Saturday, November 21, 2009

Were You Aware That You Could Have Consumed Cloned Animal Meat?


One sometimes forgets how much of an effect science has on our daily lives. In the world of cloning, it is sometimes difficult to comprehend the magnitude of new discoveries and the changes that our lives undergo as a result. For example, did you know that it is possible that you have eaten meat from a cloned cow? On January 8th, 2007, Nature Biotechnology, an online scientific journal, published a study, conducted by Xiangzhong Yang and associates, about the use and production of cloned cattle, and other mammals. Research on the cloning of animals has been taking place for years, specifically with research on cloning cattle having been conducted for over twenty years. These cattle are being cloned in one of two ways, either by embryonic cell nuclear transfer (ECNT), or by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). The only difference between the two is that SCNT uses adult somatic cells and ECNT uses embryonic cells- but the technology used in both procedures is identical.
In effect, embryo cloning by embryonic cell separation is simply a higher tech version of selective breeding. Selective breeding in animal agriculture has been used for years to increase the reproduction of high-grade specimen. The only difference is that instead of mating a steer and a female cow together that are likely to breed daughters that produces lots of milk, the embryo from a female cow that produces a lot of milk would be split into two, three, or four separate embryos that all produce high milk producing cows.
This article is important because it addresses a couple key issues relating to animal cloning and the resulting products. Number one, it addresses the fact that in general, the majority of the public is unaware that they could have consumed cloned meat. The article states that, “Most of these ECNT cloned cattle were valuable breeding animals that almost certainly produced thousands of progeny.” To those who greatly oppose embryonic research, and who also buy meat at the average supermarket, this could prove a major ethical problem. Any of us who eat meat could have eaten meat from a cloned animal, or one of their offspring. There is currently no differentiation in identification for meat that is from a cloned or non-cloned animal. As a result of this, although studies show that, “there are no reports on health-good or bad-of humans who have consumed meat or milk from these cloned animals,” there is not a reliable system in place to track the real reactions humans have to cloned animal meat and milk.

However, the second important part of this article is that it reaffirms what was held to be the standard when it comes to the products of cloned animals- “”More than 1000 commonly used parameters, including amino acid composition, fatty acid composition, proportion of meat and fat, organ weight and organ histopathology…fit the food industry normal ranges and did not differ significantly from meat and milk from naturally reproduced cattle.” That is, although the meat hasn’t been tracked, there is a great amount of evidence to support the idea that meat from cloned animals is not harmful to humans.
This article also briefly addresses some of the worries that both animal rights advocates and human safety advocates are concerned with. For one, sometimes with SCNT and ECNT calves and lambs suffer from “large offspring syndrome,” which is when animals are too large at birth. In addition, “other symptoms, such as placental abnormalities, edema, large umbilicus or perinatal deaths” can occur. Breeding animals that are more likely to suffer from these conditions can be viewed as inhumane. Is it ethically and morally sound to continue this research when it increases the likelihood that more animals will suffer from various abnormalities and pain? Do the ends justify the means?

The Pet Clone Wars

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1878398,00.html

This is a very recent article (Feb. 10. 2009) from Times about fierce competition among Korean biotechnology labs for commercial use of pet cloning. Times editor Jennifer Veale writes about the most recent commercial use of biotechnology.

To summarize, there are two major players in South Korea- RNL BIO, sponsored by Seoul Univeristy and Sooam Biotech Research Foundation, associated with BioArts International in the States.

RNL was the first company to successfully clone dogs after Dolly was cloned in 1996 by Ian Wilmut. Since 2005, RNL has cloned 35 dogs and five wolves while Sooam has cloned 75 dogs.
(image on the right- actual ads on RNL's web site rnl.co.kr)

Although the article gives credit for what Lee, the leader of RNL, has achieved, it is skeptical about its success in the future. It is not only too expansive-$150,000 per dog- but also concerns many ethical issues to become popular among the general public.

It is predicted that the service charge will be much lower in few years, but I'm not sure if many would support the technology which so many oppose.

In fact, people have been exposed to so many negative images of 'cloning'. The recent series of Starwars and the movie The Island only emphasized how dangerous and threatening cloning can be.
Those images are so clear in my mind that I'm not sure if many would love to have anything 'cloned' in their houses. Especially 'pets' which people seek love and comfort from. Pet and clones just don't match.

Cloned pets were interesting subjects, but the most interesting part (for me) of this article is this: other interesting potential uses of cloned pets. Where do we go from here?

Other than cloning the deceased pets of the clients, there are "service dogs" that can be used to "detect cancer and narcotics". For example, there is a top drug-sniffing dog that is actually used in Incheon Airport of South Korea. Or this pet cloning technique can also protect the endangered dog breeds.

However, the future Lee sees from this technique is different. Pointing out the fact that canines share similar diseases patterns with humans, he sees it as the potential medical resource. Lee plans on producing a "transgenic" dog whose DNA would be manipulated by the animal reproduction experts. This dog would give much clearer picture of the role of genes and treatments for the diseases such as diabetes or Alzheimer's disease that are uncurable today.

This is an alternative to human cloning which is under a fierce debate among political, ethical, religious and medical groups. Because human cloning is so controversial and may be banned permantently, this could be a promising field for better understandings of genetics. Of course, this will upset many experts that fight for animal rights, however considering its vast potential uses, it is likely to be supported by majority of the people.
Well, one thing for sure is that it's going to be easier than reaching an agreement over human cloning.

Although this is such a small commercial field, this is business, therfore there still exists a conflict over patents. Sooam and BioArts are accusing RNL BIO of violating licensing agreements. BioArts claim that its Dolly patent covers the dog cloning as well while RNL claims that they are operating under the dog-specific patent, the Snuppy patent.
It's ironic how we see cloning as the technique that is yet to come while two companies are arguing over a patent just like they would do over a normal product on the market.

This provided another perspective on cloning. It provided the most recent products of cloning on the market and the competition among the scientists who reproduce them.

The products discussed in this article were not GM food products but pet dogs- human's best friend. It made me wonder how close we are to clone anything we can imagine.


M. Han

Monday, November 16, 2009

Vatican Takes an Action Against the Human Cloning

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/02/13/vatican.clones.reut

http://vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2004/documents/rc_seg-st_20040927_cloning_en.htmlst_20040927_cloning_en.html

Vatican released the "Document of the Holy See on Human Cloning” in reaction to the stem cell research in 2004- the year when South Korean scientists successfully extracted the stem cells. The CNN news reports (Feb. 10. 2004) that Vatican officials openly condemned human cloning in the same year.


The Church’s bioethics advisor criticized the cloning of human embryos stating that cloning is similar to what “Nazis tried to do in WWII concentration camps.” This did have a strong influence; it was the pope who drove former President George W. Bush, a Catholic, to attempt to ban all forms of cloning in Congress and in the United Nations.

The document on Vatican's web site shows the Church’s official stand on this issue. To summarize, Vatican is against the research using the embryonic cell, however, is passively supportive of the use of adult cell. Feeling the pressure of society’s expectation and the enormous potential of biotechnology, Vatican states that “the Holy See is convinced of the need to support and promote scientific research for the benefit of humanity.” This is quite a deviation from the conservative character of Catholics on scientific controversies.

Contrary to what one would expect from a document issued by a religious group, this document does not make any direct reference to the Bible or God. It is a rather scientific document written by a person with a solid understanding in stem cell research. Vatican specifically bans the use of embryonic cells not only by addressing the moral issues, but also by specifically addressing the technical challenges and difficulties. The risks this document addresses include possibility of seeding cancer, causing tumor formation and transferring genetic disorders.

This article grasped my attention among the flood of scientific documents written by biotechnology specialists. The Catholic Church’s interference with this issue reminded me of the European history course I took during high school; the glorious days of the Church and its officials. Although we live in a secular society now, it is apparent that religion, especially the Catholic Church still is one of the strongest voices on many social issues. Religion cannot be neglected for it shapes the moral values and worldly view of its followers. As shown in President Bush’s case, Church is still the standard of worldly ethics and has a strong influence on policies. The Vatican officials reach out to its believers by clearly stating its opinion and expectations. They go beyond the old Bible-which may seem irrelevant to our world- by applying their own set of beliefs on a recent social issue. The Catholic Church, however, did not simply state its opinion but supported its position with thorough arguments. It employed specialists who proved that the Church was not just being archaic and stubborn but rather reasonable and flexible.

This article highlighted the fact that cloning is a multi-faceted issue. It concerns fields beyond biotechnology. Policy makers should expand their horizon to consider not only the techonological challenges but also religious or ethical controversies.

M. Han

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Therapeutic cloning: technological and public policy limitations

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/us/18embryos.html

“Cloning Said to Yield Human Embryos”

This New York Times article by Andrew Pollack from January 18th, 2008 reports on a small, San Diego-based biotech company called Stemagen which was the first to create human embryos from the skin cells of two adult males. Some experts quoted in the article were skeptical about the significance of the findings since the embryos only grew to the blastocyst stage and it’s unclear whether (a) they were sufficiently healthy to survive had they been implanted in a womb and (b) embryonic stem cells could actually be derived from the clones. Nonetheless, the chief executive of Stemagen says that the company has “at least shown the opening to the cave that has the holy grail” (the ‘holy grail’ being the ability to create, via cloning, patient-specific embryonic stem cells in order to treat diseases such as Parkinson’s and diabetes).

As previously discussed (see post: “Some Facts About Cloning”), the goal of this kind of cloning, referred to as therapeutic cloning, is not to clone human beings, but to create embryos in order to harvest stem cells that can be used to treat diseases. Stem cells have the potential to differentiate into any type of cell in the body, which is why they have great promise in treating diseases such as Alzheimer’s. The NYT article does say that the official statement from Stemagen is that the company is “not interested in creating cloned babies, something that is illegal in places and morally repugnant to many people.” However, in my opinion, the article does not draw a clear enough line between therapeutic and reproductive cloning. Or rather, for the average reader with no knowledge of different kinds of cloning, it muddies the line with sentences like “Although the embryos grew only to a very early stage, the work could also theoretically be seen as a step toward creating babies that are genetic copies of other people.” This ambiguous kind of wording could influence public perception of therapeutic cloning and link it, to its detriment, with reproductive cloning. Since the majority (90% as reported in the TIME poll cited in post: “Cloning for the Commoner”) of Americans think that cloning humans is a bad idea, tying therapeutic cloning with the cloning of people can only do harm to public perception of therapeutic cloning technologies.

One aspect of this article I particularly liked was that it not only presented Stemagen’s claims, but also presented the limitations of the study. So the overall message isn’t that science has made a huge leap in cloning technology, but rather, a small step has been made in the right direction (or as Stemagen puts it, we’ve been “shown the opening to the cave”). Maybe not as concrete of an advance as one would like, but I think in the end, more representative of how science really works. The article offers feedback on the researchers’ claims from different experts, some who are extremely optimistic about the results, and some decidedly less so. This process of peer review is essential to science in general, but particularly in the realm of public health debates. When policymakers need to decide whether a particular technology is worth investing money in, or indeed, as is the case with cloning, whether the technology is morally right, they should be informed of the context of each finding. In order for the public and the policymakers to make good decisions about the development and use of cloning technology, such as in the case of the new "Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2009" (see below), they need to be informed by experts of what each new finding really means: good and bad.

A. Suchecka

The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2009


Ever since its emergence into the public conscious, politicians have been wrangling with the concepts and ideology of human cloning. Currently, there are no federal laws in the United States that ban cloning completely. However, there are regulations that forbid federal funding for research into human cloning. In addition, there are some states that restrict both therapeutic and reproductive cloning, as well as some states that just ban reproductive cloning.
Thus far, gridlock between members of the Senate has impeded any direct law vindicating or outlawing human cloning. However, this all might change very soon. Letters inundate Congress in support of and against human cloning. Lobbyists are knocking at the doors of Congressmen trying to make their points and show their data. With the new Obama administration and new changes in the medical industry on the horizon, it is likely that the issue of cloning will be fought over by both parties harder than ever.
One of the newest bills in the House of Representatives is the “Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2009” which was introduced by republican representative Jeffrey Fortenberry on January 6th 2009. On February 9th, 2009, this bill passed into the second step in the many faceted process of passing an act, it was referred to Committee. Specifically, it was referred the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
The summary of this bill [written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress] is as follows:

“1/6/2009--Introduced.

Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2009 - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit any public or private person or entity, in or affecting interstate commerce, from: (1) performing or attempting to perform human cloning; (2) participating in an attempt to perform human cloning; or (3) shipping, receiving, or importing the product of human cloning for any purpose. Sets forth criminal and civil penalties for violations.
Provides that nothing in this Act shall restrict areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this Act, including research in the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.”

The reasons stated for the necessity of this bill include: scientific support of the idea that cloning humans poses a “risk of producing children who are stillborn, unhealthy, or severely disabled,” the idea that human cloning could lead to manufacturing of children, the idea that clones if they survived, would not have mothers or fathers, and that with the development of cloning persons could be cloned without their knowledge. While some of the reasons outlined in this bill are viable- such as the likelihood of unhealthy clones, some of the reasons, such as child manufacturing is highly unlikely. In effect, this bill is based primarily on moral principles, as well as hypothetical various potential outcomes of the future, and has a very limited amount of scientific fact as its base. However, it does provide a few interesting moral positions, and ideas that are presented in a straightforward manner.

To see the full text of the H.R. 110: Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2009 please go to this link:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-110

S. Sneed

The Ethics Of Cloning

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/3/207

What makes a person? At what point do we become sentient beings?
On July 15th, 2004, an article was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine about the ethics of embryonic cloning. Much of the center of debate on cloning lies in the morality behind the act of therapeutic cloning, or the formulation of human embryos for research purposes. The author of this article, Michael Sandel, discusses and compares both the argument supporting the idea that embryos are classifiable as persons, and the argument that embryos are not sentient creatures and thus should not be classified as persons.

The article opens making the point that it would be rare to find a doctor, or any person who, “would dispute the idea that respect for human dignity imposes certain moral restraints on medical research.” The ultimate question is does the “destruction of human embryos in stem-cell research amount to the killing of human beings?” This question is immeasurably complex and underlies the foundation of one of the most prominent ethical debates of this time.
The movement against stem-cell research is often referred to as “embryo objection,” and the supporters of this movement believe that “extracting stem cells from a blastocyst is morally equivalent to yanking organs from a baby to save other people’s lives.” In essence, they believe that a cell in the embryonic stage is due the equivalent rights and treatment as a fully developed baby. Those who hold this belief may do so simply because of their personal moral belief, or it could be the result of one of many possible religious beliefs, an example being that “ensoulment occurs at conception.” The author notes that there are those who do not try to defend their beliefs on a religious base, but simply state that all of us begin life as an embryo and therefore, if our lives are worthy of respect, so are those of the embryos. These persons argue that the value of our lives does not increase with age. I agree with the author in that while these can be strong moral arguments, they are theoretically and scientifically unfounded.
The author gives an extremely suitable analogy comparing embryos and humans to acorns and oak trees. He states that, “Although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree felled by a storm. Despite their developmental continuity, acorns and oak trees are different kinds of things. So are human embryos and human beings.” The importance of being sentient, or being aware of being alive, is the major difference between human beings and embryos. The point in development at which a human being becomes sentient is undefined, but it is highly unlikely that it occurs during the portion of time that these embryos are being used.
In addition, the author states that there seems to be a mentality among those opposing embryonic research that those of us who do support embryonic research would treat embryos without care, and view them with indifference. The author points out that this is not true, and that “one need not regard the embryo as a full human being in order to accord it a certain respect. To regard an embryo as a mere thing, open to any use we desire or devise, does, it seems to me, miss its significance as potential human life.” I completely agree in that it is important to recognize the potential of embryos, and to recognize that yes, we did all originate from the same form that we are trying to manipulate and that it is due a certain degree of respect. However, it is important to remember that while embryos are potential humans, they are not humans. They are “potential.” They are not yet self-aware and sentient. We are not using them to make cosmetics, or create a new unnecessary product- we are using them to help try to find a way to save the lives of living, sentient people.
I encourage anyone interested in the morals of therapeutic cloning to read this article. The author, Michael Sandel, has a doctorate degree in philosophy and provides lots of other interesting arguments that challenge the conventions of the stem-cell research debate.

S. Sneed

FDA Approves Drug from Gene-Altered Goats

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/business/07goatdrug.html

I found this article while browsing the NY Times online for relatively recent stories about cloning and cloning technologies. Just earlier this year, the FDA approved "the first drug produced by livestock that have been given a human gene." A herd of 200 bioengineered/transgenic/"pharm" animals--in this case goats--all have a human gene that codes for the production of a certain human protein that can help prevent the formation of some fatal blood clots. Whenever the goats lactate, the gene is turned on, and the protein is produced. It may then be harvested in large quantities, purified, and given as drug therapy to patients with a rare disorder.

This article reports on a huge turning point in the technology of cloning. The US government stated in 2008 that meat, milk, and other food products from cloned animals were safe. But for the first time, the FDA is now supporting a therapy that is a direct product of cloning technologies. Cloning has been accepted as a valid form of producing medical treatments. The article recognizes that drugs have been derived from animals before (as we know, bovine insulin used to be used widely for diabetics). But "this is the first drug from a herd of genetically engineered animals created specifically to serve as living pharmaceutical factories."

Of course, the cloning of goats and their use as "factories" has brought on great controversy. Animal rights activists, as one could predict, are not too pleased with the prospect of animals being treated as "tools." But there are other issues with this technology as well. As the NY Times mentions, we have no idea what might happen if a goat ran away, or got loose somehow, and came into contact with other goats. What if one bioengineered goat somehow bred with a normal goat--what would happen to the human gene?
What kind of consequences might there be if this human gene started spreading throughout a wider and wider goat population? Yes, this is a legitimate fear, but the article does not dwell on it, or try to instill fear in its readers. It goes on to acknowledge other, similar drugs that show great promise, such as one new "drug, produced in the milk of transgenic rabbits, to treat hereditary angioedema, a protein deficiency that can lead to dangerous swelling of tissues." The article treats cloning not as a threat or danger, but as a valid and scientifically sound technology that deserves respect. And in doing so, it encourages its readers to do the same.

Much of the rest of the article, which enumerates the benefits of using animals to produce proteins, fits in with what we already know. Many biopharmaceutical companies tried to produce vast quantities of human proteins in big tanks. But they faced problems of building the facilities, and keeping everything entirely sterile. The use of transgenic animals eliminates these practical issues, but of course raises other ethical ones. There is also the risk of a disease killing all the goats.
One question to consider: Where do we go from here? The FDA has given a nod of approval to cloning technologies. If we accept the idea of using goats to produce proteins, how much of a leap is it to accepting the notion of using pigs to produce transplantable organs? Where do we draw the line, and why? What is the line? Does it depend on our view of animal rights, or on what we are willing to place in our own bodies? With this recent approval come a number of questions that we will soon have to answer for ourselves.

C. Heard