(Warning: contains spoilers!) The new film is a veritable gold-mine for discussion of ethical topics, it would make as excellent vehicle for an engaging “film night”. In terms of bioethical issues, the film touches on all of the following:

• Research ethics – there are lots of examples where aspects of the conduct of research are raised (some of which are picked out specifically in the list below). The motivations for doing research are touched upon at several points in the film – these include financial gain, fame and a desire to do good, both for mankind in general and specifically for the benefit of a relative in need. GenSys boss Steven Jacobs (David Oyelowo) is the embodiment of profit as a driver for research whereas Will Rodman (James Franco) represents more noble aspirations. A discussion of the ethics of research funding could follow naturally.

• Conduct of clinical trials – there are clear rules governing the necessary stages in the development of a medicine for human use. At different times in the film Rodman and Jacobs express varied opinion regarding how to proceed. Early on, and motivated by the need to find a treatment for his father’s Alzheimer’s Disease, Rodman wants to press on to human trials whereas Jacobs expressed caution. In desperation, Rodman gives the ALZ112 drug to his dad in an unauthorised fashion. Later on it is Jacobs who wants to push forward whereas Rodman, with insights gained from experience seeing his father’s recovery and subsequent decline, suggest progression with more caution.

• Animal experimentation – should research be conducted on animals at all, or primates in particular? Why is the research done? What are some of the potential risks? As an illustration of the latter, the revised medicine ALZ113 apparently works well for apes, but is fatal for humans. If animals must be used should they be bred for the purpose or is it acceptable, as in the opening scenes of the film, to take them from the wild?

• Animal welfare – over and above the specific issue of experimentation on primates, the conduct of the staff at the San Bruno Primate Shelter raises questions about appropriate care of animals. Intelligent, and social, creatures spend a lot of time confined in very small cages lacking stimulating activities. They are brutalised by one of their keepers (Dodge Landon, played by “Malfoy” actor Tom Felton).

• Gene therapy – the treatment being developed by GenSys is described as “gene therapy” (e.g.00:04:56 and 00:37:15). We are told that the agent has a viral delivery system, but beyond that we are not party to the detail of how the medication would supposedly work. This is far from the worst representation of gene therapy in the movies (that dubious honour still goes to Bond film Die Another Day). Discussion here could pick up on the difference between germ line therapy (Caesar is apparently permanently altered as a consequence of in utero exposure to ALZ112, whereas Rodman’s dad Charles (John Lithgow) requires repeated treatments. A discussion of the real state of gene therapy research could follow, including safety issues with immune response to viral vectors as experience here by Charles and, sadly, in the real life case of Jesse Gelsinger.

• Therapy v Enhancement – is there an ethical difference between use of a medicine for treatment of a condition (e.g. Alzheimer’s Disease) and enhancement (e.g. to improve cognitive abilities beyond the ‘normal’ range)? In the film Will Rodman gives the ALZ112 drug to his father with the aim of treating Charles’ illness. Caesar is clearly an example of the enhancement potential and it is the cognitive improvement seen in another ape Koba (veteran of many research programmes) that excites Jacobs, even moreso than the treatment potential of ALZ113.

• Speciesism – what is it that distinguishes Homo sapiens from other species, e.g. apes such as Pan troglodytes? The film makes big play of development of speech by Caesar, but even before we become aware of this capability, there is ample evidence offered that he is manifesting skills over and above those of normal chimps? Is there a point at which an animal warrants different treatment? In the care expressed by Caesar in protecting Rodney (the kinder guard at the primate shelter) from beating by the other apes and again on the bridge as he stops a man being killed (01:23:00) are we to see compassion modelled which really ought to have been more evident in the human actors? Australian ethicist Peter Singer has been at the forefront of campaigning about the rights of great apes. Concerns about the irony of training real chimps to perform in a film about inappropriate treatment of apes is reported to have been one of the reasons why director Rupert Wyatt chose to go down a route of human actors and “performance capture technology”.

If time is constrained and you are looking for a short section of the film to launch a discussion of bioethics, I would recommend one of the following:

• Scenes 1&2 (start to 00:08:57, especially 00:01:01 to 00:05:13) – capture of wild chimpanzees, “bright eyes” doing Lucas tower in 20 steps, Will Rodman’s conversation with Jacobs, necessary evidence, ethical approval for human trials, Rodman’s explanation to share-holders, including gene therapy. Bright eyes escapes and is shot on the conference room table.
• Scene 8 (00:24:17 to 00:28:30, especially 00:24:47 to 00:28:30) – is Caesar a pet? Visit to GenSys where Will explains to Caesar about his origins and reason for his intelligence. Caroline (Freida Pinto) the girlfriend/vet asks for explanation. Drug designed for repair offers enhancement. “This is wrong Will”, “You are trying to control things that are not meant to be controlled”, “This is a good thing, Caesar’s proof of that and so is my father”.
• Scene 11 (00:36:56 to 00:39:33, especially 00:37:48 to 00:39:33) – Charles’ immune system rejects virus, hampering the therapy. Disease returned, need for improved delivery method. Will and Jacobs in the lift – how many drugs has company produced that could save millions of lives? Will admits his illegal trail as evidence ALZ112 does work. Enhancement applications “my father didn’t just recover, he improved”. Permission to test new drug on chimps.
• Scene 17 (00:57:03 to 00:59:02, especially 00:57:03 to 00:58:30) – Will surprised to find that experiments taking place on more chimps before they’ve examined Koba’s biochemistry. Studies authorised by Jacobs. Don’t know human effects. Drug effectiveness. “You make history, I make money”, threatened regarding illegal drug. Rationale for animal experimentation.

The structures activities on biofuels are the fifth resources developed specifically for teachers and lecturers

The first lesson uses a series of case studies to introduce a variety of potential biofuels and the advantages and disadvantages that each presents.

The second lesson involves the students in role play, to consider the question into the question “Should the UK increase the amount of biofuels it imports and if so what should be the rules for biofuels production?”

The SCHB has developed a database of films with bioethical themes

At BioethicsBytes we are sometimes asked if we know a good movie or documentary on a particular ethical topic. On many occasions we do, but our strategy here has generally been only to list items when we are specifically recommending a clip or a certain use of a film, rather than producing an overall list.

I am delighted therefore that the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics has just released a resource where they have a longer list of potential films and TV programmes organised by theme. The list can be accessed via this link. Remember to check back here afterwards to see if we’ve discussed the film on more detail.

For reasons I needn’t go into these videos have had longer gestation than a baby elephant but we are very pleased with the outcome and hope you will agree that they have been worth the wait. In the fullness of time there will also be some structured suggestions for how to use these videos in a teaching context.

Production of the two main videos has resulted in the release of seven further films as side-product of the project. These have been previously mentioned on this site, see here for a list.

The Briefing contains recommendations about useful resources for teaching about various aspects of bioethics

Anyone involved in teaching ethics to bioscience students should get hold of a copy of Ethics in the biosciences: Resources, references and tools for ethics teaching in the biosciences. This is the second Briefing document produced by the UK Centre for Bioscience (the first was on Assessment).

The new booklet includes coverage of the following topics:

• Teaching ethics
• Assessing ethics
• Ethical theory: How are ethical decisions made?
• The ethics of being a scientist
• Environmental ethics
• Issues at the beginning of life
• Issues at the end of life
• Genetics and genomes
• Animal experimentation
• Transhumanism
• Ethics and Risk

Each chapter includes a short introduction written by an expert on the topic and then a recommendations of other resources (websites, books, articles, slides, videos, etc) which have proven to be useful in teaching on the subject.

In addition to the online version of the booklet, a number of hard copies have been produced – if you would like one please contact the UK Centre for Bioscience before December 2011 when, unfortunately, their activities will be substantially scaled back.

The team looking at the ethics of organ trading based their video around a woman seeking a privately-organised transplant for her daughter. This issue is highly topical at the moment, with the recent publication of Scott Carney’s book The Red Market: On the Trail of the World’s Organ Brokers, Bone Thieves, Blood Farmers, and Child Traffickers.

.

The students discussing the ethics of egg donation introduced a variety of different contexts in which couples might seek to receive a donated egg.

.

.

A third team considered a scenario in which a doctor undertaking a brain scan had failed to identify a problem.

. 

.

This year’s medical students looked at the ethical issues associated with public health initiatives, specifically the tension between personal autonomy and actions for the greater good. They made effective use of finger puppets.

.

.

The best of last year’s films – on the forensic use of DNA – is already available, and a further example of this year’s other films – on genetic enhancement – has been posted by one of the students.

The Headline Bioethics study guides are being hosted on the Virtual Genetics Education Centre at the University of Leicester

Headline bioethics is a new series of resources for teaching about bioethics. There will be two styles of Headline bioethics resources – study guides and commentaries. For both sets of material, each resource is focussed around a news story which raises interesting ethical question in the fields of biology and biomedicine. The selected stories must all be available as a video clip on the BBC news website.

Study guides include background information and structured worksheets which teachers can either use “of the shelf” or customise for their own purposes. Commentaries are authored by undergraduate students and offer reflections on some of the ethical issues raised by the news story.

The ethics of GM crops is one of the topics considered in Headline Bioethics

The first two study guides, on Genetically Modified crops and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, are now available.  These Headline bioethics resources was authored by Sarah Curtis, a TULIP intern at the University of Leicester. If you have thoughts about these materials, or suggestions for future topics that you’d like to see covered in this way, then please let us know.

Doctor Who and Philosophy is the 55th title in the Popular Culture and Philosophy series

The new series of Doctor Who is underway, the sixth in the 21st Century reincarnation of the classic science fiction drama. The current two-parter The Rebel Flesh and The Almost People is raising some interesting ethical questions which I hope to discuss here in the near future. If you are interested in ethical and philosophical questions raised by the Timelord’s adventures you may be interested in Doctor Who and Philosophy: Bigger on the inside.

A recent addition to the Popular Culture and Philosophy series, this multi-author work has been edited by Courtland Lewis and Paula Smithka.  Topics covered include questions of personal identity, existence, science and ethics. My former colleague Bonnie Green and I have a chapter Ain’t we all the same? Underneath, ain’t we all kin? on the notion of species. This actually started life as a post here on Bioethicsbytes (see The Meaning of Humanity). I am delighted that the publishers have allowed us to include a pre-publication edition of our chapter in the Leicester Research Archive. It can therefore be accessed via this link. If you like the look of it, why not buy the book!

Other presentations from the Teaching Research Ethics to Bioscience Students day conference are available via this link.

This is the 4th resource produced by Nuffield's education team to accompany their more chunky reports on ethical developments in biology and medicine

The latest in a series of educational resources to accompany major reports by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics are now available. Picking up from the 2010 Nuffield report on the ethics of Personalised Healthcare, the resources have been developed by the Reaching Out to Young People team. The materials are based around three case studies looking at the impact of different developments moving medicine away from the traditional patient-doctor consultation. These are: the availability of personal genetic profiles; the ability to buy medicines online; and the rise of the internet as a source of health information.

The story of Christina and her decision about whether or not to buy a test for an inherited disease is one of the new resources

(Note: anyone who has ended at this post looking for “personalised healthcare” in the pharmacogenetic sense might like to know that this was the subject of a different Nuffield report in 2003 and hence it was not included in the 2010 document).