Sometimes there is such a thing as too much information.
Dr. Nita Farahany reminds the Huang Fellows of the importance for strong ethical guidelines in reasearch.Whether it is learning how to speak new languages, to treat patients, to bake a recipe, or to love, our ability to learn and to change the world around us is dependent on what information we have. If you are a scientist, you might call it data. Or, you may simply call it google search results, newspaper articles, or even just life experience. I believe that information, when it is true and honest, is valuable beyond measure.
But this summer, Dr. Nita Farahany of Duke’s Law School and the Director of Duke’s Science and Society Department argued that we may not want to know something even if it is true due to possible ethical repercussions. We may not want to know if removing the neural-activity blockers from Yale’s BrainEx experiment, that famously restored cellular function in once dead pig brains, will also restore electrical activity, or even consciousness. I can’t help but agree.
Is it frustrating and frankly disappointing not to know? Absolutely. But pause and think about the ramifications of knowing the result of removing some neural-activity blockers. I’ll wait.
Brain-dead. No pulse. No breath. Such a person in most circles would be described as dead. Yes, nowadays we have machines that can mechanically take over the role of one’s heart and lungs. This isn’t new information. But that first descriptor, “brain-dead,” at least for me, if you’ll pardon the crude metaphor, has always been the nail in the coffin. But with BrainEx as a first stepping-stone, what happens if we devised a way to mechanically restore both cellular and electrical brain function? When does one shut a patient’s eyes?
Dr. Farahany chose this case study for a reason. Through it, she introduced the idea that ethics should not be seen simply as guardrails that prevent science from driving society into apocalyptic scenarios. Instead, the ethical implications of scientific work should be considered from the start. You might ask yourself, why were the neural-activity blockers even used in the first place. Well one reason, is that the scientists themselves, terrified, had realized what they might discover if they didn’t. Ethics was interwoven.
So, I will still stand by the phrasing that I used at the beginning of this reflection, but with one slight modification. Information, when it is true, honest, and responsible, is valuable beyond measure.
Rithik Castelino, Huang Fellow ’23
Rithik is a premed, Environmental Chemistry major from the San Francisco Bay Area, working towards becoming a general surgeon.