Search


 
 
Blog : Displaying 991-994 of 1341


Public Opinion, Here and Abroad

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on December 22nd, 2008


In the last few days, two interesting public opinion polls were released. Here in the United States, the latest annual edition [PDF] of the Virginia Commonwealth University Life Science Survey yielded no surprises, as the results for relevant questions held steady: Embryonic stem cell research (57% in support, 36% opposed), cloning-based stem cell research (52% in support, 45% opposed), human cloning (17% in support, 78% opposed). In response to, "How clear are you, personally, on the difference between human reproductive cloning and human therapeutic cloning?," eight percent were very clear, 26% somewhat clear, 31% not very clear, and 33% not at all clear.

But this chart (below, click for full version) caught my eye the most. It captures the impacts of politics on opinions of a scientific research procedure. A few years ago, party affiliation had little impact on one's likely view of human embryonic stem cell research. But beginning around 2004, the year of California's Proposition 71 and exaggerated statements in the Presidential race, support among Democrats (and to a lesser extent, independents) crept upward and that of Republicans inched downwards.



Meanwhile, a research foundation affiliated with the large Spanish financial services firm BBVA issued its second study of public opinion on assisted reproductive technologies [PDF] in fifteen industrialized countries. For most questions, respondents were asked to rate the acceptability of various technological applications on a scale of 0 to 10. While there was significant variance among the countries, I was struck more by the consistency. For example, the acceptability of IVF for infertile couples ranged from 6.0 to 8.7, while the range for its use for sex selection was 0.9 to 3.5.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:





Gene of the Week: Shyness

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on December 19th, 2008


From CNN:

Research suggests that the degree of loneliness that any two people feel in a particular situation may vary widely, partly because of genetics. In fact, loneliness is half inherited, half environmental, says John Cacioppo, director of the University of Chicago's Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience....

Using data from more than 8,000 people in twin studies and sibling studies, in collaboration with the Netherlands Twin Register, Cacioppo and colleagues found strong evidence that genetics accounts for about half of the differences in loneliness among people in the study.

Previous Genes of the Week on Biopolitical Times:





Birds of a Feather

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on December 18th, 2008


In what may just be a match made in heaven, two controversial cloning-based stem cell research companies have formed a joint venture. In exchange for $500,000, Advanced Cell Technology will license its technology to generate blood cells from stem cells to Allied Cell Technology, a new venture majority-owned by CHA Biotech.

Advanced Cell Technology has been shouting for attention from the furthest fringes of respectable science for years. Founded by an ardent believer in immortality through science, it regularly has tried to prop up its faltering stock over the course of decade through exaggerated announcements. But despite recent adulatory coverage from Discover and Barbara Walters, it is running out of cash, and its stock hasn't been worth more than five cents since September. In the first quarter of 2008 alone, it lost more than $9 million on revenue of only $120,000. Four years ago, it moved its headquarters to California in hopes of getting a slice of that state's $3 billion stem cell pie, but has now returned to Worcester, Massachusetts. Now, there is little left of the company besides an intellectual property portfolio.

CHA Biotech is an American project of a large Korean health care company that operates several hospitals and a medical school. It got into hot water after its affiliated research institute was initially awarded a grant for research cloning efforts from California's stem cell agency. In the ensuing publicity, it emerged that the CHA Regenerative Medicine Institute was a California nonprofit in name only, and that its affiliated fertility clinic - whose offices were in the same Los Angeles office building, raising concerns about conflicts of interest in the acquisition of women's eggs for their cloning-based work - was facing serious allegations from a woman whose eggs had been improperly obtained and handled. CHA later "voluntarily" withdrew its grant application during the subsequent administrative review.

While Allied Cell Technology is purportedly a joint venture, the lopsided nature of the deal may be the first step towards a takeover.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:





Eggs, wombs and the economy: Hard times fuel a buyers’ market

Posted by Marcy Darnovsky on December 16th, 2008


Several recent articles discuss the effects of the economic crisis on the egg and surrogacy markets. The Wall Street Journal's story, under the too-cute title "Ova Time," leads with reports from fertility clinics about "a surge in the number of women applying to donate eggs or serve as surrogate mothers for infertile couples."

WSJ quotes the president of a Chicago egg and surrogacy brokerage saying that inquiries from young women are up 30% in recent weeks, to about 60 calls a day. "We're even getting men offering up their wives," she reports.

And now that it's a buyers' market, she says, "Some people are looking for a 6-foot Swedish volleyball player with 39 ACTs, and they'll take their time."

An MSNBC story covers the up-tick in markets for sperm, blood, and hair as well as eggs: "Seeking quick cash in a tanking financial market, would-be sellers of a variety of body products…are filling waiting rooms and swamping agencies with inquiries," it reports.

MSNBC health writer JoNel Aleccia tried to get numbers to back up accounts from the operators of fertility clinics and egg and surrogacy agencies. She called the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, understandably thinking that the trade organization would have that information.

But ASRM public affairs director Sean Tipton seemed less than pleased with the question, perhaps because the fertility industry is loathe to admit that money might enter into a young woman's decision to seek cash for her eggs (though its Ethics Committee has published guidelines on "financial compensation" for same). "I guess I could imagine economic difficulty inspiring increased inquiries," Tipton said. "But egg donation is so complicated, donors are unlikely to do it only for the money."

In any case, Tipton was unable to help out with any data - because it doesn't exist. There is no central registry of women who provide eggs or carry pregnancies for other people, and the government doesn't even request data on egg retrieval cycles that are halted before completion. As reporter Aleccia delicately puts it, "the largely unregulated industry lacks a national data source."

Previously on Biopolitical Times:





Displaying 991-994 of 1341  
< 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 • 1120 University Ave, Suite 100, Berkeley, CA 94702 USA • • (p) 1.510.625.0819 • (F) 1.510.665.8760