Many bench scientists are just too caught up in their research to consider its ethical possibilities, and very few want to take the time to rigorously explore them.
However, the controversy over the research into the genetic modification of the H5N1 flu virus, finally approved for publication, should offer a reminder of the importance of debate. Conversations about dual-use technology — work that could be used for both humanitarian and unethical ends — should go way beyond mutant flu. On page 432 of this issue, we discuss broader case studies and show the need for reflection and discussion in many areas of science.
'Dual-use technology' is not a synonym for science, of course — a simple knife can be a tool or a weapon, whereas research into turtle navigation will not yield long-range missile technology, for example. But dual-use basic research is a special case because its implications, for good and bad, are often viewed with the greatest clarity by only a small minority of people. The scientists involved (and they are increasingly specialists in very small fields) are often the only ones that can fully understand the risks posed by a line of research.
Some fields have structures in place to ensure scrutiny from outside, yet, too often, scientists are slow to raise their hands with uncomfortable questions. Why? Some may feel that speaking frankly and drawing attention to dangers, real or perceived, will cause trouble for their labs, whereas others feel that they would be wasting time on what they regard as hypothetical conundrums. Optimism is also a factor: most researchers genuinely believe in the benefits of their work, and few want to think about the drawbacks.
There are disadvantages to leaving it up to outsiders to initiate debate about risks, benefits and ethics. The first is that in the early, fertile stages of public debate, some threats are easily underestimated whereas others are overestimated. Everyone can understand the risk posed by a knife, but few are qualified to recognize the dangers of using lasers to enrich nuclear isotopes. And misconceptions are rife: many members of the public believe that neuroscientists have already made mind-reading possible, even though fundamental research into predicting a subject's intent has only just begun.
The second risk is that non-scientists can take control of the debate, especially when concerns about science are expressed as surrogates for concerns about associated values and perceived benefit. For example, environmental groups made a strong public case against the use of genetically modified organisms in food, especially in Europe, even though most scientists who have studied the risk from such food say that it is vanishingly small.
Finally, there is the possibility that decisions about research will end up in the lap of a regulator that lacks either the knowledge or the authority to handle it. The US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity found itself effectively refereeing the publication of the controversial H5N1 papers. And in the Netherlands, legal arguments over whether the nation's export-control authorities have jurisdiction over the export of mutant-flu data have caused further problems.
The US government has responded to the H5N1 debate by asking its funding agencies to increase their vigilance when assessing research proposals for the potential for harm. Such problems can also be tackled through greater open discussion of research. That may mean individual researchers raising flags about their own work, but it is more likely to involve scientists taking the time to think about the potential dangers as a community. Whether in conference sessions, peer review or funding decisions, researchers should publicly ask whether the work being done by their colleagues poses any threat — and, if it does, how that weighs against the benefits. Then they should be prepared to discuss potential problems collectively to reach a decision on to how to proceed.
Open discussions carry risks. In the United Kingdom, for example, part of a geoengineering experiment has been delayed indefinitely by its funding council to satisfy the need for a lengthy public debate. But not having these debates carries even greater risks. And although scientists are uniquely qualified to understand what will be possible, they are not always best able to judge the dangers.
More funders should copy the United States and look at introducing early oversight of research. The public must be well forewarned of problems that it might care about, and scientists can make sure that discussions of risk and hazard remain grounded in reality.
My reflections:
After reading this article, I realised that scientists face huge difficulties when trying to open up debate to the public with regards to scientific discoveries. I myself have been guilty of falling to misconceptions when it comes to what scientists have achieved, and these misconceptions can prove to be hindrances to any sort of logical debate between scientists and the public. In addition, your average Joe would not be able to comprehend many scientific ideas which can be very complex. Hence, it is very understandable why scientists might not want to open some discoveries up for debate as the public could have irrational fears or underestimate certain dangers of the implications of some discoveries which could result in unpleasant consequences. However, the risk if scientific discoveries are not discussed with the public far outweigh the cons of opening them up for discussion. Scientists are human beings after all, and often do not look very deeply into the possible ramifications of their discoveries. For instance, Albert Einstein was a self-declared pacifist, but when he mentioned that a large amount of energy could be released from a small amount of matter as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he paved the way for the construction of the atomic bomb, two of which were to fall on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. He condemned the usage of the bombs in such a manner, but the fact remains that he played an instrumental part in its creation in the first place. This is just one illustration of the possible catastrophic consequences if scientists do not look into the possible implications of their research, and it is evident that there is a need for people to be able to discuss openly about scientific research and what the implications could be so that we can take steps to prevent misusage of Science by individuals with malicious intent.
More women should be taking part in HIV vaccine trials, researchers say
Flickr/mknobil
[BOSTON] A low number of women participating in clinical trials of HIV/AIDS vaccines in developing countries is continuing to frustrate scientists' efforts to tell whether they are effective in protecting women.
On average, only about a fifth of the participants in phase I and II HIV vaccine trials in most sites in Africa are women, yet they bear a bigger burden of the epidemic, the AIDS Vaccine 2012 conference heard this week in Boston, United States (9–12 September).
"We could end up with a vaccine that we can only say elicits a good immune response in men," said Hannah Kibuuka, director of the Makerere University Walter Reed Project (MUWRP), an HIV vaccine development group in Uganda. "We will not know if it works equally well in women."
More women than men are infected with HIV, they have a higher viral load and their immune response could be different.
Merlin Robb, clinical deputy director of the US Military HIV Research Program, said that although African women attend screening, they tend not to enrol in trials.
One reason, he said, is that trials require women to use contraceptives and not fall pregnant, but most women eligible for trials are usually within the reproductive age.
They may also be more influenced than men by their peers, and many live in societies where they have to seek consent from their partners and parents to take part in a trial, Robb said.
Danielle Poole, a researcher who has worked on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine trials in Mali, added evidence about barriers to consent. Most of the women, even adults, said they had to get consent from their parents or partners, and most were not willing to participate in HPV trials.
"If it were an HIV vaccine site, I would imagine it would be very similar because both are sexually transmitted diseases," Poole said.
The high number of necessary visits to health centres by women participating in trials may also be an obstacle. For instance, women who participated in the CAPRISA 004 microbicide trial in South Africa had to make 22 visits to the site, and undergo seven internal examinations, in 18 months, researchers said.
The conference was attended by more than 1,100 researchers, funders and policymakers and included more than 440 presentations on the latest in HIV vaccine research.
Retrieved from:
My reflections:
I can certainly understand the scientists' chagrin at the fact that only a small amount of women in developing countries are taking part in HIV vaccine trials. After all, an untested vaccine means that it is impossible to determine the effectiveness of the vaccine and thus no further improvements can be made. The reluctance of people to go for trials is baffling, as although contracting HIV could be an embarrassing matter, mortification is a far better prospect than possible death. I believe that this is a very prominent difficulty that scientists developing vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases face: The fact that very few individuals are willing to go for trials due to pressure from partners and peers, especially in developing countries where societies require women to seek consent from the husbands before attending such trials. I hope that people will be able to take a rational stand and see the benefits of HPV trials and not regret their decision in the future.
More women should be taking part in HIV vaccine trials, researchers say
Flickr/mknobil
[BOSTON] A low number of women participating in clinical trials of HIV/AIDS vaccines in developing countries is continuing to frustrate scientists' efforts to tell whether they are effective in protecting women.
On average, only about a fifth of the participants in phase I and II HIV vaccine trials in most sites in Africa are women, yet they bear a bigger burden of the epidemic, the AIDS Vaccine 2012 conference heard this week in Boston, United States (9–12 September).
"We could end up with a vaccine that we can only say elicits a good immune response in men," said Hannah Kibuuka, director of the Makerere University Walter Reed Project (MUWRP), an HIV vaccine development group in Uganda. "We will not know if it works equally well in women."
More women than men are infected with HIV, they have a higher viral load and their immune response could be different.
Merlin Robb, clinical deputy director of the US Military HIV Research Program, said that although African women attend screening, they tend not to enrol in trials.
One reason, he said, is that trials require women to use contraceptives and not fall pregnant, but most women eligible for trials are usually within the reproductive age.
They may also be more influenced than men by their peers, and many live in societies where they have to seek consent from their partners and parents to take part in a trial, Robb said.
Danielle Poole, a researcher who has worked on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine trials in Mali, added evidence about barriers to consent. Most of the women, even adults, said they had to get consent from their parents or partners, and most were not willing to participate in HPV trials.
"If it were an HIV vaccine site, I would imagine it would be very similar because both are sexually transmitted diseases," Poole said.
The high number of necessary visits to health centres by women participating in trials may also be an obstacle. For instance, women who participated in the CAPRISA 004 microbicide trial in South Africa had to make 22 visits to the site, and undergo seven internal examinations, in 18 months, researchers said.
The conference was attended by more than 1,100 researchers, funders and policymakers and included more than 440 presentations on the latest in HIV vaccine research.
Retrieved from:
My reflections:
I can certainly understand the scientists' chagrin at the fact that only a small amount of women in developing countries are taking part in HIV vaccine trials. After all, an untested vaccine means that it is impossible to determine the effectiveness of the vaccine and thus no further improvements can be made. The reluctance of people to go for trials is baffling, as although contracting HIV could be an embarrassing matter, mortification is a far better prospect than possible death. I believe that this is a very prominent difficulty that scientists developing vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases face: The fact that very few individuals are willing to go for trials due to pressure from partners and peers, especially in developing countries where societies require women to seek consent from the husbands before attending such trials. I hope that people will be able to take a rational stand and see the benefits of HPV trials and not regret their decision in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment