Sarah Gilbert

For more than eleven years, I worked with Dan Callahan as an editor, a liaison with journalists, and a sounding board for ideas. To Dan, every new writing project was a thrill, whether it was for the New Republic or a blog. He consumed a wide range of professional and scholarly literature, followed the news with the eye of a reporter, and called experts when he wanted to learn more about something he had read. The result was a volcanic bubbling of story ideas. If he didn't turn them into articles or books, I sometimes had the feeling that he might burst.

Research on how genetics contribute to human behavior and achievement raises many bioethical questions. What are we to make, for example, of a study published last year that found that students with genetic variants associated with educational attainment (years of education) took more advanced math classes in ninth grade? Does this finding have implications for education practice? Should it? How so? Questions like these serve as reminders that genetic science has long been misused to draw conclusions about individuals and groups of people, conclusions laced with racism and other biases. As research on human genomics ramps up, now is the time to ramp up science communication about what these studies do and, importantly, do not show. A new feature on The Hastings Center's website does just that.

At a time when our views on practically everything are polarized, there's one thing that growing numbers of us agree on: we want genetic information about ourselves. About 15 million people have taken a direct‐to‐consumer genetic test, up from 4 million two years ago. Millions more are likely to give these tests as holiday gifts. Many people consider genetic findings deeply meaningful to their understanding of who they are. This information is a gift, but it is also a weight—a paradox that was the theme of a conference organized by my colleagues Erik Parens and Joel Michael Reynolds in October 2018. Genomic knowledge is a gift when, for example, it connects us with relatives whom we're glad to meet. But it is a weight when it pigeonholes us into categories that suggest racial differences and possibly stereotypes.

Some years ago, Deborah Blum, a Pulitzer Prize–winning science journalist, nailed the divide between scientists who conduct research on animals in the hope of advancing medical knowledge and people who object to that work for being immoral and inhumane. They are “like two different nations, nations locked in a long, bitter, seemingly intractable political standoff,” she wrote in her 1994 book, The Monkey Wars. The two sides certainly have been like nations locked in a long, bitter standoff. That standoff has seemed intractable. But when Blum talked to people on both sides, she found glimmers of hope—a few individuals willing to listen to one another and find common ground. “When they can be freely heard,” she concluded, “then we will have progressed to another place, beyond this time of hostilities.” Today, while we are not yet beyond hostilities, we have progressed to another place.

To get an idea of how personalized medicine could reshape patient care in the years ahead, one need only look at how it is beginning to reshape the care of patients with cancer. Cancer is where personalized medicine has gained its firmest foothold. The longstanding scattershot practice of prescribing the same drugs to virtually all patients with a particular type of cancer is giving way to a more selective approach in which genetic tests are run on tumor samples to identify which patients are likely to benefit from which drugs, or to tell whether they need drugs at all. This shift holds the prospect of improving cancer care and the stewardship of costly cancer care resources. It has had its successes and failures ..

We first got to know TEDMED, a partner of TED (known for its entertaining talks on important ideas), in November 2011, when Jay Walker, its ebullient curator and chairman, visited The Hastings Center to discuss our common interests. What took place was an energizing conversation with Hastings Center staff and several members of the center's board of directors about some of the most intractable health care problems. Jay sketched his vision of marshaling creative and motivated leaders from business, public policy, and medicine to address them. He imagined these people drawing on their areas of expertise to make unforeseen connections—perhaps some insight from business would spark a new idea for combatting childhood obesity or eliminating medical errors. They would use their influence to put the best ideas into practice. Soon after, Walker's colleagues were back in touch with a plan for launching his movement: The Great Challenges of Health and Medicine program.

Bioethics in the blogosphere. There is important news, and then there is important news that grabs hold of people and gets them thinking and talking: “Did you see the piece on . . . ?” “What do you think?” “What would you do?” That kind of news often has to do with bioethics. The desire to capture diverse perspectives on bioethical issues of the day led The Hastings Center to launch Bioethics Forum nearly five years ago. Greg Kaebnick, editor of the Hastings Center Report, conceived of it as an online adjunct to the Report. Commentaries that would take at least a month to work their way through the Report’s production cycle could be posted immediately on Bioethics Forum. And the Forum might broaden our ..

Shortly after Wuhan, the city where the novel coronavirus was first identified, was placed on lockdown in January, I received an email from two Hastings Center fellows in China: Renzong Qiu, of Renmin University of China in Beijing, and Ruipeng Lei, of Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan. Attached was a post for our blog, Hastings Bioethics Forum, that raised ethical and legal questions about China's response. “Hegel says, ‘We learn from history that we do not learn from history,’” their piece began. “The recurrence of the coronavirus epidemic in China proves his insight to be right.” This bold report from bioethicists in China was courageous and eye‐opening. It was among the first discussions in bioethics of what has since become a global crisis, and it turned out to be the first in a string of commentaries in Hastings Bioethics Forum with insights about the crisis, the issues it raises, and how the world should respond to it.