Tag: Genetic Engineering

The big news on the genetic revolution front

It seems like every week brings
new developments and breakthroughs in Genetic Engineering, and few announcements
have been bigger than the report that a team of University of Wisconsin-Madison
scientists were able to cultivate human stem cells. The possibilities
for future medical advances from this discovery are amazing.

The most immediate likely
use of the technology will be new diagnostic tests to screen hundreds
of thousands of compounds for possible medicinal properties. Ironic, isn’t
it — yet another technology that animal rights activists abhor might
ultimately lead to a further reduction in the number of animals used in
the drug development process (makes you kind of wonder where animal
rights activists think alternatives to animal testing come from. Do they
think they just drop from the sky?)

In the long run, the work
with stem cells could lead to all sorts of breathtaking developments from
growing heart muscle and brain tissue for transplantation to enhancing
understanding of the development of human embryos.

“Our hope is that these
cells could be grown in the laboratory and then used to regenerate failing
tissue,” said Thomas Okarma, vice president for research and development
at Geron Corporation, which paid for some of the stem cell research. “Because
these cells do not age, they could be used to generate virtually a limitless
supply of cells and tissues for transplantation.”

Could animal rights activist be wrong about gene therapy?

For the past few months animal
rights groups and activists have been repeating the same old line about
new advances in Genetic Engineering — it’ll never work, it’s cruel because
some of it uses animals, and it is being pushed just so greedy companies
can bilk people out of their money.

So imagine my surprise when
it was announced this week that the first genetic therapy to correct a
human health problem has been tested and appears to work rather well.
The experiment involved injecting a gene for a protein that helps the
heart build new blood vessels to relieve chest pains from angina. The
16 patients who received the injections of vascular endothelia growth
factor suffer from clogged arteries but were considered to week to undergo
bypass surgery or angioplasty.

Sixteen patients of Dr. Jeffrey
Isner of St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center in Boston who suffered from extreme
chest pains with even minor exertions all saw substantial improvements
in their angina. Of 11 patients who were followed up after three months,
six were entirely free of pain.

One of the patients, farmer
Floyd Stokes from DeLeon Texas, described his experience on the new treatment,
“One Sunday morning I woke up and told my wife I hadn’t felt so good
in 15 years. I felt fantastic.”

More studies are required to measure
the long term improvement to decide whether this treatment is more efficacious
than currently available treatments, but so far the results are promising.
Thank goodness these researchers weren’t listening when animal rights
activists said genetic engineering would never work.

Animal rights activists oppose xenotransplantation

Every year thousands of people die
who would have lived if it weren’t for the continuing shortage of organs
available for transplantation. Scientists around the world are working
to solve this shortage, but animal rights activists are opposing them
at every turn.

The most viable short term solution
is Xenotransplantation — genetically engineered organs from animals that
can be transplanted into human beings. Currently most such development
is concentrated on developing pig organs as a possible source for human
transplantation. Biotech companies are working at genetically modifying
the pig organs so the human recipient is less likely to reject them.

Animal rights activists, of course,
hate the idea of using pigs to do something as frivolous as save a human
life. Mike Baker, head of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection,
said developments in xenotransplantation represent “a very backward
step in terms of animal welfare [that] could pose serious health risks
to the human population.”

A group calling itself the Campaign for Responsible Transplantation is already circulating a petition to ban
all animal-to-human transplantation and environmental groups are also
jumping on the bandwagon, citing the possibility of a deadly virus passing
from animals to human beings in the transplantation process.

While the viral issue is certainly
a serious one, it is being addressed by regulatory agencies in the United
States and Europe responsible for approval of medical products. In both
the United States and Europe, for example, regulatory agencies are developing
strict monitoring protocols for tracking all infections and diseases contracted
by human recipients of xenotransplantation in addition to the rigorous
safeguards to minimize the risk of a crossover disease in the first place.
Unfortunately, the animal rights and environmental activists
seem unlikely to be satisfied with anything but zero risk, which of course
is impossible in any human endeavor (after all, the risk that a deadly
disease will cross over from pigs to human beings just from normal contact
on farms is not zero as the various influenza pandemics are evidence of,
though there are ways to minimize the risk).

Xenotransplantation is simply the
best chance we have to save thousands of lives around the world. Lets
hope animal rights activist and environmentalist extremists don’t close
off this important area of research before scientists even get to explore
it fully.

Sources:

“Animal organs could save people if the body would accept them,”
Lauran Neergaard, The Associated Press, September 17, 1998.

“Biotech regulations: paving the way for British xenotransplantations,”
Nigel Williams, Science Magazine, August 6, 1998.

Campaign for Responsible Transplantation petition, http://host.envirolink.org/crt/petition.pl

Scientists need to better educate the public

Dr. Leroy E. Hood, a genetics researcher
at the University of Washington at Seattle, told a gathering of genetics
researchers that they need to spend more of their time educating the public
on the benefits and ethical challenges of science.

Hood told the researchers gathered
for the Short Course on Experimental and Mammalian Genetics that the coming
years will bring major advances that could potentially revolutionize medical
treatment. At the same time change is coming at such a breakneck pace
that the public is falling further behind and is occasionally caught up in
distorted images about genetics research.

“Scientists say they’re
too busy with their own research and teaching,” Hood told the researchers,
“Well, everyone is busy. It’s a matter of priorities. A scientifically
literate public is important to many areas of research, including getting
it funded.”

Hood’s comments couldn’t
come a moment too soon. Already movements on either side of the Atlantic
are gearing up to protest and perhaps outlaw much of the results of genetic
engineering altogether. Greenpeace and others lead protests against genetically
altered plants while animal rights groups protest and occasionally destroy
research into promising areas of Xenotransplantation (transplanting animal
cells into human beings). If scientists don’t wake up and meet these
challenges head on, the issue might not be whether or not they can get
funded but whether or not they can legally continue to do their important
work.

Source:

Scientists urged to help public understand science. Michael Woods, Toledo Blade, July 30, 1998.

Scientists find DNA cure for genetic deafness in mice

Researchers at the University of
Michigan Medical School recently accomplished the first permanent correction
of a deafness-related genetic mutation. The experiment was performed with shaker-2
mice — a strain of mice born that is born deaf due to genetic defects.

Scientists used a Genetic Engineering technology
to first locate the gene responsible for the deafness and then injected
short sections of normal cloned DNA into fertilized mouse eggs. On June
23, 1997 the first shaker-2 mouse without the genetic defects was born.
The results were reported in the May 29, 1998 issue of Science.

The discovery of the defective
gene in mice quickly led researchers to find a nearly identical gene in
human beings that may be responsible for some cases of congenital deafness
in human beings.

“Interaction between scientists
working with the mouse genome and the human genome made it possible to
locate these genes so quickly,” said Sally A. Camper, associate professor
of human genetics at the U-M Medical School. “It’s a perfect
example of how transgenic technology in mice can contribute to research
with the potential to help people.”

Camper noted that there are 12
other related forms of deafness-related mutations in which the responsible
gene remains unknown and that “finding the defective gene is the
first step toward developing new treatments which someday could restore
hearing in children and adults.”

The UM scientist now hope to find
a way to deliver the normal gene into the cells of adult animals. “The
next step is to develop delivery vehicles to introduce the normal gene
into inner ear cells of individuals who carry these deafness genes,”
said Yehoash Raphael, assistant professor of otolaryngology at the UM
Medical school. “Once adequate vectors are available, gene therapy
for genetic-based deafness will become a reality.”

Source:

“DNA cure of genetic deafness in mice helps human research,” UniSci
Science and Research News, May 29, 1998.

Switzerland overwhelmingly rejects ban on genetic engineering of animals, plants

Opponents of Genetic Engineering
of animals and plants had been cautiously optimistic about the chances
of Switzerland becoming the first nation to pass a referendum banning
genetic engineering. Instead more than 65 percent of Swiss citizens voted
no on the proposed constitutional change, sending it down to a huge defeat.

Switzerland is home to close to
200 firms that conduct genetic research, including pharmaceutical giants
Novartis and Roche who aggressively opposed the proposed ban.

Source:

“Swiss oppose ban on genetic research and production,” Nando.net,
June 7, 1998.

“Swiss voters reject curbs on genetic engineering,” CNN, June 7, 1998.