¿El conflicto de intereses que es tan grave que todos preferimos ignorarlo?

Conflict of Interest declaration is the default way to mitigate the risk of harm of unconscious or deliberate promotion of self-interest causing misinformation or wrong decision-making. Public attention to the disclosure of interests caused by private sources of research funding results in a routine procedure now. At the same time, very strong interests caused by taxpayer-covered Governmental funding of research are generally badly underestimated. Researchers generally have no idea that taking public funding and promoting policy advice to provide more funds should be declared as a conflict of interest: Promotion of more funds and power under the control of bureaucratic bodies or entities is anticipated to bring more funding for the researchers themselves. For example, the COVID-19 response of most democratic governments, based on the use of emergency powers, enjoys broad support from publicly funded research – though the effectiveness of such a response is not supported by the history of previous pandemics. The explicit requirement to disclose public funding as a potential Conflict of Interest, at least in case the authors promote more power and more funds for the Government, will mitigate risks of one of the potentially dangerous biases both in research and in decision-making

Descanse en paz: enfoque judeocristiano sobre el final de la vida y los tratamientos paliativos.

The concept of "dying of old age" almost does not exist today: it is always death from some illness. The religious world became captive to the concept that we must do everything to prolong metabolism for every additional moment. In most cases, a person is separated from the world while in an alienated environment, connected to transfusions and machines. While we deny euthanasia in an absolute and unconditional manner, our practical suggestion is encouraging palliative medicine. This type of care is focused on providing relief from the symptoms and stress of the illness rather than attempting to cure. We wish to instill the understanding that natural death from old age is a gift from God, not a punishment.El concepto de "morir de vejez" casi no existe hoy en día; siempre es una muerte por alguna enfermedad. El mundo religioso ha quedado atrapado en la noción de que debemos hacer todo lo posible para prolongar el metabolismo en cada momento adicional. En la mayoría de los casos, una persona está separada del mundo en un entorno alienado, conectada a transfusiones y máquinas. Aunque negamos la eutanasia de manera absoluta e incondicional, nuestra sugerencia práctica es fomentar la medicina paliativa. Este tipo de atención se centra en brindar alivio a los síntomas y el estrés de la enfermedad en lugar de intentar curarla. Deseamos inculcar la comprensión de que la muerte natural por vejez es un regalo de Dios, no un castigo

COMMENTARY: ETHICAL ISSUES OF CURRENT HEALTH-PROTECTION POLICIES ON LOW-DOSE IONIZING RADIATION

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model of ionizing-radiation-induced cancer is based on the assumption that every radiation dose increment constitutes increased cancer risk for humans. The risk is hypothesized to increase linearly as the total dose increases. While this model is the basis for radiation safety regulations, its scientific validity has been questioned and debated for many decades. The recent memorandum of the International Commission on Radiological Protection admits that the LNT-model predictions at low doses are “speculative, unproven, undetectable and ‘phantom’.” Moreover, numerous experimental, ecological, and epidemiological studies show that low doses of sparsely-ionizing or sparsely-ionizing plus highly-ionizing radiation may be beneficial to human health (hormesis/adaptive response). The present LNT-model-based regulations impose excessive costs on the society. For example, the median-cost medical program is 5000 times more cost-efficient in saving lives than controlling radiation emissions. There are also lives lost: e.g., following Fukushima accident, more than 1000 disaster-related yet non-radiogenic premature deaths were officially registered among the population evacuated due to radiation concerns. Additional negative impacts of LNT-model-inspired radiophobia include: refusal of some patients to undergo potentially life-saving medical imaging; discouragement of the study of low-dose radiation therapies; motivation for radiological terrorism and promotion of nuclear proliferation

Space Radiobiology

The study of the biologic effects of space radiation is considered a “hot topic,” with increased interest in the past years. In this chapter, the unique characteristics of the space radiation environment will be covered, from their history, characterization, and biological effects to the research that has been and is being conducted in the field. After a short introduction, you will learn the origin and characterization of the different types of space radiation and the use of mathematical models for the prediction of the radiation doses during different mission scenarios and estimate the biological risks due to this exposure. Following this, the acute, chronic, and late effects of radiation exposure in the human body are discussed before going into the detailed biomolecular changes affecting cells and tissues, and in which ways they differ from other types of radiation exposure. The next sections of this chapter are dedicated to the vast research that has been developed through the years concerning space radiation biology, from small animals to plant models and 3D cell cultures, the use of extremophiles in the study of radiation resistance mechanisms to the importance of ground-based irradiation facilities to simulate and study the space environment

Challenges of a Multi-Polar Nuclear World

Nuclear warfare, being calamitous, is nevertheless, unlike popular perception, far from being apocalyptic. In the article, we consider possible scenarios of nuclear war in a multi-polar nuclear world, arguing that a democratic society has good chances of victory against a totalitarian nuclear-possessing state. Afterwards, we focus on two technical issues of primary importance – targeting doctrine and civil defense. We conclude that a steadfast and determined stance together with properly conceived and well planned policies for dealing with aggression is the price democratic societies must be willing to pay in order to effectively battle aggression at all levels

Ethics of Adoption and Use of the Linear No-Threshold Model

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model of ionizing radiation–induced cancer assumes that every increment of radiation dose, no matter how small, constitutes an increased cancer risk for humans. Linear no-threshold is presently the most widely applied model for radiation risk assessment. As such, it imposes very heavy burden on the society in both economic and human terms. This model, which was adopted in late 1950s in the wake of massive government investments in science, is controversial and raises important ethical issues. This article identifies 2 issues often missed: scientists usurping the role of policy makers and seeking funding and power. These issues should be considered together with the scientific controversy raging over the validity of the LNT model and the multiple other ethical issues regarding its ongoing use

Health Impacts of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation: Current Scientific Debates and Regulatory Issues

Health impacts of low-dose ionizing radiation are significant in important fields such as X-ray imaging, radiation therapy, nuclear power, and others. However, all existing and potential applications are currently challenged by public concerns and regulatory restrictions. We aimed to assess the validity of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model of radiation damage, which is the basis of current regulation, and to assess the justification for this regulation. We have conducted an extensive search in PubMed. Special attention has been given to papers cited in comprehensive reviews of the United States (2006) and French (2005) Academies of Sciences and in the United Nations Scientific Committee on Atomic Radiation 2016 report. Epidemiological data provide essentially no evidence for detrimental health effects below 100 mSv, and several studies suggest beneficial (hormetic) effects. Equally significant, many studies with in vitro and in animal models demonstrate that several mechanisms initiated by low-dose radiation have beneficial effects. Overall, although probably not yet proven to be untrue, LNT has certainly not been proven to be true. At this point, taking into account the high price tag (in both economic and human terms) borne by the LNT-inspired regulation, there is little doubt that the present regulatory burden should be reduced