bioethics

From a security standpoint, the only thing that matters is that our soldiers are effective at killing people and breaking things. Does acupuncture help accomplish that? We presented one opinion last week. Now, here's a second viewpoint on the matter.
A new study thinks the answer is yes. But is it? The old adage "if it ain’t broke, then don't fix it” comes to mind.
No, I'm not speaking of Jonathan Goldsmith, the guy who just pretended to be The Most Interesting Man in the World. I'm speaking of the real deal, my grandfather, Dimitri Berezow -- a man who survived Stalin and Hitler, cheated death on multiple occasions, and went on to live the American dream. His was an impossibly unique story – one that seems too extraordinary to be true (and yet is) – capped with a cautionary tale about modern healthcare.
Before conducting any clinical trial – which is a nice way of saying "human medical experiment" – doctors and scientists first have to demonstrate that there's sufficient biomedical evidence to justify doing it. But a new study suggests that more than half of clinical trials don't meet this essential standard.
A 1% increase in suicide-related search terms resulted in 54 additional suicides in the United States. Do search engines like Google or social media outlets like Facebook have any responsibility to monitor the mental health of their users?
A case report of 22-month-old conjoined twins evaluated and operated on last year at Massachusetts General Hospital was published in today’s New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The staff and family faced impossible choices requiring a bioethics committee's input.
Scientists are not above hyping data to make themselves look good. Contrary to popular wisdom, studies funded by industry were no likelier to have "spin" than studies that were not funded by industry.
A young man who recently received a lung transplant, following a terrible case of pneumonia that caused his lungs to collapse, has died. He made national headlines because his petition to receive new lungs was initially rejected because he had smoked marijuana.
The public is becoming increasingly skeptical of science. It's the natural outcome of a society that's hyper-partisan, and one that's told to be ever-more distrustful of expertise and authority. It's not surprising, therefore, that research perceived as even mildly controversial is immediately met with the charge "Follow the Money!" 
Instead of offering an organ to someone else, what if a person wants to sell one for their own benefit – to help pay off college debts, or for a down payment on a new home? If it's ethical to donate an organ to someone in need, why isn't it to sell an organ to somebody in need? Could the free market help fix the organ trafficking dilemma?