When Does Life Begin and End? -- the Debate Continues

Frederick Grinnell of Oxford University press in his blog post, Redefining Death — Again responds to the recent Nature editorial, “Delimiting death.” Grinnell’s post contributes to the ongoing public policy debate regarding the relationship between biological and spiritual life.

In addition to this post, there are several other articles that are of significance: Dr. James Bernat, neurologist at Dartmouth, wrote an article entitled Chronic Consciousness Disorders, Annu. Rev. Med. 2009. 60:381–92. The article notes that new functional neuroimaging techniques using PET and fMRI provide a new and complementary way to assess consciousness; that fMRI technologies are showing that 'persistent vegetative state' is not always clear cut -- that there is more of a continuum and that some 'PVS' patients are in fact closer to 'minimally conscious.' The author cites recent provocative studies suggesting that fMRI in unresponsive patients may detect evidence of conscious awareness when a careful neurological examination cannot.

Second, while doing research for my chapter on regenerative Nanomedicine, I came across this very interesting article, available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672310/ , entitled Shorting Neurons with Nanotubes by Gabriel Silva, a professor of bioengineering at UC San Diego. The abstract explains that new insights are emerging about the interactions between brain cells and carbon nanotubes, which could eventually lead to the development of nanoengineered neural devices, i.e., possible neural prostheses.

Finally, there are excerpts on CNN of Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s Cheating Death, available at http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/12/cheating.death.excerpt/index.html, which explores novel applications of therapeutic hypothermia to prevent injury to the brain, along with other stories of life-saving medical discoveries.

These articles and recent findings all have profound implications for end-of-life decisionmaking. While recently, an editorial in Nature magazine called for expansion of the definition of death in order to increase organ donation (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7264/full/461570a.html ), it seems that between the new diagnostics, the potential for neuro-prosthetics, and what we are finding out about 'cheating death’, that we should not necessarily be expanding the definition of death, but realizing that we that are expanding the boundaries of life. In doing so, we need to consider the implications for an aging population, as well as the societal and environmental impacts.

Random Acts of Mindfulness

Grrl Scientist posts about a Lakewood, WA police officer who stopped traffic so a duck and her family could finish crossing a highway. (silent video included in post)

While superficially this is an act of kindness by someone in a position of authority or simply a removal of a potential traffic hazard, on a higher level, this story demonstrates a mindfulness about the parts of Nature that we cannot control, the aspects that will keep living and doing regardless of our own engagements. And we all have a choice to ignore those aspects, or we can spare a bit of the immense power we have to embrace something as fundamental as helping a family in the course of its life.

As May dawns and brings with it the rigorous flush of new life, I urge everyone to consider a random act of mindfulness that appreciates the living world around us.

Kudos go out to Officer Carrell and to the drivers for taking a moment to appreciate life.

(This story was so heartwarming I just had to share it)

public enemy #1

Did you know that the greatest danger zone for the modern soul is bioethics? I rather suspect that makes liberal bioethicists public enemy number one.

This news comes from the Catholic Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, second in charge of the Apostolic Penitentiary, which deals in deciding matters of conscience, sins, and penance.

Asked what he believed were today's "new sins," he told the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that the greatest danger zone for the modern soul was the largely uncharted world of bioethics.

"(Within bioethics) there are areas where we absolutely must denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is difficult to predict and control," he said.

Which yes, I realize doesn't necessarily make the liberal bioethicists public enemy numero uno, but it certainly isn't going to place any of us cartographing this new world by liberal guidelines in graceful light.

Edited to add in: BoingBoing has the full list of the seven new social sins, and you'll note that bioethics is technically there twice, in the first and second spot, go us:
1. "Bioethical" violations such as birth control
2. "Morally dubious" experiments such as stem cell research
3. Drug abuse
4. Polluting the environment
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor
6. Excessive wealth
7. Creating poverty

They're also considering holding a contest for a Bosch-ian version of the new sins; anyone game for a go? If so, click on through (and don't forget to share your art with us, too).

-Kelly

Nature: eliminating gender bias in the peer review system simply isn't our priority

A scathing article in Scientific American and very dismaying news about how Nature editors rejected a peer review process that would reduce gender bias:

"Following a surprisingly unscientific line of reasoning, the editors at the most renowned and prestigious of science journals have rationalized away the need to fix an ailing peer-review system.

Increasing skepticism about the effectiveness and integrity of single-blind peer review—the process by which most academic papers submitted for publication are accepted or rejected—has prompted empirical evaluation of the system.

Standard practice is: reviewers—selected for their expertise and fluency in the chosen discipline—are aware of all authors’ names and affiliations, while authors are kept in the dark about the identity of their reviewers (although some journals allow them to request specific referees).

The growing argument against this lopsided method is that knowledge of authors’ identity—gender, nationality, research institution, level of experience in the field—can (and does) bias reviewers’ opinions on the merit of the research.

The most vocal critics of the current system are those who believe their submissions do not get fair consideration—women, early-career scientists, people with foreign-sounding names—when matched up against authors who sail through the submission process on the status of their lab or the history of their career. And in an environment in which research funding, hiring, tenure, salary, and academic reputation are massively dependent on publishing record, one can easily imagine the ripple effects such a disadvantage would bring."

Full commentary in SciAm can be accessed here. Nature has posted the editorial on their blog page, opening it up to the public for commentary, so let them know what you think.

Personally, I think the first commenter on the Sciam Blog got it right on the money: "Effectively, they're saying: "eliminating gender (or other) bias in the peer review system simply isn't our priority."

Creation of New Life Forms: the next step for DNA?

This article fascinated me. Scientific breakthroughs, especially revolving around the use of DNA science--and the ethics of it--always gets my attention. But this article was a mixture of fascination, awe--and fear. There also remained the lingering question in my mind of whether this could really be true--that researchers are indeed considering taking this next step--or if just simply a rumor spawned by someone's overactive imagination.

You can read the Washington Post article, and decide for yourself: whether the prospect of creating new life forms--synthetic life forms--from artificial DNA should be considered a scientific breakthrough--or a major mistake, and what questions it raises about science, religion, ethics and the very essence of genetics.