Blog : Displaying 995-998 of 1341

This Year’s Stocking Stuffers

Posted by Osagie Obasogie on December 15th, 2008

What do you give the people on your holiday shopping list who have everything? Themselves!

Just in time for the holiday season – free shipping until 12/22 and all – DNA 11 has lowered the price of its mini portraits to $169.  DNA Mini Portraits are 8” x 10” custom-made artistic renderings of individualized genetic sequences. Swab your cheek and FedEx the sample to their corporate headquarters, and they’ll send you a glass framed, Technicolor depiction of what a portion of your genome might vaguely look like.  

Not to be outdone in this race for your holiday bio-dollar, personal genomics company 23andme has recently followed up on its price slash to announce a “Holiday Season Multi-Pack Discount” through December 31st. Now, entire families can get into the holiday gift-giving spirit and save $200 when they order three or more kits.

The business of recreational genetics has always been about making money off of the public’s often-misplaced fascination with DNA – even when the product isn’t able to say very much about the consumer. Given the exuberance brought by the holiday season, don’t be surprised if you end up unwrapping one of these gifts in the next few weeks. 

Nature Makes News

Posted by Pete Shanks on December 11th, 2008


The current edition of Nature includes a remarkable Commentary (free online until December 18th) that advocates the use of "cognitive-enhancing drugs." It's co-written by researchers from six prominent universities in the US and UK (Hank Greely is lead) and by the editor of the magazine.

They state forthrightly that in the article they "propose actions that will help society accept the benefits of enhancement" although they blithely acknowledge that it is "too early to know whether any of these new drugs will be proven safe and effective."

The piece has provoked a minor storm of controversy (about which the editor is doubtless shocked, shocked to hear). The best line came first from George Annas, quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle: "What were they smoking?" It was also used by Christopher Wanjek at LiveScience, who calls the Nature commentary "ivory tower intellectualism at its best" (shouldn't that be worst?) and makes some strong points about side-effects, especially given long-term usage.

Nature's own Forum includes many strongly critical comments, as well as a few supportive ones. Here are some excerpts:

  • I think this is probably the silliest idea I have yet heard being suggested by some otherwise really smart people.
  • [H]ow totally irresponsible to suggest that we healthy people now need to take drugs to compete! Which of the pharmaceutical companies are they trying to appease to obtain a grant for their study?
  • Surely you jest. Where is your evidence? Where are your randomized controlled trials? Where are your benefit/risk analyses? Where is your conscience? Do any of you remember "First, do no harm?" How did any of you ever qualify for a medical license?
  • Shame on the authors of this commentary.... Replace "cognitive enhancement drugs" in this commentary with "genetic and reproductive manipulation" and we end up with an argument for eugenics. Shameful.
  • [T]he authors are wrapped up in these intellectual arguments - their ivory tower - to such a degree that they can't see how coercive and desperate the environment they drop their pro-doping argument into is....  How can anyone be so oblivious: the authors' many and well-argued calls for research and education will be largely ignored, while only their licensing of brain doping will get though....
  • [I]t is a bit like the entire "penis enlargement" industry that makes profits on the backs of sexual insecurity as opposed to real need. Who DOESN’T wonder if they are smart or attentive enough? You can start backing up the snake oil tanker trucks now.

Nature has been on this subject for at least a year, since publishing "Professor's Little Helper" last December (co-authored by Barbara Sahakian, one of the authors of the latest piece). They have run correspondence arising from that, conducted a survey on neuroenhancement, and maintain a public Forum. In other words, this seems like a campaign.

Bizarre Cloners and Serious Questions

Posted by Marcy Darnovsky on December 10th, 2008

[Cross-posted from "What's New in Life Science Research," at ScienceBlogs]

Obligatory puns notwithstanding, cloning - of humans, animals, and embryos for stem cells - is no laughing matter.The various applications raise different serious concerns, many of which have been discussed on this blog.

But before we leave the topic, it would be a shame not to note that the field has attracted more than its share of bizarre figures. The record is amusing to consider, in a sick sort of way, and important as a cautionary tale about the consequences of a free-for-all approach to human biotechnologies. Here are a few of the most colorful of the cloning characters...

Richard Seed is a Chicago physicist turned biologist who touched off a media storm with his January 1998 announcement that he would soon open a cloning clinic. According to Wikipedia, Seed first said that he would produce cloned babies for infertile couples, and later talked about cloning himself and his wife. Seed told NPR, "God intended for man to become one with God. Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God."

Rael - formerly a race car test driver named Claude Vorilhon - is the leader of a religious cult that believes human beings were created by alien cloners. The Raelians founded a human cloning company called Clonaid in 1997; announced in 2000 that an anonymous US couple had given them $1 million to clone their dead daughter from preserved cells, and claimed in 2002 that a cloned baby named Eve had been born. The Raelians were covered worldwide in news stories and editorials; Rael, bedecked in robes and a top-knot hairdo, testified at a US Congressional hearing.

Hwang Woo-suk is the South Korean cloning scientist who was lauded around the world for having produced the first stem cell lines using SCNT, and hailed by his government as its "Supreme Scientist" - until it became known that in fact he had perpetrated the scientific fraud that Science Magazine called "one of the most audacious ever committed." He also embezzled something like $3 million in state funds and private donations, and landed more than a dozen women in the hospital after egg retrieval procedures. He is currently cloning dogs with BioArts, the company that Alexandra Stern mentioned in her post earlier this week.

Bernann McKinney (shown here with one of the clones of her dog Booger) is the first customer of the dog cloning company RNL Bio, which is competing with - and fighting about patent rights with - Hwang's firm. She is a former beauty pageant queen who kidnapped a Mormon missionary with whom was obsessed, holding him at a remote cottage in Britain as her sex slave for days. She fled to Canada disguised as a mime, and then went into hiding in the US disguised as a nun. The dog that she had RNL Bio clone was a pit bull named Booger; she originally obtained him by breaking into an animal shelter where he was scheduled to be euthanized after he had attacked some joggers. As of August 2008, she was wanted in Tennessee, where she is accused of convincing a 15-year-old to break into a house so that she could buy a prosthetic leg for her three-legged horse.

Taking stock of all this, it would be easy, as the Center for Genetics and Society's Jesse Reynolds put it, to "dismiss the cloning endeavor as nothing but a freak show." But, Reynolds continues, that's not a good idea:

Despite a broad consensus that human reproductive cloning should be banned (as it already is in about sixty countries), there's no shortage of bioethicists and pundits who fail to see anything wrong in the practice, and supposed cloning opponents who limit their concern to matters of safety.

Time to Put Research Cloning on the Back Burner

Posted by Marcy Darnovsky on December 10th, 2008


[Cross-posted from "What's New in Life Science Research" at ScienceBlogs]

I agree with Mike's first point: By now - more than 12 years since the birth of the first cloned mammal, and 10 years since stem cells were first extracted from human embryos - most people understand the difference between cloning for reproduction and cloning for research purposes.

But I think his suggestion that people are wary of SCNT because creating replacement organs seems like magic is way off base. There is a lot of magical thinking going on about SCNT, but most of it has originated with advocates of cloning-based stem cell research who have irresponsibly hyped SCNT as an imminent miracle cure.

In fact, there's been very little progress in cloning-based stem cell research in more than a decade. And even if its considerable technical and logistical challenges were ever overcome, SCNT would be an ethically problematic approach to regenerative medicine - for several reasons that have nothing to do with the moral status of human embryos.

Over the past year, some of the world's top cloning scientists - including Ian Wilmut of Dolly-the-cloned-sheep fame - have announced that they're abandoning their SCNT work. The scientific and medical justifications for SCNT are getting weaker, and the social and ethical problems it raises aren't going away. It's time to put SCNT on the back burner.

Here's why.

It's worth stressing - since so many news stories (not to mention blog posts) are misleading on this point - that SCNT has produced not one human stem cell. And work on it is a very small part of the stem cell world: Only a small number of labs remain interested in trying it, and that number has diminished over the past year as work with cell reprogramming techniques has advanced.

Cell reprogramming looks likely to achieve the very thing that made SCNT so hypothetically compelling: disease-specific and patient-specific stem cells that can do all the tricks "ordinary" embryonic stem cells can do. It raises other concerns, but at least it uses ordinary body cells instead of embryos and eggs.

The scenario in which research cloning would produce "personal repair kits" for each of us was always extraordinarily unlikely. By their nature, SCNT-based treatments would be so expensive that they'd constitute a kind of "designer medicine," out of reach except for the extremely wealthy.

Is it possible that SCNT, along with cell reprogramming, could still be useful as a research tool for studying early disease development or testing drugs? Yes, but SCNT poses other problems.

The Ethics of Eggs

Here's a big one: SCNT requires very large numbers of human eggs. And procuring eggs is an invasive and time-consuming process that puts women at risk of adverse reactions, some of which can be quite serious, even life-threatening.

Remember Hwang Woo-suk, the Korean cloning scientist whose published claims of producing stem cells with SCNT turned out to be fraudulent? Hwang also lied about having found a way to reduce the number of eggs required for SCNT. When a real count was made, it turned out that he'd used over 2200 eggs collected from 119 women. He'd neglected to properly inform many of them about the risks. He'd coerced some of them - including junior researchers in his own lab - to have their eggs extracted. And in violation of Korean law, he'd paid more than half of them - several said they'd agreed because they desperately needed money. Twenty percent of the women whose eggs he'd used experienced serious adverse reactions, and 16 were hospitalized.

The prospect of an increased demand for eggs raised concerns early on about exploiting economically vulnerable women - and that was before the current economic collapse. That's why a number of countries (including Canada, France, China), states (including California), and scientific bodies (including the National Academies of Sciences) have ruled or recommended that women who provide eggs for cloning-based research be reimbursed for their expenses, but not paid more than that.

But the U.S. still doesn't have a federal law that limits payments or establishes other rules to protect women who provide eggs for SCNT research. For that matter, the U.S. - unlike dozens of other countries, including all of those in which SCNT research is known to be taking place - still hasn't passed a law against reproductive cloning.

For these reasons and more, I think it's both too early and too late to continue SCNT research: too early because the regulations that would be required to ensure it could be done responsibly aren't in place, and too late because SCNT is an idea whose time has passed.

Displaying 995-998 of 1341  
< Prev  Next >> 
« First Page Last Page » 
« Show Complete List » 



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