Mary Meets Dolly

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is gaining momentum and we are hearing more and more about it.  PGD is a kind of genetic testing that takes an IVF embryo and extracts a single cell.  That cell is then tested for genetic mutations.  The embryos that make the cut get implanted, those that are "defective" are most likely discarded.

Not only does PGD put the life of the embryo at risk during the single cell biopsy, but it makes the assumption that those embryos that are genetically "defective" have no worth.  No surprise that the Catholic Church says that PGD is unethical.

What I find distrubing about the PGD "buzz" is the rhetoric.  Many articles like this one from HULIQ.com describe PGD as if it "cures" disease.  Let us start with the title:

PGD Eliminates Threat of Hemophilia in Newborn Babies

It sounds like PGD eliminates hemophilia (or the genes that cause it) when it really just gets rid of the embryos that have it.  There is more:

PGD Treatment removes hemophilia from family bloodline.

By Lawrence B. Werlin, M.D., F.A.C.O.G.

Carriers of hemophilia, a serious blood-coagulation disorder affecting more than 20,000 Americans; can draw hope of eliminating the condition’s prevalence in subsequent generations from an advanced reproductive medical technique known as Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD).

Under the medical supervision of a specialist in reproductive endocrinology and infertility, couples are enabled to screen their embryos for the disease – which has an incidence rate of 400 babies per annum – and thereby remove the risk of giving birth to a child with hemophilia. For Michelle Rappaport, a hemophilia carrier who grew up watching her father suffer from the effects of the disease, PGD offered a way to remove its life-threatening affects from her family tree as well as future generations.

Once again it sounds like PGD fixes the genes that cause hemophilia: "PGD Treatment removes hemophilia from family bloodline."  and "PGD offered a way to remove its life-threatening affects from her family..." 

PGD does no such thing.  It just removes the embryos that have hemophilia from the bloodline.  It doesn't remove the "life-threatening affects of hemophilia", it just makes sure that no one with the disease ever gets born.

There is a huge difference.  And Dr. Werlin should know better.

Wesley J. Smith on the Hatch-Feinstein cloning ban that doesn't ban human cloning.

Senators Hatch and Feinstein want you to believe that their legislation actually bans human cloning, but its own provisions give it away as anything but.   

Hatch and Feinstein tell us that somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) isn't human cloning unless the product of SCNT (a cloned human embryo) is implanted in a uterus.  But, the bill would make it illegal to send the products of SCNT in humans to a country that has a ban on human cloning.  Why would that even be in there if SCNT wasn't really cloning?  If the product of SCNT isn't a human clone (like they say) why would there need to be any legislation to prevent it being sent to a country that bans human cloning?  Their own bill contradicts itself.  No surprise there.

Beware of any legislation that says it bans human cloning.  If it doesn't ban all somatic cell nuclear transfer in humans, it doesn't ban human cloning.

Ask a Catholic youth when human life begins and you may be surprised by the answer.  This weekend I spoke at a local Catholic youth conference on stem cell research and cloning.  I have also given courses in local middle schools on the subject.  I always begin by asking them when science says a new human life begins.  Out of probably 200 teenagers, only one of them got it right: conception.

They answered with "when there is a heartbeat," "at birth," "when there is blood."  But only one girl answered correctly.  I am astounded and dismayed everytime I ask the question because most of them have been educated in Catholic schools.  In fact, one girl was the daughter of friends of mine who I know have taught her about abortion and she said, "science says life begins at three months."

The light bulbs go on when I say that what we debate isn't when a new human life begins (or it shouldn't be). That is clear: a new distinct human organism, identifiable by his or her unique DNA, is created at conception.  What we debate is whether we should assign value to that life.  The hotly argued question isn't whether a human embryo is a human organism, but whether it has moral worth.

Then I ask them when the Catholic Church says human life begins, and they always say in unison: conception.

What a disconnect.  So next time you have the opportunity to talk to a Catholic youth, ask them when human life begins.  Their answer will no doubt surprise you.  Then it is your turn to enlighten them because clearly their science teachers aren't doing their job.

The headline says it all: IVF Mistakes: Making Sure the Baby is Yours.  Honestly.  And people think the Catholic Church is crazy for opposing manufacturing children in a dish.  Get a lode of the proposed methods for ensuring the right egg meets the right sperm so you don't get the "wrong child":

The Center for American Progress has a list of different faiths and their stance (or lack thereof) on embryonic stem cell research.  It is certainly an interesting read.  Here are some highlights:

Assemblies of God: The Assemblies of God oppose embryonic stem cell research, saying, “Potential medical benefits do not justify destroying human life at any stage of development.” The Assemblies also oppose somatic cell nuclear transfer on the basis that it involves “the creation and destruction of human life for medical research.”

The Catholic Church: There is some debate among Catholic ethicists, but the Catholic Church officially opposes embryonic stem cell research, frequently citing Pope John Paul II’s plea for a “culture of life,” grouping the science with abortion, euthanasia and “other attacks on innocent life.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: The LDS has not made a formal statement on embryonic stem cell research. Yet one interpretation of the Mormon doctrine of ensoulment states that “an individual human life only begins...when the spirit joins the physical body some time following conception.” Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), a Mormon, has used this interpretation to defend the research.

The Episcopal Church: The Episcopal Church supports embryonic stem cell research and was especially supportive of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 before it was vetoed by President Bush. A letter signed by two representatives of the church reads, “The Episcopal Church celebrates medical research as this research expands our knowledge of God's creation and empowers us to bring potential healing to those who suffer from disease or disability.”

The Lutheran Church: Missouri Synod: The Lutheran Church: Missouri Synod does not support embryonic stem cell research because the technology, citing 2001 Resolution 6.13, “necessarily involves the intentional destruction of human beings.” Research on adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood is supported by the LCMS.           

The Presbyterian Church (USA): The Presbyterian Church (USA) stated at their 213^th General Assembly in 2001 that, “With careful regulation, we affirm the use of human stem cell tissue for research that may result in the restoring of health to those suffering from serious illness.” Throughout its statement on the topic, the notion of responsibility is repeated several times, making it clear that although the church supports the research, the endorsement is not a blank check.

The Reformed Church in America: The Reformed Church in America states that “different sources of embryonic stem cells call for different moral evaluations.” The RCA is in favor of extracting stem cells from miscarried fetuses, but they are not supportive of the production of embryos for the explicit purpose of testing. The RCA also cautions against “using a surplus of embryos that would otherwise be disposed of,” since doing so could lead to the perception of humans as “mere objects and a source of spare parts.”

Seventh-Day Adventist Church: The Seventh-Day Adventist Church has not yet made a statement regarding embryonic stem cell research, but they have stated their support for somatic cell nuclear transfer, writing on their website, “If it is possible to prevent genetic disease through the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer, the use of this technology may be in keeping with the goal of preventing avoidable suffering.”

Southern Baptist Convention: The SBC is opposed to embryonic stem cell research, citing “vigorous opposition to the destruction of innocent human life, including the destruction of human embryos.” The Convention also encouraged Congress to maintain funding restrictions on the technology, and also encouraged existing laboratories that engage in the science to “cease and desist.”

Union for Reformed Judaism: The Union for Reformed Judaism supports embryonic stem cell research, saying “The Jewish tradition teaches us that preserving life and promoting health are among the most precious of values.” The URJ was a vocal advocate of H.R. 810.

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations: The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations supports the science of stem cell research, saying in a letter to President Bush, “We believe it is entirely appropriate to utilize for this research existing embryos, such as those created for IVF purposes that would otherwise be discarded but for this research.” the UOJC is, however, opposed to the creation of embryos for the specific purpose of research.

United Church of Christ: The UCC is fully supportive of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research within “ethically sound guidelines...and the limitations set forth by the National Institutes of Health.” They cite their belief in Jesus’ healing as foundational for their support of this research.

United Methodist Church: The United Methodist Church supports embryonic stem cell research, but has four ethical conditions that must be met. The embryos used must not have any future for procreation, the couples donating the embryos must have given consent to have their embryos used for research, the embryos must not have been created solely for research activities, and the embryos must not have been purchased or sold in any way.

United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism: The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism supports lifting the restrictions on funding embryonic stem cell research, saying “Support of stem cell research evolves from the view in Jewish law that an embryo does not have ‘full capacity or status’ until it is 40 days old.”

I am curious though what Catholic ethicists are debating the morality of embryonic stem cell research.  Does anyone know to whom this article is refering?

This piece from the New York Times is very interesting.  It is about Huntington's disease, one of the most tragic genetic disorders.  Unlike a lot of genetic disorders that are recessive, the genetic cause of Huntington's is dominant, which means that if you inherent the variant that causes the disease, you will develop the disease.

This heart-breaking story is about Katharine Moser, a young woman that has not only been given a positive test result, but also that her variant causes early onset of the disease.  She expects to begin showing symptoms of the incurable brain disorder at age 37.

The reason this piece is so well done is that it rightly points out the impact of Ms. Moser's diagnosis not only on her, but on her entire family.  Because Ms. Moser tested positive, her mother knows that she also carries the Huntington's variant and her mother didn't want to know.

Read the whole thing because it gives a clear picture of the pros and cons of genetic testing.  But what I want to highlight is the reaction of a counselor to Ms. Moser's diagnosis:

Her first session with a therapist brought a chilling glimpse of how the disorder is viewed even by some who know plenty about it. “She told me it was my moral and ethical obligation not to have children,” Ms. Moser told Ms. Elio by cellphone as soon as she left the office, her voice breaking.

Her moral and ethical obligation not to have children.  Nice.  This is how far we have come.  I will not be surprised if someday there is legislation that says it is a crime to have a child with Tay Sachs, or cystic fibrosis, or one that will get Huntington's.

Some people may find the counselor's advice sound.  But it contains one fatal flaw.  There is no hope or thought for a cure.  Ms. Moser future children may have 40 years to live a normal life in which time a cure or treatment may become available. 

This is the down side of genetic testing in our society.  The immediate thought that just because something is genetic, it is inevitable and if there is no cure now, there will never be one.  Sad.  Very, very sad.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I will say it again, we abandon the protection of the human embryo at our own peril. 

What do I mean by that?  Well, once we decide that one kind of human life can be exploited for harvestable biological material, then all of a sudden we start seeing other human life the same way.  If we leave the embryo to be experimented on and destroyed for transplantable cells, then we all look like organ factories and guinea pigs.  Organs for those people deemed "more human" because of stage of life or over-all health.

I am sure some of you may think I am crazy.  I get that.  But, this isn't just something that will happen in the future, it is HAPPENING RIGHT NOW under our noses.  We just need to see the signs.

Consider the following: 

1.  Recent proposals for using those in a "persisitve vegetative state" (which is often mis-diagnosed) as guinea pigs in experimentation or as organ donors without their consent.

2.  Proposed legislation that would reduce the prison sentences of those prisoners that agree to be organ donors or guinea pigs in drug trials.

3.  Proposed guidelines that would make the consent to be an organ donor take precedence over any living will or medical advanced directive.

Think this is just a coincidence that at the same time we are pushing for the harvesting cells from abandoned embryos, other humans are starting to look like organ repositories?

Wake-up people!  If you ever become what society deems "less than human," your organs may not be considered yours anymore and your wishes will no longer matter because someone else who is deemed "more worthy" needs your harvestable biological material.

I will repeat: we abandon the embryo at our own peril.

Tips of the Hat: Wesley J Smith, Biopolitical Times, and American Journal of Bioethics.

The Taylors, being good Irish folk, are taking the day to celebrate.  Here is one of my beauties from last year.

We all know words are powerful.  No more so than in the contentious debates over embryonic stem cell research and cloning.  The tendency is to dehumanize the embryo as much as possible so that destroying it for research doesn't hit so close to home.

We have all heard embryos called "clumps of cells" and "blobs of tissue" and such phrases left over from the debates on abortion.  The problem with these phrases is that are inaccurate.  An embryo is a whole human organism which, scientifically, differs greatly from just any "clump of cells."  Or to put it another way, if a human embryo is just a "clump of cells" then so am I.

But this story really takes the cake for me.  According to the Baltimore Sun, Maryland legislators replaced the word "embryo" in legislation funding embryonic stem cell research with the phrase "certain material" so that the legislation would get more support:

It looked like Maryland legislators had stepped back from their support of embryonic stem cell research by striking the word "embryo" and replacing it with the nonspecific phrase "certain material" in a 2006 bill meant to fund such work.

But looks can be deceiving. "We substituted language that really meant the same thing," said former Sen. Paula C. Hollinger, a Baltimore County Democrat who sponsored the much-amended bill, which likely wouldn't have passed had the loaded word "embryo" remained. "It was changed to get votes. ... It was a big win."

...That's the image embryonic stem cell opponents want people to see, which led lawmakers on a long road of editing in order to pass Maryland's Stem Cell Research Act, which allocated $15 million in state funds for stem cell research

Key to the passage was the replacement of the words "human embryo" with "certain material," Alt said. "[Lawmakers] deliberately changed the wording so they could get it passed. ... I thought that was pretty clever."

Oh yes, terribly clever...and terribly inaccurate.  I have to ask myself, "Where is the outcry from the scientific community over such a blatant disregard for scientific terminology?"  They must be too busy salivating over the $15 million to be too outraged.  And therein lies the problem.

This piece also points out what I have written about before: that stem cells from aborted fetuses are technically "adult stem cells" because they do not come from embryos.  Fetal stem cells are often called "adult stem cells" to avoid controversy and hide their source, which is usually procured abortion:

Stem cells could lead to life-saving treatments as well as jobs and new businesses, many contend. Still, that hasn't been enough to alleviate moral concerns over the destruction of early-stage embryonic cells or using later-stage, adult cells taken from aborted fetuses....

McGlynn's company works with adult stem cells, the kind taken from fetuses, but he acknowledges it takes some digging to learn this. On its Web site's home page, StemCells Inc. says it is using "cells derived from adult (i.e. non-embryonic) brain tissue."

"You start off with more general descriptors. As you go deeper and deeper into the Web site ... it really peels the onion," McGlynn said, adding that it was not an effort to mislead or avoid controversy.

So, be on your guard.  It seems any semantic acrobatics are acceptable these days when it somes to embryonic and fetal stem cell research.  Ask questions and dig deeper before you decde to put your vote, or money, where your mouth is.

Hat Tip: Jivin J

"When a child is begotten through the conjugal act, he comes to be as a gift from God, a gift crowning the spouse's mutual gift of themsleves to each other.  When a child is 'produced' it comes to be, not as a gift from God, which in truth it is, but as a product of human control."

 --William E. May, from his book Catholic Bioethics

"In 1993, doctors began offering ICSI -- intracytoplasmic sperm injection -- to couples who had a low sperm count.  Even though the wife didn't need it, she was put through all the rigors of IVF so that her eggs could be harvested and directly injected in vitro with her husband's sperm....

For the doctors in the lab, the procedure itself was thrilling.  They took a thin needle and shot the sperm into the egg.  It was like sex under the microscope."

--Lori B. Andrews, reproductive rights lawyer from her book The Clone Age

In 2004, Californians voted to give $3 billion dollars to embryonic stem cell and therapeutic cloning research, even though their state budget was a disaster.  Californians were duped into thinking that cures were just around the corner if only researchers had more money for therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research.  Unfortunately, this money is going to go to universities and companies who will create and destroy human life and then patent any discoveries.  Then, they will turn around and make millions.  Will the Californian taxpayers get some return on their $3 billion investment, like a refund on their income tax?  Or even free or discounted "cures" that are supposed to come from throwing all that money at therapeutic cloning?  Don't count on it.

So what does the business sector say?  Is it time to invest in these stem cell companies now that the money is flowing out of the California taxpayer pockets and into these laboratories in the form of grants from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine?  The first line of this piece in the San Diego Business Journal says it all:

Even the scientists who received grants from California’s stem cell institute are saying it’s too early to invest in stem cell companies.

So, according to scientists, embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning is not ready for private investment, but apparently ready enough for researchers to ask California taxpayers to pony up their hard earned cash instead.

Here is an update with some great links you much check out and one that is now defunk.

Richard Doerflinger on 75 news reasons to reconsider embryonic stem cells.

Dr. Beverly on how researchers that work on embryonic stem cells are trying to get them to behave like adult stem cells.  Of course, they are.  To repair heart tissue the cells need to be differentiated into heart cells, not left as embryonic cells that are for building an embryo.

And the best link I have found is now defunk.  I have to say I am very sad about this.  Princeton's Dept. of Molecular Biology had a great tutorial on somatic cell nuclear transfer that showed that SCNT created a cloned embryo.  This link no longer works.  Have they finally succumbed to political pressure to stop calling the product of SCNT an embryo?  Possibly.  Let us hope they are just updating the site.

This would be funny if it wasn't so prophetic:

I love these lines:

"You want to save lives don't you Nancy?" and "You call them babies, we call them clones."

Via Genetics and Health from the Telegraph:

Ever wonder why some women seem to be more ill-tempered than others? The answer may partly lie in their genes, according to a study that suggests a blood test could one day be developed to detect feminine belligerence.

Genes as well as the environment - in the form of provocation, annoyances and miscellaneous bugbears - could have played a role in angry outbursts, say University of Pittsburgh researchers.

They report that anger, hostility and pugnacity may be genetic, rooted in variations in a serotonin receptor gene, that is the gene responsible in the protein that picks up the brain messenger chemical serotonin, one which plays a variety of roles, including in personality disorders. These findings "may aid in establishing a potential marker for certain conditions associated with aggression and anger", the team adds.

This explains a lot after that last entry.  See?  I can blame my anger and belligerent blogging about therapeutic cloning on my genes. 

I just want to know where Dr. Lei got that picture of me.

While Senators Hatch and Feinstein want you to believe that they are for banning human cloning, they are actually trying to make sure that human cloning remains legal in the U.S. at the federal level.  They have introduced the The Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Protection Act of 2007 which says it will ban human cloning while protecting stem cell research.

Hogwash.  This act would only ban the implantation of a cloned embryo not the creation of a cloned embryo with somatic cell nuclear transfer or SCNT.  In case you need a refresher on SCNT, see Cloning 101 on MaryMeetsDolly.com.

Hatch and Feinstein argue that SCNT "most promising" stem cell research.  I ask where they get their data.  Not only has no patient anywhere been treated with stem cells from an embryo created with SCNT, but no one has ever even created a viable human embryo with SCNT.  "Most promising" my a--!

The cloning debates are heating up again and it is our job to make sure that people are wary of legislation that says it bans human cloning.  If it is not a total ban on somatic cell nuclear transfer in humans, then it doesn't "ban human cloning."

This piece on the Feinstein-Hatch act almost gave me an anuerism.  Let me count the ways:

March 8, 2007 -- Washington, DC – U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today reintroduced legislation to prohibit the cloning of a human being, while ensuring that promising medical research is allowed to continue.

The Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Protection Act of 2007 would allow embryonic stem cell research – known as somatic cell nuclear transplantation – to proceed under strict oversight from the federal government. However, the bill would draw a distinct line between this promising research and human reproductive cloning, which it bans outright.

“American scientists have been pioneers in all major branches of medical research,” Senator Hatch said. “If we don’t act quickly, the United States may lose the opportunity to lead the world with stem cells – and millions will suffer if we hesitate. But with the great power of stem cell research, we must accept the great responsibility to set ethical guidelines and prohibit research that no one wants to see.”

Yes, Senator "millions will suffer" if we can't clone human embryos by the millions and destroy them to harvest desirable biological material.  Forget all the women who have to be exploited to get eggs for SCNT and the fact that this research hasn't even been accomplished yet.  Somehow, I don't buy it.

There is more:

“We must standardize these policies under a common set of ethical guidelines,” Senator Feinstein said. “This patchwork of laws will result only in confusion, forbidding some researchers from conducting lifesaving research, while their colleagues in a neighboring state receive state funding to do the same work.”

Yes, of course we need to make sure every state can clone human embryos for parts even if its citizens hate the idea and don't want to pay for it.

This is my favorite part:

Make it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison to clone or attempt to clone a human being, without exception.

Establish fines of $1 million or three times any profits made (whichever is greater) on any person who clones or attempts to clone a human being. This financial penalty is in addition to the 10-year prison term.

Allow the most promising form of stem cell research (somatic cell nuclear transplantation) to be conducted on a human egg for up to 14 days only, under strict ethical standards and federal regulation. This 14- day requirement is consistent with the standard established in the United Kingdom and recommended by the California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning.

Allow this stem cell research only to take place on unfertilized eggs.

Require that nuclear transplantation occur in labs completely separate from labs that engage in vitro fertilization, to prevent a “blurring of the lines” and avoid the risk that eggs used in legitimate and important nuclear transplantation research would then be implanted in a woman.

Prohibit the export of eggs that have undergone nuclear transplantation to any foreign country that does not ban human cloning. This prohibition is designed to avoid the risk that valuable research in the United States will result in a human clone anywhere in the world.

Let us tear this apart one piece at a time shall we?

1. An cloned human embryo is a "human being."  It is a complete human organism, it is alive and therefore has "being" so it is a human being.  What else would it be?  Whether a cloned human embryo is a "person" worthy of protection is another matter entriely.  But any human embryo anywhere is a "human being."

2.  SCNT does not create an "egg".  It creates an embryo.  An egg has is a gamete cell, an embryo is an organsim.  If researchers only needed an unfertilized egg, then they wouldn't even need to perform SCNT. 

3.  Again, since when did SCNT in human become the "most promising research"?  IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN DONE YET!!!!!!!!!!!

4.  I ask why would "eggs" created by SCNT need to separated from IVF clinics?  If it is just an egg and not a cloned human embryo then why should we even need such a provision?  Maybe because implanting the product of SCNT is reproductive cloning.  I will quote President Bush, who was dead on when he said, ""Anything other than a total ban on human cloning would be virtually impossible to enforce. Cloned human embryos created for research would be widely available in laboratories and embryo farms. Once cloned embryos were available, implantation would take place. Even the tightest regulations and strict policing would not prevent or detect the birth of cloned babies."

Which brings me to the most telling restriction of all:

5.  Why would we need to prevent the "exporting of eggs that have undergone nuclear transplantation" to other countries that have banned human cloning?  MAYBE BECAUSE SCNT IN HUMANS IS HUMAN CLONING!!

Duh!

This is encouraging.  Although the headline is all wrong.  When is the media gonna get it.  These protesters don't oppose "stem cells", they oppose cloning human embryos.  I still fail to understand how they are remotely similar.

Take this message home: the time to fight human cloning is NOW before it becomes a reality.  If we wait, it will be too late.

I talk a lot about genetics here but do not provide a whole lot of resources for people who are facing issues with genetic disorders.  I will begin to remedy that with this post.

For anyone who is faced with a prenatal diagnosis of a genetic or other abnormality, Monica at www.BeNotAfraid.net has a great website with tons of wonderful information and support.

Also, for those who have a child with Down Syndrome, Chris at K12 Academics has a compiled information on Down syndrome and resources for parents.

I found this piece by Brian Davies interesting.  Davies is a Dominican and professor of Philosophy at Fordam and I studied under him during my time at Oxford.  Very nice fellow.

Via Insidescoop.

This story e-mailed to my by a reader (thank-you Laura) illustrates some of the dangers of genetically engineered crops.  While the genetic engineering of plants is not unethical per se, it is important that any genetically engineered variety that is not approved for human consumption is kept away from varieties that are.  This is much harder than it sounds.  An open seed pile and a gust of wind are all it takes.  And it seems that the USDA is not doing enough to prevent it.

From the Center for Food Safety:

Genetically engineered rice not approved for human consumption has been found contaminating a non-engineered strain, said the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) late yesterday.  USDA issued an order stopping the distribution and planting of the contaminated rice variety, known as Clearfield 131.  The genetically engineered contaminant has not yet been identified, but is thought to be an unapproved version of Bayer CropScience’s LibertyLink rice.

 This new contamination episode follows a similar debacle last summer, when the non-engineered Cheniere variety of rice was found contaminated with LL601, another unapproved genetically engineered rice from Bayer.  LL601 contamination led to rejection of U.S. long-grain rice exports to Europe, resulting in sharp drops in rice prices and lost income for farmers.  Cheniere will not be planted this year to prevent propagation of the LL601 contaminant, which remains unapproved in Europe.  The new ban is intended to prevent a repeat of that situation with Clearfield 131.

 The loss of Clearfield 131 and Cheniere, which together represent 39% of the South’s certified seed supply, is causing great hardship to Southern, especially Arkansas, rice farmers, who are unable to find sufficient amounts of uncontaminated seed as planting season nears.

 “Once again, the USDA’s inability to keep unapproved genetically engineered crops out of the food supply has hurt American farmers and will further undermine confidence in the wholesomeness of the American food supply,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety.

 USDA is responsible for ensuring that unapproved genetically engineered crops grown in outdoor field trials do not contaminate commercial-grade crops, but has come in for harsh criticism of numerous regulatory failings.  In late 2005, USDA’s Inspector General issued a scathing audit documenting that the Department was not even aware of the locations of many field trials, and failed to conduct many, supposedly required, inspections of field trial sites.  In February 2007, a federal court ruled against USDA for allowing genetically engineered crop field trials to take place without conducting environmental assessments.

 “We call on USDA to protect the interests of American farmers by instituting a moratorium on the planting of any new experimental, genetically engineered crop until it proves itself capable of preventing future contamination episodes,” said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at Center for Food Safety.

From PRNewswire:

A study released today at the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists 38th Annual Meeting on Women's Cancer found few patients were aware of genetic cancer syndromes and the high riskof developing cancer if genetic mutations were found.  Fewer still were motivated to follow up on this information with their own healthcare provider or genetic counseling/testing services.

Approximately 10 percent of all cancers have a strong hereditary component. The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO) estimates that more than 500,000 American women are at a high-risk of developing hereditary cancers, which include breast, ovarian, colon and uterine cancers. Two of the most common familial syndromes that cause gynecologic cancers are familial breast-ovarian cancer syndrome, and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer syndrome (HNPCC), which confers a high risk for uterine and ovarian cancers, in addition to colon cancer.

The study, "Cancer Risk Assessment in a Community Setting: Prevalence of Patients with High Risk Family Histories," was led by Michael Manuel, M.D., M.P.H., a gynecologic oncologist in private practice in San Jose, Calif. Dr. Manuel conducted the study at the large community-based mammography center, Breast Care Center at Good Samaritan Hospital, also in San Jose.

"This study is important because these are real people in an average American community. The troubling aspect is that the high risk women we identified [through patient surveys] were unaware of their elevated risk for developing hereditary cancers," said Dr. Manuel. "We need community education and resources to allow identification of women with strong family histories of cancer. Referral to genetic counselors for accurate risk assessment and genetic testing when appropriate can prevent cancer deaths. Women who carry mutations in cancer causing genes should undergo more intensive cancer screening and, in many cases, preventative surgery is advised."

"Although genetic testing for gynecologic and other hereditary cancers has been available for over a decade, awareness of this potentially life-saving intervention is woefully inadequate among both physicians and the public," said Andrew Berchuck, M.D., incoming president of SGO. "Women are needlessly dying of cancers that could have been prevented entirely or detected at an early stage while their disease was still curable. We have all of this great knowledge to help reduce cancer mortality in high-risk women, but most women are unaware of their personal risk and the available help."

George Dvorsky is a transhumanist.  He believes that we should use technology to make humans "better than human."  In this article called Neugenic Nation he proposes the idea that those of us who want to resist eugenics and human genetic engineering are also part of the eugenics movement.  He says we are actually part of Neugenics:

Neugenics, which is the majority bioethical opinion today (and most notably the opinion of bioconservatives, human exceptionalists, and anti-transhumanists), is the conviction that the human genome must not be deliberately altered to any significant degree. The general idea is that Homo sapiens are fine just they way they are and that enhancement will only lead to greater societal discord and/or diminished lives (i.e. a case of more being less). The underlying assumption is that God or nature has already optimized human beings; human enhancement would only knock over this fragile house of cards.

Neugenics is a new bioethical designation that has only come about through the advent of enhancement technologies (which includes artificial selection a la the old school eugenicists). This particular issue has migrated from the theoretical to the practical now that we have the capacity to enhance. It is only by becoming real (or perceived to be real) that an issue becomes political.

Human stasism

And here is where it gets interesting.

If the state sides with the neugenicists and bans the use of enhancement technologies, then it is enforcing a particular vision of humanity, albeit a fixed one. In this sense the neugenicists are similar to the authoritarian eugenicists of the past. In each case individual procreative freedoms have been trumped by the demands of the state (which, in a democracy, is supposedly the consensus opinion).

But any discussion of human reproductive rights must critically examine how the state justifies the abrogation of specific procreative choices. Fewer things are more coercive than state intervention in the reproductive practices of its citizens, especially in consideration of the presumption that parents tend to have the best interests of their children in mind.

So by saying that we should restrict the use of genetics and genetic engineering humans to prevent eugenics, Dvorsky argues that we are engaging in eugenics.  Anytime individual reproductive freeedoms are trumped by the demands of the state, that would be eugenics.

Well, I am certainly surprised to be called a supporter of eugenics.  And I won't even try to respond to Dvorsky's twisted logic except to point out what is often lost in the debate about reproductive technologies, reproductive freedoms, and genetic engineering: the best interest of the offspring!

Honestly, I don't want to limit someone's "reproductive freedoms" and I certainly don't want freeze human evolution in its tracks.  I want to make sure that reproductive technologies and human genetic engineering are not experimenting on a human being without their consent, thereby ignoring the sanctity of every human life.  And yes, genetically enhancing your otherwise healthy child would be experimenting on them without their consent, and on their offspring and their offspring and so on and so on.

Dvorsky is so focused, like so many in this upside-down world, on the freedoms and choices of the parents and too little on the well-being of the child they think they so desperately want.

Hat Tip: Biopolitical Times

You would think that a pro-ACLU crowd would boo any suggestion of limiting intellectual debate and academic freedom.  Not so when it comes to Intelligent Design.  From The Discovery Institute:

On Wednesday, February 28, Bryan Fischer debated Kitzmiller plaintiffs' attorney of the ACLU, Witold “Vic” Walczak, over teaching intelligent design in schools. The debate was sponsored mostly by the ACLU. Mr. Fischer reports that the pro-ACLU crowd cheered supportively when Fischer read a statement by Darwinist biologist P.Z. Myers advocating academic intolerance towards proponents of ID. Fischer reported:

Perhaps the most telling moment came when I read this quote from evolutionary biologist Paul Myers of the University of Minnesota, telling us what he thinks should be done with intelligent design advocates:

The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians…I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.

The pro-ACLU crowd actually clapped in approval in response. I suggested that evolutionists are now the new McCarthyites, conducting a new inquisition, with the intimidating question this time being, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the intelligent design community?”

(Bryan Fischer, “ID debate: scientific arguments go unanswered,” March 1, 2007)

Of course Fischer read aloud P.Z. Myers’ quote with the intention of shocking the "pro-ACLU crowd" because Fischer assumed that they would value academic freedom, tolerance, and civil discourse. Apparently Fischer’s assumption was wrong.

The University of Utah has the coolest science animations ever.  They have a section on drugs of abuse and their affect on the brain.  This really piqued my interested because I once worked in a toxicology laboratory.  Check out the Drugs of Abuse and Mouse Party animations to learn more about the effects of illicit drug use.  Might want to pass these on to the teenager in your life.

Hat Tip:  My Biotech Life