Development and characterization of a microfluidic model of the tumour microenvironment

The physical microenvironment of tumours is characterized by heterotypic cell interactions and physiological gradients of nutrients, waste products and oxygen. This tumour microenvironment has a major impact on the biology of cancer cells and their response to chemotherapeutic agents. Despite this, most in vitro cancer research still relies primarily on cells grown in 2D and in isolation in nutrient- and oxygen-rich conditions. Here, a microfluidic device is presented that is easy to use and enables modelling and study of the tumour microenvironment in real-time. The versatility of this microfluidic platform allows for different aspects of the microenvironment to be monitored and dissected. This is exemplified here by real-time profiling of oxygen and glucose concentrations inside the device as well as effects on cell proliferation and growth, ROS generation and apoptosis. Heterotypic cell interactions were also studied. The device provides a live ‘window’ into the microenvironment and could be used to study cancer cells for which it is difficult to generate tumour spheroids. Another major application of the device is the study of effects of the microenvironment on cellular drug responses. Some data is presented for this indicating the device’s potential to enable more physiological in vitro drug screening

The ethical desirability of moral bioenhancement: A review of reasons

Background: The debate on the ethical aspects of moral bioenhancement focuses on the desirability of using biomedical as opposed to traditional means to achieve moral betterment. The aim of this paper is to systematically review the ethical reasons presented in the literature for and against moral bioenhancement. Discussion: A review was performed and resulted in the inclusion of 85 articles. We classified the arguments used in those articles in the following six clusters: (1) why we (don't) need moral bioenhancement, (2) it will (not) be possible to reach consensus on what moral bioenhancement should involve, (3) the feasibility of moral bioenhancement and the status of current scientific research, (4) means and processes of arriving at moral improvement matter ethically, (5) arguments related to the freedom, identity and autonomy of the individual, and (6) arguments related to social/group effects and dynamics. We discuss each argument separately, and assess the debate as a whole. First, there is little discussion on what distinguishes moral bioenhancement from treatment of pathological deficiencies in morality. Furthermore, remarkably little attention has been paid so far to the safety, risks and side-effects of moral enhancement, including the risk of identity changes. Finally, many authors overestimate the scientific as well as the practical feasibility of the interventions they discuss, rendering the debate too speculative. Summary: Based on our discussion of the arguments used in the debate on moral enhancement, and our assessment of this debate, we advocate a shift in focus. Instead of speculating about non-realistic hypothetical scenarios such as the genetic engineering of morality, or morally enhancing 'the whole of humanity', we call for a more focused debate on realistic options of biomedical treatment of moral pathologies and the concrete moral questions these treatments raise