Ethics Newsline®

For more information, see this week’s Research Report.

by Rushworth M. Kidder

What is the most threatening global issue facing humanity today?

Is it terrorism, where advancing nuclear and biological technologies give single individuals new opportunities to create mass destruction? Or is it violence against women, which today creates more casualties than warfare? Maybe it’s CO₂ emissions, which could warm the world and melt enough polar ice to raise sea levels for 634 million coastal residents. Or is it governmental corruption, which accounts for more than $1 trillion a year in political bribes? Or perhaps it’s mass migration, which by 2025 could put as many as 1.8 billion people on the move in water-scarce areas? Or is it slavery, with more slaves now than at the highest point of the African slave trade?

To chart public priorities among these and other global issues, we recently did a small pilot survey of members of the Institute for Global Ethics. Given our mission, we wanted to know which issues raised the greatest ethical challenges to our global future.

Since the questions in our survey were based on the 15 major issues catalogued in the 2007 “State of the Future” report from the United Nations-affiliated Millennium Project, we asked one of the report’s co-authors, Theodore J. Gordon, to join us for a follow-up conference call with our survey participants. Gordon, who was a founding board member of our Institute, conceived of the Millennium Project in the 1980s and remains one of the world’s most highly respected futurists. He’s been studying future issues and trends since well before 1971, when he founded his own consulting firm, The Futures Group. So we were eager to share with him our results.

Of the nine topics in our survey, our respondents clustered three of them near the top: terrorism, CO₂ emissions, and mass migration. They followed with a group of five more: corruption; violence against women; global slavery; disease, AIDS, and pandemics; and imbalanced wealth distribution. The ninth issue, shortage of medical professionals, came in well below the rest. As Gordon talked us through these results and as the respondents shared their views, I sensed they were searching for some bigger, overarching theme — some common thread that made these issues significant. I also sensed an unspoken question on everyone’s mind: “Ted, what do you think is the Big One?”

His answer surprised us all. In effect, he said, it’s none of the above. Then, in three key words, he nailed the concern we’d all been circling around. “If you look at all of these issues,” he said “and ask what’s common to them all, it’s lousy decision making.”

“There used to be a time,” Gordon continued, “when I thought futures research, my field, would make its contribution by improving decision making. But I’ve abandoned that thought. We could have the best insight into what the future might be — through magic techniques not yet invented — and decisions would still be terrible!” Translation: It’s not the specific issues that challenge us, but the way we fail to deal with issues of every sort.

That strikes me as a remarkable admission for a man whose life has been devoted to advancing and promoting futures research. Gordon wouldn’t want me to hold him up to unfair comparisons, but if Einstein after decades of work had told us that something mattered more than physics, or if Cezanne had concluded that painting wasn’t what it was all about, or if Darwin had intimated that he was outgrowing his commitment to evolution, wouldn’t we pay attention?

Our leaders, Gordon emphasized, aren’t bad people. But “they don’t have a good grounding in decision making, because decision making is ad hoc.” As a result, today’s decisions often rely too much on the decision maker’s reputation or on undetermined psychological factors. Worse still, decisions even can rely on what he called “creating opportunities for the family” or on “what you had for breakfast.”

“Somewhere in the future,” Gordon observed, “a science of decision making has to emerge.” This science, he feels, must comprise such elements as futures research, econometrics, and ethics — what he describes as “a curriculum that covers the field.”

Gordon’s not telling us that the big, high-leverage issues on the global agenda aren’t important. They matter enormously and require every bit of energy that global organizations pour into them. They need public support, private initiative, and collective will. But mostly they need the new, sharp instrumentality of twenty-first-century decision making. That instrumentality includes ethics — an ability to discern right from wrong, coupled with a way to frame our toughest problems as moral dilemmas that pit two right courses of action against each other. With that in place, nothing we face — terrorism, global warming, slavery, corruption, or the rest — will be beyond our ability to correct.

©2008 Institute for Global Ethics

Questions or comments? Write to newsline@globalethics.org.

“It’s going to get worse before it gets better. It’s very difficult for us to get out and vet each and every one of the applicants as well as we should.”

– James Wong, an internal affairs agent with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, speaking to the New York Times about mounting concerns over collusion and corruption within the Border Patrol. As the Times‘ piece puts it: “The pattern has become familiar: Customs officers wave in vehicles filled with illegal immigrants, drugs or other contraband. A Border Patrol agent acts as a scout for smugglers. Trusted officers fall prey to temptation and begin taking bribes.”

Source: New York Times, May 27.

In contrast to international coverage, Chinese press reports are confined largely to nonthreatening storylines, according to report

BEIJING
As China digs out from beneath the rubble of the mid-May earthquake, there is growing outrage over allegations that the lopsided death toll in schools was a result of construction shortcuts greased by corruption.

The New York Times reports that while the four-story Xinjian Primary School completely collapsed, killing hundreds of children, none of the nearby buildings were badly damaged.

Times reporters Jim Yardley, Jake Hooker and Andrew Revkin write: “There is no official figure on how many children died at Xinjian Primary School, nor on how many died at scores of other schools that collapsed in the powerful May 12 earthquake in Sichuan Province. But the number of student deaths seems likely to exceed 10,000, and possibly go much higher, a staggering figure that has become a simmering controversy in China as grieving parents say their children might have lived had the schools been better built.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that architects and engineers surveyed by the paper say many of the obliterated four- and five-story school structures should have been able to withstand the quake if they had been built properly.

The New Statesman reports that many in China are anticipating a day of reckoning soon as calls continue for an inquiry into allegations that graft fueled the disaster. “With 6,900 classrooms destroyed and thousands of schoolchildren dead, the government has announced an inquiry into school building standards, but angry, grief-stricken parents may demand more,” the New Statesman reports. “The one-child policy means that those who have lost a teenager, and are too old to have another child, have nothing left to lose.”

While the Chinese government has been unusually open about the earthquake aftermath — rescinding earlier edicts restricting coverage and instructing local officials to cooperate with reporters — the purported linkage of corruption to the school deaths remains off-limits, according to the Australian Age. The paper contends that most of coverage allowed on the Mainland has focused on “nonthreatening storylines — extraordinary rescues, miraculous survivals, heroism, heartbreaking losses and the laudable efforts of Premier Wen Jiabao to comfort and reassure victims that help was on its way.”

Sources: New York Times, May 24 — Wall Street Journal, May 24 — New Statesman, May 24 — Australian Age, May 24.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, May 19 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 28 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 14 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 14 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 7.

State court says danger to children is not imminent; critics say it’s really a question of religious freedom

SAN ANTONIO
A Texas court last week ruled that the state had no authority to remove more than 400 children from a polygamist sect, raising legal and ethical questions about the rights of parents to retain control of their children — even if the parents engage in behavior that threatens the youngsters’ welfare.

ABC News reports that the seizure of the children, which followed a judge’s ruling that they were in danger of sexual abuse, is the largest child custody case in U.S. history.

MSNBC legal analyst Susan Filan reports that while the living conditions in the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado, Texas, apparently were harmful to children, the legal standard for seizing children in Texas is “imminent” danger.

In an opinion piece, Filan argues that court’s ruling upholds the principle that religious beliefs cannot be “the basis for governmental child snatching … [because allowing such seizure] is a prescription for religious persecution.”

But child-protection officials say legal doubts remain about the safety of children at the ranch and have appealed the case to the Texas Supreme Court, according to Newsweek.

Authorities have a 10-day window in which to implement or appeal the latest ruling.

The raid was instigated by calls placed to a domestic violence shelter by someone saying she was a 16-year-old victim of abuse on the ranch. The Houston Chronicle reports that the call now is thought to have been fraudulent.

Sources: MSNBC, May 23 — Newsweek, May 23 — ABC News, May 23 — Houston Chronicle, May 23.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Oct. 15, 2007 — Related Newsline story, June 19, 2006.

In another controversial move, lawmakers approve “savior sibling” process

LONDON
British lawmakers last week voted to allow one of the more ethically controversial research practices to surface in the wake of recent advances in biomedicine: the creation of human-animal embryos.

CNN reports that Parliament approved a process that involves emptying an animal egg and refilling it with human cells. The cloned embryo then is allowed to develop for two weeks, during which time scientists harvest the stem cells, which are used for research into new treatments such as growing new tissue to replace diseased or injured body parts. The embryos then are destroyed.

While some have hailed the process as a workable moral compromise that avoids the harvesting or destruction of human embryos (the human cells that fill the animal embryo can be taken from skin), Parliament’s decision followed a sometimes vitriolic debate in which a spectrum of religious and political leaders denounced the process as unethical, the Washington Post reports.

According to the London-based Independent, opponents insisted that the potential benefits of embryo research have been exaggerated.

Edward Leigh, a conservative MP, condemned the human-animal embryo research as “ethically wrong and medically useless.” Embryos, he claimed, “have the genetic makeup of a complete human being and you cannot splice together a human and an animal.”

During a session that followed later in the day, Parliament voted to permit the creation of “savior siblings,” according to a report from Bloomberg. Savior siblings are babies born from embryos selected because they are a compatible match for an ailing older brother or sister who needs a tissue donation.

Sources: CNN, May 20 — Washington Post, May 20 — Independent, May 20 — Bloomberg, May 19.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 22 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 15, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 10, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 27, 2007.

Array of court cases revolve around allegations of dishonesty

WASHINGTON
Allegations of inflated stock prices, deceptive advertising, and foreclosure-rescue scams made headlines last week. Among the stories:

• Eight former AOL executives are facing civil fraud charges for allegedly inflating the company’s online ad revenues, according to a report from Forbes. The alleged misstatement of revenues — more than a billion dollars over actual figures, according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — contributed in part to the merger between AOL and Time-Warner and the subsequent meltdown of the new firm, according to the Forbes report. The merged company still exists, but its market capitalization is down by almost $200 billion.
• Drug company Merck last week agreed to pay $58 million to settle allegations by several U.S. states that the firm used deceptive advertising to promote the drug Vioxx. A report from the Wall Street Journal notes that the fine print in the settlement also stipulates that the company no longer engage in “ghostwriting” — the practice of using uncredited writers to prepare portions of manuscripts eventually published in reputable journals under the names of respected physicians and scientists. While agreeing to the anti-ghostwriting settlement, Merck continued to say the company acted in good faith and complied with all relevant regulations, notes the Journal.
• The subprime mortgage scandal and the subsequent housing slump have translated into a thriving business for mortgage con artists, according to a report from the Washington Post. Many of the scams involve misuse of financial data after hucksters pose as foreclosure rescue operations, according to the report.

Sources: Forbes, May 23 — Wall Street Journal, May 23 — Washington Post, May 23.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, May 19 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 21 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 17 — Related Newsline story, July 16, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 15, 2006.

Political and business leaders urged to heed sentiments of next wave of voters and investors

LONDON
Ethically inclined teenagers may be fueling a new wave of green investment in the United Kingdom.

The Aberdeen Press and Journal reports that a recent poll found 75 percent of U.K. teens saying they plan to put environmental and social concerns at the top of their buying and investment agendas.

According to the London Stock Exchange’s official publication, one quarter of teens say they will put pressure on their parents to invest ethically.

Some analysts note that politicians and business leaders would be well advised to pay close attention to the report because it indicates the preferences of the next wave of voters and investors, reports the London-based GMTV network.

The poll, which was mounted by the U.K. Social Investment Forum, found that 71 percent said they would refuse to work for a company that behaved unethically.

London CityWire, a financial-analysis publication, notes that the poll was released in conjunction with the start of the inaugural National Ethical Investment Week.

Sources: London Stock Exchange, May 20 — London CityWire, May 20 — Aberdeen Press and Journal, May 19 — GMTV, London, May 18.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, May 19 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 21 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 7 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 25 — Related Newsline Commentary, Feb. 18.

Baseball team owners and players follow up on Mitchell report; adoption of anti-doping convention urged before start of Olympics; study urges professional tennis to clean up problems with gambling

VARIOUS DATELINES
Substance abuse and gambling allegations were the underlying moral issues in several sports stories last week. Among them:

• Major League Baseball owners and players have ratified a policy that will provide amnesty for those named in a report on abuse of performance-enhancing drugs. But UPI reports that the agreement also increases the allowed number of drug tests per year in baseball to an average of three per player. The policies are a result of the document known as the Mitchell Report, a sweeping probe that led to hearings on Capitol Hill about allegations of abuse of steroids and other substances.
• U.S. lawmakers urged Congress to ratify the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sports before the start of the Beijing Olympics in August, according to a report from the Agence France-Presse. Eighty-five countries have signed on to the convention, but so far the United States has not, primarily because the measure is still tied up in committee hearings. Delaware Sen. Joe Biden was among those urging the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to expedite the measure.
• Professional tennis must implement anticorruption programs, an independent panel commissioned by the sport’s governing bodies recommended last week. The four-month review cited several threats to the integrity of tennis, including corrupt practices instigated by gambling and the leaking of inside information relevant to the results of upcoming matches, according to a Press Association report. The review was set in motion following a series of high-profile incidents involving allegations of match-fixing, notes the report.

Sources: UPI, May 23 — AFP, May 23 — Press Association, May 20.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Feb. 18 — Related Newsline story, Jan.14 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 17 — Related Newsline Commentary, Dec. 17, 2007.

Should man have been allowed to complete life-or-death call, even though cell phone use on planes could have endangered landing?

DALLAS
A tense midair incident involving a cell phone created a perplexing ethical dilemma last week, with a man being charged for disorderly conduct after refusing to end his call when flight attendants implored him to.

The rub: He was talking to doctors about end-of-life options for his father, who was expected to die momentarily, according to a report from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Joe David Jones was ticketed for disorderly conduct on the ground in Dallas after disembarking from his Southwest Airlines flight, which had originated in Austin. Police say he refused to end the phone call and became “uncontrollable” and used profanity.

Federal regulations bar cell phone use on planes because it could interfere with navigation systems. A police spokeswoman told the Austin Statesman that airlines themselves can face fines of at least $25,000 if they allow cell phone use in the air.

Jones said he had forgotten to turn the phone off during the flight and received the message regarding his father’s condition as the plane approached Dallas. An associate of Jones said Jones felt compelled to stay on the phone and repeatedly called doctors back because of the life-or-death nature of the call, according to the Statesman report.

Airline personnel told Dallas TV station WFAA that the calls were made during the plane’s final approach, a particularly critical portion of the flight, and they were therefore in no position to negotiate with Jones.

“There are 137 seats on board the aircraft and five crew members,” Southwest spokesman Daryl Krause said. “So their safety comes first, including the safety of the passenger who was on the phone.”

InformationWeek writer Eric Zeman posed the dilemma to readers in a May 19 posting on his blog: “If using a cell phone on a plane were indeed unsafe, then Mr. Jones’ behavior — risking the lives of those on board the plane — is questionable. Much as some would like to think otherwise, the lives of 150+ people outweigh the life of one man. While I would feel empathy for Mr. Jones in that situation, it would not be fair of him to put others as risk.”

“But,” Zeman contends, “the plane didn’t crash. No one was hurt, though people were probably annoyed. What do you think? Was he right or wrong to answer the phone? Should emergency calls be permitted? Where do we draw the line?”

Sources: Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 23 — InformationWeek, May 19 — Austin Statesman, May 13 — WFAA-TV, Dallas, May 13.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, May 5 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 10 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 13, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 5, 2007.

“Global poll finds human rights in Tibet an issue”

From the Financial Times and Harris Interactive:

“A new Financial Times/Harris Poll finds that a majority of adults in Germany (55%) and France (54%) believe their leaders, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, should not attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in China this summer. In addition, pluralities in Italy (48%), Japan (45%), the United States (43%), and Great Britain (43%) as well as 39 percent of adults in Spain also believe their country’s leader should skip this year’s Opening Olympic ceremonies.

“Additional results from the Financial Times/Harris Poll … include:

• “More than three-quarters of adults in France (84%) and half the adults in Germany (51%) say they have heard a lot about the recent global protests surrounding the freeing of Tibet from Chinese rule;
• “Pluralities in China itself (46%), Great Britain (44%) and the United States (41%) have also heard a lot about these protests;…
• “Three-quarters of adults in Italy (75%) and Germany (74%), two-thirds of adults in Japan (69%), France (67%) and Spain (64%) and a majority of adults in the United States (59%) and Great Britain (53%) all believe Tibet should not be under Chinese rule.

“One of the issues surrounding all of these concerns is human rights as part of a foreign policy strategy:

• “Very strong majorities in the five European countries, the United States and Japan (between 56% in Japan and 85% in Italy) believe that human rights should be a central figure of their country’s foreign policy;
• “Interestingly, a plurality of Chinese adults (45%) believe human rights should be a central part of China’s foreign policy compared to 38 percent who say that it should not be a central feature of their foreign policy.”

For more information, see: Full press release from Harris, May 21 — Related Newsline Research Report, Apr. 14 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 7.

“I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another that right, makes a slave of himself to his present position, because he precludes himself from changing it.”

– Thomas Paine (U.S. political philosopher and author, 1737-1809)

The next issue of Ethics Newsline® will be published on Tuesday, May 27, in observance of the U.S. Memorial Day holiday.

For more information, see this week’s Research Report.

by Rushworth M. Kidder

Want evidence that the global moral barometer is in steep decline? Look at Myanmar, where the ruling generals have only recently permitted outside aid to reach cyclone victims. In the end, when history does its tally, the deaths caused by a tyrannical government working in secret may far outnumber those caused by the forces of weather.

Want evidence that the barometer is rising? Look at China, where last week the government responded to an earthquake by sending in thousands of soldiers and taking unusual steps to share the story with the outside world. History may eventually note that this disaster, coming so close upon the opening of the 2008 Olympics, forced a new openness in this once-secretive nation.

So which is it? Is the barometer rising or falling?

Questions like these were on the table when I joined a group of Nova Scotia public-school educators to consider questions of ethics last week in Halifax. Dividing the group down the middle, I asked one half of the room to list as many arguments as possible — quickly, in bullet-point form — to indicate that ethics is in free-fall and that the world is plunging deeper and deeper into turpitude. The other side had the charge of arguing the opposite — that the barometric uptick is taking us incrementally but steadily toward a more ethical future.

As you might imagine, the conversation was rich and varied. Each time the negativists tossed out a point, the upsiders came right back with a rejoinder — and vice versa. Within moments the room was thick with problems, from AIDS and cheating and global warming to Enron and pornography and Eliot Spitzer. But the countercurrent was just as strong, with talk of diversity, recycling, charitable giving, energy conservation, gender equity, and Nelson Mandela.

“So which is it?” I finally asked. “Is the barometer rising or falling?”

“Yes!” someone replied. His quip was met with a general chuckle around the room as people recognized the impossibility of any such oversimplification as I had proposed. It was a nice answer.

But I think the best answer is, “That’s a really dumb question!” Over the years, I’ve had scores of similar conversations with groups in various parts of the world. People often come into these discussions with a bias toward cynicism or optimism. But when forced to confront the range of evidence — even briefly, under broad headings without detailed analysis — they quickly sense the complexity of the issues and the difficulty of making a categorical judgment. Optimists are sobered, cynics are undermined, and a quiet sense of moral nuance sets in.

These days that moral nuance is hugely valuable. At every turn, it seems, our public discourse demands that we commit ourselves to categorical judgments. Going out in public without an opinion somehow feels like arriving at the supermarket without your pants: You can function fine for a while, though sooner or later someone’s sure to notice and ask you to explain yourself.

That’s especially true when ethical issues are at stake. We may feel uncomfortable taking positions on topics requiring specialist knowledge — immigration, the economy, healthcare policy, future sources of energy, or the like. But on the broader topic of ethics we feel an impulse, even an obligation, to speak up. We feel prepared to chart the ebb and flow of responsibility, respect, fairness, compassion, and honesty. And well we should. Ethics is first and foremost a personal topic, open to every voice and inviting each individual’s response. While it sometimes can appear academic and arcane, it’s actually an immediate set of ideas, grasped through intuition and reasoned out in commonplace language. Everyone deserves a place in the ethics conversation — except, perhaps, those who insist that if you haven’t read the right texts and don’t know the proper scholastic language, you aren’t qualified to talk about this most commonplace of topics.

Yet that very commonality poses a threat to ethical discourse. It can turn too easily into unwarranted certainty, smug self-confidence, and prickly assertiveness. The startling superficialities that pass for opinions on cable television and in today’s blogosphere remind us what happens when a culture of glib obduracy replaces a culture of reasoned questioning.

As we head into the election season, we may encounter a surfeit of mulish, unbending self-will on questions of values and ethics. The reaction may be to write off all moral discourse as perverse and pointless, and retreat into a disdain for any sort of ethical conversation. Needed, instead, is a capacity for moral nuance. If we remember that every assertion of a declining moral barometer is apt to be followed by the demand, “Therefore, vote for me!” — while each claim of moral improvement invariably precedes the request to “Reelect me!” — we’ll be better equipped to resist demagoguery. The more we respect moral complexity, the less we’ll be in danger of falling for either the dogmatic or the dismissive. Of such quiet nuance is civil society made.

©2008 Institute for Global Ethics

Questions or comments? Write to newsline@globalethics.org.

Rushworth Kidder’s commentary last week drew many responses from readers, not all of whom agreed with his contention that talk-show host Rush Limbaugh made a faulty assumption that “if it’s legal it must be ethical” when urging Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary Clinton in an effort to elongate the bruising Democratic primary season. (The commentary also expressed disappointment with the number of Republicans who followed Limbaugh’s urgings.)

One reader wrote that “Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos asked voters to do what they always do — use their vote to influence an election’s outcome. Republicans simply used their vote to good effect. I saw no ethical lapse here.”

Another reader, while agreeing that Limbaugh’s strategy was unethical, took issue with the assumption that the motive behind a primary is to allow a party’s own voters to decide their nominees: “I don’t think that statement accounts for those states where crossover voting is allowed, where any person, enrolled in any party or independent, can vote in any party primary. That arrangement says to me that something other than allowing the party faithful to determine their candidates was in the mind of the legislature.”

And from a reader in Pennsylvania: “I myself, while being a right-leaning independent, have always registered as a Democrat on the sound advice of my mother, actually. She told me always to register with whichever party most often controlled local politics. That way you are not perceived as bucking City Hall, plus which you have some say in who will run against the preferred (presumably more conservative in my case) candidate in the November election…. Ethical or no, her advice has proven pretty practical over the years!”

– Compiled by Ethics Newsline® editor Carl Hausman

“After all these years, I cannot give you any excuse whatsoever. It is just one of those things that occurred. I have to some extent harmed you.”

– Dr. Tapas Das Gupta, a highly respected cancer surgeon of 40 years, recalling his apology to a patient from whom he mistakenly removed the wrong piece of tissue to examine. The New York Times reports that Gupta and other physicians are moving toward a practice of quick admissions of their mistakes. “By promptly disclosing medical errors and offering earnest apologies and fair compensation, they hope to restore integrity to dealings with patients, make it easier to learn from mistakes and dilute anger that often fuels lawsuits,” reports the Times. Despite some fears that such disclosure would prompt even more medical malpractice actions, “hospitals are reporting decreases in their caseloads and savings in legal costs,” the Times notes.

Source: New York Times, May 18.

Some of the structures that collapsed were dubbed “tofu buildings” due to poor condition

SICHUAN PROVINCE, China
The devastating earthquake in the southwestern Chinese province of Sichuan has highlighted an ongoing corruption problem, according to press reports: buildings that were not built according to construction codes and inspectors who may have looked the other way.

The Los Angles Times reports that while building codes are taken seriously in larger cities, smaller locales sometimes turn a blind eye to shoddy construction. According to the Times, the ever-widening gap between modern cities and the countryside seems to apply to safeguards as well as income.

In an analysis, Associated Press reporters Elaine Kurtenback and William Foreman write: “Three decades of high-paced growth have remade China, with stunning showcase metropolises like Beijing and Shanghai as well as formerly tiny county towns that are now small cities with office towers and multistory apartment buildings. But as the widespread devastation from Monday’s quake shows, the pell-mell pace has led some builders to cut corners, especially in outlying areas largely populated by the very young and the very old.”

According to a report from the Independent’s Beijingbureau, Chinese officials late last week said they are investigating whether shoddy construction was to blame for the collapse of many schools in the area of the quake, warning that developers found guilty would be severely punished.

About 7,000 schools were destroyed in the southwesternsection of Sichuan province. As of late Sunday night, the death toll from the quake was estimated to be over 32,000, according to a dispatch from the state news agency.

The Globe & Mail’s Geoffrey York, reporting from near the epicenter, notes that some members of victims’ families claim that local officials had pocketed money meant to be spent on school construction and that private firms had saved money by cutting corners.

York writes: “Many other survivors were convinced that corruption had played a role in determining which buildings collapsed and which were unscathed. One man pointed to a new building whose first floor had collapsed, even as older buildings around it were intact. ‘They used fewer bricks in the new building, so they could earn more money,’ he said.”

The shoddily constructed structures are commonly known as “tofu buildings,” according to York’s report.

Sources: China Daily, May 18 — Independent, May 16 — Globe & Mail, May 15 — AP, May 15 — Los Angeles Times, May 15.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Apr. 28 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 21 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 14 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 14.

One congressman says the ads cross ethical lines

WASHINGTON
Television ads for prescription drugs have crossed ethical lines and enforcement by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been lax, a U.S. congressman charged last week.

According to a report from UPI, Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which plans a review of the ads, claimed that regulators had allowed Johnson & Johnson to promote a drug called Procrit for fighting fatigue, even though the drug is not formally approved for such use, reports UPI.

During a hearing about drug advertising, the lawmakers pushed for rougher regulations, claiming that some of the ads are deceptive and leave consumers confused about effects and side effects, according to a report from TIME magazine.

In a separate hearing last week, the FDA proposed that direct-to-consumer drug ads on TV should include a toll-free number that would allow consumers to report adverse side effects, reports the Washington Post.

The FDA made the proposal after some prodding by Congress, saying it will take about two years for the agency to study the effects of adding a toll-free number. Among the concerns: FDA officials say a toll-free number might encourage people to call the FDA instead of a doctor when they experience a problem.

The Dow Jones News Service provides some background on the issue: “Direct-to-consumer drug marketing brings in billions of dollars in sales for drug makers and for the television industry. In 1997, the government relaxed rules on TV and radio ads, allowing drug makers to shorten the warnings on side effects in their commercials; since then, pharmaceutical makers have spent about $14 billion on broadcast and cable TV ads for prescription drugs.”

“Merck and Schering-Plough have been criticized for heavily promoting the cholesterol drug Vytorin while failing to disclose a study that raised questions about the drug’s effectiveness,” the report notes. “Pfizer has been criticized for including Dr. Robert Jarvik in its ads for Lipitor, an anti-cholesterol drug. Jarvik is not a practicing medical doctor.”

Sources: TIME, May 16 — Washington Post, May 16 — UPI, May 16 — Dow Jones, May 16.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Apr. 21 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 21 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 7 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 31 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 17.

Dilemmas concern obligations of those caring for dementia patients; furor over genetically engineered human embryo; and in opinion piece, writer claims science and medicine have spawned “a new generation of tomb raiders”

LONDON and NEW YORK
A variety of ethics issues were featured this week in world-press reports dealing with health and medicine:

• British medical and ethics experts have called for a debate on the moral dilemmas facing dementia patients and their caregivers, reports the U.K. Press Association. The probe will be coordinated by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, an independent body established in 1991 to examine ethics issues raised by biological and medical advances. The dementia debate will focus on a wide range of issues, according to the Press Association report, including whether it is right to restrain people to keep them from wandering or to slip them medication covertly.
• Yet another development in genetics research is raising moral questions: The New York Times reports that scientists at Cornell University have developed what is believed to be the first genetically engineered human embryo. While the research team defended its work as an advance in stem cell science, critics were quick to charge that the techniques being developed could be used to create babies with genetic profiles to make them smarter or more attractive. One critic also claimed that there should have been more discussion. “It’s an important ethical boundary that scientists have been observing,” Marcy Darnovsky, associate director of the Center for Genetics and Society, told the Times. “These scientists, on their own, decided to step over that boundary with no public discussion.”
• Author David Younts, in an opinion piece syndicated by the Scripps Howard News Service, argued last week that scientific research is creating “a new generation of tomb raiders.” Pointing out that “much of what we know about human anatomy and ancient civilizations can be credited to tomb raiders, who disinterred cultural artifacts as well as cadavers,” Younts contends that the process has taken on a more modern edge. He claims that bone dust is in demand for periodontal surgery, as is skin for grafts in burn cases and cosmetic surgery. Human fat, he writes, is in demand for lip and breast enhancement. China, — a country with 60 capital offenses, sells body parts of executed prisoners, he claims, with the organs of a health specimen yielding up to a half-million dollars on the world market. “More gruesome than trading in organs of the dead is the sale of living flesh,” Younts argues. “Many young women pay their way through college by selling their eggs for in-vitro fertilization. Germany and Italy have laws against the practice, but girls with a passport can travel to Spain or Britain, where the practice is legal. Poor villagers from India are persuaded to undergo painful surgery to sell their kidneys, earning as much as $800.”

Sources: Scripps Howard, May 16 — New York Times, May 13 — Times of London, May 15 — U.K. Press Association, May 15.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Feb. 24 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 28 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 22 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 31, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 26, 2007.