Topic: Genetics
May 16, 2016 | Posted By Claire Horner, JD, MA

Did you know: we can now make sperm from embryonic stem cells (in mice).  Not only can we create this sperm, but we can use it to successfully fertilize an egg and develop into a fully grown mouse.  And what is the role of bioethics in this scientific discovery, according to the article?  A brief mention of theoretical ethical issues relegated to the end of the news article that no one reads far enough to see, anyway.

 

Scientific advancements in reproduction have occurred at an unbelievable rate.  We not only have the ability to create sperm, but we can also create an embryo using three genetic donors, choose or reject embryos based on their genetic traits, such as sex, and correct genetic defects by essentially cutting and pasting healthy DNA sequences over defective ones.  Conversely, using such technology, we also have the potential to clone human beings, choose or reject embryos based on traits such as hair color or athletic ability, and irreversibly alter a germ cell line, potentially leading to unknown negative effects in later generations.

 

While breakthroughs in reproductive technologies have the potential to address issues as important and varied as male infertility, uterine factor infertility, mitochondrial disease, genetic defects and disease, and even artificial gestation, one wonders whether anyone is stopping to ask: to what end?  How will we use this technology?  What are the short- and long-term effects?  How might this technology be misused?  And, my personal favorite, when will we start to regulate how and when we tinker with biology at a genetic level?

 

 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

September 22, 2015 | Posted By John Kaplan, PhD

I have previously written about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), concluded that their consumption is safe and that labelling them is not a good idea. I am writing about them again and you might wonder why. Nothing has changed really. The scientific evidence of their safety remains strong and more accumulated experience of consumption by both humans and domestic animal supports this conclusion. Nothing has really changed. There remains an entrenched opposition to the use of genetically modified organisms. This opposition remains opposed to their consumption despite being unable to find scientific evidence to support their claims. Some have even resorted to making up scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful. There has been an ongoing movement to require that foods which contain GMO derived ingredients be labelled as such defended by the always compelling “people have a right to know” argument. So why am I writing about GMOs again. It is because prominent bioethicist Arthur Caplan has now indicated his support for labelling products containing GMO derived ingredients. 

 His argument is not based on safety. He believes GMO foods should be labelled because “ It is clear that some consumers want to know what they are eating and have a right to know what is in their food.” I strongly disagree. Not really about the right to know what is in their food. I disagree because labelling food because it is GMO derived is completely inconsistent with current practice and to bring that current practice up to the standards aspired for GMO food is more or less impossible.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

September 19, 2014 | Posted By Ricki Lewis, PhD

In recent weeks, there’s been talk of three types of genetic testing transitioning from targeted populations to the general public: carrier screens for recessive diseases, tests for BRCA mutations, and non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) to spot extra chromosomes in fetuses from DNA in the maternal bloodstream.

Are these efforts the leading edge of a new eugenics movement? It might appear that way, but I think not.

When I began providing genetic counseling 30 years ago at CareNet, a large ob/gyn practice in Schenectady, NY, few patients were candidates for testing: pregnant women of “advanced maternal age” (35+), someone with a family history of a single-gene disorder or whose ethnic background was associated with higher prevalence of a specific inherited disease. Their risks justified the cost and potential dangers of the tests.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

September 11, 2014 | Posted By John Kaplan, PhD

The answer, it seems, is quite a number of people. The question that we really need to address is why. Are these concerns rational, are they science based, should they provide the basis for public policy? People have been using selective breeding and hybridization techniques for thousands of years to alter the genetic makeup of both plant and animal agricultural products. Neil Tyson Degrasse made the point very clearly and effectively that almost nothing we grow agriculturally has been unchanged from the plants and animals living naturally. They have all been altered by the intentional action of human beings. Selective breeding, of course, has significant differences from what is currently characterized by the term genetic modification which is done using the techniques of molecular biology to insert genetic material. But they do establish the principle that most people are happy to eat food products which have been genetically altered by people. That sweet red apple you had for lunch or the fattened cattle which produced your juicy hamburger do not exist in nature.

The techniques of genetic engineering which can be used to insert genetic material into the genome of a cell permitted the alteration of crops that resist pests requiring less use of pesticides. They allow selective herbicide resistance allowing the use of minimally toxic or nontoxic  herbicides as well as no till farming which diminishes erosion and reduces use of fossil fuels. They have also been able to use these techniques to add essential nutrients to address widespread dietary deficiencies. An example of this is the development of golden rice, the genetic modification of rice to produce vitamin A. These are good things.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website. 

August 27, 2014 | Posted By Ricki Lewis, PhD

Eman’s emails arrive hours ahead of the news here. He wrote on Sunday, August 17:

“An Ebola quarantine site was attacked and looted. News is that most of the patients have escaped. This is going to put more fear into the population. All this because people are denying the virus.  More people might get exposed.  I’m so weak I can’t wake up this morning. Its 6:00 pm and I am still in bed listening to the news.  All this happened in a very populated area called West Point. Got pain all over my body. Keep me in your meditations.”

Emmanuel is a medical student in Liberia whom my husband and I have been supporting since he contacted me after reading my human genetics textbook in 2007. Until the fever hit him last weekend, he dedicated himself to “sensitization,” educating the public about how to stay safe. But now he’s too sick and weak to venture out.

His email from Monday, August 18, said only “Need help!”

Ricki Lewis is the author of "The Forever Fix: Gene Therapy and the Boy Who Saved It," St. Martin's Press, March 2012.  To read more blogs from the author, please visit her site at http://www.rickilewis.com.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

October 21, 2013 | Posted By Paul Burcher, MD, PhD

The lay press has reported on two stories this week that both relate to “designing babies,” although only one of these reports is about producing “designer babies.”   The two new technologies, neither yet utilized in a human population, raise different ethical questions, but I, for one, am more troubled by the prospect of a “designer baby” than I am by the possibility of designing, or creating an embryo, free of its mother’s mitochondrial disease.

National Public Radio (NPR) reported on the advances in treating mitochondrial disease with its story that embryologists are now capable of creating an embryo with maternal DNA but with another woman’s mitochondria, thus allowing women with serious mitochondrial diseases to have healthy offspring.  The ethical issues are twofold.  This would be the first time we would change the genetics of an embryo, and this change could be passed on to its offspring as well (but only to female offspring because mitochondria are passed along the maternal line by way of the mitochondria in the ovum).  Some ethicists have argued that manipulating the genetics of the human genome in a transmissible way is a “bright line” that should not be crossed because if the procedure created any new genetic mistakes, these too would be heritable.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

October 7, 2013 | Posted By Ricki Lewis, PhD

On September 24, the direct-to-consumer genetic testing company 23 and Me was granted patent no. 8543339, covering the selection of traits in offspring by genotyping eggs and sperm. (“Gamete donor selection based on genetic calculations.”) An analysis of the ethical issues the patent raises is published today in Genetics in Medicine. (Coincidentally, a co-author of the paper was so critical of a recent DNA Science blog post that comments had to be cut off. Small world.)

I’d started thinking about today’s post a few weeks ago, when a prominent science writer posted on a listserv “What was the CEO of AAAS thinking?” and then quoted Alan I. Leshner telling the New York Times: “K-12 students need to know the nature of science, how scientists work and the domains and limits of science. Science can’t tell you about God. Or when life begins.”

“Um…when life begins is a pretty basic idea in biology,” commented the originator of the compelling listserv thread that followed. Actually, no.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

August 15, 2013 | Posted By Posted By Hayley Dittus-Doria

Twenty-three years ago, Arizona State University geneticist Teri Markow collected samples of blood from the Havasupai Indians, who live in a remote corner of the Grand Canyon. She was looking for genetic markers of diabetes, but instead, used the DNA in the blood to study schizophrenia — or so the story goes.

In 2003, the Havasupai sued ASU and Dr. Markow.

But it never happened. Dr. Markow never probed the DNA for anything other than standard, generic markers. So how did she wind up the tarnished target of a classic case study in bioethics?

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

August 13, 2013 | Posted By Jane Jankowski, LMSW, MS

This past week brought the announcement of an agreement between the living relatives of Henrietta Lacks and the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) regarding use of genetic information derived from HeLa cells, NY Times. Henrietta Lacks was a patient at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland in 1951 where she was treated for and ultimately died from, cervical cancer. During her hospitalization, cells were retrieved from her tumor without her knowledge or permission. It is these cells, named HeLa cells, which proved to have an unprecedented ability to grow in laboratory cultures and were the source of many important scientific advances in the 20th centuryWall Street Journal . Neither she nor her family ever received any financial compensation for the vast contribution HeLa cells have made to science and society and restitution is not part of the story this week. Privacy of genetic information derived from Henrietta’s cells is the family’s concern, and rightly so. Of note, the story of Henrietta Lacks, her family, and HeLa cells is now widely known with the publication of Rebecca Skloot’s book, “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” in 2010 – a recommended read for anyone regardless of prior interest or knowledge in biomedical ethics www.rebeccaskloot.com

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

June 13, 2013 | Posted By Ricki Lewis, PhD

Earlier today, my “in” box began to fill with info from everyone I’ve ever met letting me know that the Supreme Court had ruled on the Myriad case about patenting the breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. I also received a dozen pitches from PR people offering me all manner of instant interviews with lawyers, doctors, bioethicists, and health care analysts.

No one offered me an interview with a geneticist – a person who knows something about DNA. So being such a person myself, I decided to take a look at the decision. And I found errors – starting right smack in the opening paragraph.

“Scientists can extract DNA from cells to isolate specific segments for study. They can also synthetically create exons-only strands of nucleotides known as composite DNA (cDNA). cDNA contains only the exons that occur in DNA, omitting the intervening exons.”

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

SEARCH BIOETHICS TODAY
SUBSCRIBE TO BIOETHICS TODAY
ABOUT BIOETHICS TODAY
BIOETHICS TODAY is the blog of the Alden March Bioethics Institute, presenting topical and timely commentary on issues, trends, and breaking news in the broad arena of bioethics. BIOETHICS TODAY presents interviews, opinion pieces, and ongoing articles on health care policy, end-of-life decision making, emerging issues in genetics and genomics, procreative liberty and reproductive health, ethics in clinical trials, medicine and the media, distributive justice and health care delivery in developing nations, and the intersection of environmental conservation and bioethics.
TOPICS