For thousands of years, deer antlers have been used as a Chinese remedy for essentially everything (a quick Google search will yield a wide variety of results). While most of the antler benefits have not been scientifically proven, it is believed that these antlers contain high concentrations of IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1) – a protein that promotes cell-growth. As a result, many deer antler supplements have been dubiously marketed as performance enhancing wonder drugs due to speculations that IGF-1 will boost muscle growth.

The “antler issue” has been plaguing sports for a while (IFG-1 is banned in professional leagues such as the MLB and NFL), but it regained popularity recently when some high-profile football players became linked to the antlers. While it is discerning that professionals are using illegal substances, it is really alarming when Christopher Key, the co-owner of an athletic supplement supplier, informed the public that he has been selling these deer antler oral sprays to college football players, and that the usage is undetectable (he has also sold “hologram patches” to some players, apparently). According to Key, his clients are feeling more energized and winning big games left and right.

So while his spray sounds like the greatest supplement since vitamin gummies, it most likely does not work.

Oral delivery of IGF just seems…incredibly difficult, and a quick literature search did not give me any hard evidence on its effects. The same ESPN article that reported Key’s testimony also mentioned a researcher (with actual expertise) refuting the possibility of the spray working. Also, Dr. Jordan Moon calculated that there simply isn’t enough in a bottle spray to be effective - in fact, Dr. Moon believes that the athletes need to use up to at least 5000 cans of spray for it to work (it is also unlikely that the IGF is delivered 100%). Reading Key’s statements, they sound more like commercials than testaments, and Key did not mention how his spray can avoid blood tests. The reason why it is undetectable is likely due to the fact that there isn’t anything in the spray. New Zealand Medical Journal also raises more doubt on the legitimacy of the antler claims (fun fact: New Zealand is the world’s largest producer of deer antlers).

So all this sounds like another hoax (seriously, what is a “hologram patch?”), and the seller is either unethically selling illegal substances to student athletes, or unethically convincing college athletes to buy his useless spray. If Key’s clients experienced any powerful “level-ups,” it is likely due to the placebo effect. Key was quoted saying: “The whole idea is to compete without cheating. We are not bad guys.” And he is right because the  players do not have IGF-1 in their bodies.

But should these college players be punished if the spray doesn’t do anything? We still punish people for unsuccessful cheating (like copying down all the wrong answers), but this case is a bit different because we don’t know if the players know about the IGF-1. To them, they could just be another source of nutrition input, which is not that different from a family remedy of…umm…spinach pie that build muscles.

Or is it really that simple? While I doubt players really knew what they were putting in their bodies, I doubt they really thought they were just eating more carrots to improve their vision – a guy sold them a “spray” that is claimed to work wonders and not be detected by blood tests (life tip: if “not being detected”is part of the advertisement, it probably is illegal).

Obviously it is more unethical for Key to throw his deceived clients under the bus for his own benefits (it worked), but what about the athletes? Is it really “cheating” when your sketchily obtained “nutrition supplement” doesn’t provide you any advantage – and you just think it does? Most people won’t consider moms telling their kids to eat large broccoli to be an unfair advantage, so what about these undetectable nutrition supplements? If they should be punished, what are the punishments for experiencing the placebo effect?

P.S. Random, but this topic reminds me of rhino hunting

Image credit: Dave Herr via The Nerve

A few months ago, Planned Parenthood put the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation under fire for withdrawing their funding from Planned Parenthood’s breast health services. The decision was allegedly made to appease pro-life supporters.

Now, it’s Planned Parenthood’s turn to be scrutinized for their financial decisions. Planned Parenthood of North Texas recently rejected a $500,000 donation from our university’s very own Tucker Max (Duke Law School ’01). For those of you who don’t know, Tucker Max is a blogger and New York Times best-selling author who makes a living from being promiscuous with women and critiquing these encounters publicly. Tucker Max is a selfish jerk. But you don’t have to take my word for it, he tells you so right on his website: “My name is Tucker Max, and I am an asshole. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers, sleep with more women than is safe or reasonable, and just generally act like a raging dickhead.”

Spoken like a true women’s advocate if you ask me! Tucker Max admitted he was looking for a tax break through a contribution to Planned Parenthood and wanted to get some positive press stirring before his next book is released. He also claims he was genuinely trying to do some good by giving back.

But Planned Parenthood wasn’t having it, and understandably so. I mean, just look at what Tucker Max had to say about the organization a little earlier in his career. Last July he tweeted, “Planned Parenthood would be cooler if it was a giant flight of stairs, w/ someone pushing girls down, like a water park slide.” #saywhat? On March 14, he wrote, “In South Florida. This place is awful. Shitty design, slutty whores & no culture, like a giant Planned Parenthood waiting room.”

Dear Tucker Max,
Using derogatory language to describe the clients of an organization probably won’t help you get one of their buildings dedicated for you.
Love,
Common Sense.

Nevertheless, Max saw things differently, telling the NY Daily News, “I thought they’d be very excited about it.” Max also had this to say of Planned Parenthood: “Their motives aren’t about helping women. Their motives are about what they look like to their friends and signaling they’re taking the right types of donations from the right types of people.”

Tucker Max is not alone. Planned Parenthood of North Texas has faced much criticism for not accepting the money, especially since the state of Texas has just ruled to defund Planned Parenthood.

They declined the money, and are slammed for denying vital services to underprivileged women and families. But if they accepted, they’d be helping out a notorious misogynist and condemned by feminists everywhere. The decision was really a lose-lose situation for Planned Parenthood. The way I see it though, if they took the money, at least they’d have ended up with $500,000 in the bank.

Notably, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) jumped at the opportunity to snatch half-a-million dollars and contacted Tucker Max about becoming the beneficiary. Assuring Max he could still help prevent unwanted pregnancies, they proposed using the money to purchase a mobile spay-and-neuter truck for animals. They even came up with a charming title: “Fix Your Bitches! The Tucker Max No-Cost to Low Cost Spay and Neuter Clinic.” PETA clearly has a different code of ethics when it comes to its marketing. (We saw this last year with the pornography site PETA plans to launch, which Eddie discussed.)

Max has declined the offer to help PETA, blogging, “There is no chance I’m supporting an organization that wants to ban two of my favorite things: Making animals dead and then eating them.” Yep, what a jerk. And isn’t it ironic how he didn’t seem to have a genuine interest in Planned Parenthood, yet was willing to give them the money, but not PETA, who has never met a publicity stunt they didn’t like?

Should Planned Parenthood have taken Tucker Max’s money, or were they right to reject the offer? Personally, I’d have a hard time turning down money from anybody, even someone I don’t like. Then again, I certainly don’t think it would be appropriate for the NAACP to cash a check from the KKK so the Klan could get a PR boost. So how bad does someone have to be before their help should be rejected? And how bad does your own situation have to be? If you’re like Planned Parenthood and desperate for money, can the ends justify the means?

Credit: fsgm

Media censorship is always a contentious issue, but recently, the battleground has moved to scientific research.

According to an Economist article, “Influenza and its Complications,” the U.S’s National Scientific Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) asked the world’s two leading scientific journals, Science and Nature, to censor research on the H5N1 flu virus.

Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Centre, in Rotterdam, and Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison have been working on a strain of the avian flu that can be transmitted person-to-person and were on the verge of publishing their results. Fearing that the details of their work may be used as a bioterrorism blueprint, the NSABB asked for a moratorium on the publication of this work.

As a result, the World Health Organization met earlier this month to discuss how best to disseminate this “sensitive information” and carry out such research in the future. According to the New York Times, a panel of 22 experts convened in Geneva and ultimately, decided, against the U.S’s wishes, to continue the research and to publish the papers in their entirety.

For more background information, please see this CNN report:

This case raises three main issues:

1. To what extent should the government regulate the dissemination of scientific research?
2. To what extent should the government limit the nature of research?
3. To what extent are scientists ethically responsible for how their scientific findings are used?

I think that the answer to the first question is rather clear cut.  The government should be able to censor any publication (scientific or not) that poses an imminent threat to our national security interests.  Given that the publication of the details of this work could facilitate the development of a killer pandemic virus, its dissemination should be limited.  Terrorists may currently lack the technology to create this strain, but the information itself poses an “imminent” threat.

Although the WHO ruled that the “theoretical risk of the virus’s being used by terrorists is far outweighed by the ‘real and present danger’ of similar flu viruses in the wild, and by the need to study them and freely share information,” I disagree that the information should be open to the public.  If their argument is that this information is not dangerous because only experts with the right technology could engineer this virus, then shouldn’t the information be confined to these experts in the first place?  I doubt that most of Science and Nature’s readers could contribute meaningfully to the study and surveillance of the H5N1.  In this case, a need-to-know basis for dissemination is sufficient.

However, I don’t think that the government should have jurisdiction over the nature of the research that is conducted. Instead, it can exercise influence through other means such as grants and safety regulations. For example, Dr. Kawoaka’s lab is classified as Biosafety Level 3-Agriculture, the highest level at the university and half a notch below the top level anywhere of BSL4.  His facility is constructed according to standards established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and undergoes routine federal inspection for safety and security.  Moreover, has received over $17 million in funding from the National Insitute of Allergy and Infectious diseases, a branch of the National Institutes of Health.

With regard to the second question, the answer is less obvious.  If terrorists create a deadly strain of avian flu based on Fouchier and Kawaoka’s research, are these university scientists culpable?  Were the scientists on the Manhattan Project morally responsible for the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I think that intentionality is the key.  Scientific research is meant to be a neutral field whose sole purpose is to advance knowledge. The aim of science is apolitical, as should be the driving intentions of scientists themselves. Although outside actors may manipulate scientific findings for good or evil means, science itself is supposed to be neutral.

Thus, insofar as Foucheir and Kawoka’s only intentions are the advancement of our knowledge on the H5N1 virus, I believe that they are not morally culpable for the application of their research.

That being said, given the realities of bioterrorism and today’s increasingly globalized world, it may be wise for scientists to submit to the “vetting” of their research in published works.  Science is no longer a bastion of knowledge and advancement but also a formidable weapon.

Credit: Doug88888

Throughout history, there have been many infamous instances of people failing to act to help others.

Most recently, in Foshan, China, a 2-year old little girl was run over by a truck driver who did not stop.  Before she was finally pulled off the road, more than a dozen people walked by her body and another car drove over it.

This tragic scene was captured by a nearby traffic camera (Note: content is extremely graphic):

The murder of Kitty Genovese and Zimbardo’s Stanford  Prison Experiment similarly showcase the puzzling nature of human apathy.

What makes some people intervene and others look away?  What makes some people act morally or courageously and others apathetically?

An opinion column in the New York Times by Princeton Professor, Peter Singer, buys into the idea of a person’s morality as a function of his brain-chemistry.  Ruling out factors such as moral upbringing, circumstance, etc., Singer believes that some people are biologically wired to be more empathic and moral.

Similarly, Duke Professor, Walter Sinott-Armstrong, explores the extent to which we are morally responsible for our actions.  In an interview, he states that:

In both law and morals, we normally excuse people whose acts are not caused by their conscious choices. Surprisingly, recent research suggests that conscious choice plays a smaller role in our actions than most people assume.   That conclusion raises the disturbing questions of whether and how we can ever really be responsible for anything.

Singer and Armstrong raise an interesting question: to the extent that morality is a function of brain chemistry and not volition, should we enforce it by altering neurological function with a pill?  Would it be ethical to do so?

I believe that such a “morality pill” would be justified as a means of rehabilitation for criminals.  Although one could argue that forcing someone to be moral is unethical, I think that it is a legitimate means of rehabilitation.

Prisoners forfeit many rights upon entering prison.  The “right to be immoral” is significantly less legitimate than the right to vote, the right to property, and the freedom to eat, sleep, walk, and talk upon will‑all of which are taken away in prison.  Moreover, one of the main tenets of incarceration is rehabilitation.  Given that this “morality pill” could easily rehabilitate individuals, why not take it?

In addition, in response to an economic-determinist argument, I don’t think that extenuating socioeconomic circumstances exonerate people from their crimes.   If we can’t hold people legally or morally culpable for their crimes given their socioeconomic pressures, then there would be no need to throw the average drug dealer, prostitute, thief in jail in the first place.  I think that given the existence of prisons and rehabilitation for criminals, the pill is simply an addition which will facilitate the rehabilitation process. Although we cannot take away the socioeconomic conditions that predispose these people to crime, we can help them alter their brain chemistry to stay away from it.

What I struggle to reconcile, is whether such a pill should be administered to those who are deemed “immoral” or who show apathetic tendencies towards others, but have not broken any laws.  Should we respect their preferences?  Is the desire to remain immoral or apathetic even a legitimate one?  Or, is it a condition such as Tourette’s, Bi-Polar Disorder, and Schizophrenia that we should seek to “cure”?

As Singer and Armstrong so aptly point out, these questions need to be discussed.  At the rate science is advancing, a “morality pill” may be feasible in the near future.

Photo credit: John Henry Mostyn/Flickr

“It’s no fun being a kid when you’re fat.”

“It’s hard being a little girl when you’re not.”

This is the rhetoric used by the Strong4Life Obesity Campaign recently launched in Georgia.  According an  ABC news article, the campaign uses negative portrayals of obese children to “scare” parents into awareness about the issue.

To view the campaign propaganda, check out the following videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaFhB1fu31k

With childhood obesity on the rise, it seems that Strong4Life is attempting a new angle.  Instead of promulgating positive messages of healthy eating and exercise, the campaign is instead relying on negativity and shame to galvanize parents into action.

In one video, an obese boy looks into the camera and asks, “Mom, why am I fat?”  Such images are startling and heartbreaking…as intended by the campaign organizers.

The recent firestorm of controversy raises two important questions.

First, are these videos effective?  Strong4Life cites that public service announcements which showed the harsh realities of drug-use were highly effective in the 90’s anti-drug campaign.  These recent print ads and videos are similarly eye-catching, but it is still unclear whether the “shock-value” will translate into action.

The rhetoric of the campaign is entirely negative.  “Stop sugarcoating it, Georgia,” the ads demand.  And instead do what?  The Stop4Life campaign does not provide any positive guidance.  It sensationalizes childhood obesity, but once the buzz dies down, will parents imbibe the message and attempt to instill healthier behaviors in their children?

Even if parents do compel their children to lose weight, how feasible is weight-loss and keeping the extra pounds off?  A recent article in the New York Times suggests that once obese, children may be condemned to the “fat trap.” Scientific studies have shown that losing weight is difficult because diets send the body into starvation-mode.  Moreover, keeping the weight off is even harder- the New York Times article chronicles one woman’s effort to maintain her weight-loss which includes exercising every day, counting every calorie, carrying a scale around- even on vacations ‑and still she is overweight.

More importantly, the campaign raises the question of whether it is ethical to use obese children as the spokespeople.  In an era where we try to encourage children to build self-esteem and embrace their bodies, is a campaign where children admit their shame over their condition a step in the right direction?

Although parents and children need to take accountability for their own health, the Strong4Life campaign seems to take it a step too far.  It turns a war against obesity into a war against obese individuals.  It implies that obesity is a shameful condition.  It implies that parents of obese children are entirely at fault.  It accepts the teasing and bullying of obese children without challenging its cruelty.

The videos breed further intolerance toward obese children and their families.  What the campaign, and the larger public, fails to understand is that losing weight for an obese individual is not the same as slimming down for the average person.  We try to lose a pant size.  They try to lose 100 pounds.  We cut fries and soda.  They need to go on medically supervised diets.  An Atlantic Monthly article points out that often, it’s not that obese children and their families don’t care, but rather, that losing weight is a whole different ball game.  Although the campaign is well intentioned, it only further propagates the myth of obesity and weight-loss.

Obese children are already vulnerable and marginalized; we don’t need to put them up on billboards.  There are other ways of calling attention to the issue without using these children as a neon-sign.

PETA poster from 1994. Photograph: Rex Features. Source: The Guardian

But it seems like the folks at PETA are kicking it up a notch. NPR reports that PETA is planning a website that will “feature ‘tantalizing’ videos and photographs” (read: pornography) leading to its usual animal rights messages. Never mind that “tantalizing” summons up images of that medium-rare filet mignon oozing with the last drops of life force, it’s easy to see why this new initiative is questionable. The obvious objection is that using an immorality to promote an ethical viewpoint reeks of hypocrisy. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, this new enticement is bound to be a turn-off for “mainstream” audience, adding further to the perception of PETA as a fringe movement.

But are there really no justifiable reasons to put naked bodies on the line for animal rights?

Consider this: if one PETA argument is that humans and animals are really more alike than different, then what is more effective an illustration than human bodies eliciting and performing what are often called our most animalistic desires? Also, PETA’s new idea could function as a sort of meta-critique. If the public finds pornography objectifying, exploitative, disgusting, grotesque, and—in a word—offensive, then why wouldn’t it harbor the same sentiment toward the literal eating of animals, among many other evils that humans perpetrate on animals? Here the opponent would argue from the alleged differences between humans and animals, to which the PETA advocate could point to the juxtaposition: naked human, naked animal, wherein lies the difference?

Of course, opponents can point to cognitive ability as the decisive line between humans and animals—an old argument now. And maybe all PETA is going for with the new website is mere provocation, rather than some weird postmodern argument. But it suffices to point out the inextricable relationship between morality and the regulation of desires, regardless of which indulgence one prefers.