Cloning

Researchers in the United Kingdom have succeeded in coaxing human embryonic stem cells into becoming sperm. Though the process is inefficient and there is some debate over whether the sperm are fully developed, this work will hopefully lead to a much-needed experimental system for understanding the biology of sperm development.

The more controversial and longer-term outcome, as suggested by the lead researcher, Dr. Karim Nayernia, is that stem cells might one day be used to generate sperm as a treatment for male infertility.

It’s worth pointing out that the same researcher accomplished a similar feat in 2006 using mouse embryonic stem cells to produce mouse sperm.  Only in this case, the experiment was taken one step farther – the sperm were injected into mouse eggs.  Though the mothers gave birth to live pups, they suffered from many abnormalities. All died within 5 months.

This example illustrates the technical and ethical challenges in moving reproductive technologies from the lab to the clinic. There really isn’t an easy path. It also should serve as a reminder that the United States needs to address the relative vacuum in efficacy, safety, and ethical oversight for the rapidly developing field of reproductive technology (a ~$10 billion/yr industry).

In the UK, reproductive technologies are closely regulated at the federal level by a governing body known as the Human Fertilisation and Embrology Authority (HFEA). The UK has carefully crafted rules on the research and clinical use of gametes (sperm/eggs), human cloning, genetic technologies as applied to human embryos or gametes, etc. In this case, any procreative use of sperm created from stem cells is prohibited.

In the United States there are few rules. The practice of medicine, by and large, is regulated at the state level. Our federal government leaders have been unwilling to call for a national discussion on implementing uniform rules for gamete donation, embryo creation, research, storage, etc. (a report from the 2004 Presidential Council on Bioethics notwithstanding). In fact, when Canada passed its Assisted Human Reproduction Act in 2004, it left the United States as one of the few developed nations without a national policy.

The result has been lax medical oversight, introduction of new technologies without sufficient studies on safety, and a piecemeal collection of rules.

The progress coming from the UK reminds us that we need to have a national discussion soon.

Welcome to the new Science in Society blog.  It’s official. We’re live.

The goal of this blog is to share Northwestern University’s broad range of scientific interest and perspective. Accordingly, we’ve assembled a group of thoughtful individuals representing the university community: scientists & non-scientists, staff, faculty, and students. (Read more…)

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

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

Scientists attending the opening of the first World Science Festival in New York City had harsh words for US politicians and the low priority they have given science in recent years.  Critics chided the government’s stagnant federal funding for research, and the views of some officials that intelligent design is a scientific alternative to evolution.

Somewhat surprisingly, even the 2008 presidential candidates seem reluctant to tackle the tough scientific issues facing our country. The Science Debate 2008 initiative, supported by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and hundreds of universities (including Northwestern), has invited the Clinton, McCain, and Obama camps to an organized debate on issues of science and technology. Thus far, none of the candidates have agreed to participate.

Original Article

Every two years, the National Science Board analyzes the health of the United States science and technology enterprise. In addition to measuring a variety of economic indicators, the board examines the effectiveness of science and math education at all levels, from K-12 to adults. This report is an important tool for policymakers and the public alike because of state-based, national, and international scope. 

The news for 2008 is mixed. While the US still maintains a strong economic advantage versus other countries, this lead is weakening. In 2002 the US trade balance in advanced technology products shifted from surplus to deficit. Our economy is increasingly becoming reliant on foreign workers, particularly those from southeast Asia, where economic growth is robust. 

Federal investment in academic research is expected to decline for the third year in a row, the first time this has happened since 1982. 

On the education front, the US continues to lag behind other countries in science and math education. Education is obviously an important element of a country’s ability to sustain a robust science and technology enterprise. 

On the good side, a 2006 study revealed that nearly 90% of Americans support government funding for research. In fact 41% of those polled feel the government does not spend enough on basic research. 

A very user-friendly version of the report can be found here: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/digest08/nsb0802.pdf

The Food and Drug Administration has determined that meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring is safe to consume, following a seven year study. Congress and some consumer groups are pushing for more testing, while smaller companies who are using the technology welcome the news.