THE SCIENCE IN SOCIETY REVIEW

THE SCIENCE IN SOCIETY REVIEW: A Production of THE Tr ipl e Hel ix

A Production of THE TRIPLE HELIX

VOL. 4 NO. 1

Featuring:
The Case of the Pillow Angel:
Examining the ethics of Growth Stunting
for severely handicapped children

A Conversation with Ian Frazer

Are You What You Eat?
Should Pluto
Plu be Plutoed?

Internationally Published and Distributed Worldwide

VOL. 4 NO. 1

Berkeley • Cambridge • Cornell • Harvard • Melbourne • MIT • NUS • Princeton • Yale

 THE TRIPLE HELIX A global forum for science in society

EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA DIVISION: UNIVERSITY OF CONTRIBUTING WRITERS:

TEAM:
Chief Executive Officer (Outgoing)
Mizel Djukic
Chief Executive Officer (Incoming)
and Executive Editor-in-Chief
Manisha Bhattacharya
Chief Operating Officer N.
America
Akash Shah
Chief Operating Officer Europe
Christopher Stainton
Chief Operating Officer Asia
Xavier Vanessa Anne Jia Min
Executive Production Editors
Jason Belsky and Christine Chu
Editor-in-Chief, E-publishing
Kate Neafsey
Chief Internal Affairs Officer
Haritha Dasari
Chief Technical Officer
Nick Tatonetti
Chief Human Resource Officer
Ani Ramesh
NORTH AMERICA DIVISION:
Executive Director, Chapter
Operations
Ernest (Ted) Gomez
Executive Director, Business
Development
Arjun Naskar
Executive Director, Marketing
Catharyn Howard-Teplansky
Executive Director, High
School Operations
Sonia Sarkar
Marketing Associates
Alexandra Szulc, Carolyn Davies
Director of Library Distribution
Gabriel Kim
Business and Marketing
Division
Alex Ip, Margot Kabalkin,
Anjali Verghis, Viraj Mehta,
Vijeth Iyengar, Star Li, Mahesh
Madhavan, Nicole Hui, Sean
Yue, Christopher Louie,
Gabriel Kim, Carolyn Davies,
Allie Schnidman, Alessandra
Szulc, Jenny Lee
EUROPE DIVISION:
Executive Director, Business
Development
Michelle Lam
ASIA DIVISION:
Executive Director, Internal
Affairs
Chan Hei Ching
Executive Director, Business
Donald Tsang
GLOBAL LITERARY &
PRODUCTION:
Senior Literary Editors
Kristina Liu, Winnie Tsang,
Garrett R. Leonard, Stephen
Ra, Ruchira Srinivasakrishnan
Production Advisor
Erwin Wang
Production Site Director,
UC Berkley
Stephanie Chaio
Managing Production Editors
Bradley French, Kaitlyn
Mitchell, Kim-Yen Nguyen,
Alvin Chen
Senior Production Editors
Angela Liou, Benjamin Tzou,
Christine Russell, David Liang,
James Yeh, Kelly Koay,
Michael Leung
Production Editors
Yang Gu, Austin Ihm, Michael
Turchin, Brian Yoo, Claire J. Lee,
Yang Zhang, Franny Buderman,
Justine Olszewski, Yee Ling Lam,
Mira Patel, Elise Christensen,
Dustin Hange, James Liao,
Jennifer Kao, Joanne Cheung,
Lindsay Parish, Victoria Chu,
Steven Schlansker, Zoe Doyle
E-PUBLISHING & TECHNOLOGY
DIVISION:
Technology Director
Basil Carr
Associate Editors
Jennie Wang
Budri Abubaker-Sharif
Assistant Editor
Aris Baras
Graphics Editor
Garrett Leonard
Multimedia Director
Nikhil Shyam
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
Chairman
Kevin Hwang
Vice Chairman
Erwin Wang
Secretary
Melissa Matarese
Alumni Chair
Joel Gabre
Finance Chair
Kalil Abdullah
MELBOURNE CHAPTER Hannah Harnstad
EXECUTIVE BOARD: Jade Lao
President Vivien Li
Terry Chang Ruby Murray
Editor-in-Chief
Celeste Leong FACULTY REVIEW BOARD:
Vice President Professor Joe Proietto
Mandy Zhang Professor Rachel Webster
Secretary
Stephanie Quek SPECIAL THANKS TO:
Finance Director Professor Ian Frazer
Chrystal Fernandez Professor Peter McPhee
Finance Advisor
Donald Tsang Similar staff exists at all chapters
Marketing Director of The Triple Helix, a truly
Zoe Wong international organisation with
HR Director an active membership of over
Ben Loe 1,000 students around the world.
IT Director Arizona State University
Ronny Chieng UC Berkeley
Brown University
SENIOR STAFF: University of Cambridge
Editorial Associates Carnegie Mellon University
Maryam Jahanshahi Columbia University
Krystin Low Cornell University
Michael Lee Dartmouth University
Bonnie Esposito UC Davis
Aaron Mentha Emory University
Isaac Dunn Georgetown University
Elizabeth Zuccala Harvard University
Ruby Murray The University of Hong Kong
Vivien Li Johns Hopkins University
Jade Lao King’s College London
London School of Economics
Finance Division Massachusetts Institute of
Joelle Lim Technology
Mandy Zhang Monash University
Ying Li Ng Northwestern University
Vishala Vasandani National University of Singapore
Pasam Interangsi University of Melbourne
Ying Yi University of Oxford
Ping Lu University of Pennsylvania
Peking University
Marketing Division University of Sydney
Nicole Teo University of Chicago
Kevin Tan University College London
WeiNa Ke UC Los Angeles
Lisa Lee UC San Diego
University of North Carolina
HR Division Chapel Hill
Sophia Gutkin Yale University
Sarah Wendlandt
Annamae Wong
SUPPORT STAFF:
Chief Operating Officer
Kym Huynh
Senior Literary Editor
Ruchira Srinivasakrishnan
Advisor
Sook Jin Ong

©2007 The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved. The Triple Helix at the University of Melbourne is an independent
chapter of The Triple Helix, Inc., an educational 501(c)3 non-profit corporation. The Triple Helix at the University
of Melbourne is published once per semester and is available free of charge. Its sponsors, advisors and the Unit-
ersity of Melbourne are not responsible for its contents. The views expressed in this journal are solely those of the
respective authors. To the fullest extent permitted by law, neither The Triple Helix nor any of its members will be
liable for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the contents included in this publication.
 Table of
Contents
A Review of the 5th World Conference of Science Journalists 3

A Conversation with Ian Frazer 6

Roll up your Entertainment 11

Rebecca Krall, Carnegie Mellon University

Human Computer Symbiosis 15

Pranai Tandon, Cornell University

The Case of the Pillow Angel 18

Julia Piper, UC Berkeley

Transgenic Animals: Paving the Way to New Frontiers in Medical and Scientific Research 21
Margaret Mallari, University of Chicago

Superorganisms 25
Yvette Han, Carnegie Mellon University

Animal Rights, Human Wrongs: A Rational Examination of Ethics Concerning Animals 26

Are You What You Eat? 29

Hayley Hernstadt, University of Melbourne

Martha Stewart to 50 Cent: A Debacle of the Social Construction of Race 34

Ariana Younai, UC Berkeley

Revisiting the Ruler: The Metamorphisis of Progress in the Modern World of Medicine 37
Nisha Narayan, UC Berkeley

The Cultural and Evoluntionary Basis of Sound Perception 41

Zara Khan, UC Berkeley

Why Pluto Should Be Plutoed 43

Jade Lao, University of Melbourne

Do We Need to Explore Space? 47

Karavya Vyas, UC San Diego

The E.O. Wilson Model for successful engagement between religious and scientific communities 50
Richard Milford, Arizona State University

Chinaʼs economic and environmental footprints in Africa 53

Caroline Lee, University of Georgetown

The Stuff of Nightmares 56

2 WELCOME MESSAGES
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008

Message from the CEO

Dear Readers,
For The Triple Helix, 2008 brings with it a variety of interesting projects and opportunities. One of our
main goals for the New Year is to encourage more collaboration and intellectual discussion between individual
chapters within the Triple Helix network. We have already made progress by holding the first-ever TTH event
designed to bring members from different chapters together in one place to share their scholarly work. We are
pleased to announce that this February in Boston, Massachusetts, TTH authors presented eighteen unique
pieces of research in an exclusive poster session at the annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science. In addition, they attended the Triple Helix Member Workshop and Leadership
Summit, an event designed to both educate and inspire our students to maintain a high quality of journalism
and take their chapters in new directions. This event not only established a tradition of TTH interacting with
the larger academic community, but also stimulated the flow of ideas within the student membership.
I am confident that great things will come from collaboration between our students at chapters around the
world. As we continue to establish our science policy division, the cultural diversity of our member universities
will serve to educate TTH members and general audiences alike in the significant similarities and differences
that characterize public attitudes towards science in different regions. We aim to spark discussion and provide
factual analysis of the issues that will affect our society— with a rapidly changing world and so many new
scientific advances; it is essential that we all understand what is at stake.
Sincerely,

Manisha Bhattacharya
Chief Executive Officer, The Triple Helix

Message from the Chapter President

The Triple Helix, Inc. aims to provide an innovative outlet for undergraduates to voice their opinions
about cutting-edge issues in science and the intersection of such issues with society and law. The University
of Melbourne chapter is proud to release our second edition which we believe showcases the caliber of our
students. This is a truly remarkable achievement for a student-run organisation to facilitate such a high-level
exchange of interdisciplinary ideas amongst undergraduates around the globe.
The second edition highlights the international presence of The Triple Helix through a broad spectrum of
international undergraduate writers and where students from the University of Melbourne fit. Furthermore,
this second edition demonstrates that undergraduate students are more than capable of thinking outside the
confines of their disciplines and contributing original thoughts to the discussion scientific issues with broader
society ramifications..
I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone in the organization, as well as those who have sup-
ported us. It has been a wonderful experience as this chapter’s president, but it would not be half as memorable
without the display of teamwork and togetherness that persisted through the good times and the hard times.
Dear readers, as you browse through this journal, we hope the articles inform you of recent scientific devel-
opments and, more importantly, inspire you to consider the implications such developments for you and those
around you.
Kindest Regards,

Terry Chang
President, The Triple Helix, Inc.
The University of Melbourne Chapter
 In April 2007, while we were sitting in the library
dully staring out at the end of summer, Melbourne
was hosting the 5th World Conference of Science
Journalists. The conference, which spanned two
days and included guest speakers and panellists
from around the world, provided participants with
the chance to engage with one of the most urgent
questions facing modern society: how should
science be communicated?

A review of the
5th World
Conference of
Science
Journalists
As growing mainstream media interest in climate Wise Up: The truth about TV science
change, stem cell research, patenting and a plethora PRODUCER: Sonya Pemberton
of other issues has shown, science is fast becoming CHAIR: Graham Phillips
SPEAKERS: Peter Rees, Catherine Marciniak, Nalaka
an integral part of public dialogue. Yet despite the
Gunawardene, Sonya Pemberton
obvious centrality of science to these issues, those
Television shows such as MythBusters have proved
making decisions relating to scientific research rarely
that, contrary to popular belief, science can sell. The
seem to have a scientific background. Increasingly,
trick, as creator Peter Rees claimed in this session,
it is falling upon the already burdened shoulders of
lies in not labelling the material as ‘science’. Other
scientists to educate both politicians and the general
panellists seemed to agree, discussing how success-
public. Or, more specifically, it is falling upon that
ful shows present narratives which integrate research
rare breed, the science journalist.
seamlessly, turning science into entertainment.
The Triple Helix was fortunate in being able
A different perspective was provided by TVE
to attend the 5th World Conference of Science
Asia Pacific producer Nalaka Gunawardene, who dis-
Journalists, and presents here a few brief summaries
cussed the broadcasting model adopted by developing
of selected events. Somewhat predictably, certain
countries when dealing with science based shows.
themes ran through many of the panels. Climate
Gunawardene described what he called ‘the digital’
change and related discussions on the presentation
model, as opposed to the traditional ‘lineal’ narrative
of the environmental sciences were popular, hardly
broadcasting model used in the developed world and
surprising given the current political dialogue on
epitomised by the science documentary. This ‘digital’
policy surrounding environmental governance both
model has been used to attract those under 30s to sci-
nationally and globally.
ence broadcasting, a group of media consumers more
In a world where media portrayal has become familiar with eclectic models of presentation.
paramount, one of the biggest challenges facing sci-
entists today is that of being able to communicate Mythbusters official website :
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/
their research. Accordingly, the ethics and mechan- NOVA (popular science TV program in the US) official
ics of scientific journalism also played an important website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/
role at the conference, with many sessions focussing A new kind of science mediator:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/headlines/news/article_
on the way in which science can be presented and 04_09_08_en.html
‘sold’ to a consumer public. Research-TV: promoting research excellence :
http://www.research-tv.com/
4 5TH WORLD CONFERENCE OF SCIENCE JOURNALISTS
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
New Media: Podcasting, Second Life,
and the future of the Web.
PRODUCER: Abbie Thomas
CHAIR: Bernie Hobbs
SPEAKERS: Ian Allan, Abigail E. Thomas, Chris
Smith, James Massola
As the level of audience enthusiasm in this session
clearly showed, New Media forms can drastically alter
the way in which science is presented. With roughly
one third of the population regularly accessing various
forms of New Media — such as blogging, podcasting,
online forums and now even the virtual world Second
Life — New Media could provide science journalists
with new forms of publishing and communication.
A virologist at Cambridge University, panellist
and podcaster Chris Smith, aka the Naked Scientist,
discussed how mainstream and commercial radio sta-
tions have traditionally had little time for science news
and discussion. Smith showed how podcasting has
provided science-based radio shows with the potential
to develop large networks of listeners.
James Massola provided an insight into the world
of ‘citizen journalism’, or blogging. Currently, around
150 million blogs exist, providing free outlets for in-
dividuals to voice their opinions and publish research.
However, the very intellectual freedom provided by
blogging may prove to be its downfall due to issues of
accountability and quality control; hence blogs need
to be approached with caution.
Abigail E. Thomas presented the most bizarre
alternative to mainstream media outlets for science
journalism with her description of the online virtual
world Second Life. Second Life is an online commu-
nity similar to MIRC or Friendster, and provides a
3D interface allowing users to create their own avatars
and interact in a fully virtual world. Second Life is be-
ing enthusiastically adopted by organisations such as
NASA and NOAA to establish online museums and
information centres. Promoters of Second Life point to
its potential as a tool for community networking and
communications, as each related field of sciences can be
located within close virtual-geographical proximity.
Climate Change and the Risk of Disease
PRODUCER/CHAIR: Deborah Smith
SPEAKERS: Tony McMichael, Alistair Woodward
This session highlighted the diverse problems associ-
ated with climate change and a planet in flux, particularly
the human health risks. Heatwaves, increased precipita-
tion, injury due to climate change related events, and the
spread of disease were among the health risks discussed
by Tony McMichael and Alistair Woodward, who urged
that more research be directed towards the links between
human health and climate change.
Science vs Business: A Clash of Cultures
PRODUCER: Melissa Trudinger
CHAIR: Alan Finkel
SPEAKERS: Rebecca Wilson, Clive Cookson, Simon Grose
The speakers in this session discussed the hazards inher-
ent in navigating the creaking fault line between the worlds
of business and science. As the lengthy Q&A showed, many
reporters are dissatisfied with the way in which business
interacts with the science media. One speaker raised the ten-
dency of private and public biotechnology companies to focus
on quantity rather than quality in the production of media
releases. The frustrating lack of reliable reporting on the fi-
nancial aspect of science-related businesses was also a recur-
ring theme in this session. Above all, both science journalists
and business representatives warned of the hidden agendas
in technology-based industries and stressed that both sides
should exercise caution when considering reports.
Science, Industry and Business : http://www.innovations-re-
port.com/index.php
Purifying a poisoned planet
PRODUCER: Julian Cribb
CHAIR: Brad Collis
SPEAKERS: Jack Ng, Ravi Naidu, Stevan Green
This session sought to examine the competing
roles of governments and businesses in cleaning up
sites affected by contaminants such as persistent
organic pollutants, arsenic and mercury. There are
a staggering 10 million afflicted sites worldwide,
with 100,000 in Australia alone. Jack Ng, of the
Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination,
Assessment and Remediation of the Environment,
proposed that the first step in effective site man-
agement is to develop a ‘dose-response’ analysis
capable of determining the level of chemical expo-
sure required to cause harm. While panellists in
this session appeared optimistic that remediation
was achievable, the monetary commitment involved
seems prohibitive. Ng claimed that investigating the
health impacts of just 25 chemicals would require
around 33 million experiments, costing approxi-
mately $100,000 per experiment.

Reporting Climate Change
PRODUCER: Simon Torok
CHAIR: Wilson da Silva
SPEAKERS: Kevin Hennessy, Geoff Love, Ian Lowe
PANEL: Chris Mooney, Simon Torok
Reporting on climate change has had a patchy
history, not least because much of the science
involved is so complex that science journalists
have had trouble distilling it into forms that the
general public can digest. This session provided
a brief look at the troubling trends in reporting,
notably the skewing of scientific evidence which
results in public misconceptions. One such ex-
ample is the continual focus on the role of land
rather than ocean masses with regards to climate
change. The differences between reporting in the
developed world and the developing world were
also discussed.
Stem Cells and Bioethics
PRODUCER: Chee Chee Leung
CHAIR: Robin Marantz Henig
SPEAKERS: Geoff Carr, Mal Washer, Janet Salisbury,
Peter Mountford
No conference on science journalism would be
complete without a discussion of the controversial
topic of stem cell research. Topics examined by pan-
ellists in this session varied widely, from the origin
of the controversy as a Western or Christian phe-
nomenon, to the need for reporters to focus more on
the ethics of the research itself rather than substi-
tuting such a discussion for one based on a discourse
of potential benefit.
The Skeptical Christian: Embryonic Stem Cell Research:
http://www.skepticalchristian.com/embryonicstemcellrese
arch.htm
Human Stem Cell Research - All Viewpoints: http://www.
religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm
Ethics of Stem Cell Research: http://www.
biotechnologyonline.gov.au/human/ethicssc.cfm
What are Some Issues in Stem Cell Research: http://learn.
genetics.utah.edu/units/stemcells/scissues/
5TH WORLD CONFERENCE OF SCIENCE JOURNALISTS 5
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
Who Owns Science?
PRODUCER: Richard Jefferson
Richard Jefferson proposes a radical idea: do
away with the current patent regime by patenting
everything. While this might sound counter-intui-
tive, Jefferson claims that patenting everything, but
making patent use dependent on a code of behaviour
rather than cash based transfers could create a form
of open-source access that would benefit everyone,
especially those involved in the life sciences. At pres-
ent, the emphasis in biotechnology lies on the “tools”
rather than the “building” which creates an envi-
ronment that prevents growth, as those who most
need access to resources cannot get it. Sound com-
plex? It is, but it’s also a fascinating proposal. For
more information, see his comprehensive website at
www.patentlens.net.
Biasing Scientific Information
PRODUCER: Tim Thwaites, Melissa Trudinger
CHAIR: Robyn Williams
INTRODUCTION: John Brumby,
SPEAKERS: Chris Mooney, Jia Hepeng
British chemist George Porter once asked if
we should force science down the throats of those
who have no taste for it, if it was our duty to drag
people ‘kicking and screaming into the twenty-first
century‘. He concluded, quite rightly, that it was.
The panellists in this session would have agreed
with him. Chris Mooney and Jia Hepeng discussed
the contrasting problems faced by American and
Chinese scientists in trying to communicate with
the government over scientific issues. Mooney
suggested that, in America, where science is forced
to compete with a deaf political structure and a
media culture more interested in Anna Nicole
Smith than geology, scientists need to take up a
new approach, one akin to ‘ultimate fighting’. Only
in this way will scientists defend their research and
prevent it from being misused or suppressed.
In contrast, Jia Hepeng described how the
Chinese government uses science journalism as
a propaganda tool, strangling true research and
hindering interaction between the scientific com-
munity and the general public. Perhaps it truly is
time to develop a team of International Ultimate
Science Fighters who will defend the integrity of
scientific research.
The Crisis in China’s Science Journalism – http://
www.scidev.net/Opinions/index.cfm?fuseaction=read
Opinions&itemid=578&language=1
Science Journalism: A Bias in Favour of Truth
 A conversation
with Ian Frazer

In our first edition, The Triple Helix (University of Melbourne) published a

thought-provoking article considering the potential and obstacles facing a
human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program. Since that article, the
Australian Government has initiated the National HPV Vaccination Program
to provide the HPV vaccine Gardasil® free to all females aged between 12
and 26. In this edition, Vivien Li of The Triple Helix spoke to Professor Ian
Frazer, 2006 Australian of the Year and co-inventor of the HPV vaccine,
about his career, vaccine policy and the future of medical research.

Career such as Barry Marshall, Robin Warren and Peter

TTH: What has being awarded Australian of
the Year meant to you? Has it given you a greater
platform on which to influence health policy or
research?
Prof Frazer: It has certainly made my life a lot busier
and I have become rather more of a politician and
rather less the scientist over the course of the last
couple of years. I’ve used the opportunity of being
Australian of the Year to promote things important
to me, including what it means to be an Australian
and why science is important in society. It has
also given me the opportunity to talk about the
importance of medical research and looking after
the health of the community, and to address the
community about how we should make sure that
the benefits of medical research are made available
all the way across the world.
TTH: Your thoughts on other medical researchers
and importance accorded to science and medical
research in Australia?
Prof Frazer: My contribution to medical research
has been fairly small in comparison with the medical
researchers in Australia who have won Nobel Prizes
Doherty, each of whom stand out as people who have
made significant changes in the way that we think
about how the body’s defence against infections
work and how infection causes diseases. It’s
interesting to note Australia’s research strength in
infectious diseases and in the body’s defence against
such diseases. It’s a great privilege to have been given
the opportunity to take part in the exciting scientific
environment that has been set up by the opinion
leaders and inspiring researchers of the past.
TTH: How much clinical work did you do whilst
conducting research?
Prof Frazer: I’ve done quite a lot of clinical work while
I’ve been doing my research. Indeed I looked back and
counted up and there’ve been about 16 different clinical
trials over the course of the last 25 years. I’ve always
seen the translation of basic laboratory research into
something useful in clinical practice as particularly
important, and have given that a high priority in my
scheme of things, so that until about 1999, I was still
practicing as a clinician on a regular basis. I have to
say these days I don’t see patients except in the course
of the clinical trials I’m involved with.

Research and Vaccines
TTH: How did you first enter into your research in
cervical cancer?
Prof Frazer: The research work that I was doing
in the early 1980s was focused on viral infections
and particularly in persisting viral infections. I
was looking at a cohort of men who had persisting
hepatitis B virus infection and many of them were
at risk for what was subsequently found out to be
HIV/AIDS. When we realised these men were
significantly immune suppressed, it provided an
opportunity to study diseases that were enhanced
by immunosuppression.
One of the findings of the study of these patients
was that they were having great difficulty getting
rid of Papilloma virus infections and indeed were
developing pre-cancer around the back passage
as a consequence of the infection. This was really
interesting because first of all, papilloma virus had
recently been identified as the virus responsible
for cervical cancer, and therefore there was a great
interest in persisting papilloma virus infections as
linked to cancer. Secondly, this was the first time to
my knowledge that it had been shown that taking
away the immune system encouraged the growth of
a cancer in humans, and indeed both in humans and
animals that still remains a relatively controversial
area. So this was, if you like, a low hanging fruit
to target for cancer control where there was some
prospect of doing something because a vaccine
might be able to prevent the infection responsible
for the disease.
TTH: Could you briefly describe the research
process involved in developing Gardasil®? What
sorts of difficulties did you face?
Prof Frazer: We set out to work on the virus by trying
to build a Papilloma virus. Then and currently we
can’t grow this virus in the lab. Whenever you want
to study an immune response, you would need to
have a source for the virus. So we used then relatively
novel recombinant DNA technology to build
the building blocks of the virus and much to our
surprise, the building blocks which comprised the
shell of the virus assembled themselves into what we
now call virus-like particles, in other words empty
virus, without us having to do very much about it,
except to use the right expression system and the
right bit of the virus’ genes. This had to be done to
some extent by trial and error, and it took about a
A CONVERSATION WITH IAN FRAZER 7
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
year for my colleague, the late Dr Jian Zhou, and I
to come up with a means where you could produce
virus-like particles. The biggest problem was not
knowing for sure that the process could succeed
and we had to do all sorts of quite complex things
to make the virus-like particles. In fact, when we
got the recipe right, they made themselves, and that
was just as well, because there wouldn’t have been a
vaccine if that had not been the case.
TTH: How did you go from the discovery in the
laboratory to actual production of the vaccine? What
insights did your gain from the commercialisation
process?
Prof Frazer: We used the virus-like particles in the
laboratory to show that they were immunogenic
— in other words, you got an immune response
if you injected them into an animal. Having done
that, there really wasn’t very much more that could
be done by us and we passed the technology on
through CSL limited, an Australian biotechnology
company, to Merck & Co., Inc., because it was clear
that if there was to be a vaccine against cervical
cancer it would be based on the virus-like particles;
the precedent was the hepatitis B vaccine made by
similar technology.
Most of the process of commercialisation was
handed over to the companies, as they clearly had
an interest. We consulted with them extensively,
perhaps most about the nature of the disease and
what we understood of that. But a lot of what we
thought we knew in those days was wrong, and we
relied considerably on the companies to fund the
very extensive epidemiological studies undertaken
to define the natural history of papilloma virus
infection and its association with cervical cancer.
Along the way of course we learnt quite a lot about
what was necessary to make a commercial product.
The driving force for commercialisation is whether
the product can be made at a cost that will allow the
company to make money off it, and whether there
is a large enough market to ensure that they do.
This is rather different from the scientist and the
clinician’s point of view as they are seeking effective
interventions and treatments, and the cost and
commerciality are not the highest priority.
TTH: Did the drug discovery and commercialisation
processes in your case differ from the current
processes facing Australian biotech? Are there any
lessons for aspiring researchers?
8 A CONVERSATION WITH IAN FRAZER
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
Prof Frazer: Not really. The bottom line for this was
that we had developed a mature product. It wasn’t
really a platform technology and there wasn’t too
much further basic science development that needed
to be done. This enabled us to license the technology
directly to the big pharmaceutical companies in
the way that might not be so possible these days
for a product still in preclinical development. The
companies still faced the problems of production
scale-up and phase 1, 2, 3 clinical testing, as would
have been the case for us, if we had done the work
in Australia.
I think that the most important lesson that I have
learnt throughout all this is that you have to have
a product in mind when commercialising research,
rather than an idea, and that you have to consider
what clinical trials you would do to validate that
product for the label that you would want to see on
the bottle. If any of the clinical trials are going to
be long and expensive then the product will have to
be particularly useful and valuable, and have a large
and widespread market. Products with more defined
niches might require simpler clinical trials being
developed in a less expensive and extensive way. I
think that the most important thing is to evaluate
both the science and commerciality at an early stage
in the process of product commercialisation .
TTH: Given your involvement in developing
Gardasil®, do you feel that you have an obligation to
ensure equitable access to the vaccine in Australia
and overseas?
Prof Frazer: I think that any scientist that is involved
in developing a biological or other pharmaceutical
product has an obligation to ensure that everything
possible is done to ensure equitable access to the
product. Around the world, the reality is that
future wars, if there are wars, will be fought over
access to food, water, education and health, rather
than over territory, and if we build divides between
the developing and developed world in access to
healthcare, then we’re not doing anybody any
favours.
We need a new model for the commercialisation
of biotechnology — one which allows the companies
that do the work to make the money back in the
developed world, and which will also enable the
developing world to get the benefit. There aren’t
easy models for this in the current economic system,
apart from improving the health and welfare of the
countries that are currently relatively impoverished
through providing fair opportunity for them to
make wealth for themselves, and unfortunately this
is a slow and uncertain process. We as individuals,
governments, and nations must see it as a moral
imperative to make the new health care products
available in the developing world at costs that they
can afford. The cost differential will be a tax of some
sort on prosperity of the developed world.
TTH: What are your current research interests?
Prof Frazer: I focus very largely on developing
immunotherapy for persisting viral infections. We
are working still on papilloma virus, but also thinking
about hepatitis C and herpes viruses. The problems
in this area are to work out technologies that will
allow therapeutic vaccines to work, since the current
model seems to be wrong. The simple approach of
immunising to introduce cytotoxic T cells doesn’t
seem to be sufficient, at least in human disease.
TTH: What are your thoughts on some peoples’
fears of the potential dangers of vaccines? Given that
some of these beliefs are prevalent even in highly
educated parents, what do you think can be done to
counter such fears?
Prof Frazer: The dangers of vaccines are in my opinion
grossly overstated. The vaccines that we already have
go through extensive clinical trials to demonstrate
not only efficacy but safety. Whilst it is true that
there will be potential side effects for any vaccine,
these will be very rare relative to the severity of the
diseases we are trying to prevent. Polio vaccines are
very effective at preventing polio – howver the live
polio vaccine, which is the cheapest and easiest to
use, occasionally causes polio. It’s far better to have
a very occasional case of polio due to a vaccine strain

or a reassortment between vaccines and wild strains,
than to have epidemics of polio throughout the
world with a significant number of deaths as a result.
So it’s not so much a matter of potential danger of
vaccines, but the relative risk of the vaccines versus
the risk of not having the vaccines. I think that we
need to make sure we do everything we can to make
vaccine products safe, but we need to remind people
that the consequences of being not vaccinated are
very significant indeed. For the HPV vaccine, the
risk is of death from HPV associated cancer, and
the available vaccines can prevent 70% of that risk.
TTH: Do you think current efforts to develop
vaccines are adequate? Similarly, what are your
thoughts on the current state of vaccine research,
funding, availability and distribution around the
world, especially in developing countries?
Prof Frazer: Worldwide, I think that the development
of vaccines has become a high priority, and both big
pharma and biomedical research people continue to
see the potential in vaccines. New vaccines that have
become available for rotavirus, against meningococcal
C, against pneumococcus, against papilloma virus
have shown that there is still potential to develop
many useful vaccines for significant global markets.
I think that we could always spend more on vaccine
development. At the moment, the critical thing
is also to spend more on understanding the basic
science underlying technologies that lead to good
vaccines, because I think we have probably broken
off most of the low-hanging fruit now and the future
is going to involve developing new vaccine strategies
I think that we need to make our future scientists into the equivalent
of movie stars and sports stars. The solution to future problems will
come from science and we really need to make scientists realise
that theyʼre appreciated in the community.
which will produce better immune responses of the
sort we need to protect against infections where the
virus either changes very rapidly or where it can hide
itself from the immune system.
TTH: In particular, do you think Australia has a
responsibility in the Asia-Pacific region in relation
to vaccine research, manufacture and deployment?
Do you think Australia’s participation in the GAVI
alliance is the correct first step, and what other
initiatives do you think Australia could take?
Prof Frazer: Clearly, Australia has a responsibility to
A CONVERSATION WITH IAN FRAZER 9
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
of which we are an integral part — and that includes
the basic research that underpins the practical and
applied aspects of vaccine development.
TTH: You are involved with the World Health
Organisation’s (WHO) Expanded Vaccine Initiative.
How does this help to improve the access to and
affordability of vaccines in the developing world?
Prof Frazer: The WHO is a useful policy setter,
though it has limited resources at its disposal. By
getting expert opinions together, it can achieve a
consensus that a particular product or the means
of delivering the product is useful in a way that
allows countries, emerging nations particularly,
to use that information to leverage support for the
use of that product in their country. It’s important
for health ministers in emerging nations to see that
the consensus expert opinions that the WHO put
together can be useful.
TTH: If you were the Federal Health Minister,
what sorts of initiatives would you undertake?
Prof Frazer: I am not the Federal Health Minister,
so fortunately I don’t have to consider and prioritise
the entire spectrum of initiatives desirable to ensure
the future health of our nation. One thing that any
federal Health Minister is likely to wish to do is to
strengthen government support of basic biomedical
research, and another is to maintain and enhance the
National Health and Medical Research Council as a
means of public health education. The initiatives that
have been put in place to encourage the translation
of research into practical products through the
promote the development of appropriate vaccines in
Australia, for Australians and also presumably for the
South East Asian region. We have nevertheless to be
careful not to be patronising. It’s up to each country
to decide what vaccines they need and what they
want, but if there were, for example, the potential to
develop a malaria vaccine, I think it’s a responsibility
of countries with the resources and expertise to try
and do that. The GAVI alliance is an important part
of that, but I think that the critical thing is for our
government to invest in biomedical research — it
will benefit not only Australia, but also the region
10 A CONVERSATION WITH IAN FRAZER
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008

various federal government initiatives schemes for
translational research such as targeted research grants
should also be maintained. Also, the issue of health
care inequities, particularly in aboriginal communities
and immigrant communities, must be addressed.
The Future
TTH: Many recent breakthroughs in medicine,
including yours, have been in the area of immunology. Do
you think this is a particularly promising field currently?
Prof Frazer: Immunology offers a solution to a
large part of health problems in the future because
inflammation is behind many chronic diseases
including cardiovascular disease and degenerative
diseases in the brain, and because immunotherapy will
be the potential solution for many of the other problems
we face, including cancer and chronic infectious
disease. I think in the next 25 years, there are going
to be significant breakthroughs in the understanding
of the human genome and how the variability that
exists in all of us is an important determinant of what
diseases we are at risk for. By modifying people’s risk
for a disease through environmental changes, we can
already achieve a lot and if we understand who are
particularly at risk, then we can certainly move the
field forward faster in terms of prevention of disease.
TTH: In your speech to the Queensland Media
Club last year, you noted that Australia “produces
3% of the world’s biomedical scientific output from
0.5% of the world’s population, and yet we only
manage to translate this into rather less than 1% of
the world’s pharmaceutical sales.” Do you see this
situation changing anytime in the near future?
Prof Frazer: I think in the future we’ll do better in
translating our biomedical research. In Australia,
there has been a major cultural shift over the last 10
to 15 years towards applying basic research for the
benefit of human kind. There is a long lag time when
that sort of change takes place, because basically it is
25 years from the time you start to develop products
before you see them. I think that now the message
has got across that the basic research we do should
wherever possible actually be applied.
come from science and we really need to make scientists
realise that they’re appreciated in the community.
TTH: Is there any particular national or state
model (either in Australia or overseas) that you
would consider particularly successful or conducive
to scientific research and worthy of emulation?
Prof Frazer: I think that Australia’s model in basic
and applied research is now a good one. I think that
the most important thing is to encourage people to
go into science. One problem lies in the dropping
participation rate in high school science education.
We need to encourage people to realise that science
is actually the way that the world works, and that it
tests hypothesis and comes up with answers. It is
not received wisdom and it’s not divine inspiration
that produces answers to problems; rather it’s
experimental research, which requires people to be
trained as scientists. Therefore, we need to increase
scientific literacy in the whole community and at the
same time increase the number of people who might
wish to train to be applied and basic scientists in the
future, by making careers in science more attractive,
more secure, and more financially rewarding .
The Triple Helix is grateful for Professor
Frazerʼs kind assistance with this interview.
Are you interested in
contributing to The Triple
Helix? We look forward
to hearing from you at
unimelb@thetriplehelix.org

TTH: Do you think enough emphasis is given in

schools and universities to motivate today’s youth
into undertaking medical research?
Prof Frazer: I think that we need to make our future
scientists into the equivalent of movie stars and sports
stars. The solution to most problems society faces will
Roll up your Entertainment

Did you ever wish that you could roll up your television and take it
with you? Or have a television that covers an entire wall like Guy
Montag in Fahrenheit 451? Were you amazed by the transparent
computer screens in Minority Report? These products may not be
too far-fetched thanks to a device known as an OLED.

Rebecca Krall, Carnegie Mellon University

Just as floppy disks were replaced by CDs and
VCRs by DVDs, OLEDs may be the next revolution
in the video screen industry. The television and com-
puter screens would be made up of organic light-emit-
ting diodes, or OLEDs. OLEDs are semiconductors
which emit light when organic materials are subjected
to an electric current. This procedure is called elec-
trophosphorescence [1]. Currently, video technology
is composed of man-made materials, but what makes
OLEDs fascinating is that they are built with organic
compounds. Even with competition from current
television technology, OLEDs have the potential
to revolutionize the television industry. One of the
OLED’s main competitors is the LCD (liquid crystal
display). Though it may seem as if OLEDs and LCDs
would be similar because they are both video technol-
ogy, they are different in respect to their structure,
energy usage, overall quality, and manufacturing pro-
cess. Instead of blocking light like inorganic LCDs,
OLEDs emit light [2]. Because LCDs block light
from a backlight, they require forty percent more
energy than OLEDs on average [2]. The reason for
this large difference is that OLEDs do not consume
energy when not in use [2]. A black OLED pixel is
truly black because it does not emit light; however, a
black LCD pixel wastes energy by blocking the back-
light behind it [3]. In fact, an OLED display only
needs between two and ten volts to operate [1].
Since OLEDs do not have a backlight, can
be supported on a thin, flexible plastic substrate,
and are made from thin organic layers instead of a
thicker liquid crystal component, they are thinner
than LCDs. Consequently, an OLED television
weighs about forty percent less than a comparable
LCD television [4]. A drawback of LCDs is that
they are viewing angle dependent, which means that
if the screen is viewed outside of a maximum angle,
the image will be distorted. However, OLEDs are
not viewing angle dependent, and have a far superior
viewing angle of 170 degrees [5]. Compared to the
video response rate of a millisecond of other televi-
sion technologies in the market (plasma and cathode
ray tube), LCDs are slow [2]. However, the Kodak
active matrix OLED can refresh two hundred times
a second [5]. OLEDs are brighter and have more
contrast than LCDs and can be used in a wider range
of temperatures [2]. In addition, OLEDs are capable
of displaying 16 million colors, while a typical cam-
era LCD can only display 262,000 colors [6].
OLEDs even outperform LCDs in the manufac-
turing process. Although the manufacturing pro-
cess and components for televisions made with these
two technologies are similar, the production process
for OLED televisions is easier because OLEDs are
composed of fewer parts [10]. It is easier to apply
12 ROLL UP YOUR ENTERTAINMENT
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
the organic compound to the substrate of an OLED
than it is to apply the liquid crystals to the substrate
of an LCD. In a similar way as a home inkjet printer
prints a page by spraying the ink, the OLEDs can be
applied to the substrate using an inkjet printer [13].
Most importantly, because they are organic, OLEDs
are environmentally friendly.
Besides televisions, OLED technology has
other practical applications, such as light fixtures,
keyboards, and bookmarks; and innovative uses
including “Post-It” OLEDs, OLEDs in clothing,
and a breaking-news OLED newspaper. By creat-
ing an OLED with a flexible substrate, a foldable
OLED is produced. Foldable OLEDs have many
potential uses because they are resilient and light.
Any electronic device that is transported often, such
as a cell phone, could benefit from a flexible OLED
because the screen would not be as likely to crack
[2]. Bookmarks are another application of flexible
OLEDS. Avnish Gautam designed a concept prod-
uct called the MARK bookmark, which is a regular
bookmark during the day, but glows to the desired
preference at night. This year, the bookmark won
the Red Dot Award in the category of best design
[7]. OLEDs in clothing and OLED newspapers can
be created from foldable OLEDs as well [2].
White OLEDs only emit white light, and they
are superior to the current methods of lighting like
fluorescent and incandescent. Light emitted by a
white OLED is true-color, brighter, and more effi-
cient than white light emitted by these other sources
[2]. White OLEDs could be used to make a window
that is transparent in the daytime and emits light at
night. These windows would save money and energy
Currently, video technology is composed of man-made
materials, but what makes OLEDs fascinating is that they
are built with organic compounds. Even with competition from
current television technology, OLEDs have the
potential to revolutionize the television industry.
by acting as a regular window if there is enough sun-
light outside [8]. OLED lights are being considered
as an alternative to incandescent and fluorescent
bulbs especially since energy is becoming more ex-
pensive and people are becoming more concerned
about global warming [8]. OLED lights would be
more efficient than incandescent lights, whose main
emission is heat, not light [8]. A prototype white
OLED by Universal Display produced 31 lumens
per watt, whereas the typical incandescent bulb pro-
duces between 10 and 15 [8]. OLED lights would
even be a better alternative to fluorescent bulbs
which are hard to recycle because of their harmful
chemicals [8]. OLED lights could help reduce the
price of lighting, which costs U.S. consumers $58
billion a year, and reduce the amount of energy used
for lighting, which constitutes twenty-two percent
of electricity used each year in the United States [8].
Despite the fact that OLEDs have this potential,
it will be hard to convince people to invest in this
technology when incandescent bulbs continue to be
so inexpensive, the prices of fluorescent bulbs con-
tinue to drop, and the revenue from OLED lights
is predicted to be less than the revenue from other
OLED products [8]. This does not entice producers
to concentrate on this application.
The Art
Lebedev Studio has designed a keyboard called
Optimus Maximus whose keys have OLED lights.
The keys are customizable, and can display a picture
of the current key function. For instance, pushing
the shift key causes the letter keys to change from
lower case to upper case. Letters of a different lan-
guage or musical notes could even be programmed
to display on a key without having to buy a new key-
board. Two hundred keyboards were available for
preorder earlier this year at a cost of $1,564 and are
now completely sold out. However, cheaper models
will be offered, but a limited number of features will
be available [9].
Every innovation comes with its own battles and
obstacles. This is true for OLED technology as well.
A major concern is its composition of organic mate-
rials that decay over time, but other problems plague
the widespread production of OLEDs. Currently,
the red, green, and blue pixels age at differing rates
because of their unique compositions. This implies
a gradual distortion of the image as time progresses
[10]. Inclement weather exposure can also ruin this
technology. The brightness of each pixel is deter-
mined by a transistor backpane. As larger screens
have more pixels they need more transistors. This

leads to a greater chance of a transistor failing, and
distortion of the screen [2].
Besides production dilemmas, price is also influ-
encing companies’ decisions to produce OLED tele-
visions. The price of LCD televisions is falling; for
$1,000, less than the price of what a small OLED
television would cost, a consumer could buy a forty
inch plasma television [10]. Overall, manufacturers
need to find a way to reduce the cost of production,
so the retail price of an OLED TV can compete
with LCD and plasma screens, and simultaneously
improve the technology. Samsung may have a lead
in this area because their OLED screens are created
by using the existing LCD manufacturing process.
Thus, if the company decides to produce more
OLED screens a new factory is not required [11].
On December 1, 2007, Sony was the first com-
pany to sell an OLED television commercially when
they released the XEL-1 television in Japan. Their
XEL-1 has an eleven inch screen size, and its thin-
nest point is .12 inches. However, this television still
suffers from the short lifetime of OLEDs, and will
only work for 30,000 hours [2]. The televisions cost
approximately $2,500, and have been available in the
United States since the 2008 Consumer Electronics
Show [12]. A twenty-seven inch prototype has been
showcased by Sony, but it was composed of four in-
dividual displays [2]. This method is not very effec-
tive because it is hard for each display to have exactly
the same colors. Samsung demonstrated televisions
that were bigger than Sony’s by five inches, but some
of the pixels were locked to one color [11]. Seiko
Epson Corporation also tried their hand at the new
technology. Although their televisions had no de-
fects, they only had an eight inch screen size [11].
The Sony televisions will face competition in 2009
when a thirty inch television is anticipated to be
launched by Toshiba [10]. Currently, OLED screens
are used in some Nokia cell phones, iriver digital au-
dio players, and the Kodak EasyShare camera [2,5].
Though OLEDs have not come into the mainstream,
NanoMarkets has predicted that the market for
OLEDs will reach $10.9 billion by 2010.
The success, profitability, and sustenance of
OLEDs will be largely determined by consumer
response. If consumers do not show interest in
OLEDs, producers will not improve them and offer
updates. Additionally, companies do not produce
products with every component the best of its kind
because the average person does not find it necessary
ROLL UP YOUR ENTERTAINMENT 13
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
A 3.8 cm (1.5 in) OLED Screen (Source: http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OLEDScreen.jpg)
to own such a product. Therefore, unless consumers
find that OLEDs are much better than current tech-
nology or find the price of an OLED product com-
mensurate with its quality, companies do not want
to invest in designing new OLED products. This
may result in this new technology’s potential being
wasted. Currently, the production of OLED televi-
sions by Sony - the first big OLED product - and
consumers’ response to the TVs will send signals to
other companies and will influence whether OLEDs
will become part of our future or part of a history
book.
References:
[1] http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/oled.htm
[2]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003
&ref=feedburner&articleId=71057FFB-E7F2-99DF-
31F90CA4C7EB060B
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_light-
emitting_diode
[4] http://lifestyle.hexus.net/content/item.
php?item=11112
[5] http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.
jhtml?pq-path=1473/1492&pq-locale=en_US
[6] http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.
jhtml?pq-path=1473/1683/1485&pq-locale=en_US
[7] http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/oled
[8] http://www.news.com/Tripping-the-lights-
organic/2100-1008_3-6111872.html
[9 ]http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/
[10] http://www.news.com/Still-waiting-for-OLED-
TVs/2100-1041_3-6203556.html
[11] http://www.pcworld.com/printable/
articleid,138864/printable.html#
[12] http://www.news.com/Picture-fuzzy-for-organic-
thin-TVs/2100-7353_3-6225133.html?tag=newsmap
[13] http://www.oled-display.net/oled-making
In 1769 Wolfgang von Kempelin built
the worldʼs first chess playing automa-
tion, a humanoid wooden device called
“The Turk”. He toured the world with his
artificial chess player, defeating notable
players such as Napoleon Bonaparte,
Thomas Edison, and Edgar Allen Poe. The
catch, of course, was that the Turk wasnʼt
an automaton at all: it was powered by
a small flesh-and-blood chess master sit-
ting inside, controlling the mannequinʼs
motions [1].

In 2005, Amazon.com released the second

coming of the Turk, called Amazon Mechanical
Turk. The Mechanical Turk is “Artificial Artificial
Intelligence”, a service that lets programmers create
computer programs that simulate genuine intelli-
gence by performing complex tasks that traditional
computer systems cannot, for example extracting
Human
Computer
artist and album information from a picture of a CD
cover. Such programs contain tasks that cannot read-
ily be performed by today’s computers, which range

from reading text, to identifying images, to tran-
scribing audio. Nevertheless the computer simulates
performing these “Human Intelligence Tasks” by
delegating them to live human workers. The human
workers have no idea what they are doing, as they are
only extensions of the machine [1, 2].
Humans and machines have lived in close proxim-
ity since the invention of tools, and computers have
been widely used to solve problems since their incep-
tion. However, the relationship between humans and
computers is one sided. Computer programs exist as
extensions of human minds, carrying out processes
originating in the minds of their programmers- they
do all the work as part of a human controlled sys-
tem. The two Turks turn this relationship upon its
head, so that human intelligence is harnessed as part
of a larger automated system – integrating humans
into algorithms. In this mechanism humans and
computers both have contributions to the task at
hand, forming a mutualistic symbiotic relationship.
For historical reasons, this goal is called Human
Computer Symbiosis.
Human Intelligence vs. Computer
Intelligence: Symbiosis
The irony of the two Turks is that after 200 years,
the field of artificial intelligence has created the ma-
Symbiosis
Pranai Tandon, Cornell University
chine that von Kempelin could only fake. Now there
are several chess computers that can defeat human
masters, but even these powerful computers cannot
tell a King and Queen apart by looking at them. The
problem lies in that humans and computers excel
in different areas of intelligence. In activities that
humans do with ease, like reading, or identifying
objects in images, computers fail. In activities that
computers dominate, such as gathering and storing
information, or carrying out numeric computation,
people fail [3]. This is addressed in the symbiotic
relationship of the Mechanical Turk.
As early as 1960, J.C.R. Licklider noted this
complementary nature of human and computer
intelligence, and suggested a symbiotic relationship
between the two, in which humans and computers
would each contribute their own expertise to solve
problems together. This kind of mutual system pro-
vided an alternative to “hard” theories of artificial
intelligence, which dictated that computers should
replace humans entirely [4].
16 HUMAN COMPUTER SYMBIOSIS
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
Licklider’s seminal paper went largely unnoticed,
and until very recently the only attempts to include
humans inside intelligent computer systems were
industrial algorithms to optimize factory schedules
or obscure topics like genetic algorithms [3]. Now
his idea is finally coming to fruition in the omnipres-
ence of online CAPTCHAs.
CAPTCHA: A Case Study in Symbiosis.
The classic CAPTCHA is the blurred image of
a word that must be entered before obtaining a free
email account. A CAPTCHA, or a Completely
Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers
and Humans Apart, is a kind of Turing Test, a
test used to determine whether an entity tak-
ing the test is a human or a computer. The idea is
that humans can read the blurred word with ease,
while computers cannot at all. This precludes auto-
mated programs from running over and over and
registering hundreds of email accounts. Bypassing
CAPTCHAs is of paramount importance to spam
companies, who need these accounts to send mail
in bulk [5].
Automated bypass of CAPTCHAs is the ideal
symbiotic task because both human and computer
intelligence is required. Spam corporations have
allegedly set up “CAPTCHA sweatshops” in de-
veloping countries [5, 6]. The idea behind such
an attack is a highly useful as a way to explore the
possibilities of symbiosis. Here, an automated
computer program fills out an e-mail registration
form, and then sends the CAPTCHAs it cannot
solve to human workers who can solve them. Both
parties contribute their respective abilities to be-
come one coherent problem solving unit. Licklider
affirms that, “It seems likely that the contributions
of human operators and equipment will blend
together so completely in many operations that
it will become difficult to separate them neatly in
analysis” [4]. In this respect his prediction became
true – the two entities merge into one hybrid sys-
tem that is neither computer nor human. Together
the computers and human workers pass the Turing
test on a scale unattainable to either party alone.
By definition, it is no longer possible to differenti-
ate between the automated hybrid sweatshop and
regular human users. As such this kind of activity
is difficult to monitor, so there have been no proven
cases of such CAPTCHA sweatshops.
First Steps into the Public
Such symbiosis is no longer found only in ab-
stract thought experiments and research fields. In
fact, the first attempts at bringing symbiotic systems
in the general public were games. Luis von Ahn et
al., pioneers in the nascent field of human based
computation, started by introducing the ESP Game.
In this game, two randomly connected players are
shown the same picture and have to submit as many
keywords for it as possible. As soon as the two play-
ers agree upon a keyword, they each receive points
and move on to the next picture [7].
It is not obvious that the players are doing work
for the game, but the keywords they produce tend to
be excellent keywords for the content of the picture.
Thanks to some clever anti-cheating measures, the
players quickly and accurately make labels for the
images. It’s even less apparent that the players are
in the same situation as the theoretical CAPTCHA
sweatshop. The computers cannot label images just
as they cannot read CAPTCHAs, while people per-
form these tasks easily. The individual players func-
tion as problem solving units in the larger system of
the ESP Game, and put their own expertise to work
– but they don’t even get paid for it.
The same game-based model for using human
intelligence for problem solving is used by Google in
their popular Google Image Labeler game. However,
Google actually puts the results to work: the players
in the Google game produce image labels used to
improve Google Image Search.
Omnipresence
It’s not even necessary for end users to take the
initiative to play a game in order to be involved in a
symbiotic system. There is already a spate of web ser-
vices that harness the intellectual power of unwitting
users. The most famous is the Google PageRank AI,
which ranks web pages fetched for a specific query
based on “votes” that humans submit by creating
hyperlinks on their own web pages [2]. Even more
direct are “tag” based sites. A tag is a short summary
of information presented in any medium, be it text,
audio, or visual. An example is Flickr, at www.flickr.
com, a website that hosts user photographs so that
their friends can view, comment upon, and tag them.
Another is Del.icio.us, at www.del.icio.us, that uses
the same mechanism as Flickr, but users post their
favorite web sites instead of their photos. These
numerous tag sites use the tags that users create to
power their prominent search functions, which ac-
curately find user submitted content for strangers.

Social Ramifications
It’s unlikely that players of the Google Image
Labeler game, avid users of Flickr, or Del.icio.us
will ever see a cent in return for the their work as
symbionts. Is this fair? These websites make vast
sums of money based on content specific ad revenue.
The targeted advertisements that appear at the side
of Google and Flickr rely upon the tags that users
create, though users do not receive any of the money
they produce. All participation on such websites is
voluntary; users need not use Flickr and it is even
possible to disable Google from searching a website.
There must be another incentive for workers to keep
on working, one that does not involve pay. Social
analysis is critical to the success of symbiosis.
There are two viable methods of keeping people
involved. The first is participatory, where participants
work for free because they desire to; the second is
contractual, where participants work for pay under a
formal contract between employer and employee [8].
The first method requires the system to be ap-
pealing and enjoyable. The image labeling games are
just that – games. People play these games for fun,
and complete intellectual work only as a byproduct of
their enjoyment. Flickr and Del.icio.us are marketed
as social networks, in which friends digitally interact
with each other. Participants in both systems never
realize they are doing work. Although players and
users unintentionally generate millions in ad rev-
enue, they continue working for fun. They cede their
profit interest in order to join in on the game.
The second method, working for compensation,
tends to elicit an unfounded adverse reaction [5].
The Mechanical Turk is derided all over online fo-
rums as a sweatshop, but in symbiotic principle it
is no different from games and social networking
sites. What makes the Mechanical Turk especially
threatening is the idea and the economics of having
a computer in command.
However, the socioeconomic model created by
the Mechanical Turk is no different from trends in
mechanization and computerization that have been
occurring for the past twenty years. Historically,
mechanization increases demand for high level
analytic jobs to plan overall operations, decreases
demand for middle organizers who store informa-
tion, and increases demand for manual labor that
cannot be mechanized [9]. A canonical example is
that a single modern desktop computer can hold
more information than an army of bookkeepers,
and can retrieve any piece of data far more quickly
than any human. What the computer cannot do
is produce the information to be stored, or physi-
HUMAN COMPUTER SYMBIOSIS 17
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
cally act using the information. In short, demand for
high and low level jobs is increased, but middle level
organization jobs are eliminated. The Mechanical
Turk does this as well – there is increased demand
for high level programmers who create Mechanical
Turk programs and the low level workers who solve
problems the computers cannot, but the demand for
middle organization is eliminated by the computer
program. There is little to fear of the Mechanical
Turk, it is only more of the same.
Conclusion
From the original Turk to the Mechanical
Turk, the ideas of human computer symbiosis
have remained almost the same, though the field
of computer science has considerably advanced the
cause. Licklider’s vision of a seamlessly integrated
living and working experience between humans and
computers seems to be coming true: it is no longer
possible to draw a clear cut line between human and
computer contributions in some commonplace ac-
tions, like Google searches. But even though there
are many hybrid systems deployed at present, true
symbiosis has not yet developed between humans
and computers. The overall goal of symbiosis should
not be forgotten; mutalistic symbionts cannot live
without each other, and are better off because of
their relationship.
References
[1] Barr, Jeff and Cabreara, Luis. “AI Gets a Brain.”ACM
Queue 4.4 (2006): 24-29.
[2] Williams, Sam. “Pennies for Web Jobs.” Technology
Review March 2006: <http://www.technologyreview.
com/InfoTech/wtr_16519,300,p1.html>
[3] Lesh, N. Marks, J. Rich, C. Sidner, C. L. ““Man-
Computer Symbiosis” Revisited: Achieving Natural
Communication and Collaboration with Computers.”
IECE Transactions on Information and Systems E Series
87.6 (2004):1290-1298.
[4] Licklider, J.C.R. “Man-Computer Symbiosis” IRE
Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics HRE-1
(1960): 4-11.
[5] Von Ahn, Luis. “CAPTCHA, The ESP Game,
and Other Stuff.” Keynote speech in the Proceedings
of the Fifteenth Innovative Applications of Artificial
Intelligence Conference. Available at < http://www.
cs.cmu.edu/~biglou/research.html>
[6] Connor, Allen. “Are You Google’s Gopher?” BBC
News September 2006: < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
uk_news/magazine/5336284.stm>
[7] von Ahn, Luis. “Labeling Images with a Computer
Game.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on
Human factors in computing systems, (2004): 319-326.
[8] Kosurokoff, Alexander. “Human Based Genetic
Algorithms” IEEE Conference on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics. 5 (2001): 3464-3469.
[9] Autor, David. “Computerization and the Division of
Labor: How Computerization Changes what People Do”
Keynote lecture at the Seventh Annual NBER-NCAER
Neemrana Conference.
 The
Case
of the
Pillow
Angel
Julia Piper, UC Berkeley
In January 1997 a pillow angel was born. Her parents named her
Ashley. Three months later her brain stopped developing and she was
diagnosed with static encephalopathy. She smiled and grew like any
normal child but six years later she still could not talk, walk, or eat
without assistance. Completely dependent on her parents, she is a pil-
low angel, a nonambulatory child that sweetly and quietly rests when
placed on any pillow.

Then, in 2004, Ashley began showing signs Static encephalopathy is a non-degenerative

of puberty. Her parents presented her case to the
Children’s Hospital of the University of Washington,
requesting a hysterectomy and estrogen therapy to
stunt her growth. The reasons were complicated, the
precedents unset, and after much consideration, the
hospital’s institutional ethics committee authorized
the performance of the procedures. For the remain-
der of her life Ashley will retain the appearance of
being nine. She will never develop sexually, and will
forever have the mental capacity of a three month
old [1]. In 2006 her parents wrote a blog in response
to ethicists’ criticisms of what is now termed the
“Ashley Treatment.” The world responded with a
barrage of opinions, suggestions, congratulations,
and fears. The controversy of Ashley’s story revolves
around questions, not of medicine, but of morals. It
has caused society to redefine specific rights for dis-
abled persons, reevaluate the perception of human
dignity, and, ultimately, face the shortcomings of a
societal system that fails to meet the needs of not
only those who are disabled but those who seek to
ensure health and happiness for the disabled.
condition encompassing a wide range of disabilities
generally defined by brain damage that interferes
with development and function. The symptoms can
range from spastic movements and speech delay
to mental retardation, with the type and extent of
damage varying greatly [2]. Ashley is an extreme
case with symptoms including an inability to sit
up, ambulate, survive without a gastrotomy-tube,
or use language. However, she is able to respond to
others through smiling and vocalization, and prior
to undergoing any treatment, experienced normal
physical development [1].
It was when Ashley first entered puberty, that
her parents approached the Children’s Hospital in
Seattle with a request for surgical procedures and
hormone treatment. In conjunction with the hos-
pital, Ashley’s parents and a board of physicians
and ethicists eventually developed a series of pro-
cedures that they felt would improve the condition
of Ashley’s life [3]. A hysterectomy was performed
with the intent to alleviate monthly menstrual pains
and bleeding that may frighten a disabled patient;

Ashley’s breast buds were removed to decrease the
possibility of molestation by a caregiver; estrogen
was administered to stunt her growth and her ap-
pendix was removed purely as a precaution. For
Ashley, being small will help decrease bedsores, a
major problem for non-ambulatory patients, and
allow her to continue being an active part of her
family’s life [1]. By ensuring that Ashley will never
exceed the physical maturity of a nine year old, her
parents have enabled themselves to continue caring
for her without the need of an impersonal moving
apparatus or additional assistants.
Because Ashley’s treatment was the first of its
kind to be publicly announced, her doctors, Dr.
Gunther and Dr. Diekema, were careful to explain
their justification for performing these controversial
procedures. While they acknowledge the historical
stigma around hysterectomies and their association
with forced sterilization, they write that because
Ashley has “no realistic reproductive aspirations,”
sterilization is irrelevant. They claim that the pro-
cedure has many advantages, including the possible
reduction of the risk of thrombosis and uterine and
cervical cancer, and minimal long-term complica-
tions. Although Dr. Gunther and Dr. Diekema
attempt to introduce a new option for parents of
disabled patients, they explicitly state that each case
should be reviewed on an individual basis [1].
With the publication of Dr. Gunther and Dr.
Diekema’s medical paper and Ashley’s parents’
blog, there came a wide array of responses, includ-
ing much criticism regarding the rights of disabled
people and the violation of human dignity. The
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
was one of the first to strongly comment against the
procedure, stating that Ashley had “been denied her
basic human rights through draconian interventions
with her person [4].”
In addition, 580 individuals and over 133 or-
ganizations signed an online document, entitled A
Statement of Solidarity for the Dignity of People
with Disabilities, stating that although Ashley’s
parents love her, the procedure is unethical because
it strips Ashley of her dignity. Although this docu-
ment wields no legal power, it is indicative of a strong
interest to ensure the well-being of the disabled, and
the need for society to provide better support for
the care of the disabled and stronger laws to ensure
their dignity [6].
THE CASE OF THE PILLOW ANGEL 19
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
When it became apparent that a societal whip-
lash against Ashley’s treatment was occurring,
many bioethicists responded by arguing in favor of
the morality and the compassion of the treatment
Ashley received. George Dvorsky, of the Board of
Directors for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging
Technologies, has been an adamant defender of
Ashley’s parents stating that, “the concept of ‘hu-
man dignity’ must be coupled with cognitive capac-
ity if it is to have any meaning at all. Clearly this girl
has dignity of some kind, but it does not diminish
her dignity for decisions to be made on her behalf ...
she will never regret those decisions, and her quality
of life will be much better because of the decision
of her parents [7].” Peter Singer, famed bioethicist
and author of Writings on an Ethical Life, agrees
with Dvorsky on this point and further argue that it
is an illogical objection to say that the treatment is
“unnatural,” as all medical treatment is unnatural to
some degree [8].
Dr. Wilfond, Director of the Treuman Katz
Center for Pediatric Bioethics at Children’s Hospital
in Seattle, approaches Ashley’s case of growth at-
tenuation as a health care issue rather than one
revolving around a question of dignity. He reminds
us that pediatricians are responsible for constantly
monitoring and manipulating all patients’ growth.
In Ashley’s case, this is particularly relevant as she is
dependant on a feeding tube. Her parents and doc-
tors have complete control over the amount of food
and nutrients she intakes, and consequently they de-
termine how much she can grow. Dr. Wilfond sug-
gests that one of the main reasons Ashley’s growth
attenuation has been met with criticism is because,
while it is normal for doctors and parents to control
a large amount of their children’s growth, the gener-
ally held perception is that more growth is better.
Dr. Wilfond attests, however, that while this is usu-
ally the case, more growth would actually be worse
for Ashley. He reiterates that a pediatrician’s job is
to do what is best for the child, whether it is more
growth or less growth, and that due to the rarity of
Ashley’s case, usual approaches did not appropri-
ately apply [9].
While some believe that these procedures were
beneficial in Ashley’s case, many emphasize the
possibility of misuse. Pediatricians Dr. Brosco and
Dr. Feudtner warn that if this procedure is to be
practiced, it must be done with the strictest legal
and ethical regulations. While they do not specify
what these regulations should be, Dr Brosco and
20 THE CASE OF THE PILLOW ANGEL
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008

Dr Freudtner explicitly state that the “collective http://www.dredf.org/news/ashley.shtml>

community response” ought to be the deciding voice [5] Brosco, Jeffrey P; Feudtner, Chris. “Growth
Attenuation: A Diminutive Solution to a Daunting
[5]. Problem”� Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine
160 (2006):1077-1078
Generally, the objections and justifications for [6] Fitzmaurice, Susan. “Statement of Solidarity for the
Ashley’s treatment revolve around the concept of Dignity of People with Disabilities.” 2007 A Disabled
a loss versus a gain. Those in opposition tend to, Community’s Response to Ashley’s Treatment <http://
www.katrinadisability.info/ashley.html>
though not universally, believe that by permanently [7] Dvorsky, George. “Helping Families Care for the
altering Ashley’s physical state without her consent Helpless” Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
there is a loss of dignity and therefore a violation of 11 Jun. 2006 <http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/
more/809/>
her human rights [4]. Those in support of the treat- [8] Singer, Peter “A Convenient Truth.” The New
ment tend to argue, though again not universally, York Times 26 Jan. 2007 < http://www.nytimes.
that there is no loss of dignity, because she will men- com/2007/01/26/opinion/26singer.html?ex=13274676
tally and emotionally gain happiness and comfort 00&en=7a4359e1131b4fc3&ei=5090&partner=rssuser
land&emc=rss>
from the procedure. Despite the polarity of opinions, [9] Wilfond, Benjamin. Phone interview. 20 Apr. 2007.
most reasonable sources, regardless of their stance, [10] Caplan, Arthur. “Is ‘Peter Pan’ Treatment a Moral
agree with Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Choice?” MSNBC 5 Jan. 2007 <http://www.msnbc.
msn.com/id/16472931/>
Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, when [11] Elliott, Francis. “Allow ‘Active Euthanasia’ for
he states that “keeping Ashley small is a pharmaco- Disabled Babies, Doctors Urge,” The Independent. 5
logical solution for a social failure [10].” From this Nov. 2006. <http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_
medical/article1956609.ece>
acknowledgment of a fundamental societal failure [12] “Convention on the Rights of Persons with
there grows a real possibility for societal change, Disabilities.” Office of the United Nations High
especially as more and more people pursue options Commissioners for Human Rights. 2007 http://www.
ohchr.org/english/law/disabilities-convention.htm#10
similar to the Ashley Treatment. [13] Nichols, Michelle. “Nations quickly sign U.N.
disabled rights treaty.” Reuters 30 Mar. 2007 <http://
While the procedures Ashley’s parents pursued www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN30280851
have sparked heated controversy, such a strong re- 20070330?feedType=RSS&pageNumber=1>
sponse from all sides indicates that society cares and
is invested in the ease and dignity of not only Ashley’s
existence but that of the entire disabled community.
Are you interested in
Whether society agrees on how to treat her or not,
those who are voicing their opinions are united in providing financial support to
that they believe they are speaking and working for The Triple Helix? If so, we look
the betterment of those who are disabled and de- forward to hearing from you at
fenseless. From these differences we can only hope
that there will be a united effort at some point to
unimelb@thetriplehelix.org
bring societal, governmental, and medical benefits
to those who require it most, to those most quali-
fied for these medical treatments and least capable
in deciding their futures, to Ashley and her fellow
“angels.”
References:
[1] Diekema, Douglas S; Gunther, Daniel F. “Attenuating
Growth in Children With Profound Developmental
Disability: A New Approach to an Old Dilemma.”
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 160
(2006): 1013-1017
[2] Hitzfelder, Nancy. “Static Encephalopathy: A
Basis Explanation for Parents.” Easter Seals. July
1999. <http://dallas.easterseals.com/site/DocServer/
StaticEncephalopathy.pdf?docID=1486 >
[3] Ashley’s Mom and Dad. “The ‘Ashley Treatment.’”
25 Mar. 2007. <http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/
blog>
[4] “Modify the System, Not the Person.” Disability
Rights Education and Defense Fund. 7 Jan. 2007. <

Transgenic Animals
Paving the Way to New Frontiers in
Medical and Scientific Research
Margaret Mallari, University of Chicago
A transgenic animal is one that carries a foreign
gene (called transgene) that has been deliberately
inserted into its genome using recombinant DNA
technology, allowing foreign DNA to be incorporat-
ed into the DNA of a recipient animal and expressed
in its cells. Transgenic animals such as genetically
manipulated mice, pigs, goats, sheep, and chickens
are blazing a genetic trail that continues to improve
the realms of science, medicine, and the economy.
Today, these animals play vital roles in medicine al-
lowing researchers to observe, understand, prevent,
and perhaps even cure diseases, particularly those
with largely genetic components.
Playing God: How Transgenic Animals
are Created
A mouse that functions as a model for human can-
cer? How can one create such a frankenanimal? Most
transgenic animals are designed using two methods:
the embryonic stem cell method and the pronucleus
A small, furry animal with beady anxious
eyes and a tapering tail may just be the key
to curing a plethora of diseases ranging
from cancer, Alzheimerʼs and Huntingtonʼs,
to cystic fibrosis and hemophilia.
method. In the embryonic stem cell method, embry-
onic stem cells (ESCs) are grown in tissue culture
with the desired foreign DNA. First, the gene desired
(for example, a gene responsible for specific proteins
regulating insulin production) is isolated and vec-
tored into a transgene. In the construction of a trans-
gene, the donor animal’s promoter sequence, a region
of DNA that regulates gene transcription, is replaced
by promoter and enhancer sequences that guarantee
proper function of the gene in the tissues and organs
of the recipient animal [1]. These sequences ensure
that insulin is produced in a transgenic cow’s milk by
expressing the foreign DNA for insulin production
in the cow’s mammary glands.
Once the transgene has been created, the ESCs
are exposed to the DNA in tissue culture and some
will incorporate the foreign DNA. Then, the suc-
cessfully transformed animal ESCs, or those that
have incorporated the foreign DNA, are injected into
22 TRANSGENIC ANIMALS
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008

the inner cell masses of the host animal’s blastocysts,
which develop into embryos that are implanted into
the receptive uterus of the pseudopregnant host fe-
male (accomplished by mating a female animal with
a vasectomized or sterilized male of the same species)
[1]. The mating triggers the secretion of hormones in
the female animal required to make her uterus recep-
tive to the implanted embryo. The second method of
[6]. There are a couple of methods for creating trans-
genic mice that function as human cancer models. One
method involves removing specific proteins linked to
T cell lymphocyte (white blood cells responsible for
cellular immunity) formation in the animal – remov-
ing one gene produces a ‘knock-out’ animal, while re-
moving both genes produces a ‘double knock-out’ [4].
Another method of creating mice cancer models is to

Are humans playing God by manipulating DNA,

“life itself,” and tampering with something
God did not intend humanity to meddle with?

creating transgenic animals is the pronucleus method insert specific genes that cause cancer development or
where eggs are harvested from host females and fertil- inhibit T cell formation into mouse genomes.
ized in vitro, outside the female’s womb. Using mi-
In both cases, mouse cancer models (either car-
croinjection, 200-300 copies of the foreign DNA are
rying cancer-triggering transgenes or with “knocked-
injected into the pronucleus (the nucleus of a gamete
out” genes) serve as vital constructs in the observa-
during fertilization) of the male host animal’s sperm
tion of cell development, tumor formation, and cell
[2]. The altered sperm is then able to fertilize the egg.
death. This work is fueling one of the most important
The embryo that develops from this fertilization is im-
revolutions in twenty-first century medicine—the ul-
planted in a pseudopregnant foster mother, as in the
timate understanding of cancer as a genetic disease.
ESC method. The pronucleus method produces only
The very concept of placing cancer in a genetically in-
a small percentage of transgenic animals that carry and
herited disease category introduces new and contro-
pass the added gene from one generation to the next.
versial questions into the foreground. If cancer has a
These animals are called founder animals. To establish
genetic component, can one place genetic markers on
a transgenic strain, founder animals are crossed with
potentially cancer-causing genes? Can these genes be
non-transgenic animals to produce animals that are
spliced, “deactivated,” or kept in control to prevent
heterozygous for the transgene. These heterozygous
the onset of cancer? If the technology were available
animals, or those that carry one copy of the desired
to go through with such a procedure, would it be
foreign gene from a founder parent and one copy of the
ethical? Would the public approve or disapprove?
normal gene from a non-transgenic parent of the same
species, can then be mated with one another to pro- Biomedical researchers at the University of
duce transgenic animals that are homozygous for the Kentucky have engineered a transgenic mouse that
foreign inserted gene. These homozygous transgenic is resistant to cancer and holds much applied clinical
animals fully express the inserted foreign DNA. promise. Dr. Rangnekar, Ph.D., of the University
of Kentucky reported in the Oct. 1 issue of Cancer
Both the embryonic stem cell method and the
Research that the transgenic mice created have in-
pronucleus method have been successful in pro-
corporated Par-4, a tumor suppressor gene, and as
ducing transgenic mice. However, transgenic live-
result are resistant to both induced and spontaneous
stock such as pigs, sheep, cows, and chickens have
tumors in several tissues [7]. In addition, the expres-
presently only been created using the pronucleus
sion of the Par-4 transgene in the transgenic mice
method. Genetic manipulation is less efficient, more
has shown very little to no effect on their health, fer-
expensive and time consuming in the production of
tility, or life span. In fact, the transgenic mice with
larger animals, thus the pronucleus method is more
the Par-4 incorporated transgene were shown to live
effective of the two [2].
longer lives than their non-transgenic counterparts
perhaps because the Par-4 transgene prevented the
Transgenic Mice: Models for Cancer
development of tumors (hepatocarcinomas and
Despite an evolutionary distance of 75 million
lymphomas) as the mice aged [7]. Dr. Rangnekar
years between the two species, the mouse genome is
explains, “The interesting part of this study is that
remarkably similar to the human genome (90% of the
this killer gene (the tPar-4 transgene) is selective for
mouse genome can be lined up with large segments
killing cancer cells. It will not kill normal cells and
of the human genome and over 80% of mouse genes
there are very, very few selective molecules out there
function precisely in the same way as those in humans)
like this. [7]”

The discovery of the effects of Par-4 protein on
transgenic mice as models of human cancer holds
much promise in applied medical treatments for
human cancer without the harmful consequences
of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Since the
Par-4 protein only targets cancer cells, malignant
growths can be isolated and efficiently eliminated
without harming the surrounding healthy cells.
This discovery is paving the way for more effective,
much safer, and more holistic cancer treatment that
do not harm the organism as a whole.
Ethical, Moral, and Religious Controversy:
Weighing the Risks and the Benefits
The creation of a transgenic animal and its use
in research introduce inevitably intertwined benefits
and risks. Benefits of genetic manipulation include
the great specificity and accuracy with which the
desired genetic trait can be chosen and the complete
elimination or minimization of undesired traits [2].
The genetic component of human disease can be
mapped out and further understood, owing to the
fact that transgenic animals proliferate much faster
than humans, permitting researchers to trace a dis-
ease or condition through several generations and
observe both the hereditary pattern and the effects
on following generations.
Transgenic animals also offer flexibility in ge-
netic research through cross breeding. Recently,
breakthroughs in genetic modification allowed the
creation of transgenic pigs whose harvested organs
(engineered to generate insulin-producing cells for
TRANSGENIC ANIMALS 23
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
humans) are specifically designed not to trigger im-
mune responses in human recipients (xenotransplan-
tation), significantly reducing the risk of rejection of
the transplanted pig organ [3]. These transgenic pigs
may be the answer to both an almost graspable cure
for diabetes and to the undeniable shortage of desper-
ately needed human organs for transplant patients.
However in conjunction with significant leaps in
medicine and agriculture, there are predicted risks
that come with the manipulation of animal genomes,
specifically concerning animal health, xenotransplan-
tation, and dissemination. For example, inserting a
transgene containing foreign DNA may not only alter
the expression of the recipient animal’s genome, but
also upset and impair the functioning and growth of
the animal. Potential risks must be accounted for in
xenotransplantation, where transgenic animals cre-
ated solely as tissue or organ donors may transfer
viruses specific to that particular animal species to
human recipients, thus providing opportunities for
animal diseases to infect humans. Another growing
concern to the public is dissemination, or “species
pollution” that occurs when the transgene of a geneti-
cally engineered animal may be released into the wild
population of that particular species through breed-
ing, disrupting biological ecosystems [1]. Also termed
“gene flow”, this mating may result in the depletion
and potential extinction of the wildtype population
through competition of limited resources [3].
To prevent such risks, government organizations
have placed strict regulations and specific protocols
that apply to the maintenance, containment, and
extermination of transgenic animals. These rigorous
precautions are absolutely imperative in reducing the
possible risks associated with the vital containment
of transgenic animals. In addition, transgenic animal
“pharming,” or genetically modifying an animal to pro-
duce high-in-demand human antibodies and proteins
in their milk or blood which can then be extracted
and administered to human recipients, is undergoing
intense safety testing by the FDA to further address
animal and human health safety concerns [5].
Tangled with the ethical and moral concerns of
genetic manipulation is the religious controversy
surrounding the very creation of transgenic animals.
Given the processes required to create a transgenic
animal, is it overstepping boundaries laid either by
God, some other higher power, nature, or our own
society’s ethics and morals, to genetically modify an
animal’s genome to suit our purposes - whether in
agriculture, pharmaceuticals, or medicine? Does the
production of high-in-demand, extremely expensive
essential human proteins or the development of a
24 TRANSGENIC ANIMALS
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
possible cure to a disease outweigh the potential
risks to genetically manipulate an organism’s ge-
nome to create transgenic animals?
Though no easy answers to these complex ques-
tions exist, the majority of the scientific community
remains united in their stance on the creation of
transgenic animals, perhaps summarized best by the
GlaxoSmithKline pharmaceutical company:
“The animal welfare issues associated
with the use of transgenic animals are
fundamentally no different from those as-
sociated with other animals in biomedical
research. It is the minimization of any pain
or distress to individual animals in medical
research that is important, not the manner
in which the animals are bred [6].”
Paul Thompson, director of Perdue University’s
Center for Food Animal Productivity and Well
Being puts forth two different models for evaluating
the ethics of using transgenic animals: the animal
research model and the livestock model for agri-
culture. Thompson explains, “With the animal re-
search model, we accept that an animal used in can-
cer research is going to suffer, but the information
from the experiment will save thousands of lives. In
the livestock model, we consider issues of husbandry
and stewardship and figure we owe these animals a
good day-to-day existence even though we are going
to eventually slaughter them.” Yet even he admits
that the present-day applications of transgenic ani-
mals fall into a gray undefined area between the two
animal models and that the sorting of these applica-
tions will not bring forth generic answers to ethical
concerns on genetic manipulation.
The Future of Transgenic Animals
Regulatory and ethical issues come to the fore-
front as transgenic animals and the biotechnology
responsible for their creation become increasingly
utilized in medical research, mammalian develop-
mental genetics, molecular biology, and agriculture.
While animal breeding and the crossing of different
species have been a staple of agriculture for centu-
ries, genetic manipulation to create transgenic ani-
mals has generated not only curiosity but also fear,
anxiety, and revulsion. These negative responses are
manifested in a particular nickname for transgenic
animals, “chimeras,” which refers to a much feared
hybrid monster in Greek mythology composed of a
lion, goat, and dragon. Today, what was once the
stuff of myth, film, and science fiction is no longer
confined to those realms. Biotechnology and genetic
engineering have allowed the creation of chimeras,
animals whose genotype has been genetically altered
to express the genes of other animals.
As the developments in genetic engineering in-
crease, concerns about the moral and religious ethics
of such a procedure, its products, and the use of such
creations in scientific research grows and influences
public opinion dramatically. From well-voiced con-
cerns ranging from animal welfare, to the health of
both transgenic animals and the humans who con-
sume them, to the religious controversy surrounding
genetic manipulation, public debate is spreading like
wildfire. Are transgenic animals monsters, unethi-
cally altering the natural order of the universe? Are
humans playing God by manipulating DNA, “life
itself,” and tampering with something God did not
intend humanity to meddle with? Considering all
the vast improvements in the fields of medicine and
science, including production of more effective drugs
and the insight into and understanding of fatal
diseases, are the creation and testing of transgenic
animals warranted? Do the ends justify the means?
Unfortunately, there are no straightforward answers
to these questions and the ethical (moral, religious,
or otherwise) debate over genetic manipulation will
continue to intensify as biotechnology and the cre-
ation and utilization of transgenic animals redefine
the relationship between humans and animals.
References:
[1] Transgenic Animals. December 12, 2007. John W.
Kimball’s Biology Pages.
h t t p : //u s e r s . r c n . c o m /j k i m b a l l . m a . u l t r a n e t /
BiologyPages/T/TransgenicAnimals.html
[2] Garvin, Wilbert., Harms, Ute., Shearer, Caroline.,
Simonneaux, Laurence. “Transgenic Animals.” European
Initiative for Biotechnology Education (EIBE).
http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/eibe/UNIT11EN.PDF
[3] Roderneyer, Michael. “Biotech Animals: Advances
Lead to Old and New Considerations.” Transgenic
Animals, Vol. 2, Issue 1, January 25, 2002.
[4] H. Niemann, W. Kues, and J.W. Carnwath.
“Transgenic Farm Animals: Present and Future.” Rev.
sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2005, 24 (1), 285-298.
ht t p://w w w.oie .int/eng /publ icat/RT/24 01/24-
1%20pdfs/25-niemann285-298.pdf
[5] Biotechnology Information Series: Pharmaceutical
Production from Transgenic Animals
http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/biotech_info_series/
bio10.html
[6] The Role of Transgenic Animals in Biomedical
Research. April 24, 2007. GlaxoSmithKline plc.
http://www.gsk.com/research/about/about_animals_
roles.html
[7] Smith, Michael. “Transgenic Mice Developed to
Resist Cancer.” Medpage Today.
[8] Minerd, Jeff. “Transgenic Mice Aid Research into
Deadly Cancer.” National Institutes of Health, Monday,
October 16, 2000.
[9] Transgenic Animals. BIO: Biotechnology Industry
Organization http://ww.bio.org/animals/faq.asp
 Superorganisms
TRANSGENIC ANIMALS

Yvette Han, Carnegie Mellon University

Just imagine that the medicine you take now to cure your cold
may not be effective later on. The common cold which is cured
easily with a few drugs today could become a serious infection
in the future, due to the emergence of resistant bacteria.
Testing will be especially important in today’s multiply, and dominate the human body.
presently rapidly advancing world because bacteria
These resistive bacteria are affecting all sorts of
and diseases are becoming more abundant than ever.
businesses and organizations, especially in places
Various laboratories across the globe test antimicro-
where health care is crucial. Hospitals are suffering
bials, including antibiotics, which kill bacteria over a
because of these microorganisms; they have now
short period of time, and preservatives, which inhibit
turned to the microbiological labs for any possible
the growth of organisms over a long period of time. It
solutions. When these specific microorganisms en-
is crucial for a product or medication to be tested and
counter hostile environments, they adapt to them
verified safe before being released into the market.
over time and resist being vanquished –hence the
From short term diagnostic applications to extended
name “superorganisms”. For example, when a patient
multifaceted development analysis, microbiological
is suffering from an infection caused by a “superor-
laboratories must conduct all tests with care. Derived
ganism”, he/she may be given a particular medication
from microorganisms, antibiotics are drugs used to
to alleviate the condition. However, no improvement
treat bacterial contaminations. However, they are
may occur since these “superorganisms” adapt to the
not a cure-all; they are weaker when encountered by
medication and grant themselves immunity. These
a virus and cannot treat infections cause by viruses.
mysterious organisms achieve dominion by setting
An antibiotic can inhibit or kill the growth of one
up enzymes that break the chemicals in the hostile
specific type of bacteria. The challenge for future
environment; they manufacture abnormal quanti-
microbiology researchers is to find a way to invent
ties to target the unwanted.
stronger, more durable antibiotics to support the
rapidly advancing world of diseases. Medical researchers are presently working with
top caution and diligence to make sure that there are
Although antibiotics play a large role in secur-
drugs to successfully combat and eventually kill the
ing our health, the gradual and extremely impact-
resistive bacteria. People can help fight this ongoing
ing antibiotic resistance has created an even larger
scientific “war” by many ways; one effective solution
problem. Through this resistance, bacteria and other
would be to take antibiotics only when necessary.
microbes oppose the effects of inhibition or elimina-
By using antibiotics in a flippant way for any com-
tion by previously effective antibiotics. The Center
mon cold or flu, people help the bacteria adapt and
for Disease Control calls antibiotic resistance “one of
produce counteractive enzymes rapidly and more
the world’s most pressing public health problems.”
frequently. The bacteria then take advantage of its
Once the bacteria changes, the effects of the chemi-
increasing opportunities with antibiotics exposure,
cals are significantly limited or removed. It signifi-
to become more habituated. Thus, by limiting the
cantly limits or removes the effectiveness with which
use of antibiotics will greatly help the development
antibiotics were once preventing or curing infections.
of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Researchers are cur-
If this issue is not stopped, a huge problem will face
rently trying their best to suppress the existence of
the human race. More diseases will not be able to
these resistive bacteria and protect the health of our
be cured and our society can wane to dangerously
future generations.
small populations. Bacteria will be able to survive,

Animal Rights,Human Wrongs:
A Rational Examination of Ethics
Concerning Animals
The lab has been vociferously denounced by
animal rights activists, perhaps most notably by
SPEAK: a group which helped to prevent a labo-
ratory of a similar scale from being constructed in
Cambridge in 2004. They object to its experiments
on primates on the basis that the pain and suffer-
ing imposed on the animals is in violation of their
fundamental rights. The animal rights movement
in England has often been discredited through its
association with extremism, its use of emotive pro-
paganda and intimidation tactics against civilians,
and seemingly elevating the value of animal life to
a position equal to or greater than human life. But
beneath all the eye-catching antics, there is a serious
issue requiring attention and discussion by all ethi-
cally responsible members of society.
Meaningful discourse about animal rights has
little to do with being an “animal-lover” who finds
inflicting pain or death on animals to be mean-
spirited. While this may characterize some people
associated with the movement, every individual has
a responsibility to rationally examine the ethical
paradigms that underlie and assign moral weight
One of the most conspicuous and bitter
debates in the city of Oxford in
recent years has been regarding
the construction of Oxford Universityʼs
highly controversial animal laboratory.
to our behaviour, and the impact we make on our
environment. It is morally indefensible to argue that
the act of causing animals to suffer or die is an issue
that does not merit examination. The animal rights
movement rejects the generally accepted notion that
human life possesses greater innate worth than that
of animals. Animal rights activists such as ethicist
Peter Singer argue that the ethical frameworks that
guide, constrain, and justify human conduct in soci-
ety are logically extendable to non-human animals.
Therefore allowing exploitation of animals or disre-
gard for their well-being, on the basis of their spe-
cies, is illegitimately premised and hence unethical
In Peter Singer’s 1974 Animal Liberation, the
seminal text often credited with galvanizing the
global animal rights movement, Singer argues that
we are all bound by the ethical principle of “equal
consideration of interests”, a standard which dis-
cards rationality; intellect; or superior abilities as
legitimate criteria for privileging the interests of any
particular actor or group over another. Singer points
out that if higher intellect or rationality were accept-
able grounds on which to prioritise interests, the

needs and interests of humans who are below a cer-
tain level of intelligence would be given less consider-
ation. Ethical principles relying on a presupposition
of natural equality are untenable due to the fact that
there is natural variability in human ability.
Singer posits that the fundamental ethical prob-
lem in racial supremacists’ deprivation of the rights
of racial minorities based on the essential superi-
ority of one race was not that race is unrelated to
ability, but rather, that race was an arbitrary char-
acteristic when assessing the needs and interests of
other human beings. Similarly, species is being used
as an arbitrary characteristic when discriminating
between the interests of humans and animals. The
template of equal consideration of interests subverts
the dogma of “natural hierarchy” which typically
legitimizes the exploitation of other species.
This compels one to ask how the principle of
equal consideration of interests can be practically
applied. Intuitively, many respond to the assertion
of such principles by saying it is absurd that a dog
should be considered equally alongside a human
being. However, equal consideration of species’
interests does not imply that they ought to receive
equal treatment: treatment must be directly related
to the capabilities of the beings in the situation. For
example, it is pointless to discuss a dog’s right to be a
member of the state, as dogs do not have the mental
capacity to function in a political context.
Singer marks the capacity for suffering as the
most basic characteristic required for an animal to be
considered as having needs or interests. If it has the
capacity to suffer, a being has at the very least a basic
interest in not suffering [1]. This interest must always
be considered regardless of species, which is morally
irrelevant (within Singer’s framework of “needs and
Singer marks the capacity for suffering as the most basic charac-
teristic required for an animal to be considered as having needs.
interests”). Singer says that the suffering of one be-
ing must be counted equally with like suffering of an-
other being, insofar as such comparisons can be made
[2]. Thus analyzing levels of awareness and sentience
are the only grounds on which one can ascertain how
the interests of others should be weighted.
The implications of Singer’s species-blind ethical
principles are far-reaching, and demand a society
with attitudes and practices towards non-human
ANIMAL RIGHTS,HUMAN WRONGS: 27
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
animals that are radically different to most modern
approaches. The principles he espouses shed light on
often-overlooked ethical issues but raise questions
as often as they answer them.
Singer describes how it would be considered mor-
ally abhorrent to experiment on or kill an infant with
severe and irreparable brain damage, yet completely
acceptable to do so on animals such as pigs, dogs,
and primates which have a higher level of self-aware-
ness and autonomy. This double standard is inde-
fensible under the principle of equal consideration
of interests but resolving it leads to uncomfortable
conclusions: infants could be seen as expendable, or
animals could have immunity from experimentation.
Furthermore, while assessing suffering is fairly com-
parable in beings with comparable nervous systems,
discussing the right to life is more complex. Singer
argues that all beings who are similar in all relevant
aspects (generally relating to their sentience) have a
similar right to life. However, the grounds for es-
tablishing which being is worse to kill is murkier, as
abstract notions such as their ability to envision a
future, aspire to things, and foresee death play sig-
nificantly into what Singer calls their placement in
ethical formations [3]. But ambiguity and grey areas
do not diminish the profundity of a genuine agenda
to minimize needless animal suffering and death and
to consider the suffering of all sentient beings.
The two main foci of the “animal rights move-
ment” are generally the meat industry and the use
of animals in scientific experiments. The conditions
on livestock farms cause animals unnecessary stress,
pain, and trauma before and during slaughter. Their
suffering could be minimized with better farming
practices, as exemplified by the re-introduction of
free-range eggs. The role of animals in science ex-
periments is more complicated, because of the high
stakes and the potential for scientific discoveries to
prevent needless human suffering. But this debate is
far from the public eye: Singer argues that animals are
generally reduced to mere tools in scientific research,
and that there is little or no regard given to the suf-
fering and death caused by experiments on millions
of sentient animals. In Great Britain in 2006 alone
2,067,071 mice, 921 marmosets and tamarins, and
3283 other primates, all macaques, were used in ex-
28 ANIMAL RIGHTS,HUMAN WRONGS:
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
periments in Great Britain in 2006 [4]).
Despite government controls on animal experi-
mentation, ethics committees that oversee experi-
ments, and the development of alternatives to the use
of animals, a number of animal rights groups believe
that regulations are not stringent enough. In a re-
cent report about the need for animals in medical re-
search, esteemed British scientist and animal rights
activist Gill Langley said, “We can argue about the
science forever, but what I’ve never heard is any clear
scientific explanation for moral discrimination.”
The report, “Next of Kin”, was released in 2006 by
the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection
(BUAV), and suggests that macaques and other
smaller monkeys currently used in experiments are
in many ways similar to other highly sentient be-
ings such as gorillas and chimpanzees, who can’t
legally be experimented upon in the UK[5]. BUAV,
SPEAK, and other animal rights groups not only
morally oppose the use of many species regularly
experimented upon in the UK, but also argue that
that data obtained from medical research on animals
often cannot be reliably transferred to the realm of
human medical treatment [6], There is also evidence
that scientists across the UK commonly use flawed
methodology in gauging the effectiveness of drugs
based on results from animal experimentation.
Thus human applicability of results from animal ex-
perimentation is still uncertain and requires further
exploration. The widespread use of tenuous methods
is symptomatic of a status quo which tests drugs on
animals for safety reasons rather than efficacy [7].
Caught between the pro and anti-vivisectionist
movements, many regard animal suffering with in-
difference, or support the use of animals for human
advancement as part of the “natural hierarchy” of the
world. There are complex debates to be had about
the ethics of any animal experiments which might
yield knowledge about human diseases that cause
massive suffering. However, this should not out-
weigh our duty to minimize the immediate suffering
and killing of animals. Right now the status quo
in the biomedical research world does not seem to
have declared the latter. Even the 2005 Declaration
on Animals in Medical Research[8], a document
meant to advocate consideration of animal interests,
encourages animal experimentation “aimed purely at
extending knowledge”. In other words, animals are
expendable for the sake of increasing general knowl-
edge, even if such knowledge is irrelevant to human
disease and suffering. It also emphasizes repeatedly
that “humans have benefited immensely” from animal
experimentation, and that major achievements of the
past century are mostly derived from it. While this
is obviously true, its placement within a document
framing the role of animals in research demonstrates
the anthropocentricity that legitimizes suffering in
the name of medical research to this very day.
Singer’s ideas are nuanced and complex, but
what’s most important is the fundamental paradig-
matic problem (speciesism) that he seeks to illumi-
nate. The suffering of non-human animals at our
hands is so pervasively unexamined and normalized,
that people who stand against it are often unjustifi-
ably marginalized and stigmatized. Too often, casual
debates are framed as pro- or anti- animal rights, a
fundamentally absurd dichotomy. The truth is that
there is a complex moral issue at hand that requires
robust and rational discourse. Even though the UK
has some of the best animal protection policies in
the world, there is still a long way to go: the issue
should not be confined to the status of extremism,
and people must start thinking fundamentally dif-
ferently about the ethical treatment of animals.
References:
[1] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics (Cambridge Univerity
Press, 1993) p.55
[2] Peter Singer Animal Liberation (New York Review of
Books, 1975)p.8
[3] Peter Singer Animal Liberation (New York Review of
Books, 1975)p.19
[4] Home Office Statistics on Scientific Procedures on
Living Animals in Great Britain 2006 http://www.
homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/spanimals06.pdf
[5] Gill Langley Next of Kin: a report on the use of primates
in experiments (BUAV June 2006) www.buav.org
[6] Druin Burch Do we still need animal testing in
medical research? (The Guardian, 2 March 2006)
[7] Steve Connor Effectiveness of drugs ‘overstated because
of biased testing (The Independent,15 September 2007 )
[8] Research Defence Society Declaration on Animals in
Medical Research (http://www.rds-online.org.uk)
Are You What You Eat?
Hayley Hernstadt, University of Melbourne
In exploring the wide range of causes and implications involved in the
increasing incidence of obesity across the world, it becomes apparent
that this disease is far more difficult to control than merely eating well.

Obesity has been called ‘a global epidemic’ by the
World Health Organisation (WHO) [5]. In 2005, the
WHO estimated that at least 1.6 billion adults (age
15+), almost a third of the world’s population, were
overweight, while at least 400 million adults were obese.
Furthermore, the WHO projects that by 2015, approx-
imately 2.3 billion adults will be overweight and more
than 700 million will be obese [4]. The health and social
issues related to obesity translate into greater costs for
wider society [7] [15]. A recent study estimated the an-
nual cost of obesity to the United States as $117 billion
— approximately 10 percent of U.S. health expenditure
[16]. This is expected to increase as the burden of disease
due to obesity grows. This worldwide problem requires
immediate attention. The consequences of obesity for
the individual are vast; not only does obesity result in
poor health, it can also have social implications.
In order to effectively address the problem of
obesity, an accurate understanding of its causes and
consequences is required. As we will see, successfully
losing weight is not as simple as altering the energy
intake to expenditure ratio. The etiology of obesity is
considered multifactorial, and for animals, this has
been classified into nine groups, comprising obesity
of neural, endocrine, pharmacological, nutritional,
environmental, seasonal, genetic, idiopathic, or of
viral origin [14]. Most of these causes have also been
implicated in humans, and we will discuss some of
the recent developments in depth. In order to ap-
proach the problem of obesity, we must understand
its roots as it is evident the method of eating less and
exercising more does not work for everyone. While
health measures have been implemented by govern-
ments worldwide, the compulsory physical education
30 ARE YOU WHAT YOU EAT?
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
and banning of soda in schools does not appear to
have halted the obesity epidemic. As obesity is a
complex health issue, a better understanding of it
can facilitate a multi-pronged attack by health of-
ficials and health professionals.
Obesity is the excess accumulation of body fat
due to energy intake exceeding energy expenditure.
The body mass index (BMI) is the commonly ac-
cepted way of determining whether a person is
overweight. It is calculated by dividing the weight in
kilograms by the square of height in meters. By con-
sidering whether one’s weight is proportionate for
one’s height, it provides a general indication of one’s
health although results may not be universally ap-
plicable. In the clinical setting, physicians consider
race, ethnicity, lean body mass, age, pubertal status
and sex in conjunction with BMI.
The brain plays an important role in the regula-
tion of energy homeostasis, in tandem with the gut
and environmental factors. There is a constant flow
of information between the brain and the periphery
via nerves from the intestines and environment as
well as hormonal signals. Signals are sent to specific
parts of the brain, namely the hypothalamus, nucle-
us tractus solitarius, as well as several other groups
of neurons. The neurons integrate the signals to give
a cohesive direction to the periphery via neural and
hormonal inputs to alter energy intake, expenditure
and storage. Experiments have helped to locate pre-
cisely which anatomical region is responsible for the
state of the body. For example, lesions in one part of
the hypothalamus can result in obesity of the animal,
while lesions in another part of the animal’s brain
causes it to lose its appetite and lose weight [10].
It is often thought that obesity is derived from an
evolutionary advantage to store as many
calories as possible in the present to protect
against future starvation.
Within the brain itself, there are essentially two
groups of neurons working in opposition — one
promotes the appetite enhancing pathway while the
other contains neurons which secrete chemicals in-
hibiting that pathway, thereby suppressing appetite.
These two groups of neurons receive hormonal and
metabolic signals from the rest of the body about the
current state of nutrition. Some hormonal signals in
the blood include insulin, ghrelin, and cholecyste-
kinin. Ghrelin is released from the stomach prior
to the meal to promote the sensation of hunger.
Insulin is released from the pancreas after eating
in response to an increased blood sugar, and signals
the body to increase fat stores, and reduce food in-
take. Cholecystekinin is released in response to fat
and amino acids in the small intestine, and acts on a
pathway in the brain to signal satiety. [11]
In a recent study it was demonstrated that obesity
raises the risk of developing other health problems [7].
Of particular concern is metabolic syndrome, named
for the combination of obesity, type 2 diabetes melli-
tus, high blood pressure, and dyslipidemia. The latter
two predispose to a higher risk of cardiovascular dis-
ease, the leading cause of death in the developed world.
Other systems of the body are also affected — there is
an increased risk for stroke, musculoskeletal problems
such as osteoarthritis, gastro-intestinal effects such as
non-alcoholic fatty liver disease or gallstones, as well
as renal problems, and respiratory difficulties due to
asthma or obstructive sleep apnea. Psychological issues
such as depression, low self-esteem, or eating disor-
ders, can be a major cause of morbidity. Additionally,
obese people have been shown to face discrimination
in a wide range of settings [17].
The root of some cases of obesity can be due to
alterations, or defects in the person’s weight control
mechanism. Several genetic disorders are known;
however, these are extremely rare and only account
for a small proportion of all obese patients [7].
The hormone leptin has received much attention
since its gene (termed the ob gene) was discovered
in 1994. It is involved in the long-term regulation
of weight through a feedback loop and is produced
constantly by fat cells, with the rate of production
dependent on cell size [6, 12]. High leptin levels in-
dicate sufficient energy stores while low levels indi-
cate starvation. Its production reduces the appetite.
Leptin has also been implicated as a cause of
obesity. Mice lacking the ob gene, such that leptin is
not produced, have an obese phenotype due to their
inability to stop overeating and decreased energy
expenditure. This is similarly reflected in humans,
and has been reported in four families to date [8].
 ARE YOU WHAT YOU EAT? 31
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX

Obesity caused by complete absence of endogenous

leptin can be treated by injecting synthetic leptin.
However, there is another genetic mutation named
db, resulting in a defective leptin receptor. This form
cannot be treated by injecting leptin.
It is often thought that obesity is derived from
an evolutionary advantage to store as many calories
as possible in the present to protect against future
starvation. This trait has been termed the ‘thrifty
genotype’, referring to individuals who are capable of
maximizing their ability to consume and store calo-
ries [10]. While this genotype has been advantageous
for centuries, the possession of this trait probably
increases the risk of obesity as we now live in a pe-
riod where food is abundantly available and energy-
dense [13, 22]. However, due to a lack of definitive
proof, this trait remains a hypothesis explaining the a significant role in determining a person’s weight, it
extreme rates of obesity and diabetes in populations cannot fully account for the sudden increase in the
[15]. The concept of thrifty genotype alone may be prevalence of obesity in the last few decades.
too simple an explanation, and does not give us a way
Once obesity has developed, it can have implica-
of combating the epidemic. The thrifty phenotype
tions for an individual’s ability to loose weight. It was
may be of greater concern — this term describes the
discovered in 1959 by Jules Hirsch that obese indi-
disadapted metabolic state arising due to the fetus
viduals’ bodies maintain their weight at a level sig-
having been undernourished in the perinatal period,
nificantly above normal. Initially, Dr. Hirsch’s study
thus adopting a series of evolutionary strategies ap-
was conducted on obese subjects to explore what
propriate to its meager nutrient supply while in the
happened to their fat cells when they lost weight.
womb. This proves maladaptive when nutritional
Patients lived at the Rockefeller University Hospital
conditions later improve. Also, as brain development
for eight months while the scientists strictly con-
continues well into the first years of life, both intra-
trolled their diets. Obese people shrank to a normal
uterine and postnatal environments affect future
size over the eight months, and it was assumed that
control of energy homeostasis by altering neural
they would leave the hospital permanently thinner.
pathways [18]. Interestingly, both maternal depriva-
However, this did not happen and the individuals
tion and maternal obesity will produce obese prog-
regained their weight instead. The experiment was
eny. Mothers with diabetes also tend to have obese
repeated multiple times with similar results. A sur-
progeny. It has been postulated that the process of
prising conclusion was reached: fat people who lost
metabolic imprinting on genetically susceptible indi-
large amounts of weight might look like someone
viduals during development may potentially result in
who was never fat, but they were very different. On
a vicious cycle whereby each succeeding generation
every metabolic measurement taken, they resembled
has an increased level of obesity [18].
people who were starving. When they lost weight,
Genetic causes remain rare. The majority of their original metabolism dropped as much as 24
obese are have a familial form of obesity due to percent [19]. Clearly, their bodies considered the
environmental and genetic factors. Stunkard et al obese state to be normal.
assessed the concordance of the BMI of twins who
It has been hypothesized by B.E. Levin that there
have been reared apart to that of twins reared to-
is a set-point residing in the network of metabolic
gether. The intrapair correlation coefficients of the
neurons within the brain which can be altered such
values for BMI of identical twins reared apart were
that energy homeostasis is regulated to defend a spe-
0.70 for men and 0.66 for women [9]. This indicates
cific level of body weight and adiposity [10]. Obese in-
that genetics contribute approximately 70% of the
dividuals have developed a raised threshold through
variance of weight, while potential environmental
their lifetime, so instead of their homeostatic system
influences such as culture, and activity level, account
keeping their weight constant, the combination of
for about 30% of the variance. While genetics plays
32 ARE YOU WHAT YOU EAT?
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008

their thrifty genotype and abundant availability of

palatable food has decreased the impact of inhibitory
signals to inform the brain that an excess of energy
store exists. Because there is a permanent change to
the acceptable level of fat stores, their obesity remains
irreversible. This is termed diet-induced obesity.
The rat model of diet-induced obesity (DIO)
has made it possible to examine qualities in obesity-
prone and obesity-resistant individuals [10] [18]. In
this model, about half of a given strain of outbred rats
become obese on high energy density diets, while the
rest are diet-resistant (DR) and remain lean on such
diets. Notably, whether a rat is obesity-prone or obe-
sity-resistant can be identified prospectively before
their phenotypes are expressed, which is impossible
to do in humans. It is suggested that DIO is inher-
ited as a polygenic trait, as is human obesity [18].
Many of the DIO rats are adapted to higher levels of
weight when obesity is fully developed after exposure
to a high energy diet. Once neural networks are es-
tablished, the fully obese DIO rats defend their body
weight against both overfeeding and underfeeding the reward circuitry [21]. This is unlike the obesity
[20]. DR rats also defend their weight, but at a much that develops slowly on less palatable diets with high
lower level. It is thought that once these synaptic energy and fat densities — even diet-resistant indi-
connections are formed in genetically predisposed viduals can gain weight on such diets. However, once
individuals who are exposed to environmental fac- individuals (whether obesity-prone or obesity-resis-
tors primed for obesity, the new synaptic connections tant) voluntarily reduce their intake, they will rap-
are strengthened through repeated use and genetic idly lose weight, though the lost weight is regained if
induction [18]. Rats with the DIO genotype that they are re-exposed to the same diet [10].
were kept consistently on a chow diet remained of
comparable weight to the diet-resistant phenotype. Another cause of obesity can be pathogenic.
Infectobesity is a relatively new concept which has
It must be noted that there is no firm data to only been reported in the past 20 years. Six differ-
support this in humans, and this is still hypotheti- ent pathogens have been reported to cause obesity
cal. However, if the hypothesis is correct, this will in animal models: canine distemper virus, rous-as-
critically impact our view of obesity. The only way to sociated virus-7, borna disease virus, Scrapie agent,
abolish obesity would be to prevent it, which would SMAM-1 avian adenovirus, and human adenovirus
herald major changes in health legislation. For those Ad-36 [14]. Of these, the latter two pathogens have
who are already obese, only chronic interventions, been implicated in human obesity. However, a de-
such as drugs and gastric-banding surgery, would finitive model of human infectobesity has yet to be
induce a permanent reduction in weight [1]. described. While the association cannot be refuted,

It appears that the best treatment for obesity is prevention.

Perhaps negative attitudes towards the obese ex-
ist because of another cause of obesity, that of non-
homeostatic intake, whereby food consumption is
moderated by reward rather than metabolic control
circuits. Addiction literature suggests that brain
reward circuitry may promote the compulsive na-
ture of overeating, as highly palatable foods trigger
an association does not establish a causal relation-
ship. Ethical reasons prevent inoculation of humans
with the described viruses to determine the exact
role of the viruses in human obesity.
After considering the many causes of obesity,
the question then becomes how best to deal with the

problem. It appears that the best treatment for obe-
sity is prevention [18]. People realise that high-sugar
and high-fat foods are unhealthy, but it is possible
that they do not understand the long-term ramifi-
cations of such a diet, and health legislation should
aim to provide further education. Considering the
personal and societal costs of obesity, this should
be a key issue of discussion, as the proverb ‘preven-
tion is better than cure’ suggests. Mothers who
are pregnant and have diabetes (or have developed
gestational diabetes) should have their diabetes ag-
gressively treated, to prevent obese offspring. The
‘forward-feeding’ of obesity through the generations
[10] must be halted to prevent the epidemic from
spiralling out of control — for example, mothers
should be educated on the dangers of being either
malnourished or obese during pregnancy, and the
effects of these states on their baby.
In rats, it has been shown that exercise during
immediate post-weaning period can lead to long-
term reductions in adiposity which is permanent
and outlasts the termination of exercise [18]. On the
other hand, in overweight or obese individuals who
exercise to lose weight, the weight loss is only con-
sistent for the period with which they exercise. The
body defends its achieved weight very strongly and
only chronic interventions (long-term extreme exer-
cise) or conditions such as chronic illness, surgical
procedures, or high levels of stress can keep weight
at a permanently lower level once an obese weight
has been achieved. If we continue to view obesity as
the result of a simple cause and effect mechanism it
will be difficult to extract negative attitudes towards
obese from our psychology. With increased aware-
ness about the causes and implications about obesi-
ty, however, perhaps we can learn to approach obese
people with greater sensitivity, and discrimination
will be less rampant. Ultimately, any solution must
strike the right balance between personal responsi-
bility and medical regulation and intervention.
References:
[1] J. Proietto, L. Baur. ‘Management of Obesity,’Obesity
MJA Practice Essentials 180:474 Ð 480 (May 2004)
[3] WHO expert consultation. ‘Appropriate body-mass
index for Asian populations and its implications for
policy and intervention strategies.’strategies Lancet 363:
157-63
[4] World Health Organization. Media Centre: Obesity
and overweight fact sheet. 2006 <http://www.who.
int/mediacentre/factsheets/fcs311/en/index.html>
Retrieved 25/6/2007
ARE YOU WHAT YOU EAT? 33
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
[5] WHO. Obesity: preventing and managing the global
epidemic: Report of a WHO Consultation. WHO
Technical Report Series No. 894. Geneva: World Health
Organisation, 2000.
[6] S. Margetic, C. Gazzola, G.C. Pegg, R.A. Hill.
‘Leptin: a review of its peripheral actions and interactions.
International Journal of Obesity (2002) 26: 1407-1433
[7] Emedicine. M. Freemark. ‘Obesity.’Obesity’s 2006.
<http://www.emedicine.com/PED/topic1699.htm>
Retrieved 26/6/2007
[8] W.T. Gibson, I.S. Farooqi, M. Moreau, A.M. DePaoli,
E. Lawrence, S. O’Rahilly, R.A. Trussell. ‘Congenital
leptin deficiency due to homozygosity for the Delta133G
mutation: report of another case and evaluation of
response to four years of leptin therapy.’ Journal of
Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (2004) 89(10):
4821-6
[9] A.J. Stunkard, J.R. Harris, N.L. Pedersen, G.E.
McClearn. ‘The body-mass index of twins who have been
reared apart.’apart New England Journal of Medicine
(1990) 322(21): 1483-7
[10] B.E. Levin. ‘Factors promoting and ameliorating the
development of obesity.’ Physiology & Behavior (2005)
86: 633-639
[11] W. F. Ganong, Review of Medical Physiology
(McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., ed. 21, 2005) pp.235-
241
[12] J.M. Friedman. ‘The function of leptin in nutrition,
weight and physiology.’ Nutrition Reviews (2002)
11(Supplement):1-14
[13] C.B. Ebbeling, D.B. Pawlak, D.S. Ludwig. ‘Childhood
obesity: public-health crisis, common sense cure.’ Lancet
(2002) 360:473-8233
[14] N.V. Dhurandhar. ‘Infectobesity: Obesity of
Infectious Origin.’ The Journal of Nutrition (2001)
131(10):2794S-2797S
[15] A.M. Prentice. ‘The emerging epidemic of obesity
in developing countries.’ International Journal of
Epidemiology (2005) 35:93-9
[16] Statistics related to overweight and obesity. 2006.
US Department of health and human services.
[17] R. Puhl, K.D. Brownell. ‘Bias, discrimination and
obesity.’ Obesity Research 9(12):788-805
[18] B.E. Levin. ‘The obesity epidemic: metabolic
imprinting on genetically susceptible neural circuits.’
Obesity Research (2000) 8(4):342-7
[19] ‘Genes take charge, and diets fall by the wayside’,
New York Times (8/5/2007; http://www.nytimes.
com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html)
[20] B.E. Levin, A.A. Dunn-Meynell ‘Defense of body
weight against chronic caloric restriction in obesity-prone
and resistant rats.’ American Journal of Physiology:
Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology
(2000) 278:R231-R237
[21] T.C. Adam, E.S. Epel. ‘Stress, eating and the reward
system.’ Physiology & Behavior (2007) CITE
[22] S. Stender, J. Dyerberg, A. Astrup. ‘Fast food:
unfriendly and unhealthy.’ International Journal of
Obesity (2007) 31:887-890
[24] S. Rice, E.J. McAllister, N.V. Dhurandhar. ‘Fast
food: friendly?’ International Journal of obesity (2007)
31:884-886
[25] R.L. Atkinson, I. Macdonald. ‘Editorial: debate on
fast food in society.’ International Journal of Obesity
(2007) 31:883
 Take a gander at a roster from any
team in the NBA. It might not be a
surprise that, on the New York Knicks,
for example, all but one player are
African American—tall, agile, and with
a vertical jump that would likely draw a
few “ooh”s and “ahh”s to say the least
[1]. Yet to what degree is this racially
skewed statistic a result of genetic differ-
ences in African Americans as compared
to other races?

Martha Stewart to 50 Cent:

A Debacle of the Social Construction of Race
Ariana Younai, UC Berkeley

On the same plane, research showings that potentially strengthen and solidify racial socio-divi-
Asians are especially overrepresented among soft- sions?
ware engineers, that whites hold the majority of
On September 25, 2007 Nike unveiled the Air
management and professional occupations, and that
Nike N7, their brand-new athletic shoe designed
34% of Hispanic women are house maids, begs the
specifically for Native Americans. Marked by its
question, how much is genetic makeup involved in
“larger fit for the distinct foot shape of American
this racial segregation between occupations? [2]
Indians,” the shoe is said to have been created spe-
Race, in this way, rather than a mere grouping of
cifically for Native Americans in order to aid in their
individuals from different geographical locations,
health and wellness [3]. This racial group has been
becomes a predominant indicator of one’s position
observed to have “problems with obesity, diabetes
within the social infrastructure, a gauge of ability,
and related conditions... near epidemic levels in some
and subsequently, fuel for notions of the existence of
tribes,” and Dr. Kelly Acton, director of the national
a racial hierarchy. But this grouping of people into
diabetes program for Indian Health Services, com-
racial categories may not be so crystalline under a
ments that Nike “bent over backwards” to design a
biological lens: phenotypic expression tells us a per-
shoe and respect public health by promoting exer-
son has golden locks as opposed to wiry hair, yet to
cise. The creation of a product so specifically tailored
what extent does genetic makeup determine racial
for a group of people perpetuates a notion of bio-
superiority and inferiority? How much deeper does
logical differences amongst racial categories deeper
racial classification go past the superficial markers
than outward attributes; Nike has designed a shoe
recognized by society? While the placement of races
to cater not only to a physical difference in Native
in different social areas is due to a history of racial
Americans, but notes that this physical distinc-
interactions, is there a deeper, genetic basis that can
tion ties directly into a deeper issue of the group’s

deteriorating health with an increasing obesity rate.
Notions of a racial hierarchy in which certain races
are more susceptible to diseases, and therefore less
fit, are fueled by reports of racial distinctions such
as this one, which Nike has used as the main selling-
point of a shoe advertisement. Studies throughout
history have likewise embedded ideas of racial supe-
riority or inferiority, thereby strengthening poten-
tially porous divides between racial categories. From
the infamous James Watson who, from his genetic
observations noted that blacks were simply racially
inferior to whites, to studies today of differential
health issues and diseases across racial divides, the
question of the biological significance of racial cat-
egorization still remains indefinite and hazy.
Several studies have shown that genetic variability
plays a major role in defining health disparities amongst
races. Science editor, Byron Spice of the Post-Gazette
examines why rates of diseases may vary from one
population to another, and notes that men of African
descent in Tobago have an estimated three to four time
higher rate for prostate cancer than white Americans
[4]. An epidemiologist at the University of Pittsburgh
Graduate School of Public Health, Clareann Bunker,
includes that in comparison to Caucasian males, men
of African descent are more likely to carry a genetic
mutation that helps them efficiently process the male
hormone testosterone which results in the growth of
strong bones, but which “in combination with a virus
called human herpesvirus 8, also seems to heighten the
men’s risk of prostate cancer.” What’s more, there hasn’t
been any evidence to prove that environmental factors
play into the abnormal rate, as East Indians, who also
inhabit Tobago, do not share this same prostate cancer
rate with the African population. This study raises
the idea that environmental factors may not always be
plausible explanations for health differences amongst
races. Rather, genetic defects might be prominent in
a racial group because a mutation was passed down
from generation to generation in a specific population.
Subsequently, the study supports racist tensions as the
one projected by the aforementioned James Watson,
who recently stated that he is “inherently gloomy
about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social
policies are based on the fact that their intelligence
is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not
really” and that “there is no firm reason to anticipate
that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographi-
cally separated in their evolution should prove to have
evolved identically” [5]. His claim that there has been
an unequal evolution of blacks and whites suggests a
MARTHA STEWART TO 50 CENT 35
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
higher development and intelligence of the “superior”
white race. Watson, however, while a prominent scien-
tist and Nobel Prize winner for his co-discovery of the
structure of the DNA molecule, received extremely
negative public response for his statement.
Other diseases more prominent in African-
Americans are sickle-cell anemia and cardiovascular
disease, the former of which can be explained by a
mutation developed in Africa as a defensive response
to malaria [4]. Similarly, cardiovascular disease might
have arisen because of slave conditions on the Middle
Passage to America during which the retention of salt
might have been advantageous, or due to the stress of
living in a prejudice society with lack of access to health
care. These environmental and social factors in the
creation of common diseases in a particular race are
often overlooked, however, as certain races are deemed
simply naturally genetically inferior. The concept of
race-based medicine, for example, uses race-specific
heath issues in the marketing of drugs, thereby subtly
implying that these genetic differences between races
are inherent, perhaps even irreversible, when in fact,
they originated from social divides. Nicholas Wade,
author of “Race-Based Medicine Continued,” discuss-
es the controversy over a new drug called BiDil, which
is supposed to reduce deaths due to heart disease spe-
cifically among African-Americans [6]. He concludes,
“African-Americans have been long uneasy with the
concept of race-based medicine, in part from fear that
it may legitimize less benign ideas about race,” sug-
gesting that the drug, in its targeting of a disease com-
mon in a specific racial group, perpetuates notions of
blacks being less genetically fit in comparison to other
races. Furthermore, Dr. Georgia Dunston, a medical
geneticist at Howard University, notes that marketing
BiDil as a drug for blacks is ‘’a classical example of us-
ing race as a surrogate for biology,’’ and includes that
the drug does not work in all African-Americans and
may well be of benefit to other groups. That goes to
say that blacks aren’t the only group experiencing high
rates of certain diseases; Northern Europeans, for
example, are more susceptible to cystic fibrosis than
Africans, a fact which might likewise be explained by
a genetic mutation found in Europe which was not
present in Africa. This conflicting data presents the
idea that while biological factors play a role in defining
race (nature), so do environmental and social condi-
tions (nurture), and that indeed the two intersect in
the creation of racial categories.
Unlike the previous examples, the indisputably
high rate of academic success of Asian-Americans, the
36 MARTHA STEWART TO 50 CENT
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
“model minority” of America, raises the question of
the greater role of nurture in racial differences, or envi-
ronmental factors as opposed to intrinsic genetic ones
which may affect ability level. Statistics of enrolled
students at U.C. Berkeley in Fall 2007, for example,
gave a shocking 41.7% Asian Americans [7]. To this
statistic, Stanford professor Hazel R. Markus would
comment, “[S]tudies have found that Asian students
do approach academics differently,” looking to their
generally study-oriented culture as an explanation
for their excellence in academics [8]. Indeed, rather
than accrediting academic disparities to biological
factors, Markus looks instead to Asian cultural pres-
sures and influences. Likewise, the overrepresenta-
tion of African-Americans in the realm of sports in
the United States, while partially due to undeniable
physiological differences, could be more dramati-
cally affected by societal situations. Sociologist John J.
Gnida at Indiana University points out that there are
only slight differences in genetic studies of blacks and
whites, and while they may offset others (e.g. a black
athlete’s greater skeletal weight leading to slightly
less body fat), there are enough exceptions to genetic
explanations which make physical differences of ath-
letic ability not as persuasive [9]. He points instead
to the significance of occupational discrimination and
opportunity structure as an explanation for the preva-
lence of African-Americans on certain sports teams;
because they are denied opportunities to succeed in
other professions, sports become the only path of so-
cial mobility. Indeed, as Gnida also points out, there
are not as many African-Americans on certain other
athletic teams, such as tennis, a fact which further
suggests the role of opportunity as opposed to genet-
ics in the shaping of racial stereotypes. In this view,
races can be seen as superficial divisions which classify
lumps of individuals based only on recognized soci-
etal differences. Victoria Robinson, an Ethnic Studies
professor at U.C. Berkeley and head of the American
Cultures Department, questions, “Is 50 Cent to black
as Martha Stuart is to white?” [10] Indeed, on-the
surface markers such as an interest in hip hop as op-
posed to homemaking become what Robinson would
call “cultural proxies of race”, but uncertainties lie in
whether these talents have genetic underpinnings, or
if they are simply socially- and culturally-designated
niches. “Racial groups have become manufactured
because of histories which have not allowed entrance
into different social spaces,” she adds, suggesting that
races have essentially become trapped in different ste-
reotypes throughout time because of their inability to
escape their specific social locations.
It is without doubt that variations do exist on the
genetic level in different populations, yet the forma-
tions of racial divides are considerably the products
of racial tensions throughout history. These tensions
have in turn resulted in the placement of racial groups
into different social locations which restrict their
abilities and opportunities. Though there are general
patterns of differences in both simple and complex
genetic structures, there are exceptions to these
observations which suggest racial classification may
be based on something much shallower. As Gnida’s
article suggests, looking for physiological differences
in specific groups is “implicitly racist.” If African-
Americans possess a “basketball gene”, could it be
said Canadians carry a gene for naturally stronger
ankles for ice-skating, and that Germans have inher-
ited the gene exceptional bobsledding skills? Though
the line between biology and society is becoming in-
creasingly porous and gray, perhaps looking to social
factors may provide a more accurate explanation. Just
as it is possible to find a 7’6” Asian basketball player
who may be diagnosed with sickle-cell anemia, so is it
feasible for an African American to discover the cure
for cancer, and, surprisingly enough, for a Native
American to fit into a size-6 shoe.
References:
[1] “Knicks Roster: 2007-2008.” <http://www.nba.com/
knicks/roster/>.
[2] “Minorities in the Labor Force: Occupations.” Library Index.
2007. <http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2911/Minorities-
in-Labor-Force-OCCUPATIONS.html>.
[3] “Nike Unveils N7 Air Native Shoe Designed for Native
Americans.” Fox News. 26 Oct. 2007 <http://www.foxnews.
com/story/0,2933,298063,00.html>.
[4] Spice, Byron. “Genetics and race: Researchers explore
why rates of diseases vary from one population to another.”
Post-Gazette. 7 May 2002. <http://www.post-gazette.com/
healthscience/20020507hgene0507p3.asp>.
[5]Nunget,Helen.“Blackpeople‘lessintelligent’scientistclaims.”
Times Online. 17 Oct. 2007. <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece?token=null&offse t=0>.
[6] Wade, Nicholas. “Race-Based Medicine Continued...” Times
Online. 14 Nov, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/
weekinreview/14nick.html
[7] “New Freshman Admits by Ethnicity 1997 through Fall
2007.” U.C. Berkeley News Center. 5 April 2007. <http://www.
berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/04/05_admits_
table.shtml>.
[8] “Success of Asian students: culture or genes?” Typepad.
<http://freewill.typepad.com/genetics/2007/01/success_of_
asia.html>.
[9] Gnida, John J. Teaching Sociology. 1995. (9:389-395).
<http://www.jstor.org/view/0092055x/ap04008304a00100?
currentResult=0092055x%2bap040083%2b04a00100%2b0
%2cFF&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsear
ch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26gw%3Djtx
%26jtxsi%3D1%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Query%3D
genes%2Band%2Bathletic%2Bperformance%26wc%3Don>.
[10] Victoria Robinson. Personal. November 25, 2007.
Revisiting the Ruler:
The Metamorphosis of Progress in the
modern world of Medicine
Nisha Narayan, UC Berkeley
As the great Plato said in ancient times, “all men desire to know.” Indeed,
as we enter into the twenty-first century, mankindʼs drive to learn about
the natural world has resulted in our increasing ability to manipulate
biological processes with power once attributed only to God.
To the philosopher’s credit, this knowledge of expanding. Advances in genetic diagnosis combined
science has truly been extended to all of society. The with reproductive technology allow women to test
wonders of technology have allowed for the dissemi- their fertilized eggs for genetic disorder and sub-
nation of previously restricted medical knowledge to sequently decide whether or not to terminate their
the general public. This accessible, advanced nature pregnancy [1]. While having a child with genetic
of healthcare in the modern world suggests that pub- disease was previously considered a matter of fate,
lic health is less limited by what can scientifically be science has transformed it into a matter of choice.
accomplished and increasingly dependent on choice.
The importance of patient evaluation and judg-
As headlines address brain implants to correct dis-
ment in healthcare is further compounded by the
ability and pre-birth genetic manipulation to cor-
accessibility of information in the modern world.
rect disease, social marketing rather than laboratory
Physicians were previously the primary holders of
research may become the dependent variable and
medical knowledge in society, and were revered as
main benchmark of medical progress in developed
“autonomous masters of their professional domain
nations. Society’s recognition of this phenomenon
[2].” As real-world Marcus Welbys, these “Dr.
and focus on social marketing as a primary vehicle
Gods” were required to exercise their own judg-
of advance in healthcare could thus have significant
ment in making diagnoses and treatment decisions.
implications on our future.
Advances in communication technology, however,
As science rapidly progresses, the degree to have enabled the average layman to access a wealth
which we can manipulate natural processes is rapidly of medical knowledge targeted to his scientific un-
38 REVISITING THE RULER
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
derstanding with the click of a button. Indeed, the
Internet made it possible for approximately 40% of
American people to find information or advice about
healthcare in 2001 [3]. The aforementioned layman
can survey numerous modern treatment options
online and formulate opinions concerning how he
wants to be treated based on his ethical and religious
views, expectations for quality of life, and financial
status. Essentially, his health will be dependent on
how he chooses to pursue treatment rather than on
the limits of technology and medicine.
Rather than influencing health choices with scientific facts,
corporations are appealing to public emotion and stereotypes.
This concept, known as social marketing, is becoming
increasingly instrumental in guiding health
decisions in modern society.
If such choices are not dependent on scientific ad-
vice or professional expertise from a single, informed
source, one must question what influences such per-
sonal health decisions. According to California phy-
sician Dr. R. Padmini, “nearly all published studies
gaging the effectiveness of treatments and health
solutions are addressed to experienced professionals
who know how to scientifically evaluate such infor-
mation.” Indeed, education in the field is essential
to drawing appropriate treatment conclusions when
confronted with feature-oriented rather than ben-
efit-oriented reports [4]. Consequently, published
scientific research is of limited use to the general
population unless – in anomalous fashion- its social
implications and applications are addressed.
Personal health choices are thus influenced by
representations of complex scientific information,
and the presentation and framing of such infor-
mation can have a significant impact on the health
choices of individuals [5]. With the increasing cus-
tomization of health products and the private sec-
tor’s profound role in modern healthcare, marketing
tactics developed in the commercial sector have been
applied to influence the voluntary health behavior
of target populations [6]. Rather than influencing
health choices with scientific facts, corporations are
appealing to public emotion and stereotypes. This
concept, known as social marketing, is becoming in-
creasingly instrumental in guiding health decisions
in modern society.
Merck and Co.’s marketing of the Gardasil vac-
cine is a prime illustration of the application and
current effectiveness of using social marketing to
guide health choices. Gardasil aims to protect wom-
en against two high-risk strains of the human pap-
illomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease
which is responsible for 70 percent of cervical cancer
cases [7]. Approved in June 2007 by the Food and
Drug Association, its miraculous selling point as
the “vaccine against cancer” is flanked by a prohibi-
tive cost of $360 for a vaccine course of three shots.
Furthermore, it has dual, drastically different target
audiences of young women and parents of teenage
girls. Although its status as a vaccine against sexu-
ally transmitted disease makes parents and religious
groups doubt its necessity, Merck has sprung into
action around the globe, implementing aggressive
television, radio, poster, and print campaigns with
the attractive slogan “one less”. Television commer-
cials succeed brilliantly in playing on the emotions
of both mothers who wish to be educated and pro-
tect their children, as well as young girls who pursue
freedom, empowerment, and independence.
The media’s touting of Gardisil as “the Cervical
Cancer Vaccine” and eminently threatening por-
trayal of HPV constantly bombards individuals in
their daily lives and ceaselessly encourages young
women to obtain the drug. Indeed, this tactic re-
cently contributed to the Commonwealth govern-
ment committing $300 million to mass-vaccinate
Canadian girls through an opt-out school program
with full endorsement of the Canadian government
[8]. Neglecting to reveal that “the age group being
 REVISITING THE RULER 39
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX

targeted for mass immunization was not the pri-

mary group studied when the drug was tested” and
that “these children were only followed for eighteen
months,” Merck’s publicity blitz is hardly unbiased
[8]. “I am amazed at the parents who come into my
clinic demanding that their children have Gardasil
without knowing what the vaccine protects against
or if it has side-effects,” says Ontario, Canada fam-
ily physician Dr. Chitra Narayanan. Indeed, while
there may be a slight disconnect between the specific
results of Gardasil research and the information that
is most commonly being related to the public, the
value of social marketing as a tool to guide health
decisions which can have a massive impact on soci-
ety is unmistakable. Dr. Narayanan explains that
“all these parents know is that good caretakers give seems that the progress of healthcare in developed
their daughters the shot– they see it on the Subway, nations is now limited by the ability of the public
on TV, and in magazines. They know that it could to make individual choices that collectively better
save their kid’s life, and that’s enough.” It is appar- societal health. If social marketing can expand these
ent that social marketing has succeeded in making limits, perhaps we must focus wholeheartedly on us-
an immense difference in the health behavior of the ing this social tool to better the collective health of
public and may continue to do so by reducing the society. If much of society is exposed to comprehen-
spread of HPV with the Gardasil vaccine. sive health information, channels of thought can be
Merk’s social marketing of the Gardisil vaccine opened, debate and discussion can be explored, and
is only one example of the growing power of social in this way individual health choices that contribute
marketing in influencing consumer health choice to overall societal health can be made in a less dif-
and thereby stimulating the progress of healthcare. ficult manner than ever before.
If one assumes the Oxford dictionary definition of While social marketing is increasingly being
the term, progress is “the development of an indi- adopted by private companies and the government,
vidual or society in a direction considered more perhaps our society should recognize and place more
beneficial than and superior to the previous level focus on this tool as the primary vehicle of progress in
[9].” Medical progress, in simple terms, would thus healthcare. We can then supplement the weaknesses
entail the use of scientific principles and technology of social marketing to optimize its effectiveness in im-
to benefit society.

The...layman can survey numerous modern treatment options online and

formulate opinions concerning how he wants to be treated based on his
ethical and religious views, expectations for quality of life, and financial
status. Essentially, his health will be dependent on how he chooses to pur-
sue treatment rather than on the limits of technology and medicine

For our society to better profit from all that has
been discovered in the scientific world, perhaps de-
veloped nations must gage the progress we make in
medicine and healthcare by the impact it actually
makes on society rather than by the impact it can
potentially make in the world. While medicine was
previously limited by technology, individuals now run
into personal and religious predicaments that often
restrict our ability to affect health outcomes before
scientific procedures bar us from doing so. Thus, it
proving societal health. This may, for example, entail
the establishment of a central, organized database
controlled by a neutral agency which can compile and
organize the results of current scientific studies. If the
rapid developments made in the scientific world can
be “translated” into comparative charts which will be
accessible to our average layman, social marketing
can be augmented with scientific fact which will in-
fluence his personal health decision. What this will
require, however, is monetary support.
40 REVISITING THE RULER
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
In the past, an abundance of funding and resources
have been allocated to biomedical research and labo-
ratory studies. The National Institute of Health, the
nation’s premier biomedical research agency, saw its
budget doubled between 1999 and 2003 and will re-
ceive $28.6 billion in 2007. [10] In light of this figure,
perhaps a re-evaluation of how money in science and
health is being spent is necessary. In particular, re-al-
location of some funding from laboratory research to
the organization and compilation of existing results
could fuel true medical progress.
Such a re-allocation of funding would undoubt-
edly be met with opposition from some research sci-
entists, among many other groups. The organization,
compilation and dissemination of research findings
will introduce an additional layer of bureaucracy
between scientific developments in labs and their
use in society that would inherently slow the rate
of progress in medicine. In addition, performing
research to develop a novel technique or drug is per-
ceived to be more revered than performing follow-up
studies on existing therapies and their side-effects.
Thus, if money is redirected from scientific research
to social marketing, there may be insufficient fund-
ing for both types of projects and critical research
on follow-up studies regarding the effects of new
drugs and treatments could be jeopardized. This
may potentially equate to an increase in unsubstan-
tiated drugs on the market and a step backwards in
the medical world. Lastly, many argue that inhibit-
ing any aspect of progress in medicine- either in the
lab or through social marketing – should not occur.
Instead, governments could focus on using social
marketing in healthcare and funding such projects
and their supplements from the drug companies
who will benefit from such marketing in any case.
With its new power in the face of the changing
world of health, social marketing can potentially be
used to inform target groups how recent advances in
labs can better their health and reduce their risk and
symptoms of illness. Indeed, social marketing may
be the key to ensuring that advances in science and
biomedicine relate back to how they will directly
benefit society. As healthcare is altered, , it may be
time to re-evaluate how society can maximize scien-
tific progress. This could entail fundamental changes
in convention and outlook and may require time and
resource re-allocation. Protecting society from the
dangers of incomplete knowledge and unsubstanti-
ated information, however, may require a level of
bureacracy, funding, and government involvement
in the scientific world which it may never be able to
withstand. Nevertheless, in true testament to Plato’s
statement, if all men desire to know then perhaps
true progress in the world of mankind – and the
world of medicine- is ensuring that they do.
References:
[1] Pro-Choice Forum; Ante Natal Diagnosis: Genetic
testing, screening, and ‘eugenics’. 2007. 12 November
2007 < http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/and5.asp>
[2] P. Friedson, Profession of Medicine: A Study of the
Sociology of Applied Knowledge. New York: Harper and
Row, 1970.
[3] Baker, Laurence., Todd H. Wagner, Sara Singer, and
Kate Bundorf “Use of the Internet and E-mail for Health
Care Information.” Journal of American Medicine
(2003): 289:2400-2406.
[4] California Health-Care Foundation. 2007. 11
November 2007. <http://www.chcf.org/topics/view.
cfm?itemID=115327>
[5] California Health Reform. 2007. 15 November 2007.
<http://calhealthreform.org/content/view/36/>
[6] Health Canada. 2007. 11 November 2007. <http://
www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/index_
e.html>
[7] Dederer, Claire. “Pitching Protection, to both Mothers
and Daughters.” New York Times. 18 February 2007,
online archives: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/
arts/television/18dede.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=s
login&oref=slogin#
[8] Center for Media and Democracy; Profit Knows
No Borders, Selling Gardasil to the Rest of the World:
Part Four of the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer.
2007. 11 November 2007. <http://www.prwatch.org/
node/6263>
[9] “Rogress. Def 169b. The Oxford English Dictionary.
2nd ed. 1989.
[10] Bridges, Andrew. “U.S. Research Budget Worries
Scientists.” USA Today. 1 February 2006, online archives:
<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-02-
research-budget_x.htm>
[11] Narayanan, Chitra. Personal interview. 12 October
2007.
[12] Padmini, R. Personal interview. 11 November 2007.
The Cultural and
Evolutionary Basis
of Sound Perception
“Music, as a matrix that integrates the results of
cultural processes, embodies dynamics, and emotional
significations, can provide an extraordinarily fruitful
resource for the development of cognitive-scientific
thinking.” [1]. The matrix of music is one that is far
reaching and is a canvas that requires an interdisci-
plinary approach to comprehend. Ethnomusicology
is a field dedicated to studying music as an aspect
of culture since music reflects the manifestation of
cultural processes. However, musical perception also
entails a cognitive interpretation on the neurological
level that utilizes a complex sensory system involving
the ear and brain. When one considers the varying so-
cial interpretations of different cultural music bases,
the question of whether music is socially learned or
biologically ingrained arises. The connection between
the social and biological aspects of musical perception
and the intricacies of this relationship are important
for our society to broaden our understanding of the
aesthetic nature of music and how we are biologically
programmed to interpret it.
Perhaps through integrating the cultural and biological aspects
of music, one can infer an evolutionary significance to music that
would explain its prevalence in societies around the globe.
In order to understand music perception, one
must understand the physical and biological mecha-
nisms of sound analysis. Sound and music are simply
the wave-like vibrations of molecules in a particular
medium, which propagate and eventually reach the
ear. The frequency of this wave relates to the pitch
heard, while the amplitude relates to the volume of
the sound. The outer ear, or pinna, acts as a funnel
to gather and amplify sound, directing it along the
auditory canal where the eardrum then senses the
Zara Khan, UC Berkeley
sound waves, and vibrates accordingly. The three tiny
bones (ossicles) of the middle ear then transfer the
vibrations to the fluid filled inner ear, where a shell
like structure called the cochlea converts physical
vibrations into electrical and neurological impulses.
The basilar membrane lies within the spiral shaped
cochlea, and is activated at different spatial locations
depending on the frequency of the vibrations being
received. Thus the ear, and correspondingly, the
brain are tonotopically mapped by the frequency of
the sound. Hair cells on the basilar membrane are
responsible for converting signals into electrical im-
pulses, which then travel through the auditory nerve
to the brain, where they are then combined and in-
terpreted to provide us with a perception of sound.
The brain is responsible for auditory scene analysis,
through which the brain perceives different sounds,
their spatial locations, and sources. It is here where the
cultural influences of sound perception are discern-
able. In a paper by John Blacking, he discusses how the
“the roots of musical variety” base their foundation in
culture [2]. Furthermore, these roots are found in “the
human organization of sound rather than in its natural
qualities.” To elaborate, there are indeed scientific laws
of sound, but music making follows no set of analogous
rules. Anthropologically speaking, “music depends on
pitch and rhythm, but only as they are agreed upon by
the particular members of the society involved.” [3].
This culturally relativistic argument, when defining
what can or cannot be considered music, is countered
by the naturalistic argument, which maintains that
42 THE CULTURAL AND EVOLUTIONARY BASIS OF SOUND PERCEPTION
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
different parameters of music such as rhythm and
melody, are actually biologically ingrained.
In support of the latter notion, one study by
Sandra Trehub illustrated that babies are able to
pick out anomalous notes in a melody innately, by
responding to the speakers when an uncharacteris-
tic sound is played. This study bolsters the theory
that our understanding of relative pitches may be
genetically ingrained. As a control for this experi-
ment, several different melodies from outside of the
realm of Western music were played to American
babies, who were still responsive to aberrant notes
[4]. Perhaps through integrating the cultural and
biological aspects of music, one can infer an evolu-
tionary significance to music that would explain its
prevalence in societies around the globe.
The evolutionary significance of music has been
justified through several different explanations,
including Darwin’s mantra of the survival of the
fittest. In this explanation, the ability to perform
music for males (both human, and animals) serves as
a mechanism to attract the attention of females, and
thus these males tend to produce the most offspring,
who also posses musical ability [5]. Examples of this
Darwinian concept are exhibited by the mating calls
of birds, and toads, which effectively use musical
sound to find partners. Furthermore, music has been
shown to be a stress reliever, and can lower the brain’s
production of the stress hormone cortisol. Lower lev-
els of cortisol have been associated with heightened
immune responses and reduced risk of cancer. In ad-
dition, music has been shown to ameliorate societal
solidarity, ensuring the strength of a community [6].
According to David Wessel, a professor of Music
Perception and Cognition at UC Berkeley, “Music
enables the expansion of social groups, and hence
makes them more adaptive.” He went on to explain
how the size of social groups in apes tend to be re-
lated to the amount of time spent on grooming, and
how in the analogous case, time spent on music for
humans enlarges social groups [7]. This enlargement
enhances human survival, propagation and success.
The cultural and biological aspects of music per-
ception are important in order to understand the sig-
nificance of music in society today. Music is difficult
to describe using words alone because it transcends
concrete boundaries and immutable reason though it’s
structure is embedded in a scientific foundation. In and
of itself, it is an abstract form of art and an eternal force
painted on a canvas of silence that can be seen as serv-
ing an important adaptive purpose in human history. In
regards to explanations for its nature, some choose to
look at its differential cultural forms, while others feel
that it connects humanity in a way that language or sci-
ence never can. Though the evolutionary significance of
music has been theorized in a variety of manners, per-
haps the common thread between these is the timeless
universality of music, a characteristic that has allowed it
to perpetuate in communities around the world.
References:
[1] “Artificial Intelligence and Music Perception.” Artificial
Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour Quarterly 102
(1999): 12-25.
[2] Blacking, John. (1965). “The role of music in the culture
of the Venda of the northern Trans-vaal,” Studies in
Ethnomusicology 2:20-53.
[3] Merriam, Alan P. The Anthropology of Music. Evanston,
Ill.: Northwestern University Press.
[4] Glausiusz, Josie. “The Genetic Mystery of Music.”
Discover 1 Aug. 2001.
[5] Miller, G. F. (2000). Evolution of human music through
sexual selection. In N. L. Wallin, B. Merker, & S. Brown
(Eds.), The origins of music. MIT Press, pp. 329-360.
[6] Fukui, Hajime. 1998. The effect of music listening on
testosterone secretion. J. Music Perception and Cognition
4: 10–18.
[7] Wessel, David. Personal Interview. November 8, 2007.
 Why Pluto
Should Be Plutoed
Jade Lao, The University of Melbourne
After masquerading as a planet for years, Pluto has finally been reunited
with its true family. However, unlike many family reunions, the aftermath
of the decision has been unpeaceful, causing a revolution even beyond
the world of science.
During the meeting held by the International
Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague on 24 August
2006, the big question on Pluto’s real status was
raised. In this official meeting known as the General
Assembly, 424 professional astronomers excluded
Pluto from the traditional group of planets, reclas-
sifying it as a Kuiper Belt Object (KPO) [1]. Since
then, a battle deemed the ‘Great Pluto War’ by some
astronomers is being fought more fiercely than ever
[17]. While the demotion of Pluto has sparked much
debate within the scientific community, this article
will examine why this decision was justified by giv-
ing an insight on how Pluto does not exhibit all the
basic characteristics of a true planet.
Named after the Greek God of the underworld by
an 11-year-old girl, Pluto was discovered by a fortunate
accident on 18 February 1930 [2, 3]. In the Lowell
Observatory in Arizona, Clyde W. Tombaugh was
searching for an object believed to be causing pertur-
bations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. While
attempting to find this object (nicknamed ‘Planet
X’) Tombaugh found Pluto by accident. The search
for Planet X continued but was unsuccessful – and
for good reason. The calculations that a planet was
causing discrepancies later turned out to be incorrect
– Planet X does not exist [3]. Pluto was classified as
a planet immediately due to lack to knowledge of its
eccentricities back then. During the IAU General
Assembly in 2006 this mistake has been acknowl-
edged and Pluto was reclassified as a KPO [4, 5].
The story of a planet that is no longer a planet
is fascinating to astronomers and the general public
alike. To many it is clear that Pluto is not a planet.
The most obvious reason for this is the fact that, un-
like Pluto, typical planets orbit the sun close to a flat
reference plane called the ecliptic [6]. Pluto’s orbit is
highly inclined relative to the ecliptic – about 17.5
degrees. To picture this, imagine looking at the solar
system (see figure 1) from a side-on view. The typi-
cal eight planets’ orbits are flat and therefore orbit
horizontally across the sun. This horizontal line is
called the ecliptic. In contrast, the orbit of Pluto is
on an angle and therefore sticks out as a diagonal
relative to the ecliptic. Because of this angle of orbit,
during some periods of years Pluto is closer to the
sun than Neptune. The extended region of Pluto’s
orbit places it in the Kuiper Belt, a disk-shaped re-
gion found beyond Neptune, 4.5 to 7.5 kilometers
from the sun [7].
Although the first KPO was discovered only 15
years ago, thousands more of these icy, diminutive
bodies have already been found and it is believed
that the Kuiper Belt is the source of some comets
[7, 8]. KPOs bear many resemblances to Pluto; for
example, they have similar compositions and they
Figure 1 (above): The size of Pluto compared to other
planets; Pluto is on the extreme right.
(Source: http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/
gallery/solarsys_scale.jpg)
44 WHY PLUTO SHOULD BE PLUTOED
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
also move in eccentric orbits. It is because Pluto
resembles these objects so much that the IAU was
compelled to confront Pluto’s status during the
General Assembly. It was felt that Pluto, who was
an oddball when classified with the planets, should
have the status of a KPO instead.
Also, the fact that other objects in a similar situa-
tion to Pluto were not classified as planets has caused
Pluto’s planetary status to be heavily contested. Ceres,
discovered in 1801, was initially classified as a major
planet when first discovered, however, due to the dis-
covery of many other dwarf planets it lost its planetary
status [8]. Like Ceres, Pluto should have been imme-
diately demoted once other similar bodies were found
but it was not. Furthermore, Eris, which was discov-
ered in 2005, bears many similarities to Pluto and it
is still classified as a KPO. It is strange that Pluto was
classified a planet whilst Eris was not because Eris,
being much larger, would have more grounds to claim
the status of a planet [8]. If Pluto was not dismissed
there would be argument for changing another 12 ce-
lestial bodies into planets, subjugating the current sys-
tem of classification. As more objects are discovered
in the Kuiper Belt, the number of planets in the Solar
System may well increase to 50 due to insubstantial
planetary prerequisites.
In addtion, Pluto does not fit in with the two
distinct types of planets in the solar system. The
first type is the terrestrials which are the first four
planets – they are rocky and small. The next four are
the Jovian planets. They possess characteristics that
are quite the opposite of terrestrial planets – Jovian
planets are large and their low densities mean that
they are composed of less dense materials such as
liquid and gas. Any attempt to land on Jovian plan-
ets would be futile because they have no solid surface
[6]. Although Pluto was a Jovian planet, its unique
characteristics make it unsuitable for this category.
Figure 2: Pluto with its moon Charon (Source:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog)
With an average density of about 2000 kg/m³,
Pluto’s icy composition is not gaseous, but a mixture
of rock and ice [18]. Its composition resembles that
of a comet just like many that lie in the Kuiper Belt.
It is also unusually small, being even smaller than
the terrestrials [9, 6]. In fact, the diameter of our
moon equals the diameters of Pluto and Charon
added together [15]. As shown in Figure 1 (drawn
to scale), Pluto appears as a mere dot compared to
the other planets.
Had astronomers known Pluto’s true size, the
initial classification may have been different. The
13-inch (0.33 meters) Pluto Discovery Telescope
used by Tombaugh had a very low resolution and so
distant objects would appear quite blurry. The image
Tombaugh saw was actually that of Charon, Pluto’s
most prominent moon, merging with Pluto causing
them both to appear as one object [2]. Fortunately,
astronomical technology has progressed profoundly
and astronomers have found that Pluto and Charon
are two separate bodies. Brian Marsden of the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics as-
serts that, “if Pluto were discovered today instead
of seventy years ago, it would be considered a minor
planet and given a minor planet number” [14].
The presence of Charon also presents the distinc-
tive Pluto-Charon system. (Charon is on the right
as shown in Figure 2, taken by the world-famous
Hubble Space Telescope). Charon, named after the
ferryman who carried the souls of the decreased in
a boat, is more than half the size of Pluto [8]. No
other planet has such a big moon – throughout the
solar system, planets are many times more massive
than any of their moons [6]. Pluto and Charon orbit
around a common centre of mass, keeping the same
faces towards each other [18]. This strange charac-
teristic is unique in the solar system.
Another distinguishing feature of Pluto is that its
orbit is chaotic – Pluto travels in an elliptical shape
while the traditional planets travel in a circular one.
Even stranger is Pluto’s direction of travel which can
be backwards or forwards and will eventually be un-
predictable after ten to twenty million years [6].
It was with concerns pertaining Pluto’s character-
istics that the IAU was obliged to establish stricter
requirements for the classification of a planet. The
IAU is an official organization founded in 1919 and
comprises of professional astronomers worldwide.
The IAU has official jurisdiction over astronomi-
cal issues such as assigning designations to celestial

bodies and setting up international standards to be
referred to [1]. During the General Assembly, mem-
bers of the IAU, guests and the press were present.
Only members of the IAU were allowed to vote so
they were given yellow cards to be raised to ensure
that they would be distinguished from other guests.
Through systematic voting, an official resolution
was created and, according to the new definitions,
for a celestial body to be classified as a planet it must
meet three conditions.
RESOLUTION 5A [10]
A "planet" is a celestial body that:
(a) is in orbit around the Sun.
(b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome
rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equi-
librium (nearly round) shape.
(c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.
Pluto adheres to the first two points of the dec-
laration but not to the third as it does not clear the
neighborhood around its orbit. With a diameter of
merely twenty three thousand kilometers (a thousand
times smaller than our Earth), Pluto is too small to
have enough gravity to deflect objects out of its path.
Despite the official demotion, people who sup-
port Pluto’s status as a planet are not going down
without a fight. More than three hundred planetary
scientists have signed a petition attacking the deci-
sion [11]. One of the arguments is that Pluto exhibits
the basic structural characteristics expected of a
planet, that is, it is round and it orbits the sun [12].
If Pluto was not dismissed there would be argument for changing
another 12 celestial bodies into planets.
This argument is a little bizarre because there are
so many of these objects in space. If we comply with
this simple requirement, there would be too many
celestial objects classified as planets, including some
asteroids [8]. The IAU has stated that “contempo-
rary observations are changing our understanding
of planetary systems, and it is important that our
nomenclature for objects reflect our current under-
standing” [10]. Modern observations show us that
there are many circular objects in orbit around the
sun and, with time, the hundreds of others that will
eventually be discovered will be classified as planets
if we follow this rule. Our definition of ‘planet’ will
no longer be unique. Our understanding is that a
WHY PLUTO SHOULD BE PLUTOED 45
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
planet has special characteristics which make it one
of a kind in our solar system. If we classify an object
as a planet too easily, this category will no longer be
as valued or exclusive.
Others reject the change for sentimental reasons,
saying that they have always been taught that Pluto
is a planet since their primary school days. For those
brought up after 1930, Pluto was always a part of
their celestial neighborhood [13]. However, just be-
cause we have believed something to be true for a
long time, it does not mean we should reject the truth
when we find that it is contradictory. We should be
open to new discoveries in the face of scientific ad-
vancement. For example, people believed for a long
time that the Earth is flat but we know now that this
notion is entirely false. Pluto was mistakenly classi-
fied as a planet in 1930 and this mistake has simply
been corrected after 76 years. With modern knowl-
edge, the characteristics of Pluto have been found to
be inconsistent with the characteristics that other
planets possess.
In order to extend research on this issue, as-
tronomers at NASA have launched a spacecraft
(shown in Figure 3) called New Horizons, funded
by President Bush. Although this project has waited
a long 13 years for funding, it was well worth it,
securing US$110 million (AUS$130 million) for
research. This mission means that for the first time
in history, a spacecraft will visit Pluto. This space-
craft was launched on 19 January 2006 from Cape
Canaveral Air Force Station and will fly closest
to Pluto on 14 July 2015 [16]. This 478 kilogram
spacecraft is the fastest ever launched, speeding
away from Earth at approximately sixty thousand
kilometers per hour on a trajectory that will take
it more than four billion kilometers towards Pluto.
The probe does not have enough fuel to go into or-
bit around Pluto so researchers will only have one
chance at capturing information [11]. Dr. Colleen
Hartman, Deputy Associate Administrator for
NASA's Science Mission Directorate stated, "right
now, what we know about Pluto could be written on
the back of a postage stamp. After this mission, we'll
be able to fill textbooks with new information” [16].
The high-resolution images and other data to be
46 WHY PLUTO SHOULD BE PLUTOED
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
Figure 3: New Horizons (Source: NASA, http://so-
larsystem.nasa.gov/missions)
returned by New Horizons promise to revolution-
ize our understanding of Pluto [15]. This historic
mission of exploration marks yet another amazing
achievement in human history.
Science textbooks, dictionaries and encyclope-
dias will eventually have to be rewritten to imple-
ment the new resolution. The status of a celestial
body may be considered insignificant to some, but
our Earth is a part of this celestial neighborhood and
such classifications help us to understand where we
are, increasing our appreciation of our place in the
vast universe [13]. Pluto is too different to be a plan-
et and this is evident with contemporary scientific
understandings. It should simply be thought of as
the best-known member of the Kuiper Belt instead
[6]. It is important to realize that with progressing
technology, we need to be flexible in allowing change
when new discoveries and revelations are made.
References:
[1] D. A. Weintraub, ‘Pluto, We Hardly Knew Ye
(International Astronomical Union)’, The Chronicle of
Higher Education (2007), 53 31; <http://chronicle.com.
ezproxy.lib.unimelb.edu.au/weekly/v53/i31/31b02001.
htm >. Last accessed 20 May 2007.
[2] L. McDaid, ‘Pluto Downgraded’, Skeptic (2007), 13
1, 9; <http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.unimelb.
edu.au/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents
&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale
%28en%2CUS%2C%29%3AHQE%3D%28__HR__
%2CNone%2C41%29sn+1063-9330+and+iu+1+and
+sp+9+and+vo+13+%24&sgHitCountType=None&
inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=CCLSe
archForm&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&searchId=
R1&currentPosition=1&userGroupName=unimelb&d
ocId=A160712590&docType=IAC>. Last accessed 19
May 2007.
[3] B. Arnett, ‘Pluto’, The Nine Planets (2006); <http://
seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/pluto.
html>. Last accessed 26 June 2007>.
[4] L. Thompson, Pluto, (The Rosen Publishing Group,
Inc, New York, 2001), p. 6.
[5] A. J. Whyte, The Planet Pluto, (Pergamon Press,
Canada, 1980), pp. 39, 44. 125.
[6] R. A. Freedman, W. J. Kaufmann III, Universe, (W.
H. Freeman and Company, New York, ed. 7, 2005), pp.
150, 350, 351.
[7] NASA, ‘Kuiper Belt’, NASA (2006); <http://
solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=KB
Os&Display=OverviewLon>. Last accessed on 25 June
2007.
[8] NASA, ‘Dwarf Planets: What Defines a Planet?’,
NASA (2006); <http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/
profile.cfm?Object=Dwarf&Display=OverviewLong>.
Last accessed 25 June 2007.
[9] R. Cowen, ‘Nine Planets, Or Eight?’, Science News
(2001), 159 23, 360; <http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4581205&site=
ehost-live>. Last accessed 21 May 2007.
[10] IAU, IAU0603: IAU 2006 General Assembly: Result
of the IAU Resolution Votes, IAU (2006); <http://www.
iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html>. Last accessed on 24 May
2007.
[11] R. Monastersky, ‘The 10th Planet – Or Is It?’, The
Chronicle of Higher Education (2005), 52 14, A26;
<http://chronicle.com.ezproxy.lib.unimelb.edu.au/
weekly/v52/i14/14a02601.htm>. Last accessed 20 May
2007.
[12] R. Schibeci, ‘Pluto is a planet: True or False?’, Teaching
Science – The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers
Association (2007), 54 1, 44; <http://proquest.umi.com.
ezproxy.lib.unimelb.edu.au/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=05-
22-2012&FMT=7&DID=1254363431&RQT=309>.
Last accessed 21 May 2007.
[13] S. Bartlett, ‘Pluto Left Out in the Cold’, The Lancet
(2006), 365 9538, 828: <http://web.ebscohost.com.
ezproxy.lib.unimelb.edu.au/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=10
7&sid=ad47bd79-0908-45bb-8a5e-6b3904543ccb%40s
essionmgr104>. Last accessed on 24 May 2007.
[14] R. Graham, ‘Is Pluto A Planet?’, Astronomy (1999),
27 7, 42; <http:search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct
=true&db=aph&AN=2017588&site=ehost-live>. Last
accessed on 21 May 2007
[15] R. A. Freedman, W. J. Kaufmann III, Universe, (W.
H. Freeman and Company, New York, ed. 7, 2005), pp.
150, 350, 351.
[16] D. Brown, G. Diller, M. Buckley, ‘NASA’s Pluto
Mission Launched Toward New Horizons’, NASA
(2006); <http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/
newhorizons/news/release-20060119.html>. Last
accessed on 20 May 2007.
[17] R. R. Britt, Why Planets Will Never Be Defined,
Space.com (2006); <http://www.space.com/
scienceastronomy/061121_exoplanet_definition.html>.
Last accessed on 26 July 2007.
[18] R. Webster, feedback on article, University of
Melbourne (2007).
 Do We Need to
Explore Space?
Kartavya Vyas, UC San Diego
Ever since humans first pondered the mysteries contained in
the blackness of space, they have dreamed of space explo-
ration. Within only a short time, mankind has finally become
able to travel comfortably in earthʼs surrounding space.
Unfortunately, as missions become more numer-
ous and affordable, the limits of what can actually
be accomplished by space exploration have become
clearer. Despite these limitations, funding for explo-
ration has risen exponentially over the past decades.
Given the need to address pressing social, political
and economic problems here on earth, such support
should be reconsidered to evaluate exactly what is
being gained and lost.
Why should the black vacuum of space be ex-
plored? Professor Charles G. Wilber of Kent State
University answers, echoing Sir Edmund Hilary’s
famous comment about why he wanted to climb
Mount Everest, “The only reason for going into space
is because space is there. Man has an infinite curiosity
which must be satisfied.” [1] But what Wilber seems
to be forgetting is that because of this curiosity, a
total of twenty-seven deaths have occurred and an
enormous amount of money has been consumed. [2]
Especially now, with President Bush’s new “vision for
human and robotic” space exploration, “A Renewed
Spirit of Discovery,” the monetary costs will exceed
$271 billion over the next thirteen years. [3] With the
U.S. population already having passed three hundred
million, the average cost for each citizen approaches
a thousand dollars. With the rising threats of HIV/
AIDS, global warming, and cancer on the horizon, is
such a level of funding justifiable? Some of those sci-
entists involved in the activity argue that it is. Thus,
for example, Thornton Page of Wesleyan University
goes so far as to assert that raising American morale
and prestige by space exploration is far more impor-
tant than “accelerating the attempt to save cancer vic-
tims, or diverting scientists to the political-economic
problem of reducing harmful automobile exhaust.”
[4] By analyzing the history of space exploration and
by reassessing the human and economic toll it may
become clearer whether such support is prudent.
“On July 20, 1969, the human race accomplished
its single greatest technological achievement of all
time when a human first set foot on another celestial
body.” [6] Venturing through space on the Apollo 11
spacecraft, Neil A. Armstrong and “Buzz” Aldrin
completed a successful mission to land on one of the
most captivating monuments of the night sky – the
moon. [6] Without a doubt, this single event inspired
men and women all across the globe. Taking advan-
tage of many previous scientific breakthroughs, it
was a leap into the heavens that at long last released
mankind from long bondage to our earthly habitat.
It renewed faith in mankind’s limitless capacity for
what the eighteenth century philosophers called
“indefinite perfectibility.” The mission was also a
triumph in America’s space race with the USSR.
Although the mission was well worth the expense to
most Americans, some thought it extravagant at the
time. Apollo 11 cost nearly $5 million in the sixties,
which is equivalent to over $2 billion today. Factoring
in the cost of other moon-related missions, Marcus
Lindroos of the University of Arizona estimates that
the total cost of American missions to land on the
moon neared $100 billion. [7] When compared to
other missions, the benefits of the Apollo 11 mission
– raising American morale, inspiring new break-
throughs in science and preventing USSR domi-
nance in the Cold War – may well have exceeded its
costs. Like the Apollo 11 mission, there have been
many others that have contributed to the progress of
mankind by expanding man’s horizons and raising
American morale, notably the embarkment of the
Hubble Space Telescope on the Discovery mission
STS-31.
48 DO WE NEED TO EXPLORE SPACE?
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
On April 24, 1990, the spacecraft Discovery was
launched to deploy the Hubble Space Telescope
(HST) in a 380 statute-mile orbit. [8] A milestone
in the effort to gain understanding of deep space,
HST has proven its value through its technologi-
cally advanced lenses and the many discoveries that
it has helped to produce. This revolutionary moment
in history combined advancements in engineering
and astronomy to build and launch this amazing
telescope. Some of the discoveries that have been
made include Orion Nebula images that confirm
the births of planets around newborn stars, Eagle
Nebula images showing where stars are born, and
‘Deep Field’ images in which Hubble peered back
in time more than 10 billion years (revealing at least
1,500 galaxies at various stages of development). [9]
In retrospect, the value of the many advances that
have been made in science through the implementa-
tion of the Hubble Space Telescope can be seen as
worth the expenditures. Nevertheless, in analyzing
the success of NASA’s progress through time, one
must not forget its failures, which have cost not only
large amounts of money but also human lives.
One of the most tragic of all American missions
was the Apollo-Saturn 204 mission, Apollo 1. On
January 27, 1967, while performing routine tests and
preparations in a command module three astronauts
died due to a flash fire. [5] Although it is impos-
sible to assign a monetary value to the lives of three
Americans, their deaths amount to a cost that must
be weighed against the advancement of our knowl-
edge of earth’s surroundings. Because the Apollo
Factoring in the cost of other moon-related missions, Marcus
Lindroos of the University of Arizona estimates that the total cost
of American missions to land on the moon neared $100 billion.
mission cost $23.190 billion and NASA’s scheduling
drawbacks cost an additional $472 million, Apollo
1 struck hard and deep into the hearts and pockets
of American citizens. [5] In spite of the escalating
human death toll due to space missions, especially
those involving the space shuttle, the government
continued to subsidize NASA’s projects. Along with
continued progress over the next few decades, the
costs have mounted both in money and human lives.
The Challenger mission 51-L will always be seen
as a great catastrophe and a dramatic case in point
for critics of space exploration. On January 28, 1986,
all seven members of the Challenger space craft were
killed seventy-five seconds after liftoff, when an O-
ring seal in part of the rocket booster failed [8].
Clearly, the deaths of seven Americans are hard if
not impossible to justify. But the official comment
at the time helps explain why space exploration has
endured for so long despite the criticisms. NASA
Administrator Daniel S. Goldin took the occasion
of the tragedy to reaffirm the commitment to explore
space despite the human cost:
The best way to honor the memories of
the crew of the Challenger, and of all the
men and women who have given their lives
to explore the frontiers of air and space,
is to continue their bold tradition of ex-
ploration and innovation. That’s what the
people of NASA do every day. They push
the boundaries of knowledge and human
endeavor to improve and enrich life on
Earth today and secure a better future for
all of us tomorrow. [9]
Although this statement is inspirational to many,
some may still question: how exactly NASA helps
“improve and enrich” mankind’s life. [9] Without
a doubt, NASA scientists have contributed much
through research in the fields of pharmacy, agri-
culture, medicine, and engineering. And there have
been instances where the knowledge directly gained
from exploring space has been used to improve hu-
man life. Nonetheless, the financial investment in
exploring space could have been used more effective-
ly if it had been devoted to research in curing human
disease or stopping global warming.
Such considerations have not deterred our po-
litical leaders. President George W. Bush appar-
ently feels that it is more essential to inspire the next
generation of innovators and scientists than to help
alleviate human suffering. In early 2004, President
Bush initiated his “Renewed Spirit of Discovery”
program. The fundamental goal of this platform is
to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic
interests through a robust space exploration pro-
gram. [10] It bears repeating that the total cost of
such an endeavor, a cost that President Bush feels
that American taxpayers should bear, nears $271
billion.

Despite what many would consider a fantastic
sum, the American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS) warns that NASA, “like other
agencies, is being asked to do more with less.” [11]
Such comments make one wonder whether this
gigantic subsidy is being used haphazardly, even
though President Bush has specifically earmarked
the funds for missions to the moon, for completing
the international space station, and for preparing
human missions to Mars.
The case for this expenditure is admittedly im-
pressive. It will undoubtedly produce tremendous
advances in knowledge and innovation. And yet,
some will surely argue that with rising international
conflicts, border security issues, human disease,
and questions of global warming, such funding is
misplaced. Of all the human diseases that affect the
American population, cancer has risen to be one of the
most dangerous. “Cancer is the second leading cause
of death in the United States after heart disease,” said
HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. [12] And
while government spending on cancer research has
increased over the years, it is dwarfed by the amount
of funding given to space exploration. Similarly, gov-
ernment spending on researching the international
killers known as Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS) was merely $2.2 billion in 2001. [13] In
addition, some may argue that with so many repu-
table scientists becoming actively concerned about
the environment, global warming demands more
funding for research and preventive regulations.
According to MIT Professor Richard S. Lindzen,
recent estimates put the financial funding from the
government to help alleviate global climate warming
near $2.2 billion. [14] Despite the fact that the gov-
DO WE NEED TO EXPLORE SPACE? 49
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
ernment does support research in almost every field
imaginable, some still argue that the expenditures of
the space administration far exceed the beneficial re-
sults. Those who take this position contend that, the
more immediate problems of the human population
should have higher priority.
What is gained and lost by space missions obvi-
ously varies from one flight to the next. The Apollo
1 and Challenger missions can be viewed as tremen-
dous losses while the Apollo 11 and Discovery mis-
sions created a new perspective of human life on earth
and renewed the human mission to understand the
universe. In the end, each of us must decide how to
arrive at a balanced understanding of what is at stake.
There is no easy answer to the question of whether
space exploration is worth the cost. Nonetheless, the
answer lies in what each individual American citizen
sees as being prudent and essential for not only the
progress of mankind, but also his own sustainability.
References:
[1] C. G. Wilber, BioScience 14 30 (1964).
[2] Foxnews.com Timeline: Deaths in History of Space
Exploration (2003).
[3] D. Arthur, A. Ramsay, and R. Samanta Roy, A
Budgetary Analysis of NASA’s New Vision for Space
Exploration. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5
772&sequence=0&from=0 (September 2004).
[4] T. Page, Science 172 424 (1971).
[5] S. Garber. Apollo 1 (204). http://history.nasa.gov/
Apollo204/
(6] S. Garber Apollo 11: 30th Anniversary. http://
history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/introduction.htm
[7] M. Lindroos. The Cost of the Moon Race: $100
Billion to Land on the Moon. http://seds.lpl.arizona.
edu/spaceviews/9607/articles.html
[8] J. Dumoulin. STS-31 (35). http://science.ksc.nasa.
gov/shuttle/missions/sts-31/mission-sts-31.html
[9] V. Stathopoulos, Hubble Space Telescope History.
http://www.aerospaceguide.net/spacehistory/hubble-
history.html
[10] G. W. Bush, A Renewed Spirit of Discovery. http://
www.whitehouse.gov/space/renewed_spirit.html
[11] The American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS). 2007 Budget Proposes Gains in
Defense, Space and Some Physical Sciences R&D,
Cuts in Other Programs. http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/
prev07p.pdf
[12] National Cancer Institute. Number of Cancer
Survivors Growing According to New Report.
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/
MMWRCancerSurvivorship
[13] U.S. Department of State. U.S. Government Support
for the Fight Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and
Malaria. http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2001/3547.
htm
[14] R. S. Lindzen, Global Warming. http://liberalorder.
typepad.com/the_liberal_order/2007/03/global_
warming.html
The E.O. Wilson Model
for successful engagement between
religious and scientific communities
Richard Milford, Arizona State University
While the culture wars between science and religion continue to play
out in popular books, culture journals and other media [1, 2], rela-
tively little attention is given to leaders of scientific and religious com-
munities who have attempted to reach out to engage the “opposing
camp” in constructive dialogue. Harvard biologist E.O Wilson, with
his latest book The Creation, is one such ground-breaker.
With this publication, which takes the form of the world today require that communities of widely
a letter to a hypothetical Southern Baptist pastor, diverse cultural backgrounds learn ways of working
Wilson successfully begins a conversation with together to tackle them [3]. Whereas Harris and
his audience concerning the enormous value of the Dawkins have avoided any significant attempts to
world’s biodiversity and the dire need to allevi- grapple with the challenges of cross-cultural interac-
ate the current ecological crisis posed by its rapid tion, Wilson has succeeded in encouraging an ami-
decline. In contrast to other well-known “secular” cable response from religious communities at large,
or science-based authors concerned with religion, enabling him to pursue continued engagement with
such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, Wilson’s them. A brief analysis of his methods allows for
methods for engagement are a breath of fresh air in the construction of a framework for dialogue which
a cultural climate typically filled with reactionary, should characterize future engagements between
ideological angst. The numerous challenges facing these communities.

Before discussing the model for dialogue Wilson
provides in The Creation, some of what these other
authors have said deserves brief attention. Richard
Dawkins, famed scientist and aggressive proponent
of atheism [4], addresses the issues of religious life
which trouble him by assessing them in Darwinian
terms. Due to his immersion in scientific culture, he
finds himself able to critique religion as an aspect of
human existence which is “time-consuming, wealth-
consuming, hostility-provoking” and “fecundity
forfeiting” [5]. Sam Harris also criticizes religious
Perhaps through integrating the cultural and biological aspects
of music, one can infer an evolutionary significance to music that
would explain its prevalence in societies around the globe.
communities from the standpoint of secular human-
ism grounded in the scientific tradition.
In his latest book, Letter to a Christian Nation,
Harris makes little attempt to find common ground
with his audience. As a result, Harris’ Letter ends up
being another polemical work rather than an effort to
constructively engage religious communities in order
to address problems within. The essence of Harris’
message is neatly summarized in his statement: “Let
us be honest with ourselves: in the fullness of time
[emphasis my own], one side is really going to win
this argument, and the other side is really going to
lose” [6]. Here, Harris utilizes Christian language
[7] to mock the community he addresses, rather than
using this vocabulary as a tool for finding common
ground or promoting dialogue. In his Letter, Harris
expresses the need for public discourse, but only on
the grounds that nothing “flagrantly irrational” (read:
religious) enter into the conversation. Needless to
say, the millions of Christians and billions of other
religious adherents living in the world today would
not be able to partake in Harris’ ideal conference.
In the midst of such antagonistic writing, Wilson
emerges as a voice of secular humanism, strongly
backed by the authority of the scientific method,
which calmly articulates a way to bridge the wide
chasm between polarized religious and scientific
communities. To the hypothetical pastor he asserts:
“I suggest that we put aside our differences in order
to save the Creation. The defense of living Nature
is a universal value. It doesn’t rise from, nor does it
promote, any religious or ideological dogma; rather,
it serves without discrimination the interests of all
humanity” [8]. Here, Wilson takes his first steps
THE E.O. WILSON MODEL 51
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
in creating a foundation for mutual discourse with a
community very different from his own. This foun-
dation, he argues, can be built around a common
notion of stewardship for “the Creation”.
A key component of Wilson’s method for en-
gagement is his transparent self-reflexivity, indicat-
ing a sincere desire to find common ground with
his Christian audience. Throughout the book, it
seems he is willing to learn from those he addresses.
Towards the end of The Creation, Wilson points
out: “My foundation of reference has been the cul-
ture of science and some of secularism based on sci-
ence, as I understand them.” This relatively humble
acknowledgment of one’s existential background,
especially when compared to Dawkins’ using his
own worldview as a platform for ridicule, is likely to
encourage a similar mindset in those who are being
addressed.
Wilson’s honesty in acknowledging his back-
ground and its potential flaws extends to a similar
transparency in his open expression of criticism for
the Baptist community. Wilson notes,
Our leaders, including those of the great
religions, have done little to protect the liv-
ing world in the midst of its sharp decline.
They have ignored the command of the
Abrahamic God on the fourth day of the
world’s birth to ‘let the waters teem with
countless living creatures, and let birds fly
over the land across the vault of heaven.’
[8]
This passage reveals that Wilson, just as Dawkins
and Harris, is not afraid to criticize the very com-
munity he is reaching out to. It also, however, dem-
onstrates a unique element of his method: he does so
in the language of that community itself rather than
the vocabulary of secular humanism as articulated
by others such as Harris. Clearly, Wilson holds
that scientists and religious communities can work
together without being afraid of offering sincere yet
constructive criticism.
Wilson’s attempt at dialogue with the Baptist
community through The Creation has already
yielded positive results. Dr Albert Mohler, presi-
52 THE E.O. WILSON MODEL
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
dent of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
in Louisville, Kentucky, recently posted a response
to Wilson’s book on his website. He takes note of
Wilson’s self-awareness in proposing an alliance
for ecological conservation, saying: “To his great
credit, Professor Wilson acknowledges the radical
divergence of worldviews that is at stake here” [9].
Surprisingly, Wilson’s honesty about the radical dif-
ferences between his version of secular humanism
and Baptist Christianity elicited a grateful rather
than reactive response. Mohler ends his posting as
follows:
This may shock Dr. Wilson, but I really
think he is on to something here. A bibli-
cal environmentalism begins with the fact
that the world is the arena of God’s glory...
we will answer to the Creator for our use
and enjoyment of the created order, and for
our stewardship of the earth and all that
is within it. This surely includes the glory
of God revealed in what Professor Wilson
calls ‘biodiversity’. [9]
Clearly, Wilson’s effort to establish a conversa-
tion with the Baptist community is a success. One
may even posit that Mohler’s use of the term ‘bio-
diversity’ reflects an attempt from the religious end
of the conversation to affirm the scientist’s efforts.
Such constructive open discourse between religious
and scientific communities is quite provocative and
indicates that Wilson has successfully engaged the
Baptist community by holding them accountable
to their own Biblical values of stewardship. While
Mohler admits that there are significant differences
between his and Wilson’s understanding of the
issues at hand [10], one must acknowledge the sig-
nificance of the fact that this exchange has been able
to take place within a culture so strongly divided by
ideology and worldview. Wilson’s actions have dem-
onstrated that a new kind of interaction between
scientific and religious communities is possible, and
it is important that leaders in both communities
recognize his methods and their ability to facilitate
a potentially fruitful, long-lasting conversation.
The context of a conflict-ridden global situation
presents the challenges of not only environmental
concerns but also the threats of terrorism, war, the
dire poverty of the Third World, and the upcoming
ethical concerns of the nanotech revolution, to name
a few. As concerned human beings, it is simply not ef-
fective to engage in polemics to solve these issues. The
success of Wilson’s example through his initiation of
a conversation which continues today [10] provides
the hope that common groundings can be established
cross-culturally. Ideally, this will better facilitate the
formulation of practical solutions for some of these
concerns in an inclusive, non-alienating manner.
While authors favoring a more polemical style
from the scientific camp have been mentioned here,
there are certainly religiously-inclined authors who
favor similar approaches to the religion-science di-
vide. It is important to note that Wilson’s methods
for engagement can be used both ways. More mod-
erate religious leaders, for example, can use them to
address concerns with scientific practices. As the
World Council of Churches has demonstrated [11],
considerable concerns with issues of science as they
relate to social welfare exist in religious communi-
ties who may lack the proper tools to engage those
responsible for policy decisions. Wilson’s model
could be effective in enabling them to have a voice
in policy arenas normally reserved for the scientific
and political elite. Regardless of who initiates the
conversation between the proponents of religion and
science, this framework is much more effective for
addressing tensions between scientific and religious
communities than the alienating polemics of the
current cultural atmosphere.
References:
[1] Bainbridge, W. in Foresight, Innovation, and Strategy:
Toward a Wiser Future. (World Future Society, 2005).
[2] Neuhaus, R.J. “Science, Religion, and Volleyball.”
First Things Magazine. (1994).
[3] Conroy, D, Peterson, R. (Earth at Risk: an
Environmental Dialogue Between Religion and
Science. (Humanity Books, Amherst, 2000).
[4] Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. (Houghton
Mifflin Company, New York, 2006).
[5] Dawkins, R. “What use is religion?” Free Inquiry
Magazine. 24, 5 (2004).
[6] Harris, S. Letter to a Christian Nation. (Alfred A.
Knopf, New York, 2006).
[7] Ephesians 1:10, KJV.
[8] Wilson, E.O. The Creation. (W.W. Norton and
Company, New York, 2006), pp 3,10,165.
[9] Mohler, A. “Ready for this? Harvard’s E.O. Wilson
Writes to an Imaginary Southern Baptist Pastor.” Posted
August 30th, 2006. http://www.albertmohler.com/
blog_read.php?id=754. Accessed May 27th, 2007.
[10] Mohler, A. “Common ground on Creation? The E.O.
Wilson Interview.” Posted November 29, 2 0 0 6 .
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=826.
Accessed May 27th, 2007.
[11] World Council of Churches and World Association
for Christian Communication. “Science, Faith, and New
Technologies: Transforming Life”. Volume I and II.
Discussion-Document by the Working Group on Genetic
Engineering of the Justice, Peace and Creation Team.
 Chinaʼs economic
and environmental
footprints in Africa
As of 2006, the PRC trails behind only the United
States, Japan, and Germany in total gross domestic
product, according to the World Bank [1]. This el-
evated status has pushed China into the political and
economic limelight, its every move often scrutinized
by the rest of the globe. Thus, it is not surprising that
its increased involvement in Africa has recently raised
warning flags in Western awareness with regards to
the PRC’s non-interference policies, human rights
issues, and the environmental impacts of its actions
in the region. Already reputed as environmentally
careless at home, many fear that China’s escalating
extraction of oil and other resources within Africa
as well as its involvement in various infrastructure
projects leave foreboding consequences in store for
African lands and in turn, the African people.
Although Chinese involvement in Africa has
fluctuated since the 1950s, the PRC has recently re-
focused its attentions towards the developing conti-
nent. In the last ten years, the Asian powerhouse has
strengthened its economic and diplomatic relation-
ships with Africa, mostly under the radar of the rest
of the world. China’s aims in these associations are
straightforward: to help satisfy its immense demand
for natural resources; to expand Chinese manufac-
tured goods into new markets; and to gain strategic
Caroline Lee, University of Georgetown
The advent of the Peopleʼs Republic
of China (PRC) as an economic
juggernaut is no secret in the twenty-
first century. A large land possessing
a massive labor force, China has
maintained rapid economic growth
for over a decade and surpassed the
likes of England, France, and Italy in
that span.
political alliances [2]. A so-called “soft target,” Africa
emerges as a prime candidate in pursuing these goals.
The vast continent remains relatively unexploited in
comparison to other developing regions due to the
political, economic, and social instability that has
reigned there for centuries [3]. Its relative lack of
suitors has provided China the opportunity to pur-
sue African oil, timber, various mineral resources
and other materials as well as its business and politi-
cal good graces. Instability has also perpetuated the
widespread corruption of African governments and
poor management of its development, a flaw which
China has been able to work to its advantage [2, 3]. In
turn, China’s non-interference terms and general dis-
interest in incorporating obligatory political strings
in its dealings are found attractive by its African
partners, especially in comparison to Western pro-
posals which are often coupled with strict demands
that are meant to help combat poverty and promote
development within the region.
Oil Extraction
Due to a combination of skyrocketing demands
for energy, lack of domestic resources, and a move
away from their use of inefficient and polluting coal,
China has turned to petroleum sources abroad. The
nation is now the second largest importer of African
54 CHINAʼS ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINTS IN AFRICA
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008

oil after the US, accounting for about a quarter of
the oil the PRC imports. This amount increased
more than 71% between 2003 and 2005, supplied by
the Sudan, Angola, Nigeria, Chad, Libya, Algeria,
and Gabon [2, 4].
eral human health. Nigeria contributes 16% of the
world’s flared gas, more than any other country
in the world, while Africa as a whole contributes
34%. While Chinese oil production in Nigeria is
still exceeded by Western companies like Shell,

Already reputed as environmentally careless at home, many fear

that Chinaʼs escalating extraction of oil and other resources within
Africa as well as its involvement in various infrastructure projects
leave foreboding consequences in store for African lands and in
turn, the African people.

Africa’s lax governance combined with China’s
lack of pressure on its firms to exercise good cor-
porate policing and social responsibility has led
to various corrupt and environmentally careless
practices in the countries where China obtains
oil. In Gabon, Chinese state-owned oil company
Sinopec was discovered illegally prospecting for
oil in Loango National Park in 2006. The park ac-
counts for 11% of the country’s territory and pro-
tects extensive coastal habitats and wildlife from
all extractive and destructive industrial activities.
The company had begun dynamiting and clearing
forest without performing an official environmen-
tal impact study. It was only after the issue was
brought to media attention by a US conservation
group that the Gabonese government ordered
Sinopec to halt its activities [3, 5].
Corrupt practices aside, further problems arise
in the harvesting of African oil. In Nigeria, Chinese
state-controlled firms have made considerable
investments in recent years to procure petroleum
from the region, spending billions on controlling
stakes in oil fields and refineries [2, 6]. However, oil
ExxonMobil, and ChevronTexaco, its increasing
presence there and throughout Africa has no doubt
exacerbated this problem [7].
Infrastructure Projects
Aid has also been proven to play a significant
role in the agreements between China and Africa. In
2006, China distributed $5.75 billion throughout
the continent in the form of loans, debt forgiveness,
and other forms of financial investment. In addition,
funding and support of infrastructure are other im-
portant offerings in China’s arsenal to foster good
relations and trade with Africa. These projects rang-
ing from railway development to the construction of
thermal power plants, oil facilities, and dams are
meant to benefit the people and countries: however,
they can cause more harm than good [8].
A prime example of a project gone awry is the
Merowe Dam in the Sudan, primarily funded by
the Chinese. When initiated in 2003, surrounding
communities were supportive of the venture because
it would meet the great need for electricity in the re-
gion. However, with poor implementation and failure

In wooing Africa with the promise of economic investment,

China is often accused of practicing a brand of twenty-first
century colonialism to pursue its own interests.
production in Nigeria is generally coupled with the to meet both Chinese and Sudanese environmental
flaring of associated gas found in its oil fields, the standards, which in themselves are considered sub
easiest solution in isolating the lucrative petroleum par, locals were forced to relocate to surrounding
product, which results in a wasted 2.2 billion stan- desert areas [8]. There is a glaring lack of legitimate
dard cubic feet of gas per day. The consequences of environmental assessments released concerning the
flared gas include significant carbon dioxide emis- construction of the dam, and the few that exist fail
sions as well as the release of a harmful mixture of to address many important issues. One such matter
more than 250 toxins into the atmosphere which is the possibility of sediment accumulation and its
impact on downstream farming communities. These
is believed to contribute to acid rain production
farms depend on the mineral nutrients provided by
and the deterioration of crops, livestock, and gen-
 CHINAʼS ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINTS IN AFRICA 55
the river during the country’s annual floods, raising
the question of a potential decline in local agricul-
ture with the dam’s construction. In addition, low-
ered oxygen levels in the water are a similar worry
for their possible effects on aquatic ecosystems [9].
As a result, issues that have arisen from such proj-
ects have made many wary of similar undertakings
in consideration elsewhere within Africa [10].
What Can Be Done
In wooing Africa with the promise of economic
investment, China is often accused of practicing a
brand of twenty-first century colonialism to pursue
its own interests. Some believe this trend mirrors
the West’s own actions within Africa in the past
and even the present. But there are important differ-
ences: the PRC lacks freedom of the press, and non-
governmental watchdogs play an insignificant role in
influencing the decisions and policies of the Chinese
administration [3]. Hence, there is relatively little
that Chinese citizens can do to influence a change in
policy abroad in Africa.
However, China has slowly become more con-
scious of its global prominence and consequently,
more sensitive of foreign criticism. This is evidenced
in its very public campaign to reduce carbon emissions
to an acceptable level prior to the Beijing Olympics in
2008. If pressured economically or politically, crucial
changes in its conduct in Africa may be possible.
A key concern is the need for transparency in the
transactions among the Chinese players and African
governments. Encouragement to sign initiatives and
make policies which mandate and enforce complete
transparency with regards to its environmental
practices would help prevent pollution and the over-
exploitation of the natural resources China seeks as
well as ensure the quality execution of projects that
are supposed to benefit the African peoples [5].
Even with transparency among some parties,
however, the rampant corruption that persists
among African governments combined with the
debilitating lack of money and development may
allow environmental conditions to continue declin-
ing. Furthermore, China’s no-strings-attached poli-
cies in dealing with African nations will continue
to entice, especially when considered against the
onerous social obligations that are often included
in Western-African agreements. Counter measures
such as offers of heightened economic aid and in-
vestment by the US and other nations and increased
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
global awareness of the African environmental situ-
ation may be the only other options to help quell an
intensifying environmental problem. Thus, unless a
fundamental change is made in the PRC’s policies,
the African people could eventually be stranded
with destroyed lands and a continued stagnancy in
their poor quality of life.
References:
{1} “GDP 2006,” World Bank World Development
Indicators database (2007; http://siteresources.worldbank.
org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf).
[2] J. Eisenman, in China and the Developing World, J.
Eisenman, E. Heginbotham, D. Mitchell, Eds. (M.E.
Sharpe, Armonk, New York, 2007), pp. 29-59.
[3] H. French, African Affairs, 106, 422, 127-132 (2006).
[4] M. Chan-Fishel, in African Perspectives on China in
Africa, F. Manji, S. Marks, Eds. (Fahamu, Cape Town,
2007, pp. 139-152.)
[5] E. Economy, K. Monaghan, International Herald
Tribune, 1 November 2006.
[6] C. Timberg, Washington Post, 1 May 2006.
[7] Environmental Rights Action, Climate Justice
Programme, Gas Flaring In Nigeria: A Human Rights,
Environmental and Economic Monstrosity (2005; http://
www.climatelaw.org/cases/country/nigeria/cases/case-
documents/nigeria/report/gas.flaring.in.nigeria.html).
[8] L. Ellis, China Exim Bank in Africa (China
Environment Forum, Woodrow Wilson Int. Cent.
for Scholars, 2007, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/
index.cfm?topic_id=1421&fuseaction=topics.event_
summary&event_id=224956)
[9] J. Giles, Nature 440, 393-394 (2006).
[10] “Environmental groups warn of dangers posed by
Chinese-funded projects in Africa,” Associated Press, 14
May 2007.
 How much sleep did you get last night?

Perhaps you had an essay you had to finish, or a

book you just couldnʼt put down. Or there was a
party you couldnʼt miss. Or maybe you were travel-
ling through the night in our 24-hour society, catch-
ing a plane, driving from city to city, waiting for a
connection, a taxi, a train. Chances are you didnʼt
get enough. And you probably donʼt care.

The stuff of nightmares

The Institute of Medicine in America has recently
published ‘Sleep Disorders and Sleep Deprivation:
An Unmet Public Health Problem’ which estimates
that 50-70 million Americans do not get enough
sleep. The report remarks that our generation has
become increasingly health-savvy. We know about
cardiovascular disease, cancer, cholesterol levels,
sun exposure, oily fish, vitamin E, free radicals and
antioxidants, all the latest buzzwords of health. We
know about eating the right foods, breathing clean
air, doing enough exercise, keeping our brains ac-
tive into old age, boosting our immune system and
getting our vitamins. But not getting enough sleep
doesn’t seem like a big deal. When there are 101
things to do, sleep is the last thing on the list. But
what is it doing to your health?
A brief history of sleep
At least 30% of each of our lives is spent sleeping:
an average Westerner slumbers 20 years of their life
away. Sleep, in some form, is common to all animals.
Even flies feel the lack of sleep, with levels of rest ris-
ing significantly on a night following disruptions [1].
Yet sleep has long remained mysterious, a strange
paradox: alternately marvelled at as the conduit of
gods (who obviously send divine messages through
the medium of dreams), or denigrated as ‘mere oafish
sleep’, ‘insensible sleep’ - necessary but undignified.
Throughout history, sleep has been widely per-
ceived as purely for rest: to rest the muscles and the
mind after a hard day’s work; to keep us safely idle
in the dark and away from predators. This simplistic
view of sleep went largely unchallenged up to the
19th century. Though it was understood even by
Hippocrates that sleep could be used as a diagnostic
measure, links made with specific maladies were
tenuous and remedies ranged from the ineffective
to the truly bizarre [2]. Quality of sleep was simply
connected to physical activity, good morals and a
good life, and vice versa: “Early to bed, early to rise,
makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.”
Electrophysiology, histology and improvements
in dissection techniques in the late 19th and 20th
century improved our understanding of the mecha-
nisms of sleep but only increased the controversy
over its purpose [3]. Pioneering work by Moruzzi
and Magoun who performed pontine transections
in cats discovered the existence of endogenous ‘os-
cillators’ in the brainstem promoting sleep/wake
cycling [4]. Work on circadian zeitgebers (literally
‘time-givers’ – signals which regulate our internal
clock) has established the importance of exog-
enous signals, in particular light, in entraining our
sleep/wake cycle, our hormonal secretions, our
daily physiological variations to a 24-hour day, and

how influential these cycles are on our health [5].
Electroencephalography (EEG), which measures
electrical activity in the brain, has allowed scientists
to look inside our minds during sleep, dividing sleep
into distinct phases distinguished by wave patterns.
We have even dissected the stuff of dreams, finding
beta waves (also seen in the waking brain) during
REM sleep, a stage of sleep characterised by rapid
eye movements and associated with dream reports
Now, more than ever, we live according to the dictates of an
artificial time-frame and a constantly waking society
upon sudden waking. There is also stronger activity
in the pons (in the brainstem), the lateral geniculate
nucleus of the thalamus (LGN) and occipital cortex,
a part of the brain associated with vision, and an in-
crease in brain temperature and metabolism [4].
We understand more about the mechanisms of
sleep than ever, but not its ultimate purpose. It is
true that sleep improves concentration, memory and
creativity: ‘flashes of insight’ [6] into patterns, rules
and hidden causes are more frequent and profound
after sleep. However, general performance, in terms
of memory, cognition, motor skills and so on are in-
creased overall by only 15% [6]. Not great enough,
some scientists claim, to outweigh the costs of sleep
– 8 hours of paralysis, bereft of socialising, interact-
ing, exploring, or learning. Add to the fact that cats
deprived of REM sleep display signs of psychosis [4]
and eventually die and one suspects there is more
going on than simply optimising performance.
We understand more about the mechanisms of sleep than ever,
but not its ultimate purpose
A sleepless society
So what is your lifestyle doing to you? Our
knowledge is incomplete, but we do know that lack
of sleep contributes to a variety of health prob-
lems. In addition to the obvious dangers of falling
asleep on the road or whilst operating machinery,
insufficient sleep causes weight gain, mood shifts,
irritability, decreased motor, cognitive and visual
performance, poor concentration, poor memory
and reduced immunity [7]. Changes in sleep pat-
tern are strongly correlated with neurological dis-
orders. Indeed, sleep deprivation is used to simulate
depression in rodents. Parkinson’s patients often
have disturbed sleep, as do schizophrenics. Bipolar
THE STUFF OF NIGHTMARES 57
MARCH 2008 THE TRIPLE HELIX
patients experience shifts in sleeping pattern with
their mood swings. Lack of sleep decreases our
ability to cope, leading to emotional outbursts and
breakdowns [8].
Disruptions to the circadian cycle are equally
influential. Now, more than ever, we live according
to the dictates of an artificial time-frame and a con-
stantly waking society. Studies in night-shift workers
have shown that lack of a strong zeitgeber (such as
natural light) are linked to poor performance, mood
and metabolic disorders, and of course, sleep disrup-
tions. A lack of understanding about the matura-
tion of our personal cycles during puberty means
adolescents are forced to get out of bed early to go to
school in poorly-lit classrooms (particularly true in
winter) while their cycles may be advocating exactly
the opposite behaviour. Would moving school times
later in the day improve concentration, education and
subsequent results? Perhaps. Society, however, de-
mands ruthless efficiency. Research has shown that
regulating our sleep/wake cycles to match social time
with alarms, caffeine, nightcaps and sleeping pills is
linked (predictably) to metabolic disorders, mood
disorders, poorer performance and poor concentra-
tion [5]. Our general lifestyle too, fosters problems:
television exposure, for example, has been tentatively
linked to sleep disruptions in children (though the
effect does not seem to be a strong one) [9,10].
Drugs and sleep
According to the National Institute of Health:
‘At least 40 million Americans each year suffer from
chronic, long-term sleep disorders each year, and an
additional 20 million experience occasional sleeping
problems’, costing $16 billion each year [11]. Yet
instead of encouraging us to adopt more natural
behaviours, science offers us new wonder drugs to
reduce our need for sleep. To modern society, sleep
has become an unfortunate need, to be eliminated as
soon as possible.
Modafinil, developed to fight narcolepsy, was
originally used by soldiers to stay awake during long
missions, and now been marketed for use against
58 THE STUFF OF NIGHTMARES
THE TRIPLE HELIX MARCH 2008
narcolepsy and sleep-shift disorders. It is thought
to inhibit the reuptake of noradrenaline and reduce
GABAergic (inhibitory) transmission. In the same
family, Nuvigil is being tested to combat sleep dis-
ruptions engendered by bipolar disorder, schizo-
phrenia, Parkinson’s and cancer. CX717 is an ampa-
kine (a member of a group of drugs thought to work
by facilitating glutamate transmission). Developed
by Cortex Pharmaceuticals, CX717 been shown to
counteract the effects of sleep deprivation in mon-
keys (though recent studies show it lacks effect in
night-shift workers). On the other hand, Z-drugs
such as Ambien have been promoted as excellent,
non-narcotic, hypnotic sleep-inducing drugs, with-
out the side effects of benzodiazepines and with
maximal efficacy. Since 2001, Ambien has been the
most prescribed sleep agent for insomnia [12], and
there are clamours for these drugs to be made avail-
able over the counter, despite some disturbing side-
effects. Reported side-effects of Ambien include: vi-
sual and auditory hallucinations, bizarre changes in
personality or behaviour, disinhibition and aggres-
sion, and complex behaviours such as ‘sleep-driving’
with amnesia after the event [13].
We are rapidly moving into an era where sleep may
be controlled at whim, regardless of natural cues; our
cycles moulded to fit the most convenient working
day. What will the consequences be for our society
– and our bodies? No one really knows, yet the never-
sleeping machine rolls on, and we roll with it.
References:
[1] R Huger, SL Hill et al Sleep 15, 628 (2004)
[2] Hippocrates (attrib.) Hippocratic Writings (Penguin
Books Ltd, UK 1983)
[3] M. M. Steriade, R. W. McCarley, Brain Control of
Wakefulness and Sleep (Springer, 2nd ed. 2005)
[4] E.R. Kandel, J.H. Schwatz, T.M. Jessell, Principles of
Neuroscience (McGraw-Hill Medical, 4 ed, 2000)
[5] R. Foster, L. Kreitzman, Rhythms of Life (Profile
Books Ltd, 2004)
[6] G. Miller, Science 315, 1360 (2007)
[7] S.M.W. Rajaratnam, J. Arendt The Lancet
357(9286),p999 (September 2001),
[8] BA Schindler Academic Medicine. 81(1)p27 (January
2006)
[9] J Owens, R Maxim et al Paediatrics 104(3)p27 (Sep
1999)
[10] E J Paavonen, M Pennonen et al Journal of Sleep
Research 15 p154 (June 2006)
[11] ‘Understanding Sleep’, NIH http://www.ninds.nih.
gov/disorders/brain_basics/understanding_sleep.htm
[12] Press release, Verispan (May 22, 2007 Yardley, Pa.)
[13] Sanofi-Aventis product information, Warnings/
Precautions http://products.sanofi-aventis.us/ambien/
ambien.pdf
The Triple Helix of the University of Melbourne would
like to sincerely thank the following sponsors their
their generous and continued support:

MIT Chartering and Agency

National University of Singapore

The Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne

and

The University of Melbourne