Science is done in the context of a particular social, policy and legal environment, and in the United States, frequently with the help of taxpayers money. My work, and the work of my office, focuses on the intersection of science and the society in which it takes place: how communication does and doesnt happen, how regulation and oversight does and doesnt happen, and why; and, importantly, how to improve those interactions. Currently, our two major project areas are stem cell research and neuroscience. I am currently developing projects specifically in genetics and in science policy, broadly.

 

The Stem Cell Policy and Ethics program (SCoPE) is working on several projects, including questions that arise in contemplating early human trials of stem cell based therapies for neurological disorders. Which data should we have in hand before moving into humans? Which patients are the best and most appropriate candidates for the first human trials? What are the implications of early failure/success? How do the politics of stem cell research play into all of this?

 

One of the projects of the Program in Ethics and Brain Science (PEBS) asks, what constitutes data in research on the neural correlates of moral phenomena? For example, if Im a neuroscientist using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study moral decision-making or truth telling, how do I know that the phenomenon Im studying is actually a moral one? Other projects underway relate to new technologies such as deep brain stimulations (DBS) and how advances in neuroscience impact philosophical and lay notions of personal identity, free will and moral responsibility.

 

My newest project has to do with Congressional science advising. In 1972 Congress established the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to provide its members with competent, unbiased information on scientific and technological advances for use in the legislative process. Since the OTA was defunded as part of a smaller government initiative in 1995, some have argued that Congress has been left without access to unbiased scientific information and policy analysis. This project aims to investigate and assess science advising in the area of genetics, both in the OTA and post-OTA eras, to determine whether those in Congress perceive an unmet need for new mechanisms for obtaining nonpartisan science policy analysis, and if so, to determine what sorts of mechanisms they would be most likely to use, were they to be available. 

Debra JH Mathews, Ph.D., M.A., is the Assistant Director for Science Programs for the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Mathews earned her B.S. in Biology from the Pennsylvania State University and a PhD in genetics from Case Western Reserve University. Concurrent with her PhD, she earned a Masters degree in bioethics, also from Case. She completed a Post-Doctoral Fellowship in genetics at Johns Hopkins, where she continued her work on human genetic variation and human population history. She also completed the Greenwall Fellowship in Bioethics and Health Policy, which is jointly administered by Johns Hopkins and Georgetown Universities. As a Greenwall Fellow, Dr. Mathews worked at the Genetics and Public Policy Center, researching the views of geneticists on their role(s) in science policy formation and public engagement. In addition, during a three-month internship at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Office of Science and Data Policy, she worked with the Privacy Advocate on issues related to large data systems. As the Assistant Director for Science Programs, Dr. Mathews is responsible for overseeing the  Stem Cell, Ethics and Policy program (SCoPE) and the Program in Ethics and Brain Sciences, as well as other bench research related endeavors in the BBI. Her research interests focus on the intersection of science, public policy and society.

 

B.S, Pennsylvania State University

PhD, Case Western Reserve University