Some authors have called for increased research on various forms of geoengineering as a means to address global climate change. This paper focuses on the question of whether a particular form of geoengineering, namely deploying sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere to counteract some of the effects of increased greenhouse gas concentrations, would be a just response to climate change. In particular, we examine problems sulfate aerosol geoengineering (SAG) faces in meeting the requirements of distributive, intergenerational, and procedural justice. (...) We argue that SAG faces obstacles to meeting the requirements of all three considered kinds of justice, because its impacts can harm some persons and communities much more than others; it poses serious risks to future generations; and SAG is especially prone to unilateral implementation. While we do not claim that SAG ought not to be implemented, we argue that it is the responsibility of proponents of SAG to recognize and address these ethical obstacles before advocating its implementation. (shrink)

Fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) comprise a large family of developmental and physiological signaling molecules. All FGFs have a high affinity for the glycosaminoglycan heparin and for cell surface heparan sulfate proteoglycans. A large body of biochemical and cellular evidence points to a direct role for heparin/heparan sulfate in the formation of an active FGF/FGF receptor signaling complex. However, until recently there has been no direct demonstration that heparan is required for the biological activity of FGF in a developmental (...) system in vivo. A recent paper by Lin et al.(1) has broken through this barrier to demonstrate that heparan sulfate is essential for FGF function during Drosophila development. The establishment of a role for heparan sulfate in FGFR activation in vivo suggests that tissue-specific differences in the structure of heparan may modulate the activity of FGF. BioEssays 22:108–112, 2000. ©2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (shrink)

Fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) comprise a large family of developmental and physiological signaling molecules. All FGFs have a high affinity for the glycosaminoglycan heparin and for cell surface heparan sulfate proteoglycans. A large body of biochemical and cellular evidence points to a direct role for heparin/heparan sulfate in the formation of an active FGF/FGF receptor signaling complex. However, until recently there has been no direct demonstration that heparan is required for the biological activity of FGF in a developmental (...) system in vivo. A recent paper by Lin et al.(1) has broken through this barrier to demonstrate that heparan sulfate is essential for FGF function during Drosophila development. The establishment of a role for heparan sulfate in FGFR activation in vivo suggests that tissue-specific differences in the structure of heparan may modulate the activity of FGF. BioEssays 22:108–112, 2000. ©2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (shrink)

Climate engineering with stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections (SSAI) has the potential to reduce risks of injustice related to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Relying on evidence from modeling studies, this paper makes the case that SSAI could have the potential to reduce many of the key physical risks of climate change identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Such risks carry potential injustice because they are often imposed on low-emitters who do not benefit from climate change. Because SSAI (...) has the potential to reduce those risks, it thereby has the potential to reduce the injustice associated with anthropogenic emissions. While acknowledging important caveats, including uncertainty in modeling studies and the potential for SSAI to carry its own risks of injustice, the paper argues that there is a strong case for continued research into SSAI, especially if attention is paid to how it might be used to reduce emissions-driven injustice. (shrink)

Radical forms of geoengineering, such as stratospheric sulfate injection (SSI), raise serious concerns about justice and the plight of the most vulnerable. However, these are sometimes dismissed on the basis of a challenge: “What if, in the face of catastrophic impacts, the most vulnerable countries initiate geoengineering themselves, or beg the richer, more technically sophisticated countries to do it? Wouldn’t geoengineering then be ethically permissible? Who could refuse them?” As a US tech billionaire put it, “Frankly, the Maldives could (...) say, ‘F--- you all—we want to stay alive’. Would you blame them? Wouldn’t any reasonable country do the same?” Such questions are intended to be rhetorical: it is assumed simply to be obvious that the appeals of the desperate would justify radical geoengineering. Moreover, the framing suggests that other nations would have strong moral reasons either to respect intervention by the desperate, or even to aid them by deploying themselves. Sometimes such arguments are also used to justify accelerating research on geoengineering now. If the desperate might attempt geoengineering, it is said, we should work out how best to do it, so as to assist them through advice. In general, the overriding thought is that the threat of catastrophe coupled with the plight of vulnerable populations provides most of the justification needed for the wider pursuit of a geoengineering agenda. Desperation becomes a trump card in the policy discourse. In this article, I argue that the desperation argument misses much of what is at stake, ethically speaking, in geoengineering policy. I focus on two further questions. The more obvious—the justificatory question—asks “under what conditions would geoengineering become justified?”, where the conditions to be considered would include, for example, the threat to be confronted, the governance mechanisms, the individual protections to be provided, the compensation provisions to be made, and so on. The less obvious question is the contextual question: “What is the ethical context within which geoengineering is likely to occur, and what difference does this make to our analysis of it?” (Gardiner 2013). In light of this distinction, I argue for two claims. First, on neither of the two most obvious interpretations of it does the desperation argument clearly justify the pursuit of geoengineering. Indeed, it may even count against such pursuit. Second, in any case, the context in which SSI is actually being pursued reveals more about the live threats and ethical import of geoengineering. For example, to push the most vulnerable to the point where they feel forced to accept pronounced subjugation to those who have made them desperate is a morally horrifying prospect which we have strong ethical reason to avoid. Such possibilities should not be concealed behind the superficial bravado of “f--- you all” and “what any reasonable country would do.” None of this implies that ethical geoengineering is impossible. However, it does suggest that geoengineering is morally complex in ways unappreciated by simple appeals to desperation. (shrink)

This paper uses a novel account of non-ideal political action that can justify radical responses to severe climate injustice, including and especially deliberate attempts to engineer the climate system in order reflect sunlight into space and cooling the planet. In particular, it discusses the question of what those suffering from climate injustice may do in order to secure their fundamental rights and interests in the face of severe climate change impacts. Using the example of risky geoengineering strategies such as (...) class='Hi'>sulfate aerosol injections, I argue that peoples that are innocently subject to severely negative climate change impacts may have a special permission to engage in large-scale yet risky climate interventions to prevent them. Furthermore, this can be true even if those interventions wrongly harm innocent people. (shrink)

There is widespread agreement that ethical concerns are central to decision-making about, and governance of, geoengineering. This is especially true of the most prominent and paradigm example of climate engineering, the spraying of sulfate particles into the stratosphere in order to block incoming sunlight and so limit global warming ). Geoengineering ethics, like geoengineering science, is still in its early, exploratory days. This chapter offers an introductory overview of the emerging discussion and some of the challenges moving forward, taking (...) SSI as its key example. It identifies a range of values relevant to geoengineering, exposes some misleading early framings, argues that questions of justification and context are both important, and summarizes the Tollgate principles for geoengineering governance. One theme is that despite the initial agreement on the centrality of ethics, in practice there are profound risks that ethical considerations will be marginalized, both in the short-term as research is developed, and in the longer-run, in any deployment. (shrink)

Geoengineering – roughly “the intentional manipulation of the planetary systems at a global scale” (Keith 2000) – to combat climate change is often introduced as a “plan B”: an alternative solution in case “plan A”, reducing emissions, fails. This framing is typically deployed as part of an argument that research and development is necessary in case robust conventional mitigation is not forthcoming, or proves insufficient to prevent dangerous climate impacts. Since coming to prominence with the release of the Royal Society (...) report in 2009 (Shepherd et al. 2009, v), the Plan B framing has proved popular with scientists, in policy circles, and in the news media (see Nerlich and Jaspal 2012; Luokkanen, Huttunen, and Hilden 2014). Though sometimes used to refer to geoengineering as a whole, it is associated particularly strongly with stratospheric sulfate injection (SSI) techniques. Consequently, these will be our focus here. We argue that the plan B framing is particularly ill-suited to the integrative assessment of options within climate policy, because it oversimplifies a complex issue in a misleading and deceptive way. For instance, it highlights extreme positions, presents SSI as an alternative independent from mainstream policies, ignores the multiplicity of options available, and neglects threats of morally indecent SSI in a context of ongoing political inertia. We are particularly concerned about the way ‘Plan B’ risks conveying an implicit hyper-optimism about SSI, and so obscures the need for ethical standards. (shrink)

This article presents research on robot therapy for elderly residents in a care house. Experiments were conducted from June 2005, lasting more than 2 months. Two therapeutic baby seal robots were introduced to the residents, and activated for over 9 hours daily. To investigate the psychological and social effects of the robots, the residents’ activities in public areas were recorded using video cameras, during the daytime for over 2 months. In addition, urinalysis of the residents was performed for 17-ketosteroid (...) class='Hi'>sulfate and 17-hydroxycorticosteroid. Results of the video analysis indicated that social interaction increased through interaction with the seal robots. Results of the urine tests showed that the reactions of the subjects’ vital organs to stress improved after the introduction of the robots. (shrink)

Recently, I argued against framing geoengineering—understood here in terms of the paradigm example of stratospheric sulfate injection ('SSI')—as a global public good. My main claim was that this framing is seriously misleading because of its neglect of central ethical concerns. I also suggested that 'global public good' is best understood as an umbrella term covering a cluster of distinct, but interrelated ideas. In an effort to be charitable, I adopted an inclusive approach, considering two general attitudes to the technical (...) definition, six interpretations of the universal benefit claim, three of nonrivalness, and two of nonexcudability. I then argued that SSI as such does not fit the canonical definition, and that the more relaxed versions are unhelpful. Noticing that I agree that SSI is a global public good in one relaxed sense, David Morrow insists that this is the only acceptable interpretation, that describing SSI in this way is useful, and that it becomes misleading only when the concept is misunderstood by "non-economists", and that it is uncharitable to attribute such confusion to those presenting SSI as a global public good. I will suggest that Morrow's markedly exclusive approach is uncharitable, that his relaxed interpretation remains unhelpful, that there are good reasons to respect other uses, and most importantly that the definitional dispute is an unfortunate distraction that leaves my central point about the framing of SSI largely untouched. This discussion reinforces my suggestion that it is time to excise the term 'global public good' from the framing of SSI, and perhaps more generally. (shrink)

In early policy work, climate engineering is often described as a global public good. This paper argues that the paradigm example of geoengineering—stratospheric sulfate injection (hereafter ‘SSI’)—does not fit the canonical technical definition of a global public good, and that more relaxed versions are unhelpful. More importantly, it claims that, regardless of the technicalities, the public good framing is seriously misleading, in part because it arbitrarily marginalizes ethical concerns. Both points suggest that more clarity is needed about the aims (...) of geoengineering policy—and especially governance—and that this requires special attention to ethics. (shrink)

The global production of radioactive wastes is expected to increase in the coming years as more countries have resorted to adopting nuclear power to decrease their reliance on fossil-fuel-generated energy. Discoveries of remediation methods that can remove radionuclides from radioactive wastes, including those discharged to the environment, are therefore vital to reduce risks-upon-exposure radionuclides posed to humans and wildlife. Among various remediation approaches available, microbe-mediated radionuclide remediation have limited reviews regarding their advances. This review provides an overview of the sources (...) and existing classification of radioactive wastes, followed by a brief introduction to existing radionuclide remediation (physical, chemical, and electrochemical) approaches. Microbe-mediated radionuclide remediation (bacterial, myco-, and phycoremediation) is then extensively discussed. Bacterial remediation involves biological processes like bioreduction, biosorption, and bioprecipitation. Bioreduction involves the reduction of water-soluble, mobile radionuclides to water-insoluble, immobile lower oxidation states by ferric iron-reducing, sulfate-reducing, and certain extremophilic bacteria, and in situ remediation has become possible by adding electron donors to contaminated waters to enrich indigenous iron- and sulfate-reducing bacteria populations. In biosorption, radionuclides are associated with functional groups on the microbial cell surface, followed by getting reduced to immobilized forms or precipitated intracellularly or extracellularly. Myco- and phycoremediation often involve processes like biosorption and bioaccumulation, where the former is influenced by pH and cell concentration. A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis on microbial remediation is also performed. It is suggested that two research directions: genetic engineering of radiation-resistant microorganisms and co-application of microbe-mediated remediation with other remediation methods could potentially result in the discovery of in situ or ex situ microbe-involving radioactive waste remediation applications with high practicability. Finally, a comparison between the strengths and weaknesses of each approach is provided. (shrink)

In this Roots essay, Fritz Lipmann reviews the ways in which a number of activated metabolic intermediates were discovered, and where, not infrequently, he himself played a leading role. The concept of ‘squiggle‐P’ (∼ P) to denote the controversially named ‘high‐energy bond’, the discoveries of acetylphosphate, the activation of carboxylic acids and of amino acids, and of acetyl coenzyme A, are reviewed. In addition, carbamoyl phosphate as perhaps the earliest activated phosphate donor to evolve, and active sulfate, in phosphoadenosine (...) phosphosulfate, are discussed, as well as the remarkable earlier discovery by Buchner and Hahn of how to prepare a yeast extract that fermented carbohydrate to ethanol; this discovery is viewed by Lipmann as the opening chapter in the new sciences of biochemistry and molecular biology. (shrink)

Neurological diseases (NDs), featured by progressive dysfunctions of the nervous system, have become a growing burden for the aging populations. N‐Deacetylase and N‐sulfotransferase 3 (NDST3) is known to catalyze deacetylation and N‐sulfation on disaccharide substrates. Recently, NDST3 is identified as a novel deacetylase for tubulin, and its newly recognized role in modulating microtubule acetylation and lysosomal acidification provides fresh insights into ND therapeutic approaches using NDST3 as a target. Microtubule acetylation and lysosomal acidification have been reported to be critical for (...) activities in neurons, implying that the regulators of these two biological processes, such as the previously known microtubule deacetylases, histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6) and sirtuin 2 (SIRT2), could play important roles in various NDs. Aberrant NDST3 expression or tubulin acetylation has been observed in an increasing number of NDs, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia (ALS/FTD), schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, Alzheimer's disease (AD), and Parkinson's disease (PD), suggesting that NDST3 is a key player in the pathogenesis of NDs and may serve as a target for development of new treatment of NDs. (shrink)

I address questions about values in model-making in engineering, specifically: Might the role of values be attributable solely to interests involved in specifying and using the model? Selected examples illustrate the surprisingly wide variety of things one must take into account in the model-making itself. The notions of system, and physically similar systems are important and powerful in determining what is relevant to an engineering model. Another example illustrates how an idea to completely re-characterize, or reframe, an engineering problem arose (...) during model-making. I employ a qualitative analogue of the notion of physically similar systems. Historical cases can thus be drawn upon; I illustrate with a comparison between a geoengineering proposal to inject, or spray, sulfate aerosols, and two different historical cases involving the spraying of DDT. The current geoengineering proposal is seen to be like the disastrous and counterproductive case, and unlike the successful case, of the spraying of DDT. I conclude by explaining my view that model-making in science is analogous to moral perception in action, drawing on a view in moral theory that has come to be called moral particularism. (shrink)

Protein‐carbohydrate interactions have been found to be important in many steps in lymphocyte recirculation and inflammatory responses. A family of carbohydrate‐binding proteins or lectins, termed selectins, has been discovered and shown to be involved directly in these processes. The three known selectins, termed L‐, E‐ and P‐selectins, have domains homologous to other Ca2+‐dependent (C‐type) lectins. L‐selectin is expressed constitutively on lymphocytes, E‐selectin is expressed by activated endothelial cells, and P‐selectin is expressed by activated platelets and endothelial cells. Here, we review (...) the nature of the carbohydrate determinants in tissues recognized by these selectins. The expression of specific sialylated, fucosylated and sulfated carbohydrates in activated endothelium and high endothelial venules promotes interactions with L‐selectin on leukocyte surfaces. In contrast, E‐ and P‐selectins recognize specific carbohydrate determinants related to sialyl Lex antigen on neutrophil and monocyte surfaces. The discovery of the selectins has generated excitemient among glycoconjugate researchers that other carbohydrate‐binding proteins and their cognate ligands will be found to function in regulating many types of cellular interactions. (shrink)

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) is the most potent and ubiquitous vascular growth factor known to date. Yet, prior to its description as a secreted mitogen for endothelial cells, it was identified as a vascular permeability factor. These seemingly disparate avenues of discovery highlight VEGF's ability to control many distinct aspects of endothelial cell behaviour, including proliferation, migration, specialisation and survival. The versatility of VEGF as a patterning molecule is likely linked to its association with various signalling receptor complexes, but (...) also its expression in several isoforms with a differential affinity for heparan sulfate proteoglycans in the extracellular matrix. In contrast to the absolute requirement for all known VEGF receptors, the presence of only a single VEGF isoform is sufficient for vascular development. However, the isoforms serve as exquisite tools for the fine patterning of growing vessel networks during embryogenesis and in postnatal life. BioEssays 25:1052–1060, 2003. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

This important edited collection addresses ethical issues associated with solar radiation management (SRM), a category of climate engineering techniques that would increase the planet’s reflectivity in order to offset some of the impacts of anthropogenic climate change. Such techniques include injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere or brightening marine clouds with seawater. Although SRM has the potential to cool the planet by reducing the amount of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the planet, it raises a wide array of difficult (...) and interesting ethical issues. Engineering the Climate makes an important contribution to addressing many of these issues. (shrink)

In this review, we provide an overview of the dynamic changes within the microbiota and its metabolites that are implicated in establishing and maintaining gastrointestinal homeostasis during various stages of microbial colonization. The gradual conversion of the gut microbiota toward a mutualistic microbial community involves replacement of pioneer gut colonizers with bacterial taxa that are characteristic for the adult gut. An important microbial signature of homeostasis in the adult gut is the prevalence and activity of a diverse spectrum of bacterial (...) species that produce beneficial metabolites through metabolic interactions between microbial groups. Deciphering these microbial signatures and their metabolites that govern short and long‐term equilibrium, as well as imbalances in host‐microbial relationships, may provide novel diagnostic tools and/or therapeutic targets for specific disorders associated with intestinal dysbiosis and loss of homeostasis. (shrink)