The University of Southampton

Author: Lara Etheridge

From stealing organs to growing organs from pigs: the lengths humans will go to survive.

Posted on by

As a registered organ donor before the opt-out system, I could not fathom why people would not want to donate their organs. It baffled me, and yet in 2019, I was in a debating competition where I had to oppose the idea of organ donation as an opt-out system – my point was simple. Surely the argument that this is a violation of a donor’s autonomy and implies given consent, would always triumph over the utilitarian view, that it should be the greatest good for the greatest number, right?

The original donor card required for the opt-in system.

In 2020, the UK introduced a new law, the ‘opt-out’ system. Many believed this diminished a donor’s autonomy, yet, by definition, there is still a choice in opting out. The new law made sense to me, when around 6,945 people are currently awaiting a transplant in England, I found it hard to understand the counter-argument.

Dr. Jon Dawson covered the ideas of organ donation and autonomy throughout his lectures. I saw a wide range of views in one group of students of a similar age and with the same privilege of higher education. Dr. Dawson put forward the Alder Hey case, where about 850 organs were being harvested after death without any form of consent from either the patients or guardians.

A video briefly describing the Alder Hey Scandal.

There was a large consensus that this was not okay from the class, the lack of adequate consent when removing organs and tissue from patients was barbaric, nonetheless arguments can be made that people uneducated in the opt-out system are therefore giving ill-formed consent.

This case made me think of the book Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro, where clones are created for the purpose of organ donation, and once they have donated around three of their organs, their short lives are over. Although this dystopian novel seems far stretched, the premise behind it still stands. Especially as since 2015, advancements in tissue engineering has shown animals as a viable surrogate for growing organs.

In 2019, Hiromitsu Nakauchi had the first approved experiments to allow a human-animal hybrid to grow fully. This sounds like some werewolf science-fiction, Morbius esc (awful movie); however, this could be the key to the current organ shortage. In an ideal world, we could grow the organ required at the drop of a hat- but here is a scientific solution where we could grow organs within animals and harvest them without invasive surgery on humans, or an ethical debate of autonomy.

Now, PETA and animal rebellion may be opposed to this idea, but I think animals will forever hold a place in scientific research, so could this be a legal viable solution? What do you think?

Well, in January 2022, the first pig to human transplant was done; a genetically engineered pig’s heart was harvested and placed into a patient. Although this required a lot of medication and extra resources, the heart did work prolonging the patients life for two months. This was a major breakthrough- can we now combat our organ shortage through animals?

Whether genetically modified pigs or human-animal hybrids hold the future in organ donation, ethics must be considered- we can not return to being so desperate as to take organs without consent. The podcast below is an informal discussion on organ donations with the opinions of two biochemists discussing frankly the possible future of organs, ethics and consent for further insight into this medical and ethical minefield.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4inRLDaXEcnROyTexaC3WQ?si=7988ff562cb04df4
STEM Sundays a podcast by Lara Etheridge and Yasmin Yardley discussing organ donations, ethics and movies.

Simple, yes or no?

Posted on by

So, when I picked this module way back in the summer of 2022, I had no idea that I would become engrossed in a world of engineering. I took biochemistry due to my complete lack of ability in physics, particularly mechanics. However, I soon realised this module ‘Engineering Replacement Body Parts’ dove into far more than the simplistic ignorant view inferred from the course name.

With the main areas of teaching being STEM cells, Prosthesis, Bionics, TISSENG and Ethics and Law I realised I would be receiving an answer to a question I did not know I had.

‘How does the potential of stem cells, engineered tissues and implanted devices in medicine impact the medical field as well as law and ethics in our society?’.

As a Biochemist the area that captured my interest the most was Ethics and Law and the rules and regulations around experimentation. Especially with the current rules changing on gender reassignment surgery for children which has sparked a lot of controversy on whether children can provide consent.

Within my course we have only briefly touched on ethical precautions when conducting experiments, which seems surprising judging how much they govern scientific research. One study that was only touched upon in a Neuroscience seminar I attended was the enforcement of electric shock therapy in the 1960s by Dr. Lauretta Bender. This was a known treatment for psychiatric disorders however she inflicted more than 100 children to shock therapy with the youngest being three years old! Maybe it was because my younger brother had just turned three or the fact that I couldn’t believe that it was not just adults subjected to this treatment. I suddenly thought about a child’s right to autonomy and further what makes someone fit or unfit to give consent. 

Electric shock therapy on a teenage girl in the 1960s by Dr. Lauretta Bender.

It is easy to forget the significance of scientific regulations and ethical boards, as well as how some members of the scientific community only 50 years ago engaged in actions that would now be regarded as atrocities and unbelievable, as shows like Stranger Things and films like Suckerpunch almost trivialise and make medical scandals feel dystopian and alien to us.

The Government currently have legislation on getting informed consent for user research which is shown below directly from the government website:

If this had previously been in place many children would have been saved from the torment and emotional damage they ensued. There are three main views that can be taken when weighing up harm, benefit and autonomy. 

  • Libertarian
  • Paternalistic
  • Utilitarian

All of them would agree that low-risk research where participants are fully informed is an allowable argument. However, both a utilitarian and paternalistic argument would suggest that low risk research where participants do not know they are taking risks is justifiable. This is something I particularly struggled to understand. 

Consent always seemed so black and white, simple yes and no, but when it comes to informed consent, how can a child be fully informed when they aren’t even fully formed?

Breakdown of a Biochemistry degree

Posted on by

Why I chose my degree.

The Oxford dictionary defines Biochemistry as the scientific study of the chemistry of living things, this provides a simplistic and almost bland view of Biochemistry. But, this degree is far from it.

When choosing Universities to study Biochemistry I did a lot of research. A lot. I first read around my subject, reading ‘Power, Sex and Suicide’ by Nick Lane, a whole book on mitochondria, which was just meant to be the powerhouse of the cell right?

Just as Biochemistry is given a simplistic definition, so is many things with in it. Weirdly this is what originally attracted me to Biochemistry. Every year as you progress through school your biochemical defintions were upgraded. Mitochondria went from the powerhouse of the cell to a membrane-bound organelle responsible for generating large amounts of energy in the form of Adenosine Triose Phosphate.

And at University this upgrade is endless. I chose the University of Southampton specifically as it was the only course with a wide range and variety of Neuroscience optional modules to take alongside Biochemistry.

So why did I not take Neuroscience?

Neuroscience to me seemed far to niche, my want to focus on the chemical reactions in the brain relied on a deeper understanding of the processes that are underdone on a molecular level in places other than the brain – I also sucked at anatomy recall.

University of Southampton provided modules such as:

  • Neurodegenerative diseases
  • Neuropharmacology of CNS disorders
  • Neural basis of behaviour
  • Neuroscience

This initially was why I chose Southampton, with the idea of being a NeuroBiochemist. However, here I am in an engineering replacement body parts module exploring all possible options within Biochemistry.

So, overall Biochemistry has provided a broad scope of science with the ability to narrow and select areas of particular interest.