The HPS Seminar Series

Microbial determinism is the view that infectious diseases and/or or epidemics are primarily (or wholly) caused–or “determined”--by microbes. This is analogous to genetic determinism, the view that human characteristics (phenotypes) are primarily (or wholly) caused–or “determined”– by genes (genotypes). In this paper I argue that, like genetic determinism, microbial determinism is false, ubiquitous, and ethically problematic.  Microbial determinism is false because infectious diseases and epidemics are always caused by interactions between host factors (e.g., the properties of human beings infected by microbes), social factors, environmental factors, and microbial factors. Among other things, this can be illustrated by the fact that similar microbes are associated with widely divergent outcomes in different individuals, populations, or seasons. Yet deterministic language about microbes is ubiquitous, such as when people speak of a “deadly” virus although most people infected with the virus survive. Microbial determinism can therefore lead to unjustified privileging of (the causal power of) the properties of microbes over the properties of the hosts, societies, and environments in which infections occur. In this paper, I explore microbial determinism by identifying central doctrines of germ theory that contribute to deterministic concepts of infectious disease and considering alternative views. I then discuss practical implications and identify areas for additional scientific and philosophical work on the interactions between microbes and other factors associated with infectious diseases.

Euzebiusz (Zeb) Jamrozik trained in medicine, epidemiology, and philosophy. His research primarily focuses on philosophical and ethical issues related to infectious diseases. Current appointments include a fellowship at the Ethox Centre, University of Oxford, as well as honorary appointments at University of Melbourne and Monash University. He is co-editor-in-chief of Monash Bioethics Review.

No seminar this week

In 1972, Janet Rowley, mother of four boys and part-time researcher at the University of Chicago, was sitting one evening at her dining room table cutting out chromosomes from photographs taken of leukaemia cells. She arranged the chromosomes in pairs and noticed that two of them seemed to have exchanged parts of their long arms, forming a translocation. She had to admonish her boys not to upset the table; they referred to her occupation as their mother “… playing with paper dolls.” Rowley had identified a critical step in the development of leukaemia. And she had done it from home on her dining room table.

Cancer cytogenetics, the study of chromosomes within cancer cells, can be traced back to 1960. It developed in parallel with molecular biology and yet it was never seen as worthy of much interest. Molecular biologists, in particular, regarded it as lesser. Cytogeneticists were labelled merely “stamp-collectors.” And with every new molecular biological technical advance, came the assumption that cytogenetics would be superseded. It was an observational science in the era of experimentation and so regarded as old-fashioned and “unscientific.” It was also practiced for the most part by women.

I will explore the evolution of the techniques, taxonomy and discoveries that created the discipline of cancer cytogenetics and the roles played by women in that evolution.
 
Lynda Campbell is a graduate student in the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne. She graduated from the University of Melbourne MB BS in 1977 and after training as a haematologist headed the Victorian Cancer Cytogenetics Service at St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne until her retirement in 2015. She obtained a Diploma of the History of Medicine from the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries of London in 2016. 

Lead has been mined in Broken Hill since 1884, and the health risks to miners and their families have been understood for almost as long. A series of reports beginning in 1893 and a Royal Commission in 1914 outlined the prevalence and paths to prevention of lead poisoning, though subsequent behaviour change was limited. Today, lead exposure still forms a ‘public health problem of global dimensions’, impacting human and non-human life. This paper presents a history of the ways in which lead has been mobilised, responded to, and permitted in Broken Hill. It articulates the experiences of those living in relationship with enduring environmental toxicity and explores the ways in which the mining industry has repeatedly abdicated responsibility, and governments have normalised risk. Settler-colonial ideas of progress and profit work to permit ongoing violence, violence which is distributed unevenly across lines of race, class, age and gender. This work contributes to urgently needed research on health and justice in mining communities, to care for those impacted, and to inform more equitable transitions.

Dr Lilian Pearce is an award-winning environmental humanities scholar working across fields of environmental history, human geography and political ecology. She is a lecturer in environmental humanities at La Trobe University’s Centre for the Study of the Inland. Her interdisciplinary place-based research focuses on two key areas: Environmental histories of contaminated sites, and Environmental policy to support healthy Country and communities. She holds a Bachelor of Science with honours (UTAS) and a PhD in environmental history (ANU).

TBC
 

Even after peer-review and publication, science papers could still contain images or other data of concern. If not addressed post-publication, papers containing incorrect or even falsified data could lead to wasted time and money spent by other researchers trying to reproduce those results. Several high-profile science misconduct cases have been described, but many more cases remain undetected.
 
Elisabeth Bik is an image forensics detective who left her paid job in industry to search for and report biomedical articles that contain errors or data of concern. She has done a systematic scan of 20,000 papers in 40 journals and found that about 4% of these contained inappropriately duplicated images. In her talk, she will present her work and show several types of inappropriately duplicated images and other examples of errors or research misconduct. In addition, she will show how to report scientific papers of concern, and how journals and institutions handle such allegations. Finally, she will address the growing problems of 'paper mills', for-profit networks that produce and sell large amounts of low-quality or fake papers. 

TBC