Genetics and Health

Genetics Interview #25: Dr. Emilie W. Clemmens of the Women’s Bioethics Project

by Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD on November 16th, 2006

Bioethics frustrates me. As much as I’d like to have a firm opinion on genetics issues, I find myself waffling more often than not. I understand both sides and while I know what I would do personally, I don’t have the confidence to tell others what to do. (Surprised?)

Fortunately, there are others who spend their time thinking about the thorny issues of genetic and other scientific advancements. Dr. Emilie Clemmens is a research fellow at the Women’s Bioethics Project. She has a PhD in bioengineering and has created the podcast series: The Scientist & The Ethicist.

1. You’re trained in bioengineering and human physiology. How did you become interested in bioethics?

Well, more generally, my interest in ethics in science grew from my experiences as a junior scientist. I think researchers face ethical questions related to their work everyday. It wasn’t easy for me to euthanize rabbits and rats in my research. I dreaded that—the tech and I called it the “bad karma day”. But I tried to remind myself of the goal: understanding cardiac and skeletal muscle function to help treat and cure human disease. So there’s an example of a balancing of ethics that many scientists face.

Maintaining the integrity of scientific research is a constant exercise in ethics. We rely on the objectivity of the data to move forward, but we need to recognize that human beings perform the studies. And I think we need to train young scientists to think about both the scientific and social consequences of their actions. I feel so strongly about this that I’ve left the “bench” to explore this important area of science.

2. What kind of training does a bioethicist need?

I haven’t the slightest idea. I’m talking to others, though, to find out. I’m just starting in this field, and I’m coming at it from an unusual angle. There currently aren’t many bioethicists who first trained as scientists to the level of the doctorate. So I believe I’m bringing a crucial perspective to the table but I still need more training, in philosophy perhaps.

Still, here’s what I know to be true: it benefits you to have an open mind and a good ear. Gather information, listen to another’s perspective, no matter how radically opposed to it you may think you are. I don’t think it’s the job of a bioethicist to preach. In my mind, a bioethicist is there to study and explore the consequences of biotechnology and medical research and to present that information to the world, so that we may enter into an endeavor cognizant of where it may lead us socially or environmentally.

3. Many scientists interested in alternative career paths would be interested to know what you do on a day-to-day basis. What’s your typical work day like? What projects are you involved in?

I’m not sure my typical workday would be very representative! I work part-time for the Women’s Bioethics Project, which is really a very personal decision—I have a young daughter who keeps me busy, and I might add, has shaped my perspective on bioethics. Becoming a mom gives you a whole new perspective on biology.

At the Women’s Bioethics Project, though, we’ve got a lot going on. I try to keep up with the literature and news in bioethics (which can be daunting). But mostly I’m working on a specific project or issue. Our podcast “The Scientist & the Ethicists” is a good example of what we’re trying to do with reaching out to the public. We think that all individuals can and should participate in the debates going on right now about technologies like preimplantation genetic diagnosis and research using stem cells. (And of course, we believe that women have a unique and important voice to share.) So the podcast, along with the book club, provides a fun way for them to get more information about these topics.

For that project, I spent a lot of time setting up and conducting interviews. That meant a lot of reading to prepare appropriate questions for the interviewee. I’ve also been serving on panels here in Seattle, discussing the ethics of stem cells and cloning for a variety of audiences.

4. The Women’s Bioethics Project is an impressive organization. How did you decide to join the WBP?

That was a no-brainer! I had met Kathryn Hinsch, our director, long before she hired me, and I was so impressed with her. She built this organization from the ground up and her hard work and many talents have shaped it into a nationally recognized voice for women in bioethics. I read her papers and literally jumped out of my chair, I was so motivated to help. I think Kathryn really understands both the nuances and the big picture, which also impressed me. So I kept bothering her until she hired me.

5. Bioethics always makes my head spin. How would you suggest we approach bioethical issues like preimplantation genetic diagnosis? What process do you go through to determine your own stance on issues?

I alluded to this earlier when I mentioned the need for an open mind and good ear. We all come into the conversation with our own perspectives, which by the way, we shouldn’t abandon. My experiences as a mom and as a scientist certainly shape the way I think about bioethical issues, and it’s important for me to contribute my perspective. But it’s equally important for me to listen to the perspectives of others.

I think in some respects we can approach these issues the same way we do science: carefully and methodically gathering information, building upon the information we’ve gained in the past—the positive and negative consequences of science in our history, the foreseeable social or environmental consequences—and using this information to guide the direction of research. It’s not a perfect analogy in that cultural context shapes the policy that is formed from the information gathering (though you could make a case that this occurs in science, too).

As for my own stance on these issues, it may change as the cultural context changes or as new scientific data emerges. But I always invoke my own experiences and perspectives—I come back to that, because they are relevant and I will always have them to share. Sometimes, I also find it necessary to think about a balancing, sort of a risk-benefit analysis, and to do that fairly, I think you must incorporate perspectives outside your realm of experience.

I’ll also add that, as someone from a scientific background, I tend to believe that science will progress—it can be a slow-moving train but it keeps going—so I start not from the premise of “should we or shouldn’t we” but more from the idea that the train will keep moving so let’s keep it on an ethical track.

Scientists are busy people and they sometimes fall into putting on blinders regarding the ethical issues of their work. I think this is tragic because as the people on the “front lines”, so to speak, they need to think about these issues and the public needs to hear their voices. If they don’t speak up, the myth of the “mad scientist” may loom larger as genetic technologies advance.

Thank you, Emilie. Sounds like you haven’t heard the mad scientist laughter coming from this corner. Bwahahaha. ;)

Share This

Related Stories

Genetics Podcasts: The Scientist & The Ethicists
Volunteer for Maths Gene Project
Gene Talk #3: The Countess
The Human Variome Project
Experts to tackle Holocaust genetics debate

POSTED IN: Genetics Interviews