Gene Patents and Justice: Better Late than Never

With the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on gene patents, I was reminded of work I did in the first year of my doctoral program. I examined gene patents using Robert Nozick’s understanding of property.  In full disclosure let me be clear that I have always been opposed to gene patents because I do not believe they qualify for patents because there is no novelty. The processes and technology used to isolate and sequence DNA, sure, but the actual sequence itself, I don’t think so.

But I digress. In terms of using a justice theorist to examine a contemporary issue, I chose to use Nozick and gene patents because I thought there was an interesting connection. The central question of justice in that kind of perspective is the ownership of genes. Assuming that genes were previously unowned, the question shifts to whether society is worse off as a result of this ownership. While it is possible to answer no, because the patent on the BRCA1 and 2 alleles allowed for tests to be develop to determine whether individuals had these particular variants, I would argue that ultimately the answer has to be that society is worse off through the ownership of genes. It may allow a company to pursue research, but it makes it much more difficult for others to pursue similar work. Anyone wanting to do anything in terms of the study of those sequences had to pay for the rights to do so, slowing research and increasing costs to consumers. In fact, a rival company has stated they can now offer BRCA 1 and 2 tests at a third of the cost.

The other argument that can be made is that genes were not previously unowned. It doesn’t really make sense to think of individual ownership of genes, but rather I’d argue that our species as a whole owns our genetic legacy and thus the acquisition of gene patents by biotech companies was never just in the first place.

Now ultimately, this ruling is a mixed bag. The patents specifically involved in the case were set to expire in 2016 anyway and the company’s stock shot up because the Supreme Court is still allowing for patents on cDNA (an issue that would take another post to really explore). It should help lower costs for people who want genetic tests, and make it easier for researchers to share work. The downside is that some believe it could present precedent regarding naturally occurring nonhuman products (derived from bacteria, plants, etc.). The actual ruling seems to speak directly to human genes, but I guess time will tell.

And it would also take a whole post (or more) to get into the added opinion of Justice Scalia at the end of the ruling where he writes “I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature.” http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf

Let’s just say that even though I am fairly happy with the ruling, that scientific literacy would have enabled an even better ruling.

Four Out of Five Babies Prefer Victims to Bullies

At just 10 months old babies already have a sense of sympathy and right and wrong. This recent study (published yesterday in PLOS ONE and therefore FREE!) has a good write-up in LiveScience.

Because 10-month-olds can’t yet express sympathy verbally, Kyoto University researcher Shoji Itakura and colleagues turned to a common tactic in baby-brain research: using simple animations to determine what infants prefer. They showed 40 babies an animation of a blue ball and a yellow cube.

Half of the infants watched a short clip in which the blue ball chased the yellow cube around the screen, hitting it seven times before finally squishing it against a wall. The other half of the group saw the same movements, including the squishing, but the two shapes moved independently without interacting.

In some cases, the “bully” and “victim” roles were swapped, so that the yellow cube was the bad guy. After watching the show, the babies were shown a real yellow cube and a real blue ball, and given the chance to reach for one of the objects.

In cases where the babies had seen one shape beating up on the other, they overwhelmingly reached for the victim, 16 out of 20 times.

The seeming-silliness of studying babies via videos of shapes and then letting them choose real shapes reflective of the video they just watched is really not silly at all – it is fantastic experimental design. And the data is terrific too. Yes, moral sense within 10 months of birth.

Baby brains develop incredibly quickly. And it is a longstanding truism of studies of babies that there is probably more there than what you can detect. Improved experiments will find more and more. We are the deficient ones; they know more than we can know that they know.

Anyway, I think this is a win not only for morality and its innateness (and a great follow up study would be to see if babies with older siblings have modified outcomes in any way), but also for babies themselves. For those like Peter Singer who would allow infanticide, I would hope that this gives some pause. Babies are not just lumps. They are thinking and moral beings. Even newborns and prenatals can do some pretty fantastic things. We should recognize that many of the limitations that we perceive in babies are not in the babies, but rather in us. (Not that I think that human value relies on our abilities/lack-of-limitations in any case.)

The moral history of humanity has shown, I think, that it is better to draw the bounds of humanity too wide and include too many (not that this has ever happened), rather than too narrow and include too few (the human default morality).

As a last thought, and to explore the above too-narrow-boundaries-of-humanity problem with in-group and out-group, it might be interesting to condition the children to perceive the victim shape as out-group and the bully shape as in-group. Give them all toys and clothes marked with a blue ball. Give mom and dad the same markings. Then show them the video of the blue ball squashing the yellow cube.  See if the babies-prefer-victims theory still holds then. If not, then we’ll have begun to see the origins of “drawing the moral bounds too narrow” as well.

Catholicism and Conscience

One of my jobs at Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center is to provide web resources for a project on Catholicism and Conscience. I’ll just cut and paste a bit here then send you over to that site to read the rest:

The Catholic tradition on conscience is very extensive, while being quite unified. One may wonder, if the teaching is so unified, why there would be so much to say. The reason is because the tradition is unified on a tension. The first pole of the tension is that under no circumstances should one violate one’s conscience – one must always follow even an erring conscience. The other pole of the tension is that, at the same time, a rightly formed conscience is expected to concur with Catholic teaching. These two moral requirements, that one should follow one’s conscience and that one should follow Church teachings, are potentially in conflict. The requirements may not align, and if so, then a point of tension has appeared between an individual’s conscience and the Church’s teachings.

Here I will endeavor to provide only a brief overview of the immense literature surrounding the Catholic understanding of conscience. In the first section I will provide some background to the subject of conscience, in the second some examples of perennial issues that arise in the discussion of conscience, and in the third some current examples of conscience in the news.

The site is a work in progress so if you have any feedback by all means leave it as a comment here (you can’t leave comments on the Center’s page). Particularly leave a comment if you know of any current news stories involving Catholicism and conscience rights (please provide a link), I will add it to the section at the end (“Current Flashpoints”) where we are compiling contemporary cases. Two prime cases being the HHS mandate on contraceptive insurance coverage, and the new tendency of some bishops to use of “affirmations of faith” with diocesan employees (in that particular case the requirement has been temporarily withdrawn).

Miracles – Can We Believe Them?

Lucas Mix – GTU alum, university chaplain, and astrobiologist – has a new post over at his weblog that is worth a read if you have ever wondered about miracles. I’ll just give a quote and let you read the rest:

For good and ill, the clockwork metaphor of Newton and Descartes is no longer familiar, so start with something you know:  video games.

Let us say that God is video game developer.  She codes for a massive multiplayer environment that we will call the World…

With that beginning, we can talk about the modes of interaction our developer has with the program.

A)     She wrote the program: Creation.  Pretty straightforward.

B)      She maintains the program, not only by keeping the server running, but by patching, allocating memory, and making upgrades.  Christians call this “sustaining” or continual creation.

C)      She might act as a player, taking on an avatar and playing by the rules everyone else plays by… Indeed, this is quite close to what most Christians believe of Jesus Christ…

I’m sympathetic towards this metaphor too, as are a whole bunch of atheists who call it “the simulation hypothesis” (which I’ve talked about here), and yet still call themselves atheist (can’t quite figure that one out). Read the rest at Lucas’s Weblog.

As for me, on the question of divine action, ever since I’ve been a Christian I’ve figured that accepting the creation of the world is a pretty big miracle right there. Everything else is minor by comparison. So, like Lucas, when it comes to miracles, I say “no big deal” for God, just a “big deal” for us.

The Three Great Tragedies

Have you ever wondered what could some of the great tragedies in life be? As I considered the question, the following three tragedies topped my list. Without any hint of doubt, most of us would agree that the loss of someone dear to us could be the greatest of all tragedies in life. The reason for that is obvious: the feeling of loss of a dear one is more often than not irreparable, and the dear one, irreplaceable. The only thing that might survive is the memory of that person. The closer the person is to us, the greater the memories, and as a result, the greater the amount of pain and grief caused by the loss. I have experienced a few deaths in my extended family and I know what death could bring upon the lives of the surviving family members. One of my uncles and his family were crushed by my cousin’s unexpected death at quite a young age. Similarly, the death of my grandmother had literally led to the death of my grandfather – He just didn’t want to live after he lost his wife, and he fasted to death. These kinds of experiences are not unique to me; either you or people from your life might have been terribly affected by the death of their dear ones. The confusion, shock, and emptiness of the loss conglomerate and present a bitter pill of reality to swallow; and such pill, many people reckon, to be so bitter that they would rather count their own death to be less bitter, just like my grandpa did.

 Closely following the tragedy caused by death is the tragedy caused by loneliness, which in a way seems like the foretaste of death. In fact, recently, a report on social isolation and its impacts on mortality in the TIME magazine makes it clear that social isolation, which is closely related to the feeling of loneliness, leads to early deaths. There are quite a few studies on loneliness and how the “progress” that we boast of has indeed led us to loneliness and isolation. Instead of having more time on our hands to spend with our near and dear ones, and to pursue the hobbies that we like, our lives have become cogs in the great money-making-machine. Some of us are in the illusion that we are connected more than ever through social media such as Facebook, Twitter, etc., but the fact of the matter is that we are so superficially connected that our deeper longing for love and communion are far from being met. The Atlantic has published a thought provoking article, entitled: “Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?”, which speaks to that fact. The article points out that “new research suggests that we have never been lonelier (or more narcissistic) – and that this loneliness is making us mentally and physically ill.”

 In addition to the two tragedies that I have mentioned, another grave tragedy of life, in my opinion, is the loss of the ability to feel – be it with someone, or for someone. Being able to feel with someone is nothing but having compassion. Marcus Borg in his Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, talking about the importance of compassion in the life and work of Jesus, parses the word and maintains that compassion “means feeling the feelings of somebody in a visceral way, at a level somewhere below the level of the head.” He adds that compassion is commonly associated with feeling the suffering of somebody else and being moved by that suffering to do something. That means this ability of being able to feel the joys or sorrows of others is what enables us to move beyond ourselves and consider the good of others. Further, Borg drives home the point that “to be compassionate” is what is meant by the New Testament command “to love.” Love and compassion, therefore, seem to serve as antidote to the narcissistic drives that we are forced to foster by the media and the great money-making-machine. Dalai Lama said it well: “Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive.” Drawing on the words of the Dalai Lama, it seems to me that the day we cease to be compassionate and to love, we cease to exist as humanity, and that, is indeed a great tragedy. 

Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Taken Alive: A Moral Victory

Good job to the Boston Police Department!

Taking Dzhokhar Tsarnaev alive is a very good thing. I don’t know if he was wearing a suicide bomb, but given his and his brother’s blatant disregard for human life (and reports that his brother was wearing one) I wouldn’t be surprised. And in that case the BPD did a huge job – they not only saved the lives of any other innocent victims Tsarnaev might have killed, they saved his life too.

The best possible outcome is still, then, possible – Tsarnaev might say he is sorry. It might not happen, but if it does we should rejoice because that would deflate the terrorist cause; he would be acknowledging that he and his cause were wrong. And that is a powerful witness to keep others away from it. And it would help restore Tsarnaev’s own humanity – he needs to have his sense of right and wrong corrected. It will also show that moral behavior on our part pays off.

When Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan it was only a half-victory for the USA, as I noted at the time. We not only acted outside the law, but we denied him the ability to apologize. That would have been the ultimate victory – the apology of our foremost enemy – and we lost it by killing him. We denied ourselves the opportunity for a moral victory. And as we continue our “War on Terror” we continue to deny ourselves the opportunity for this highest victory.

No matter how unlikely the apology is, we still need to give our enemy that chance. It is not only better for them, it is better for us. Even though distorted towards vice, they are human too. Because in a deep way treating one’s enemy as a human denies the dichotomy of “us” and “them.” It makes us all “us.”

If we deny the humanity of our enemy, we reinforce their denial of ours.  The only way to end this war is by mutual respect or total annihilation, and as I said before, we aren’t going to choose the second path. So we better get started on the path to the first.

In this act of good law enforcement, the BPD respected the humanity of someone who attacked us as an enemy. We need more of this behavior towards those who call themselves our enemies. So once again, good job Boston PD. When BPD officers (and I hesitate to bring it up, but it is the truth and we should never shy away from it) brutalized the peaceful Occupy Boston protesters that was a low-point, but today you have show us the better way.

Let this be a formative moment for our nation, to direct us to defend justice with compassion and respect even for those who deny it to us. We need the moral high ground, not only for the sake of our enemies, not only for the sake of those watching, but for our sake, for us, to keep us human.

And on that note I will end with a link to a story from World War Two. It is a must-read, about a German pilot sparing an American B-17, but I’ll just excerpt one quote.

“People think of the rules of war primarily as a way to protect innocent civilians from being victims of atrocities,” she says. “In a much more profound sense, the rules are there to protect the people doing the actual fighting.”

The code is designed to prevent soldiers from becoming monsters.”

Today we did not become monsters. That might sound like a hollow hurrah, but it is not just a negative, it is much more than that.

Instead we became humans.

On the real cost of food, or, why your carrots really are worth (at least) $2.50

(A brief contextual note: This blog post was originally written for and published on “Applying Ethics,” a blog that follows my work as an ethicist, academic, activist working outside of academia. Right now I am working for an organic farm that runs a community supported agriculture program or CSA, education programs, and sells at farmers’ markets. I repost here by request of my colleagues.)

I am now 7 months into working the farmers’ markets. My duties on the farm have expanded to included running some of the education programs which means I am now tending 5 gardens and numerous children who come to learn on the farm. That work combined with doing 3 markets a week these days has made me even more sensitive to a phrase that is kicked around the farm quite a bit: the real cost of food.

Rather than expounding on the phrase, allow me to rant, I mean contextualize it:

I worked a particularly long and difficult market today. I spent part of my shift, between restocking vegetables and explaining the concept of a CSA to people, pondering why some of the customers were getting on my nerves a bit. (Before you get concerned–I am pretty good at what Hoschild called “emotional labor.” That is, selling not just the product but the sunny disposition that creates the appropriate atmosphere–even and especially when there is a mis-match between said atmosphere and how you actually feel. I strive to make sure all customers have a great farmers’ market experience.)

Here is what I concluded: I was particularly irked because they were displaying the behavior and attitude that most of us are guilty of at one point or another. They wanted deals on the vegetables or were upset, in whatever way they chose to express it, because they thought the produce was “too expensive.”

I get tight budgets. I can even extrapolate and understand plentiful budgets but wanting to make your money stretch. I recognize that, for some people, getting a bargain is a sport.

What I would venture to guess we all forget (some with more or less frequency) is that bargains come at a price.

So, if I was teaching a class on food justice and talking about the real cost of food and one of my students brought up how they failed to get the farmer to cut them a deal on their carrots, this is what I would tell them:

I hear that you wanted the farmer to sell you the carrots for $2 instead of the $2.50 that was listed. Here is why I find it kind of insulting, albeit unintentionally so, when people feel like they shouldn’t have to pay that 50 cents:

Today was a market day. When my alarm went off at 4:45 am (that is right, that is a 4 in the hour slot) I woke up and removed my wrist braces. Wrist braces I now wear every night to minimize the injury caused by months of heavy lifting of boxes and vegetables, tents, and tables and repetitive motion. Wrist braces I wear because of the hard work I do to make sure you get your carrots.

I left the house well before the sun came up even before the rooster crowed–literally.

In order to get the produce to you, my colleague and I moved and loaded over 100 boxes and crates of vegetable. Your carrots were in one of those boxes.

We spent well over an hour setting up our stall so you had access to your carrots.

I was on my feet in perpetual motion for the entirety of the market. For the two hours before you got up when the market was open. For the 5 hours and 45 minutes after you left the market when you went to brunch, watched the game, took a nap or a hike.

I spent another hour or more packing up the carrots that weren’t quite the right ones for you and all of the other vegetables no one wanted. Along with those same tables and tents, I lifted those boxes of vegetables back into the truck. Lifting them from ground level to shoulder height, and repeating.

Back at the farm I reversed the process from the morning. Realizing only when I sat down to do paperwork (a necessary evil) that I had been working so hard to make sure you got your carrots that I didn’t have time to fill my water bottle or eat during the market.

When I got home after my 10 hour shift, I massaged my aching wrists, stretched my aching legs, and tried to refuel with some of the leftover vegetables that were not good enough to sell. All this knowing I would be getting up the next morning to do it all again.

Is all of that worth 50 cents?

The real kicker for me is that I am just the last person to put the work in for you to get your carrots. The work began around two to three months ago (longer when you talk about field prep and planning) when a farmer carefully planted each of the seeds that would grow to become your carrots. It continued during those months as multiple people tended the seedlings, put them in the ground, weeded by hand to make sure they got the sunlight and nutrients they needed to grow, harvested by hand, washed by hand, and packed up those carrots by hand.

With the amount of labor alone that went into that bundle of carrots $2.50 is a steal! A steal, I tell you!

So, no, I don’t blame farmers who price their produce in such a way as to make sure they cover the full cost of their produce. I don’t blame them for not wanting to drop the price because we feel like we deserve a deal.

In fact, if the prices are truly fair and reflective of the true cost of the food, then I find it dismissive and insulting to ask for a deal. It is as if we are saying, “I don’t really care how much work, time, and energy it took for you to produce this and get it to me. I don’t really care that you bear the physical scars and injuries inherent in the demanding work you do. None of that is worth the extra 50 cents I want to save.”

That is the tale I would tell my students.

That is the tale I remind myself of every time I want a bargain on something local, organic, and sustainable. Or a bargain on a hotel room. Or a bargain anywhere, really, that means that bargain comes at the cost of devaluing someone’s labor.