Deep Brain Stimulation for Mental Illnesses Raises Ethical Concerns
Deep brain stimulation: This neurosurgical treatment involves the implantation of electrodes in the cerebral lobes of the brain, linked through the scalp (top) to wires (down right) leading to a battery implanted below the skin. This sends electrical impulses to specific areas of the brain. DBS was developed for the treatment of Parkinson's disease, but is being investigated for use in other conditions.
Imagine that you are one of the hundreds of millions of people who suffer from depression. Medication hasn't helped you, so you're looking for another treatment option. Something powerful enough to change your mood as soon as you need a lift.
"If a participant experiences a personality change, does this change who they are or dehumanize them by altering their nature?"
Enter deep brain stimulation: a type of therapy in which one or more electrodes are inserted into your brain and connected to a surgically implanted, battery-operated medical device in your chest. This device, which is approximately the size of a stopwatch, sends electric pulses to a targeted region of your brain. The idea is to control a variety of neurological symptoms that can't be adequately managed by drugs.
Over the last twenty years, deep brain stimulation, known as DBS, has become an efficient and safe alternative for the treatment of chronic neurological diseases such as epilepsy, Parkinson's disease and neuropathic pain. According to the International Neuromodulation Society, there have been more than 80,000 deep brain stimulation implants performed around the world.
The Food and Drug Administration approved DBS as a treatment for essential tremor and Parkinson's in 1997, dystonia in 2003 and obsessive compulsive disorder in 2009. Since doctors can use drugs and treatments "off-label" (not approved by the FDA) to treat patients with any disease, DBS is now also being investigated as a treatment for chronic pain, PTSD and major depression.
And these new applications are raising profound ethical questions about individuality, personality, and even what it means to be human.
"These patients are essentially having a computer that can modify and influence emotional processing, mood and motor outputs inserted into the brain," said Gabriel Lazaro-Munoz, an assistant professor at The Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine. "These responses define us as human beings and dictate our autonomy. If a participant experiences a personality change, does this change who they are or dehumanize them by altering their nature? These are some of the questions we have to consider."
"When we are not in control of ourselves, are we ourselves?"
The U.S. government has similar concerns about DBS. The National Institutes of Health recently awarded grants to study the neuroethical issues surrounding the use of DBS in neuropsychiatric and movement disorders and appropriate consent for brain research. The grants are part of the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Walter Koroshetz, director of NIH's National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke said, "Neuroscience is rapidly moving toward a new frontier of research on human brains that may have long-lasting and unforeseen effects. These new awards signal our commitment to research conducted in a responsible way as to anticipate all potential consequences, and to ensure that research subjects have a clear understanding of the potential benefits and risks of participating in studies."
Dr. Lazaro-Munoz's Center was awarded one of the grants to identify and evaluate the ethical, legal and social concerns with adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) technologies. Adaptive DBS is a relatively new version of the technology that enables recording of brain cell activity that is then used to regulate the brain in real time. He and his team will closely observe researchers conducting aDBS studies and administering in-depth interviews to trial participants, their caregivers, and researchers, as well as individuals who declined to participate in such studies. The goal is to gain a better understanding of the ethical concerns at stake in order to guide responsible research.
Dr. Lazaro-Munoz said one of the concerns is dehumanization. "By using this technology are we compromising what makes us human? When we are not in control of ourselves, are we ourselves?" He notes that similar concerns were raised about pharmaceutical treatments for illnesses. "Both change behaviors and emotional processing. However, there is a difference. Culturally we are more used to using drugs, not implanting devices into brain and computer interfaces. Many people think of it as science fiction."
The changes in behavior due to DBS can be dramatic, perhaps none more so than with Parkinson's disease; patients may see their chronic tremors suddenly vanish.
Pills for OCD and depression take longer than DBS to see significant improvement, sometimes months. "A DBS device is either on or off. And patients and families see changes immediately," Dr. Lazaro-Munoz said. "Family members are often startled by these changes, as are the patients." He's observed that patients feel more in control with pills because they can alter and "play" with the dose or even skip a dose.
The changes in behavior due to DBS can be dramatic, perhaps none more so than with Parkinson's disease; patients may see their chronic tremors suddenly vanish, like in this must-see video.
But surgical procedures to treat motor symptoms are also increasingly being implicated as a cause of behavioral changes, both positive and negative, in patients with Parkinson's. The personality changes reported in patients who undergo DBS include hypermania, pathological gambling, hypersexuality, impulsivity and aggressiveness. One patient who suffered from OCD fell in love with the music of Johnny Cash when his brain was stimulated. On the positive side, patients report memory enhancement.
One patient who is pleased with DBS is Greg Barstead, who was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 2003, when he was the president of Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company. He also has dystonia, which affects his neck and shoulders. Barstead said that DBS has been helpful for a range of symptoms: "My shoulder is a lot less stiff and my neck hurts less. And my tremors are under control. It is not perfect, as it doesn't relieve all the Parkinson's symptoms, but it does enough of a good job that both my wife and I are very happy I had DBS."
"We are not exactly sure what part of the brain causes depression. Doctors have not identified where to implant the device."
He said he hasn't noticed any personality changes, but noted that the disease itself can cause such changes. In fact, studies have shown that it can cause many psychiatric problems including depression and hallucinations. And, approximately a third of Parkinson's patients develop dementia.
Arthur L. Caplan, founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU School of Medicine, notes that unlike psychosurgery, DBS can be turned on and off and the device can be removed. "There are less ethical concerns around treating patients with Parkinson's disease than other illnesses because surgeons know exactly where to implant the device and have many years of experience with it," he said, adding that he is concerned about using DBS for other illnesses, such as depression. "We are not exactly sure what part of the brain causes depression. Doctors have not identified where to implant the device. And I would certainly not advocate its use in patients with mild depression."
Dr. Lazaro-Munoz said of the personality changes possible with DBS, physicians need to consider how the patients were functioning without it. "Patients who are candidates for DBS typically used many medications as well as psychotherapy before opting for DBS," he explained. "To me, the question is what is the net result of using this technology? Does the patient have regrets? Are the changes in personality significant or not? Although most DBS patients report being happy they underwent the procedure, some say they don't feel like themselves after DBS. Others feel they are more like themselves, especially if there are dramatic improvements in movement problems or relief of OCD symptoms."
And then there is the question of money. The costs of DBS are covered by most insurance companies and Medicare only for FDA-approved targets like Parkinson's. Off-label uses are not covered, at least for now.
Caplan reminds people that DBS devices are manufactured by companies that are interested in making money and the average cost per treatment is around $50,000. "I am interested in seeing DBS move forward," he said. "But we must be careful and not allow industry to make it go too fast, or be used on too many people, before we know it is effective."
The First Mass-Produced Solar Car Is Coming Soon, Sparking Excitement and Uncertainty
Reporter Michaela Haas takes Aptera's Sol car out for a test drive in San Diego, Calif.
The white two-seater car that rolls down the street in the Sorrento Valley of San Diego looks like a futuristic batmobile, with its long aerodynamic tail and curved underbelly. Called 'Sol' (Spanish for "sun"), it runs solely on solar and could be the future of green cars. Its maker, the California startup Aptera, has announced the production of Sol, the world's first mass-produced solar vehicle, by the end of this year. Aptera co-founder Chris Anthony points to the sky as he says, "On this sunny California day, there is ample fuel. You never need to charge the car."
If you live in a sunny state like California or Florida, you might never need to plug in the streamlined Sol because the solar panels recharge while driving and parked. Its 60-mile range is more than the average commuter needs. For cloudy weather, battery packs can be recharged electronically for a range of up to 1,000 miles. The ultra-aerodynamic shape made of lightweight materials such as carbon, Kevlar, and hemp makes the Sol four times more energy-efficient than a Tesla, according to Aptera. "The material is seven times stronger than steel and even survives hail or an angry ex-girlfriend," Anthony promises.
Co-founder Steve Fambro opens the Sol's white doors that fly upwards like wings and I get inside for a test drive. Two dozen square solar panels, each the size of a large square coaster, on the roof, front, and tail power the car. The white interior is spartan; monitors have replaced mirrors and the dashboard. An engineer sits in the driver's seat, hits the pedal, and the low-drag two-seater zooms from 0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds.
It feels like sitting in a race car because the two-seater is so low to the ground but the car is built to go no faster than 100 or 110 mph. The finished car will weigh less than 1,800 pounds, about half of the smallest Tesla. The average car, by comparison, weighs more than double that. "We've built it primarily for energy efficiency," Steve Fambro says, explaining why the Sol has only three wheels. It's technically an "auto-cycle," a hybrid between a motorcycle and a car, but Aptera's designers are also working to design a four-seater.
There has never been a lack of grand visions for the future of the automobile, but until these solar cars actually hit the streets, nobody knows how the promises will hold up.
Transportation is currently the biggest source of greenhouse gases. Developing an efficient solar car that does not burden the grid has been the dream of innovators for decades. Every other year, dozens of innovators race their self-built solar cars 2,000 miles through the Australian desert.
More effective solar panels are finally making the dream mass-compatible, but just like other innovative car ideas, Aptera's vision has been plagued with money problems. Anthony and Fambro were part of the original crew that founded Aptera in 2006 and worked on the first prototype around the same time Tesla built its first roadster, but Aptera went bankrupt in 2011. Anthony and Fambro left a year before the bankruptcy and went on to start other companies. Among other projects, Fambro developed the first USDA organic vertical farm in the United Arab Emirates, and Anthony built a lithium battery company, before the two decided to buy Aptera back. Without a billionaire such as Elon Musk bankrolling the risky process of establishing a whole new car production system from scratch, the huge production costs are almost insurmountable.
But Aptera's founders believe they have found solutions for the entire production process as well as the car design. Most parts of the Sol's body can be made by 3D printers and assembled like a Lego kit. If this makes you think of a toy car, Anthony assures potential buyers that the car aced stress tests and claims it's safer than any vehicle on the market, "because the interior is shaped like an egg and if there is an impact, the pressure gets distributed equally." However, Aptera has yet to release crash test safety data so outside experts cannot evaluate their claims.
Instead of building a huge production facility, Anthony and Fambro envision "micro-factories," each less than 10,000 square feet, where a small crew can assemble cars on demand wherever the orders are highest, be it in California, Canada, or China.
If a part of the Sol breaks, Aptera promises to send replacement parts to any corner of the world within 24 hours, with instructions. So a mechanic in a rural corner in Arkansas or China who never worked on a solar car before simply needs to download the instructions and replace the broken part. At least that's the idea. "The material does not rust nor fatigue," Fambro promises. "You can pass the car onto your grandchildren. When more efficient solar panels hit the market, we simply replace them."
More than 11,000 potential buyers have already signed up; the cheapest model costs around $26,000 USD and Aptera expects the first cars to ship by the end of the year.
Two other solar carmakers are vying for the pole position in the race to be the first to market: The German startup Sono has also announced it will also produce its first solar car by the end of this year. The price tag for the basic model is also around $26,000, but its concept is very different. From the outside, the Sion looks like a conservative minivan for a family; only a closer look reveals that the dark exterior is made of solar panels. Sono, too, nearly went bankrupt a few years ago and was saved through a crowdfunding campaign by enthusiastic fans.
Meanwhile, Norwegian company Lightyear wants to produce a sleek solar-powered luxury sedan by the end of the year, but its price of around $180,000 makes it unaffordable for most buyers.
There has never been a lack of grand visions for the future of the automobile, but until these solar cars actually hit the streets, nobody knows how the promises will hold up. How often will the cars need to be repaired? What happens when snow and ice cover the solar panels? Also, you can't park the car in a garage if you need the sun to charge it.
Critics, including students at the Solar Car team at the University of Michigan, say that mounting solar panels on a moving vehicle will never yield the most efficient results compared to static panels. Also, they are quick to point out that no company has managed to overcome the production hurdles yet. Others in the field also wonder how well the solar panels will actually work.
"It's important to realize that the solar mileage claims by these companies are likely the theoretical best case scenario but in the real world, solar range will be significantly less when you factor in shading, parking in garages, and geographies with lower solar irradiance," says Evan Stumpges, the team coordinator for the American Solar Challenge, a competition in which enthusiasts build and race solar-powered cars. "The encouraging thing is that I have seen videos of real working prototypes for each of these vehicles which is a key accomplishment. That said, I believe the biggest hurdle these companies have yet to face is successfully ramping up to volume production and understanding what their profitability point will be for selling the vehicles once production has stabilized."
Professor Daniel M. Kammen, the founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the world's foremost experts on renewable energy, believes that the technical challenges have been solved, and that solar cars have real advantages over electric vehicles.
"This is the right time to be bullish. Cutting out the charging is a natural solution for long rides," he says. "These vehicles are essentially solar panels and batteries on wheels. These are now record low-cost and can be built from sustainable materials." Apart from Aptera's no-charge technology, he appreciates the move toward no-conflict materials. "Not only is the time ripe but the youth movement is pushing toward conflict-free material and reducing resource waste....A low-cost solar fleet could be really interesting in relieving burden on the grid, or you could easily imagine a city buying a bunch of them and connecting them with mass transit." While he has followed all three new solar companies with interest, he has already ordered an Aptera car for himself, "because it's American and it looks the most different."
After taking a spin in the Sol, it is startling to switch back into a regular four-seater. Rolling out of Aptera's parking lot onto the freeway next to all the oversized gas guzzlers that need to stop every couple of hundreds of miles to fill up, one can't help but think: We've just taken a trip into the future.
Biohackers Made a Cheap and Effective Home Covid Test -- But No One Is Allowed to Use It
A stock image of a home test for COVID-19.
Last summer, when fast and cheap Covid tests were in high demand and governments were struggling to manufacture and distribute them, a group of independent scientists working together had a bit of a breakthrough.
Working on the Just One Giant Lab platform, an online community that serves as a kind of clearing house for open science researchers to find each other and work together, they managed to create a simple, one-hour Covid test that anyone could take at home with just a cup of hot water. The group tested it across a network of home and professional laboratories before being listed as a semi-finalist team for the XPrize, a competition that rewards innovative solutions-based projects. Then, the group hit a wall: they couldn't commercialize the test.
They wanted to keep their project open source, making it accessible to people around the world, so they decided to forgo traditional means of intellectual property protection and didn't seek patents. (They couldn't afford lawyers anyway). And, as a loose-knit group that was not supported by a traditional scientific institution, working in community labs and homes around the world, they had no access to resources or financial support for manufacturing or distributing their test at scale.
But without ethical and regulatory approval for clinical testing, manufacture, and distribution, they were legally unable to create field tests for real people, leaving their inexpensive, $16-per-test, innovative product languishing behind, while other, more expensive over-the-counter tests made their way onto the market.
Who Are These Radical Scientists?
Independent, decentralized biomedical research has come of age. Also sometimes called DIYbio, biohacking, or community biology, depending on whom you ask, open research is today a global movement with thousands of members, from scientists with advanced degrees to middle-grade students. Their motivations and interests vary across a wide spectrum, but transparency and accessibility are key to the ethos of the movement. Teams are agile, focused on shoestring-budget R&D, and aim to disrupt business as usual in the ivory towers of the scientific establishment.
Ethics oversight is critical to ensuring that research is conducted responsibly, even by biohackers.
Initiatives developed within the community, such as Open Insulin, which hopes to engineer processes for affordable, small-batch insulin production, "Slybera," a provocative attempt to reverse engineer a $1 million dollar gene therapy, and the hundreds of projects posted on the collaboration platform Just One Giant Lab during the pandemic, all have one thing in common: to pursue testing in humans, they need an ethics oversight mechanism.
These groups, most of which operate collaboratively in community labs, homes, and online, recognize that some sort of oversight or guidance is useful—and that it's the right thing to do.
But also, and perhaps more immediately, they need it because federal rules require ethics oversight of any biomedical research that's headed in the direction of the consumer market. In addition, some individuals engaged in this work do want to publish their research in traditional scientific journals, which—you guessed it—also require that research has undergone an ethics evaluation. Ethics oversight is critical to ensuring that research is conducted responsibly, even by biohackers.
Bridging the Ethics Gap
The problem is that traditional oversight mechanisms, such as institutional review boards at government or academic research institutions, as well as the private boards utilized by pharmaceutical companies, are not accessible to most independent researchers. Traditional review boards are either closed to the public, or charge fees that are out of reach for many citizen science initiatives. This has created an "ethics gap" in nontraditional scientific research.
Biohackers are seen in some ways as the direct descendents of "white hat" computer hackers, or those focused on calling out security holes and contributing solutions to technical problems within self-regulating communities. In the case of health and biotechnology, those problems include both the absence of treatments and the availability of only expensive treatments for certain conditions. As the DIYbio community grows, there needs to be a way to provide assurance that, when the work is successful, the public is able to benefit from it eventually. The team that developed the one-hour Covid test found a potential commercial partner and so might well overcome the oversight hurdle, but it's been 14 months since they developed the test--and counting.
In short, without some kind of oversight mechanism for the work of independent biomedical researchers, the solutions they innovate will never have the opportunity to reach consumers.
In a new paper in the journal Citizen Science: Theory & Practice, we consider the issue of the ethics gap and ask whether ethics oversight is something nontraditional researchers want, and if so, what forms it might take. Given that individuals within these communities sometimes vehemently disagree with each other, is consensus on these questions even possible?
We learned that there is no "one size fits all" solution for ethics oversight of nontraditional research. Rather, the appropriateness of any oversight model will depend on each initiative's objectives, needs, risks, and constraints.
We also learned that nontraditional researchers are generally willing (and in some cases eager) to engage with traditional scientific, legal, and bioethics experts on ethics, safety, and related questions.
We suggest that these experts make themselves available to help nontraditional researchers build infrastructure for ethics self-governance and identify when it might be necessary to seek outside assistance.
Independent biomedical research has promise, but like any emerging science, it poses novel ethical questions and challenges. Existing research ethics and oversight frameworks may not be well-suited to answer them in every context, so we need to think outside the box about what we can create for the future. That process should begin by talking to independent biomedical researchers about their activities, priorities, and concerns with an eye to understanding how best to support them.
Christi Guerrini, JD, MPH studies biomedical citizen science and is an Associate Professor at Baylor College of Medicine. Alex Pearlman, MA, is a science journalist and bioethicist who writes about emerging issues in biotechnology. They have recently launched outlawbio.org, a place for discussion about nontraditional research.