Researchers Are Divided as FDA Moves to Regulate Gene Editing

Paul Basken
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally published February 22, 2017

As U.S. regulators threaten broad new limits on the use of gene-editing technology, a Utah State University researcher now engineering goats to produce spider silk in their milk isn’t particularly worried.

"They’re just trying to modernize" rules to keep up with technology, the Utah professor, Randolph V. Lewis, said of the changes proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

But over in Minnesota, a researcher working to create cows without horns — as a way of keeping the animals safe from one another — has a far different take.

"It’s a huge overreach" by the FDA that could stifle innovation, said Scott C. Fahrenkrug, an adjunct professor of functional genomics at the University of Minnesota at Twin Cities.

The FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of food and drugs sold to Americans, and for years it has defined that oversight to require its approval when genes are added to animals whose products might be consumed. The change it proposed last month would expand that authority to cover new technologies such as CRISPR that enable gene-specific editing, potentially enabling changes not found in any known species.

To supporters, the FDA is simply trying to keep up with the science. To detractors, it’s a reach for authority so broad as to go beyond any reasonable definition of the FDA’s mandate.

The article is here.

Will the 'hard problem' of consciousness ever be solved?

David Papineau
The Question
Originally published February 21, 2017

Here is an excerpt:

The problem, if there is one, is that we find the reduction of consciousness to brain processes very hard to believe. The flaw lies in us, not in the neuroscientific account of consciousness. Despite all the scientific evidence, we can’t free ourselves of the old-fashioned dualist idea that conscious states inhabit some extra dualist realm outside the physical brain.

Just consider how the hard problem is normally posed. Why do brain states give rise to conscious feelings? That is already dualist talk. If one thing gives rise to another, they must be separate. Fire give rise to smoke, but H2O doesn’t give rise to water. So the very terminology presupposes that the conscious mind is different from the physical brain—which of course then makes us wonder why the brain generates this mysterious extra thing. On the other hand, if only we could properly accept that the mind just is the brain, then we would be no more inclined to ask why ‘they’ go together than we ask why H20 is water.

The article is here.

There is also a 5 minute video by Massimo Pigliucci on how the hard problem is a categorical mistake on this page.

AI will make life meaningless, Elon Musk warns

Zoe Nauman
The Sun
Originally published February 17, 2017

Here is an excerpt:

“I think some kind of universal income will be necessary.”

“The harder challenge is how do people then have meaning – because a lot of people derive their meaning from their employment.”

“If you are not needed, if there is not a need for your labor. What’s the meaning?”

“Do you have meaning, are you useless? That is a much harder problem to deal with.”

The article is here.

“I placed too much faith in underpowered studies:” Nobel Prize winner admits mistakes

Retraction Watch
Originally posted February 21, 2017

Although it’s the right thing to do, it’s never easy to admit error — particularly when you’re an extremely high-profile scientist whose work is being dissected publicly. So while it’s not a retraction, we thought this was worth noting: A Nobel Prize-winning researcher has admitted on a blog that he relied on weak studies in a chapter of his bestselling book.

The blog — by Ulrich Schimmack, Moritz Heene, and Kamini Kesavan — critiqued the citations included in a book by Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist whose research has illuminated our understanding of how humans form judgments and make decisions and earned him half of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics.

The article is here.

The Republican health care bill makes no sense

Ezra Klein
Vox.com
Originally posted March 9, 2017


Here is the conclusion from the video:

In reality, what I think we’re seeing here is Republicans trying desperately to come up with something that would allow them to repeal and replace Obamacare. This is a compromise of a compromise of a compromise aimed at fulfilling that promise. But “repeal and replace” is a political slogan, not a policy goal. This is a lot of political pain to endure for a bill that won’t improve many peoples’ lives, but will badly hurt millions.

Read further analysis here and stories of legislative history here.

Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

Elizabeth Kolbert
The New Yorker
Originally published February 27, 2017

Here is an excerpt:

Stripped of a lot of what might be called cognitive-science-ese, Mercier and Sperber’s argument runs, more or less, as follows: Humans’ biggest advantage over other species is our ability to coöperate. Coöperation is difficult to establish and almost as difficult to sustain. For any individual, freeloading is always the best course of action. Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to help us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.

“Reason is an adaptation to the hypersocial niche humans have evolved for themselves,” Mercier and Sperber write. Habits of mind that seem weird or goofy or just plain dumb from an “intellectualist” point of view prove shrewd when seen from a social “interactionist” perspective.

Consider what’s become known as “confirmation bias,” the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them. Of the many forms of faulty thinking that have been identified, confirmation bias is among the best catalogued; it’s the subject of entire textbooks’ worth of experiments. One of the most famous of these was conducted, again, at Stanford. For this experiment, researchers rounded up a group of students who had opposing opinions about capital punishment. Half the students were in favor of it and thought that it deterred crime; the other half were against it and thought that it had no effect on crime.

The article is here.

Ethics Watchdogs Want U.S. Attorney To Investigate Trump's Business Interests

Jim Zarolli
NPR.org
Originally published March 8, 2017

With Congress showing no signs of taking action, a group of ethics watchdogs is turning to U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara to look into whether President Trump's many business interests violate the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"Published reports indicate that the Trump Organization and related Trump business entities have been receiving payments from foreign government sources which benefit President Trump through his ownership of the Trump Organization and related business entities," according to a letter sent to Bharara.

(cut)

The Emoluments Clause says that "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the U.S. government], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

The letter says "there is no question" the clause applies to Trump and that he is violating it, because of the Trump Organization's extensive business operations, many of them tied to foreign governments.

The article is here.

Is the Trump Administration Skirting Its Own Ethics Rules?

The hiring of three former lobbyists to work in the White House raises questions about the president’s executive order on ethics.

Justin Elliott
The Pacific Standard
Originally published on March 7, 2017

The Trump administration appears to be either ignoring or exempting top staffers from its own watered-down ethics rules.

As we have detailed, President Donald Trump in January issued an order weakening Obama-era ethics policies, allowing lobbyists to work at agencies they had sought to influence. The Trump order did limit what lobbyists could do once they entered government, banning them from directly handling issues on which they had lobbied.

But the administration may not be even following that.

We’ve found three hires announced this week who, in fact, are working on the same issues on which they were registered lobbyists while in the private sector.

The article is here.

The Moral and Legal Permissibility of Placebo-Controlled Trials

Mina Henaen
Princeton Journal of Bioethics
Princeton University
Originally posted August 15, 2016

Leaders of research ethics organizations have made placebo-controlled trials illegal whenever placebo groups would not receive currently existing treatment for their ailment, slowing down research for cheaper and more effective treatments. In this essay, I argue that placebo-controlled trials (PCTs) are both morally and legally permissible whenever they provide care that is better than the local standard of care. Contrary to what the anti-PCT often put forth, I argue that researchers conducting PCTs are not exploiting other developing nations, or subjects from these nations, when they conduct their research there. I then show how these researchers are also not especially legally required to provide treatment to their placebo-group subjects. I present some of the benefits of such research to the placebo groups as well and consider the moral impermissibility of making such research illegal.

The article is here.