The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 272 No 7294 p452
10 April 2004

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF 80K, Acrobat Reader

Remedy from the far past more
Moral concerns about biomedical research more
Science and politics more
And I quote...Those experts! more

Remedy from the far past

In reading the archaeologist Steven Mithen's fascinating and enormous book ‘After the ice” (2003), which reviews the global history of humans from 20,000BC to 5,000BC, I was intrigued to come across a reference to a hypothetical event in which a hunter of 19,000BC who had injured his thigh with a stone flake and suffered uncontrollable bleeding was treated by a girl who gathered succulent leaves and squeezed the juice upon the gaping wound, thus arresting the haemorrhage.

According to Mithen, the plant in question would have been a sanseveria, a succulent of the lily family, growing in the Rift Valley on Africa, and known by the local name of olduvai, which is also the name of the gorge in which the celebrated Leakey family pursued their research. Richard Leakey was enthusiastic over the healing properties of sanseveria, used locally for the astringent and wound-healing effects of its juice.

After reference to Watt and Breyer-Brandwijk's textbook ‘The medicinal and poisonous plants of southern and eastern Africa’ (2nd edition, 1962), I note that eight species of sanseveria are used in those parts. Four of these plants are used to manufacture cords. The root of another is chewed for abdominal pain, diarrhoea and haemorrhoids. The powdered root of another is applied to wounds that are slow to heal, while the leaf juice of yet another is applied locally for earache and toothache. The constituents identified in these plants include a haemolytic sapogenin and various organic acids.

Curiously enough, modern uses of sanseveria appear to be restricted to its textile capabilities and do not extend to its application in plant remedies. If, as Steven Mithen suggests, it has really been employed in folk medicine for more than 20,000 years, its demise appears mysterious, to say the least.

Back to Top

Moral concerns about biomedical research

According to Arthur Caplan, a medical ethicist from the University of Pennsylvania, writing in Science for 20 February, the moral argument that investing in science and technology to extend and improve the quality of life despite the risks involved may be misleading.

Doubts are being expressed not about the benefits that scientific advances can bring but that important values may be compromised if biomedicine continues in its current direction. We cannot accept utilitarian talk about the claims of “progress”, “cures” and “the better life”. We have reason to worry about the meaning of human experience and possible loss of our essential humanity.

Biotechnology, some experts fear, may undermine our understanding of the nature of family, marriage, sexual relations, parenting and ageing. The rights of individuals include privacy, and the need to have any research reviewed by an appropriate third party when action is contemplated.

There are three areas for moral worries. If biomedical research continues its present trend it will significantly alter human nature. Human life may be turned into a commodity. Human experience may lose its authenticity and meaning as a result of biomedical tinkering. We may interfere with the genes, neurons or physical bodies that define our real nature.

Already technology has changed aspects of our nature as we perceive it. We are coming to regard ourselves as portable sources of marketable organs. We are seeking to use technology to ensure greater reproductive success. We must look to social and political choices rather than to scientific advances to define our dignity and autonomy. Advances in technology may involve the loss of authentic happiness, which ultimately depends on the struggle, frailty and death that we undergo during normal lives.

“When the stakes are enormous — continued premature death, disability, chronic suffering — then much more is required of those who would challenge the wisdom of the aggressive pursuit of biomedical knowledge that is the only hope of solving these terrible problems.” That is surely a frightful dilemma.

Back to Top

Science and politics

A report from Washington in The Lancet for 13 March describes a deteriorating situation in the relationship between the scientific establishment and the political administration in the US.

In February of this year the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report endorsed by 62 of the nation’s leading scientists which accused the administration of repeatedly misusing research data for political purposes. Moreover it claimed that advisory committees were heavily infiltrated with politically interested partisans. The union, which is 100,000 strong, commented: “There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies.” It alleged that the scientific advice tendered to the government was tampered with, if it threatened the political agenda.

To lend weight to these allegations, a few days later the membership of the Council on Bioethics, which is appointed by the President, was altered to exclude two members who were in favour of stem-cell research. They were replaced by three new members whose views were in harmony with those of the President in respect of religion, biomedical research and related topics.

Specific allegations included in the scientists’ report included distortion or suppression of data on global climate change, the health hazards of mercury, airborne bacteria from farms, the hazards of abortion and other current concerns. The possible consequences of climate change were dismissed as just a bureaucratic report. In explanation of the differences producing the dispute, the politicians blamed poor communication on scientific matters. However, some observers have pointed out that President Bush has “shown scant interest in purely scientific matters, or in the repeated allegations of misuse of scientific data.”

Altogether, it appears that in the US administration political expediency is vastly extolled and scientific arguments promptly dismissed.

Back to Top

And I quote...Those experts!

“No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you never should trust experts. If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require to have to have their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.”
— Robert Cecil, third Marquis of Salisbury: ‘Letter to Lord Lytton’ (1877).
Back to Top