Does a person’s view of what it means to be human influence his ethical decision-making? John Evans, a sociologist at the University of California, San Diego, analyzed survey data from 3,500 U.S. adults in order to find out.

The results, Evans wrote in a recent issue of New Scientist, shocked him: Those who believed humans bear the image of God held more humanitarian attitudes than those who did not.

Evans’ survey first asked participants whether they believed humans were defined by being made in the image of God, by having higher intelligence, or simply by being biological creatures determined by DNA. He followed with ethical questions: Should soldiers’ lives be risked to stop genocide in a foreign country? Should people be allowed to buy kidneys from the poor? Should terminally ill patients commit suicide to save money? Is it OK to take blood from prisoners without their consent? Should terror suspects be tortured to potentially save lives?

The more that respondents agreed with the purely biological definition of a human, the less likely they were to view people as special. They were less willing to stop genocide and more likely to accept the ideas of buying kidneys, suicide to save money, and taking blood from prisoners.

By comparison, those who believed humans are made in the image of God were less likely to agree with money-saving suicide or nonconsensual blood donation.

“The biological view of humans can lead us to see them as being like objects,” Evans concluded, discussing the research from his book What Is a Human? in the Aug. 6 issue of New Scientist.

The magazine’s editors added, “If this preliminary result is upheld by further research, it will come as an unwelcome shock to scientific materialists.”

Virus-proof living

A U.S. research team is working to create a novel life form by rewriting the genetic code of an E. coli bacterium. Their hope: to create a microbe that will be resistant to all viruses and produce proteins unlike any found in nature. The project, described in the Aug. 19 issue of the journal Science, could enable such bacteria to be used to manufacture vaccines and drugs.

George Church, a Harvard genetics professor involved in the research, hopes it will pave the way for creating disease-resistant human stem cells and farm animals, according to New Scientist.

Despite the potential medical advances, some bioethicists worry about the risks—such as the possibility of a drastically recoded bacterium escaping from a lab and swapping genes with wild microbes. The engineered microbe could multiply quickly because its resistance to viruses would give it a competitive advantage.

Biologists have already taken a precaution by engineering the E. coli strain so that it needs certain artificial amino acids not found in nature—making it, at least in theory, unable to survive outside the lab. —J.B.

Water worry?

Since 1980, the number of U.S. adults living with diabetes has quadrupled. A new study published in the Journal of Water and Health in May showed a link between the amount of fluoridated water Americans consume and increased rates of Type 2 diabetes.

Study author Kyle Fluegge, a former post-doctoral fellow at Case Western Reserve University, found the link for two of the three most common U.S. fluoride additives (meant to prevent tooth decay). In contrast, both naturally occurring fluoride and fluorosilicic acid, the most commonly used additive, were associated with a decrease in diabetes. Fluegge believes the issue needs more research. —J.B.