melek

The point that I am trying to make is that our understanding of the gene regulation system is, to be very generous to the present state, primitive. If we are "lucky", a mistake shows immediately.

This happened in the course of a low-risk trial in the UK and left some of the volunteers in a critical condition with one of them told, after recovery, that he had an increased risk of cancer.

In some ways, this is "good" news, as the ill-effects were immediately shown. The di-ethylstibestrol effect is still not fully understood, but probably worked via gene state switching.

It requires little faith to accept that genetic engineering might produce a similar slow effect.

In this case, who bears responsibility?

I hope this makes my worries about this clearer.

Melek

Animal testing may work, but this cannot be guaranteed as their genes may be regulated differently.

Viv

[quote]This was when a new drug was in the testing stage and the safety of the drug was overestimated. I recall the case.

The authors of genetic engineering are well aware of the instability of their science. Wilmut himself describes how he fielded many calls immediately on announcing the arrival of "Dolly" from parents of deceased children who begged him to replicate their children. He is a father who began his research as a response to the death of a relative and following a desire to find a cure for that illness. However, he advises the unreliability and risk attached to the "cloning" process renders such a possibility unviable at this time. There is no question of irresponsible cloning, at least by that particular institute.

Your worries are my worries

Again, this has been recognised and documented.

Slartibartfas

Depends on the life form. The gene regulation system of for example E. coli is quite well understood.

Thats not the case with higher life forms though, which you probably refer to.

Thats a very valid question you pose here.


Exactly. Animal testing is a quite unreliable tool, thats already the case for pharmaceutics but even the more if we are talking about gene manipulation.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

Common insult examples and how to avoid them

Slartibartfas

But in terms of pharmaceutical testing, it has been more or less ignored when it comes to real effects on the testing guidelines.

The testing of biotechonlogical produced pharamceutics has not significantly changed in the last 15 years! Even though the whole field has changed substantially in that time.

Animal testing is fundamentally flawed for the purposes its used for (eg Ld50 etc), nonetheless its still used. This might have to do with the lack of feasible alternatives the authorities see, but its a major problem nonetheless.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

Common insult examples and how to avoid them

Haven Schrecengost

Thank you

shesgg

Other countries are testing with embryonic stem cells. If you have diabetes or any other disease that could be helped with transplanting stem cells, you can contact these people and you may be invited to go to their university hospitals to have it done. You have to research how you could get the ball rolling and the risks involved but it can happen now.

They will contact your doctor and paperwork would be sent on your behalf.

The United States will ultimately begin funding ESC research, we are behind but some research has already begun without funding so it won't take years of researching to move cell transplants into place.

I don't believe that the rich will be allowed to take stem cells over and keep it out of reach to all but other wealthy individuals. There is world competition in this area and the US wouldn't want to be left out.

__________________
GG

Slartibartfas

Stem cells are an option indeed, one with quite some potential.
Indeed it would need further research for reliable methods that are validtated and can be considered to be under control.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

Common insult examples and how to avoid them

shesgg

I've been reading that stem cells can somehow cause cancer for the individual. I wouldn't want to trade one problem for another so I agree that it would need further research.

__________________
GG

Diogenes

Of course, ES cells are not solely obtained through the destruction of embryos - known as blastocyst extraction - but can be procured from a few other places, most notably from discarded umbilical cords. The principle upon which many people oppose stem cell research is that it is the destruction of human life, which can be, in my opinion, defended, but these outspoken critics fail to see the other methods. Perhaps they see them and realise that if brought into public knowledge, their own position would fail. ES cells obtained through blastocyst extraction are from one of two places: aborted fetuses and discards at IVF clinics. While abortion is another argument entirely, I think it can be safely assumed that these fetuses are not coming back to life whatever you do with them, and that using them to advance a field in which previously untreatable diseases could be treated or cured is a better use for them then to be dumped in a trash can somewhere. As for the embryos from IVF clinics, they too would simply be thrown away. Because IVF is so costly, many zygotes are created in case the first does not take. Obviously these are not going to someone else if not needed. They are thrown away. They are dead regardless. Are we going to forbid couples with trouble conceiving to use science to have children because, in the end, you are "destroying human life?" Use the embryos for ES cell research and save lives instead.

__________________

Diogenes

If undifferentiated cells are transplanted into the patient, the cells quickly divide, as they are supposed to, but can become any of the surrounding cell types. This causes a tumour called a teratoma. The main example of this is in the treatment of neurological disorders such as Parkinson's or Huntington's, which are caused by a deficiency of a certain type of neuron (dopamine-producing and medium spiny neurons, respectively). In theory, transplanting stem cells into the region of the brain in which these cells usually reside should treat the problem, though not cure it (those cells eventually succumb to the problem that caused the decay of the original cells). The problem is, figuring out the precise recipe of chemicals needed to trigger the cells into becoming the right kind is difficult. Early experiments tried to let the body do the work, after all, it usually does, right? The cells became not only the needed cell type but also other types of brain cells, producing a large mass in the brain, a teratoma. This problem has been largely overcome by differentiating the cells in vitro and then transplanting them. To make this easier, ES cells must be used, because somatic (adult) stem cells have proven much harder to manipulate. ES cells are also less likely to cause an immune response. The advantage is with somatic stem cells in most cases, because they can be transplanted from the patient's own body and eliminate the risk of rejection, but in the case of neurological disorders, somatic cells are extremely hard to use and are more likely to cause a negative reaction.

__________________