BIOETHICS IN THE MOLECULAR LIFE SCIENCES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
Molecular
Biology 610- Fall 2007
Instructor: Sanford Bernstein
Life Sciences 371, (619) 594-5629
About the course
Bioethics is a term that defines many of the
ethical issues facing students, faculty and those working in the biotechnology
industry. These issues include rights of individuals in clinical trials, humane
care of laboratory animals, the proliferation of genetically engineered foods,
human genome manipulation, stem cell and organism cloning, bioweapons, delivery
of genes to humans and animals, and patenting of organisms. Further, areas
specific to professional ethics include ownership of data, plagiarism,
authorship disputes, and scientific fraud. The goal of this course is to offer
education in the broad area of bioethics. Student learning outcomes are
expected to include: 1) ability to synthesize the bioethics research literature
into coherent oral presentations and written materials that offer appropriate
scientific background and a balanced view of the ethical issues; 2) ability to
explain and discuss complex scientific and ethical issues during in-class
interactions. The long-term goals of teaching bioethics to those involved in
developing and implementing biotechnology are to allow them to make
scientifically valid choices that consider the broader ethical issues and to
permit them to be capable of advising policy makers regarding these issues.
Case Study Report
You will be assigned to a two-member team.
Each team will be scheduled to report during one of the student presentation
periods. The team may choose one of two options for their oral report:
1) Each team member will deliver an oral
report that will consist of an eight minute presentation of a case study (a
controversial specific case that falls under one of the course
topics). In this option, each
team member will report on a different case study. Describe the case (both the scientific basis and
the ethical area), why it is controversial, the contrasting views and how it
has been resolved (if it has). You may provide your own opinion. One week after the oral presentation,
each team member will submit a five page written summary and analysis of the
case study presented by the other team member (double spaced, references
may go beyond the five page limit). Thus each team member will speak on one
topic and write on a second. Team members are free to discuss topics together
and share materials from the literature. However, the papers need to be written
independently.
or
2) The team may choose to have a 16 minute
debate regarding a case study (a
controversial specific case that falls under one of the course topics).
In this situation, each team member will take a different viewpoint on the
subject (for instance, pro vs. con). The two students will first jointly
provide an introduction to the case study. This should be followed by an
argument for one point of view from one student and then an argument for the
second point of view from the other student. Then each student will have a
chance to rebut the other student’s argument. The debate must be carefully
constructed to last only 16 minutes. One week after the oral presentation, each
team member will submit a five page written summary and analysis of the case
study from the point of view of the other team member (double spaced,
references may go beyond the five page limit). Thus each team member will speak
on one viewpoint and write on a second viewpoint. Team members are free to
discuss viewpoints together and share materials from the literature. However,
the papers need to be written independently.
The groups should talk to or e-mail the
instructor (mailto:sbernst@sunstroke.sdsu.edu)
with their proposed case studies (and perhaps some alternates). To avoid
redundancy in the presentations, the instructor will approve, suggest
modifications to or reject the proposed topic. If the topic is rejected, the
group will need to choose another topic or topics. Thus, please submit your
topic choices in a timely fashion.
Reading
Two texts are listed for the course
v
On Being a Scientist.
Responsible Conduct in Research by the Committee on Science, Engineering and
Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
Institute of Medicine. Second Edition. National Academy Press. Washington DC.
1995.
v
The Ethics of Biomedical
Research, An International Perspective by Baruch A. Brody. Oxford University
Press. New York. 1998.
A limited number of copies of the first text
will be provided in class. It can also be purchased at Aztec Shops Bookstore or
is available online for free at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309051967/html/index.html
.
Four copies of the second text are on 2 hour
reserve at the SDSU library reserve room.
Copies are available for purchase at Aztec Shops Bookstore. It also can
be purchased directly from Oxford University Press (http://www.oup-usa.org/).
The course web site contains links to
relevant scientific and ethical articles. In addition, instructors in the
course will provide reading materials that must be read prior to attending
class. These will serve as background
and as a basis of course discussion.
Grading
Your final grade for Bioethics (50% of the 3
unit MB 610) will be derived as follows:
v
40% - oral presentation
(based on clarity of oral communication, appropriate scientific background,
delineation of ethical issues, highlighting of controversial points, visual
aids)
v
50% - written assignment
(based on clarity of written communication, appropriate scientific background,
delineation of ethical issues, highlighting of controversial points,
appropriate literature review and use of citations)
v
10% - class
participation and submission of additional short reports that may be requested
in class. TAKE NOTE- based upon this grading scheme, it will be near to
impossible to receive an A in this course unless you participate in class
discussion. So, please participate!
v
Plagiarism will be
extremely detrimental to your grade (this is, after all, an ethics course).
Lecture Schedule
See Reading list for additional required and optional readings and for lecture notes
|
DATE |
TOPIC |
READING |
SPEAKER |
|
Aug 27 |
Bioethics: perspectives of a scientist and of a philosopher |
Brody Chapter 10 |
Sanford Bernstein, Ph.D. SDSU Biology Darrel Moellendorf, Ph.D., SDSU Institute for Ethics & Public Affairs |
|
Aug 29 |
Authorship issues; Plagiarism and falsification of scientific data; Ownership of scientific data |
NAS Booklet |
Sanford Bernstein, Ph.D. SDSU Biology |
|
Sept 5 |
Patenting molecules, devices and organisms |
|
Michael Rondelli, J.D., Director, SDSU Research Foundation Technology Transfer Office |
|
Sept 10 |
Dealing with animals in an ethical manner |
Brody Chapter 1 |
Kent Osborn, DVM, Ph.D., The Scripps Research Institute |
|
Sept 12 |
Designing ethical pharmaceutical studies; Informed consent; Pharmacogenomic testing |
Brody Chapters 7,8 |
Joe Tami, Pharm. D., Director of Scientific Affairs, Therapeutics Incorporated |
|
Sept 17 |
Human stem cells and cloning |
Brody Chapter 5 |
Mary Devereaux, Ph.D., Research Ethics Program, UCSD |
|
Sept 19 |
Animal cloning and genetic engineering |
Brody Chapter 5 |
Oliver Ryder, Ph.D., Conservation & Research for
Endangered Species, Zoological Society of San Diego |
|
Sept 24 |
Human subjects: Controversial studies; Regulations & ethical principles; Risks vs. benefits |
Brody Chapters 2,6,9 |
Gayle Simon, Regulatory Compliance Analyst/Educator, Graduate & Research Affairs, SDSU |
|
Sept 26 |
Student reports |
|
|
|
Oct 1 |
Gene delivery and therapy |
Brody Chapter 4 |
Theodore Friedmann, M.D., UCSD School of Medicine |
|
Oct 3 |
Biological warfare |
|
Roger Sabbadini, Ph.D., Institute for International Security and Conflict Resolution, SDSU |
|
Oct 8 |
Student reports |
|
|
|
Oct 10 |
Ethics of Agricultural Biotechnology |
|
Alan McHughen, Ph.D., Botany and Plant Sciences, UC Riverside |
|
Oct 15 |
Student reports |
|
|
|
Oct 17 |
Student reports Wrap-up discussion |
|
Sanford Bernstein |
Presentation Groups
September 26, 2007 Presentation Groups
|
Group one
|
Group two
|
Group three
|
Group four
|
Presentation topics:
|
Negative effects of
TeGeneros anti CD28 antibody in clinical trials |
||
|
Use of discarded spleen
tissue to develop and patent a cell line |
||
|
Herbicide resistant rice |
||
|
fMRI to detect awareness in
the vegetative state |
||
|
The neurological basis for
morality |
||
|
Behavioral study of
obedience- the Milgram experiment |
||
|
|
|
October 8, 2007 Presentation Groups
|
Group five
|
Group six
|
Group seven
|
Group eight
|
Presentation topics:
|
Attenuating growth in
children with profound developmental disability |
||
|
Thalidomide and the drug
approval process |
||
|
A parent of PXE patients founds
a company dedicated to identifying and patenting the disease gene and
developing a cure |
||
|
Hoffman-LaRoche PCR patent
and price restrictions on using the technology |
||
|
Hwang stem cell research
fabrication |
||
|
Hashmi case: production of
a tissue-matched baby for stem cell transplantation to a child suffering from
thalassaemia |
||
|
|
|
October 15, 2007 Presentation Groups
|
Group nine
|
Group ten
|
Group eleven
|
Group twelve
|
Presentation topics:
|
Controversial case
regarding organ transplantation |
||
|
Gene therapy with Targeted
Genetics Corp drug and possible death during clinical trial |
||
|
Gene therapy for humans
with X-SCID and link to leukemia |
||
|
Transgenic animal
patenting: the oncomouse |
||
|
|
|
||
|
“The Monster Study”: Ridiculing
children’s speech to test if they become stutterers |
October 17, 2007 Presentation Groups
|
Group thirteen
|
Group fourteen
|
|
|
Presentation topics:
|
Gender identity: ethics of
the David Reimer case |
||
|
Patent law vs. free
distribution of AIDS drugs by the Brazilian government |
||
|
Pfizer's clinical trial of
trovafloxacin mesylate in Nigeria (debate) |
||
|
Pfizer's clinical trial of
trovafloxacin mesylate in Nigeria (debate) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Example
of high quality case study written report
Another
example of high quality case study written report