Dr. Sue Heavner, Senior Scientist at Mylan Pharmaceutical Inc.
Dr. Sue Heavner is a Senior Scientist in the Bioanalytical Laboratory at Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. She started her career in the Bargaining Unit of Mylan in 1995. In 1998 she earned a Board of Regents BA. Concurrent with returning to school, she obtained a position as a Chemist Assistant in the Bioanalytical Laboratory. She continued to advance in the lab while pursuing a Ph.D. in Basic Pharmaceutical Sciences in the School of Pharmacy at WVU. Dr. Heavner?s doctoral research utilized computational chemistry techniques to model biological molecules. In 2004, she completed her graduate studies, and in 2006, she was promoted to her current position at Mylan. Dr. Heavner feels very fortunate to work for an organization that supports and recognizes continuing education.
?No pain, no gain?, a familiar phrase, the implications of which extend far beyond physical performance. There is a direct correlation between the complexity of the research, the potential benefits it can bring and the ethical and moral issues that surround it. More pain, more gain is the general rule. Take human cloning, for example: it is complex stuff, the potential payoffs are huge, and it surrounded by controversy. Do the needs of the child confined to a wheelchair, the young woman faced with losing a breast to cancer, or the elderly patient on oxygen eclipse the moral status of a clump of cells in a Petri dish? These are important issues that scientists cannot ignore in their research and in the implications of their research on society.
Some would separate science and ethics as if they are two distinct and conflicting specialties; there should not be a dichotomy between the two. To be a scientist and practice science does not exclude concern for the moral ramifications of the research. Rather, consideration of the moral and ethical issues is the responsibility of the scientist and scientific community as a whole. I do not think, however, that the answer to ?THE QUESTION? should hang solely on the decision of a politician or a religious leader or even a scientist alone but rather on a diverse group of objective, well educated people armed with facts. We have to work hard to understand the issues and not let political interests or personal morals obscure scientific truths.
Survival of the fittest, that is natural, and it is human nature to use our intellect and resources to ensure our survival as a species. Take that a step further, to ensure the highest quality survival possible for our species. It is natural for us to alter nature. Is it, however, right? Is it wrong? Certainly, there are times when the benefits to human health and welfare make it OK to alter nature.
One last thought, if you are thinking about altering nature with pharmaceuticals, please consider the generic version!
