Search

Bone conduction implant systems utilize osseointegrated fixtures to transmit sound through the bones of the skull. They allow patients with hearing loss to receive acoustic signals directly to the inner ear, bypassing the outer and middle ear. The new Cochlear™ Baha® Attract System (Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB, Mölnlycke, Sweden) has been designed as a non-skin penetration hearing implant. The system uses magnetic coupling to hold the external sound processor in place and transmit acoustic energy. An implantable magnet is anchored to the skull via a single osseointegrated fixture, maximizing the efficiency of energy sound transfer. The interposed soft tissue is protected by a SoftWear pad that evenly distributes pressure in order to minimize the risk of pressure necrosis. This article summarizes the design features and early clinical results of the Baha 4 Attract System and provides context as to its place in the broader hearing aid market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many research ethics guidelines now oblige researchers to offer research participants the results of research in which they participated. This practice is intended to uphold respect for persons and ensure that participants are not treated as mere means to an end. Yet some scholars have begun to question a generalised duty to disclose research results, highlighting the potential harms arising from disclosure and questioning the ethical justification for a duty to disclose, especially with respect to individual results. In support of this view, we argue that current rationales for a duty of disclosure do not form an adequate basis for an ethical imperative. We review policy guidance and scholarly commentary regarding the duty to communicate the results of biomedical, epidemiological and genetic research to research participants and show that there is wide variation in opinion regarding what should be disclosed and under what circumstance. Moreover, we argue that there is fundamental confusion about the notion of 'research results,' specifically regarding three core concepts: the distinction between aggregate and individual results, amongst different types of research, and across different degrees of result veracity. Even where policy guidance and scholarly commentary have been most forceful in support of an ethical imperative to disclose research results, ambiguity regarding what is to be disclosed confounds ethical action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The complexities of modern science are not adequately reflected in many bioethical discussions. This is especially problematic in highly contested cases where there is significant pressure to generate clinical applications fast, as in stem cell research. In those cases a more integrated approach to bioethics, which we call systems bioethics, can provide a useful framework to address ethical and policy issues. Much as systems biology brings together different experimental and methodological approaches in an integrative way, systems bioethics integrates aspects of the history and philosophy of science, social and political theory, and normative analysis with the science in question. In this paper we outline how a careful analysis of the science of stem cell research can help to refocus the discussions related to the clinical applications of stem cells. We show how inaccurate or inadequate scientific assumptions help to create a set of unrealistic expectations and badly inform ethical deliberations and policy development. Systems bioethics offers resources for moving beyond the current impasse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically examines the biology of species identity and the morality of crossing species boundaries in the context of emerging research that involves combining human and nonhuman animals at the genetic or cellular level. We begin with the notion of species identity, particularly focusing on the ostensible fixity of species boundaries, and we explore the general biological and philosophical problem of defining species. Against this backdrop, we survey and criticize earlier attempts to forbid crossing species boundaries in the creation of novel beings. We do not attempt to establish the immorality of crossing species boundaries, but we conclude with some thoughts about such crossings, alluding to the notion of moral confusion regarding social and ethical obligations to novel interspecies beings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research ethicists have recently declared a new ethical imperative: that researchers should communicate the results of research to participants. For some analysts, the obligation is restricted to the communication of the general findings or conclusions of the study. However, other analysts extend the obligation to the disclosure of individual research results, especially where these results are perceived to have clinical relevance. Several scholars have advanced cogent critiques of the putative obligation to disclose individual research results. They question whether ethical goals are served by disclosure or violated by non-disclosure, and whether the communication of research results respects ethically salient differences between research practices and clinical care. Empirical data on these questions are limited. Available evidence suggests, on the one hand, growing support for disclosure, and on the other, the potential for significant harm.Methods: This paper explores the implications of the disclosure of individual research results for the relationship between research and clinical care through analysis of research-based cancer genetic testing in Ontario, Canada in the late 1990s. We analyze a set of 30 interviews with key informants involved with research-based cancer genetic testing before the publicly funded clinical service became available in 2000.Results: We advance three insights: First, the communication of individual research results makes research practices seem like clinical services for our respondents. Second, while valuing the way in which research enables a form of clinical access, our respondents experience these quasi-clinical services as inadequate. Finally, our respondents recognize the ways in which their experience with these quasi-clinical services is influenced by research imperatives, but understand and interpret the significance and appropriateness of these influences in different ways.Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the hybrid state created through the disclosure of research results about individuals that are perceived to be clinically relevant may produce neither sufficiently adequate clinical care nor sufficiently ethical research practices. These findings raise questions about the extent to which research can, and should, be made to serve clinical purposes, and suggest the need for further deliberation regarding any ethical obligation to communicate individual research results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay assesses the rationale for regulating research administrators as carefully as they regulate researchers. The reasons for such regulation are identical: protecting scientific integrity, ensuring responsible use of public funds, addressing the lack of effective recourse for victims, creating negative consequences for misbehaving actors, and addressing high incentives for misconduct. Whereas the reasons compelling us to regulate research administrators are obvious, counterarguments to administrative oversight are based on suggestions that the incidence and prevalence of cases of administrative misconduct are too low to warrant formal regulation. I briefly describe examples of the phenomenon drawn from publicly available records. My analysis suggests that the misconduct of research administrators is both serious and worthy of better oversight. Improved oversight of research administration will help steward tax dollars appropriately and enhance the overall integrity of the scientific record and of the free pursuit of knowledge more generally., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

A cell's ability to secrete extracellular vesicles (EVs) for communication is present in all three domains of life. Notably, Gram-negative bacteria produce a specific type of EVs called outer membrane vesicles (OMVs). We previously observed the presence of OMVs in human blood, which could represent a means of communication from the microbiota to the host. Here, in order to investigate the possible translocation of OMVs from the intestine to other organs, the mouse was used as an animal model after OMVs administration. To achieve this, we first optimized the signal of OMVs containing the fluorescent protein miRFP713 associated with the outer membrane anchoring peptide OmpA by adding biliverdin, a fluorescence cofactor, to the cultures. The miRFP713-expressing OMVs produced in E. coli REL606 strain were then characterized according to their diameter and protein composition. Native- and miRFP713-expressing OMVs were found to produce homogenous populations of vesicles. Finally, in vivo and ex vivo fluorescence imaging was used to monitor the distribution of miRFP713-OMVs in mice in various organs whether by intravenous injection or oral gavage. The relative stability of the fluorescence signals up to 3 days post-injection/gavage paves the way to future studies investigating the OMV-based communication established between the different microbiotas and their host.

Virtually all of the scholarly literature on responsible conduct in research (RCR) focuses on the integrity of scientists - including why scientists misbehave, and how to improve training and enhance compliance with institutional and federal policies and regulations to prevent research misconduct. What this literature does not yet address is the integrity of those responsible for research administration. This article explores the responsible conduct of research administration and the potential for administrative misconduct. I highlight ways in which a lack of integrity in research administration can jeopardize the progress of science, the careers of researchers, and the reputation of institutions just as much as research misconduct can. Accordingly, I call for policies and appropriate oversight of research administration that are on par with policies governing research misconduct by scientists.

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are critical elements of cell-cell communication. Here, we characterized the outer membrane vesicles (OMVs) released by specific clones of Escherichia coli isolated from the Long-Term Evolution Experiment after 50,000 generations (50K) of adaptation to glucose minimal medium. Compared with their ancestor, the evolved clones produce small OMVs but also larger ones which display variable amounts of both OmpA and LPS. Tracking ancestral, fluorescently labelled OMVs revealed that they fuse with both ancestral- and 50K-evolved cells, albeit in different proportions. We quantified that less than 2% of the cells from one 50K-evolved clone acquired the fluorescence delivered by OMVs from the ancestral strain but that one cell concomitantly fuses with several OMVs. Globally, our results showed that OMV production in E. coli is a phenotype that varies along bacterial evolution and question the contribution of OMVs-mediated interactions in bacterial adaptation.

It now seems technically feasible to culture human embryos beyond the "fourteen-day limit," which has the potential to increase scientific understanding of human development and perhaps improve infertility treatments. The fourteen-day limit was adopted as a compromise but subsequently has been considered an ethical line. Does it remain relevant in light of technological advances permitting embryo maturation beyond it? Should it be changed and, if so, how and why? What justifications would be necessary to expand the limit, particularly given that doing so would violate some people's moral commitments regarding human embryos? Robust stakeholder engagement preceded adoption of the fourteen-day limit and should arguably be part of efforts to reassess it. Such engagement could also consider the need for enhanced oversight of human embryo research. In the meantime, developing and implementing reliable oversight systems should help foster high-quality research and public confidence in it., (© 2021 The Hastings Center.)

Biomedical research is at a critical juncture, with an aging population increasingly beset by chronic illness and prominent failures to translate research from "bench to bedside." These challenges emerge on a background of increasing "silo-ing" of experiments (and experimenters)-many investigators produce and consume research conducted in 1, perhaps 2, species-and increasing pressure to reduce or eliminate research on so-called "higher" mammals. Such decisions to restrict species diversity in biomedical research have not been data-driven and increase the risk of translational failure. To illustrate this problem, we present a case study from neuroscience: cholinergic suppression in the cortex. In all mammals studied so far, acetylcholine reduces activity in some cortical neurons. Comparative anatomical studies have shown that the mechanism behind this suppression differs between species in a manner that would render drug treatments developed in nonprimate species entirely ineffective if applied to primates (including humans). Developing clinical interventions from basic research will always require translation, either between species (e.g., using a mouse model of a human disease) or within a species (using a subset of humans as a representative sample for all humans). We argue that successful translation will require that we 1) be data-driven in our selection of species for study; 2) use (with careful attention to welfare) animals that minimize the translation gap to humans; and 3) become agile at translation, by resisting the pressures to narrow our focus to a small number of organisms, instead using species diversity as an opportunity to practice translation.

As we reread Mary Shelley's Frankenstein at two hundred years, it is evident that Victor Frankenstein is both a mad scientist (fevered, obsessive) and a bad scientist (secretive, hubristic, irresponsible). He's also not a very nice person. He's a narcissist, a liar, and a bad "parent." But he is not genuinely evil. And yet when we reimagine him as evil-as an evil scientist and as an evil person-we can learn some important lessons about science and technology, our contemporary society, and ourselves., (© 2018 The Hastings Center.)

Objective: To explore the self-expressed desire for, envisioned reaction to, and basic understanding of presymptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD)-related genetic and biomarker tests., Patients and Methods: The Alzheimer's Prevention Registry is an online community of people at least 18 years of age who are interested in AD prevention research for purely informational purposes or to be considered for possible research participation in future studies. Information about presymptomatic testing and an online multiple choice format survey were posted from November 1, 2012, through June 20, 2013, on the registry website., Results: Of 4036 respondents, 80.8% (3195/3952) wanted genetic testing if paid by insurance and 58.7% (2261/3851) if it would cost them at least $100. A total of 80.2% (3112/3879) wanted biomarker testing. If at high risk for AD, 90.5% (3478/3841) endorsed that they would "pursue a healthier lifestyle," but 11.6% (427/3706) endorsed "seriously consider suicide." The implication of a positive genetic test result was incorrectly understood by 13.1% (500/3812) and 32.6% (1255/3848) failed to view a positive biomarker test result as evidence of increased risk for or the presence of AD., Conclusion: Despite efforts to increase public awareness of AD, our survey results suggest that greater education of the public is needed. Interested patients should probably undergo psychological screening to identify those at high risk of adverse psychological outcomes, and disclosure of presymptomatic test results should be anchored to tangible constructive action plans, such as healthy lifestyle changes, long-term care planning, and, when available and appropriate, participation in research trials., (Copyright © 2014 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The nature of compensation for women who donate eggs (oocytes) for research remains a contentious issue internationally. This position paper lays out the arguments for, and discusses the arrangements in which, a modest payment might be ethically justifiable., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

It has been argued that bioethicists too often tend to represent the interests of scientists and not of the broader polity. Indeed, bioethicists seem predisposed to discard the voices and viewpoints of all but the cognoscenti. Focusing particularly on human pluripotent stem cell research, this commentary explores a variety of characterizations of bioethics and bioethicists in relation to forbidding science. Rather than proselytizing or prohibiting, bioethicists should work in partnership with scientists and publics to craft scientifically well-informed and morally sophisticated debates about forbidding science.

An apparent consensus governs the management of carrier status information generated incidentally through newborn screening: results cannot be withheld from parents. This normative stance encodes the focus on autonomy and distaste for paternalism that characterize the principles of clinical bioethics. However, newborn screening is a classic public health intervention in which paternalism may trump autonomy and through which parents are-in effect-required to receive carrier information. In truth, the disposition of carrier results generates competing moral infringements: to withhold information or require its possession. Resolving this dilemma demands consideration of a distinctive body of public health ethics to highlight the moral imperatives associated with the exercise of collective authority in the pursuit of public health benefits.

Calls for the "translation" of research from bench to bedside are increasingly demanding. What is translation, and why does it matter? We sketch the recent history of outcome-oriented translational research in the United States, with a particular focus on the Roadmap Initiative of the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, MD). Our main example of contemporary translational research is stem cell research, which has superseded genomics as the translational object of choice. We explore the nature of and obstacles to translational research and assess the ethical and biomedical challenges of embracing a translational ethos.