In Britain, the Conservative Party has challenged the government to block lesbian couples from receiving IVF treatment unless they can provide a ‘male role model’ for their child. This is part of a proposed amendment to the human fertilisation and embryology bill which is currently before the parliament. Such a change would be a very bad idea.
Robin McKie, the science editor for The Observer on Sunday is predicting a major row later this month when scientists and health experts in the United Kingdom hold two key meetings to debate the issue of cousin marriage and its impact on health in Britain. (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/11/genetics.medicalresearch?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront). This is not the first time that the issue of cousin marriage has hit the headlines in the United Kingdom. In February this year The Guardian reported that government minister Phil Woolas spoke out about the health risks involved when cousins have children together. His comments were seconded by Ann Cryer, the Labour MP for Keighley, who has been a long term critic of cousin marriage and had earlier called for the tradition of first cousin marriages to be stopped. Marriage between first cousins raises the probability of a severe genetic illness from a base rate of about 2 percent to approximately 4 percent. Second cousin marriages raised the probability of a severe genetic illness to about 3 percent.
Ghrelin
appears to stimulate appetite. A recent paper in Cell Metabolism shows that
giving ghrelin to volunteers made their brains respond more strongly to food
images, reward systems in the brain became more active and they rated their
level of hunger higher.
was to consider the practical applications: Stomach hormone turns hungry people
into junkies (New Scientist), Fast Food Joints Add
Hormone to Food That Makes You Want to Eat More (Io9). Are we moving towards a future where
food will be literally addictive?
A paper has been published online in the British medical journal today
suggesting that survival of extremely premature infants (less than 24
weeks gestation) has not improved in the last decade. This comes less
than a week before a debate in the House of Commons on the Human
Fertilisation and Embryo Authority bill. It has been claimed that this
paper “completely blows out of the water” the arguments of
anti-abortion MPs who hope next week to push for a reduction in the
cut-off for legal abortion (currently 24 weeks).
A recent study
reveals that aviation might pump 20% more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by
2025 as previously estimated. Vexing is not the possibly underestimated figure;
but the fact that this study was only recently uncovered: As covered by The Independent
or Spiegel
Online, the British environmental association Aviation Environmental Federation now
presents the study on their webpage although it was already presented last
summer at an international conference in Barcelona. Jeff Gazzard, a spokesman
for the Aviation Environmental Federation, is convinced that this omission to
make the report publicly available was deliberate. The study contains alarming
piece of evidence that challenges the rather liberal approach to aviation of the
Kyoto Protocol: Only domestic aviation emissions are accounted for in a countriesâ
emissions totals, while emissions from international aviation are omitted (see Kyoto
Protocol, Decision 2/CP3).
Often the source of our worries about eating animals and the basis of arguments against it seems to turn on the pain and suffering of the animal in question. With advances in biotechnology such as cloning and genetic manipulation it may at some point be possible to engineer animals that do not feel pain or suffer but still produce meat of the kind that we are accustomed to eating. Producing such animals on a large scale would significantly reduce the total amount of suffering and may enable us to eat meat with a clear conscience.
Big Brother, it seems, has been asleep on the job. Even though it is said that we in the UK are more subject to surveillance than any other society, peered at by cameras wherever we go about our innocent business, today’s headlines tell us that this intrusion is not even fulfilling its purpose of catching the people whose business is not so innocent. The police apparently don’t like watching miles of boring video (and who can blame them?), so they don’t do it much, and the massive investment in equipment has brought street crime in London down by only 3%. Perhaps that is some consolation to people whose objections to surveillance are not just those of cost. Even if the cameras are there, at least nobody is bothering to watch us.
In the Scotsman this week there is an interview with a scientist who
has claimed that a loophole in the draft UK Human Fertilisation and
Embryology Bill is likely to lead to the creation of hybrid human-apes
or “humanzees”.
In essence this argument is a slippery slope objection to the proposed
changes in the powers of the UK regulatory authority for embryo and
fertilisation research.
Read More »The Apeman and the Scotsman: the slippery slope to humanzees
The US Congress today passed legislation banning the use of genetic information by insurance companies, unions and employers. As Dominic Wilkinson noted in his post on 26 April, this legislation might have interesting implications for professional sport. The reform also raises questions about the future of insurance markets.
Read More »Genetic discrimination and the future of health insurance
Controversy has erupted around whether experiments to test artificial blood should stop. Experimental blood substitutes raised the risk of heart attack and death, yet U.S. regulators allowed human testing to continue despite warning signs, says a scathing new report.
Blood substitutes, or artificial blood, could be stored for years without refrigeration, and be used in battlefield situations. It would carry no risk risk of infection with hepatitis or HIV. It would be an acceptable alternative to Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse life saving blood transfusions.
In a new report, researchers pooled data from 16 separate studies of five different blood substitutes, involving over 3,700 patients. Researchers found a 30 percent higher risk of death overall for patients who received transfusions using the blood substitutes. The risk of heart attack was nearly tripled in the groups receiving blood substitutes.
“Experts speculate that hemoglobin in the blood substitutes scavenges nitric oxide from the blood, causing blood vessels to constrict and sticky platelets to build up. That increases the risk of heart attacks.”
Read More »The Choice to Have Artificial Blood: Less than the Best?
