Filtering by
- All Subjects: bioethics
- Creators: Hurlbut, Ben
- Creators: School of Human Evolution & Social Change
- Member of: Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection
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.
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.
The basic goal of preclinical animal research is to improve understanding of human disease and treatment. Mandates for sex-inclusive research – both in preclinical animal work and in human clinical trials – have prompted discussions about the ethics and functionality of sex-inclusive research. Authors of peer review research articles and opinion pieces have varying opinions regarding sex-inclusive preclinical animals research. The arguments that support sex inclusion in animal research include: a) sex inclusive research in the preclinical animal model stage saves money further down the road in research, b) new understanding in hormonal variation in both male and female mice undercuts a notion that male mice are simpler research subjects, and c) sex-inclusive research is needed for improved treatment and diagnosis for male and female humans down the road. Arguments against inclusive research include: a) increased research cost and time, and b) sex-inclusive preclinical animal research is not useful, and may be harmful, to the development of personalized medicine. Weighing the different arguments present in the conversation regarding sex inclusive research, sex inclusive research is clearly important and necessary moving forward for cost efficiency, scientific discovery, and movement towards precision medicine.