Australian Bioscience News & Views

Church and State

I'm usually exceptionally positive about Sydney University, being a place where opportunity abounds, for those lucky enough to gain a place as a student or employee. It as a community that does huge amounts of charitable and voluntary work on the side, and through its professional endeavours adds much to our country's abilities in ethics, finance, science of life and matter, medicine, history, the social and anthroplogical sciences, psychology, and many worthy fields. Today though, I am saddened to report that my alma mater has fallen onto the wrong side of the divide on separation of Church and State.

In order to secure an empty piece of land curently owned by St John's College, for the purposes of creating a wonderful new facility for medical research, the leaders of the university have agreed to accept the land with the condition that no research about euthanasia, stem cells, or the use of foetal tissue be conducted in that facility. Of course, such research will still be conducted elsewhere within the university, for the benefit of all, Catholic or other, but the acceptance of such a condition is a problem none the less. Our tax dollars, and the profits of private companies are devoted to universities and their much needed basic research. This research is too expensive to do elsewhere at present, as the masses of keen scientists, administrators, technicians, and ethicists are hard to gather in other place, without huge economic impost. Yet, it is possible for a single religion to rule on what is an acceptable field of enquiry, thus side stepping the many questions our community has about the ethics of research.

I am even more demoralised by the news, because our federal government will not defend this co-mingling of Church beliefs and State decisions on our research spending. Our current leaders do not believe in this essential separation of Church and State, not seeing the value it provides a civil society. Though I suspect I'm preaching only to the converted, I will say it now, this separation is vital to our survival as a society respectful of individual difference. Among our number are of course many Catholics, Anglicans, and other Christians, but there are also great numbers of Buddhists, Secular Humanists, Hindus, Athiests, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Agnositcs, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, and other beliefs too numerous to name. Our diversity makes us strong, with the ability to see the world in many different ways, to approach the same dilemma in a thousand different ways, and accept our fellow beings as whole, and worthy members of a community ready to address the world's problems. Any reduction of this essential diversity, by allowing any one group to determine how our research money is spent, is a reduction of our excellent ability to live as a respectful community full of diversity and strength.

Shame on Sydney University for giving in, and shame on our government for encouraging it!

Not the death of science

I think I really mean, "Not the death of the scientist". Just as television was not the death of radio, I seriously do not think that high technology diagnostics remove the need for human experience and consideration in a laboratory. The use of genotyping in antimalarial clinical trials: a systematic review of published studies from 1995–2005 is a case in point. Different methods of genotyping, different technologies, interpretations, and analytical approach result in somewhat different biases in any work. In this case it was applied to genotyping of malaria infections, to see whether a positive blood sample in a drug trial is the result of an old infection raising its ugly head again, or a brand new one.

No surprise there, that different methods have inherent strengths and weaknesses. In my mind, the key element of the article is that a reasoned approach to technology & information handling can be applied to any diagnostic situation. The right mix of tools and methods can be found to apply to any conditions. Choices that are appropriate in one setting are less than ideal in another, based on the genetic and socio-economic factors of the tested population, the resources available to the testers, and of course the amounts of money available for various business practices and technologies.

Good news on eczema

There are days when I feel so lucky to be literate in science and have well informed friends. In the last week I have received several excellent suggestions for information to hunt down, psychological approaches to it, technological, and commercial views of its value. All this in tandem with pleasant, or at least engaging coversation.

First came the good news that there is a known cause of the less than delightful 'atopic' symptoms I experience (eczema, asthma, hay-fever), a mutation for a skin sealing protein called filaggrin - try saying that ten times really really fast. Anyway, odd name aside, mutations in a gene on chromosome 1 cause the protein not to form and the skin, lining of the nose and lungs are not the effective protective barrier most people take for granted. Skin contact likely cuases sensitisation that then leads on to the asthma that is so commonly found to follow eczema. Luckily I don't experience these symptoms as badly as some I have read about! The good news came from a friend, artist who keeps up with the latest in the push into post-humanity :-)

After hunting down the papers in Nature Genetics, I visited a friend who lives with fibromyalgia who was good enough to remind me that while finding one cause is a good step, there is likely more to it, and treatments won't be coming all that fast.

Big answers, bigger questions

In a surprisingly real good news story, it appears humanity has been able to decrease the damage we did to the ozone layer with CFCs etc.  Of course, it's taking longer than we first predicted it would, but never the less, it's happening. Being able to clean up after our selves is a good sign of progress towards intelligence ;-) Of course, the flip side of that is the increasing use of gases which speed the greenhouse effect. I'd rather not focus on the negatives today though.

A further sign of progress, even if I'm a little too dull to follow it, is that the Poincaré conjecture  was resolved by full mathematical proof recently. That itself is not evidence of our growing wisdom as a species, what is good news, is that a mathematics institute in the USA lavishly rewarded the humble person who did the work. I have heard that he may not accept the prize money, but I hope he does.   

Closer to home, Rick Shine received a well deserved Eureka while the collective intelligence quotient of the moviegoing public is drained away by this tasty little morsel called (turn your PC speakers right down before clicking)  ... Snakes on a Plane.  To add to the depression this induces, I learn that the film was better until the voting public on the internet got their hands on it. Where's an eyelash viper when you need one?

Images of life

Lately, thoughts and conversation have returned to the former cultural links between the 'sciences' and the 'arts', or outlining sad consequences of the perceived gulf between them today. Though it's not all doom and gloom, maybe that artificial divide is gradually narrowing again.

I note 'biological', microscopic, technical images as decorative art reappearing in various places. The Mac Mini that serves as the web surfing & graphic novel viewing part of our media centre has a gorgeous screen saver of clear, beautiful, even elegant snaps of microscopic and hugely magnified parts of plants. These examples may appear too superficial to relate to cultural shift, but maybe the decorative aspects of domestic and work life indicate memetic connections in the wider population ... or so I hope. They certainly stimulate memetic connections in me.

What makes you you?

There is much to be said for how much genetics contribute to essential characteristics. To see what a genetically diverse bunch we are, check out the Genographic Project. Height, eye and hair colour, sometimes weight, maybe temperament can be down to genetics. Susceptibility for everything from cancer to high blood pressure, with depression in some cases, can be attributed to genes. (recent articles)

Sex and maybe gender are determined by genes. If you don’t follow why I treat sex & gender as separate things, my thanks go to BC Holmes for providing a succinct synopsis of a small part of the complexities of human sex and gender variation.

It’s a tangled web though, as environment plays a big role. How much probably depends … I’ll think about exactly what it depends on and get back to you. Susceptibility to some types of cancers may be genetic, but environmental factors are just as often the culprits. Diet certainly impacts on weight, temperament, and at the extremes, even intelligence. Childhood environment influences adult height too. Many of us would count at least a couple of those factors in when describing ourselves J (recent articles)

Behaviour is a sticky subject. Religion and politics all have much to say on behaviour, and in my opinion often unwisely even more to say on the sciences of human behaviour. Still, controversy aside, a good approach to ethics can save a lot of bad science getting useless column inches.

Presence or absence of a soul – I’d better leave that to someone I find a great solace in times of office pain, in a very enlightened post on cloning J

Most of us recognise our friends’ faces, and consider that an essential aspect of who they are. While some of us can't put a name to a face to save our lives.

All in all, in my view it boils down to the fact that there are a multitude of factors that make up the essence of a person, and saying that any specific idea, behaviour or invention will bring on ‘the end of the world as we know it’ is just not sane!