The Iron Ring

As a brief follow-up to my very first post, I wanted to mention an article published recently in the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (http://www.csueastbay.edu/JERHRE/index.html).

The article summarizes the results of a study that used six focus groups from major Universities. A total of 51 researchers were asked a series of questions regarding ethics in everyday research; categories included the meaning of data, the rules of science, life with colleagues, and the pressures of production.

The bit of data I find most fascinating is the questions which scientists not only answered whether they acknowledge that behavior in themselves, but also whether they saw evidence of the behavior in their colleagues. When asked about misconduct in ‘using one’s position to exploit others’ only 1.6% responded that they saw that behavior in themselves, but 46.3% agreed with the statement, “I have observed or had other direct evidence of this behavior among my professional colleagues including postdoctoral associates, within the last three years.”

In addition, when asked about “using another’s ideas without obtaining permission or giving due credit” only 1.4% recognized that behavior in themselves and 45.7% recognized it in their associates.

Do these results indicate mistrust amongst scientists?

In the category of “using another’s ideas without obtaining permission” I think the statement is vague; there is a difference between asking a colleague for scientific advice, and siphoning ideas off a successful lab next door. I would be interested in seeing the response to the question, “do you believe your ideas have been used without giving you credit”?

# posted by Sarah : 11:27 PM  2 comments

I’ve heard quite a bit in the past few days regarding whether or not lobsters can feel pain and I feel I would like to weigh in. Most pieces (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PainManagement/story?id=722163&page=1) quote a study completed in Norway that claimed that lobsters could not feel pain, whereas various members of PETA and other animal rights groups claimed that of course they could.

I am more interested in why it is that we came to discuss the lobster specifically. How is it that after years of boiling them alive in our kitchens, or picking them out individually in novelty tanks in restaurants, it is now time to examine their nervous system? Is Cape Cod the Chicago of our 2006 version of the Jungle? Has anyone ever doubted the ability of cows or chickens to feel pain, and if not, how is that the slaughterhouses are denied the headlines?

I realize that when it comes to animal rights activists, the line is clear and easily crossed. But I am more curious in the average meat eater, how is it that we justify the killing of some animals over others? Lab research is a good example. When it comes to mice and rats, the average person has come to assume they are a staple of the modern medical lab but mention higher creatures; such as dogs, cats, monkeys, and the public cringes.

Where is does our moral compass draw the line? What makes us inherently more merciful towards some species rather than others?

# posted by Sarah : 10:28 PM  1 comments

On “Talk of the Nation: Science Friday” today on NPR there was discussion of how the rebuilding of Iraq is applied to the area of science. Admittedly, I missed the broadcast, which can be found here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5506655) but the teasers I heard made me think of something I read a while back from the Brookings Institute.

As part of their document ‘U.S Policy Towards the Islamic World’ published last year (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/analysis/darcy20050419.htm), the Institute outlined ways in which scientific cooperation would help strengthen our diplomatic ties with the Islamic world:

Despite widespread and growing public hostility to the United States in the Islamic world, American science and technology are widely admired there. This provides a valuable channel for productive cooperation. By working wisely with scientists and engineers from the Islamic world, the United States could bolster economic and human development and aid in tackling important regional problems like natural resource management, all while strengthening American public diplomacy in the Islamic world.

In our country federal policy strongly shapes the boundaries of our science, so I got to wondering, what are those boundaries in the Islamic world? How does Islam reconcile the scientific method, questions of evolution, and environmental conservation?

In particular, I found some sources online regarding the Muslim view of stem cell research. I have included them below. It would seem that Islam is more forgiving than Catholicism when it comes to the definition of life. The religion recognizes a true distinction between life and the potential for life, and while much of the Islamic world is still in discussion over the governing of stem cell research, scientists in many Islamic countries, such as Egypt, and Iran, are already conducting embryonic stem cell research with the approval of their government.

As Ragaa Mansour, scientific director and program manager of the Egyptian IVF Center, stated in the article from the Christian Science Monitor (see link below); "How can we ban anything just because it can be misused?. We should regulate and prevent misuse of technology [and] encourage research in the right direction."

http://www.islam101.com/science/stemCells.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0622/p15s02-wogi.html

# posted by Sarah : 9:32 PM  0 comments

An article appearing today in The Scientist (http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23690/) outlines the controversy surrounding a new stem cell initiative in congress. It seems the bill is a compromise compared to past policy on stem cell research but it does not lift all current restrictions, making it non-ideal for many scientists. The real controversy, though, is that a leading scientist has appeared publicly in favor of the bill.

"Dr. Jaenisch is a leading scientist, and with him standing next to Sen. Santorum, there's a risk that some senators might have the mistaken impression that [his bill] is a total substitute for the bill that would lift funding restrictions," Bernard Siegel, executive director of the Genetics Policy Institute, told The Scientist.

Santorum's alternative research bill (S 2754), co-authored by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), would direct the National Institutes of Health to promote ways of deriving hESCs without destroying human embryos, while permitting other research to continue. Neither this bill nor the bill to expand funding for ESC research has been brought to the Senate floor for a vote."

The discussion reminds me of the controversy surrounding John Marburger, science advisor to the president. Before joining the staff at the white house, Marburger was the Director of Brookhaven National lab, and a well respected scientist. It seemed the scientific community was pleased with the president’s choice. But that was short lived. After some time it became clear that the president’s mind was simply not changing on certain issues and some scientists claimed that Marburger was not living up to his potential.

It’s always interesting when scientists take direct aim at politics. In 2004, a group of no less than 48 Nobel laureates signed a letter in favor of Kerry.

But does that make a difference to voters? The article in The Scientist mentions Dr. Jaenisch’s rank in the scientific community and the weight surrounding his ‘standing next to Sen. Santorum’. But to the average senator, or the average American, does it matter which scientist is standing there?

# posted by Sarah : 11:31 PM  0 comments

The Times ran an article last week about a Chemistry professor at Columbia who has retracted several research papers (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/15/science/15chem.html?_r=1&oref=slogin). The work was primarily done by a woman who received her doctorate a year ago and she is now working somewhere else entirely. What is remarkable about the situation is that the woman who was first author on the papers did not know they were being retracted. In fact, in the Times article she maintained that the work is concrete and doubted the efforts of the lab to recreate them.

I wonder how it is a journal can permit the retraction of a paper without explicit consent from all authors. It would certainly require the approval of all authors for the paper to be printed in the first place. Further, whose career is exactly at risk here? The graduate student who performed the work is now a doctoral student in a different field, which would indicate that it is the PI who will suffer from the retractions. But if the work does turn out to be falsified in some way, was it the PI who stood in the lab and fabricated it?

As with other facets of the graduate student-advisor relationship, the question of ownership lives in a gray area. After some online probing I discovered a University in Canada, McMaster University, which has a very lengthy and protective code of ownership for its graduate students (http://www.mcmaster.ca/senate/academic/ownstwrk.htm). In particular, the code gives copyright privileges of a thesis to the student, but not necessarily the ideas contained within:

However, the University also recognizes that the ideas in the thesis will often arise from interaction with others. In some cases, this interaction will have been solely with the thesis supervisor; in other cases, a larger research team will have been involved. For this reason, it is understood that the copyright refers only to the written document of the thesis. The ideas themselves — including any advances in theory, data, patentable ideas, or commercial exploitation of the work — may or may not be the exclusive property of the student.

How do we separate our work from our ideas?

# posted by Sarah : 10:29 PM  0 comments

Hello world (or at least- ‘hello blogosphere’)- my name is Sarah and I’m a doctoral student in Bioengineering. I’m starting this blog because in addition to being an engineer, a scientist, and a researcher, I am a reader and a writer and I’m starting to feel as if I need a literary outlet from my day to day life in the basement (yes, I do research in a basement). I will be writing about science and about how we approach what we do but I’ll also be writing about how scientists interact with the public, how policies and ethics influence us, and every now and again I hope to throw in some straight-up science bits as well. Welcome.

This week, Cell is printing its first ever commentary on bioethics (http://www.cell.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS0092867406006763), and in it, Paul Root Wolpe of the University of Pennsylvania (go Quakers) defines 8 main reasons that scientists avoid ethics.

1. I’m not trained in ethics

2. My scientific work has little to do with ethics

3. Ethics is arbitrary

4. Ethicists mostly say ‘no’ to new technologies

5. Others will make ethical decisions

6. The public does not know what it wants

7. Knowledge is intrinsically good

8. If I don’t do it, someone else will

I think traditionally scientists have imagined that they face ethics only in use of grant money and in reporting of data, and I would venture that most scientists consider themselves inherently ethical in both categories. But what Wolpe argues, (under ethical consideration #5) that scientists are responsible not only on a primary level for personal ethics in relations with colleagues and integrity, but also on secondary and tertiary levels; to their field and to science as a public enterprise, respectively.

Research that involves animal subjects is a good example of how scientists engage ethics in this way. On one level, they are responsible on a daily basis for carrying out ethical guidelines for use of animals and animal tissues and for adhering to University policies for animal use. In their specialized field, they are responsible for maintaining a code laid out by their combined authorities for ethical study. But where does the final piece fit?

How does an individual scientist exercise their responsibility to the social enterprise?

I want to throw out one more last line from Wolpe’s piece, a quote from Einstein; “Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.”

# posted by Sarah : 9:03 PM  0 comments