Swine Flu: The Next SARS Virus?

The recent news of a discovery of a new virus has the health institutions around the world on their toes. It has been reported that hundreds of people in Mexico and at least twenty people in the United States have shown symptoms of a new virus named the swine virus because of the similarity of its outer protein receptors to a virus that is common in pigs. The disease seems to be contagious through the air, and symptoms do not become present until the fifth day onward, although it is still transferable from day one.

The existing logic for such a sensational story is the fact that there are so many methods of contracting such a highly contagious disease in today’s fast-paced society that a real pandemic is very likely. Examples of this include the outcry of the SARS virus and the avian bird flu. These diseases can travel with airplane travelers to the most distant parts of the globe, and strike the population when least expected. A new virus that is little known about will strike even more swiftly because there is no existing contingency plan in place.

While I believe that these are very real threats, I also know that the media has a tendency to blow up affairs regarding various new diseases; emphasis is placed on the sensation factor rather than actual extent of impact on society. It’s a business, and simple medical articles and affairs need to have a doomsday appeal to them if views are to be generated. While SARS and the avian flu remain very real and infectious, comments about them have faded away; they never evolved into the earth-shattering plagues that we were led to believe. So take the latest news about the swine flu with a grain of salt: it might be a very real threat, but just don’t regard as the next Spanish Influenza of 1918.

Website Relevant to my post:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17026-swine-flu-what-you-need-to-know.html?full=true

Crazy Talk

Sometimes I doubt the value of freedom of speech. Ethically I’d normally consider it as a basic human right. Each of us owes to the rest of mankind, in order to ensure individual identity, representation, and freedom. But I just read something that made me wonder if some things that would usually be considered basic human rights, such as freedom of speech, are actually rights that people should be earned rather than just be given. And the complication is that, at least with this case, the person who abused his freedom of speech and harmed the greater good, was, in his mind, trying to make a suggestion that would provide positive advice.

This person, a blogger posting to the “UK Coalition,” is suggesting that we apply Darwinian natural selection to those living in and suffering from HIV/AIDS in Africa. He say’s “shouldn't we let people die until only those with a greater resistance to the disease emerge?” He argues that through the current care that is provided to African populations with HIV/AIDS, does not cure them but rather lets them live so that they can continue to spread it “through ignorance.” After this statement he cites the tragic yet true problem that some Africans believe that sleeping with a virgin will cure their HIV/AIDS, which according to a Reuters’ article has vastly increased incidence of rape. This piece of evidence simply shows the additional level of commitment that the world still owes Africa. As mentioned in the Reuters article, simple education programs in Africa appear to have dispelled this belief in younger age groups. What comes through most is that to follow through with this plan of action proposed by the blogger would mean the avoidable death and suffering of millions of Africans. How this blogger thought this fact could be avoided escapes me…

Should we be concerned with the undermining spread of such an unethical argument? Is there any legitimate worry that such dangerous logic will spread enough to undermine the relief effort in anyway? I would answer my own question and say, “probably not,” but still, the very existence of such publicly projected thoughts worries me…

Sites used:
http://www.ukcoalition.org/AIDS-Cure/12538.htm
http://mobile.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/107036097535.htm?_lite_=1&via=lnav

What is So Wrong about a DNA Database?

The Federal Bureau of Investigations plans to expand the size of its DNA database 17-fold, to include profiles of perpetrators of “lesser and suspected crimes.” The prospect of saving the DNA of people who haven’t even been proven guilty has many up in arms, citing violations of constitutional rights.

But is this really such an egregious encroachment on the privacy and civil liberties of blameless citizens? The database would be used solely to solve crimes (but of course, this is assuming that you trust the F.B.I. to use the information as it says it will, which is another matter entirely). An innocent, law-abiding citizen can feel confident that his or her DNA will not show up as a “crime scene sample,” so his or her DNA profile will never be used for anything. Isn’t it worth sacrificing a tiny bit of privacy to help the investigation of horrific crimes go more quickly and smoothly? Isn’t expediting the identification and capture of dangerous criminals a worthwhile goal? Wouldn’t this prevent further harm to others, as well as allow crime victims and their families to begin to heal as soon as possible?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/us/19DNA.html?_r=1&hp

Pushing the ethical limits of embryonic stem cell research

NIH released it's newly composed (draft) guidelines on the 17th governing the funding of embryonic stem cell research in light of President Obama's executive order a month ago. The gist of the changes boils down to NIH OK'ing the funding of stem cell lines derived from embryos unused from IVF, with no prior intent on research. Lines created from embryos conceived for the explicit purpose of future research are off-limits (funding of the actual derivation of embryos is unavailable by order of Congress).

This change frees up significantly the amount of leeway researchers have in investigating potentially life-saving technologies, which will have invaluable benefits in the long run. More than 760 current lines could be funded under the new guidelines, which will undoubtedly speed progress. Opponents of stem cell research are unsuprisingly decrying the new developments, but interesting to note is the discontent some proponents for research are making known.

Proponents acknowledge that these changes are certainly a step in the right direction, but some do not think it is enough. They want embryo lines created from "research" embryos, not only IVF embryos, to be OK'd as well. They claim that specific cell lines will not be able to be generated with the current limitations.

I personally think NIH's changes are enough, at least for now. It is already an extraordinary compromise for both sides to limit research to discarded cells that would otherwise be destroyed, versus creating cells for the explicit sake of destroying them for research. Stem cell research is still a new science, and ethical constraints are sure to slacken in the coming years, so it will be a slow process. The argument that specific cell lines won't be able to come to fruition is a little questionable to me, because I don't really think the science is at a point where embryos can be picked for specific "stem cell" purposes. To work with what is already available (and there is PLENTY available) is already fine by my book.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090417/full/news.2009.373.html

http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2009/04/nih_stem_cell_guidelines.php?utm_source=nytwidget

A Pressing Problem for Harvard

While we arguing issues whose ramifications are exotic and interesting, we sometimes forget that there are still very real, down-to-earth problems in science today. Students at Harvard Medical School recently uncovered a unacceptable policy with the University: the fact that many of the esteemed faculty members on campus were affiliated with various pharmaceutical companies. These professors then subsequently push for these drugs in classrooms to future doctors. Obviously, this is a very poor system to conduct education. One student even reported being harassed by a professor after he asked what the potential side effects of a drug that was heartily endorsed by the teacher.

In fact, the American Medical Student Association gave Harvard an F in terms of how they over watch drug industry money. The grading process is a great idea, but there should be more done. One idea is to set up a punishment system in order to prevent further transgressions. So far, no official entity regulates the flow of money; this must corrected. This will not prove easy, as the recent economic downturn sapped endowment returns and potential benefactors shy away. However, this is a question of fundamental ethics, and the right thing to do is obvious.

Mother vs. Fetus: Epilepsy vs. I.Q.

Having to deal with epilepsy is a difficult situation alone, but being pregnant further complicates the situation. Physicians treating these epileptic women are no longer obligated to care for the mother but also the fetus within her. However, in the interest of caring for the mother by using epilepsy drugs, the fetus could also be harmed. Previous studies have found valpropate, but sold as “Depakote” to increase malformations and developmental difficulties of the fetus. But most recently, a new study soon to be published compared valpropate to other antiseizure medications. The study found that children and toddlers born from mothers who have taken valpropate during her pregnancy displayed lower I.Q. scores. These results suggest valpropate to have serious cognitive consequences on the welfare of the fetus. As pointed out by Dr. Kimford, a neurology professor at Emory University, “If I put the patient on valpropate as a first choice and the baby has cognitive impairment or a malfunction, I can’t repair that.” Despite these findings, specialists still do not advise pregnant women to discontinue their use of valpropate without consulting their physicians.

Amidst these findings, a few other issues concerning this study surfaced. Can I.Q. points really reflect accurately the cognitive abilities of these children born from valpropate-using mothers? How should the physician prioritize the interest of his two patients: the mother and the fetus? But more importantly, was it ethical for the researchers to study pregnant women using valpropate versus other antiseizure medications when it is previously known that they may cause developmental harm to the fetus?

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/health/research/16child.html

Natural Bone Marrow Regeneration?

Scientists from the University of Montreal have developed a method to mass produce stem cells from a small number of blood stem cells from a patient’s bone marrow. This would allow for far easier transplants since the inserted cells could be grown, eliminating the difficult search for compatible donors. According to the article, nearly 4,000 individuals in North America wait for such donors without success. The feat was accomplished by identifying 10 proteins found in bone marrow stem cells which force the cells to multiply in the lab setting. The scientists hope that even one of these proteins will also allow the regeneration of bone marrow directly in humans, completely eliminating the need for even a transplant.

In addition to simply marrow replenishment, the technique also has other implications for organ recipients. Normally, organ transplants are complicated by the possibility of harmful reactions towards the transplanted organs, and must therefore take medication to suppress the effects. Furthermore, since the transplanted organs are generally permanent, the negative effects could remain for the rest of their lives. However, mouse studies exist that suggest bone marrow transplants could prevent rejection against organs. The immune system cells created by the bone marrow are responsible for these reactions. Thus, marrow transplants could eventually result in acceptance of the organ as one of the body’s own.

I feel that this research is a remarkable development. This technique seems as if it is both easy and inexpensive, two qualities which I think are necessary for it to become a widespread treatment. As such, I am eager to read more about its success on direct marrow regeneration. My only question is about the time frame mentioned. Why should it take a few years to be implemented as mentioned in the article? If the cells are indeed from the person’s own culture, what remains to be so extensively tested?

Source:
http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2009/04/16/world_premiere_in_stem_cell_research_in_montreal.html