Dr. Jennifer Doudna in conversation with Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee

What happened to the Flavr Savr Tomato?

Carl Zimmer recently suggested checking out a newish series from the New York Times called Retro Reports. The video series revisits old news stories that have since faded from the headlines. The digital-short-film format makes it readily accessible and I appreciate seeing the faces of the interviewees.

One of Carl's suggestions is a piece on the defunct Flavr Savr tomato, a timely subject for me as I now work in a plant biology lab using genetic engineering to study epigenetic factors at play during development.  Recently we had a departmental conversation about the controversy surrounding genetically modified crops. With that conversation in mind and after watching this clip I have formed an opinion on initiatives to label genetically modified food.



I am for labeling genetically modified food. Promoting transparency may help us embrace things worth embracing and discard those things that may be harmful to our health. George Church has argued that science ought to be more resilient when faced with ethical dilemmas.  I would like to apply this logic to labeling GMOs. The tool of genetic engineering can be equated with a "hammer." A hammer can be used to build a house or clobber someone over the head. The consequence is not the hammer's fault in either case.

The potential good that may come from genetic modification is overshadowed by the profit motives held by companies like Monsanto that now fuel 95% of the genetically modified crops in production throughout the world. There are under-reported cases like Rainbow Papaya in Hawaii, or Golden Rice where genetic modification has been the hero, not the villain.  It may be naive of me to think that the American public is science-savvy enough to decide for themselves whether a genetically modified plant is beneficial or not. However, I think science could exercise resilience in this case by allowing genetically modified foods to be labeled.  If in the long term some of those foods that are genetically modified prove beneficial to society, then the economy will carry them into wider markets, but if some GM crops prove over time a detriment they will be selected against.    

Free Genes - SCOTUS strikes down Myriad

The SCOUTUS blog is reporting the Supreme Court has struck down Myriad Genetic's patent claim on two human genes - BRCA1 and BRCA2.

The decision is being called  a compromise by some news sources but the crux of the ruling is this...

We merely hold that genes and the information they encode are not patent eligible under §101 simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material.

I am sure the lawyers for Myriad are scrambling to write new patents with slightly different wording to emphasize "cDNA" (which the court struggles with defining; in some instances they call it complimentary DNA in others composite DNA). However, it will be difficult overcome the following language in the present decision.

If the patents depended upon the creation of a unique molecule, then a would-be infringer could arguably avoid at least Myriad’s patent claims on entire genes by isolating a DNA sequence that included both the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene and one additional nucleotide pair. Such a molecule would not be chemically identical to the molecule “invented” by Myriad. But Myriad obviously would resist that outcome because its claim is concerned primarily with the information contained in the genetic sequence, not with the specific chemical composition of a particular molecule.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the ruling and there is a one paragraph opinion by Justice Scalia partially affirming the ruling.

Read the entire ruling here. (It is only 18 pages long)

This decision sets the "product-of-nature" precedent for the patent eligibility of all naturally occurring human genes. As I currently work as a biochemist in a plant biology lab I am curious to see if this applies to plant genes.

It is not clear whether cDNA copied from naturally occurring templates (human DNA) is patentable or just synthetic cDNA.

I will update this post as I learn more about the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Immortal Genome of Henrietta Lacks

Atheist Morality: Ratcheting Forward

By Kristopher Hite 

As a person with no religion and no belief in any gods, it may come as a surprise that I spend considerable time thinking about the best source of moral guidance. Throughout history there have been people who maintain a good reputation, a high quality of life, and provide constant intellectual stimulation to their peers while actively questioning what is right and wrong. Who are these people in present day and what do they have to say?

Dr. Ken Miller is a cell biologist and professor at Brown University. He is famous for defending evolution as a fundamental subject in biology classrooms and has given testimony in several important court cases. The most recent being Kitzmiller v. Dover, PA.  By doing so he has elevated the quality of public education in the United States and helped ensure evolution be taught as a matter of fact.  Through his work he has upheld the establishment clause fo the US constitution and for this I applaud him.

As for moral thought, Dr. Miller has gone on record saying that "science can only take us so far." I was able to ask him to elaborate on this thought last week as part of a Google Hangout On Air moderated by the HuffPostLive host Josh Zepps. I asked him where atheists ought to get their morals and where he gets his. Here was his response.

If, in science, we found an absolute, testable, empirical source of morality then scientists everywhere would agree on all moral questions. The reality is I think our discussions of morality, in other words, what is right and wrong, have to be informed by science. I think we have to be literate in science, even people who are not scientists. But ultimately moral questions require a philosophical point of view in terms of what is the good life? How should we treat each other? What is the value of human life?  Now as a Catholic, I have to confess, I draw a lot of my moral sense from the religious teachings of my faith. But I also would argue that there is a moral sense that is present in everybody. Whether they are a person of faith, whether they are an agnostic, or whether they are an atheist. I completely agree with the idea that one can have an atheistic world-view. And informed by science, and by using logic, and by having a philosophical view on life, you can in fact, develop a moral code which is consistent and which provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

His answers only lead me to more questions. Which philosophical views help provide the greatest good? And what time-scale for good should we choose? If not from science then where do these ideas originate? And how are contemporary atheists doing on developing a moral code?

Fellow blogger, Cara Santa Maria chimed in via the Huffpost discussion informing me that she had recently recorded a pertinent episode of "the Point" a spin-off of the the Young Turks Network. The episode was essentially a panel discussion of exclusively atheists trying to answer the question "where does atheist morality come from?"

As part of the panel discussion, video comments were aired as food-for-thought. To me, the most striking guest was AJ Johnson, Development Director for the American Atheists organization. Here is her comment.

 

Physicist and blogger Sean Carroll responded to her comment with a plea to  atheists to heed her words and to try harder to actively participate in the process of developing an atheist morality. Here is Sean.

AJ Johnson brings up a really important point when she says secularists should "own" their superior morality. I think that we have been on the defensive for a very long time because traditionally the reason why things were "right and wrong" ultimately flowed from God. God was helping us explain what is good, and what is bad. Of course God does not exist. But we haven't, as secularists, really given a good explanation of where our morality comes from. And partly, it's because we don't know. Figuring out how to act in the world without guidance from outside anywhere is a very difficult problem. We say nice things about equality and liberty and things like that. But we don't agree on the underlying philosophy. We don't have the cheap out of saying "well, here's the holy book where its all been written down." We have to think about things. And I think we need to do a better job.

At this point you may say "we can look to evolution and neurobiology for our moral origins. We can see how justice plays out in animals. We can look to cognitive neuroscientists like Josh Greene who can tell us the average response to moral dilemmas in the fMRI scans of human brains. We can use this scientific data to rationalize a fair system for human society. Right?"  Wrong says Sean Carroll.

You do not want to commit the naturalistic fallacy. You do not want to say that because things happen in nature that they are the right things to have happen. We need explain the fundamental reason for saying that some behavior is good, some behavior is bad. I think that evolution helps us explain why we have the predilections we do. And evolution is certainly going to play a crucial role in an ultimate understanding of morality, but it does not GIVE it to us in any simple way. We should be able to do better than that.

If science can not tell us where morality comes from, then what can? As atheists shouldn't we be skeptical of any idea that can not be explained with the scientific method?  I'll give you my answer.  Yes we should be skeptical of pure moral philosophy but that does not mean we should shut our ears to it.  Much can be learned from living people as they have the highest probability of experiencing the same existential questions you have.  The very term "humanist" implies that we ought embrace our peers and draw our ethics from them.  There are currently very powerful  leaders in the atheist community, like it or not.  Though we do not hold these leaders as infallible vessels of an invisible sky-father there is a large collective of minds tuned-in to their thoughts via the internet. 

PZ Myers is one of these leaders. A professor of biology at the University of Minnesota at Morris PZ writes one of the most widely read blogs on the planet.  Being in the right place at the right time, PZ has the unique position of wielding a mighty horde or electronic followers numbering in the hundreds of thousands. When he asks them to do something, they do it en masse. This can be seen any time he asks them to crash some bogus internet poll which they do in throngs.  This kind of klout is not to be taken lightly. Though PZ has been dogged as being odious and even a "shepherd of internet trolls" by thinkers like Sam Harris, in my opinion PZ has made some excellent points lately. I think he has some moral guidance to offer in explaining secular morality more precisely as Sean Carroll has challenged us to do. The following passage penned by PZ  appears in the latest issue of Free Inquiry, titled Atheism’s Third Wave.

Professor and blogger PZ Myer

Science is neutral on moral concerns; it only describes what is, not how it ought to be. And this is true; science is a tool that can be used equally well for curing diseases or building bombs. But scientists are not and should not be morally neutral, nor should scientific organizations or culture be excluded from defining the appropriate uses of science. Science without humanist moral standards leads to Mengele or the Hiroshima bombing or the Tuskegee syphilis experiments.

Similarly, atheism may be value-neutral, but atheists and atheist organizations should not be. Atheism sensu stricto may be a specific assertion about a fact of the universe, but atheism as practiced is a defining idea in a mind and a powerful foundation for a human community. It has meanings and implications that we must heed and use for achieving our goals.

And what should those goals be? Because I’m an atheist and share common cause with every other human being on the planet in desiring to live my one life with equal opportunity, I suggest that atheists ought to fight for equality for all, economic security for all, and universally available health and education services. Peace is the only answer; extinguishing a precious human life ought to be unthinkable in all but the most dire situations of self-defense. Ours should be a movement that welcomes all sexes, races, ages, and abilities and encourages an appreciation of human richness. Atheism ought to be a progressive social movement in addition to being a philosophical and scientific position, because living in a godless universe means something to humanity.

I went to see President Obama speak in Colorado last week. During his speech he echoed this sentiment of equality and inclusiveness. He pointed out that the history of the United States has seen protection under the law and participation in government become more and more inclusive. He described that process as a ratchet in which progress only goes forward. It is my sincere hope that unprecedented personal connectivity can couple to decentralized information and push the ratchet of progress even further. Maybe even so far as to see an open-atheist as a viable candidate for major political office one day.

Thank you for reading. I hope that as a peer you will leave a comment below and tell me where you get your sense of right and wrong so I might share your wisdom.

Animals feel. Common sense. Right?

An interview with Bernard E. Rollin University distinguished professor of Philosophy at Colorado State University and University Bioethicist in residence.

Retaining a thick Brooklyn accent Bernie (as he is known by his students) is a force to be reckoned with.  A proud weightlifter and connoisseur of Harley Davidson motorcycles, you might not peg him as a Columbia-educated University distinguished professor.  My first encounter with this giant of animal welfare came as he guest-lectured a bioethics class I was taking in the fall of 2006.  His plea for students to embrace logic, critical thinking, and practice “weight-lifting with your mind” was imprinted on us with his use of punctuating profanity as he lectured.  He is what you would consider a “Rock Star” professor on par with Temple Grandin in reputation among students.

The Superior Human?

Rebecca Skloot on science journalism

During a 2010 visit to her alma mater - Colorado State University - Rebecca Skloot gave a series of seminars on communicating science to the public. I asked her what she thought about the role of science journalism in a world where more and more scientists are communicated directly to the public. Here is her answer.

Bernie Rollin ~ our obligation to animals

I am currently writing up a series of interviews I did with Bernard Rollin, PhD. Look for it in the next issue of the Matter Journal. Returned from a book signing he did tonight at the CSU bookstore where he gave an intimate talk on the highlights of his 41 years as a Professor of philosophy at Colorado State University.  He is a University Distinguished Professor and Bio-ethicist in residence.

His autobiography is Putting the Horse before Descartes.

 

Dawkins furthers Sagan furthers Bronowski

Of these three men I admire Jacob Bronowski most. His series the Ascent of Man, produced in the 1970's, was most influential in my view of the moral realm. Though it is anticlimactic to show this two-minute clip, as it is the absolute emotional apex of the 13 hour long series, I show it here to reiterate the REASON we, collectively, ought to doubt superstition. Arrogance, dogma, and ignorance are the reasons Jacob Bronowski posits for the unthinkable atrocities that happened inside concentration camps. 

"When people believe that they have ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE with NO TEST in REALITY this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of GODS."

He then goes on to say that SCIENCE is a very HUMAN form of knowledge. Here I think he means that no reported fact in science is ever thought infallible. No real scientist has ever claimed that the words they have written were divinely inspired, that the new grass species they've identified was revealed to them by angels. Reports come from other human beings all over planet earth. By reproducing  and scrutinizing the incoming results those facts are either confirmed or overturned. 

Recently I became aware of a man named Rudolf Steiner who lived in the early 20th century in Austria. As a philosopher he expended much effort in trying to bridge the scientific and spiritual ways of viewing the world. Though founding Waldorf education and Bio-dynamic farming were major accomplishments he is also widely remembered for founding anthroposophy - a spiritual worldview that promotes inner development by meditating and thinking about NATURAL PHENOMENON in an environment free of sensory input. As I think about the word Anthroposophy I can not help but think of Jacob Bronowski's view of "Science" as a "very human form of knowledge." Science as a concept has, in the minds of many, become a cold word over the last 50 years, devoid of the human face it once wore. Whether it be called science or anthroposophy the guiding principle behind all philosophy based on observation and subsequent contemplation of the natural world relies COMPLETELY on the physical and mental well-being of all conscious people on the planet. Personal freedom humbled by the equality granted to all by our social contract helps natural philosophy work to benefit humanity: longer life span, disease prevention and treatment, irrigation and sewage systems etc. 

When we abandon trust in our fellow man, when we abandon science because of fear, we leave ourselves susceptible to the certainty of dogma. 

In the 1980's Carl Sagan took up this dialogue when he produced Cosmos.  In the following clip  he makes arguments against the validity of astrological predictions while still making the ultimate point that the earth IS influenced by a star - THE SUN. Though some may see Sagan as callous to those who choose to believe in astrology, I take away from his words a further human appreciation.  To me his point about the sun  affirms my respect for the wisdom of ancient peoples in their reference for the sun and their meticulous attention to the seasons. 

But now, in present day, Richard Dawkins comes along and picks up the baton and portrays this dialogue as a battle. The intellectual aspect of the astrology debate Dawkins is trying to get at is subtle yet powerful.  He says in no uncertain terms "both racism and astrology are guilty of facile discrimination, dividing humanity up into EXCLUSIVE GROUPS based on NO EVIDENCE! "

For  skeptical people, people who choose to question ancient practices, this argument delivers a historical foothold.  Why did we as a planet decide that slavery was NOT OK?  Was it because of historical wisdom?  No, it was from a conscious evolution of morality stemming from enlightenment ideals, the likes of which the Texas State School board would rather not have taught in public schools! 

 

 

Eugenie Scott Interview

If you notice in the first 10 minutes I shut the door due to the vacuum cleaner at the bookstore and begin recording on my phone. What follows is the remaining hour and 10 minutes of the interview if you are interested in hearing more. I actually get to answer some TPG reader questions in the later part of the interview. I'm amazed at the sound quality from a recording to an iphone.