The New York Times’s resident conservative, David Brooks, is clearly intrigued by a neuroscience explanation of morality. In a column this week he sketched the conclusions of a conference organised by The Edge about “the new science of morality”. The conference featured some of the leading figures in the movement, including Roy Baumeister, Jonathan Haidt, Sam Harris, and Marc D. Hauser.

The conference organiser, John Brockman, summarised the theme: “For the first time, we have the tools and the will to undertake the scientific study of human nature… In 1975, [biologist E.O.] Wilson… predicted that ethics would someday be taken out of the hands of philosophers and incorporated into the ‘new synthesis’ of evolutionary and biological thinking. He was right.”

Even David Brooks appeared taken aback by the revolutionary implications. For instance, Harvard’s Marc D. Hauser is particularly interested in an evolutionary explanation of evil. Up to now, he claims, science has shunned the study of evil. But he has an explanation: “evil evolved, and emerges in daily life, as an accident of our brain's engineering”.

Brooks pointed out that the speakers “barely mentioned the yearning for transcendence and the sacred, which plays such a major role in every human society”. This was made explicit by neuroscientist Sam Harris, who is better known as one of the “new atheists”. He says that developing scientific reasons for doing the right thing is an urgent task. “The failure of science to address questions of meaning, morality, and values has become the primary justification for religious faith.” ~ New York Times, July 22

The infertility industry in the United States has grown to a multi-billion dollar business whose main commodity is the eggs of college students, claims by The Center for Bioethics and Culture. Its documentary, Eggsploitation, which premiers on August 9, takes a very dim view of the IVF industry. It profiles three highly educated young women — Calla, Alexandra and Sindy — who all who suffered dangerous health complications as a result of the egg donation process.

Diane Allen, of Canada’s Infertility Network, says that “This film should be seen by any woman considering becoming—or using—an egg donor so that she can better understand the medical risks involved.”

In 2008 doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital were presented with a novel ethical dilemma. A 36-year-old woman had collapsed on an international flight with a massive heart attack and slipped into a coma. Her husband and relatives agreed that she should be taken off life support and allowed to die. However, the order was suddenly reversed. One of the relatives had been surfing the internet and discovered the possibility of retrieving and freezing her eggs so that the she could have a posthumous child with her husband’s sperm.

This was an unusual case, according to an article in a recent issue of the NEJM. While retrieval of sperm in such circumstances has become a familiar procedure, egg retrieval is almost unheard of. They decided not to proceed because neither the woman (nor her husband) had ever expressed any interest in having children, because she could not consent, because the procedure would not benefit her, and because the protracted egg retrieval procedure might actually kill her. Fortunately the husband agreed.

Evelyne Shuster, of the University of Pennsylvania, told the Boston Globe that she disliked the notion of creating a “souvenir baby”. “To reproduce is to experience the joy of giving birth, of caring and seeing your child develop to become an adult,” She said. “This is nonexistent when you have posthumous birth.” ~ NEJM, July 15; Boston Globe,  July 15

Do donor-conceived children have a right to know their origins? Vardit Ravitsky, of the University of Montreal, and Joanna E. Scheib, research director of The Sperm Bank of California in Berkeley, say that they do in a recent issue of Bioethics Forum.

It is not possible to get a completely accurate picture what donor-conceived children feel. Surveys of children who are looking for their sperm-donor fathers are affected by sample bias. On the other hand, most parents fail to tell their children if they are donor-conceived. This “creates an insurmountable limitation to the study sample in any research on the life experiences of donor offspring”.

However, nearly all surveys, imperfect as they are, indicate that most children would like more information about their biological father. Consequently, the authors have two suggestions for the regulation of donor gametes in the United States. First, the FDA should require records to be kept indefinitely by donor insemination programs, sperm banks, and fertility clinics. Second, a national register should be established to safeguard all information related to sperm and egg donation.

Ravitsky and Scheib know that there is little chance that the US will ban donor anonymity in the short term. But if ever the day comes, the information will exist in a central registry. ~ Bioethics Forum, July 20

A team of 30 doctors has announced that they have successfully performed the world’s first full-face transplant on a man whose face was severely damaged in a shooting accident five years ago.

The operation was completed in March in Barcelona, at the Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, after almost 24 hours of surgery. The 31-year-old Spanish man who underwent the surgery, known as Oscar, reportedly thanked his doctors at a press conference for giving him a second chance to enjoy “the little things” in life.

Before the surgery in March, Oscar was unable to breathe, speak or eat on his own, due to his shooting accident. After nine previous reconstructive operations, it became apparent that a complete facial transplant might be his only option.

After two years of waiting for a suitable donor, doctors extracted bone and tissue from a deceased man near Oscar’s own age, placed them in preservation liquid then transplanted lips, teeth, nose, jaw, cheekbones and tear ducts onto Oscar. His body rejected them twice, but doctors were able to treat him successfully. The risk of rejection remains, and he will need to take immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of his life - drugs which will increase his risk of developing cancer and other illnesses such as diabetes.

Oscar is now able to move his upper eyelids, jaw, eyebrows and parts of his cheeks. He has reportedly gained feeling in most of his face and hair has started to grow. The surgeon said the new face does not look like the donor’s. “We were afraid of that but it doesn't at all. The family believes that he looks quite like he did before.”

Oscar has not yet been released from hospital and allowed home. Doctors say that he is expected to recover up to 90% of normal movement and sensitivity over 12 to 18 months of rehabilitation. ~ Independent, Jul 27; BBC News 23 Apr

A man from Georgia’s west Cherokee County is seeking to end his life in a bid to grant organ transplants to those who need them.

Gary Phebus, 62, has an incurable neurological disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, more commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. He was diagnosed in 2008. “I didn't want to believe it," he said. "I didn't know the ramifications except that Lou Gehrig had died from it. I thought, 'How come me? How come I got it?' You think that happens to other people."

Phebus began researching organ donation online, and learned how long people wait for organ transplants. He came up with the idea to donate his organs – right now, a procedure that would end his life. "I have a death sentence. It is just a matter of time," he said. "I know people are waiting on organs. If I am going to die, why not - while my organs are still viable - go ahead and save five to 10 people." His wife, Patti, and his four children support his plan.

"I feel it is the right thing to do. There is a lack of organs. I don't feel like it is suicide," he said. "I am trying to give other people a chance." Phebus also wants to avoid years of medical bills and insurance claims. "I'm dead anyway," he said. "I want to live, but I don't see any way out."

However, Phebus may be thwarted by federal law. This stipulates that an donor must pass away from brain death or cardiac death first. More than 3,000 people in Georgia are waiting for an organ transplant, and over 108,000 in the national waiting list. ~ Cherokee Tribune, Jul 25

Hundreds of leftover IVF embryos from British couples have been given away to other people without their knowledge or explicit consent in a controversial Spanish “embryo adoption scheme”. As a result, hundreds of British couples may have unknown biological children in Europe or other parts of the world.

The Institut Marques clinic in Barcelona runs an “embryo adoption scheme” in which spare embryos are given to other women if the couple is unsure of what to do with them or if they do not reply to the clinic’s correspondence. Anonymity rules in Spain mean that the children will lose all links with their biological parents.

The situation has highlighted the risks of seeking fertility treatment abroad, where different laws apply. More and more British are going to foreign clinics where donor eggs or sperm are more readily available.

The “embryo adoption programme” at Barcelona’s Institut Marques clinic started in 2004, and the clinic says it is the first of its kind. A spokeswoman for the clinic that over one-third of British couples they treated are unsure of what to do with their embryos. This means that since 2004, 114 out of 317 couples treated did not decide what to do with their embryos, and they were adopted out. A further 26 couples agreed to adoption.

Each year the clinic writes to patients giving them the options to donate the embryos to other patients, donate them for research, keep them for future use or destroy them. However, the letters go mostly unanswered.

Prof Juan Alvarez, scientific director of Institut Marques and a professor at Harvard Medical School, had an explanation for this. “To sign this document creates a difficult situation for these couples and in some cases may trigger emotional conflicts. They value so much these embryos which, in fact, are brothers of their children already born, that they cannot make a final decision and that is why they leave it to the medical team of the centre to make that decision.”

Single women or couples can adopt the embryos. Each embryo is matched to a woman of the same race, and implanted in the womb and carried as normal. There is no official paperwork for adoption, because the “adoptive” mothers give birth to the children. ~ London Telegraph, Jul 22

“Egregious examples of deceptive marketing”. No, not door-to-door life insurance or encyclopaedias. This was how the US Government Accountability Office described firms selling genetic testing kits after an undercover operation.

Federal investigators bought 10 kits each from four of the companies, selected real donors to send in samples for testing, and made calls to the companies posing as fictitious customers seeking health advice. The four companies were 23andMe, Pathway Genomics, DeCode Genetics and Navigenics.

According to the GAO, the companies had sent donors different results for the same sample and told donors that they had a reduced risk of getting diseases that they already had. Also, the report said that two companies suggested that personalised supplements to cure diseases could be formulated using a customer’s DNA. One company representative told a consumer she had a high risk for breast cancer, despite the fact that the company did not actually test for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer mutations. Another customer with a pacemaker implanted 13 years ago to treat an irregular heartbeat was told that he was at a decreased risk of developing that condition.

Kari Stefansson, executive chairman and president of research at Iceland-based DeCode Genetics, has denied the charges in the report, calling them “slanderous claims about sloppiness and misleading work.”

Stefansson said that DeCode provides consumers with accurate genetic risk assessments that are based on validated science. He also says that both genetic and environmental risk factors must be taken into account for certain diseases. “The fact that someone develops a heart attack,” he said, “does not mean he has a high genetic risk for heart attack.”

Congress and the Food and Drug Administration are currently investigating the genetic testing market for. Some officials have expressed concerns over the quality of the tests and the degree of variance between analyses by different companies. Also, many are concerned that people will make medical decisions based on the results without consulting the appropriate medical professionals. ~ New York Times, Jul 22

A national review of bioethics laws in France still has not reached a resolution. The current law dates back to 2004 and the government conducted an extensive review in 2009. The President, Nicolas Sarkozy, did not want the debate to be highjacked by “experts” so hundreds of meeting were held throughout the country – a kind of "Etats généraux de la bioéthique" after the Estates-General which inaugurated the French Revolution.

At the same time, a committee of parliamentary deputies conducted more than a hundred hearings with the experts -- lawyers, doctors, scientists, psychologists, and the religious leaders.

The upshot of this gigantic talk-fest was a 561 page report with 95 proposals for the National Assembly. The most significant of these are:

* the primacy of ethics over scientific and economic criteria

* The “interests of the unborn child” must be taken into account in making decisions about reproductive technology.

* bolstering research on genetic diseases, especially trisomy 21 (Down syndrome).

* better integration of disabled persons.

* preserving the ban on surrogate motherhood

* an extension of pre-implantation diagnosis to trisomy 21

* authorization of human embryonic stem cell research

It is likely that France will continue to be more restrictive than other countries in Europe. The raporteur for the report to the National Assembly, Jean Leonetti, told the French magazine Le Point earlier this year, “So what if surrogacy is permitted by our neighbours? If the law is determined by what everybody else does, what's the good of the law? How far are we prepared to manipulate bioethics to respond to our every whim? It's odd that we apply the precautionary principle to the environment and not to human beings.” ~ HT, Jean Matos

German scientists and doctors are still coming to grips with the grim story of how their colleagues collaborated with the Nazis. A recent issue of the journal Science sketches the link between German anatomists and the regime. Before Hitler came to power, about 20 civilians were executed each year in Germany and their bodies were made available to anatomists. Between 1933 and 1945, however, at least 16,000 civilians were executed – apart the death camps. By 1942, all the bodies of prisoners executed for high treason were being turned over to anatomists.

With the emergence of more historical data, Germany’s Anatomical Society plans to hold its first meeting on “Anatomy in the Third Reich” on September 29. “We hope that this will contribute to a global debate on ethical standards for the use of human cadavers in research and teaching,” Andreas Winkelmann, an anatomist at Charité Medical University in Berlin, told Science. Indeed, it is still an issue, as there have many allegations that the plastinated bodies in some travelling exhibitions come from executed prisoners.

Historians have uncovered abundant information about how callous the anatomists of the Third Reich became. In Vienna, for instance, a special streetcar ran between the place of execution and the medical school morgue. If the morgue was full, executions were delayed. At least 1,337 bodies were delivered in this way.

In another distressing example, the director of the Berlin Institute of Anatomy from 1935 to 1952, Hermann Sieve, dissected the bodies of 200 female prisoners to understand how their reproductive system was affected by the stress of learning the date of their execution. “The picture is one of a very gradual slippage in moral values among anatomists,” says Christoph Redies, a professor of anatomy at the Jena University Hospital. ~ Science, July 16