Monthly Archives: October 2000

Parkinson's Breakthrough in Monkey Research

Posted on by
Reply

Researchers experimenting with monkeys successfully tested a gene therapy technique that reversed the brain damage associated with Parkinson’s disease.

For reasons that are still not understood, people suffering from Parkinson’s disease do not produce enough of the brain chemical dopamine which is necessary for signals in the brain to be transmitted. As a result Parkinson’s sufferers experience a degenerative loss of motor control including difficulty walking, talking, smiling and swallowing. Secondary effects such as pneumonia and stroke end up killing many with Parkinson’s diseases.

In a study published in Science, scientists used a group of eight monkeys with a Parkinson’s-like disease and another group of eight monkeys without the disease. The monkeys suffering from the brain disease were injected with a genetically altered virus that was designed to boost dopamine production within the brain.

In both cases the virus dramatically boosted brain dopamine levels over the eight months of the of the study and ameliorated the Parkinson’s-like symptoms that the monkey’s experienced. Three of the monkeys in the first group who had severe Parkinson’s symptoms were restored to almost normal motor functions according to study author Jeffrey Kordower.

In the second group, five of the monkeys who developed Parkinson’s were given the virus while five were not. One monkey in each group died for unknown reasons. Of the four in each group left, three with the Parkinson’s symptoms were completely free of the disease after receiving the virus injection, while all four monkeys in the control group became severely impaired.

The researchers will soon be present the FDA with a proposal to test the gene therapy in humans and such trials could begin in 3 to 5 years. One possible obstacle is that the researchers are not sure if the brain cells that are responsible for dopamine production in human beings will respond in the same way that their counterparts in the monkeys did. Even if they don’t, however, this is important evidence that gene therapy designed to modify brain cells of Parkinson’s suffers to boost dopamine levels is likely to be a very viable avenue of research, even if the methods used to get there might be different in human beings than in monkeys.

Source:

Hope of Parkinson’s ‘cure’. The BBC, October 27, 2000.

Gene therapy may relieve Parkinson’s disease. Paul Recer, The Associated Press, October 26, 2000.

Richard Dawkins Letter to Prince Charles

Posted on by
Reply

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, recently wrote an open letter to Prince Charles regarding Charles’ opposition to genetically modified food. The letter says in part,

On the other hand, we must beware of a very common misunderstanding of Darwinism. Tennyson was writing before Darwin but he got it right. Nature really is red in tooth and claw. Much as we might like to believe otherwise, natural selection, working within each species, does not favour long-term stewardship. It favours short-term gain. Loggers, whalers, and other profiteers who squander the future for present greed, are only doing what all wild creatures have done for three billion years.

The human brain, probably uniquely in the whole of evolutionary history, can see across the valley and can plot a course away from extinction and towards distant uplands. Long-term planning–and hence the very possibility of stewardship–is something utterly new on the planet, even alien. It exists only in human brains. The future is a new invention in evolution. It is precious. And fragile. We must use all our scientific artifice to protect it.

Pretty sound advice, except that in his book Weaving the Rainbow, Dawkins has pretty clear animal rights sympathies and repeats the animal rights canard about speciesism being the last acceptable form of bigotry. Of course the rights view is completely incompatible with the stewardship view of nature, so I’m wondering just where Dawkins comes down on this debate (and after reading Weaving the Rainbow it is clear he doesn’t always invest the sort of time and energy in other issues as he does into evolutionary biology issues).

Animal Model Now Available for Burkitt's Lymphoma

Posted on by
Reply

Burkitt’s lymphoma is a form of cancer that was first discovered among African populations. Normally rare in the United States (although it is one of the leading forms of cancer in Africa), incidence of the cancer has soared in the United States and elsewhere along with the AIDS epidemic. For reasons that aren’t fully understood there is a complex interaction between some diseases and the underlying genetic cause of the disease. THe National Institutes of Health recently announced that they had culminated 10 years of research by creating the world’s first transgenic mouse that suffers from the disease.

In human beings Burkitt’s lymphoma occurs among people who have a specific genetic abnormality. The MYC gene, which acts to spur cell growth, is supposed to be located on chromosome 8 but instead gets transposed onto a different chromosome, often 14. The Epstein-Barr virus also appears to play a key role in the emergence of the lymphoma.

In creating the animal model in mice, researchers genetically modified the mouse genome to contract a Burkitt’s like disease. “We in effect created a ‘mini-gene’ that reproduces the cancer as it occurs in people,” researcher Herbert C. Morse III, MD, said in a prepared statement.

With an animal model now available, research will proceed into trying to better understand the various aspects of the disease, especially why some people with the genetic defect seem predisposed to Burkitt’s while others contract entirely different forms of cancer. Very little has been learned about the disease from studying humans alone, and the researchers hope mice studies will allow scientists to increase pick up the research pace.

“The only way to find this out [the underlying way the disease works] is to invest basic research into mouse models of cancer,” Morse said.

Source:

Transgenic mice aid research into deadly cancer. National Institutes of Health Press Release, October 16, 2000.

Burkitt’s lymphoma in the mouse. S Janz, HC Morse III, et al. Journal of Experimental Medicine 92(8):1183-90 (2000).

BBC Surprise Discovery: Vaccines Made Using Animal Material

Posted on by
Reply

Given that the United Kingdom is the source of rather intensive activities by animal rights activists, you’d think the British public might be better informed about issues relating to animals. Of course you’d be wrong, as the BBC felt it had to actually run a story this week pointing out that vaccines are typically made using animal cells.

According to the BBC story, How vaccines are made, “many people would be surprised at the animal-based ingredients scientists must use to mass-produce vaccines.” Sad, very sad.

Anyway, aside from the “duh” aspect to the story, it is a pretty good summary of how vaccines go from laboratory to syringe. One of the things that the BBC points out is that often animal material is used rather than human material because scientists have a much better understanding of how to get the animal material to produce vaccine material.

The cells are bathed in a “soup” made up of those ingredients, and frequently include other organic chemicals such as growth factors, which can help the cells to develop.

Although human growth factors can be extracted, these do not provide as reliable results as other factors, such as foetal calf serum, which is widely used

Remember that the next time animal rights activists suggest that human cells and materials can totally replace animal culture. Sometimes they can, but in many cases they can’t.

The reason for the BBC interest, by the way, is fear that polio vaccine manufactured in the UK that used tissue from calf fetuses could potentially be contaminated with BSE. There are already strict controls to monitor cows used for this purpose to avoiding any viruses, and at the moment the risk remains very theoretical — the procedures involved in purifying the vaccines should destroy all of the proteins that would contain any BSE.

Even with the theoretical risk, polio vaccine made with animal products has been an amazing success. Cases of polio around the world have plummeted to less than 10,000 and the World Health Organization is currently engaged in a massive vaccination effort around the world that should eradicate the disease entirely by the year 2005.

Such a success would have been impossible if the animal rights activists had gotten their way and prevented the creation of animal models for polio (and polio was extremely animal testing intensive with upwards of 2 million non-human primates utilized by research institutes around the world in the drive for an effective, safe vaccine).

Source:

How vaccines are made. The BBC, October 20, 2000.

Illinois Students Start Carnivorous Club

Posted on by
Reply

Some students at New Trier High School in Illinois set up a club to promote vegetarianism, prompting two juniors to set up a competing Carnivorous Club to promote meat heating (though I hope they’re eating an omnivorous diet). According to a Chicago Sun Times story about the club, it’s got about 70 members and is planning its first formal meeting/grilling event this weekend.

The Sun Times quoted club co-founder Mike Deheeger, 16, as explaining that the club was formed because, “We are always hearing that meat is bad for you. This was a chance to get the other side of the story. And, so far, the response has been great.”

Source:

Student meat lovers take on vegetarians. Lucio Guerrero, Chicago Sun-Times, October 18, 2000.

Pro-Hunting Amendments Up for Vote in Arizona, Virginia

Posted on by
Reply

When people go to the polls in Arizona in a few weeks, along with deciding on a presidential candidate and other elected offices, voters will decide the fate of Proposition 102 which amends the state constitution there to read,

The state shall manage wildlife in public trust for the people, as provided by law, to assure continued existence of wildlife populations in the state. An initiative that permits, limits or prohibits the taking of wildlife, or the methods or seasons thereof, shall not become law unless approved by at least two-thirds of the votes cast on the proposition.

Meanwhile, Virginia voters will decide whether or not to add a new section to their state’s constitution that would read, “The people have a right to hunt, fish and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law,” although there is currently a lawsuit brought by The Fund for Animals and the Humane Society of the United States attempting to have that measure removed.

In 1998, Utah became the first state to enact such a change to its constitution. Is this a good way to go about protecting the rights of hunters and fisherman from animal rights activists and the more extreme parts of the environmental movement?

The thing that pops out about these ballot measures is how bizarre they might seem to the people who founded the United States and these individual states. The idea that there might come a time when people might try to outlaw hunting and fishing — activities, after all, which were occurring in North America long before the ancestors of most voters even realized there was a North American continent — would have sounded absurd. That some hunting and fishing groups sponsor such measures is testimony to how different attitudes about animals in contemporary America.

The Arizona Daily Star, for example, interviewed M. Dane Waters of the Initiative & Referendum Institute who said that Proposition 102 is a “blatant attempt to take away the fundamental rights of everyday Arizona citizens” by making a special exemption for certain referendums. Yet is it any more blatant an attack on rights than that carried forth by those who would outlaw or severely restrict fishing and hunting?

One of the interesting features of initiatives designed to limit fishing and hunting is their unintended consequences. Animal rights activists, for example, successfully pushed for a 1994 initiative in Arizona that banned leg-hold traps, which the activists claim are cruel. As biologist John Phelps of the Arizona Game and Fish Department told the Arizona Daily Star, however, the result is that an important tool was taken away with sometimes counterproductive results,

From our point of view we’ve been deprived of one response to damage and nuisance problems [from coyotes and other predators]… Now the response is more likely to be a lethal one.

Personally, though, I think the Virginia approach of putting the right to fish and hunt, with reasonable regulations, directly in the state constitution is a much better approach than trying to up the ante on initiatives which probably comes across as anti-democratic to many people.

Source:

Vote rights a side issue of wildlife measure. Maureen O’Connell, Arizona Daily Star, October 5, 2000.

Lawsuit filed over Virginia’s deceptive “right-to-hunt” amendment. Press release, The Fund for Animals, October 2, 2000.

PETA Peeved About Feline HIV Experiments

Posted on by
Reply

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is screaming bloody murder over some HIV-related experiments that Ohio State University Michael Podell plans on carrying out in cats. The routine never changes: Podell gets a grant from the National Institute of Health, and PETA butts in saying in its estimable medical opinion the experiment is junk and should be stopped.

So what’s the deal? With effective HIV treatments, many people who contract the disease live a very long time. Unfortunately some of them continue inappropriate behaviors such as drug use. Podell wants to answer this question: we know methamphetamine use increase the rate of neurological degeneration. What special problems does methamphetamine drug abuse pose for long-term HIV sufferers?

Cats have two things that make them good models to explore such a question. First, they can contract feline immunodeficiency virus, which is similar in many respects to HIV. Second, they react in similar ways to methamphetamines. As Podell told the Associated Press, “We want to understand more about HIV and drug abuse in people. One of the ways to do that is to develop an animal model that has similar characteristics.”

The Associated Press reported that PETA has a couple of argument as to why this is a bad idea, but in reality all PETA has is a couple of non-sequitirs — not anything reasonable enough to qualify as an argument, especially since this is the same recycled nonsense PETA uses to argue against all animal experimentation.

First, PETA claims that FIV and HIV aren’t similar enough for research on one to be applicable to another. This is simply a bland assertion that they make about everything but never bother to back up. Polio in non-human primates is different from polio in human beings yet it is similar enough to have yielded important understanding and eventually a vaccine. “Animals are different than people” is not an argument but a claim that demands proof — proof that PETA and animal rights activists simply can’t provide.

Second, in a similar vein PETA’s Peter Wood claims that, “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know meth use will have an adverse effect on your body so the disease will be prompted more vigorously. Our limited resources would be better spent on teaching people how to avoid contracting HIV or on drug prevention.”

Lets parse that. The “it doesn’t take a rocket scientist” introduction is, of course, a non sequitur and an ad hominem to boot. More importantly, the sentence obscures the point of the research. Nobody suggests that methamphetamine abuse is good for HIV positive individuals. The problem, however, is that saying “meth use is bad for HIV positive people” is hardly an effective diagnostic and treatment tool for dealing with HIV positive individuals who have been abusing methamphetamine for too long. It might not take a rocket scientist to know meth abuse is going to harm the body, but even a non-doctor should be able to tell that simply informing patients that they shouldn’t have used methamphetamine because it was bad for them isn’t going to cut it either. The more precise information we have about how the disease interacts with common human behaviors, the better off we are — and given the high prevalence of HIV among drug abusers, to ignore that subpopulation is to bury our heads in the sand.

Finally, the claim that this sort of experiment detracts from HIV or drug prevention makes little sense given the huge budgets devoted to both efforts. The interesting part of that sentence is that Wood doesn’t suggest that the money go toward finding a cure since any research toward finding a cure or ameliorating HIV inevitably involves animal research.

Driven by media images, much of the public seems to think that scientists sit in a lab, do a few experiments and find a new cure. In fact finding a vaccine or cure for something like HIV requires years, often decades, of basic research consisting of just the sort of experiments that Podell proposes to do. It’s not glamorous, it’s not the sort of thing people even like to think about given the role domesticated cats play in many of our lives, but it is exactly the sort of experiment needed to add to our cumulative knowledge about HIV on the way to more effective treatments.

Source:

AIDS study targeting cats infuriates animal activists. The Associated Press, October 9, 2000.

Information on Ralph Nader Wanted

Posted on by
Reply

A pro-animal rights individual on an animal rights e-mail list recently posted an account of a September 27 appearance at Youngstown State University by Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. The account claimed Nader was questioned about his views on animal experiments, specifically experiments in primates to better understand HIV. The person reported that Nader replied,

If they keep messing around they are likely to create another virus. You know how AIDS started don’t you?

I don’t take animal rights activists word for much, especially second hand accounts like this, but if anyone runs across any coverage of Nader relating to this visit or that features any of his comments on animal testing, I would greatly appreciate it if you sent it my way (post it here or e-mail it to me at brian@carnell.com). Thank you.

Five Alleged ALF Terrorists Arrested in Denmark

Posted on by
Reply

On September 28, Denmark authorities arrested four men and one woman and charged them with at least 80 counts of ALF-related terrorism.

The five men and women were apparently under police surveillance and were followed to an area near a large farm. After arriving there the five donned gear apparently aimed to allow them to sneak onto the farm and raid it, including radio headsets, shoe coverings, and small lights mounted on their heads.

At that point police stepped in and took the small group into custody. ALF supporters seem particularly upset that, in a delicious irony, the activists were charged with animal cruelty among other things.

Source:

Five arrested in Denmark. Frontline Information Service press release, October 3, 2000.