IMS Magazine - Summer 2012 edition in PDF format - Institute of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COMMENTARY Commentary On ‘A Reconcilable Conflict’, by Benjamin Mora (Spring 2012) All ways of knowing are equal, but some are more equal than others By Adam Santoro, PhD student I would like to thank Benjamin Mora for submitting a thoughtful commentary in the previous issue of the IMS Magazine. Mr. Mora offered a contrasting opinion to that which I presented in the Winter 2012 issue, stating that “…flourishing dialogue between science and religion in recent years is testimony to the fact that, far from being irreconcilably conflicted these two domains of human knowledge can fruitfully interact.” Mr. Mora presented three arguments: firstly, that I was incorrect to state that scientists who are religious have not thought deeply about the issue, or are acting in a non-scientific manner; secondly, that my views succumb to an erroneous method of thinking called scientism; and thirdly, that I can only successfully support methodological (and not philosophical) naturalism, which allows for a great number of plausible and fruitful interactions between science and religion. As per his first argument: Mr. Mora contends that there are numerous “top-thinking” scientists who have thought deeply about the issue at hand. He presented a list of “topthinkers,” presumably to illustrate how some individuals maintain a high degree of scientific integrity and still think about the issue deeply. To this I would simply state that an individual’s scientific prowess does not necessarily translate to matters not published in Science or Nature; because an individual is a leader within his scientific field, it does not necessarily follow that he maintains sufficient scientific integrity when dealing with issues outside of the published literature (especially those that enter the realm of philosophy). Mr. Mora listed a plethora of scientists, all of whom are Christian. This is indeed curious, and raises numerous questions (i.e., why not list names of top-thinking scientists who are non-Christians?). I assume that it has to do with Mr. Mora’s theological bias, which leads me into the rest of the discussion. As per his second and third arguments: Mr. Mora implies that scientists who support my viewpoint suffer from scientism, which states that the scientific way of knowing is the only way to discover truth. Those who share Mr. Mora’s epistemic viewpoint acknowledge that there are different ways of knowing, and theology and science are merely two of such ways. With this worldview, theological knowing can inform one about the natural world, and science can inform one about theology, since both ways of knowing are equally valid. There is a problem with this view. It is undoubtedly the case that a priori theological beliefs necessarily dictate those natural phenomena that can be explained by science (e.g., something inherently boring and obviously un-divine as Brownian motion), and those that seemingly require theology (e.g., evolution vs. Intelligent Design). To those with this view, theology only succumbs to science when it would be to approach insanity to deny the scientific truth (see: the history of evolution, the Heliocentric Model, etc.). Thus, it is not a simple case of complementary systems of knowing that can live in harmony; all ways of knowing are apparently equal, but some are more equal than others. Regardless, straw-men aside, I was careful to present an argument that did not depend on a single way of knowing. Instead, I (perhaps naively) assumed that scientists support methodological naturalism – a viewpoint that says all natural phenomena must be explained by science, and theology cannot dictate when it cannot. Mr. Mora should take note that the theological way of knowing is not lost with this worldview; instead it is limited to the knowing of non-natural things. So, much like how in some views theology often dictates the limits of science, from my perspective it is science that dictates the limits of theology. Methodological naturalism does not assume that the theological way of knowing is invalid or incorrect; it simply states that it cannot conflict with science when dealing with the natural world. In my article I merely interpolated some conclusions from this viewpoint. Firstly, if theology cannot step on the toes of science on matters concerning the natural world, then nearly all theistic religions are to be rejected (since they all make naturalistic claims in some capacity, all of which conflict with scientific principles and natural laws). Second, deism is the only position a scientist/methodological naturalist can support, since this position does not contain conflicting views of natural phenomena. Thirdly, a scientist should support methodological naturalism fully – to pick and choose avenues where science is to be usurped by theology is to lack scientific integrity. Thus, an individual who is properly scientific and truly accepts methodological naturalism can be a deist, at most. As a final point, it is commonly argued that methodological naturalism can be in harmony with theology since a theistic God can act upon the natural world in ways that we cannot detect (and hence, by their very nature are in tune with natural laws and can be studied with science). For example, God could drive mutations during evolution in subtle ways that we cannot detect. This is merely a logical game (you cannot prove the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy with 100% certainty). This viewpoint would seriously undermine the credibility and integrity of a “top-thinking” scientist, since the invention of ad hoc hypotheses is wonky at best. 03 | IMS MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 GENOMIC MEDICINE
COMMENTARY Photo by Yekta Dowlati The Sex of Stem Cells Does sex have an effect on the regenerative potential of stem cells? By Anna Podnos, MSc student In the last several decades, sex and gender have become widely recognized as important biological and social variables in human research, and many strategies for incorporating sex in research design have been developed. However, as discussed in our Summer 2011 edition (see “Sexism in Biomedical Research”), stratifying experiments by sex is much rarer in animal and cell-based research 1 . Regenerative therapies, such as stem cell transplantation, are being developed based on animal and cellular models, and a fundamental component may be missing. Significant sex differences have recently been found in the regenerative properties of various stem cells. Stems cells have the unique ability to differentiate into specific cell types and self-renew, so they have the potential to treat organ failure, cancers, and degenerative diseases. When patients’ own stem cells cannot be used therapeutically, they may require a cellular transplant from a donor. The success of transplantation depends on the type of donor stem cells, the characteristics of host cells, and their interactions with pathways associated with the illness 2 . Research using animal models has found that biological sex is an important variable in proliferation and differentiation rates of stem cells 3 . For example, animal studies of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (the only stem cell therapy in standard medical practice 4 ) have found that that the sex of both donor and recipient animals affect the transplantation outcome 4 . In addition, there are significant differences in the activation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) depending on their biological sex 3 . Researchers found that female stem cells produced more proliferation- and inflammation-promoting factors than male cells. Female muscle-derived stem cells (MDSC), which have the capacity for myocardial repair, were another type of stem cell found to have more regenerative capacity than male MDSC 5 . These sex differences may be therapeutically relevant, but there are few studies directly comparing different cell types in dis- ease models 6 . Given that sex differences exist in stem cells, it is necessary to examine the causes of the dissimilarities, which may arise on genetic, epigenetic or hormonal levels. Male and female cells differ genetically, and it is important to investigate the differences both between and within sexes. The hormonal environment is a key covariate to sex, because it may also regulate the differentiation and proliferation of stem cells. Epigenetic differences resulting in varying gene expression levels are covariates as well. In mouse models of muscular dystrophy, it was found that not only do female MDSC promote more regeneration than male MDSC, but also that the female recipient animals undergo more regeneration than male animals do, regardless of the sex of the donor cells. However, this is not the case in immune-deficient animals, which suggests that the effect of host’s sex on the MDSC regenerative potential may be immunologically modulated, and therefore influenced by the hormonal environment. It is challenging to appropriately incorporate sex as a variable in animal and cell-based study designs, so an interdisciplinary approach is often required. Recently, Stanford University launched “Gendered Innovations” 2 (genderedinnovations.stanford.edu), which has an abundance of information about the inclusion of sex and/or gender in engineering, science and medicine. It provides practical methods and checklists for considering biological sex in basic research. The development and implementation of specific guidelines for incorporating sex in stem cell research as an informative variable, rather than just a bias, will improve regenerative therapies. References 1. Beery, A., & Zucker, I. 2011. Sex Bias in Neuroscience and Biomedical Research. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35 (3), 565-572 2. genderedinnovations.stanford.edu 3. Crisostomo, P., Markel, T., Wang, M., Lahm, T., Lillemoe, K., & Meldrum, D. 2007. In the Adult Mesenchymal Stem Cell Population, Source Gender Is a Biologically Relevant Aspect of Protective Power. Surgery, 142 (2), 215-221 4. Gahrton, G., Iacobelli, S., Apperley, J., Bandini, G., Björkstrand, B., Bladé, J., Boiron, J., Cavo, M., Cornelissen, J., Corradini, P., Kröger, N., Ljungman, P., Michallet, M., Russell, N., Samson, D., Schattenberg, A., Sirohi, B., Verdonck, L., Volin, L., Zander, A., & Niederwieser, D. 2005. The Impact of Donor Gender on Outcome of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma: Reduced Relapse Risk in Female to Male Transplants. Bone Marrow Transplantation, 35 (6), 609-617 5. Deasy, B., Lu, A., Rubin, R., Huard, J., Tebbets, J., Feduska, J., Schugar, R., Pollett, J., Sun, B., Urish, K., Gharaibeh, B., & Coo, B. 2007. A Role for Cell Sex in Stem Cell-Mediated Skeletal Muscle Regeneration: Female Cells Have Higher Muscle Regeneration Efficiency. The Journal of Cell Biology, 177 (1), 73-86 6. Zenovich, A., Davis, B., & Taylor, D. 2007. Comparison of Intracardiac Cell Transplantation: Autologous Skeletal Myoblasts versus Bone Marrow Cells. In Kauser, K., & Zeiher, A. (Eds.), Bone Marrow-Derived Progenitors, pp. 117-165. Berlin: Springer Verlag Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the author are in no way affiliated with the Institute of Medical Science or the University of Toronto. Comments are welcome at theimsmagazine@ gmail.com. What to look for next issue: In continuation of our Genomic Medicine feature, we highlight Dr. Berge Minassian’s work in uncovering genetic causes of rare, profoundly debilitating neurological diseases. Contact Us We encourage our readers to send their feedback -- comments, questions, corrections, and letters to the editor -- to theimsmagazine@ gmail.com. www.facebook.com/groups/imsmagazine/ @IMSMagazine IMS MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 GENOMIC MEDICINE | 04
Page 1: IMSMAGAZINE SUMMER THINK, LEARN, DI
Page 6 and 7: NEWS AT A GLANCE 05 | IMS MAGAZINE
Page 8 and 9: NEWS AT A GLANCE NEWS&VIEWS JULY 28
Page 10 and 11: SPOTLIGHT Translational research an
Page 12 and 13: IMS SCIENTIFIC DAY HIGHLIGHT IMS SC
Page 14 and 15: FEATURE 13 | IMS MAGAZINE SUMMER 20
Page 16 and 17: FEATURE Ethics and Challenges of De
Page 18 and 19: FEATURE Psychiatric Pharmacogenetic
Page 20 and 21: FEATURE Spit for Science: A Populat
Page 22 and 23: FEATURE Epigenomics Beyond Genomic
Page 24 and 25: FEATURE SPOTLIGHT Advancing Genomic
Page 26 and 27: SPOTLIGHT Wenjun Xu The best of bot
Page 28 and 29: BOOK REVIEWS Book Reviews Excellent
Page 30 and 31: CLOSE UP Interview with Dr. Gary Re
Page 32 and 33: VIEWPOINT Publish and Perish Why sc
Page 34 and 35: VIEWPOINT A Numbers Game Why an art
Page 36 and 37: EXPERT OPINION Interactive proteomi
Page 38 and 39: FUTURE DIRECTIONS Dr. Gabriella Far
Page 40 and 41: RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT Genomic medicine
Page 42 and 43: PAST EVENTS PAST EVENTS This year
Page 44: READ IT ONLINE IMSMAGAZINE http://i

IMS Magazine - Summer 2012 edition in PDF format - Institute of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?