Mary Meets Dolly

Nice to see natural fertility techniques getting the press they deserve.  From UK's MailOnline:

Proud parents: Lena and Dudley Bryce with their daughter Lola

Britain's first iPhone baby is born after couple tried four years to conceive

A woman who was considering IVF treatment has given birth to a baby girl after using an iPhone application to become pregnant.

After four years of struggling to conceive, Lena Bryce and partner Dudley had nearly given up hope of having children, until she heard about the fertility app and downloaded it to her iPhone.

The 30-year-old entered her body temperature daily and the app calculated when she would be most fertile.

After just two months of using the tecnology she fell pregnant.

Last Friday, a delighted Lena gave birth to 6lb 12ozs Lola at Glasgow Southern General Hospital on the exact date the app had predicted.

Lena said she had been considering IVF and adoption, but thought of other ideas when Dudley bought her an iPhone for her 30th birthday.

'I typed in "get pregnant" and downloaded five apps,' the delighted mother said.

'The Free Menstrual Calendar was easiest to use so I stuck with it and in tow [sic] months I was pregnant.

For example, [Republican] South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer thinks that giving poor people food will cause them to breed like rabbits:

My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals,” Bauer told a Greenville-area crowd. “You know why? Because they breed. “You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.

Although he says he could have chosen his words more carefully when he compared people who take public assistance to stray animals, Bauer refused to apologize for the remark.

In all of the controversy over embryonic stem cells, fetal stem cells are often overlooked.  What are fetal stem cells?  Fetal stem cells some from a fetus anywhere from 8 weeks to 20 weeks gestation.  The most common source of fetal stem cells are from aborted fetuses.  The use of fetal stem cells in research is often presented as totally uncontroversial.  The reason is because fetal stem cells are often called adult stem cells simply because they do not come from embryos. 

Do not be fooled.  Fetal stem cells are donated by a woman after an elective abortion.  In other words, to get fetal stem cells, a fetus must die.  This article about the direct injection of fetal stem cells into the spinal cord of a patient with ALS, better known as Lou Gehrig's disease, is a perfect example of how the media often gloss over this fact:

For the first time in the United States, stem cells have been directly injected into the spinal cord of a patient, researchers announced Thursday.

Doctors injected stem cells from 8-week-old fetal tissue into the spine of a man in his early 60s who has advanced ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. It was part of a clinical trial designed to determine whether it is safe to inject stem cells into the spinal cord and whether the cells themselves are safe.

ALS is a fatal neurodegenerative disease that causes the deterioration of specific nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord called motor neurons, which control muscle movement. About 30,000 Americans have ALS at any given time, according to the ALS Association.

The company that has received FDA approval for this trial is Neuralstem Inc.  Their website does not announce where they got their fetal stem cells.  They could have gotten them from a miscarriage which would have been an ethical source.  The above article also does not mention where the fetal stem cells came from.  But a short search brought me to the answer.  This press release (taken from Bloomberg.com) clearly states where Neuralstem Inc. got its fetal neural stem cells:

Neuralstem Inc.

The researchers used a line of neural stem cells developed by Neuralstem Inc., a closely held biotechnology company based in Rockville, Maryland. The company developed the line from fetal tissue donated by a woman who underwent an elective abortion at 8 weeks.

The stem cells, taken from an area near the developing spinal cord of the fetus, have the theoretical ability to develop or differentiate into any of three cell types found in the nervous system. The cells were kept alive in culture and chemically manipulated to keep them from differentiating.

Of course the original article about the ALS trial never mentions that the fetal stem cells came from a fetus ripped out of its mother's womb:

These particular stem cells -- which came from the spinal cord of an 8-week-old fetus -- are neural stem cells, which have the ability to turn into different types of nerve cells. These are not the same stem cells as the controversial human embryonic stem cells, which destroy the embryo when the stem cells are removed.

It is implied that because these cells do not come from embryos, they are non-controversial.  I suppose if you fail to mention that these cells came from an aborted fetus, they fail to stir up controversy.  Convenient.

The source of the stem cells is not the only reason to be concerned about this trial.  A year ago, it was announced that a boy injected with fetal stem cells developed a brain tumor.  From the AP:

A family desperate to save a child from a lethal brain disease sought highly experimental injections of fetal stem cells—injections that triggered tumors in the boy's brain and spinal cord, Israeli scientists reported Tuesday....

The unidentified Israeli boy has a rare, fatal genetic disease with a tongue-twisting name—ataxia telangiectasia, or A-T. Degeneration of a certain brain region gradually robs these children of movement. Plus, a faulty immune system leads to frequent infections and cancers. Most die in their teens or early 20s.

Israeli doctors pieced together the child's history: When he was 9, the family traveled to Russia, to a Moscow clinic that provided injections of neural stem cells from fetuses—immature cells destined to grow into a main type of brain cells. The cells were injected into his brain and spinal cord twice more, at ages 10 and 12.

Back home in Israel at age 13, the boy's A-T was severe enough to require that he use a wheelchair when he also began complaining of headaches. Tests at Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv uncovered a growth pushing on his brain stem and a second on his spinal cord. Surgeons removed the spinal cord mass when the boy was 14, in 2006 and they say his general condition has remained stable since then.

Many people often argue that using fetal stem cells from an aborted fetus is morally acceptable because the fetus was going to die anyway.  The Catholic Church rejects this argument.  If an organism must be intentionally destroyed to harvest cells, then the cells are morally tainted.  If these fetal stem cells had come from a natural miscarriage, then it would be morally permissible, even laudable, for parents to donate these cells to research.  The morality of fetal stem cell use is analogous to that of organ donation.  If the patient died of natural causes or a traumatic event, then is is morally permissible to use their organs for the benefit of others.  It is not morally permissible to intentionally and prematurely end a person's life and then take their organs for donation.  Using fetal stem cells from aborted fetuses is analogous to using organs from death row inmates or victims of euthanasia.

This ALS trial is one to watch.  I pray that researchers come up with a better and safer way to treat ALS than the use of fetal stem cells.

Just another way the lab is not like the womb.  From Business Week:

Hoping to improve pregnancy rates, researchers try to simulate motion of the human body

Scientists say they boosted the success of in vitro fertilization in mice by gently rocking embryos before implanting them into the womb.

No evidence yet proves that the same technique would work with human embryos, but authors of a new study hope it might do just that.

"By making the cells feel more at home, we get better cells, which is key to having better infertility treatment," said study co-author Shu Takayama, an associate professor in the University of Michigan's department of biomedical engineering.

The idea of the research is to mimic the motion that an embryo feels traveling through the fallopian tube to the uterus. Human embryos created with the assistance of in vitro fertilization don't get the benefit of such exposure.

An indication that dental care while pregnant is important.  From Palm Beach Daily:

A new report shows the first documented link between fetal death and a mother's pregnancy-related gum disease.

The patient, a 35-year-old woman, delivered a full-term stillborn baby in Santa Monica, Calif. During her pregnancy, she had experienced severe gum bleeding, a symptom of pregnancy-related gingivitis.

Hormonal changes during pregnancy often lead to bleeding gums, with an estimated 75 percent of pregnant women experiencing the problem, the study authors noted. But, they explained, bleeding in the gums allows bacteria in the mouth to enter the bloodstream and potentially infect a fetus unless it is stopped by the immune system.

In the case of this patient, postmortem tests suggest that bacteria from the mouth entered the bloodstream, traveled to the placenta and infected and killed the fetus, according to the report in the February issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Eventually, after receiving periodontal care, the study authors noted that the patient became pregnant again and gave birth to a healthy baby.

"There is an old wives' tale that you lose a tooth for each baby, and this is due to the underlying changes during pregnancy," Yiping Han, a researcher from the periodontics department at Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine, said in a university news release. "But if there is another underlying condition in the background," a baby's life can be at risk.

Han suggested that, if possible, women should visit a dentist and clear up any oral health problems before becoming pregnant. They should also be advised to alert their doctor if they experience gum bleeding while pregnant.

Supporters of the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, passed in 2004, held out hopes of imminent medical miracles that were being held up only by President Bush's policy of not allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) beyond existing stem cell lines and which involved the destruction of embryos created for that purpose.

Five years later, ESCR has failed to deliver and backers of Prop 71 are admitting failure. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the state agency created to, as some have put it, restore science to its rightful place, is diverting funds from ESCR to research that has produced actual therapies and treatments: adult stem cell research. It not only has treated real people with real results; it also does not come with the moral baggage ESCR does.

To us, this is a classic bait-and-switch, an attempt to snatch success from the jaws of failure and take credit for discoveries and advances achieved by research Prop. 71 supporters once cavalierly dismissed. We have noted how over the years that when funding was needed, the phrase "embryonic stem cells" was used. When actual progress was discussed, the word "embryonic" was dropped because ESCR never got out of the lab.

I also love how the word "embryonic" is either added or deleted depending on the desired effect.  AS a result of ESC failures, Prop 71 money is going to where it should: adult stem cell research.  And here is where Investors Business Daily tells us what they REALLY think:

It is ESCR researchers who have politicized science and stood in the way of real progress. We are pleased to see California researchers beginning to put science in its rightful place.

Hat Tip: Jivin J

STR data

The problem comes from the fact that most DNA from a crime scene is not perfect.  It can be degraded or mixed with DNA from other individuals.  Sometimes labs can only match 9 loci to the DNA found at a crime scene. 

Scientists are starting to question this assumption that 10-13 loci are enough to rule out the possibility of a random match to DNA other than the suspect.  In other words, if 10-13 loci are not enough to make a definitive barcode, then a 10-13 loci DNA profile can actually match more than one individual.  According New Scientist, a recent look into the possibility of random matches produced some serious results:

The first clue that something might be amiss came in 2005, when limited data was released from the Arizona state database, a small part of CODIS. An analyst who compared every profile with every other profile in the database found that, of 65,493 profiles, 122 pairs of profiles matched at nine out of 13 loci and 20 pairs matched at 10 loci, while one pair matched at 11 loci and one more pair matched at 12 loci. "It surprised a lot of people," says signatory Bill Thompson of UCI. "It had been common for experts to testify that a nine-locus match is tantamount to a unique identification."

So in a sample of 65,000 profiles, 122 profiles matched at 9 loci, 20 profiles matched at 10 loci, and 1 profile matched at both 11 and 12 loci.  According to Bill Thompson, experts have testified that 9 loci is enough for a unique profile.  This comparison calls into question the assumption that 9-13 loci are enough to definitively match a suspect's DNA to that found at a crime scene.

As a result, researchers want access to CODIS, US national DNA database, and its 7 million DNA profiles to test whether 10-13 loci are enough to rule out random matches or if more loci are needed for a definitive match.  In a letter to Science magazine, 41 research scientists, forensic scientists, statisticians and legal scholars called for the FBI to give them access to the profiles in CODIS stripped of identifying information like name and date of birth so they can test previous assumptions and study how DNA profiles differ by geographic region and by race.

For now the FBI has not granted access to CODIS citing genetic privacy as the reason:

Director of the FBI Laboratory, Christian Hassell, says he appreciates the concerns the Science letter raises. "We are exploring ways to investigate some of the topics," he adds. But he has turned down the request for access, citing concerns about genetic privacy.

I am very interested to see what comes of this request if anything.  I worked briefly with similar technology to see how well we could identify maternal DNA contamination in amniotic fluid.  If 10 loci are not enough for a definitive match, and more like 13 or above are needed, this could be a huge problem for forensics and for courts all over.

January's issue of Popular Mechanics has an article titled How to Create a Designer Baby.  In it is this headline and information:

Three Ways Babies are Born to Specifications

Savior Siblings: Parents with children who suffer from leukemia or anemia and who could benefit from stem cell treatment can order up a sibling with the right genetic material. DNA from an embryo is analyzed to find a human leukocyte antigen gene match between an embryo and the child. Nine months later, when the baby is born, the stem cells are retrieved from umbilical cord blood.


Pink or Blue: A 2006 survey conducted by the Genetics and Public Policy Center found almost half of U.S. fertility clinics offered non-­disease-related sex selection through PGD embryo screening. A new technique in clinical trials may offer a less expensive method. Originally developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for use in cattle, the new method analyzes sperm instead of embryos and uses color and fluorescence to sort male chromosomes from larger female ones.


Disease-Free Guarantee: Parents with a family history of diseases such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia and muscular dystrophy have a significant chance of passing the gene mutation that causes the disease on to their children. PGD can screen embryos for those conditions. It can also screen for genes that don’t guarantee illness, but which are associated with higher risks of breast and colon cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

I applaud Popular Mechanics' word choice.  While other media try to soften these practices by using euphemisms, Popular Mechanics used exactly the right word: specifications.  Specifications are what you have when you make a big purchase like a car or computer.  They are not something we should have when making babies.

Hat Tip: Biopolitical Times

Contrary to popular belief, there are alternatives to IVF for infertility.  One is NaProTechnology that works to overcome the causes of infertility instead of just going around them.  NaProTechnology has been proven to be more successful and cheaper than IVF without all of the moral dilemmas.  A new clinic at St. Vincent's Hospital in New York has opened to help infertile couples with NaProTechnology and other services.  From Catholic Review Online:

“Catholic women in many communities feel they have no access to health care that is consistent with their values,” said the founding director of a new women’s medical center in midtown Manhattan that will provide “authentically Catholic” primary care, obstetrics, natural family planning and infertility treatment.

Dr. Anne Mielnik said Gianna - The Catholic Healthcare Center for Women is the first dedicated practice in New York and one of only a handful in the country to offer a combination of effective infertility treatment alternatives to morally objectionable assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization....

“There’s no suffering comparable to what you see in an infertile couple,” Mielnik said. “They’re desperate to have a child and when they look for guidance, they end up in an IVF clinic. They’re balancing their desperation for a child with doing what they know is wrong.”

The Gianna center uses the Creighton Model FertilityCare System, a natural method of family planning and gynecological health monitoring, in conjunction with a comprehensive system of reproductive health management called natural procreative technology, or NaPro technology. Both methods were developed by Dr. Thomas W. Hilgers, founder of the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction in Omaha, Neb....

She said she started the John Paul II Center for Women in Marietta, N.Y., in September 2008 “in response to the pleas of Catholic women for access to reproductive health care and family planning options which affirm their dignity as women and conform to the Catholic Church’s teachings regarding human sexuality and medical ethics.”

Mielnik said she and the John Paul II center initially planned to open a small medical practice in New York with the support of a pro-life benefactor. Serendipitously, she was recruited by the chairman of the St. Vincent’s Medical Center obstetrics department to establish her Gianna center under St. Vincent’s banner.

She called St. Vincent’s “the last Catholic hospital in Manhattan, the last pro-life hospital” and said it had a waiting list of people interested in NaPro technology and had been trying to recruit a NaPro-trained physician for two years.

Mielnik said NaPro technology addresses infertility by diagnosing and correcting its causes instead of using synthetic hormones to suppress or bypass a woman’s reproductive system. She said problems including anatomical and hormonal abnormalities, infections and ovulation disorders are addressed with surgical procedures and compounded hormones.

Surgeries can open blocked fallopian tubes, remove endometriosis and treat polycystic ovarian disease, she said. By identifying a possibly subtle hormone deficiency and replacing the hormone with an identical compound, delivered at the appropriate time in a woman’s menstrual cycle, Mielnik said NaPro technology can correct conditions that compromise fertility.

Mielnik said NaPro technology is twice as successful as in vitro fertilization, as measured by the number of live births among women using it to help achieve pregnancy. It is also significantly less expensive, rarely results in multiple pregnancies and does not result in frozen embryos. NaPro technology is also used to treat recurrent miscarriages, premenstrual syndrome, menstrual cramps, ovarian cysts, postpartum depression and premature births. 

From the very funny Failblog comes this little diddy. Some kids are going on a field trip the Rocks and Mineral Festival (BYOB by the way). In order to attend the lil tykes need to have a permission slip. This is how one came back.

The note reads:

 “Note: Just to let you it is not that we don’t believe in things like that, it is just misleading when you talk about it being billions of years old, when we all know that the world is only about 6,000 years old. So why would I pay so that you can misslead my children, your world is just a revolving(?), ours has a start and an end. God created the world. He created animals and man all in the same week. It was also Adam who named all the animals, they will do the essay ‘Rock and Minerals’ but it might not be 5 pages long, and about billions of years, it will be according to the Bible.”

The best part is that if you look at the picture, she signed the permission slip. Its not that I don't believe in misleading my children its just that I don't believe in misleading my children but they can go anyway. Or something.

That is the headline in this Times UK article about the genetic differences of children conceived through IVF.  Although this is not news (I have been talking about this for nearly 5 years) it is noteworthy because it talks about the mechanisms by which children of IVF are at risk.  The sequence of DNA in IVF children is not the problem.  Genetics is not just about the genes you have, but what genes are turned on.  Our cells regulate the turning on and off of genes by methylation.  Methylation is the process where a methyl group is added to the DNA strand that prevents the gene from being expressed.  

The proper methylation of genes to turn them on and off begins at conception.  Researchers have found that being conceived in a lab and not in a womb affects the methylation process.  Scientists at Temple University discovered that the DNA of children of IVF has less methylation that children conceived naturally.  This means that their genes are not being activated at the right times or in the right manner which puts them at risk for diseases such as diabetes.  From the Times article:

Scientists have discovered that the DNA of babies conceived through IVF differs from that of other children, putting them at greater risk of diseases such as diabetes and obesity later in life....

The changes are not in the genes themselves but in the mechanism that switches them on and off, the study of which is known as epigenetics.

“These epigenetic differences have the potential to affect embyronic development and foetal growth, as well as influencing long-term patterns of gene expression associated with increased risk of many human diseases,” said Professor Carmen Sapienza, a geneticist at Temple University in Philadelphia, who jointly led the research....

In their findings, published in the Human Molecular Genetics journal, Sapienza and his colleagues took blood samples from the placenta and umbilical cords of 10 IVF children and 13 children who were naturally conceived.

They studied the DNA of cells taken from the blood to see if there were differences in the level of methylation. This is the process by which molecules known as methyl groups are attached to genes to shut them down when they are not needed.

The results showed that the level of methylation in the cells taken from IVF babies was significantly lower — implying that some genes were becoming active at the wrong times.

“We have shown that in vitro conception is associated with differences in gene methylation and that some of these differences may affect gene expression,” said Sapienza.

What I am dying to know is why this was not studied BEFORE IVF became a common place occurrence.  And if simple IVF can effect methylation, I cannot even imagine what happens to embryos that are put through preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) where one of their 8 cells are plucked out and tested.

I am reminded of this article from the New York Times in which one IVF doc admits he is never really asked about what in vitro fertilization meant for the health of the resulting children by either potential parents or other doctors:

Richard G. Rawlins, who directs the in vitro fertilization and assisted reproduction laboratories at the Rush Centers for Advanced Reproductive Care in Chicago, said that when he spoke to patients he never heard questions about growing embryos in the laboratory and the possible consequences.

“I have never had a patient ask me anything” about it, he said, adding, “For that matter, not many doctors have ever asked, either.”

The same New York Times article talks about how IVF clinics change the broth they grow their embryos in and how that may effect gene expression.  Read the following and tell that IVF is not human manufacture:

Why, researchers ask, would growing embryos in petri dishes elicit changes in gene expression? And if there are changes, could they alter the laboratory conditions so those gene expression changes do not occur?

One place to look might be the broth, known as the culture medium, in which embryos grow. From the start of IVF, scientists knew that the composition of the broth affected how quickly embryos grew, Dr. Rawlins said. And they knew that embryos, both animal and human, grew much more slowly in the lab than they did in the body.

One thing the culture medium provides is chemicals that can be used to add methyl groups to genes. The presence, or absence, of the methyl groups can control whether genes are active or not, a process known as epigenetics. Epigenetic changes not only cause rare disorders like Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome but also are associated with low-birth-weight babies and an increased risk of a variety of cancers. That does not mean that growing embryos in petri dishes will have such effects, but it does raise questions about what is known about the procedure....

But figuring out what, if anything, in the culture medium might adversely affect embryo growth and development may not be easy, Dr. Feinberg said.

Dr. Ginsburg said the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology discussed whether to ask IVF centers to report what media they were using to grow their embryos. But, she said, “programs use multiple media, and it is very common for programs to switch from one media to another.”

The New York Times piece goes on to describe the problems that IVF mice have compared to their naturally conceived counterparts:

If mouse embryos are even close to reflecting what can happen with humans, then there is no question that gene expression can be altered by growing embryos in a laboratory, Dr. Schultz says.

He and several others spent years asking whether there were gene expression changes in mouse embryos that are grown in the laboratory — there are — and whether they could see behavioral changes in the animals. They did.

For example, the investigators gave mice a test that required remembering the location of a platform hidden by opaque water. The IVF mice had no trouble learning where the platform was, but were more likely to forget what they had learned, Dr. Schultz found.

In another test, which measured a fear response when mice are in the open, IVF mice lacked the normal caution and fear that non-IVF mice are born with.

“They are changes,” Dr. Schultz said, of the test results. “And the only difference is that they were cultured,” meaning that the mice started out as embryos in a petri dish.

Along with the behavioral changes were changes in the methylation of genes — epigenetic changes, Dr. Schultz reports. “I am suspicious that manipulation and culturing of embryos is a contributing factor,” he adds.

Unfortunately, I do not have any hope that the fertility industry will check itself and say, "Hey maybe we should stop until we know what in vitro conception means in the long term."  There is too much money to be made off desperate and heart broken couples.  And there is always those ever dominating "reproductive rights" that are somehow, according to Roe vs. Wade, in the Constitution but not actually in the Constitution.

I think it might take a generation of aging IVF kids who have specific and unforeseen health problems to start suing the clinics in which they were conceived to ever bring about change in the fertility industry.

Wesley J. Smith is one of a small group of bioethicists that does not laugh at the concept of inherent human dignity.  While other bioethicists increasingly sneer at the idea that humans are exceptional and that we all have equal moral worth, Smith embraces it.  His quote on the Starbucks' venti size cup a few years ago (which I have on my desk) says it all:

The morality of the 21st century will depend on how we respond to this simple but profound question: Does every human life have equal moral value simply and merely because it is human?  Answer yes, and we have a chance of achieving universal human rights.  Answer no, and it means that we are merely another animal in the forest.

Wesley Smith has come up with what he thinks are the Top 10 Stories of the Decade in Bioethics.  Here are his picks for biotechnology:

10: The ascendance of an anti-human environmentalism...Radical environmentalism appears to have morphed into anti-humanism, the result of which could be a new impetus for eugenics and radical population control.

9. The growth of biological colonialism. Desperate and destitute people are increasingly being exploited for their body parts and functions…

8. The increase in American pro-life attitudes. In the last decade, polling showed a dramatic increase in the number of people who identify themselves as pro-life…If this trend continues, it could eventually shake the Roe regimen off its foundation.

5: The success of adult-stem-cell research...For example, in early human trials, adult stem cells have helped diabetics get off insulin, restored sensation to paralyzed people with spinal-cord injuries, helped heal unhealthy hearts, and provided hope to patients with autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis. These and other amazing advances in adult-stem-cell research provided one of the few pieces of truly good news in a sour decade.

3. IVF anarchy... IVF has led to childbirth as manufacture, with our progeny chosen for their genetic makeup. It is likely that babies will soon be created with three parents. What comes next is anybody’s guess.

2. The Bush embryonic-stem-cell funding policy. When Pres. George W. Bush signed an executive order restricting federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research to lines already in existence on Aug. 9, 2001, he set off a nearly decade-long firestorm…But the real poke in the eye for the Science Establishment and liberal media was that Bush’s policy sent a clarion message that embryos — which are, after all, nascent human life — matter, thrusting his policy into a buzz saw involving our most touchy cultural issues, particularly abortion.

Lately, the one that is disturbing me most is #10.  I am sensing more and more that simple conservationism and good stewardship of the Earth and our natural resources, has turned into the a virulent hatred of humanity that has disguised itself as environmentalism. 

In the coming decades, as more and more environmental measures are put in place to reduce carbon dioxide levels, I would not be surprised if major efforts, including efforts by force, are put into place to reduce the human population.  After all, humans do produce carbon dioxide just by being alive.  I am fearful that any attempts to legislate carbon dioxide reduction, combined with the resurgence of eugenic ideas, adds up to a future global "one-[perfect]-child" policy. Smith is right.  The only way to universal human rights to to acknowledge that all human life has equal moral worth.  Moral worth that is not tied to any carbon footprint.

Nice to see some sense in Hollywood.  It would be nice if her objections were more articulate, but I am happy to see that she is speaking from her heart; exactly where the objections to IVF should come from.  From Digital Spy:

Jennifer Lopez has revealed that she turned down the option of IVF treatment when she and husband Marc Anthony were trying to conceive.

The singer, who gave birth to twins Max and Emme in February 2008, has now said that she was determined to have children the "traditional" way.

Speaking to Elle, Lopez explained: "When it comes to family and relationships, I'm quite traditional. Just because of the way I was raised.

"And I also believe in God and I have a lot of faith in that, so I just felt like you don't mess with things like that."

She added: "I guess deep down I really felt like either this is not going to happen for me or it is. You know what I mean? And if it is, it will. And if it's not, it's not going to."

My Gene Profile says that with their Inborn Talent Genetic Test your parenting woes are over.  You can customize their studies and activities toward what is found in their genetics.  They also claim that "without you understanding what your child's inborn talents are, your child is in for disaster!" 

My Gene Profile sounds like a parents dream when in reality it is a total scam that is a child's worst nightmare.  At this time, and probably forever, there is no genetic test that can tell you what your child's talents will be.  IQ, athletic ability, creativity, musical ability and social aptitude are as much or probably MORE influenced by environmental factors such as diet, exercise and social upbringing as genetics.

In other words, science is quickly finding out that it is not just about what genes you inherit, but what genes are turned on and that has everything to do with environmental influences.  Case in point, this photo of genetically identical mice.  One was given lots of folic acid while in the womb and the other was not.

After looking at the difference between these two mice with just one environmental variable like folic acid, it is clear that there is no way a genetic test could determine your child's inborn talents. Environmental factors like diet, education, practice, coaching and social interaction are way too important to ignore.  I like what Daniel MacArthur had to say:

The idea that is being spruiked here is that genetic testing can help you determine your child's "inborn talents", which you can then use to ruthlessly jam them into whatever career the test results suggest.

The presenter notes that he "wasted a lot of time exposing my children to as many extracurricular activities as possible" - how fortunate that he can now give us access to genetic testing technology to save us the money and effort involved in letting children choose their own favourite activities!

While genetics professionals everywhere are laughing at My Gene Profile, I do not find it funny.  The problem with My Gene Profile is that it is the product of genetic determinism.  Genetic determinism says that all we are and all we ever will be is encoded in our genes.  It is the product of ignorance about genetics and the tendency of society to reduce the human experience down to simple factors we think we can control.  Genetic determinism is dangerous because it is the parent of eugenics.

While Catholic parents SHOULD be immune to the nonsense being pedaled at My Gene Profile, it is never good to assume.  Please tell everyone you know that this is a scam, not just for the parents pocketbooks but for their children's well-being.  For any Catholic who might buy into this garbage remind them of this:

"The people of our time sensitized by the terrible vicissitudes that have covered the 20th century and the very beginning of this one in mourning, are able to understand that man's dignity is not identified with his DNA genes and that it does not diminish with the eventual presence of physical differences or genetic defects." 

-- Pope Benedict XVI 

Case in point: this response to a reader at CatholicInsight.com .  Eric Rose asked John B. Shea MD. FRCP the following question:

I was brought up Catholic, but I have a question:  If two married people cannot bear children of their own, the Catholic Church would rather see that couple fruitless than have IVF performed?

This is a very common sentiment among Catholics and other pro-lifers.  Dr. Shea does a great job of explaining the process of IVF:

Infertile couples sometimes resort to IVF in order to conceive a child. IVF is a laboratory technique by which human embryos are conceived in a petri dish which contains a culture medium. The woman is given hormones which stimulate her ovaries to produce up to 30 or more oocytes (ova). These are retrieved by inserting a needle into the ovaries via the vagina with ultrasound guidance. These oocytes are mixed with sperm. The sperm is obtained by masturbation and is usually donated by the husband. If the husband is infertile, however, the sperm may be obtained from another man. If the woman is infertile, likewise, the oocytes may be obtained from another woman, whose ovaries have been similarly stimulated. The embryos thus conceived are usually allowed to grow up to the four to eight cell stage over three to four days, at which time some of the embryos are implanted in the woman’s uterus.

I think the problem with the answer comes in the part where Dr. Shea explains why the Church finds IVF immoral.  His answer is very accurate.  The problem I believe is that he uses the same language that leaves many Catholics scratching their heads:

The Church also teaches that from the moral point of view a truly responsible procreation vis-a –vis the unborn child must be the fruit of marriage.  

Pope Paul V1 has taught that there is an “inseparable connection, willed by God, and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.”

IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personality. It objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity; it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood, and responsibility for upbringing. This threat to the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder, and injustice in the whole of social life.

I have used this kind of language in the talks I have given and most people just look at me with blank stares.  I have to admit that it even makes my eyes glass over.  And next to the breaking hearts of infertile couples, this language, I hate to say, just sounds hollow and elitist.

While less academic, I like to explain Church teaching on IVF this way:

1.  The Church teaches that all life from the very beginning, meaning conception, deserves dignity and respect.

2.  The Church also teaches that human life should be begotten not made as a result of the sexual union of a husband and a wife.

3.  This is because there is no more loving and safe place to be conceived than in a mother's womb as the result of a specific act of love.

4.  IVF is immoral for many reasons, but foremost because it creates human life in a dish.  This life is made by a stranger, a lab technician, not a mother and a father.  The dish is a cold and dangerous place, devoid of love.  Human embryos made in labs are in a precarious position.  IVF embryos are at greater risk of genetic disease.  These embryos may make it into a mother's womb where they belong.  But, they often end up in the deep freeze, or in the hands of researchers to be ripped apart.  They may be abandoned or even end up in the womb of another woman by accident.  IVF embryos are, in many states, considered to be property.  More and more, they are viewed by society as valueless biological material.

5.  As a result, creating life outside the body, outside the act of love between a husband and wife does not uphold the dignity inherent in each of us from the moment we are conceived.

While Dr. Shea's response is accurate and appropriate, I believe it does not drive home that we all deserve to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect at every stage of life and IVF, by creating embryos in a lab, does not treat all human life with respect.  Instead, it puts these little lives at risk and undervalues their worth.  IVF, even though it can give infertile couples the children they so desperately want, is immoral because of how it treats human life at its earliest and most vulnerable.