Mary Meets Dolly

Giving the 'unconscious' a voice

nospam@example.com (Rebecca Taylor) — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:21:53 -0800

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.

Does the government have your child's DNA? Updated.

nospam@example.com (Rebecca Taylor) — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:05:51 -0800

**It seems like the practice of saving newborn screening cards by state governments is getting more and more attention. This entry is becoming very popular, so I decided to update it a bit with a link to a document that lists which states are saving newborn cards and for how long.**

HealthofChildren.com

I hate to be so sensational, but I think it is important for parents to understand that your child's DNA maybe stored in a state government facility and you have no idea.

Impossible you say? You know that heel stick that your child got in the hospital right after birth? Some states keep and catalog that blood for use in further research and some envision a time when a whole genome scan is performed on that sample. There are real concerns that the information provided by that seemingly innocuous heel stick could be used to usher in a new era of eugenics.

Now I am NOT saying that the newborn testing programs that screen newborns for as many as 76 genetic conditions is evil. I think these newborn screening programs are important to the health of American children. But I am very concerned that parents are not informed about what happens to their children's blood after it leaves their precious little feet. I am sure that parents do not know that once the blood leaves their child, it is often the property of the State.

The Citizens' Council on Health Care has released a report in 2009 that raises concerns about the extension of eugenics into State newborn screening programs. The report states:

Newborn genetic screening is done at State health department laboratories. Hospitals send newborn blood on a special card to the health department. The test results are then sent to the infants physician. Some Statesperhaps all Statesregister newborn test results in a state database....
Public health agencies not only collect genetic testing data, they collect DNAthe babys blood. Hospitals are required to send more blood to the agency than is needed for the testing. This over-collection provides health officials with a rich supply of citizen DNA that some states are already using for research without consent....
Twenty states store newborn blood samples from one to 23 years. With 4 million babies born each year and at least ten states retaining newborn blood indefinitely, the repository of infant DNA is large and growing. The babys DNA is considered state government property. According to the book, The Stored Tissue Issue, there are currently more than 13.5 million newborn screening cards in storage and new cards being stored at a rate of 10,000 - 500,000 cards a year, depending on state populations. Most parents have no idea this is happening.

I believe the issue here is not the newborn screening. It is the fact that parents are not being properly informed about what is being done with their child's DNA. States do allow parents to "opt out", but that means that their child does not get the benefit of testing.

Parents need to be given the option of having their child's sample be destroyed after the testing is done. Any storage or use of their child's DNA for research should be an "opt in" situation where informed consent is given by the parents for any use outside the scope of the initial genetic testing.

Beyond the parental consent issue, the Citizens' Council on Health Care is concerned that these databases will be used to bring back state-sponsored eugenics:

Todays newborn genetic screening advocates envision a much more comprehensive program in the future. The Heartland Regional Genetics and Newborn Screening Collaborative looks forward to every infant being screened for at least 200 different conditions. Others predict the full genomic sequencing of each child at birth. Søren Holm writes in the book, A Companion to Genethics:
Newborn screening, which is usually mandated by governments to identify and treat diseases of infancy, has been limited, for ethical reasons, to disorders where early diagnosis and treatment would benefit the newborn, but with multiplex tests the focus of testing may be expanding to include some nontreatable disorders. Kitcher (1996) foresees the day when parents will receive an entire genetic report card at the childs birth predicting lifetime health.
Such predictive capability in the hands of government officials and others is not without significant eugenic risk.

Unfortunately, the Citizens' Council on Health Care is correct. Especially in a possible future state sponsored health-care system where rationing health care resources is a necessity, your child's genetic profile maybe used against them.

The Citizens' Council on Health Care concludes that parents need to be given choices on what conditions their children are tested for. They call for the destruction of any existing State newborn DNA repositories and call for informed consent from parents for further storage and testing of newborn DNA.

This chart complied by the Citizens' Council on Health Care lists a State by State government newborn blood & baby DNA retention practices. Going back to 2001, it lists whether or not your state stores your child's blood from a newborn screening card, and for how long. And remember, the blood and DNA on those cards are considered the property of the state.

If you have children 8 years or younger, I would recommend finding out if your child's blood is being stored by your state. Two of my children will have their newborn screening cards stored until they are adults.

If the information on this chart bothers you, I suggest contacting your state representatives and let them know. As parents we should be fully informed about what happens to our children's DNA once it leaves their bodies. Parents need to be given the option of having their child's sample be destroyed after the testing is done. Any storage or use of their child's DNA for research should be an "opt in" situation where informed consent is given by the parents for any use outside the scope of the initial genetic testing.

South Dakota Woman Claims she received ESC Transplant in Mexico

nospam@example.com (Rebecca Taylor) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:50:44 -0800

This story is either super sloppy journalism or outright deception. KSFY in South Dakota reports that a South Dakota woman, Paula Barber received an embryonic stem cell transplant for her multiple sclerosis (M.S.) in Tijuana, Mexico:

The controversial issue of embryonic stem cell treatment in South Dakota hits the senate floor Wednesday.

That's when the full senate is expected to vote on a bill aimed at legalizing stem cell treatments in South Dakota.

The main part of this debate is between adult stem cell treatment versus embryonic stem cell treatment.

Opponents of this bill say embryonic stem cell treatment is "not" proven to work.

But tonight we hear from an Onida, South Dakota woman who says embryonic stem cell treatment saved her life.

South Dakota native Paula Barber just turned fifty years old, a celebration she says does not think she would be having without embryonic stem cell treatment.

"M.S. is pretty much a death sentence and it has totally given me my live back."

She was diagnosed with Multiple Sclorosis back in 2001.

After trying several other treatments she says she heard about embryonic stem cell treatment being done in Mexico.

So she traveled to Tijuana to start getting treatments.

Of course this report comes just as South Dakota lawmakers to considering making embryonic stem cell research legal in South Dakota.

I find this woman's claim highly doubtful. The FDA has yet to approve any trial using embryonic stem cells in the United States. It is possible that some crazy man in Tijuana is injecting unsuspecting patients with embryonic stem cells. More likely, Pamela was treated with adult stem cells and is either confused or lying.

But because of sloppy or deceptive journalism no one can fact check this assertion that she was treated with embryonic and not adult stem cells. The name of the doctor or the clinic that treated her is not in the report. Convenient. I did some research and found several clinics in Tijuana that are offering stem cell treatments. Not one is using embryonic stem cells. Stem Cell Biotherapy is using cord blood stem cells. The Regenerative Medicine Institute is using a patients own bone marrow stem cells to treat M.S. Same with ProgenCell.

On a greater level is the journalistic irresponsibility of KSFY by not checking to see if stem cell treatments in Tijuana are considered safe. A quick look would reveal complaints of Americans about their treatments in Tijuana. From the Washington Post:

Barbara Hanson and Jeannine Richardson discovered the risks after a trip to a stem cell clinic in Tijuana, Mexico, last year.

The women, who met in an online support forum for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, learned of a company called Stem Cell Biotherapy, which has offices in Agoura Hills, Calif., and advertised online. Hanson says one of the company's doctors, Burton Feinerman, told her he had taken 10 COPD patients to Tijuana and all had improved enough to discard their portable oxygen tanks.

But a week after traveling to Tijuana at Feinerman's direction and getting injections, both women spiked fevers and developed flulike symptoms. Richardson was hospitalized for eight days after returning home to New Hampshire.

"It was like the worst pneumonia I'd ever had," said Hanson, who lives near Denver. "It was so bad I honestly thought I was going to die." Hanson believes the injections made her and Richardson sick...

Stem Cell Biotherapy has brought a lawsuit against Casey Navabi, their founder and former President, mentioned in the above Post article, for fraud, embezzlement and impersonating a doctor among other things.

Hat Tip: Jivin J

Surrogates movie: a comment on enhancement vs. therapy

nospam@example.com (Rebecca Taylor) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:40:07 -0800

Last night I saw the latest Bruce Willis flick Surrogates. It is a story about a world where most everyone uses a robotic surrogate to go about their daily business. Crime and disease disappear as people no longer interact face to face, but through their synthetic double. Even husband and wife living in the same house use their surrogates to relate.

I won't spoil the movie by giving away the plot details, but I wanted to talk about how most things in science and technology that threaten our humanity begin: as a way to help the sick. The man who designed the surrogate in this movie did it as a way to help disabled people live a better life. His vision was taken and used by people who did not need it. It was used for vain and selfish reasons.

The real world is no different. While preimplantation genetic diagnosis is always morally wrong, it began as a way to have kids without devastating fatal diseases. Now it is used to make children to "specifications" like sex and tissue compatibility for a sick sibling. The same will be true for genetic engineering. Genetic engineering that is intended to heal genetic disease can be used on the healthy to make them better than human in strength, intelligence or even beauty.

It seems that in movies like Surrogates, GATTACA, and The Island, it is inevitable that technology that was designed to help humanity eventually destroys our humanity. But in the real world it does not have to go down like it does in science fiction. IF we make the distinction that the Catholic Church has made. There is a difference between using genetic engineering and technology to help the sick or disabled and using the same technology to take an otherwise healthy person and enhance them beyond normal human abilities. While therapy seeks to improve the human condition, enhancement seeks to fundamentally alter it. From the Charter for Health Care Workers:

"In moral evaluation a distinction must be made between strictly <therapeutic> manipulation, which aims to cure illnesses caused by genetic or chromosome anomalies (genetic therapy), from manipulation <altering> the human genetic patrimony. A curative intervention, which is also called "genetic surgery," "will be considered desirable in principle. provided its purpose is the real promotion of the personal well-being of the individual, without damaging his integrity or worsening his condition of life.
On the other hand, interventions which are not directly curative, the purpose of which is 'the production of human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities,' which change the genotype of the individual and of the human species, 'are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being, to his integrity and to his identity. Therefore they can be in no way justified on the pretext that they will produce some beneficial results for humanity in the future,' 'no social or scientific usefulness and no ideological purpose could ever justify an intervention on the human genome unless it be therapeutic, that is its finality must be the natural development of the human being."

Most of our society is unaware that there is a distinction between technological therapy and human enhancement. It is our job to enlighten. We do have the ability to harness technology without it fundamentally changing what it means to be human, without the technology ruling us. To do that we must draw a line in the sand between morally laudable therapy and human altering enhancement.

Dean Koontz on scientism

nospam@example.com (Rebecca Taylor) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:15:45 -0800

I read. A lot. I have been known to average a novel a day. What slows me down is a lack of good books to read. Thank goodness for Dean Koontz who is quickly becoming one of my favorites. His recent works are great. I began with the gruesome but thought provoking The Taking, continued on to the dark, but wholly funny and entertaining, Life Expectancy and then on to the Odd Thomas series. Now I am hooked.

Your Heart Belongs to Me, one of his most recent, captured the creepy love affair with death that is the assisted suicide movement like no other fiction book I have ever read.

Yesterday , I started his Frankenstein trilogy which is about transhumanism, the movement to genetically enhance mankind to be better than human in intelligence, strength or beauty. I will let you know how it is. I was immediately struck by the dedication which had so much truth in it I just had to share it:

This trilogy is dedicated to the late Mr. Lewis, who long ago realized that science was being politicized, that its primary goal was changing from knowledge to power, that it was also becoming scientism, and that in the ism is the end of humanity.

The Mr. Lewis is of course C.S. Lewis. I won't try to elaborate on Koontz's dedication because I think it reflects the dangers of turning science into a religion perfectly.

Wanna get pregnant? There is an app for that!

nospam@example.com (Rebecca Taylor) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:12:57 -0800

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.

Republican Eugenics

nospam@example.com (Rebecca Taylor) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:31:17 -0800

No one is immune to the lure of eugenics. Since eugenics was a progressive movement, Republicans should know better. But not all do as Joe Carter from First Things Blog points out:

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. Youre facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that dont think too much further than that. And so what youve got to do is youve got to curtail that type of behavior. They dont 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.

Aborted fetus stem cells injected into ALS patient

nospam@example.com (Rebecca Taylor) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:02:48 -0800

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 cellsinjections 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 nameataxia 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 fetusesimmature 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.

Rocking Embryos Might Boost IVF Success

nospam@example.com (Rebecca Taylor) — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:31:00 -0800

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.

First oral bacteria linking a mother and her stillborn baby found

nospam@example.com (Rebecca Taylor) — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:29:00 -0800

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.

Investors Business Daily: ESC researchers politicized science

nospam@example.com (Rebecca Taylor) — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:12:00 -0800

Wow! is all I can say after reading this editorial in the Investors Business Daily. I have always said if you want the best information on stem cell research look to the business sector. Here is an excerpt:

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

Unreliable evidence? A look at DNA forensics

nospam@example.com (Rebecca Taylor) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:15:21 -0800

DNA is largely considered to be the gold standard in forensics. If a suspect's DNA is found at the crime scene, it is compelling evidence for a conviction. But how is a DNA match determined? There are many places in our genetic code where there are short sequences that are repeated over and over. These repeated regions are called short tandem repeats or STRs. The places where these STRs occur are called loci. There are many variations in the lengths of STRs (I may have 5 repeats at a particular loci and you may have 8 ) and by looking at many different loci scientists create a kind of profile or human bar code that is unique to each individual. This technique is also used to determine parentage because you inherit half of your unique barcode from your mother and half from your father.

STR data

So where is the problem in this technique? After scientists analyze the DNA found at a crime scene, they compare it to the suspect's DNA to see if their barcodes match. The more loci where the STRs match, the more likely that the DNA comes from the same individual. Typically, to make sure that the barcodes matched, labs in the United States look at 13 loci. Labs in the United Kingdom look at 10 loci. If all 10-13 loci had the same lengths of STRs, it was said that the DNA was from the same individual. The lower the number of loci, the less confidence the DNA is a match. In other words the longer the barcode, the better the identification tool.

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.

Three Ways Babies are Born to Specifications

nospam@example.com (Rebecca Taylor) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:25:37 -0800

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 dont guarantee illness, but which are associated with higher risks of breast and colon cancer and Alzheimers 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

New NY Clinic offers alternative to IVF

nospam@example.com (Rebecca Taylor) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:18:00 -0800

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 womens 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....

Theres no suffering comparable to what you see in an infertile couple, Mielnik said. Theyre desperate to have a child and when they look for guidance, they end up in an IVF clinic. Theyre 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 Churchs 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. Vincents Medical Center obstetrics department to establish her Gianna center under St. Vincents banner.

She called St. Vincents 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 womans 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 womans 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.

Creationism Permission Slip

nospam@example.com (Rebecca Taylor) — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:44:38 -0800

Being that I just taught the evolution chapter to my home school biology class of Catholic high schoolers and we discussed "young earth creationism", I got a kick out of this from Patrick at the Creative Minority Report:

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 dont 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.

I am just wondering how well the Bible would serve as a reference for an essay on rock and minerals. Good luck with that.