Human Enhancement & Nanotechnology Conference

Human Enhancement & Nanotechnology Conference

March 28-29, 2009

Western Michigan University, Fetzer Center, Room 2020
Kalamazoo, MI USA

The Human Enhancement & Nanotechnology Conference focuses on the ethical, social, and related issues that arise in the application of nanotechnology to human enhancement. While nanotechnology is not the only technology that can be applied to human enhancement, it is and will be a core one; without it many current and future enhancements would not be possible. These technological possibilities will derive from manysources, especially nanoelectronics and nanomaterials.

As an example of an ethical issue, bionic limbs (e.g., for greater strength or vision) and neural chips implanted into one's head (e.g., for on-demand access to the Internet and software applications) may give the individual significant advantages in many areas, from sports to jobs to academia. But these technologies may hold health risks-similar to steroid or Ritalin use for enhancement purposes, as distinct from
therapy-as well as raise ethical concerns related to fairness, access, and general societal disruption. Therefore, it is no surprise that, on both sides of the debate, the ethics of human enhancement is believed to be the single most important issue in science & society in this century.

Who?

The conference will offer presentations by leading researchers and
rising stars in the field:

The conference is organized by faculty at California Polytechnic State Univ., Dartmouth College, Univ. of Delaware, and Western Michigan University. It is supported by funding from Western Michigan Univ. as well as the US National Science Foundation, under NSF awards # 0620694 and 0621021, as well as Delaware NSF-EPSCoR grant # EPS-0447610.

Registration

The conference is free to attend and includes continental breakfasts, lunches, and a good supply of coffee and snacks (to enhance our minds and bodies), but seats are limited; so please register early by clicking on the link and filling out the form.

News of Note

A couple of stories that have captured our interest:

From the Wisconsin Technology news:
"In the first of several decisions expected in a patent dispute involving human embryonic stem cells, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation said today it has been notified that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has upheld the claims of one of the foundation's key stem cell patents.

The patent challengers, however, said they will continue their challenge of what they termed "three overreaching patents on human stem cells."

According to WARF, the licensing arm of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the decision pertains to the patent for primate and human embryonic stem cells known as '913.'

Carl Gulbrandsen, managing director of WARF, called the decision of patent examiner Gary Kunz an affirmation. 'We're extremely pleased with this decision,' he said in a statement released by WARF. 'It affirms what WARF has believed all along, that Dr. Thomson's breakthrough discoveries are patentable inventions.' " Full story here.

From Science Daily:
New survey results show that only 29.5 percent in a sample of 1,015 adult Americans consider nanotech morally acceptable. In Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology:
"In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology.

'There seem to be distinct differences between the United States and countries that are key players in nanotech in Europe, in terms of attitudes toward nanotechnology,' says Scheufele.

Why the big difference?

The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion..." Read on here.

From the NY Times: Six Killers: America’s Leading Causes of Death: "They are the leading causes of illness and death in the United States today: heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease, in that order. And they have a lot in common." Full article here. [Query: Would more Americans find nanotechnology more acceptable if they knew that it could cure these leading killers?]


From the Washington Post, a study suggesting that man's 'best friend' could be a robot? - a study by Saint Louis University that found the lovable pooch and the interactive dog robot called AIBO were about equally effective at relieving the loneliness of nursing home residents, and fostering attachments. Full story here. I agree with Sara Kiesler, professor of computer science and human-computer interaction at Carnegie Mellon University, who said "the results of the study are encouraging but not completely convincing."

The Next Small Thing...11 key essays

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN) today announced its first series of new research papers in which industry experts predict profound impacts of nanotechnology on society. Eleven original essays by members of CRN's Global Task Force appear in the latest issue of the journal Nanotechnology Perceptions, published today, and are also being posted online at KurzweilAI.net, which will host discussions on these vital issues.

From military and security issues to human enhancement, artificial intelligence, and more, these papers give readers a peek under the lid of Pandora's box to see what the future might hold.

Small Things, Big Issues: Oversight of Nanotech

Press Release: Over Forty Groups Release Fundamental Principles for Nanotech Oversight, Citing Risks to the Public, Workers, and the Environment

With the joint release today of Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials, a broad international coalition of consumer, public health, environmental, labor, and civil society organizations spanning six continents called for strong, comprehensive oversight of the new technology and its products.
The manufacture of products using nanotechnology–a powerful platform for manipulating matter at the level of atoms and molecules in order to alter properties–has exploded in recent years. Hundreds of consumer products incorporating nanomaterials are now on the market, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. But evidence indicates that current nanomaterials may pose significant health, safety and environmental challenges posed by nano-scale technologies have yet to be addressed.
As Chee Yoke Ling of the Third World Network explained, “Materials engineered at the nano-scale can exhibit fundamentally different properties–including toxicity–with unknown effects. Current research raises red flags that demand precautionary action and further study.” She added, “As there are now hundreds of products containing nanomaterials in commerce, the public, workers, and the environment are being exposed to these unlabeled, and in most cases, untested materials.”
George Kimbrell of the International Center for Technology Assessment continued, “Since there is currently no government oversight and no labeling requirements for nanoproducts
anywhere in the world, no one knows when they are exposed to potential nanotech risks and no one is monitoring for potential health or environmental harm. That’s why we believe oversight action based on our principles is urgent.”
This industrial boom is creating a growing nano-workforce which is predicted to reach two million globally by 2015. “Even though potential health hazards stemming from exposure have been clearly identified, there are no mandatory workplace measures that require exposures to be assessed, workers to be trained, or control measures to be implemented,” explained Bill Kojola of the AFL-CIO. “This technology should not be rushed to market until these failings are corrected and workers assured of their safety.”
“Nanomaterials are entering the environment during manufacture, use, and disposal of hundreds of products, even though we have no way to track the effects of this potent new form of pollution,” agreed Ian Illuminato of Friends of the Earth. “By the time monitoring catches up to commerce, the damage will already have been done.”
Ron Oswald, General Secretary of international trade union IUF, highlighted the importance of defending against the massive intrusion of nano-products into the global food chain, pointing out that “hundreds of commercially available products–from pesticides to additives to packaging materials incorporating nanotech–are already on the market or just a step away. Workers, consumers, and the environment must be adequately protected against the multiple risks this development poses to the global food system and the women and men who produce the food we all depend on.”
“The makers of these materials are winning patents based on novelty and uniqueness, but
industry then turns around and says their nano-products do not need to be regulated differently because they are the same as bulk materials,” pointed out Kathy Jo Wetter of ETC Group, an international civil society organization based in Ottawa, Canada. “This contradiction benefits industry, but it cannot stand. Mandatory, nano-specific regulatory oversight measures are required.”
“Although governments worldwide spent over $6 billion on nanotech R&D last year, research spending on risks and social effects comprises only a ‘nano’ portion of that,” noted Rick Worthington of the Loka Institute an organization that promotes public participation in all matters related to science and technology. “We’ve seen the outcome of unregulated ‘miracle technologies’ such as synthetic chemicals before in the toxic pollution of entire communities. A portion of the nano research on social and environmental issues should involve active participation by communities, whose insights can help us avoid the catastrophic problems experienced in the past.”
The coalition’s declaration outlines eight fundamental principles necessary for adequate
and effective oversight and assessment of the emerging field of nanotechnology:

I. A Precautionary Foundation: Product manufacturers and distributors must bear
the burden of proof to demonstrate the safety of their products: if no independent
health and safety data review, then no market approval.

II. Mandatory Nano-specific Regulations: Nanomaterials should be classified as new
substances and subject to nano-specific oversight. Voluntary initiatives are not
sufficient.

III. Health and Safety of the Public and Workers: The prevention of exposure to
nanomaterials that have not been proven safe must be undertaken to protect the
public and workers.

IV. Environmental Protection: A full lifecycle analysis of environmental impacts
must be completed prior to commercialization.
V. Transparency: All nano-products must be labeled and safety data made publicly
available.

VI. Public Participation: There must be open, meaningful, and full public participation
at every level.

VII. Inclusion of Broader Impacts: Nanotechnology’s wide-ranging effects, including
ethical and social impacts, must be considered.

VIII. Manufacturer Liability: Nano-industries must be accountable for liabilities
incurred from their products.

“We’re calling upon all governmental bodies, policymakers, industries, organizations, and all other relevant actors to endorse and take actions to incorporate these principles,” said Beth Burrows of the Edmonds Institute, a public interest organization dedicated to education about environment, technology, and intellectual property rights. “As new technologies emerge we need to ensure new materials and their applications are benign and contribute to a healthy and socially just world. Given our past mistakes with ‘wonder technologies’ like pesticides, asbestos, and ozone depleting chemicals, the rapid commercialization of nanomaterials without full testing or oversight is shocking. It is no surprise that the public of the 21st century is demanding more accountability.” The complete document is available at numerous endorsing organizations websites, including www.icta.org.
Organizations can endorse the principles by emailing gkimbrell@icta.org.

GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS: Building a Resilient Civilization and Convergence 08

Date: November 14, 2008
Place: Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA

Organized by: Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies and the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.

A day-long seminar on threats to the future of humanity, natural and man-made, and the pro-active steps we can take to reduce these risks and build a more resilient civilization. Seminar participants are strongly encouraged to pre-order and read the Global Catastrophic Risks volume edited by Nick Bostrom and Milan Cirkovic, and contributed to by some of the faculty for this seminar.

This seminar will precede the futurist mega-gathering Convergence 08, November 15-16 at the same venue, which is co-sponsored by the IEET, Humanity Plus (World Transhumanist Association), the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, the Immortality Institute, the Foresight Institute, the Long Now Foundation, the Methuselah Foundation, the Millenium Project, Reason Foundation and the Accelerating Studies Foundation.

SEMINAR FACULTY

- Nick Bostrom Ph.D., Director, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University
- Jamais Cascio, research affiliate, Institute for the Future
- James J. Hughes Ph.D., Exec. Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
- Mike Treder, Executive Director, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology
- Eliezer Yudkowsky, Research Associate. Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
- William Potter Ph.D., Director, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies

For more info and to register, click here for Catastrophic Risks and click here for Convergence 08.

Deus Sex Machina

(cross-posted on Sentient Developments)

(Roughly translated from Latin as Sex God in the machine) We all know that technology can improve our lives (sometimes....well, at least when it's working properly), but who'd have thunk that nanotechnology could improve your sex life?

In yet one more 'tool' in the arsenal against dreaded erectile dysfunction, nanotechnology to the rescue! Scientists at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University have developed a foam with nanoparticles encapsulating nitric oxide for the topical treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). Why is topical better? Because ED medications such as sildenafil , vardenafil, and tadalafil have limitations -- they can cause systemic side effects such as headache, facial flushing, nasal congestion, upset stomach, and abnormal vision. Might this have implications for Female Arousal Disorder for which there remains little, if any, treatment? One can only hope....perhaps the announcement of the new 'female viagra' for pre-menopausal women can benefit from this new delivery system.

On balance, though, Blue Cross Biomedical has developed a new foam condom for use by women, that looks like a vaginal inhaler. The Blue Cross Foam Condom uses a “formulated condom concentrate” comprised of nano silver particles as well as 'surfactant octyl phenoxy -RH4,tween-20, sapn-60,polyethylene glycol 400, deionized water'. Perhaps a male contraceptive can be advanced utilizing a nano-delivery system?

My humble request to scientists and researchers: Equal time for both sexes, please!

Apparently, Size Does Matter

From the Wired Blog this week:
"Smaller Not Always Better: Microcapsules beat Nanoparticles for Making Drugs with Less Waste
... David McQuade knows that nanotechnology is not always the best solution to technological problems. He and his team at Florida State University have developed microspheres that can build a drug by connecting three simple building blocks in a single flask...

Nanoscience may be all the rage, and nanoparticles have very high surface areas which make them fabulous catalysts. But nanoparticles are so small that they can be hard to filter out of a broth once a reaction is over. Using larger spheres is a worthwhile trade off to avoid the hassle of getting rid of particles so tiny that they are hard to filter."

For the rest of the article, click here.

The ABC's of Converging Technologies (otherwise known as NBIC)

N is for Nanoscience and nanotechnology (manipulation of matter on an atomic scale)
B is for Biotechnology and biomedicine, including genetic engineering and transgenics
I is for Information technology, including computing and communications
C is for Cognitive science, including cognitive neuroscience, neurotechnology, and psychopharmaceuticals.

Put them all together and what do you get? The NBIC rubric from the National Science Foundation, which is studying the above converging technologies for the purpose of enhancing human performance. One example of converging nano-info is 'smart dust', which gathers information surreptitiously, and can be sent to sense tumour cells. Another example is the ‘lifelog’, a digital diary of everything and individual does. In nano-bio, there are implantable computers that send feedback on body function (including neural activities). A nano-bio-cogno convergence gives us the brain pacemaker, a neuroprosthetic device for restoring brain performance, and extending this to nano-bio-info-cogno, the full NBIC, produces neural interfaces for enhancing memory and the senses, and human technogenics (cyborgs).

My friend and colleague, Greg Wolbring, does a fantastic job of anticipating, monitoring, and contemplating what this all means at his blog Innovations Watch: The Choice is Yours. A sample of his entries:

• Nanomedicine [March 30, 2007]
• Enhancement of Animals [March 15, 2007]
• Nano Cancer Treatments [February 28, 2007]
• Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Sentient Rights,
  Speciesism, and Uploading the Mind [February 15, 2007]
• NBICS and Military Products [January 30, 2007]
• NBICS and Social Cohesion [January 15, 2007]
• Human Security and NBICS [December 30, 2006]
• Smart Dust [December 15, 2006]
• Brain Machine Interfaces [November 30, 2006]
• Artificial Hippocampus, the Borg Hive Mind,
  and Other Neurological Endeavors [November 15, 2006]

I've bookmarked this page -- it is a 'must have' if you want to keep on top of the latest in converging technologies. And if you're interested in hearing about Augmented Cognition your can watch the video from the Spotless mind conference that we had blogged about earlier.

International Human Rights Day and the Terasem Colloquium

International Human Rights Day

Recognized by Terasem Movement, Inc.’s Third Annual Colloquium on the Law of Transbeman Persons

Public Invited Via Conference Call on December 10, 2007

Monday, December 3, 2007, SPACE COAST, FL -- Terasem Movement, Incorporated announced today that its Third Annual Colloquium on the Law of Transbeman Persons, in celebration of International Human Rights Day, will be held December 10, 2007 along Florida’s Space Coast. A transbeman is a bio-electronic human transitioning between flesh and computerized substrate.

The colloquia are open to the public via real-time conference call and blogging and will be archived online for free public access. The public is invited to call a toll-free conference-call dial-in line from 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST. Callers within the continental US and Canada may dial 1-877-879-6207; other countries: (00+1) 1-719-325-4775 or access the blog at: http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/.

Colloquium presentations are designed for a 15-20 minute delivery, followed by a 20-minute discussion period amongst attendees. Additional questions from the worldwide audience will also be invited. Presentations will also be available on the Colloquium’s website at http://www.terasemcentral.org/TL/2007ColloquiumProgram.html.

Some of this year’s speakers include Dr. Marvin Minsky, MIT, Author: The Emotion Machine; David R. Koepsell, J.D., Ph.D., Yale Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics; and William Sims Bainbridge, Ph.D., National Science Foundation and others.

Real-time blogging provided by Michael Anissimov, Lifeboat Foundation’s North American Fundraising Director. www.lifeboat.com.

For additional information, please contact: Loraine J. Rhodes at 321-676-3690, ext 100, or lori@terasemcentral.org.

About the Terasem Movement

The Terasem Movement, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit charity endowed for the purpose of educating the public on the practicality and necessity of greatly extending human life, consistent with diversity and unity, via geoethical nanotechnology and personal cyberconsciousness. The Terasem Movement accomplishes its objectives by convening publicly accessible symposia, publishing explanatory analyses, conducting demonstration projects, issuing grants and encouraging public belief in a positive, technologically-based future.

For more information, please visit www.terasemcentral.org or http://terasemfoundation.org.

* * *

Questions for Our Leaders

Yesterday, we wrote about our call for a presidential debate on science policy. When pulling together potential questions for the debate, I came across a compelling series titled “American Values and the Next President” in the Los Angeles Times (December 12, 2007, Part A; Pg. 30.) It touches on a few of the incredibly important issues our political leaders need to be prepared to address:

An excerpt from the "Life" essay:
…Last month's news that scientists in Japan and Wisconsin had modified adult skin cells to behave as embryonic stem cells seemed at first to have resolved this issue, but that's only true if you believe that the debate over stem cells, cloning and genetic modification is a subset of the debate over abortion.

It is not. It is, or could become, the central life debate of our time, and depending on your perspective, the questions it raises are either exhilarating or horrifying. If you could ensure that your children would never get melanoma, should you do that? How about nearsightedness? Should we be modifying humans in hopes of making them more fit for survival in a warming climate? How about for handling complicated technology, or space exploration?

If these ideas seem excessively science-fictional, consider that when Leon Kass, the conservative University of Chicago professor who would later serve as head of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, wrote a 1972 screed against the then-novel science of in vitro fertilization, he warned that it could someday make mothers of "single women, widows or lesbians." Yesterday's absurdity is today the mainstay of many lives.

Given the expected level of discourse in a presidential campaign, we may be lucky that the candidates are not keen to explore the frontiers of life. Still, it's a missed opportunity...

I would expand the life debate beyond reproductive technologies. Advances in nanotechnology, neuroscience, and robotics, to name a few, will also play an important part in defining "what is life."

My wish for the New Year is that we get beyond paralyzing partisanship, over the top religious rhetoric and the trivializing sideshow antics of the last year and focus the debate on how we can work together to achieve social justice, equity, human dignity and cultivate a critical optimism towards science in order to shape a better future for all.

Call for Papers, May 11-13, 2007 in NYC

IHEU - Appignani Center for Bioethics and The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies present:

Human Rights for the 21st Century:
Rights of the Person to Technological Self-Determination
May 11-13, 2007

Keynote speaker: Jonathan D. Moreno
Ph.D., Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress

Professor of Medical Ethics, History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania.

Reception: Friday May 11, 6:00 – 9:00 pm

Location: Consulate General of Romania
200 E 38th St # 3
New York, NY 10016

Conference: Saturday May 12 and Sunday May 13, 9:00 am – 3:45 pm
Location: 777 UN Plaza, 2nd Floor,
New York City, NY 10017

Many thanks to the Consulate General of Romania in NYC which offered the unusually delightful venue for our reception.The 2007 conference “Human Rights for the 21st Century: Rights of the Person to Technological Self-Determination” will focus on (a) human rights in the context of bodily autonomy as well as reproductive and cognitive liberties, (b) emerging biotechnologies which may contribute to the exercise of such rights, and (c) challenges to the ideas of human identity underlying some human rights discourse.

The conference will address the role of emerging technologies and scientific progress in today's society, as well as their implications for humanists and bioethics. Potential topics to be considered include nanotechnology in medical treatment, novel vaccines against addictive behaviors, internet-enabled social networking and engineering, designer genetic engineering, novel transplantable tissue and organ generation, neuroscience, as well as emerging technologies and women’s rights.

Paper presentations, for panel discussions, are welcome. The deadline for the submission is March 20, 2007 (12-15 pages). Accepted papers will be peer-reviewed and considered for publication in the Journal of Evolution and Technology. Online registrations will be also available for those unable to attend the Conference (for those wishing to submit a paper for review and possible publication).The address for the submission of papers, registration fees (by check, payable to “IHEU”) or inquiries: IHEU, P.O. Box 4104 Grand Central Station New York, NY 10162

Phone: (212) 687 3324 analita@iheu.org

Why I Love Designer Babies

Perhaps I should say I love the topic of designer babies, which is why I was pleased to read Gautam Naik’s provocative article, “A Baby, Please. Blond, Freckles -- Hold the Colic” in the Wall Street Journal today. Naik points out that this technology is nearer than we think; he reports on a Los Angeles clinic which will soon help couples select both gender and physical traits in a baby when they undergo a form of fertility treatment. Researchers from Harvard to Stanford and around the world are working hard to make genetic modification a reality. Are we ready?

Genetic modification and selection raises a number of issues that we at the Women’s Bioethics Project believe should be at the forefront of any good bioethics discussion. Here’s why:

1) It’s a hive of ethical issues
Genetic modification and selection raises a whole slew of ethical issues: how we view our children; where we draw the line at enhancement v. therapeutic applications of the technology; the issues of safety, access, and social justice; and the potential eugenic applications, just to name a few.

2) The technology isn’t here yet
Because the technology isn’t available yet, there is still a chance to consider the implications before wide-spread use. A tremendous amount of scientific progress in the area of cloning has been made since the 1997 announcement that a sheep had been successfully cloned; cloned primates and pets and the creation of induced pluripotent stem cells and human-nonhuman chimeras are just a few of the scientific discoveries that get us closer every day to the prospect of a genetically modified child.

3) We all have a stake in the issue
The ability to radically alter human reproduction raises fundamental questions regarding the nature of our humanity and the character of our society. All of us, whether we choose the use the technology or not, have a stake in the genetic modification of children and we need to engage in conversation on these issues now.

4) Questions raised go beyond designer babies
I love the topic of designer babies because difficult questions need to be asked about all kinds of emerging technologies from nanotechnology to therapeutic and reproductive human cloning. It can be overwhelming, but the only thing we can count on is change–that the nature of the technology will evolve while the challenges remain.

Moving forward
As we discuss genetic modification, we must remember that this not just an interesting a moral philosophical exercise—our elected representatives will be developing a national science policy on the use of genetic modification technologies in the next few years. As citizens, we’ll be asked to vote on the use of these technologies. What factors do we want policy makers to keep in mind as they decide the future of genetic engineering? There are several policy options to consider:

Banning - Should we ban it? The use of this technology is currently not prohibited in the US, Russia, and China. While many countries are currently considering legislation that would ban genetic modification of children, it has been fully banned in 44 countries around the world, including Germany, France, Italy, Australia, Canada, Brazil, Costa Rica and Japan.

Regulating - Should we regulate the technology to allow only certain applications? Many believe there may be acceptable uses of genetic modification in the future, but want to be sure that appropriate limitations are set, through government or other oversight, to ensure safe and ethical use. Should we regulate any proposed form of genetic engineering if, when widespread, it has a harmful effect on individuals and society? If so, who determines what that threshold is?

Promoting – Should we promote the widespread use of this technology? Some believe that genetic modification holds tremendous promise for preventing genetic diseases and that society should pursue policies to promote or encourage its use in the future, despite what other sideline “designer” applications are developed as a result.

It’s time to get the conversation going. What are your thoughts?

Bioethics Questions for Obama and McCain

Our friends at the Hastings Center have published a great compilation of the candidates’ positions on a wide range of bioethical issues. Even more compelling, they have crafted a list of bioethical questions the candidates have not addressed but should:

What will you do to keep politics from biasing tough decisions on climate change, environmental protection, workplace safety, and other science issues?

Do you unequivocally condemn torture? Both of you have said so in speeches, but you have eliminated references to torture on your web sites.

Should the federal government take a more active role in regulating assisted reproduction (as other developed nations do), such as in protecting egg donors from exploitation and preventing clinicians from denying services based on marital status or sexual orientation?

What, if any, government regulation is needed on the use of embryos left over from fertility treatments and stored in clinics?

Would you consider legalizing a market for donated organs to reduce the shortage of organs for transplantation?

In the event of a public health emergency, such has the SARS outbreaks in 2003, what limits on liberty are justified, such as quarantine of infected individuals or other restrictions of movement?

What regulation is needed of the increasing practice of collecting of DNA samples from criminal suspects?

More than 300 million biospecimens are stored in U.S biobanks and used for research purposes; how would you oversee the ethical use of this material, including informed consent from donors, privacy, and ownership of intellectual property?

What role should the government play in supporting promising new technologies – nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and genetic engineering – while guarding against potential safety and environmental hazards?

If your proposals to control health care costs prove insufficient, would you consider rationing health care, such as the availability of costly drugs and technology?

Read the original post here. If you really want to dig deep, you can read the Hastings Center bioethics briefing book free online. It includes thirty-six backgrounders on leading bioethics issues including expert contacts and campaign positions.

Call for Papers extended deadline, May 11-13, 2007 in NYC

IHEU - Appignani Center for Bioethics and The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

present

Human Rights for the 21st Century:
Rights of the Person to Technological Self-Determination
May 11-13, 2007

Key-note speaker: Jonathan D. Moreno
Ph.D., Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress

Professor of Medical Ethics, History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania.

Reception: Friday May 11, 6:00 – 9:00 pm
Location: Consulate General of Romania
200 E 38th St # 3
New York, NY 10016

Conference: Saturday May 12 and Sunday May 13, 9:00 am – 3:45 pm
Location: 777 UN Plaza, 2nd Floor, New York City, NY 10017

*Many thanks to the Consulate General of Romania in NYC which offered the unusually delightful venue for our reception.

The 2007 conference “Human Rights for the 21st Century: Rights of the Person to Technological Self-Determination” will focus on (a) human rights in the context of bodily autonomy as well as reproductive and cognitive liberties, (b) emerging biotechnologies which may contribute to the exercise of such rights, and (c) challenges to the ideas of human identity underlying some human rights discourse.

The conference will address the role of emerging technologies and scientific progress in today's society, as well as their implications for humanists and bioethics. Potential topics to be considered include nanotechnology in medical treatment, novel vaccines against addictive behaviors, internet-enabled social networking and engineering, designer genetic engineering, novel transplantable tissue and organ generation, neuroscience, as well as emerging technologies and women’s rights.

Paper presentations, for panel discussions, are welcome. The extended deadline for the submission is April 25, 2007 (12-15 pages). Accepted papers will be peer-reviewed and considered for publication in the Journal of Evolution and Technology(http://jetpress.org). Online registrations will be also available for those unable to attend the Conference (for those wishing to submit a paper for review and possible publication).The address for the submission of papers, registration fees (by check, payable to “IHEU”) or inquiries:
IHEU, P.O. Box 4104 Grand Central Station New York, NY 10162

Phone: (212) 687 3324 Email: analita@iheu.org
Or by Paypal (online) to http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/rights2007
Registration forms and other details will be posted on:
http://www.iheu.org/bioethics and at http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/rights2007

NB: Accommodation packages are available, on a first-come-first-serve basis, from the Pickwick Hotel, E 51st Street and Second Avenue. Tel: 212 355 0300, e-mail: info@pickwickarms.com.

Fifteen hotel rooms have been booked at Millenium UN Plaza Hotel New York, United Nations Plaza, 44th Street between First and Second Avenues, New York, NY, USA 10017-3575 Tel: 212 758 1234 fax: 212 702 5051 reservation: 866 866 8086 email: unplaza@mhrmail.com. Please quote Conference name when booking. Read more:

Some bioethics stories of note this past week....

For you trekkies, could this be Data version 1.3? -
Selmer Bringsjord, director of the Rensselaer Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning Laboratory at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, spends a lot of time in Second Life, but not for recreation or entertainment -- he and his team at RPI (RPI) are the creators of synthetic agent Edd Hifeng, who they have endowed with a limited ability to converse and reason.

See the rest of the article here.

**********************

Do difficult times call for deep brain stimulation?

Brain-stimulation devices for treating depression have faced unexpected setbacks. To serve the 40 million or so sufferers who fail to respond to antidepressant drugs, a few companies have tried to treat the disorder with electronic implants and electromagnets. These therapies, however, have stumbled en route to the doctor's office.

To take a crack at those intractable cases, experiments exploring five device therapies will start this year. In total, nine different technologies are now under investigation in at least 27 human trials.

Full story here.

**********************
A Superhighway to Bliss

JILL BOLTE TAYLOR was a neuroscientist working at Harvard’s brain research center when she experienced nirvana.

But she did it by having a stroke.

On Dec. 10, 1996, Dr. Taylor, then 37, woke up in her apartment near Boston with a piercing pain behind her eye. A blood vessel in her brain had popped. Within minutes, her left lobe — the source of ego, analysis, judgment and context — began to fail her. Oddly, it felt great.

Access the rest of the story here.

*********************

Concerns about carbon nanotubes as carcinogenic

Nanotechnology experts are calling for prompt government action to ensure that carbon nanotubes are properly regulated, after researchers discovered that some carbon nanotubes can cause precancerous growths in the same way that asbestos does.

Researchers led by Ken Donaldson of the University of Edinburgh’s Centre for Inflammation Research, UK, found that in mice, long, straight, multi-walled carbon nanotubes can cause the same kind of damage as that inflicted by asbestos fibres when they are injected into
the lung's outer lining, called the mesothelium.

Full article accessible here.

***********************
How Our Brains are Wired for Belief

From the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, transcripts from a discussion about how recent advances in neuroscience and brain-imaging technology have offered researchers a look into the physiology of religious experiences. The whole article and transcripts accessible here.

NanoCosmetics? Really?

As I'm sure every student remembers, when you're in the middle of studying for a test, you often end up doing the most counter-intuitive thing to studying: you surf the net in search of procrastination. This, I admit, seemed like a much better idea than trying to decide whether or not Emily had a justified true belief that there was a cat in her house, and I somehow ended up on the most fascinating of NPR stories, about nano-cosmetics.

It would seem that the newest thing in anti-aging is nanosomes. Nanospheres. Buckyballs. Some of the ingredients are just smaller versions of chemicals that have been used for years, like nano-particles of zinc oxide, but others are genuinely new, like buckyball enhanced day cream; apparently the buckyballs are an anti-oxidant that prevent skin aging?

The concern, however, isn't minor. No one knows for sure what nano-particles will do; in many cases chemical compounds that are familiar at a larger level take on new properties when they become so small (this is, after all, part of the appeal of nanotechnology). Another concern is one that admittedly sort of freaks me out with it's unknown-ness: can nano-particles penetrate your skin? Is that day cream really seeping into your tissues, oozing into your blood and muscle and ick? (It's like the beginnings of a Robin Cook horror novel...) And this isn't just some random, too much horror-scifi reading as a kid concern; Sally Tinkle, a researcher at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina, has shown in her lab that at least some nano-particles can seep through the skin, which means they could potentially get into our blood stream or interfere with our immune system. (I have the sudden urge to check all my cosmetic products for nanoanything...)

Of course, cosmetic companies point out that if what they were using in their products wasn't safe, the FDA wouldn't let it go on the market. But the FDA typically only investigates cosmetics if safety issues come up after the product is on the market; unlike drugs, there is no safety level testing, studies, or trials that have to be done on cosmetics, and no final approval or rejection process prior to marketing.

But at least some people are making an effort to track the claims of nanotech on the market. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has a Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies where they track all of the supposed nanotech out and about in our products, in everything from iPhones to face cream. They make this information available to the public, via their website, and it's incredibly easy to lose a few hours of time there browsing and marveling at all of the nanotech that has quietly become part of the marketplace.

In the meantime, I think I have something else to add to my labels watch list aside from high fructose corn syrup - it might be a slightly luddite reaction, I'll grant you that, but the idea of unknown nano-particles being a part of my beauty routine just makes me hesitant in a way that only being raised on a lot of science fiction can probably explain.
-Kelly

Human Trials to start soon in Nanomedicine

From Technology Review this morning: The treatment begins with an injection of an unremarkable-looking clear fluid. Invisible inside, however, are particles precisely engineered to slip past barriers such as blood vessel walls, latch onto cancer cells, and trick the cells into engulfing them as if they were food. These Trojan particles flag the cells with a fluorescent dye and simultaneously destroy them with a drug.

Developed by University of Michigan physician and researcher James Baker, these multipurpose nanoparticles -- which should be ready for patient trials later this year -- are at the leading edge of a nanotechnology-based medical revolution. Such methodically designed nanoparticles have the potential to transfigure the diagnosis and treatment of not only cancer but virtually any disease.