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.

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.

You can read about my background here.  In a nutshell, I come from an eclectic mix of biochemistry, molecular biology, hockey, and art. And I’m passionate about communicating science with the public.

Why? For starters, it’s just plain fun. Science is truly a discipline always on the edge. Walk into a research lab – doesn’t matter if it’s chemistry, physics, or biology – and it’s possible you’ll witness an experiment being done for the first time in the history of man. Of course, it may fail miserably. Such is the process of science. Yet when it works, it leads to new experiments and collaborations, which lead to things like cancer therapies, the internet, solar panels, and tankless hot water heaters (homeowners, you need one of these).

It’s also true that scientists have an obligation to to inform and educate the public at large. Much of the basic research done at universities across the country is funded by your money (the taxpayer-funded budget for the National Institutes of Health last year was ~ $29 billion). It’s only reasonable that you ask, “What advances has my money helped support?”

Public policy also enters into the equation. We collectively need to make tough decisions about how to move forward on issues like stem cell biology and climate change. Key to making informed decisions is a basic understanding of 1) the problem, 2) available solutions, and 3) the downstream consequences. For any given issue, perfectly rational and educated people will disagree about 1-3. It happens all the time in labs, town halls, and pubs across the globe. The key is having a scientific understanding of the problem, along with its moral, legal, and social implications.

We hope this blog will highlight the issues and encourage the debate.  Please join us!

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

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

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

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