Blog : Displaying 995-998 of 1217

Goodman on "The Globalization of Baby-Making"

Posted by Marcy Darnovsky on April 11th, 2008

Ellen Goodman


In today's Boston Globe, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Ellen Goodman gives voice to unease about pregnancy outsourcing, based on concerns about social and reproductive justice.

Goodman acknowledges the desires and needs that surrogacy addresses:

I don't make light of infertility. The primal desire to have a child underlies this multinational Creation Inc. On one side, couples who choose surrogacy want a baby with at least half their own genes. On the other side, surrogate mothers, who are rarely implanted with their own eggs any longer, can believe that the child they bear and deliver is not really theirs.

But, she goes on,

Nevertheless, there is - and there should be - something uncomfortable about a free-market approach to baby-making. It's easier to accept surrogacy when it's a gift from one woman to another. But we rarely see a rich woman become a surrogate for a poor family. Indeed, in Third World countries, some women sign these contracts with a fingerprint because they are illiterate…

It's the commercialism that is troubling. Some things we cannot sell no matter how good "the deal." We cannot, for example, sell ourselves into slavery. We cannot sell our children. But the surrogacy business comes perilously close to both of these. And international surrogacy tips the scales.

So, these borders we are crossing are not just geographic ones. They are ethical ones. Today the global economy sends everyone in search of the cheaper deal as if that were the single common good. But in the biological search, humanity is sacrificed to the economy and the person becomes the product. And, step by step, we come to a stunning place in our ancient creation story. It's called the marketplace.

This Week in the News

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on April 11th, 2008

The Chairman of UK's National Stem Cell Network, Lord Patel, made some pessimistic statements about the prospects of stem cell research during that country's first National Stem Cell Research Conference.   

"But we have to be cautious," he said.   "It may not deliver therapy for anything. We may find that stem therapy is quite a risky business.

We had a lot of hype about gene therapy, and while we still use it in some cases it did not deliver the great promise we thought it would because of the side-effects. But the promise just now is great and we must continue with the stem cell science."

The over-the-counter availability of an at-home paternity test was expanded into thirty states, from an initial trial of three.

The Genetics and Public Policy Center published a commentary in Science criticizing some genetic tests, particularly those that are offered direct to the consumer and have potential (but unproven) implications for drug dosage and response. Brandon Keim reports at Wired.

You can see current news, or subscribe via RSS.

Medical Records Meet Personal Genomics

Posted by Marcy Darnovsky on April 10th, 2008

Over at Women's Bioethics Blog, Sue Trinidad calls our attention to an outrageous new biotech business venture:

Perlegen Sciences, a spinoff of Affymetrix and a "recognized leader in genomics" (by their own lights) recently signed a deal with an electronic medical records (EMR) company for rights to the medical data of 4 million patients. According to the Perlegen press release, the data will be mined for "genetic markers that could help predict patient response to certain treatments." Patients who meet defined criteria will be sought--through their personal physicians, no less--to obtain samples of their DNA.
Perlegen's press statement is at pains to assure that it
will only receive de-identified patient records, which can then be re-identified only by participating healthcare institutions in a HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved manner.

Now imagine a company that wants a DNA sample but that doesn't have to go to all the trouble of re-identifying the person of interest, getting IRB approval, paying the doctor for access to the person. A company, say, like 23andMe or Navigenics.

Personal genomics, anyone?

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

Two Takes on iPS cells in Nature

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on April 10th, 2008

Since the November announcement that scientists derived stem cells that appear to have the power of those from embryos (but without embryo destruction), much hay has been made about the stem cell debates’ future. As I describe in a new short essay published at the Hasting Center's Bioethics Forum, many advocates of embryonic stem cell research have been remarkably skeptical, if not outright dismissive, of the  new technique’s potential, called induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. Two articles – one in Nature and one in an offshoot journal - indicate the spectrum of response.

On the balanced end of the spectrum, journalist David Cyranoski assesses the prospects for iPS by examining “five things to know before jumping on the iPS bandwagon.”  His conclusions?

  • Anyone can do it: Fact (mostly)
  • Everyone can have their own custom-tailored cells: Fiction (unless you're rich)
  • The cures are on their way: Too soon to tell
  • Embryonic stem cells are the same as iPS cells: Fact (so far, anyway)
  • iPS cells have no ethical issues: Fiction (depends on what you want to do)

Notwithstanding the article’s snide title, Cyranoksi’s approach is critical yet balanced. In fact, I don't think anything this tough-but-fair, has ever been published in an outlet such as Nature or Science on cloning-based stem cell research, which is the primary rival to iPS.

Perhaps his most interesting point concerns iPS's  potential to derive patient-specific custom stem cell lines - the "personal biological repair kit" that's also the long-standing goal of cloning-based stem cell research. Cyranoski cites a neuroscientist who assert that patient-tailored iPS cell lines "would take a ridiculous amount of money" - at least several hundred thousand dollars. If that's that case, wouldn't such lines derived via cloning be at least as expensive? 

At the other end of the spectrum, Nature Reports: Stem Cells published a commentary by researcher Thomas P. Zwaka which goes so far as to imply that human stem cells have already been derived via cloning (here called somatic cell nuclear transfer). Discussing cell reprogramming (that is, iPS), he says that:

[I]n contrast to reprogramming by SCNT, the acquisition of pluripotency [by iPS] requires multiple days, and it is still unclear which sorts of cells can be reprogrammed. Not only does SCNT currently yield higher-quality pluripotent cells, it also possesses a significant advantage because it does not use genomic alteration to introduce reprogramming factors....

Suppose, though, that iPS cells can be generated without genetic manipulation. Many labs are pursuing this goal, and it could be achieved soon. Does this mean that SCNT can be discarded, that it should become a relic like mouth pipetting? Absolutely not! [emphasis mine]

Not only does the author fail to mention that human stem cells have yet to be derived from cloning, but he also skips over the two major risks posed by the technique: the need for numerous fresh human eggs, and the technical groundwork it would lay for human reproductive cloning.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

Displaying 995-998 of 1217  
< 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