Blog : Displaying 974-977 of 1273

A Better Road for Obama on Stem Cells

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on September 25th, 2008

The presidential campaign of Democratic Senator Barack Obama has launched radio advertisements touting his support for stem cell research, in response to those from Republican nominee Senator John McCain. While McCain's were potentially misleading due to their vagueness, Obama's are clearly misleading because of inaccuracies, as numerous observers have noted.  

But Obama doesn't need to accuse McCain of opposing embryonic stem cell research, when in fact McCain has voted for it repeatedly. The Democratic campaign merely needs to put its opponent on the spot for his recent wavering on whether he would, if elected, actually lift the restrictions on the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Politics is a rough and dirty game, and the stakes this season are remarkably high. And Obama has been criticized for not hitting back strongly enough at McCain. But needlessly mischaracterizing his opponent's record only leaves him vulnerable.

Hank Greely on CGS and Human Genetic Modification

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on September 19th, 2008

Hank Greely

In the new issue of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, CGS's Marcy Darnovsky and bioethicist Hank Greeley of Stanford Law School trade perspectives on inheritable human genetic enhancement. Greely seems to believe that the only way social justice could possibly enter an assessment of a "designer baby" future would be in endorsing wider access to the technology. I suppose we'll leave that position to advocates of social justice such as neo-conservative David Frum.

Regarding the practice of human genetic enhancement itself, Greely denies any "enthusiasm." But he simultaneously argues that legal prohibitions against the practice - currently in place in more than 40 countries - are certain to be ineffective once the technology develops.

This isn't the first time Greely has been a nonenthusiastic opponent of regulating emerging human biotechnologies. His concerns about human reproductive cloning appear to be limited to those of safety. If that barrier can be surmounted, cloning can be used "as a fertility aid" or "where parents want to create a new child to be a bone marrow donor for an older sick." Greely has also suggested that the technology may be appropriate for "cloning a child who has accidentally died."

 Previously on Biopolitical Times:

Announcing BioPolicyWiki: An online tool tracking global biotechnology policies

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on September 18th, 2008

The Center for Genetics and Society is excited to announce the debut of the first wiki-style compendium of human biotechnology policies around the world.

BioPolicyWiki displays policies governing human genetic and reproductive technologies and practices for all countries, as well as policies adopted by major intergovernmental organizations. Both charts and narrative descriptions of the policies are included.

The "wiki" format means that anyone can edit BioPolicyWiki. With users' contributions, the initial collection of legal and policy information will grow in quantity and quality.

Currently included practices are:
Eggs for assisted reproduction
Eggs for research
Inheritable genetic modification
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis
Reproductive cloning
Research cloning
Sex selection

We invite you to explore, edit, and contribute to BioPolicyWiki.

The spitterati and trickle-down genomics

Posted by Marcy Darnovsky on September 17th, 2008

The New Yorker's view of Wendi Murdoch

Gracing the front page of The New York Times Sunday Styles section this weekend is a lengthy account of a celebrity "spit party" at which notables ejected saliva samples into test tubes. The same high-upscale gala is chronicled in the Talk of the Town section of the New Yorker.

The event, hosted by media moguls Barry Diller, Rupert Murdoch, and Harvey Weinstein, was part of a publicity push by Google-backed personal genomics start-up 23andMe. The company launched its celebrity marketing strategy this past January, when it distributed a thousand free spit kits at the elite World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Then it announced - just last week - that it's slashing its prices to Christmas-stocking levels, in a bid to make DNA tests this year's high-tech must-have. The company's press release presents the move as a way to "democratize personal genetics."

This is shrewd promotion. 23andMe has attracted gobs (so to speak) of fawning media attention for itself, and introduced consumers to the new personal genomics industry. It's also been able to deflect attention from the criticisms and concerns voiced by physicians, bioethicists, and government regulators. Inviting key reporters to the fancy parties, and throwing in free kits along with the glamour and glitz, hasn't hurt a bit.

What the company doesn't advertise is that its real business plan isn't selling spit kits or DNA tests, but compiling databases full of genetic information that it can sell to medical researchers. 23andMe misleads customers and the public about this intention both implicitly and explicitly. Its web page listing its "values" says, for example, "We believe that your genetic information should be controlled by you….Though we store and help you interpret it, your genetic information is yours to have and explore."

But buried in the New York Times account, as it is no doubt buried in 23andMe's customer agreement, is the detail that while purchasers can choose not to participate in the company's survey about their phenotypic traits, they "cannot opt out of having their information anonymously shared" with researchers.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

Displaying 974-977 of 1273  
< Prev  Next >> 
« First Page Last Page » 
« Show Complete List » 



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