compensate for the loss the families went through because of the tragedy.

Bhopal gas leak incident is one of the multiple events which portray corporate greed for money and how the industries were so focused on financial outcomes that they overlooked other far more important things like safety of the workers and value of human life. The event and the after reactions of the industries also show that humans are capable of going to any extent to cover up their biggest crimes. India being a developing country and poor economical background, it was easier for the industry to cover it up far more easily. These kinds of events make me think that, as technology and science keeps developing, kindness and justice will slowly fade away from the hearts of every human being on earth.

Error 404: “Heart” Not Found – A Personal Take on the Value of Ethics in Scientific Research – Author: Augustine Nyarko

Scientific research is undeniably important. Scientific researchers are at the forefront of the production of knowledge and technological advancement that drives humanity forward. These scientists spend their working lives trying to prolong and enrich the lives of people. Thus, Ifind it quite sad when Iread and hear about the unethical ways in which some researchers conduct their work. There are several instances of misconduct by researchers that directly led to harm and even death of some research participants. Egregious examples such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experimentand the Nazi human experiments readily come to mind. Though these examples are from the past, there are several types of research beingconducted today that raise serious ethical questions. Research work that bound on eugenics (such as germlinegene editing) and giving machines with artificial intelligence the ability to make adecisionthat could cause the loss of human lives should give us all a reason to pause and consider the implications of these research works.

Society has come a long way in enacting rules, regulations, andguidelines that regulate the responsible conduct of research. Publications such as the Belmont report have had a tremendous impact on guiding scientists to conduct research ethically. However, with the dizzying pace at which technology and research isprogressing, rules and guidelines will almost always lag. There will be “grey areas” where the rules and guidelines have not caught up with the science yet, andthe “ethical” thing to do remains unclear. How then should scientists proceed ethically when the rules are unclear? Why, also, with all these rules and regulations, do we hear reports of unethical conduct by researchers on an almost daily basis?

Imay be unable to give a full answer in this blog post but will aim at suggesting the firststep; scientists need more “heart” when planning and conducting research. What Icall the “heart” of research refers to scientists sitting back to ponder on the negative implications their research could have on society. Scientists also need to have empathy and concern for the animals and people they use in their research. This “heart” cannot be foundin test tubes, microscopes, petridishes or the ever-elusive p-value. Scientists need to learn to develop and apply their “heart”.As scientists, we may be all caught up in our burning pursuit of knowledge and understanding that we fail to pause, sit back, ponder on the larger implications of our research and let our hearts (instead of our minds) do the talking. Such a reflection on the possible ways research could directly or indirectly harm individuals or society can lead scientists to make more ethical choices in their research.

What this calls for is the inclusion of ethics and morality as basic requirements in the training of researchers. This, at the very least, will create an awareness and consciousness within researchers on the huge role ethics and morality plays in the generation and execution of ethical research. It will enable them to understand how easy it is to lose sight of the negative implications and consequences of their research if they neglect basic morality and ethical principles. It also allows scientists to come together and have meaningful discussions on the way forward when the ethics of a particular research field seem unclear.

Courses that teach research ethics should be instituted in schools and staffed with qualified personnel who will lead and guide young and upcoming researchers to learn and apply the values of ethics as they conduct their research. Thismay seem costly at face value, but the benefits will be enormous.

To quote Dr.Ioanna Semendeferi, “Ethical science is good science and good science is ethical science”.It is impossible to neglect the value of ethics and produce any good research. It is important that researchers never lose sight of this fact! Finally, to all the researchers (and to the upcoming researchers) I say, don’t just use your mind, leave room for the heart in your research.