Genetically Engineered Cows Produce Human Milk_No Safety Studies for Children

Genetically modified cows have been engineered to produce a human lysozyme in their milk.  This milk is headed for commercial futures, intended for children.  The American public will have no choice of consumption or understandings of the milk's bad health effects since genetically engineered foods are not mandated to be labeled .  Adequate safety studies are not provided to the public.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.html

Lack of Enforcement against Drug Industry Fraud



Pharmaecutical companies use fraud
because it makes money
 and there is little punishment



Excerpts from: 

Drug Industry Fraud

By RALPH NADER

The corporate defrauding of taxpayers (eg. Medicaid and Medicare) and prescription drugs with skyrocketing prices was the subject of a report by Public Citizen's Dr. Sidney Wolfe and his associates (see citizen.org).

Dr. Wolfe's team compiled a total of 165 federal and state settlements since 1991 totaling $19.8 billion in penalties. A key finding is that the drug industry's penalties under the Federal False Claims Act exceed even those assessed against the overcharging defense industry for fraud.

Since the corporate bosses of these drug firms are almost never prosecuted, what these executives fear the most are company employees who go public with the evidence of corporate misdeeds.

These violations do more than financial damage to consumers and government health insurance programs. One of the worst violations involves companies promoting unproven, often dangerous uses for their medicines. Last year, Pfizer paid $1.2 billion for illegal off-label promotion -the largest criminal fine in U.S.history.

The violations by these and other drug companies point to the wide range of impacts, including taking many lives of patients, which stems from these recurrent activities. These criminal or civil illegalities cover (1) overcharging government health programs, (2) unlawful promotion, (3) monopoly practices, (4) kickbacks, (5) concealing study findings, (6) poor manufacturing practices, (7) environmental violations, (8) financial violations and (9) illegal distribution.

Drug company sales are huge, growing from $40 billion in 1990 to $234 billion in 2008, and far exceeding inflation with their annual price gouging. To make matters worse, in 2003, the Congressional Republicans, with decisive support from some Democrats, passed the drug benefit bill which explicitly prohibited Uncle Sam, the payer, from bargaining for volume discounts with drug companies.

With over 400 full-time drug company lobbyists putting pressure on Congress, and tens of millions of dollars flowing into the legislators' campaign coffers, budgets for federal investigators, prosecutors and inspectors are kept to a minimum.

Still, the Wolfe report concludes that the "current system of enforcement is not working." He gives the examples of the $7.44 billion in financial penalties assessed over the past twenty years on GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, as compared to their combined total of $16.5 billion in global net profits in one year alone.

What would deter these illegal practices and risks to public safety?

A flicker of hope that a little change is on the way came from the Food and Drug Administration's Deputy Chief Counsel for Litigation, Eric Blumberg. He stated: "unless the government shows more resolve to criminally charge individuals-at all levels in the corporate hierarchy--.we can not expect to make progress in deterring off-label promotion."

The problem is that the final operating decision is in the hands of the Justice Department-historically short-staffed and short-willed to entreaties for prosecution by the FDA and other regulatory agencies.

For entire article see:
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader12282010.html

Bioethical Issues on Human Embryonic Stem Cell (3)_for the student and the school class

Bioethics is a study of the philosophical and ethical controversies surrounding advances in biology and medicine.  Embryonic stem cell research is a bioethical issue because it requires the use and destruction of human embryos.  Some people feel that this is not right, not ethical.  Some even feel it is not moral, that is, against their religious beliefs.  Many people are ambivalent and have contradictory attitudes about if this is right or wrong.  Others believe nothing is unethical or immoral about human embryonic stem cell research.

See the video below to try to understand some of the bioethical issues and scientific issues behind embryonic stem cell research:



How does Dr. Cohen (on left) answer the question..."Do we expect to see significant impacts on cures for diseases using stem cell research within the next 10 years?

What study of diseases may benefit  in using stem cell research?

What does Dr. Cohen say is a scientific limitation to using embyronic stem cells? 

What does Dr. Cohen say may be one of the problems in giving embryonic stem cells to patients?

There are three type of stem cells that scientists research.  Can you identify these three types of stem cells discussed in this video?

Does morality come down to a sense of proportionality?  That is, if you do something that causes more good than harm, can you then say that it is ethical and moral? Can you explain why this is a relevant issue with embryonic stem cell research?  What does Fr. Pacholczyk say about moral proportionality?

Do you understand what it means to clone human beings?  Do you understand what it means to gestate cloned human embryos?  What does our law say about cloning human beings?  Where does the law draw the line?

Can you find which company in California is alleged to have cloned human beings?

Why does Dr. Cohen talk about cell reprograming?  Why does that solve some ethical issues related to embryonic stem cell research?  Why does Fr. Pacholczyk say it might be safer also?

What factors do you think are important for responsible and ethical research in US?

other links:
http://watchdogonscience.blogspot.com/2010/09/bioethical-issues-on-human-embryonic.html
http://watchdogonscience.blogspot.com/2010/09/bioethical-issues-on-human-embryonic_22.html

Bioethical Issues on Human Embryonic Stem Cell (2)_When Does Life Begin?_for the student and the school class

When does Life Begin?  Is the answer to this question a human rights issue, a religion issue or a scientific issue as it relates to Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

Bioethics is a study of the philosophical and ethical controversies surrounding advances in biology and medicine.  Embryonic stem cell research is a bioethical issue because it requires the use and destruction of human embryos.  Some people feel that this is not right, not ethical.  Some even feel it is not moral, that is, against their religious beliefs.  Many people are ambivalent and have contradictory attitudes about if this is right or wrong.  Others believe nothing is unethical or immoral about human embryonic stem cell research.

One of the bioethical issues in embryonic stem cell research is the answer to the question "When does life begin?"  This is an important question especially since the government can define the answer to this question by enacting law.  A law defining "when life begins" can negatively impact our rights as American citizens in many ways. 

See this video to try to understand the issue of "when does life begin?".  See the questions below to help you understand some of the specific controversial points surrounding this issue.



Do you know what conception is?

What did a famous theologian, Thomas Aquinas, say about when life began?

What limitations did Thomas Aquinas have in being able to answer this question adequately?

How did the scientist/bioethicist on the right (Fr. Pacholczyk) answer the question of "when does life begin"?

What did the scientist on the left (Dr. Kohen) say about how life might be defined and by what criteria instead?

Can science ever determine when the "soul" enters an embryo?  Why does Fr. Pacholczyk say that is not important in answering the question of "when does life begin"? 

Why would a priest say the issue is not a religion issue?  What type of issue does Fr. Pacholczyk call it instead?

Do you think Dr. Kohen is confusing religion with human rights?

Can you think of a way of how a law defining "when life begins" could possibly negatively impact human rights to have children?


More links:
http://watchdogonscience.blogspot.com/2010/09/bioethical-issues-on-human-embryonic.html
http://watchdogonscience.blogspot.com/2010/09/bioethical-issues-on-human-embryonic_3603.html

Bioethical Issues on Human Embryonic Stem Cell_for student and the school class

Bioethics is a study of the philosophical and ethical controversies surrounding advances in biology and medicine.  Embryonic stem cell research is a bioethical issue because it requires the use and destruction of human embryos.  Some people feel that this is not right, not ethical.  Some even feel it is not moral, that is, against their religious beliefs.  Many people are ambivalent and have contradictory attitudes about if this is right or wrong.  Others believe nothing is unethical or immoral about human embryonic stem cell research.

Bioethical issues often become political issues.  Watch this video.  See if you are able to understand the bioethical and political issues that are involved in embryonic stem cell research and which are specifically discussed in this video.  See the questions below to guide your understanding.



What are the backgrounds of the two scientists?  Why do they have the interest and expertise to talk about embryonic stem cells?

What is a bond issue?  Why would a bond issue be important to you and your family?  Why is this particular bond issue important for the scientist, Dr. Cohen?

Did the citizens of New Jersey vote in favor of the bond or against it?

How much money in the bond issue was turned down by the voters?

What are the two reasons given of why the voters in New Jersey turned down a bond issue to fund embryonic stem cell research in their State?

Did the scientist, Dr. Cohen ever give a clear answer to the question, "is it possible to see mass production of cures through embryonic stem cells in our life time?

What is hype?  Why would someone want to use hype in the media?

What did the scientists/bioethicist Fr. Pacholczyk talk about when he said it was important to distinguish the "hype from the concrete truth when we discuss complex issues?  What specific type of hype does the scientist/bioethicists Fr. Pacholczyk refer to? What example does he give about the unrealistic way the embryonic stem cell community has painted a picture about fear?

Were these issues of a political nature or of a bioethical nature?

Think about these issues and comment if you cannot answer any of these questions.

More links:
http://watchdogonscience.blogspot.com/2010/09/bioethical-issues-on-human-embryonic_22.html
http://watchdogonscience.blogspot.com/2010/09/bioethical-issues-on-human-embryonic_3603.html

Work-Related Death Statistics Remain Flawed

Deaths caused by work-acquired illness are hardly ever counted.  And the government and companies want to keep it that way.  This allows the government to falsely claim that workplace deaths have fallen to lowest level since 1992.  It makes them appear that they are protecting the public. It makes the companies look peachy clean.

Yet death from work related illness are significant. Illness acquired from work are constantly ignored or purposely covered up. 

Chemical exposure can cause respiratory problems, neurological illness, brain damage and cancer.  New emerging technologies such as genetically engineered infectious agents, synthetic biology and nanotechnology can also cause a variety of work-relatted illness.   They all can kill. Yet no accountability is seen in oversight or regulations to assess this large population of work-related illness causing deaths.  The majority are never counted.

Reports that indicate that workplace deaths are low need to be examined carefully.  Many of these reports are a way to hide inefficiencies in protecting workers, as well as, the public, as new dangerous technologies are created which can cause numerous illness and fatalities. Yet they continue to go unreported and undetected.

Below is one such report which does not provide statistics on any work-related acquired illness and fatalities.

Workplace deaths fall to lowest level since 1992
By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer – Thu Aug 19, 12:33 pm ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_workplace_deaths


WASHINGTON – The number of workers who died on the job fell by 17 percent last year to the lowest level in nearly two decades, as workers logged fewer hours during the recession, the Labor Department said Thursday.

The 4,340 workplace fatalities recorded in 2009 was the smallest total since the Bureau of Labor Statistics first began tracking the data in 1992. It's the second straight year that fatal work injuries have reached a historic low, following a 10 percent drop in 2008.

High unemployment and layoffs in more dangerous industries like construction played a major role in the decrease, the agency said. The construction unemployment rate is 17.3 percent, nearly double the overall jobless rate of 9.5 percent.

Workers on average logged 6 percent fewer hours last year than in 2008. Employees in construction worked 17 percent fewer hours in 2009 than the previous year.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis called the decrease encouraging and pledged to continue her agency's stepped-up enforcement of workplace safety laws.

"As the economy regains strength and more people re-enter the work force, the Department of Labor will remain vigilant to ensure America's workers are kept safe while they earn a paycheck," Solis said.

Workplace suicides declined by 10 percent to 237 after reaching a historic high in 2008. But that count is still the second-highest total recorded since the agency began tracking workplace deaths.

For the second straight year, commercial fishing was the deadliest occupation in the country, with a fatality rate about 60 times higher than the average rate for all workers.

One of the few sectors where the fatality rate increased was in building and grounds maintenance, where the number of deaths rose 6 percent.

The report is based on preliminary numbers. A final report is scheduled to be released next year.

In other findings:

_Transportation incidents, which accounted for nearly 40 percent of all work fatalities last year, fell 21 percent from 2008.

_Fatalities among black workers declined 24 percent. Black employees also saw a larger decline in the number of hours worked than white or Hispanic workers.

_Workplace homicides declined 1 percent to 521 cases. That is nearly half the all-time high of 1,080 homicides recorded in 1994.

Commercialization of the Human Genome_Issues of Privacy and Protection

Last week, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) instructed UC Berkeley to modify its “Bring Your Genes to Cal” program. From the beginning, UCB’s controversial plan to test the DNA of incoming freshman for three genes, brought into bold relief many of the complex questions that engulf emerging biotechnologies, for example: how best to protect privacy rights; informed consent; the integrity of medical testing and research; and how to identify and reduce conflicts of interest?

Mark Schlissel, UC Berkeley’s dean of biological sciences, underscored another issue likely to be the subject of ongoing consideration: academic freedom. Defending the UCB program against the CDPH’s interpretation of relevant law, Schlissel declared that, "We have taken every precaution and are committed to following the letter of the law…, but we believe this is a flawed reading of the statute that raises questions about who has control over teaching at the university…" How expansively we view academic freedom depends, in part, on recognizing the conflicts of interest that exist on the part of those doing the “teaching.”

Deep structural conflicts of interest exist when science-entrepreneurs, who may stand to benefit downstream from emerging biotechnologies, use their positions as university academics to normalize the commercialization of those technologies. UCB’s press release describes the lead professor associated with the program, Jasper Rine, as a “genetics professor.” Yet he, like many of his academic colleagues, has strong commercial ties to the industry developing genetic technologies. Rine has served on the advisory boards of a number of biotech companies and has co-founded several California biotech companies, including his own genetics testing company. UCB’s implicit endorsement of genetic testing as consumerism is especially audacious given the serious criticism that this type of testing has come under. Testifying at last week’s California Assembly Committee on Higher Education oversight hearing, Council for Responsible Genetics President, Jeremy Gruber, related that federal sources had dubbed such testing “snake oil,” and “not ready for prime time.”

From the 1940's to the 1960's, Princeton, Yale, Wellesley, and many other elite universities required incoming freshman to participate in medical anthropology/eugenic research by posing nude for photographs designed to document posture and body type, seeking correlations between physique and temperament. Since then, in the clear-sightedness of another era, many such photos have been destroyed. But many yet remain. How much humiliation and trauma could have been prevented if more disinterested authority could have prevailed? Those incoming freshmen who laid bare their DNA revealed the most intimate biological information not only of themselves but of those related to them. They chose to do so without prior opportunity to discuss the ramifications of their decision, without full disclosure of the scope of the conflicts of interest involved, and without clarity as to when or how the information would ultimately be disposed. They, and those who come after them, need protection from the overzealous interests and conflicts of interest of the institutions in which they arrive, trusting, to learn.

M. L. Tina Stevens, PhD
Director, Alliance for Humane Biotechnology
Visit AHB online

Becky McClain Speaks on Biotechnology and Public Health and Safety

On July 17, 2010 in San Francisco, Pfizer injured biotech molecular biologist Becky McClain discussed her firing for making OSHA complaints and also the potential and real dangers of unregulated development of products in the biotech and nanotech industry without proper oversight. The first US conference on biotechnology and health and safety was sponsored by the California Coalition For Workers Memorial Day www.workersmemorialday.org Additional presentations at the conference are Biotech, CA Osha & Health And Safety Presentation With Dr. Larry Rose http://blip.tv/file/3916683 The Toxic Environment, Public Health, ACOEM And Pfizer:Presentation By Dr. Jack Thrasher http://blip.tv/file/3921769 Conflict of Interest By Judge Says Sandi Trend, Mother of Injured Agraquest Biotech Worker Bell http://blip.tv/file/3924484 Dina Padilla Speaks At Biotech & Health And Safety Conference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_-_XEnaiNg It was also endorsed by Council For Responsible Genetics www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org For additional information go to http://www.cpab.info/

http://www.blip.tv/file/3960030

Frankenstein, Pharma and Public Health and Safety

Stewart Lyman writes a great article entitled: “Hollywood Sees Corruption in Pharma, and Suddenly Scientists are the Bad Guys.” He outlines some of the egregious behavior from pharmaceutical companies whose power and wealth have allowed a laxity toward public health and safety…all in the name of greed. Lyman talks about Hollywood’s role in demonizing science.

But Hollywood has it right in trying to convey some of these concepts that Mr. Lyman talks about through cinematography. It is important that Hollywood stay the course, too.

Science is now so tied into big money that corruption and loss of public health and safety rights are inevitable, not only from the egregious behavior from powerful Pharma, but also from the academic world who froth over patent rights and who has become monetarily entrenched with big Pharma. Together, pharma and academia, make one powerful network of scientific machinery that is able to manipulate media, government and legislation to their favor without due consideration of public rights and public health and safety.

Unfortunately there is little funding for public advocacy groups to protect public health and safety. So to some extent the public needs Hollywood to continue to tell stories which help educate us about these issues, issues that are subject to human rights and public health and safety abuses.

Even old movies are helpful. With human cloning now a scientific possibility, Hollywood’s portrayal of the human rights issues in the movie, Frankenstein, are issues the public should try to grasp.

Here is the link to Lyman’s article: http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2009/12/07/hollywood-sees-corruption-in-pharma-and-suddenly-scientists-are-the-bad-guys

Corrupt Doctors: The Untold MOLD Story

Sharon Kramer, an expert on mold and ACOEM spoke at a press conference called by the California Coalition For Workers Memorial Day for injured workers at the Downey toxic dump site. She spoke on the conflict of interest between the trade group ACOEM and the need to defend people who are sickened by mold. She also reported on her efforts to get a Congressional investigation on this conflict of interest by ACOEM and the role of Senator Edward Kennedy on deleting this aspect in this important expose in a Congressional study. www.workersmemorialday.org
source: http://www.blip.tv/file/2520407

NY and STEM CELL Researchers Prostitute Women for Eggs

Payment to cull ovum is unethical

Essays – August 15, 2009 - 3:00am

ref:http://rocnow.com/article/essays/2009908150309
The Empire State Stem Cell Board approved compensation for women who “donate” their ovum to the tune of $10,000 per cycle. The board, which overwhelming supports human embryo research, was created through a funding allocation buried in a 2006 spending bill and serves at the pleasure of the governor.
New York State stands alone in its plan to give money to women who undergo ovarian hyper-stimulation and surgery to cull their eggs. Embryonic stem cell researchers, not satisfied using leftover embryos, need money directed to women because few will volunteer for medically invasion procedures with unknown consequences.
As unethical as that proposition is, we really do know a lot about the risks of egg harvesting. Women undergoing ovarian hyper-stimulation for infertility treatment suffer side effects from mood changes to increased risks of stroke and death.
Who among us is not aware of the risks of anesthetic? Every invasive procedure increases susceptibly to antibiotic resistant infections.
Consider who will accept $10,000 to sell eggs. It won’t be educated women. The vulnerable woman, for whom $10,000 represents a huge amount of money, will be targeted
Payment for eggs is an outrageous plan to exploit women’s bodies, objectionable in itself. However, two other critical issues are raised. If an egg is worth $10,000, then what’s the price of a kidney; a piece of liver; how about bone marrow?
The week this mercantile arrangement was pronounced, two ethical stem cell announcements were also made.
The Food and Drug Administration cleared a Phase I Clinical Trial to treat congestive heart failure using stem cells from the patients’ own thigh muscles. In another major story, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation awarded $750,000 to scientists making progress evaluating adult stem cell therapy for Type I diabetes.
How sad that New Yorkers pay for patients to wait for some possible future treatment requiring human embryos while progress using ethical stem cells continues in other states. These states will attract patients and professionals establishing careers in cutting-edge medicine.

Oldest IVF Recipient Mother Dies-Two Year Old IVF Children Orphans

Oldest woman to give birth dies, leaving twins

by Daniel Woolls, Associated PressJuly 15th, 2009

Maria del Carmen Bousada

A Spanish woman who deceived a U.S. fertility clinic about her age and become the oldest woman to give birth has died at 69, leaving behind 2-year-old twins, newspapers reported Wednesday. For more click link.

The Unethical Patent

Patenting life or genetic molecular entities involved with human medicine have profound negative effects on society in many ways. The patenting of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes involved in breast and overian cancer is a good example of the problems capitalistic ownership of "life" can bring to suffering patients.

Here is a story written from another blog:

Will breast cancer gene lawsuit end gene patenting?
Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union joined the Association for Molecular Pathology, the American College of Medical Genetics, the Boston Women's Health Book Collective, and numerous other plaintiffs--including individual breast cancer patients--in filing a lawsuit against Myriad Genetics, the U.S. Patent Office, and the directors of the University of Utah Research Foundation. Myriad Genetics has patents in the U.S. for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, the presence of which has been linked to an increased risk of breast or ovarian cancer. The suit alleges that such gene patenting is unconstitutional, in large part because "ease of access to genomic discoveries is crucial if basic research is to be expeditiously translated into clinical laboratory tests that benefit patients in the emerging era of personalized and predictive medicine," and such patents restrict the use of the genes.

The ACLU suit points out that:
Because of the patents, defendant Myriad has the right to prevent clinicians form independently looking at or interpreting a person's BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes to determine if the person is at a higher risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Because of the patents and because Myriad chooses not to license the patents broadly, women who fear they may be at an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer are barred from having anyone look at their BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes or interpret them except for the patent holder. [...] Many women at risk cannot even be tested because they are uninsured and/or cannot afford the test offered by Myriad.

For more on this topic go to the author's blog site ...here.

ref:http://cluttermuseum.blogspot.com/2009/07/will-breast-cancer-gene-lawsuit-end.html

Chimeric Animals On the LOOSE! Another Stem Cell Technology!

Pigs with human blood… mice with human brains…sheep with human livers and hearts! How about mice producing human sperm? It’s science and it’s real. It’s the chimeric animal (a union of two of more species in one body). And yes, it is being done today in labs around the world. It’s all part of the embryonic stem cell movement, all in the name and glory for the advancement of science.

Although some scientist say that the creation of chimeric animals can aid in medical breakthroughs, this research carries both ethical and safety risks. But strangely, this controversial research is being kept under the radar screen and isn’t getting any media attention.

Here is one fun and crazy spooky spoof, however, that takes the idea of chimeric animals to new heights! Check out the youtube video on Qualcomm. http://www.hollywoodbioethics.com/2009/04/02/a-day-late/

(FYI: the posted picture of the chimeric pig-human isn’t real…its ART!. Didn’t want you to freak.)

No Rights to Embryos in United States---Should there be?

Some countries such as Germany and Italy have laws that protect the human embryo, making it illegal to create embryos from IVF without purposeful intentions to transfer them for birth. But the United States has no such laws, giving IVF clinics an open range with no regulations and oversight. This lack of regulation in the U.S. has caused an ethical dilemma.

Scientist and IVF specialists in the United States have intentionally created close to a half a million IVF embryos, frozen in limbo, with no predetermined intention to transfer them into their mother for birth. Now U.S. scientists are justifying the use of these surplus frozen embryos for experimental research, labeling them as “biohazard laboratory waste” with no other purpose but experimental. Many bioethicists find this unethical.

Should IVF clinics and human embryonic stem cell research have stricter oversight? Should the United States limit the number of embryos created by IVF and mandate that it is illegal to create and freeze extra IVF embryos without intentions of transferring those embryos back into the mother?

SAFETY OR MONEY WHILE ON THE JOB? Do you have a choice?

In a statement in an article entitled, US Oil Workers Reach Wage Terms; Criticise Industry’s Overall Safety , the United Oil Workers said,

“Rather than launch a national strike over health and safety that would have hurt the American people at a time of economic crisis, the USW withdrew its health and safety proposal and focused on the economic package.”

Do you think that the United Steelworkers (USW) were ethically correct to focus their negotiations on their economic package while disregarding serious health and safety problems in the workplace?

Do you think in our dire times of economic woe that more and more employers will subject their workers to unsafe work conditions because they can?

Bioethical Issues on Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Here is a link to a site that has three short and interesting videos featuring scientists Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, PhD and Rick Cohen, PhD, discussing a few of the bioethical issues underlying human embryonic stem cell research. All three short videos are worthy to watch. They bring to light that the ethical concerns surrounding this controversial research are not soley based on religious ideologies, but also touch upon basic human rights issues.

Top Bioethics_Genetics Stories

Great Review of Top BIOETHICS_GENETIC Stories of 2008 by THE CENTER FOR GENETICS AND SOCIETY.

Forcast of ethical and legal problems in Biotechnology

See this interesting article found in the Washington Times suggesting that we be proactive, not reactive to the dangers and ethical issues that neurotechnologies will bring.

Human Hybrid Animals

Exclusive: Half man, half chimp - should we beware the apeman's coming?
April 2008
By JENNY HAWORTH
A LEADING scientist has warned a new species of "humanzee," created from breeding apes with humans, could become a reality unless the government acts to stop scientists experimenting. In an interview with The Scotsman, Dr Calum MacKellar, director of research at the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, warned the controversial draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill did not prevent human sperm being inseminated into animals.He said if a female chimpanzee was inseminated with human sperm the two species would be closely enough related that a hybrid could be born. He said scientists could possibly try to develop the new species to fill the demand for organ donors. Leading scientists say there is no reason why the two species could not breed, although they question why anyone would want to try such a technique. Other hybrid species already created include crossed tigers and lions and sheep and goats.Dr MacKellar said he feared the consequences if scientists made a concerted effort to cross humans with chimpanzees. He said: "Nobody knows what they would get if they tried hard enough. The insemination of animals with human sperm should be prohibited."The Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill prohibits the placement of animal sperm into a woman The reverse is not prohibited. It's not even mentioned. This should not be the case."He said if the process was not banned, scientists would be "very likely" to try it, and it would be likely humans and chimps could successfully reproduce."If you put human sperm into a frog it would probably create an embryo, but it probably wouldn't go very far," he said. "But if you do it with a non-human primate it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it could be born alive." Dr MacKellar said the resulting creature could raise ethical dilemmas, such as whether it would be treated as human or animal, and what rights it would have."If it was never able to be self-aware or self-conscious it would probably be considered an animal," he said. "However, if there was a possibility of humanzees developing a conscience, you have a far more difficult dilemma on your hands."He said fascination would be enough of a motive for scientists to try crossing the two species.But he also said there was a small chance of scientists using the method to "humanise" organs for transplant into humans. "There's a desperate need for organs. One of the solutions that has been looked at is using animal organs, but because there's a very serious risk of rejection using animal organs in humans they are already trying to humanise these organs."If they could create these humanzees who are substantially human but are not considered as humans in law , we could have a large provision of organs." He wrote to the Department of Health to ask that the gap in the draft legislation be addressed. The department confirmed that the bill "does not cover the artificial insemination of an animal with human sperm".It said: "Owing to the significant differences between human and animal genomes, they are incompatible and the development of a foetus or progeny is impossible."Therefore such activity would have no rational scientific justification, as there would be no measurable outcome." Dr MacKellar disagrees. He said: "The chromosomal difference between a goat and a sheep is greater than between humans and chimpanzees."Professor Bob Millar, director of the Medical Research Council Human Reproductive Sciences Unit, based in Edinburgh, agreed viable offspring would be possible. He said: "Donkeys can mate with horses and create infertile offspring; maybe that could happen with chimpanzees."But he said he would oppose any such attempt. "It's unnecessary and ridiculous and no serious scientist would consider such a thing. Ethically, it's not appropriate."It's also completely impractical. Chimps would never be a source of organs for humans because of the viruses they carry and the low numbers."Professor Hugh McLachlan, professor of applied philosophy at Glasgow Caledonian University's School of Law and Applied Sciences, said although the idea was "troublesome", he could see no ethical objections to the creation of humanzees."Any species came to be what it is now because of all sorts of interaction in the past," he said."If it turns out in the future there was fertilisation between a human animal and a non-human animal, it's an idea that is troublesome, but in terms of what particular ethical principle is breached it's not clear to me."I share their squeamishness and unease, but I'm not sure that unease can be expressed in terms of an ethical principle."A Department of Health spokeswoman said: "It's just not a problem. If you inseminate an animal with human sperm, scientifically nothing happens. The species barriers are too great."HYBRIDS ARE AT CROSS PURPOSES EVEN though hybrids of humans and animals have never been created, many other creatures have been crossed successfully. Lions and tigers have been bred to create ligers, the world's largest cats. And there are also zorses (zebra and horse), wholphins (whale and dolphin), tigons (tiger and lion), lepjags (leopard and jaguar) and zonkeys (zebra and donkey).As well as these hybrid mammals, there are also hybrid birds, fish, insects and plants.Many hybrids, such as mules, are sterile, which prevents the movement of genes from one species to another, keeping both species distinct. However, some can reproduce and there are scientists who believe that grey wolves and coyotes mated thousands of years ago to create a new species, the red wolf.More commonly, hybrids mate with one of their parent species, which can influence the genetic mix of what gets passed along to subsequent generations. Hybrids can have desirable traits, often being fitter or larger than either parent. Most hybrid animals have been bred in captivity, but there are examples of the process occurring in the wild.This is far more common in plants than animals but in April 2006 a hunter in Canada's North-west Territories shot a polar bear whose fur had an orange tint.Research showed that it had a grizzly bear father, and it became known as a pizzly.In 2003, DNA analysis confirmed that five odd-looking felines found in Maine and Minnesota were bobcat-lynx hybrids, dubbed blynxes.