Search


 
 
Blog : Displaying 972-975 of 1169


Big Bucks Become Bigger at CIRM

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on February 19th, 2008


While publicly funded with taxpayer dollars, the California stem cell research agency is exempt from many of the norms of state governance. One example is that it sets the salaries of its employees on its own, instead of using the civil service pay scale. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine drew criticism early on when it disclosed that its staff salaries would range from $125,000 to $400,000 annually. As a reference point, the state's governor is offered $175,000. Now, the CIRM's leadership is looking to up those numbers, with the top end reaching $620,000.

For now, this is a range of possible salaries, and not yet actual paychecks. But given the lack of accountability to voters or their representatives, there's little doubt that salaries will catch up with these potential ranges.

Given the dire condition of the state's budget and the recent pay scandal at the University of California, this move will only attract more criticism for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. If the compensation sums skyrocket according to the CIRM's plan, calls for its termination, such as the recent editorial in Investor's Business Daily, would likely grow more common.

Previously on Biopolitical Times;





Looking for Donor Dads

Posted by Jamie D. Brooks on February 18th, 2008


Last week the Oprah Winfrey Show featured individuals looking for donor dads. Not single women or infertile couples considering sperm donation, but rather people who are the offspring of third-party sperm providers. According to estimates, at least one million individuals have been conceived in this fashion in the United States alone. Like the prospective parents who turn to sperm donation to complete their families, these donor offspring are looking to complete their families too.

Some of those featured on Oprah's show had fairytale endings to their quests. Gavin, who was conceived with sperm donated by Todd, donor # 2053, searched for and connected with his biological father. Gavin, his mother Cheryl, and Todd have been able to establish a rapport and even take vacations together. Cheryl says, "We are definitely a family."

Others told heartbreaking stories. Susan felt she had been "lied to" when she learned at age 27 that she had been conceived with donor sperm and shared no biological relation with the father who raised her. Susan has been unable to track down her donor dad.

Today, it's a common understanding that children should be told they are the offspring of donors, because they have a right to know their medical history and in order to eliminate the problems created by secrecy within families. The US has no federal regulation around gamete donor identification.

Some experts, like the University of Alberta's Laura Shanner [PDF], argue that it's a child's human right to know his or her genetic identity. Taken together, the tales told on the Oprah episode reinforce the argument that children of sperm donors need to find their biological fathers and half siblings in order to feel complete.





Expanding the egg business

Posted by Marcy Darnovsky on February 15th, 2008


Ad now appearing in campus newspapers including UC Berkeley and Columbia

Press releases issued this week by two fertility companies bespeak changing - and troubling - dynamics in the growing commerce surrounding women's eggs.

In a February 11 statement, a Charlotte, NC fertility company called REACH announced an "urgent call for egg donors" and said that it is "eyeing far more aggressive means to recruit young women for egg donations in 2008." The press release is suffused with a tone of emergency about the "alarmingly widening gap between supply and demand" and the "spiraling" wait times "for older couples wanting to start families."

But there is no similar sense of urgency on the company's "What to Expect" web page for prospective egg donors. There, not a single risk or side effect is mentioned, though the known short-term risks are significant (and include, rarely, death) and the lack of data about long-term risks is notorious.

While the Charlotte fertility company seeks to grow its business via the now-traditional model of recruiting young women to provide eggs for people who are undergoing in vitro fertilization, emerging ventures are targeting a new demographic: fertile women who choose - or can be persuaded - to postpone childbearing until their 40s or beyond. Offers to freeze women's eggs for later use - after advancing a career, or meeting the partner of one's dreams - now litter the Internet, despite the experimental nature of egg-freezing technology.

One new egg-freezing venture is a partnership between a company called Extend Fertility and a Seattle fertility clinic. According to their joint press release, they will be offering "the first elective egg freezing service" in the Pacific Northwest. Unsurprisingly, Extend Fertility plays up the "freedom" and "empowerment" that putting eggs on ice offers to women, and plays down the risks of extracting them in the first place. "Egg harvesting is a proven, safe procedure," its website states.

Extend Fertility also minimizes the experimental status and highly uncertain outcomes of egg freezing, referring repeatedly to "breakthroughs" and offering "client testimonials" from women who have frozen their eggs (though not from any who have thawed and used them to make babies).

Extend Fertility's website declares that it "adher[es] to the strictest medical and ethical standards," and implies that its service is approved by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the fertility industry's trade and lobbying group. But it doesn't mention that ASRM recently concluded that while egg freezing may be appropriate for women undergoing chemotherapy that is likely to damage their eggs, it is an experimental technique and "should not be offered or marketed as a means to defer reproductive aging."

Is anyone out there looking for a case study in the need for regulation and oversight?

Previously on Biopolitical Times





One gene, two genes; Red genes, blue genes

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on February 14th, 2008


Your faithful bloggers here at Biopolitical Times are not the only ones with an eye towards the intersection of biotechnology and politics. The cover of a recent issue of New Scientist caught my eye, featuring a crowd of individuals colored red or blue (representing American Republicans and Democrats) with the large caption, "Two tribes: Are your genes left-wing or right-wing?" This conveniently captures almost all that is wrong with media coverage of genetic discoveries. It implies that that genes code, directly and in one of only two ways, for variations in modern social behaviors.

The article itself, though, is more balanced. It offers a summary of research indicating that political preferences may have a significant genetic component. The underlying thinking is that genetic differences can influence general behavioral characteristics such as openness to new experiences, conscientiousness, and extroversion, which in turn impact political orientation and engagement. While there is some evidence of such a relationship, investigation into behavioral genetics contain fundamental shortcomings. The article brought up some:

But some studies linking biology to political attitudes need to be taken with a pinch of salt. One recent brain-scan study, published in The New York Times as an opinion piece, was pilloried in the press for being marketing, not science. The study was criticised in part because the researchers involved had links to FKF Applied Research, a firm which employs brain scanning in its market research work. And there is no shortage of critics who question the whole idea of linking politics with biology. Personality studies in particular have been singled out as sloppy science, in part because qualitative traits like openness cannot be measured in the way that height or eye colour can. To gauge personality, psychologists generate a series of questions designed to measure the trait of interest. Asking a subject whether they "jump into things without thinking" is one way to measure openness. But some of the questions on the tests assess issues that are political in nature, such as a subject's views about foreigners. If this is the case, "the correlation is completely circular", says Evan Charney, a political scientist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

Furthermore, much of the evidence is based on twin studies, which have come underfire themselves.

Even with these caveats, such research has disturbing social implications - and the New Scientist article only makes this potential worse. My greatest concerns is that accepting that genes determine political orientation could cause deepening political apathy. The article opens and closes with this:

The race to become the most powerful politician on earth is well under way, and the US is gripped by election fever. In newsrooms and bars across the land, liberals and conservatives are slugging it out, trying to convince each other that their way of thinking is right. They may be wasting their breath....

So the guy at the bar may never agree with you, but perhaps realising that can be liberating. "We spend a lot of energy getting upset with the other side," says [Rice University political scientist John] Alford. We often think our opponents are misinformed or stubborn. Accepting that people are born with some of their views changes that, Alford points out. Come to terms with these differences, and you can spend the energy now wasted on persuasion on figuring out ways of accommodating both points of view.

Heck, why bother voting when you could just have your cheek swabbed?

The fact is, some contrasting points of view can't be "accommodated" or reconciled. Society works through some of these differences through politics. It's not always pretty, but it is necessary to a functioning democracy. And while some individual tendencies may have genetic components, history unambiguously indicates that ideas which are more persuasive and backed by better organizing become not only policy, but also widespread social norms - at least until the next ones supersede them.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:





Displaying 972-975 of 1169  
< Prev  Next >> 
« First Page Last Page » 
« Show Complete List » 

 


ESPAÑOL | PORTUGUÊS | Русский

home | overview | blog | publications | about us | donate | newsletter | press room | privacy policy

CGS • 1936 University Ave, Suite 350, Berkeley, CA 94704 USA • • (p) 1.510.625.0819 • (F) 1.510.665.8760