Schaub 4:00
R12
REVERSE ENGINEERING THE BRAIN: AN ETHICAL ISSUE
Emily Trea (emt58@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION: THE USE OF STEM
CELL RESEACH
The human brain could be considered one of the
many great wonders of the world. This organ is what allows
humans to interpret the unpredictable world around us, make
decisions based on these interpretations and act accordingly.
This astounding ability to turn chemical reactions into
thoughts and these thoughts into actions have amazed and
stumped scientists to this day. Many of the chemical reactions
are known but how thoughts and actions result from them are
what mystify neurologists. The pursuit to fully understand
how the brain works is known as reverse engineering [1]. The
knowledge that could result from reverse engineering the
human brain is extremely valuable and could help unlock
numerous paths; one of these paths being advanced artificial
intelligence.
Engineers have been trying for years to create
artificial intelligence that will allow technology to perform an
operation based on its environment. Unfortunately, little
success has been made in this field; current technological
devices can only perform relatively simple tasks in controlled
environments [2]. Experts who are trying to develop artificial
intelligence are now looking to the brain for clues. The human
brain has been performing homogeneous tasks in the real
world for thousands of years so it only makes sense to take
inspiration from it. Artificial intelligence that is modeled after
the brain could result in an unlimited amount of benefits. The
most obvious is luxury; advanced computers could be
developed to cook or clean. Additionally, machines with
artificial intelligence could take on the responsibility of
dangerous jobs, such as mining or the disposal of toxic waste.
More importantly, devices could be created that simulate parts
of the brain; these simulators could give those who are
missing certain traits, such as memory or mobility, the tools
to reestablish these qualities [1]. This technology could help
those who suffer from currently untreatable neurological
disorders.
In order to reach these goals, further achievements
must be made in reverse engineering the brain. While there is
research that looks at the brain and how it interacts as a whole,
some researchers are investigating specific elements. There
are a few institutions that are exploring the development of
brain cells in a lab dish, known as in vitro, with the use of
stem cells; recent publications have shown success in this
field of research with the discovery of various neuronal traits
that are associated with schizophrenia [3]. Stem cells allow
scientists to recreate and study any part of the body because
they have the ability to differentiate into any specialized cell
[4]. There are currently two main techniques in stem cell
research: embryonic or induced pluripotent stems cells
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2014-09-30
(iPSC). iPSC differ from embryotic in that these cells are
derived from adult somatic cells [4]. They are better than
embryonic stem cells when it comes to ethical dilemmas
because it does not require the destruction of embryos.
Whichever technique is used, stem cell research can give
experts intuition on how the brain comes to be and allow them
to gain insight on how the brain organizes itself and neural
connections form. However, this type of research is extremely
controversial and can bring up many ethical issues, such as in
the scenario that follows.
THE SCENARIO
The Institute for Neurological Discoveries is a
research facility located in Pittsburgh that is focused on
understanding the human brain. It has been around for years
and is known globally for several breakthroughs in
neuroscience. Their head researcher, Dr. Avery Brown has
done amazing work; he has won countless awards and several
Nobel Prizes. He is currently investigating the development
of brain cells in vitro with the use of stem cells.
I am currently a graduate student at The University
of Pittsburgh studying Neuroscience and graduated last year
from The University of Pittsburgh with a bachelor degree in
Bioengineering and Neuroscience. Being my first year as a
graduate student, you can image my surprise when I received
an invitation from the Institute for Neurological Discoveries
to work with Dr. Brown on his stem cell research. I was
ecstatic and immediately accepted their innovation.
The particular experiment that Dr. Brown asked me
to work on involved the neurological disorder known as
bipolar. Dr. Brown explained that by analyzing the
development of a brain inflicted with bipolar disorder, we
would be able to not only understand characteristics of such a
brain, but we would better understand the regions of the brain
that deal with emotions. He also informed me that we would
be using iPS cells because the federal government was
funding his research and the contract specified that he only
use iPS cells to avoid the controversy that could result by
using embryonic cells.
Before we could begin, a donor with dipolar disorder
needed to volunteer a cell sample, such as skin cells. After
months and months of searching, however, hope of finding a
donor with a severe enough case of bipolar began to dwindle.
After ten months with still no luck, the government sent us
notice stating that they would pull our funding if Dr. Brown
and I did not find a donor by the end of the year.
Surprisingly, Dr. Brown informed me a few days
after receiving the notice that he had personally found a
donor. This was great news; we could now begin the project
and are able to keep the federal funding. Dr. Brown then told
Emily Trea
me I did not need to come to the lab for the next two weeks,
because he was going to reprogram the adult cells and did not
require my assistants. I was a little disappointed because I
wanted to see the procedure, but I did not want to be a burden.
On the last day of the two weeks in which Dr. Brown
was supposed to be reprogramming the cells, I made a visit to
the facility to see what progress he made. When I arrived, Dr.
Brown was not in the lab. I found this a little odd, but I figured
he may have finished early.
As I was leaving the institute, I noticed a delivery
truck with the logo of a well-known embryotic stem cell
distributor. I went over to the men hauling a container out of
the back of the truck and asked them to whom the delivery
was addressed. They told me Dr. Avery Brown put in the
order two weeks ago for the embryonic stem cells of a patient
that had severe bipolar disorder.
I was shocked. Not only was Dr. Brown planning to
use ethically questionable stem cells, but he was breaking the
contract with the federal government and several ethical
codes. I was unsure how to react to this so I consulted ethical
codes and other related articles.
When I first discovered that Dr. Brown decided to
use embryonic stem cells in replacement of iPSC, I knew I
had only two options: to confront him directly or ignore the
issue. I decided immediately that I could not just report him
without talking to him first because if I reported him, his
reputation would be ruined and this research opportunity
would slip out of my hands. So, with the two options I had
narrowed down for myself, I researched the ethical codes and
other related articles.
In addition, NSPE code also sets forth that
“engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest
standards of honesty and integrity” and “shall advise their
clients or employers when they believe a project will not be
successful” [5]. Mr. Brown and I realize that the research may
go fruitless due to our inability to find donors; according to
this code, we should inform the federal government, who was
supplying us with funds, that the success of the project was
questionable. Dr. Brown deceitfully fixed the issue by
obtaining unapproved embryotic stem cells because he knew
we could possibly lose the funding for the project. I know this
would be a great lose to both of us but we cannot go against
ethical codes.
Finally, the main ethical code that Dr. Brown
violates has to do with the report of our findings. All of the
codes I discovered that related to our research, which included
NSPE, BMES and SfN, have canons against fabrication in
published articles [5,6,7]. If someone were to discover that
embryonic stem cells were used in place of iPSC then Dr.
Brown would come under the fire of all three of these
establishments for publishing false experimental data. I also
discovered that, according to SfN, I would also be responsible
for the falsification of the report because “all authors share
responsibility for the scientific accuracy” [7]. Therefore, not
only would Dr. Brown’s reputation be destroyed, but mine as
well before I even become a professional. This would affect
further research opportunities or even future career positions
for both of us.
These ethical guidelines helped me to lean toward
confronting Dr. Brown because I did not want either of our
reputations to be affected due to ethical code violations. The
other articles I found on stem cell research also helped me to
lean in this direction.
VIOLATION IN ETHICS
FACTS AND OPINIONS
The three major relevant ethical codes I found
belong to the National Society of Professional Engineers
(NSPE), the Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES) and the
Society for Neuroscience (SfN). The guidelines set forth by
NSPE applies in this case because Dr. Brown and I are
engineering stem cells. Being a cell and part of biology, the
codes of ethics for BMES also apply. Lastly, the stem cells
are being engineered to develop into brain cells and the goal
of the research is to further understand the brain therefore
proper conduct put forth by SfN also comes into play.
First of all, Dr. Brown was violating codes that
involved my training. According to BMES, bioengineers must
“honor the responsibility not only to train biomedical
engineering students in proper professional conduct in
performing research and publishing results, but also to model
such conduct before them” [6]. Mr. Brown unknowingly
violates this statement when I discover the delivery of
embryonic stem cells. He showed me improper professional
conduct by being dishonest with not only his assistant, myself,
but his employer, the federal government.
Before this research opportunity, I was not familiar
with the controversy and ethical issues surrounding stem cell
research. I discovered through an article I found titled “How
Can Ethics Relate to Science? The Case of Stem Cell
Research” by Ana Sofia Carvalho and João Ramalho-Santos
that the issues mainly stem from the technique used. The use
of embryonic stem cells are ethically questionable because
this research requires the destruction of embryos [4]. Even he
creator of the first human embryonic stem cell lines, Jamie
Thomson, stated in a New York Times interview that “if
human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at
least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it
enough” [4]. This fact made me uncomfortable using
embryonic stem cells in our research because it possibility
means the loss of an unborn child.
The next article I found, which was titled “Stem-Cell
Doubletalk” by Wesley J. Smith, a Senior Fellow in Human
Rights and Bioethics at the Discovery Institute, explained that
iPSC was discovered in an effort to find a technique that did
not restrict scientists due to ethical issues [8]. The
THE SOLUTION
2
Emily Trea
achievement was seen as a major breakthrough in not only
stem cell research but in the field of science as a whole. The
new technique was so important that the journal Science
named iPSC the scientific “breakthrough of the year for 2008”
[8]. This made me realize that the federal government would
only fund our research if we used iPSC because they wanted
to avoid upsetting the public or causing a disputation. I agree
with this decision because iPSC allows us to continue our
project without destroying an embryo.
The last thing I found, however, was an article that
described the drawbacks of iPSC. In an article on the website
of Scientific American by Charles Q. Choi, it turns out
embryonic stem cells are still considered the golden standard
due to issues found with iPSC. According to some studies, the
cells that are derived from iPSC have a “significantly higher
rates of cell death” than those of cells derived from embryonic
stem cells [9]. This means that using iPS cells may hinder
some of our more extensive experiments due to premature
aging; the cells may not divide into enough cells to do
adequate research or the cells may die before the experiment
is complete. Even if this is the case, I feel that the ethical
issues that involve embryonic stem cells are more pressing
than some of our experiments. A human life is more valuable
than the information we may discover. If the results are
extremely important, than a new method or improved iPSC
should be designed.
Finally, with the findings of my research, I decided I
needed to confront Dr. Brown. I was going to speak to him in
a nice, respectful manner and present to him my findings. I
will simply explain that we can work harder at finding a donor
and, as long as he returns the embryonic stem cells, I will not
report this incident.
could result from this type of research could be great; in
addition to advances in reserve engineering the brain,
neurologists and other specialists could gain insight on how
to better treat certain neurological disorders. However, the
controversy surrounding stem cell research can make it
difficult to work with such technology.
One of the leading scientists working in the program,
Sherman Ku, states that embryonic stem cells are rare and
nearly unobtainable due to the ethical debate that surrounds
them. After reviewing the publications of the results found
using iPSC, they decided to use this methodology instead
because it will still allow for access to unique and relevant
genetic backgrounds needed to do the study [13]. Therefore,
the team can bypass road block associated with embryonic
stem cells by using iPSC. Ku goes on to explain that by using
the cells from patients of various diseases, iPSC can be
generated that can provide a new technique in studying
disease in vitro [13]. Issues with the research could come up,
like in the scenario above, if the scientists are unable to find
iPS cells that contain the correct genetic background.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE
ENGINEERS
Ethically questionable situations are difficult. When
one does arise, however, I think it must always be addressed;
especially in the field of engineering where outcomes can be
drastic. For example, if a civil engineer cuts corners, and a
eeeeetgtefbridge is not properly built as a result, lives could
be at stake. In the scenario above, the outcome doesn’t
directly affect the lives of others, therefore, it is less dramatic,
but it is still crucial. Regardless of the degree of severity,
ethical issues should never be ignored. If you find yourself in
a similar circumstance, consult codes of ethics that relate to
your profession and articles that contain facts and opinions of
experts in the field. Most importantly, consider all possible
consequences and choose wisely.
INSPIRATION: BASIS FOR THE SCENARIO
The inspiration for the scenario above came from the
Allen Institute for Brain Science. According to Matthew
Herper, a journalist for Forbes, the organization is a “medical
Manhattan Project” [10]. The Allen Institute for Brain
Science is a research facility mainly focused on developing
technology that will allow scientists to understand how the
human brain works [10]. In other words, researchers here are
working to reverse-engineer the brain. Some of the most
current projects being worked on are cell typing neural coding
and in vitro human cell types, the last of which caught my eye
[11].
The team of researchers working with in vitro cell
typing are looking to discover “how and when” brain cells
become different types of cells by investing their
development in a dish [11]. Carol L. Thompson, the Scientific
Program Manager for the in vitro Human Cell Types
Program, explains that the purpose of the project is to
understand the “molecular and genetic networks that govern
brain development and neuropsychiatric disease” through the
use of human stem cell technology [12]. The knowledge that
REFERENCES
[1] (2012). “Reverse-engineering the Brain.” National
Academy of Engineering. (website).
[2] R. Sanz, C. Hernández, J.Gómez-Ramirez. (2011).
“Intro.” From Brains to the Machines of the Future. (print
article). DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-0164-3_1 p. 1-2
[3] Y. Wang. (2014). “Yanling Wang, M.D., Ph.D.:
Manager, In Vitro Human Cell Types.” Allen Institute for
Brain Science. (website) https://www.alleninstitute.org/ourinstitute/our-team/profiles/yanling-wang/
[4] A.S. Carvalho, J. Ramalho-Santos. (2012) “How Can
Ethics Relate to Science? The Case of Stem Cell Research.”
European Journal of Human Genetics. (online article).
DOI:10.1038/ejhg.2012.232 p. 2-4
3
Emily Trea
[5] (2007). “Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National Society
of Professional Engineers. (online article).
[6] (2004). “Biomedical Engineering Society Code of Ethics.”
Biomedical Engineering Society. (online article)
[7] (2010). “SfN Ethis Policy.” Society for Neuroscience.
(website). http://www.sfn.org/Member-Center/ProfessionalConduct/SfN-Ethics-Policy
[8] W.J. Smith. (2009). “Stem-Cell Doubletalk.” The Weekly
Standard. (online blog)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/00
0/000/016/263fnapt.asp
[9] C.Q. Choi. (2010). “Cell-Off: Induced Pluripotent Stem
Cell Fall Short Of Potential Found in Embryonic Version.”
Scientific American. (online article).
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cell-inducedpluripotent/
[10] M. Herper. (2012). “Inside Paul Allen’s Quest to
Reverse Engineer the Brain.” Forbes. (online article).
[11] (2014). “Research Science” Allen Institute for Brain
Science (website). https://www.alleninstitute.org/ourresearch/research-science/
[12] C. L. Thomson. (2014). “Carol L. Thompson, Ph.D.:
Scientific Program Manager.” Allen Institute for Brain
Science. (website). https://www.alleninstitute.org/ourinstitute/our-team/profiles/carol-l-thompson/
[13] S. Ku. (2014). “Sherman Ku, Ph.D.: Scientist 1.” Allen
Institute for Brain Science. (website).
https://www.alleninstitute.org/our-institute/ourteam/profiles/sherman-ku/
you to my roommate, Emily Zapinski and my good friend,
Faith Thaler for helping me discover resources and staying
focused.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
“Ethical and Policy Problems in Synthetic Biology: EBISC.”
Online Ethics Center. (website).
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/27581.aspx
“Ethics Case Studies in Biodesign.” Stanford Biodesign.
(website).
http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/13patientrecrui
tment.jsp
“I’d Rather Be Fishing.” National Institute for Engineering
Ethics. (print article).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would first like to thank my tenth grade psychology
teacher, Ms. Hamiltion, for introducing me to the wonders of
the brain. Without her interesting teaching techniques and
general positive demeanor, I may have never developed an
interest in the human brain. Additionally, I must thank the
Allen Institute for Brain Science for inspiring me to write
about in vitro research. I would also like to thank the director
of the Freshman Engineering Writing Program, Beth
Newborg and my writing instructor, Bill Kirchner for helping
me develop a writing technique for this paper. Lastly, thank
4