HUM-MOLGEN archive: ETHI: Various

This ETHI message has five parts.The first message is a quote from a New York Times interview with Alvin and Heidi Toffler. For those of you not familiar with US current affairs, the Tofflers are generally thought to strongly influence the views of Newt Gigrich, the current Speaker of the House of Representatives and leader of the recent resurgence of the Republican Party. Comments on the feasibility of the Tofflers' grim predictions are solicited. The last four are follow-ups to JIm Cummins' initial message about the California IVF clinic dispute. Though not, strictly speaking, on the topcic of genetics, the scenario of academicians/clinicians operating a high-tech reproductive clinic in association with a university raises issues all genetics personnel should consider. *************************** 1. An interview with Alvin and Heidi Toffler, authors of "Future Shock" and "The Third Wave" among other books appeared in the New York Times on Sunday June 11th. Two quotes follow: "Q: What are some changes you see on the horizon now? ALVIN: ...I also think we will see a crisis in eugenics. Give a totalitarian government the advanced tools made possible by the biological revolution, and we can see a world of competing eugenic strategies as arrogant regimes play God with future generations." "Q:What makes you so unafraid of the future? HEIDI: Who says we are unafraid?... ALVIN: ...There are terrifying pieces to the future. Race specific weaponry. You can zero in on ethnically linked genetic characteristics and target those who carry them. This is GENETIC warfare, a modern version of giving the Indians infected blankets. Terrifying. Absolutely." ***************************************************************************** ************** 2. From: "Brian Mannix <BMannix@AOL.COM> - As an economist, I must object to the editor's comment that: >We would like to hear from anyone who has suggestions as to how a) the >universities and researchers can protect themselves from conflicts of >interest and b) a patient can be assured that when his highly touted medical >center doctor suggests a genetic screening/diagnostic test or "experimental" >genetic therapy, that the Dr. and University are not at least somewhat >motivated by profit. While it is certainly true that profits can come into conflict with ethical principles, this does not mean that the profit motive is itself an evil thing. On the contrary, it is the driving force that supplies a cornucopia of goods things, including medical progress. Indeed, the profit motive usually provides (not always, I concede) a strong incentive for ethical behavior. As a consumer, I would prefer to be assured that those who are selling me goods and services--including medical services--are chiefly motivated by profit. There are still a few places in the world where the profit motive is broadly suppressed, but I would not want to live there. --Brian Mannix (BMannix@aol.com) ***************************************************************************** ********** 3. From: IN%"mlsnead@zygote.hsc.usc.edu" "Malcolm Snead" 6-JUN-1995 16:29:08. 62 Subj: RE: ETHI: IVF clinic dispute Thanks for your very useful and informative comments from the editor, which I find useful and not intrusive. All the best mal snead ***************************************************************************** ********* : 4. Subj: RE: ETHI: IVF clinic dispute Date: Tue, 06 Jun 1995 11:59:51 -0400 From: Rebecca Graves <GRAVES@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU> I would like to amend the most recent posting. The majority of us are "at least somewhat motivated by profit," including Dr.s and universities. The most we patients can hope for is that this motive for profit is somewhat balanced by the Dr.'s respect and concern for the individual. R.S.Graves graves@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu ***************************************************************************** ************ 5. From: IN%"cummins@possum.murdoch.edu.au" 11-JUN-1995 21:48:14.91 David Blacksheet <Blacksheet@aol.com> responded to my mailing and has allowed me to publish my rejoinder. Thanks, David, for your thoughtful comments. >Conflicts of interest exist widely. The problem is not the conflict of >interest but the behavior of a scientist or any other individual when faced >with a conflict of interest. An ethical researcher makes every effort to >avoid biasing results of experiments in the face of a conflict of interest >and obviously to avoid illegal activities in any case but particularly when >the person would benefit financially from the illegal activity. Breaking the >law or acting immorally as in the examples of Asch and Najarian (assuming for >the moment the outcome of legal proceedings in the court) has nothing to do >wih conflict of interest. They are criminal acts if they break the law. As I understand it there is currently no law in place in the US governing gamete or embryo donation - am I right? In this case the clinic is presumably bound by a code of practice or similar agreement with the University that would require such things as informed consent where research or gamete donation is involved. It will be interesting to see if this has legal standing. The other issue which is probably more substantive is the woman's claim that her "property" was wrongfully taken from her, and this I guess cuts across existing property laws as well as those pertaining to organ donation and adoption. However, as I understand the press report the suit is being brought by UCLA - prehaps to preempt action by the presumptive parents? I may be wrong about the US law. Here in Australia at least 5 of the seven states have laws in place that control reproductive biotechnology and insist upon a system of IECs Here in Western Australia even the "Egg in the Process of Fertilization" (assuming anyone can indentify such an entity) is given legal status and protection, and no "non-therapeutic" experimentation can be carried out on embryos. This includes genetic testing - which of course has the geneticists pretty worried about the legality of testing later in pregnancy by amniocentesis or CV biopsy. >The >path most universities have taken to protect themselves from faculty members >who act improperly in the presence of a conflict of interest is to insist on >disclosure of the conflict and the development of a plan to monitor the >activities of the faculty in the presence of a conflict. David Lagunoff : >Blacksheet@AOL.com I notice you responded to me personally. Do you have any objection to having the discussion aired further in HUM-MOLGEN I wouldn't have opened the topic if I didn't wish to have general discussion, however I would of course respect your wish for privacy. Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 19:54:27 -0400 From: Blacksheet@aol.com To: cummins@possum.murdoch.edu.au Subject: Re: ETHI: IVF clinic dispute ... I have no problem with open discussion. Feel free. Although the legal issues are important, I find them less interesting than the ethical aspects of the practice of science. I would guess that the egg implanters violated the human subjects procedures that they submitted and had approved by the Internal Review Board within the University. Violations of IRB protocols are subject to disciplinary actions within the universities up to firing of tenured faculty. Jim Cummins