Biotechnology

The prolife movement has been screaming about this for years and it nice to see that those diagnosed as being in a persistive vegetative state (often called "vegetables" by the so very enlightened elite) are finally being heard.  From New Scientist's Giving the 'unconscious' a voice:

THE inner voice of people who appear unconscious can now be heard. For the first time, researchers have struck up a conversation with a man diagnosed as being in a vegetative state. All they had to do was monitor how his brain responded to specific questions. This means that it may now be possible to give some individuals in the same state a degree of autonomy.

"They can now have some involvement in their destiny," says Adrian Owen of the University of Cambridge, who led the team doing the work.

In an earlier experiment, published in 2006, Owen's team asked a woman previously diagnosed as being in a vegetative state (VS) to picture herself carrying out one of two different activities. The resulting brain activity suggested she understood the commands and was therefore conscious.

Now Owen's team has taken the idea a step further. A man also diagnosed with VS was able to answer yes and no to specific questions by imagining himself engaging in the same activities.

The results suggest that it is possible to give a degree of choice to some people who have no other way of communicating with the outside world. "We are not just showing they are conscious, we are giving them a voice and a way to communicate," says neurologist Steven Laureys of the University of Liège in Belgium, Owen's collaborator.

We are not just showing that people are conscious - we are giving them way of communicating

When someone is in a VS, they can breathe unaided, have intact reflexes but seem completely unaware. But it is becoming clear that some people who appear to be vegetative are in fact minimally conscious. They are in a kind of twilight state in which they may feel some pain, experience emotion and communicate to a limited extent. These two states can be distinguished from each other via bedside behavioural tests - but these tests are not perfect and can miss patients who are aware but unable to move. So researchers are looking for ways to detect consciousness with brain imaging.

My mother is an artist.  I did not inherit her talent.  I have tried to like all kinds of art.  I toured all of the best museums in Europe but her love of art has yet to rub off on me.  

But this exhibit in Des Moines would be one I would love to see:

Buckminsterfullerene is a key component in emerging nanotechnology.

Consider for second: How would life be different without aspirin?

Or gasoline?

Or any kind of plastic?

These questions — and a few of their answers — are part of an intriguing new show called "Molecules that Matter," which opened Friday and remains through Dec. 13 at Grinnell College's Faulconer Gallery. It chronicles the 20th century one chemical at a time, with cultural artifacts and modern works of art to help explain how tiny molecules make a huge impact on our lives.

The show examines 10 molecules in all, one for each decade: aspirin, isooctane (in gasoline), penicillin, polyethylene (in plastic), nylon, DNA, progestin (in the Pill), DDT, Prozac and the elaborately titled buckminsterfullerene (a component in emerging nanotechnology).

If previous eras were the Stone Age or the Bronze Age, future historians may call the 20th century the Chemical Age.

"Our knowledge of substances at the molecular level has significantly redefined our world - even life itself," writes Raymond Giguere in the exhibition's 192-page catalog. He created the touring show for the Chemical Heritage Foundation and the Tang Museum at Skidmore College in upstate New York, where he teaches organic chemistry.

"With a vaccine not immediately on the horizon, microbicides that can remove cholesterol from cell membranes, rendering HIV non-infectious, may play an important part in controlling the AIDS pandemic," says James Hildreth, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of pharmacology and molecular science at Johns Hopkins and principal investigator of the study.

Researchers found that a starchy substance that drains cholesterol from a cell’s membrane can completely block HIV transmission. Using microbicides that contain this cholesterol-depletor during sex should be able to reduce or stop HIV transmission, according to the study.

This starchy substance that removes the cholesterol HIV needs to infect cells from cell membranes is called cyclodextrin.  It sounds like a drug, but it isn't.  Cyclodextrins are used for all kinds of things from diet supplements to Febreze.  Cyclodextrins are now being investigated as a treatment for Niemann-Pick disease, type C a fatal genetic disease of cholesterol metabolism.  Patients with Niemann-Pick disease, type C cannot break down cholesterol and it builds up in their cells.

Cyclodextrin could be used in a cream that would prevent HIV transmission during sex which just might squash the raging debates over condom use as a strategy to prevent the spread of AIDS.  This could mean a prevention of HIV transmission without the contraceptive effect.  A concept the Catholic Church could possibly get behind for married couples where one partner has HIV.

Hat Tip: The Scientist

There has been a lot of debate about where the new vaccine against HPV is going to promote promiscuity. The vaccine is recommended for girls as young as 11. The argument is that the earlier that vaccination, the better the protection against HPV.

There are some Catholics who feels very strongly that the HPV vaccination is evil. I disagree and so does the Catholic Medical Association. Just because HPV is a sexually transmitted virus does not mean that prevention is unethical.

What is unethical is making the vaccine mandatory. HPV is not pertussis or polio or the measles or even the chicken pox. You do not "accidentally" get HPV. HPV can be prevented by responsible sexual behavior. Girls and their parents should have a choice whether or not vaccination for HPV is right for them.

That is why this story from USA Today makes me angry:

A new requirement that girls as young as 11 be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus before they can become legal U.S. residents is unfair, immigration advocates say.

The federal rule added Gardasil to the list of vaccinations that female immigrants ages 11 to 26 must get before they can obtain "green cards."

The series of three shots over six months protects against the strains of the human papillomavirus blamed for most cases of cervical cancer and genital warts. But the vaccine is one of the most expensive on the market and controversial.

"This is a huge economic, social and cultural barrier to immigrants who are coming into America," said Tuyet Duong, senior staff attorney for the Immigration and Immigrant Rights Program at the Asian American Justice Center.

At a cost of $400, Gardasil places an added burden on green card applicants already paying more than $1,000 in form fees and hundreds of dollars for mandatory medical exams, advocates say.

I am all for legal immigration. I am all for making sure the legal immigrants that come to the U.S. are healthy and get the same vaccines that are required for my children. But mandating that girls as young as 11 get vaccinated against HPV is downright wrong. Education? Yes. Give us your daughter so we can inject her with a vaccine that may or may not protect her from a sexually transmitted virus that is detectable with routine pap smears or else you cannot live here? Absolutely not!

I have to wonder how much the immigration official who made this insane decision is getting from the makers of the vaccine.

This video has probably been around, but I couldn't help but link to it because there are rarely good gags in science.

For the love of polymerase chain reaction, better known as PCR.

Everywhere in the the world infectious disease is a problem, but it is definitely a huge problem for the poorest nations.  Think HIV in Africa.  One of the problems with infectious disease is diagnosis.  You cannot treat infectious disease like HIV or Hepatitis B or C unless you know who has it and in poor rural areas access to and cost for testing is a problem.

One of the most powerful tools for infectious diesase testing is polymerase chain reaction or PCR.  PCR essentially makes millions of copies of a particular stretch of DNA.  The reason PCR is so useful is that it is very difficult to detect an active virus in a small blood sample.  Using PCR, if a virus is present in a sample, millions of copies of the viral DNA (or RNA) can be made and then easily detected.  Also, using PCR, if a bacteria like Tuberculosis or B. Pertussis (whooping cough) is present, millions of copies of the bacterial DNA can be made in a couple of hours and treatment can start right away if needed.

We use PCR to detect and quantitate hepatitis B and C in my laboratory.  Many other labs do the same for HIV and bacterial infections.  But that means the sample needs to be collected properly and brought to the lab under the right storage conditions.

Victor Ugaz of Texas A&M University in College Station has developed a portable, hand-held PCR machine that may revolutionize the way we test for disease.  From New Scientist:

A miniaturised DNA copier that is portable, costs $10, and runs on AA batteries, could prove vital in diagnosing AIDS and TB in developing countries

A pocket-sized $10 device that can "amplify" DNA is promising a cheap, portable method for diagnosing HIV and TB. Like existing lab equipment, the device uses the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify a sample, but is does this in as little as 20 minutes, rather than the hour or two usually needed. "I hope this will make PCR more available," says Victor Ugaz of Texas A&M University in College Station, whose group developed the device.

Fast, cheap and portable.  This device may help millions in poor countries who do not have access to proper diagnostic testing.  Proper diagnosis means proper treatment and that is a very good thing.

Some people are just so clever.  I am not into quilts, but think these are fabulous!

Hat Tip: My Biotech Life

From the Guardian:

British scientists are working on a baby formula which would chemically restructure the metabolic system of children to ensure they never became obese.

Studies in mice have found that large doses of the appetite-controlling hormone leptin during infancy permanently prevent excess weight gain and reduce the chances of type 2 diabetes.

Now researchers at the University of Buckingham say a leptin-enriched baby milk which does exactly the same is less than 10 years away, raising a plethora of medical, legal and ethical questions.

Other specialists in the field condemned the search for a medical answer to obesity, saying it is a modern social ill and that people need to address their lifestyles, not look for an artificial quick fix.

More suggested the translation to baby food would be impossible as people would not put their children forward for trials of the formula when they did not know the risks involved.

The research is reported in the journal Chemistry and Industry today.

Leptin turns off appetite throughout life, but the scientists last year proved that high doses in mice through pregnancy and early life permanently reduced weight. They now believe it plays a role in hard-wiring the brain's appetite response in infancy.

Mike Cawthorne, who led the researchers, said: "The supplemented milks are simply adding back something that was originally present: breast milk contains leptin and formula feeds don't.

"Yes, it raises ethical questions. Obesity is a social problem, but it's also a health problem which costs us millions of pounds a year and is getting worse. It's not just a social problem.

"New ideas always face scepticism, but I think this is very, very likely within several years' time."

Previous experiments in treating obese people with leptin have failed as people continued to overeat. And though some research has linked bottle-fed babies to childhood obesity, none has concluded that breast-fed babies resist obesity throughout life.

Nick Finer, clinical director at the Wellcome Clinical Research Facility at Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, said: "The concept that adding something to a food that could permanently alter brain development is exciting but at the same time so scary that it would mean a wholly new approach about how such treatments can be tested and approved for use. Would the first trials be in newly born children?

"The importance of leptin (and other hormones) at determining the development of brain circuits that control energy balance is an area of current research interest. The leap to a functional food being effective or safe is enormous."

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

In case you don't know who Craig Venter is, he is the man behind Celera, the company that was in a race with the Human Genome Project to be the first to sequence the entire human genome.  Celera and the HGP declared a tie.  Contrary to what you see on Heroes, Venter is one of a very few people who have had their DNA sequenced in the race for the entire human genetic code. 

Here is Venter on the Colbert Report plugging his new venture Synthetic Genomics which looks to harness the power of genetic engineering to revolutionize industry.  Via Genetics and Health 

From Wired News:

As a software engineer, I see the human mind as a beautiful combination of software and hardware. That's why I'm trying to hack my son's brain.

Caleb, 6, suffers from sensory processing disorder. To get a glimpse of what life is like for him, imagine you have no peripheral vision, and you constantly hear echos and distorted, out-of-sync sounds, making it hard to understand speech or appreciate music. When you walk, you can't tell where your legs are, or whether your arms are swinging. Sometimes just keeping your balance is difficult. You exasperate people for doing things you're not even aware of, like bumping into them or not making eye contact.

Like computers that can't multitask, or networks that lose information, this neurological disorder prevents the brain from correctly processing sensory input. The cause of SPD is a mystery, but the effects are very real.

Caleb is very bright, verbal, and a marvelous reader. But his brain can't handle all of the sensory input his body is sending him. His senses work individually to some extent, but when they are combined, his brain loses information.

The traditional treatment for SPD is occupational therapy. But I'm convinced that what Caleb needs instead is for his brain to be reprogrammed, recalibrated. With the help of some professionals and some surreal neurotechnology, we are trying to do just that.

The brain hack is a three-part "multisensory intervention program" at the Sensory Learning Center in Boulder, Colorado. A technician there subjects him to specialized light, sound, and motion therapy in a controlled environment. The goal is to help his brain reorganize the way it coordinates multisensory information. I have heard story after amazing story of children who have been helped by this program. It isn't cheap, and it isn't guaranteed, but I have to give my son a chance.

Hat Tip: Bioethics.com

When we think cancer, most of us think cancer not something you can "catch."  Actually, there is a virus, the human papilloma virus or HPV that is the leading cause of cervical cancer.  And you guessed it, HPV is a sexually transmitted virus.  It is estimated that over 6 million people contract HPV and close to 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer every year in the U.S.  The annual pap smear is the first line of defense against HPV and cervical cancer.

But now there is a vaccine called Gardasil for HPV and there is much debate about whether or not to vaccinate girls against HPV.  Some say that vaccinating girls against a sexually transmitted virus would promote promiscuity.  I am of the mind that while my girls may not be sexually promiscous, their future husband just may be.  So, I will likely vaccinate my girls.

Dr. Beverly at LifeEthics.org has a great summary of the statements about the HPV vaccine from various organizations, including the Catholic Medical Association which states:

1.  Is Use of the HPV Vaccine Ethical?

There is no ethical objection to the HPV vaccine either as a strategy against disease or in its production. Patients and parents must have the opportunity to give informed consent to its administration.

Ethics

The fact that HPV is spread primarily by sexual contact does not render vaccination against it unethical. Healing and preventing diseases, no matter what their source, are acts of mercy and a moral good. Prevention of HPV infection is distinct from, and should not be construed as encouraging, the behavior by which HPV is spread.

Production

Gardasil ® is composed of recombinant type-specific capsid proteins that are expressed in yeast and that aggregate spontaneously intovirus-like particles. Its production does not involve cell lines derived from tissues of intentionally aborted babies as do other common vaccines such as those against hepatitis A, (some) rabies, rubella, varicella, and zoster.

Informed Consent

Generally accepted principles of informed consent include disclosure(of benefits, risks, and alternatives),understanding andvoluntariness. (Regarding voluntariness, see the discussion of mandates for the HPV vaccine, below.) In addition to the basic facts summarized in the manufacturers prescribing information, physicians should ensure that patients and parents understand that: Although Gardasil ® covers HPV 16 and 18, which account for 70% of cervical cancers, 11 other high risk strains of HPV exist that cause cancer; The duration of efficacy of the vaccine is not yet known. Booster injections may be required for sustained immunity; There are effective alternatives for preventing cervical cancer. For example, as a result of routine Pap smears over the past 50 years, the age-adjusted incidence of cervical cancer in U.S. women declined from 14.8/100,000 in 1975 to .1/100,000 in 2003; and during that time,the age-adjusted mortality from cervical cancer declined from 5.6/100,000 to 2.5/100,000.

2.  Should the HPV Vaccine Be Mandated?

Public health officials and legislators across the country are discussing whether the HPV vaccine should be required for attendance at school by girls 9 years of age. Indeed, in some areas, public officials have been faced with intense lobbying efforts to mandate the use of this vaccine.The CMA opposes mandating the use of HPV vaccine, as well as direct or indirect efforts to pressure parents or minors to accept it. 

In summary, the CMA thinks that the HPV vaccine is ethical.  Just because HPV is sexually transmitted does not mean a vaccine against it is unethical.  The CMA also states that certain conditions need to be met, including that the vaccine is not mandatory and that parents and minors are properly informed about risks and efficacy.

Nanotechnology will become the new great biotechnology challenge for mankind.  What is nanotechnology?  Nanotechnology is an umbrella term that is used to describe a variety of techniques to fabricate materials and devices on the nanoscale.   That means that the materials are measured in nanometers (nm) or one billionth of a meter.  To put that in perspective, the diameter of a DNA double helix is 2 nm.

You need to care about nanotechnology because it has great promise while at the same time poses great peril.  The idea is that with nanotechnology we can create nanomachines that can repair our cells, clean up a dirty water supply, kill cancer or even boost our intelligence.

Nanotechnology could, of course be, used by terrorsits to deliver an attack of killing nanomachines invisible to the naked eye. 

And of course there is the proposed scenario that self-replicating nanomachines could take over the environment and destroy everything.  This would be the famous grey goo scenario.

How does nanotechnology relate to transhumanism, the movement to make humans "better than human" through enhancement?  Well, transhumanists want to use nanotechnology to boost human abilites and make us more than human.

Nigel Cameron and George Dvorsky face off on nanotechnology and transhumanism at Belief.net.  Dvorsky is a transhumanist that embraces the possibilites that nanotechnology may transform the human race and Cameron worries about abandoning the things that make us human.

Both Q&As are must reads.  I want to point out that Dvorsky does what many people do when discussing technology that has great possibility to cure disease: he equates therapy with enhancement like they are the same thing.  Cameron rightly points out that there is a difference between using nanotechnology to cure disease (therapy) and using it to make an already healthy individual "better than human" (enhancement.)

The Catholic Church would say that therapy is sound medicine if the dignity of the person is respected, and enhancement is an affront to the sanctity of human life and would always be unethical.

I found this at My Biotech Life and was thoroughly grossed out, then utterly fascinated.  Researchers at the University of Utah are working on a molecular condom that will fight the transmission of AIDS:

Dec. 11, 2006 - University of Utah scientists designed a "molecular condom" women could use daily to prevent AIDS by vaginally inserting a liquid that would turn into a gel-like coating and then, when exposed to semen, return to liquid form and release an antiviral drug.

"We have developed a new vaginal gel that we call a molecular condom because it is composed of molecules that are liquid at room temperature and, when applied in the vagina, will spread and turn into a gel and effectively coat the tissue," says Patrick Kiser, an assistant professor of bioengineering. "It's a smart molecular condom because we designed this gel to release anti-HIV drugs when the gel comes into contact with semen during intercourse."

"The ultimate hope for this technology is to protect women and their unborn or nursing children from the AIDS virus," but the molecular condom is five years away from tests in humans and roughly 10 years until it might be in widespread use, Kiser says.

At first, I was totally disgusted by this.  As a Catholic, my knee-jerk reaction against the word "condom" made me overlook what this is really about.  The site mentions nothing about the prevention of pregnancy, just a way to deliver anti-HIV drugs to the place they are needed the most:

Kiser says the University of Utah molecular condom would be a more advanced method of delivering an antiviral drug to prevent infection by the AIDS virus.

"Up until now, most of the microbicide work has focused on the development of the active drug, not on the delivery of the drug," Kiser says. "This study and other work in my lab are directed at developing new technologies for vaginal delivery of antiviral agents, particularly a microbicide that can respond to triggers [body temperature and semen] that are present before, during and after intercourse. This is the first paper that begins to point in that direction."

Kiser says the dosage of anti-HIV drugs in first-generation microbicides lasts only a few hours, so "you have to use them an hour before sex, which is difficult. You only need one failure to get the disease. We're shooting for a microbicide delivery system that would be used once a day or once a month."

I doubt that if the molecular condom turns to liquid upon intercourse that it would not be very effective as a contraceptive.  HIV is carried in the semen, not the sperm.

As with most announcements in the biotech arena, I have to stop and think if this development is inherently good, bad or neither.  In this case, after much thought, my sentiment is that the molecular condom against HIV could be a good thing.  If it doesn't have any significant contraceptive action, then it may be a blessing for married couples where one partner is HIV positive.  They could even have a child with a significantly lower risk of either the mother or baby contracting HIV. 

Of course the molecular condom could promote promiscuity if used incorrectly, but so can a lot of things (like television).  And in the case of widespread rape in some areas of Africa, it maybe the only way a woman could protect herself against HIV:

Microbicides are seen as a way for women to gain power by protecting themselves from HIV, particularly in impoverished nations where AIDS is widespread, where rape is rampant or where conventional condoms are taboo, not reliably available or where men resist using them.

What is your opinion?

Remember the anthrax scare of 2001?  The federal government was charged with quickly getting an anthrax vaccine in mass production.  Things aren't going as well as planned.  From the Washington Post:

By now, millions of anthrax vaccine shots developed through cutting-edge genetic engineering were supposed to be filling a new national stockpile of biodefense drugs. Instead, five years after anthrax attacks left five dead, sickened 17 and panicked the country, the nearly $1 billion contract awarded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to a tiny and struggling San Francisco Bay Area biotechnology company is plagued with misfortune and delays.

Delivery has been put off until at least 2008 and maybe later while the government and VaxGen Inc. trade barbs over who is at fault. The dispute has further tarnished Project Bioshield, a government program that has alienated many potential biodefense contractors.

The anthrax attacks of 2001 prompted passage of Project Bioshield, which promised to build national drug stockpiles to be used in case of a bioterror attack.

The project was supposed to jump start a national security renaissance among drug makers by guaranteeing contracts to develop drugs for combatting potential bioweapons. But it has been greeted with skepticism by many in the industry.

The anthrax project, the first and largest Bioshield contract, was to be the crown jewel.

In November 2004, the $877.5 million contract was awarded to VaxGen to genetically engineer a replacement for the current anthrax vaccine, which requires six shots to be administered over 18 months. VaxGen's is expected to require no more than three shots.

Since winning the contract, however, VaxGen has repeatedly stumbled, starting with its disclosure it would miss the original deadline of November 2005 by a year.

I have never blogged about Terri Schiavo simply because her tragic death had more to do with the law and the culture of death than with biotechnology.  Until I read this.  From Wired Magazine:

For someone left for dead 12 years ago, Candice Ivey seems to be doing pretty well. She's still got her homecoming queen looks and A-student smarts. She has earned a college degree and holds a job as a recreational therapist in a retirement community. She has, however, lost her ballerina grace and now walks a bit like her feet are asleep....

In November 1994, when Ivey was 17, a log truck T-boned her Chevy Blazer. She remembers nothing of the next two months. But it's all seared into the memory of her mother, Elaine, especially the part where the doctors told her that Candice, who was in a coma and breathing by respirator, should be pronounced dead. Her brain, they said, was entirely and irreversibly destroyed by a week of swelling and bleeding and being pushed up against the inside of her skull like a ship scuttled on a reef.

A few days later, however, Candice proved the doctors wrong. Unhooked from the respirator, she continued to breathe on her own – something she couldn't have done if she were truly brain-dead. Now Elaine faced the horrible decision of whether or not to feed her child. The doctors warned her that Candice would probably never wake up, and if she did, she almost certainly would be unable to live independently. In the worst case, she would enter the permanent twilight known as a persistent vegetative state, in which she might sleep and wake and move her limbs, yawn and sneeze and utter sounds, but not in a way that was purposeful. Elaine decided to keep the feeding tube in place, which, she recalls, made the neurosurgeon furious. "He thought I was just prolonging her agony and that I would have a vegetable on my hands," she says. "But when it's your child lying there, you'll do anything."

In this case, anything included letting an orthopedic surgeon named Edwin Cooper try an experimental treatment. He approached Elaine out of the blue soon after the accident and urged her to let him put an electrified cuff on Candice's wrist. It sent a 20-milliampere charge – enough to make her hand clench and her arm tremble a little – into her median nerve, a major pathway to the brain. It might rouse her from her coma, he said.

"I thought it was hokey, if you want to know the truth," Elaine says. She agreed nonetheless – she was, she says, "drunk as a coot" from a combination of "nerve pills and a full glass of whisky" – and the cuff went on. Within a week, Elaine was sure that Candice was stirring. Her doctors doubted it. "They kept telling me it was just reflexes, but a momma knows." Then, just before New Year's Day, a month after the accident, Cooper asked Candice how many little pigs there were. She held up three fingers.

Now 29, Candice Ivey is thrilled to see the 64-year-old Cooper when he shows up at her door. She gives him a big, warm hug and sits close to him on the couch. They chat about the presentation on traumatic brain injury that she recently gave to nurses at Cooper's hospital, and how hearing the story of her ordeal again brought him to tears. As she tells me of her injury and its aftermath, she comes back time and again to her gratitude. "The wreck was my fault," she says. "But getting better, that was God's doing. He sent Dr. Cooper to my momma, didn't he?"

Hat tip:  Women's Bioethics Blog

Yeah, this is a shocker.  From EurekaAlerts:

News stories about medical research, often based on initial findings presented at professional conferences, frequently omit basic facts about the study and fail to highlight important limitations, warn Dartmouth researchers in the latest issue of the Medical Journal of Australia. Such omissions can mislead the public and distort the actual significance of the research, they caution.

Really?  I would have never thought that omissions by reporters about medical research could possibly mislead the public. 

Nonetheless, scientific meeting research receives extensive news media coverage. "Unless journalists are careful to provide basic study facts and highlight limitations the public may be misled about the meaning, importance and validity of the research", said Woloshin.

The researchers found that basic study facts were often missing. For example, a third of reports failed to mention study size; 40% did not quantify the main result at all.

Important study limitations were often missing. For example, only 6% (1/17) of the news stories about animal studies noted that results might not apply to humans. And only 2 of 175 stories about unpublished studies noted that the study was unpublished. Schwartz and Woloshin, who frequently present to the media on how to understand and accurately report research results, say that...reporters can and should do better...

My mother always said,  "There is a special place in Hell for the mainstream media."

A new vaccine for cevical cancer is now awaiting approval by the FDA.  A vaccine for cancer?  Actually, it is a vaccine for the human papillomavirus or HPV which the most common sexually transmittted disease in the world and the cause of almost all cervical cancers.

From a commentary by Ben Daitz M.D. in the New York Times:

"Someone please help me with my daughter!" the middle-aged woman announced in the waiting room of our clinic. "She's in the back of the car and I can't carry her."

I followed the woman to her car. Her daughter, in her late 20's, lay huddled under a blanket in the back seat. Her face was ashen and her body cadaveric, and when I picked her up, she stared at me with hollow, dull eyes as her bones rubbed against my arms. Her mother told me that she'd brought her daughter back on a plane from New York City, where she'd been a ballerina. I had never seen an adult patient so thin, so emaciated.

My patient said she had pain in her abdomen and pelvis, and when I did a pelvic exam, I did not know what I was feeling. I only knew it was very bad.

That was almost 30 years ago, and I was feeling the contours of a cauliflowerlike mass, a so-called fungating carcinoma of the cervix, a cancer every bit as bad as it sounds. It caused my young patient's death several weeks later.

There are calls to vaccinate every woman aged 10 to 26 with this vaccine.  But not everyone is on board:

Dr. Wheeler and most other public health specialists argue that vaccinating young girls and eventually, boys, before they become sexually active is the best overall prevention strategy and the most effective way to continue to research the vaccines' efficacy (although no effectiveness studies have yet been done in males). But some conservative Christians oppose mandatory vaccination, and have argued that the vaccine would promote promiscuity and detract from their, and the Bush administration's, abstinence messages in the United States and abroad.

Okay, I am about as conservative as they come and also a mother of 3 beautiful girls and I can't see how anyone could be against vaccinating girls with HPV vaccine.  I am not concerned that the vaccine would promote promiscuity since I will do my best to ensure that my children won't lead a promiscuous lifestyle.  I am concerned about date rape, sexual assault and wandering husbands.  When it is time, I will march my girls down to the doctors office to get their HPV vaccine, just like I would if there was a vaccine for HIV.  I think, how could I not?

The Editors of the American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB)comment on Leon Kass' comments on the propect of biotechnology artificially increasing the human life span:

Time again for the biannual screed by Leon Kass that anything humans do to lengthen their lives is at best a Faustian bargian; soon we'll let our pursuit of long life make us Dorian Gray. Doubtless you've read one of these pieces before, even if by accident, but as usual this one leads the reader to conclude that indeed, Leon Kass is right that he would not enjoy living forever, or that he might be less tolerable human if he were to live an artificially long life.

It is no secret that the AJOB editors are liberal and, from the above quote, clearly they are not fans of Leon Kass who has conservative views on increasing the human life span and on bioethics in general.

I am always puzzled by liberals who are all for artifically expanding the human life span to 150 years or beyond through genetic engineering or other extraordinary means.  I thought liberals were the ones concerned about over-population?  Imagine the "population-problem" if we all lived to 200?

Hmmmm.  They must think its OK for them to populate the earth as long as they want, just so long as the rest of us stop having babies.  Now that is what I call compassion.

It is time to talk about the field of synthetic biology which has been in the news quite a bit lately.  What is synthetic biology?  Well, in traditional biology, a scientist studies a life form to discover how it functions.  In synthetic biology, a scientist creates a life form from "scratch" to perform a particular function.  It is a totally revolutionary way to think about engineering.

From Wikipedia:

Engineers view biology as a technology. Synthetic Biology includes the broad redefinition and expansion of biotechnology, with the ultimate goals of being able to design and build engineered biological systems that process information, manipulate chemicals, fabricate materials, produce energy, provide food, and maintain and enhance human health and our environment. One aspect of Synthetic Biology which distinguishes it from conventional genetic engineering is a heavy emphasis on developing foundational technologies that make the engineering of biology easier and more reliable. Good examples of engineering in Synthetic Biology include Tim Gardner and Jim Collins' pioneering work on an engineered genetic toggle switch, the Registry of Standard Biological Parts, and the intercollegiate Genetically Engineering Machine competition (iGEM).

Synthetic biology has some real potential.  Synthetic biologists can take the best of micro-organisms and create a new breed to do our "dirty-work."  Engineering an organism means you know how it works and with that the possibilities are endless.  From The A to Z of Nanotechnology:

According to Professor Clyde Hutchison, a biochemist who helped sequence the Mycoplasma genome, “The advantage of a synthetic organism over manipulating natural organisms ... is then you would have a lot more control over the properties of the cell than if you rely on natural mechanisms. For either good purposes or bad purposes ... you’d be in a better position to design exactly what you want.” 

With funding from the US Department of Energy (DoE), Venter’s eventual goal is to build synthetic organisms that could produce energy and mitigate climate change. Both Venter and the DOE point to the wider applications of synthetic life, noting that benefits could include “the development of better vaccines and safer strategies for gene therapy; improving agricultural crop yields that are better disease resistance [sic] and improving strategies for combating agricultural diseases and even enhancing our ability to detect and defeat potential biothreat agents which is important to homeland security.”

But as it seems with all advances in biotechnology, synthetic biology has the potential for great harm.  From the Guardian:

Scientists tinkering with the machinery of life need strict policing to prevent dangerous new organisms from being created and escaping from laboratories, a coalition of environmental groups, trade unions and ethicists is warning.

The groups raise concern over the field of "synthetic biology", which has already witnessed the creation of the polio virus from scratch and the resurrection of the 1918 flu virus, which claimed an estimated 40 million lives around the world.

Critics fear that experiments with viruses and microbes are not being policed properly and could lead to the creation of dangerous new organisms, or give terrorists tools for biological weapons.

Think engineered airborne Ebola virus and I think you get the picture.  Scary, very scary.  And very real:

Fears over synthetic biology emerged in 2001 when Australian scientists were trying to genetically modify a mousepox virus in the hope of making a contraceptive to keep mice populations down. But tinkering with the virus created a powerful new strain which, within nine days, killed every animal it was injected into.

A year later, scientists at the State University of New York, led by Eckard Wimmer, proved what many feared possible - that the technology could also bring back some of the world's most feared diseases. Using genetic sequences for polio obtained by mail order, the researchers built the world's first synthetic virus, prompting Dr Wimmer to warn that other viruses, such as smallpox, could similarly be made given the knowhow.

So is there anyway to make sure synthetic biology doesn't run amok?  I do not know if it is entirely possible but this would be a good start:

"Scientists creating new life forms cannot be allowed to act as judge and jury," said Sue Mayer, of Genewatch. "The implications are too serious to be left to well-meaning but self-interested scientists. Public debate and policing is needed."

Hmmm...the same thing that is needed in the ESC and cloning fields!  Coincidence?  I think not!

This article from the Seattle Times on parents who use home drug testing kits on their kids really takes me back.  While searching for a job in my chosen field, I spent a year in a toxicology lab testing gallons of urine for drugs by Gas Chromotography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).  I learned alot of great information about the "ins and outs" of drug testing, which is becoming more and more common. (You wouldn't believe how many calls I get from people that start, "So I had to take this drug test for work...")  I was sad when I left, for two reasons: 1. The stories I could tell about people who tried to fool the test with Snapple, dishsoap, or even whiskey! and 2. because I could no longer threaten my kids with an easy drug test!

I am all for these home drug testing kits, IF there are clear instructions on the possibilities for false positives.  These dipstick tests are sensitive, but not always specific.  Many legal drugs have similar chemical structures to illegal drugs.  I know that Sudafed (pseudoephedrine) can cause a false positive for amphetamines like Meth because they are very similar to each other chemically.  Also, heroin, which rapidly metabolizes into morphine in the blood stream, will give a positive morphine result, but so will eating poppy seeds.  (We used to test this and it is true!  Everytime someone brought in those big poppy seed muffins from Costco, we would test ourselves and sure enough within an hour or two, we had a real positive for morphine.  It seems that there is raw morhine on the surface of the poppy seed that won't get you high but will show up in your urine.)

If there are any doubts, parents should pay the extra money and find a good GC/MS drug testing lab (certified by the College of American Pathologists) that can surely tell the difference between Sudafed and Meth or can give a quantitative result for morphine which could distingush a morning poppy seed muffin from a real heroin habit.  These labs also usually employ scientists who are experts in interpreting results which may come in handy for parents whose child does test positive or even unexpectedly negative!

I have decided I want to stay positive today, but there is so much good stuff today in the world of biotechnology, I hardly know where to begin. 

Well, I'll start with the creepy crawlies that maybe the way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  From the AP:

The key to kicking what President Bush calls the nation's oil addiction could very well lie in termite guts, canvas-eating jungle bugs and other microbes genetically engineered to spew enzymes that turn waste into fuel.

It may seem hard to believe that microscopic bugs usually viewed as destructive pests can be so productive. But scientists and several companies are working with the creatures to convert wood, corn stalks and other plant waste into sugars that are easily brewed into ethanol — essentially 199-proof moonshine that can be used to power automobiles.

Read the whole article, it is fascinating.

Next up:  Z-DNA.  What is Z-DNA?  It is a conformation that DNA can take that is very unstable and may be the cause of some cancers.  From Bioinfo Online:

When otherwise normal DNA adopts an unusual shape called Z-DNA, it can lead to the kind of genetic instability associated with cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma, according to a study by researchers at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center...

Imagine untwisting the DNA ladder and then winding it up the other way. The result is a twisted mess with segments jutting out left and right, and the all important base pairs that hold the DNA code zigzagging in a jagged zipper shape. Scientists call this left-hand twist Z-DNA. This is a far cry from the graceful right-hand twisted helix that has become an iconic symbol of biology. It just doesn't look right, and it doesn't act right either, according to Vasquez...

Interestingly, these sequences prone to forming Z-DNA are often found in genetic "hot spots," areas of DNA known to be prone to the genetic rearrangements associated with cancer. About 90 percent of patients with Burkitt's lymphoma, for example, have DNA breaks that map to regions with the potential to form these odd DNA structures.

Good news for cancer research.

Finally, GO ICELAND!  No, not the Olympic Skiing team.  It turns out that because Iceland is one of the most genetically homogenous countries in the world (in liberal speak that means they suffer from a lack of diversity), it is a great place to discover the genetic contributors to many diseases.  From Time.com:

Thus began Iceland's great genetic experiment, an attempt to mine the gene pool of an entire country in search of the root causes of--and potential cures for--some of the world's worst diseases... Over the past decade, deCODE Genetics, the company Stefansson co-founded in his home city of Reykjavík, has discovered more than a dozen genes linked to diseases ranging from stroke to schizophrenia. Last month, deCODE announced that it had found a gene that boosts the risk of Type 2 diabetes. And within a few weeks, the company will start the final phase of trials for a drug based on a newly identified heart-attack gene that appears to be especially dangerous in African Americans...

In principle, their method is straightforward: to find a disease-related gene, find someone with the disease, then see how his or her DNA differs from the DNA of healthy people. In practice, however, individual genes rarely cause illness on their own; instead, they tend to make people more susceptible. And in places with genetically mixed populations, the complex interaction among genes makes it hard to find the risky ones. But in Iceland, with its uniform population and genealogies that show how everyone is related, risky genes tend to stand out. The country's meticulous medical records provide even more data.

Obviously, this has major implications for genetic discrimination, but as I am being positive today, I say, "Hooray for Iceland!"

Add on: Researchers in Minnesota have found umbilical cord stem cells that have great potential.  From United Press International:

The researchers say the new population of cells identified in human umbilical cord blood have properties of primitive stem cells.

Umbilical cord blood is generally known to contain hematopoietic stem cells that can only produce cells found in blood. The new findings, however, identify a small population of cord blood cells with the characteristics of more primitive stem cells that have the potential to produce a greater variety of cell types.

Good day!

After that last enry, I needed a laugh.  My mom sent me this:

A Croatia lumberjack claims he started 'enjoying housework and knitting' after he was given a female kidney..

Stjepan Lizacic, 56, from Osijek, is suing his local health authority because he says he's become a laughing stock.

He says his life changed from enjoying heavy drinking sessions with pals to prefering housework after the operation.

He told local newspaper 24sata: "The kidney transplant saved my life, but they never warned me about the side effects.

"I have developed a strange passion for female jobs like ironing, sewing, washing dishes, sorting clothes in wardrobes and even knitting."

Okay, where do I get one of those for my husband?!?!