Spring 2011 | NUS
A Production of The Triple Helix
THE SCIENCE IN SOCIETY REVIEW
The International Journal of Science, Society and Law
Why Do They Not Believe in God?
Value of Doubt and the Scientific Method in Scientists’ Community
Insects as Food for Thought
When “Is”
Meets “Ought”
ASU • Berkeley • Brown • Cambridge • CMU • Cornell • Georgetown • Harvard • JHU •
NUS • Penn • UChicago • UCL • UNC Chapel Hill • University of Melbourne • UCSD • Yale
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT
TEAM
Chief Executive Officer
Bharat Kilaru
Executive Editor-in-Chief
Dayan Li
Chief Production Officer
Chikaodili Okaneme
Executive Director of
E-Publishing
Zain Pasha
Executive Director of Science
Policy
Karen Hong
Chief Operations Officer, North
America
Jennifer Ong
Chief Operations Officer,
Europe
Francesca Day
Chief Operations Officer, Asia
Felix Chew
Chief Financial Officer
Jim Snyder
Chief Marketing Officer
Mounica Yanamandala
INTERNATIONAL STAFF
Senior Literary Editors
Dhruba Banerjee
Victoria Phan
Robert Qi
Linda Xia
Angela Yu
Senior Production Editors
Adam Esmail
Indra Ekmanis
Laura Tiedemann
Robert Tinkle
Sia Sin Wei
Jovian Yu
Senior E-Publishing Editors
Anna Collins
Jae Kwan Jang
Rahul Kishore
John Lee
Jacob Parzen
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Chairman
Kevin Hwang
Erwin Wang
Kalil Abdullah
Melissa Matarese
Joel Gabre
Manisha Bhattacharya
Julia Piper
TRIPLE HELIX CHAPTERS
North America Chapters
Arizona State University
Brown University
Carnegie Mellon University
Cornell University
Dartmouth College
Georgetown University
Georgia Institute of
Technology
Harvard University
Johns Hopkins University
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Northwestern University
Ohio State University
University of California,
Berkeley
University of California,
San Diego
University of Chicago
University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill
University of Pennsylvania
Yale University
Europe Chapters
Cambridge University
University College London
Asia Chapters
National University of
Singapore
Peking University
Hong Kong University
Australia Chapters
University of Melbourne
University of Sydney
Monash University
THE TRIPLE HELIX
A global forum for science in society
The Triple Helix, Inc. is the world’s largest completely student-run
organization dedicated to taking an interdisciplinary approach toward
evaluating the true impact of historical and modern advances in
science.
Work with tomorrow’s leaders
Our international operations unite talented
undergraduates with a drive for excellence at
over 25 top universities around the world.
Imagine your readership
Bring fresh perspectives and your own analysis
to our academic journal, The Science in Society
Review, which publishes International Features
across all of our chapters.
Reach our global audience
The E-publishing division showcases the
latest in scientific breakthroughs and policy
developments through editorials and multimedia
presentations.
Catalyze change and shape the future
Our new Science Policy Division will engage
students, academic institutions, public leaders,
and the community in discussion and debate
about the most pressing and complex issues
that face our world today.
All of the students involved in The Triple Helix understand that the fast
pace of scientific innovation only further underscores the importance of
examining the ethical, economic, social, and legal implications of new
ideas and technologies — only then can we completely understand
how they will change our everyday lives, and perhaps even the norms
of our society.
Come join us!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Science of
Morality:
4
A Darwinian account
for the repulsion we
feel at suffering
11
To Clone or
Not to Clone:
Current limitations
and its possible
ramifications
Your Genes?
26
Reasons why they
might not actually be
yours
Cover Article
4
When “Is” Meets “Ought”
Marcus Moretti, Yale
Local Articles
7
Drugged-up Superbrains
Koh Wan Zi
11
TO CLONE OR NOT TO CLONE: Endangered Species Conservation
14
Insects as Food for Thought
Emelyne Teo
16
I Recognize You: Not Just Skin Deep
Zhang Qiong
18
Why Do They Not Believe in God? --Value of Doubt and the Scientific
Method in Scientists’ Community
Sudha Sundaram
Tommy Shi Zheng
International Features
22
Cash for Kidneys, or, How Do We Solve the
Kidney Shortage Problem?
26
Your Genes Belong to Us
28
The Ethics of Research and Clinical Trial Outsourcing
30
Science Research Papers: Can You Always Trust
What You Read?
Cover design courtesy of Natalie Koh Ting Li, University of Melbourne
Doni Bloomfield, UChicago
Gengshi Chen,Cambridge
Dayan Li, Harvard
Chikaodili Okaneme, Cornell
INSIDE TTH
Message from the Incoming Chief
Operating Officer, Asia
It is my great honour to lead The Triple Helix, NUS chapter for the next academic year. Through
the years, The Triple Helix has become a more established and recognized organization both in the
local and international context. Such extensive outreach has allowed and encouraged discussion and
debate on multidisciplinary issues in the triad of science, society and law.
STAFF AT NUS
President
Mabel Seah
Chief Operating Officer
Chin You Chuen
Editor-in-Chief
Sia Sin Wei
Managing Editor
Rebecca Tan
IT Directors
Jiao Meng Lu
Secretaries
Low Mary-Ruth Ern-Lyn
Zhang Qiong
It is my hope that the TTH-NUS chapter will be able to have a wider outreach into the community
at large and to reach out to other Asian universities to promote the same sort of multi-disciplinary
discussions. We are also currently building up on our online presence and trying to collaborate
with other organizations. This year will also see more projects to be initiated and undertaken by our
chapter executive board and members.
Last but not least, I would like to thank all our Advisors and Readers for your continued interest and
support.
Best Regards,
Chin You Chuen
COO
National University of Singapore (NUS)
The Triple Helix, Inc
chinyouchuen@hotmail.com
http://triplehelixnus.wordpress.com/
Writers
Zhang Qiong
Emelyn Teo
Sudha Sundaram
Koh Wanzi
Tommy Shi Zheng
Faculty Advisor
Prof Andrew Wee T S
Assoc. Prof Chin Wee Shong
Message from the Incoming Editor in Chief
In my capacity as editor in chief of our local chapter, I am pleased to present our
latest issue of our publication of our local chapter. I wish to thank our local literary
and business team that have contributed to our journal for their hardwork and effort.
Our articles for this issue covers a diverse range of modern issues in the sciences,
especially in the life sciences. For example, our local contributors have covered topics as
diverse as conservation biology, the science-religion relationship, neuropharmacology,
entomology and cognitive psychology. Taken together, they provide support to the
notion that societal issues cannot be separated from scientific issues. For almost every
scientific finding and development, the societal impact cannot be underestimated.
Thank you for reading and supporting us. If you are interested in becoming a part
of a team which examines the science-society relationship, please drop us an email. Thank you.
Sia Sin Wei
Editor-in-Chief
The Triple Helix ,NUS
siasinwei1988@hotmail.com
Spring 2011
2 THE TRIPLE HELIX S
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
INSIDE TTH
Message from the CEO
In tandem with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference in
Washington D.C., The Triple Helix hosted its largest Leadership Summit with close to a hundred
students in attendance from nearly fifteen chapters across three different continents. From professional
speakers to an international poster competition, the experience was a paragon of the passion we
demonstrate in every division of our young organization: from science policy events and freelance
e-publishing work to the scholarly literary work ahead.
Before you look through The Science in Society Review issue awaiting you, I hope to share with you my
insight into the level of work behind every word. The articles in the following pages are derived from
an outstanding level of editorial and literary commitment. Each piece represents not only the work
of the writer, but also the work of one-on-one associate editors, a highly effective editorial board, astute international
senior literary editors, an impressive faculty review board, and an imaginative production staff that reinvents the
journal every issue. As you read the following pieces, we hope you will come to appreciate the truly professional level
of work that goes into every paragraph. And it is with that same dedication to improvement that every division of The
Triple Helix creates progress every day.
The last year has been a transitional one as we established a fresh new online presence, brought back divisions in
finance and marketing, and established a whole new standard for internal communication. We have truly come a long
way from the handful of students meeting in coffee shops not even four years ago. But we have so many more dreams
for TTH ahead. We invite you as readers and supporters to come forward and develop new visions that will push us
to the next level. The opportunity is upon us and I hope that you will join us in our work towards a global forum for
science in society.
Sincerely,
Bharat Kilaru, CEO
The Triple Helix, Inc.
Message from the CPO and EEiC
We are proud to present you with another edition of The Science and Society Review! Over the past year,
the Literary and Production departments have taken great care in ensuring that our science articles
were published at their utmost quality. In order to achieve this, our staff members have invested a
tremendous amount of time into editing and designing all the journals for publication. Realizing
that coordination between Literary and Production throughout all steps of journal development is
paramount for an efficient process, our departments collaborated with each other more than ever.
Ultimately, our joint efforts have resulted in a publication that we feel best displays the talent of
our student writers and the professionalism of our organization.
As both of us prepare to graduate this May, we hope that the upcoming EEiC and CPO continue to strengthen our departments’
teamwork and overall productivity. Although handling a large number of articles and journals each semester can be a challenge,
we trust that by sharing our expertise and experiences with our staff, future Literary and Production leaders will be more than
ready to create the next series of outstanding Science and Society Review publications. It was certainly a pleasure serving The
Triple Helix during our undergraduate careers, and we hope that you enjoy reading the Spring 2011 issue. Please continue to
participate in this important dialogue on the role of science in society, whether through The Triple Helix or beyond.
Sincerely,
Chikaodili Okaneme and Dayan Li
Chief Production Officer and Executive Editor-in-Chief
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011 3
YALE
When “Is” Meets “Ought”
Marcus Moretti
T
he fifth anniversary of the Afghanistan War loomed stopped by a grenade that exploded just close enough to
when Sgt. 1st Class Jared Monti and his troops were kill him instantly.
fatally exposed to the enemy. The roaring blades of
At Sgt. Monti’s Medal of Honor ceremony three years
an American helicopter, sent to resupply Sgt. Monti’s unit later, President Obama, presenting the award for the first
near the Afghan-Pakistan border, roused lurking Taliban time, asked in his panegyric, “Do we really grasp the meaning
of these values? Do we truly
forces nearby. The ensuing
storm of AK-47 rounds sent
understand the nature of these
Evolutionary scientists are
virtues, to serve and to sacrithe unit scurrying behind the
fice?” [1]. For millennia, philargest boulders within sight.
looking for evidence in favor
After Sgt. Monti secured himlosophers have wrestled with
of a Darwinian account for the
questions like these, which
self, he spotted one of his men
repulsion we feel at perceiving
downed and vulnerable. On his
seek explanations for why acts
first two attempts to ditch his
like Sgt. Monti’s so imbrue the
human suffering. Some call
cover and rescue the downed
soul. But the discipline arguthis search the “science of
comrade, he was thwarted by
ably making the most strides
incoming fire. His third go was
toward such explanations at
morality”
4 THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
YALE
present is not philosophy, but biology.
Evolutionary scientists are looking for evidence in favor
of a Darwinian account for the repulsion we feel at perceiving human suffering. Some call this search the “science of
morality” because it may ultimately usurp philosophy’s
dominion over ethics. As you read this, experiments that
will accelerate this transfer of power are nearing completion
all over the globe.
The most common participants in these types of experiments are rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees, primates with
whom we share up to 98% of our DNA, and our closest animal
relatives. Their behavior defies the old anthropocentric claim
that other apes, unlike us, are incapable of ignoring their
own interests in order to protect those of another ape. Our
language manifests this presumed hierarchy of creatures:
when we call people “animalistic,” “reptilian,” or “Neanderthals,” we mean that they are stupid and self-centered.
Believers of said anthropocentric claim may be said to
be, as the writer Douglas Foster put it, in “anthropodenial.”
Their hierarchy has been discredited, and a new spate of
experiments hammers what may be the final nails into its
coffin. In one experiment (Palagi et al., 2009), gelada baboons
were shown images of conspecifics—members of the same
species—yawning in hopes of finding a tendency for lower
primates to identity with conspecifics [2]. As the experimenters predicted, when these animals observed yawns,
they yawned back.
This mimicry evinces a tendency to self-identify with
conspecifics, which is the precondition for empathetic relations. Empathetic behavior in apes has indeed been well
documented. In one study (Carter, J.D., 2008), a society of
chimps was shown to be especially accommodating toward
one of its members afflicted with cerebral palsy [3]. Not one
of the disabled chimp’s neighbors exploited his deficiencies,
which would be expected from truly solipsistic organisms.
In fact, the group’s alpha male paid special attention to the
needs of the disabled chimp and groomed him more gently
than he did the others.
These studies revive the evolutionary theory of altruism
that is known as the “group-selection” theory. Its guiding rule
is that animal communities in which members are cooperators
will win out over communities of selfish creatures. The theory
was discredited in the 1970s by biologist Richard Dawkins
who posed a problem that he termed that of “subversion
from within.” The problem is that some members may enjoy
the spoils of others’ sacrifices without sacrificing anything
themselves. These free-riders have a fitness advantage over
the cooperators because they would enjoy, for instance, the
protection afforded by those who stand guard, but never risk
injury or death to fend off predators themselves. It appears
that the free-riders would then win out over cooperators
under group-selection theory, and cooperation would not
be selected for.
What may allow group-selection theory to overcome
this worry is the observed tendency of primates to reciprocate negatively, that is, to take retributive action against
free-riders. Primates may construct revenge systems, as they
have been called in recent studies [4]. Premier primatologist Frans de Waal identifies partner selection as the chief
method of enforcing the revenge system. If a partnered male
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
Proponents of science’s
annexation of moral territory
cite the failure on the part
of philosophers to reach a
consensus on ethics after
millennia of deliberation. But
this debate is not one-sided
ape reveals himself to be selfish and uncaring, his lady will
promptly dump him. This also happens at the group level: if
a member of the community is discovered to be free-riding,
then the others may be unwilling to share their food with him.
De Waal, in a recent paper that surveys developments
in intra-group cooperation among primates, distinguishes
between two types of evolutionary causes for action that are
essential to group-selection theory: proximate and ultimate
causes [5]. Proximate causes proliferate when the actions
they entail immediately benefit the actor. An example of a
proximate cause would be thirst. Quenching thirst requires
the beast to hydrate itself, a biological necessity. Ultimate
causes arise when an action helps the survival of the species,
not just the organism, and may not provide any immediate
benefits to the actor itself.
Sex drive is a potent example of an ultimate cause.
Humans mostly go at it in pursuit of the sensation of stimulation and (hopefully) orgasm. Sensual pleasure may be a
proximate cause, but one’s body could go on without having
sex. The broader survival of the species is what is at stake.
Our sex drives are ultimate causes because they make sex
something we all feel compelled to do, thereby ensuring
homo sapiens’ perpetuation. A lustful population is more
likely to thrive and persist than a more subdued one, hence
the often gratuitous human sex drive.
Evolutionary biologists have used this distinction between proximate and ultimate causes to explain altruistic
acts. The selfless act—the donation of food or the forfeiture
of one’s life to save another’s—can be explained by ultimate
causes. The tendency for communities with intra-altruism
to outcompete less selfless groups, ceteris paribus, allows
the altruistic gene to proliferate. The short-term, proximal
causes for such sacrifice, if they do exist, are often insufficient to overwhelm the grand loss. The larger force that
keeps the population afloat explains the preponderance of
behaviors whose personal costs are significantly higher than
their personal benefits.
In light of biology’s growing encroachments onto moral
territory, a large swath of philosophy may face redundancies.
If we are programmed to feel certain ethical obligations and
not others, and those obligations have contributed to our
species’ success, then what is the use in trying to propose an
alternate set of ethical principles? Of course cultures are free
to decide on their own positive values (honor, intelligence,
etc.), but if there are at base some discoverable, proscriptive
maxims, why busy over another set?
Proponents of science’s annexation of moral territory cite the failure on the part of philosophers to reach
a consensus on ethics after millennia of deliberation. But
this debate is not one-sided. In a 2009 issue of Newsweek,
THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011 5
YALE
science editor Sharon Begley launched a two-tiered attack
against evolutionary psychology. She claimed first that the
science was reprehensible in itself because it vindicates the
“evolution made me do it” excuse [6]. Case in point: a 2000
book called A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of
Sexual Coercion argued that rape is a naturally selected
sexual strategy because it improves gene survival. Begley
also attacked the field’s premise. Humans, she argued, never
stayed in one environment long enough for psychological
traits to compete in the epochal contest of natural selection,
so what arose instead was a versatile mind that could adapt
to inconstant circumstances.
The first of these attacks is not well-grounded. As
Begley herself seems to admit in her article, an attempt to
discredit a science because its findings depress us is simply
bad science. A condition of genuine scientific inquiry is the
willingness to accept hard facts if valid experiments uncover
them. If evolutionary psychology finds that troubling beliefs
and desires come inbuilt, so be it. Even so, that evolutionary psychology produces repugnant findings is less of a
concern than Begley made it out to be. That book that gave
rape an evolutionary defense was later disproven by other
studies, which pointed out the overwhelming odds against
the survival of genes that bestow proclivities toward sexual
coercion. Just as one would not expect a community to look
fondly on free-riders, one would not expect community
members to help a known rapist find food.
The field’s most recent embarrassment was Harvard
biologist Marc Hauser’s conviction on eight counts of scientific misconduct in his studies of primate morality. Hauser
designed his experiments with the hope of identifying more
human characteristics in primates, as several of his valid
studies did before. His data-fudging was taken by some
religious figures, philosophers, and even other scientists
as an invalidation of the entire project.
Many scientists, however, have come to the field’s
defense. De Waal has pointed out that many areas of scientific study have had their fair shares of frauds, including
chemistry and physics, but those anomalies did not shutter
entire disciplines. Hauser’s misconduct was one unfortunate
instance of malpractice and should not be taken to debunk
the connection between evolution and morality. De Waal
and other primatologists like Jane Goodall should not go
unemployed because of one colleague’s misdoings.
Setting these procedural complaints aside, evolution can
still only go so far to answer the biggest questions of human
existence. As Harvard professor of linguistics Steven Pinker
argues, if evolution were the only source of life’s purpose,
a man would be wholly fulfilled spending his afternoons at
the sperm bank. But this is not so. Even if one believes that
sex drive is at root the motive behind all action—whether it’s
reading philosophy or playing the violin—a human needs
more than science to find his interests and purpose. We
search for more than just reproductive success in life, so
evolution could only illuminate our biological proclivities,
not our particular hobbies and tastes.
To quarrel with this constraint on science, which holds
it to providing knowledge about what is the case and not
about what ought to be the case, would be to commit the
notorious naturalistic fallacy. The fallacy holds that any
statement about how things are cannot be used in an argument that concludes with a statement on how things should
be. It highlights a salient gap between facts and obligations,
and has been a trump card in moral philosophy since its
1903 articulation by the English philosopher G.E. Moore.
Yet even this hitherto axiomatic principle is under attack.
Neuroscientist Sam Harris seeks to refute the naturalistic
fallacy in his new book The Moral Landscape, in which he
proposes a moral system founded on scientific understandings
of well-being. Morality, he argued, is the study of how to
improve well-being, so why not use experimentally verified
links between behavior and well-being to write social rules?
While Harris acknowledges that science has the bulk of its
work in this area ahead of it, he insists that science must be
what guides ethical discussions in the 21st century.
The viability of arguments like this and of the greater
science of morality remains to be seen, but there are some
present indicators of the direction of its course. If the innateness of our basic moral intuitions receives more and more
evidentiary support—and if the present trend continues, it
will—then the ancient conflict between evolutionary theory
and religion may become more acute. Internationally renowned preacher Ravi Zacharias spoke at Yale recently and
proselytized on behalf of Christ, citing him as the needle
in Western civilization’s moral compass. Harris, a public
atheist, takes this argument head-on and asks, why bother
to pore through Christ’s teachings when moral standards are
inbuilt? It is yet unclear how a complete set of morals could
derive from evolutionary theory, but many scientists and
philosophers nonetheless pray—or, hope—that a universal
set of maxims will one day be found.
As the minds of our fellow apes are shown to have
more and more in common with our own, the traditionally
clear-cut distinction between man and ape will blur. Since
Copernicus, science has consistently reduced the importance
of human beings’ role in the universe. Progress will likely
devalue our race further, but that could do us some good.
Man may be the most sophisticated around, and he has a long
way to go before he figures himself out. Conveying pithily
this critical truth, the 19th century philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche was prescient to let his Zarathustra muse, “Man
is more ape than many of the apes.”
References
4. Jensen, K. “Punishment and spite, the dark side of cooperation.” Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. B 365 (2010), 2723-2735.
5. de Waal, Frans B. M. & Malini Suchak. “Prosocial primates: selfish and unselfish
motivations.” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365 (2010), 2711-22.
6. Begley, Sharon. “Why Do We Rape, Kill, and Sleep Around?” Newsweek, 20 Jun
2009. Accessed 28 Oct 2010. < http://www.newsweek.com/2009/06/19/why-do-werape-kill-and-sleep-around.html>.
7. http://nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/chimp_health3_h.jpg
1. Elliott, Philip. “MoH ceremony honors Monti’s sacrifice.” ArmyTimes, 20
Sep. 2009. Accessed 29 Oct 2010. .
2. Carter, J.D. “A Longitudinal Study of Social Tolerance by Chimpanzees Towards
a Conspecific with Cerebral Palsy.” International Primatological Society XXII
(August 2008), presentation.
3. Palagi, E. et al. “Contagious yawning in gelada baboons as a possible expression
of empathy.” PNAS 106 (November 2009), 19262-7.
6 THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011
Marcus Moretti is a sophomore studying Humanities and Political
Science at Yale University.
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
NUS
Drugged-Up Superbrains
Koh Wan Zi
T
he disheartening perception of intellectual inadequacy
or lack of capability is no stranger to the scores of
workers in today’s rat race and students in increasingly
grueling modern education systems. Certainly, many of us
have wished to be just that little bit smarter, or be endowed
with better focus and memory to finish the task at hand or
ace that test. Thus far however, often the only recourse has
been to compensate by redoubling our efforts, or struggling
to concentrate while battling countless distractions. Certain
cognitive enhancers called nootropics offer the potential for
a cognitive boost when we need it, providing a ramping up
of focus or creative thought and greater retentive capacity.
However, healthy persons are still relatively restricted to
access to such approved cognitive
boosters. For example, Ritalin and
Adderall are prescription only drugs
that are used to improve focus and
treat patients with attention deficit
hyperactive disorder (ADHD). This
raises the inevitable question: should
nootropics be actively developed and
made widely available to the general
population? On the individual level,
this could lead to greater personal
satisfaction, while on a macro level,
the economy stands to benefit from
greater worker productivity and the
potential knowledge gains to society
are inestimable.
What Are Nootropics?
The word “nootropics” comes from
the Greek root noos for mind and
tropein for toward [1]. Nootropics
are not to be crudely lumped
together with all drugs that enhance cognition as they
possess characteristics unique to them. This field of mental
performance boosters is actually nothing new. It was first
coined by Romanian psychologist and chemist Corneliu E.
Giurgea in a 1972 paper, which sets out the properties of
nootropic drugs as follows:
1. They enhance learning and memory.
2. They facilitate the flow of information between
the cerebral hemispheres.
3. They protect the brain against certain physical
or chemical injuries.
4. They cause few side effects and have low toxicity,
lacking the usual pharmacology of other psychotropic
drugs such as sedation or motor stimulation. [2]
It is important to note however, that the above features
are not binding and do not absolutely include or exclude a
substance as a nootropic drug.
The mechanism of action and molecular basis of many
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
of these cognitive enhancers are often not clearly known.
These drugs are thought to alter the balance of chemicals in
the brain by either regulating the release of neurotransmitters
involved in information processing, modulating ion channels and receptors, or affecting neuronal gene expression.
For example, neurons that respond to the neurotransmitter
acetylcholine are involved in concentration, focus, highorder thought processes and formation of new memories.
Therefore, drugs that inhibit the breakdown of acetylcholine
offer cognitive benefits in terms of increased alertness [3].
Cholinesterase breaks down acetylcholine, and in a similar
vein, several cholinesterase inhibitors used in the treatment
of Alzheimer’s disease have been found to enhance learning and memory in older, healthy
subjects [4].
The oldest of these drugs
is Piracetam, which inspired the
coining of the term nootropics.
First synthesized in 1964, it was
originally developed by Belgian
pharmaceutical company UCB
Group to prevent motion sickness
[5]. Piracetam has since surpassed
its original purpose and has being
used in treating neurological diseases such as dementia and Parkinson’s disease. It has also improved
aphasia after stroke and reportedly
increases reading comprehension
and accuracy in dyslexic children
[6]. In addition, it exhibits the
protective quality that has come
to characterize nootropic drugs,
Reprodued from [21]
drastically increasing the survival
rate of mice that were given the
short acting agent oxydipentonium to halt breathing [7].
Piracetam has also been shown to have certain anti-aging
properties. When aged mice were treated orally with high
doses of Piracetam for two weeks, they displayed a 30-40%
increase in the density of acetylcholine in the frontal cortex,
equivalent to the levels found in healthy young mice [8].
Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that Piracetam not only helps neurologically impaired individuals, but
healthy ones as well. In a double blind, placebo controlled
study conducted by neuroscientists Dimond and Brouwers,
a group of healthy college students were given 3 x 4 capsules
of 400mg Piracetam or an identical dosage of the placebo
per day. The subjects were tested three times, once before
administration of the drug, the second time a week after
drug administration and the third time two weeks after. The
study noted a significant increase in verbal learning at the
final testing 14 days after Piracetam was first taken. More
significantly, the authors go on to conclude in their discussion that Piracetam is “a substance that in a specific respect
is capable of extending the intellectual functions of man”,
THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011 7
NUS
positioning it as the forerunner of a class of performance
enhancing drugs [9]. Piracetam possibly heralds the field
of nootropics, encapsulating the potential benefits it could
yield to individuals and society as a whole if more such
drugs were developed and made widely available.
Some of the cognition enhancing psychopharmaceutical
products already on the market are prescription drugs that
were originally used to treat ADHD but have known off-label
uses as study aids that decrease the need to sleep and increase
concentration and focus [10]. Modafinil, a drug originally
On the individual level,
[cognitive enhancers] could
lead to greater personal
satisfaction, while on a macro
level, the economy stands to
benefit from greater worker
productivity and the potential
knowledge gains to society are
inestimable
developed to treat narcolepsy, for instance has being used
for non-medical purposes to improve the working memory
of healthy individuals. Further adding to its credentials as
a cognitive enhancer, modafinil has been found to improve
visual pattern recognition, spatial planning, and reaction
time. It also improved attention and working memory in
sleep-deprived physicians and aviators, exhibiting potential
utility outside the laboratory and in real world situations [11].
Doped Up Superbrains
With many nootropic drugs specifically enhancing memory or
focus, it is no surprise that students subjected to the academic
rigours of increasingly competitive education systems are
gradually discovering their uses and turning to them for
that extra capacity to focus, learn and remember. The most
commonly cited reason for using these stimulant drugs is to
enhance concentration (58%) and increase alertness (43%),
indicating that people are indeed using them for their mental
performance enhancing qualities [12]. A 2007 study at a large
Midwestern public college in USA found that the lifetime
prevalence of non-medical use of prescription stimulants
was 8.5%, up from 6% the past year [13]. Furthermore, in
a 2005 study of a nationally representative sample of 10
904 randomly selected students across 119 colleges, it was
found that 4.1% of American undergraduates had used
prescription stimulants for non-medical purposes in the
past year. At 12 schools, this figure was greater than 10%
and at one school as high as 25% [14]. In an informal poll
conducted by Nature that surveyed 1400 people from 60
countries on their attitudes towards cognitive enhancers and
whether they had taken them, one out of five respondents
responded in the affirmative. With regards to whether healthy
adults should be able to take cognitive boosters if they wish
to, a high 80% of respondents said yes [15]. Clearly, the
support for and use of cognitive stimulators is not a fringe
phenomenon and there is a serious possibility that the socially
8 THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011
accepted use of nootropics could gain greater traction. People
looking for that extra brain boost are also likely to face no
shortage of choice, going by a 2008 working group report
from the Academy of Medical Sciences in England which
estimates that of the more than 600 treatment compounds
being assessed worldwide for neurodegenerative disorders,
a large number of cognitive enhancers will emerge over the
next few decades [16].
One of the currently most oft used nootropic drugs
is Adderall. Ostensibly developed and marketed to treat
ADHD, it has sales figures that suggest an alternative use
as a cognitive enhancer for healthy individuals. In a 2006
study that found a past year prevalence rate of 5.9% for nonmedical use of prescription stimulants in college students,
three quarters reported using Adderall [17]. In addition,
an article published in The New Yorker cites the anecdotal
case of “Alex”, a Harvard graduate who as a student took
Adderall to juggle the academic demands placed on him and
maintain a social life at the same time. Alex took Adderall
regularly during his college years, which gave him the intense
focus needed to rush out papers within tight deadlines while
managing multiple commitments [18]. McCabe et al. found
that the use of Adderall and similar stimulants was more
common among students with low grade point averages,
and also in colleges with more competitive admission standards, further evidence of a trend among college students
to use nootropics to boost their academic performance [14].
Nootropics: Is it Fair?
The ground that these smart drugs is gaining among students
has led University of Sydney researcher Vince Cakic to put
out the possibility that authorities could start testing students
for drugs before exams. Cakic recognizes the increasing use
of nootropic drugs among students to enhance academic
performance. He cites drugs such as selegiline, normally
prescribed to treat Parkinson’s disease, as being used as a
motivation enhancer, and modafinil, used to treat narcolepsy,
for staying alert [19]. Opponents of nootropics have drawn
parallels with doped up athletes, saying that these drugs
give students an unfair advantage. An inherent problem
of this argument is that it implicitly assumes that without
nootropics, a level playing field among students is possible
or even exists. However, this is problematic as there are
genetic factors and numerous social and environmental factors
that produce myriad inequalities and make the academic
playing field anything but level. Studies have shown that
IQ is 50% heritable, and cognitive ability is a significant
predictor of academic performance. In addition, resources
such as home computer access, private tuition, and better
childhood nutrition also contribute to improving academic
performance, but they are disproportionately concentrated
among the socioeconomically privileged [20]. Clearly, even
without nootropics, academic competition is hardly fair,
and nootropics could be viewed as simply another factor
that contributes to uneven competition grounds. However,
while other factors that contribute to inequality are hard
to control and level across the board, nootropics can be
relatively easily controlled by tighter regulation. This raises
the question as to whether nootropics as an additional source
of inequality should be allowed to proliferate, when it can
instead be more strictly regulated.
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
NUS
Another problematic issue associated with nootropic use is that like other resource factors that can
influence academic performance, nootropics tend to
be more common among the affluent. Traditionally
less affluent commuter schools have less than one
fourth the rate of past year compound use compared
with residential campuses that tend to be populated
by a richer demographic, and at three historically
black colleges, there were no reports of past year
non-medical use at all. White students were deemed
overall more likely than other ethnicities to engage
in nootropic use. Furthermore, as noted previously,
students at more competitive and selective colleges
were more likely to use cognitive enhancers than
those at less selective schools. If the general assumption is made that these students, that is, white and
enrolled at competitive, prestigious colleges, are
wealthier than their counterparts elsewhere, there is
cursory evidence to support the claim that non-medical use
of cognitive enhancers is indeed more prevalent among the
more affluent [16]. Further adding to this disproportion is
also the high prices of these drugs that place them outside the
means of the less wealthy. This potentially adds additional
distance to the divide between the socioeconomic levels in
terms of academic performance insofar as these variables
influence performance, making it more difficult for the less
privileged to keep up with their wealthier peers.
It is also important to consider the explicitly unfair
advantage healthy individuals on drugs like Adderall would
have over individuals with disorders like ADHD who actually need the drugs to function at the normal baseline. One
Ivy League student with attention deficit disorder (ADD)
cited in a 2009 review said that if someone without ADD
were to take Adderall to gain improved focus, he would
never be able to match them even on Adderall himself [16].
In these situations, it is clear that ethically, we cannot say
with certainty that healthy students should be allowed to
put their brain on steroids and gain an edge over their peers
with ADD or other disorders. It is not difficult to see similarities between this and competitive sporting arenas, where
athletes’ consumption of performance enhancing drugs is
deemed as cheating. If use of nootropics should find traction among greater swathes of the college population, and
the trend does point in that direction, drug testing before
exams could be seriously considered.
Outside of academia, the governing bodies for games
such as chess and bridge have recognized the potentially
unfair advantage cognitive enhancers could give players in a
competitive setting, and have adopted the World Anti-Doping
Code in an effort to gain inclusion into the Olympic Games.
Under the Code, these organizations test their competitors
for drug use before international competitions. Stimulants
such as Adderall and Provigil are prohibited, unless taken
for medical uses [16]. If these sporting bodies deem it necessary to test for drugs, it possibly brings us one step closer to
the controversial issue of drug testing before examinations.
What are the Risks?
As with any other pharmaceutical substance, nootropics
drugs have the potential for abuse. Ritalin and Adderall
are regulated by the US federal government as Schedule II
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
Reprodued from [22]
controlled substances, whereby they are considered to have a
high potential for abuse and consequent severe psychological
and physical dependence. Provigil, a drug that has found
off-label to enable mental alertness for extended periods
of time, is a Schedule IV drug. It is also deemed to have
potential for abuse, albeit to a lesser degree than Ritalin
and Adderall. There are also risks associated with abruptly
cutting drug intake if already on a regular regimen of the
enhancers, and there is a very real possibility that healthy
individuals could become over-dependent on the drugs and
be unable to function without them [16].
It has also been noted that the enhancement of certain
cognitive functions can only be realized at the expense of
others. For example, transgenic mice with improved learning
and memory function also display greater ability to recall
aversive events. Therefore, while exam material might be
more easily recalled, with it would also come the burden of
easily remembering negative experiences better forgotten. This
would have less than desirable effects on mental well being
[20]. More pertinently, these drugs have even been used for
purposes other than non-medical performance enhancers.
There are reports of the pills being crushed into a powder
and snorted for a drug-induced high [16]. Clearly, off-label
uses of nootropic drugs are not entirely benign and they
are certainly not a panacea for individuals seeking mental
performance boosts.
A Double-edged Sword
However, while nootropics may seem to only confer unfair
advantages, widen social disparities in terms of school
performance, and put users at risk of addiction and overdependence, it would be foolish to overlook the potential
benefits it could offer to society if managed properly. In
fact, the selective use of nootropics among those with lower
intellectual capacity or from deprived backgrounds has been
advocated as a way to enhance educational opportunities
for these groups. There are also those who say that the
risk of cognitive enhancers fostering inequality is in fact
remote, because of the number of studies suggesting that
neuroenhancers work best with a low baseline and are less
helpful for people who score above average [16]. For example,
studies show that with modafinil, the greatest improvement
is seen in people with lower IQs. In this way, nootropics
might allow underperforming students to better compete with
THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011 9
NUS
their peers. Instead of propagating greater inequality, they
It is almost hypocritical to prohibit nootropic use on
would paradoxically create a more even playing field in the the basis of unequal distribution as other socioeconomic
process and raise academic performance standards. In fact, inequalities in education are readily tolerated and we do not
one review predicts that if nootropics were to be the most see the banning of strategies such as private tuition which
cost efficient means of enhancing academic performance, is clearly more readily available to the rich [20]. The key
social programmes might push to make them accessible to here is moderation and control, and also being aware of the
the under privileged [20]. As the larger portion of benefits potential risks. In fact, the largest benefit nootropics, when
is reserved for low performing individuals rather than those taken in moderation, can claim to confer would be to society
who are already doing relatively well, nootropics seem a as a whole rather than to the individual. While nootropics
lot more equitable in this light.
do propagate advantages that not everyone can enjoy and
Furthermore, social disparities aside, it would seem certain individuals will inevitably lose out, society will reap
counterintuitive to limit the use
overall net gains. It would be
of cognitive enhancers in insticounterintuitive to deny benIf nootropics allow students
tutions of learning. Education,
efits to the whole simply beespecially in universities, is all
cause not everyone can enjoy
to perform better in...crucial
about encouraging students to
the boons directly.
phases in their education
develop and expand their poCurrently, one of the largtential. It would be difficult to
est
barriers
to greater cultural
and secure better standards
condemn a student for taking
acceptance and practicality of
of living later on, the social
cognitive enhancers if he learns
nootropic use is that they carry
more than he would have otherinherent risks and are not free
benefits would be very real
wise. How well a student does
from side effects. However, as
in high school and university
drug development progresses
has significant influence on career opportunities, success and more upcoming nootropics are developed specifically
in later life and future earnings [16]. If nootropics allows for healthy individuals, tested, and proven to be safe, greater
students to perform better in these crucial phases in their acceptance of nootropics will not be far off. With the apeducation and secure better standards of living later on, propriate safety and regulatory measures in place, there
the social benefits would be very real. Similarly, if a worker is insufficient reason as to why we should actively resist
becomes more productive and accomplishes more with the the proliferation of nootropics in academia or society to
help of neuroenhancers to the benefit of himself and the accomplish more. As science progresses and we gain new
company, it is difficult to fault him. Zack Lynch, who co- and safer drugs and a better understanding of the workfounded NeuroInsights, a company that advises investors ings of these cognitive enhancers, nootropics could possibly
on developments in brain-science technology, puts it very contribute to a more equitable and productive society.
nicely when he says that neuroenhancers are not so much
about “enhancing”, but rather “enabling” [18]. Nootropics Koh Wanzi is a student studying Life Sciences and English
can enable people to accomplish more, empowering less Literature at the National University of Singapore.
privileged individuals to greater heights.
References
1. Lanni C, Lenzken SC, Pascale A, Del Vecchio I, Racchi M, Pistoia F, Govoni S.
Cognition enhancers between treating and doping the mind. Pharmacol Res. 2008
March; 57(3): 196–213. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2008.02.004.
2. Giurgea C. Pharmacology of integrative activity of the brain. Attempt at
nootropic concept in psychopharmacology (Vers une pharmacologie de l’active
integrative du cerveau: Tentative du concept nootrope en psychopharmacologie)
(in French). Actual Pharmacol (Paris.) 1972; 25: 115–56.
3. Cognitive enhancement: All on the mind. The Economist [Internet]. 2008 May 22
[cited 2010 Dec 17]. Available from: http://www.economist.com/node/11402761
4. Jones R, Morris K, Nutt D. Cognition enhancers. In: Nutt D, Robbins TW,
Stimson GV, Ince M, Jackson A, editors. Drugs and the Future: Brain Science,
Addiction and Society. New York. Academic Press; 2007.
5. Shurte N. What are Nootropics? Smart Drugs to Supercharge Your Brain.
Associated Content [Internet]. 2005 Jul 14 [cited 2010 Dec 17]. Available from:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5139/what_are_nootropics_smart_
drugs_to_pg2.html?cat=5
6. xPharm: The comprehensive pharmacology reference. Elsevier Ltd; 2008.
7. Giurgea C, Salama M. Nootropic drugs. Prog Neuro Psychopharmacol. 1977;
1:235–247. doi:10.1016/0364-7722(77)90046-7.
8. Pilch H, Mueller W. Piracetam elevates muscarinic cholinergic receptor density
in the frontal cortex of aged but not of young mice. Psychopharmacology. 1988;
94(1): 74–78. doi: 10.1007/BF00735884.
9. Dimond SJ, Brouwers EM. Increase in the power of human memory in normal
man through the use of drugs. Psychopharmacology. 1976 Sept 29; 49 (3): 307–9.
doi: 10.1007/BF00426834.
10. Carey B. Brain enhancement is wrong, right? New York Times [Internet]. 2008
Mar 9 [cited 2010 Dec 17]. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/
weekinreview/09carey.html.
11. Bostrom N, Sandberg A. Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory
challenges. Sci Eng Ethics. 2009 June 19; 15: 311-341. doi: 10.1007/s11948-009-91425.
12. Teter CJ, McCabe SE, LaGrange K, Cranford JA, Boyd CJ. Illicit use of specific
10 THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011
prescription stimulants among college students: prevalence, motives, and routes
of administration. Pharmacotherapy. 2006 Oct; 26 (10), 1501–1510. doi: 10.1592/
phco.26.10.1501.
13. McCabe SE, Teter CJ. Drug use related problems among nonmedical users
of prescription stimulants: A web-based survey of college students from a
Midwestern university.
Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2007 Nov 2; 91(1): 69-76. doi:10.1016/j.
drugalcdep.2007.05.010.
14. McCabe SE, Knight JR, Teter CJ, Wechsler H. Non-medical use of prescription
stimulants among US college students: prevalence and correlates from a national
survey. Addiction. 2005 Jan; 100(1): 96-106. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.00944.x.
15. Maher B. Poll results: look who’s doping. Nature news [Internet]. 2008 April
9 [cited 2010 Dec 18]. Available from: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080409/
full/452674a.html
16. Solomon LM, Noll RC, Mordkoff DS. Cognitive enhancements in human
beings. Gender Medicine. 2009 Jul; 6(2): 338-344. doi:10.1016/j.genm.2009.06.003
17. de Jongh R, Bolt I, Schermer M, Olivier B. Botox for the brain: enhancement
ofcognition, mood and pro-social behavior and blunting of unwanted memories.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008; 32(4):760–776. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.12.001
18. Talbot M. Brain gain: The underground world of “neuroenhancing” drugs. The
New Yorker [Internet]. 2009 April 27 [cited 2010 Dec 19]. Available from: http://
www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/04/27/090427fa_fact_talbot. Accessed May
5, 2009.
19. Medew J. Call for testing on “smart drugs”. WA today [Internet]. 2009 Oct 1
[cited 2010 Dec 19]. Available from: http://www.watoday.com.au/national/call-fortesting-on-smart-drugs-20091002-gf8t.html
20. Cakic V. Smart drugs for cognitive enhancement: ethical and pragmatic
considerations in the era of cosmetic neurology. J Med Ethics. 2009; 35: 611-615.
doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.030882
21. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2007/115-6/pills.jpg
22. http://healthit.ahrq.gov/images/oct27cdswebconference/images/image10.png
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
NUS
TO CLONE OR NOT TO CLONE
Endangered Species Conservation
Sudha Sundaram
W
hen Hans Spemann proposed his novel concept of can also be done instead), which is then prompted to form
cloning organisms in 1938, he could not be blamed an embryo. An essential step here is reprogramming the
for not choosing his words with more precision: genes of the donor cells by the oocyte cytoplasm. The embryo
“Fantastical Experiment” [1]. The concept of cloning indi- is then implanted into a surrogate mother. The offspring
viduals seems to be drawn right out of a vivid imagination, produced from cloning have the same genetic constitution as
‘fantastical’ indeed! Cloning has come a long way since the implanted donor nucleus and not of the surrogate mother
then, though it has not lost out on being one of the most [3]. There are two techniques of nuclear transfer that have
controversial sciences and today we have reached a stage in met with considerable success: the Roslin and the Honululu
its advancement that we can talk
technique. The former perabout its practical applications
formed by Ian Wilmut and
and uses. At large, cloning is one
Keith Campbell led to the
Despite these hurdles, the
of two types either therapeutic
creation of Dolly in 1997 [1].
main thrust for the concept
or reproductive. Therapeutic is
For endangered species,
for medicinal purposes whereas
the procedures for cloning
of cloning is that it will
reproductive involves duplicating
are basically the same, albeit
someday be perfected
organisms.
with some variations. During
The first major successful
cloning of endangered specase of cloning that caused a lot
cies, the nucleus is provided
of excitement and a stir throughout the world was that of by the endangered organism, whereas, the cytoplasm of the
the creation of Dolly, the first living cloned sheep, produced egg cell used to form the embryo is usually derived from
by Ian Wilmut in 1997, as mentioned by Rifkin in his article common domestic species such as a cow or goat. In other
‘Society should ban animal cloning’. It is stated in the article: words, interspecific cloning (cross-species nuclear transfer)
is performed. This is usually done due to a lack or low
‘Dolly’s arrival has sparked much debate about
availability of donor cells, oocytes or surrogate mothers of
cloning’s potential benefits, as well as dangers, to
the endangered species [4].
humans. What has been lacking, however, is discussion of how this affects the well-being of animals – as
WHY WAS CLONING INITIALLY CONSIDERED?
individuals and as species.’ [2]
Captivity programs-wherein species are bred in humanly
controlled environments such as zoos and conservation
A recent area in cloning that has lately created a lot facilities - have been the traditional method of biological
of sensation is that of cloning endangered species as an conservation. Captive propagation schemes, however, suffer
initiative towards their conservation. Ethics aside, cloning from restricted physical space and even genetic reproductive
of endangered species is neither profitable nor sensible. This failure. This is one major claim in favour of using assisted
article proceeds to explain in greater detail why cloning is reproduction, which conservational cloning falls under.
not a rational first choice in conservation.
However cloning, with its research being just in its
infancy stage, does not yield large numbers of offspring nor
THE SCENARIO SO FAR
does it necessarily provide any healthy and viable offspring.
The basic idea behind the novel principle of cloning conservation If such offspring are created, they would be genetically simiis that in extremely small populations - especially ones on lar (as clones have been produced from a small remaining
the verge of extinction - there is minimum genetic variation, population), following which a natural population cannot
hence surfacing the urgent need to ensure no further loss of be created because of the drawback of inbreeding.
genetic diversity. Cloning in such a case would be beneficial
Despite these hurdles, the main thrust for the concept
or at least a coping strategies to mitigate the loss of diversity. of cloning is that it will someday be perfected. “Clearly there
Cloning of organisms is done by a technique known as is some way to go before it can be used effectively, but the
nuclear transfer. All cloning experiments till now have used advances in this field are such that we will see more and
variations of this very technique. It requires two cells - a more solutions to the problems faced” as so optimistically
donor and an oocyte or egg cell. The egg cell is enucleated predicted by Professor Miller in the article ‘Extinct ibex is
(its nucleus is removed), eliminating majority of its genetic resurrected by cloning’ [5].
information (nuclear DNA), so it passes down only the mitochondrial DNA into the clone. The donor cell is required to LIMITATIONS OF CLONING
be forced into a dormant phase of cell division known as the Regardless of the noble reasons for pursuing cloning of
G0 phase, causing the cell to shut down. The nucleus of the endangered species, the practice has not gained support
donor cell is then transplanted into the egg cell (cell fusion among scientists nor conservationists. The following sections
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011 11
NUS
elucidate the arguments of scientists against the usage of
cloning for endangered species.
Inefficiency of Procedure
The whole basis of using cloning as a conservation tool relies
on the hope that cloning will reduce loss of diversity, but
this would only be a practical approach if cloning efficiency
were to be 100%, which it is presently not. Presently, the
success rates for nuclear transfer in mammals are very low,
with less than 0.1–5% of reconstructed embryos resulting in
a live birth, considering statistics from
the experiments performed on mice by
Wakayama & Yanagimachi in 2001 [1].
That is, 200 to 1000 nuclear transfers are
necessary for every viable offspring which
may or may not survive to be an adult. An
example would be that of Noah, the first
interspecies gaur (a rare Tibetan antelope)
clone - 692 skin cells were fused with
cow eggs, 81 developed into embryos,
44 were implanted into cows of which
8 resulted in pregnancies. Five of these
miscarried, two were induced to abort
and one gave birth to Noah who went
on to live for forty-eight hours after birth
[6,7]. Considering the whole spectrum
of species on earth, cloning has been
performed mostly only on mammals; with not many efforts
made to clone other vertebrates or even invertebrates for
that matter, hence success rates in these organisms has not
even been measured. Hence it may be that applying cloning
technology for conservation is ‘hopelessly optimistic’ given
the current efficiency.
Additionally, some argue that we should try out new
ways to better the processes employed in cloning. If we
were to look at ways to maximise success using the methods we employ today, we would be directed to focus on
poly-ovulatory, many litter bearing species. This rules out
popular and media-enchanting mammals such as the giant
panda and instead directs attention to species such as rodents. Ironically previously successful and tried traditional
methods of conservation such as semen freezing, embryo
transfer have not been applied to endangered rodent species
(whose number surprisingly counts up to a 330). We set out
instead to apply cloning - only a developing technique with
extremely low success rate - for this purpose. However, if
conservation is what we truly have in mind, should we not
first make an effort to properly conserve these endangered
species using traditional practices [8]?
Therefore, to encourage cloning for direct use in conservation as of now may not be the best option, as cloning
is faced with many other setbacks.
Lack of Adequate Information for Creating a Clone
An important setback that cannot and must not be overlooked is
that of the dearth of information and knowledge on endangered
species. The fact that their numbers are rare, means that,
there is not much of research animals to observe; hence
research tends to move if not slowly, only at a modest rate
when contrastingly the term ‘endangered’ itself screams
out urgency and the immediate need for protection and
12 THE TRIPLE HELIX Sprimg 2011
conservation. An undertaking of a cloning project for a specific
species would require specific and accurate details relating
to the physiology of the organism including development,
maturation, gestation periods, oocyte recruitment and more
which has never been studied before in most cases, with
knowledge on most species being minimal, sometimes even
non-existent.
Perhaps the best example, paradoxically, would be to
show endeavours of conservation programmes from the
past. In 1994, a research programme for developing in vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer for
breeding in snow leopards was embarked
upon. Even as of 2004, the use of hormones
in managing the ovulation and quality of
oocytes for leopards had not been mastered
completely [8].
Detailed information about the species
reproductive system, in-depth knowledge
of the cellular and development processes
of the species are imperative before getting
started on a conservation programme by
cloning. Additionally, in many cases the
donor has to be from a different species but
interspecific differences do not make the
Reproduced from [15] process easier. It creates a further hindrance
of having to choose an organism available
in sufficient numbers and also close biologically to be a suitable oocyte donor as well as recipient
female [3]. As an example, though the gaur may have the
cow as related species in the animal kingdom, there aren’t
any strong surrogate candidates for the rare antelope [7].
Abnormalities in the Clone
The obstacles faced with cloning of organisms are not only
in the first few stages of impregnating the organism (which
itself shows statistical figures as low as one in 277 in case of
Dolly), but also later after the animal is born.
Several studies cited in ‘Wildlife conservation and reproductive cloning’ show that nuclear transfer technology
in its current state can lead to significant abnormalities in
offspring including large birth weight, extended gestation,
severe pulmonary and cardiac diseases, histological and
placement disorders in many organs including kidney, brain,
heart and muscle. The article also states that the health effects have been ascribed to ‘inefficient reprogramming and
imprinting of nuclear DNA’, a process that would naturally
occur during gametogenesis and early development and
would govern whether certain genes are expressed from the
maternal or paternal chromosomes [8]. Recent research in 2002
reported that the genomes of cloned mice are compromised
by this very inefficient imprinting, and an analysis of more
than 10,000 liver and placenta cells of the mice revealed that
up to 4% of genes functioned abnormally [9].
Cloning Creates a Situation of Reintroduction
While recent developments in cloning suggest the benefits
of cloning, there is a need to consider the concerns of
conservationists. The cloning of an extinct species and release
into a natural habitat is equivalent to its reintroduction to a
new environment. After a species is ‘rescued’ by cloning it
would need to be re-established into the wild. One would
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
NUS
Reproduced from [16]
then be introducing it into a stressed ecosystem which is why
it became endangered to begin with; such a reintroduction
would be considered by many as an act of cruelty [6].
Ecologists in favour of reintroduction as a conservation
phenomenon contend that if attempted carefully it could
be successful. For example, the Mauritius kestrel whose
population which was declining to about nine individuals,
revived to almost 700-800 when relocated to the island of
Mauritius (cited in Groombridge et al. 2000). However, further
analysis reveals that compared with pre-crash individuals,
the population is now extremely homogeneous and is poorly
equipped for adapting to environmental changes. Hence,
a cloned species if introduced into the environment might
very well be incapable of survival by acclimatization to its
surroundings (a case similar to that of the kestrel mentioned
above), but it could also have negative repercussions on
species native to the environment it is being introduced to.
Cloning: To be Used as An Excuse?
Many Scientists and ecologists fear that cloning used in this
field would be perceived as a method for fixing species loss;
that it would provide a ‘silver bullet solution’, without an
effort to prevent the loss in the first place. As concisely put
by John Rennie: “The danger is that this could be seen as an
alternative, but cloning is just one more tool to use along with
the rest of the measures we already take to preserve species”
[10]. Having cloning as an alternative could cause loss of
vigour in the traditional conservation front, resulting in the
public disregarding the importance of protecting the remaining
individuals of endangered species. Moreover money and
resources pooled into high-profile breeding projects maybe
References
1. Bailey, B. (2000). Cloning the Gaur. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http://
environmentalcommons.org/cetos/index.html: http://environmentalcommons.org/
cetos/articles/cloninggaur.html
2. BBC. (2003, July 18). ‘Scientists ‘to clone mammoth’’. Retrieved from http://
news.bbc.co.uk/: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3075381.stm
3. BERIS, U. D. (2009, May 11). Cloning Fact Sheet. Retrieved October 27, 2010,
from http://genomics.energy.gov/: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/
Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml
4. Dobson, R. G. (2009, January 31). ‘Extinct ibex is resurrected by cloning’.
Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news: http://www.
telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/4409958/Extinct-ibex-is-resurrected-bycloning.html
5. Durnan, K. (2001, January 12). Cloned Ox, from Rare Species, Dies. Retrieved
October 27, 2010, from http://www.grg.org/ACTgaur2.htm
6. Holloway, G. (2002, May 28). ‘Cloning to revive extinct species’. Retrieved from
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/: http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/
asiapcf/auspac/05/28/aust.thylacines/
7. Lisa Mastny, W. W. (2010, September 25). ‘Scientists clone endangered species’.
Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_hb6376/is_1_14/ai_n28848134/
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
better spent on cost-effective activities such as preserving
certain pockets of habitat where rare species survive [11].
Considering that many species of animals are extremely difficult to breed, and attempts are unsuccessful
more often than they are successful, it is probably wiser if
other conservation practices are given more importance.
Habitat preservation and prevention of poaching can go a
long way in preserving rare species. Moreover, as exhibited
by the recent ibex ‘resurrection’ only frozen DNA samples
are required for cloning, we can always preserve tissues
of animals in gene banks for future harnessing by cloning [5]. Also if assisted reproduction is looked upon as an
absolute necessity for conservation, other approaches are
more likely to yield productive results. Examples include
artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilisation, embryo culture,
and artificial implantation (from Smith and Brandhorst, 1999
cited in Wilmut and Paterson, 2009).
In spite of the optimism offered by Professor Miller
with regard to the advances in cloning unlocking solutions
as mentioned earlier, there is no verification for this claim
that solutions will open up for the problems posed. In fact,
the multitude of problems faced by cloning endangered
species remains as large as it was at the start.
WHERE DO WE STAND NOW?
Issues surrounding cloning have triggered controversies
among the public and scientific communities. Most of the
attention is focused on the ethical dimensions. This essay has
not delved into ethics but instead, privileged the biological
viewpoint. It has been argued that is it justifiable not to adopt
cloning as a full-fledged conservation strategy, at least, in
the immediate context. We need to give due importance to
the fact that by manipulating the genome, the biological
diversity within each species is put at stake. With current
low success rates of implantation and survival of clones, lack
of information, prevailing abnormalities in offspring and
other negative results, reproductive cloning does not have a
strong case as of yet. However, there are incipient benefits of
cloning now but until methods are more reliable, it appears
more prudent to formulate realistic strategies for species
and wildlife conservation, using what we have at hand.
Sudha Sundaram is studying Life Sciences at the National University
of Singapore.
8. News, A. G. (2010, September 25). ‘CLONING: Bringing Back Endangered
Species’. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_m0DED/is_3_21/ai_66520544/
9. Paterson, I. W. (2009). ‘Conservation and Cloning: the challenges’. In O. R.
George Amato, Conservation genetics in the age of genomics. (pp. 204-209).
Columbia University Press.
10. Perlman, H. B. (2000, Oct 8). ‘Scientists Close on Extinct Cloning’. Retrieved
from http://www.washingtonpost.com/: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/
aponline/20001008/aponline171938_000.htm
11. Rifkin, J. (1998). ‘Dolly’s legacy: The implications’ The Animal’s Agenda. In G.
E. McCuen, Cloning science and society (pp. 80-85). Gary E. McCuen publications.
12. Rojas, M., Venegas, F., Montiel, E., Servely, J. L., & Vignon, X. &. (2005).
‘Attempts at applying cloning to the conservation of species in danger extinction.’.
Retrieved from http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v23n4/art08.pdf
13. Techniques. (1998). Retrieved from Conceiving a clone: http://library.
thinkquest.org/24355/
14. William V Holt, A. R. (2004). ‘Wildlife conservation and reproductive cloning’.
Retrieved from http://www.reproduction-online.org: http://www.reproductiononline.org/cgi/reprint/127/3/317
15. http://images.nigms.nih.gov/imageRepository/2690/Dolly_the_sheep.jpg
16. http://www.dna.gov/rawmedia_repository/
THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011 13
NUS
CORNELL
Insects as Food for Thought
Emelyne Teo
T
he concept of what is not acceptable as food in English
culture is well conveyed by an age-old conundrum:
‘What is worse than finding a maggot in your apple?’
– ‘Finding half a maggot’ [1]. Indeed, food choices are often
associated with cultural identity [2]. With the classification
of insects as pests and Western stereotype of indigenous
people who consume insects as primitive or uncivilized, one
can hardly accept the inferiority of eating insects. However,
is entomophagy purely a barbaric act [2]?
Let us begin searching for an answer with a brief overview of entomophagy. There are approximately 1500-2000
species of insects consumed by over 3000 ethnic groups
across 113 countries. You may have heard of chawanmushi;
but have you heard of zaza-mushi? Cooked in soy sauce and
sugar, zaza-mushi – the larvae of aquatic caddis flies (order
Trichoptera) – is a delicacy in rural Japanese towns. There
is even an elite group of licensed Japanese hunters, who
collect up to five pounds of zaza-mushi each per day. The
hunters in turn sell their catch to insect canners for about $40
per pound. Since 1956, canning has become the fate of most
harvested insects in Japan. Apart from zaza-mushi, canned
insects such as baby bees, silkworm pupae and grasshoppers
are common in Japanese retail shops [3].
Perhaps tarantulas are the most unimaginable arthropod
dish that you would have ever heard. Surprisingly, tarantulas
make a favourite dish in Venezuela and Cambodia. Theraphosa leblondi, the biggest spider in the world, is a popular
dish in Venezuelan restaurants. The big-sized spider often
occupies one whole dinner plate [3]. In a remote province in
Cambodia, deep-fried tarantulas are sold for 500 riels ($0.20
U.S). The business is brisk and all the customers are men,
as they think that tarantulas are good for their virility [3].
A quick glance at the commercialized practice suggests
that entomophagy is not purely a barbaric act. The diverse
and long established cultures of eating insects have made
this practice a norm in many countries across the world. This
phenomenon opens up a huge market for industries to harvest
and serve insects for human consumption. Nonetheless, the
scale of insects market in Japan and Cambodia may be too
small to conclude the economic benefit of entomophagy.
The first case study of mopane worm trade in Botswana will
thus be a convincing illustration of the economic importance
of entomophagy.
Mopane Worm Trade in Botswana – A Source of Income
In Botswana, mopane worm not only serves to satisfy hunger,
but it also represents an important commercial enterprise.
Mopane worm belongs to the order Lepidoptera. It is a
caterpillar that feeds on mopane trees and has two seasonal
outbreaks per year in April and December. The worms have
thorn-like points on their backs that are sharp enough to
slice unwary fingers. Yet women and children are daring
enough to take the risk of harvesting them. Mopane worms
offer a lucrative trade – women in Botswana sell loaded
sacks full of dried mopane worms to trailers; trailers sell the
worms to wholesalers, who resell them to merchants, who
resell them again in the market [3]. As a country with the
knowledge and tradition of harvesting the insects, mopane
14 THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011
worm trade has long been an economy booster for Botswana.
A good worm harvest in a year is estimated to be worth US
$3.3 million, providing employment to 10,000 people [4].
To achieve greater economic benefits, much research
has been poured into the study of mopane worm. In 2001,
the Department for International Development (DFID) , a
United Kingdom government department responsible for
promoting development and the reduction of poverty, funded
a three year research that sought to increase the understanding of mopane worm biology and its management as
a valuable natural resource. Various harvesting and storage
techniques have been developed through the research. Some
of them include the development of a low-cost hand-held
degutting device that can be made at village level and a
novel dry roasting cooker that removes all the brittle spines
of mopane worms [5]. These inventions have saved much
work for harvesters. In particular, poor farmers, landless
families and rural artisans of mopane woodland-dwelling
communities in rural places such as Zimbabwe, South Africa
and Botswana have benefited from the introduction of these
inventions [4]. The increasing labor participation in mopane
worm trade can thus alleviate poverty in these rural areas.
Chongcha and Ant Wine – Eating Insects for Their Medicinal
and Nutritional Values
On top of underpinning major economic sectors of several
African countries, the use of insects as traditional medicine
exemplifies health benefits of entomophagy. Travelling north,
the rich use of insects in traditional Chinese medicine is
well documented. In China, insect excrement is often
made into medicinal tea. Chongcha, a black fragrant tea
that aids digestion, alleviate diarrhoea, and treat bleeding
haemorrhoids, is made from tiny hard pellets of caterpillar
(Hydrillodes morose) excrement. The medicinal properties
of Chongcha are suggested to arise from the presence of
pharmacologically active substance, ellagic acid, which is
found in the caterpillar’s diet and excreted out intact [3].
Hydrillodes morose feeds mainly on the leaves of Platycarya
stobilacea, a plant that is rich in ellagic acid [6]. This substance
is found to have antiproliferative and antioxidant properties
that account for the anti-haemorrhoids properties of Chongcha.
Apart from medicinal tea, ant wine is also widely used in
traditional Chinese medicine. The formic acid and various
minerals in ants are said to be effective against Hepatitis B
and rheumatism [4]. As a result of its health benefits, ant
wine becomes so popular that it places the medicinal ant
genus, Polyrhachis, in the threat of extinction [3].
Along with their medicinal properties, insects are also
consumed for their nutrients. Insects are generally rich in
minerals. For instance, crickets contain more than 1,550 milligrams of iron, 25 milligrams of zinc and 340 milligrams of
calcium per 100 grams of dry tissue [7]. Three of them would
provide an individual’s daily iron requirement. In addition,
many insects have a fairly high concentration of the eight
essential amino acids that cannot be synthesized in human
body. In Uganda, termites are the main source of lysine and
tryptophan, two essential amino acids that are limited in
the country’s staple food [3]. Given their high nutrient and
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
NUS
protein level, insects should indeed be included in our diets.
Grasshopper Control in Mexico – Ecological Benefit of
Entomophagy
Ecologically, the consumption of plant pests is advocated as
a means of pest control [9]. In the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley in
Mexico, predominant crops such as alfafa, bean, corn, squash
and broad bean are routinely attacked by the grasshopper
Sphenarium purpurascens, an edible species [10]. It was
reported that 30,339 ha of land in the state of Tlaxcala has
been infested with the grasshopper. The application of
insecticides, mainly parathion and malathion, is used as
the primary method to control the pests. However, it has
resulted in the escape of organophosphorate residues into
water bodies which are lethal to many fish species. Moreover,
the farmers often apply insecticides without proper personal
safety equipment. Direct contact of insecticides introduces
harmful effects such as respiratory disorders and toxicity that
results in chromosome deviation and abnormal sperm counts
of affected farmers. In view of the negative impacts of such
a chemical control, the manual harvesting of S. purpurascens
for consumption is preferred as an environmentally friendly
way of controlling the pest. In addition, the replacement of
insecticides by manual harvesting of the insect generates
economical benefits. For the residents of Puebla, grasshopper
harvesting has become their principal source of income. Sale
of grasshoppers as food to the states of Oaxaca, Morelos and
Mexico City yields annual profits of US $3000 per family.
In contrast, insecticide application costs US $150 per farmer
[10]. This adds up to a net gain of US3150 per farmer who
adopts manual harvesting in pest control.
As an energy-efficient source of protein, insect consumption can potentially alleviate some of the problems associated with livestock production. Currently, there has been
much concern regarding raising livestock for consumption.
First, livestock production takes up a considerable amount
of land, which is approximated to be 30% of the land surface
area on earth [11]. Secondly, the process of raising livestock
generates a large source of greenhouse gases. Ruminant
livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane
emissions from human-related activities [12]. On the other
hand, insects are small organisms that do not take up much
space or generate much greenhouse gases. Therefore, using insects as an alternative source of protein will not only
generate ecological benefit, but also alleviate the existing
environmental problems concerning livestock production.
Finally, let us examine Mexican Jumil day, which features
a ritual that is associated with a bug feast. This case study
demonstrates that we can learn about other cultures through
an insect feast. Mexican Jumil day falls on the first Monday
after Day of the Dead, a special day when family and friends
gather around for remembrance of loved ones that have
already passed away. On Jumil day, Mexicans gather on a
mountaintop between Mexico City and Acapulco [14]. As a
ritual dating from pre-Aztec times, the townspeople eat jumiles
(Euchistus taxcoensis), a type of stink bug which is half-inch
long [3]. Jumiles migrate annually to the mountaintop and
reproduce there between September and the next February
[8]. The bugs are traditionally believed to be the souls of
ancestors returning to the living [3]. Eating these symbolic
bugs could mean to combine one’s body and the ancestor’s
soul as one. This unorthodox ritual of eating bugs has also
left a deep impression on people, making Mexican culture
more well-known.
Still, Why Not Eat Insects?
Despite the establishment of multiple benefits of entomophagy,
there is still a major attitudinal barrier to the use of insects as
human food in western societies. The limited interest arises
from hygienic concerns that view insects as a transmitter
of disease. Interestingly, most people in western societies
inadvertently consume insects from various food products.
In fact, the United States’ Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) has permitted certain levels of insects to be found in
food products. In the United States, the allowable amounts of
insect per 100 g of processed food products are as follow: 80
insect fragments for chocolate, 60 aphids, thrips or mites for
frozen broccoli, 100 insect fragments for macaroni and other
noodle products, 60 insect fragments for peanut butter and
150 insect fragments for wheat flour [9]. Therefore, education
on nutritional, health and ecological issues associated with
entomophagy can partly overcome the aversion towards
insects.
Insects as Food for Thought
To sum up, this essay has established economic, health,
ecological and cultural benefits that justify entomophagy. Yet
in reality, entomophagy will hardly be accepted in Western
culture. At the end of this essay, you may be tempted to try
the grilled witchetty grubs, or you may be appalled by the
fried tarantulas. After all, insects are food for thought – food
that is worth exploring into for some, while for others, only
in their imagination.
Mexican Jumil Day – Learning about Other Cultures through
an Insect Feast
Emelyne Teo is a student studying Life Sciences at the National
University of Singapore.
References
7. Raloff J and Menzel P. Insects: The Original White Meat. Science News. 7 June
2008: 173(18): 16-21.
8. Kurt and Mondloch P. Dining Adventure: El Dia del Jumil [Internet]. [place
unknown]; [publisher unknown]. [date unknown, cited 2011 February 20].
Available from http://plateinternational.com/diningadventures/daeldiadeljumil.
html.
9. Yen AL. Edible Insects: Traditional Knowledge or Western Phobia.
Entomological Research. 16 July 2009: 39(2009): 289-298.
10. Cerritos R and Santana CZ. Harvesting grasshoppers Sphenarium
purpurascens in Mexico for human consumption: A comparison with insecticidal
control for managing pest outbreaks. Crop Protection.1 August 2007: 27(2008):
473-480.
11. Yen AL. Entomophagy and insect conservation: some thoughts for digestion.
The Journal of Insect Conservation. 30 December 2008: 2009(13): 667-670.
12. Gunning P. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Ruminant Livestock
[Internet]. Washington; [Publisher unknown]. [updated 2007 March 22, cited 2011
February 20]. Available from http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html.
1. Holt VM. Why Not Eat Insects. Dorchester: Great Britain; 1998.
2. Wood JR and Looy H. My Ant is Coming to Dinner. Culture, Disgust, and
Dietary Challenges. Proteus: A journal of ideas: 5.
3. Menzel P and Aluisio FD. Man eating Bugs: The Art and Science of Eating
Insects. California: Ten Speed Press; 1998.
4. Knell R. Mopane Woodlands and the Mopane Worms [Internet]. United
Kingdom; [publisher unknown]. [cited 2011 February 12]. Available from http://
www.mopane.org
5. Stack J and Ghazoul J. Mopane woodlands and the Mopane worm: Enhancing
Rural Livelihoods and Resource sustainability. Forestry Research Programme
[Internet]. [place unknown]; [publisher unknown]. [updated 2002 June 15; cited
2011 February 12]. Available from http://www.mopane.org/Workshop.pdf
6. Seeram NP, Adams LS, Henning SM, Niu Y, Zhang Y, Nair MG and Heber
D. In vitro antiproliferative, apoptotic and antioxidant activities of punicalagin,
ellagic acid and a total pomegranate tannin extract are enhanced in combination
with other polyphenols as found in pomegranate juice. The Journal of Nutritional
Biochemistry: JNB. June 2005: 16(6): 360-367.
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011 15
NUS
I Recognize You Not Just Skin Deep
Zhang Qiong
I
watched my lab partner attentively as she collected the
experimental data. However, after I stepped out of the
lab and thought of her, I could no longer remember any
part of her face, despite the strong impression her attitude
and rigorous arguments had left while she was interpreting
the results. And I am not alone in encountering this; there
are situations where people incorrectly judge a familiar face
thus greeting a wrong person, or simply fail to recognize
even a close friend until seconds later. Yet, it is commonly
believed that having the ability to quickly and accurately
identify people around you is one of the basic social skills
that one ought to be equipped with. Recognizing faces, like
memorizing names, has always been playing an important
role in maintaining well functioning social networks. Medicines can get us nowhere in ameliorating a relatively poor
situation of an individual’s ability to identify faces and more
often than not it is purely regarded as a gift we are born with
[9]. But is face recognition really as significant as people
always assume it to be, or is it somehow plays a role but
with its significance overemphasized by us all?
The Superficial Nature of What Face Recognition is Based On
Face recognition is a process that should not be overemphasized
because of the superficial nature of what face recognition
is based on. It is a process of identifying a person by
analyzing selected features in a face
[6]. Face features constitute of shapes
and positions of major parts on the
face such as eyes, nose, mouth, cheeks
and forehead, with the original bony
skull structure as the basis. And it is
believed that almost all the visible
facial appearances and important facial
features can be accurately extrapolated
and reconstructed just from a skull
alone with elements such as emotions
excluded in the face recognition process
[2]. Smiles and frowns take longer to
take effect compared with the required
instantaneous response to a face when
we want to make a quick judgment
whether we know this person or not.
The totality of a person’s personality
could not be communicated via these
face features alone. The familiarity of
two persons cannot be directly reflected
in the instantaneous process of face
recognition because the biological
ability to recognize faces is limited by the
inability to recognize emotions. Thus,
we can see that the role face recognition
plays in maintaining a social network
is not supposed to be as significant as
nowadays people assume it to be.
Face Blindness Renders Us Different in the Starting Line
Face recognition is a process that should not be overemphasized
because disease like face blindness renders us different in
the starting line. There are people in the world to whom
everyone looks similarly blank at first sight. They see facial
features, but cannot perceive faces like normal people do
even after encountering the same face repeatedly. It is a
disorder of perception, either caused by brain damage or
genetic abnormalities, called Prosopagnosia, where there
is disproportionate impairment for faces as compared to
non-face objects [5].
The significance of face recognition people take for
granted put those who suffer from face blindness under
great pressure. People with face blindness encounter multiple
situations that develop social awkwardness and security
concerns in their daily life. They simply walk right past
people they know without greeting, they repeat the same
introductory words to those they regard as new but actually
have just talked minutes before, and they fail to become alert
even when an unfriendly, strange face approaches them.
As years go by, suffers of the disease regard themselves as
social eccentrics isolated from the public [3].
Moreover, face recognition has been over-prioritized
considering some individuals’ lack of this perceptual skill,
comprising about one in forty of the entire population.
Reproduced from [11]
16 THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
NUS
Psychologist Ken Nakayama, at Harvard’s Vision Sciences
Laboratory, claims that an even larger proportion of the world
population, which is around ten percent, is suffering milder
versions of face blindness [1]. Since many of us are different
in the starting line in terms of how well we recognize faces,
it is not an appropriate standard of judgment to people’s
familiarity with each other or to how deep an impression
a person had made in another’s mind. When people will
also exclude you from the reach of their network the same
way they think you do, if you are unfortunately lack such
perceptual skill. We would like to ask, is face recognition an
indispensible component in maintaining well-functioning
social networks, or is this simply just a seemingly more
effective method of recognizing people from the crowd?
Last but not least, the significance of face recognition is
not to be over emphasized because there are alternatives of
recognizing people besides the face recognition alone. We
can rely to a certain extent on these features to recognize
people in our daily life, but we can still live a normal life
if we are not as sensitive and accurate by not emphasizing
the significance of face recognition too much. It is not as
sympathetic if you grow up with the fact that everyone looks
no different to you when you are trying hard to recognize
their faces, compared with your reputation developed for
arrogance when you pass by them without a greeting without a smile, in a world where people only recognize faces.
Though the entire face is somehow not “visible”, detailed
features and other parts of the body are still visualized.
People suffering face blindness can actually live a normal
life by relying on subtle cues and secondary clues as long
as they do not rely too much on face recognition alone [4].
You can recognize your friends by the hairstyle they usually
wear, their unique face expression and body language, and
their voices as well. If your young sister has a mole on her
left cheek, you can also recognize her that way.
Face Recognition Challenged in the Case of Capgras Delusion
Opposite to Prosopagnosia, Capgras delusion refers to a
syndrome where people recognize faces and appearances
quite well but have the wrong belief with strong conviction
that a close friend or spouse has been replaced by a double,
even in the presence of strong evidence to the contrary [10].
Reliance on face recognition is challenged here. They are
actually able to consciously recognize faces, but an emotional
response of a familiar face is somehow impaired. This explains
the delusionary belief they have, where they can recognize
their family members and friends but at the same time
feeling something wrong, due to the loss of an emotional
response. Though the example of Capgras delusion only
represents certain clinical cases and is not a general one, the
alarming delusionary world all made of doubles illustrates
the confusion of identity and the necessity to reconsider the
essence of familiarity. And it seems to them as if the face
features are the least reliable cues to rely on. We could actually
tell from this case that, the region of brain recognizing face
features is distinct from that responsible for the emotional
response. Face recognition is a process that should not be
overemphasized because in doing so we are assuming that
the process of face recognition plays a determinative role in
triggering a subsequent emotional response.
The Defects of the Face Recognition System
Another reason why the role of face recognition is not to be
overemphasized lies in the defects of the face recognition
method itself. We might well assume the accuracy and
effectiveness of the face recognition systems built on computer
programmes that are designed to compare selected features
on a digital image with the stored database, with the aim of
timely identification and thus arresting of criminals. However,
such verification processes may turn out to be less useful than
most imagine. Hairs and spectacles can be rather distracting,
as well as the angle of the camera’s projection. A case has
been reported in the police department in Tampa, Florida,
United States, where an experimental face recognition system
could not correctly identify a single face in its database
of suspects during its two-month trial period in 2001 and
was discontinued eventually [7]. Besides, issues of identity
theft are raised in which case people with clever disguises
would be able to elude such systems. More effective methods
like fingerprint identification and iris identification have
be developed and applied [8]. Thus we can well see the
downside of overestimating and overemphasizing the role
of face recognition in a computational system. The defects
in computational face identification system might not be
directly comparable to that in a human social network,
however, the doubts it raises about the effectiveness as
well as the significance of the face recognition process is
much like the same issue with human social networks. As
in the case of Facebook, people bring the emphasis on the
role of face recognition and post pictures of their faces on
their profile pages. However, when the time comes and
when we encounter our Facebook friends in real life, what
makes both side recognizable to each other would be our
daily acquaintance rather than just several Facebook visits.
To sum it up, face recognition is a process that should
not be overemphasized considering the superficial nature
that it is based on, certain groups of individuals who are
lack of this perceptual skill, and the underlying defects of
the recognition method itself.
Zhang Qiong is a student studying Computational Biology at
the National University of Singapore.
References
1. Bradt, S. (2006, June). Harvard University Gazette. Retrieved March 2010, from
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/06.01/05-faceblind.html.
2. Dataface. (2007, May). Retrieved April 2010, from http://www.face-and-emotion.
com/dataface/physiognomy/physiognomy.jsp.
3. Davis, J. (2006, November). Face Blind. Retrieved March 2010, from http://www.
wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/blind.html.
4. Health Jockey. (2008, November). Retrieved March 2010, from http://www.
healthjockey.com/2008/11/28/new-research-gives-an-insight-on-face-blindness/.
5. Isabel Gauthier, M. B. (July 1999). Can face recognition really be dissociated
from object recognition? Journal of Cognitive Neoruscience , 349-370.
6. ITS Psychology Dictionary. (2005, Semptember). Retrieved March 2010, from
http://www.tuition.com.hk/psychology/f.htm.
© 2011, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.
7. Jay Stanley, B. S. (2002, April). BNET. Retrieved March 2010, from http://
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_2_62/ai_83794480/.
8. NEUROtechonology. (2010, Janauary). Retrieved March 2010, from http://www.
neurotechnology.com/megamatcher.html.
9. Page, L. (2009, September). Articlesbase. Retrieved March 2010, from http://
www.articlesbase.com/disabilities-articles/autism-and-face-blindness-1211176.
html.
10. Young, G. (2009 September). In what sense ‘familiar’? Examining experiential
differences within pathologies of facial recognition. Consciousness And Cognition
, 628-638.
11. http://utilities.columbus.gov/Water/images/ToothySmile.jpg
THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011 17
NUS
Why Do They Not Believe in God?
Value of Doubt and the Scientific Method in
Scientists’ Community
Tommy Shi Zheng
O
ne of the most exciting politicians of our time, Barack
Obama wrote in his almost centrist book, appealing
to the less liberal conservatives, that he is a Christian,
and in the same book (in fact, the same chapter) he is also a
skeptic who believes in “evolution, scientific inquiry, and
global warming” [1]. The friendly, if not welcoming posture to the religious and conservative right-wingers in the
presidential election seem to have rewarded Mr. Obama.
This political practicality of claiming to be both a believer
and a scientific man may win electorates, but it obscures the
intense conflict between the two competing camps of values
an individual faces. Outside the ballot, the war between the
religious and the scientific is a fixture in American news,
on issues ranging from embryo and stem cell research to
how to teach about religion in public schools. The latter is
also an unsolved problem of Singapore educators, whose
last attempt to incorporate religious study ended in a sour
note after encountering objections from science teachers,
angry parents and increasingly dividing student body under
zealous preaching from different sources. The balance or
even harmony of Obama’s claim is rarely a practical reality.
Instead, within a person or a community, there seems to be
an innate conflict for religion and science to co-exist, or at
least a dilemma that perplexed many great minds.
In fact, many great scientists’ autobiographies would
be quite incomplete without mention of their struggle with
their religion-by-birth, their religious family upbringing,
Reproduced from [9]
18 THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2011
or fierce conflict with vocal religious institutions. Many
scientists such as Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein,
and Feynman share a similar label that suggests unorthodox
religious interpretations: at one point in their lives they
were labeled as a deist, an atheist, a free thinker, or a heretic
radical unaccepted in most religious temples. Einstein was
‘not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human
sphere’, whereas Feynman claimed ‘God was invented to
explain mysteries’, and God is not needed when you discover a law about how things actually work [2]. Although
not all the predominant scientists aforementioned intended
to fight against a religious establishment, their scientific
work undermined some of the very foundation of Religion,
the most well-known example being Darwin’s Evolution
Theory challenging a Holy Creator by countering the story
in Genesis. Similarly, Einstein and Feynman may have no
intention to be anti-religion, yet their work indicates inaccuracy or doubt of how world came into being. Work such as
Darwin’s or Einstein’s suggests the possibility of falsehood,
or at least raises reasonable doubt to the absoluteness of
certain religious text. To understand scientists’ cynical attitude towards religion or at least the hostility from religious
bodies towards certain scientific theories, we shall study the
nature of the scientists’ work.
From Copernicus, Newton, to Darwin and Einstein, the
most acclaimed scientists of modern history was remembered not only for their ground-breaking scientific work,
but for another reason. These scientists’ work
either defied the then church interpretations
of the Bible, or offered more detailed account
of nature once accounted only by a line in the
holy text. Such opposition would lead to a lasting combat for supporters thereafter, between
religious bodies who once ruled unchallenged
with the Book of Genesis and scientific community who now proposed a more detailed
and better proved story. It is now clear that
religious bodies if not failing, are evolving in
the combat. Modern churches are changing
their ways of preaching, integrating work of
scientists and archeologists and getting more
tolerant to doubt. Churches that once firmly state
‘Doubt is the enemy of Faith’ now accept a halfseeing, half-believing ...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment