The intellectual and moral integrity of bioethics: response to commentaries on A case study in unethical transgressive bioethics: \u27Letter of concern from bioethicists\u27 about the prenatal administration of dexamethasone .

In our target article we showed that the Letter of Concern (LoC) fails to meet accepted standards for presenting empirical data for the purpose of supplementing a normative claim and for argument-based normative ethics. The LoC fails to meet the standards of evidence-based reasoning by making false claims, failing to reference data that undermine its key premises, and misrepresenting and misinterpreting the scientific publications it selectively references. The LoC fails to meet the standards of argument-based reasoning by treating as settled matters what are, instead, ongoing controversies, offering “mere opinion” as a substitute for argument, and making contradictory claims. The LoC is methodologically defective and thus a case study in unethical transgressive bioethics. Not withdrawing the LoC will damage the field of bioethics, making this case study in unethical transgressive bioethics important for the entire field

A case study in unethical transgressive bioethics: Letter of concern from bioethicists about the prenatal administration of dexamethasone.

On February 3, 2010, a Letter of Concern from Bioethicists, organized by fetaldex.org, was sent to report suspected violations of the ethics of human subjects research in the off-label use of dexamethasone during pregnancy by Dr. Maria New. Copies of this letter were submitted to the FDA Office of Pediatric Therapeutics, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office for Human Research Protections, and three universities where Dr. New has held or holds appointments. We provide a critical appraisal of the Letter of Concern and show that it makes false claims, misrepresents scientific publications and websites, fails to meet standards of evidence-based reasoning, makes undocumented claims, treats as settled matters what are, instead, ongoing controversies, offers mere opinion as a substitute for argument, and makes contradictory claims. The Letter of Concern is a case study in unethical transgressive bioethics. We call on fetaldex.org to withdraw the letter and for co-signatories to withdraw their approval of it

Preclinical Testing of Antihuman CD28 Fab′ Antibody in a Novel Nonhuman Primate Small Animal Rodent Model of Xenogenic Graft-Versus-Host Disease

International audienceBackground-Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a severe complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Current therapies to prevent alloreactive T cell activation largely cause generalized immunosuppression and may result in adverse drug, anti-leukemia and anti-pathogen responses. Recently, several immunomodulatory therapeutics have been developed that show efficacy in maintaining anti-leukemia responses while inhibiting GVHD in murine models. To analyze efficacy and better understand immunological tolerance, escape mechanisms, and side effects of clinical reagents, testing of species-cross-reactive human agents in large animal GVHD models is critical.Methods—We have previously developed and refined a NHP large animal GVHD model. However, this model is not readily amenable to semi-high throughput screening of candidate clinical reagents.Results—Here, we report a novel, optimized NHP xenogeneic GVHD (xeno-GVHD) small animal model that recapitulates many aspects of NHP and human GVHD. This model was validated using a clinically available blocking, monovalent anti-CD28 antibody (FR104) whose effects in a human xeno-GVHD rodent model are known.Conclusions—Since human-reactive reagents may not be fully cross-reactive or effective in vivo on NHP immune cells, this NHP xeno-GVHD model provides immunological insights and direct testing on NHP-induced GVHD prior to committing to the intensive NHP studies that are being increasingly used for detailed evaluation of new immune therapeutic strategies prior to human trials

Therapeutic activity of multiple common γ-chain cytokine inhibition in acute and chronic GVHD

The common γ chain (CD132) is a subunit of the interleukin (IL) receptors for IL-2, IL-4, IL-7, IL-9, IL-15, and IL-21. Because levels of several of these cytokines were shown to be increased in the serum of patients developing acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), we reasoned that inhibition of CD132 could have a profound effect on GVHD. We observed that anti-CD132 monoclonal antibody (mAb) reduced acute GVHD potently with respect to survival, production of tumor necrosis factor, interferon-γ, and IL-6, and GVHD histopathology. Anti-CD132 mAb afforded protection from GVHD partly via inhibition of granzyme B production in CD8 T cells, whereas exposure of CD8 T cells to IL-2, IL-7, IL-15, and IL-21 increased granzyme B production. Also, T cells exposed to anti-CD132 mAb displayed a more naive phenotype in microarray-based analyses and showed reduced Janus kinase 3 (JAK3) phosphorylation upon activation. Consistent with a role of JAK3 in GVHD, Jak3(−/−) T cells caused less severe GVHD. Additionally, anti-CD132 mAb treatment of established chronic GVHD reversed liver and lung fibrosis, and pulmonary dysfunction characteristic of bronchiolitis obliterans. We conclude that acute GVHD and chronic GVHD, caused by T cells activated by common γ-chain cytokines, each represent therapeutic targets for anti-CD132 mAb immunomodulation

Incentives for organ donation: proposed standards for an internationally acceptable system.

Incentives for organ donation, currently prohibited in most countries, may increase donation and save lives. Discussion of incentives has focused on two areas: (1) whether or not there are ethical principles that justify the current prohibition and (2) whether incentives would do more good than harm. We herein address the second concern and propose for discussion standards and guidelines for an acceptable system of incentives for donation. We believe that if systems based on these guidelines were developed, harms would be no greater than those to today's conventional donors. Ultimately, until there are trials of incentives, the question of benefits and harms cannot be satisfactorily answered