Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

Sunday, 28 January 2018

Meet Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua

The first monkey clones produced by method that made Dolly
Sunday, 28 January 2018


The first primate clones made by somatic cell nuclear transfer are two genetically identical long-tailed macaques born recently at the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Neuroscience in Shanghai. Researchers named the newborns Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua - born eight and six weeks ago, respectively - after the Chinese adjective "Zhonghua," which means Chinese nation or people. The technical milestone, presented January 24 in the journal Cell, makes it a realistic possibility for labs to conduct research with customizable populations of genetically uniform monkeys.

"There are a lot of questions about primate biology that can be studied by having this additional model," says senior author Qiang Sun, Director of the Nonhuman Primate Research Facility at the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Neuroscience.

"You can produce cloned monkeys with the same genetic background except the gene you manipulated. This will generate real models not just for genetically based brain diseases, but also cancer, immune, or metabolic disorders and allow us to test the efficacy of the drugs for these conditions before clinical use."

 CAPTION: This is a photograph of Zhong Zhong, one of the first two monkeys created by somatic cell nuclear transfer. CREDIT: Qiang Sun and Mu-ming Poo/Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua are not the first primate clones - the title goes to Tetra, a rhesus monkey born in 1999 through a simpler method called embryo splitting (Chan et al., Science 287, 317-319). This approach is how twins arise naturally but can only generate up to four offspring at a time. Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua are the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), the technique used to create Dolly the sheep over 20 years ago, in which researchers remove the nucleus from an egg cell and replace it with another nucleus from differentiated body cells. This reconstructed egg then develops into a clone of whatever donated the replacement nucleus.

 CAPTION: This is a photograph of Hua Hua, one of the first monkey clones made by somatic cell nuclear transfer. CREDIT: Qiang Sun and Mu-ming Poo/Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Differentiated monkey cell nuclei, compared to other mammals such as mice or cows, have proven resistant to SCNT. Sun and his colleagues overcame this challenge primarily by introducing epigenetic modulators after the nuclear transfer that switch on or off the genes that are inhibiting embryo development. The researchers found their success rate increased by transferring nuclei taken from fetal differentiated cells, such as fibroblasts, a cell type in the connective tissue. Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua are clones of the same macaque fetal fibroblasts. Adult donor cells were also used, but those clones only lived for a few hours after birth.

"We tried several different methods, but only one worked," says Sun.

"There was much failure before we found a way to successfully clone a monkey."

The first author Zhen Liu, a postdoctoral fellow, spent three years practicing and optimizing the SCNT procedure. He tested various methods to quickly and precisely remove the nuclear materials from the egg cell and promote the fusion of the nucleus-donor cell and enucleated egg. With the additional help of epigenetic modulators that re-activate the suppressed genes in the differentiated nucleus, he was able to achieve much higher rates of normal embryo development and pregnancy in the surrogate female monkeys.

"The SCNT procedure is rather delicate, so the faster you do it, the less damage to the egg you have, and Dr. Liu has a green thumb for doing this," says Muming Poo, a co-author on the study who directs the Institute of Neuroscience of CAS Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology and helps to supervise the project.

"It takes a lot of practice. Not everybody can do the enucleation and cell fusion process quickly and precisely, and it is likely that the optimization of transfer procedure greatly helped us to achieve this success."

The researchers plan to continue improving the technique, which will also benefit from future work in other labs, and monitoring Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua for their physical and intellectual development. The babies are currently bottle fed and are growing normally compared to monkeys their age. The group is also expecting more macaque clones to be born over the coming months.

The lab is following strict international guidelines for animal research set by the US National Institutes of Health, but Sun and Poo encourage the scientific community to discuss what should or should not be acceptable practices when it comes to cloning of non-human primates.

"We are very aware that future research using non-human primates anywhere in the world depends on scientists following very strict ethical standards," Poo says.


This work was supported by grants from Chinese Academy of Sciences, the CAS Key Technology Talent Program, the Shanghai Municipal Government Bureau of Science and Technology, the National Postdoctoral Program for Innovative Talents and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation.


Source: CELL PRESS
Contact: Joseph Caputo jcaputo@cell.com



Reference:
Zhen Liu, Yijun Cai, Yan Wang, Yanhong Nie, Chenchen Zhang, Yuting Xu, Xiaotong Zhang, Yong Lu, Zhanyang Wang, Muming Poo, Qiang Sun
Cell, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.01.020
.........


For more on stem cells and cloning, go to CellNEWS at


Sunday, 22 March 2015

The ISSCR Issues Statement on Human Germ Line Genome Modification

The International Society for Stem Cell Research has released a statement calling for a moratorium on attempts to apply nuclear genome editing of the human germ line in clinical practice
Sunday, 22 March 2015

In a statement released on Thursday, the International Society for Stem Cell Research called for a moratorium on attempts at clinical application of nuclear genome editing of the human germ line to enable more extensive scientific analysis of the potential risks of genome editing and broader public discussion of the societal and ethical implications.

Technologies used to introduce changes into the DNA sequence of cells have advanced rapidly, making genome editing increasingly simple. Genome editing is feasible, not just in the somatic cells of an adult organism, but also in early embryos, as well as the gametes (sperm and egg) that carry the inheritable, germ line DNA. Research involving germ line nuclear genome editing has been performed to date in many organisms, including mice and monkeys, and applications to human embryos are possible.

The ISSCR statement raises significant ethical, societal and safety considerations related to the application of nuclear genome editing to the human germ line in clinical practice. Current genome editing technologies carry risks of unintended genome damage, in addition to unknown consequences. Moreover, consensus is lacking on what, if any, therapeutic applications of germ line genome modification might be permissible.

The statement calls for a moratorium on attempts to apply nuclear genome editing of the human germ line in clinical practice, as scientists currently lack an adequate understanding of the safety and potential long term risks of germ line genome modification. Moreover, the ISSCR asserts that a deeper and more rigorous deliberation on the ethical, legal and societal implications of any attempts at modifying the human germ line is essential if its clinical practice is ever to be sanctioned.

In calling for the above moratorium, the ISSCR is not taking a position on the clinical testing of mitochondrial replacement therapy, a form of germ line modification that entails replacing the mitochondria (found outside the nucleus) in the eggs of women at risk of transmitting certain devastating diseases to their children.

Contact: Michelle Quivey
.........


For more on stem cells and cloning, go to CellNEWS at
http://cellnews-blog.blogspot.com/

Thursday, 29 January 2015

Mitochondrial Donation: How Many Women Could Benefit?

Two and a Half Thousand Women Could Benefit from Mitochondrial Donation in the UK
Thursday, 29 January 2015

Almost 2,500 women of child-bearing age in the UK are at risk of transmitting mitochondrial disease to their children, according to the most recent estimates published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The research offers the most recent evidence yet of how many families could potentially be helped by new IVF techniques to prevent mitochondrial disease, which would be permitted by new regulations on which a vote in parliament is imminent.

Mitochondrial diseases are caused by inherited mutations in the DNA contained in mitochondria - tiny structures present in every cell that generate energy. Mitochondrial diseases can be devastating and particularly affect tissues that have high energy demands - brain, muscle (including heart), liver and kidney.

New IVF-based techniques have been developed which have the potential to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial disease. Known as 'mitochondrial donation' the techniques involve removing faulty mitochondria inherited from the mother and replacing them with the healthy mitochondria of another woman. The nuclear DNA, containing 99.9% of genetic material from the mother and father, remains unchanged.

Researchers at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Mitochondrial Research at Newcastle University, which will be the first to offer mitochondrial donation if parliament agrees to new regulations of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990), have now calculated how many women have disease-causing mutations in their mitochondrial DNA in order to estimate how many could potentially benefit. The new regulations only allow for mitochondrial donation to prevent mitochondrial disease and set no precedent for genetic manipulation of nuclear DNA.

They calculate that 2,473 women in the UK, and 12,423 women in the US, aged between 15 and 44 years, are at risk of passing on potentially lethal mitochondrial DNA disease to their children. This equates to an average of 152 births per year in the UK, and 778 births per year in the US.

The estimates were made by identifying the number of women in North East England who are at risk of passing on mitochondrial disease to their children and extrapolating the figure to the rest of the UK, based on the relative number of women of child-bearing age in the North East compared to the UK as a whole. A similar method was used for the US figures. The study did not account for variance due to ethnicity or potentially different fertility rates in different parts of the UK.

Researchers also assessed the fertility of women with mitochondrial DNA mutations. To do this they compared fertility data from their patients' to data about the general population, obtained from the UK Office for National Statistics. They found that mitochondrial mutation has no statistically significant effect on fertility rate.

Dr GrĂ¡inne Gorman from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Mitochondrial Research at Newcastle University, and joint first author of the paper, said:

"Our estimate of how many women could benefit from mitochondrial donation is based on our data from North East England, where we have very detailed insight into how many women are affected. We are confident that there are a similar number of women across the UK at risk of passing on mitochondrial disease to their children."

Professor Doug Turnbull, Director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Mitochondrial Research at Newcastle University, and an author of the paper, said:

"Our findings have considerable implications for all countries that are considering allowing mitochondrial donation techniques. In the UK we are waiting for parliament to decide whether to support these regulations. This would allow women who carry these mutations greater reproductive choice. "

Source: Wellcome Trust 
Contact: Clare Ryan 

Reference:
Mitochondrial Donation: How many women could benefit? 
GrĂ¡inne S. Gorman, John P. Grady, Yi Ng, Andrew M. Schaefer, Richard J. McNally, Patrick F. Chinnery, Patrick Yu Wai Man, Mary Herbert, Robert W. Taylor, Robert McFarland, and Doug M. Turnbull
New England Journal of Medicine, January 28, 2015 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1500960
.........


For more on stem cells and cloning, go to CellNEWS at

Tuesday, 21 October 2014

Shopping for an Egg Donor

Is beauty, brains, or health most important?
Tuesday, 21 October 2014

Human egg cell. 
When it comes to picking an egg donor, until recent years, recipients tended to prefer someone with a similar appearance. Donor trait choices are changing, though, and which traits are now more preferable and why is the focus of "Beauty, Brains or Health: Trends in Ovum Recipient Preferences," an article published in Journal of Women's Health, a peer-reviewed publication from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers. The article is available free on the Journal of Women's Health website at http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/jwh.2014.4792 until November 20, 2014.

Homero Flores, MD and coauthors from Reproductive Medicine Associates of New York and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (New York, NY) reviewed the requests of ovum donor recipients over a 5-year period and assessed their preferences for donor traits, categorizing them by appearance, ethnicity, intellect, ability, and mental health. The authors documented statistically significant increases and decreases in the different categories over the years, with more "practical traits" that would improve offspring's overall quality of life tending to increase compared to "self-reflective" traits.

"As social acceptance of ovum donation has increased, and donor selection has become more sophisticated, couples are changing their preferences for what donor characteristics they value most for their future offspring," says Susan G. Kornstein, MD, Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Women's Health, Executive Director of the Virginia Commonwealth University Institute for Women's Health, Richmond, VA, and President of the Academy of Women's Health.

Contact: Kathryn Ryan

Reference:
Beauty, Brains or Health: Trends in Ovum Recipient Preferences
Flores Homero, Lee Joseph, Rodriguez-Purata Jorge, Witkin Georgia, Sandler Benjamin, and Copperman Alan B.
Journal of Women's Health. October 2014, 23(10): 830-833. doi:10.1089/jwh.2014.4792
.........


For more on stem cells and cloning, go to CellNEWS at
http://cellnews-blog.blogspot.com/

Saturday, 4 October 2014

Wednesday, 6 November 2013

Human Stem Cell Research in Europe

New Report Calls for Sustained Public Endorsement and Funding for Human Stem Cell Research
Wednesday, 06 November 2013

A strategic report from the European Science Foundation examines the key scientific questions for human stem cell research in the context of the rapidly emerging field of regenerative medicine. In parallel to the potential new treatments for incurable diseases resulting from stem cell research, heated ethical and legal debates have arisen across the world. This report presents a comparative view of the legislative framework on human stem cell research across Europe and provides a selection of success stories in frontier research and clinical trials that underpin the advances achieved in Europe to date.

In recent years, international research on regenerative medicine and stem cells has yielded some promising results and even greater expectations in society. In this medical field, human embryonic stem cells could be applied in a variety of ways, for example to identify new compounds for drug development, or as cell-based therapies. The potential to use human stem cells to repair or replace tissue or organ functions lost through age, disease, damage or birth defects may raise ethical issues that must be considered integrally with any research. Europe is currently witnessing developments and debates that will impact regulation and public funding of stem cell research and innovation for years to come.

The report observes that Europe plays a leading role in regenerative medicine research, with most countries featuring legislative frameworks that are globally favourable to human stem cell research. The 30 countries' position on human stem cell research was grouped into five broad categories; very permissive, permissive with restrictions, restrictive by default, very restrictive and unlegislated. The report found that 63% of the countries fell into the first two categories.

"Europe has a valuable track record in the area of stem cell research. The report highlights the need to continue to fund this research so that its full potential can be realised." said Professor Stig Slørdahl, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at Norwegian University of Science and Technology, who chaired the report.

The authors recommend that sustained public endorsement and funding need to continue in order for further research to be carried out and public-private partnerships to develop, bringing safe and innovative therapies to the market, with a potential benefit to millions of patients worldwide.

Dr Vanessa Campo-Ruiz, ESF Science Officer to the Chief Executive and lead author of the report commented:
"We hope this report may help to inform future policy and funding decisions across Europe and thus contribute to ensure this continent's scientific leadership, social welfare and economic growth."

About The European Science Foundation
The European Science Foundation coordinates collaboration in research, networking, and funding of international research programmes, as well as carrying out strategic and science policy activities at a European level. Its members are 67 national research funding and performing organisations, learned societies and academies in 29 countries.

Contact: Emma Knott

Reference:
(available online, pdf)
.........


For more on stem cells and cloning, go to CellNEWS at

Thursday, 12 April 2012

Exploring the Risk and Rewards of Stem Cell Products

Exploring the Risk and Rewards of Stem Cell Products
Thursday, 12 April 2012

The brave new world of stem cell research dangles the exciting potential for a host of leading-edge treatments that may one day help cure debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, maladies that today cannot be treated with modern medicine.

However, not much thought has been given to how those products might be regulated and how issues of legal liability may be addressed in a way that encourages scientific innovation but also protects the patients for whom these treatments might provide great relief.

Now, a lawyer from the UCLA School of Law and a member of the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCLA has developed a road map that could help guide researchers, stem cell product manufacturers, treating physicians and patients through the complex maze of imagining, creating and developing stem cell products and using them to treat disease.

"Stem cell research and its eventual applications hold enormous promise, but they also carry some significant risks," said Stephen R. Munzer, a distinguished professor of law and author of the article.

"Our understanding of the number and gravity of those risks right now is incomplete and uncertain. Developing a plan now that details how to deal with such issues as stem cell product liability is important, because we need to think carefully and rationally about how to address these issues before the market is flooded with products."

Munzer's work appears April 11, 2012 in the Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law.

In the article, Munzer offers suggestions on how stem cell products might be classified in the future, examines how applying existing product liability rules to stem cell products is inadequate, details the economic considerations for a stem cell liability regime and offers his views of what the law should be on liability for stem cells.

"One thing I detect from the stem cell scientists I've spoken to is a certain amount of judicious caution," he said.

"What they don't want is to have people rushing to get something approved by the FDA and then see it result in unanticipated, unforeseeable problems."

One of the byproducts of that judicious caution, both of risk of liability and potential risk to patients, Munzer said, has been scientists and biotech companies initially going after the so-called "low hanging fruit" of stem cell treatments, those projects that appear to have the least amount of risk and maximum benefit, such as treatments for retinal disease as opposed to organ regeneration.

In the article, Munzer also emphasizes the "ethics of risk," or having all those involved from the conception of an idea for a stem cell product to its eventual development and manufacture and administration, accountable for the risks they may be imposing on patients.

"The scientists who come up with the ideas for these products, the people who design them, the biotech companies that manufacture them and produce them in large numbers and the treating physicians who ultimately will be administering these treatments all have to be accountable, as well as the FDA, which is charged with regulating them," Munzer said.

Munzer likened the anticipation for potential stem cell products to the excitement created in the 1980s and 1990s over early gene therapies and what may have been a rush to test the therapies without adequately considering the risks. That potential for new treatments was temporarily derailed after an 18-year-old, Jesse Gelsinger, in a gene therapy trial died in 1999 as a result of the treatment.

"Existing blood products, growth factors, vaccines, we've got more understanding of how those things work and that is not true in the case of stem cells," Munzer said.

"We want to create a strict liability regime that encourages innovation, but on the other hand does not encourage it so much that products are put on the market long before they should be."

Munzer suggests creating a social-insurance arrangement that would pool resources from everyone involved from the scientists to the manufacturers to the treating physician and the patients, contributing to a fund that could eventually be used to compensate those harmed by stem cell products during their testing. His proposal is similar to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a no fault alternative to the traditional tort system created in 1988 to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines, stabilize vaccine costs and establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines.

Munzer also recommends limiting punitive damages in stem cells cases, but only if the product has been FDA approved and the FDA regulatory requirements have been strictly followed, the risks of the products have become more understood and predictable, and the FDA has gained sufficient experience in regulating the products.

Munzer's liability road map could be of value to courts, lawyers and regulatory bodies in navigating what is to come in stem cell product development. It also should be considered a dynamic document, he said, that responds to what is learned in the coming decades about the creation and development of stem cell products.

"It is important to address these issues this early with as much insight as we can bring to it, recognizing that there will be, as the years go on, more information and a better understanding of what we're doing," he said.

"Starting to address this now instead of waiting five to 10 years is vital, as it will be much easier to prevent potential mishaps and messes from occurring than it will be to try to clean them up later."

Munzer's article attempts to tackle problems that are on or just beyond the horizon, and looks to what has happened in the past for guidance.

"The product liability claims regarding stem cell products will require the most exacting attention to their safety and effectiveness that is possible without imposing an undue burden on manufacturers," the study states.

"No existing category offers a perfect legal model for stem cell products. However, we can tease out pertinent features of these categories for tort litigation to show what might work well for stem cell products. Definitive recommendations must wait for these products to appear on the market and for their risks and rewards to become better understood over the coming decades."

Contact: Kim Irwin
.........

ZenMaster

For more on stem cells and cloning, go to CellNEWS at
http://cellnews-blog.blogspot.com/

Thursday, 4 August 2011

ScienceLive Chat about Stem Cell Future

ScienceLive Chat about Stem Cell Future
Thursday, 04 August 2011

Today, Thursday at 3 PM EDT, ScienceLive will be running a live chat on the future of stem cell research. Our staff writer Jocelyn Kaiser, will be moderating, and she'll have Hank Greely and Amander Clark on as science guests.

This chat is part of a new venture for us, called
ScienceLive, where we bring our readers in touch with prominent scientists on a weekly basis so they can ask questions on the hottest topics in science.

Follow it here:


Source: Science
Contact: Yasmin Ogale, Assistant Producer, ScienceLive

.........


ZenMaster


For more on stem cells and cloning, go to CellNEWS at
http://cellnews-blog.blogspot.com/


Thursday, 9 June 2011

Curtailing Embryonic Stem Cell Research Would also Hurt iPS Cell Research

Curtailing Embryonic Stem Cell Research Would also Hurt iPS Cell Research
Thursday, 09 June 2011


Stanford bioethicist Christopher Scott.
Any legislation that slows human embryonic stem cell research is likely to also seriously harm the study of induced pluripotent stem cells, according to a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, the Mayo Clinic and the University of Michigan.
The finding strongly refutes the idea that embryonic stem cell research can be abandoned in favour of the less-controversial iPS cells, which are derived from adult human tissue.

"If federal funding stops for human embryonic stem cell research, it would have a serious negative impact on iPS cell research," said Stanford bioethicist Christopher Scott, citing a "false dichotomy" between the cell types.

"We may never be able to choose between iPS and ES cell research because we don't know which type of cell will be best for eventual therapies."

Scott, who directs Stanford's Stem Cells in Society Program, is the first author of the study, which compared the patterns of scientific publication on human embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells. The study will be published in the June 10 issue of Cell.

The researchers also concluded that human embryonic stem cell research does not siphon federal funding away from studies of iPS cells, as has been claimed by the two plaintiffs in an ongoing Washington, D.C., district court case under consideration by Judge Royce Lamberth. Instead, studies of the two types of stem cells are likely to occur in tandem as established embryonic stem cell researchers rush to buffer themselves against a possible loss of federal funding.

"We're finding that scientific decisions are being made not because of science, but in response to other constraints, such as which cell types qualify for federal funding, how many lines are available and which can be obtained quickly and easily," said Scott.

As a result, the fields have become so tightly intertwined as to be inseparable; any loss of funding for these researchers will negatively impact all the work in their labs, including iPS cell research, Scott and his colleagues conclude.

Unlike embryonic stem cells, which are derived from human embryos, iPS cells can be created from adult tissue such as skin cells. They look and act like embryonic stem cells, but recent research has suggested that there are significant differences between the two cell types that may affect how they can be used for research and eventual human therapies.

In 2001, then-President George W. Bush restricted the use of federal funds to research on human embryonic stem cell lines derived before Aug. 9 of that year; in March 2009, President Barack Obama reversed that decision to allow research on many more cell lines. However, the legality of federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research is now being considered in the ongoing district court case filed in August 2010.

Scott and his colleagues, including senior author Jason Owen-Smith, PhD, associate professor of sociology and of organizational studies at the University of Michigan, analyzed more than 2,000 scientific papers published between 2007, when iPS cells were first reported, and 2010. They compared how many papers described research using exclusively human ES cells, human iPS cells, or both ES and iPS cells.

"It's always really interesting to look more closely at things that appear in the popular press," said Scott.

"We've been hearing that, since we now have iPS cells, we don't need to continue embryonic stem cell research. There's a perception that iPS cells are 'democratizing' the field because they are fairly straightforward to work with from a technical point of view."

The analysis of published papers tells a different story. Scott, Owen-Smith and their colleagues found that the iPS field is dominated by well-established, senior hES cell researchers. Many of these researchers are publishing studies that directly compare hES cells with iPS cells, rather than focusing exclusively on one cell type.

"Although we did see a very rapid uptake of iPS cell technology during the first three years, we didn't find many new researchers moving into the field," said Scott.

"The scientists who are adopting iPS quickly are the usual suspects. The old guard is working furiously to develop new iPS cell lines."

The researchers found that the original two papers in 2007 describing the creation of iPS cells had blossomed to 158 papers focused on iPS cells in 2010. In contrast, human embryonic stem cell technology was adopted much more slowly, from the first paper in 1999 to just 12 papers in 2001. Although the prior hES cell research made the adoption of iPS cell research easier, Scott and his colleagues attribute the difference in uptake of technologies to be primarily policy-driven, as researchers increasingly began to look for alternatives to the politically controversial hES cells.

However, stem cell scientists are not abandoning hES cells in favour of iPS cells. In 2008, only three of the 15 iPS cell papers (5 percent) published also reported hES cell results; in 2010, 98 of the 158 iPS cell papers (about 26 percent) did so.

"The incentives to use both types of cell in comparative studies are high because the science behind human iPS cells is still in its infancy," Owen-Smith said.

"As a result, induced pluripotent stem cells do not offer an easy solution to the difficult ethical questions surrounding embryonic stem cell research."

Scott and his colleagues also directly polled stem cell researchers at the 2010 annual meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, which was held in San Francisco, as to their choice of cell lines, and compared patterns of collaboration in the iPS and hES cell fields. They found that, between 2008 and 2009, 55 senior authors (those listed as last authors) published papers using both hES and iPS cells. Only 14 of the senior authors published papers using iPS cells alone. The finding suggests that iPS cell technology has not been as widely disseminated as may have been expected and that senior researchers vulnerable to legislative changes affecting ES cell research continue to dominate the field.

"The deeper implications of a federal ban or restrictions on hES cell research are largely missing from the policy discussion surrounding the Lamberth decision," they write.

"We now have clear evidence showing the real possibility of collateral damage caused by ill-conceived and politically motivated policy prescriptions. Restrictions, regulatory uncertainty and spurious court decisions have undoubtedly retarded progress in the pluripotent stem cell field. Now, an entirely new technology, forged out of the crucible of political controversy, stands at risk."

Source: Stanford University Medical Center
Contact: Krista Conger
.........


ZenMaster

For more on stem cells and cloning, go to CellNEWS at
http://cellnews-blog.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, 3 May 2011

Researchers in Brazil Establish the First Line of Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Researchers in Brazil Establish the First Line of Human Embryonic Stem Cells
Tuesday, 03 May 2011

Brazilian researchers, reporting in the current issue of Cell Transplantation, discovered difficulties in establishing a genetically diverse line of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) to serve the therapeutic stem cell transplantation needs of the diverse ethnic and genetic Brazilian population.

According to the study's corresponding author, Dr. Lygia V. Pereira of the Molecular Genetics Laboratory at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, pluripotent human embryonic stem cells are an important tool for basic and applied stem cell transplantation research. However, immunocompatibility is an issue, especially in a genetically diverse population such as that in Brazil where the population is comprised of European, African and Native South American ancestry.

In their study, the researchers developed an hES cell line (the first in South America) they called "BR-1" derived from a Brazilian population with embryos donated by couples who had sought assistance from private fertility clinics. Their research was compatible with the 2005 Brazilian national legal, ethical and clinical guidelines for embryonic stem cell research using tissue that had been frozen for the legally mandated time of at least three years, and that had been produced for reproductive reasons.

Their results showed that the hES cell lines they established were a "worse match" to the Brazilian population than hESC lines developed elsewhere, particularly those developed in the U.S. and Singapore.

The reasons for that may be several, said Dr. Pereira.

"The Brazilian population is one of the most heterogeneous in the world, and the genes of Brazilians are mosaics," said Dr. Pereira.

"However, an analysis of BR-1 showed that it is mostly European in origin. The reproductive assistance offered by the Brazilian public health system does not include cryopreservation of surplus embryos, meaning that the only research material available came from private clinics where couples with above-average incomes could afford the high cost of assisted reproduction."

According to the researchers, that segment of the Brazilian population is mostly composed of people self-identified as white - of European ancestry - and so is not representative of Brazilian ethnic admixture and, thus, is unable to be widely compatible with Brazil's diverse population genetics.

"Although we have successfully established the first line of hESCs from the Brazilian population that adds to the pool of genetically different pluripotent cells available, it will be important to have access to embryos from the more mixed population and assistance from the Public Health System," concluded Dr. Pereira.

"Use of embryonic stem cells (ES) in regenerative medicine is very promising, but the potential problems of tumour development, cell rejection due to histo-incompatibility, and contamination with animal products employed in the cell culture need to be overcome," said Dr. Julio Voltarelli, professor of Clinical Medicine and Clinical Immunology at the University of Sao PĂ£ulo, Brazil and section editor for Cell Transplantation.

"In this study, Dr Pereira and colleagues compared the HLA compatibility between their ESC line, the first established in Brazil, and a sample of the Brazilian population who volunteered as donors for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (REDOME). They found few matches for the ESC line in the representative population, which was attributed to the great genetic heterogeneity of the Brazilian population. This finding may add another difficulty to the clinical use of ESC in Brazil and other mixed populations even once the safety issues of ESC lines are resolved."

Source: Florida Science Communications
Contact: Randolph Fillmore

Reference:
Establishment Of A Brazilian Line Of Human Embryonic Stem Cells In Defined Medium – Implications For Cell Therapy In An Ethnically Diverse Population
Fraga, A. M.; Sukoyan, M.; Rajan, P.; Braga, D. P. F.; Iaconelli, A., Jr.; Franco, J. G., Jr.; Borges, E., Jr.; Pereira, L. V.
Cell Transplant. 20(3):431-440; 2011.
.........


ZenMaster


For more on stem cells and cloning, go to CellNEWS at
http://cellnews-blog.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, 26 January 2011

Chinese Academy of Sciences Initiates "Trailblazing" Stem Cell Research Project

Chinese Academy of Sciences Initiates "Trailblazing" Stem Cell Research Project
Wednesday, 26 January 2011

The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) on Tuesday announced it has initiated a "strategic, trailblazing" research project on stem cells and regenerative medicine.

The project mainly aims to remove the bottlenecks China is confronted with in stem cell research, the CAS said in its 2011 work meeting in Beijing.

The project will focus on the research of stem cell regulations, core mechanisms for stem cell therapies, and other key technologies, it said.

The CAS said it would establish a world-class research platform and base for stem cell and regenerative medicine research through the project.

The stem cell research project is one of eight such trailblazing projects of the CAS. The others include projects on nuclear fission, space science and clean energy.

Source: Chinese Academy of Sciences
.........


ZenMaster


For more on stem cells and cloning, go to CellNEWS at
http://cellnews-blog.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, 16 November 2010

The Next Generation of Bioethics

Pharmaceutical company bioethics? Public health bioethics? Regenerative medicine bioethics?
Tuesday, 16 November 2010

To celebrate 40 years of pioneering bioethics publication, the Hastings Center Report, the world's first bioethics journal, looked to the future, asking young scholars to write about what the next generation of bioethicists should take up. Out of 195 compelling submissions, four of the best essays were selected for publication in the November-December issue.

Three of the essays envision bioethics forging into new areas, such as the ethical obligations of pharmaceutical industry, questions around the emerging field of regenerative medicine, and public health. Another proposes broadening the approach to dying, a foundational issue of bioethics. An undergraduate, a graduate student, an early career professor who is also a practicing physician, and a Belgian researcher are the authors.

A second set of essays, focusing on bioethics methodology, will be published in 2011.

"Picking the essays we wanted to publish turned out to be surprisingly difficult," said Gregory E. Kaebnick, editor of the Report.

"We not only wanted good essays; we also wanted to represent the range of topics that people had written about and the range of people writing them up. But it's a good problem to have, of course, and it gives us great confidence about the future of bioethics."

  • "Establishing a 'Duty of Care' for Pharmaceutical Companies" calls upon bioethics to focus on the ethical responsibilities that drug companies have to the people they supply. Just as doctors, nurses, and other clinicians have a duty to give competent care to patients, drug companies should "place the good of the populace over the good of the stockholders," writes Remy Miller, a junior at Transylvania University who plans to pursue degrees in medicine and bioethics. She suggests that companies start by adhering to the bioethics principles of justice, beneficence, and autonomy.

  • "A Role for Moral Vision in Public Health" recommends that bioethics join forces with public health to develop a moral vision to inform policy and practice. While public health interventions were once accomplished through improvements in infrastructure, such as better sanitation, "today's public health goals often require changing individual behaviour, often through state action," writes Daniel B. Rubin, a doctoral student in public health and a law student at the University of Michigan Rubin.

    "Such interventions raise substantive questions about the extent to which government . . . should intrude on individual bodies to improve the health of the body politic."

  • "The Art of Dying Well" argues that one of the most pressing bioethical concerns is to create a framework for teaching an aging population to prepare for death and support one another through the dying process. Even though bioethics has always debated end-of-life issues, Lydia Dugdale, MD, an assistant professor at Yale School of Medicine, says, "American society remains ill equipped for the experience of dying." Among the reasons are advances in medical technology that have "obscured the distinction between death and life," physicians' difficulty in discussing end-of-life issues with their patients, and the secularization of Western culture, which has marginalized the role of religion in preparing people for death. Bioethics can help, Dugdale says, by working to create "a modern version of the Ars moriendi, or Art of Dying, which expressed the societal and ecclesiastical response in the Middle Ages to the widespread death caused by the plague."

  • "The Challenge of Regenerative Medicine" outlines the ethical questions raised by the effort under way in all medical fields to regenerate human tissue as a means of treating degenerative diseases.
    "In the future, regenerative medicine may therefore touch most of our lives," writes Leen Trommelmans, PhD, who teaches ethics and philosophy to nursing, midwifery, and facility management students at KaHO Sint-Lieven in Belgium and does research at the Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law at Catholic University in Leuven. So far, bioethics has focused on the use of stem cells in regenerative medicine, but other questions remain unexamined, including the rights of donors whose cells are used, the availability of costly regenerative treatments to those who cannot afford them, and the prospects of using regenerative medicine for enhancement, such as the prevention of aging.

Source: The Hastings Center
Contact: Michael Turton
.........


ZenMaster

For more on stem cells and cloning, go to CellNEWS at
http://cellnews-blog.blogspot.com/

Thursday, 23 September 2010

Ethical Dilemmas with the Growing Support for Personalized Medicine

Ethical Dilemmas with the Growing Support for Personalized Medicine
Thursday, 23 September 2010

As US government support for personalized medicine grows, a consumer advocate, a patient, and bioethicists explore ethical controversies. Direct-to-consumer genetic tests, privacy, targeted cancer therapies, and Henrietta Lacks are among topics in a special issue of the Hastings center Report.

Behind the high expectations raised by personalized medicine – the use of genetic information to individualize treatment, improve care, and possibly save money – a series of essays in The Hastings Center Report examines the challenges in determining what is effective; benefits and drawbacks for patients; and consumers' right to their genetic information, however imperfect. Ronni Sandroff, an editorial director of Consumer Reports, writes on controversies surrounding direct-to-consumer tests and discusses her essay in a podcast.

"The Prospects for Personalized Medicine"
A roundup of recent government initiatives to promote personalized medicine, successes with genetically customized drug treatments, and quality control problems with genetic tests is given by Shara Yurkiewicz, a first-year student at Harvard Medical School.

"Personalized Medicine's Ragged Edge"
How should we determine who should get expensive treatments? If there were a thick, bright line separating the minimal responders from the maximal responders, then we could allocate these treatments fairly. But the reality, explains Leonard Fleck, a bioethicist at Michigan State University, is more like a ragged edge – some people will clearly benefit a lot, some people will clearly not benefit at all, and many people will benefit somewhat.

"Personalized Cancer Care in an Age of Anxiety"
To get an idea of how personalized medicine could reshape patient care in the years ahead, one need only look at how it is beginning to reshape the care of patients with cancer, writes Susan Gilbert, Hastings Center staff writer, who surveys those changes.

"A Patient's Experience"
Marian Fontana, a New York author, describes her experience with genetic testing to guide her treatment for breast cancer.

"Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests and the Right to Know"
Ronni Sandroff, editorial director, Family and Health, of Consumer Reports, appraises the young DTC genetic testing industry in the wake of recent government investigations that exposed inaccuracies and other problems. She argues against having doctors as gatekeepers of genetic information and favours government regulation to insure that the DTC tests are reliable and are not used as marketing devices for unproven products.

"Wanted: Human Biospecimens"
For personalized medicine to realize its potential, researchers will need thousands of samples of human tissue, blood, urine, and other bio-specimens for genetic studies, writes Karen Maschke, a Hastings Center research scholar. But this need has raised many ethical issues around informed consent and privacy, rendered vividly by recent events, including lawsuits involving use of newborn screening blood samples for research, a legal settlement with the Havasupai Indian tribe over genetic research with their blood, and publication of the bestselling book on the "immortal cells" of Henrietta Lacks.

Source: The Hastings Center
Contact: Mary Crowley
.........


ZenMaster


For more on stem cells and cloning, go to CellNEWS at
http://cellnews-blog.blogspot.com/

Saturday, 4 September 2010

ISSCR Decries Negative Impact of Stem Cell Injunction on Science and Medicine

ISSCR Decries Negative Impact of Stem Cell Injunction on Science and Medicine

Saturday, 04 September 2010

Vital progress in stem cell research by hundreds of U.S. laboratories is threatened after last week’s injunction prohibiting federal funding for the study of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). The president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), Elaine Fuchs, Rockefeller University, U.S., stated that the setbacks for advancing biomedical research on stem cells and translating this knowledge into new and improved treatments for patients are already considerable, and escalate with each day the injunction continues.

Sir Ian Wilmut, MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, UK, agrees.

“Any disruption of this [hESC] research, such as that imposed by the present injunction, will have a chilling effect on research throughout the world.”

“To advance the potential of stem cells for regenerative medicine, researchers must be able to study hESCs and uncover their special ability to make every cell of our body, including adult stem cells,” said Dr. Fuchs.

“Information on hESCs is essential so that we can discover new niches for adult stem cells in more tissues, learn how they differ from hESCs, and begin to understand how to expand the more limited capacity of adult stem cells. Without government funds to support this research, U.S.-based scientists and physicians will be impeded in developing the blueprint for stem cell therapies that will save lives.”

As a result of the injunction, the National Institutes of Health (U.S.) has announced that review and issuance of pending grant applications and grant renewals has been suspended until further notice. Grants affected include some long-standing research supported during the Bush administration that involve some of the top physician scientists in the U.S.

Stem cell researchers in the U.S. are now left guessing as to the full impact on their research and in some cases, the future of their laboratories and expertly trained staff. Early-career scientists, who often rely solely on federal research funding and on short-term results to establish longer-term funding, are particularly vulnerable to a cessation in funding of any duration.

The ISSCR is further concerned that the ramifications will extend internationally. ISSCR Vice President Shinya Yamanaka, Kyoto University, Japan and Gladstone Institutes, U.S., notes the potential impact on decisions for legislating hESC research in Japan.

“President Obama’s decision to facilitate hESC research had a huge impact on the decision of the Japanese government to permit hESC research. I am afraid that this new injunction may therefore negatively affect the Japanese regulations in this regard, thereby inhibiting the future of both hESC and induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) research.”

“The U.S. makes an enormous contribution to biomedical research, and U.S.-derived stem cells form the cornerstone of worldwide research efforts,” Dr. Wilmut added.

Research using hESCs has been supported by the U.S. government since 2002 and provides critical insight into human development and disease that is needed to advance our understanding and treatment of a wide range of diseases and conditions. The ISSCR remains committed to supporting all forms of stem cell research, advocating that both embryonic and adult stem cell research move forward in parallel to realize the full promise of regenerative medicine.


Additional Information:
United States District Court for Washington D.C. Preliminary Injunction (Aug. 23, 2010)
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv1575-44
NIH notification regarding applications for grants and contracts that involve human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) (Aug. 30, 2010)
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-126.html
Statement from NIH Director Francis Collins (Aug. 26, 2010) http://www.nih.gov/about/director/08262010statement_stemcellinjunction.htm
Justice Department Motion to Stay and Notice of Appeal (Aug. 31, 2010)
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/stemcell/appeal_08312010.pdf
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/stemcell/stay_08312010.pdf

Motion to Stay includes a Declaration of NIH Director Francis Collins detailing the impact on intra- and extra-mural research: “… The preliminary injunction issued in this case will have extraordinary adverse effects not only on the prospects of delivering new therapies to patients suffering from numerous diseases and disorders but also on scientific progress from the wider biomedical research community…”
.........

ZenMaster

For more on stem cells and cloning, go to CellNEWS at
http://cellnews-blog.blogspot.com/

Thursday, 2 September 2010

People Want to be Asked before Sharing Genetic Data

Group Health study is first to ask patients about sharing their data
Thursday, 02 September 2010

People want to be informed and asked for consent before deciding whether to let researchers share their genetic information in a federal database. This is according to a team of investigators at Group Health Research Institute and the University of Washington (UW). The team's report, called "Glad You Asked," is in the September 2010 Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics.

To the team's knowledge, it is the first to ask research participants' opinions about the need for informed consent for sharing their own information. The team explored participants' preferences while collaborating on the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. The Network involves volunteers enrolled in the joint Group Health-UW Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) study. ACT is a longitudinal cohort study that tracks aging-related changes in thousands of older Group Health patients over time.

When the team asked Group Health patients who participate in ACT whether their "de-identified" (anonymous) genetic and medical record information could be shared in the database, 86 percent said yes. Then the team surveyed 365 ACT study participants who had agreed to let their genetic information be shared, mostly because of a "desire to help others." In the survey, 90 percent of participants said they thought it was important to have been asked for this reconsent.

Reconsent means getting additional informed consent from research participants before using their information for a purpose beyond what they agreed to originally. Alternatives to reconsent — including opting out, being notified, or neither individual permission nor notification — were unacceptable to 40 percent, 67 percent, and 70 percent of the surveyed participants, respectively.

Evette J. Ludman, Ph.D..
Credit: Group Health
Research Institute.
"We were surprised that so many people felt it was important for us to ask them, even though they decided to give their consent," said lead author Evette Ludman, PhD, a senior research associate at Group Health Research Institute.

"This indicates that even if most of a study's participants would agree to data sharing, it's still crucial to ask them."

Since 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has strongly encouraged many studies to submit genetic information to the federal database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP). The reason is that genomic research on large numbers of people can yield insights that are not possible with smaller numbers.

For new studies that will enrol participants prospectively, informed consent can — and should — address such sharing. But sharing genetic data raises ethical questions for longitudinal cohort studies, including ACT, which started long before dbGaP was established in 2006. Few existing informed consents address data sharing through this new mechanism. Ideally, Dr. Ludman suggested, research grants would include funding and time to pursue reconsent. In this study, it cost around $50 for each participant who was asked.

"Trust is a two-way street, and human research requires lots of trust," Dr. Ludman said.

"People have an understandable feeling of ownership over their bodies and medical records, including their genetic information," she added.

"Researchers show we're worthy of trust when we ask research participants for permission to use their information in a way that they haven't already agreed to."

Recent high-profile legal cases have highlighted the issue of consent and trust in research, including the Havasupai tribe vs. Arizona State University and parents vs. the Texas health department over storing newborn blood samples without parental consent. So too has the bestselling book, “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”, about the history surrounding the HeLa cell line, the world's most widely grown human cells.

About:
The eMERGE Network:
The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a national consortium formed to develop, disseminate, and apply approaches to research that combine DNA biorepositories with electronic medical record (EMR) systems for large-scale, high-throughput genetic research. The Network brings together researchers with a wide range of expertise in genomics, statistics, ethics, informatics, and clinical medicine from leading medical research institutions across the country: Group Health Cooperative with the UW; Marshfield Clinic; Mayo Clinic; Northwestern University; and Vanderbilt University.


Group Health Research Institute:
Founded in 1947, Group Health Cooperative is a Seattle-based, consumer-governed, non-profit health care system. Group Health Research Institute changed its name from Group Health Center for Health Studies on September 8, 2009. Since 1983, the Institute has conducted non-proprietary public-interest research on preventing, diagnosing, and treating major health problems. Government and private research grants provide its main funding.


UW Medicine:
The UW Medicine health system includes UW Medical Center, Harborview Medical Center, Northwest Hospital, the UW School of Medicine, UW Medicine Neighborhood Clinics, UW Physicians, Airlift Northwest, and the UW's partnership in the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance with Seattle Children's and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. UW Medicine has major academic and service affiliations with Seattle Children's Hospital, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle and the VA Hospital in Boise. The UW School of Medicine is the top public institution for biomedical research in funding received from the National Institutes of Health.

Source: Group Health Research Institute
Contact: Rebecca Hughes
.........


ZenMaster

For more on stem cells and cloning, go to CellNEWS at
http://cellnews-blog.blogspot.com/