Theses and Dissertations
This collection includes both ASU Theses and Dissertations, submitted by graduate students, and the Barrett, Honors College theses submitted by undergraduate students.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 16
Filtering by
- All Subjects: bioethics
- Creators: School of Life Sciences
Description
This thesis responds to the question, "Can Science Make Sense of Life?" through a structural lens of the Human Germline Genetic Editing debate. I explore who is absent from the table, and how the ways of thinking that dominate marginalize and exclude alternative frameworks and considerations. This analysis is centered around an examination of several perspectives from the disability community and an in-depth study of how the Orthodox Jewish community contends with genetic disease. These perspectives illuminate several lessons that prove to bring insight not merely to questions of permissibility on genetic editing, but also offer reflections on the larger relationship between science, technology, and society. I then return to the mainstream genetic editing debate to show how the culture it is born out of and the structures it has ingrained prevent lessons such as these from impacting the conversation. In light of such structures that continuously reproduce the assertion that it is science, not humanity, that is able to make sense of life, my final argument is that though science tends to gatekeep questions of emerging technologies by centering conversations on highly advanced and methodological considerations, public individuals need not feel as if they are irrelevant or unessential. Though science may offer one solution, it is the individuals and communities, not results from a lab, that are equipped to determine if it is the best solution.
ContributorsAsher, Michaela Elyse (Author) / Hurlbut, Ben (Thesis director) / Tirosh-Samuelson, Hava (Committee member) / School of Human Evolution & Social Change (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
Description
In 2004, the South Korean geneticist Woo-Suk Hwang published what was widely regarded as the most important research result in biotechnology of the year. In the prestigious American journal Science, he claimed that he had succeeded in cloning a human blastocyst, an embryo in its early stages (Hwang et al. 2004). A year later, in a second Science article, he made the earth-shattering announcement that he had derived eleven embryonic stem cell lines using his cloning technique (Hwang et al. 2005). The international scientific community was stunned. American scientists publicly fretted that President George W. Bush‘s 2001 executive order limiting federal funding for stem-cell research in the United States had put American bioscience behind the Koreans‘ (Paarlberg 2005). These breakthroughs offered potential solutions to immune system rejection of transplanted organs and possible cures for diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson‘s, Down‘s syndrome, and paralysis (Svenaeus 2007). However, within a year, Hwang was exposed as a fraud who had faked his results and pressured his female colleagues to donate eggs without informed consent. Despite protests against his methods from Korean religious and nongovernmental organizations, Hwang had used his prestige to ignore his ethical obligations. The Korean government, too, was slow to investigate Hwang and to subject his work to appropriate regulation.
ContributorsClay, Anne (Author) / Hurlbut, James (Thesis director) / Maienschein, Jane (Committee member) / Marchant, Gary (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2012-12
Description
Human genetic engineering, the manipulation of genomic DNA, is an up and coming field in which soon we will no longer be asking if we can do it, but should we do it? It raises ethical questions regarding autonomy, the concept that an individual is capable of self-governance and making informed decisions, as well as consent of those who undergo genetic manipulation. Along with the ethical questions come issues of equality, equal opportunity of usage, and responsibility of those who use such technologies. The benefits and consequences of genetically engineering humans must be examined, such as the eradication of genetic diseases and the ability to alter ourselves as we desire, as well as the possible unintended outcomes, such as a two-class society and insurmountable inequality. Eugenics and the Transhumanism movement will also be examined, and how they could affect genetic engineering. Regulations will be needed, to limit parents on how they can modify their children and on how adults can modify themselves, to ensure the safe future of genetic engineering.
ContributorsThompson, Carlie Jane (Author) / McGregor, Joan (Thesis director) / Robert, Jason Scott (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2013-12
Description
This thesis explores how we can harness new technology to improve our relationship with companion animals and promote shelter animal welfare. The study looked into using the photo-sharing application Instagram to increase adoption rates at the Arizona Animal Welfare League & SPCA. An Instagram page was created and managed for the shelter, and data was collected regarding the impact the page had on adoption rates. The results were mixed, but overall it was determined that the Instagram page has unique value for the shelter.
ContributorsBautista-Hobin, Elena Maria (Author) / Minteer, Ben (Thesis director) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Morefield, Michael (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
Genetic engineering and gene alterations are a very rich and complex issue that have been the talk of many ethical debates. Somatic and germline genetic engineering technologies are becoming more prevalent in the scientific community and could be provided for public use in a matter of time. These technologies raise bioethical concerns as society recognizes the challenges behind where to draw the line in use of this relatively new science. The basis of this paper is focused around a meta-analysis and systematic assessment of previous publications of major ethical debates to show the complex interests and ideas that need to be reflected and contemplated upon when deciding to genetically alter our species. A short description of background literature takes place first to show the ideas of major philosophers and bioethic figures to introduce these topics. This analysis will then continue with discussion from a religious point of view and the concerns that they have on these technologies. Next, there is a discussion regarding violation of consent, rights, and autonomy. A discussion of the potential consequential grounds of these enhancements on our species and what they could mean for our future takes ensues after this. At the end of this paper, there is a last discussion about the injustice and inequity that could form from these technologies becoming available to the public. These technologies could affect the future of our entire species and drastically shape our society, medicine, and science in ways we could never imagine.
ContributorsHinni, Danielle Nicole (Author) / McGregor, Joan (Thesis director) / Brian, Jennifer (Committee member) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
This thesis advocated for a humanities-forward bioethics in order to promote more robust discussion, foster public involvement in research, and enrich scientific education. Furthermore, embracing a field founded on personal expression allows for a wider breadth of concerns to be considered, not just those that are able to be articulated in strictly technical terms. Speculative fiction liberates discussion from being constrained by what is presently feasible, and thus works to place societal and ethical deliberation ahead of scientific conception. The value of such stories is not tied to any one character or storyline, but rather it is derived from our ability as a culture with a shared understanding to superimpose our concerns and fears onto the novels and use them as a means of communication. Three famous science fiction novels- The Island of Dr. Moreau, Frankenstein, and Brave New World- were analyzed to illustrate the salience of science fiction to contend with fundamental issues in bioethics.
ContributorsVarda, Nicole Elizabeth (Author) / Hurlbut, Benjamin (Thesis director) / Stanford, Michael (Committee member) / Maynard, Andrew (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-12
Description
Intestinal Transplant is becoming more prevalent with time as an powerful alternative to other therapies for intestinal failure such as parenteral nutrition. The small intestine is an organ especially susceptible to ischemia, or the lack of blood and oxygen supply to an organ. I studied ischemia at Yale Medical School in the lab of Dr. John Geibel. The purpose of this study was to find which kind of solution best protects the intestine from ischemia as well as which segments of the intestine are more susceptible to ischemic damage. This was done by cold static storage as well as through perfusing the organ with a unit developed in the lab called the Intestinal Perfusion Unit (IPU). Intestines were procured from deceased donors following the protocol for handling human specimen and then flushed with either the University of Wisconsin (UW) solution or the Histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution (HTK). It was found that the jejunum is more susceptible ischemia than the ileum. It was also found that in the jejunum, when using UW solution there was less damage then when using HTK. Clinically, this means that in transplant, if the ileum part is used, there is less risk for ischemic damage. The potential applications of this research raise many ethical issues related to organ transplantation more broadly. The ethical issues include but are not limited to: consent, distribution and need-based donation, transplant tourism, and cost and access. The costs for transplant are exorbitant for the average American. Private insurance companies and Medicare have no policy for intestinal transplant and are therefore not covering many patients in need. In this thesis, I briefly explore the role of insurance companies in the equitable distribution of innovative medical interventions.
ContributorsAgarwal, Raghav (Author) / Brian, Jennifer (Thesis director) / Finotti, Michele (Committee member) / W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
The concept of “good” research is concrete in terms of technique, but complex in theory. As technology advances, the complexity of problems we must solve also grows. Research is facing an ethical dilemma—which projects, applied or basic, should be funded. Research is no longer an isolated sector in society, and the decisions made inside of the laboratory are affecting the general public more directly than ever before. While there is no correct answer to what the future of research should be, it is clear that good research can no longer be only defined by the current classification system, which is rooted in antiquated, yet ingrained, social status distinctions.
Differences between basic and applied research were explored through a wet-lab case study. Vaccinia virus (VACV) infections are a prime model of the competition between a virus and its host. VACV contains a gene that is highly evasive of the host immune system, gene E3L. The protein encoded by E3L is E3, which contains two highly conserved regions, a C-terminus, and a N-terminus. While the C-terminus is well-understood, the mechanism by which the N-terminus grants IFN resistance was previously unknown. This project demonstrated that the N-terminus prevents the initiation of programmed necrosis through host-encoded cellular proteins RIP3 and DAI. These findings provide insight into the function of the N-terminus of E3, as well as the unique functions of induced programmed necrosis.
This project was an example of “basic” research. However, it highlights the interconnectivity of basic and applied research and the danger in isolating both projects and perspectives. It points to the difficult decisions that must be made in science, and the need for a better research classification system that considers what makes science “good” outside of antiquated social class ideologies that have shaped science since ancient Greece. While there are no easy answers to determine what makes research “good,” thinking critically about the types of research projects that will be pursued, and the effects that research has on both science and society, will raise awareness, initiate new conversations, and encourage more dialogue about science in the 21st century.
Differences between basic and applied research were explored through a wet-lab case study. Vaccinia virus (VACV) infections are a prime model of the competition between a virus and its host. VACV contains a gene that is highly evasive of the host immune system, gene E3L. The protein encoded by E3L is E3, which contains two highly conserved regions, a C-terminus, and a N-terminus. While the C-terminus is well-understood, the mechanism by which the N-terminus grants IFN resistance was previously unknown. This project demonstrated that the N-terminus prevents the initiation of programmed necrosis through host-encoded cellular proteins RIP3 and DAI. These findings provide insight into the function of the N-terminus of E3, as well as the unique functions of induced programmed necrosis.
This project was an example of “basic” research. However, it highlights the interconnectivity of basic and applied research and the danger in isolating both projects and perspectives. It points to the difficult decisions that must be made in science, and the need for a better research classification system that considers what makes science “good” outside of antiquated social class ideologies that have shaped science since ancient Greece. While there are no easy answers to determine what makes research “good,” thinking critically about the types of research projects that will be pursued, and the effects that research has on both science and society, will raise awareness, initiate new conversations, and encourage more dialogue about science in the 21st century.
ContributorsSnyder, Caroline Jane (Author) / Jacobs, Bertram (Thesis director) / Hurlbut, Ben (Committee member) / Mateusz, Szczerba (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disorder that is becoming increasingly common. Autism does not yet have a known etiology, nor a definitive diagnostic test, thus making diagnosis a difficult and rarely uniform task. Currently, ASD is behaviorally diagnosed based on criteria defined by the American Psychiatric Association in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Recently, a change was made in the criteria from more lenient criteria in DSM-IV-TR, to more narrow criteria laid out by the DSM-V, which supersedes the DSM-IV-TR. This drastic change raised many questions and debates about which set of criteria are better. The more lenient criteria offers a more inclusive diagnosis giving greater access to therapies; while the narrow diagnostic criteria excludes some individuals, creating a more uniform diagnosis that's easier to use in research. This thesis analyzes the change in diagnostic criteria from the DSM-IV-TR to the DSM-V and the effects of these changes on the practices of diagnosis. In addition, it explores the implications of this change for the families of children with autism and for those involved in autism research, examining their respective opinions and interests pertaining to narrow verses broad diagnostic criteria. Building on this analysis, the thesis offers recommendations about diagnostic criteria should be set. It argues that the wellbeing of patients takes priority over the interests of researchers, and thus diagnosis should be done in a way that offers the best prognosis for all children who suffer from autistic symptoms.
ContributorsBremer, Michelle Nichole (Author) / Hurlbut, Ben (Thesis director) / Robert, Jason (Committee member) / Brian, Jennifer (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
Death with Dignity is a concept that initially began as a set of philosophical and ethical principles that sought to define what it meant to die a "good" death that was reasonable to the person experiencing the dying process. This dying process is terminal illness, or any condition that cannot be cured and who's ultimate prognosis is death. Today, Death with Dignity still embodies this, but it is also a set of legal and medical treatments and practices that can be used to aid terminal patients in accomplishing a "good" death. The Death with Dignity treatment options that are chiefly discussed in this study are patient withdrawal of care, patient control of pain medications, and physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in six states in the US excluding Arizona. Considering that Oregon is the first state to pass a Death with Dignity Act and that it is the precedent for all other Acts, this study sought to understand the differences in perception of physician-assisted suicide between Arizona and Oregon in the pursuit of clarifying what barriers are still in place in Arizona to passing a Death with Dignity act. To ask the question of "Do physicians and ethics committee members in Arizona support Death with Dignity in the forms of patient control of pain medications, withdrawal of treatment, and physician-assisted suicide?", a literature review was conducted to determine important national and local perceptions of physician-assisted suicide and Death with Dignity, a 14-question, structured survey was created with the identified concerns, and it was distributed to Arizona health care workers by email and in person. This survey was approved by ASU's Institutional Review Board. This survey found that 100% of participants would vote for a Death with Dignity Act in Arizona if it were on a ballot measure. 76% of participants would aid a terminally-ill and eligible patient in physician-assisted suicide under some circumstances if it were legal in Arizona, and 24% of participants would never aid a patient in physician-assisted suicide. The concerns with physician-assisted suicide that were marked most important by Arizona healthcare workers were that hospice is a better option for the terminally ill and that physician-assisted suicide may be misused with disadvantaged persons. The most important factors of terminal illness that influence views of physician-assisted suicide marked by Arizona healthcare workers were the amount of pain the patient is expected to experience in the end of life, the amount of pain that can be relieved for the patient, the expected quality of life of the patient, and the patient's right to autonomy in healthcare. The significant differences between Oregon and Arizona in this study were the importance of expected mental decline of patient, patient's wishes that differ from family's, and hospice being a better option than suicide in influencing views of physician-assisted suicide. These differences could be deemed hurdles to Death with Dignity legislation in Arizona. This study recommended addressing those differences in public education and medical education and seeking Death with Dignity legislation via ballot measure.
ContributorsCohan, Hailey Elizabeth (Author) / Brian, Jennifer (Thesis director) / Piemonte, Nicole (Committee member) / Stevenson, Christine (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor, Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05