A lady in a faded gingham dress and her husband, dressed in a homespun threadbare suit, stepped off the train in Boston, and walked timidly without an appointment into the outer office of the President of Harvard University. The secretary could tell in a moment that such backwoods, country hicks had no business at Harvard and probably didn't even deserve to be in
Cambridge. She frowned. "We want to see the president," the man said softly. "He'll be busy all day," the secretary snapped. "We'll wait," the lady replied. For hours, the secretary ignored them, hoping that the couple would finally become discouraged and go away. They didn't. And the secretary grew frustrated and finally decided to disturb the president, even though it
was a chore she always regretted to do. "Maybe if they just see you for a few minutes, they'll leave," she told him. And he signed in exasperation and nodded. Someone of his importance obviously didn't have the time to spend with them, but he detested gingham dresses and homespun suits cluttering up his outer office. The president, stern-faced with dignity, strutted toward the couple.
The lady told him, "We had a son that attended Harvard for one year. He loved Harvard. He was happy here. But about a year ago, he was accidentally killed. And my husband and I would like to erect a memorial to him, somewhere on campus." The president wasn't touched; he was shocked. "Madam," he said gruffly, "We can't put up a statue for every person who attended Harvard and died. If we did, this place would look like a cemetery." "Oh, no," the lady explained quickly, "We don't want to erect a statue. We thought we would like to give a building to Harvard. The president rolled his eyes. He glanced at the gingham dress and homespun suit, then exclaimed, "A building! Do you have any earthly idea how much a building costs? We
have over seven and a half million dollars in the physical plant at Harvard." For a moment the lady was silent. The president was pleased. He could get rid of them now. And the lady turned to her husband and said quietly, "Is that all it costs to start a University? Why don't we just start our own?" Her husband nodded. The president's face wilted in confusion and bewilderment.
And Mr. and Mrs. Leland Stanford walked away, traveling to Palo Alto, California, where they established the University that bears their name, a memorial to a son that Harvard no longer cared about.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Egg Recovery from 5 year olds
Israeli researchers have reported extracting eggs from girls as young as 5 years old with cancer, then maturing them and freezing them for future use. The scientists were surprised to find oocytes in follicles from several girls who had not yet reached puberty, including seven in a 5-year-old girl with Wilm’s tumor, and eight in an 8-year-old with Ewing’s sarcoma.
Using needle aspiration, they were able to collect 167 oocytes in total – an average of 8.5 per patient – which were then matured in vitro and frozen. The median age of participants was 16 years, and oocytes were found in all but one girl. The findings, presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology 23rd annual meeting in Lyon, France, could offer an alternative to transplanting ovarian tissue, which is less resistant to freezing than oocytes and may contain cancerous cells.Lead researcher Ariel Revel, from Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem, admitted that no eggs had yet been thawed and his team did not know whether any pregnancies would result. However, he added: “We are hopeful that the mature eggs can offer these girls a realistic possibility of preserving their fertility.” In India, we are eons away from cutting edge research - especially Fertility Preservation. We are however at par in clinical medicine with the best in the world. If only research was given importance & weightage in undergraduate & post-graduate examinations, we would top there as well. It is high time that our policy makers bring in this radical curriculum change so that India does not slip off the research map despite being projected as one of the BRIC tigers of the next decade.
Using needle aspiration, they were able to collect 167 oocytes in total – an average of 8.5 per patient – which were then matured in vitro and frozen. The median age of participants was 16 years, and oocytes were found in all but one girl. The findings, presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology 23rd annual meeting in Lyon, France, could offer an alternative to transplanting ovarian tissue, which is less resistant to freezing than oocytes and may contain cancerous cells.Lead researcher Ariel Revel, from Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem, admitted that no eggs had yet been thawed and his team did not know whether any pregnancies would result. However, he added: “We are hopeful that the mature eggs can offer these girls a realistic possibility of preserving their fertility.” In India, we are eons away from cutting edge research - especially Fertility Preservation. We are however at par in clinical medicine with the best in the world. If only research was given importance & weightage in undergraduate & post-graduate examinations, we would top there as well. It is high time that our policy makers bring in this radical curriculum change so that India does not slip off the research map despite being projected as one of the BRIC tigers of the next decade.
Monday, August 6, 2007
The Commerce of Human Genes
Nearly a fifth of all known human genes have been patented in the US, the majority by private companies, a new study reveals. The research, published in the journal Science, matched patented genes to their locations in the human genome. It showed that almost 4382 of the 23,688 genes present in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Gene database are claimed in 4270 different patents. Around 63 per cent of them are assigned to private firms, say authors Kyle Jensen and Fiona Murray of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Critics of gene patenting argue that it stifles research, slows down the development of new medicines and increases the cost of genetic diagnostic tests. The worldwide patenting of two genes involved in hereditary breast cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2, by US firm Myriad Genetics, was met with strong opposition by scientists in Europe. Following a series of challenges, nearly all the patents were either revoked or amended, so that most BRCA gene testing can now be carried out free of charge in European laboratories.
However, supporters of gene patenting say that protecting intellectual property is crucial for securing investment in later research, and central to the success of the biotech industry. In the latest study, the researchers wanted to gain an accurate picture of the gene patents taken out in the US. They found that the 4270 patents are owned by 1156 different assignees, with nine of the top ten being US-based. The top patent assignee is Incyte Pharmaceuticals/Incyte Genomics, whose intellectual property rights cover 2000 human genes.
The researchers found that many genes were claimed by several different patents - CDKN2A, a gene involved in cancer, and the bone growth gene BMP7 are the most patented genes in the genome, with 20 patents each. 'Our data raise a number of concerns about gene patents, particularly for heavily patented genes', said Murray. 'We worry about the costs to society if academic scientists and industry have to walk through a complex maze of patents in order to make more progress in their research', she told National Geographic magazine.
Commenting on the study, Helen Wallace, of the UK pressure group Genewatch, told the Guardian newspaper that gene patenting 'encourages a search for genes, when many problems with health could be addressed by better research into diet, social and economic factors'. UK bioethicist John Harris said that the pharmaceutical industry argues that they need to protect the products of their research, otherwise they would not invest in future research. 'However, I worry this kind of patenting could have impacts on the cost of health and the freedom to access it', he added.
The charity Cancer Research UK (CRUK) has obtained a Europe-wide patent on the BRCA2 gene, which is involved in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. It intends to make the patent freely available to publicly-funded laboratories across the continent, so that research and diagnostic work on the gene can continue. The situation was previously complicated by patents held by US firm Myriad Genetics, on BRCA2 and another gene involved in breast cancer, called BRCA1.
Most breast and ovarian cancers are not inherited, but around 5-10 per cent are caused by inherited mutations - many of them in one of two genes, called BRCA1 and BRCA2. Myriad Genetics has faced criticism from scientists, governments and patient groups opposed to the patents that it holds on tests that look for mutations in these two genes. However, CRUK holds a UK patent on BRCA2, which is apparently wider than Myriad's and so covers more applications.
Cancer Research Technologies Limited (CRT), the commercial subsidiary of CRUK, has now successfully applied for a European patent on BRCA2, and has agreed to waive the fees for all public laboratories wishing to work on the gene. 'Myriad had been trying to offer commercial deals to researchers working on BRCA1 and 2' said John Toy, medical director of CRUK, adding that 'our patents will break that gridlock'.
CRUK was granted the BRCA2 patent on the basis that it funded much of the work that lead to the gene's discovery, at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, in 1995. The announcement was welcomed by Gert Matthijs, of University Hospital Leuven, in Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Society of Human Genetics. He told The Scientist magazine that the BRCA2 patent issue illustrates why Europe needs new legislation on the licensing of genes and genetic tests. 'If someone holds a patent on a gene, it creates a monopoly because no-one can invent a competing product as they could with other items, such as drugs' he explained.
Critics of gene patenting argue that it stifles research, slows down the development of new medicines and increases the cost of genetic diagnostic tests. The worldwide patenting of two genes involved in hereditary breast cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2, by US firm Myriad Genetics, was met with strong opposition by scientists in Europe. Following a series of challenges, nearly all the patents were either revoked or amended, so that most BRCA gene testing can now be carried out free of charge in European laboratories.
However, supporters of gene patenting say that protecting intellectual property is crucial for securing investment in later research, and central to the success of the biotech industry. In the latest study, the researchers wanted to gain an accurate picture of the gene patents taken out in the US. They found that the 4270 patents are owned by 1156 different assignees, with nine of the top ten being US-based. The top patent assignee is Incyte Pharmaceuticals/Incyte Genomics, whose intellectual property rights cover 2000 human genes.
The researchers found that many genes were claimed by several different patents - CDKN2A, a gene involved in cancer, and the bone growth gene BMP7 are the most patented genes in the genome, with 20 patents each. 'Our data raise a number of concerns about gene patents, particularly for heavily patented genes', said Murray. 'We worry about the costs to society if academic scientists and industry have to walk through a complex maze of patents in order to make more progress in their research', she told National Geographic magazine.
Commenting on the study, Helen Wallace, of the UK pressure group Genewatch, told the Guardian newspaper that gene patenting 'encourages a search for genes, when many problems with health could be addressed by better research into diet, social and economic factors'. UK bioethicist John Harris said that the pharmaceutical industry argues that they need to protect the products of their research, otherwise they would not invest in future research. 'However, I worry this kind of patenting could have impacts on the cost of health and the freedom to access it', he added.
The charity Cancer Research UK (CRUK) has obtained a Europe-wide patent on the BRCA2 gene, which is involved in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. It intends to make the patent freely available to publicly-funded laboratories across the continent, so that research and diagnostic work on the gene can continue. The situation was previously complicated by patents held by US firm Myriad Genetics, on BRCA2 and another gene involved in breast cancer, called BRCA1.
Most breast and ovarian cancers are not inherited, but around 5-10 per cent are caused by inherited mutations - many of them in one of two genes, called BRCA1 and BRCA2. Myriad Genetics has faced criticism from scientists, governments and patient groups opposed to the patents that it holds on tests that look for mutations in these two genes. However, CRUK holds a UK patent on BRCA2, which is apparently wider than Myriad's and so covers more applications.
Cancer Research Technologies Limited (CRT), the commercial subsidiary of CRUK, has now successfully applied for a European patent on BRCA2, and has agreed to waive the fees for all public laboratories wishing to work on the gene. 'Myriad had been trying to offer commercial deals to researchers working on BRCA1 and 2' said John Toy, medical director of CRUK, adding that 'our patents will break that gridlock'.
CRUK was granted the BRCA2 patent on the basis that it funded much of the work that lead to the gene's discovery, at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, in 1995. The announcement was welcomed by Gert Matthijs, of University Hospital Leuven, in Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Society of Human Genetics. He told The Scientist magazine that the BRCA2 patent issue illustrates why Europe needs new legislation on the licensing of genes and genetic tests. 'If someone holds a patent on a gene, it creates a monopoly because no-one can invent a competing product as they could with other items, such as drugs' he explained.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Celebration Time
A chicken farmer went into a local tavern and took a seat at the bar next to a woman patron and orders a glass of champagne.
The woman perks up and says "How about that? I just ordered a glass of champagne, too!" He turned to her and said, "What a coincidence. This is a special day for me, I'm celebrating."
This is a special day for me, too, and I'm also celebrating!" said the woman. "What a coincidence." said the man. They clinked glasses and he asked, "What are you celebrating?" "My husband and I have been trying to have a child. Today, my gynecologist told me I'm pregnant!"
"What a coincidence." said the man. "I'm a chicken farmer. For years all my hens were infertile, but today they're finally fertile."
"That's great!" said the woman, "How did your chickens become fertile?"
"I switched cocks." he replied.
"What a coincidence," she said.
The woman perks up and says "How about that? I just ordered a glass of champagne, too!" He turned to her and said, "What a coincidence. This is a special day for me, I'm celebrating."
This is a special day for me, too, and I'm also celebrating!" said the woman. "What a coincidence." said the man. They clinked glasses and he asked, "What are you celebrating?" "My husband and I have been trying to have a child. Today, my gynecologist told me I'm pregnant!"
"What a coincidence." said the man. "I'm a chicken farmer. For years all my hens were infertile, but today they're finally fertile."
"That's great!" said the woman, "How did your chickens become fertile?"
"I switched cocks." he replied.
"What a coincidence," she said.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Odds and Ends
Two doctors opened an office in a small town and put up a sign reading "Dr. Smith and Dr. Jones, Psychiatry and Proctology."
The town council was not happy with the sign, so the doctors changed it to "Hysterias and Posteriors."
This was not acceptable either, so in an effort to satisfy the council they changed the sign to "Schizoids and Hemorrhoids." No go.
Next, they tried "Catatonics and High Colonics." Thumbs down again.
Then came "Manic Depressives and Anal Retentives." Still not good.
Another attempt resulted in "Minds and Behinds." Unacceptable again.
So they tried "Lost Souls and Ass Holes." No way.
"Analysis and Anal Cysts?" Nope.
"Nuts and Butts?" Uh uh.
"Freaks and Cheeks?" Still no go.
"Loons and Moons?" Forget it.
Almost at their wit's end, the doctors finally came up with: "Dr. Smith and Dr. Jones, Odds and Ends."
And they loved it.
The town council was not happy with the sign, so the doctors changed it to "Hysterias and Posteriors."
This was not acceptable either, so in an effort to satisfy the council they changed the sign to "Schizoids and Hemorrhoids." No go.
Next, they tried "Catatonics and High Colonics." Thumbs down again.
Then came "Manic Depressives and Anal Retentives." Still not good.
Another attempt resulted in "Minds and Behinds." Unacceptable again.
So they tried "Lost Souls and Ass Holes." No way.
"Analysis and Anal Cysts?" Nope.
"Nuts and Butts?" Uh uh.
"Freaks and Cheeks?" Still no go.
"Loons and Moons?" Forget it.
Almost at their wit's end, the doctors finally came up with: "Dr. Smith and Dr. Jones, Odds and Ends."
And they loved it.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Roman Catholic Bishops say hybrid embryos have right to life
The human-animal hybrid embryo is formed from an animal egg cell (most likely from cows or rabbits). Scientists want to use such embryos to create genetically human embryonic stem (ES) cells. This method would overcome difficulties associated with the collection of human eggs from donors, and would provide a much more fruitful source of embryos for scientists.This egg cell's nuclear DNA is removed and replaced with nuclear DNA from an adult human. The cell is then 'kick-started' - with a small electric shock - into commencing cell division. The embryo would be almost 100 per cent human - the only non-human DNA in the cell comes as part of the cell's mitochondria: apparatus for providing the cell with energy.
Currently, the vast majority of human eggs given by donors are for IVF treatment and not for research. A recent consultation by the HFEA entitled 'Donating Eggs for Research: Safeguarding Donors' stressed both the ethical and safety concerns associated with methods used to collect human eggs. The creation of human-animal hybrid embryos is safe in that it involves no human participant, except for the collection of a few skin cells. The voices arguing against the work are few; indeed there has been a distinct lack of comment pieces in the press supporting a potential ban. Naysayers rely on two arguments: a moral argument, and the prediction that this avenue of research will be useless. The practise of creating human-animal hybrid embryos is, they say, unnatural, and therefore immoral. This is a familiar reaction to new biological technology: IVF is 'unnatural', but is now accepted as a useful technology to aid fertility treatment. And although no one yet knows whether this research will prove fruitful, this should not be used as argument for banning the work. The proper action should be to let the research commence, and to monitor the results for potential benefits, or ethical concerns.
Two important points must be brought to the attention of the public:
1) The enormous potential that this avenue of research could hold. The 'could' should also be stressed. Nothing tangible has resulted from this work at this stage, but scientists agree that this line of research should not be closed before its potential fruits can be assessed.
2) The fact that there is absolutely no likelihood that this work could result in a 'hybrid-human' or any other 'Frankenstein's monster' type result. The subject of the research is cells, not animals. These embryos are a potentially useful research tool, and the potential for exploring new avenues of research should be welcomed.
The Roman Catholic Bishops of England (RCBE) have told the UK parliament that inter-species embryos - those containing genetic information from both human and animals - should not be treated any differently from 'normal' embryos, and that women should be given the chance to carry their genetic offspring to term.
There is currently a real shortage of human eggs for use in embryonic stem (ES) cell research. It is hoped the problem can be overcome through creating embryos by transferring human genetic material into 'hollowed out' animal eggs. The resulting entity - a 'cybrid' - would be over 99 per cent genetically human and less than one per cent animal. As it stands, the new draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill in the UK will ban the creation of embryos that contain genetic material from both animals and humans, but will make an exception for certain types of research, including cybrid embryos. The draft Bill imposes a strict 14 day time limit on the use of these entities in research, at which point they must be destroyed.
The RCBE and the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics told the parliamentary committee who are scrutinising the draft Bill: 'At the very least, embryos with a preponderance of human genes should be assumed to be embryonic human beings, and should be treated accordingly. In particular, it should not be a crime to transfer them, or other human embryos, to the body of the women providing the ovum, in cases where a human ovum has been used to create them'.
The RCBE have been accused of misunderstanding the science involved in creating such embryos. Cybrid embryos will have no 'mother'; rather, an animal ovum will be stripped of its genetic identity and used as an empty vessel to cultivate hES cells from cloned human cells. It is hoped that such research will lead to advances in treatment for devastating diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.
Liberal Democrat MP, Dr Evan Harris, has described the RCBE's position as 'absurd' and 'inconsistent', adding: 'Most of these embryos will be created using animal eggs, but even if they were created using human eggs, they would be created by cloning and the Catholic Church has previously opposed reproductive cloning of even fully human embryos'.
Currently, the vast majority of human eggs given by donors are for IVF treatment and not for research. A recent consultation by the HFEA entitled 'Donating Eggs for Research: Safeguarding Donors' stressed both the ethical and safety concerns associated with methods used to collect human eggs. The creation of human-animal hybrid embryos is safe in that it involves no human participant, except for the collection of a few skin cells. The voices arguing against the work are few; indeed there has been a distinct lack of comment pieces in the press supporting a potential ban. Naysayers rely on two arguments: a moral argument, and the prediction that this avenue of research will be useless. The practise of creating human-animal hybrid embryos is, they say, unnatural, and therefore immoral. This is a familiar reaction to new biological technology: IVF is 'unnatural', but is now accepted as a useful technology to aid fertility treatment. And although no one yet knows whether this research will prove fruitful, this should not be used as argument for banning the work. The proper action should be to let the research commence, and to monitor the results for potential benefits, or ethical concerns.
Two important points must be brought to the attention of the public:
1) The enormous potential that this avenue of research could hold. The 'could' should also be stressed. Nothing tangible has resulted from this work at this stage, but scientists agree that this line of research should not be closed before its potential fruits can be assessed.
2) The fact that there is absolutely no likelihood that this work could result in a 'hybrid-human' or any other 'Frankenstein's monster' type result. The subject of the research is cells, not animals. These embryos are a potentially useful research tool, and the potential for exploring new avenues of research should be welcomed.
The Roman Catholic Bishops of England (RCBE) have told the UK parliament that inter-species embryos - those containing genetic information from both human and animals - should not be treated any differently from 'normal' embryos, and that women should be given the chance to carry their genetic offspring to term.
There is currently a real shortage of human eggs for use in embryonic stem (ES) cell research. It is hoped the problem can be overcome through creating embryos by transferring human genetic material into 'hollowed out' animal eggs. The resulting entity - a 'cybrid' - would be over 99 per cent genetically human and less than one per cent animal. As it stands, the new draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill in the UK will ban the creation of embryos that contain genetic material from both animals and humans, but will make an exception for certain types of research, including cybrid embryos. The draft Bill imposes a strict 14 day time limit on the use of these entities in research, at which point they must be destroyed.
The RCBE and the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics told the parliamentary committee who are scrutinising the draft Bill: 'At the very least, embryos with a preponderance of human genes should be assumed to be embryonic human beings, and should be treated accordingly. In particular, it should not be a crime to transfer them, or other human embryos, to the body of the women providing the ovum, in cases where a human ovum has been used to create them'.
The RCBE have been accused of misunderstanding the science involved in creating such embryos. Cybrid embryos will have no 'mother'; rather, an animal ovum will be stripped of its genetic identity and used as an empty vessel to cultivate hES cells from cloned human cells. It is hoped that such research will lead to advances in treatment for devastating diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.
Liberal Democrat MP, Dr Evan Harris, has described the RCBE's position as 'absurd' and 'inconsistent', adding: 'Most of these embryos will be created using animal eggs, but even if they were created using human eggs, they would be created by cloning and the Catholic Church has previously opposed reproductive cloning of even fully human embryos'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)