ISSUE X: Scientific Ethics

SCI ETHICS Humanite Issue X. Aug 2022. Seoul Tokyo Hong Kong

Behind all of the new scientific breakthroughs and awards always shown on the news, the ethical implications and practices are often swept under the rug. Thanks to recent investigations and better coverage from the media, we are starting to see the light into the grim ethics veiled under the name of ‘science.’

In our issue today, we would like to share some of the world’s stories in scientific ethics in all of its forms and variations to better raise awareness of this continuing, ever-so-important issue.

TWO SIDES OF THE COIN ON BIOENGINEERING Humans have been tampering with evolution since 7800 BCE before the first civilizations were established. From the dogs in our houses to the crops that we consume, it is very rare to see species that cross human hands remain unchanged.

This process called artificial selection, which is the selective breeding of certain organisms to pass on specific traits, has been very effective, leading to phenomena such as the very diverse breeds of dogs that originated from standard canine species such as wolves.

However, with recent technological advancements such as Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR), humans have obtained the ability to precisely edit DNA, allowing the complete engineering of organisms before they even develop into a clump of cells.

More specifically, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are found in abundance around our lives, composing up to 75% of the food that we consume. The majority of the global population doesn’t view GMOs as an issue, as almost all of the genetic changes have benefited mankind, such as the reduced impact of pests, and more nutritional yield.

While there is little debate when it comes to genetically modifying plants and animals for our benefit, the ethical concerns are significant when it comes to the topic of genetically engineered humans. Firstly, there are many proposed benefits. If we were to engineer humans to be better adapted to surviving in different environments on our planets, it could advance human knowledge and technology far beyond what we are capable of today. We could effectively eliminate terrible conditions such as down syndrome or Huntington’s disease from being passed down to future generations. We could create a new type of “superhuman,” free of the flaws that all humans innately possess. Why then, is there so much backlash against this idea?

The biggest arguments against the genetic modification of humans aren’t necessarily scientific in nature but have more to do with societal perceptions. For example, the most common argument is religious or spiritual, with people stating that genetic engineering of humans would go against the will of God and break the natural order. Other arguments state that it will be dehumanizing and genetically engineered humans will be alienated as

inhuman creatures.

However, there are some arguments that do have merit in logic. For example, just like newer and better computers and phones are being released every single year, some people are worried that modified people will be far genetically modified is improved every single generation. Th This would leave the older generations essentially obsolete and would cause non-genetically engineered humans to be unable film to keep up, as seen in the 1997 film Gattaca. Also, many ethicists claim that genetic engineering is a form of eugenics, as certain traits are being selected against

and being exterminated, many of which would likely be visual.

With all this in mind, what is the right path for bioengineering? Should we go ahead with the technology for the sake scientific progression? Are there some of scientific technologies that should be left unexThe truth is, current society is plored? The modificaunwilling to accept the genetic modification of humans. However, many technological advancements were unappreciated in their time, and it is possible that years into the future, genetically engineered humans might become the norm.

Written by Paul Moon Layout by Andrew Ham

The implementation of trigger-laws in numerous states following the fall of Roe have forced clinicians to make an “impossible choice” between upholding ethical obligations as medical professionals or following the law.

The bioethical principle of nonmaleficence or to “do no harm” is particularly relevant; it demands that medical professionals provide care that minimizes medical risks for patients. What is a clinician to do when abortion is medically necessary for a woman’s survival, but could be criminalized for the procedure?

What if the developing child’s life is endangered by the carrying-out of a pregnancy (e.g. when cancer patients need treatments that are toxic or lethal to their developing baby)? Crucial, even lethal, bioethical considerations may be reduced simply to a matter of navigating legal restrictions.

Here, a woman protests for the pro-choice cause. This digital drawing was created with Procreate.

HANA ITO

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES & BLOOD TRANFUSIONS

Written by Tomoki Ishikawa Layout by Andrew Ham

Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) is a denomination of Christianity that currently has over 8.7 million followers worldwide. Many may say that JW is a unique religion, as they object to military service, salute state symbols, and of course, receive blood transfusions. Their decision to not receive any blood transfusions has nothing to do with perceived dangers of the medical procedures but rather the biblical texts that they believe instruct them not to receive blood: “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.” (Leviticus 14:17) “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals…”

(Acts 15:29) Though the majority of Christian denominations do not take this as a message to refuse blood transfusions, JWs do, and this has been a topic of concern and criticism both in and out of the medical world.

This begs the question: what is the morally right action to take when a JW requires a life-saving blood transfusion? The two main arguments that are made on this topic are: The first principle of bioethics is “do no harm,” and by not providing a patient with a life-saving blood transfusion, the medical care provider is ultimately causing harm, which goes against the main principle of bioethics. The medical care provider should do everything in their power to keep the patient alive and well.

People should be able to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies. People should have the right to bodily autonomy, even if that means potentially risking their lives. If there is true freedom of religion, as the first amendment states, then JWs should be able to exercise their religion even in the medical field.

JWs recognize that their beliefs create ethical dilemmas for medical care providers. Consequently, they have begun aiming toward cooperation instead of confrontation, and they have created a network of doctors who can treat JWs while still respecting their beliefs. So as far as the elective treatment of adult JWs is concerned, the issue is, to an extent, addressed. If an adult requires an operation or procedure that usually requires a blood transfusion, they can receive specialized treatment from someone more experienced.

However, the largest concern is over emergency cases and pediatrics, which still deal with the ethical dilemmas surrounding bioethics. Many individuals worldwide have died after refusing blood transfusions, and many doctors have had to experience the difficult choice between their personal conscience and their patient’s bodily autonomy. There have been cases in the past where court orders appointed a guardian ad litem for the child to receive a blood transfusion, which has raised concerns over medical overreach. The issue here is that children are not informed enough to make such a life-changing or even life-threatening decision. This is why the Children’s Act of 2005 was put into place, stating that “the best interests of a child are paramount in all decisions regarding children.” Today, if a JW guardian refuses blood transfusion treatment for their child, a medical practitioner can ignore the parent’s refusal and administer any life-saving treatment (which may or may not include a blood transfusion). Again, this “loophole,” as JWs call it, has caused heated arguments from true believers of the JW denomination, and there are valid arguments made by them.

The question boils down to this: When it comes to saving your own child’s life, do you put God first but potentially let your precious child die? Or do you embrace the young child’s potential, their future, their gift of life, and give them a blood transfusion?

O

Its True Benefits and Downsides

ne time, while browsing on Youtube, I came across a documentary about animal testing and how they affect animals.

Through this documentary, I was emotionally troubled by seeing how unethical animal testing seemed to be. Animal testing is the use of non-human animals to see the effect of variables on the behavior of animals. There are many types of experiments that utilize animal testing: for example, there are numerous cosmetic products, medicines, hygiene products, and scientific experiments that are tested on animals to see how they are affected. On one hand, using living animals with lives similar to humans and possibly killing them through experiments feels inhumane. On the other hand, without animal testing, humans would have no real way of knowing if certain products have toxic or harsh effects. Ultimately, though pros and cons certainly exist, animal testing is beneficial to humans, and the benefits it provides outweigh the moral

qualms.

As most people already know, animal testing can have both benefits and bad sides. A clear con of animal testing is its inhumane treatment of animals; after all, it is risking the lives of innocent animals that do not receive any type of benefit from this. Another major con is its lack of applicability at times. One of the most common arguments against animal testing is that it is a waste of scientific time and resources because the results of studies performed on other species cannot always be applied reliably to humans. For example, in a Mayo Clinic study aimed at identifying medications to treat ischemic stroke, David Wiebers and his colleagues discovered that 25 substances that alleviated damage in cats, rats, and other animals had no beneficial effect in humans. 94 percent of medications that passed animal studies failed in humans, according to cell biologist Robin Lovell-Badge of the MRC National Institute for Medical Research in London.

On the other hand, life-saving medications and vaccines are one huge pro of animal testing. Without animal testing, the landscape of modern medicine would surely be very different. For example, in the early twentieth century, studies on dogs with their pancreas removed led to the discovery of insulin, which has saved and improved the lives of millions of diabetics throughout the world. The polio vaccine, which was only produced for human use after extensive animal testing, has helped to eradicate another deadly illness.

Furthermore, animal experimentation is directly responsible for advancements in breast cancer, brain trauma, leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, and more dangerous diseases. Hence,

animal testing has had enormous benefits and would have severe consequences for public health and medical research if it were to be abandoned. Considering its highly vital role in many scientific and medical advances of the past century, animal testing is justified.

In conclusion, animal testing is something that can definitely be seen as inhumane and unethical as a whole. However, without animal testing, there could have been many more humans dead right now from countless diseases, misuses of products, and more unfortunate events that could have been prevented with animal testing.

Written by Sahngwon Lee Layout by Eunice Rhee

LEARN TO LET GO A

nother tear rolls down my face.

I check the clock. It’s already 4 a.m. My thumb swipes upwards on my screen as I evade the heartbreaking video of a person paying tribute to his deceased dog. I try to shake the thought from my head, but it’s too

late. Once again, I’m spending my Sunday morning crying about how my dog is not going to live forever.

This emotion is shared by millions of people around the world. Some even take it to an extent where they seek cloning services to never lose their lifelong companion. Unfortunately, cloning one’s dog is never a good choice.

The first reason why one should deeply reconsider cloning their dog is that there is still so much uncharted territory in the study of genetic engineering. Due to the lack of data and the relative novelty of cloning, scientists are not sure of the potential illnesses, lifespan, and other issues clones might face. However, it has already been confirmed that clones are “much more likely than other animals to be miscarried, have birth defects, develop serious illnesses, and die prematurely”. Though there is still much to discover about the cloning process and its results, the fact that clones are much more prone to illnesses should already be a red

flag for people who are looking to extend their companion’s life.

Secondly, the process to clone an animal is extremely complex— not to mention that the success rates are only about 20%. Hundreds of embryos and tens of surrogate dogs are used to clone just a single pet. For example, in 2005, “1000 embryos and 123 surrogate dogs were required to make the first pair of cloned dogs”. The surrogate dogs need to be constantly injected with hormones to create an adequate environment for the eggs and are exposed to potential miscarriages or deaths while giving birth. Such risks have many scientists raising their voices about the ethical aspect of cloning. Alexandra Horowitz, the head of Columbia University’s Canine Cognition Lab, even said, “the process of cloning basically creates an industry of what I think of as farmed dogs,” and criticized the unethicality of cloning. Before one jumps at the idea of cloning their pet, they need to consider the risks and pain that they

are putting other dogs in.

Thirdly, though a fairly logical point, cloning a pet does not mean its personality will be replicated along with its looks. Each animal is unique and has its own characteristics, and cloning an animal with the same genetic sequence does not create a dog that will bark and smile the same way or a cat that will snuggle and purr the same way.

A significantly better alternative to cloning your pet would be learning to let go. Learn to let go, heal your scars, and if and when you find yourself longing for another furry companion, you should adopt from a shelter. Though shelter animals are stigmatized to be dangerous, unattractive, and difficult, such stereotypes are flawed. If you have had prior experience caring for and living with a pet, it is more the reason to adopt from the shelter.

Written by Lauren Kim Layout by Eunice Rhee

A Sister or A “Sister”?

Mommy says it’s no big deal And daddy says it’s better.

They say I’m too young to understand But I know what’s fake and real.

They programmed little sis’s genes To make sure she’s not sick.

Not a “defect in society” Like how granny describes me.

I’m not sure what that means but it must be pretty bad.

Considering you would change her fate So she wouldn’t be like me.

Mommy tried to explain that this way she’ll be happy.

Daddy said, “let’s give her a life that doesn’t involve a wheelchair.”

But that’s not fair, why couldn’t I have the choice to run around?

Changing her life before she’s born, how can that even be possible?

If sis was born like me, then fine Why can’t we let it be?

Am I that difficult to love and care for?

I’m sorry for what I am.

RIGHT

ONG

WR

By: Sopheen Lee Layout: Irene Nam

GENETIC MODIFICATION AND THE NEW FIGHT AGAINST

MALARIA A

s the world moves on from the COVID-19 pandemic, there’s a necessity to learn from our mistakes and take action before it’s too late to eradicate diseases. Among a myriad of diseases— some eradicated, some declining—malaria continuously proves to be a thorn in the side of global health efforts. There are an estimated 241 million cases of malaria worldwide, and the problem is especially bad in Least Developed Countries and impoverished areas such as the African continent, where malaria still wreaks havoc on the livelihood of many. According to the World Health Organization, the African continent was home to 95% of malaria

cases and 96% of malaria deaths in 2020.

The question then remains: why is malaria still such a big problem, what ideas are scientists currently coming up with to solve the issue, and what are some ethical and safety concerns pertaining to these solutions?

Firstly, there’s a general lack of economically efficient solutions in areas with low amounts of capital at hand, especially on the African continent. There’s a lack of preventive measures against the disease and a lack of drugs and treatments to aid those who contract malaria. An intuition buff to this problem resides in another disease: polio. While it has been

effectively eradicated in the developed world, it still claims lives and leaves children disabled in the African continent.

What are some potential solutions that have taken shape? First and foremost, a malaria vaccine has been developed, which is known as RTS,S., or Mosquirix.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration took a landmark step earlier this year by approving said vaccine, creating a feasible path to vaccine production and development. However, it is still unlikely to be sufficient for solving the holistic problem any time soon, due to the lack of funds to buy and distribute the vaccines. Also, the recent wave of anti-vaccine rhetoric and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to carry over if the malaria vaccine were to become mandatory. Too much fear and bipartisan political distrust have already been growing in the status quo. This brings us to the forerunning solution being tested to battle malaria, genetically modified mosquitoes.

Scientists are modifying the genetics of male mosquitoes such that when they breed with female mosquitoes that can or already carry malaria, their children will die and be unable to spread the disease.

While this sounds all fine and dandy—after all, who doesn’t love their life becoming safer and easier due to technological advancements— there is an ethical and practical concern when it comes to the safety of this experiment. Scientists in the U.S. have already released huge swaths of these genetically modified mosquitoes into densely populated states, raising concerns pertaining to how safe and well-tested these mosquitoes have been, and the potential to backfire. As mentioned earlier, it doesn’t help that in the U.S. in particular, there has been a lot of distrust with relatively new forms of medicine that could potentially have counterproductive ramifications on one’s

well being.

While the technology behind the new fight against malaria is innovative and necessary for many parts of the world, it isn’t without its flaws and concerns. The use of this experimental technology is justified if it can help bring the eradication of malaria, but it may be counterproductive by creating stigma and concern over the fight against malaria, especially if

something were to go wrong. The question remains for such a big problem with so few other alternative solutions: should we bite the bullet and take the ethical risk of such an experimental technology?

Written by Jason Lee Layout by Eunice Rhee

The Ethical Dilemma of using CRISPR technology CRISPR, which stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, are repeated sequences of DNA found in the genomes of prokaryotic organisms like bacteria and archaea. With the help of a Cas9 protein, it allows DNA to be cut at precise locations and be replaced with another sequence of DNA. Scientists have discovered that this gene editing tool can be very useful, using it to treat patients with genetic diseases like sickle cell anemia. However, there are several ethical problems to the usage of this tool. If wrong parts of the DNA are cut out and replaced with different sequences, it could potentially harm the patient, leading to irreversible damage that can harm the patients even more. My artwork illustrates how CRISPR technology would function, and the reasons as to why its usage is very controversial. Using the Procreate software, I created this illustration. The Cas9 protein is portrayed as machines cutting out specific segments of DNA, while the hexagons show the phenotypes being changed. This art illustrates the ethical dilemma of whether it’s right to have complete control over altering one’s own or others genes.

There are questions of whether we should be making changes to our children without their consent especially when there are high risks, and the problem of having more genetic advantages over others.

David Kim

Ethics of Assisted Suicide

by Nate Wilson layout by June Jeong

A

ssisted Suicide: Suicide effected with the assistance of another person, especially the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for a patient suffering from a terminal illness or incurable condition.

An 83-year-old man with several medical problems had spent the last couple of months in rehab, going in and out of hospitals instead of his typical life in a small Midwestern town. Finally, worn out, the man said, “My body is all worn out. I’m worn out.

Don’t want to do this anymore, Doc. They say I can’t go home and be safe. And I’m NOT going to a nursing home. No way! Just stop that little gadget that shocks me and the part that keeps my heart going. I want them stopped.

Just do it. Please.” This man represents one of the oldest and most heavily-debated problems in the world, one that has appeared not only for aging people but also for those suffering from a variety of illnesses. The question remains: should the doctor respect this man’s autonomy and assist in his death or keep him alive?

Assisted suicide can often prevent prolonged suffering and decrease family burden, but is it worth prematurely taking the life of a patient? In recent years, medical technology has progressed far in lengthening lives and curing formerly fatal diseases.

However, in cases similar to the 83-year-old man, it means nothing to those who are

terminally ill but prolonging the suffering they must deal with. Additionally, the cost of keeping such patients alive is not typically where a family’s focus is, and after eventually passing, they often leave behind massive hospital bills that cripple families that are less financially secure. Finally, respecting the autonomy of a patient is important as people should be allowed to determine what they do with themselves. Feeling helpless, patients may be determined to commit suicide, which will likely lead to a more painful death than if it were administered by a doctor.

While prolonged suffering, additional unnecessary cost, and autonomy are reasons for the more widespread legalization of assisted suicide, those who argue against it bring up the point that doctors can abuse the powers by ending a life prematurely. Those who argue against assisted suicide are those that are at the highest risk of being a victim of someone abusing assisted suicide, namely, people with disabilities. Assisted suicide can easily be abused because once lethal medicine is prescribed, assisted suicide laws have no laws surrounding whether or not the patient is well enough to consent to it or even understand what’s happening. Assisted suicide is also a risk to the elderly as elder abuse is already a prevalent problem and giving lethal drugs to possible abusers increases that risk. Finally, patients often outlive their

estimated time left, meaning that if a patient were to take lethal drugs because they think they are going to die soon anyway or do not want to experience worsening conditions, assisted suicide would be shortening their life much more than they think.

In conclusion, assisted suicide can allow people to maintain autonomy and lessen their pain and their family’s financial burden.

However, it can also be easily abused and of-

ten lead to mistakenly premature death. One possible solution to the problem would be laws mandating strict psychological examination on whether or not the patient is still at full cognitive function and verification of their future condition to request for assisted suicide. This would help preserve autonomy while still making sure abuse does not happen.

by Rachel Cho layout by June Jeong

H

ow would you react if you had three options to fix heart failure— palliative care, open-heart surgery, or catheter? The first option doesn’t impact your life expectancy, so you would still die soon. The second option is highly risky and very costly—–which means the third option is the only safe option that also extends your life. This was the dilemma faced by Mirna Taylor, a healthy 85-year-old woman who had organ failure a few years ago. If you had the choice of dying in a few

months because of severe organ failure or living in your best condition with animals’ organs, which would you choose? This is the ethical debate on chimeras, a debate about whether transplantation is really the best choice to increase the life expectancy of a dying person. The clear benefit of such a quickly growing technology is that if Taylor’s incident occurred a decade ago, she would have died without any options.

However, aside from this advanced technolo-

meric animals. Since it is the process of in-

different perspectives about having a living

imals, humans need to consider whether a

gy dedicated to saving lives, there are many

animal transplant; namely, whether the animals should be sacrificed for a human’s life.

Chimeras are defined as people who are

living with an animal’s organs inside them.

The word itself refers to a fire-breathing

monster with a lion’s head, a goat’s body, and a serpent’s tail from Greek mythology.

In today’s practice, a technician first collects a sample of one’s blood and skin, separates

the different cells, and treats it with various drugs. This process is targeted to transform

the cells into induced Pluripotent Stems

(iPS), which are capable of generating any

of the body’s tissues, similar to the cells of

jecting human cells into the organs of annew life coming out from an animal’s body is acceptable. Therefore, scientists have the responsibility to explain medical needs and

accept the ethical borders that must not be violated. Another ethical consideration that

needs to be made is whether humans would also have to be classified as a “permissible

chimera” if they carry organs from a porcine.

Since a pig carrying human organs is now unjustifiable according to many opinions, they

would need to consider if humans carrying animals’ organs for the increase in their life expectancy is justified.

When considering the benefits of chime-

an early embryo of humans. Then, the tech-

ras, humans also have to be aware of the

to grow kidneys in the place where human

problem; there is always a possibility of ani-

nician chooses a pig embryo that functions

iPS cells are injected. This is very convenient

since the problem nowadays is not the im-

munological rejections but the shortage of

donor organs. By sacrificing a pig or two, the pigs’ embryo can grow the human-cell-contained kidneys. In Australia, about 1,900

people are waiting in hospitals for an organ

medical issues that could overlap with this mals’ genomes being transferred to humans

when implanting. Furthermore, there could

be several occurrences of zoonoses—diseases that are interconnected between animals and humans—which could risk many lives of humans and cause safety concerns.

To sum up, even though the idea of chime-

donation. This procedure of creating chime-

ras is praised as being the safest and most

blink of an eye; while it is a very new, tempt-

cy, many ethical questions are blocking the

ras could save all of these people’s lives in a ing solution to the scientists, they have to consider that hundreds of animals will have to be sacrificed.

The main controversy regarding chime-

ras is that humans need to consider the

production of human gametes by such chi-

reliable way to increase one’s life expectan-

path of the new solution. It is recommended

by the public that scientists find a balance point between these two very important con-

siderations for a better, safer, and more advanced society.

su

e Editing and CRI

SPR

By

:A

rie l

Yu

La

yo ut:

Eth ic

Jih oo n

Kim

al Is

on s e

nom Ge

Discovered by American biochemist Jennifer Doudna in 2012, the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology gave scientists the ability to modify genetic material in living organisms.

This mechanism was originally found in a defence system in E-coli, and has become a revolutionary tool ever since. Scientists are able to use CRISPR with extremely high precision and ease; this tool is also cheap, which allows most scientists to access it. Although it was proven to be very useful in the medical field, it has not yet been approved for human clinical trial use.

With this invention comes a great ethical dilemma in whether or not the human race should continue with this gene-editing tool. Could this turn us into superhumans? Or

will this mark the end of Homo sapiens? In this article, we will be exploring the successes that CRISPR brought in treating patients along with future concerns that it may raise.

In July 2019, CRISPR was used to experimentally treat a 34-year-old woman with sickle cell disease. Sickle cell disease is a genetic defect that causes the production of a defective protein that makes sickle-shaped blood cells that are also hard and sticky. These sickle cells get stuck inside blood vessels, which prevents other blood cells from flowing through the veins and carrying oxygen normally and, consequently, is extremely life-threatening. However, scientists were able to use CRISPR to delete the genome that was blocking another gene. This allowed stem cells to make normal red blood cells and

saved the patient.

In 2018, Chinese biophysics researcher He Jiankui carried out his own experiments on human embryos infected with HIV. He forged ethical review documents and misled doctors into implanting modified embryos into women. In 2018, the first gene-edited twins, Lulu and Nana, were born. Although they were protected against HIV, their immune system was affected. Although the repercussions of this illegal experiment are still unknown, if these babies grow up to have children of their own, the gene will be passed down, which may have long-lasting consequences for future generations.

In conclusion, although the use of the CRISPR tool may cure fatal diseases, it will also bring unknown repercussions and long-lasting effects to the future generations of the human race.

Jennifer Doudna

CREDITS Bryan Kim Aimee Choi Woojune Kim Rachel Yoon Jihoon Kim Eunice Rhee Andrew Hahm June Jeong Alice Lee Samuel Hong Nate Wilson Eric Cho Joshua Lee Peter Kim Tomoki Ishikawa Lauren Kim Junseo Lee Paul Moon Lindsey Lim Sahngwon Lee Ariel Yu Chamin Kim Milla Cheung Jaslyne Tam Lila Thirouard-kikuchi Alex Cho Waan Choi Jay Choe Sopheen Lee Jason Lee Rachel Cho Leo Sugino

Irene Nam Sylvia Chen Sophia Park Ellen Ryu Hana Ito David Kim Minji Kim Celine Yang Jason Baek