Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute in California found that marijuana's active ingredient, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, can prevent the neurotransmitter acetylcholine from breaking down more effectively than commercially marketed drugs.
THC is also more effective at blocking clumps of protein that can inhibit memory and cognition in Alzheimer's patients, the researchers reported in the journal Molecular Pharmaceutics.
The researchers said their discovery could lead to more effective drug treatment for Alzheimer's, the leading cause of dementia among the elderly. To read on, click here.
Photo: (AFP/Getty Images/Ron Wurzer)
Nearly half of medical school students nationwide are now female, and as they enter the profession, they are making patient care friendlier and therefore may be less likely to get sued than male physicians. Women physicians also are more likely to serve minority, urban, and poor populations and are twice as likely to go into primary care....The implications for the physician workforce are significant. .. To read on, click here.
(Boston University Alumni Medical Library photo)
Organ sales 'thriving' in China
Chinese officials say the prisoners volunteer to donate their organs. The sale of organs taken from executed prisoners appears to be thriving in China, an undercover investigation by the BBC has found. Organs from death row inmates are sold to foreigners who need transplants. One hospital said it could provide a liver at a cost of £50,000 ($94,400), with the chief surgeon confirming an executed prisoner could be the donor. China's health ministry did not deny the practice, but said it was reviewing the system and regulations.
'Present to society'
The BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes visited No 1 Central Hospital in Tianjin, ostensibly seeking a liver for his sick father. Officials there told him that a matching liver could be available in three weeks.
Now for the lighter side of bioethics:If you're one of the millions of Americans who don't like abortion but also don't like the idea of banning it, good news is on the way. In the last three weeks, two bills have been filed in the House of Representatives. Without banning a single procedure, they aim to significantly lower the rate of abortions performed in this country. Voluntary reduction, not criminalization or moral silence, is the new approach.
How do you stop abortions without restricting them? One way is to persuade women to complete their pregnancies instead of terminating them. The other is to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place. And there's the rub—or, in this case, the rubber. The two House bills used to be one proposal, backed by an alliance of pro-life lawmakers and organizations. The alliance split because one faction wanted to fund contraception and the other didn't. Read on.
It was, I believe, Rep. Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who first made the excellent, bitter, and terribly unfair joke about Ronald Reagan: that he believed in a right to life that begins at conception and ends at birth. This joke has been adapted for use against various Republican politicians ever since. In the case of President George W. Bush, though, it appears to be literally true.
Bush, as we know, believes deeply and earnestly that human life begins at conception. Even tiny embryos composed of half a dozen microscopic cells, he thinks, have the same right to life as you and I. That is why he cannot bring himself to allow federal funding for new stem-cell research, or even for other projects in labs where stem-cell research is going on. Even though these embryos are obtained from fertility clinics where they would otherwise be destroyed anyway, and even though he appears to have no objection to the fertility clinics themselves, where these same embryos are manufactured and destroyed by the thousands, the much smaller number of embryos needed and destroyed in the process of developing cures for diseases like Parkinson's are, in effect, tiny little children whose use in this way constitutes killing a human being and therefore is intolerable.
But President Bush does not believe that the deaths of all little children as a result of U.S. policy are, in effect, murder. He thinks that some are, while very unfortunate, also inevitable and essential.
You know who I mean. Close to 50,000 Iraqi civilians have died so far as a direct result of our invasion and occupation of their country, in order to liberate them. The numbers are actually increasing as the country slides into chaos: more than 6,500 in July and August alone. These numbers are from reliable sources and are not seriously contested. They include many who were tortured and then killed, along with others blown up less personally by car bombs and suicide bombers. The number does not include the hundreds of thousands who have died prematurely as a result of a decade and a half of war and embargos imposed on the Iraqi economy. Nor does it include soldiers on both sides, most of whom are innocent, too. Last week the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan surpassed the number of people who died in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
To read on, click here.I've been in this field a long time. I've seen what it can do to someone who's not thick-skinned enough to bear the slings and arrows, and believe me, it's not pretty. The business world can be a cold and unforgiving place, and to make it here, you've got to be one tough cookie. It may sound harsh, but the truth is, not every gender's cut out for this line of work.
Day in and day out I watch young people with nothing more than a graduate degree and a few years of experience try to break into upper management, and almost exactly half of them find out they don't have the correct reproductive organs to hack it. They might bitch and whine and initiate litigation, but folks, them's the breaks.
Here's the long and short of it: Some people have the proper chromosomal pairing to seal the deals, and some people just plain don't.
I'm talking about survival of the fittest here, and the truth is, nobody gets a free lunch, especially when it comes to equal opportunity in hiring practices. Sure it'd be great if we were all blessed with the genitalia it takes to succeed in business, but the real world doesn't work like that. We can't fill America's boardrooms with people and genders unfit to be there just because we don't want to hurt their feelings.
What kind of society would we be living in if we gave everybody a chance, regardless of whether or not they had the right hormonal levels to get the job done? To read the rest of article, click here.
The type of brain map that used to grace high-school biology texts looked like a quilt: A pink chunk labeled "vision" bumped up against a blue blob that was the seat of language and a yellow swath representing motor perception.
Those crude representations were the result of centuries' worth of painstaking dissection, coupled with case studies of people suffering from brain damage and disease.
It took only three years for a Seattle lab founded by Microsoft mogul and philanthropist Paul Allen to revolutionize the landscape of neuroscience by creating a map of the brain that goes far beyond topography to pinpoint the workings of individual cells.
Allen, who donated $100 million to the lab, said he is so pleased with the results that he will consider similar, large-scale science projects in the future.
"This was a great opportunity to do something here that made a difference, and that we could do quickly," he said. "We'll certainly look for more opportunities like this."
Experts say the Allen Brain Atlas, which will be formally unveiled today, will boost understanding of brain circuits and chemistry — and what goes wrong in conditions ranging from schizophrenia and autism to Parkinson's disease and drug addiction.
As I write this the scientists at the Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (MRC) in Cambridge, England are conducting a test. They are using a new technique, called the functional M.R.I., to peer inside the human brain (Benedict NY Times). This new equipment is allowing them to map the regions of the brain that are stimulated when a patient is put to different tests. By comparing the reaction of a healthy, uninjured brain to that of someone who has been in an accident the scientists can tell what type of damage has occurred.
This brings a whole new level of diagnosing ability when it comes to brain damaged patients. For years physicians have had only the educated guess to rely on as a tool to determine whether a patient was cognizant of what was happening, could feel pain, or had any understanding of them self whatsoever. Through the use of this new software many of these questions can know be answered. The diagnosing physician can have real-time evidence as to the extent of a patient’s injury, and will therefore be better able to perform treatment.
If this new scanning technique can offer as much information as Dr. Adrian Owen, the MRC’s lead brain researcher says it will, then its going to force much of the medical community to rethink some major issues (Benedict NY Times). Specifically, the issue of physician assisted euthanasia, and many of the concerns regarding patient autonomy and the role of decision maker. If patients that previously were thought to be in a “vegetative” state can be shown to have a significant amount of brain function, should that change how they are cared for? Would a situation similar to that of the “Terri Schiavo Case” be handled differently if there could have been evidence of pronounced brain function?
Members of the medical community have differing opinions as to what the impact of the functional M.R.I. will be. It is undecided as to what extent this new technology should be used, and whether it can be fully trusted as a diagnosing tool. Anatomically speaking there is more going on in the brain then just electrical currents passing from neuron to neuron. Dr. Owen admits that this new software doesn’t solve the entire puzzle, but provides a significant piece (Benedict NY Times). Patients who suffer severe brain damage due to oxygen deprivation may show brain activity on the scan, but will never regain consciousness or function as normal, healthy human beings.
Regardless, this new technology gives the medical community a stronger scientific basis to make their case against what often times becomes a discussion of moral and ethical behavior. Euthanasia, the treatment of patients in a “vegetative” state, and even the level at which autonomy of the patient should be deciphered all have to be re-examined due to these recent breakthroughs. Dr. Joseph Fins, chief of the medical ethics division at NY Presbyterian Hospital, said it best, “For now I think what this study does is to create another shade of gray in the understanding of gray matter.”
-Peter A. Beaulieu
Mental Activity Seen in a Brain Gravely Injured, Benedict Carey, September 8, 2006: NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/science/08brain.html)
A small but passionate group of doctors say that electricity applied deep in the brain can jolt patients out of irreversible comas. That's when the real problems begin.
For someone left for dead 12 years ago, Candice Ivey seems to be doing pretty well. She's still got her homecoming queen looks and A-student smarts. She has earned a college degree and holds a job as a recreational therapist in a retirement community. She has, however, lost her ballerina grace and now walks a bit like her feet are asleep. She slurs her words a little, too, which sometimes leads to trouble. "One time I got pulled over," she says in her North Carolina twang. "The cop looked at me and said, 'What have you been drinking?' I said, 'Nothing.' He said, 'Get out here and walk the line.' I was staggering all over the place. He said, 'All right, blow into this.' Of course I blew a zero, and he had to let me go." (To read the rest of the article, click here.)
From the Washington Post this morning:
By the end of the year, American women will be able to walk into any pharmacy and buy emergency contraceptive pills without a prescription as a result of a Food and Drug Administration decision announced yesterday.
The decision means women will not have to go to a doctor first as long as they can prove they are 18 or older to a pharmacist, who will keep the drugs behind a counter. Younger teenagers will still need a prescription, and the pills will not be sold at gas stations, convenience stores or other outlets that do not have pharmacists.
The approval marks the first time a hormonal contraceptive will be broadly available in the United States without a prescription. The pills, which will be sold as Plan B, will probably cost about $25 to $40 per dose, and men will also be able to buy them.The announcement was aimed at resolving one of the longest and highest-profile health controversies of the Bush administration, but opponents said they are considering plans to block the decision, either in court or in Congress.
To read on, click here.
As organ and tissue transplantation has become more viable and more commonly practiced, the demand for donor tissues and organs has increased. An industry of companies that harvest and provide tissues for transplant has surfaced to meet this demand. Almost any kind of tissue may be handled by this industry, including organs, skin, and bone. So how exactly is it that companies who provided this service were not required to register with the FDA until 2004?
It seems that prior to 2004 regulation of transplant tissues paled in comparison to that of the meat-packing industry. How is it possible that tissues that we eat and pass through our bodies are better screened than those that are placed permanently in our bodies? While my knowledge of the immune system is far from up to par, it seems to make biological sense that its easier for my immune system to fight off a population of bacteria originating from a food that passes through the digestive system, as there it will at least be partly processed and degraded, unlike a bacterially infected tissue that takes permanent home with other bodily organs and tissue.
New developments have surfaced since first beginning this writing in July 2006. Just this month, the FDA ordered the human tissue recovery firm Donor Referral Services (DRS) to shut down its operations, finding “serious deficiencies in its manufacturing practices, including those governing donor screening and record keeping.” I find this astounding. It seems that at every suspect outbreak of mad-cow disease, there is a barrage of public health warnings and media hype, quickly followed by indications that the disease path as been tracked and the origination determined and quickly shut down. Amazingly, records and manufacturing processes for tissue recovery and donation seem much looser. Case in point is the instigation of the shut down of DRS: “FDA's inspection identified serious violations of the regulations, including the failure to establish and maintain procedures for manufacturing steps...FDA also found several instances where records provided by DRS to another HCT/P establishment were at variance with the official death certificates FDA had obtained from the state where the death occurred.”
The FDA's new regulations for tissue recovery and transplant services took effect in May 2005. “Among other mandates, the regulations require firms to properly screen and test donors and, when needed, they enable FDA to take swift action in the interest of public health.” Better late than never I suppose; but I can't help but suspect that both the industry and the FDA is saving face for not implementing preemptive regulation long ago.
Press release on DRS shutdown: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01433.html
From the London Times Online:
Giving unproven drugs to terminal patients won't save lives in the end.
ABIGAIL BURROUGHS, a 21-year-old American, died from squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck in 2001. According to her father, Frank, she didn’t need to die. There were drugs in development that might have reined in the malignancy, but the experimental therapies were being tested on cancers in other parts of the body.
“She had the right cells in the wrong place, and she didn’t qualify for any of the clinical trials,” her father recalls. Shortly after her death, he founded the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Experimental Drugs. This summer it scored a breathtaking victory in the courts against the Food and Drug Administration. The District of Columbia Circuit ruled, by two to one, that a patient with a terminal illness or untreatable disease had a “fundamental right” under the Constitution to experimental drugs that have passed only preliminary (Phase I) tests, and are thus a long way from approval.
The little-reported decision is already having deep repercussions in the medical world, and is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. While patients welcome the decision, regulators and clinical researchers fear that such early, wide access to experimental drugs will make it harder to obtain the clear, long-term data needed to prove efficacy. Patients may decide an unproven drug is a better gamble than ending up on a proven, but marginally effective, medication. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine this month points out that only 11 per cent of drugs — and only 6 per cent of cancer drugs — that enter clinical testing are ultimately approved; the rest are either too toxic or don’t work.
To read on, click here.
Politicians sell terror and fear; pharmaceutical companies sell disease. Every state and stage of existence has become a pathology in need of pharmaceutical "intervention," and life itself is a petri dish of biochemical deficiency and need. Shyness is now "social anxiety disorder." A twitchy tendency has become "restless leg syndrome." Three decades ago the head of Merck dreamed aloud of the day when the definition of disease would be so broad that his company could "sell to everyone," like chewing gum.
That day is rapidly approaching, if it's not already here. "We're increasingly turning normal people into patients," said Dr. Lisa M. Schwartz of the Dartmouth Medical School. "The ordinary experiences of life become a diagnosis, which makes healthy people feel like they're sick."
In one sense, the ads have been successful. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that every dollar drug companies spend on ads brings more than four dollars in additional sales. But for most others, the result has been soaring medical insurance costs, toxic side effects, and new tensions between doctors and patients, who increasingly badger doctors for the drugs they've seen on TV.
One study found that 30 percent of Americans have made these demands. A Minnesota doctor complained recently that patients now push him for sleep medications "when maybe they just need to go to bed on a more regular basis."
But perhaps the worst part is that prescription drug ads have immersed us all in a pervasive drug culture that seems to have no boundaries. We are being reduced to helpless "consumers" who have no capacity to deal with challenges other than by taking a pill. Last month Tim Pawlenty, the Republican governor of Minnesota, called for a moratorium on prescription drug ads. It's about time.
For most of the past half century, there were tight restrictions on the general advertising of prescription drugs. These require doctors' guidance for a reason; so why should Madison Avenue get involved? But under heavy pressure from the drug and advertising industries, the government backed down in the late 1990s, and that started the tsunami.
Spending on drug ads for the general public more than tripled between 1996 and 2001. It is now some $4 billion a year, which is more than twice what McDonald's spends on ads. In 1994, the typical American had seven prescriptions a year, which is no small number. By 2004, that was up to 12 a year. Homebuilders are touting medicine cabinets that are "triple-wide."
The industry says this is all about "educating" the consumer. But an ad executive was more candid when he said - boasted, really - that the goal is to "drive patients to their doctors." Reuters Business Insight, a publication for investors, explained that the future of the industry depends on its ability to "create new disease markets." "The coming years," it said, "will bear greater witness to the corporate-sponsored creation of disease."
The Kaiser study found that drug ads increase sales for entire categories of drugs, not just the one in question. The ads really are selling the disease more than a cure.
Advertising is just one way the industry has sought to accomplish this goal. It also funds patient advocacy groups such as Children With Attention Deficit Disorder (CHADD), and doctors who push for expanded definitions of disease, among a host of other things. (When the definition of ADD expanded in the 1980s, the number of kids tagged with this problem increased by 50 percent.)
But advertising is the most pervasive and aggressive way of selling sickness. It also is the hardest to justify. Medicine is supposed to be about science, not huckstering; about healing people, not persuading more of them that they are sick. There are far better ways to inform the public about health issues than to spend billions of dollars a year pushing pills.
This is why more than 200 medical school professors recently called for an end to prescription drug ads, and why close to 40 health and seniors groups have joined them. Even the American Medical Association, many members of which have close ties to the pharmaceutical industry, has urged restrictions. Washington should listen to these doctors. As Governor Pawlenty put it, we need to put "the decisionmaking back where it should be - on an informed basis between the patient and the doctor."
Ordinarily, people over 65 and those who have chronic illnesses are given priority. As a group, they are the most vulnerable. Protecting the most vulnerable saves the most lives.
But avian flu is not an ordinary flu. Chances are, it will never turn into a global catastrophe, but if it did, some researchers speculate that it could lead to 90 million cases and 1.9 million deaths. There is no way to manufacture enough vaccine in time to protect everyone in the United States. So who should get the potentially lifesaving vaccine?
"This is a tragic choice," says bioethicist Ezekiel J. Emanuel at the National Institutes of Health, who with his colleague Alan Wertheimer suggested an alternative policy in a report in the May 12 edition of Science magazine.
Both the rebel authors and the traditionalists (that is, the government's National Vaccine Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) would give top priority to those working to manufacture and distribute the vaccine and to front-line health care professionals. And both would give preference to key government leaders. The fight is over what's left for the general public.
The rebels challenge the principle of saving the most lives. What about saving people with the most years yet to live?
Their formula is based on the principle that all people deserve the chance to live out their lives and grow old -- especially teenagers and young adults who have survived childhood and face many decades ahead. Twenty-year-olds, for example, are more "valued than 1-year-olds because the older individuals have more developed interests, hopes and plans but have not had an opportunity to realize them," write the authors.
Presumably, really older individuals -- those over 65 -- have had all the opportunities they need to realize their hopes and plans and interests -- so they are less valued than 20-year-olds.
In the new formula, the winning age cohort in the vaccine rationing sweepstakes would be healthy people 13 to 40. Next in line would be those 7 to 12 and people 41 to 50. After 50, forget it!
From the Kaiser Network:In Colorado, uninsured children and children enrolled in Medicaid who are hospitalized at Children's Hospital in Denver are twice as likely as those with private insurance to die after hospitalization, according to a study published in the journal Pediatrics, the Denver Rocky Mountain News reports. For the study, two physicians at the hospital looked at hospitalization rates per 100,000 children ages six months to 18 years. The study finds that children enrolled in Medicaid are twice as likely as those with private insurance to be hospitalized for vaccine-preventable illnesses, complications of diabetes and asthma, and ruptured appendices (Brand, Denver Rocky Mountain News, 8/7). Regular preventive care visits by uninsured children and children enrolled in Medicaid would save Colorado $46 million, according to the study. The study also finds that the number of Colorado pediatricians who are willing to see Medicaid beneficiaries fell from 41.4% in 2000 to 23.9% in 2003. Eighty-three percent of Colorado pediatricians in 2003 said Medicaid reimbursements did not cover the cost of office visits (Auge, Denver Post, 8/7). Stephen Berman, head of general pediatrics at Children's Hospital and co-author of the study, said, "The paper, for the first time, provides the data that show there are huge potential savings in caring for these kids." Berman added, "The mortality rates are higher for children on Medicaid. They are higher because they are sicker, and they didn't get their primary care" (Denver Rocky Mountain News, 8/7).
Colorado Children Without Private Insurance Have Higher Mortality Rate
An abstract of the study is available online.
First Meeting to Convene at the National Conference of State Legislatures in
The advisory board meeting will feature a presentation by Dr. Robin N. Fiore, who is the Adelaide R. Snyder Professor of Ethics at Florida Atlantic University. Dr. Fiore's presentation will cover a full range of bioethics issues ranging from end-of-life issues and the effect of the Terry Schiavo case to stem cell research and its impact on women's reproductive rights and health. Following the presentation, the legislative leaders attending the meeting will assist the Center for Women Policy Studies and the WBP in planning a Bioethics Seminar for Women State Legislative Leaders, which will take place in 2007.
According to Leslie R. Wolfe, Ph.D., president of the Center for Women Policy Studies, "This meeting will provide a forum for state legislators to discuss the challenges they face in understanding the ethical implications of legislative issues pending at the state level." Wolfe, whose organization works with legislators on a range of key policy issues, noted that, "State legislators need support to preserve women's decision-making rights on all these complex issues."
"We are delighted to have such an impressive group of state legislators to advise us. We are focusing on the state legislative level because that's where many of these complicated bioethical issues tend to emerge," said Kathryn M. Hinsch, founder of the WBP. "We firmly believe that women's voices need to be heard, because women are uniquely affected by issues in biotechnology and healthcare. By providing legislative leaders with the support they need to champion these issues, we can help ensure that the entire spectrum of human experience is represented on these critical issues."
The founding members of the state legislative bioethics advisory board are listed here:
-- State Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, Wash.
-- State Senator Patrice Arent, Utah
-- State Senator Joan Bray, Mo.
-- State Senator Pam Brown, Neb.
-- State Senator Jennie Forehand, Md.
-- State Senator Karen Fraser, Wash.
-- State Senator Nia Gill, N.J.
-- State Senator Toni Harp, Conn.
-- State Senator Maggie Tinsman, Iowa
-- Former State Senate Majority Leader Lana Oleen, Kan.
-- State Representative Kathy Hawken, N.D.
-- State Representative Linda Lopez, Ariz.
-- State Representative James Roebuck, Pa.
-- State Delegate Jean Cryor, Md.
-- State Secretary of Administration Viola Baskerville, Va.
About the Center for Women Policy Studies
The Center for Women Policy Studies is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank and was founded in 1972. It works with policy makers on such women's human rights issues as reproductive rights and health, international trafficking of women and girls, and the alleviation of women's poverty. (http://www.centerwomenpolicy.org)
About the Women's Bioethics Project
The Women's Bioethics Project (WBP) is an independent, nonpartisan, public-policy think tank based in Seattle. WBP is dedicated to ensuring that women's voices, health concerns and unique life experiences are represented in discussions and decisions about ethical issues in healthcare and biotechnology. (http://www.womensbioethics.org)
The executive order would affect doctors and hospitals serving the Medicare population of elderly Americans and people served by any other federally financed service.
It would require those health providers to join with the government to standardize the requirements for information technology systems coming into their facilities; set standards for care of specific health problems; and develop uniform methods of measuring and reporting the outcomes of treatments.
To try to change that statistic, Patricia A. Wolff, M.D., associate clinical professor of pediatrics. at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, founded Meds & Food for Kids (MFK) in 2004, after she saw that medications and small amounts of the local staples rice, beans and corn weren't enough to nourish children back to health.
MFK works to combat childhood malnutrition and related diseases in northern coastal Cap Haitien, Haiti's second-largest city, by giving Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food (RUTF) to malnourished children between 6 months and 5 years old. The mixture, known to Haitians as "Medika Mamba," or peanut-butter medicine, is a nutrient-rich mixture of peanuts, sugar, oil, vitamins, minerals and powdered milk. It is distributed in plastic containers for families to feed their children at home and can be stored for several months.
Children start to show visible signs of improvement about 1-2 weeks after receiving the peanut-butter mixture, becoming more active and growing new black hair. One course of the six-week treatment, which can be enough to renourish the child, costs under US$100.
For the rest of the article click here.
The American Society of Reproductive Medicine has been reluctant to invoke standards for fertility clinics, but maybe this latest development will prompt them:
Ethical row over world's first 'made to order' embryos
By Julie Wheldon, Daily Mail 21:46pm 4th August 2006
For around £5,000 couples can buy ready-made embryos matched to their specific requirements - even down to choosing what eye and hair colour they would like their child to have.
In each case the embryos are made from eggs and sperm from two donors who have never even met. The moment of conception occurs in the laboratory and is determined by the genetic combination the clinic thinks will best meet the needs of the paying couples on its books.
'Special offers'
Ethical campaigners last night condemned the move as the "absolute commercialisation of human life." They said it was heart-breaking that babies are now being treated as the equivalent of a supermarket "special offer".
Currently in the 
But the new service is totally different as it allows couples to buy fresh embryos that fit their requirements but which have no biological link to either of them.
The human embryo bank is being run by The Abraham Center of Life in
It boasts that its sperm donors all have doctorate degrees and most of its egg donors have college degrees, are under 25 and healthy. So far most of the couples on its waiting lists are happy just to get an embryo and have not set out detailed requirements.
Waiting list for Aryan children
However some have asked for - and been allowed to join list of recipients that will get - embryos made from blond haired and blue eyed donors.
To read the rest of the article, click here.
