Raising the Dead: The Real Jurassic Park

Bringing species back from extinction may soon be a reality. Scientists have recovered 70% of the wooly mammoth’s genome already. To clone the animal, researchers would need to recover the remaining 30%, package the DNA into chromosomes, replace the nucleus of an elephant’s egg with a recreated nucleus of a mammoth egg, stimulate the egg to initiate cell division, then transfer the egg into an elephant’s womb and bring the mammoth fetus to term. There are still many, many obstacles to this, but still Stephen Schuster, who co-led the team that published 70% of the mammoth’s genome, said “It’s a simple question of time and money, not of technology anymore,” and Hendrik Pinar, an expert on ancient DNA, said, “This is going to happen. It’s just a matter of working out the details” (qtd. in Mueller). 

Scientists are also making progress on using cloning to bring back more recently extinct species. Last year, scientists cloned embryos of an extinct frog by implanting a cell nucleus gathered and frozen before the species went extinct into a fresh egg from a related, existing species. This kind of work means that it might be possible to both bring extinct species back and prevent endangered species from going extinct. This idea is already gathering steam, as in 2009, the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corp. and the Brasilia Zoological Garden collected and froze blood, sperm and umbilical cord cells from wild animals that had died in order to save genetic information of Brazil’s endangered species so that they might be able to one day clone them. They would be able to expand the captive population of these animals, which would hopefully prevent zoos and researchers from taking wild animals out of their habitat.

However, cloning to save endangered species or bring back the extinct has several ethical issues. First, from a purely ethical standpoint, if it is possible to clone dead animals and bring them ‘back to life,’ then what it people want to clone dead pets? Or maybe one day a dead relative? Second, there is the potential risk and harm to both the animals used in the cloning process and the clone produced. Often, researchers combing DNA from a threatened species with eggs from a related species and implant dozens of these hybrid embryos into the surrogate mother. These hybrids often fail to develop properly in the womb, or the surrogate mother’s body rejects the embryo. Also, when researchers create these hybrids by injecting an adult cell’s nucleus into an empty egg, the nucleus is not genetically blank. As a result, “nuclear reprogramming” is required, and this often leads to problems, which probably cause many of the developmental abnormalities that prevent clones’ viability. Also, scientists often do not know enough about animals’ reproductive cycles, so harvesting eggs can be risky. Also, in the case of the woolly mammoth, there would only be one animal living as a spectacle not in its own habitat, which no longer exists. There are many other issues involved in cloning to save species, as well.

Thus, while saving endangered species is a noble goal, cloning animals may not be part of the solution. It may even present a danger worth preventing.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/05/cloned-species/mueller-text

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cloning-endangered-animals

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenkotler/2013/04/12/beware-the-frog-zombie-clones-the-science-and-ethics-of-raising-the-dead/

Early Detection Saves Lives. . . Or Does It?: The Effectiveness of Mammography

Since the late 1980s, mammography has become a standard medical process to screen women for breast cancer and detect the disease early.  A study published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 1.5 million additional women have been diagnosed with early stage breast cancer as a result of widespread screenings.  Most would think that early identification of breast cancer is key in preventing progression to later stages, however, the study found that the number of women diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer had only been reduced by 0.1 million.  What does this startling trend mean?  Overdiagnosis. 

            In a New York Times article, “Cancer Survivor or Victim of Overdiagnosis?,” H. Gilbert Welch, a professor at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, explains the implications of this research: “more than a million women who were told they had early stage cancer — most of whom underwent surgery, chemotherapy or radiation — for a ‘cancer’ that was never going to make them sick.”  As mammogram technology continues to advance, more and more breast abnormalities are being detected, which has caused overdiagnosis to increase.  While in the 1980s approximately a quarter of screenings were overdiagnosed, this statistic has increased to between a third and a half. 

In addition to prompting onerous treatments, mammograms may also not affect breast cancer mortality rates.  Three recent studies in Europe have found that mammograms reduce mortality by no more than 10% and perhaps not at all.  This is not to say that breast cancer mortality is rising.  On the contrary, in both Europe and the United States, morality rates have dropped considerably since the 1980s.  But this good news is not the result of early diagnosis but rather superior methods of treatment.  As therapy for breast cancer improves, mammography becomes less crucial in combatting the disease. 

However, because women are aggressively encouraged to get mammograms, this method of screening remains prevalent.  Those who promote mammography believe that detecting breast cancer early is key to stopping the disease from progressing to later stages.  In reality, survival rates increase with early diagnosis because people are living longer with their diagnosis, even though they are not actually living longer than they would if they had not been screened.  Thus Welch believes that those who survive breast cancer do not survive because the disease was detected early, but rather because their cancer was overdiagnosed, and they would not have died anyway.  Similarly, those who die from breast cancer are destined to die whether the disease is detected early or not.

While this research should certainly be verified, if it does prove to be accurate, women need to become better informed about the risks and benefits of mammography.  If a woman has a very small chance of developing life-threatening breast cancer, the risks of a mammogram may outweigh the benefits.  Welch suggests that physicians “[. . .] can look less hard for tiny cancers and precancers and put more effort into differentiating between consequential and inconsequential cancers.”  While Welch affirms that diagnostic mammography (when a woman already has a breast lump) is important, he strongly opposes the provision of anticipatory mammograms to all women.

Though mammography may not need to be ubiquitous, breast cancer cannot be treated if it is not detected.  Thus mammography remains an undeniably useful tool.  It is likely that follow-up research will be conducted to further explore the effectiveness of mammography.  In any case, as breast cancer treatment improves, women will hopefully not have to be concerned about developing breast cancer and overdiagnosis will become less apparent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/opinion/cancer-survivor-or-victim-of-overdiagnosis.html?_r=0

http://www.rbrs.org/dbfiles/journalarticle_0421.pdf

Buy One, Get Seven Free

Everyone has heard of Octomom, the woman who in January 2009 gave birth to octuplets after an in vitro fertilization treatment. Nadya Suleman became instantly famous and raised concerns about the consequences of implanting multiple embryos into a woman’s uterus – in the United States, there is no limit to the number of embryos that can be implanted. The reason for this is that women seeking IVF are already having trouble getting pregnant, and the probability of success of assisted reproduction is still low (approximately 25-30%). The more we implant, the higher the chances of success, right? But is this actually true? And if so, what are the consequences?

In Portugal, the limit of embryos that can be implanted at a time is two. It was common practice to implant four in the late 1990s, then three in the early 2000s but the legal limit has now decreased to two. The UK is moving in the same direction, since studies have shown that transferring more embryos at once does not in fact increase the probability of pregnancy, what it does increase is the probability of multiples – twins, triplets… Even octuplets as we now know. These cases are extremely rare – what usually happens when multiple embryos take is the risk of a miscarriage later on or defects in the fetuses’ development. Implanting more than two embryos puts a woman at risk, especially when she is over the age of 35 (which is often the case in women seeking IVF). The US should follow Europe’s trend of limiting the number of embryos implanted at once in order to put the future mother’s health above all else, even her desire to carry a child.

Doomed from the Womb: What Challenges Does In Vitro Eugenics Raise?

According to BioEdge, the Australian bioethicist Robert Sparrow of Monash University has published a provocative proposal exploring the scientific benefits and risks of what he calls “in vitro eugenics.” Through in vitro eugenics, it would be possible not only to create gametes for infertile individuals or couples, but also to breed many generations of human beings in the Petri dish with the aim of perfecting them. This would achieved by extracting certain stem cells from the initial embryos in order to use them to create new gametes in order to produce other embryos. Sparrow estimates that it might be possible to produce up to three generations of humans annually, meaning that up to thirty generations could be produced in a mere ten years. He does not deal with the moral implications of this idea at length, but he does not think that it raises any new ethical problems that have not been dealt with before.

I am, however, inclined to disagree with Sparrow on his last point, for it seems to me that in vitro eugenics does indeed raise unique moral problems insofar as it runs the risk of reducing certain generations of human beings as mere means to an end. Unlike standard procedures like in vitro fertilization, in which the child produced is desired by his or her parents, it is difficult to imagine that the intermediate generations of humans in between the initial and final, desired generation will not be viewed as genetically inferior if in vitro eugenics were permitted, and some might even wish to discard the intermediate generations while in they are in Petri dish upon fulfilling their "purpose," which is at least morally questionable. Moreover, there is something is very disturbing about the idea of extracting stem cells from embryos to produce gametes for fertilization, for it would make it possible for the children of one generation to be the parents of children of the following generation – all without any of them being born. And, if they are born, even more problems emerge. Since we currently do not know the psychological effects informing children that they were created as intermediaries for a future generation, in vitro eugenics threatens to pose serious psychological risks to the children it produces who learn of their origin.

Overall, then, Sparrow is, I think, too quick to conclude that no new moral problems would be raised. IF we are to take in vitro eugenics as a serious option, questions like these will inevitably appear and need to be answered.

Cars and Drugs

In everyday discourse, and when the question is framed explicitly enough, it is clear that a life is of incalculable value. Peter Singer's famous Famine, Affluence, and Morality contains perhaps the best way of illustrating this: if I were to walk by a pond in an expensive suit, and a baby were drowning in it, it would be a terrible moral wrong for me to keep walking. 

But, and as Singer points out, we routinely make decisions that violate this principle. 

If a doctor unplugs a patient because it is too expensive to continue treating her, it is a terrible moral wrong. When a drug is patented and kept away from thousands who need it, it is a similar crime. In 2007 former President Lula of Brazil commented on Merck's attempt to price AIDS medication at $1.10 instead of $0.45, saying that from an 'ethical point of view the price difference is grotesque', and that it implied 'a sick Brazilian is inferior'. 

But what about more mundane patents, ones with similar potential to save lives, albeit in less direct ways? Take, for example, the patenting of car parts designed to make driving safer. In 2009, 34 thousand people in the US died in car crashes. Improvements in car safety certainly play a role in this figure: in 1990, 11 thousand more people died in crashes. When a company develops a new braking system, it is granted an immediate monopoly and other companies are kept away. People die because of this, yet it is a matter that is hardly given a second thought in policy discussions. 

Patents, to be sure, are designed to encourage innovation. That is why we give them to both drug companies and car companies. But at the ragged edge, when the continued existence of a patent costs lives every day, governments like Lula’s step in to put a damper on human costs: why, then, with drugs and not cars?

The simple answer to this question is visibility: the connection between better brakes and fewer deaths is less direct, in some intuitive way, than the connection between drugs and deaths. This should mean nothing, though, for policy. 

As I see it, cars and drugs are no different. The goal of government, on a basic level, is to prevent its people from being harmed. Patents on cars and drugs cost lives, and so governments ought to intervene on both counts. 

Famine, Affluence, and Morality: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm

Data on Automobile Fatalities: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html

Lula on AIDS Medication: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6626073.stm

Major roadblock possibly cleared for stem cell research

Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco have found rare stem cells extracted from cells in lactating breast tissue and breast milk that are capable of becoming most of the different cell types. This is an amazing research breakthrough as it was previously thought that there were no pluripotent cells in the body after the embryonic stage of human development. When these cells were put into mice or in cell culture, the cells differentiated to produce multiple cell types, including those for the heart, intestine, brain, pancreas, even cartilage.

These stem cells have the potential to generate new tissues and could essentially be a “patch kit”, healing wounds and reconstructing damaged or missing organs. They could also be used as a resource to study how cells become pluripotent, leading to more research and potentially better and more accessible “patch kits”. This discovery has also led scientists to hypothesize that pluripotent cells are actually scattered throughout the bodies of men and women in other organs.

However, some scientists are not fully convinced that these cells are truly pluripotent because they fail one widely accepted test for embryonic cells: when injected into mice, they don't form a type of tumor called the teratoma. For many, this failure is a deal-breaker.

Nevertheless, if the research can continue on, and if breast stem cells are found to be truly pluripotent, this could potentially solve the key issue that surrounds the medical use of stem cells. Historically, the ethical quandary rose with the destruction of human embryos for stem cell derivation. On the grounds that the human embryo is a human life with moral value justifying its protection, the extraction of embryonic stem cells is unethical.  The use of adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells has generally been considered to be free of any particular ethical issues.  In fact they have been applauded as ethically superior alternatives to the use of embryonic stem cells. If we can add breast milk stem cells to this list, the road to stem cell research and improved medicine will be cleared of a major obstacle.

http://www.bioethics.org.au/Resources/Resource%20Topics/Stem%20Cells.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729084.800-are-breast-milk-stem-cells-the-real-deal-for-medicine.html

http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/10436