Re: "Is Alzheimer's Research On the Wrong Track?"

“A fascinating topic here, and one which has been bubbling in the research field for a number of years, deserving of more attention. As the author notes in the article, the research hierarchy has directed funds and temporal/human resources towards pinpointing the almyloid proteins… but are they really the culprit, or a reaction to something else?” –Gardner Goldsmith, via Facebook

Re: "Lab-to-Table Fresh Fish Is Making Waves"

“Great to hear that you guys don’t just care about developing a product that results in less suffering, but that you’re dedicated to minimizing harm in the process of R&D as well. What a great idea to get deceased fish for cell samples from @AquariumOTheBay.”–@BjornKristensen, via Twitter

Re: "The New Prospective Parenthood"

Wow! It is amazing how sophisticated and accurate these tests have become! After reading this, I can imagine a future where conceiving a child naturally will seem negligent to most people, since a choice of whether or not to abort could have been completely avoided by going the in-vitro route.” –James Partain, via Facebook

“I’d only want to know information I will act on in some way. Some information may lead to termination (e.g. Down’s syndrome) or just be convenient for planning purposes (e.g. gender). But there’s no reason to test for something that won’t change your outcome, especially if the tests cost money.” –Sean Saulsbury, via Facebook

“Society would be much better off if the decisions were left to the parents and the medical professionals. Why is it a concern of mine if some people want a girl and not a boy?” –Paul Cohen, via Facebook

 

 

 

 

Re: Video on Brain-Computer Interfaces

“The video is very concise and articulates the issues well. I’ve wondered about this technology and its ability to change the human condition from that of individuals to that of a “hive”.  If we all can share intent, emotion, and information in real-time, how do we maintain independence…and will we want to?  Can we opt-out somehow?  Fundamentally the questions scare me and also fascinate me. Thank you for the content.” –Greg Hayes, letter to the editor

Re: This Mom Donated Her Lost Baby's Tissue to Research

“Great piece. Thank you so much.  This article was exceptionally well done. As the person from Eversight, a nonprofit eye bank with locations in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey and Connecticut, who speaks directly to family members about the outcome of their loved-ones tissue, I often face hearing the disappointment in their voice when I say “Your loved one’s eye tissue went to help advance cures for blinding eye conditions.” What they hope to hear is “Your loved one’s cornea was used to give the gift of sight a person blinded by a genetic condition or injury.”

I always spend time explaining how critically important research tissue is. Dr. Greg Grossman works for our organization and together with Alex Teska, our Associate Director of Philanthropy, we have been able to help families heal and to help researcher’s get in touch with the very human part of their work.  Again, I thank you for covering this issue.” –Diana L. Kern, Vice President, Eversight, in a letter to the editor

“I donated my son’s retinas for glaucoma research after his death from SIDS. This gave me a sense of hope that something good could come from our tragedy.” –Joanna Karfit, via Facebook

Re: When Are We Obligated to Edit Wild Creatures?

“Great rarely raised ethical question – are we obliged to intervene in animal-animal violence? Particularly now we have the technology to reshape the natural world at a genetic level so as to remove much of that violence. If not, why not?” –Timothy Secret, via Facebook

“All of this assumes that humans have the wisdom to manipulate nature for nature’s own benefit. Nearly the whole of human history shows we don’t have that wisdom. Even our efforts in eradicating human diseases may ultimately pay back catastrophic returns. Humility and restraint are conspicuously missing in human behavior, and even more so in science. This article is the definition of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.” — Ross Wade, via Facebook

Re: Enhancing Humans: Should We or Shouldn't We?

“Yes, why not. If it can save future generations from diseases that are rampant now, it’s a smart thing to do. I don’t really see how it’s unethical if it’s going to prevent terrible sicknesses and improve human life..” –Robert Goulding, via Facebook

I’m all for genetic/cybernetic modification and enhancement, as long as it is equally available to any person that wants it. The last thing we need is to deepen the class divide with physical augmentations.” –Joshua Battersby, via Facebook

“This topic is definitely one to discuss for the future. On the one hand, if taken too far, too fast, we can end up destroying ourselves in various ways. But on the other, we have various new ways of enhancing the human races, already astounding versitility and adaptability. I like seeing these different outcomes in pop culture, but real life, I am not too sure yet. But this is definitely a topic, that should be discussed.” –Hunter Davis, via Facebook

Re: The Dangers of Hype

“This is much too often the reality of drug discovery and development today–hype trumps data (no pun intended). Therapeutic misconception is so rampant that simply launching a clinical trial is interpreted as meaning the drug “works” and marketing approval should automatically follow. Go/no-go decisions should be based on data, not hype. Learn (and follow) the positive lessons from Spinraza. Unfortunately, as the article points out, some of the sources of the hype (e.g., “promising discovery,” “drug in the clinic soon”) should well know better…” –John D. Porter, via LinkedIn