UNESCO

Hey everyone,

Well, I promised a curve for the research papers that were eligible for research awards by tonight, and, go figure, I haven’t been able to have that for you guys. I will definitely have a curve for all the papers by tomorrow night, when we pass out the papers to you guys. I will also have a bit of something to say to you guys to help you move forward from your initial deliberations, and into what I hope will be the most productive MUN session of the conference.

Which leads me to… the first day of the conference!

If you guys have access to a University of California (at Berkeley) campus map, our room will be at LeConte Hall, which is far from most hotels. So there are two things to remember…

1) Bring shoes that aren’t too uncomfortable. For guys, I don’t think this is too much of a problem. For girls, feel free to bring flip-flops or comfortable sandals for the walk up or down. Just make sure to be professional in terms of foot attire during committee session.

2) Bring an umbrella.

Berkeley weather is notoriously unpredictable. It was supposed to rain today, so I brought my umbrella out with me, only to be hit with blinding sunlight. So my advice to all of you is this: Don’t trust the weather reports. Bring a warm jacket or sweater, and be prepared to take it off in case of sun. Bring an umbrella, and be ready to stash it in your bag.

Also another public service reminder: Berkeley is protest central. We have three major protests going on right now, and it won’t be hard for you to notice them when you walk past them. All I have to say about that is this: just ignore them. All Berkeley protestors are begging for attention. Their causes are nonsensical, their viewpoints are too radical for logical human beings, and anyone dragged into their antics are simply wasting their time.

So when a bad-smelling, creaky-sounding, raisin-looking crazy approaches you to join them in a spiritual communion in the trees, just look the other way and walk past them. Its really the only way to be able to go home and avoid telling your parents that you’ve decided to eschew college for the school of hard knocks.

Alright, see all of you tomorrow!

- Bryan

Hey everyone, I’m starting to feel well enough to resume posting, so here goes.

 OFFICE HOURS

I will be having one LAST session (I know, three isn’t hardly enough) on AIM tomorrow evening from 8 to 9 pm. My sn will be BMUNunesco56, once again. Apologies to all those who were looking for me since the last session, but I can only log into a MUN-related sn so many times.

BIOETHICS CASE STUDIES

This will be the first of two posts regarding case studies to get your brains frying in terms of the issues we will be facing. These are case studies and are by NO means unique to the country talked about in the study. For example, the Chinese case study features laws that are also present in the United States, Canada, Japan, and in most of Europe.

Chinese Screening for Disease in Couples

The Maternal and Infant Health Care Law in China is a major legislative action that ”provides services” for all couples seeking marriage and children regarding screening for potential inheritable diseases and genetic and mental conditions. The law isn’t clear in terms of how mandatory these “services” are, but if a physician determines that a couple has unacceptable risk of passing on disease, he can issue a report banning the couple from marrying until that couple undergoes necessary contraception.

This law is a recurrence of negative eugenics, where a government prevents couples with health risks (mental state, genetic conditions, etc.) from having children. It occured to a great extent in America and Western Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and many of the laws of that period are still in place today.

Naturally, Americans are repulsed by such practices that are now legal in China (note the diction of my language, even. I tried to make it neutral, but its not). But how do the Chinese think? For the most part, they are in support of this law. Their culture is simply more accepting of practices that conform the individual to the group. Keep this in mind when you try to create some sort of universal and international standard.

Icelandic Genomic Testing

Iceland was the first nation to fully map the genomes and the genetic data of every single one of its citizens. The project began as a database covering just personal and other non-scientific data, but impetus from several communities convinced lawmakers to include genetic data as well.

The ease of doing so helped. Iceland has a small population, most of which has interbred for the majority of its history, resulting in very little genetic diversity.  Detailed health records have also been taken, so the value of a genetic database seemed very helpful in improving health care in Iceland.

However, there was much protest from groups all around Iceland. This protest centered around issues of abuse of that genetic data, such as genetic discrimination in health care, insurance, and job interviews, violation of privacy, and many others. As of now, the genetic database is complete, and the issue has subsided, for now…

This case is wildly different than what we will be facing, since Iceland is much less diverse than, well, the entire world put together. So if there is protest among people’s that are nearly genetically alike, just imagine the turmoil this testing will have among people who are much more genetically diverse.

Alright, more to come tomorrow!

- Bryan

Hey everyone,

Again, I have to apologize for my haphazard breaks from blogging. Life for a college student is very busy, and I hope you understand.

That being said, its less than three weeks until the conference, and I hope you guys are getting as excited as I am, especially seeing some of the submissions of articles that I’ve been getting.

First of all, I promised you guys an overview of international law, both in principle and in practice. Convienently, I was the head chair of the 6th Legal committee of the General Assembly for last year’s session, and I provided a succinct overview of international law in that committee’s topic synopsis. It was brief considering that international law is a very nebulous and arbitrary process, and hard to understand, even for people like me. Last year’s delegates only needed a minimal level of understanding, and I cannot see you guys needing to know more than they did…

6th Legal topic synopsis from the 55th Annual Session

Finally, two delegates have submitted very interesting articles…

Article link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - People indigenous to Siberia have strong genetic links to native peoples in the Americas, according to a study further supporting the theory that humans first entered the Americas over a land bridge across the Bering Strait.

Scientists at Stanford University in California combed through the genes of 938 people from 51 places, looking at 650,000 DNA locations in each person…

This article is quite revealing in the fact that we can discover people’s common ancestry in a peaceful way and let science be a main priority. With this way of discovering the past and DNA of indigenous people, we can ensure the safety of indigenous people and also let science discover the links between various ethnic groups. Also, by discovering the differences between people’s places of origins, we can stop the flow of prejudice by disproving that a certain ethnic groups committed crimes against another group. This would be one of the more positive side effects of genetic tracking. Hopefully, countries will see the positive effects of genetic tracking and will be more inclined to support scientists, but will also hopefully join together to combat any negative side effects that may arise.

Article link

The normal “standard of care” against which new interventions are tested in medical research has not been formally defined. It is usually taken to mean the “best proved treatment” for any condition under investigation in a trial. We reject the arbitrariness of this notion of the standard of care and offer a more comprehensive alternative. Use of this new standard invokes a new approach to international research ethics that focuses on reducing inequalities in global health…

If you guys cannot access the second article, let me know, and I will email the full text to you. I have access through the University of California proxy server, so I’m not sure how the restrict access to the general public.

Later this week I will start posting some intriguing case studies for you all to look over. So, until then, good luck with continuing your awesome researching!

- Bryan

Given that the field of ethics in antiquity was derived from religion and philosophy, which are both essentially quests for truth, it is no surprise that ethics has moved into the modern era’s quest for truth, or science. It should also be no surprise that, for better or worse, the practitioners of science has also tried to resist that very spread of ethics into their field much in the same way priests did centuries ago.

As I’ve have tried to expound in the past, our topics aren’t so much concerned with the ethical dilemmas of the principles of science (ex: whether we should allow human cloning) but rather the ethical issues involved with the practice of science and research. For example, our Genetics and Cultural Identity topic deals with how to or should we protect minorities from the potential harms of genetic diversity mapping, not should we map human diversity. Our Research Standards topic will deal with how to reconcile the various ethics review board systems in place to create a strong international review system, not should we conduct research. Therefore, this post will mostly deal with the problems that can be uncovered when scientists and society have differing priorities.

(Just a side note: I’ve begun to read many of your papers that were turned in before the 2/1 deadline, and I’ve noticed that some of you seem to have missed the point I just made. I won’t dock points, as the issues are tough, but do be sure to realign your research for the conference.)

One area of great ethical concern is misconduct in research. When a research team uncovers a potentially groundbreaking discovery, the motivations for publication and consequently fame and additional funding are great. Often times however, those motivations are too great, especially when researchers are convinced of their discovery despite anomalies in data, procedural errors, or a demand for more conclusive tests. In extraordinary cases, senior researchers have in the past coerced junior researchers to assist in coverups, and junior researchers in turn have neglected to inform authorities (whistleblowing) in hopes of advancement.

Researchers have also at times fabricated data in what is known as the “publish or perish” phenomenon. The scientific world moves at such a fast pace that the fear is that if you don’t publish, someone else will and steal your glory. In addition, conflicts of interest are common in science, especially now since corporations and industry often work closely with universities, blurring the line between the public and private sectors.

Research is just one area in science that can be clouded with ethical issues, and I’ve chosen to focus on research simply because our second topic is dominated by it. Use this post to start thinking about how the ethical methodologies I laid out in the previous post can be used to analyze ethical issues in science, and as always, if you have any questions, feel free to leave a comment or email any of us.

-Bryan

Ethics, too, are nothing but reverence for life. This is what gives me the fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil.

- Albert Schweitzer

Bioethics, due to its nature in dealing with relatively new issues, is a latecomer on the philosophical stage. However, the manner in which it deals with those issues is an old practice. In order to better understand the stances of the players in the topics, and in any other ethical issue as well, we have to look at how we make moral and ethical decisions. Obviously, this will be a relatively superficial look; if philosophy was easy, Cal wouldn’t offer a major in it.

There are several terms that are thrown around a lot in ethical discussions. Its important that we understand what these words really mean, in an academic sense.

Virtue -  a highly individualistic notion of ethics; can be either normative (the purpose of a being) or moral (reason, truth, value). Virtue is generally seen as being independent of any relationship with other beings, so it presents major problems of subjectivity.

Right - the set of freedoms that an individual or a group possesses. Included in this set is the right for an individual or group to voluntarily relinquish any or all of those rights. Obviously, problems arise when two parties have conflicting rights.
Duty - the set of obligations that an individual or a group possesses. Major problems arise when duties are considered independently from the consequences of those duties.

The following concepts involve methods to balance the three ethical lodes above.

Utilitarianism - an ethical decision is best when it creates the most net good, either by maximizing benefit, minimizing cost, or a combination of the two. This combination can be measured in two ways: 1) each person represents one unit, and the best decision is the one that makes the most people happy, or 2) each person can incur various degrees of benefit/cost, and the best decisions is the one that takes into account those variations.

For example, say a home is in a prime location for an airport. The former method would measure a cost to four people (the family) against the benefit to thousands of people (the local economy). Simple decision. However, the latter method would measure the cost to that family (loss of a home and jobs, or worse depending on the government) against the boost to the economy. The decision is a bit harder to make now.

Consequentialism - an ethical decision is best when it creates the best possible outcome. (Ends over means)
Pragmatism - an ethical decision is best when the practicality and utility of the decision is considered alongside the outcome. (NOT means over ends; rather, means = ends)

Objectivism - the validity of an ethical decision is independent of individual attitudes.

Subjectivism - the validity of an ethical decision can only be interpreted through the attitudes of individuals.

Pluralism - various ethical statements can be equal in truth and correctiveness; even if they stand in contrast to each other.

Now, all these concepts are well and good in theory. But what we are interested in for our topics is how these concepts are utilized to make applicable decisions in the real world. And in our Model UN world, we have the additional complicating factor of cultural differences. This leads to cultural relativism, or the argument that different cultures place different values on certain societal aspects. Cultural relativism stands in marked contrast to universalism, or the concept that one set of ethical or moral principals can be applied to all cultures equally. One example of this difference is the debate over educating children. In Western thought, it is moral and ethical to provide education to all children under a certain age. In other cultures, however, it is immoral and inethical to make this decision without consulting the family, which may need the child to help bring in income. The issues you will encounter in our committee will force you to take special care in understanding these cultural differences.

Lastly, we need to summarize the thought process that many policy makers actually use to make tough ethical decisions.

- The Four A’s -

1. Acquire Facts

2. Alternatives

3. Assess

4. Act

  By acquiring facts, determining which alternatives exist, assessing the validity and feasibility of the alternatives, and acting, governmental bodies and review boards can ensure that major ethical lapses don’t occur and a decision can actually bee made. This, however, won’t be your task for the 56th session. Your task is to determine what type of institution is the best for making these decisions. Make sure, however, that when you go about researching what institution is best for your nation, you keep in mind the above concept, for they will be central to our discussion.

Sometime within the next few days, we will be posting a sample ethical issue, and we will leave it open to you to practice the above modes of thought by providing your opinions on the issue.

-Bryan, signing off.

Hey everyone,

Welcome to the official blog for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization! To make things easier for everyone involved, we will refer to the committee simply as UNESCO.

This post will be the first in a long line of posts that will hopefully prepare not just you, but also your advisors and ourselves as well for the committee, and for the 56th Annual Session. This post will serve simply as an Introduction to this blog, and to its organization.

Each week leading up to the conference, there will be one main post covering a major section of the broad field of bioethics and how science and society intermingle with the international community. Hopefully, these posts will help each of you gain a better understanding of what issues are involved, and prepare you for a dynamic debate.

The schedule for the main posts are as follows

Week of 12/31: Introduction
Week of 1/7: Morality, Ethics, and Culture
Week of 1/14: Science and Ethics
Week of 1/21: International Law
Weeks of 1/28 to 2/25: Bioethics Case Studies
Week of 3/3: Major Questions
Week of 3/10: Answers to Questions, Lead-up to the Conference

In addition, there will be other posts that will talk about major news events and topic updates. These posts can be found in the pages to the right. Also on the right, you can find several links that will be of great assistance to your research and just general academic curiosity. Most of these sources are not absolutely essential, except for the Topic Synopsis, which will serve as merely the initial backbone of debate.

I’ve also attached Guidelines for your position papers. More information on our expectations for your papers can be found inside. What we are looking for is quality, not how many pages you can write. However, we don’t want a paper so short that is excludes important information either.

And for the last of the serious stuff, the topics will deal with issues that are complex and don’t readily appear as if they have a solution. We won’t expect you to be able to grasp each issue completely; we just want an intermediate level of understanding. To accomplish this, think about these essential questions. For the first topic (Genetics and Cultural Identity), how can the international system balance the protection of the identity of minorities threatened by genetic diversity research and the freedom of that research? Which priority is more important for your nation, considering ethnic and cultural issues in your nation? For the second topic (Medical Research and Health Standards), how should the international system regulate medical trials and pharmceutical companies that operate internationally? Should each case be dealt with by review boards in each nation, or should an international oversight organization handle these issues?

These are simplistic questions, but starting to think about these questions early will help you grasp these difficult concepts before we get more specific. Read the topic synopsis to increase your early understanding, and don’t be afraid to ask for clarifications.

Lastly, time to introduce your chairs! Patrick Ho is a first year at both Cal and in BMUN, and has yet to decide on a major. He is interested in music, tennis, eating, and meeting new people. Margarita is a fourth year at both Cal and in BMUN, and is a Molecular and Cell Biology major. She loves guinea pigs, math, and Oski (obviously a big Cal fan). As for me, I am, along with Margarita, a fourth year at Cal and in BMUN (go seniors!), and am also a Molecular and Cell Biology major, doubling with Legal Studies. I’m interested in running and other athletic activities (go Lakers, Dodgers, and the Golden Bears), House M.D. and The Office, and of course snowboarding.

If you want to contact us for ANY reason (questions about the committee, conference, or MUN in general; or anything else!) don’t be shy and feel free to do so. Our emails are as follows.

Bryan: bryanjsu AT gmail.com
Margarita: mivanova86 AT berkeley.edu
Patrick: patrickho AT berkeley.edu

We hope that UNESCO is ultimately a exciting and rewarding experience, and we hope to hear from you all soon!

- Bryan