Avatar: The Future of Bioethics is Now

Avatar, the recently released big budget movie by James Cameron, has taken the entertainment industry by storm. Normally “not to be pleased” film critics cannot find enough complimentary words to print. With a $300 million price tag to produce, Avatar has become an instant “cult hit”. Audiences leave theaters in awe of the computer generated special effects that reportedly have transformed the movie viewing experience to a state of virtual reality. In addition to achieving ultimate moviemaking technology, the story line is a compelling account of a science fiction that may be less fiction than it is real science.

The story of Avatar explores the ability of a human to inhabit the mind and control the body of a lesser being created by science to accomplish tasks considered too dangerous for the human to engage in. The manufactured humanoids are sent to an inhospitable planet where war is being waged for control of the universe. Sound like a better way to wage war? Sound far-fetched? Perhaps science is far more capable of creating this fantastic world than most moviegoers would expect.

The word “avatar” derives from a Hindu word representing the embodiment of the god Vishnu in typically lesser forms of being some of which are god-like and others much less so, including turtles, fish, boars or lions. Vishnu was embodied in countless life forms all created for specific purposes to achieve the intent of the god who engendered them. 

The word came into popular American culture through the language of Internet gaming in which players created virtual selves to live, play and potentially die to live again in the game “Habitat” first created in 1986.  As players created their “online persona” they lived vicariously through their surrogate in playing the game by engaging in virtual activities which hopefully they would never choose to participate in “the real world”. Their avatars could murder, maim, deceive and steal with impunity.

How could this fiction possibly be realized through science? It is much closer to reality than we might wish to admit. The science of transgenics has accomplished amazing feats in the laboratory which movie makers could only wish to recreate for the big screen. Truth in fact is stranger than fiction.

Would you like to manufacture a natural fiber much stronger than steel? How about combining the genetic code of a spider with that of a goat to create goat’s milk with the strength characteristics of a spider’s web? Outlandish, you say! Done. BioSteel® is the product of a Canadian company which comes from its “spidergoat” created by combining the genomes of spiders with those of goats.

Barnyard experimentation is one thing, but human experimentation is something entirely different. Right? Wrong. In Amherst, Massachusetts genetic engineering company Advanced Cell Technology created hybrid embryos resulting from the injection of human cells into cows eggs. South Korean research company Maria Bio-Tech created a “hu-mouse” by injecting human stem cells into mouse embryos The living altered embryos were implanted into to a mouse womb with a litter of healthy “hu-mice” delivered thereafter. And just for the fun of it, Cambridge University researchers created “she-male” hermaphrodite human embryos by implanting male genes into female embryos. These chimeras (part one life form and part another) are scientifically capable of creation in infinite varieties.

Make no mistake about it, as a human born with a bi-cuspid aortic heart valve, I am very interested in creating a pig which would carry my own genetic code so if the time arrives that a valve replacement is medically necessary, I can harvest a perfect body part for the task. But because I can, should I?

More critically, because we might be able to create human-like forms in the lab for the purpose of conducting warfare, scientific experimentation or medical therapy should we?

At present, no federal laws in the US prevent these outcomes. Only human restraint does so (if in fact such experimentation is being restrained rather than simply not reported).

All significant human scientific advances raise ethical concerns. The time has long passed for us to seriously consider and engineer the ethical limits, conditions and consequences of genetic experimentation. Only a multi-disciplinary dialogue will provide the breadth and depth of discourse necessary for this critical conversation. Scientists, ethicists, lawyers, physicians, policy makers and the public must be invited into this discourse lest one segment of society hijacks the possibility of a reasoned outcome.

In all the debate and diatribe surrounding health care reform, dialogue concerning bioethics has been noticeably absent. For the sake of humans, avatars, chimera and other life forms capable of being “born” in our laboratories, the time to convene this dialogue is now.

[Larry Bridgesmith is a guest blogger for the Womens Bioethics Blog; you can see more about his background here. ]

Of Mice and HuMice, Part Deux

We blogged about Clyven, the chimerical transgenic mouse with human intelligence, before; but now researchers have 'kicked it up a notch', by creating mice with the human version of a gene involved in language, called FOXP2. As the article in Discover magazine notes, "hile the mice didn’t exactly sit up and start reciting poetry about cheese, they did show some intriguing differences in both their vocal patterns and brain structure."

The region of the brain that was affected was the basal ganglia; the humanized mice grew nerve cells that had a more complex structure. Baby mice utter ultrasonic whistles when removed from their mothers; the researchers' findings that the baby hu-mice, when isolated, made whistles that had a slightly lower pitch, among other differences. Here the video with research Wolfgang Enard that provides a summary of the paper published in Cell:



So what does it mean when we 'uplift' animals? Colleague and friend George Dvorsky has some interesting thoughts on this here.

Turn on the Bright Lights, Baby...

First, there were glowing cats.






Then, reports of glowing dogs.









Now, glowing marmosets;









The gene for express the green fluorescent protein in their skin was delivered to the first marmoset embryos via a modified virus, but the significant news here is that the genetically modified primates that can pass their modifications to their offspring; it is the first known case that an introduced gene has been successfully inherited by the next generation in primates. Why is that important? Because medical researchers have yearned for an animal model that is closer to the human anatomy; researchers may now be able to produce whole groups of marmosets that mimic humans with diseases like cystic fibrosis or Alzheimers'.

While this breakthrough is exciting, warning bells have sounded that this is one step closer to the creation of human designer babies. So, let me know pose this question: How comforting or discomforting would it be to see your baby glowing the dark?

This Little Piggy Went to Market (or Not?)

We're pleased to have a guest post today by Jonathan Javitt, author of Capitol Reflections, who wrote this for the Women's Bioethics Blog:

Imagine a cleaner pig. Thanks to researchers at the University of Guelph in Ontario, you don't have to imagine – they've engineered them. It has nothing to do with their appearance – the look just like any other pig – but the difference can be found in their genetic makeup, specifically in their “cleaner” manure.

Your typical pig doesn't have the capacity to break down phytate - found in much of the food that pigs eat – thus going undigested, ending up in their manure and subsequently, in other places as well. It can get into the water supply, leading to algae growth, and it can get into the air – especially when a large number of pigs live together on ranches. In short it can cause real environmental problems.

In hopes of ending these problems, study leader Cecil Forsberg and colleagues genetically engineered pigs, dubbed Enviropigs, that can digest more phosphorus.

So how is it done? According to the study, “by introducing a bacterial gene for the enzyme phytase into Enviropigs’ genome, the pigs secrete the enzyme in their saliva and expel up to 60 percent less phosphorus in their manure than their non-transgenic counterparts.” These cleaner, environmentally-friendly pigs are just one genetically engineered animal living in experimental labs in North America. Others include fast-growing salmon, disease-resistant cows, and goats that produce antibacterial milk. All of them, right now, are awaiting FDA approval.

In my novel, Capitol Reflections, I talk about the complexities of FDA approval for modified foods – or animals – and the problems that arise because sometimes there aren't enough checks and balances in place (since genetically modified foods is based on relatively new science.) Those opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMO) worry that there isn’t enough information about them yet to safely bring them to market.

It's easy to see both sides of the argument. Items that are genetically modified typically serve a purpose for the “greater good” - faster growing grains for countries afflicted with famine, fish that would help end over-fishing, and of course, pigs that don't pollute – but is that a reason to give them fast track approval and open them up for consumption? Do people really know what could unfold if this type of technology is mismanaged or mis-applied?

With a heated political season upon us, it's interesting to consider the role of policies and politicians in the GMO debate.

Jonathan Javitt (capitolreflections.com) is the author of Capitol Reflections and a Washington insider, physician and scientist who has served as a senior White House health advisor in the past three presidential administrations. His book is available on Amazon.com at this link.

Halloween Ready: Glow-in-the-dark Kitty

Meow.

UK will allow human-animal hybrids for stem cell research

On January 17, the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) granted two universities 1-year licenses to pursue the development of human-animal embryos for research purposes. This is a reversal of prior policy, which banned such transgenic experimentation.

The ultimate aim of this work will be to develop personalized stem cells that can be used to cure disease. The researchers will clone individuals with serious illnesses by inserting their DNA into enucleated cow and rabbit eggs, resulting in hybrid embryos from which stem cells can be extracted. The hybrid embryos are to be destroyed no later than 14 days after they are created. It is hoped that using patients' own DNA in this process will reduce (or, better still, eliminate) the risk of transplant rejection (graft vs. host disease) when the stem cells, or organs grown from them, are implanted in the patient's body.

The UK's approach sidesteps at least two issues that have been problematic for scientists in the US: (1) the destruction of human embryos question (because they're hybrids, not solely human), and (2) the problem of gathering a sufficient number of donated human ova for research purposes. It's at least a little bit interesting to note that public opinion in the UK generally favors this approach, even as the rejection of genetically modified "Frankenfoods" continues to be reported in the news there.

However, US opinion has been quite strongly against such transgenic experimentation, generally because of concerns of developing chimeras with human (or human-like) consciousness. Additionally, the requirement that the chimera embryos be destroyed within 14 days of creation is probably pretty close to unenforceable-which gives rise to the kinds of nightmare scenarios Margaret Atwood contemplated in Oryx & Crake ("baby orchards" for organ transplants).*

So: Does the HFEA's approach create more problems than it solves? Talk amongst yourselves.

News here: The Guardian, Financial Times


*And yes, that's another WBP Book Club selection! Go here for more info.