Safely balancing a double-edged blade: identifying and mitigating emerging biosecurity risks in precision medicine.

Tools and methods of precision medicine are developing rapidly, through both iterative discoveries enabled by innovations in biomedical research (e.g., genome editing, synthetic biology, bioengineered devices). These are strengthened by advancements in information technology and the increasing body of data-as assimilated, analyzed, and made accessible-and affectable-through current and emerging cyber-and systems- technologies. Taken together, these approaches afford ever greater volume and availability of individual and collective human data. Machine learning and/or artificial intelligence approaches are broadening this dual use risk; and in the aftermath of COVID-19, there is growing incentive and impetus to gather more biological data from individuals and their environments on a routine basis. By engaging these data-and the interventions that are based upon them, precision medicine offer promise of highly individualized treatments for disease and injury, optimization of structure and function, and concomitantly, the potential for (mis) using data to incur harm. This double-edged blade of benefit and risk obligates the need to safeguard human data from purloinment, through systems, guidelines and policies of a novel discipline, cyberbiosecurity, which, as coupled to ethical precepts, aims to protect human privacy, agency, and safety in ways that remain apace with scientific and technological advances in biomedicine. Herein, current capabilities and trajectories precision medicine are described as relevant to their dual use potential, and approaches to biodata security (viz.- cyberbiosecurity) are proposed and discussed.

A Biophilosophical Approach to the Determination of Brain Death.

Technical and clinical developments have raised challenging questions about the concept and practice of brain death, culminating in recent calls for revision of the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), which established a whole brain standard for neurologic death. Proposed changes range from abandoning the concept of brain death altogether to suggesting that current clinical practice simply should be codified as the legal standard for determining death by neurologic criteria (even while acknowledging that significant functions of the whole brain might persist). We propose a middle ground, clarifying why whole brain death is a conceptually sound standard for declaring death, and offering procedural suggestions for increasing certainty that this standard has been met. Our approach recognizes that whole brain death is a functional, not merely anatomic, determination, and incorporates an understanding of the difficulties inherent in making empirical judgments in medicine. We conclude that whole brain death is the most defensible standard for determining neurologic death-philosophically, biologically, and socially-and ought to be maintained.

Definition of Implanted Neurological Device Abandonment: A Systematic Review and Consensus Statement.

Importance: Establishing a formal definition for neurological device abandonment has the potential to reduce or to prevent the occurrence of this abandonment. Objective: To perform a systematic review of the literature and develop an expert consensus definition for neurological device abandonment. Evidence Review: After a Royal Society Summit on Neural Interfaces (September 13-14, 2023), a systematic English language review using PubMed was undertaken to investigate extant definitions of neurological device abandonment. Articles were reviewed for relevance to neurological device abandonment in the setting of deep brain, vagal nerve, and spinal cord stimulation. This review was followed by the convening of an expert consensus group of physicians, scientists, ethicists, and stakeholders. The group summarized findings, added subject matter experience, and applied relevant ethics concepts to propose a current operational definition of neurological device abandonment. Data collection, study, and consensus development were done between September 13, 2023, and February 1, 2024. Findings: The PubMed search revealed 734 total articles, and after review, 7 articles were found to address neurological device abandonment. The expert consensus group addressed findings as germane to neurological device abandonment and added personal experience and additional relevant peer-reviewed articles, addressed stakeholders' respective responsibilities, and operationally defined abandonment in the context of implantable neurotechnological devices. The group further addressed whether clinical trial failure or shelving of devices would constitute or be associated with abandonment as defined. Referential to these domains and dimensions, the group proposed a standardized definition for abandonment of active implantable neurotechnological devices. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's consensus statement suggests that the definition for neurological device abandonment should entail failure to provide fundamental aspects of patient consent; fulfill reasonable responsibility for medical, technical, or financial support prior to the end of the device's labeled lifetime; and address any or all immediate needs that may result in safety concerns or device ineffectiveness and that the definition of abandonment associated with the failure of a research trial should be contingent on specific circumstances.

How Hermann J. Muller Viewed the Ernest Sternglass Contributions to Hereditary and Cancer Risk Assessment.

ABSTRACT: As one of the most influential radiation geneticists of the 20th century, Hermann J. Muller had a major role in the development and widespread acceptance of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dose response for hereditary and cancer risk assessments worldwide. However, a spate of historical reassessments have challenged the fundamental scientific foundations of the LNT model, drawing considerable attention to issues of ethical probity and the scientific leadership of Muller. This review paper raises further questions about the objectivity of Muller with respect to the LNT model. It is shown that Muller supported Ernest Sternglass's findings and interpretations concerning radiation-induced childhood leukemia, which have been widely and consistently discredited. These findings provide further evidence that Muller's actions with respect to radiation cancer risk assessment were far more ideologically than scientifically based.

Comprehensive, Evidence-Based, Consensus Guidelines for Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. OBJECTIVES: In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. METHODS: The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed. The multidisciplinary panel finalized 20 guideline recommendations for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Summary of the results showed over 90% agreement for the final 20 recommendations with strong consensus. The consensus guidelines included 4 sections specific to opioid therapy with 1) ten recommendations particular to initial steps of opioid therapy; 2) five recommendations for assessment of effectiveness of opioid therapy; 3) three recommendations regarding monitoring adherence and side effects; and 4) two general, final phase recommendations. LIMITATIONS: There is a continued paucity of literature of long-term opioid therapy addressing chronic non-cancer pain. Further, significant biases exist in the preparation of guidelines, which has led to highly variable rules and regulations across various states. CONCLUSION: These guidelines were developed based upon a comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among expert panelists, and in alignment with patient preferences, and shared decision-making so as to improve the long-term pain relief and function in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Consequently, it was concluded - and herein recommended - that chronic opioid therapy should be provided in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events only to those patients with a proven medical necessity, and who exhibit stable improvement in both pain relief and activities of daily function, either independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments.

Comprehensive, evidence-based, consensus guidelines for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP)

Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed

Hormesis, biological plasticity, and implications for clinical trial research.

The present paper identifies a critical factor that leads to false negative results (i.e., failing to indicate efficacy when beneficial results did occur) in randomized human drug trials. The paper demonstrates that human performance can only be enhanced by a maximum of 30-60% as described by the hormetic dose response which defines the limits of biological plasticity. However, human epidemiological/clinical trials typically contain such extensive variability that often requires responses greater than 2-3 times control group responses to show statistical significance. Thus, many potentially beneficial agents may be missed because the clinical trial fails to recognize and take into consideration the limits of biological plasticity. The paper proposes that this hormesis-biological plasticity-clinical trial conundrum can be addressed successfully via the use of a weight-of-evidence methodology similar to that used by regulatory agencies such as EPA in environmental assessment of chemical toxicity.

On the relevance of (the New) Phenomenology to an ethics of health promotions: toward a prudent balance of understanding and explanation.

The field of health promotions faces considerable ethical and programmatic challenge - and we believe opportunity - in addressing the relative normativity of the concept(s) of health and its professional handling. To date, distinctions of objective and subjective indicants of "health" have fostered normative tension(s) within the utilitarian ethics of health promotions, which we opine to be anathema to the ultimate goal(s) of attaining and sustaining healthy individuals and societies. Objective and subjective metrics and values should be reconciled, as reciprocal and complementary on both idiosyncratic and systemic levels. In this light, we propose that a philosophical and ethical approach, based primarily upon Schmitz's New Phenomenology and its specific understanding of subjectivity could afford epistemological bases for non-normative engagement of health promotion within a structural-functional framework of ethics. We dialectically address its potential benefit, limitations and value for health promotion and health care ethics and present an approach which points towards a more substantial encouragement of diversity through the legitimation of subjectivity.

Manhattan Project genetic studies: Flawed research discredits LNT recommendations.

This paper reexamines the technical report (∼ one page) of Uphoff and Stern (1949) in Science that was highly relied upon by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Genetics Panel to support a linearity dose response for radiation risk assessment. The present paper demonstrates that research of Uphoff and Stern (1949) to evaluate whether total dose or dose rate best estimated radiation risks included two variables, thereby precluding the ability to accurately derive a reliable conclusion about this topic. Furthermore, the acute dose selected by Uphoff and Stern was given at a strikingly low dose rate that may have precluded the capacity to adequately test the total dose/dose rate hypothesis, even with a proper study design which also this research did not possess. The issue of total dose and dose rate was much later successfully addressed by Russell et al. (1958) using a murine model, yielding a dose-rate rather than a total dose conclusion. The failure to subject the experimental details of the Uphoff and Stern (1949) study to peer-review and publication in the open literature precluded a rigorous and necessary evaluation, profoundly and improperly impacting the adoption of the linear dose response model.

How did Hermann Muller publish a paper absent any data in the journal Science? Ethical questions and implications of Muller's Nobel Prize.

The present paper reports the discovery of an October 26, 1927 letter of Hermann J. Muller concerning the owner and editor of the journal Science that suggests an agreement that could have led to Muller's publication in Science - absent any data - which was contributory to both his professional reputation, and perhaps his being considered for and awarded a Nobel Prize.