From the latest Nature. They run this section called Futures, which often contains some interesting literature.
QuoteLife in a monastic lab
Joost Uitdehaag
The bell rang for evensong as Jorge attached the power-pack and started his gel. He smiled. He liked it when everything was exactly in time. He left the lab and walked towards the chapel. On the way he met his older friend, Anselm, who hurried along as usual.
"Slow down," Jorge whispered. "What's the use?"
"What's the use of being slow?"
"Slow is about taking aim."
"Where did you get that from?"
"A penitence session."
"Don't mention those."
"You mean they are counterintuitive to a fearful old individualist. Really, you should join. Maybe even tonight?"
Anselm just smiled. They stopped talking as they entered the chapel. It had a pleasing retro ambience — its design influenced by Le Corbusier's famous Chapel of Notre Dame — amid the lab complex of the Benedictine Order for Oncology, set in a remote valley in the Ardennes.
For Jorge, his lab was one of the good things the great crisis had brought: a total reshuffling of drug research, an injection of idealism in a world of self-interest. That the injection had come from religion was no surprise for Jorge. Management gurus had been courting religious rules long before the crisis. Live for yourself or for your community, that was the post-crisis choice, and science and religion were both community efforts. Scientific monasticism was a new synthesis, the ultimate way of serving society.
All the scientists had gathered in the chapel, and they started a medieval hymn. Singing together was supposed to stimulate collaboration and equality, but Jorge was still bad at it. During the hymn he worried about Anselm. His friend had started to complain again about giving up the 'self' side of science. He was a former academic and had this all-pervading desire to compete and establish his name, but within the Order that would get him into trouble. They gave you a permanent contract and a budget so there was no need to worry about grants or tenure, but in return the Order demanded no double work, no egos and no secrecy.
If only Anselm had been a pharma man. Novices from industry generally had less trouble giving up the self-side. But then again, those who had worked through the Barren Years had generally less passion for their jobs than a zebrafish for a barcode.
Jorge wondered why people could not simply decide if they really wanted to live their undergraduate dreams and work on curing disease, or if they wanted something else. Anselm always said he was naive.
"Idealists have a history of getting hurt," he would say.
"Isn't that the whole point," Jorge would reply, "that contributing costs you?"
"You just haven't suffered yet."
Anselm had been damaged by his time in academia; that much Jorge knew. That's why doing penitence tonight would be good for him. It would give him that perfect feeling that all was well and that he was living a good life. If only Jorge could convince him.
The singing finished and Abbott Fra Paolini spoke about the Barren Years. That was the time when ever larger pharma companies and a society ever more hostile to them together had driven the cost of developing a drug to $2 billion. And what was considered worse: to the cost of a thousand scientific careers. It had been the scientific equivalent of the Somme offensive.
With a wide movement of his hands, Fra Paolini spoke of the day when seven ex-pharma scientists had taken up vows in a monastery to continue a 'killed' project. It was a golden move. Their vows of poverty (no patenting, no bonuses), chastity (do nothing that satisfies only yourself) and obedience (listen to what patients want) were the right guarantees for patient organizations and health insurers to pour money into monastic research labs. In the past year, these labs had developed and published the majority of new therapies (generics companies usually took up marketing them).
After the ceremony, Jorge waited for Anselm.
"Why do you fear a penitence session? You know they did this all the time in the old days: remember Borel and cyclosporine? It's part of our tradition. It is why the public likes us."
"I don't fear it. I just don't think it's rational. It's hysterics."
"I'm not hysterical."
"But you're not joining tonight are you?"
Jorge did not answer. Anselm stopped walking and gave him an angry look.
"You are! That would be what, the second time in a month? You're wasting yourself."
"The supervisory committee allowed me."
"Sure they do. Bunch of vampires, they are."
"It has nothing to do with them and all with me," Jorge hated being berated.
"I won't allow you," Anselm said.
"What do you want to do? Swap places?"
"If that's what it takes."
Jorge was amazed. Was getting Anselm to do penitence really this simple? Was he really going to give up his principle for a worry about a friend? Anselm never ceased to surprise him.
"All right," he said.
In the monastery, most clinical trials were carried out in the infirmatorium, on a veranda filled with the evening's sunlight. Jorge was sitting at Anselm's bed.
"You are getting chimidinib," Jorge said, "the first inhibitor of the Chung-Mi variant isomerase. Have you seen the preclinical data?"
"Yes. They're ok."
Jorge rolled up Anselm's sleeve as a nurse prepared the drip.
"You want some blood for western blotting tomorrow?"
Anselm nodded. "Don't worry," he said as the compound started to enter his body.
But Jorge felt guilty. That night he did the only sensible thing: he lit a candle for his friend.
Good narative, but I really like the concept. I honestly think that is sort of conscience and discipline that research and "Science" should eb carried out with.
Research is so often about getting your name out and being well known that the humility that came with this story was very interesting.
"Benedictine Order of Oncology". How about an Order of Ecology? Or Systematics?
How about ANYTHING where all you hold sacred is proper, ethical research methodology via the scientific method? :)
Quote from: Richter on October 13, 2009, 01:46:55 AM
How about ANYTHING where all you hold sacred is proper, ethical research methodology via the scientific method? :)
It would be interesting. No drive for money, no need for reward. Simply, living as a researcher for the good of all and no more.
Yeah, very idealistic, but also pragmatic as far as removing BS from the process.
Then we just need an accompanying monastic order producing them.
Quote from: Richter on October 13, 2009, 02:20:27 AM
Yeah, very idealistic, but also pragmatic as far as removing BS from the process.
Then we just need an accompanying monastic order producing them.
A monastic would have to devote their whole life to science, something most scientists wouldn't care for.
I'd sign up. For the lulz.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 13, 2009, 03:23:23 AM
I'd sign up. For the lulz.
I think that's the point though. It's not for the lulz. In the story, the fact that they follow certain rules of ordination means they get non-profit funding which allows them to do incredible, selfless research.
Neal Stephenson's latest book Anathem goes into this idea veeery thoroughly. It also has the "was maths invented/discovered" thing, and parallel universes and ninjas and space aliens....
It's a long read but definitely worth checking out.
The idea that the members of the order are themselves the test subjects is interesting too. It's soemthign that you don't hear of much outside of comic book super - villans, and would REALLY drive home producing a safe, well tested product. How many researchers currently would take their own products during the first human trial?
Quote from: Richter on October 13, 2009, 01:03:31 PM
The idea that the members of the order are themselves the test subjects is interesting too. It's soemthign that you don't hear of much outside of comic book super - villans, and would REALLY drive home producing a safe, well tested product. How many researchers currently would take their own products during the first human trial?
They wouldn't. Interesting how they call the self testing "penance" as well.
Quote from: Kai on October 13, 2009, 02:19:18 PM
Quote from: Richter on October 13, 2009, 01:03:31 PM
The idea that the members of the order are themselves the test subjects is interesting too. It's soemthign that you don't hear of much outside of comic book super - villans, and would REALLY drive home producing a safe, well tested product. How many researchers currently would take their own products during the first human trial?
They wouldn't. Interesting how they call the self testing "penance" as well.
Despite the light the narrative casts it in, I dislike the sentiment that there should be expectation or peer pressure to participate in it (Whether as an optional practice, or to assuage some past guilt).
If it's for the sake of appreciating safe, ethical practice, and assuming the same risks as researcher that any other usuer of you products would assume, then I agree with the idea.
If it's being done as a method of assuaging guilt, then I'd consider it as pathological and masturbatory as any other form of mental or physical self harm.
If I was in such a monastic situation, I'd keep mindful of if participating in my own trials was only for the sake of gratifying myself, which would go agaisnt the spirit of a vow of chastity.
It seems to me like he was trying to stretch the analogy, and it tore a little.
It seems kindof dumb. There are a lot of drugs out there that are really really nasty, shit that wouldn't ever go into human trials except it treats something lethal (see pretty much any cancer treatment). There are other drugs that have nasty side effects if and only if you lack the right disease. Oh, and if you don't actually have the condition, the test won't tell you anything about how effective it is.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 13, 2009, 04:40:10 PM
It seems kindof dumb. There are a lot of drugs out there that are really really nasty, shit that wouldn't ever go into human trials except it treats something lethal (see pretty much any cancer treatment). There are other drugs that have nasty side effects if and only if you lack the right disease. Oh, and if you don't actually have the condition, the test won't tell you anything about how effective it is.
I think you are missing the point.
It seems to me like he was implying that putting monastic people together creates a fucked up culture. Or that all culture in general has fucked up bits. Or he was just putting in something bad so he wouldn't be called Utopian.
Quote from: LMNO on October 13, 2009, 03:27:20 PM
It seems to me like he was trying to stretch the analogy, and it tore a little.
It seems to me like it was an interesting fiction story where researchers actually take ethical responsibility for their research. Wouldn't it be wonderful if researchers in this day and time
actually did that?Lets think of it this way. It used to be that people would test their plants medicinal properties on themselves, in small amounts. More recently we've used animal test subjects for initial research, but human medication still requires a human test subject. Why is it that we think its ethically okay to try it out on someone else if we wouldn't try it on ourselves? What makes our life that much more precious if what we are doing is a selfless development of medicine? The truth is, it's not, and we aren't, and the whole thing today is about money. So this is a different take on it, a proverbial "what if".
As for the guilt, the monastics in the story joined the order out of selflessness. If they didn't want to do it, there was no one forcing.
Quote from: Regret on October 13, 2009, 05:26:01 PM
It seems to me like he was implying that putting monastic people together creates a fucked up culture. Or that all culture in general has fucked up bits. Or he was just putting in something bad so he wouldn't be called Utopian.
Show me a culture that is not "fucked up" in some way.
Quote from: Regret on October 13, 2009, 05:26:01 PM
It seems to me like he was implying that putting monastic people together creates a fucked up culture. Or that all culture in general has fucked up bits. Or he was just putting in something bad so he wouldn't be called Utopian.
I was only commenting on the penance sessions. The rest of it... I can see all sorts of ways that could go horribly wrong, but not any worse than they already have.
Quote from: Kai on October 13, 2009, 05:28:32 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 13, 2009, 03:27:20 PM
It seems to me like he was trying to stretch the analogy, and it tore a little.
It seems to me like it was an interesting fiction story where researchers actually take ethical responsibility for their research. Wouldn't it be wonderful if researchers in this day and time actually did that?
Yes, but why call it "penance", other than to fit the Monastary theme?
Quote from: LMNO on October 13, 2009, 05:40:27 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 13, 2009, 05:28:32 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 13, 2009, 03:27:20 PM
It seems to me like he was trying to stretch the analogy, and it tore a little.
It seems to me like it was an interesting fiction story where researchers actually take ethical responsibility for their research. Wouldn't it be wonderful if researchers in this day and time actually did that?
Yes, but why call it "penance", other than to fit the Monastary theme?
"I hypothesize that I have selectively bred some REALLY good kine. At penance session I'll be testing some on myself."
wut
Supporting your earlier comment about an over - stretched metaphor.
Kind of reminiscent of "A Canticle for Leibowitz", except for the dogmatic approach monks in that book applied to science.
Oh, ok. I get it now.
Quote from: LMNO on October 13, 2009, 05:40:27 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 13, 2009, 05:28:32 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 13, 2009, 03:27:20 PM
It seems to me like he was trying to stretch the analogy, and it tore a little.
It seems to me like it was an interesting fiction story where researchers actually take ethical responsibility for their research. Wouldn't it be wonderful if researchers in this day and time actually did that?
Yes, but why call it "penance", other than to fit the Monastery theme?
It wasn't just a theme of a monastery. The author made it explicit that the scientific monastic movement is closely related to catholic monastics in the story. "Benedictine Order of Oncology". Perhaps the author came from a catholic background and decided to go with sort of monasticism. Or perhaps the author wanted to make a point and example of the level of self sacrifice involved in this particular ethical pursuit of medical materials and knowledge, or that the monks were doing literal penance for the "sins" of their past in pharm corps.
Either way it makes a good story.
First off, this is not to diss the story. I think it's a cool story, and indeed an interesting what-if scenario. Some of your observations about the story however are perhaps interesting to check out a bit closer:
Quote from: Kai on October 13, 2009, 05:28:32 PMLets think of it this way. It used to be that people would test their plants medicinal properties on themselves, in small amounts. More recently we've used animal test subjects for initial research, but human medication still requires a human test subject. Why is it that we think its ethically okay to try it out on someone else if we wouldn't try it on ourselves?
well one reason I can think of is that when testing something on a subject rather than oneself, in a lot of cases, you can make more accurate and objective observations. for example what if the drug has psychoactive properties.
however, in that case still a group of researchers could test it on researchers within the same group. which helps a lot for making observations, but I still get the idea that if everybody gets a turn, objectivity would suffer.
in addition to that, what if the drug has side effects, let's assume something innocent, it heals you, but it will also make you drowsy and very sleepy for the course of several weeks. in that case you will have one less scientist being able to do research and apply their knowledge. which leads to one possible answer to your question,
Quote from: Kai on October 13, 2009, 05:28:32 PMWhat makes our life that much more precious if what we are doing is a selfless development of medicine?
In the case of disabling side effects, the extra worth of the researcher compared to the non-researcher test subject is that of very specific and unique knowledge. If the researcher is working on this medicine, and tests it on himself, and the medicine is dangerous, he jeopardizes the entire project if things go wrong.
Getting back to the story, if you have an entire monastry, filled to the brim with scientists monks, which are somewhat expendable, and they all keep perfect lab notes and keep their collegues informed of any kinds of thoughts, musings and intuitions they might have about the project, then yes, I could see the scenario of researchers testing their medicines on themselves kind of working. Because in that case, a test gone wrong would not mean a loss of valuable unique knowledge.
This is of course assuming that, morally, losing a scientist that was just on the verge of discovering the cure for terrible disease X, is worse than losing a random test subject, in the very experiment that is part of the search for the cure for X. Losing the scientist would both doom the project and lose a life, where losing random test subject would "just" lose a life. Depends on the kind of ethics you subscribe to whether you think both situations are equal or not.
Also, if you'd switch "losing a life" with "incapacitating for a few weeks", the comparison changes again. In the case of the random test subject, nobody dies, whereas in the case of the researcher incapacitating themselves, the project gets delayed by a couple of weeks, while people are dying of terrible disease X. Of course again this doesn't matter if you've got a large or infinite supply of expendable scientists that do not individually get unique flashes of insights before they can fully explain them to their collegues.
Quote from: Kai on October 13, 2009, 05:28:32 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 13, 2009, 03:27:20 PM
It seems to me like he was trying to stretch the analogy, and it tore a little.
Why is it that we think its ethically okay to try it out on someone else if we wouldn't try it on ourselves?
For the same reason its ethically OK to give somebody who is sick a medication that has nasty side effects, but not somebody who is healthy.
If you're trying to replace Rogaine, then yeah, trying it out on researchers is ok.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 14, 2009, 12:00:37 AM
For the same reason its ethically OK to give somebody who is sick a medication that has nasty side effects, but not somebody who is healthy.
Explain to me how that's ethically okay.
For something obvious, chemotherapy is really nasty, nausea, hair loss, depressed immune system function to name a few. To apply it to somebody healthy would be cruel in the extreme. But it saves lives when done to the right people.
I think someone here wants an out. Maybe me. Here goes:
When I think healthy but expendable, I think military. If we can get away with restructuring medical research, maybe we can work different facets of "risk your life for the greater good", ie soldiering. maybe.
So, should a general model that monasticises all scientific research exist?
Quote from: Kai on October 14, 2009, 12:10:23 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 14, 2009, 12:00:37 AM
For the same reason its ethically OK to give somebody who is sick a medication that has nasty side effects, but not somebody who is healthy.
Explain to me how that's ethically okay.
Well, let's say you were trying to find a cure for AIDS, post-infection.
There is an implication that someone in the monestary would have to infect themselves with HIV in order to see if it works or not.
Ethically, it seems better to find people who are already infected, rather than add to the sum total of HIV+ cases in the world.
The point being that in order to test if something will cure a disease, you need to have someone with that disease in the first place. You can't test it on someone who's not sick.
Quote from: Igor on October 13, 2009, 12:00:01 PM
Neal Stephenson's latest book Anathem goes into this idea veeery thoroughly. It also has the "was maths invented/discovered" thing, and parallel universes and ninjas and space aliens....
It's a long read but definitely worth checking out.
I
still haven't read that. I really should.
Think TPB has it?
I don't think so, but I have it in html anyway. I could probably convert it to pdf quite easily, though I know he sometimes likes to put graphics in his books and I don't know if they will copy over with everything else.
Time to run some tests.
Try Stanza, it's a good free conversion tool.
http://ifile.it/mdfal2s
Well, I think I know what I'm reading next.
related to topic:
Cory Doctorow's story "The Things That Make Me Weak and Strange Get Engineered Away"
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/06/the-things-that-make.html
"about geek monasteries that house smart people who can't get along in the world and put them to work as coders. "
(http://craphound.com/images/Doctorow_RedNose_354_400.jpg)
I found this story very enjoyable
Quote from: Cain on October 14, 2009, 03:25:52 PM
Quote from: Igor on October 13, 2009, 12:00:01 PM
Neal Stephenson's latest book Anathem goes into this idea veeery thoroughly. It also has the "was maths invented/discovered" thing, and parallel universes and ninjas and space aliens....
It's a long read but definitely worth checking out.
I still haven't read that. I really should.
So far, it's pretty good. I thought the new language/terminologies would be annoying, but he actually put some thought into it.