I suggest that we talk about the subject of bioethics. Every day we are being challenged with new technological advances that soem times go into the twilight zone and become not very clearly ethical or none. I know lots of things are a matter of personal judgement, but as a cociety of humans we need to reach a kind of a greement on basic issues and classify them as ethgical or unethical. One example, and I am not talking about cloning of humans, is the treatment of animals in the developed countries which makes a dog in North America have a much better life than humans in most of the third world countries. Another example I heared from a speaker in a seminar that in teh US we spend ten times on treating boldness than the whole world spends on malaria research which kills thousands worldwide. Is this ethical?

This is a topic I would definitely like to see added to the forum.
Thought of it earlier, before realising it had already been mentioned.

David E said:

If there is sufficient support for a bioethics forum from our members, one will be generated. Thanks for your suggestions.

The topic of bioethics could benefit all members

I think bioethics would be a great forum...particularly as it relates to handling data.

It is a very important topic and covers all aspects of science topics can be very diverse from tissue collection to authorship to right to ide cases etc...

David E said:

If there is sufficient support for a bioethics forum from our members, one will be generated. Thanks for your suggestions.

I would certainly be interested - this is a very important topic, especially if it includes the general ethics of science to do with the handling of data.

I wonder what do you mean if there is enough support for Bioethics. How do you decide if there is enough support or not. The question should be how important bioethics to the scientific community. If we agree about its importance then we should be able to have a forum to talk about it.
Regards,

How about as a subjetc to start with the ethics of performing research on human samples. I am suggesting this topic because I know in some academic labs resaerchers get samples from the OR with patient identification. I think that is not right. What do you think?

It appears from viewing this thread that there is member support for a Bioethics Forum. If you have any additional ideas for forums within Bioethics let us know.

Bioethics
-Cloning/stem cell therapy
-Conflict of interest
-Human/Animal gene transfer/gene therapy
-Meeting announcements

salhasan said:

How about as a subjetc to start with the ethics of performing research on human samples. I am suggesting this topic because I know in some academic labs resaerchers get samples from the OR with patient identification. I think that is not right. What do you think?

If the patient is identified in some way that people can understand directly, without checking the patient's records, then that is clearly not right. But if the ID is just a number or some other code, I don't see that there is any problem. It might be necessary for the researcher to get information about the patient's medical condition later on, for instance if the cells behave abnormally, so there should be some way of tracing the tissue without revealing the patient's identity to anyone in the lab.

Human tissue in research, authorship and the conditions for granting authorship. I saw people get their names on publications for showing someone how to use the autoclave, Gene therapy
All of these can be ideas to discuss

The patient should not be identifiable to the end user of the tissue samples. When the sample is collected it should be given an ID number, then when it goes to the end user it should be given another IDnumber. If follow uo is needed the end user can contact the supplier who can contact the hospital and get information. You can visit www.asterand.com to see more information about collecting tissue samples under strict ethical conditions.

Conflict of interest is an important subject. I believe that if you as ascientist have the money to invest you should be able to do so any where as long as you are doing it in a fair way in accordance with the law. That means if you do not have insider information (Marth Steuart type), and you invest like any one elese there should be a limit. If you have any insider information you should not invest. Self regulation is the first step. The second step is stiffer penalties for scientists who use or help in insider traiding and investment. It is natural to invest in what you know. There is no limit on Donald trumph investment in real estate, why should we have limit on scientists investing legally in science and technology.
Samir Alhasan, PhD

Ethics discussions attempt to define and justify the rationale for adopting one type of behavior rather than another. They are, in essence, an effort to define and agree on a common set of behavioral principles, which in turn derive from, and depend upon the existence of, a commonly held set of fundamental personal beliefs. The power of an ethics argument lies in it's presumption that certain beliefs (concepts) posses a value that transcends mere pragmatism - they are inherently good, not just useful. Without that assumption the foundation for any ethics discussion is fatally undermined. Ethics discussions are thus profoundly different from scientific discussions which deal exclusively with the types of observable and quantifiable outcomes about which it would be irrelevant to consider issues of inherent "goodness". It is however impossible to establish the validity of the type of premise that underlies ethics discussions by purely logical analysis. The validity of such a premise (belief) cannot be established by evaluation of its real-world consequences unless an agreed-upon referential framework for identifying goodness already exists. Religious belief is likely to emerge as the sole reliable source for that framework. Appeals to humanitarian principles that are unrelated to religious belief are unsatisfactory in that they amount to little more than appeals to the dont you think it would be a nicer/better world if we all behaved (thought) this way rhetoric, and the expectation that feelings of guilt will be aroused in the dissenter - an expectation which itself presumes the existence of a set of common beliefs that are being willfully denied by the dissenter in pursuit of some selfish, or evil objective! Other origins for a referential framework might include brainwashing from parental or peer-group pressure, or the Darwinian imperative of instinct. Once the source of such beliefs has been recognized however their power would evaporate. Or perhaps religious and mystical experiences are real experiences (by way of an undocumented sensory system?) of real phenomena, rather like sound is the experience of variations in pressure. Perception of this phenomenon might require training and practice, might be blocked by certain habits of cognition, or might simply be absent as a result of genetic mutation (Watsons infamous religious gene?) leaving the victim deaf.

That is a good philosophical explanation of ethics. It is very important to define what is ethical and what is not in science. Science has so much power tat if it is not bound by ethical rules, it will produce catstrophic reults. Example of that is the experiments on humans to produce the superhuman by the natzies. Ethical rules are put by the society and could be affected by culture religion and traditions of the specific society. In modern societies however science evolved as religion to osme people and the scientific community was able to define ethical rules that can be acepted by different cultures and societies.