DNA: Ethics of Mixing Human Genes With Animals

Photo by: DNAreplication.info

Recently, there was an editorial about mixing the genes of an animal to possibly create animals with human characteristics, an idea inspired by H. G. Wells’ book “The Island of Doctor Moreau”. This book made the readers think critically and outside of the box to imagine the types of “beast folks” that were in the book. What was once thought of as a great fictional novel is now being produced into actuality. Scientists believe that they can create animals with human characteristics so that they can use them for research on diseases: types of cancer, also human stem cell research, and these animals are used to learn to treat human blood clots. Without strict regulations on scientists on the subject of DNA mixing, another cycle of evolution could develop which would put the whole world at risk.

In the editorial under the nature website it says that scientists are discussing the consequences of taking the extreme step of allowing technology mix these species together, including introducing human cells to animal’s bodies. In a report by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences in London, they stated that they were taking action that would “lead the pioneering legislation specifically geared towards regulating research on animals containing human material.”(Nature.com). Although this report was done, it clearly states that these techniques are not stable enough yet to be used ethically. This embraces the extensive humanization of the monkey brain and the development of embryos that mix DNA from humans and non-human primates. Legislation needs to step in and make a difference in the science world because it obviously seems as if these scientists just want to do research rather than research in an ethical manor.

“The country has some of the world's most stringent laws on the welfare of research animals, but also some of the most rational regulations for research using human embryonic stem cells”(Nature.com). The fact that this country holds some regulations and just chooses to when to apply them fully is a concept that cannot be understood. In Canada the human-animal hybrids are outlawed under the Assisted Reproduction Act(CBC.ca).  Scientists in London are not only potentially putting the animals in great danger of suffering but also putting those around it in deadly circumstances. The benefit of finding medicines for the human population is very important, but to what extent is this acceptable?

An example of an experiment involving the mixing of animal and humans cells consist of mice implanted with sections of human tumor cancer research to study how cancers develop and spread, and to test new drugs and therapies. A procedure like this is said to be a very simple and painless action. The fact that they are not doing these procedures on themselves shows how the scientists do not know the harm that is being done to these small innocent creatures. Another example of experimentation on an animal is when the researches introduce human stem cells into rats to study the human brain’s potential for repairing damage caused by stroke. A question that floats around this subject is why humans have the right to use animals as testing patients as if there is nothing wrong with it. Experts and other members of the public have yet to come up with a reasonable answer towards where to draw the line with this issue. Of course researchers would like to keep finding new answers for the sake of mankind. The public also has their side where humans shouldn’t have the right to make decisions for animals that are most likely against being tested.

Researching through animals is one thing, but doing experimental tests on them by implanting a gene or basically putting its life in risk is another. Scientists need to follow these regulations because they have been put in place for a reason. If one of the tests goes wrong and the these scientists claim that the animal is fine, when in reality the animal has changed slightly to where it can now breed offspring with human characteristics, then we could have a huge problem. If this happened, then that means there could be another period of evolution developing right in front of our eyes, but yet will not be noticeable.

Works Cited

Abbott, Alison. "Regulations Proposed for Animal–human Chimaeras : Nature News." Nature
Publishing Group : Science Journals, Jobs, and Information. Nature, 21 July 2011. Web. 8 Oct. 2011
News, Cbc. "Human, Animal DNA Mixing Needs Oversight - Health - CBC News." CBC.ca - Canadian News Sports Entertainment Kids Docs Radio TV. CBC News, 22 July 2011. Web. 8 Oct. 2011.
"The Legacy of Doctor Moreau : Nature : Nature Publishing Group." Nature Publishing Group : Science Journals, Jobs, and Information. Nature, 22 July 2011. Web. 8 Oct. 2011.

The Big Deal with Smallpox

Photograph by 3D4Medical.com

       Although smallpox is considered to be a disease of the past its ghost continues to haunt inhabitants today with the threat of its reoccurrence. Smallpox is an extremely infectious, deadly disease that in the 20th century ravished entire households and murdered millions of people. It is understood that smallpox has since been eradicated from the world however; the United States and Russia still have collections of the virus held in two “ultra secure” laboratories on which to conduct research. Despite the proclaimed security of these labs, it is my personal thoughts that these two remaining collections should also be completely destroyed. The threat of bioterrorism in today’s world is an extremely plausible danger; in addition there is a milder form of the disease named cowpox which would be competent enough to serve as an alternative for smallpox in these laboratories, thus leading to why we should terminate our last remaining stocks.
     For thousands of years, smallpox has been the source of devastation across various cultures. After examining the mummy of the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses V, who died in 1157 BCE, researchers observed scarring on his remains similar to that of smallpox (History of Smallpox). Additionally, ancient Sanskrit medical texts, dating back from 1500 BCE, have given detailed accounts of smallpox-like illnesses and the disease is believed to have been present in Europe in 300 CE (History of Smallpox). Smallpox has been the killer of numerous influential persons, including King Louis XV of France, Queen Mary II of England, as well as Tsar Peter II of Russia along with an estimated 300 million people in the twentieth century (History of Smallpox). Presently, the last wild outbreak of smallpox has been dated in 1977 in Somalia (History of Smallpox), meaning that forty percent of today’s population has no immunity against this disease, which is one of the prime arguments in support of its preservation (Nature).
     According to the article, “Smallpox Should be Saved,” the author argues that we have an obligation to protect future generations, who have no immunity against this highly contagious disease, and that destroying the last available stocks would prohibit us from doing so. Likewise, the author proposes that if bioterrorism were to emerge, smallpox would be an effective weapon for the protection of our people. It would provide a lethal as well as efficient defense against bioterrorists and prove to be beneficial to our arsenal. Furthermore, the author of this article suggest that further research of this infection could provide advancements in our knowledge of human immunology as well as yield insight into what makes a formidable foe against the human species (Nature). Although these are very valid points, the risk for allowing this disease to exist far outweigh the benefits of letting it linger in our laboratories.
     Adversely, if smallpox were to completely be eradicated then there would be no threat of bioterrorism. Michael Brooks, author of the article, “Smallpox is a Killer, but Not All Viruses Are Villains,” seems to share the same point of view as I do. He states that if smallpox were to fall into the wrong hands, bioterrorists could alter the disease into an even more viral form, that we have no vaccines against, but if we were destroy the samples we have then we would not have to concoct a countermeasure if this were to occur. He also mentions that those in favor of destroying these samples point out that the DNA of smallpox has already been replicated so the need for the live virus has greatly diminished. As I mentioned earlier, forty percent of the world’s population has no immunity against smallpox and past experiences has taught us that the disease kills one-third of the people it infects. With such high numbers, smallpox is a serious threat when it comes to bioterrorism and all precautions should be taken in order to ensure that this threat does not become reality.
     Additionally, in rebuttal to the argument that smallpox is being researched to increase our knowledge of the disease, smallpox has a closely related milder “cousin” named cowpox. Cowpox is basically the cow’s equivalent of smallpox. Cowpox infects the udders of the cow with red blisters, with much resemblance to smallpox itself. In 1976, Edward Jenner created the first vaccine against smallpox using this cousin. He infected a young boy with cowpox and in return the boy became sickly but soon recovered. Afterwards, Jenner later again infected the same young boy with smallpox and found that the boy did not suffer any aliments (History of Smallpox). It has since been concluded that individuals who have contracted the milder cowpox rarely catch the more deadly human form smallpox. This reveals how similar the structure of these two diseases are and that if researchers want to enhance their knowledge about smallpox then using cowpox instead would more than likely prove to be and adequate as well as safer substitute, thus making the reserved collections we have virtually useless. In conclusion, smallpox is a disease that proves to be too dangerous to continue to store.
     The risks of preserving this disease far exceed the potential benefits it could provide. Especially since the terrorists attacks of 9/11 we should be wearier of such risk and take all necessary precautions to protect our people from such threats. Lastly, I understand that the concept of this blog is centered around the idea of health and physical fitness concerning UNC-CH students but this is an issue the that has the potential to not only threaten the health of UNC-CH students but also the health of hundreds of people around the world.

Brookes, Michael. "Smallpox Is a Killer, But Not All Viruses Are Villains." New Statesmen 140.5054       (2011): 14. Academic Search Premier. Web. 04 Oct. 2011.

"History of Smallpox." History of Vaccines — A Vaccine History Project of The College of Physicians of    Philadelphia. The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 2011. Web. 09 Oct. 2011. 

"Smallpox Should Be Saved." Nature.com. Web. 04 Oct. 2011.

Synthetic Cells: How do you want yours to be created?

Picture Taken by: Maurizio De Angelis

Regenerative medicine, which is known as the ability to revive human cells to increase longevity has been a key area of research worldwide due to its astonishing possibilities. Though not perfected, various forms of regenerative research have been conducted to find the most viable and ethical option. In the article “There Will Be Blood”, author Ewen Callaway describes and defends direct conversions of cell types rather than its highly debated counterpart, stem cell research. Callaway states that direct conversions, with the right chemical combinations can convert human skin cells to blood cells in a simple manor (Callaway 2010). Although this article includes some shocking breakthroughs that direct conversions may bring to humans worldwide, it does have some pertinent negative aspects. While we must understand that no form of regenerative medicine is perfect, stem cell research has been proven to be highly advantageous. For the reasons that stem cell cells are able to multiply necessary cells quickly and efficiently, regenerate heart cells without alternating DNA, and produce cord blood that is as useful as natural blood, stem cell research is a much more viable form of regenerative medicine compared to direct conversions.

First and foremost, one huge quality in finding the right form of regenerative medicine is the ability to effectively multiply necessary cells. When recreating cells, they must be present in massive amounts in order to effectively treat patients. Embryologist Ian Wilmut states, “[directly converted cells] cannot easily multiply in lab, so producing the large quantities needed for applications… could prove tough.” (Callaway 2010). On the other hand, stem cells have the ability to multiply, self regenerate and renew themselves for long periods of time (Saxena et al. 2010). For regenerative medicine, the ability to multiply is very important because in order to affect certain genes, numerous amounts of stem cells must be allotted. Since using direct conversions requires scientists to individually extrapolate cells to create new blood cells, this research will be very uneconomical. The goal of regenerative medicine is to recreate cells in an efficient and timely manor; using direct conversions will hinder the process of reaching its maximum potential.

Next, Callaway argues that direct conversions have successfully replicated heart cells in mice without causing tumors; however, it is uncertain if they can be reproduced without altering the important DNA sequences. (Callaway 2010). When treating patients with reproduced cells, it is important that they only affect the appropriate DNA sequences and not alter unnecessary genes. Stem cell research has proven to replace diseased heart tissue and only alter necessary genes to consistently repair tissue (Skene 2009). In addition, stem cells that are used to replace heart cells have proven to affectively provide a treatment for various cardiovascular disorders (Rendon et al. 2009). When using regenerative medicine to revive damaged heart cells, one major area of focus is whether the cells will able to rejuvenate themselves after the treatment. Stem cell research has the ability to not only create new cells, but also alter the correct genes in one’s DNA sequence so that the body can regenerate the necessary cells on its own. Although cells can be grown safely, the major downfall of direct conversions is that incorrect genes and DNA sequences could be affected.

In general, while direct conversions may have the ability to create blood cells from skin cells, it is hard to tell if the blood cells will be as good as natural ones (Callaway 2010). Stem cells that are extracted from the umbilical cord of an embryo have the potential to treat a wide range of malignant blood disorders and has the potential to offer unlimited cells (Seres et al 2010). In addition, using cord blood stem cells to create new blood cells creates a natural protective mechanism to ensure that blood flow is universal to standard blood cells (Seres et al 2010). Based on this information, it is obvious that using stem cells for regenerative medicine is the optimal choice. If blood flow is unnatural due to the fact that directly converted blood cells may not recognize original blood cells, problems could easily arise questioning the legitimacy of the research. While the simplicity of direct conversions is a key determination factor, long run effectiveness is much more important to ensure the long-term health of patients.

Therefore, for the reasons above, stem cell research has more a more practical future than direct conversions and should be researched extensively. Ewen Callaway makes a strong argument supporting direct conversions as a form of regenerative medicine in the article “There Will Be Blood”, but there are simply too many setbacks to ensure a bright future. While neither form of regenerative medicine has been perfected, it is important to understand which form of research is most viable for a successful future. It is easy to argue biological, ethical, and social aspects against any form of regenerative medicine, but the most important thing is to realize the vast range of benefits that these treatments could produce. In this case, while direct conversions may be a simpler option, stem cell research provides many more advantages to ensure a soon to be scientific breakthrough.

Works Cited

Callaway, Ewen. "There Wil Be Blood." Nature. 468.149 (2010): n. page. Web. 10 Oct. 2011.
Rendon, E., J.A. Snowden, and S.M. Watt. "Stem cell-related therapies for vascular diseases." Transfusion Medicine. 19. (2009): 159-71. Print.

Saxena, Ajit Kumar, Divya Singh, and Jyoti Gupta. "Role of stem cell research in therapeutic purpose - a hope for new horizon in medical biotechnology." Journal of Experimental Therapeutics and Oncology. 8. (2010): 223-233. Print.

Seres, K.B., and P. Hollands. "Cord Blood: the future of regenerative medicine?." Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 20. (2010): 98-102. Print.

Skene, Loane. "Recent Developments in Stem Cell Research: Social, Ethical, and Legal Issues for the Future." Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. 17.2 (2010): 211-44. Print.