Mark S. Frankel

Gene Doping and Sport

Advances in gene therapy set the stage for the next generation of illegal doping, and doping detection, in sport. We humans have long sought to enhance ourselves beyond normal through cosmetic surgery and drugs. Science is increasingly becoming humanitys partner and handmaiden in those efforts (1) and has added genetic manipulation to our enhancement tool kit. Many forms of human enhancement are becoming more feasible, sought-after, and even justifiable in the quest for healthier, happier, and longer lives.

Inheritable Genetic Modification and a Brave New World: Did Huxley Have It Wrong?

What makes inheritable genetic modification attractive is not its ability to treat disease, but its capacity, someday, to enhance human traits beyond what mere good health requires. But, these discoveries will not be imposed on us by government, as Huxley thought. If they take over our lives, it will be because they were sold to us on the open market, as commodities we cannot do without.

Regulating the boundaries of dual-use research.

A new U.S. policy for dual-use life science research defines what is permissible by scientists and the government. However, further negotiations will be needed as governments realize the consequences of such boundaries for research and society.

Seizing the moment: scientists' authorship rights in the digital age

The American Association for the Advancement of Science carried out a study on intellectual property and electronic journal publishing with the aim of identifying those aspects of the intellectual property regime that facilitate or constrain the effective development of electronic scientific publishing. This paper summarizes the conclusions reached, emphasizes the continuing need to maintain the legal framework offered by copyright law, but makes recommendations both for its modification and in its application to ensure that the potential benefits of electronic publishing are fully realized.

Educating Scientists About Dual Use

Harmful misuse of biological research must be addressed through education, but such programs are in short supply and can be improved. In 2004, the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) described the dual use dilemma, the recognition that some legitimate biological research could be misapplied for harmful purposes (e.g., biological weapons) (1). The U.S. governments National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) has released recommendations on communicating, overseeing, and educating about such research (2, 3). The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism (www.preventwmd.gov/home) recommended that the dual use dilemma and biosafety be taught to all life scientists (4). Many other countries have instituted policies to support education (5). The UK asks scientists seeking grants if they have considered the dual use implications of their work (6, 7). Biosecurity and dual use research education programs are being developed in Japan, Brazil, and Morocco (8). At the 2008 intersessional meetings of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), representatives from over a dozen countries acknowledged support for education on biosecurity and biosafety and described education efforts within their nations (8). Mandatory education on the dual use dilemma has been supported by the Australian National University (9) and is required by law in Israel (10). Although these developments represent significant progress, there are still major gaps.

An empirical exploration of scientists’ social responsibilities

The evolving social contract between science and society has led to increasing calls, inside and outside science, for greater public accountability on the part of scientists and engineers, which has focused more attention on their responsibilities to the larger society. Yet, there is no consensus on what those responsibilities are or should be. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has launched a project to inform global discussions of those responsibilities by gathering data on what scientists and engineers view as their broader responsibilities. Some results from a preliminary questionnaire are presented in this essay along with plans to build on this initial effort.

GENETIC PRIVACY, DISCRIMINATION, AND THE U.S. CONGRESS

Advances in genetics research have fueled public debate over the use of genetic information about individuals and families by health insurers. Fears of discrimination based on ones genetic inheritance have prompted various private and public sector groups to press for restrictions on access to and use of genetic information in health insurance decisions. As a result, the U.S. Congress has considered several pieces of legislation that would impose such restrictions. This paper discusses the merging of several factors that are responsible for placing and maintaining this issue on the congressional policy agenda.

Guidelines/codes of ethics: merging process and content

Abstract Developing standards of ethical conduct is an essential part of building a professional community with shared values and a common purpose. The profession serves as a normative reference group for its members, and through its ethical standards clarifies the norms that ought to guide professional behavior. A central task in developing such standards is the articulation of the professions moral vision, or core values—those values that define the goals and virtues of professional practice. Participation by professionals in the development of ethical standards enables them to reflect on the importance of such standards for their work. Professional societies, such as ISEE, and international organizations, such as WHO, can play an important role in this process.

Private Interests Count Too

Along with concerns about the deleterious effects of politically driven government intervention on science are the intrusion of private sector interests into the conduct of research and the reporting of its results. Scientists are generally unprepared for the challenges posed by private interests seeking to advance their economic, political, or ideological agendas. They must educate and prepare themselves for assaults on scientific freedom, not because it is a legal right, but rather because social progress depends on it.

Congressional hearings on genetics research.

Sir — As organizers of the fifth annual Euroconference on Apoptosis, held in Bingen/Rhine last autumn, we were surprised to read the article misrepresenting the quality and the costs of this Euroconference (Nature 392, 211; 1998). If the article was meant to be advertising for a forthcoming conference organized by young postdocs on research in apoptosis, it may have taken a wrong twist. The Euroconferences on Apoptosis, organized by the European Cell Death Organization, are part of a series of meetings supported by the European Union. The size of the conferences is restricted to around 120 participants. The costs of last year’s meeting were within the range of similar conferences (such as the Gordon Conference or Keystone Symposia). However, 50% of the noninvited participants, including PhD students and young postdocs, received funding from the European Union. Participants were selected based on submitted abstracts. Additional support for the invited speakers came from Germany’s research council, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The three-day meeting had 17 invited speakers and 18 oral presentations selected from submitted abstracts. Two poster sessions were held. All invited speakers and most of the selected speakers came from leading laboratories in the field and the data presented were mostly unpublished and/or conceptually important. According to the questionnaire filled in by participants, the atmosphere at the meeting was congenial and the response enthusiastic. No critique related to the article in Nature was brought to the attention of the organizers. We feel that this clarification is important to ensure that the meeting series is not jeopardized. We do, however, appreciate and support the initiative of young postdocs to facilitate exchange at the planned First European Workshop on Cell Death. Klaus-Michael Debatin Peter H. Krammer University Children’s Hospital, 89070 Ulm, Germany