From: Sabine Atkins (sabine@posthuman.com)
Date: Mon Aug 12 2002 - 06:39:12 MDT
6 August 2002
Of pharmers and chimeras
by Scott Anderson
The green fields that ostentatiously carpet the hills of Scotland are
home to the drug factories of the Roslin Institute. These factories
produce only a modest amount of gas, and nobody in the neighbourhood is
complaining. After all, these 'factories' are sheep, genetically
engineered to produce human proteins in their milk.
Welcome to the new world of pharming, a wonderfully low-impact
technology that holds great promise for victims of emphysema, cystic
fibrosis, thrombosis, haemophilia, AIDS, arthritis, malaria and more.
The pharmer of the future might expect a herd of 100 or so sheep to
satisfy the entire world market for certain complex drugs that are
difficult to manufacture any other way. Each animal, over its lifetime,
could be worth millions of dollars. Because these sheep have been
engineered to have human genes, they are called transgenic animals or
chimeras, in honour of the mythological Greek creature combining a lion,
a goat and a serpent. In the myth, it was Bellerophon, straddling the
winged horse Pegasus, who finally slew the fire-breathing chimera.
Jeremy Rifkin is a modern-day Bellerophon, fighting to stop pharming -
and any other research involving chimeras, for that matter. Since
millions of lives are at stake, he had better have a good argument.
Rifkin, president of the Washington-based Foundation on Economic Trends
in the USA, is a veteran gadfly, and is skilled at getting press
coverage and congressional hearings. So, for better or worse, his
thoughts count.
Rifkin is worried that scientists will go insane and start to create
hideous crossbred creatures that would make the Island of Dr Moreau look
like Green Acres. This would be a nightmarish use of the technology, and
scientists have universally agreed not to pursue it. Working
hand-in-hand with their bioethics committees, these scientists have
devised protocols to prevent just such atrocities.
Rifkin isn't soothed by the assurances of the scientists, and has long
attempted to influence the government to pass more restrictive laws -
laws that would ban vast stretches of medical progress.
Recently, Rifkin teamed up with Stuart Newman, a biologist from New York
Medical College who shares Rifkin's fears. With Newman as his Pegasus,
Rifkin hatched a clever plan. He asked Newman to think up the most
disgusting chimera he could imagine, and then try to patent it. He came
up with two, the human-chimpanzee and the human-mouse. Both have a hefty
cringe factor.
If they could get a patent, they reasoned, they would be in a position
to deny any other applicants, thus sparing the world from a horrible
mutation. And if they couldn't get a patent, they could sue the US
patent office and force a showdown over gene patents in general. In
either case, they would garner a lot of publicity and encourage people
to become disgusted with transgenic research and anything that might mix
the genes of humans and animals.
For over two decades, the patent office has issued patents on living
creatures that were created, for the most part, by splicing genes. But
they draw a line when the product of the patent is a human or a human
embryo. That makes sense; but to Rifkin and Newman, these patents start
us down that dreaded slippery slope to human debasement. In their
opinion, the only way to avoid this fate is to ban gene patents altogether.
But what the heck are these guys talking about? There are already many
amazingly useful chimeras - each one devised for a specific therapy.
Here's a look at the actual science that has Rifkin and Newman so alarmed.
The pharmer's way to make a chimera is to insert a specific human gene
into an animal, like the Roslin sheep, so that a human protein will be
secreted in its milk. Mammaries are favoured because they are highly
productive secretory organs, but scientists have toyed with kidneys and
salivary glands as well.
Transgenic lab mice that carry various human genes have been patented
for years. But they are obviously mice, not the humouse monsters
envisioned by Rifkin and Newman. These mice are used most often for
testing. Biologists have always known that testing a mouse for human
drugs only gives a loose approximation. Using human genes makes the
tests far more accurate, minimising the need for large-scale human testing.
A very small chimera is formed when human genes are spliced into
bacteria or yeast. This is how the biotech companies are brewing most of
their miracle drugs, like human insulin, in fermentation tanks. The
products of these patented bacteria have already saved hundreds of
thousands of lives.
Coming soon: human genes transplanted into food crops, so medicine can
be grown in the field - a new branch of pharming. The fruits of this
research could simply be eaten or used as inexpensive diagnostics,
bringing sophisticated testing to a wider market.
Another way to create a human-animal chimera is to transplant, say, a
pig valve into a human heart. These people still expect to be treated
like people. They don't exhibit porcine behaviour. Rifkin should have a
heart-to-heart talk with these chimeras before he condemns their
heretical gene-mixing.
Natural chimeras happen more often than one might think. Fraternal twins
that share a placenta often have two different blood types, one from
each twin, due to the mixing of their fetal stem-cells in the placenta.
Incredibly, the most common chimera may be your mother. Scientists have
recently discovered that some - and perhaps all - mothers have DNA from
their own children circulating in their blood for decades after
childbirth. In a sense, the mother inherits DNA from her children. This
is clearly weird, but totally natural. And it's often troublesome
-researchers speculate that when the mother's immune system tries to
eliminate the foreign DNA, it can lead to autoimmune diseases like lupus
and arthritis.
Rifkin needs to be reminded that just because it's natural, doesn't mean
it's good. In fact, the opposite is more often the case, which is the
whole point of science: to transcend our natural limitations.
A newly discovered chimerism in transplant patients has researchers
buzzing: after a transplant, cells from the host start to infuse into
the donated organ. Scientists have discovered that up to 20 percent of a
donor heart may be composed of host tissue within days of the
transplant. This implies that an organ does not need homogeneous DNA to
work properly, and that genetically different cells can work together
remarkably well.
Researchers have also discovered that bone marrow transplant patients
soon have donor cells throughout their bodies. Since marrow contains
stem-cell precursors to the blood and immune system, you can see how
they might get around. After a while, they infiltrate muscle, liver,
brain, kidneys and probably other organs as well (1).
Bone marrow and other transplants would thus be banned by Rifkin's
anti-chimera crusade. Here Rifkin is echoing the howls that attended the
first human transplants. Those critics insisted that transplants would
demean life and destroy our souls. They demanded that research be halted
immediately, before lasting damage was done to the human race. The hue
and cry died down when, as predicted by the scientists, transplants
enabled people to extend their useful lives without sacrificing their souls.
Another so-called chimerism involves using an animal egg to create human
stem-cells. Here, the biological magic is that egg cells, pretty much
regardless of species, are very accommodating. They can take an
astonishing variety of donated DNA and 'remodel' it so it can be
duplicated. The procedure involves snipping a bit of skin from the
patient to get the DNA. After removing the nucleus from the egg, the
patient's DNA is inserted. Given a tiny shock, the egg proceeds to
remodel the DNA, and then it begins to cleave. After a few divisions,
clinicians can harvest the stem cells for therapeutic uses.
Recent announcements from the biotechnology company Advanced Cell
Technology (ACT) in Boston, USA, indicate that a cow egg can remodel
human DNA. If so, it could eliminate the need for human eggs to create
human stem cells. This means that you could amplify your own cells,
without involving another human being. It also means the procedure could
become cheap and commonplace. When it does, scientists hope to cure
heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes,
arthritis, AIDS, and nerve damage - all with variations on the single
theme of stem-cell therapy.
Rifkin condemns this procedure as chimerism, but these cells don't have
any nuclear DNA from the animal egg - the egg's nucleus is completely
removed beforehand, or the procedure won't work. These cells are,
therefore, not chimeras at all. They are simply a thin scum of cells in
a petri dish; therapeutic tissue that is genetically identical to the
patient. So, although this procedure gives Rifkin the willies, it
doesn't produce chimeras. Again, nobody is attempting to clone herds of
humans this way, only therapeutic cells.
But the most amazing chimera of all is you. Deep in your DNA are
remnants of your animal past - and more. You share 99 percent of your
genes with monkeys (2). If you transplanted any of these genes, it
wouldn't change a thing. Over half of the genes in a fly have been found
in humans (3). In fact, you share a lot of genes with plants and even
bacteria. Stranger yet, your entire DNA is shot through with viral
genes, inserted by retroviruses that infected several of your ancestor's
germ cells over the past three billion years. Your DNA - everyone's DNA
- represents an accretion of insults we've survived.
We can lump all these chimeras into two groups: animals with extra genes
and humans with extra genes. In the first case, the whole point is to
genetically engineer an animal that is eco-friendly and produces a
useful protein. These are obviously animals and would never be mistaken
for humans. In the second case, we are clearly talking about humans,
with all their attendant rights. Those patients who have been saved from
certain death by mixing genes are nonetheless human, and are not too
concerned about Rifkin's ideological problems with their therapy.
Thus far, it's pretty obvious which are the animals and which are the
humans. But Rifkin is worried about that slippery slide into
Monsterville with those half-human half-monkey creatures. We all need to
be on guard against mad scientists. But the fact is that no sane
scientist wants to create a monster. Scientists are driven by the desire
to learn and to help mankind. Of course they're chasing grants as well,
but who's going to pay them to create a monster?
The slippery slope argument can be used against anything, but as the
chains of causality get more tenuous, the results can become absurd.
Rifkin seems unaware of how surreal he sounds. He says, 'I have spent so
much time focusing on how eugenicism is now becoming commercial and
market-driven. If there is an enemy, it is all of us who, for good
reasons, want healthy babies' (4). So Rifkin's slippery slope starts
with healthy babies. Now there's an interesting crusade.
Should we tinker with our genes? Why not, if we can cure a heinous
disease? Why not eliminate deadly genes from the human gene pool, like
the ones for Huntington's chorea or Tay-Sachs? If you think these genes
might come in handy, back them up on a computer tape - but surely nobody
would wish these diseases upon any child. We wiped the DNA for smallpox
off the face of the Earth, and we're closing in on polio. Why not take
on some of those rogue human genes?
That's not to encourage complacency. Commanding our own destiny requires
thoughtful oversight. That's why leading scientists like Ian Wilmut, the
man who cloned Dolly and whose work led to drug-producing sheep, always
encourage public debate. Wilmut says, 'What we want is to stimulate an
informed public discussion of the way in which the techniques might be
misused as well as used and to ensure legislation is put in place to
prevent misuse. But we're also concerned that we don't throw the baby
out with the bathwater. There are real potential benefits, and it's
important that the concern to prevent misuse doesn't also prevent the
really useful benefits that can be gained from this research (5).
Then there is the question of gene-tinkering, stuff that doesn't cure or
cause harm, but is designed to 'improve' a child. That could be anything
from blue eyes to higher intelligence. This is an area where Rifkin and
others get quite concerned - a place they feel highlights the evil
potential of eugenics. But how problematic is this?
One of the worrisome things about playing with the germ line - as
opposed to the DNA of a single individual - is that it seems so
irreversible. The concern is that a gene, once released, might somehow
get out of control and bring down all of civilisation. But once we
understand how to change a gene, we will also know how to change it
back. Genetic engineering is not a one-way street.
That doesn't mean there are no problems, but Rifkin's monsters will
never come to pass - partly because they are already illegal but mostly
because there is absolutely no need for them. Rather than trying to ban
useful treatments because of far-out hypotheticals, we should just try
to deal with the current crop of questions. In the meantime, we
shouldn't deny therapy to sick people simply because a madman might
someday misuse the technology.
Rifkin wants to stop more than just chimeras. He also wants to end the
practice of patenting genes. Actually, patents aren't issued for the
actual genes, but for therapies and diagnostics that make use of the
genes. The specific genetic code is specified in the patent, but only as
a way of defining the limits of ownership. Without patents, the entire
multi-billion dollar biotech industry would collapse overnight,
stranding millions of patients in the process (6).
The American patent system isn't perfect and patents have sometimes been
abused by the pharmaceutical industry, but it has given rise to the most
astonishing growth of therapeutic medicine in the world. The best proof
of its success is that countries without an effective patent system have
not created comparable drugs. Indeed, they are often reduced to stealing
them from the countries that do.
Stuart Newman says, 'Private ownership of inventions is not the only way
progress has been made in the history of science and medicine'. That's
true, but it is demonstrably the most efficient way. Newman told the LA
Times that: 'there really is no boundary on what you can do with human
life. There's no natural stopping point. I think it will ultimately lead
to genetically engineered human beings made for sale.' This sounds
pretty apocalyptic, but what is the good doctor talking about? There are
plenty of boundaries on what you can and can't do to human beings, and
selling them is not one of the options. The thirteenth amendment to the
American constitution banning slavery pretty much covers the bases.
Whenever the lines start to blur, whenever people are affected without
their consent, we need to exercise diligence. But rather than fretting
over slippery slopes and theoretical monstrosities, we should take each
case as it comes, evaluating the pros and cons, and making thoughtful
decisions.
Rifkin needs to chill out and realise that science, for all its warts,
has increased the healthy lifespan of Americans and others in the
developed world two-fold in less than a century. Oddly enough, for a
group of people who are often equated with Dr Frankenstein, scientists
are largely motivated to make life better. And, in a capitalistic
country, it's hard to make a living by creating things that people don't
want.
That's not to say scientists won't make mistakes; they will. It's
unavoidable when charting new territory. But bioethics is not an
afterthought in this kind of research, and scientists are eager to have
independent guidelines. The best way for Rifkin to shepherd this
research safely would actually be through seeking further federal
funding, not a ban. With funding comes a complete set of guidelines and
a responsibility to share the results of the research. With that kind of
public oversight, it is easy to maintain a monster vigil.
By denying federal funds for the past decade, the government has
effectively privatised stem-cell research. As a consequence, very little
of what the researchers know is in the public record. If the science is
banned, the work will simply go abroad, where it will enjoy even less
scrutiny.
Given all this, it's hard to see the point of Rifkin and Newman's stunt.
It may work to scare the public, but the only ones proposing to make
monsters are Rifkin and Newman. Real scientists make their living by
helping people. Banning gene patents and chimeras won't save a single
human life. On the contrary, it threatens the health of millions. To
deny these people their therapy would require a very good argument
indeed. Rifkin just doesn't have it.
Scott Anderson is a science writer in Northern California. He is writing
a book on stem cells with Dr Ann Kiessling-Cooper, a pioneer in the field.
Read on:
spiked-issue: Genetics
(1) See more on how bone marrow transplants can infiltrate muscle,
liver, brain and kidneys
(2) Human and chimpanzee functional DNA shows that they are more similar
to each other than either is to other apes (.pdf), a paper by Wilman et al
(3) Complete mouse DNA map soon, BBC News 2 June, 2000
(4) Jeremy Rifkin: fears of a brave new world, UNESCO Courier
(5) Dr Frankenstein, I presume?, Salon.com, 24 February 1997
(6) US human/chimpanzee life form patent challenge by Jeremy Rifkin &
Stuart Newman will now go to the federal courts, reproduced from the
Washington Post on the Organic Consumers Association website
© 2002 Scott Anderson
Reprinted from : http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006D9BF.htm
-- Sabine Atkins, http://www.posthuman.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:01 MST