The Institute of Positive Biology: Outline of a Bold Vision

Imagine you work in fund raising for the Research Office of a university. After calling dozens of eminent alumni, in the hopes of convincing them to make a sizable donation to your university, you finally get some encouraging news. An affluent alumnus wants to meet in person to discuss the possibility of making a sizable donation. But she has some specifics she wants to discuss first.

The next day you sit down for lunch with the potential donor and she informs you that she is prepared to make sizable (i.e. multi-million dollar) donation to the university. However, some conditions apply. Firstly, this donation will only be made if the funds go towards the creation of a new research institute. Secondly, this research institute must be unique; it must stand out from the hundreds of other institutes that already exist in universities around the country and globe. And thirdly, and most importantly, the mission of the institute must be truly ambitious-- it must aspire to promote research that could really be a "game changer" in terms of promoting human health and happiness. These are the three stipulations the donor attaches to the money. You have one week to come up with a coherent, unique and bold vision for this new research institute. What do you come up with?

Below is a brief outline of what my vision would be....

The Institute of Positive Biology (IPB): Dedicated to the Promotion of Health and Happiness

The distinctive focus of IPB is that its diverse group of researchers and scholars study exemplar examples of health and happiness, the goal of which is to translate such findings into novel interventions that can promote the opportunities for humans to flourish. Rather than focusing on pathology, which is the central concern of most research in the biomedical sciences, the IPB focuses instead on the environmental and genetic determinants of health and happiness.

The Institute is interdisciplinary, bringing scientists and scholars together from a variety of disciplines, in both the natural and social sciences. Researchers at IPB exam the determinants of happiness, the positive emotions, optimism, resilience, the genetics of longevity, talent, high level cognitive functioning, etc.

A sample of the societal impact the research of IPB could lead to is captured in the following (at least for now) hypoethical "media releases":

Media Release #1: IPB sequences the genomes of supercentenarians. These rare individuals (approximately 1 in 7 million) ages 110+ may hold the key to developing an aging intervention which could help aging populations delay and compress the chronic diseases of late life.

Media Release #2: IPB finds association between "high level" conversations and self-reported high levels of happiness.

Media Release #3: IPB helps design "happy workplace"-- designed to amplify flow, gratitude, interest, social interactions, etc.-- which actually boosted worker productivity.

Media Release #4: IPB advises local municipality on designing and implementing plans for a new "playful" template to help transform the city into a "play-friendly habitat".

Media Release: #5: IPB publishs study on the effects of cognitive enhancements. Researchers will advise the FDA on the ethical regulation of safe and effective cognitive enhancers that could help boost memory, spatial planning, etc. This research is part of Institute's larger "Realizing Enhancements Initiative: From the Lab to the Market".

Media Release #:6 IPB releases findings on the "Prison and Positive Emotions" project. Interventions designed to elicit the positive emotions were found to help with inmate rehabilitation, reduced inmate violence and significanly lowered the rate of re-offence when compared to the normal prison population.

The Institute of Positive Biology could, I believe, truly be a "game changer". It could help foster the kind of interdisciplinary knowledge needed to significantly improve human health and happiness. Such an institute would be both unique and bold. I hope that, one day, the Institute of Positive Biology can become a reality. [further reading]

Cheers,
Colin

Journal Volume on Biology of Cultural Conflict

The March 5th issue of the Royal Society's journal is here and is a special themed issue on 'The biology of cultural conflict'. The volume looks very interesting and worth a read. Here are the abstract of two papers in the volume:

The political left rolls with the good and the political right confronts the bad: connecting physiology and cognition to preferences

We report evidence that individual-level variation in people's physiological and attentional responses to aversive and appetitive stimuli are correlated with broad political orientations. Specifically, we find that greater orientation to aversive stimuli tends to be associated with right-of-centre and greater orientation to appetitive (pleasing) stimuli with left-of-centre political inclinations. These findings are consistent with recent evidence that political views are connected to physiological predispositions but are unique in incorporating findings on variation in directed attention that make it possible to understand additional aspects of the link between the physiological and the political.

AND

Evolution and the psychology of intergroup conflict: the male warrior hypothesis

The social science literature contains numerous examples of human tribalism and parochialism—the tendency to categorize individuals on the basis of their group membership, and treat ingroup members benevolently and outgroup members malevolently. We hypothesize that this tribal inclination is an adaptive response to the threat of coalitional aggression and intergroup conflict perpetrated by ‘warrior males’ in both ancestral and modern human environments. Here, we describe how male coalitional aggression could have affected the social psychologies of men and women differently and present preliminary evidence from experimental social psychological studies testing various predictions from the ‘male warrior’ hypothesis. Finally, we discuss the theoretical implications of our research for studying intergroup relations both in humans and non-humans and discuss some practical implications.

Cheers,
Colin

Time Waits For No One...

Originally posted April 2011



Biological aging is the greatest health threat to humanity today. It causes more disease and suffering in the world than all infectious diseases (HIV, malaria, etc.) or any other cause (e.g. poverty, war, natural disaster, etc.). The inborn aging process causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, AD, joint pain, vision and hearing impairment, etc.

The harms of senescence (even if we exercise and eat a healthy diet) are certain, severe and universal. The diseases of aging afflict both rich and poor, and developed and developing countries. And, unless the biological clocks we have inherited from our Darwinian past are modified, it is highly likely that all future generations of human beings that shall ever live on this planet will suffer one or more of the diseases of aging.

In light of the unique health challenges facing the world's aging populations, the most important knowledge humans can acquire today is knowledge about the biology of aging: why do we, as a species, age at the rate we do? why does aging leave our bodies and minds susceptible to disease? And, most importantly, how can we retard or ameliorate the harmful effects of biological aging?

Cheers,
Colin

PLoS One Study on Genetics of Exceptional Longevity

The Jan. 2012 issue of PLoS ONE has this study on the genetics of longevity.


The abstract:

Like most complex phenotypes, exceptional longevity is thought to reflect a combined influence of environmental (e.g., lifestyle choices, where we live) and genetic factors. To explore the genetic contribution, we undertook a genome-wide association study of exceptional longevity in 801 centenarians (median age at death 104 years) and 914 genetically matched healthy controls. Using these data, we built a genetic model that includes 281 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and discriminated between cases and controls of the discovery set with 89% sensitivity and specificity, and with 58% specificity and 60% sensitivity in an independent cohort of 341 controls and 253 genetically matched nonagenarians and centenarians (median age 100 years). Consistent with the hypothesis that the genetic contribution is largest with the oldest ages, the sensitivity of the model increased in the independent cohort with older and older ages (71% to classify subjects with an age at death>102 and 85% to classify subjects with an age at death>105). For further validation, we applied the model to an additional, unmatched 60 centenarians (median age 107 years) resulting in 78% sensitivity, and 2863 unmatched controls with 61% specificity. The 281 SNPs include the SNP rs2075650 in TOMM40/APOE that reached irrefutable genome wide significance (posterior probability of association = 1) and replicated in the independent cohort. Removal of this SNP from the model reduced the accuracy by only 1%. Further in-silico analysis suggests that 90% of centenarians can be grouped into clusters characterized by different “genetic signatures” of varying predictive values for exceptional longevity. The correlation between 3 signatures and 3 different life spans was replicated in the combined replication sets. The different signatures may help dissect this complex phenotype into sub-phenotypes of exceptional longevity.

Cheers,
Colin

EMBO Reports Paper Online

My paper "'Positive Biology' as a New Paradigm for the Medical Sciences" is now published in the advance online section (for Jan. 27) of Nature's EMBO Reports.

The abstract:

Most basic and applied research in the medical sciences today is premised upon the presumption that well-ordered science requires us to prioritize what one can call “negative biology”. Negative biology is the intellectual framework that presumes the most important question to answer is- what causes pathology? Positive biology, by contrast, focuses on a different set of questions and priorities. Rather than making disease the central focus of our intellectual efforts and financial investments, positive biology seeks instead to understand exemplar examples of health and happiness. Understanding why some (rare) individuals can live a century of disease-free life, or why some individuals enjoy more well-being (e.g. positive subjective experience, optimism, perseverance, high talent) or possess greater memory or resilience than the average person could lead to new knowledge that permits us to significantly expand the opportunities today’s populations have for health and happiness.

A sample:

Most of today’s medical research could be called ‘negative biology’. It is conducted in an intellectual framework that presumes that the most important question to answer is: what causes pathology? Disease is its central focus and this explains why medical research and research funding is mainly concerned with trying to understand, prevent and treat specific diseases. The design of the US National Institutes of Health, which is largely composed of individual institutes dedicated to specific diseases such as cancer, mental illness or infectious diseases, reflects this prevalence of pathology-oriented negative biology.

Positive biology, by contrast, focuses on a different set of questions and priorities. Rather than making pathology and disease the central focus of intellectual efforts and financial investments, positive biology seeks to understand positive phenotypes: why do some individuals live more than a century without ever suffering from the chronic diseases that afflict most humans much earlier in their lives? Why are some individuals more happy, optimistic, talented, or have a better memory than most people? The paradigm of positive biology is based on the insight that the process of evolution by natural selection does not create a perfect organism in terms of life expectancy, resistance to disease or other abilities.

Cheers,
Colin

Enhancement Book (Chapter 1)

Over the coming weeks I will be making my way through Allen Buchanan's new book Beyond Humanity? I am looking forward to reading this timely book which is written by a first-rate scholar who has made substantive contributions to various debates in practical ethics and political philosophy.

My goal here on the blog is to make a few notes for each chapter, primarily for my own benefit so I can return at a later point to write something more substantive. So on to Chapter 1.

Chapter 1 begins with a very useful characterization of the "anti-enhancement" stance. This characterization resonates with me as I have encountered these kinds of objections for the past decade now when teaching these topics. Buchanan captures the "anti-enhancement" position in the following:

For the first time, human biology and even the human genome itself can be shaped by human action. But the human organism is a finely balanced whole, the product of eons of exacting evolution. It is irresponsible to tamper with the wisdom of nature, the handiwork of the Master Engineer of evolution, in order to be better than well. Our situation at present is not perfect, of course, but it is clearly satisfactory; so it is a mistake to risk it for the sake of improvement. Those who seek biomedical enhancement desire perfection; they crave mastery. But such attitudes are incompatible with a due appreciation of the given, a sense of gratitude for what we have. (1)

Buchanan notes that every single sentence in the above passage is in fact false. Let me break the paragraph down, line by line, to show why this is so (I will add some further details and points, etc. to the case Buchanan makes against this statement).

#1. For the first time, human biology and even the human genome itself can be shaped by human action. WRONG. Human biology is shaped by our environment. Creating cities, vehicles and jobs that limit human mobility helped (when combined with access to cheap, high caloric food) modulate our biology in ways conducive to an epidemic of obesity. The design of human societies and new technologies also changed the human genome. These "human" factors altered who we reproduced with, who lived long enough to reproduce, etc. Culture impacts biology. A scan of the brain of a literate child living today in the developed world, who is exposed to education and ample nourishment, for example, would look very different from the brain scan of a 10 year-old living in a small hunter-gather tribe from 80 000 years ago.

#2. But the human organism is a finely balanced whole, the product of eons of exacting evolution. WRONG. Read this. It is hard to see how an organism susceptible to chronic pain, depression, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. is "finely balanced".

#3. It is irresponsible to tamper with the wisdom of nature, the handiwork of the Master Engineer of evolution, in order to be better than well. WRONG. We tamper with the wisdom of nature every single day. I put a bundle of clothes on my body before braving the deep freeze of the average winter day in Canada. I read, exercise, etc. in order to become "better". Now one might argue that the human brain itself is perhaps part of the "wisdom of nature". But this brain is capable of vice as well as virtue. Surely we don't want to defer to the wisdom of sociopaths, the weak willed, etc. So deferring to the "wisdom of nature" is a vacuous suggestion.

#4. Our situation at present is not perfect, of course, but it is clearly satisfactory; so it is a mistake to risk it for the sake of improvement. WRONG. The chronic diseases of aging will kill an unprecedented number of human beings in the next decade. The WHO estimates the number to be over 200 million people. And death by chronic disease is a slow, painful demise. Hardly a state of affairs that can be called "satisfactory". In my view, the moral imperative to tackle aging is among the greatest of moral imperatives our species has ever faced.

#5. Those who seek biomedical enhancement desire perfection; they crave mastery. WRONG (or, at least, it depends on who the target of criticism is). Wanting to improve cognition or promote healthy aging via biomedical intervention does not presuppose we want "mastery" anymore than pursuing these same aims via education and exercising does.

#6. But such attitudes are incompatible with a due appreciation of the given, a sense of gratitude for what we have. WRONG. Promoting education (an enhancement), for example, is not incompatible with gratitude. A parent that wants their child to receive a better education than what they received growing up is not necessarily ungrateful for the opportunities they received as a child. Rather such an attitude denotes an appreciation of the importance a good education has. It need not express feelings of ingratitude.

OK, back to the book.

Buchanan notes (3) that the enhancement debate, perhaps more than any other academic debate in Practical Ethics, is one largely populated by rhetoric and grandstanding and slogans rather than sound arguments. Appeals to "the given" and "normal species functioning" abound, but there is little understanding of, or engagement with, evolutionary biology. The enhancement literature, he claims, "is one of the last academic strongholds of a priori psychology and sociology. One would think that one was living in the eighteenth century, when serious intellectuals still believed they could formulate interesting and controversial generalizations about human behavior or the workings of human society from the armchair" (9). Love that passage!

A unique move Buchanan makes is the introduction of the "anti-anti-enhancement" stance versus the "pro-enhancement" stance, which helps transcend the debate between the typical "pro vs anti-enhancement" frame. He adopts the "anti-anti-enhancement" stance. Such a stance "more positively commits itself to developing the moral and institutional resources needed to pursue enhancements responsibly" (16). The case in favour of enhancements, argues Buchanan, comes to the fore once we discard the erroneous assumptions that enhancements will be predominately zero-sum, competitive goods, or expressions of bad character. What is needed is thus a re-framing (more on this later) of the ethical issues at stake with biomedical enhancements. And this is the primary goal of the book (19).

Definition of biomedical enhancement: a deliberate intervention, applying biomedical science, which aims to improve an existing capacity that most or all normal human beings typically have, or to create a new capacity, by acting directly on the body or brain. (23)

5 Types of enhancement widely discussed in debates are:

1. improvements in physical characteristics such as speed, strength, and endurance
2. improvements in cognitive capacities, such as various aspects of memory, information - processing and reasoning
3. improvements in affect, emotion, motivation, or temperament
4. improvements in immunity or resistance to disease
5. increased longevity (25)

Stay tuned for overview/outline of chapter 2 in the next few days.

Cheers,
Colin

PSR Paper Published

My paper "Virtue Epistemology and the ‘Epistemic Fitness’ of Democracy" is now out in print in the latest issue of the journal Political Studies Review.

The abstract:

In this article I explore three distinct advantages of linking virtue epistemology to an epistemic defence of democracy. First, because intellectual agents and communities are the primary focus of epistemic evaluation, virtue epistemology offers political theorists the opportunity to develop an epistemic defence of democracy that takes ‘realism’ seriously (e.g. the cognitive limitations and biases of humans). Second, because virtue epistemology conceives of epistemology as a normative discipline, it builds normative criteria into the exercise of assessing the ‘epistemic fitness’ of a political arrangement (e.g. democracy vs. epistocracy).Third, by assessing the epistemic powers of democracy from a virtue- epistemological perspective, a more robust (Deweyan) conception of democracy needs to be employed and assessed than the minimalist conception employed by the Condorcet Jury Theorem.

Cheers,
Colin