China to name and shame dodgy researchers

In a bid to curb the apparently increasing tendency for fraud amongst research scientists in the far east, the Chinese government has unveiled a plan to evaluate the 'credibility' of the researchers it funds. Those individuals or groups who fail, through breaking the rules or making 'mistakes', will be made public.

Assuming this isn't another control bid by the Chinese government, along the lines of censorship, then I think this could be a good idea. This sort of thing should happen anyway under the peer review system, but so much research is being done these days, much of it highly specific, that it can take a long time for fraud or other forms of misconduct to be found out. On the other hand, there's no indication of what criteria will be used to judge the 'credibility' of scientists. Or of whether any punishment will be applied, aside from publicity.

Faking it and taking it

Taking responsibility, that is. Hwang Woo-Suk has admitted a part in the faking of cloning research in his lab. A part, that is, as he still maintains that the actual faking was done by underlings.

This is rather disingenuous. Either he was in charge of his lab or he wasn't. If he was genuinely supervising his research staff, he should have known what they were doing. Giving 'specific orders' is neither here nor there. If he didn't know what they were doing he obviously wasn't involved enough in the work to claim the credit for it.

My mother made me do it

On another blog, Janet D. Stemwedel gives her take on the news that sexuality may be determined in the womb. My reaction is somewhat different. I don't see something caused in the mother's womb as biological determination so much as environmental. It's certainly not genetic, as Andy Forrest from Stonewall, quoted in the BBC article, seems to think. The extension of this is that it's not impossible to foresee a time in the future when we will be able to advise pregnant women to eat certain things, or take certain pills, to reduce the risk of their child being born gay.

I'm not at all sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, there are disadvantages to being gay that most parents would want to spare their children: the discrimination and prejudice, the far narrower field of potential mates, the inability to have (or at least difficulty in having) genetic offspring. If it were a matter of taking a pill to reduce the risk of your child being born disabled or stupid, I can't see many parents refusing it – in fact, we already do it in the form of vitamin supplements and whatever it is the government is advising us to eat this week.

But what if it were a pill to reduce the risk of your child being born red-headed? Or, less obviously unacceptable, how about a pill to reduce the risk of your child being highly emotional? Emotional people (easily upset) can be put at great disadvantages in life too.

I don't agree that there's anything intrinsically wrong with saying that some states of being (such as being able to walk) are better than others (such as being paralysed), in the sense that the 'better' state is generally more enjoyable for the person concerned (not that the person in the 'better' state is intrinsically a 'better' person for it). But even with a continuum of characteristics with number of usable limbs at one end and hair color at the other, it's unclear where sexuality should come on the scale.

Misguided concepts of balance

A group of thirty leading paediatricians and vaccination experts have written an open letter calling for parents to allow their children to receive the MMR vaccination. (I can't find a copy of the letter itself, but it's widely reported throughout the news media.) They blame 'misguided concepts of balance' in the media for confusing people about the validity of the research that suggests a link to autism.

Done properly, the peer review system should work well at weeding out dodgy research. But it's a paradigm that's very unfamiliar to the mainstream media and to most of those who gain their information from it. 'Person B says that the thing Person A said last year was dangerous isn't so scary after all' isn't a very good headline. How can the reader weigh up the relative merits of the arguments in a very specialised field with a completely different worldview?

The reference to 'misguided concepts of balance' is, I assume, a suggestion that the normal 'two sides to every story' approach taken by the media is counterproductive in this case. It implies equal validity on both sides, and the writers of the letter believe that Dr Wakefield's research is invalid and should be treated in health reporting similarly to the way the BNP is treated in politics journalism. This seems sensible, given the large amount of research suggesting the vaccine is safe, but in a way I can see the point of the opposing argument. Are people not intelligent enough, do we not respect their independence enough, to let them look at the evidence themselves and make up their own minds?

Interestingly, though, the very BBC webpage publicising this story gives, under the 'related links' section, a link to JABS, a group which opposes the vaccine on the basis of Wakefield's evidence, but no site arguing the opposite view, or even a link to the full text of the letter. If it's an open letter, surely it can be republished?

Which comes first: the eagle, or the green energy?

I hadn't truly paid much credence to the idea that wind farms were a hazard to birdlife. But there seems to be evidence that a Norwegian wind farm has directly caused the death of a number of white-tailed eagles. So it seems we need to look to our priorities: is a charismatic, beautiful and evocative species more important than alternative sources of energy that will help stave off the greenhouse effect?

I think so, not because 'eagles' are 'pretty' (though they're certainly beautiful birds), nor because I believe in preserving the exact environmental status quo, but because if we forget why we're trying to save the environment then we've lost something in ourselves.

Whaling

Japan have gained an initial victory in its attempt to restart commercial whaling. In a way I think this could be a good thing: my natural honesty is offended by what they do in the name of 'scientific research'. Perhaps we should call it commercial whaling, but keep the limits exactly where they are now.

That petition

The pro-animal testing petition (the one that Tony Blair signed) is available here.
Interestingly, the BBC article quotes someone as saying that the petition only has 13,000 names. Less than a week after that article was published, there are now 18,000 names.

More animal testing

The BBC reports that there has been a rise this year in the number of animals used in experiments in the UK. There has been a large increase in the proportion of genetically modified animals (GM) used, with a fall in the use of non-GM animals.


A lot of these GM animals will have been modified to make them more prone to develop specific diseases such as cancer. This makes it easier to test potential cures for these diseases, particularly where a lot of animals would be needed to find a sufficient number that had the disease by chance. In these cases, using GM animals reduces the number of animals that need to be bred.

I don't think there's many research scientists who wouldn't agree that it would be better not to have to use animals at all. And people are working on alternatives – even with this increase we only use half the animals we did 30 years ago. But in the meantime there are still things we need animals for. And while we do, we should try and do what we can to make sure we use as few as possible.

What should we test for?

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) is conducting a survey to see whether people think embryos should be tested for a wider range of conditions than they are currently.


At the moment, embryos obtained through IVF are tested for a small number of genes which give the child which has them an almost certain chance of developing certain currently incurable disorders, such as cystic fibrosis. The ideas under discussion would involve genes which give a predisposition to (not a certainly of developing) certain cancers, and/or diseases for which we do have cures.

Is it right to choose not to implant an embryo because it contains a gene that might (not will) cause it to develop a disease that might (not will) be incurable? On the other hand, if you're choosing one of a number generated by IVF anyway, doesn't it makes sense to give your child the best chance possible?

I've seen GATTACA. I know that a chance is not the same as a certainty. My biggest worry is, is it right to decide on matters of morality by public survey, as if it was some sort of popularity contest for ethical policy? On the other hand, is there any other way?

Nuclear power will be necessary

According to a new report from the UK Energy Research Centre, in 30 years' time we will be suffering from an energy shortfall. The only way to plug the gap is with nuclear power.

Is nuclear power the only way, or are there safer ways to generate electricity without increasing the amount of atmospheric pollution? And is nuclear power really that bad?

US animal rights activist barred from Britain

The Guardian reports that Jerry Vlasak, an animal rights activists who has apparently condoned the killing of scientists involved in animal research, has been refused entry to Britain by the Home Secretary, on the grounds that his exclusion would be "conducive to the public good". Vlasak was due to speak at a conference organised by Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, a group which advocates intimidating firms who work with, supply, or fund animal researchers.

There are several separate questions to consider here. First, is animal experimentation wrong; secondly, are the methods of SHAC wrong; and thirdly, is it wrong to ban Dr Vlasak because of it?

Where do bioethicists get their funding?

Bioethic$ Inc. is a very interesting essay pointing out that, increasingly, bioethicists are being paid by the corporations they are meant to be criticising. The trouble is that it's all very well being trained to work out what is right and what is wrong, and telling the companies all about it, but people have to eat and someone's got to pay for it. If not the companies you're talking to, then whom?

New laws proposed to deal with animal rights protestors

The BBC reports that the Government is considering either developing new laws, or extending existing ones, to enable prosecution of animal rights activists who, for example, protest outside researchers' homes to intimidate them. The full details are to be announced on Friday.

Public consultation on gene testing

The Human Genetics Commission, the Government advisory body on developments in human genetics, has produced a discussion document on the social implications of some of the recent advancements in genetic technology. In particular, they want to know what people think about embryo screening and selection. Where should we draw the line between avoiding a genetic disorder and creating a designer baby -- and is there anything wrong with designer babies anyway? And given the new technologies, is there anything we should change about the structure or culture of our medical services?

The answers they receive from the general public will be used to produce a report to Ministers next year. The questions then are: Will the government pay any attention to what people have said? And, ultimately, should they?

Slug protection?

Apparently, new animal protection legislation proposed by the Government would offer the same protection to slugs and snails as to dogs and cats. According to the Telegraph, gardeners are up in arms about this, and deservedly so, if the report is true. Personally I suspect it's a matter of overzealous interpretation by a journalist looking for a story.

It does, however, raise the issue of how far we should go in the defence or protection of other animals. If we made it illegal to kill anything that might possibly suffer, then we'd surely starve. It is surely not wrong to count human lives above animal lives. Human pleasure, though, is a matter of debate. It is obviously wrong to torture a chimpanzee to death because you are a sadist and find it enjoyable. It is fairly obviously (to most people) right to subject mice to a small amount of pain to find a drug that cures cancer. Killing a cow (in a humane manner) because you prefer beef to lentils is accepted by most people, as is poisoning slugs because you want to see pretty flowers. But how about subjecting a chicken or a pig to a painful and miserable existence because you don't like the idea of paying a couple of quid extra on your roast? Any legislation that protects the slugs while leaving the chickens to their hell is seriously mixed-up.

Clinical trials of Drug Companies

Last week, the American Medical Association urged the US government to establish a national registry of clinical trials. This is to counter the growing problem of drug companies failing to publish the results of trials that don't show their drugs in a good light, either through demonstrating that they don't actually work very well or through uncovering side effects. Journals would refuse to publish the results of trials that were not registered, and it would be very obvious if results were not being reported.

The New Scientist reports this week that although the big companies are making noises of agreement, in practice what they are prepared to do falls far short of this. Merck, for example, supports the proposal in theory, but according to the New Scientist is only prepared to register smaller trials, but only "large, pivotal trials". And while GlaxoSmithKline (currently contesting legal action with regard to its failure to disclose information on the effectiveness of an antidepressant) planning to set up a website showing the results of their clinical trials, this would only apply to drugs that have already been released. Information on drugs which have yet to be approved would still be hidden. Which rather misses the point of it.

In the same issue, and on the same page, the New Scientist also reports that drug companies want to ban people who respond to placebos from clinical trials of antidepressants. This would make their results look better, for sure. But surely the whole point of a trial is to see how well the drug compares to the placebo? If we rule out the placebo-responders from the start, then how can we possibly tell how the drug will perform in a real-life situation? The drug companies have apparently forgotten what the purpose of a medicine is.

A cure for autism?

Nature reports that promiscuous voles can be made faithful by the addition of more hormone receptors in the brain. The hormone in question, vasopressin, appears to be produced in large quantities during sex, and seems to encourage bonding. And though they caution that pair bonding in humans is vastly more complicated than in voles, the idea of transferring this to human relationships is definitely there.

The BBC report gives a slightly different take on it. Autists have difficulty bonding, so maybe through vasopressin we could find a possible cure for autism.

Both are tempting ideas. We could cure infidelity, or autism, through hormone treatments. But first we have to decide what is a disorder, and what is natural. It would be far too easy, once we have a cure, to define anything other than some theoretical ideal as the disease. What's the difference between an autist and someone who just doesn't like chatting much? How many partners do you have to have before you need treatment for promiscuity?

Some people say we're already in this situation with antidepressants such as Prozac (given, according to some, to anyone who might be a little unhappy), or Ritalin to treat attention deficit disorder (or, perhaps, any child that doesn't sit still). On the other hand, some people say that both these drugs are underprescribed, and many depressed people and hyperactive children are going untreated. (Both sides of the argument can be seen here.) Here already we see the problems of a fuzzy boundary. Where diagnosis is based mainly on personal judgement, health professionals need a lot of time spent with the patient to work out what's going on -- time which they rarely get. More importantly, we need alternatives to the drugs, for those people who need something other than a chemical fix. And this will also be true if we develop a drug to treat autism.

First UK Human Cloning?

The BBC reports that a research group headed by Dr Miodrag Stojkovic of Newcastle University have requested permission from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to clone human embryos. This is the first such request in the UK. The idea is to isolate stem cells from the cloned embryos which are genetically identical to the donor. These could be used to replace lost cells without any fear of tissue rejection.

Naturally, this raises the issue of "spare parts". Is it right to create a twin of yourself, even a fourteen-day-old ball of cells of one, to pull to bits to plug gaps in yourself? That may be a rather crude and emotive way of putting it, but perhaps that is what we would be doing. Of course, a permanent cure for conditions such as diabetes or Alzheimer's disease would be wonderful, but are we creating people in order to kill them to do so? Or are we just creating a specialised (and rather useful) cell structure from someone's donated cells?

Ideally, of course, we could find a way of creating stem cells without creating embryos. But only embryonic cells are pluripotent -- able to develop into all cell types of the body. If we did find some way that didn't involve cloning, to produce what would, in effect, be embryonic cells, perhaps this could still be called an embryo, even if it's not organised into an embryo shape. After all, it has the potential to become a whole human.

Actually, this ideal process, of creating pluripotent stem cells direct from adult cells, has already been done. By a commercial company, which has patented the technique, and plans to sell the stem cells thus produced. They claim that it is simple and quick. Well, they would. And nobody else can use it without paying the company. Hence, presumably, the continued exploration of therapeutic cloning. But even if they have patented their own method, it opens the possibility of other methods of doing the same thing. And surely then we should be concentrating on this avenue. Not only does it avoid the needless creation and destruction of embryos, it's also likely to be more reliable. Cloning has so far been only fitfully successful at best. Better than finding a cure for diabetes is finding a cure for diabetes that works well.

Fight over sunlight

On Radio 4's Today programme this morning there was a debate between a pair of scientists about the amount of sunlight we should be exposed to (audio clip here). Everyone knows that UV light can cause skin cancer, but apparently people are now avoiding sunlight so much that we are in danger of becoming Vitamin D deficient. Vitamin D is apparently good not only for fixing calcium in our bones, but also for helping our bodies' own defences against cancer.

The trouble was that neither of the scientists on the programme really got to grips with the other's argument. So instead of a constructive and instructive discussion, we had a situation where two people simply repeated, over and over, a single point. Both of them were exaggerating the other person's position in order to make theirs look like the only reasonable choice. This is not good argument, and it is certainly not good science.

The worst of it is that the two weren't actually all that far apart. One was saying that we need three to five minutes a day of direct exposure to sunlight to make enough Vitamin D. (He didn't make clear whether this was supposed to be whole body exposure or whether face and hands alone would do.) The other was saying that we need to be careful to avoid overexposure for fear of getting skin cancer. I don't really see how these two are at all contradictory. Assuming all you need to show is your face and hands, you'll get more than enough exposure just walking to the shops. I am so fair-skinned that I have been known to get sunburn on a cloudy day. So I tend to avoid the sun. Nevertheless I'm sure that on average I get more than three to five minutes a day. At least in the summer, anyway. I really don't think there's many people so scared of cancer that they run out to the car on a sunny day with a newspaper over their heads, nor so desperate for Vitamin D that they lie out in the sun all day long, risking sunburn and skin cancer, to make sure they get it.

But one scientist accused the other of wanting people to throw away their suncream, and the other accused him of expecting them to lock themselves away in the cellar. The problem is really the irresponsibility of this unwillingness to acknowledge the other. The enire basis of scientific enquiry surely falls down if we cannot bear to take account of the criticism of others. (Can anyone spell "peer review"?) Science is supposed to be a discipline of reason. Scientists must therefore behave in a reasonable manner, or how can we believe what they say?

New rules for animal experiments?

The Government has announced that a new body will be set up to oversee the use of animals in scientific experiments. How can we further reduce the number of animals used in experiments, and make sure that when animals are used, they suffer as little as possible?

Rules should take into account all the circumstances. I know of a scientist who used to use rabbits to produce antibodies to proteins he was working on. We haven't yet been able to work out how to get a wide selection of different antibodies from cells cultured in the lab. He would inject the (harmless) protein into the rabbit, whose immune system would react to this foreign body to produce a varied selection of antibodies. He would then draw out a couple of millilitres of blood and purify the antibodies for use in his experiments. The only thing the rabbit suffered was a couple of injections. Its job done, the rabbit would be retired. He would take them home and keep them as pets in his back garden, with a hutch and grass -- a pretty good life in return for a couple of injections.

He can't do that any more. The rules were changed a few years ago. Now, once the experiment is finished, the animal must be destroyed. So now he uses mice instead. They are so small that taking out enough blood to use in the experiments kills them. And as they'd have to be killed anyway...

Now, I think I understand what they were trying to do: make sure that animals whose usefulness is over don't languish in lab cages forever. But surely in this case, the rules have missed the point? We have here a problem of over-generalisation. We always need to be careful to ensure that rules meant to safeguard the welfare of animals don't end up acting against the very thing they are trying to protect.