or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Biopolis.

We are used to doing it to China, India, and any other nation with citizens hungry for the Land of Milk and Honey. We entice them with our posters of freedom, of democracy, of intellectual pursuit. Yet, we now face our very own brain drain of our leading stem cell biologists to a place called Biopolis.

Biopolis may not advertise the sort of political ideology or market economy we sport on our fronts, but what the Singaporean research center does offer is a whole-hearted backing of the intellectual curiosity of these scientists. It has become a haven for top US researchers who are simply fed up with the stem cell-stifling policies of the Bush Administration. Among them are two of the nation's top cancer researchers who were 'napped' by Philip Yeo, a headhunter of sorts. He and others of his mission have taken advantage of the US political climate and converted it into a fueling energy towards the research. The center receives continued backing by the Singaporean government and even international institutions such as Cambridge University which set aside $45 million in 2006 to fund the Singapore Stem Cell Consortium. 

The analysis of Biopolis' role may be simple on the surface: it is analogous to a child sneaking dessert after being told not to, analogous to Al Capone's speakeasies during the Prohibition era. By regulating the activity of such research in the US (the only place where our US policies take effect), we have simply encouraged the sprouting up of such international centers and concentrated the world's brightest minds in the field together on one campus.

Taken deeper however, we may be able to gain valuable experience regarding our views and implementation of such views. For those who directly oppose stem cell research--whether theologically, ethically, morally, economically, politically-- has the Bush administration been successful in blocking the advance of the field? Have we forgotten that other countries can 'nap' the same top minds that we 'napped' when we advertised freedom of curiosity and scientific pursuit? 

It may seem counterintuitive, but the best (only) policy for slowing the pursuit of stem cell research and experimentation may well be to allow it. If that does not work, perhaps there is no real way to control human curiosity. Personally, I find that a very good thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/business/worldbusiness/17stem.html?_r=1

The $100 Genome

In 2003, the Human Genome Project was completed for approximately $300 million. Now, an entire human genome can be sequenced fraction of the cost and time at only $100,000. However, this cost is still far out of everyday reach. What if, however, a $100 sequence were possible?

Yesterday, two articles revealing new methods of gene sequencing were published within hours of each other, each mentioning the clear goal of affordable personal gene sequencing. First, an American company named BioNanomatrix has developed a new technique that allows far larger segments of DNA to be sequenced. They believe that within only 5 years, a $100 8-hour personalized sequence is possible. The second article reveals another technique, developed by Oxford Nanopore Technologies, that further improves on current technology. The Oxford-based company is quite a bit less ambitious, hoping to develop a $1000 by 2014 with the help of significant government funding.

The prospects are numerous. Imagine if you – and everyone else – knew their complete DNA sequence. Although such technologies are underdeveloped at the moment, personalized medicine would become a real possibility. Furthermore, family planning would become far more insightful. After all, the genome of embryos could be sequenced as well – revealing gender, hair color, eye color, and birth defects. If enough came to be known about analyzing the human genome, it may even be possible to predict height and other attributes.

How much would such knowledge be worth to you?

These articles were found through CNN and Google News.

http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14861845
http://www.physorg.com/news154786034.html

Here come the Superhumans

In 1972 Paul Berg developed the first technique to clone DNA. He inserted lamda phage DNA into the DNA of SV40, a Simian virus. Shortly after successfully managing to form a recombinant DNA, his experiments had to be halted for safety reasons. What were the implications of what Berg had achieved. Implanting a gene into the Simian virus could transform it into a virus capable of infecting humans, which could have catastrophic consequences. Berg’s experiments were deemed safe and he was allowed to continue. However, what is our guarantee that all other cloning experiments will be safe. Our knowledge of cloning has increased dramatically since Berg’s experiment, and this knowledge is readily available on the Internet for anyone to read up on. How are we to regulate who is able to clone, and what they are able to clone. Is it not possible for an individual to insert the wrong gene in the wrong virus creating a lethal strain in a makeshift laboratory in their backyard?

Cloning of more complex genes and entire genomes has become possible to the extent that in 1996 researchers were able to clone a sheep, dolly. As cloning in humans becomes more and more realistic, we are flooded by an entourage of ethical questions. Cloning in humans would bring about many positive aspects such as elimination of genetic diseases and allowing infertile couple to have children who are biologically related to them. But where do we set our limits? Imagine a situation where prospective parents choose specific genes, tall genes, smart genes, athletic genes etc, for their child from a catalogue. These genes are then cloned and inserted into the DNA of a blastocyst, which is then placed in the mother’s uterus, and nine months later, presto, you have a beautiful baby that will grow to be tall, smart and athletic. Who is to draw the line between cloning that is ethical and that which is not? If we are not careful cloning could bring about a new species of superhumans.

Soucres: Mol214 Lecture, Professor Shenk

"Designer Babies" - How Far Along Are We?

With all the advances in understanding the human genome and manipulating DNA an important question has risen: Can people design babies with no genetic flaws, any eye or hair color or even different appearance. Is it just a matter of time before parents can pay for their child to be born a great musician or a scientist? The idea of having a perfect child might indeed sound appealing to future parents at first, but its consequences on society are unpredictable to say the least. Will people have to save money their whole life in order to afford the “latest gene mutation” that will make their child smarter than the “older models” or will this be widely available to every parent, who will just have to browse through available profiles and pick the one he likes best? Whatever the answer is, it will shake the foundations of our current moral system and establish a society based on how “good your genes are”.

This is why germline gene experimentation is at this time strictly monitored and regulated. Although limited number of experiments are being done on modifying embryos’ genetic material, such specimens have to be destroyed within a couple of weeks after their creation. Why are then so many news articles claiming that “designer babies” are being born? This misconception comes from the fact that even though parents can chose the sex of their child as well as eye and hair color using IVF, no genetic modifications are actually being made to the future child’s DNA. Doctors are simply scanning the DNA of numerous possible samples and they choose the one with the preferred characteristics. In this way even certain genes that cause terminal diseases can be “filtered out” by choosing the “right baby”, which has become a common practice for IVF procedures. How different is that from actually modifying your child’s DNA? People are merely choosing a child from all the possible ones they can have, instead of introducing new mutations. The difference is indeed significant, but it seems a small step between choosing to creating. One can only speculate on how long it will be before this happens but it seems that this life changing event might not be so far away.

Sources:
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/05/designer-babies/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478406,00.html

An Unintended Experiment

Ever since the first IVF baby was born on July 25, 1978, in vitro fertilization has helped millions attain their most treasured dream: parenthood. Yet new research is beginning to show that there may be serious problems with the technique. IVF may lead to abnormal patterns of gene expression, which in turn appear to be linked to an increase in the incidence of rare genetic disorders among IVF babies. Additionally, the risk of premature birth and low birth weight for gestational age appears to be higher among babies born with the aid of IVF.

Although this discovery in itself is disturbing enough, the ethical implications are even more problematic. This is the worst type of research: the type that is done too late, and as a result uses human subjects who thought that they were getting a safe treatment. There was no informed consent here, no approval by bioethics boards to run a study using human subjects. Instead, a medical product was released into the real world and the clinical trial was conducted there. 

This case illustrates the need for proper, regulated human experimentation. Without it, research on the effects of medicine is conducted only when many people have already been hurt, and the result is a form of research more harmful than even the worst-designed clinical trial.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/health/17ivf.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science

Memories over...Mind?

According to a recent study conducted on 60 people, Dutch investigators believe that beta-blocker drugs could help people who suffer from emotional after-effects of traumatic experiences. These drugs are commonly used as heart medicine, but could potentially be used to alter how memories are recalled. The tests conducted were done so by artificially creating a fearful memory by associating pictures of spiders with a mild electric shock delivered to the patients. After being split into two groups, one given the beta blocker propranolol and the other a placebo, according to a “startle response” test, results showed that those given the beta blocker showed less fear of the images of the spiders. So, memories are still intact, yet the emotional intensity of the memories is dampened.

However, alongside the potential memory-banishing use of this drug, there is the ethical issue of tampering with the mind. Each individual’s personal experiences, and subsequent memories of these experiences, play a major role in shaping that person’s personality and decision-making skills. For instance, I am sure that many adults can attest to the fact that they have at least one childhood or adolescent memory of a bad decision that they made, and have used this particular memory as a learning tool for future decisions. So, as Dr. Daniel Sokol, lecturer at Medical Ethics at St. George’s University of London points out, “Memories are important, for people to learn from their mistakes.”

Though the doctors cited in the article point out that their goal is to use this drug for complex conditions such as post traumatic stress disorder, tampering with memories could potentially have a disastrous effect on the mind as a whole. The results of the trials suggest that the use of this drug eliminates or dampens the effect on the brain of traumatic memories. Yet, there is still the possibility and the danger that this procedure can also eliminate good memories in the mind. In this case, which Medical ethics expert Dr. Daniel Sokol argues, there is the risk of a type of “accelerated Alzheimer’s” effect. So, using this drug to attempt to eliminate bad memories may be successful, but may also have the same affect on good memories, and ultimately completely alter the mind of an individual.

Though at first glance this procedure seems to be the next possible solution for curing the traumatic memories that lead to depression, anxiety, and even suicide, we have to be very cautious when dealing with altering the most unique and valuable part of a human being; the mind.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7892272.stm

Cash or Test?

A recent study conducted by Times magazine has revealed that number of genetic tests performed on newborns have increased dramatically since the start of the decade. With a simple needle prick on the heel of the infant, doctors can now screen for a variety of diseases that are rare but severely debilitating. The ease of the procedures have sparked action throughout the nation; all fifty states now require tests for at least twenty-one diseases out of a recommended list of twenty-nine. Twenty-four states require all twenty-nine tests outright. The laws have come largely in response to a 2005 survey by the March of Dimes organization that found only 38% of the babies were being screened for the minimum twenty-one diseases. Nowadays, that percentage is closer to one hundred percent.

The new laws, while well intended, have placed additional responsibility and burden on the healthcare structure. The states have had to pay for the tests, which cost about $100, if the patient’s health plan does not cover it. This has created a drain of state funds that becomes increasingly difficult to fill. With the gloom of the bad economy looming over every financial decision, the question that comes to mind is whether these genetic tests are a responsible use of state funds.

The only justifiable answer to this question for society is yes. Despite the increased burden the law has on a state budget, it seems to me to be a crucial test for infants. Many of these diseases are treated and manageable if caught early; if diagnosis were to be delayed, it could cause irreparable damage. In the end, it comes down to the long-run; according to Dr. Jennifer Howse, president of the March of Dimes: “It’s much less expensive to treat these conditions than it is to manage the catastrophic illness that can occur if they are not detected.” So it makes both prudent and financial sense to make these screenings, despite the initial hit on the state’s wallets. One can only hope the states legislators understand this logic and continue the programs.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1880704,00.html