Tth Edition 2nd Edition

THE SCIENCE IN SOCIETY REVIEW: A Production of THE Tr ipl e Hel ix

THE SCIENCE IN SOCIETY REVIEW A Production of THE TRIPLE HELIX VOL. 4 NO. 1

Featuring: The Case of the Pillow Angel:

Examining the ethics of Growth Stunting for severely handicapped children

A Conversation with Ian Frazer Are You What You Eat? Should Pluto Plu be Plutoed?

VOL. 4 NO. 1

Internationally Published and Distributed Worldwide Berkeley • Cambridge • Cornell • Harvard • Melbourne • MIT • NUS • Princeton • Yale

THE TRIPLE HELIX A global forum for science in society

EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM: Chief Executive Officer (Outgoing) Mizel Djukic Chief Executive Officer (Incoming) and Executive Editor-in-Chief Manisha Bhattacharya Chief Operating Officer N. America Akash Shah Chief Operating Officer Europe Christopher Stainton Chief Operating Officer Asia Xavier Vanessa Anne Jia Min Executive Production Editors Jason Belsky and Christine Chu Editor-in-Chief, E-publishing Kate Neafsey Chief Internal Affairs Officer Haritha Dasari Chief Technical Officer Nick Tatonetti Chief Human Resource Officer Ani Ramesh NORTH AMERICA DIVISION: Executive Director, Chapter Operations Ernest (Ted) Gomez Executive Director, Business Development Arjun Naskar Executive Director, Marketing Catharyn Howard-Teplansky Executive Director, High School Operations Sonia Sarkar Marketing Associates Alexandra Szulc, Carolyn Davies Director of Library Distribution Gabriel Kim Business and Marketing Division Alex Ip, Margot Kabalkin, Anjali Verghis, Viraj Mehta, Vijeth Iyengar, Star Li, Mahesh Madhavan, Nicole Hui, Sean Yue, Christopher Louie, Gabriel Kim, Carolyn Davies, Allie Schnidman, Alessandra Szulc, Jenny Lee EUROPE DIVISION: Executive Director, Business Development Michelle Lam ASIA DIVISION: Executive Director, Internal Affairs Chan Hei Ching

AUSTRALIA DIVISION: Executive Director, Business Donald Tsang GLOBAL LITERARY & PRODUCTION: Senior Literary Editors Kristina Liu, Winnie Tsang, Garrett R. Leonard, Stephen Ra, Ruchira Srinivasakrishnan Production Advisor Erwin Wang Production Site Director, UC Berkley Stephanie Chaio Managing Production Editors Bradley French, Kaitlyn Mitchell, Kim-Yen Nguyen, Alvin Chen Senior Production Editors Angela Liou, Benjamin Tzou, Christine Russell, David Liang, James Yeh, Kelly Koay, Michael Leung Production Editors Yang Gu, Austin Ihm, Michael Turchin, Brian Yoo, Claire J. Lee, Yang Zhang, Franny Buderman, Justine Olszewski, Yee Ling Lam, Mira Patel, Elise Christensen, Dustin Hange, James Liao, Jennifer Kao, Joanne Cheung, Lindsay Parish, Victoria Chu, Steven Schlansker, Zoe Doyle E-PUBLISHING & TECHNOLOGY DIVISION: Technology Director Basil Carr Associate Editors Jennie Wang Budri Abubaker-Sharif Assistant Editor Aris Baras Graphics Editor Garrett Leonard Multimedia Director Nikhil Shyam BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Chairman Kevin Hwang Vice Chairman Erwin Wang Secretary Melissa Matarese Alumni Chair Joel Gabre Finance Chair Kalil Abdullah

UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE CHAPTER EXECUTIVE BOARD: President Terry Chang Editor-in-Chief Celeste Leong Vice President Mandy Zhang Secretary Stephanie Quek Finance Director Chrystal Fernandez Finance Advisor Donald Tsang Marketing Director Zoe Wong HR Director Ben Loe IT Director Ronny Chieng

SENIOR STAFF: Editorial Associates Maryam Jahanshahi Krystin Low Michael Lee Bonnie Esposito Aaron Mentha Isaac Dunn Elizabeth Zuccala Ruby Murray Vivien Li Jade Lao Finance Division Joelle Lim Mandy Zhang Ying Li Ng Vishala Vasandani Pasam Interangsi Ying Yi Ping Lu Marketing Division Nicole Teo Kevin Tan WeiNa Ke Lisa Lee HR Division Sophia Gutkin Sarah Wendlandt Annamae Wong

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS: Hannah Harnstad Jade Lao Vivien Li Ruby Murray FACULTY REVIEW BOARD: Professor Joe Proietto Professor Rachel Webster SPECIAL THANKS TO: Professor Ian Frazer Professor Peter McPhee Similar staff exists at all chapters of The Triple Helix, a truly international organisation with an active membership of over 1,000 students around the world. Arizona State University UC Berkeley Brown University University of Cambridge Carnegie Mellon University Columbia University Cornell University Dartmouth University UC Davis Emory University Georgetown University Harvard University The University of Hong Kong Johns Hopkins University King’s College London London School of Economics Massachusetts Institute of Technology Monash University Northwestern University National University of Singapore University of Melbourne University of Oxford University of Pennsylvania Peking University University of Sydney University of Chicago University College London UC Los Angeles UC San Diego University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Yale University

SUPPORT STAFF: Chief Operating Officer Kym Huynh Senior Literary Editor Ruchira Srinivasakrishnan Advisor Sook Jin Ong

©2007 The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved. The Triple Helix at the University of Melbourne is an independent chapter of The Triple Helix, Inc., an educational 501(c)3 non-profit corporation. The Triple Helix at the University of Melbourne is published once per semester and is available free of charge. Its sponsors, advisors and the Unitersity of Melbourne are not responsible for its contents. The views expressed in this journal are solely those of the respective authors. To the fullest extent permitted by law, neither The Triple Helix nor any of its members will be liable for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the contents included in this publication.

Table of Contents A Review of the 5th World Conference of Science Journalists

3

A Conversation with Ian Frazer

6

Roll up your Entertainment Rebecca Krall, Carnegie Mellon University

11

Human Computer Symbiosis Pranai Tandon, Cornell University

15

The Case of the Pillow Angel Julia Piper, UC Berkeley

18

Transgenic Animals: Paving the Way to New Frontiers in Medical and Scientific Research Margaret Mallari, University of Chicago

21

Superorganisms Yvette Han, Carnegie Mellon University

25

Animal Rights, Human Wrongs: A Rational Examination of Ethics Concerning Animals

26

Are You What You Eat? Hayley Hernstadt, University of Melbourne

29

Martha Stewart to 50 Cent: A Debacle of the Social Construction of Race Ariana Younai, UC Berkeley

34

Revisiting the Ruler: The Metamorphisis of Progress in the Modern World of Medicine Nisha Narayan, UC Berkeley

37

The Cultural and Evoluntionary Basis of Sound Perception Zara Khan, UC Berkeley

41

Why Pluto Should Be Plutoed Jade Lao, University of Melbourne

43

Do We Need to Explore Space? Karavya Vyas, UC San Diego

47

The E.O. Wilson Model for successful engagement between religious and scientific communities Richard Milford, Arizona State University

50

Chinaʼs economic and environmental footprints in Africa Caroline Lee, University of Georgetown

53

The Stuff of Nightmares

56

2 WELCOME MESSAGES THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

Message from the CEO Dear Readers, For The Triple Helix, 2008 brings with it a variety of interesting projects and opportunities. One of our main goals for the New Year is to encourage more collaboration and intellectual discussion between individual chapters within the Triple Helix network. We have already made progress by holding the first-ever TTH event designed to bring members from different chapters together in one place to share their scholarly work. We are pleased to announce that this February in Boston, Massachusetts, TTH authors presented eighteen unique pieces of research in an exclusive poster session at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In addition, they attended the Triple Helix Member Workshop and Leadership Summit, an event designed to both educate and inspire our students to maintain a high quality of journalism and take their chapters in new directions. This event not only established a tradition of TTH interacting with the larger academic community, but also stimulated the flow of ideas within the student membership. I am confident that great things will come from collaboration between our students at chapters around the world. As we continue to establish our science policy division, the cultural diversity of our member universities will serve to educate TTH members and general audiences alike in the significant similarities and differences that characterize public attitudes towards science in different regions. We aim to spark discussion and provide factual analysis of the issues that will affect our society— with a rapidly changing world and so many new scientific advances; it is essential that we all understand what is at stake. Sincerely, Manisha Bhattacharya Chief Executive Officer, The Triple Helix

Message from the Chapter President The Triple Helix, Inc. aims to provide an innovative outlet for undergraduates to voice their opinions about cutting-edge issues in science and the intersection of such issues with society and law. The University of Melbourne chapter is proud to release our second edition which we believe showcases the caliber of our students. This is a truly remarkable achievement for a student-run organisation to facilitate such a high-level exchange of interdisciplinary ideas amongst undergraduates around the globe. The second edition highlights the international presence of The Triple Helix through a broad spectrum of international undergraduate writers and where students from the University of Melbourne fit. Furthermore, this second edition demonstrates that undergraduate students are more than capable of thinking outside the confines of their disciplines and contributing original thoughts to the discussion scientific issues with broader society ramifications.. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone in the organization, as well as those who have supported us. It has been a wonderful experience as this chapter’s president, but it would not be half as memorable without the display of teamwork and togetherness that persisted through the good times and the hard times. Dear readers, as you browse through this journal, we hope the articles inform you of recent scientific developments and, more importantly, inspire you to consider the implications such developments for you and those around you. Kindest Regards, Terry Chang President, The Triple Helix, Inc. The University of Melbourne Chapter

A review of the 5th World Conference of Science Journalists As growing mainstream media interest in climate change, stem cell research, patenting and a plethora of other issues has shown, science is fast becoming an integral part of public dialogue. Yet despite the obvious centrality of science to these issues, those making decisions relating to scientific research rarely seem to have a scientific background. Increasingly, it is falling upon the already burdened shoulders of scientists to educate both politicians and the general public. Or, more specifically, it is falling upon that rare breed, the science journalist. The Triple Helix was fortunate in being able to attend the 5th World Conference of Science Journalists, and presents here a few brief summaries of selected events. Somewhat predictably, certain themes ran through many of the panels. Climate change and related discussions on the presentation of the environmental sciences were popular, hardly surprising given the current political dialogue on policy surrounding environmental governance both nationally and globally. In a world where media portrayal has become paramount, one of the biggest challenges facing scientists today is that of being able to communicate their research. Accordingly, the ethics and mechanics of scientific journalism also played an important role at the conference, with many sessions focussing on the way in which science can be presented and ‘sold’ to a consumer public.

In April 2007, while we were sitting in the library dully staring out at the end of summer, Melbourne was hosting the 5th World Conference of Science Journalists. The conference, which spanned two days and included guest speakers and panellists from around the world, provided participants with the chance to engage with one of the most urgent questions facing modern society: how should science be communicated?

Wise Up: The truth about TV science PRODUCER: Sonya Pemberton CHAIR: Graham Phillips SPEAKERS: Peter Rees, Catherine Marciniak, Nalaka Gunawardene, Sonya Pemberton

Television shows such as MythBusters have proved that, contrary to popular belief, science can sell. The trick, as creator Peter Rees claimed in this session, lies in not labelling the material as ‘science’. Other panellists seemed to agree, discussing how successful shows present narratives which integrate research seamlessly, turning science into entertainment. A different perspective was provided by TVE Asia Pacific producer Nalaka Gunawardene, who discussed the broadcasting model adopted by developing countries when dealing with science based shows. Gunawardene described what he called ‘the digital’ model, as opposed to the traditional ‘lineal’ narrative broadcasting model used in the developed world and epitomised by the science documentary. This ‘digital’ model has been used to attract those under 30s to science broadcasting, a group of media consumers more familiar with eclectic models of presentation. Mythbusters official website : http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/ NOVA (popular science TV program in the US) official website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ A new kind of science mediator: http://ec.europa.eu/research/headlines/news/article_ 04_09_08_en.html Research-TV: promoting research excellence : http://www.research-tv.com/

4 5TH WORLD CONFERENCE OF SCIENCE JOURNALISTS THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

New Media: Podcasting, Second Life, and the future of the Web. PRODUCER: Abbie Thomas CHAIR: Bernie Hobbs SPEAKERS: Ian Allan, Abigail E. Thomas, Chris Smith, James Massola

As the level of audience enthusiasm in this session clearly showed, New Media forms can drastically alter the way in which science is presented. With roughly one third of the population regularly accessing various forms of New Media — such as blogging, podcasting, online forums and now even the virtual world Second Life — New Media could provide science journalists with new forms of publishing and communication. A virologist at Cambridge University, panellist and podcaster Chris Smith, aka the Naked Scientist, discussed how mainstream and commercial radio stations have traditionally had little time for science news and discussion. Smith showed how podcasting has provided science-based radio shows with the potential to develop large networks of listeners. James Massola provided an insight into the world of ‘citizen journalism’, or blogging. Currently, around 150 million blogs exist, providing free outlets for individuals to voice their opinions and publish research. However, the very intellectual freedom provided by blogging may prove to be its downfall due to issues of accountability and quality control; hence blogs need to be approached with caution. Abigail E. Thomas presented the most bizarre alternative to mainstream media outlets for science journalism with her description of the online virtual world Second Life. Second Life is an online community similar to MIRC or Friendster, and provides a 3D interface allowing users to create their own avatars and interact in a fully virtual world. Second Life is being enthusiastically adopted by organisations such as NASA and NOAA to establish online museums and information centres. Promoters of Second Life point to its potential as a tool for community networking and communications, as each related field of sciences can be located within close virtual-geographical proximity.

Climate Change and the Risk of Disease PRODUCER/CHAIR: Deborah Smith SPEAKERS: Tony McMichael, Alistair Woodward

This session highlighted the diverse problems associated with climate change and a planet in flux, particularly the human health risks. Heatwaves, increased precipitation, injury due to climate change related events, and the spread of disease were among the health risks discussed by Tony McMichael and Alistair Woodward, who urged that more research be directed towards the links between human health and climate change.

Science vs Business: A Clash of Cultures PRODUCER: Melissa Trudinger CHAIR: Alan Finkel SPEAKERS: Rebecca Wilson, Clive Cookson, Simon Grose

The speakers in this session discussed the hazards inherent in navigating the creaking fault line between the worlds of business and science. As the lengthy Q&A showed, many reporters are dissatisfied with the way in which business interacts with the science media. One speaker raised the tendency of private and public biotechnology companies to focus on quantity rather than quality in the production of media releases. The frustrating lack of reliable reporting on the financial aspect of science-related businesses was also a recurring theme in this session. Above all, both science journalists and business representatives warned of the hidden agendas in technology-based industries and stressed that both sides should exercise caution when considering reports. Science, Industry and Business : http://www.innovations-report.com/index.php

Purifying a poisoned planet PRODUCER: Julian Cribb CHAIR: Brad Collis SPEAKERS: Jack Ng, Ravi Naidu, Stevan Green

This session sought to examine the competing roles of governments and businesses in cleaning up sites affected by contaminants such as persistent organic pollutants, arsenic and mercury. There are a staggering 10 million afflicted sites worldwide, with 100,000 in Australia alone. Jack Ng, of the Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination, Assessment and Remediation of the Environment, proposed that the first step in effective site management is to develop a ‘dose-response’ analysis capable of determining the level of chemical exposure required to cause harm. While panellists in this session appeared optimistic that remediation was achievable, the monetary commitment involved seems prohibitive. Ng claimed that investigating the health impacts of just 25 chemicals would require around 33 million experiments, costing approximately $100,000 per experiment.

5TH WORLD CONFERENCE OF SCIENCE JOURNALISTS 5 MARCH 2008

Reporting Climate Change PRODUCER: Simon Torok CHAIR: Wilson da Silva SPEAKERS: Kevin Hennessy, Geoff Love, Ian Lowe PANEL: Chris Mooney, Simon Torok

Reporting on climate change has had a patchy history, not least because much of the science involved is so complex that science journalists have had trouble distilling it into forms that the general public can digest. This session provided a brief look at the troubling trends in reporting, notably the skewing of scientific evidence which results in public misconceptions. One such example is the continual focus on the role of land rather than ocean masses with regards to climate change. The differences between reporting in the developed world and the developing world were also discussed.

THE TRIPLE HELIX

Who Owns Science? PRODUCER: Richard Jefferson

Richard Jefferson proposes a radical idea: do away with the current patent regime by patenting everything. While this might sound counter-intuitive, Jefferson claims that patenting everything, but making patent use dependent on a code of behaviour rather than cash based transfers could create a form of open-source access that would benefit everyone, especially those involved in the life sciences. At present, the emphasis in biotechnology lies on the “tools” rather than the “building” which creates an environment that prevents growth, as those who most need access to resources cannot get it. Sound complex? It is, but it’s also a fascinating proposal. For more information, see his comprehensive website at www.patentlens.net.

Biasing Scientific Information PRODUCER: Tim Thwaites, Melissa Trudinger CHAIR: Robyn Williams INTRODUCTION: John Brumby, SPEAKERS: Chris Mooney, Jia Hepeng

British chemist George Porter once asked if we should force science down the throats of those who have no taste for it, if it was our duty to drag people ‘kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century‘. He concluded, quite rightly, that it was.

Stem Cells and Bioethics PRODUCER: Chee Chee Leung CHAIR: Robin Marantz Henig SPEAKERS: Geoff Carr, Mal Washer, Janet Salisbury, Peter Mountford

No conference on science journalism would be complete without a discussion of the controversial topic of stem cell research. Topics examined by panellists in this session varied widely, from the origin of the controversy as a Western or Christian phenomenon, to the need for reporters to focus more on the ethics of the research itself rather than substituting such a discussion for one based on a discourse of potential benefit. The Skeptical Christian: Embryonic Stem Cell Research: http://www.skepticalchristian.com/embryonicstemcellrese arch.htm Human Stem Cell Research - All Viewpoints: http://www. religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm Ethics of Stem Cell Research: http://www. biotechnologyonline.gov.au/human/ethicssc.cfm What are Some Issues in Stem Cell Research: http://learn. genetics.utah.edu/units/stemcells/scissues/

The panellists in this session would have agreed with him. Chris Mooney and Jia Hepeng discussed the contrasting problems faced by American and Chinese scientists in trying to communicate with the government over scientific issues. Mooney suggested that, in America, where science is forced to compete with a deaf political structure and a media culture more interested in Anna Nicole Smith than geology, scientists need to take up a new approach, one akin to ‘ultimate fighting’. Only in this way will scientists defend their research and prevent it from being misused or suppressed. In contrast, Jia Hepeng described how the Chinese government uses science journalism as a propaganda tool, strangling true research and hindering interaction between the scientific community and the general public. Perhaps it truly is time to develop a team of International Ultimate Science Fighters who will defend the integrity of scientific research. The Crisis in China’s Science Journalism – http:// www.scidev.net/Opinions/index.cfm?fuseaction=read Opinions&itemid=578&language=1 Science Journalism: A Bias in Favour of Truth

A conversation with Ian Frazer In our first edition, The Triple Helix (University of Melbourne) published a thought-provoking article considering the potential and obstacles facing a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program. Since that article, the Australian Government has initiated the National HPV Vaccination Program to provide the HPV vaccine Gardasil® free to all females aged between 12 and 26. In this edition, Vivien Li of The Triple Helix spoke to Professor Ian Frazer, 2006 Australian of the Year and co-inventor of the HPV vaccine, about his career, vaccine policy and the future of medical research.

Career TTH: What has being awarded Australian of the Year meant to you? Has it given you a greater platform on which to influence health policy or research? Prof Frazer: It has certainly made my life a lot busier and I have become rather more of a politician and rather less the scientist over the course of the last couple of years. I’ve used the opportunity of being Australian of the Year to promote things important to me, including what it means to be an Australian and why science is important in society. It has also given me the opportunity to talk about the importance of medical research and looking after the health of the community, and to address the community about how we should make sure that the benefits of medical research are made available all the way across the world. TTH: Your thoughts on other medical researchers and importance accorded to science and medical research in Australia? Prof Frazer: My contribution to medical research has been fairly small in comparison with the medical researchers in Australia who have won Nobel Prizes

such as Barry Marshall, Robin Warren and Peter Doherty, each of whom stand out as people who have made significant changes in the way that we think about how the body’s defence against infections work and how infection causes diseases. It’s interesting to note Australia’s research strength in infectious diseases and in the body’s defence against such diseases. It’s a great privilege to have been given the opportunity to take part in the exciting scientific environment that has been set up by the opinion leaders and inspiring researchers of the past. TTH: How much clinical work did you do whilst conducting research? Prof Frazer: I’ve done quite a lot of clinical work while I’ve been doing my research. Indeed I looked back and counted up and there’ve been about 16 different clinical trials over the course of the last 25 years. I’ve always seen the translation of basic laboratory research into something useful in clinical practice as particularly important, and have given that a high priority in my scheme of things, so that until about 1999, I was still practicing as a clinician on a regular basis. I have to say these days I don’t see patients except in the course of the clinical trials I’m involved with.

A CONVERSATION WITH IAN FRAZER 7 MARCH 2008

Research and Vaccines TTH: How did you first enter into your research in cervical cancer? Prof Frazer: The research work that I was doing in the early 1980s was focused on viral infections and particularly in persisting viral infections. I was looking at a cohort of men who had persisting hepatitis B virus infection and many of them were at risk for what was subsequently found out to be HIV/AIDS. When we realised these men were significantly immune suppressed, it provided an opportunity to study diseases that were enhanced by immunosuppression. One of the findings of the study of these patients was that they were having great difficulty getting rid of Papilloma virus infections and indeed were developing pre-cancer around the back passage as a consequence of the infection. This was really interesting because first of all, papilloma virus had recently been identified as the virus responsible for cervical cancer, and therefore there was a great interest in persisting papilloma virus infections as linked to cancer. Secondly, this was the first time to my knowledge that it had been shown that taking away the immune system encouraged the growth of a cancer in humans, and indeed both in humans and animals that still remains a relatively controversial area. So this was, if you like, a low hanging fruit to target for cancer control where there was some prospect of doing something because a vaccine might be able to prevent the infection responsible for the disease. TTH: Could you briefly describe the research process involved in developing Gardasil®? What sorts of difficulties did you face? Prof Frazer: We set out to work on the virus by trying to build a Papilloma virus. Then and currently we can’t grow this virus in the lab. Whenever you want to study an immune response, you would need to have a source for the virus. So we used then relatively novel recombinant DNA technology to build the building blocks of the virus and much to our surprise, the building blocks which comprised the shell of the virus assembled themselves into what we now call virus-like particles, in other words empty virus, without us having to do very much about it, except to use the right expression system and the right bit of the virus’ genes. This had to be done to some extent by trial and error, and it took about a

THE TRIPLE HELIX

year for my colleague, the late Dr Jian Zhou, and I to come up with a means where you could produce virus-like particles. The biggest problem was not knowing for sure that the process could succeed and we had to do all sorts of quite complex things to make the virus-like particles. In fact, when we got the recipe right, they made themselves, and that was just as well, because there wouldn’t have been a vaccine if that had not been the case. TTH: How did you go from the discovery in the laboratory to actual production of the vaccine? What insights did your gain from the commercialisation process? Prof Frazer: We used the virus-like particles in the laboratory to show that they were immunogenic — in other words, you got an immune response if you injected them into an animal. Having done that, there really wasn’t very much more that could be done by us and we passed the technology on through CSL limited, an Australian biotechnology company, to Merck & Co., Inc., because it was clear that if there was to be a vaccine against cervical cancer it would be based on the virus-like particles; the precedent was the hepatitis B vaccine made by similar technology. Most of the process of commercialisation was handed over to the companies, as they clearly had an interest. We consulted with them extensively, perhaps most about the nature of the disease and what we understood of that. But a lot of what we thought we knew in those days was wrong, and we relied considerably on the companies to fund the very extensive epidemiological studies undertaken to define the natural history of papilloma virus infection and its association with cervical cancer. Along the way of course we learnt quite a lot about what was necessary to make a commercial product. The driving force for commercialisation is whether the product can be made at a cost that will allow the company to make money off it, and whether there is a large enough market to ensure that they do. This is rather different from the scientist and the clinician’s point of view as they are seeking effective interventions and treatments, and the cost and commerciality are not the highest priority. TTH: Did the drug discovery and commercialisation processes in your case differ from the current processes facing Australian biotech? Are there any lessons for aspiring researchers?

8 A CONVERSATION WITH IAN FRAZER THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

Prof Frazer: Not really. The bottom line for this was that we had developed a mature product. It wasn’t really a platform technology and there wasn’t too much further basic science development that needed to be done. This enabled us to license the technology directly to the big pharmaceutical companies in the way that might not be so possible these days for a product still in preclinical development. The companies still faced the problems of production scale-up and phase 1, 2, 3 clinical testing, as would have been the case for us, if we had done the work in Australia. I think that the most important lesson that I have learnt throughout all this is that you have to have a product in mind when commercialising research, rather than an idea, and that you have to consider what clinical trials you would do to validate that product for the label that you would want to see on the bottle. If any of the clinical trials are going to be long and expensive then the product will have to be particularly useful and valuable, and have a large and widespread market. Products with more defined niches might require simpler clinical trials being developed in a less expensive and extensive way. I think that the most important thing is to evaluate both the science and commerciality at an early stage in the process of product commercialisation . TTH: Given your involvement in developing Gardasil®, do you feel that you have an obligation to ensure equitable access to the vaccine in Australia and overseas? Prof Frazer: I think that any scientist that is involved in developing a biological or other pharmaceutical product has an obligation to ensure that everything

possible is done to ensure equitable access to the product. Around the world, the reality is that future wars, if there are wars, will be fought over access to food, water, education and health, rather than over territory, and if we build divides between the developing and developed world in access to healthcare, then we’re not doing anybody any favours. We need a new model for the commercialisation of biotechnology — one which allows the companies that do the work to make the money back in the developed world, and which will also enable the developing world to get the benefit. There aren’t easy models for this in the current economic system, apart from improving the health and welfare of the countries that are currently relatively impoverished through providing fair opportunity for them to make wealth for themselves, and unfortunately this is a slow and uncertain process. We as individuals, governments, and nations must see it as a moral imperative to make the new health care products available in the developing world at costs that they can afford. The cost differential will be a tax of some sort on prosperity of the developed world. TTH: What are your current research interests? Prof Frazer: I focus very largely on developing immunotherapy for persisting viral infections. We are working still on papilloma virus, but also thinking about hepatitis C and herpes viruses. The problems in this area are to work out technologies that will allow therapeutic vaccines to work, since the current model seems to be wrong. The simple approach of immunising to introduce cytotoxic T cells doesn’t seem to be sufficient, at least in human disease. TTH: What are your thoughts on some peoples’ fears of the potential dangers of vaccines? Given that some of these beliefs are prevalent even in highly educated parents, what do you think can be done to counter such fears? Prof Frazer: The dangers of vaccines are in my opinion grossly overstated. The vaccines that we already have go through extensive clinical trials to demonstrate not only efficacy but safety. Whilst it is true that there will be potential side effects for any vaccine, these will be very rare relative to the severity of the diseases we are trying to prevent. Polio vaccines are very effective at preventing polio – howver the live polio vaccine, which is the cheapest and easiest to use, occasionally causes polio. It’s far better to have a very occasional case of polio due to a vaccine strain

A CONVERSATION WITH IAN FRAZER 9 MARCH 2008

or a reassortment between vaccines and wild strains, than to have epidemics of polio throughout the world with a significant number of deaths as a result. So it’s not so much a matter of potential danger of vaccines, but the relative risk of the vaccines versus the risk of not having the vaccines. I think that we need to make sure we do everything we can to make vaccine products safe, but we need to remind people that the consequences of being not vaccinated are very significant indeed. For the HPV vaccine, the risk is of death from HPV associated cancer, and the available vaccines can prevent 70% of that risk. TTH: Do you think current efforts to develop vaccines are adequate? Similarly, what are your thoughts on the current state of vaccine research, funding, availability and distribution around the world, especially in developing countries? Prof Frazer: Worldwide, I think that the development of vaccines has become a high priority, and both big pharma and biomedical research people continue to see the potential in vaccines. New vaccines that have become available for rotavirus, against meningococcal C, against pneumococcus, against papilloma virus have shown that there is still potential to develop many useful vaccines for significant global markets. I think that we could always spend more on vaccine development. At the moment, the critical thing is also to spend more on understanding the basic science underlying technologies that lead to good vaccines, because I think we have probably broken off most of the low-hanging fruit now and the future is going to involve developing new vaccine strategies

THE TRIPLE HELIX

of which we are an integral part — and that includes the basic research that underpins the practical and applied aspects of vaccine development. TTH: You are involved with the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Expanded Vaccine Initiative. How does this help to improve the access to and affordability of vaccines in the developing world? Prof Frazer: The WHO is a useful policy setter, though it has limited resources at its disposal. By getting expert opinions together, it can achieve a consensus that a particular product or the means of delivering the product is useful in a way that allows countries, emerging nations particularly, to use that information to leverage support for the use of that product in their country. It’s important for health ministers in emerging nations to see that the consensus expert opinions that the WHO put together can be useful. TTH: If you were the Federal Health Minister, what sorts of initiatives would you undertake? Prof Frazer: I am not the Federal Health Minister, so fortunately I don’t have to consider and prioritise the entire spectrum of initiatives desirable to ensure the future health of our nation. One thing that any federal Health Minister is likely to wish to do is to strengthen government support of basic biomedical research, and another is to maintain and enhance the National Health and Medical Research Council as a means of public health education. The initiatives that have been put in place to encourage the translation of research into practical products through the

I think that we need to make our future scientists into the equivalent of movie stars and sports stars. The solution to future problems will come from science and we really need to make scientists realise that theyʼre appreciated in the community. which will produce better immune responses of the sort we need to protect against infections where the virus either changes very rapidly or where it can hide itself from the immune system. TTH: In particular, do you think Australia has a responsibility in the Asia-Pacific region in relation to vaccine research, manufacture and deployment? Do you think Australia’s participation in the GAVI alliance is the correct first step, and what other initiatives do you think Australia could take? Prof Frazer: Clearly, Australia has a responsibility to

promote the development of appropriate vaccines in Australia, for Australians and also presumably for the South East Asian region. We have nevertheless to be careful not to be patronising. It’s up to each country to decide what vaccines they need and what they want, but if there were, for example, the potential to develop a malaria vaccine, I think it’s a responsibility of countries with the resources and expertise to try and do that. The GAVI alliance is an important part of that, but I think that the critical thing is for our government to invest in biomedical research — it will benefit not only Australia, but also the region

10 A CONVERSATION WITH IAN FRAZER THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

various federal government initiatives schemes for translational research such as targeted research grants should also be maintained. Also, the issue of health care inequities, particularly in aboriginal communities and immigrant communities, must be addressed.

The Future TTH: Many recent breakthroughs in medicine, including yours, have been in the area of immunology. Do you think this is a particularly promising field currently? Prof Frazer: Immunology offers a solution to a large part of health problems in the future because inflammation is behind many chronic diseases including cardiovascular disease and degenerative diseases in the brain, and because immunotherapy will be the potential solution for many of the other problems we face, including cancer and chronic infectious disease. I think in the next 25 years, there are going to be significant breakthroughs in the understanding of the human genome and how the variability that exists in all of us is an important determinant of what diseases we are at risk for. By modifying people’s risk for a disease through environmental changes, we can already achieve a lot and if we understand who are particularly at risk, then we can certainly move the field forward faster in terms of prevention of disease. TTH: In your speech to the Queensland Media Club last year, you noted that Australia “produces 3% of the world’s biomedical scientific output from 0.5% of the world’s population, and yet we only manage to translate this into rather less than 1% of the world’s pharmaceutical sales.” Do you see this situation changing anytime in the near future? Prof Frazer: I think in the future we’ll do better in translating our biomedical research. In Australia, there has been a major cultural shift over the last 10 to 15 years towards applying basic research for the benefit of human kind. There is a long lag time when that sort of change takes place, because basically it is 25 years from the time you start to develop products before you see them. I think that now the message has got across that the basic research we do should wherever possible actually be applied. TTH: Do you think enough emphasis is given in schools and universities to motivate today’s youth into undertaking medical research? Prof Frazer: I think that we need to make our future scientists into the equivalent of movie stars and sports stars. The solution to most problems society faces will

come from science and we really need to make scientists realise that they’re appreciated in the community. TTH: Is there any particular national or state model (either in Australia or overseas) that you would consider particularly successful or conducive to scientific research and worthy of emulation? Prof Frazer: I think that Australia’s model in basic and applied research is now a good one. I think that the most important thing is to encourage people to go into science. One problem lies in the dropping participation rate in high school science education. We need to encourage people to realise that science is actually the way that the world works, and that it tests hypothesis and comes up with answers. It is not received wisdom and it’s not divine inspiration that produces answers to problems; rather it’s experimental research, which requires people to be trained as scientists. Therefore, we need to increase scientific literacy in the whole community and at the same time increase the number of people who might wish to train to be applied and basic scientists in the future, by making careers in science more attractive, more secure, and more financially rewarding . The Triple Helix is grateful for Professor Frazerʼs kind assistance with this interview.

Are you interested in contributing to The Triple Helix? We look forward to hearing from you at [email protected]

Roll up your Entertainment

Did you ever wish that you could roll up your television and take it with you? Or have a television that covers an entire wall like Guy Montag in Fahrenheit 451? Were you amazed by the transparent computer screens in Minority Report? These products may not be too far-fetched thanks to a device known as an OLED.

Rebecca Krall, Carnegie Mellon University Just as floppy disks were replaced by CDs and VCRs by DVDs, OLEDs may be the next revolution in the video screen industry. The television and computer screens would be made up of organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs. OLEDs are semiconductors which emit light when organic materials are subjected to an electric current. This procedure is called electrophosphorescence [1]. Currently, video technology is composed of man-made materials, but what makes OLEDs fascinating is that they are built with organic compounds. Even with competition from current television technology, OLEDs have the potential to revolutionize the television industry. One of the OLED’s main competitors is the LCD (liquid crystal display). Though it may seem as if OLEDs and LCDs would be similar because they are both video technology, they are different in respect to their structure, energy usage, overall quality, and manufacturing process. Instead of blocking light like inorganic LCDs, OLEDs emit light [2]. Because LCDs block light from a backlight, they require forty percent more energy than OLEDs on average [2]. The reason for this large difference is that OLEDs do not consume energy when not in use [2]. A black OLED pixel is truly black because it does not emit light; however, a black LCD pixel wastes energy by blocking the backlight behind it [3]. In fact, an OLED display only needs between two and ten volts to operate [1].

Since OLEDs do not have a backlight, can be supported on a thin, flexible plastic substrate, and are made from thin organic layers instead of a thicker liquid crystal component, they are thinner than LCDs. Consequently, an OLED television weighs about forty percent less than a comparable LCD television [4]. A drawback of LCDs is that they are viewing angle dependent, which means that if the screen is viewed outside of a maximum angle, the image will be distorted. However, OLEDs are not viewing angle dependent, and have a far superior viewing angle of 170 degrees [5]. Compared to the video response rate of a millisecond of other television technologies in the market (plasma and cathode ray tube), LCDs are slow [2]. However, the Kodak active matrix OLED can refresh two hundred times a second [5]. OLEDs are brighter and have more contrast than LCDs and can be used in a wider range of temperatures [2]. In addition, OLEDs are capable of displaying 16 million colors, while a typical camera LCD can only display 262,000 colors [6]. OLEDs even outperform LCDs in the manufacturing process. Although the manufacturing process and components for televisions made with these two technologies are similar, the production process for OLED televisions is easier because OLEDs are composed of fewer parts [10]. It is easier to apply

12 ROLL UP YOUR ENTERTAINMENT THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

the organic compound to the substrate of an OLED than it is to apply the liquid crystals to the substrate of an LCD. In a similar way as a home inkjet printer prints a page by spraying the ink, the OLEDs can be applied to the substrate using an inkjet printer [13]. Most importantly, because they are organic, OLEDs are environmentally friendly. Besides televisions, OLED technology has other practical applications, such as light fixtures, keyboards, and bookmarks; and innovative uses including “Post-It” OLEDs, OLEDs in clothing, and a breaking-news OLED newspaper. By creating an OLED with a flexible substrate, a foldable OLED is produced. Foldable OLEDs have many potential uses because they are resilient and light. Any electronic device that is transported often, such as a cell phone, could benefit from a flexible OLED because the screen would not be as likely to crack [2]. Bookmarks are another application of flexible OLEDS. Avnish Gautam designed a concept product called the MARK bookmark, which is a regular bookmark during the day, but glows to the desired preference at night. This year, the bookmark won the Red Dot Award in the category of best design [7]. OLEDs in clothing and OLED newspapers can be created from foldable OLEDs as well [2]. White OLEDs only emit white light, and they are superior to the current methods of lighting like fluorescent and incandescent. Light emitted by a white OLED is true-color, brighter, and more efficient than white light emitted by these other sources [2]. White OLEDs could be used to make a window that is transparent in the daytime and emits light at night. These windows would save money and energy

per watt, whereas the typical incandescent bulb produces between 10 and 15 [8]. OLED lights would even be a better alternative to fluorescent bulbs which are hard to recycle because of their harmful chemicals [8]. OLED lights could help reduce the price of lighting, which costs U.S. consumers $58 billion a year, and reduce the amount of energy used for lighting, which constitutes twenty-two percent of electricity used each year in the United States [8]. Despite the fact that OLEDs have this potential, it will be hard to convince people to invest in this technology when incandescent bulbs continue to be so inexpensive, the prices of fluorescent bulbs continue to drop, and the revenue from OLED lights is predicted to be less than the revenue from other OLED products [8]. This does not entice producers to concentrate on this application.

The Art Lebedev Studio has designed a keyboard called Optimus Maximus whose keys have OLED lights. The keys are customizable, and can display a picture of the current key function. For instance, pushing the shift key causes the letter keys to change from lower case to upper case. Letters of a different language or musical notes could even be programmed to display on a key without having to buy a new keyboard. Two hundred keyboards were available for preorder earlier this year at a cost of $1,564 and are now completely sold out. However, cheaper models will be offered, but a limited number of features will be available [9]. Every innovation comes with its own battles and obstacles. This is true for OLED technology as well. A major concern is its composition of organic mate-

Currently, video technology is composed of man-made materials, but what makes OLEDs fascinating is that they are built with organic compounds. Even with competition from current television technology, OLEDs have the potential to revolutionize the television industry. by acting as a regular window if there is enough sunlight outside [8]. OLED lights are being considered as an alternative to incandescent and fluorescent bulbs especially since energy is becoming more expensive and people are becoming more concerned about global warming [8]. OLED lights would be more efficient than incandescent lights, whose main emission is heat, not light [8]. A prototype white OLED by Universal Display produced 31 lumens

rials that decay over time, but other problems plague the widespread production of OLEDs. Currently, the red, green, and blue pixels age at differing rates because of their unique compositions. This implies a gradual distortion of the image as time progresses [10]. Inclement weather exposure can also ruin this technology. The brightness of each pixel is determined by a transistor backpane. As larger screens have more pixels they need more transistors. This

ROLL UP YOUR ENTERTAINMENT 13 MARCH 2008

THE TRIPLE HELIX

leads to a greater chance of a transistor failing, and distortion of the screen [2]. Besides production dilemmas, price is also influencing companies’ decisions to produce OLED televisions. The price of LCD televisions is falling; for $1,000, less than the price of what a small OLED television would cost, a consumer could buy a forty inch plasma television [10]. Overall, manufacturers need to find a way to reduce the cost of production, so the retail price of an OLED TV can compete with LCD and plasma screens, and simultaneously improve the technology. Samsung may have a lead in this area because their OLED screens are created by using the existing LCD manufacturing process. Thus, if the company decides to produce more OLED screens a new factory is not required [11]. On December 1, 2007, Sony was the first company to sell an OLED television commercially when they released the XEL-1 television in Japan. Their XEL-1 has an eleven inch screen size, and its thinnest point is .12 inches. However, this television still suffers from the short lifetime of OLEDs, and will only work for 30,000 hours [2]. The televisions cost approximately $2,500, and have been available in the United States since the 2008 Consumer Electronics Show [12]. A twenty-seven inch prototype has been showcased by Sony, but it was composed of four individual displays [2]. This method is not very effective because it is hard for each display to have exactly the same colors. Samsung demonstrated televisions that were bigger than Sony’s by five inches, but some of the pixels were locked to one color [11]. Seiko Epson Corporation also tried their hand at the new technology. Although their televisions had no defects, they only had an eight inch screen size [11]. The Sony televisions will face competition in 2009 when a thirty inch television is anticipated to be launched by Toshiba [10]. Currently, OLED screens are used in some Nokia cell phones, iriver digital audio players, and the Kodak EasyShare camera [2,5]. Though OLEDs have not come into the mainstream, NanoMarkets has predicted that the market for OLEDs will reach $10.9 billion by 2010. The success, profitability, and sustenance of OLEDs will be largely determined by consumer response. If consumers do not show interest in OLEDs, producers will not improve them and offer updates. Additionally, companies do not produce products with every component the best of its kind because the average person does not find it necessary

A 3.8 cm (1.5 in) OLED Screen (Source: http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OLEDScreen.jpg)

to own such a product. Therefore, unless consumers find that OLEDs are much better than current technology or find the price of an OLED product commensurate with its quality, companies do not want to invest in designing new OLED products. This may result in this new technology’s potential being wasted. Currently, the production of OLED televisions by Sony - the first big OLED product - and consumers’ response to the TVs will send signals to other companies and will influence whether OLEDs will become part of our future or part of a history book. References:

[1] http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/oled.htm [2]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003 &ref=feedburner&articleId=71057FFB-E7F2-99DF31F90CA4C7EB060B [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_lightemitting_diode [4] http://lifestyle.hexus.net/content/item. php?item=11112 [5] http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier. jhtml?pq-path=1473/1492&pq-locale=en_US [6] http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier. jhtml?pq-path=1473/1683/1485&pq-locale=en_US [7] http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/oled [8] http://www.news.com/Tripping-the-lightsorganic/2100-1008_3-6111872.html [9 ]http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/ [10] http://www.news.com/Still-waiting-for-OLEDTVs/2100-1041_3-6203556.html [11] http://www.pcworld.com/printable/ articleid,138864/printable.html# [12] http://www.news.com/Picture-fuzzy-for-organicthin-TVs/2100-7353_3-6225133.html?tag=newsmap [13] http://www.oled-display.net/oled-making

In 1769 Wolfgang von Kempelin built the worldʼs first chess playing automation, a humanoid wooden device called “The Turk”. He toured the world with his artificial chess player, defeating notable players such as Napoleon Bonaparte, Thomas Edison, and Edgar Allen Poe. The catch, of course, was that the Turk wasnʼt an automaton at all: it was powered by a small flesh-and-blood chess master sitting inside, controlling the mannequinʼs motions [1]. In 2005, Amazon.com released the second coming of the Turk, called Amazon Mechanical Turk. The Mechanical Turk is “Artificial Artificial Intelligence”, a service that lets programmers create computer programs that simulate genuine intelligence by performing complex tasks that traditional computer systems cannot, for example extracting artist and album information from a picture of a CD cover. Such programs contain tasks that cannot readily be performed by today’s computers, which range from reading text, to identifying images, to transcribing audio. Nevertheless the computer simulates performing these “Human Intelligence Tasks” by delegating them to live human workers. The human workers have no idea what they are doing, as they are only extensions of the machine [1, 2]. Humans and machines have lived in close proximity since the invention of tools, and computers have been widely used to solve problems since their inception. However, the relationship between humans and computers is one sided. Computer programs exist as extensions of human minds, carrying out processes originating in the minds of their programmers- they do all the work as part of a human controlled system. The two Turks turn this relationship upon its head, so that human intelligence is harnessed as part of a larger automated system – integrating humans into algorithms. In this mechanism humans and computers both have contributions to the task at hand, forming a mutualistic symbiotic relationship. For historical reasons, this goal is called Human Computer Symbiosis.

Human Intelligence vs. Computer Intelligence: Symbiosis The irony of the two Turks is that after 200 years, the field of artificial intelligence has created the ma-

Human Computer Symbiosis Pranai Tandon, Cornell University chine that von Kempelin could only fake. Now there are several chess computers that can defeat human masters, but even these powerful computers cannot tell a King and Queen apart by looking at them. The problem lies in that humans and computers excel in different areas of intelligence. In activities that humans do with ease, like reading, or identifying objects in images, computers fail. In activities that computers dominate, such as gathering and storing information, or carrying out numeric computation, people fail [3]. This is addressed in the symbiotic relationship of the Mechanical Turk. As early as 1960, J.C.R. Licklider noted this complementary nature of human and computer intelligence, and suggested a symbiotic relationship between the two, in which humans and computers would each contribute their own expertise to solve problems together. This kind of mutual system provided an alternative to “hard” theories of artificial intelligence, which dictated that computers should replace humans entirely [4].

16 HUMAN COMPUTER SYMBIOSIS THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

Licklider’s seminal paper went largely unnoticed, and until very recently the only attempts to include humans inside intelligent computer systems were industrial algorithms to optimize factory schedules or obscure topics like genetic algorithms [3]. Now his idea is finally coming to fruition in the omnipresence of online CAPTCHAs.

CAPTCHA: A Case Study in Symbiosis. The classic CAPTCHA is the blurred image of a word that must be entered before obtaining a free email account. A CAPTCHA, or a Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart, is a kind of Turing Test, a test used to determine whether an entity taking the test is a human or a computer. The idea is that humans can read the blurred word with ease, while computers cannot at all. This precludes automated programs from running over and over and registering hundreds of email accounts. Bypassing CAPTCHAs is of paramount importance to spam companies, who need these accounts to send mail in bulk [5]. Automated bypass of CAPTCHAs is the ideal symbiotic task because both human and computer intelligence is required. Spam corporations have allegedly set up “CAPTCHA sweatshops” in developing countries [5, 6]. The idea behind such an attack is a highly useful as a way to explore the possibilities of symbiosis. Here, an automated computer program fills out an e-mail registration form, and then sends the CAPTCHAs it cannot solve to human workers who can solve them. Both parties contribute their respective abilities to become one coherent problem solving unit. Licklider affirms that, “It seems likely that the contributions of human operators and equipment will blend together so completely in many operations that it will become difficult to separate them neatly in analysis” [4]. In this respect his prediction became true – the two entities merge into one hybrid system that is neither computer nor human. Together the computers and human workers pass the Turing test on a scale unattainable to either party alone. By definition, it is no longer possible to differentiate between the automated hybrid sweatshop and regular human users. As such this kind of activity is difficult to monitor, so there have been no proven cases of such CAPTCHA sweatshops.

First Steps into the Public Such symbiosis is no longer found only in abstract thought experiments and research fields. In fact, the first attempts at bringing symbiotic systems in the general public were games. Luis von Ahn et al., pioneers in the nascent field of human based computation, started by introducing the ESP Game. In this game, two randomly connected players are shown the same picture and have to submit as many keywords for it as possible. As soon as the two players agree upon a keyword, they each receive points and move on to the next picture [7]. It is not obvious that the players are doing work for the game, but the keywords they produce tend to be excellent keywords for the content of the picture. Thanks to some clever anti-cheating measures, the players quickly and accurately make labels for the images. It’s even less apparent that the players are in the same situation as the theoretical CAPTCHA sweatshop. The computers cannot label images just as they cannot read CAPTCHAs, while people perform these tasks easily. The individual players function as problem solving units in the larger system of the ESP Game, and put their own expertise to work – but they don’t even get paid for it. The same game-based model for using human intelligence for problem solving is used by Google in their popular Google Image Labeler game. However, Google actually puts the results to work: the players in the Google game produce image labels used to improve Google Image Search.

Omnipresence It’s not even necessary for end users to take the initiative to play a game in order to be involved in a symbiotic system. There is already a spate of web services that harness the intellectual power of unwitting users. The most famous is the Google PageRank AI, which ranks web pages fetched for a specific query based on “votes” that humans submit by creating hyperlinks on their own web pages [2]. Even more direct are “tag” based sites. A tag is a short summary of information presented in any medium, be it text, audio, or visual. An example is Flickr, at www.flickr. com, a website that hosts user photographs so that their friends can view, comment upon, and tag them. Another is Del.icio.us, at www.del.icio.us, that uses the same mechanism as Flickr, but users post their favorite web sites instead of their photos. These numerous tag sites use the tags that users create to power their prominent search functions, which accurately find user submitted content for strangers.

HUMAN COMPUTER SYMBIOSIS 17 MARCH 2008

Social Ramifications It’s unlikely that players of the Google Image Labeler game, avid users of Flickr, or Del.icio.us will ever see a cent in return for the their work as symbionts. Is this fair? These websites make vast sums of money based on content specific ad revenue. The targeted advertisements that appear at the side of Google and Flickr rely upon the tags that users create, though users do not receive any of the money they produce. All participation on such websites is voluntary; users need not use Flickr and it is even possible to disable Google from searching a website. There must be another incentive for workers to keep on working, one that does not involve pay. Social analysis is critical to the success of symbiosis. There are two viable methods of keeping people involved. The first is participatory, where participants work for free because they desire to; the second is contractual, where participants work for pay under a formal contract between employer and employee [8]. The first method requires the system to be appealing and enjoyable. The image labeling games are just that – games. People play these games for fun, and complete intellectual work only as a byproduct of their enjoyment. Flickr and Del.icio.us are marketed as social networks, in which friends digitally interact with each other. Participants in both systems never realize they are doing work. Although players and users unintentionally generate millions in ad revenue, they continue working for fun. They cede their profit interest in order to join in on the game. The second method, working for compensation, tends to elicit an unfounded adverse reaction [5]. The Mechanical Turk is derided all over online forums as a sweatshop, but in symbiotic principle it is no different from games and social networking sites. What makes the Mechanical Turk especially threatening is the idea and the economics of having a computer in command. However, the socioeconomic model created by the Mechanical Turk is no different from trends in mechanization and computerization that have been occurring for the past twenty years. Historically, mechanization increases demand for high level analytic jobs to plan overall operations, decreases demand for middle organizers who store information, and increases demand for manual labor that cannot be mechanized [9]. A canonical example is that a single modern desktop computer can hold more information than an army of bookkeepers, and can retrieve any piece of data far more quickly than any human. What the computer cannot do is produce the information to be stored, or physi-

THE TRIPLE HELIX

cally act using the information. In short, demand for high and low level jobs is increased, but middle level organization jobs are eliminated. The Mechanical Turk does this as well – there is increased demand for high level programmers who create Mechanical Turk programs and the low level workers who solve problems the computers cannot, but the demand for middle organization is eliminated by the computer program. There is little to fear of the Mechanical Turk, it is only more of the same.

Conclusion From the original Turk to the Mechanical Turk, the ideas of human computer symbiosis have remained almost the same, though the field of computer science has considerably advanced the cause. Licklider’s vision of a seamlessly integrated living and working experience between humans and computers seems to be coming true: it is no longer possible to draw a clear cut line between human and computer contributions in some commonplace actions, like Google searches. But even though there are many hybrid systems deployed at present, true symbiosis has not yet developed between humans and computers. The overall goal of symbiosis should not be forgotten; mutalistic symbionts cannot live without each other, and are better off because of their relationship. References

[1] Barr, Jeff and Cabreara, Luis. “AI Gets a Brain.”ACM Queue 4.4 (2006): 24-29. [2] Williams, Sam. “Pennies for Web Jobs.” Technology Review March 2006: [3] Lesh, N. Marks, J. Rich, C. Sidner, C. L. ““ManComputer Symbiosis” Revisited: Achieving Natural Communication and Collaboration with Computers.” IECE Transactions on Information and Systems E Series 87.6 (2004):1290-1298. [4] Licklider, J.C.R. “Man-Computer Symbiosis” IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics HRE-1 (1960): 4-11. [5] Von Ahn, Luis. “CAPTCHA, The ESP Game, and Other Stuff.” Keynote speech in the Proceedings of the Fifteenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference. Available at < http://www. cs.cmu.edu/~biglou/research.html> [6] Connor, Allen. “Are You Google’s Gopher?” BBC News September 2006: < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ uk_news/magazine/5336284.stm> [7] von Ahn, Luis. “Labeling Images with a Computer Game.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, (2004): 319-326. [8] Kosurokoff, Alexander. “Human Based Genetic Algorithms” IEEE Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 5 (2001): 3464-3469. [9] Autor, David. “Computerization and the Division of Labor: How Computerization Changes what People Do” Keynote lecture at the Seventh Annual NBER-NCAER Neemrana Conference.

The Case of the Pillow Angel Julia Piper, UC Berkeley In January 1997 a pillow angel was born. Her parents named her Ashley. Three months later her brain stopped developing and she was diagnosed with static encephalopathy. She smiled and grew like any normal child but six years later she still could not talk, walk, or eat without assistance. Completely dependent on her parents, she is a pillow angel, a nonambulatory child that sweetly and quietly rests when placed on any pillow. Then, in 2004, Ashley began showing signs of puberty. Her parents presented her case to the Children’s Hospital of the University of Washington, requesting a hysterectomy and estrogen therapy to stunt her growth. The reasons were complicated, the precedents unset, and after much consideration, the hospital’s institutional ethics committee authorized the performance of the procedures. For the remainder of her life Ashley will retain the appearance of being nine. She will never develop sexually, and will forever have the mental capacity of a three month old [1]. In 2006 her parents wrote a blog in response to ethicists’ criticisms of what is now termed the “Ashley Treatment.” The world responded with a barrage of opinions, suggestions, congratulations, and fears. The controversy of Ashley’s story revolves around questions, not of medicine, but of morals. It has caused society to redefine specific rights for disabled persons, reevaluate the perception of human dignity, and, ultimately, face the shortcomings of a societal system that fails to meet the needs of not only those who are disabled but those who seek to ensure health and happiness for the disabled.

Static encephalopathy is a non-degenerative condition encompassing a wide range of disabilities generally defined by brain damage that interferes with development and function. The symptoms can range from spastic movements and speech delay to mental retardation, with the type and extent of damage varying greatly [2]. Ashley is an extreme case with symptoms including an inability to sit up, ambulate, survive without a gastrotomy-tube, or use language. However, she is able to respond to others through smiling and vocalization, and prior to undergoing any treatment, experienced normal physical development [1]. It was when Ashley first entered puberty, that her parents approached the Children’s Hospital in Seattle with a request for surgical procedures and hormone treatment. In conjunction with the hospital, Ashley’s parents and a board of physicians and ethicists eventually developed a series of procedures that they felt would improve the condition of Ashley’s life [3]. A hysterectomy was performed with the intent to alleviate monthly menstrual pains and bleeding that may frighten a disabled patient;

THE CASE OF THE PILLOW ANGEL 19 MARCH 2008

Ashley’s breast buds were removed to decrease the possibility of molestation by a caregiver; estrogen was administered to stunt her growth and her appendix was removed purely as a precaution. For Ashley, being small will help decrease bedsores, a major problem for non-ambulatory patients, and allow her to continue being an active part of her family’s life [1]. By ensuring that Ashley will never exceed the physical maturity of a nine year old, her parents have enabled themselves to continue caring for her without the need of an impersonal moving apparatus or additional assistants. Because Ashley’s treatment was the first of its kind to be publicly announced, her doctors, Dr. Gunther and Dr. Diekema, were careful to explain their justification for performing these controversial procedures. While they acknowledge the historical stigma around hysterectomies and their association with forced sterilization, they write that because Ashley has “no realistic reproductive aspirations,” sterilization is irrelevant. They claim that the procedure has many advantages, including the possible reduction of the risk of thrombosis and uterine and cervical cancer, and minimal long-term complications. Although Dr. Gunther and Dr. Diekema attempt to introduce a new option for parents of disabled patients, they explicitly state that each case should be reviewed on an individual basis [1]. With the publication of Dr. Gunther and Dr. Diekema’s medical paper and Ashley’s parents’ blog, there came a wide array of responses, including much criticism regarding the rights of disabled people and the violation of human dignity. The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund was one of the first to strongly comment against the procedure, stating that Ashley had “been denied her basic human rights through draconian interventions with her person [4].” In addition, 580 individuals and over 133 organizations signed an online document, entitled A Statement of Solidarity for the Dignity of People with Disabilities, stating that although Ashley’s parents love her, the procedure is unethical because it strips Ashley of her dignity. Although this document wields no legal power, it is indicative of a strong interest to ensure the well-being of the disabled, and the need for society to provide better support for the care of the disabled and stronger laws to ensure their dignity [6].

THE TRIPLE HELIX

When it became apparent that a societal whiplash against Ashley’s treatment was occurring, many bioethicists responded by arguing in favor of the morality and the compassion of the treatment Ashley received. George Dvorsky, of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, has been an adamant defender of Ashley’s parents stating that, “the concept of ‘human dignity’ must be coupled with cognitive capacity if it is to have any meaning at all. Clearly this girl has dignity of some kind, but it does not diminish her dignity for decisions to be made on her behalf ... she will never regret those decisions, and her quality of life will be much better because of the decision of her parents [7].” Peter Singer, famed bioethicist and author of Writings on an Ethical Life, agrees with Dvorsky on this point and further argue that it is an illogical objection to say that the treatment is “unnatural,” as all medical treatment is unnatural to some degree [8]. Dr. Wilfond, Director of the Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics at Children’s Hospital in Seattle, approaches Ashley’s case of growth attenuation as a health care issue rather than one revolving around a question of dignity. He reminds us that pediatricians are responsible for constantly monitoring and manipulating all patients’ growth. In Ashley’s case, this is particularly relevant as she is dependant on a feeding tube. Her parents and doctors have complete control over the amount of food and nutrients she intakes, and consequently they determine how much she can grow. Dr. Wilfond suggests that one of the main reasons Ashley’s growth attenuation has been met with criticism is because, while it is normal for doctors and parents to control a large amount of their children’s growth, the generally held perception is that more growth is better. Dr. Wilfond attests, however, that while this is usually the case, more growth would actually be worse for Ashley. He reiterates that a pediatrician’s job is to do what is best for the child, whether it is more growth or less growth, and that due to the rarity of Ashley’s case, usual approaches did not appropriately apply [9]. While some believe that these procedures were beneficial in Ashley’s case, many emphasize the possibility of misuse. Pediatricians Dr. Brosco and Dr. Feudtner warn that if this procedure is to be practiced, it must be done with the strictest legal and ethical regulations. While they do not specify what these regulations should be, Dr Brosco and

20 THE CASE OF THE PILLOW ANGEL THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

Dr Freudtner explicitly state that the “collective community response” ought to be the deciding voice [5]. Generally, the objections and justifications for Ashley’s treatment revolve around the concept of a loss versus a gain. Those in opposition tend to, though not universally, believe that by permanently altering Ashley’s physical state without her consent there is a loss of dignity and therefore a violation of her human rights [4]. Those in support of the treatment tend to argue, though again not universally, that there is no loss of dignity, because she will mentally and emotionally gain happiness and comfort from the procedure. Despite the polarity of opinions, most reasonable sources, regardless of their stance, agree with Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, when he states that “keeping Ashley small is a pharmacological solution for a social failure [10].” From this acknowledgment of a fundamental societal failure there grows a real possibility for societal change, especially as more and more people pursue options similar to the Ashley Treatment. While the procedures Ashley’s parents pursued have sparked heated controversy, such a strong response from all sides indicates that society cares and is invested in the ease and dignity of not only Ashley’s existence but that of the entire disabled community. Whether society agrees on how to treat her or not, those who are voicing their opinions are united in that they believe they are speaking and working for the betterment of those who are disabled and defenseless. From these differences we can only hope that there will be a united effort at some point to bring societal, governmental, and medical benefits to those who require it most, to those most qualified for these medical treatments and least capable in deciding their futures, to Ashley and her fellow “angels.” References:

[1] Diekema, Douglas S; Gunther, Daniel F. “Attenuating Growth in Children With Profound Developmental Disability: A New Approach to an Old Dilemma.” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 160 (2006): 1013-1017 [2] Hitzfelder, Nancy. “Static Encephalopathy: A Basis Explanation for Parents.” Easter Seals. July 1999. [3] Ashley’s Mom and Dad. “The ‘Ashley Treatment.’” 25 Mar. 2007. [4] “Modify the System, Not the Person.” Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. 7 Jan. 2007. <

http://www.dredf.org/news/ashley.shtml> [5] Brosco, Jeffrey P; Feudtner, Chris. “Growth Attenuation: A Diminutive Solution to a Daunting Problem”� Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 160 (2006):1077-1078 [6] Fitzmaurice, Susan. “Statement of Solidarity for the Dignity of People with Disabilities.” 2007 A Disabled Community’s Response to Ashley’s Treatment [7] Dvorsky, George. “Helping Families Care for the Helpless” Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies 11 Jun. 2006 [8] Singer, Peter “A Convenient Truth.” The New York Times 26 Jan. 2007 < http://www.nytimes. com/2007/01/26/opinion/26singer.html?ex=13274676 00&en=7a4359e1131b4fc3&ei=5090&partner=rssuser land&emc=rss> [9] Wilfond, Benjamin. Phone interview. 20 Apr. 2007. [10] Caplan, Arthur. “Is ‘Peter Pan’ Treatment a Moral Choice?” MSNBC 5 Jan. 2007 [11] Elliott, Francis. “Allow ‘Active Euthanasia’ for Disabled Babies, Doctors Urge,” The Independent. 5 Nov. 2006. [12] “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” Office of the United Nations High Commissioners for Human Rights. 2007 http://www. ohchr.org/english/law/disabilities-convention.htm#10 [13] Nichols, Michelle. “Nations quickly sign U.N. disabled rights treaty.” Reuters 30 Mar. 2007

Are you interested in providing financial support to The Triple Helix? If so, we look forward to hearing from you at [email protected]

A small, furry animal with beady anxious eyes and a tapering tail may just be the key to curing a plethora of diseases ranging from cancer, Alzheimerʼs and Huntingtonʼs, to cystic fibrosis and hemophilia.

Transgenic Animals

Paving the Way to New Frontiers in Medical and Scientific Research

Margaret Mallari, University of Chicago A transgenic animal is one that carries a foreign gene (called transgene) that has been deliberately inserted into its genome using recombinant DNA technology, allowing foreign DNA to be incorporated into the DNA of a recipient animal and expressed in its cells. Transgenic animals such as genetically manipulated mice, pigs, goats, sheep, and chickens are blazing a genetic trail that continues to improve the realms of science, medicine, and the economy. Today, these animals play vital roles in medicine allowing researchers to observe, understand, prevent, and perhaps even cure diseases, particularly those with largely genetic components.

Playing God: How Transgenic Animals are Created A mouse that functions as a model for human cancer? How can one create such a frankenanimal? Most transgenic animals are designed using two methods: the embryonic stem cell method and the pronucleus

method. In the embryonic stem cell method, embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are grown in tissue culture with the desired foreign DNA. First, the gene desired (for example, a gene responsible for specific proteins regulating insulin production) is isolated and vectored into a transgene. In the construction of a transgene, the donor animal’s promoter sequence, a region of DNA that regulates gene transcription, is replaced by promoter and enhancer sequences that guarantee proper function of the gene in the tissues and organs of the recipient animal [1]. These sequences ensure that insulin is produced in a transgenic cow’s milk by expressing the foreign DNA for insulin production in the cow’s mammary glands. Once the transgene has been created, the ESCs are exposed to the DNA in tissue culture and some will incorporate the foreign DNA. Then, the successfully transformed animal ESCs, or those that have incorporated the foreign DNA, are injected into

22 TRANSGENIC ANIMALS THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

the inner cell masses of the host animal’s blastocysts, which develop into embryos that are implanted into the receptive uterus of the pseudopregnant host female (accomplished by mating a female animal with a vasectomized or sterilized male of the same species) [1]. The mating triggers the secretion of hormones in the female animal required to make her uterus receptive to the implanted embryo. The second method of

[6]. There are a couple of methods for creating transgenic mice that function as human cancer models. One method involves removing specific proteins linked to T cell lymphocyte (white blood cells responsible for cellular immunity) formation in the animal – removing one gene produces a ‘knock-out’ animal, while removing both genes produces a ‘double knock-out’ [4]. Another method of creating mice cancer models is to

Are humans playing God by manipulating DNA, “life itself,” and tampering with something God did not intend humanity to meddle with? creating transgenic animals is the pronucleus method where eggs are harvested from host females and fertilized in vitro, outside the female’s womb. Using microinjection, 200-300 copies of the foreign DNA are injected into the pronucleus (the nucleus of a gamete during fertilization) of the male host animal’s sperm [2]. The altered sperm is then able to fertilize the egg. The embryo that develops from this fertilization is implanted in a pseudopregnant foster mother, as in the ESC method. The pronucleus method produces only a small percentage of transgenic animals that carry and pass the added gene from one generation to the next. These animals are called founder animals. To establish a transgenic strain, founder animals are crossed with non-transgenic animals to produce animals that are heterozygous for the transgene. These heterozygous animals, or those that carry one copy of the desired foreign gene from a founder parent and one copy of the normal gene from a non-transgenic parent of the same species, can then be mated with one another to produce transgenic animals that are homozygous for the foreign inserted gene. These homozygous transgenic animals fully express the inserted foreign DNA. Both the embryonic stem cell method and the pronucleus method have been successful in producing transgenic mice. However, transgenic livestock such as pigs, sheep, cows, and chickens have presently only been created using the pronucleus method. Genetic manipulation is less efficient, more expensive and time consuming in the production of larger animals, thus the pronucleus method is more effective of the two [2].

Transgenic Mice: Models for Cancer Despite an evolutionary distance of 75 million years between the two species, the mouse genome is remarkably similar to the human genome (90% of the mouse genome can be lined up with large segments of the human genome and over 80% of mouse genes function precisely in the same way as those in humans)

insert specific genes that cause cancer development or inhibit T cell formation into mouse genomes. In both cases, mouse cancer models (either carrying cancer-triggering transgenes or with “knockedout” genes) serve as vital constructs in the observation of cell development, tumor formation, and cell death. This work is fueling one of the most important revolutions in twenty-first century medicine—the ultimate understanding of cancer as a genetic disease. The very concept of placing cancer in a genetically inherited disease category introduces new and controversial questions into the foreground. If cancer has a genetic component, can one place genetic markers on potentially cancer-causing genes? Can these genes be spliced, “deactivated,” or kept in control to prevent the onset of cancer? If the technology were available to go through with such a procedure, would it be ethical? Would the public approve or disapprove? Biomedical researchers at the University of Kentucky have engineered a transgenic mouse that is resistant to cancer and holds much applied clinical promise. Dr. Rangnekar, Ph.D., of the University of Kentucky reported in the Oct. 1 issue of Cancer Research that the transgenic mice created have incorporated Par-4, a tumor suppressor gene, and as result are resistant to both induced and spontaneous tumors in several tissues [7]. In addition, the expression of the Par-4 transgene in the transgenic mice has shown very little to no effect on their health, fertility, or life span. In fact, the transgenic mice with the Par-4 incorporated transgene were shown to live longer lives than their non-transgenic counterparts perhaps because the Par-4 transgene prevented the development of tumors (hepatocarcinomas and lymphomas) as the mice aged [7]. Dr. Rangnekar explains, “The interesting part of this study is that this killer gene (the tPar-4 transgene) is selective for killing cancer cells. It will not kill normal cells and there are very, very few selective molecules out there like this. [7]”

TRANSGENIC ANIMALS 23 MARCH 2008

The discovery of the effects of Par-4 protein on transgenic mice as models of human cancer holds much promise in applied medical treatments for human cancer without the harmful consequences of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Since the Par-4 protein only targets cancer cells, malignant growths can be isolated and efficiently eliminated without harming the surrounding healthy cells. This discovery is paving the way for more effective, much safer, and more holistic cancer treatment that do not harm the organism as a whole.

Ethical, Moral, and Religious Controversy: Weighing the Risks and the Benefits The creation of a transgenic animal and its use in research introduce inevitably intertwined benefits and risks. Benefits of genetic manipulation include the great specificity and accuracy with which the desired genetic trait can be chosen and the complete elimination or minimization of undesired traits [2]. The genetic component of human disease can be mapped out and further understood, owing to the fact that transgenic animals proliferate much faster than humans, permitting researchers to trace a disease or condition through several generations and observe both the hereditary pattern and the effects on following generations. Transgenic animals also offer flexibility in genetic research through cross breeding. Recently, breakthroughs in genetic modification allowed the creation of transgenic pigs whose harvested organs (engineered to generate insulin-producing cells for

THE TRIPLE HELIX

humans) are specifically designed not to trigger immune responses in human recipients (xenotransplantation), significantly reducing the risk of rejection of the transplanted pig organ [3]. These transgenic pigs may be the answer to both an almost graspable cure for diabetes and to the undeniable shortage of desperately needed human organs for transplant patients. However in conjunction with significant leaps in medicine and agriculture, there are predicted risks that come with the manipulation of animal genomes, specifically concerning animal health, xenotransplantation, and dissemination. For example, inserting a transgene containing foreign DNA may not only alter the expression of the recipient animal’s genome, but also upset and impair the functioning and growth of the animal. Potential risks must be accounted for in xenotransplantation, where transgenic animals created solely as tissue or organ donors may transfer viruses specific to that particular animal species to human recipients, thus providing opportunities for animal diseases to infect humans. Another growing concern to the public is dissemination, or “species pollution” that occurs when the transgene of a genetically engineered animal may be released into the wild population of that particular species through breeding, disrupting biological ecosystems [1]. Also termed “gene flow”, this mating may result in the depletion and potential extinction of the wildtype population through competition of limited resources [3]. To prevent such risks, government organizations have placed strict regulations and specific protocols that apply to the maintenance, containment, and extermination of transgenic animals. These rigorous precautions are absolutely imperative in reducing the possible risks associated with the vital containment of transgenic animals. In addition, transgenic animal “pharming,” or genetically modifying an animal to produce high-in-demand human antibodies and proteins in their milk or blood which can then be extracted and administered to human recipients, is undergoing intense safety testing by the FDA to further address animal and human health safety concerns [5]. Tangled with the ethical and moral concerns of genetic manipulation is the religious controversy surrounding the very creation of transgenic animals. Given the processes required to create a transgenic animal, is it overstepping boundaries laid either by God, some other higher power, nature, or our own society’s ethics and morals, to genetically modify an animal’s genome to suit our purposes - whether in agriculture, pharmaceuticals, or medicine? Does the production of high-in-demand, extremely expensive essential human proteins or the development of a

24 TRANSGENIC ANIMALS THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

possible cure to a disease outweigh the potential risks to genetically manipulate an organism’s genome to create transgenic animals? Though no easy answers to these complex questions exist, the majority of the scientific community remains united in their stance on the creation of transgenic animals, perhaps summarized best by the GlaxoSmithKline pharmaceutical company: “The animal welfare issues associated with the use of transgenic animals are fundamentally no different from those associated with other animals in biomedical research. It is the minimization of any pain or distress to individual animals in medical research that is important, not the manner in which the animals are bred [6].” Paul Thompson, director of Perdue University’s Center for Food Animal Productivity and Well Being puts forth two different models for evaluating the ethics of using transgenic animals: the animal research model and the livestock model for agriculture. Thompson explains, “With the animal research model, we accept that an animal used in cancer research is going to suffer, but the information from the experiment will save thousands of lives. In the livestock model, we consider issues of husbandry and stewardship and figure we owe these animals a good day-to-day existence even though we are going to eventually slaughter them.” Yet even he admits that the present-day applications of transgenic animals fall into a gray undefined area between the two animal models and that the sorting of these applications will not bring forth generic answers to ethical concerns on genetic manipulation.

The Future of Transgenic Animals Regulatory and ethical issues come to the forefront as transgenic animals and the biotechnology responsible for their creation become increasingly utilized in medical research, mammalian developmental genetics, molecular biology, and agriculture. While animal breeding and the crossing of different species have been a staple of agriculture for centuries, genetic manipulation to create transgenic animals has generated not only curiosity but also fear, anxiety, and revulsion. These negative responses are manifested in a particular nickname for transgenic animals, “chimeras,” which refers to a much feared hybrid monster in Greek mythology composed of a lion, goat, and dragon. Today, what was once the stuff of myth, film, and science fiction is no longer confined to those realms. Biotechnology and genetic engineering have allowed the creation of chimeras,

animals whose genotype has been genetically altered to express the genes of other animals. As the developments in genetic engineering increase, concerns about the moral and religious ethics of such a procedure, its products, and the use of such creations in scientific research grows and influences public opinion dramatically. From well-voiced concerns ranging from animal welfare, to the health of both transgenic animals and the humans who consume them, to the religious controversy surrounding genetic manipulation, public debate is spreading like wildfire. Are transgenic animals monsters, unethically altering the natural order of the universe? Are humans playing God by manipulating DNA, “life itself,” and tampering with something God did not intend humanity to meddle with? Considering all the vast improvements in the fields of medicine and science, including production of more effective drugs and the insight into and understanding of fatal diseases, are the creation and testing of transgenic animals warranted? Do the ends justify the means? Unfortunately, there are no straightforward answers to these questions and the ethical (moral, religious, or otherwise) debate over genetic manipulation will continue to intensify as biotechnology and the creation and utilization of transgenic animals redefine the relationship between humans and animals. References:

[1] Transgenic Animals. December 12, 2007. John W. Kimball’s Biology Pages. h t t p : //u s e r s . r c n . c o m /j k i m b a l l . m a . u l t r a n e t / BiologyPages/T/TransgenicAnimals.html [2] Garvin, Wilbert., Harms, Ute., Shearer, Caroline., Simonneaux, Laurence. “Transgenic Animals.” European Initiative for Biotechnology Education (EIBE). http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/eibe/UNIT11EN.PDF [3] Roderneyer, Michael. “Biotech Animals: Advances Lead to Old and New Considerations.” Transgenic Animals, Vol. 2, Issue 1, January 25, 2002. [4] H. Niemann, W. Kues, and J.W. Carnwath. “Transgenic Farm Animals: Present and Future.” Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2005, 24 (1), 285-298. ht t p://w w w.oie .int/eng /publ icat/RT/24 01/241%20pdfs/25-niemann285-298.pdf [5] Biotechnology Information Series: Pharmaceutical Production from Transgenic Animals http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/biotech_info_series/ bio10.html [6] The Role of Transgenic Animals in Biomedical Research. April 24, 2007. GlaxoSmithKline plc. http://www.gsk.com/research/about/about_animals_ roles.html [7] Smith, Michael. “Transgenic Mice Developed to Resist Cancer.” Medpage Today. [8] Minerd, Jeff. “Transgenic Mice Aid Research into Deadly Cancer.” National Institutes of Health, Monday, October 16, 2000. [9] Transgenic Animals. BIO: Biotechnology Industry Organization http://ww.bio.org/animals/faq.asp

Superorganisms

TRANSGENIC ANIMALS

Yvette Han, Carnegie Mellon University

Just imagine that the medicine you take now to cure your cold may not be effective later on. The common cold which is cured easily with a few drugs today could become a serious infection in the future, due to the emergence of resistant bacteria. Testing will be especially important in today’s presently rapidly advancing world because bacteria and diseases are becoming more abundant than ever. Various laboratories across the globe test antimicrobials, including antibiotics, which kill bacteria over a short period of time, and preservatives, which inhibit the growth of organisms over a long period of time. It is crucial for a product or medication to be tested and verified safe before being released into the market. From short term diagnostic applications to extended multifaceted development analysis, microbiological laboratories must conduct all tests with care. Derived from microorganisms, antibiotics are drugs used to treat bacterial contaminations. However, they are not a cure-all; they are weaker when encountered by a virus and cannot treat infections cause by viruses. An antibiotic can inhibit or kill the growth of one specific type of bacteria. The challenge for future microbiology researchers is to find a way to invent stronger, more durable antibiotics to support the rapidly advancing world of diseases. Although antibiotics play a large role in securing our health, the gradual and extremely impacting antibiotic resistance has created an even larger problem. Through this resistance, bacteria and other microbes oppose the effects of inhibition or elimination by previously effective antibiotics. The Center for Disease Control calls antibiotic resistance “one of the world’s most pressing public health problems.” Once the bacteria changes, the effects of the chemicals are significantly limited or removed. It significantly limits or removes the effectiveness with which antibiotics were once preventing or curing infections. If this issue is not stopped, a huge problem will face the human race. More diseases will not be able to be cured and our society can wane to dangerously small populations. Bacteria will be able to survive,

multiply, and dominate the human body. These resistive bacteria are affecting all sorts of businesses and organizations, especially in places where health care is crucial. Hospitals are suffering because of these microorganisms; they have now turned to the microbiological labs for any possible solutions. When these specific microorganisms encounter hostile environments, they adapt to them over time and resist being vanquished –hence the name “superorganisms”. For example, when a patient is suffering from an infection caused by a “superorganism”, he/she may be given a particular medication to alleviate the condition. However, no improvement may occur since these “superorganisms” adapt to the medication and grant themselves immunity. These mysterious organisms achieve dominion by setting up enzymes that break the chemicals in the hostile environment; they manufacture abnormal quantities to target the unwanted. Medical researchers are presently working with top caution and diligence to make sure that there are drugs to successfully combat and eventually kill the resistive bacteria. People can help fight this ongoing scientific “war” by many ways; one effective solution would be to take antibiotics only when necessary. By using antibiotics in a flippant way for any common cold or flu, people help the bacteria adapt and produce counteractive enzymes rapidly and more frequently. The bacteria then take advantage of its increasing opportunities with antibiotics exposure, to become more habituated. Thus, by limiting the use of antibiotics will greatly help the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Researchers are currently trying their best to suppress the existence of these resistive bacteria and protect the health of our future generations.

One of the most conspicuous and bitter debates in the city of Oxford in recent years has been regarding the construction of Oxford Universityʼs highly controversial animal laboratory.

Animal Rights,Human Wrongs: A Rational Examination of Ethics Concerning Animals The lab has been vociferously denounced by animal rights activists, perhaps most notably by SPEAK: a group which helped to prevent a laboratory of a similar scale from being constructed in Cambridge in 2004. They object to its experiments on primates on the basis that the pain and suffering imposed on the animals is in violation of their fundamental rights. The animal rights movement in England has often been discredited through its association with extremism, its use of emotive propaganda and intimidation tactics against civilians, and seemingly elevating the value of animal life to a position equal to or greater than human life. But beneath all the eye-catching antics, there is a serious issue requiring attention and discussion by all ethically responsible members of society. Meaningful discourse about animal rights has little to do with being an “animal-lover” who finds inflicting pain or death on animals to be meanspirited. While this may characterize some people associated with the movement, every individual has a responsibility to rationally examine the ethical paradigms that underlie and assign moral weight

to our behaviour, and the impact we make on our environment. It is morally indefensible to argue that the act of causing animals to suffer or die is an issue that does not merit examination. The animal rights movement rejects the generally accepted notion that human life possesses greater innate worth than that of animals. Animal rights activists such as ethicist Peter Singer argue that the ethical frameworks that guide, constrain, and justify human conduct in society are logically extendable to non-human animals. Therefore allowing exploitation of animals or disregard for their well-being, on the basis of their species, is illegitimately premised and hence unethical In Peter Singer’s 1974 Animal Liberation, the seminal text often credited with galvanizing the global animal rights movement, Singer argues that we are all bound by the ethical principle of “equal consideration of interests”, a standard which discards rationality; intellect; or superior abilities as legitimate criteria for privileging the interests of any particular actor or group over another. Singer points out that if higher intellect or rationality were acceptable grounds on which to prioritise interests, the

ANIMAL RIGHTS,HUMAN WRONGS: 27 MARCH 2008

needs and interests of humans who are below a certain level of intelligence would be given less consideration. Ethical principles relying on a presupposition of natural equality are untenable due to the fact that there is natural variability in human ability. Singer posits that the fundamental ethical problem in racial supremacists’ deprivation of the rights of racial minorities based on the essential superiority of one race was not that race is unrelated to ability, but rather, that race was an arbitrary characteristic when assessing the needs and interests of other human beings. Similarly, species is being used as an arbitrary characteristic when discriminating between the interests of humans and animals. The template of equal consideration of interests subverts the dogma of “natural hierarchy” which typically legitimizes the exploitation of other species. This compels one to ask how the principle of equal consideration of interests can be practically applied. Intuitively, many respond to the assertion of such principles by saying it is absurd that a dog should be considered equally alongside a human being. However, equal consideration of species’ interests does not imply that they ought to receive equal treatment: treatment must be directly related to the capabilities of the beings in the situation. For example, it is pointless to discuss a dog’s right to be a member of the state, as dogs do not have the mental capacity to function in a political context. Singer marks the capacity for suffering as the most basic characteristic required for an animal to be considered as having needs or interests. If it has the capacity to suffer, a being has at the very least a basic interest in not suffering [1]. This interest must always be considered regardless of species, which is morally irrelevant (within Singer’s framework of “needs and

THE TRIPLE HELIX

animals that are radically different to most modern approaches. The principles he espouses shed light on often-overlooked ethical issues but raise questions as often as they answer them. Singer describes how it would be considered morally abhorrent to experiment on or kill an infant with severe and irreparable brain damage, yet completely acceptable to do so on animals such as pigs, dogs, and primates which have a higher level of self-awareness and autonomy. This double standard is indefensible under the principle of equal consideration of interests but resolving it leads to uncomfortable conclusions: infants could be seen as expendable, or animals could have immunity from experimentation. Furthermore, while assessing suffering is fairly comparable in beings with comparable nervous systems, discussing the right to life is more complex. Singer argues that all beings who are similar in all relevant aspects (generally relating to their sentience) have a similar right to life. However, the grounds for establishing which being is worse to kill is murkier, as abstract notions such as their ability to envision a future, aspire to things, and foresee death play significantly into what Singer calls their placement in ethical formations [3]. But ambiguity and grey areas do not diminish the profundity of a genuine agenda to minimize needless animal suffering and death and to consider the suffering of all sentient beings. The two main foci of the “animal rights movement” are generally the meat industry and the use of animals in scientific experiments. The conditions on livestock farms cause animals unnecessary stress, pain, and trauma before and during slaughter. Their suffering could be minimized with better farming practices, as exemplified by the re-introduction of free-range eggs. The role of animals in science ex-

Singer marks the capacity for suffering as the most basic characteristic required for an animal to be considered as having needs. interests”). Singer says that the suffering of one being must be counted equally with like suffering of another being, insofar as such comparisons can be made [2]. Thus analyzing levels of awareness and sentience are the only grounds on which one can ascertain how the interests of others should be weighted. The implications of Singer’s species-blind ethical principles are far-reaching, and demand a society with attitudes and practices towards non-human

periments is more complicated, because of the high stakes and the potential for scientific discoveries to prevent needless human suffering. But this debate is far from the public eye: Singer argues that animals are generally reduced to mere tools in scientific research, and that there is little or no regard given to the suffering and death caused by experiments on millions of sentient animals. In Great Britain in 2006 alone 2,067,071 mice, 921 marmosets and tamarins, and 3283 other primates, all macaques, were used in ex-

28 ANIMAL RIGHTS,HUMAN WRONGS: THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

periments in Great Britain in 2006 [4]). Despite government controls on animal experimentation, ethics committees that oversee experiments, and the development of alternatives to the use of animals, a number of animal rights groups believe that regulations are not stringent enough. In a recent report about the need for animals in medical research, esteemed British scientist and animal rights activist Gill Langley said, “We can argue about the science forever, but what I’ve never heard is any clear scientific explanation for moral discrimination.” The report, “Next of Kin”, was released in 2006 by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), and suggests that macaques and other smaller monkeys currently used in experiments are in many ways similar to other highly sentient beings such as gorillas and chimpanzees, who can’t legally be experimented upon in the UK[5]. BUAV, SPEAK, and other animal rights groups not only morally oppose the use of many species regularly experimented upon in the UK, but also argue that that data obtained from medical research on animals often cannot be reliably transferred to the realm of human medical treatment [6], There is also evidence that scientists across the UK commonly use flawed methodology in gauging the effectiveness of drugs based on results from animal experimentation. Thus human applicability of results from animal experimentation is still uncertain and requires further exploration. The widespread use of tenuous methods is symptomatic of a status quo which tests drugs on animals for safety reasons rather than efficacy [7]. Caught between the pro and anti-vivisectionist movements, many regard animal suffering with indifference, or support the use of animals for human advancement as part of the “natural hierarchy” of the world. There are complex debates to be had about the ethics of any animal experiments which might

yield knowledge about human diseases that cause massive suffering. However, this should not outweigh our duty to minimize the immediate suffering and killing of animals. Right now the status quo in the biomedical research world does not seem to have declared the latter. Even the 2005 Declaration on Animals in Medical Research[8], a document meant to advocate consideration of animal interests, encourages animal experimentation “aimed purely at extending knowledge”. In other words, animals are expendable for the sake of increasing general knowledge, even if such knowledge is irrelevant to human disease and suffering. It also emphasizes repeatedly that “humans have benefited immensely” from animal experimentation, and that major achievements of the past century are mostly derived from it. While this is obviously true, its placement within a document framing the role of animals in research demonstrates the anthropocentricity that legitimizes suffering in the name of medical research to this very day. Singer’s ideas are nuanced and complex, but what’s most important is the fundamental paradigmatic problem (speciesism) that he seeks to illuminate. The suffering of non-human animals at our hands is so pervasively unexamined and normalized, that people who stand against it are often unjustifiably marginalized and stigmatized. Too often, casual debates are framed as pro- or anti- animal rights, a fundamentally absurd dichotomy. The truth is that there is a complex moral issue at hand that requires robust and rational discourse. Even though the UK has some of the best animal protection policies in the world, there is still a long way to go: the issue should not be confined to the status of extremism, and people must start thinking fundamentally differently about the ethical treatment of animals. References: [1] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics (Cambridge Univerity Press, 1993) p.55 [2] Peter Singer Animal Liberation (New York Review of Books, 1975)p.8 [3] Peter Singer Animal Liberation (New York Review of Books, 1975)p.19 [4] Home Office Statistics on Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in Great Britain 2006 http://www. homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/spanimals06.pdf [5] Gill Langley Next of Kin: a report on the use of primates in experiments (BUAV June 2006) www.buav.org [6] Druin Burch Do we still need animal testing in medical research? (The Guardian, 2 March 2006) [7] Steve Connor Effectiveness of drugs ‘overstated because of biased testing (The Independent,15 September 2007 ) [8] Research Defence Society Declaration on Animals in Medical Research (http://www.rds-online.org.uk)

Are You What You Eat?

Hayley Hernstadt, University of Melbourne

In exploring the wide range of causes and implications involved in the increasing incidence of obesity across the world, it becomes apparent that this disease is far more difficult to control than merely eating well. Obesity has been called ‘a global epidemic’ by the World Health Organisation (WHO) [5]. In 2005, the WHO estimated that at least 1.6 billion adults (age 15+), almost a third of the world’s population, were overweight, while at least 400 million adults were obese. Furthermore, the WHO projects that by 2015, approximately 2.3 billion adults will be overweight and more than 700 million will be obese [4]. The health and social issues related to obesity translate into greater costs for wider society [7] [15]. A recent study estimated the annual cost of obesity to the United States as $117 billion — approximately 10 percent of U.S. health expenditure [16]. This is expected to increase as the burden of disease due to obesity grows. This worldwide problem requires immediate attention. The consequences of obesity for the individual are vast; not only does obesity result in poor health, it can also have social implications.

In order to effectively address the problem of obesity, an accurate understanding of its causes and consequences is required. As we will see, successfully losing weight is not as simple as altering the energy intake to expenditure ratio. The etiology of obesity is considered multifactorial, and for animals, this has been classified into nine groups, comprising obesity of neural, endocrine, pharmacological, nutritional, environmental, seasonal, genetic, idiopathic, or of viral origin [14]. Most of these causes have also been implicated in humans, and we will discuss some of the recent developments in depth. In order to approach the problem of obesity, we must understand its roots as it is evident the method of eating less and exercising more does not work for everyone. While health measures have been implemented by governments worldwide, the compulsory physical education

30 ARE YOU WHAT YOU EAT? THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

and banning of soda in schools does not appear to have halted the obesity epidemic. As obesity is a complex health issue, a better understanding of it can facilitate a multi-pronged attack by health officials and health professionals. Obesity is the excess accumulation of body fat due to energy intake exceeding energy expenditure. The body mass index (BMI) is the commonly accepted way of determining whether a person is overweight. It is calculated by dividing the weight in kilograms by the square of height in meters. By considering whether one’s weight is proportionate for one’s height, it provides a general indication of one’s health although results may not be universally applicable. In the clinical setting, physicians consider race, ethnicity, lean body mass, age, pubertal status and sex in conjunction with BMI. The brain plays an important role in the regulation of energy homeostasis, in tandem with the gut and environmental factors. There is a constant flow of information between the brain and the periphery via nerves from the intestines and environment as well as hormonal signals. Signals are sent to specific parts of the brain, namely the hypothalamus, nucleus tractus solitarius, as well as several other groups of neurons. The neurons integrate the signals to give a cohesive direction to the periphery via neural and hormonal inputs to alter energy intake, expenditure and storage. Experiments have helped to locate precisely which anatomical region is responsible for the state of the body. For example, lesions in one part of the hypothalamus can result in obesity of the animal, while lesions in another part of the animal’s brain causes it to lose its appetite and lose weight [10].

to the meal to promote the sensation of hunger. Insulin is released from the pancreas after eating in response to an increased blood sugar, and signals the body to increase fat stores, and reduce food intake. Cholecystekinin is released in response to fat and amino acids in the small intestine, and acts on a pathway in the brain to signal satiety. [11] In a recent study it was demonstrated that obesity raises the risk of developing other health problems [7]. Of particular concern is metabolic syndrome, named for the combination of obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, high blood pressure, and dyslipidemia. The latter two predispose to a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death in the developed world. Other systems of the body are also affected — there is an increased risk for stroke, musculoskeletal problems such as osteoarthritis, gastro-intestinal effects such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease or gallstones, as well as renal problems, and respiratory difficulties due to asthma or obstructive sleep apnea. Psychological issues such as depression, low self-esteem, or eating disorders, can be a major cause of morbidity. Additionally, obese people have been shown to face discrimination in a wide range of settings [17]. The root of some cases of obesity can be due to alterations, or defects in the person’s weight control mechanism. Several genetic disorders are known; however, these are extremely rare and only account for a small proportion of all obese patients [7]. The hormone leptin has received much attention since its gene (termed the ob gene) was discovered in 1994. It is involved in the long-term regulation of weight through a feedback loop and is produced

It is often thought that obesity is derived from an evolutionary advantage to store as many calories as possible in the present to protect against future starvation. Within the brain itself, there are essentially two groups of neurons working in opposition — one promotes the appetite enhancing pathway while the other contains neurons which secrete chemicals inhibiting that pathway, thereby suppressing appetite. These two groups of neurons receive hormonal and metabolic signals from the rest of the body about the current state of nutrition. Some hormonal signals in the blood include insulin, ghrelin, and cholecystekinin. Ghrelin is released from the stomach prior

constantly by fat cells, with the rate of production dependent on cell size [6, 12]. High leptin levels indicate sufficient energy stores while low levels indicate starvation. Its production reduces the appetite. Leptin has also been implicated as a cause of obesity. Mice lacking the ob gene, such that leptin is not produced, have an obese phenotype due to their inability to stop overeating and decreased energy expenditure. This is similarly reflected in humans, and has been reported in four families to date [8].

ARE YOU WHAT YOU EAT? 31 MARCH 2008

THE TRIPLE HELIX

Obesity caused by complete absence of endogenous leptin can be treated by injecting synthetic leptin. However, there is another genetic mutation named db, resulting in a defective leptin receptor. This form cannot be treated by injecting leptin. It is often thought that obesity is derived from an evolutionary advantage to store as many calories as possible in the present to protect against future starvation. This trait has been termed the ‘thrifty genotype’, referring to individuals who are capable of maximizing their ability to consume and store calories [10]. While this genotype has been advantageous for centuries, the possession of this trait probably increases the risk of obesity as we now live in a period where food is abundantly available and energydense [13, 22]. However, due to a lack of definitive proof, this trait remains a hypothesis explaining the extreme rates of obesity and diabetes in populations [15]. The concept of thrifty genotype alone may be too simple an explanation, and does not give us a way of combating the epidemic. The thrifty phenotype may be of greater concern — this term describes the disadapted metabolic state arising due to the fetus having been undernourished in the perinatal period, thus adopting a series of evolutionary strategies appropriate to its meager nutrient supply while in the womb. This proves maladaptive when nutritional conditions later improve. Also, as brain development continues well into the first years of life, both intrauterine and postnatal environments affect future control of energy homeostasis by altering neural pathways [18]. Interestingly, both maternal deprivation and maternal obesity will produce obese progeny. Mothers with diabetes also tend to have obese progeny. It has been postulated that the process of metabolic imprinting on genetically susceptible individuals during development may potentially result in a vicious cycle whereby each succeeding generation has an increased level of obesity [18]. Genetic causes remain rare. The majority of obese are have a familial form of obesity due to environmental and genetic factors. Stunkard et al assessed the concordance of the BMI of twins who have been reared apart to that of twins reared together. The intrapair correlation coefficients of the values for BMI of identical twins reared apart were 0.70 for men and 0.66 for women [9]. This indicates that genetics contribute approximately 70% of the variance of weight, while potential environmental influences such as culture, and activity level, account for about 30% of the variance. While genetics plays

a significant role in determining a person’s weight, it cannot fully account for the sudden increase in the prevalence of obesity in the last few decades. Once obesity has developed, it can have implications for an individual’s ability to loose weight. It was discovered in 1959 by Jules Hirsch that obese individuals’ bodies maintain their weight at a level significantly above normal. Initially, Dr. Hirsch’s study was conducted on obese subjects to explore what happened to their fat cells when they lost weight. Patients lived at the Rockefeller University Hospital for eight months while the scientists strictly controlled their diets. Obese people shrank to a normal size over the eight months, and it was assumed that they would leave the hospital permanently thinner. However, this did not happen and the individuals regained their weight instead. The experiment was repeated multiple times with similar results. A surprising conclusion was reached: fat people who lost large amounts of weight might look like someone who was never fat, but they were very different. On every metabolic measurement taken, they resembled people who were starving. When they lost weight, their original metabolism dropped as much as 24 percent [19]. Clearly, their bodies considered the obese state to be normal. It has been hypothesized by B.E. Levin that there is a set-point residing in the network of metabolic neurons within the brain which can be altered such that energy homeostasis is regulated to defend a specific level of body weight and adiposity [10]. Obese individuals have developed a raised threshold through their lifetime, so instead of their homeostatic system keeping their weight constant, the combination of

32 ARE YOU WHAT YOU EAT? THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

their thrifty genotype and abundant availability of palatable food has decreased the impact of inhibitory signals to inform the brain that an excess of energy store exists. Because there is a permanent change to the acceptable level of fat stores, their obesity remains irreversible. This is termed diet-induced obesity. The rat model of diet-induced obesity (DIO) has made it possible to examine qualities in obesityprone and obesity-resistant individuals [10] [18]. In this model, about half of a given strain of outbred rats become obese on high energy density diets, while the rest are diet-resistant (DR) and remain lean on such diets. Notably, whether a rat is obesity-prone or obesity-resistant can be identified prospectively before their phenotypes are expressed, which is impossible to do in humans. It is suggested that DIO is inherited as a polygenic trait, as is human obesity [18]. Many of the DIO rats are adapted to higher levels of weight when obesity is fully developed after exposure to a high energy diet. Once neural networks are established, the fully obese DIO rats defend their body weight against both overfeeding and underfeeding [20]. DR rats also defend their weight, but at a much lower level. It is thought that once these synaptic connections are formed in genetically predisposed individuals who are exposed to environmental factors primed for obesity, the new synaptic connections are strengthened through repeated use and genetic induction [18]. Rats with the DIO genotype that were kept consistently on a chow diet remained of comparable weight to the diet-resistant phenotype. It must be noted that there is no firm data to support this in humans, and this is still hypothetical. However, if the hypothesis is correct, this will critically impact our view of obesity. The only way to abolish obesity would be to prevent it, which would herald major changes in health legislation. For those who are already obese, only chronic interventions, such as drugs and gastric-banding surgery, would induce a permanent reduction in weight [1].

the reward circuitry [21]. This is unlike the obesity that develops slowly on less palatable diets with high energy and fat densities — even diet-resistant individuals can gain weight on such diets. However, once individuals (whether obesity-prone or obesity-resistant) voluntarily reduce their intake, they will rapidly lose weight, though the lost weight is regained if they are re-exposed to the same diet [10]. Another cause of obesity can be pathogenic. Infectobesity is a relatively new concept which has only been reported in the past 20 years. Six different pathogens have been reported to cause obesity in animal models: canine distemper virus, rous-associated virus-7, borna disease virus, Scrapie agent, SMAM-1 avian adenovirus, and human adenovirus Ad-36 [14]. Of these, the latter two pathogens have been implicated in human obesity. However, a definitive model of human infectobesity has yet to be described. While the association cannot be refuted,

It appears that the best treatment for obesity is prevention. Perhaps negative attitudes towards the obese exist because of another cause of obesity, that of nonhomeostatic intake, whereby food consumption is moderated by reward rather than metabolic control circuits. Addiction literature suggests that brain reward circuitry may promote the compulsive nature of overeating, as highly palatable foods trigger

an association does not establish a causal relationship. Ethical reasons prevent inoculation of humans with the described viruses to determine the exact role of the viruses in human obesity. After considering the many causes of obesity, the question then becomes how best to deal with the

ARE YOU WHAT YOU EAT? 33 MARCH 2008

problem. It appears that the best treatment for obesity is prevention [18]. People realise that high-sugar and high-fat foods are unhealthy, but it is possible that they do not understand the long-term ramifications of such a diet, and health legislation should aim to provide further education. Considering the personal and societal costs of obesity, this should be a key issue of discussion, as the proverb ‘prevention is better than cure’ suggests. Mothers who are pregnant and have diabetes (or have developed gestational diabetes) should have their diabetes aggressively treated, to prevent obese offspring. The ‘forward-feeding’ of obesity through the generations [10] must be halted to prevent the epidemic from spiralling out of control — for example, mothers should be educated on the dangers of being either malnourished or obese during pregnancy, and the effects of these states on their baby. In rats, it has been shown that exercise during immediate post-weaning period can lead to longterm reductions in adiposity which is permanent and outlasts the termination of exercise [18]. On the other hand, in overweight or obese individuals who exercise to lose weight, the weight loss is only consistent for the period with which they exercise. The body defends its achieved weight very strongly and only chronic interventions (long-term extreme exercise) or conditions such as chronic illness, surgical procedures, or high levels of stress can keep weight at a permanently lower level once an obese weight has been achieved. If we continue to view obesity as the result of a simple cause and effect mechanism it will be difficult to extract negative attitudes towards obese from our psychology. With increased awareness about the causes and implications about obesity, however, perhaps we can learn to approach obese people with greater sensitivity, and discrimination will be less rampant. Ultimately, any solution must strike the right balance between personal responsibility and medical regulation and intervention. References: [1] J. Proietto, L. Baur. ‘Management of Obesity,’Obesity MJA Practice Essentials 180:474 Ð 480 (May 2004) [3] WHO expert consultation. ‘Appropriate body-mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies.’strategies Lancet 363: 157-63 [4] World Health Organization. Media Centre: Obesity and overweight fact sheet. 2006 Retrieved 25/6/2007

THE TRIPLE HELIX

[5] WHO. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic: Report of a WHO Consultation. WHO Technical Report Series No. 894. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2000. [6] S. Margetic, C. Gazzola, G.C. Pegg, R.A. Hill. ‘Leptin: a review of its peripheral actions and interactions. International Journal of Obesity (2002) 26: 1407-1433 [7] Emedicine. M. Freemark. ‘Obesity.’Obesity’s 2006. Retrieved 26/6/2007 [8] W.T. Gibson, I.S. Farooqi, M. Moreau, A.M. DePaoli, E. Lawrence, S. O’Rahilly, R.A. Trussell. ‘Congenital leptin deficiency due to homozygosity for the Delta133G mutation: report of another case and evaluation of response to four years of leptin therapy.’ Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (2004) 89(10): 4821-6 [9] A.J. Stunkard, J.R. Harris, N.L. Pedersen, G.E. McClearn. ‘The body-mass index of twins who have been reared apart.’apart New England Journal of Medicine (1990) 322(21): 1483-7 [10] B.E. Levin. ‘Factors promoting and ameliorating the development of obesity.’ Physiology & Behavior (2005) 86: 633-639 [11] W. F. Ganong, Review of Medical Physiology (McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., ed. 21, 2005) pp.235241 [12] J.M. Friedman. ‘The function of leptin in nutrition, weight and physiology.’ Nutrition Reviews (2002) 11(Supplement):1-14 [13] C.B. Ebbeling, D.B. Pawlak, D.S. Ludwig. ‘Childhood obesity: public-health crisis, common sense cure.’ Lancet (2002) 360:473-8233 [14] N.V. Dhurandhar. ‘Infectobesity: Obesity of Infectious Origin.’ The Journal of Nutrition (2001) 131(10):2794S-2797S [15] A.M. Prentice. ‘The emerging epidemic of obesity in developing countries.’ International Journal of Epidemiology (2005) 35:93-9 [16] Statistics related to overweight and obesity. 2006. US Department of health and human services. [17] R. Puhl, K.D. Brownell. ‘Bias, discrimination and obesity.’ Obesity Research 9(12):788-805 [18] B.E. Levin. ‘The obesity epidemic: metabolic imprinting on genetically susceptible neural circuits.’ Obesity Research (2000) 8(4):342-7 [19] ‘Genes take charge, and diets fall by the wayside’, New York Times (8/5/2007; http://www.nytimes. com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html) [20] B.E. Levin, A.A. Dunn-Meynell ‘Defense of body weight against chronic caloric restriction in obesity-prone and resistant rats.’ American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology (2000) 278:R231-R237 [21] T.C. Adam, E.S. Epel. ‘Stress, eating and the reward system.’ Physiology & Behavior (2007) CITE [22] S. Stender, J. Dyerberg, A. Astrup. ‘Fast food: unfriendly and unhealthy.’ International Journal of Obesity (2007) 31:887-890 [24] S. Rice, E.J. McAllister, N.V. Dhurandhar. ‘Fast food: friendly?’ International Journal of obesity (2007) 31:884-886 [25] R.L. Atkinson, I. Macdonald. ‘Editorial: debate on fast food in society.’ International Journal of Obesity (2007) 31:883

Take a gander at a roster from any team in the NBA. It might not be a surprise that, on the New York Knicks, for example, all but one player are African American—tall, agile, and with a vertical jump that would likely draw a few “ooh”s and “ahh”s to say the least [1]. Yet to what degree is this racially skewed statistic a result of genetic differences in African Americans as compared to other races?

Martha Stewart to 50 Cent:

A Debacle of the Social Construction of Race Ariana Younai, UC Berkeley On the same plane, research showings that Asians are especially overrepresented among software engineers, that whites hold the majority of management and professional occupations, and that 34% of Hispanic women are house maids, begs the question, how much is genetic makeup involved in this racial segregation between occupations? [2] Race, in this way, rather than a mere grouping of individuals from different geographical locations, becomes a predominant indicator of one’s position within the social infrastructure, a gauge of ability, and subsequently, fuel for notions of the existence of a racial hierarchy. But this grouping of people into racial categories may not be so crystalline under a biological lens: phenotypic expression tells us a person has golden locks as opposed to wiry hair, yet to what extent does genetic makeup determine racial superiority and inferiority? How much deeper does racial classification go past the superficial markers recognized by society? While the placement of races in different social areas is due to a history of racial interactions, is there a deeper, genetic basis that can

potentially strengthen and solidify racial socio-divisions? On September 25, 2007 Nike unveiled the Air Nike N7, their brand-new athletic shoe designed specifically for Native Americans. Marked by its “larger fit for the distinct foot shape of American Indians,” the shoe is said to have been created specifically for Native Americans in order to aid in their health and wellness [3]. This racial group has been observed to have “problems with obesity, diabetes and related conditions... near epidemic levels in some tribes,” and Dr. Kelly Acton, director of the national diabetes program for Indian Health Services, comments that Nike “bent over backwards” to design a shoe and respect public health by promoting exercise. The creation of a product so specifically tailored for a group of people perpetuates a notion of biological differences amongst racial categories deeper than outward attributes; Nike has designed a shoe to cater not only to a physical difference in Native Americans, but notes that this physical distinction ties directly into a deeper issue of the group’s

MARTHA STEWART TO 50 CENT 35 MARCH 2008

deteriorating health with an increasing obesity rate. Notions of a racial hierarchy in which certain races are more susceptible to diseases, and therefore less fit, are fueled by reports of racial distinctions such as this one, which Nike has used as the main sellingpoint of a shoe advertisement. Studies throughout history have likewise embedded ideas of racial superiority or inferiority, thereby strengthening potentially porous divides between racial categories. From the infamous James Watson who, from his genetic observations noted that blacks were simply racially inferior to whites, to studies today of differential health issues and diseases across racial divides, the question of the biological significance of racial categorization still remains indefinite and hazy. Several studies have shown that genetic variability plays a major role in defining health disparities amongst races. Science editor, Byron Spice of the Post-Gazette examines why rates of diseases may vary from one population to another, and notes that men of African descent in Tobago have an estimated three to four time higher rate for prostate cancer than white Americans [4]. An epidemiologist at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Clareann Bunker, includes that in comparison to Caucasian males, men of African descent are more likely to carry a genetic mutation that helps them efficiently process the male hormone testosterone which results in the growth of strong bones, but which “in combination with a virus called human herpesvirus 8, also seems to heighten the men’s risk of prostate cancer.” What’s more, there hasn’t been any evidence to prove that environmental factors play into the abnormal rate, as East Indians, who also inhabit Tobago, do not share this same prostate cancer rate with the African population. This study raises the idea that environmental factors may not always be plausible explanations for health differences amongst races. Rather, genetic defects might be prominent in a racial group because a mutation was passed down from generation to generation in a specific population. Subsequently, the study supports racist tensions as the one projected by the aforementioned James Watson, who recently stated that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really” and that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically” [5]. His claim that there has been an unequal evolution of blacks and whites suggests a

THE TRIPLE HELIX

higher development and intelligence of the “superior” white race. Watson, however, while a prominent scientist and Nobel Prize winner for his co-discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule, received extremely negative public response for his statement. Other diseases more prominent in AfricanAmericans are sickle-cell anemia and cardiovascular disease, the former of which can be explained by a mutation developed in Africa as a defensive response to malaria [4]. Similarly, cardiovascular disease might have arisen because of slave conditions on the Middle Passage to America during which the retention of salt might have been advantageous, or due to the stress of living in a prejudice society with lack of access to health care. These environmental and social factors in the creation of common diseases in a particular race are often overlooked, however, as certain races are deemed simply naturally genetically inferior. The concept of race-based medicine, for example, uses race-specific heath issues in the marketing of drugs, thereby subtly implying that these genetic differences between races are inherent, perhaps even irreversible, when in fact, they originated from social divides. Nicholas Wade, author of “Race-Based Medicine Continued,” discusses the controversy over a new drug called BiDil, which is supposed to reduce deaths due to heart disease specifically among African-Americans [6]. He concludes, “African-Americans have been long uneasy with the concept of race-based medicine, in part from fear that it may legitimize less benign ideas about race,” suggesting that the drug, in its targeting of a disease common in a specific racial group, perpetuates notions of blacks being less genetically fit in comparison to other races. Furthermore, Dr. Georgia Dunston, a medical geneticist at Howard University, notes that marketing BiDil as a drug for blacks is ‘’a classical example of using race as a surrogate for biology,’’ and includes that the drug does not work in all African-Americans and may well be of benefit to other groups. That goes to say that blacks aren’t the only group experiencing high rates of certain diseases; Northern Europeans, for example, are more susceptible to cystic fibrosis than Africans, a fact which might likewise be explained by a genetic mutation found in Europe which was not present in Africa. This conflicting data presents the idea that while biological factors play a role in defining race (nature), so do environmental and social conditions (nurture), and that indeed the two intersect in the creation of racial categories. Unlike the previous examples, the indisputably high rate of academic success of Asian-Americans, the

36 MARTHA STEWART TO 50 CENT THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

“model minority” of America, raises the question of the greater role of nurture in racial differences, or environmental factors as opposed to intrinsic genetic ones which may affect ability level. Statistics of enrolled students at U.C. Berkeley in Fall 2007, for example, gave a shocking 41.7% Asian Americans [7]. To this statistic, Stanford professor Hazel R. Markus would comment, “[S]tudies have found that Asian students do approach academics differently,” looking to their generally study-oriented culture as an explanation for their excellence in academics [8]. Indeed, rather than accrediting academic disparities to biological factors, Markus looks instead to Asian cultural pressures and influences. Likewise, the overrepresentation of African-Americans in the realm of sports in the United States, while partially due to undeniable physiological differences, could be more dramatically affected by societal situations. Sociologist John J. Gnida at Indiana University points out that there are only slight differences in genetic studies of blacks and whites, and while they may offset others (e.g. a black athlete’s greater skeletal weight leading to slightly less body fat), there are enough exceptions to genetic explanations which make physical differences of athletic ability not as persuasive [9]. He points instead to the significance of occupational discrimination and opportunity structure as an explanation for the prevalence of African-Americans on certain sports teams; because they are denied opportunities to succeed in other professions, sports become the only path of social mobility. Indeed, as Gnida also points out, there are not as many African-Americans on certain other athletic teams, such as tennis, a fact which further suggests the role of opportunity as opposed to genetics in the shaping of racial stereotypes. In this view, races can be seen as superficial divisions which classify lumps of individuals based only on recognized societal differences. Victoria Robinson, an Ethnic Studies professor at U.C. Berkeley and head of the American Cultures Department, questions, “Is 50 Cent to black as Martha Stuart is to white?” [10] Indeed, on-the surface markers such as an interest in hip hop as opposed to homemaking become what Robinson would call “cultural proxies of race”, but uncertainties lie in whether these talents have genetic underpinnings, or if they are simply socially- and culturally-designated niches. “Racial groups have become manufactured because of histories which have not allowed entrance into different social spaces,” she adds, suggesting that races have essentially become trapped in different stereotypes throughout time because of their inability to escape their specific social locations.

It is without doubt that variations do exist on the genetic level in different populations, yet the formations of racial divides are considerably the products of racial tensions throughout history. These tensions have in turn resulted in the placement of racial groups into different social locations which restrict their abilities and opportunities. Though there are general patterns of differences in both simple and complex genetic structures, there are exceptions to these observations which suggest racial classification may be based on something much shallower. As Gnida’s article suggests, looking for physiological differences in specific groups is “implicitly racist.” If AfricanAmericans possess a “basketball gene”, could it be said Canadians carry a gene for naturally stronger ankles for ice-skating, and that Germans have inherited the gene exceptional bobsledding skills? Though the line between biology and society is becoming increasingly porous and gray, perhaps looking to social factors may provide a more accurate explanation. Just as it is possible to find a 7’6” Asian basketball player who may be diagnosed with sickle-cell anemia, so is it feasible for an African American to discover the cure for cancer, and, surprisingly enough, for a Native American to fit into a size-6 shoe. References: [1] “Knicks Roster: 2007-2008.” . [2] “Minorities in the Labor Force: Occupations.” Library Index. 2007. . [3] “Nike Unveils N7 Air Native Shoe Designed for Native Americans.” Fox News. 26 Oct. 2007 . [4] Spice, Byron. “Genetics and race: Researchers explore why rates of diseases vary from one population to another.” Post-Gazette. 7 May 2002. . [5]Nunget,Helen.“Blackpeople‘lessintelligent’scientistclaims.” Times Online. 17 Oct. 2007. . [6] Wade, Nicholas. “Race-Based Medicine Continued...” Times Online. 14 Nov, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/ weekinreview/14nick.html [7] “New Freshman Admits by Ethnicity 1997 through Fall 2007.” U.C. Berkeley News Center. 5 April 2007. . [8] “Success of Asian students: culture or genes?” Typepad. . [9] Gnida, John J. Teaching Sociology. 1995. (9:389-395). . [10] Victoria Robinson. Personal. November 25, 2007.

Revisiting the Ruler: The Metamorphosis of Progress in the modern world of Medicine Nisha Narayan, UC Berkeley As the great Plato said in ancient times, “all men desire to know.” Indeed, as we enter into the twenty-first century, mankindʼs drive to learn about the natural world has resulted in our increasing ability to manipulate biological processes with power once attributed only to God. To the philosopher’s credit, this knowledge of science has truly been extended to all of society. The wonders of technology have allowed for the dissemination of previously restricted medical knowledge to the general public. This accessible, advanced nature of healthcare in the modern world suggests that public health is less limited by what can scientifically be accomplished and increasingly dependent on choice. As headlines address brain implants to correct disability and pre-birth genetic manipulation to correct disease, social marketing rather than laboratory research may become the dependent variable and main benchmark of medical progress in developed nations. Society’s recognition of this phenomenon and focus on social marketing as a primary vehicle of advance in healthcare could thus have significant implications on our future. As science rapidly progresses, the degree to which we can manipulate natural processes is rapidly

expanding. Advances in genetic diagnosis combined with reproductive technology allow women to test their fertilized eggs for genetic disorder and subsequently decide whether or not to terminate their pregnancy [1]. While having a child with genetic disease was previously considered a matter of fate, science has transformed it into a matter of choice. The importance of patient evaluation and judgment in healthcare is further compounded by the accessibility of information in the modern world. Physicians were previously the primary holders of medical knowledge in society, and were revered as “autonomous masters of their professional domain [2].” As real-world Marcus Welbys, these “Dr. Gods” were required to exercise their own judgment in making diagnoses and treatment decisions. Advances in communication technology, however, have enabled the average layman to access a wealth of medical knowledge targeted to his scientific un-

38 REVISITING THE RULER THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

derstanding with the click of a button. Indeed, the Internet made it possible for approximately 40% of American people to find information or advice about healthcare in 2001 [3]. The aforementioned layman can survey numerous modern treatment options online and formulate opinions concerning how he wants to be treated based on his ethical and religious views, expectations for quality of life, and financial status. Essentially, his health will be dependent on how he chooses to pursue treatment rather than on the limits of technology and medicine.

choices of individuals [5]. With the increasing customization of health products and the private sector’s profound role in modern healthcare, marketing tactics developed in the commercial sector have been applied to influence the voluntary health behavior of target populations [6]. Rather than influencing health choices with scientific facts, corporations are appealing to public emotion and stereotypes. This concept, known as social marketing, is becoming increasingly instrumental in guiding health decisions in modern society.

Rather than influencing health choices with scientific facts, corporations are appealing to public emotion and stereotypes. This concept, known as social marketing, is becoming increasingly instrumental in guiding health decisions in modern society. If such choices are not dependent on scientific advice or professional expertise from a single, informed source, one must question what influences such personal health decisions. According to California physician Dr. R. Padmini, “nearly all published studies gaging the effectiveness of treatments and health solutions are addressed to experienced professionals who know how to scientifically evaluate such information.” Indeed, education in the field is essential to drawing appropriate treatment conclusions when confronted with feature-oriented rather than benefit-oriented reports [4]. Consequently, published scientific research is of limited use to the general population unless – in anomalous fashion- its social implications and applications are addressed. Personal health choices are thus influenced by representations of complex scientific information, and the presentation and framing of such information can have a significant impact on the health

Merck and Co.’s marketing of the Gardasil vaccine is a prime illustration of the application and current effectiveness of using social marketing to guide health choices. Gardasil aims to protect women against two high-risk strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease which is responsible for 70 percent of cervical cancer cases [7]. Approved in June 2007 by the Food and Drug Association, its miraculous selling point as the “vaccine against cancer” is flanked by a prohibitive cost of $360 for a vaccine course of three shots. Furthermore, it has dual, drastically different target audiences of young women and parents of teenage girls. Although its status as a vaccine against sexually transmitted disease makes parents and religious groups doubt its necessity, Merck has sprung into action around the globe, implementing aggressive television, radio, poster, and print campaigns with the attractive slogan “one less”. Television commercials succeed brilliantly in playing on the emotions of both mothers who wish to be educated and protect their children, as well as young girls who pursue freedom, empowerment, and independence. The media’s touting of Gardisil as “the Cervical Cancer Vaccine” and eminently threatening portrayal of HPV constantly bombards individuals in their daily lives and ceaselessly encourages young women to obtain the drug. Indeed, this tactic recently contributed to the Commonwealth government committing $300 million to mass-vaccinate Canadian girls through an opt-out school program with full endorsement of the Canadian government [8]. Neglecting to reveal that “the age group being

REVISITING THE RULER 39 MARCH 2008

targeted for mass immunization was not the primary group studied when the drug was tested” and that “these children were only followed for eighteen months,” Merck’s publicity blitz is hardly unbiased [8]. “I am amazed at the parents who come into my clinic demanding that their children have Gardasil without knowing what the vaccine protects against or if it has side-effects,” says Ontario, Canada family physician Dr. Chitra Narayanan. Indeed, while there may be a slight disconnect between the specific results of Gardasil research and the information that is most commonly being related to the public, the value of social marketing as a tool to guide health decisions which can have a massive impact on society is unmistakable. Dr. Narayanan explains that “all these parents know is that good caretakers give their daughters the shot– they see it on the Subway, on TV, and in magazines. They know that it could save their kid’s life, and that’s enough.” It is apparent that social marketing has succeeded in making an immense difference in the health behavior of the public and may continue to do so by reducing the spread of HPV with the Gardasil vaccine. Merk’s social marketing of the Gardisil vaccine is only one example of the growing power of social marketing in influencing consumer health choice and thereby stimulating the progress of healthcare. If one assumes the Oxford dictionary definition of the term, progress is “the development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level [9].” Medical progress, in simple terms, would thus entail the use of scientific principles and technology to benefit society.

THE TRIPLE HELIX

seems that the progress of healthcare in developed nations is now limited by the ability of the public to make individual choices that collectively better societal health. If social marketing can expand these limits, perhaps we must focus wholeheartedly on using this social tool to better the collective health of society. If much of society is exposed to comprehensive health information, channels of thought can be opened, debate and discussion can be explored, and in this way individual health choices that contribute to overall societal health can be made in a less difficult manner than ever before. While social marketing is increasingly being adopted by private companies and the government, perhaps our society should recognize and place more focus on this tool as the primary vehicle of progress in healthcare. We can then supplement the weaknesses of social marketing to optimize its effectiveness in im-

The...layman can survey numerous modern treatment options online and formulate opinions concerning how he wants to be treated based on his ethical and religious views, expectations for quality of life, and financial status. Essentially, his health will be dependent on how he chooses to pursue treatment rather than on the limits of technology and medicine For our society to better profit from all that has been discovered in the scientific world, perhaps developed nations must gage the progress we make in medicine and healthcare by the impact it actually makes on society rather than by the impact it can potentially make in the world. While medicine was previously limited by technology, individuals now run into personal and religious predicaments that often restrict our ability to affect health outcomes before scientific procedures bar us from doing so. Thus, it

proving societal health. This may, for example, entail the establishment of a central, organized database controlled by a neutral agency which can compile and organize the results of current scientific studies. If the rapid developments made in the scientific world can be “translated” into comparative charts which will be accessible to our average layman, social marketing can be augmented with scientific fact which will influence his personal health decision. What this will require, however, is monetary support.

40 REVISITING THE RULER THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

In the past, an abundance of funding and resources have been allocated to biomedical research and laboratory studies. The National Institute of Health, the nation’s premier biomedical research agency, saw its budget doubled between 1999 and 2003 and will receive $28.6 billion in 2007. [10] In light of this figure, perhaps a re-evaluation of how money in science and health is being spent is necessary. In particular, re-allocation of some funding from laboratory research to the organization and compilation of existing results could fuel true medical progress. Such a re-allocation of funding would undoubtedly be met with opposition from some research scientists, among many other groups. The organization, compilation and dissemination of research findings will introduce an additional layer of bureaucracy between scientific developments in labs and their use in society that would inherently slow the rate of progress in medicine. In addition, performing research to develop a novel technique or drug is perceived to be more revered than performing follow-up studies on existing therapies and their side-effects. Thus, if money is redirected from scientific research to social marketing, there may be insufficient funding for both types of projects and critical research on follow-up studies regarding the effects of new drugs and treatments could be jeopardized. This may potentially equate to an increase in unsubstantiated drugs on the market and a step backwards in the medical world. Lastly, many argue that inhibiting any aspect of progress in medicine- either in the lab or through social marketing – should not occur. Instead, governments could focus on using social marketing in healthcare and funding such projects and their supplements from the drug companies who will benefit from such marketing in any case. With its new power in the face of the changing world of health, social marketing can potentially be

used to inform target groups how recent advances in labs can better their health and reduce their risk and symptoms of illness. Indeed, social marketing may be the key to ensuring that advances in science and biomedicine relate back to how they will directly benefit society. As healthcare is altered, , it may be time to re-evaluate how society can maximize scientific progress. This could entail fundamental changes in convention and outlook and may require time and resource re-allocation. Protecting society from the dangers of incomplete knowledge and unsubstantiated information, however, may require a level of bureacracy, funding, and government involvement in the scientific world which it may never be able to withstand. Nevertheless, in true testament to Plato’s statement, if all men desire to know then perhaps true progress in the world of mankind – and the world of medicine- is ensuring that they do. References:

[1] Pro-Choice Forum; Ante Natal Diagnosis: Genetic testing, screening, and ‘eugenics’. 2007. 12 November 2007 < http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/and5.asp> [2] P. Friedson, Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. [3] Baker, Laurence., Todd H. Wagner, Sara Singer, and Kate Bundorf “Use of the Internet and E-mail for Health Care Information.” Journal of American Medicine (2003): 289:2400-2406. [4] California Health-Care Foundation. 2007. 11 November 2007. [5] California Health Reform. 2007. 15 November 2007. [6] Health Canada. 2007. 11 November 2007. [7] Dederer, Claire. “Pitching Protection, to both Mothers and Daughters.” New York Times. 18 February 2007, online archives: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/ arts/television/18dede.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=s login&oref=slogin# [8] Center for Media and Democracy; Profit Knows No Borders, Selling Gardasil to the Rest of the World: Part Four of the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer. 2007. 11 November 2007. [9] “Rogress. Def 169b. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. [10] Bridges, Andrew. “U.S. Research Budget Worries Scientists.” USA Today. 1 February 2006, online archives: [11] Narayanan, Chitra. Personal interview. 12 October 2007. [12] Padmini, R. Personal interview. 11 November 2007.

The Cultural and Evolutionary Basis of Sound Perception

Zara Khan, UC Berkeley

“Music, as a matrix that integrates the results of cultural processes, embodies dynamics, and emotional significations, can provide an extraordinarily fruitful resource for the development of cognitive-scientific thinking.” [1]. The matrix of music is one that is far reaching and is a canvas that requires an interdisciplinary approach to comprehend. Ethnomusicology is a field dedicated to studying music as an aspect of culture since music reflects the manifestation of cultural processes. However, musical perception also entails a cognitive interpretation on the neurological level that utilizes a complex sensory system involving the ear and brain. When one considers the varying social interpretations of different cultural music bases, the question of whether music is socially learned or biologically ingrained arises. The connection between the social and biological aspects of musical perception and the intricacies of this relationship are important for our society to broaden our understanding of the aesthetic nature of music and how we are biologically programmed to interpret it.

sound waves, and vibrates accordingly. The three tiny bones (ossicles) of the middle ear then transfer the vibrations to the fluid filled inner ear, where a shell like structure called the cochlea converts physical vibrations into electrical and neurological impulses. The basilar membrane lies within the spiral shaped cochlea, and is activated at different spatial locations depending on the frequency of the vibrations being received. Thus the ear, and correspondingly, the brain are tonotopically mapped by the frequency of the sound. Hair cells on the basilar membrane are responsible for converting signals into electrical impulses, which then travel through the auditory nerve to the brain, where they are then combined and interpreted to provide us with a perception of sound. The brain is responsible for auditory scene analysis, through which the brain perceives different sounds, their spatial locations, and sources. It is here where the cultural influences of sound perception are discernable. In a paper by John Blacking, he discusses how the “the roots of musical variety” base their foundation in

Perhaps through integrating the cultural and biological aspects of music, one can infer an evolutionary significance to music that would explain its prevalence in societies around the globe. In order to understand music perception, one must understand the physical and biological mechanisms of sound analysis. Sound and music are simply the wave-like vibrations of molecules in a particular medium, which propagate and eventually reach the ear. The frequency of this wave relates to the pitch heard, while the amplitude relates to the volume of the sound. The outer ear, or pinna, acts as a funnel to gather and amplify sound, directing it along the auditory canal where the eardrum then senses the

culture [2]. Furthermore, these roots are found in “the human organization of sound rather than in its natural qualities.” To elaborate, there are indeed scientific laws of sound, but music making follows no set of analogous rules. Anthropologically speaking, “music depends on pitch and rhythm, but only as they are agreed upon by the particular members of the society involved.” [3]. This culturally relativistic argument, when defining what can or cannot be considered music, is countered by the naturalistic argument, which maintains that

42 THE CULTURAL AND EVOLUTIONARY BASIS OF SOUND PERCEPTION THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

enables the expansion of social groups, and hence makes them more adaptive.” He went on to explain how the size of social groups in apes tend to be related to the amount of time spent on grooming, and how in the analogous case, time spent on music for humans enlarges social groups [7]. This enlargement enhances human survival, propagation and success.

different parameters of music such as rhythm and melody, are actually biologically ingrained. In support of the latter notion, one study by Sandra Trehub illustrated that babies are able to pick out anomalous notes in a melody innately, by responding to the speakers when an uncharacteristic sound is played. This study bolsters the theory that our understanding of relative pitches may be genetically ingrained. As a control for this experiment, several different melodies from outside of the realm of Western music were played to American babies, who were still responsive to aberrant notes [4]. Perhaps through integrating the cultural and biological aspects of music, one can infer an evolutionary significance to music that would explain its prevalence in societies around the globe. The evolutionary significance of music has been justified through several different explanations, including Darwin’s mantra of the survival of the fittest. In this explanation, the ability to perform music for males (both human, and animals) serves as a mechanism to attract the attention of females, and thus these males tend to produce the most offspring, who also posses musical ability [5]. Examples of this Darwinian concept are exhibited by the mating calls of birds, and toads, which effectively use musical sound to find partners. Furthermore, music has been shown to be a stress reliever, and can lower the brain’s production of the stress hormone cortisol. Lower levels of cortisol have been associated with heightened immune responses and reduced risk of cancer. In addition, music has been shown to ameliorate societal solidarity, ensuring the strength of a community [6]. According to David Wessel, a professor of Music Perception and Cognition at UC Berkeley, “Music

The cultural and biological aspects of music perception are important in order to understand the significance of music in society today. Music is difficult to describe using words alone because it transcends concrete boundaries and immutable reason though it’s structure is embedded in a scientific foundation. In and of itself, it is an abstract form of art and an eternal force painted on a canvas of silence that can be seen as serving an important adaptive purpose in human history. In regards to explanations for its nature, some choose to look at its differential cultural forms, while others feel that it connects humanity in a way that language or science never can. Though the evolutionary significance of music has been theorized in a variety of manners, perhaps the common thread between these is the timeless universality of music, a characteristic that has allowed it to perpetuate in communities around the world. References: [1] “Artificial Intelligence and Music Perception.” Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour Quarterly 102 (1999): 12-25. [2] Blacking, John. (1965). “The role of music in the culture of the Venda of the northern Trans-vaal,” Studies in Ethnomusicology 2:20-53. [3] Merriam, Alan P. The Anthropology of Music. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press. [4] Glausiusz, Josie. “The Genetic Mystery of Music.” Discover 1 Aug. 2001. [5] Miller, G. F. (2000). Evolution of human music through sexual selection. In N. L. Wallin, B. Merker, & S. Brown (Eds.), The origins of music. MIT Press, pp. 329-360. [6] Fukui, Hajime. 1998. The effect of music listening on testosterone secretion. J. Music Perception and Cognition 4: 10–18. [7] Wessel, David. Personal Interview. November 8, 2007.

Why Pluto Should Be Plutoed Jade Lao, The University of Melbourne After masquerading as a planet for years, Pluto has finally been reunited with its true family. However, unlike many family reunions, the aftermath of the decision has been unpeaceful, causing a revolution even beyond the world of science. During the meeting held by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague on 24 August 2006, the big question on Pluto’s real status was raised. In this official meeting known as the General Assembly, 424 professional astronomers excluded Pluto from the traditional group of planets, reclassifying it as a Kuiper Belt Object (KPO) [1]. Since then, a battle deemed the ‘Great Pluto War’ by some astronomers is being fought more fiercely than ever [17]. While the demotion of Pluto has sparked much debate within the scientific community, this article will examine why this decision was justified by giving an insight on how Pluto does not exhibit all the basic characteristics of a true planet. Named after the Greek God of the underworld by an 11-year-old girl, Pluto was discovered by a fortunate accident on 18 February 1930 [2, 3]. In the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, Clyde W. Tombaugh was searching for an object believed to be causing perturbations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. While attempting to find this object (nicknamed ‘Planet X’) Tombaugh found Pluto by accident. The search for Planet X continued but was unsuccessful – and for good reason. The calculations that a planet was causing discrepancies later turned out to be incorrect – Planet X does not exist [3]. Pluto was classified as a planet immediately due to lack to knowledge of its eccentricities back then. During the IAU General Assembly in 2006 this mistake has been acknowledged and Pluto was reclassified as a KPO [4, 5].

The story of a planet that is no longer a planet is fascinating to astronomers and the general public alike. To many it is clear that Pluto is not a planet. The most obvious reason for this is the fact that, unlike Pluto, typical planets orbit the sun close to a flat reference plane called the ecliptic [6]. Pluto’s orbit is highly inclined relative to the ecliptic – about 17.5 degrees. To picture this, imagine looking at the solar system (see figure 1) from a side-on view. The typical eight planets’ orbits are flat and therefore orbit horizontally across the sun. This horizontal line is called the ecliptic. In contrast, the orbit of Pluto is on an angle and therefore sticks out as a diagonal relative to the ecliptic. Because of this angle of orbit, during some periods of years Pluto is closer to the sun than Neptune. The extended region of Pluto’s orbit places it in the Kuiper Belt, a disk-shaped region found beyond Neptune, 4.5 to 7.5 kilometers from the sun [7]. Although the first KPO was discovered only 15 years ago, thousands more of these icy, diminutive bodies have already been found and it is believed that the Kuiper Belt is the source of some comets [7, 8]. KPOs bear many resemblances to Pluto; for example, they have similar compositions and they Figure 1 (above): The size of Pluto compared to other planets; Pluto is on the extreme right. (Source: http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/ gallery/solarsys_scale.jpg)

44 WHY PLUTO SHOULD BE PLUTOED THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

also move in eccentric orbits. It is because Pluto resembles these objects so much that the IAU was compelled to confront Pluto’s status during the General Assembly. It was felt that Pluto, who was an oddball when classified with the planets, should have the status of a KPO instead. Also, the fact that other objects in a similar situation to Pluto were not classified as planets has caused Pluto’s planetary status to be heavily contested. Ceres, discovered in 1801, was initially classified as a major planet when first discovered, however, due to the discovery of many other dwarf planets it lost its planetary status [8]. Like Ceres, Pluto should have been immediately demoted once other similar bodies were found but it was not. Furthermore, Eris, which was discovered in 2005, bears many similarities to Pluto and it is still classified as a KPO. It is strange that Pluto was classified a planet whilst Eris was not because Eris, being much larger, would have more grounds to claim the status of a planet [8]. If Pluto was not dismissed there would be argument for changing another 12 celestial bodies into planets, subjugating the current system of classification. As more objects are discovered in the Kuiper Belt, the number of planets in the Solar System may well increase to 50 due to insubstantial planetary prerequisites. In addtion, Pluto does not fit in with the two distinct types of planets in the solar system. The first type is the terrestrials which are the first four planets – they are rocky and small. The next four are the Jovian planets. They possess characteristics that are quite the opposite of terrestrial planets – Jovian planets are large and their low densities mean that they are composed of less dense materials such as liquid and gas. Any attempt to land on Jovian planets would be futile because they have no solid surface [6]. Although Pluto was a Jovian planet, its unique characteristics make it unsuitable for this category. Figure 2: Pluto with its moon Charon (Source: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog)

With an average density of about 2000 kg/m³, Pluto’s icy composition is not gaseous, but a mixture of rock and ice [18]. Its composition resembles that of a comet just like many that lie in the Kuiper Belt. It is also unusually small, being even smaller than the terrestrials [9, 6]. In fact, the diameter of our moon equals the diameters of Pluto and Charon added together [15]. As shown in Figure 1 (drawn to scale), Pluto appears as a mere dot compared to the other planets. Had astronomers known Pluto’s true size, the initial classification may have been different. The 13-inch (0.33 meters) Pluto Discovery Telescope used by Tombaugh had a very low resolution and so distant objects would appear quite blurry. The image Tombaugh saw was actually that of Charon, Pluto’s most prominent moon, merging with Pluto causing them both to appear as one object [2]. Fortunately, astronomical technology has progressed profoundly and astronomers have found that Pluto and Charon are two separate bodies. Brian Marsden of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics asserts that, “if Pluto were discovered today instead of seventy years ago, it would be considered a minor planet and given a minor planet number” [14]. The presence of Charon also presents the distinctive Pluto-Charon system. (Charon is on the right as shown in Figure 2, taken by the world-famous Hubble Space Telescope). Charon, named after the ferryman who carried the souls of the decreased in a boat, is more than half the size of Pluto [8]. No other planet has such a big moon – throughout the solar system, planets are many times more massive than any of their moons [6]. Pluto and Charon orbit around a common centre of mass, keeping the same faces towards each other [18]. This strange characteristic is unique in the solar system. Another distinguishing feature of Pluto is that its orbit is chaotic – Pluto travels in an elliptical shape while the traditional planets travel in a circular one. Even stranger is Pluto’s direction of travel which can be backwards or forwards and will eventually be unpredictable after ten to twenty million years [6]. It was with concerns pertaining Pluto’s characteristics that the IAU was obliged to establish stricter requirements for the classification of a planet. The IAU is an official organization founded in 1919 and comprises of professional astronomers worldwide. The IAU has official jurisdiction over astronomical issues such as assigning designations to celestial

WHY PLUTO SHOULD BE PLUTOED 45 MARCH 2008

bodies and setting up international standards to be referred to [1]. During the General Assembly, members of the IAU, guests and the press were present. Only members of the IAU were allowed to vote so they were given yellow cards to be raised to ensure that they would be distinguished from other guests. Through systematic voting, an official resolution was created and, according to the new definitions, for a celestial body to be classified as a planet it must meet three conditions. RESOLUTION 5A [10] A "planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun. (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape. (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.

Pluto adheres to the first two points of the declaration but not to the third as it does not clear the neighborhood around its orbit. With a diameter of merely twenty three thousand kilometers (a thousand times smaller than our Earth), Pluto is too small to have enough gravity to deflect objects out of its path. Despite the official demotion, people who support Pluto’s status as a planet are not going down without a fight. More than three hundred planetary scientists have signed a petition attacking the decision [11]. One of the arguments is that Pluto exhibits the basic structural characteristics expected of a planet, that is, it is round and it orbits the sun [12].

THE TRIPLE HELIX

planet has special characteristics which make it one of a kind in our solar system. If we classify an object as a planet too easily, this category will no longer be as valued or exclusive. Others reject the change for sentimental reasons, saying that they have always been taught that Pluto is a planet since their primary school days. For those brought up after 1930, Pluto was always a part of their celestial neighborhood [13]. However, just because we have believed something to be true for a long time, it does not mean we should reject the truth when we find that it is contradictory. We should be open to new discoveries in the face of scientific advancement. For example, people believed for a long time that the Earth is flat but we know now that this notion is entirely false. Pluto was mistakenly classified as a planet in 1930 and this mistake has simply been corrected after 76 years. With modern knowledge, the characteristics of Pluto have been found to be inconsistent with the characteristics that other planets possess. In order to extend research on this issue, astronomers at NASA have launched a spacecraft (shown in Figure 3) called New Horizons, funded by President Bush. Although this project has waited a long 13 years for funding, it was well worth it, securing US$110 million (AUS$130 million) for research. This mission means that for the first time in history, a spacecraft will visit Pluto. This spacecraft was launched on 19 January 2006 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and will fly closest

If Pluto was not dismissed there would be argument for changing another 12 celestial bodies into planets. This argument is a little bizarre because there are so many of these objects in space. If we comply with this simple requirement, there would be too many celestial objects classified as planets, including some asteroids [8]. The IAU has stated that “contemporary observations are changing our understanding of planetary systems, and it is important that our nomenclature for objects reflect our current understanding” [10]. Modern observations show us that there are many circular objects in orbit around the sun and, with time, the hundreds of others that will eventually be discovered will be classified as planets if we follow this rule. Our definition of ‘planet’ will no longer be unique. Our understanding is that a

to Pluto on 14 July 2015 [16]. This 478 kilogram spacecraft is the fastest ever launched, speeding away from Earth at approximately sixty thousand kilometers per hour on a trajectory that will take it more than four billion kilometers towards Pluto. The probe does not have enough fuel to go into orbit around Pluto so researchers will only have one chance at capturing information [11]. Dr. Colleen Hartman, Deputy Associate Administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate stated, "right now, what we know about Pluto could be written on the back of a postage stamp. After this mission, we'll be able to fill textbooks with new information” [16]. The high-resolution images and other data to be

46 WHY PLUTO SHOULD BE PLUTOED THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

Figure 3: New Horizons (Source: NASA, http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions)

returned by New Horizons promise to revolutionize our understanding of Pluto [15]. This historic mission of exploration marks yet another amazing achievement in human history. Science textbooks, dictionaries and encyclopedias will eventually have to be rewritten to implement the new resolution. The status of a celestial body may be considered insignificant to some, but our Earth is a part of this celestial neighborhood and such classifications help us to understand where we are, increasing our appreciation of our place in the vast universe [13]. Pluto is too different to be a planet and this is evident with contemporary scientific understandings. It should simply be thought of as the best-known member of the Kuiper Belt instead [6]. It is important to realize that with progressing technology, we need to be flexible in allowing change when new discoveries and revelations are made. References: [1] D. A. Weintraub, ‘Pluto, We Hardly Knew Ye (International Astronomical Union)’, The Chronicle of Higher Education (2007), 53 31; . Last accessed 20 May 2007. [2] L. McDaid, ‘Pluto Downgraded’, Skeptic (2007), 13 1, 9; . Last accessed 19 May 2007. [3] B. Arnett, ‘Pluto’, The Nine Planets (2006);
seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/pluto. html>. Last accessed 26 June 2007>. [4] L. Thompson, Pluto, (The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc, New York, 2001), p. 6. [5] A. J. Whyte, The Planet Pluto, (Pergamon Press, Canada, 1980), pp. 39, 44. 125. [6] R. A. Freedman, W. J. Kaufmann III, Universe, (W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, ed. 7, 2005), pp. 150, 350, 351. [7] NASA, ‘Kuiper Belt’, NASA (2006); . Last accessed on 25 June 2007. [8] NASA, ‘Dwarf Planets: What Defines a Planet?’, NASA (2006); . Last accessed 25 June 2007. [9] R. Cowen, ‘Nine Planets, Or Eight?’, Science News (2001), 159 23, 360; . Last accessed 21 May 2007. [10] IAU, IAU0603: IAU 2006 General Assembly: Result of the IAU Resolution Votes, IAU (2006); . Last accessed on 24 May 2007. [11] R. Monastersky, ‘The 10th Planet – Or Is It?’, The Chronicle of Higher Education (2005), 52 14, A26; . Last accessed 20 May 2007. [12] R. Schibeci, ‘Pluto is a planet: True or False?’, Teaching Science – The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association (2007), 54 1, 44; . Last accessed 21 May 2007. [13] S. Bartlett, ‘Pluto Left Out in the Cold’, The Lancet (2006), 365 9538, 828: . Last accessed on 24 May 2007. [14] R. Graham, ‘Is Pluto A Planet?’, Astronomy (1999), 27 7, 42; . Last accessed on 21 May 2007 [15] R. A. Freedman, W. J. Kaufmann III, Universe, (W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, ed. 7, 2005), pp. 150, 350, 351. [16] D. Brown, G. Diller, M. Buckley, ‘NASA’s Pluto Mission Launched Toward New Horizons’, NASA (2006); . Last accessed on 20 May 2007. [17] R. R. Britt, Why Planets Will Never Be Defined, Space.com (2006); . Last accessed on 26 July 2007. [18] R. Webster, feedback on article, University of Melbourne (2007).

Do We Need to Explore Space? Kartavya Vyas, UC San Diego

Ever since humans first pondered the mysteries contained in the blackness of space, they have dreamed of space exploration. Within only a short time, mankind has finally become able to travel comfortably in earthʼs surrounding space. Unfortunately, as missions become more numerous and affordable, the limits of what can actually be accomplished by space exploration have become clearer. Despite these limitations, funding for exploration has risen exponentially over the past decades. Given the need to address pressing social, political and economic problems here on earth, such support should be reconsidered to evaluate exactly what is being gained and lost. Why should the black vacuum of space be explored? Professor Charles G. Wilber of Kent State University answers, echoing Sir Edmund Hilary’s famous comment about why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, “The only reason for going into space is because space is there. Man has an infinite curiosity which must be satisfied.” [1] But what Wilber seems to be forgetting is that because of this curiosity, a total of twenty-seven deaths have occurred and an enormous amount of money has been consumed. [2] Especially now, with President Bush’s new “vision for human and robotic” space exploration, “A Renewed Spirit of Discovery,” the monetary costs will exceed $271 billion over the next thirteen years. [3] With the U.S. population already having passed three hundred million, the average cost for each citizen approaches a thousand dollars. With the rising threats of HIV/ AIDS, global warming, and cancer on the horizon, is such a level of funding justifiable? Some of those scientists involved in the activity argue that it is. Thus, for example, Thornton Page of Wesleyan University goes so far as to assert that raising American morale and prestige by space exploration is far more important than “accelerating the attempt to save cancer victims, or diverting scientists to the political-economic problem of reducing harmful automobile exhaust.” [4] By analyzing the history of space exploration and

by reassessing the human and economic toll it may become clearer whether such support is prudent. “On July 20, 1969, the human race accomplished its single greatest technological achievement of all time when a human first set foot on another celestial body.” [6] Venturing through space on the Apollo 11 spacecraft, Neil A. Armstrong and “Buzz” Aldrin completed a successful mission to land on one of the most captivating monuments of the night sky – the moon. [6] Without a doubt, this single event inspired men and women all across the globe. Taking advantage of many previous scientific breakthroughs, it was a leap into the heavens that at long last released mankind from long bondage to our earthly habitat. It renewed faith in mankind’s limitless capacity for what the eighteenth century philosophers called “indefinite perfectibility.” The mission was also a triumph in America’s space race with the USSR. Although the mission was well worth the expense to most Americans, some thought it extravagant at the time. Apollo 11 cost nearly $5 million in the sixties, which is equivalent to over $2 billion today. Factoring in the cost of other moon-related missions, Marcus Lindroos of the University of Arizona estimates that the total cost of American missions to land on the moon neared $100 billion. [7] When compared to other missions, the benefits of the Apollo 11 mission – raising American morale, inspiring new breakthroughs in science and preventing USSR dominance in the Cold War – may well have exceeded its costs. Like the Apollo 11 mission, there have been many others that have contributed to the progress of mankind by expanding man’s horizons and raising American morale, notably the embarkment of the Hubble Space Telescope on the Discovery mission STS-31.

48 DO WE NEED TO EXPLORE SPACE? THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

On April 24, 1990, the spacecraft Discovery was launched to deploy the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in a 380 statute-mile orbit. [8] A milestone in the effort to gain understanding of deep space, HST has proven its value through its technologically advanced lenses and the many discoveries that it has helped to produce. This revolutionary moment in history combined advancements in engineering and astronomy to build and launch this amazing telescope. Some of the discoveries that have been made include Orion Nebula images that confirm the births of planets around newborn stars, Eagle Nebula images showing where stars are born, and ‘Deep Field’ images in which Hubble peered back in time more than 10 billion years (revealing at least 1,500 galaxies at various stages of development). [9] In retrospect, the value of the many advances that have been made in science through the implementation of the Hubble Space Telescope can be seen as worth the expenditures. Nevertheless, in analyzing the success of NASA’s progress through time, one must not forget its failures, which have cost not only large amounts of money but also human lives. One of the most tragic of all American missions was the Apollo-Saturn 204 mission, Apollo 1. On January 27, 1967, while performing routine tests and preparations in a command module three astronauts died due to a flash fire. [5] Although it is impossible to assign a monetary value to the lives of three Americans, their deaths amount to a cost that must be weighed against the advancement of our knowledge of earth’s surroundings. Because the Apollo

killed seventy-five seconds after liftoff, when an Oring seal in part of the rocket booster failed [8]. Clearly, the deaths of seven Americans are hard if not impossible to justify. But the official comment at the time helps explain why space exploration has endured for so long despite the criticisms. NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin took the occasion of the tragedy to reaffirm the commitment to explore space despite the human cost: The best way to honor the memories of the crew of the Challenger, and of all the men and women who have given their lives to explore the frontiers of air and space, is to continue their bold tradition of exploration and innovation. That’s what the people of NASA do every day. They push the boundaries of knowledge and human endeavor to improve and enrich life on Earth today and secure a better future for all of us tomorrow. [9] Although this statement is inspirational to many, some may still question: how exactly NASA helps “improve and enrich” mankind’s life. [9] Without a doubt, NASA scientists have contributed much through research in the fields of pharmacy, agriculture, medicine, and engineering. And there have been instances where the knowledge directly gained from exploring space has been used to improve human life. Nonetheless, the financial investment in exploring space could have been used more effectively if it had been devoted to research in curing human disease or stopping global warming.

Factoring in the cost of other moon-related missions, Marcus Lindroos of the University of Arizona estimates that the total cost of American missions to land on the moon neared $100 billion. mission cost $23.190 billion and NASA’s scheduling drawbacks cost an additional $472 million, Apollo 1 struck hard and deep into the hearts and pockets of American citizens. [5] In spite of the escalating human death toll due to space missions, especially those involving the space shuttle, the government continued to subsidize NASA’s projects. Along with continued progress over the next few decades, the costs have mounted both in money and human lives. The Challenger mission 51-L will always be seen as a great catastrophe and a dramatic case in point for critics of space exploration. On January 28, 1986, all seven members of the Challenger space craft were

Such considerations have not deterred our political leaders. President George W. Bush apparently feels that it is more essential to inspire the next generation of innovators and scientists than to help alleviate human suffering. In early 2004, President Bush initiated his “Renewed Spirit of Discovery” program. The fundamental goal of this platform is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program. [10] It bears repeating that the total cost of such an endeavor, a cost that President Bush feels that American taxpayers should bear, nears $271 billion.

DO WE NEED TO EXPLORE SPACE? 49 MARCH 2008

THE TRIPLE HELIX

ernment does support research in almost every field imaginable, some still argue that the expenditures of the space administration far exceed the beneficial results. Those who take this position contend that, the more immediate problems of the human population should have higher priority.

Despite what many would consider a fantastic sum, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) warns that NASA, “like other agencies, is being asked to do more with less.” [11] Such comments make one wonder whether this gigantic subsidy is being used haphazardly, even though President Bush has specifically earmarked the funds for missions to the moon, for completing the international space station, and for preparing human missions to Mars. The case for this expenditure is admittedly impressive. It will undoubtedly produce tremendous advances in knowledge and innovation. And yet, some will surely argue that with rising international conflicts, border security issues, human disease, and questions of global warming, such funding is misplaced. Of all the human diseases that affect the American population, cancer has risen to be one of the most dangerous. “Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease,” said HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. [12] And while government spending on cancer research has increased over the years, it is dwarfed by the amount of funding given to space exploration. Similarly, government spending on researching the international killers known as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) was merely $2.2 billion in 2001. [13] In addition, some may argue that with so many reputable scientists becoming actively concerned about the environment, global warming demands more funding for research and preventive regulations. According to MIT Professor Richard S. Lindzen, recent estimates put the financial funding from the government to help alleviate global climate warming near $2.2 billion. [14] Despite the fact that the gov-

What is gained and lost by space missions obviously varies from one flight to the next. The Apollo 1 and Challenger missions can be viewed as tremendous losses while the Apollo 11 and Discovery missions created a new perspective of human life on earth and renewed the human mission to understand the universe. In the end, each of us must decide how to arrive at a balanced understanding of what is at stake. There is no easy answer to the question of whether space exploration is worth the cost. Nonetheless, the answer lies in what each individual American citizen sees as being prudent and essential for not only the progress of mankind, but also his own sustainability. References: [1] C. G. Wilber, BioScience 14 30 (1964). [2] Foxnews.com Timeline: Deaths in History of Space Exploration (2003). [3] D. Arthur, A. Ramsay, and R. Samanta Roy, A Budgetary Analysis of NASA’s New Vision for Space Exploration. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5 772&sequence=0&from=0 (September 2004). [4] T. Page, Science 172 424 (1971). [5] S. Garber. Apollo 1 (204). http://history.nasa.gov/ Apollo204/ (6] S. Garber Apollo 11: 30th Anniversary. http:// history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/introduction.htm [7] M. Lindroos. The Cost of the Moon Race: $100 Billion to Land on the Moon. http://seds.lpl.arizona. edu/spaceviews/9607/articles.html [8] J. Dumoulin. STS-31 (35). http://science.ksc.nasa. gov/shuttle/missions/sts-31/mission-sts-31.html [9] V. Stathopoulos, Hubble Space Telescope History. http://www.aerospaceguide.net/spacehistory/hubblehistory.html [10] G. W. Bush, A Renewed Spirit of Discovery. http:// www.whitehouse.gov/space/renewed_spirit.html [11] The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 2007 Budget Proposes Gains in Defense, Space and Some Physical Sciences R&D, Cuts in Other Programs. http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ prev07p.pdf [12] National Cancer Institute. Number of Cancer Survivors Growing According to New Report. http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/ MMWRCancerSurvivorship [13] U.S. Department of State. U.S. Government Support for the Fight Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2001/3547. htm [14] R. S. Lindzen, Global Warming. http://liberalorder. typepad.com/the_liberal_order/2007/03/global_ warming.html

The E.O. Wilson Model for successful engagement between religious and scientific communities

Richard Milford, Arizona State University While the culture wars between science and religion continue to play out in popular books, culture journals and other media [1, 2], relatively little attention is given to leaders of scientific and religious communities who have attempted to reach out to engage the “opposing camp” in constructive dialogue. Harvard biologist E.O Wilson, with his latest book The Creation, is one such ground-breaker. With this publication, which takes the form of a letter to a hypothetical Southern Baptist pastor, Wilson successfully begins a conversation with his audience concerning the enormous value of the world’s biodiversity and the dire need to alleviate the current ecological crisis posed by its rapid decline. In contrast to other well-known “secular” or science-based authors concerned with religion, such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, Wilson’s methods for engagement are a breath of fresh air in a cultural climate typically filled with reactionary, ideological angst. The numerous challenges facing

the world today require that communities of widely diverse cultural backgrounds learn ways of working together to tackle them [3]. Whereas Harris and Dawkins have avoided any significant attempts to grapple with the challenges of cross-cultural interaction, Wilson has succeeded in encouraging an amicable response from religious communities at large, enabling him to pursue continued engagement with them. A brief analysis of his methods allows for the construction of a framework for dialogue which should characterize future engagements between these communities.

THE E.O. WILSON MODEL 51 MARCH 2008

Before discussing the model for dialogue Wilson provides in The Creation, some of what these other authors have said deserves brief attention. Richard Dawkins, famed scientist and aggressive proponent of atheism [4], addresses the issues of religious life which trouble him by assessing them in Darwinian terms. Due to his immersion in scientific culture, he finds himself able to critique religion as an aspect of human existence which is “time-consuming, wealthconsuming, hostility-provoking” and “fecundity forfeiting” [5]. Sam Harris also criticizes religious

THE TRIPLE HELIX

in creating a foundation for mutual discourse with a community very different from his own. This foundation, he argues, can be built around a common notion of stewardship for “the Creation”. A key component of Wilson’s method for engagement is his transparent self-reflexivity, indicating a sincere desire to find common ground with his Christian audience. Throughout the book, it seems he is willing to learn from those he addresses. Towards the end of The Creation, Wilson points out: “My foundation of reference has been the cul-

Perhaps through integrating the cultural and biological aspects of music, one can infer an evolutionary significance to music that would explain its prevalence in societies around the globe. communities from the standpoint of secular humanism grounded in the scientific tradition. In his latest book, Letter to a Christian Nation, Harris makes little attempt to find common ground with his audience. As a result, Harris’ Letter ends up being another polemical work rather than an effort to constructively engage religious communities in order to address problems within. The essence of Harris’ message is neatly summarized in his statement: “Let us be honest with ourselves: in the fullness of time [emphasis my own], one side is really going to win this argument, and the other side is really going to lose” [6]. Here, Harris utilizes Christian language [7] to mock the community he addresses, rather than using this vocabulary as a tool for finding common ground or promoting dialogue. In his Letter, Harris expresses the need for public discourse, but only on the grounds that nothing “flagrantly irrational” (read: religious) enter into the conversation. Needless to say, the millions of Christians and billions of other religious adherents living in the world today would not be able to partake in Harris’ ideal conference. In the midst of such antagonistic writing, Wilson emerges as a voice of secular humanism, strongly backed by the authority of the scientific method, which calmly articulates a way to bridge the wide chasm between polarized religious and scientific communities. To the hypothetical pastor he asserts: “I suggest that we put aside our differences in order to save the Creation. The defense of living Nature is a universal value. It doesn’t rise from, nor does it promote, any religious or ideological dogma; rather, it serves without discrimination the interests of all humanity” [8]. Here, Wilson takes his first steps

ture of science and some of secularism based on science, as I understand them.” This relatively humble acknowledgment of one’s existential background, especially when compared to Dawkins’ using his own worldview as a platform for ridicule, is likely to encourage a similar mindset in those who are being addressed. Wilson’s honesty in acknowledging his background and its potential flaws extends to a similar transparency in his open expression of criticism for the Baptist community. Wilson notes, Our leaders, including those of the great religions, have done little to protect the living world in the midst of its sharp decline. They have ignored the command of the Abrahamic God on the fourth day of the world’s birth to ‘let the waters teem with countless living creatures, and let birds fly over the land across the vault of heaven.’ [8] This passage reveals that Wilson, just as Dawkins and Harris, is not afraid to criticize the very community he is reaching out to. It also, however, demonstrates a unique element of his method: he does so in the language of that community itself rather than the vocabulary of secular humanism as articulated by others such as Harris. Clearly, Wilson holds that scientists and religious communities can work together without being afraid of offering sincere yet constructive criticism. Wilson’s attempt at dialogue with the Baptist community through The Creation has already yielded positive results. Dr Albert Mohler, presi-

52 THE E.O. WILSON MODEL THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

dent of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, recently posted a response to Wilson’s book on his website. He takes note of Wilson’s self-awareness in proposing an alliance for ecological conservation, saying: “To his great credit, Professor Wilson acknowledges the radical divergence of worldviews that is at stake here” [9]. Surprisingly, Wilson’s honesty about the radical differences between his version of secular humanism and Baptist Christianity elicited a grateful rather than reactive response. Mohler ends his posting as follows: This may shock Dr. Wilson, but I really think he is on to something here. A biblical environmentalism begins with the fact that the world is the arena of God’s glory... we will answer to the Creator for our use and enjoyment of the created order, and for our stewardship of the earth and all that is within it. This surely includes the glory of God revealed in what Professor Wilson calls ‘biodiversity’. [9] Clearly, Wilson’s effort to establish a conversation with the Baptist community is a success. One may even posit that Mohler’s use of the term ‘biodiversity’ reflects an attempt from the religious end of the conversation to affirm the scientist’s efforts. Such constructive open discourse between religious and scientific communities is quite provocative and indicates that Wilson has successfully engaged the Baptist community by holding them accountable to their own Biblical values of stewardship. While Mohler admits that there are significant differences between his and Wilson’s understanding of the issues at hand [10], one must acknowledge the significance of the fact that this exchange has been able to take place within a culture so strongly divided by ideology and worldview. Wilson’s actions have demonstrated that a new kind of interaction between scientific and religious communities is possible, and it is important that leaders in both communities recognize his methods and their ability to facilitate a potentially fruitful, long-lasting conversation. The context of a conflict-ridden global situation presents the challenges of not only environmental concerns but also the threats of terrorism, war, the dire poverty of the Third World, and the upcoming ethical concerns of the nanotech revolution, to name a few. As concerned human beings, it is simply not effective to engage in polemics to solve these issues. The

success of Wilson’s example through his initiation of a conversation which continues today [10] provides the hope that common groundings can be established cross-culturally. Ideally, this will better facilitate the formulation of practical solutions for some of these concerns in an inclusive, non-alienating manner. While authors favoring a more polemical style from the scientific camp have been mentioned here, there are certainly religiously-inclined authors who favor similar approaches to the religion-science divide. It is important to note that Wilson’s methods for engagement can be used both ways. More moderate religious leaders, for example, can use them to address concerns with scientific practices. As the World Council of Churches has demonstrated [11], considerable concerns with issues of science as they relate to social welfare exist in religious communities who may lack the proper tools to engage those responsible for policy decisions. Wilson’s model could be effective in enabling them to have a voice in policy arenas normally reserved for the scientific and political elite. Regardless of who initiates the conversation between the proponents of religion and science, this framework is much more effective for addressing tensions between scientific and religious communities than the alienating polemics of the current cultural atmosphere. References:

[1] Bainbridge, W. in Foresight, Innovation, and Strategy: Toward a Wiser Future. (World Future Society, 2005). [2] Neuhaus, R.J. “Science, Religion, and Volleyball.” First Things Magazine. (1994). [3] Conroy, D, Peterson, R. (Earth at Risk: an Environmental Dialogue Between Religion and Science. (Humanity Books, Amherst, 2000). [4] Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. (Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 2006). [5] Dawkins, R. “What use is religion?” Free Inquiry Magazine. 24, 5 (2004). [6] Harris, S. Letter to a Christian Nation. (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2006). [7] Ephesians 1:10, KJV. [8] Wilson, E.O. The Creation. (W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 2006), pp 3,10,165. [9] Mohler, A. “Ready for this? Harvard’s E.O. Wilson Writes to an Imaginary Southern Baptist Pastor.” Posted August 30th, 2006. http://www.albertmohler.com/ blog_read.php?id=754. Accessed May 27th, 2007. [10] Mohler, A. “Common ground on Creation? The E.O. Wilson Interview.” Posted November 29, 2 0 0 6 . http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=826. Accessed May 27th, 2007. [11] World Council of Churches and World Association for Christian Communication. “Science, Faith, and New Technologies: Transforming Life”. Volume I and II. Discussion-Document by the Working Group on Genetic Engineering of the Justice, Peace and Creation Team.

Chinaʼs economic

and environmental footprints in Africa Caroline Lee, University of Georgetown

The advent of the Peopleʼs Republic of China (PRC) as an economic juggernaut is no secret in the twentyfirst century. A large land possessing a massive labor force, China has maintained rapid economic growth for over a decade and surpassed the likes of England, France, and Italy in that span. As of 2006, the PRC trails behind only the United States, Japan, and Germany in total gross domestic product, according to the World Bank [1]. This elevated status has pushed China into the political and economic limelight, its every move often scrutinized by the rest of the globe. Thus, it is not surprising that its increased involvement in Africa has recently raised warning flags in Western awareness with regards to the PRC’s non-interference policies, human rights issues, and the environmental impacts of its actions in the region. Already reputed as environmentally careless at home, many fear that China’s escalating extraction of oil and other resources within Africa as well as its involvement in various infrastructure projects leave foreboding consequences in store for African lands and in turn, the African people. Although Chinese involvement in Africa has fluctuated since the 1950s, the PRC has recently refocused its attentions towards the developing continent. In the last ten years, the Asian powerhouse has strengthened its economic and diplomatic relationships with Africa, mostly under the radar of the rest of the world. China’s aims in these associations are straightforward: to help satisfy its immense demand for natural resources; to expand Chinese manufactured goods into new markets; and to gain strategic

political alliances [2]. A so-called “soft target,” Africa emerges as a prime candidate in pursuing these goals. The vast continent remains relatively unexploited in comparison to other developing regions due to the political, economic, and social instability that has reigned there for centuries [3]. Its relative lack of suitors has provided China the opportunity to pursue African oil, timber, various mineral resources and other materials as well as its business and political good graces. Instability has also perpetuated the widespread corruption of African governments and poor management of its development, a flaw which China has been able to work to its advantage [2, 3]. In turn, China’s non-interference terms and general disinterest in incorporating obligatory political strings in its dealings are found attractive by its African partners, especially in comparison to Western proposals which are often coupled with strict demands that are meant to help combat poverty and promote development within the region.

Oil Extraction Due to a combination of skyrocketing demands for energy, lack of domestic resources, and a move away from their use of inefficient and polluting coal, China has turned to petroleum sources abroad. The nation is now the second largest importer of African

54 CHINAʼS ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINTS IN AFRICA THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

oil after the US, accounting for about a quarter of the oil the PRC imports. This amount increased more than 71% between 2003 and 2005, supplied by the Sudan, Angola, Nigeria, Chad, Libya, Algeria, and Gabon [2, 4].

eral human health. Nigeria contributes 16% of the world’s flared gas, more than any other country in the world, while Africa as a whole contributes 34%. While Chinese oil production in Nigeria is still exceeded by Western companies like Shell,

Already reputed as environmentally careless at home, many fear that Chinaʼs escalating extraction of oil and other resources within Africa as well as its involvement in various infrastructure projects leave foreboding consequences in store for African lands and in turn, the African people. Africa’s lax governance combined with China’s lack of pressure on its firms to exercise good corporate policing and social responsibility has led to various corrupt and environmentally careless practices in the countries where China obtains oil. In Gabon, Chinese state-owned oil company Sinopec was discovered illegally prospecting for oil in Loango National Park in 2006. The park accounts for 11% of the country’s territory and protects extensive coastal habitats and wildlife from all extractive and destructive industrial activities. The company had begun dynamiting and clearing forest without performing an official environmental impact study. It was only after the issue was brought to media attention by a US conservation group that the Gabonese government ordered Sinopec to halt its activities [3, 5].

ExxonMobil, and ChevronTexaco, its increasing presence there and throughout Africa has no doubt exacerbated this problem [7].

Corrupt practices aside, further problems arise in the harvesting of African oil. In Nigeria, Chinese state-controlled firms have made considerable investments in recent years to procure petroleum from the region, spending billions on controlling stakes in oil fields and refineries [2, 6]. However, oil

A prime example of a project gone awry is the Merowe Dam in the Sudan, primarily funded by the Chinese. When initiated in 2003, surrounding communities were supportive of the venture because it would meet the great need for electricity in the region. However, with poor implementation and failure

Infrastructure Projects Aid has also been proven to play a significant role in the agreements between China and Africa. In 2006, China distributed $5.75 billion throughout the continent in the form of loans, debt forgiveness, and other forms of financial investment. In addition, funding and support of infrastructure are other important offerings in China’s arsenal to foster good relations and trade with Africa. These projects ranging from railway development to the construction of thermal power plants, oil facilities, and dams are meant to benefit the people and countries: however, they can cause more harm than good [8].

In wooing Africa with the promise of economic investment, China is often accused of practicing a brand of twenty-first century colonialism to pursue its own interests. production in Nigeria is generally coupled with the flaring of associated gas found in its oil fields, the easiest solution in isolating the lucrative petroleum product, which results in a wasted 2.2 billion standard cubic feet of gas per day. The consequences of flared gas include significant carbon dioxide emissions as well as the release of a harmful mixture of more than 250 toxins into the atmosphere which is believed to contribute to acid rain production and the deterioration of crops, livestock, and gen-

to meet both Chinese and Sudanese environmental standards, which in themselves are considered sub par, locals were forced to relocate to surrounding desert areas [8]. There is a glaring lack of legitimate environmental assessments released concerning the construction of the dam, and the few that exist fail to address many important issues. One such matter is the possibility of sediment accumulation and its impact on downstream farming communities. These farms depend on the mineral nutrients provided by

CHINAʼS ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINTS IN AFRICA 55 MARCH 2008

THE TRIPLE HELIX

the river during the country’s annual floods, raising the question of a potential decline in local agriculture with the dam’s construction. In addition, lowered oxygen levels in the water are a similar worry for their possible effects on aquatic ecosystems [9]. As a result, issues that have arisen from such projects have made many wary of similar undertakings in consideration elsewhere within Africa [10].

What Can Be Done In wooing Africa with the promise of economic investment, China is often accused of practicing a brand of twenty-first century colonialism to pursue its own interests. Some believe this trend mirrors the West’s own actions within Africa in the past and even the present. But there are important differences: the PRC lacks freedom of the press, and nongovernmental watchdogs play an insignificant role in influencing the decisions and policies of the Chinese administration [3]. Hence, there is relatively little that Chinese citizens can do to influence a change in policy abroad in Africa. However, China has slowly become more conscious of its global prominence and consequently, more sensitive of foreign criticism. This is evidenced in its very public campaign to reduce carbon emissions to an acceptable level prior to the Beijing Olympics in 2008. If pressured economically or politically, crucial changes in its conduct in Africa may be possible. A key concern is the need for transparency in the transactions among the Chinese players and African governments. Encouragement to sign initiatives and make policies which mandate and enforce complete transparency with regards to its environmental practices would help prevent pollution and the overexploitation of the natural resources China seeks as well as ensure the quality execution of projects that are supposed to benefit the African peoples [5]. Even with transparency among some parties, however, the rampant corruption that persists among African governments combined with the debilitating lack of money and development may allow environmental conditions to continue declining. Furthermore, China’s no-strings-attached policies in dealing with African nations will continue to entice, especially when considered against the onerous social obligations that are often included in Western-African agreements. Counter measures such as offers of heightened economic aid and investment by the US and other nations and increased

global awareness of the African environmental situation may be the only other options to help quell an intensifying environmental problem. Thus, unless a fundamental change is made in the PRC’s policies, the African people could eventually be stranded with destroyed lands and a continued stagnancy in their poor quality of life. References:

{1} “GDP 2006,” World Bank World Development Indicators database (2007; http://siteresources.worldbank. org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf). [2] J. Eisenman, in China and the Developing World, J. Eisenman, E. Heginbotham, D. Mitchell, Eds. (M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York, 2007), pp. 29-59. [3] H. French, African Affairs, 106, 422, 127-132 (2006). [4] M. Chan-Fishel, in African Perspectives on China in Africa, F. Manji, S. Marks, Eds. (Fahamu, Cape Town, 2007, pp. 139-152.) [5] E. Economy, K. Monaghan, International Herald Tribune, 1 November 2006. [6] C. Timberg, Washington Post, 1 May 2006. [7] Environmental Rights Action, Climate Justice Programme, Gas Flaring In Nigeria: A Human Rights, Environmental and Economic Monstrosity (2005; http:// www.climatelaw.org/cases/country/nigeria/cases/casedocuments/nigeria/report/gas.flaring.in.nigeria.html). [8] L. Ellis, China Exim Bank in Africa (China Environment Forum, Woodrow Wilson Int. Cent. for Scholars, 2007, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/ index.cfm?topic_id=1421&fuseaction=topics.event_ summary&event_id=224956) [9] J. Giles, Nature 440, 393-394 (2006). [10] “Environmental groups warn of dangers posed by Chinese-funded projects in Africa,” Associated Press, 14 May 2007.

How much sleep did you get last night? Perhaps you had an essay you had to finish, or a book you just couldnʼt put down. Or there was a party you couldnʼt miss. Or maybe you were travelling through the night in our 24-hour society, catching a plane, driving from city to city, waiting for a connection, a taxi, a train. Chances are you didnʼt get enough. And you probably donʼt care.

The stuff of nightmares The Institute of Medicine in America has recently published ‘Sleep Disorders and Sleep Deprivation: An Unmet Public Health Problem’ which estimates that 50-70 million Americans do not get enough sleep. The report remarks that our generation has become increasingly health-savvy. We know about cardiovascular disease, cancer, cholesterol levels, sun exposure, oily fish, vitamin E, free radicals and antioxidants, all the latest buzzwords of health. We know about eating the right foods, breathing clean air, doing enough exercise, keeping our brains active into old age, boosting our immune system and getting our vitamins. But not getting enough sleep doesn’t seem like a big deal. When there are 101 things to do, sleep is the last thing on the list. But what is it doing to your health?

A brief history of sleep At least 30% of each of our lives is spent sleeping: an average Westerner slumbers 20 years of their life away. Sleep, in some form, is common to all animals. Even flies feel the lack of sleep, with levels of rest rising significantly on a night following disruptions [1]. Yet sleep has long remained mysterious, a strange paradox: alternately marvelled at as the conduit of gods (who obviously send divine messages through the medium of dreams), or denigrated as ‘mere oafish sleep’, ‘insensible sleep’ - necessary but undignified.

Throughout history, sleep has been widely perceived as purely for rest: to rest the muscles and the mind after a hard day’s work; to keep us safely idle in the dark and away from predators. This simplistic view of sleep went largely unchallenged up to the 19th century. Though it was understood even by Hippocrates that sleep could be used as a diagnostic measure, links made with specific maladies were tenuous and remedies ranged from the ineffective to the truly bizarre [2]. Quality of sleep was simply connected to physical activity, good morals and a good life, and vice versa: “Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.” Electrophysiology, histology and improvements in dissection techniques in the late 19th and 20th century improved our understanding of the mechanisms of sleep but only increased the controversy over its purpose [3]. Pioneering work by Moruzzi and Magoun who performed pontine transections in cats discovered the existence of endogenous ‘oscillators’ in the brainstem promoting sleep/wake cycling [4]. Work on circadian zeitgebers (literally ‘time-givers’ – signals which regulate our internal clock) has established the importance of exogenous signals, in particular light, in entraining our sleep/wake cycle, our hormonal secretions, our daily physiological variations to a 24-hour day, and

THE STUFF OF NIGHTMARES 57 MARCH 2008

how influential these cycles are on our health [5]. Electroencephalography (EEG), which measures electrical activity in the brain, has allowed scientists to look inside our minds during sleep, dividing sleep into distinct phases distinguished by wave patterns. We have even dissected the stuff of dreams, finding beta waves (also seen in the waking brain) during REM sleep, a stage of sleep characterised by rapid eye movements and associated with dream reports

THE TRIPLE HELIX

patients experience shifts in sleeping pattern with their mood swings. Lack of sleep decreases our ability to cope, leading to emotional outbursts and breakdowns [8]. Disruptions to the circadian cycle are equally influential. Now, more than ever, we live according to the dictates of an artificial time-frame and a constantly waking society. Studies in night-shift workers have shown that lack of a strong zeitgeber (such as

Now, more than ever, we live according to the dictates of an artificial time-frame and a constantly waking society upon sudden waking. There is also stronger activity in the pons (in the brainstem), the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus (LGN) and occipital cortex, a part of the brain associated with vision, and an increase in brain temperature and metabolism [4]. We understand more about the mechanisms of sleep than ever, but not its ultimate purpose. It is true that sleep improves concentration, memory and creativity: ‘flashes of insight’ [6] into patterns, rules and hidden causes are more frequent and profound after sleep. However, general performance, in terms of memory, cognition, motor skills and so on are increased overall by only 15% [6]. Not great enough, some scientists claim, to outweigh the costs of sleep – 8 hours of paralysis, bereft of socialising, interacting, exploring, or learning. Add to the fact that cats deprived of REM sleep display signs of psychosis [4] and eventually die and one suspects there is more going on than simply optimising performance.

natural light) are linked to poor performance, mood and metabolic disorders, and of course, sleep disruptions. A lack of understanding about the maturation of our personal cycles during puberty means adolescents are forced to get out of bed early to go to school in poorly-lit classrooms (particularly true in winter) while their cycles may be advocating exactly the opposite behaviour. Would moving school times later in the day improve concentration, education and subsequent results? Perhaps. Society, however, demands ruthless efficiency. Research has shown that regulating our sleep/wake cycles to match social time with alarms, caffeine, nightcaps and sleeping pills is linked (predictably) to metabolic disorders, mood disorders, poorer performance and poor concentration [5]. Our general lifestyle too, fosters problems: television exposure, for example, has been tentatively linked to sleep disruptions in children (though the effect does not seem to be a strong one) [9,10].

We understand more about the mechanisms of sleep than ever, but not its ultimate purpose A sleepless society

Drugs and sleep

So what is your lifestyle doing to you? Our knowledge is incomplete, but we do know that lack of sleep contributes to a variety of health problems. In addition to the obvious dangers of falling asleep on the road or whilst operating machinery, insufficient sleep causes weight gain, mood shifts, irritability, decreased motor, cognitive and visual performance, poor concentration, poor memory and reduced immunity [7]. Changes in sleep pattern are strongly correlated with neurological disorders. Indeed, sleep deprivation is used to simulate depression in rodents. Parkinson’s patients often have disturbed sleep, as do schizophrenics. Bipolar

According to the National Institute of Health: ‘At least 40 million Americans each year suffer from chronic, long-term sleep disorders each year, and an additional 20 million experience occasional sleeping problems’, costing $16 billion each year [11]. Yet instead of encouraging us to adopt more natural behaviours, science offers us new wonder drugs to reduce our need for sleep. To modern society, sleep has become an unfortunate need, to be eliminated as soon as possible. Modafinil, developed to fight narcolepsy, was originally used by soldiers to stay awake during long missions, and now been marketed for use against

58 THE STUFF OF NIGHTMARES THE TRIPLE HELIX

MARCH 2008

narcolepsy and sleep-shift disorders. It is thought to inhibit the reuptake of noradrenaline and reduce GABAergic (inhibitory) transmission. In the same family, Nuvigil is being tested to combat sleep disruptions engendered by bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, Parkinson’s and cancer. CX717 is an ampakine (a member of a group of drugs thought to work by facilitating glutamate transmission). Developed by Cortex Pharmaceuticals, CX717 been shown to counteract the effects of sleep deprivation in monkeys (though recent studies show it lacks effect in night-shift workers). On the other hand, Z-drugs such as Ambien have been promoted as excellent, non-narcotic, hypnotic sleep-inducing drugs, without the side effects of benzodiazepines and with maximal efficacy. Since 2001, Ambien has been the most prescribed sleep agent for insomnia [12], and there are clamours for these drugs to be made available over the counter, despite some disturbing sideeffects. Reported side-effects of Ambien include: visual and auditory hallucinations, bizarre changes in personality or behaviour, disinhibition and aggression, and complex behaviours such as ‘sleep-driving’ with amnesia after the event [13]. We are rapidly moving into an era where sleep may be controlled at whim, regardless of natural cues; our

cycles moulded to fit the most convenient working day. What will the consequences be for our society – and our bodies? No one really knows, yet the neversleeping machine rolls on, and we roll with it. References: [1] R Huger, SL Hill et al Sleep 15, 628 (2004) [2] Hippocrates (attrib.) Hippocratic Writings (Penguin Books Ltd, UK 1983) [3] M. M. Steriade, R. W. McCarley, Brain Control of Wakefulness and Sleep (Springer, 2nd ed. 2005) [4] E.R. Kandel, J.H. Schwatz, T.M. Jessell, Principles of Neuroscience (McGraw-Hill Medical, 4 ed, 2000) [5] R. Foster, L. Kreitzman, Rhythms of Life (Profile Books Ltd, 2004) [6] G. Miller, Science 315, 1360 (2007) [7] S.M.W. Rajaratnam, J. Arendt The Lancet 357(9286),p999 (September 2001), [8] BA Schindler Academic Medicine. 81(1)p27 (January 2006) [9] J Owens, R Maxim et al Paediatrics 104(3)p27 (Sep 1999) [10] E J Paavonen, M Pennonen et al Journal of Sleep Research 15 p154 (June 2006) [11] ‘Understanding Sleep’, NIH http://www.ninds.nih. gov/disorders/brain_basics/understanding_sleep.htm [12] Press release, Verispan (May 22, 2007 Yardley, Pa.) [13] Sanofi-Aventis product information, Warnings/ Precautions http://products.sanofi-aventis.us/ambien/ ambien.pdf

The Triple Helix of the University of Melbourne would like to sincerely thank the following sponsors their their generous and continued support: MIT Chartering and Agency National University of Singapore The Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne and The University of Melbourne