Obama's Hypocrisy

Obama attacks Bush administration policy, describing it as ad hoc, then describes how he will create a system that allows for the "prolonged detention" of terrorists without trial. I have to say I'm a little surprised.

Unedited Torture and Ethics Interview

Take 20 minutes out of your day to watch as John Stewart ever so eloquently explains why torture is wrong and why America should be/is better than defending the use of it.

It is a series of three clips, after one you should be directed to the next.

New Yorkers to be Entered in Science Experiment

Michael Bloomberg and Thomas R. Frieden forego the constraints of compelling evidence and consent to engage NY in the largest unapproved science experiment in a long time.

Check out this article by John Tierney from the NYT:

Suppose you wanted to test the effects of halving the amount of salt in people’s diets. If you were an academic researcher, you’d have to persuade your institutional review board that you had considered the risks and obtained informed consent from the participants.

You might, for instance, take note of a recent clinical trial in which heart patients put on a restricted-sodium diet fared worse than those on a normal diet. In light of new research suggesting that eating salt improves mood and combats depression, you might be alert for psychological effects of the new diet. You might worry that people would react to less-salty food by eating more of it, a trend you could monitor by comparing them with a control group.

But if you are the mayor of New York, no such constraints apply. Read more...

Do you want New York's mayor and health commissioner leading a nationwide initiative to halve the salt in your food? Join the discussion. Go to TierneyLab »

Thanks to Proposition 8

I detect a bit of sarcasm:

"Genome Hacking"

We have officially reached Gattaca status - well, not exactly - but according to an article from NewScientist.com, we're not far (if you haven't seen Gattaca, and therefore have no idea what I'm talking about, you need to watch it - not just to understand this reference, but because it is unusually accurate, and at the very least insightful - if not prophetic).

What I mean is this: similar to the film, it is now possible to 'hack' another's genome. This highlights a major issue regarding the blossoming field of personal genomics: the right to privacy (other pertinent issues are also discussed in the article - including the accuracy and reliability of info provided by different companies). Check it out:

INTIMATE secrets hidden in your DNA could be stolen without you even realising. By taking a glass from which you have drunk, a "genome hacker" could obtain a comprehensive scan of your genome, revealing DNA variants that help determine your susceptibility to a wide range of diseases, from a common form of blindness to Alzheimer's disease.

That's the disturbing finding of a New Scientist investigation, in which one of us - Michael Reilly - "hacked" the genome of the other - Peter Aldhous - armed with only a credit card, a private email account and a home address.

You might have thought that genome hacking requires specialist skills, and personal access to sophisticated equipment. But in recent years, some companies have started to offer personal genome scans to the public over the internet. Other firms routinely analyse genomes on behalf of scientists involved in human genetics research. In theory, both types of service are vulnerable to abuse by a genome hacker determined to submit someone else's DNA for covert analysis.

Until our investigation, it was not clear whether this would be possible in practice. Could a hacker with no access to a genetics lab take an item carrying another person's DNA and obtain a sample that companies would accept for scanning? Would the sample be of high enough quality to yield accurate results? And would genome analysis companies have procedures in place to identify and refuse suspicious orders?

We decided to find out. Rather like computer security researchers who expose vulnerabilities in software code so that they can be "patched" to guard against malicious hackers, our goal was to uncover vulnerabilities in the way companies offering genome scans operate, so that they can be fixed.

Our investigation uncovered some loopholes that might be closed to help thwart genome thieves. The findings also strengthen the case for additional laws to protect the information contained in the DNA that we all shed continually and leave lying around.

"Just as we have a right to expect that relatives, neighbours, or even strangers can't poke through our medical records without our permission, we should have a right to expect that people can't snoop through our genes," says Kathy Hudson, who heads the Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington DC. Read more...

Beyond piracy, there is, perhaps, a more pertinent question that will soon require an answer: who is legally entitled to your genetic information - your spouse? your kids? siblings?

When I first contemplated the question, my initial impulse was that no one should be legally entitled to my genome. However, upon further contemplation, my answer changed. Why? Well, considering that you share half of your genes with your children, siblings, and parents - is it not their right to know if you discover that you are at high risk for a certain disease (implying that they too may have a similar risk)? My suggestion would be some kind of middle ground, where relatives would have access only to information about genes that could have potential implications for them as well.

It is an intriguing question to which there is not necessarily a "right" answer. None the less, it is a question that will need to be answered (and probably sooner than you think).

A Homophobic Military

Find out how a homophobic military may be partly to blame for 9/11, and more:

Stem Cell Research Back on Track

In 2001, Bush signed an executive order limiting the use of federal resources for stem cell research to existing lines of stem cells. In other words, no new stem cells could be created, and no research could be done on new lines created by private labs, using federal money or equipment. This severely limited research over the past eight years, as experts agree that the existing lines are inferior to new lines made with new and improved techniques and equipment.

In 2006, the Senate passed a bill that would have lifted the ban on stem cell research, but it was vetoed by Bush the next day. Apparently, Bush didn't understand what most Americans do - that these stem cells are being taken from fertility clinics, where the fertilized eggs are produced in excess in petri dishes, and that most end up being thrown away. The choice is simple for most, when choosing between throwing them away or using them for research that could lead to cures for such diseases as diabetes, heart disease, Parkinsons, and many, many more.

Well, on Monday Obama will finally lift the ban, and allow for federally supported research on new lines. It's about time.

Am I really that naive?

I would like to think that I am not a naive person, but maybe I am. I went to one of the best public high schools in the country, and for some reason I believed my teachers were above just skipping over unpleasant parts of US history - but apparently I was wrong. All I remember being taught about the 1920-1940’s in the US is regarding the huge wave of immigration, industrialization, prohibition, the start of the feminist movement, and I’m sure some more or less significant stuff – but what was blatantly omitted was US involvement in the eugenics movement (Nazi Germany sure got its fair coverage). Furthermore, as a genetics major at Cornell, you would think eugenics would have come up as an example of a misuse of genetics in at least one of my classes, but surprisingly it has not.


In case you don’t know, eugenics is the social philosophy that genetic principles can be used for the improvement of human populations (see poster/advertisement above). Although eugenics is most often associated with Nazi Germany and the holocaust, few people talk about the more than 60,000 people that were forcibly sterilized in the US between 1920-1940 - because they were carriers of supposed genes for traits such as “pauperism” and “feeblemindedness.” Similar numbers were sterilized in Canada and Sweden, and sterilization programs continued into the 1970’s in all three countries. The movement was so popular in the US that state fairs during the period often had eugenics exhibits in which families could undergo eugenic evaluation for the “fittest family” competition, held in the “human stock” sections.

How could such an atrocity have been ignored in all my high school history classes. It was possibly the worst case of mass discrimination in US history, and something that we all can, and should, learn from. And if you think eugenics is a problem of the past, you’re wrong. As recently as 1995, China passed a law requiring that couples with unspecified genetic diseases “considered to be inappropriate for childbearing” can get married only if both agree to practice long-term contraception or to be sterilized. Absolutely ridiculous, and a perfect example of why we all need to be taught the history of eugenics - so we can try to avoid repeating such a regrettable period in history.

SOURCES
Kelves (1999) Eugenics and human rights. BMJ 319:435–438
Beardsley (1997) China Syndrome Sci Am. 276:33-34