History and Technology An International Journal (Volume 24 Issue 2, 2008) is now available by subscription only.

Articles include:
“How pharmaceuticals became patentable: the production and appropriation of drugs in the twentieth century” by Jean-Paul Gaudillière, 99 – 106
“Professional or industrial order? Patents, biological drugs, and pharmaceutical capitalism in early twentieth century Germany” by Jean-Paul Gaudillière, 107 – 133
“Patents and public health in France. Pharmaceutical patent law in-the-making at the patent office between the two world wars” by Maurice Cassier, 135 – 151
“‘Patenting in the public interest:’ administration of insulin patents by the University of Toronto” by Maurice Cassier; Christiane Sinding, 153 – 171
“Upheaval in the moral economy of science? Patenting, teamwork and the World War II experience of penicillin” by Robert Bud, 173 – 190
“Patents and the UK pharmaceutical industry between 1945 and the 1970s” by Judy Slinn, 191 – 205

Journal of Religious Ethics (March 2008 - Vol. 36 Issue 1) is now available by subscription only.

Articles include:
“ISLAM AND BIOETHICS. Beyond Abortion and Euthanasia” by Jonathan E. Brockopp, 3–12
“BRAIN DEATH AND ITS ENTANGLEMENTS. A Redefinition of Personhood for Islamic Ethics” by Omar Sultan Haque, 13–36
“THE DUTY TO FEED IN CASES OF ADVANCED DEMENTIA. Scientific Challenges and a Proposed Islamic Ethical Response” by Shabbir M. H. Alibhai, 37–52
“CONTEMPORARY MUFTIS BETWEEN BIOETHICS AND SOCIAL REALITY. Selection of the Sex of a Fetus as Paradigm” by Vardit Rispler-Chaim, 53–76
“AN ISLAMIC APPRAISAL OF MINDING THE GAP. Psycho-Spiritual Dynamics in the Doctor–Patient Relationship” by Faiz Khan, 77–96
“SACRED LAW RECONSIDERED. The Similarity of Bioethical Debates in Islamic Contexts and Western Societies” by Manfred Sing, 97–121

Clinical Transplantation (March/April 2008 - Vol. 22 Issue 2) is now available by subscription only.

Articles include:
“Attitude of health care professionals to brain death: influence on the organ donation process” by
Jonathan Cohen, Sharona Ben Ami, Tamar Ashkenazi and Pierre Singer, 211–215

Archives of Neurology (Neuromics 2008 Part I: March 2008; Vol. 65, No. 3) is now available by subscription only.

Articles include:
“Stem Cells on the Brain” by Paul S. Knoepfler, 311-315

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics (Volume 17, Issue 02) is now available by subscription only.

Articles include:
“Healthcare Disparities: The Salience of Social Class” by ERIKA BLACKSHER, 143-153
“Clinical Cultural Competence and the Threat of Ethical Relativism” by INSOO HYUN, 154-163
“Culture as a Useful Conceptual Tool in Clinical Ethics Consultation” by HENRY S. PERKINS, 164-172
‘“Cultural Competence” and Informed Consent in International Health Research” by PATRICIA A. MARSHALL, 206-215

Artificial Organs (March 2008 - Vol. 32 Issue 3) is now available by subscription only.

Articles include:
“Importance of Artificial Organs Research in the Age of Regenerative Medicine” by Yoshinori Mitamura, PhD, 179–182
“Artificial Organs 2007: A Year in Review” by Paul S. Malchesky, 240–258

Under intense pressure from the Catholic Church and others, Prime Minister Gordon Brown is allowing a free vote on the notorious embryo bill, that we first discussed the here at SHS a few days ago. From the story:

Mr Brown agreed to let Labour MPs vote according to–conscience, rather than the party whip, on the three most controversial clauses of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. These involve creating animal-human embryos for medical research before discarding them; removing the requirement for a father in IVF treatment, thus opening the way for more single women and lesbians to have children; and so-called ’saviour siblings’, where a child with the correct tissue match is created to save a sick brother or sister.

I was asked to comment on the bill by a UK advocacy group opposed to many of the bill’s provisions. Here is what I said:

The United Kingdom is in danger of becoming “Brave New Britain.” Heedless of the intrinsic value of human life, swooning for the siren song of “CURES! CURES! CURES” the government apparently believes that scientists should have a blank check–both ethically and financially. But proper ethics are crucial to excellence in science. A science sector that treats human life–even at its nascent stages–as mere malleable clay or akin to a corn crop ripe for the harvest, will be likely to also lose respect for human life at other stages of existence. We tempt the whirl wind when we permit the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos. We objectify procreation when we accede to creating new babies to be used for body parts. Some might say, so what–if the body part baby is also a wanted baby in his or her own right. But what if the baby is not wanted, but only created for his or her parts? What then?

The crucial point upon which to focus is that we can progress as a world society into the biotech century without sacrificing human dignity. We can achieve proper treatments without instrumentalizing the most vulnerable among us or eschewing the equality of human life ethic for a dystopian utilitarianism. It is the wise government that promotes science, indeed lauds it but wiser still is the government that also always ensures that proper checks and balances are placed around this most powerful enterprise.

The current embryo bill utterly fails in this crucial task. It is my great hope that the government will agree to substantial amendments. If not, it should be defeated.

Don’t know what, if any of that, will be used publicly.

Struggling to contain a dangerous epidemic of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, known as XDR-TB, the South African government’s policy is to hospitalize those unlucky enough to have the disease until they are no longer infectious. Hospitals in two of the three provinces with the most cases — here in the Eastern Cape, as well as in the Western Cape — have sought court orders to compel the return of runaways. (New York Times)

In January, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, movers and shakers lined up to spit into test tubes — the first step to having snippets of their DNA analyzed by 23andMe, a personalized gene-testing company that for $999 promises to help people “search and explore their genomes.” (Washington Post)

Many computer scientists take it on faith that one day machines will become conscious. Led by futurist Ray Kurzweil, proponents of the so-called strong-AI school believe that a sufficient number of digitally simulated neurons, running at a high enough speed, can awaken into awareness. Once computing speed reaches 1016 operations per second — roughly by 2020 — the trick will be simply to come up with an algorithm for the mind. When we find it, machines will become self-aware, with unpredictable consequences. This event is known as the singularity. (Wired)

Kurzweil’s notion of a singularity is taken from cosmology, in which it signifies a border in spacetime beyond which normal rules of measurement do not apply (the edge of a black hole, for example). The word was first used to describe a crucial moment in the evolution of humanity by the great mathematician John von Neumann. One day in the 1950s, while talking with his colleague Stanislaw Ulam, von Neumann began discussing the ever-accelerating pace of technological change, which, he said, “gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs as we know them could not continue.” (Wired)

The law will make the act of dealing in organ sales illegal, whether carried out in Israel or abroad after a number of cases emerged involving Israelis working as middlemen in organ sales abroad. (Jerusalem Post)

It may sound unthinkable — the idea of denying life support to some people in a public health disaster like an epidemic. But a new report says doctors, health care workers and the public need to start thinking about it. (New York Times)

The Science Council of Japan’s subcommittee on reproductive assistance medicine recently issued a report that said surrogate births should, in principle, be prohibited through legislation. (The Daily Yomiuri)

Consumer groups warn that potentially toxic manipulated materials have been introduced into foods and packaging—even before regulations are in place. (BusinessWeek)