Alchemy, Science, Life, and Health

Posted on October 16, 2016 by Brian H. Gill


(“I find that nothing’s ever exactly like you expect….”
(Professor Richard Lazarus, “The Lazarus Experiment,” BBC))

A mad scientist’s lot is not a happy one. All he wants is to redefine being human: and the next thing you know, he’s eating guests at his victory celebration.

Doctor Who’s The Lazarus Experiment doesn’t have much to do with The Devil Bat and The Brain That Wouldn’t Die, apart from featuring a mad scientist — and science gone horribly wrong.

Some movies, like Fantastic Voyage and Things to Come, present science and technology as useful.

But “tampering with things man was not supposed to know,” as Mr. Squibbs put it, keeps the plot going for quite a few; like Altered Species, They Saved Hitler’s Brain, and Island of Lost Souls.

Reticence, reasonable and otherwise, regarding new ideas isn’t new. (August 21, 2016)

“Smallpox is a visitation from God; but the cowpox is produced by presumptuous man; the former was what Heaven ordained, the latter is, perhaps, a daring violation our of holy religion.”
(A physician’s reaction to Dr. Edward Jenner’s experiments in developing a vaccine for smallpox, (1796) via Psychological Sciences, Vanderbilt University)

“I have read in the Philosophical Transactions the account of the effects of lightning on St. Bride’s steeple. ‘Tis amazing to me, that after the full demonstration you had given, of the identity of lightning and of electricity, and the power of metalline conductors, they should ever think of repairing that steeple without such conductors. How astonishing is the force of prejudice even in an age of so much knowledge and free enquiry!”
(Letter, To Benjamin Franklin from John Winthrop, 6 January 1768, via founders.archives.gov)

Learning: Sometimes the Hard Way

Metalline conductors, we call them lightning rods these days, were new technology in 1768.

Folks were learning about electricity, sometimes the hard way.

Georg Wilhelm Richmann was measuring an insulated rod’s interaction with a thunderstorm in 1753 when something resembling ball lightning interacted with him: lethally.

He’s probably the first person to die while conducting electrical experiments.

The lesson isn’t, I think, that movies make folks fear science, or that God smites those who study thunderstorms.

Ideally, Richmann’s death would have impressed scientists throughout all generations that following safety protocols makes sense.

We don’t live in an ideal world: so less than two centuries later Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin died after working with a mass of plutonium, subsequently dubbed the “demon core.”1

Mad Scientists and Seeking Knowledge


(From Phil & Kaja Foglio, used w/o permission.)
(Finally! A mad scientist gets it right: Girl Genius, July 10, 2013.)

Let’s give B-movie ‘mad scientist’ film writers credit.

Their fictional meddlers with “more than heavenly power permits”2 were probably crazy enough to demand unswerving obedience without realizing that something/someone that’s smart enough to understand the orders is sharp enough to get upset.

I was going somewhere with this. Let me think.

Unexpected results; mad scientists; lightning rods; more scientists, mad and otherwise.

Right.

Loudly-religious analogs of Mr. Squibbs notwithstanding, seeking knowledge and developing new tech isn’t a sin.

Science and technology, studying the universe and using what we learn, is part of being human. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2292–2296)

Ethics matter, just as they do for everything else we do. (Catechism, 2294)

Faith isn’t reason — but isn’t opposed to reason. Science and faith, the Catholic variety, get along. (Catechism, 154–159)

We do, however, need to remember that our preconceived notions may not accurately reflect reality.

“…God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures – and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. … Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth….”
(“Providentissimus Deus,” Pope Leo XIII (November 18, 1893) [emphasis mine])

Wanting Health and Long Life

Scientists occasionally act as if curiosity justifies whatever they’re doing; which reminds me of Johann Conrad Dippel, a colorful fellow born at Castle Frankenstein3 in 1673.

He studied alchemy around the time serious researchers started calling what they did “chemistry” in a desperate — and eventually successful — attempt to distinguish their work from folks hawking elixirs and panaceas.

Anyway: Dippel had trouble managing money; invented Dipple’s oil, useful as an animal and insect repellent; and was accused of grave robbing, presumably for his alleged soul-transfer experiments.

Like I said: a colorful fellow.

He wrote that he’d invented an elixir that’d keep him alive until he was 135 years old, and died a few months short of his 61st birthday.

Dippel’s interest in an elixir of life was hardly unique. That, and the philosopher’s stone, had been an alchemical El Dorado for centuries. Interestingly, we can transmute lead into gold these days; but the process costs more than the gold is worth.

We’re also getting better at extending human life and maintaining public health. This is a good thing. (Catechism, 2211, 2288–2291)

Here’s where it gets tricky.

Culling the Unfit

Plato said that the state should control human reproduction.

Human nature being what it is, and was, citizens below philosopher king rank would be fooled into cooperating.

His “Republic” described a rigged lottery. Folks with high scores would be ‘randomly’ paired: but Plato realized that his “gold soul” couples could produce “bronze soul” kids.

Infanticide, killing defective or unwanted kids, had been routine long before Plato; and still is, with varying degrees of acceptance.

Different cultures had different approaches. Table IV of the Roman Twelve Tables required the pater familias to kill any deformed child. The Spartan Gerousia, a council of elders, decided if a child would live or die.4

Since I think all human life is precious, I can’t see culling the unfit as a good idea. (Catechism, 2258, 2268)

I’ll grant that I’m biased.

Enjoying Life and Health: Reasonably

I’m taking medications to control mental and physical issues. (October 14, 2016)

On top of that, I have artificial hips, both hands were re-engineered, my teeth are mostly metal or ceramic, and I keep a set of clip-on lenses in front of my eyes.

Sometimes I feel as if life’s not worth living, but that could easily be attitudes stored in my implicit memory during the decades before learning that depression’s symptoms aren’t normal for adolescents and adults.

On the whole, I think being alive is a good idea: even if I’m not enjoying a “quality lifestyle” by some standards.

I’m not, arguably, “as God made me,” and haven’t been since early childhood. Surgery corrected, more or less, congenital hip dysplasia before I started kindergarten.

Another surgeon repaired part of my lower GI tract a decade or so back, which probably saved my life. He also removed my appendix and Meckel’s diverticulum, in an abundance of caution. I mentioned other modifications earlier.

I don’t feel guilty about any of that, since life and health are a “precious gift” from God. I’m expected to take reasonable care of mine. (Catechism, 2288, 2278)

What’s changed during my lifetime — and is changing — is how many previously-inescapable health problems can be treated.

The mad scientist’s dream of indefinitely extending life, or removing unwanted parts of human nature — without the distressing side effects encountered by Dr. Jekyll5 — may be just a dream. But it’s getting serious attention again.

I’ll be talking about that in another post.

More about science and being human:

1 Why “twisting the dragon’s tail” is a bad idea:

2 Doctor Faustus, or, picking the wrong research assistant:

3 Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein may have been inspired partly by Dipple’s reputation:

4 Eugenics and all that:

5 ‘It seemed like a good idea at the time:’

</h4″>

Posted in Being Catholic | Tagged , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Elastic Brains and New Tech

Posted on October 14, 2016 by Brian H. Gill

Maybe ‘you can’t teach an old dog new tricks,’ but apparently the adult brain isn’t nearly as rigid as scientists thought.

I’ll be looking at neuroplasticity, the idea that brains can change; research that may lead to better neural interfaces; and ‘brain training’ games.

  1. Teen Brains, Old Dogs, New Science
  2. Memristors and Neural Interfaces
  3. Games, yes; Training Solutions, Debatable

We’ve been learning a great deal about the human brain and how it works. That’s a good thing for me, since I have maintenance issues with mine.

Suicide: No Future In It

As I said last week, undiagnosed depression and something probably on the autism spectrum has been part of my life for decades. (October 5, 2016)

The first time I felt like killing myself was in my teens. At the time, I decided that I could last longer than the pain.

I was right.

That’s no great virtue on my part. I’m very stubborn, and could apply what I’d learned about enduring physical pain to the psychological version.

When I became a Catholic, I learned more about why suicide is a bad idea.

I’m responsible for my life. It’s a gift from God. I don’t have the authority to end it. Besides, it’s not just about me. Other folks might be affected, too. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2280–2282)

However, if someone tells you that your child/spouse/relative/friend is in Hell because he or she committed suicide: that is not what the Church says:

“We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.”
(Catechism, 2283)

There’s help available for those of us with suicidal thoughts these days: like the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

That’s 800-273-TALK (8255) / 800-273-8255 — a free, 24/7 service that can provide suicidal persons or those around them with support, information and local resources. (National Suicide Prevention Lifeline / www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org)

An Irritable Life, But a Short One?1

Major depressive disorder probably isn’t lethal, by itself. On average, though, folks with this disorder have shorter lives — partly because we’re much more likely than most to kill ourselves.

We’re also more likely to drop dead from heart disease and assorted other illnesses.

Meanwhile, feeling hopeless or irritable most of the time doesn’t help us concentrate.

Neither does our inadequate supply neurotransmitters: serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine. Quite a few of us wind up homeless; but again, that doesn’t always happen.

Nerves in the peripheral nervous system handle signals to the diaphragm, heart, and other vital systems.

These nerves use dopamine, a neurotransmitter that’s in short supply in folks with major depression. I’d be surprised if glitchy control circuits didn’t eventually kill us.

Praise the Lord and Pass the Prescriptions


(Image from ISS program and the JSC Earth Science & Remote Sensing Unit, ARES Division, Exploration Integration Science Directorate, used w/o permission.)

I learned this sort of thing as a child:

“4 Even when I walk through a dark valley, I fear no harm for you are at my side; your rod and staff give me courage.”
(Psalms 23:4)

“You are my hope, Lord; my trust, GOD, from my youth.”
(Psalms 71:5)

“Praise the LORD, my soul; I shall praise the LORD all my life, sing praise to my God while I live.”
(Psalms 146:2)

Remembering it while stumbling though a dark valley: that’s not easy, but I think it’s important.

So is remembering this sort of thing:

“The soul of the sluggard craves in vain, but the diligent soul is amply satisfied.”
(Proverbs 13:4)

Folks who don’t believe in medicine, assuming that ‘God will provide,’ occasionally hit the news when one of their number drops dead of a treatable condition.

‘Relying on the Lord’ is a very nice notion, and appropriate. Within reason.

I believe that God constantly sustains my existence — and makes a world where the creatures in it, myself included, have a role in making things happen. (Catechism, 301, 306)

I’ve got hands and a brain. I figure God expects me to do something with them.

My life and health are “precious gifts” from God. Taking “reasonable care” of them is part of my job. (Catechism, 2288)

That includes taking methylphenidate, one of the psychoactive drugs that lets me think without constantly fighting the machinery in my brain.

I could try ‘rising above’ my brain’s lack of neurotransmitters, continuing a decades-long struggle to focus on each hour’s tasks. I could also try turning my metal-and-plastic hip joints into flesh-and-blood ones with the power of my mind.

That doesn’t seem reasonable.

Genetics and Responsibility

Feeling sad and hopeless is part of major depressive disorder — but this “depression” isn’t just a mood or a bout of the blues.

It’s probably a “weakness,” in the sense that something in my genes may have made me more susceptible than others.2

It could have been worse. Some folks are susceptible to things like Chron’s disease.

I do not think “depression” is a sign of weak moral character, or feel guilty because I can’t think myself into good health.

Some folks who enjoy good health seem convinced that it’s due to their moral and mental strength.

I’ll grant that good behavior generally helps me stay healthier.

I don’t think depression and whatever else is wrong with my brain’s circuitry gives me an excuse for misbehaving. (Catechism, 387)

I can decide to act, or not act; and am responsible for my actions. (Catechism,1730–1738)

But I don’t think God will blame me for experiencing the effects of illness, mental or otherwise. (Catechism, 1735)

1. Teen Brains, Old Dogs, New Science


(From Harry Campbell, via The New York Times, used w/o permission.)

“Return to the Teenage Brain”
Richard A. Friedman, op-ed, The New York Times (October 8, 2016)

“There’s a reason adults don’t pick up Japanese or learn how to kite surf. It’s ridiculously hard. In stark contrast, young people can learn the most difficult things relatively easily. Polynomials, Chinese, skateboarding — no problem!

“Neuroplasticity — the brain’s ability to form new neural connections and be influenced by the environment — is greatest in childhood and adolescence, when the brain is still a work in progress. But this window of opportunity is finite. Eventually it slams shut. Or so we thought.

“Until recently, the conventional wisdom within the fields of neuroscience and psychiatry has been that development is a one-way street, and once a person has passed through his formative years, experiences and abilities are very hard, if not impossible, to change….”

The best, or easiest, time for learning is when we’re very young. But ‘you can’t teach an old dog new tricks’ isn’t always true. Not for humans, anyway.

Researchers found that giving adults valproic acid, Valproate, helps adults learn perfect pitch; and I learned that it’s called “absolute pitch.”

It looks like histone deacetylase, a substance that affects DNA, is involved in making our brains more open to rewiring. I put a list of resources near the end of this post.3

Mr. Friedman ends his op-ed with this:

“…You … can’t be sure that opening a new sensitive period won’t leave you worse off than the first one did. You might find it easier to pick up Chinese, but you might also remember more acutely all the disappointments and traumas that you’d prefer to forget.

“Finally, our very identity is enmeshed in these neural circuits. Do we really want to tamper with them at the risk of altering who we are?

“But the allure of recapturing neuroplasticity, with its potential to treat diseases like Alzheimer’s and autism, as well as to repair early psychological trauma, will be very hard to resist.”
(Richard A. Friedman, op-ed, The New York Times)

I’m not convinced that we should “resist” developing medical technology that could enhance neuroplasticity, treat degenerative diseases, and help folks like me repair our minds.

Taking time to think about how we should use new technology — seems reasonable. I talked about new tech and rational reflection last week.4 (October 7, 2016)

Learning How Our Brains Work

My high school science textbooks said that adult brains were static, unchanging. The assumption was that our brains don’t change, once we get past youth: no new neurons, no new connections between neurons.

I’m not sure how that belief took hold, or why the idea that adult brains aren’t hardwired took so long to catch on. The fancy term for the brain’s ability to change is neuroplasticity.5

Michele Vicenzo Malacarne’s 1793 research suggested that training makes an animal’s cerebellum grow. William James apparently raised the idea that adult brains aren’t rigid in his 1890 book, “The Principles of Psychology.”

Karl Lashley’s 1923 research with Rhesus monkeys showed neural connections in their brains changing through adulthood.

I suspect it helps that we’ve got functional neuroimaging tech now, like Single-photon emission computed tomography and magnetoencephalography.

Scientists have known that electrical impulses happen in brains since around 1860, and we’ve learned a very great deal about how the brain works in the last few decades.

We don’t have science fiction’s ‘brain scanners’ yet. But tech like Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is getting close.

My guess is that we’ll learn a very great deal more in the next few generations.

There’s more about medical imaging and other technology near the end of this post.6

2. Memristors and Neural Interfaces


(From University of Southampton, via The Atlantic, used w/o permission.)

“Memristors Could Be a Boon to Brain-to-Prosthesis Communication”
Andrew Silver, IEEE Spectrum (October 4, 2016)

“Inside the brain, many neurons fire so that the body will perform a single action like picking up a cup or kicking a ball. Unfortunately for amputees with missing limbs, this brain activity is for naught. Now, engineers at the University of Southampton say they’ve shown that low-power devices known as memristors might be more energy efficient than today’s experimental neural interfaces that help relay signals from the brain to prosthetic limbs.

“Themis Prodromakis, who studies nanoelectronics at the University of Southampton, in England, is exploring one of the building blocks of brain and computer interfaces for medical applications. His early research supports the development of special neuronal brain-chips: neural implants that communicate with prosthetic limbs when neurons fire….”

As of this week, Wikipedia’s Memristor page says it’s “a hypothetical non-linear passive two-terminal electrical component,” and says “there are … some serious doubts as to whether the memristor can actually exist in physical reality….”

Rational caution is a good idea; which is why scientists tried replicating cold fusion results back in 1989, instead of uncritically accepting the claims.

Maybe that’s the reason for the “serious doubts.” Or maybe this is like the Koch-Pasteur rivalry. Sometimes personal and political issues slosh into acceptance of new ideas.

In this case, since a different team also got positive results from a titanium oxide film — my guess is that memristors may be more than “hypothetical.”

Even if this memristor research leads to practical hardware, I think it’ll be years — at least — before neural implants using the new tech join existing commercial brain-computer interfaces like Emotive’s EPOC+.7

3. Games, yes; Training Solutions, Debatable


(From Edgar Su/Reuters, via The Atlantic, used w/o permission.)

“The Weak Evidence Behind Brain-Training Games”
Ed Yong, The Atlantic (October 3, 2016)

“Seven psychologists reviewed every single scientific paper put forward to support these products—and found them wanting.

“If you repeat a specific mental task—say, memorizing a string of numbers—you’ll obviously get better at it. But what if your recollection improved more generally? What if, by spending a few minutes a day on that simple task, you could also become better at remembering phone numbers, or recalling facts ahead of an exam, or bringing faces to mind?

“This is the seductive logic of the brain-training industry….

“…People are certainly buying the hype—and the games. According to one set of estimates, consumers spent $715 million on these games in 2013, and are set to spend $3.38 billion by 2020.

“And they might be wasting their money….”

$715 million a year sounds like a lot of money, and it is. I figured learning how much one person might “waste” on a game might give me a better idea of what we’re looking at.

A one-year subscription to BrainHQ costs $96. That’s more than I pay for Sky and Telescope, but doesn’t seem exorbitant for an entertainment expense.

Another outfit, Cogmed, says “Cogmed solutions help consumers, professionals, and schools address attention problems.”

That got my attention, particularly since I couldn’t find a price listing. I’ve learned to associate profuse self-praise and no visible price with “if you have to ask, you can’t afford it” products and services.

Cogmed’s claim to have practical benefits makes their offer something other than entertainment

Patent Medicines for the Information Age?

My quick look at ‘brain game’ marketing backs up what the seven psychologists said:

“Do ‘Brain-Training’ Programs Work?”
Daniel J. Simons, Walter R. Boot, Neil Charness, Susan E. Gathercole, Christopher F. Chabris, David Z. Hambrick, Elizabeth A. L. Stine-Morrow; Psychological Science in the Public Interest, via Sage Journals (October 2016)

“…As a rule, brain-training companies promote the efficacy of their products for a very wide range of conditions and outcomes, from specific genetic, neurological, and mental diagnoses (e.g., Turner syndrome, age-related cognitive impairment, schizophrenia), to sports performance, general cognitive ability, everyday memory for names and locations, and driving ability….”

Hamlin's Wizard Oil advertising poster. (ca. 1890)I expect a certain amount of puffery in advertising: exaggerations that no reasonable person would believe, like polar bears drinking Coca-Cola.

I don’t see a problem with marketing a product, maybe because I spent two decades in that field.

But presenting a product or service’s benefits is one thing. Emulating patent medicine advertising like Hamlin’s Wizard Oil’s is something else.

American patent medicine makers flourished in the later 19th century because so many folks didn’t trust doctors, and the Pure Food and Drug Act wasn’t around yet.

Fear of 19th-century medical practice wasn’t unreasonable. Bloodletting, emetics, and laxatives, were routine medical procedures.8

The Pure Food and Drug Act wasn’t a cure-all. Radium 226 and 228 in Bailey Radium Laboratories’ “Perpetual Sunshine,” Radithor, eventually put Eben Byers in a lead-lined coffin, decades after the FDA’s launch.

I’d be astonished if any of today’s ‘brain game’ software is lethal. But I think it’s probably more entertainment, and less “solution” to anyone’s problems.

More of my views on faith, science, and being human:

1 Bartholomew Roberts (1682-1722) apparently decided that he was better off as a pirate: ” ‘…no, a merry life and a short one shall be my motto.’ ” (Wikipedia))

I see his point, since as a Welsh commoner in the British merchant navy he could look forward to earning “less than £3 per month and … no chance of promotion to captaincy.” (Wikipedia)

That doesn’t justify making piracy/theft a career, but I think his situation shows why paying just wages and promoting qualified folks makes sense. (Catechism, 2408–2409, 2433–2434)

2 Depression, background:

3 Neuroplasticity, genes, and what we experience:

4 ‘Because we can’ isn’t a good reason:

“…what is technically possible is not for that very reason morally admissible. Rational reflection on the fundamental values of life and of human procreation is therefore indispensable for formulating a moral evaluation of such technological interventions on a human being from the first stages of his development….”
(“Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions,” William Cardinal Levada, Prefect; Luis F. Ladaria, S.I., Titular Archbishop of Thibica, Secretary; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (September 8, 2008)) [Emphasis mine]

5 Neuroplasticity and all that:

6 Medical imaging and other monitoring tech:

7 Brain-computer interfaces, commercial and otherwise:

8 More reasons for not missing the ‘good old days:’

Posted in Science News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Miscarriage, Stillbirth, and Hope

Posted on October 9, 2016 by Brian H. Gill

Philippe de Champaigne's 'Still-Life with a Skull', a vanitas painting. (c. 1671) left to right: life, death, and time.

Life in my mid-60s requires caution that wasn’t necessary in my youth. Considering the alternative, though, being alive is pretty good: even in moments of loss.

Miscarriage: Joy

Photo by Ikar.us: Kleinstkindergrab, babies' graves in Karlsruhe main cemetery. 'In the foreground a common burial field for miscarried children, in the background graves of children who were stillborn or have died soon after their birth.' (August 2, 2008) via Wikipedia, used w/o permission.
(From Ikar.us, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Kleinstkindergrab, babies’ graves in the Karlsruhe main cemetery, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.)

We lost one child, quite a few years ago, early in the pregnancy. Our best guess is that something went wrong with some basic function in Joy’s body.

The human body is a wonderfully complex thing: Which means a great many things can go wrong. This isn’t a perfect world.

My wife and I sealed what was left of Joy and the placenta, for testing: but saw to it that she was buried, informally and briefly, in hallowed ground.

I’m still not sure if that was what I should have done, but figured that ‘it’s easier to get forgiveness, than permission.’

Testing showed no problems, aside from the miscarriage. Years passed, and two more children joined the two we’d been blessed with before Joy.

Stillbirth: Elizabeth

We thought our sixth pregnancy would end in a normal delivery. This baby was doing fine. We, and our four surviving children, were looking forward to seeing the newest member of the family.

When the contractions started, they were off the 50th percentile, but as I recall they were inside the ‘normal’ range. When it was “time,” my wife and I headed for the hospital.

Elizabeth died, most likely, as we were approaching the Interstate exit nearest the hospital. My wife told me that our baby thrashed around: then stopped moving.

At the hospital, they detected no heartbeat. Whatever was going wrong was more than a rural hospital could handle.

Later that night I followed the ambulance carrying my wife to another hospital, an hour down the Interstate — and was with her when Elizabeth was delivered, beautifully formed; and quite dead.

My wife and I took turns holding Elizabeth as warmth left her body. Later, I learned that the center of the placenta had given way. The medical folks say if the failure had happened near the edge, my wife would have bled to death.

We have photos of Elizabeth, and of an ultrasound: but I haven’t looked at those for quite a long time.

There’s no need.

I remember what she looked like, the weight of her body in my arms: and I’m not likely to forget. Besides: God willing, I’ll meet her, and Joy, in no more than a few decades.

‘Why be miserable?’


(Our Lady of Angels’ Marian Garden, July 2013: a good place to sit and think.)

Talking over Elizabeth’s death with my wife, and how we feel about it, she summed up the situation with something like ‘why be miserable?’

She’s a very practical woman. And she’s right.

If I seem ‘upbeat’ about losing a third of our children: It helps that Elizabeth died 10 years ago. I’ve gone through the ‘stages of grief,’ more or less.

It’s not an easy process. Knowing what was behind a nervous tic and auditory hallucinations helped me get through those years: but I’d rather not repeat the experience.

There will always be an ‘Elizabeth size’ hole in my heart — and one for Joy.

But I’ve gotten used to the situation: just as people get used to their children living thousands of miles away.

‘It’s not fair.’ So?


(From William Blake, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(William Blake’s illustration of Job being ‘helped’ by his friends.)

Being born with deformed hips1 gave me opportunities to think about, and meditate on, whether or not expecting life to be “fair” by American standards is reasonable.

I’m convinced that God is just, and that He is merciful.2 I’m also certain that I wouldn’t understand why things happen, even if the Almighty explained His Will to me, so I’m not going to demand an explanation. I’ve read the book of Job.

“1 I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be hindered.”
(Job 42:2)

“Your reign is a reign for all ages, your dominion for all generations. The LORD is trustworthy in every word, and faithful in every work.”
(Psalms 145:13)

“For he is a God of justice, who knows no favorites.”
(Sirach 35:12)

Death is Certain, Life is Eternal

Sooner or later, I’ll die. I’m not looking forward to my final performance review, but it’s unavoidable.3

“Life is eternal; and love is immortal; and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight.”4

Then I live forever: in Heaven, or Hell, depending on my decisions.

It’s my choice: God does not drag anyone, kicking and screaming, into Heaven or Hell. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1021-1037)

My hope and goal is to be where death, mourning, and pain, no longer exist: and that’s another topic. (Revelation 21:4)

Meanwhile:

“Who will condemn? It is Christ (Jesus) who died, rather, was raised, who also is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us.
“What will separate us from the love of Christ? Will anguish, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword?…
“…For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers,
“nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
(Romans 8:34–35, 38–39)

Valuing life and health, within reason:

The still-life with a skull at the top of this post is by Philippe de Champaigne/Tessé Museum, made around 1671. Image from the Musée de Tessé, Le Mans, France; via Wikimedia Commons; used w/o permission.

1 I talked about that Friday: Reminiscence of a Lab Rat (October 7, 2016)

2 A bit about God:

“God’s almighty power is in no way arbitrary: ‘In God, power, essence, will, intellect, wisdom, and justice are all identical. Nothing therefore can be in God’s power which could not be in his just will or his wise intellect.’110”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 271)

Thomas Aquinas discusses commutative justice and distributive justice, moral virtues, good as perceived by intellect, relationships and debt, and God, in Summa Theologica, First Part, Question: 24 (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947))

3 We call the face-to-face interview with our Lord our particular judgment. (Catechism, 1021-1022)

4 Depending on your frame of reference: those are lyrics from the fourth track on Carly Simon’s Have You Seen Me Lately album; part of a prayer by Fr. Bede Jarrett, who had said he was repeating something William Penn wrote; or from Rossiter W. Raymond’s “Death is Only an Horizon” poem.

Posted in Being Catholic, Family Stories, Series | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments

Bioethics and a Three-Parent Baby

Posted on October 7, 2016 by Brian H. Gill

A Jordanian couple have a baby boy: who does not have a lethal genetic disorder, thanks to DNA transplanted from a third person. Four of his siblings did not survive the procedure.

I’ll be talking about the decisions involved in that procedure, research involving “tiny brains” grown from human cells, genetically modified humans grown as research subjects, and water bears.

  1. It’s a Boy: With DNA from Three People
  2. Growing “Tiny Brains”
  3. “Breaking Taboo” and Disposable People
  4. DNA and Water Bears

After discussing recent genetics news, I’ll share why I take human experimentation and medical ethics personally, and what I see coming in the near future:

First, a look the Tuskegee experiments, Shakespeare’s Richard III, and emotions.

Tuskegee and the Hippocratic Oath

Someone, Hippocrates or one of his students, wrote the Hippocratic Oath about two dozen centuries back.

It’s been rewritten, or ignored, quite a few times since.

But the basic idea, that doctors should behave ethically, won’t go away.

The World Medical Association’s Declaration of Geneva, 1948, followed embarrassments like Josef Mengele, Sigmund Rascher, and Unit 731.

A few decades later, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment (1932-1972) was finally exposed.

Around the same time, Hepatitis studies at Willowbrook State School were shut down; possibly because too many folks got squeamish over using mentally disabled children as lab animals.

Using humans in medical or scientific experiments isn’t bad by itself. What’s wrong is exposing the subject’s life, health, or sanity “to disproportionate or avoidable risks.” Taking that sort of risk without informed consent makes it worse. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2295)

That does not make doctors evil, or science bad.

Scientific research, including “research aimed at reducing human sterility,” can be a good thing: provided that we behave ethically. (Catechism, 2292-2295, 2375)

Ends and Means

I don’t need a cochlear implant, happily; but both my hip joints were swapped out a few years back, and several medications correct chemical imbalances in my brain.

I’m not racked with guilt because I didn’t ‘trust God,’ expecting miracle cures — because health is a “precious gift,” and I’m supposed to take reasonably good care of mine. (Catechism, Catechism, 2288-2289)

Wanting to cure disease or reduce suffering is a good thing, but the end doesn’t justify the means. Doing something bad and saying it’s for a good cause doesn’t make it right. (Catechism, 1753, 1789, 2278-2279, 2288)

Shakespeare has the title character say ‘I’ll be a villain’1 when the curtain goes up in Richard III: getting away with it because he’s Shakespeare, and Elizabethan audiences loved that sort of thing.

I strongly suspect that most folks who behave badly don’t see themselves as villains:

“And what’s he then that says I play the villain? When this advice is free I give and honest….”
(Iago, act II, scene III. “Othello,” Shakespeare, via Project Gutenberg)

Using humans as experimental subjects isn’t necessarily bad. Forgetting that humans — all humans — have equal dignity is. (Catechism, 372, 872, 1700 and following, 1934, 2203, 2334)

It’s not too hard, these days, to convince many Americans that subjects of the Tuskegee experiments were people whose lives mattered. That’s good news.

Changing Standards

Our standards have changed since the mid-19th century:

“…’…We blowed out a cylinder-head.’

” ‘Good gracious! anybody hurt?’

” ‘No’m. Killed a [redacted].’

” ‘Well, it’s lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt….’…”
(“The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” Part 2 (1885), Chapter XXXII, Mark Twain; via gutenberg.org)

“Huckleberry Finn” is fiction, but I’m pretty sure that Mark Twain knew folks who shared Aunt Sally’s belief that some folks weren’t, or weren’t quite, “people.”

Aunt Sally was nice enough, with no more than the usual human failings. But she lived in a society which treated some people as if they were property. It was a bad idea then, and still is. (Catechism, 2414)

I’m a Catholic, so I must believe that humans are people. All of us.

Human Life and Beliefs

I’m obliged to believe that each of us is someone, not something; a person; made in the image of the God. (Genesis 1:27; Catechism, 355-–357, 362)

God creates each of our souls. My soul is the immortal part of me, made by God at my conception, which will be separated from my body at death, but reunited at the final Resurrection. (John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15; Catechism, 366, 1038)

That’s why human life is sacred. (Catechism, 2258)

Everyone’s life is precious, no matter who our ancestors are, where we live, what we look like, or how old we are. (Catechism, 357, 361, 369-370, 1700, 1730, 1929, 2273-2274, 2276–2279)

We’re not all alike, and we’re not supposed to be. But we each have equal dignity. (Catechism, 33, 366, 1934-1938, 2232, 2393)

We can think, and decide how we act. In these ways we are like God. (Catechism, 1700-1706)

People, including children, are not property. My wife and I see our children as gifts from God: people in their own right, who we have been blessed to raise. (Catechism, 2221-2224, 2373-2379, 2414)

I must respect local, regional, and national, authorities; and be a responsible, active, citizen. (Catechism, 1897-1904, 1913-1917)

That does not mean blindly following orders, or committing acts which are legal but wrong. I shouldn’t steal, for example, unjustly taking another person’s property — even if my action is legal and socially acceptable — and “one is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.” (Catechism, 1905-1912, 2242, 2313, 2409)

Science and technology are fine. Learning how the universe works and using that knowledge to make new tools, is part of being human. Ignoring ethics isn’t — or shouldn’t be. (Catechism, 159, 2292-2296, 2375-2377, 2414)

“I have a Very Bad Feeling About This”

In the movies, these are good lines:

“I have a very bad feeling about this.”
(Luke Skywalker)(via IMDB.com)

“Luke, trust your feelings!”
(Obi-Wan Kenobi)

I didn’t find Obi-Wan Kenobi’s advice from the 1977 movie “Star Wars” in IMDB’s lists of movie quotes, except for something involving Mystery Science Theater 3000, which surprised me a bit.

I’ve seen plenty of references to “trust your feelings” elsewhere though: mostly in discussions or rants about how it’s a bad idea.

I talked about trusting emotions, within reason, on Wednesday. (October 5, 2016)

Basically — emotions2 aren’t good or bad by themselves. Emotions happen. Sometimes they tell me that I should pay attention to something. What matters isn’t the emotion. It’s how I use my will and reason. (Catechism, 1767)

Humanity’s track record for using our freedom is far from perfect, and that’s another topic. (Catechism, 1707-1709)

1. It’s a Boy: With DNA from Three People


(From New Hope Fertility Centre, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“Dr John Zhang holding the baby boy who was conceived thanks to the new technique that incorporates DNA from three people”
(BBC News))

“First ‘three person baby’ born using new method”
Michelle Roberts, BBC News (September 27, 2016)

“The world’s first baby has been born using a new ‘three person’ fertility technique, New Scientist reveals.

“The five-month-old boy has the usual DNA from his mum and dad, plus a tiny bit of genetic code from a donor.

“US doctors took the unprecedented step to ensure the baby boy would be free of a genetic condition that his Jordanian mother carries in her genes….”

The mother is healthy, but about a quarter of her mitochondria have genes for Leigh disease, or Leigh syndrome.

Her first two babies died from this disorder. Leigh disease affects the central nervous system, and generally kills its victims after a few very unpleasant years. Small wonder that this couple decided to get help.

A family; mother, father, and children; is very important. Families are where societies start, where children learn to care for themselves and for others. That’s how it’s supposed to work, anyway. (Catechism, 2201-2213)

Having kids is a good thing. “…Children are really the supreme gift of marriage….” (“Gaudium et Spes,” Pope Paul VI (December 7, 1965))

Some folks are catching on that sub-replacement fertility is happening in nearly half of the world’s nations, and that’s yet another topic.

My hat’s off to couples who decide that raising more than one or two kids is a good idea.

“…Among the couples who fulfil their God-given task in this way, those merit special mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation, undertake to bring up suitably even a relatively large family….”
(“Gaudium et Spes“)

Not having kids can be a good thing, too.

Married couples who cannot have children “…can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.” Adoption can be a win-win situation for an infertile couple and a child who needs a home. (Catechism, 1652-1654, 2379)

My wife and I had no trouble getting kids started. Keeping them alive was another matter. Two of the six died before we got a chance to know them, and we nearly lost my wife the second time. That was a stressful experience.

Some couples discover that they cannot conceive children. That can be stressful, too. (Genesis 30:1; Catechism, Catechism, 2373-2379)

Sole Survivor


(From BBC News, used w/o permission.)

“Exclusive: World’s first baby born with new ‘3 parent’ technique”
Jessica Hamzelou, New Scientist (September 27, 2016)

“…The method approved in the UK is called pronuclear transfer and involves fertilising both the mother’s egg and a donor egg with the father’s sperm. Before the fertilised eggs start dividing into early-stage embryos, each nucleus is removed. The nucleus from the donor’s fertilised egg is discarded and replaced by that from the mother’s fertilised egg.

“But this technique wasn’t appropriate for the couple – as Muslims, they were opposed to the destruction of two embryos. So Zhang took a different approach, called spindle nuclear transfer. He removed the nucleus from one of the mother’s eggs and inserted it into a donor egg that had had its own nucleus removed. The resulting egg – with nuclear DNA from the mother and mitochondrial DNA from a donor – was then fertilised with the father’s sperm.

“Zhang’s team used this approach to create five embryos, only one of which developed normally. This embryo was implanted in the mother and the child was born nine months later….

“…Neither method has been approved in the US, so Zhang went to Mexico instead, where he says ‘there are no rules’. He is adamant that he made the right choice. ‘To save lives is the ethical thing to do,’ he says….”

I am happy for the couple and their surviving baby. The four siblings who died in the process — I trust that their deaths were unintentional.

Given what I’ve read about this situation, I am reasonably certain that the couple did not knowingly agree to a ‘winner takes all’ situation, with life as the prize for the one child who survived.

Whether or not the doctors involved understood what they were doing is a good question. I prefer to assume that Dr. Zhang and others believe they acted correctly.

My take on this situation is counter-cultural, and starts in Deuteronomy:

“1 ‘Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!”
(Deuteronomy 6:4)

A bit over a half-dozen centuries later, our Lord said that “This is the greatest and the first commandment.” (Matthew 22:38)

He also said that loving our neighbor, and seeing everyone as our neighbor, is a very good idea. (Matthew 5:43–44, 22:36–40; Mark 12:28–31; Luke 6:31, Luke 10:25–27, 29–37; Catechism, 2196)

That’s everyone: the neighbor using power tools outside at night, the guy who took ‘my’ parking space, folks I’ve never met. Everyone — including folks who aren’t “people” by my native culture’s standards.

I can’t pick and choose who I want to believe is a person and who isn’t.

Well, actually, I can. I’ve got free will, and that’s yet again another topic.

This is where it gets awkward.

Some of what follows may seem familiar. I discussed this sort of gene therapy last year, when A Catholic Citizen in America was on Blogger. (February 13, 2015)

Therapy, Death, and “Rational Reflection”

Mitochndrial donation is a new form of in vitro fertilisation where part of the baby’s mitochondrial DNA comes from a third party.3 As of last year, it’s legal in the UK:

I could assume that this medical technology is bad because it’s new: or good for the same reason. That doesn’t seem reasonable.

Instead, I’ll look at what’s involved.

I’m pretty sure that scientists who developed this technique didn’t see major safety or ethical issues. Unless they’re daft, the scientists wouldn’t ask for human testing until they were confident that their tech would work.

Preventing lethal disease of any sort, including mitochondrial diseases, is a good idea. (Catechism, 1503-1510)

I could get excited by the prospect of a world without birth defects.

It’s a personal issue for me. A friend and classmate died in her teens of a cancer that might have been due in part to an inherited metabolic glitch.

My defective hips may be inherited, or could have happened for other reasons. My quirky neurochemistry is almost certainly inherited. My father was the same way, although less so; and two of my kids enjoy — or suffer — what I do.

However:

“…what is technically possible is not for that very reason morally admissible. Rational reflection on the fundamental values of life and of human procreation is therefore indispensable for formulating a moral evaluation of such technological interventions on a human being from the first stages of his development….”
(“Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions,” William Cardinal Levada, Prefect; Luis F. Ladaria, S.I., Titular Archbishop of Thibica, Secretary; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (September 8, 2008)) [Emphasis mine]

Life and Leftover Parts

(From HFEA, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“1) Two eggs are fertilised with sperm, creating an embryo from the intended parents and another from the donors 2) The pronuclei, which contain genetic information, are removed from both embryos but only the parents’ are kept 3) A healthy embryo is created by adding the parents’ pronuclei to the donor embryo, which is finally implanted into the womb[.]”
(James Gallagher, BBC News (February 3, 2015))


(From HFEA, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“1) Eggs from a mother with damaged mitochondria and a donor with healthy mitochondria are collected 2) The majority of the genetic material is removed from both eggs 3) The mother’s genetic material is inserted into the donor egg, which can be fertilised by sperm.”
(James Gallagher, BBC News)

Like I said earlier, I must believe that human life is sacred; and that humans are people; no matter how young, old, or sick we are. (Catechism, 2258, 2270, 2276-2279)

That’s why I’m pretty sure that “method one” isn’t acceptable.

You’d start with two people: one from the parents, and one from donors. You’d wind up with one person: with the donor-child’s mitochondrial DNA and the parent’s DNA in his or her cells’ nuclei.

I could rationalize that half a person is better than none, or that two halves make a whole, or dive into metaphysical gibberish.

I won’t, because I’m pretty sure that when two living people go into an operating room, and one comes out — someone’s missing, and the leftover parts suggest that one of the originals died.

That doesn’t seem right.

I think “method two” may, in at least some cases, be acceptable. In theory, at least.

That’s because the church doesn’t insist that every bit of material with human DNA is a person.

“Method two” could start with two eggs — not people — and ultimately end with a person. Nobody dies, and that’s a good thing.

Four out of Five

More accurately, that would be a good thing, if nobody died.

As Jessica Hamzelou’s article in New Scientist (September 27, 2016) points out, five people were conceived in this procedure.

Only one “developed normally” and was allowed to live.

Four out of five non-survivors is an 80% mortality rate.

Again, I’m happy for the baby boy who survived, and for the couple who will raise him: but that’s a lot of death for one life.

The death rate leading to this couple’s new arrival was about as low as can be hoped for. That was the case in 2008, at least, mentioned in footnote [27] of “Instruction Dignitas Personae:”

“…It is true that approximately a third of women who have recourse to artificial procreation succeed in having a baby. It should be recognized, however, that given the proportion between the total number of embryos produced and those eventually born, the number of embryos sacrificed is extremely high.[27] These losses are accepted by the practitioners of in vitro fertilization as the price to be paid for positive results….”
(“Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions;” William Card. Levada, Prefect; Luis F. Ladaria, S.I., Titular Archbishop of Thibica, Secretary (September 8, 2008)
“[27] Currently the number of embryos sacrificed, even in the most technically advanced centers of artificial fertilization, hovers above 80%.”

“…The practice of keeping alive human embryos in vivo or in vitro for experimental or commercial purposes is totally opposed to human dignity. In the case of experimentation that is clearly therapeutic, namely, when it is a matter of experimental forms of therapy used for the benefit of the embryo itself in a final attempt to save its life, and in the absence of other reliable forms of therapy, recourse to drugs or procedures not yet fully tested can be licit….”
(“Donum vitae,” “Instruction on respect for human life;” Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect; Alberto Bovone, Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia Secretary (February 22, 1987))

2. Growing “Tiny Brains”


(From BBC, used w/o permission.)

“The genius who grows tiny brains in a lab”
BBC Earth (26 September 26, 2016)

“Our brains are complex organic computers – some believe the most complicated in the Universe. Yet one scientist has managed to create mini brains that mimic how our minds work.

“Deep in a lab in Cambridge, England, you will find see an extraordinary thing: tiny, exact replicas of the human brain growing in a petri dish.

“Their creator, Madeline Lancaster, still remembers the day she first wanted to study the human brain as a small girl. Her father was a scientist, and one day he allowed her to peer down a microscope and view a neuron growing in a petri dish. ‘I was completely struck by how beautiful and how complex the neural structure is. It’s just amazing.’…”

The human brain is amazing, and I agree with BBC Earth’s assertion that “animal studies can only tell us so much about our own minds.”

I talked about our version of the SRGAP2 gene last month. (September 23, 2016)

I’m not so sure about this:

“…Unfortunately, it’s been enormously difficult to probe its secrets – it’s not as if a scientist can just lift off the skull, like the hood of a car, and peer inside at the tissue underneath….”
(BBC Earth)

It’s true that craniotomies are major operations, and that finding enough student volunteers for a research project might be a challenge.

However, imaging tech has come a long way since my youth, when shoe-fitting fluoroscopes were still in fairly common use. As I’ve said before, I don’t miss the ‘good old days.’

These days, surgeons often get an MRI scan before the operation, to see where the various parts are. That would be an example of structural neuroimaging.

Functional neuroimaging tech, like positron emission tomography, functional magnetic resonance_imaging, and magnetoencephalography — try saying that fast, five times — lets us “see” what a brain is doing.

I’ll grant that neuroimaging, like anything else, has limitations.

That, apparently, is why Lancaster is growing miniature versions of human brains in her lab.

Neurons and Confidence


(From keval_tilva, Shakhova, O., and Sommer, L., Neural crest-derived stem cells (May 4, 2010); via Wikimedia Commons; used w/o permission.)

“…She uses stem cells cultivated from skin samples and then bathes them in nutrients and vitamins designed to trigger their development into neurons, before planting them in a dense protein gel. Amazingly, as the cells replicate and grow, they start to organise themselves into a tiny model of our own brains.

” ‘Although they don’t have any sensation or any feeling we now have this tool that we could use to answer all kinds of questions about a developing brain,’ says Lancaster….”
(BBC Earth)

I hope she’s right, that “…they don’t have any sensation or any feeling…” — and that these tiny brain-like clusters of human neurons are no more than useful laboratory specimens.

About the stem cells used to get these organoids started: stem cells in my skin aren’t “embryonic,” and haven’t been for decades. But they can be reprogrammed to act embryonic stem cells, after which they’d be called induced pluripotent stem cell.

I probably wouldn’t enjoy the process of collecting stem cells from my skin any more than I enjoyed giving blood samples for routine lab work yesterday. But aside from discomfort, I’d be unharmed; and very nearly unaffected.

Getting back to the brain-like clusters of human neurons, I’d be more confident that they don’t feel anything if so many folks weren’t convinced that animals don’t experience pain. That idea goes back at least as far as Descartes.

I’ll agree that humans are a special sort of animal, and I’ve talked about that before. (July 15, 2016)

Brains in a Vat?

Since the mini-brains aren’t connected to eyes, ears, or other body parts, they can’t tell researchers what they see or feel.

I’m not entirely convinced that this inability proves that they aren’t aware to some extent.

A near-worst-case scenario is that they’re very young people, experiencing something like locked-in syndrome combined with total sensory deprivation.

Folks have used partial sensory deprivation for millennia.

Hitbodedut, dark retreat, Pratyahara, and various disciplines of monastic silence, involve reducing or avoiding sensory stimulation. Some folks think it’s therapeutic, and they may be right.

I do an hour of Eucharistic adoration each week in a very quiet room. That sort of spiritual exercise does not come naturally to me: but I think it’s a good idea.

On the other hand, complete sensory deprivation for 15 minutes sometimes leads to hallucinations or delusions. Researchers figure some of that comes from source-monitoring errors in our brains.

Longer-term sensory deprivation. particular when it’s forced on someone, can lead to more unpleasant experiences.

Maybe those clusters of human neurons really are no more than experimental subjects. They’re certainly not equivalent to adult human brains.4

But I’d be a whole lot less uneasy, if I limited my notion of “people” to folks who are at least a few months old.

3. “Breaking Taboo” and Disposable People


(From Rob Stein/NPR, via NPR, used w/o permission.)
(“Fredrik Lanner (right) of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and his student Alvaro Plaza Reyes examine a magnified image of an human embryo that they used to attempt to create genetically modified healthy human embryos.”
(NPR))

“Breaking Taboo, Swedish Scientist Seeks To Edit DNA Of Healthy Human Embryos”
NPR (September 22, 2016)

“NPR recently got exclusive access to Lanner’s labs at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm to watch some of his early efforts.

“During the visit, Lanner and a graduate student carefully thawed five embryos donated by couples who had gone through in vitro fertilization at the Karolinska University Hospital to try to have children.

“One of the embryos didn’t survive the freezing and thawing process. The researchers gingerly placed each of the remaining 2-day-old embryos into a dish on a special microscope….”

I say this a lot: learning how the universe works, and using that knowledge to make new tools, is part of being human. But being curious isn’t an excuse to misbehave.

Experiments on humans are okay, but not if the experiment “…exposes the subject’s life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks….” (Catechism, 2292-2295)

I don’t imagine that humans become people at some arbitrary age: convenient as that might be. (Catechism, 2270)

That’s why I think that therapeutic treatment of folks who haven’t been born yet can be a good idea: but growing disposable people so they can be used in experiments isn’t. (Catechism, 2275, 2292-2295)

4. DNA and Water Bears


(From Eye of Science/Science Photo Library, via Nature, used w/o permission.)
(“Water bears are renowned for their ability to withstand extreme conditions.”
(Nature))

“Tardigrade protein helps human DNA withstand radiation”
Jason Bittel, Nature (September 20, 2016)

“Experiments show that the tardigrade’s resilience can be transferred to cultures of human cells.

“Water bears are renowned for their ability to withstand extreme conditions.

“Tardigrades, or water bears, are pudgy, microscopic animals that look like a cross between a caterpillar and a naked mole rat. These aquatic invertebrates are consummate survivors, capable of withstanding a host of extremes, including near total dehydration and the insults of space.

“Now, a paper published on 20 September in Nature Communications pinpoints the source of yet another tardigrade superpower: a protective protein that provides resistance to damaging X-rays. And researchers were able to transfer that resistance to human cells.

” ‘Tolerance against X-ray is thought to be a side-product of [the] animal’s adaption to severe dehydration,’ says lead study author Takekazu Kunieda, a molecular biologist at the University of Tokyo. According to Kunieda, severe dehydration wreaks havoc on the molecules in living things. It can even tear apart DNA, much like X-rays can….”

Takekazu Kunieda and others picked Ramazzottius varieornatus, an exceptionally indestructible tardigrade species, for their research.

The first step was sequencing the critter’s genome.

Apparently observing the processes that happen inside tardigrade cells is easier if the tardigrade genome gets inserted into mammalian cells. These researchers reprogrammed cultures of human cells to produce pieces of the water bear’s metabolic machinery.

They learned that a protein called Dsup (“damage suppressor”) kept tardigrade DNA from breaking under the stress of radiation and desiccation. They also discovered human cells with tardigrade DNA weren’t as susceptible to X-ray damage as those without.

This is good news, since the research may lead to treatments that reduce risk for folks working in and near nuclear plants.5

I’m not eager to get my cells reprogrammed with tardigrade DNA: partly because I’m not near radiation hazards, partly because we haven’t sorted out some interesting ethical concerns yet.

“Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions” (2008), 33., specifically addresses reprogramming human somatic cells with another animal’s oocytes.

In other words, the Catholic Church has looked at the implications of mixing human and animal DNA in ways that pass the genetic reprogramming on to succeeding generations.

It’s something we can do, but “…such procedures represent an offense against the dignity of human beings on account of the admixture of human and animal genetic elements capable of disrupting the specific identity of man.…”6

Unchanging Principles, Changing Applications

I feel a little frustration at the 2008 decision about reprogramming human reproductive cells: and think it makes sense, given what we know today.

The idea isn’t that we should be afraid of knowledge.

It’s that we should remember who we are.

We’re made in the image of God, with a dignity that goes with that our nature. Respect for the dignity of the human person is why social justice is so important, and that’s still another topic. (Catechism, 1700, 1701-1706, 1928-1942)

I accept what the Church says about mixing human and other DNA.

I am also certain that the Church will still say that humanity is made in the image of God two millennia from now — with the dignity and responsibilities that implies.

Since we’re rapidly discovering more about previously-unknown aspects of genetics, I suspect that rules about DNA will be reviewed within the next century: probably sooner.

The Church doesn’t ‘change its mind’ about underlying principles: but how we apply those principles gets revised occasionally.

Cremation, for example, was forbidden at one time: but now is allowed, unless the act is a denial of the body’s resurrection. (Catechism, 2301; “Some Current Questions in Eschatology,” 6.4, International Theological Commission (1992))

Horizontal Gene Transfer, Being Human

Getting back to genetics — over the last few years, we’ve been learning that gene swapping between species happens regularly. It’s called horizontal gene transfer.

Pea aphids have genes from fungi; a malaria pathogen got genetic material from humans that may help it stay in our bodies.

A recent study says that 100 of the 20,000-odd genes in our DNA probably came from other species. Those figures may or may not be accurate: debate and research were still happening, the last time I checked.

If we learn that some of our inherited genes come from horizontal gene transfer, and if this turns out to be how our bodies are supposed to work — maybe the Church will decide that mixing human and other DNA is acceptable.

It could, I suspect, be seen as equivalent to implants like fillings and artificial joints, but on a molecular level.

Meanwhile, like I said, I accept what the Church says.

Reminiscence of a Lab Rat

Rotating the hips was part of a newborn’s first checkup, even back in 1951. When I screamed, the doctor said something like ‘that hurts, doesn’t it?’

I don’t know why he didn’t tell my parents that I had congenital hip dysplasia. That’s a five-dollar term meaning that my hips hadn’t grown correctly.

He definitely knew what I was going through, writing a learned paper on what happens when this particular birth defect is ignored.7

My parents eventually learned about my substandard hips. Two operations in early childhood put me on my feet, and after decades of perhaps-avoidable pain I got both hips replaced. It’s a nice change of pace.

That experience, and what happened to my mother when I was twelve, made human experimentation and medical ethics personal issues for me.

Problems — and Opportunities — Ahead

I think we’ve got problems — and opportunities — ahead.

Strictly therapeutic genetic manipulation may, in some cases, be okay: and a blessing to folks with inherited disorders.

The same technologies could be used to purge “undesirable” traits from humanity. Since many of my ancestors are of an ‘inferior race,’ I can hardly be expected to show enthusiasm for eugenics. And that’s still another topic, for another post.

More posts about faith, science, and making sense:

1 The original line is “I am determined to prove a villain” — my language has changed a bit over the last few centuries. Shakespeare’s Richard III is a very successful play, but not particularly accurate:

2 Some folks seem to be “emotionless;” but my guess is that we have a very great deal left to learn about how we use our neural circuitry, and what can go wrong:

3 ‘Three-parent’ baby, background:

4 Grow-your-own brains, brain in a vat thought experiment, and all that:

5 Tardigrades and somewhat-related topics:

6 A longer excerpt:

“…33. Recently animal oocytes have been used for reprogramming the nuclei of human somatic cells – this is generally called hybrid cloning – in order to extract embryonic stem cells from the resulting embryos without having to use human oocytes.

“From the ethical standpoint, such procedures represent an offense against the dignity of human beings on account of the admixture of human and animal genetic elements capable of disrupting the specific identity of man. The possible use of the stem cells, taken from these embryos, may also involve additional health risks, as yet unknown, due to the presence of animal genetic material in their cytoplasm. To consciously expose a human being to such risks is morally and ethically unacceptable….”
(“Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions,” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (June 20, 2008))

7 Reminiscence of a Lab Rat, continued:

My parents learned about my hips after noticing that I had trouble rolling over and wasn’t very good at crawling.

A surgeon sculpted a socket for my left hip, using bone from my femur. I was able to walk back into the hospital a few years later, when something went wrong with the remodeled hip. The right socket was definitely not up to specs, but was good enough to leave alone.

Neither of the operations, or the physical therapy, were a medical experiment. I’m getting to that.

My father was head librarian at a college, getting himself assigned to the reference desk from time to time. He enjoyed being able to connect students with information they needed: and having time to read a book or periodical from the shelves.

One day, he noticed an article titled something like “Effects of Delayed Treatment on Congenital Hip Dysplasia.” Decades later told me that, as he read the author’s name and realized what the good doctor had done, it felt like the top of his head had come off.

Before he got to the doctor, my mother discussed the matter with him. He returned to his duties at the library. She made an appointment with the doctor.

During that appointment, I suppose that she discussed the matter of congenital hip dysplasia, certain aspects of medical research, and her son. I understand that she did not speak — ever — of what happened in that room.

It might have been more humane, in a way, to let an enraged Irishman get at the doctor, instead of five-foot-nothing of concentrated viking determination.

Posted in Being a Citizen, Being Catholic, Science News | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Trusting Feelings: Within Reason

Posted on October 5, 2016 by Brian H. Gill

Anger is bad, right?

Yes, sort of, but it’s a bit more complicated than that.

Emotions, anger included, are good; in the sense that they’re part of being human. They’re “…the connection between the life of the senses and the life of the mind….” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1764)

In another sense, emotions aren’t good or bad by themselves. What matters is what we decide to do about them. (Catechism, 1762–1770)

Cracked Mirrors and Yeats

My wife gave me a familiar ‘did you really say that?’ look last year, when I said I didn’t understand why so many folks are upset about current events.

She had reason on her side: as usual. I’m pretty much the opposite of phlegmatic.

But I don’t see much point in heeding cracked mirrors, or taking my cue from Yeats:

“…The mirror crack’d from side to side;
‘The curse is come upon me,’ cried
The Lady of Shalott….”
(“The Lady of Shalott,” Tennyson (1842))

“…Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

“Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand….”
(“The Second Coming,” William Butler Yeats (1920))

Yeats, and quite a few other folks, were getting over the Great War. Since then we’ve survived another global war, McCarthyism, leisure suits, and disco. I’m not enjoying my country’s 2016 presidential election, but I’m pretty sure we’ll survive that, too.

Getting and staying angry about the nonsense getting flung by candidates, their supporters, and assorted pundits, would be a very bad idea.

High Stakes

Our Lord raised the stakes in Matthew 5:20–26.

“15 16 ‘You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, “You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.”

“17 But I say to you, whoever is angry 18 with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.”
(Matthew 5:21–22)

Controlling my actions is a good idea. So is controlling what happens inside, in my heart. (Matthew 15:18–19)

“Raqa,” or “reqa,” probably meant something like “imbecile,” or “blockhead” in Aramaic. Either way, it’s offensive: the sort of insult that could lead to murder.

I’m pretty sure that Matthew 5:22 tells us that verbal abuse is a bad idea, and I shouldn’t do it. The other person might get angry enough to hurt me.

Worse, venting my feelings could become a bad habit: which probably involves my basal ganglia, and certainly gets harder to change as I get older.

Bottom line — How I treat others matters. So does what I keep in my mind and heart.

Definitions, Emotions, and Getting a Grip

The brain’s neurocircuitry handles emotions, which is why hypothalamic disease plays hob with our feelings.

Time for definitions — In English, a “passion” is a strong emotion; a state of strong sexual desire, or love; or boundless enthusiasm. (thefreedictionary.com)

In Catholic writing, “passion” means something closer to “feelings.” These emotions push us toward acting or not acting about something we feel or imagine is good or evil. (Catechism, 1763)

“ANGER: An emotion which is not in itself wrong, but which, when it is not controlled by reason or hardens into resentment and hate, becomes one of the seven capital sins. Christ taught that anger is an offense against the fifth commandment (1765, 1866, 2262).”

“PASSIONS, MORAL: The emotions or dispositions which incline us to good or evil actions, such as love and hate, hope and fear, joy and sadness, and anger (1763).”
(Catechism, Glossary)

The antics of loudly-religious folks notwithstanding, faith and reason get along fine. (Catechism, 156–159)

Getting Angry, Staying Angry

Getting back to Tennyson, Yeats, and angst; I care about what’s going on — and I trust my feelings: within reason.

I think that’s partly because living with undiagnosed depression and something on the autism spectrum for decades taught me that my emotions are unreliable guides.

Having a good, or bad, feeling about something may mean that it’s good or evil — or not. That’s why I should think before responding. (Catechism, 1765–1770)

Ideally, my emotions would line up with my reason.

“…since the sensitive appetite can obey reason, as stated above (Question [17], Article [7]), it belongs to the perfection of moral or human good, that the passions themselves also should be controlled by reason….”
(“The Summa Theologica,” First Part of the Second Part | Question: 24 | Article: 3, St. Thomas Aquinas)
(translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)

I’m not all that close to “the perfection of moral or human good” — but I’m working on it.

I trust my feelings to let me know that something may be important. After that, it’s up to my reason to decide what’s happening and what — if anything — I should do.

Reason is part of being human, too. But because we have free will, thinking is an option: not a requirement. My experience has been that I’m better off if I think before I act. (Catechism, 1730, 1778, 1804, 2339)

I don’t think that feeling angry about some injustice is wrong. I’d be concerned if I didn’t feel something like that.

Deliberately staying angry, letting that emotional impulse turn into hate or despair: that would be wrong. (Catechism, 1501, 2091)

The flip side of despair is presumption, and that’s another topic. (Catechism, 2092)

Doing What’s Right

Feeling angry isn’t good or bad by itself.

Sometimes it just happens.

Hanging on to anger, letting it build into a desire to harm or kill someone else: that’s where it becomes a sin. (Catechism, 1762–1775, 2302–2303)

Like it says in Romans 12:19: “… ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ ” And that’s yet another topic.

Then there’s the notion that God has anger management issues. More topics.

Doing what’s right is easier our emotions are in sync with our reason: but “…conscience is a law of the mind….” We’ve got brains, and are expected to think. (Catechism, 1762–1775, 1776)

Not-entirely-unrelated posts:

Posted in Being Catholic | Tagged , , | 6 Comments