trait « Berman Institute Bioethics Bulletin

Features

News roundups

Announcements

Authenticity under Fire

June 24, 2019

Researchers are calling into question authenticity as a scientifically viable concept

Quick Read

Authenticity is one of the most valued characteristics in our society. As children we are taught to just “be ourselves”, and as adults we can choose from a large number of self-help books that will tell us how important it is to get in touch with our “real self”. It’s taken as a given by everyone that authenticity is a real thing and that it is worth cultivating.

Even the science of authenticity has surged in recent years, with hundreds of journal articles, conferences, and workshops. However, the more that researchers have put authenticity under the microscope, the more muddied the waters of authenticity have become. Many common ideas about authenticity are being overturned. Turns out, authenticity is a real mess.

…continue reading ‘Authenticity under Fire’

Thumb image via Scientific American – Stanislaw Pytel Getty Images

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Scientific American

Why Making A ‘Designer Baby’ Would Be Easier Said Than Done

May 3, 2019

The concern is largely ethical. The reality is that biologists probably couldn’t produce designer babies even if they wanted to

Quick Read

Why Making A ‘Designer Baby’ Would Be Easier Said Than Done

Friday, May 3rd, 2019

Leaders of the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy sent a letter on April 24 to Alex Azar, the secretary of health and human services, adding their voices to the call for a moratorium on experiments that could alter the genes passed down to future generations.

This move follows a widely criticized experiment in China last year that apparently produced children with edited genomes.

The concern is largely ethical. The reality is that biologists probably couldn’t produce designer babies even if they wanted to.

…continue reading ‘Why Making A ‘Designer Baby’ Would Be Easier Said Than Done’

Image via Flickr Some rights reserved by Rosa Menkman

Be the first to like.

Unlike

NPR Shots

How Scientists Are Learning to Predict your Future with your Genes

August 24, 2018

But what are the limits?

Quick Read

How Scientists Are Learning to Predict your Future with your Genes

Friday, August 24th, 2018

When the Human Genome Project — the massive endeavor to map all the genes that make humans human — was completed in 2003, scientists were elated.

Finally, they thought, it would be possible to find genes that cause or contribute to devastating diseases like diabetes. And, they thought, it would be relatively simple. In 2004, Francis Collins, a key collaborator on the project and now the head of the National Institutes of Health, said he expected there would be 12 genes for Type 2 diabetes, “and that all of them will be discovered in the next two years.”

…continue reading ‘How scientists are learning to predict your future with your genes’

image By Zephyris at the English language Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5971161

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Vox

Neural Network Learns to Identify Criminals by Their Faces

November 23, 2016

The effort aimed at identifying criminals from their mugshots raises serious ethical issues about how we should use artificial intelligence

Quick Read

Neural Network Learns to Identify Criminals by Their Faces

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2016

Soon after the invention of photography, a few criminologists began to notice patterns in mugshots they took of criminals. Offenders, they said, had particular facial features that allowed them to be identified as law breakers.

One of the most influential voices in this debate was Cesare Lombroso, an Italian criminologist, who believed that criminals were “throwbacks” more closely related to apes than law-abiding citizens. He was convinced he could identify them by ape-like features such as a sloping forehead, unusually sized ears and various asymmetries of the face and long arms. Indeed, he measured many subjects in an effort to prove his view although he did not analyze his data statistically.

This shortcoming eventually led to his downfall. Lombroso’s views were discredited by the English criminologist Charles Goring, who statistically analyzed the data relating to physical abnormalities in criminals versus noncriminals. He concluded that there was no statistical difference.

Image: Some rights reserved by crackdog

Be the first to like.

Unlike

MIT Technology Review

Is Pessimism Really Bad For You?

November 21, 2016

A new study links a dark outlook with greater risk of death from heart disease. But being grumpy might help you in old age

Quick Read

Is Pessimism Really Bad For You?

Monday, November 21st, 2016

The glass can be half-full, or it can be half-empty, depending on your outlook on life – or on which side of the bed you get out of any particular morning. But can optimism or indeed pessimism really affect your health?

It’s been a bone of contention for many years, and the issue has spawned a plethora of self-help guides on how to be “positive”, especially in the face of serious illness. But the scientific evidence in support of a sunny disposition is contentious, contradictory and controversial.

The latest study comes from Finland, a land not noted for its joie de vivre. The conclusion of this research, published last week in BMC Public Health, found that pessimism was associated with an increased risk of death from coronary heart disease.

Image: By S nova – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glass_Half_Full_bw_1.JPG, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=36493740

Be the first to like.

Unlike

The Guardian

Forget About Designer Babies

December 7, 2015

Gene editing won’t work on complex traits like intelligence

Quick Read

Forget About Designer Babies

Monday, December 7th, 2015

This week, scientists gathered in Washington, DC for the International Summit on Human Gene Editing to discuss a technology called CRISPR-CAS9, which can insert, remove and change the DNA of basically any organism. It is relatively simple, inexpensive and accurate, and it’s already being used in laboratories around the world to make cells and breed laboratory animals with modified DNA for the study of diseases.

CRISPR could also be used to modify DNA in human embryos, but the question is whether this should be allowed. Among the concerns scientists and bioethicists have highlighted are heritable gene modifications and the use of this technology to create “designer babies.” CRISPR provides new opportunities for disease treatment and prevention, but with unknown and potentially substantial risks that warrant an ethical discussion. And this discussion should be rooted in an understanding of what can and cannot be meaningfully edited.

I study the genetic prediction of complex diseases and traits. Research in my field has consistently shown that human traits and common diseases are not genetic enough to be predicted using DNA tests. For the same reasons, it will be impossible to successfully program the presence of traits in embryos.

Any concerns that CRISPR could taken a step further to enhance babies by selecting favorable traits such as intelligence and athleticism may be unwarranted.

“Sizzle the Bear” by Jonny – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sizzle_the_Bear.JPG#/media/File:Sizzle_the_Bear.JPG

Be the first to like.

Unlike

The Conversation US

Would You Edit Your Unborn Child’s Genes So They Were Successful?

November 4, 2015

New technology could bring about the much debated designer baby, but a parent’s desire to do the best for their child could create sociological problems

Quick Read

Would You Edit Your Unborn Child’s Genes So They Were Successful?

Wednesday, November 4th, 2015

The phrase “designer babies” has been bandied around for decades, but parents seeking to design a baby currently have limited options. They can seek to avoid the birth of a baby with a specific genetic condition, or of an undesired sex, through pre-implantation genetic diagnoses (PGD) which involves IVF and embryo selection.

But they can only select from the available embryos, and, in the UK, only for specified health related conditions. Currently around 360 genetic conditions arelicensed for PGD, and 24 are under consideration. Sex selection in UK is only permitted for sex-linked diseases, although sex selection for non-medical reasons is available commercially, mostly outside Europe.

So parents in the UK may select, rather than design a child, on medical grounds. But what about those wanting to choose a child with non-medical traits associated with sporting prowess, musical or artistic ability, general intelligence; or avoid genetic traits associated with depression or aggression; or simply select for the optimum height associated with success at a particular sport, attractiveness or higher earnings?

Image: RIAN archive 398877 Festivities in Vladivostok to celebrate International Children’s Day” by RIA Novosti archive, image #398877 / Vitaliy Ankov / CC-BY-SA 3.0. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons

Be the first to like.

Unlike

The Guardian

Neuroscience and Buddhist Beliefs

September 21, 2015

Neuroscience backs up the Buddhist belief that “the self” isn’t constant, but ever-changing

Quick Read

Neuroscience and Buddhist Beliefs

Monday, September 21st, 2015

While you may not remember life as a toddler, you most likely believe that your selfhood then—your essential being—was intrinsically the same as it is today.

Buddhists, though, suggest that this is just an illusion—a philosophy that’s increasingly supported by scientific research.

“Buddhists argue that nothing is constant, everything changes through time, you have a constantly changing stream of consciousness,” Evan Thompson, a philosophy of mind professor at the University of British Columbia, tells Quartz. “And from a neuroscience perspective, the brain and body is constantly in flux. There’s nothing that corresponds to the sense that there’s an unchanging self.”

Neuroscience and Buddhism came to these ideas independently, but some scientific researchers have recently started to reference and draw on the Eastern religion in their work—and have come to accept theories that were first posited by Buddhist monks thousands of years ago.

(image: McKay Savage CC BY 2.0)

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Quartz

Authenticity under Fire

Authenticity under Fire

Why Making A ‘Designer Baby’ Would Be Easier Said Than Done

Why Making A ‘Designer Baby’ Would Be Easier Said Than Done

How Scientists Are Learning to Predict your Future with your Genes

How Scientists Are Learning to Predict your Future with your Genes

Neural Network Learns to Identify Criminals by Their Faces

Neural Network Learns to Identify Criminals by Their Faces

Is Pessimism Really Bad For You?

Is Pessimism Really Bad For You?

Forget About Designer Babies

Forget About Designer Babies

Would You Edit Your Unborn Child’s Genes So They Were Successful?

Would You Edit Your Unborn Child’s Genes So They Were Successful?

Neuroscience and Buddhist Beliefs

Neuroscience and Buddhist Beliefs

Follow Us

Twitter Feed

Twitter Feed