Beyond The Bench

If you had a gene that could cause a fatal disease, you would want to know, right? And therefore, if some piece of legislation were in the way of your being able to find out, you would obviously want it changed. This premise is what has led to a recent lawsuit, in which The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT)—on behalf of women’s health groups, individual women, and numerous scientific associations—have challenged the constitutionality of gene patents held by Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation. Currently, 20% of human genes have been patented; however, the genes in this particular case have proven to play roles in hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. The fact that research and diagnoses may be hindered by their being patented is what has brought the lawsuit.

By patenting these genes, Myriad retains exclusive rights to perform diagnostic tests on BRCA1 and BRCA2, as well as rights to future mutations discovered on the BRCA2 gene. The lawsuit against Myriad et al. alleges that such exclusive control over these genes both impedes and discourages scientific research. With access to the gene initially blocked and guaranteed loss of rights to any findings, what would motivate a researcher to investigate these genes?

Furthermore, the lawsuit argues that Myriad’s monopolistic control over BRCA1 and BRCA2 hampers clinical diagnosis. Myriad charges $3,000 for its diagnostic cancer test—a price that many women cannot afford. For those patients who can pay, they are prohibited from getting second opinions or seeking additional testing elsewhere because, by law, only Myriad has access to these genes.

The lawsuit against Myriad argues that the company has patented the association between mutations conferring an increased risk of breast or ovarian cancer—in effect, patenting an idea, scientific fact, or piece of knowledge. “That’s a violation of the First Amendment,” says Tania Simoncelli, an advisor to ACLU, “because [it's as if] the government has issued a patent on thought or knowledge.” Yet, what the lawsuit essentially boils down to is the question of whether capitalism is getting in the way of moral obligations and constitutional rights. What information should be morally permissible to restrict (in this case, through patenting)? Do human genes deserve special status?

“Patents are meant to protect inventions, not things that exist in nature,” says Chris Hansen, an attorney for ACLU. Likewise, Daniel Ravicher, Executive Director of PUBPAT follows that, “Genes are identified, not invented, and patenting genetic sequences is like patenting blood, air, or e=mc2”. However, no one has challenged patents on other organisms genes or “natural substances” (purified forms of antibiotics that exist naturally in fungi, for instance). Thus, the assumption is that the human genome is “sacred.”

For further reading on this interesting and controversial subject:

• The Myriad Lawsuit: “Products Of Nature” And “Natural Phenomena” – Turning Back The Clock On Biotech To Erase The Future
• ACLU Mob Attacks Breast Cancer Test Patent
• Gene Patents Stifle Patient Access To Medical Care And Critical Research
  

Having trouble with an experiment? Wondering what protocol to use? Simply curious about recent news in Molecular or Cell Biology?

Our CP expert Manos Mavrakis is ready and available to answer your questions!

Check out his latest topic on the Molecular and Cell Biology: Ask the Expert forum: “GFP glows gold”. If you aren’t well-informed about this green fluorescent protein or are curious about pursuing resultant fluorescence-based techniques in your lab, Dr. Mavarkis is eager and willing to proffer his knowledge!

In their May Pulse Newsletter, the International Society for Stem Cell Biology (ISSCR) urged researchers to comment on the NIH draft guidelines for the federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. The draft, released on April 17, is open to public comment until May 26, 2009. A template letter has been created to help in responding to the NIH. The letter references key points in the NIH draft guidelines and refers back to the ISSCR’s Guidelines.

The NIH reports they have already received more than 7,000 comments, but very, very few from the scientific community. The ISSCR urges you to comment on the guidelines and reiterate the need for expanded federal support of human embryonic stem cell research. The society will make its comments available on the ISSCR Web site in advance of the deadline.

The very term “biofuel” seems to imply an automatic environmental gold star. These gas or liquid fuels, made from plant material, are distinguishable from fossil fuels because biofuels are renewable, while fossil fuels are not. Thus, biofuels are lauded as environmentally sustainable because of this renewable (replantable!) quality, and also as environmentally friendly because they should, purportedly, reduce greenhouse gases. Plants absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, so by using them as fuel, we are essentially creating a sponge-like system that “soaks up” and “wrings out” carbon dioxide, rather than continuing to twist the nozzle on the faucet that has been dumping carbon dioxide into our atmosphere for over a century.

However, according to research by scientists such as David Pimentel, these biofuels don’t actually act like sponges at all. Biofuels are created out of plants, so the greater the demand for biofuels, the greater the demand for the plants (e.g. corn, sugarcane, palm trees, switchgrass) used to make them. As the demand for these plants increases, the demand for land on which to grow them will increase, too. Then, because farmers will still need land on which to plant consumable crops, they will need to clear more land for these “new” plants—a process that will, according to many researchers, have devastating consequences.

To provide such a substantial amount of biofuel, a substantial amount of biofuel crops would need to be grown. One argument is that these can be grown on “wastelands,” which will make better use of otherwise worthless land. Mary Gardiner, a post-doc studying with Doug Landis, an ecological entomologist at Michigan State University, investigated the impact of growing biofuel crops upon biodiversity and discovered—somewhat unsurprisingly—that mono-cultures (e.g. all-corn plots) support less insect and avian diversity than even degraded or marginal prairies. The bottom line is that there really aren’t such things as “wastelands.” “You hear a lot about using ‘marginal lands’ and ‘waste wood,’ but that land and debris is still somebody’s habitat,” says Landis. Moreover, a team of researchers from MIT used a computer model to project what the global landscape will be in 2050 if cellulosic fuels (new types of biofuel that are created by breaking down plants’ cellulose) are used to provide 10% of the world’s energy. The study concluded that “many areas would lose from 20-70% of their natural habitats,” which would be particularly injurious to such biodiverse areas as Mesoamaerica, Brazil, Guinea/West Africa, Madagascar, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

In addition to diminishing biodiversity, a second and equally detrimental consequence of clearing land in order to plant biofuel crops is that this phsyical act will actually increases carbon emissions. This is due to the fact that plants and soil store three times as much carbon as air does. “Cut down forests, burn them, churn the soil,” says Joseph Fargione, who makes this argument in his paper Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt, “and you release all the carbon that’s been stored.” Furthermore, biofuel crops are actually less effective at absorbing carbon than the natural forests or grasslands they may be replacing. A 1999 study by Cheryl Palm, a Senior Research Scientist at the Earth Institute’s Tropical Agriculture Program, found that plantations are capable of storing only 20% of the carbon that intact forests can store. This means that for every forest that is torn down and replaced by a corn or switchgrass field, 80% of the carbon that was being absorbed by that forest is now being left to linger in our atmosphere and contribute to global warming.

As has been the answer in the past, the best approach to sustainability still seems to be conservation. Use less; save more. Less automotive transportation will decrease greenhouse gas emissions—end of story. Also (and perhaps less intuitively), taxing meat consumption would reduce the clearing of land for crops. If we only grew food we needed to eat (i.e. became vegetarians), we could reduce the amount of land we use for crop growth by 90%—leaving that much more land for fields of biofuel crops…. Or perhaps we should just start looking for alternative sources of fuel.

The new Star Trek film is out, and with all that intergalactic space-time mumbo jumbo floating around, now seems an appropriate time to separate fact from fiction. After all, some of the “futuristic” technology is clearly available today. “Communicators?” We have iPhones. “Universal translation devices?” Although they may turn out some muddled results, Google Translator and Yahoo! Babel Fish can accomplish the basics.

A more surprising device that actually existed before the Star Trek series began is the “hypospray,” or, as it is called in our world, the jet-injector. These devices inject medicine into the body using high-pressure jets of liquid instead of needles. They were first patented in 1960—the first episode of Star Trek aired in 1966—in order to administer mass vaccinations. Why aren’t they more popular today? Most likely because needles work just as well, and jet-injections are significantly more expensive.

Now, on to the more exciting gadgets. While we don’t have guns that can instantly vaporize human beings (these would require too much heat and energy), phasers are essentially energy-directed weapons—which we have developed, in the form of lasers. One example of a modern-day laser is the long-range tactical laser cannon, which is in final development under the US Air Force and Boeing. On August 7, 2008, the C-130H aircraft fired a beam that successfully destroying a three-by-three-foot target on the ground. This weapon is being developed for defensive tactics; it will knock out missiles by emitting the heat of a blowtorch at a distance of 20km.

Alternatively, the military might avoid enemy fire in the first place by evading detection through the use of Star Trek’s cloaking devices. And indeed, they are working on it! The latest research, published by researchers at Duke University in the January issue of Science, uses an algorithm, metamaterials, and electromagnetic radiation to produce a 20” X 4” cloak. The cloak works by bending light around its materials, effectively making them invisible. The technology has not yet advanced to being able to cloak against every wavelength, nor can it make a cloak the size of, say, a spaceship, but as is evidenced by the recent results from Duke (research which was supported by sponsors such as Raytheon Missile Systems and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research), these developments are no doubt underway.

Last but certainly not least, we must address transporters—or, as they are more popularly known, teleporters. In Star Trek, teleportation works by disassembling a person down to the atomic level, converting them into energy, and then “beaming” them to the new location. In reality, however, there are several issues with this concept. First of all, disassembling a human being at the atomic level would require heating them up to a billion degrees. Then, turning those particles into energy would require energy equivalent to something along the lines of a 1,000 megaton nuclear weapon—not exactly practical if this technology is intended for mass transportation. Finally, Star Trek’s method of teleportation is receiverless—that is, no device is necessary to deposit the particles at their destination so long as a “signal” is available. However, according to the theory of quantum teleportation—which does exist in modern-day reality—a receiver would be necessary at the other end of the “trip.”

The modern concept of quantum teleportation involves sending our essential information, or “quantum state,” elsewhere. The problem with teleporting a human, however, is our size and our complexity. To teleport an object, its quantum state must be measured at the subatomic level. The average person is made up of more than 10²⁷* atoms, which are in turn made up of all sorts of subatomic particles (i.e. protons, neutrons, electrons, etc.). Measuring all of these particles would not only take a very long time, but assembling them into their precise quantum state (i.e. you as opposed to your next-door-neighbor Sally, her dog Fido, or the rock in her front yard) is not something that is likely to be feasible in the near future.

If you’re interested in knowing more about the science of Star Trek, check out Lawrence Krauss’s book The Physics of Star Trek. As a theoretical physicist at Arizona State University’s School of Earth & Space Exploration, he gives some valuable insights in a recent interview with Scientific American, as well.

* 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000