Macrina Chapter 10 (Macrina, 2014b)
10.1 Like you both, Anaiir and Howard, yes, as the institutional research integrity officer, I am obligated to do something. Firstly, I
would speak with the two predoctoral trainees and the one postdoctoral trainee that left Dr. Dickerson’s lab. Additionally, I would
speak with Dr. Dickerson directly concerning the “hallway conversation” I was made aware of. Since Dr. Sarkar did not make an
allegation of misconduct against Dr. Dickerson, I may not have the legal right to order a forensic examination of the Dickerson
group’s databooks. However, if one of the previous trainees does provide evidence of Dr. Dickerson’s misconduct, I could order a
forensic examination of the databooks. Finally, I would keep a "paper trail" of all of my conversations with Dr. Sarkar, Dr. Dickerson,
and any other trainee/worker.
As a Christian, I would pray continuously to God for wisdom. James 1:5 (New International Version) declares, "if any of you lacks
wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you."
10.3 Hi Anna, I agree with your statement. Both Joshua and Ellen’s actions yield problems. I agree with Ellen that Joshua’s methods of
“underexposing” those particular DNA fragments are falsifying his data. Additionally, Ellen’s method of cropping the image online is
also unscrupulous and can lead to errors, especially since the remaining DNA fragments may be necessary for future experimentation.
Moreover, “falsification is any manipulation that introduces inaccuracies into the research record” (Macrina, 2014a). Both Joshua and
Ellen are involved in various forms of falsification with the manipulation of the photograph.
According to Macrina (2014b):
If you are using an imaging system in which a digital photograph is generated, a hard copy of the photograph should be
affixed to the databook page along with a notation of the name of the electronic image file and its storage location. (p. 342-
343)
Thus, an original copy of the photo needs to be attached to the databook. To circumvent any issues, I would have Joshua take an
additional picture of the DNA gel analysis, specifically targeting the two small DNA fragments and attach it to his databook. If that is
not possible, he should write a successive explanation for the original picture recounting the significance of the two small DNA
fragments. He might have to attach any additional photographs or explanations at the end of the databook (or experiment log within
the data book); however, he could cross-reference his reports, as needed.
Wagner (Wagner, 2008)
Q1: Fetal genetic testing is more controversial than adult genetic testing because there is controversy whether a fetus is considered
life and/or a viable potential human being. I do think fetal genetic testing could be ethical if the sole goal of testing to validate any
potential genetic predispositions. I do not think fetal genetic testing or the manipulation of genes for the validation from the parent’s
should be allowed. Children are gifts from God and should be treasured as such no matter how they come. However, genetic testing
can be great tool for future prevention and early treatment of diseases (Boyle & Savulescu, 2008; Hensley, 2008).
Q2:
GENETIC TESTING PROS CONS
IMMIGRATION
Preventing a genetic predisposition in a
population.
Discriminates against minority groups.
(National Council on Disability, 2008)
WORKPLACE
Reduction in costs associated with
occupational disease such as loss of
productivity, excess absenteeism,
worker’s compensation payments, health
insurance premiums, and legal liability.
Genetic testing does not need to be
required; it could be offered.
(MacDonald & Williams-Jones, 2008)
Genetic testing would be used
unethically, to pick and choose employees
to suit hazardous workplaces or to cut
pension costs. Genetic screening will not
accurately predict which workers will
become sick or disabled. Genetic testing
increases discrimination and goes against
the US Equal Right laws. (O’Neill, 2008)
INSURANCE
Genetic testing is a legitimate way of
gathering better information about an
individual’s health risks, so the
individuals predisposed to some disease
can change their behavior or environment
to lower their risk and improve their
health. (Manson & Conko, 2008)
There is evidence that health and life
insurers, health care providers, blood
banks, adoption agencies, the military,
schools, and employers have all
discriminated against asymptomatic
people on the basis of genetic testing.
(National Council on Disability, 2008)
Commentary: if I were to do pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), it would only be if I and/or my husband are genetically
predisposing our children to severe diseases or disabilities. Even then, I would still want to implant all the embryos into my uterus. I
would not abort any children that are predisposed to severe diseases or disabilities, but I would take my newfound knowledge and
speak with professionals in the field and take the appropriate measures to raise my child with disabilities in the best possible way. I do
not think PGD should be utilized by parents to choose which “advantages” their children shall enjoy. This will strain the parent-child
relationship and will burden the child with the constant need to “live up” to the standards he or she was “designed” for. Children are
created by God in his image (Genesis 1:27) and knitted specifically in the mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13).
Furthermore, my initial response to genetic testing in the workforce enforces genetic testing in working environments and positions
that hurt the genetically predisposed. For example, employees that may be exposed to a carcinogen, should take genetic test. However,
for other positions, a genetic test should not be required prior to hire. After reading the two viewpoints mentioned in Wagner (2008)
and referring to the universal use of personal genomic testing from companies like 23andME and AncestryDNA, I think genetic
testing should be an option for everyone (MacDonald & Williams-Jones, 2008; O’Neill, 2008). It allows individuals to know before
applying to an employment position, if there are any underlying genetic conditions that may constrain physical/mental capabilities
required for the position or lead to a greater susceptibility to a disease that they are already predisposed to. I do not think they should
be required by employers, although employers should make the workplace safe as a whole, and not choose workers who tolerate
hazards. This type of requirement violates the US Equal Employment laws (O’Neill, 2008; Wagner, 2008). However, employers
should pose in their contract or job description any possible endangerment and individuals interested in the position should consider a
genetic test before applying to the position to circumvent any potential harm.
Genetic testing and neo-eugenics
Commentary:
I think genetic testing has everything to do with neo-eugenics and is the beginning stage before widespread neo-eugenics is
accepted. I think when Artificial Insemination via Donor (AID) became popular, the idea of improving the gene pool of the child also
became generalized. Mothers could choose what genetics they wanted for their child without ever meeting the man.
There are many ethical implications that need to be considered: what if the "desirable" traits at the time of selection are no longer
"desirable" in the future? What then? Is the child now worthless? What about hard work versus genetics: do children that are
"designed" to have better physical features and abilities cheating against children that are working hard in a sport?
Thank God, He loves us just the way we are! Even better, He designed us to be who we are: His children (Ephesians 2:10; 1 John 3:2).
If a tree falls in the forest, does is make a sound? (Fabich, 2015)
Commentary:
The Guardian wrote this same question under their Notes and Queries page, and a plethora of responses was counted for. Many
said without fault claiming that the mere release of vibrations into the air form sound; others believe that sound doesn’t have to be yes
heard from humans but be heard by animals and insects. Others dictated that the question itself has an ethical connotation. For
example, if we are unaware of somebody’s suffering does it exist? An alternative response questions the validity of the sound: it is
only sound if a person can hear it. While another response states that everything is a figment from our imagination; if we don’t see it
or hear it, it is not a part of our reality (“Ethical conundrums: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?,”
2011).
I do think the tree makes a sound. There is a truth that this question poses many ethical connotations such as suffering and hunger.
For me, I immediately think of this analogy: since we don’t see air, does it mean it exists?
In a Christian perspective John 20:29 (Amplified Bible) speak volumes when regarding sight: Jesus said to him, “Because you have
seen Me, do you now believe? Blessed [happy, spiritually secure, and favored by God] [Me] are they who did not see and yet
believed [in Me].”
Articles (Gorey et al., 2014; Johnson, 2019)
Commentary:
I think this article (Gorey et al., 2014) gave a needed perspective on the impact insurance and economic status have on medical
coverage. I am not a sage on insurance and coverage; however, I do think insurance should be more readily available for at-risk
communities. I know Medicare and Medicaid provide governmental aid to those in need. I do not know the amount of the coverage
that is given to individuals in need and I am positive it ranges from person to person. I think to overturn the amount of at-risk
communities with lack of access to medical facilities and practices, there should be more job availability and trainings for individuals
in those communities. I do not know if access to medical facilities has improved in the recent years after this article was published.
The Johnson (2019) article on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Healthcare sharing ministries, allowed me to understand the
benefits of both options. ACA plans are available for individuals regardless of their health, there are no lifetime limits, and subsidies
are available for those who earn less than 400% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL); however, plans can be expensive, may run on narrow
networks, and available plans depend on your state. For Healthcare Sharing Ministries, they are less expensive, lower annual costs
and deductibles, families can share their costs with other like-minded families, and individuals can avoid the penalty for not having
health insurance; on the other hand, there are lifetime or annual caps on coverage, one can’t use an HAS, and one may need good
health to qualify.
Empirical judgments in ethical decisions (Hollinger, 2002)
Commentary:
I think Hollinger’s writing is refreshing. Instead of diving deep into ethical decisions, he moves backward, demonstrating a new
perspective. I personally enjoyed reading this chapter from his book. Sometimes, Christians are deemed to have the same views on
every issue; however, Hollinger points out,"…there are differences in interpretation of given data. That is, people may look at the
same data but end up with different interpretations of its significance or what it means." He gives examples of empirical judgments
including War, environmental ethics, and poverty. Furthermore, the factors influencing these empirical judgments is dependent on
social mores, ideologies, vested interests, and personal dispositions.
Surrogacy
Commentary:
This topic was mentioned briefly in week 2. I am okay with surrogacy if an embryo (with the parent’s egg and sperm) are
implanted. It becomes iffy when the surrogate’s egg is used for fertilization through IVF. The surrogate may opt to keep the child
because it has her DNA.
Moreover, I have a HUGE heart for adoption since I was a teen, and I would LOVE to foster/adopt as many children as possible.
Although many couples would like to have their own genetic children and opt for IVF, surrogacy, and AID/H, adoption reflects God’s
love for humanity the most. Moses was adopted; Jesus was adopted by Joseph; and God adopted us into his family. This should be the
primary option for a couple that is having difficulty getting pregnant.
References
Boyle, R., & Savulescu, J. (2008). Fetal genetic tesitng is ethical. In V. Wagner (Ed.), (pp. Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
201–208). GreenHaven Press.
Ethical conundrums: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound? (2011). Retrieved from The Guardian
website: https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-82446,00.html
Fabich, A. J. (2015). If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? United States of America: Liberty University.
Gorey, K. M., Haji-Jama, S., Bartfay, E., Luginaah, I. N., Wright, F. C., & Kanjeekal, S. M. (2014). Lack of access to chemotherapy
for colon cancer: Multiplicative disadvantage of being extremely poor, inadequately insured and African American. BMC Health
Services Research, 14, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-133
Hensley, S. (2008). Fetal genetic testing is unethical. In V. Wagner (Ed.), (pp. 208–213). Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
GreenHaven Press.
Hollinger, D. P. (2002). Empirical Judgments in Ethical Decisiond. In (pp. Choosing the good: Christian ethics in a complex world
174–188). Baker Academic.
Johnson, H. (2019). ACA health insurance plans vs healthcare sharing ministries.
MacDonald, C., & Williams-Jones, B. (2008). Genetic testing in the workplace can be ethical. In V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing
viewpoints: Biomedical ethics (pp. 214–220). GreenHaven Press.
Macrina, F. (2014a). Methods, manners, and responsible conduct of research. In Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible
conduct of research (4th ed., pp. 1–25). ASM Press.
Macrina, F. (2014b). Scientific record keeping. In Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible conduct of research (4th ed., pp.
329–357). ASM Press.
Manson, N., & Conko, G. (2008). Insurers should have acces to genetic testing results. In V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing viewpoints:
Biomedical ethics (pp. 228–232). GreenHaven Press.
National Council on Disability. (2008). Insurers should not have access. In V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
(pp. 233–239). GreenHaven Press.
O’Neill, R. (2008). Genetic testing in the workplace is unethical. In V. Wagner (Ed.), (pp. Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
221–227). GreenHaven Press.
Wagner, V. (2008). Is human genetic testing ethical? In (pp. 199–239). GreenHaven Press.Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
