Cloning Around In Japan

Nature reports that Japan may soon authorize experimental human embryonic cloning. This would overturn a 2001 Japanese ban on such research. Human cloning will have to adhere to "rigorous ethical regulations", and human reproductive cloning will still be banned.

Japan's legal volta face will not go unnoticed by countries hoping to remain at, or reach, the competitive frontiers of biotechnology.

Remember the quagga

Olivia Judson, Musings inspired by a quagga, The New York Times: The Wild Side blog (May 27, 2008)

The hall is hushed, like a church. No one else is here. The only sound is the clicking of the heels of my shoes. I walk up and down, looking at the animals. They make no noise, for they are dead.

Franz Roubal, The Extermination of the Quagga. Oil on canvas, 1931

Many of them are also gone. Like the quagga, a kind of zebra from southern Africa, which was hunted to extinction in the 19th century. It stares at me from behind glass. I stare back. It has a zebra’s face and neck, but lacks stripes on its torso, which is a dusky gray. Zookeepers said that the quagga was more docile than other zebras; but even in zoos there are none today.

A few glass cases later, I come to the O’ahu O’o’, a small, pretty bird from the forests of the Hawaiian island of O’ahu. A living specimen has not been seen since 1837. I pause to wonder about its mating display. Further on, there’s the desert bandicoot, a tiny creature with huge ears and kangaroo feet that had vanished from Australia by 1907. And now I’m gazing at the dark flying fox, a fruit bat from the Indian Ocean islands of Mauritius and Réunion. In the 1730s it was so abundant it was considered for commercial exploitation (the making of oil); by 1880 it had gone.

Grande Galerie de l'Évolution, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris

Here, at the natural history museum in Paris, in the hall of the endangered and the recently extinct, the vanishing and the vanished, it’s poignant to see these creatures. To put a few faces to the names, to visit a handful of representatives from the dreary and numbing statistics of forests felled and oceans over-fished. . . .

The Double Helix

James Watson's memoir, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA (1st ed. 1969; reprint 2001), has been described by Sylvia Nasar as "unique in the annals of science writing." The Double Helix describes a "discovery . . . of a magnitude comparable, in terms of scientific and social significance, to the breakthroughs that led to the splitting of the atom and the invention of the computer." Perhaps even more remarkable, "[i]t is also a wonderfully readable human drama that lets nonscientists share some of the intellectual excitement, high emotion, and incredible suspense."

Watson's own words speak for themselves:

[S]cience seldom proceeds in the straightforward logical manner imagined by outsiders. Instead, its steps forward (and sometimes backward) are often very human events in which personalities and cultural traditions play major roles. To this end I have attempted to re-create my first impressions of the relevant events and personalities rather than present an assessment which takes into account the many facts I have learned since the structure was found. Although the latter approach might be more objective, it would fail to convey the spirit of an adventure characterized both by youthful arrogance and by the belief that the truth, once found, would be simple as well as pretty. Thus many of the comments may seem one-sided and unfair, but this is often the case in the incomplete and hurried way in which human beings frequently decide to like or dislike a new idea or acquaintance.

More on the Polar Bear Listing

Along with the decision to list polar bears (noted here, history here), DOI issued a 4(d) rule. Secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s comments announcing the listing decision also lay out its limits: it will “not open the door to use the ESA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, power plants, and other sources” and the 4(d) rule “will ensure the protection of the bear while allowing us to continue to develop our natural resources in the arctic region in an environmentally sound way.” In other words, the rule is crafted, in part, to minimize impact on oil operations. This is not surprising, given that Kempthorne, roundly criticized by environmental groups upon his nomination, complained in the announcement that the ESA prevents him “from taking into account economic conditions and adverse consequences in making listing decisions.”

Potentially more important than its impact on specific activities, the polar bear listing carries enormous symbolic value. It highlights the effects of climate change beyond human discomfort or dislocation. It is a clear illustration of climate change impacting species survival. Because addressing climate change requires global thinking and recognition of complex natural systems, it may be the best route to broader public (and policy-maker) recognition of the need to maintain biodiversity as the planet’s life support system. As in past environmental issues, this charismatic megafauna represents the vanguard of public awareness. Protecting the polar bear is clearly a biodiversity issue, reaching broader ecosystem issues just as the spotted owl or Pacific salmon do. But can the acknowledgement of the threat to this top predator from climate change promote better understanding of the biodiversity crisis? Or is it simply another tangible attention-getter for promoting climate change awareness (like sea level rise) that, however valuable, will not significantly affect biodiversity policies or perceptions?

An AP piece, appearing in the Anchorage Daily News, opens: “It's not about saving the polar bear as much as the polar bear saving us” (from climate change). For towns in polar bear country, there is the speculation whether the listing will reduce tourist income (by banning import of trophies from hunting in Canada) or boost it (by creating urgency for the visits).

At this point, there is little evidence that the polar bear listing will spark greater attention to biodiversity concerns in climate change policy. Nonetheless, using the nation’s – perhaps the world’s – strongest biodiversity protection law at the cutting edge of climate change issues bodes well for biodiversity preservation gaining ground in the draft of the momentum that climate change has gained.

Trouble in bear country

As rising temperatures change life on a global scale, we should not be surprised that Ursus maritimus, the eponymous bear of the far north, has now come under the aegis of the Endangered Species Act.

Threatened

Ovarian Cancer Awareness

Among women in the United States, ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer, and fifth most common cause of cancer deaths. Although, far less common than breast, colon or prostate cancer, ovarian cancer has a much higher death rate. Why? Because there is no screening test, and most women experience few symptoms until they have advanced stages of the disease. The combination often proves deadly.

According to the National Cancer Institute, more than 21,000 women will be diagnised with ovarian cancer in 2008, and more than 15,000 will die. Worldwide there are more than 190,000 new cases of ovarian cancer each year, accounting for around 4% of all cancers diagnosed in women. Incidence rates vary considerably, with the highest rates in the USA and Northern Europe and the lowest rates in Africa and Asia. The WHO has recently launched a campaign to reduce incidence and mortality of cancer worldwide.

As with many other cancers, early detection greatly enhances ovarian cancer survival rates, but without a reliable early detection technique, many women are only diagnosed at a relatively advanced stage. Pap smears do not detect ovarian cancers. The CDC information sheet on ovarian cancer is available here.

Once diagnosed, women too often do not get proper treatment. In 2006, the National Cancer Institute announced that a combination of intravenous paclitaxel and intraperitoneal cisplatin following surgery was the preferred treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. This IV/IP treatment has prolonged survival rates by more than a year. At the time, experts predicted that the cancer institute action would lead to widespread changes in treatment. Increadibly, two years later, only a small percentage of newly diagnosed women are given IV/IP treatment. This despite the more than $2 billion spent annuany on treating ovarian cancer.

But, the news is not all bad. At the April meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, a Yale Medical School team led by Dr. Gil Mor (left) announced that they had identified, characterized and cloned ovary cancer stem cells, and demonstrated that these stem cells are likely responsible for recurrences and resistance to chemotherapy.

There is currently a petition to convince the US Postal Service to issue an Ovarian Cancer Awareness Stamp. I am not sure how that will help, but I guess anything that raises awareness is a good thing.


crossposted on intlawgrrls