Yes, China is increasing its scientific enterprise in terms of people and research output. And while the relative quality of that research is likely improving to the level found in more established research systems, there appears to be at least one significant impediment to that improvement.
Nature News reports on another instance of corruption affecting Chinese scientific research. This time its the misuse of over $4 million U.S. awarded to five research universities. Seven scientists were named, and six are currently detained. Two of those six have already started prison terms.
(For what it’s worth, even though it’s Chinese prison, I’m sympathetic to this level of punishment for the kinds of misconduct involved here.)
I suffer no illusion that other research systems are perfect. But the kinds of scientific misconduct in other countries do not raise to the level I’ve seen reported in China. Hopefully that will change, but in the meantime, I think it is something that should be part of any thorough analysis of the value in research, regardless of country.
Should’ve has been around since 2007, but I didn’t discover it until I saw this notice of an upcoming reading at the National Academy of Sciences building. Written by Roald Hoffman, a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and member of the National Academy of Sciences, Should’ve traces the impact of one scientist’s suicide on members of his family. The suicide was prompted (at least it seems), by the social implications of the man’s research, but the picture is more complicated than that.
Hoffman has written or co-written two other plays. Oxygen wrestles with the late-18th century ‘discovery’ of the element and the associated theories around what the element actually is. Something That Belongs To You is a semi-autobiographical work. This is in addition to his research output and his poetry. He also founded and helps organize the Entertaining Science cabaret series at the Cornelia Street Cafe in New York City. (and yes, I’m envious.)
Earlier this year I wrote about a case where the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was alleged to have acted improperly in a case involving a research study. Public Citizen lodged a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) Office of Inspector General claiming that senior officials from the NIH and HHS interfered with the decision process of the Office for Human Subjects Research Protection (OHRP). The specific case involved a research study on premature infants and optimal oxygen levels.
Earlier this month the Office of Inspector General issued its report on the allegations (H/T ScienceInsider). The main conclusions were that senior NIH and HHS officials did not interfere in the initial decision of the OHRP, and that the subsequent communications between those officials and the OHRP was permissible under the law. The OIG issued a separate report on how OHRP conducted its evaluation of the research study. Public Citizen is not happy with the decision, characterizing the investigation as a ‘whitewash.’
While the OIG report indicated that OHRP is not an independent organization, part of the Public Citizen complaint indicated (page 2) that moving OHRP out of the NIH was done in part to insulate the office from interference by NIH officials. It seems worth revisiting whether or not OHRP and related ethics organizations within HHS and NIH should be independent from those entities.
In related news, the ScienceInsider article (and the behind a paywall, Chronicle of Higher Education reporting it references) suggests that OHRP may soon be ready to issue new proposed rules on human subjects research. This would seem to be forward progress on the Common Rule, which was the subject of a public comment period back in 2011. As it hasn’t be revised in decades, it’s long overdue.
The next meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Biomedical Issues is in Washington on next Wednesday, August 20. The agenda is now available, and the meeting will be webcast via a link on the meetings page of the website.
The focus of this one day meeting is on neuroscience. Panels will focus on cognitive enhancements, direct-to-consumer neurotechnology and neuroscience research. As I speculated in May, these topics are part of the second volume of the Commission’s report on the brain. Perhaps the Commission will hint at when Volume 2 will be ready (I’d guess by the end of the year.)
Public comments will be accepted before the meeting. Email the commission at info at bioethics dot gov.
There is a Congressional Robotics Caucus, which was formed in 2007. Its focus is on positive and peaceful uses of robotics technology. It’s often difficult for advocacy groups to address the beneficial and dangerous aspects of their focus in equal measure. So I’m not surprised that a Congressional briefing on killer robots was not sponsored by the Robotics Caucus. Credit the Campaign To Stop Killer Robots, an international coalition of NGOs concerned about autonomous weapons, for last month’s event.
What both groups have in common is Massachusetts Representative Jim McGovern. He served as emcee of the killer robots event and is a member of the Congressional Robotics Caucus. The other speakers were there to discuss how autonomous weapons/killer robots could be controlled pre-emptively. McGovern is persuaded that there is enough time before these technologies are mature enough that the proverbial cat is out of the bag.
These aren’t lone voices speaking on the subject. The Department of Defense has its own policy on autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons systems.
Yes, McGovern and others are really concerned about Terminator-style fighting robots. This is arguably a subset of the more familiar concern over artificial intelligence. And Elon Musk recently weighed in on his concerns in that area, indicating that trying to avoid negative consequences of artificial intelligence has motivated some of his investment decisions.
The outbreak of Ebola virus disease (formerly known as Ebola hermorrhagic fever) in western Africa is no laughing matter. The way it’s been inserted into fights over immigration reinforces the need to fight misinformation. (That one of the politicians concerned that Ebola will come into the U.S. via Central American immigrants is a retired doctor reinforces my belief that not all doctors are scientists.)
Here’s what the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has to say (effective August 6).
“The World Health Organization, in partnership with the Ministries of Health in Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Nigeria announced a cumulative total of 1711 suspect and confirmed cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD) and 932 deaths, as of August 4, 2014. Of the 1711 clinical cases, 1070 cases have been laboratory confirmed for Ebola virus infection.”
Contrary to the concerns of several elected officials and media outlets, there is no significant risk of Ebola in the United States. Two researchers with the disease were evacuated to the United States for treatment at Emory University in Atlanta. As long as a hospital follows CDC infection control recommendations and can isolate the patient, it can contain the disease.
There is word of a ‘secret serum’ that the U.S. has, but is not currently going to send over to Africa. This likely refers to the experimental treatment ZMapp, which has not undergone testing on humans. While it was used in connection with one of the U.S. cases, neither the National Institutes of Health nor the CDC were involved in procuring the experimental treatment or getting it to the infected person in Africa. Continue reading
Last week The Wall Street Journal reported on a new project from Google.org – the Baseline Study (H/T ScienceInsider). Starting with a pilot group of 175, the study would collect anonymous genetic and molecular information (according to the article) to construct a more comprehensive data-based model of what a human is. Such a picture would ideally help researchers better identify symptoms and causes of various diseases. A desired outcome would be the ability to find markers of various diseases much earlier in people than is currently possible.
Of course, such a long-term study is not new. What would be different here is the potential scope of the project, should it expand beyond the initial population of 175. The project is lead by Dr. Andrew Cohen, a molecular biologist whose previous major achievement has been in high-volume HIV tests of blood plasma. Working in volume is something he’s comfortable with. The project is mindful of the need to preserve anonymity, and has stated information will be used strictly for health and medical purposes and not shared with insurance companies. Institutional review boards will be involved with the study, and once it grows beyond the initial group of 175, boards at the medical schools at Duke and Stanford Universities will be involved in controlling access and use of the information.
For reasons that escape me, I can find little mention of the project on the Google.org website. Even the mentions found on Google + don’t connect to the organization. It would seem to me that the Wall Street Journal article, and the subsequent press on it, could be part of an effort to gauge public interest and concerns with the project. The lack of details (the articles have little more to go on than the information provided to The Wall Street Journal) are frustrating.
And then there’s 23andMe. Continue reading