[Scienceblog] People want to be informed and asked for consent before deciding whether to let researchers share their genetic information in a federal database. This is according to a team of investigators at Group Health Research Institute and the University of Washington (UW). The team’s report, called “Glad You Asked,” is in the September 2010 Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics.

To the team’s knowledge, it is the first to ask research participants’ opinions about the need for informed consent for sharing their own information. The team explored participants’ preferences while collaborating on the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. The Network involves volunteers enrolled in the joint Group Health-UW Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) study. ACT is a longitudinal cohort study that tracks aging-related changes in thousands of older Group Health patients over time.

When the team asked Group Health patients who participate in ACT whether their “de-identified” (anonymous) genetic and medical record information could be shared in the database, 86 percent said yes. Then the team surveyed 365 ACT study participants who had agreed to let their genetic information be shared, mostly because of a “desire to help others.” In the survey, 90 percent of participants said they thought it was important to have been asked for this reconsent.

Reconsent means getting additional informed consent from research participants before using their information for a purpose beyond what they agreed to originally. Alternatives to reconsent — including opting out, being notified, or neither individual permission nor notification — were unacceptable to 40 percent, 67 percent, and 70 percent of the surveyed participants, respectively.

• Continue reading or Leave a comment...

[Rasmussen]  Only 33% of U.S. voters believe that taxpayer money should be spent on embryonic stem cell research, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) say funding for such research should be left to the private sector.

While 55% of voters who identify themselves as pro-choice support government funding of stem cell research, 83% of pro-life voters are opposed.

In March of last year, 52% of all voters agreed with President Obama’s decision to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, but 38% were opposed.  A federal judge this week blocked that decision, but the Obama administration intends to appeal the ruling. The issue at hand is whether the research destroys living human embryos.

Only 24% of voters now believe embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong. That’s down five points from March 2009. Fifty-four percent (54%) say it is not morally wrong, unchanged from the previous survey. Twenty-one percent (21%) are not sure.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of pro-life voters think embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong.  Seventy-nine percent (79%) of pro-choice voters disagree.

• Continue reading or Leave a comment...

[msnbc] A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research in a slap to the Obama administration’s new guidelines on the sensitive issue.

The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos.

Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding that the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

“(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed,” Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling. The Obama administration could appeal his decision or try to rewrite the guidelines to comply with U.S. law.

The unusual suit against the National Institutes of Health, backed by some Christian groups opposed to embryo research, argued that the NIH policy violates U.S. law and takes funds from researchers seeking to work with adult stem cells.

The U.S. Department of Justice and NIH had no immediate comment.  

RULING:  https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv1575-44

• Leave a comment...

October 15 & 16, 2010, Princeton University - Open Hearts, Open Minds & Fair Minded Words - A Conference on Life & Choice in the Abortion Debate 

The conference is inspired by President Obama’s call for those on different sides of the abortion issue  to work together where we agree and engage in “vigorous debate” with “open hearts, open minds, and fair minded words”

Cosponsors:  University Center for Human Values & James Madison Program, Princeton University; Department of Theology, Fordham University; Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania; Bioethics International

Cochairs:  Charles Camosy, Fordham University; Frances Kissling, University of Pennsylvania; Jennifer Miller, Bioethics International; Peter Singer, Princeton University

For more information and to register visit:  http://uchv.princeton.edu/Life_Choice/

Goals and Values of the Conference

1. Explore new ways to think and speak about abortion. Recognizing the divisive nature of the debate, and its larger effect on public discourse, we wish to explore new words, ideas, categories, arguments and approaches for engaging with each other
2. Approach issues related to abortion with open hearts and open minds. We wish to make a concerted effort to engage with each other with the kind of humility and quiet necessary to really listen and absorb the ideas of someone who thinks differently.
3. Define more precisely areas of disagreement and work together on areas of common ground. Some sessions are intended to cut through the confusion and fog of the public abortion debate, by clarifying more precisely areas of disagreement, potentially highlighting areas where we can move forward.
4. Get to know those on multiple sides of the issues more personally. In part because it is often easier to take seriously and listen to those one knows personally, we will self-consciously promote social interaction at this conference through lunches, cocktail hours and breaks.

• Leave a comment...

Contrary to the Machiavellian cliché, nice people are more likely to rise to power. Then something strange happens: Authority atrophies the very talents that got them there.

[WSJ] When CEO Mark Hurd resigned from Hewlett-Packard last week in light of ethics violations, many people expressed surprise. Mr. Hurd, after all, was known as an unusually effective and straight-laced executive.

But the public shouldn’t have been so shocked. From prostitution scandals to corruption allegations to the steady drumbeat of charges against corporate executives and world-class athletes, it seems that the headlines are filled with the latest misstep of someone in a position of power. This isn’t just anecdotal: Surveys of organizations find that the vast majority of rude and inappropriate behaviors, such as the shouting of profanities, come from the offices of those with the most authority.

Psychologists refer to this as the paradox of power. The very traits that helped leaders accumulate control in the first place all but disappear once they rise to power. Instead of being polite, honest and outgoing, they become impulsive, reckless and rude. In some cases, these new habits can help a leader be more decisive and single-minded, or more likely to make choices that will be profitable regardless of their popularity. One recent study found that overconfident CEOs were more likely to pursue innovation and take their companies in new technological directions. Unchecked, however, these instincts can lead to a big fall.

• Continue reading or Leave a comment...

[jsonline] The cloning of animals may have come from agriculture, but its real promise may be in the lucrative field of medicine rather than as food.

Genetically modified cows and goats can produce proteins in their milk that can be extracted as a drug component. Cloning animals to create living drug factories could lower the costs of medicines used to save lives.

Examples include cows that pump pharmaceutical proteins and antibodies in their milk and blood; chickens that lay drug-producing eggs; and pigs that grow human-ready organs. Making perfect copies of these animals, through cloning, could speed up the drug-making process, according to scientists.

“Once you create a genetically engineered animal, you want to make copies,” said David Andrews, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade association that represents 1,200 companies.

• Continue reading or Leave a comment...