Advertisement

Opinion: Animals with Human Material

Careful oversight is required to ensure that chimeras and transgenic animals continue to serve as powerful biomedical research tools.

By | September 21, 2011

MOUSE: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS, RAMA, DNA: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM

Research involving the integration of human DNA, cells, or tissues into animals has been undertaken since the 1960s. Transgenic animals (with one or more human genes in their makeup) and chimeras (with some human cells or tissues amongst their own animal tissues) are now important biomedical research approaches. They are used in studies where it is morally or practically impossible to conduct the experiments in humans, and where alternative approaches, such as computer simulations or cell cultures, are not adequately representative of the system being studied. Such approaches are used to determine the function of human genes by expressing the relevant DNA segment in an animal and observing its effect, or to test, develop, and produce therapies for disease, among other applications.

Chimeric mice, for example, are used to study human liver diseases such as hepatitis, and to test antiviral drugs. The mice are made by introducing human hepatocytes into the animals’ livers, which can be comprised of up to 95 percent human cells and so are a more accurate model of human liver function than a normal mouse liver. Similarly, mice with “humanised” immune systems are being used to make antibody treatments for human cancer.

Non-rodent species are also used. Transgenic goats carrying a human gene, for example, are used to produce a human protein now licensed for use during surgery in patients whose blood otherwise fails to clot correctly. Although these animals have some specific human chemicals and cellular functions, they usually do not outwardly resemble humans in any way—the mice still look like ordinary mice; and the goats, to the naked eye, are goats. Many thousands of such “animals containing human material” have been created without major regulatory or ethical concern.

Despite this history, research using such animals has received very little public recognition—or even discussion. Instead, film-makers and novelists have found it an easy subject to dramatise and distort, and have portrayed scientists undertaking seemingly bizarre enterprises to create part-human, part-animal beings. (Some even go so far as to endow apes with enough human capabilities to take over the planet.)

To encourage a more informed debate, the UK’s Academy of Medical Sciences recently organized an expert working group study, which I chaired. Our aim was to consider the research use of animals containing human material from scientific, ethical, social, and safety perspectives, and to make recommendations for the future regulation of this research. We addressed difficult questions (such as the extent to which human cells might be substituted into rodent or primate brains, to study therapies for conditions such as stroke) and considered where the line should be drawn to best fulfil ethical, social, and scientific interests, and how effective regulation might be achieved.

An important aspect of our work was to understand which areas of this research might evoke public concern in the United Kingdom, over and above any concerns some people might have generally about the use of animals in medical research. Our public dialogue, involving participants from across the country, and other evidence highlighted three areas that warranted particularly careful consideration: the substitution of an animal’s brain cells with human cells to a degree which might lead to human-like cognitive capacity in the animal; research involving human–derived reproductive cells in an animal, especially where there is a possibility of fertilisation; and the creation of animals that resemble humans in important aspects of their outward appearance or behavior.

We recommended that these areas of research should be subject to careful oversight by a national expert advisory body. Scientific techniques are advancing rapidly, and will undoubtedly bring new means of developing animals which are, in specific aspects, ever more similar to our species. This will increasingly help us to learn more about human and animal biology, as well as to develop new diagnostics and treatments. We also concluded that a small number of experiments should not for now be undertaken, at least until there is greater understanding of their likely outcomes. Potentially controversial science proceeds best in an open environment, and to make the most of this research, we need to avoid the public distrust that can result from surprise at unexpected scientific developments. An informed and supportive public voice can also act as a mediator to counter the influence wielded by vocal minorities opposed to all animal research.

Our recommendations were intended primarily for the UK research system, but science is an international endeavour, and we hope that our report will encourage other countries to consider these issues, and catalyse the development of international standards and guidelines. We hope that by beginning this debate openly now, future decisions about research using animals containing human material can be made by experts who are fully informed both by scientific possibility and by public opinion. Both must be grounded in scientific fact, not science fiction.

For more information or to downloads the report visit http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/p47prid77.html.

Professor Martin Bobrow is an Emeritus professor of medical genetics at the University of Cambridge and chair of the Academy of Medical Sciences Working group on "Animals containing human material."

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Markhauswald

Anonymous

September 21, 2011

All animals contain human DNA and vice verso. What don't people get about evolution?

Avatar of: SUPER SUMO KITTEN!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous

September 21, 2011

I think that that mouse would like some cheese.

Avatar of: Kay

Anonymous

September 21, 2011

When we do research on genetically engineered mice or produce recombinant proteins in goats etc. it is certainly not the goal of anyone to create "animals that resemble humans in important aspects of their outward appearance or behavior". I think we have those already (literately among us human and other primates, of course). Similar discussion were done 10 years ago in Germany, and all that came out of it where some of the most restrictive laws against stem cell research and laws that made it difficult to apply reproductive technologies to infertile couples. It did not do anything for better informing the public. This is evident when even the major prime time news station (payed by the German tax payer) shows an embryo when they talk about stem cells and their application. If you can't tech a journalist, you won't educate a writer for TV shows.

Avatar of: Brian Hanley

Brian Hanley

Posts: 66

September 21, 2011

I just don't see the concern here. As the article says, this has been done for a long time now and nobody worries about it. There is no public protest, and there is zero public concern. There is nobody out there with picket signs shouting for the rights of human cells in mice.

So how on earth does THAT add up to recommending that " these areas of research should be subject to careful oversight by a national expert advisory body"?!  apparently it is because there are some old books about chimeric creations and one recent movie about intelligent apes?  As they say on Saturday Night Live, "Really. I mean REALLY!"

But that one actual example cited, the Planet of the Apes movie, was NOT about stem cells or chimeras. That movie was about a VIRUS that contained genes which made the apes intelligent, spread like the flu and was nearly 100% fatal to humans. THAT scenario is ALREADY more than adequately covered by regulatory frameworks. It is, in fact, covered by a thicket of regulation. And that current regulation has resulted in at least one excellent researcher getting the axe when a staffer did not cross their t's and dot their i's. (Of course, such weapons of academic infighting are most desirable to certain types, are they not?)

This report smacks of a crew with nothing more worthwhile to do than hatching a plot to bother and bog down everyone else by dreaming up a public outrage bogeyman that just isn't there. There simply is "no there there" to paraphrase Yogi Berra.

I think one has to point out that the primary effect of this proposal if said regulation becomes law will be: The cost of research will go up yet again, project timelines be bogged down with one more tedious committee that must meet, review and justify its existence by tossing a plan back for more changes, and certain parties will be ensured a job contributing nothing at all to the research enterprise.  This will help to enforce the near monopoly that certain huge firms now have on such R&D, and spend money from the treasury.

A knock-on effect of this regulation (should it become law) is that there will be yet another sinecure for bioethicists with nothing much to occupy them. I predict doctoral theses by the score, suitable for enriching lawns, churning out doctoral persons in said profession, littering the regulatory landscape with yet more confabulated "needs". What else could possibly be expected from an area born out of no substance?

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for any such regulation at this time. If there ever becomes a clear proven need, then we should consider it. But certainly not now! Dear god people! We have real matters to concern ourselves with, and in a global economy that is floundering to keep its head above water we do not need more "make work" to raise our costs! 

This proposal is ridiculous. It is just flat out ridiculous.

September 21, 2011

wrbedzinski

September 21, 2011

wrbedzinski:sorry no comments here doing log. registration 3thly time!

Avatar of: MA

Anonymous

September 21, 2011

Wow, I didn't know cell-replacement based therapies were in such an advanced state to warrant oversight!!!!!!

Avatar of: Mike Serfas

Anonymous

September 21, 2011

When considering genetic modifications, what we need to do is consider the product animal (or hybrid).  Is it something that could have been produced by natural mutation and evolution over the time scale of recorded history?  When the answer is yes - when only a few point mutations or deletions have been engineered - then we can say, this is within the realm of nature and nothing to concern ourselves with without some other reason.

But when the product clearly could _not_ exist without human intervention - when extensive hybridization or humanization has occurred, in multiple genes - then we need to be more careful.  Everyone wants to study a mouse with a human immune system, because it's incredibly convenient.  But is it also convenient for a mouse virus that would like to evolve around the species barrier?  Whether the answer is yes or no, it should be clear that the use of such animals, whether by academics or commercial users, comes with some questions that need to be answered.  It's not a matter of ideology, but a practical environmental decision.  The key is to find easy, cheap ways to exempt the large number of
experiments which are no substantial threat, so that those which might
be receive a genuine consideration.  I think that our foremost concern should be when unique and valuable human genetic adaptations are used for commercial purposes: for example, when natural human antibiotics such as defensins are produced in other species for sale, potentially compromising their continued effectiveness.

Because of the heavy environmental impact of humans, new species are indeed being created, and the production of new species may carry an even heavier environmental cost than the extinction of the old ones.  Mutant seaweed escapes the aquarium and takes over the Mediterranean.  Honeybees are bred with their African cousins and become a new and fearful pest.  Mosquitoes that feed on birds breed with those that feed on humans, and spread West Nile Virus to humans.  It should be clear that it does not take very much to push nature beyond its boundaries, nor for nature to push back.

Avatar of: Bill

Anonymous

September 21, 2011

This is probably a very stupid question because I'm no expert, but would a mouse with human liver cells not be a great opportunity for a disease normally restricted to mice to develop into something that would do just fine in human liver cells in an actual human?

Avatar of: grn1

Anonymous

September 21, 2011

sure there is nothing to be ethically concerned about cannibals

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

All animals contain human DNA and vice verso. What don't people get about evolution?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

I think that that mouse would like some cheese.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

When we do research on genetically engineered mice or produce recombinant proteins in goats etc. it is certainly not the goal of anyone to create "animals that resemble humans in important aspects of their outward appearance or behavior". I think we have those already (literately among us human and other primates, of course). Similar discussion were done 10 years ago in Germany, and all that came out of it where some of the most restrictive laws against stem cell research and laws that made it difficult to apply reproductive technologies to infertile couples. It did not do anything for better informing the public. This is evident when even the major prime time news station (payed by the German tax payer) shows an embryo when they talk about stem cells and their application. If you can't tech a journalist, you won't educate a writer for TV shows.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

I just don't see the concern here. As the article says, this has been done for a long time now and nobody worries about it. There is no public protest, and there is zero public concern. There is nobody out there with picket signs shouting for the rights of human cells in mice.

So how on earth does THAT add up to recommending that " these areas of research should be subject to careful oversight by a national expert advisory body"?!  apparently it is because there are some old books about chimeric creations and one recent movie about intelligent apes?  As they say on Saturday Night Live, "Really. I mean REALLY!"

But that one actual example cited, the Planet of the Apes movie, was NOT about stem cells or chimeras. That movie was about a VIRUS that contained genes which made the apes intelligent, spread like the flu and was nearly 100% fatal to humans. THAT scenario is ALREADY more than adequately covered by regulatory frameworks. It is, in fact, covered by a thicket of regulation. And that current regulation has resulted in at least one excellent researcher getting the axe when a staffer did not cross their t's and dot their i's. (Of course, such weapons of academic infighting are most desirable to certain types, are they not?)

This report smacks of a crew with nothing more worthwhile to do than hatching a plot to bother and bog down everyone else by dreaming up a public outrage bogeyman that just isn't there. There simply is "no there there" to paraphrase Yogi Berra.

I think one has to point out that the primary effect of this proposal if said regulation becomes law will be: The cost of research will go up yet again, project timelines be bogged down with one more tedious committee that must meet, review and justify its existence by tossing a plan back for more changes, and certain parties will be ensured a job contributing nothing at all to the research enterprise.  This will help to enforce the near monopoly that certain huge firms now have on such R&D, and spend money from the treasury.

A knock-on effect of this regulation (should it become law) is that there will be yet another sinecure for bioethicists with nothing much to occupy them. I predict doctoral theses by the score, suitable for enriching lawns, churning out doctoral persons in said profession, littering the regulatory landscape with yet more confabulated "needs". What else could possibly be expected from an area born out of no substance?

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for any such regulation at this time. If there ever becomes a clear proven need, then we should consider it. But certainly not now! Dear god people! We have real matters to concern ourselves with, and in a global economy that is floundering to keep its head above water we do not need more "make work" to raise our costs! 

This proposal is ridiculous. It is just flat out ridiculous.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

wrbedzinski

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

wrbedzinski:sorry no comments here doing log. registration 3thly time!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

Wow, I didn't know cell-replacement based therapies were in such an advanced state to warrant oversight!!!!!!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

When considering genetic modifications, what we need to do is consider the product animal (or hybrid).  Is it something that could have been produced by natural mutation and evolution over the time scale of recorded history?  When the answer is yes - when only a few point mutations or deletions have been engineered - then we can say, this is within the realm of nature and nothing to concern ourselves with without some other reason.

But when the product clearly could _not_ exist without human intervention - when extensive hybridization or humanization has occurred, in multiple genes - then we need to be more careful.  Everyone wants to study a mouse with a human immune system, because it's incredibly convenient.  But is it also convenient for a mouse virus that would like to evolve around the species barrier?  Whether the answer is yes or no, it should be clear that the use of such animals, whether by academics or commercial users, comes with some questions that need to be answered.  It's not a matter of ideology, but a practical environmental decision.  The key is to find easy, cheap ways to exempt the large number of
experiments which are no substantial threat, so that those which might
be receive a genuine consideration.  I think that our foremost concern should be when unique and valuable human genetic adaptations are used for commercial purposes: for example, when natural human antibiotics such as defensins are produced in other species for sale, potentially compromising their continued effectiveness.

Because of the heavy environmental impact of humans, new species are indeed being created, and the production of new species may carry an even heavier environmental cost than the extinction of the old ones.  Mutant seaweed escapes the aquarium and takes over the Mediterranean.  Honeybees are bred with their African cousins and become a new and fearful pest.  Mosquitoes that feed on birds breed with those that feed on humans, and spread West Nile Virus to humans.  It should be clear that it does not take very much to push nature beyond its boundaries, nor for nature to push back.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

This is probably a very stupid question because I'm no expert, but would a mouse with human liver cells not be a great opportunity for a disease normally restricted to mice to develop into something that would do just fine in human liver cells in an actual human?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

sure there is nothing to be ethically concerned about cannibals

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

All animals contain human DNA and vice verso. What don't people get about evolution?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

I think that that mouse would like some cheese.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

When we do research on genetically engineered mice or produce recombinant proteins in goats etc. it is certainly not the goal of anyone to create "animals that resemble humans in important aspects of their outward appearance or behavior". I think we have those already (literately among us human and other primates, of course). Similar discussion were done 10 years ago in Germany, and all that came out of it where some of the most restrictive laws against stem cell research and laws that made it difficult to apply reproductive technologies to infertile couples. It did not do anything for better informing the public. This is evident when even the major prime time news station (payed by the German tax payer) shows an embryo when they talk about stem cells and their application. If you can't tech a journalist, you won't educate a writer for TV shows.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

I just don't see the concern here. As the article says, this has been done for a long time now and nobody worries about it. There is no public protest, and there is zero public concern. There is nobody out there with picket signs shouting for the rights of human cells in mice.

So how on earth does THAT add up to recommending that " these areas of research should be subject to careful oversight by a national expert advisory body"?!  apparently it is because there are some old books about chimeric creations and one recent movie about intelligent apes?  As they say on Saturday Night Live, "Really. I mean REALLY!"

But that one actual example cited, the Planet of the Apes movie, was NOT about stem cells or chimeras. That movie was about a VIRUS that contained genes which made the apes intelligent, spread like the flu and was nearly 100% fatal to humans. THAT scenario is ALREADY more than adequately covered by regulatory frameworks. It is, in fact, covered by a thicket of regulation. And that current regulation has resulted in at least one excellent researcher getting the axe when a staffer did not cross their t's and dot their i's. (Of course, such weapons of academic infighting are most desirable to certain types, are they not?)

This report smacks of a crew with nothing more worthwhile to do than hatching a plot to bother and bog down everyone else by dreaming up a public outrage bogeyman that just isn't there. There simply is "no there there" to paraphrase Yogi Berra.

I think one has to point out that the primary effect of this proposal if said regulation becomes law will be: The cost of research will go up yet again, project timelines be bogged down with one more tedious committee that must meet, review and justify its existence by tossing a plan back for more changes, and certain parties will be ensured a job contributing nothing at all to the research enterprise.  This will help to enforce the near monopoly that certain huge firms now have on such R&D, and spend money from the treasury.

A knock-on effect of this regulation (should it become law) is that there will be yet another sinecure for bioethicists with nothing much to occupy them. I predict doctoral theses by the score, suitable for enriching lawns, churning out doctoral persons in said profession, littering the regulatory landscape with yet more confabulated "needs". What else could possibly be expected from an area born out of no substance?

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for any such regulation at this time. If there ever becomes a clear proven need, then we should consider it. But certainly not now! Dear god people! We have real matters to concern ourselves with, and in a global economy that is floundering to keep its head above water we do not need more "make work" to raise our costs! 

This proposal is ridiculous. It is just flat out ridiculous.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

wrbedzinski

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

wrbedzinski:sorry no comments here doing log. registration 3thly time!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

Wow, I didn't know cell-replacement based therapies were in such an advanced state to warrant oversight!!!!!!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

When considering genetic modifications, what we need to do is consider the product animal (or hybrid).  Is it something that could have been produced by natural mutation and evolution over the time scale of recorded history?  When the answer is yes - when only a few point mutations or deletions have been engineered - then we can say, this is within the realm of nature and nothing to concern ourselves with without some other reason.

But when the product clearly could _not_ exist without human intervention - when extensive hybridization or humanization has occurred, in multiple genes - then we need to be more careful.  Everyone wants to study a mouse with a human immune system, because it's incredibly convenient.  But is it also convenient for a mouse virus that would like to evolve around the species barrier?  Whether the answer is yes or no, it should be clear that the use of such animals, whether by academics or commercial users, comes with some questions that need to be answered.  It's not a matter of ideology, but a practical environmental decision.  The key is to find easy, cheap ways to exempt the large number of
experiments which are no substantial threat, so that those which might
be receive a genuine consideration.  I think that our foremost concern should be when unique and valuable human genetic adaptations are used for commercial purposes: for example, when natural human antibiotics such as defensins are produced in other species for sale, potentially compromising their continued effectiveness.

Because of the heavy environmental impact of humans, new species are indeed being created, and the production of new species may carry an even heavier environmental cost than the extinction of the old ones.  Mutant seaweed escapes the aquarium and takes over the Mediterranean.  Honeybees are bred with their African cousins and become a new and fearful pest.  Mosquitoes that feed on birds breed with those that feed on humans, and spread West Nile Virus to humans.  It should be clear that it does not take very much to push nature beyond its boundaries, nor for nature to push back.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

This is probably a very stupid question because I'm no expert, but would a mouse with human liver cells not be a great opportunity for a disease normally restricted to mice to develop into something that would do just fine in human liver cells in an actual human?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 21, 2011

sure there is nothing to be ethically concerned about cannibals

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 24, 2011

Keep your corporate paws off my deep structure!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 24, 2011

Wouldn't the problem be the loss of these animals into the environment where they meet up with animals that carry plague found in animals and NOW the new animal is able to carry the plague and the plague will evolve to infect humans ?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 24, 2011

I was thinking the same thing.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 24, 2011

Keep your corporate paws off my deep structure!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 24, 2011

Wouldn't the problem be the loss of these animals into the environment where they meet up with animals that carry plague found in animals and NOW the new animal is able to carry the plague and the plague will evolve to infect humans ?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 24, 2011

I was thinking the same thing.

Avatar of: Jeanne S

Jeanne S

Posts: 1457

September 24, 2011

Keep your corporate paws off my deep structure!

Avatar of: Tom Hennessy

Tom Hennessy

Posts: 1457

September 24, 2011

Wouldn't the problem be the loss of these animals into the environment where they meet up with animals that carry plague found in animals and NOW the new animal is able to carry the plague and the plague will evolve to infect humans ?

Avatar of: Michael

Anonymous

September 24, 2011

I was thinking the same thing.

Avatar of: LaFleur

Anonymous

September 26, 2011

RESPONSE to featured comment "This is just pitiful. NIH is understaffed and
under-resourced, but Halliburton and Blackwater/Xe are rolling in profits right
now.........."

Why is it so hard to understand that meeting our energy demands is a prerequisite for a strong economy, which is needed to develop any sort of health care research and innovation????

It's easy to pick on oil and gas, but when you see how much hospital administrators, specialists, surgeons etc make in a year I find it hard to say one industry is any more ethically responsible than the other. One just happens to help sick people, so it's more OK if they make boat loads of cash....? They aren't magicians, and both services are being provided in response to a public demand.

I'm not suggesting that we give tax breaks to profitable industries that are unlikely to relocate based on their taxation rate, but one way or another the everyday consumer absorbs any additional costs to a big industry.

Situation 1: HAL pays more tax, the product prices increase more rapidly, and the consumer doesn't have a cheaper alternative available; average citizen has less money in their wallet. The government bureaucrats squander the additional income from HAL on a few fancy lunches, pushing some trivial policies, and guess what?!? The state of public health hasn't changed at all :-o.

Situation 2: HAL's tax situation don't change, and neither does the state of Health Care. At least we'll pay less for consumer goods because people don't want to pay more than we already do for refined goods. The majority of North Americans are totally against paying more federal tax even if it's meant to support understaffed and under-resourced valuable organizations that would benefit our population.

We have nobody to blame but ourselves, the american dream/delusion, and politicians who are more worried about re-election then they are about the average citizen. I can continue this another time, but I don't want to rant too much....

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 26, 2011

RESPONSE to featured comment "This is just pitiful. NIH is understaffed and
under-resourced, but Halliburton and Blackwater/Xe are rolling in profits right
now.........."

Why is it so hard to understand that meeting our energy demands is a prerequisite for a strong economy, which is needed to develop any sort of health care research and innovation????

It's easy to pick on oil and gas, but when you see how much hospital administrators, specialists, surgeons etc make in a year I find it hard to say one industry is any more ethically responsible than the other. One just happens to help sick people, so it's more OK if they make boat loads of cash....? They aren't magicians, and both services are being provided in response to a public demand.

I'm not suggesting that we give tax breaks to profitable industries that are unlikely to relocate based on their taxation rate, but one way or another the everyday consumer absorbs any additional costs to a big industry.

Situation 1: HAL pays more tax, the product prices increase more rapidly, and the consumer doesn't have a cheaper alternative available; average citizen has less money in their wallet. The government bureaucrats squander the additional income from HAL on a few fancy lunches, pushing some trivial policies, and guess what?!? The state of public health hasn't changed at all :-o.

Situation 2: HAL's tax situation don't change, and neither does the state of Health Care. At least we'll pay less for consumer goods because people don't want to pay more than we already do for refined goods. The majority of North Americans are totally against paying more federal tax even if it's meant to support understaffed and under-resourced valuable organizations that would benefit our population.

We have nobody to blame but ourselves, the american dream/delusion, and politicians who are more worried about re-election then they are about the average citizen. I can continue this another time, but I don't want to rant too much....

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 26, 2011

RESPONSE to featured comment "This is just pitiful. NIH is understaffed and
under-resourced, but Halliburton and Blackwater/Xe are rolling in profits right
now.........."

Why is it so hard to understand that meeting our energy demands is a prerequisite for a strong economy, which is needed to develop any sort of health care research and innovation????

It's easy to pick on oil and gas, but when you see how much hospital administrators, specialists, surgeons etc make in a year I find it hard to say one industry is any more ethically responsible than the other. One just happens to help sick people, so it's more OK if they make boat loads of cash....? They aren't magicians, and both services are being provided in response to a public demand.

I'm not suggesting that we give tax breaks to profitable industries that are unlikely to relocate based on their taxation rate, but one way or another the everyday consumer absorbs any additional costs to a big industry.

Situation 1: HAL pays more tax, the product prices increase more rapidly, and the consumer doesn't have a cheaper alternative available; average citizen has less money in their wallet. The government bureaucrats squander the additional income from HAL on a few fancy lunches, pushing some trivial policies, and guess what?!? The state of public health hasn't changed at all :-o.

Situation 2: HAL's tax situation don't change, and neither does the state of Health Care. At least we'll pay less for consumer goods because people don't want to pay more than we already do for refined goods. The majority of North Americans are totally against paying more federal tax even if it's meant to support understaffed and under-resourced valuable organizations that would benefit our population.

We have nobody to blame but ourselves, the american dream/delusion, and politicians who are more worried about re-election then they are about the average citizen. I can continue this another time, but I don't want to rant too much....

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 27, 2011

Check out what the Chinese are doing -
Bethesda, MD—A sizzling genetic discovery by Chinese scientists may one day allow pig tissue to be transplanted successfully into humans. Their research presented in the Journal of Leukocyte Biology (http://www.jleukbio.org) represents a major step forward toward filling the shortage of vital organs for human transplantation. At the core of their work, they showed that altering or overexpressing the human programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) molecule in the endothelial cells of pig arteries reduces the conditions that lead to rejection. This strongly suggests that humans could receive altered porcine organs with fewer complications.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 27, 2011

Check out what the Chinese are doing -
Bethesda, MD—A sizzling genetic discovery by Chinese scientists may one day allow pig tissue to be transplanted successfully into humans. Their research presented in the Journal of Leukocyte Biology (http://www.jleukbio.org) represents a major step forward toward filling the shortage of vital organs for human transplantation. At the core of their work, they showed that altering or overexpressing the human programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) molecule in the endothelial cells of pig arteries reduces the conditions that lead to rejection. This strongly suggests that humans could receive altered porcine organs with fewer complications.

Avatar of: Probinson

Anonymous

September 27, 2011

Check out what the Chinese are doing -
Bethesda, MD—A sizzling genetic discovery by Chinese scientists may one day allow pig tissue to be transplanted successfully into humans. Their research presented in the Journal of Leukocyte Biology (http://www.jleukbio.org) represents a major step forward toward filling the shortage of vital organs for human transplantation. At the core of their work, they showed that altering or overexpressing the human programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) molecule in the endothelial cells of pig arteries reduces the conditions that lead to rejection. This strongly suggests that humans could receive altered porcine organs with fewer complications.

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement
Ingenuity
Ingenuity

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Advertisement
NeuroScientistNews
NeuroScientistNews
Life Technologies