Last week the Catholic Church’s solidified its official position against the use of assisted reproductive technologies with the release of a new position paper, Dignitas Personae -– Latin for “the dignity of a person.” It had been more than two decades since the Vatican had weighed in on issues like in vitro fertilization, embryo freezing, and embryo genetic testing. These technologies have grown significantly in use over the last 20 years.

The Church condemned technologies in which embryos may be lost, including in vitro fertilization and embryonic stem cell research. However, it is well-known that many Catholic families use in vitro fertilization to overcome issues of infertility, and not all Catholic clergy agree that in vitro fertilization is morally unacceptable.

Somewhat surprisingly, the document does not universally condemn genetic therapies designed to alleviate suffering or cure disease – even if these therapies might be passed down from generation to generation.  The document states, “Because the risks connected to any genetic manipulation are considerable and as yet not fully controllable, in the present state of research [emphasis added], it is not morally permissible to act in a way that may cause possible harm to the resulting progeny.“ 

Dignitas Personae is available online at the Vatican’s website.

Original Article

Pharmaceutical giants Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Eli Lilly have asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require that patients take a genetic test before receiving their anti-cancer drugs.

The move is designed to identify those patients whose cancers are most likely to respond to a particular drug, speeding the course of treatment and reducing potentially harmful side effects. Recent genetic studies have shown that certain classes of drugs are completely ineffective in patients whose cancers are of a particular genetic subtype. It’s also well-known that individuals metabolize drugs differently, based on their genetic makeup.

For example, in 2007 the FDA approved a genetic test for patients taking warfarin, an anti-clotting drug. Dangerous side effects can occur in patients whose genes limit their ability to metabolize the drug. The FDA also recently approved a genetic test to determine which patients are good candidates for the anti-breast cancer drug Herceptin.

For more on this topic, see Dr. Rex Chisholm’s feature article on personalized medicine.

Original Article

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that CNN’s seven-person science and technology reporting group, led by anchor Miles O’Brien, has been shut down. The move is reportedly editorial, not economic. A CNN spokesperson says that science and technology reporting will be now be moved into Anderson Cooper 360’s “Planet in Peril” series.

Why CNN would chose to do this isn’t exactly clear. Many of the most pressing issues affecting our country have deep science and technology roots: energy, health care, climate change, and even national security. In fact, a report released this week by a US government bipartisan commission noted that the US is likely to be targeted with a biological weapons attack in the next five years. With seven fewer reporters on the job, in-depth coverage of these important issues will be scant.

Perhaps the first story for “Planet in Peril” could be the growing media disinterest in covering science. The topic would be especially appropriate for a planet in peril.

Original Article

In 2004, California voters passed Proposition 71, which provided $3 billion in taxpayer-funded research support for stem cell research. The money is to be spent at a rate of $300 million per year for 10 years.

According to San Diego Union-Tribune, $614 million has been distributed in the form of research grants thus far, but none of these grants have been for projects whose goal is to create stem cells through a process known as therapeutic cloning. The problem has not been ethical opposition, or a lack of research groups requesting funds for therapeutic cloning. Rather, the research has been stopped by a shortage of women willing to donate their eggs.

Therapeutic cloning is a technique used to produce embryonic stem cells that are genetically matched to a particular recipient. Genetically matching “donor” stem cells with their recipient is important to prevent rejection by the recipient’s immune system, in the same way that organ transplants must be carefully matched.

The technique starts with an unfertilized egg donated from a woman. The genetic material of the donor egg cell is removed and replaced with the genetic material of the recipient. The egg then chemically activated, making it divide to an early embryonic stage. Stem cells can then be collected that are a perfect immunological match for the recipient. The technique has been accomplished in monkeys, but never in humans (a South Korean research team’s claim to have done this in 2004 was subsequently proved fraudulent). Another description of therapeutic cloning can be found at the University of Utah’s genetics site.

Unfortunately, donating eggs is a somewhat lengthy and risky process, which includes taking fertility drugs and being subjected to medical procedures. Individuals who donate eggs to fertility clinics for reproductive purposes (e.g. making a baby) are usually compensated at a rate of $3,000-5,000. However, in California, egg donors for stem cell research are banned from accepting compensation, aside from reimbursement for time away from work and transportation costs. The reason for the ban is so that money will not be a factor in a person’s decision to donate. Not surprisingly, there are few donors.

However, researchers have argued strongly in favor of compensating donors, leveling the field for women who donate for research versus reproductive purposes. In fact, women in the UK undergoing infertility treatments have been “encouraged” to donate eggs in exchange for discounted medical services. This approach has apparently yielded some success.

A 2007 New York Times article further explores the pros and cons of paying women for eggs.

Original Article

Shannon Brownlee and Ezekiel Emanuel, two scholars from the National Insitutes of Health, tackle five common health care myths in this Washington Post article:

1. America has the best health-care in the world 
2. Someone else is paying for your health insurance 
3. We would save a lot if we could cut the administrative waste of private insurance 
4. Health-care reform is going to cost a bundle 
5. Americans aren’t ready for a major overhaul of the health-care system

Clearly, the issue of health-care has struck a nerve with Washington Post readers.  In the last week, it has received 175 comments.

Original Article

This Scientific American article explores how magicians use the brain’s wiring to produce illusions.

For example, “change blindness” is the tendency of a viewer not to notice significant visual changes in a particular scene if they are masked by a temporary flicker, rapid movement, or other interruption (for a dramatic demonstration, watch this video). Because the pre- and post-change environments cannot be compared side by side, the changes are missed.

The article gives other neat examples, too, like the tendency of our visual system to follow movement, which can be covertly manipulated by the magician with head or hand movements.  Straight or curved hand motions affect our visual system in different ways, producing different levels of attention on the gesture.

Original Article