New Paper Out!

The arrival of the “genomic era” amplifies both the significance and the complexity of advancing a theory of distributive justice in the 21st century. A real “veil of ignorance” concerning the details of the natural lottery of life is being lifted. And as this natural lottery becomes something we can directly influence, our understanding of the moral landscape must also evolve. For the past 20+ years I have been mulling over the question “How should we theorize about the demands of justice in the genomic era?” My latest reflections on this issue are now out in print in the interdisciplinary journal Politics and the Life Sciences, published by Cambridge University Press. The abstract:

The sequencing of the human genome and advances in gene therapy and genomic editing, coupled with embryo selection techniques and a potential gerontological intervention, are some examples of the rapid technological advances of the “genetic revolution.” This article addresses the methodological issue of how we should theorize about justice in the genomic era. Invoking the methodology of non-ideal theory, I argue that theorizing about justice in the genomic era entails theorizing about (1) the new inequalities that the genetic revolution could exacerbate (e.g., genetic discrimination, disability-related injustices, and gender inequality), and (2) those inequalities that the genetic revolution could help us mitigate (e.g., the risks of disease in early and late life). By doing so, normative theorists can ensure that we develop an account of justice that takes seriously not only individual rights, equality of opportunity, the cultural and sociopolitical aspects of disability, and equality between the sexes, but also the potential health benefits (to both individuals and populations) of attending to the evolutionary causes of morbidity and disability.

Cheers, 

Colin 

R&D Investment

Many of my compatriots are (understandably) frustrated by the delays in the vaccine rollout in Canada (at least compared to the USA and UK, though our 27.7 per 100 people vaccinated is well above the global average of 11.9 per 100 people). Many factors explain Canada’s lack luster performance, but I think it is worth noting where Canada stands globally in terms of the percentage of our GDP invested in R&D.

Here are some useful comparisons (from the World Bank data in 2018) for % of GDP invested in R&D in general (only part of which relates to healthcare, but it also covers computing, defence, energy, etc.):

World: 2.27% of GDP invested in R&D

COUNTRIES 3+% INVESTMENT INCLUDE:

ISRAEL: 4.95%

SWITZERLAND: 3.37%

SWEDEN: 3.4%

GERMANY: 3.09%

DENMARK: 3.06%

COUNTRIES BETWEEN 2-2.9% INVESTMENT INCLUDE:

USA: 2.84%

FINLAND: 2.77%

FRANCE: 2.20%

CHINA: 2.19%

ICELAND: 2.03%

COUNTRIES BETWEEN 1-1.99% INVESTMENT INCLUDE:

SINGAPORE: 1.94%

SLOVENIA: 1.94%

CZECH REPUBLIC: 1.93%

UK: 1.72%

CANADA: 1.57%

Canada should be aiming higher in terms of investment in R&D, not only because doing so would have made us less vulnerable to this particular infectious disease, but because R&D investment (especially in healthcare) is critical to the long-term prospects of any society flourishing in the 21st century (and beyond). We ask a lot of our governments, so it is important to ensure we actually ask for those things that have important significance on the health and wellbeing of the population.

Science covers this story as it relates to France here, and NatureNews has the scoop on the same story in Africa here.

Cheers,

Colin

This new data briefing in the BMJ puts COVID-19 mortality in the UK into its historical perspective.  The graph here is deaths per 100 000 of the population from 1838 through the year 2020.  An even more fine grained picture would be to distinguish between the average age of death over that same time frame.  

Cheers, 

Colin

New Study on Magic Mushrooms and Depression

The first randomized clinical trial of “magic mushrooms” (in combination with psychotherapy) for depression was found to be just as effective (with fewer side effects) as the most commonly prescribed antidepressant. The fact that this study is published this week in the top medical journal in the world (NEJM) signals that perhaps the medical establishment is (slowly) shifting to a more genuine evidence-based approach to mental health.

Cheers,

Colin

New Paper on Cancer and Aging

My Opinion article titled "50 Years of the “War on Cancer”:  Lessons for Public Health and Geroscience" has been accepted for publication (update: here it is) in the science journal GeroScience (journal of the American Aging Association) published by Springer.  The abstract:

The year 2021 marks the 50th anniversary of the National Cancer Act of 1971 and President Richard Nixon’s declaration of a “war on cancer”.  In 1971 cancer was the second leading cause of death in the US, and today it is still the second leading cause of death with an estimated 606,520 Americans dying of cancer in the year 2020.  The half a century campaign to eliminate cancer reveals at least two important public health lessons that must be heeded for the next 50 years of the war against the disease- (1) recognising the limits of behaviour control and (2) recognising the significance of rate (of aging) control. These two lessons result in a somewhat paradoxical conclusion in that we must have both humility and ambition in our attitudes towards future preventative medicine for the world’s aging populations.  Geroscience must become an integral part of public health if serious headway is to be made preventing not only cancer, but most of the other chronic conditions of late life.

Cheers, 

Colin