* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download The Misuse of Gene Therapy - Michigan State University
Genome evolution wikipedia , lookup
Copy-number variation wikipedia , lookup
History of genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of neurodegenerative diseases wikipedia , lookup
Public health genomics wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of diabetes Type 2 wikipedia , lookup
Saethre–Chotzen syndrome wikipedia , lookup
Genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression profiling wikipedia , lookup
Nutriepigenomics wikipedia , lookup
Genome (book) wikipedia , lookup
The Selfish Gene wikipedia , lookup
Helitron (biology) wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression programming wikipedia , lookup
Site-specific recombinase technology wikipedia , lookup
Gene desert wikipedia , lookup
Vectors in gene therapy wikipedia , lookup
Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis wikipedia , lookup
Gene nomenclature wikipedia , lookup
Microevolution wikipedia , lookup
Therapeutic gene modulation wikipedia , lookup
Artificial gene synthesis wikipedia , lookup
Gene therapy of the human retina wikipedia , lookup
The goal of medicine has always been to cure human disease and suffering. Mythologies from many cultures have described the need for such a cure-all therapy. The fairy-tailed fountain of youth is nothing short of a symbolic manifestation of the need to live forever in perfect health. As technology progresses, the understanding of nature becomes more and more clear. The once unattainable goal of harnessing a method of curing all human disease is becoming more and more feasible. The technology that seems to be catching the eye of such "fountain of youth" seeking folks is that of gene therapy. This technique has people predicting great leaps in medical science. Claims of curing cancer and genetic disorders have become a popular topic among many (Jaroff, 2003). Many, including the father of gene therapy, question its ability to do good as well as bad. Few among the scientific community push for gene therapy blindly without giving thought to the power in which could be released. All scientists agree on one thing. Gene therapy will become a powerhouse in cutting edge technology. Whether that power will go to good or bad, is up to those who harness its potential. Designer babies, genetically modified athletes, and a super race are but few of the concerns facing the future of man-kind. Gene therapy technologies should be regulated and slowed in its progress due to its catastrophic potential misuse. A physician named W. French Anderson first made gene therapy popular in the early 1980's. Though the idea of gene therapy was not new, the technology in which to achieve it was beginning to emerge. His idea was simple; if a patient were ill due to a defective gene, why not insert a functioning one to make up for the genetic deficiency? His research was not the first of its kind. But his timing and success grabbed the media’s attention. Anderson became known as the father of gene therapy (Jaroff, 2003). From that point on, gene therapy became a field with great expectation. The public embraced gene therapy as a godsend. Such excitement was shown through the media (Angier, 1990). Reports of successful gene therapy on animals became commonplace. What the media really craved was a successful human treatment using gene therapy. In 2002 the Washington Post reported that people with a specific heart condition were receiving gene therapy and taking to it very well. Another story broke out reporting the successful treatment of children with a disease known as SCID (Severe Combined Immunodeficiency). This was all very exciting to the scientific community and to the public as well. An article published by the Washington Post in 2005 reported a disturbing turn of events. Gene therapy research in France had been performed on ten different children with SCID. The treatments were successful. However, three years after the treatment, children began developing cancer. Three have fallen ill so far. One of the three children succumbed to his illness and died (Weiss, 2005). The research done in France was lead by Dr. Alain Fischer. "We want to continue, but of course there is a safety issue," Dr. Fischer admitted. His research was and is focused on the treatment of SCID in pediatric patients. This disorder can be linked back to a faulty gene on the X chromosome. Fischer and his team masked the faulty gene with a functioning synthetic gene. MLV (murine leukemia virus) derived vectors were used in Fischer’s research. Two forms of SCID have been successfully treated with MLV-derived vectors. The technique of infecting hematopoietic progenitor cells in vitro has been successful. However, avoiding damaging gene insertion during this procedure is nearly impossible. The effects of mutagenic gene insertion is not obvious during the early stages after treatment (Fischer, 2005). Therefore the treatment initially seemed to be very successful. Within weeks the children were thriving (Weiss, 2005). However, with the inability to regulate the synthetic genes placed within the bodies of Fischer’s patients, problems began arising. The children began falling ill with leukemia. In sum, the synthetic gene was causing the production of too many white blood cells in the body (Amalfitano, 2005). Treatments using gene therapy on SCID patients have been extensive throughout Europe. The effective outcome of the treatments is hardly astounding. Out of several dozen treatments, only twelve children have been cured of SCID. Out of the twelve cured patients three of them have developed cancer. The first successful treatment was performed on the boy who was the first to die of leukemia. Physicians fear that the remaining nine will develop leukemia and succumb to its effects. In lieu of these findings, the FDA has halted gene therapy research throughout the United States (Weiss, 2005). This was not the first time that a death had resulted from gene therapy. In 2000, an 18-yearold patient at the University of Pennsylvania was killed in gene therapy trials conducted by Dr. James Wilson. Wilson was president of the Institute for Human Gene Therapy and a golden boy of sorts in the field of gene therapy. The university president had this to say about Dr.Wilson’s research failures, “We think that Dr. Wilson was overloaded with regard to responsibility”. The FDA found many discrepancies within Wilson’s studies during the course of the investigation (Stolberg, 2000). One such oddity was found between Wilson’s research and his connections to a biotechnology company in which he founded called Genovo. Genovo was contributing one fifth of its $25 million dollar budget to Wilson’s research. They also granted him exclusive rights to the commercial production of successful gene therapy serums. The FDA found this relationship disturbing due to the high self-interest involved. Wilson had a lot of reasons to push research faster than it should’ve been (Stolberg, 2000). Money has a larger role to play in the image of gene therapy. Not only does the dollar drive researchers like Wilson to overstep their bounds, but it has a large role in public perception. In 2002, the Washington Post wrote an article called “Gene-Therapy Tests Show Positive Results”. The article praised the effects gene therapy was having on patients with severe coronary artery disease. The lone source of information for this article was a multi-million dollar corporation known as GenVec. GenVec is a biopharmaceutical company that funds gene therapy research to treat heart disease, cancer, and vision loss (Unknown 2, 2005). The research they gave to the Washington Post seems promising. However, GenVec was the only source of information for this article. Its intentions were to put on a pretty face for the world to see. More press equals more money. The true intentions of GenVec are reflected in its CEO and president, Dr. Paul H. Fischer. He had this to say about a recent merger, "We are combining the key strengths, capabilities and facilities of the two companies to form a strong, focused company with a reduced cash burn, an efficient work force and a significant cash position". The CEO of GenVec makes over a quarter of a million dollars a year (Unknown, 2005). He looks to make significant personal gains in the successful production of gene therapy technologies (Unknown, 2005). The intentions of GenVec could be corrupt by money, as it might have been with James Wilson. Many people have concerns about the misuse of gene therapy. A general consensus runs through the public, “If they can alter our genes to cure us of disease, what else can they do to us?” When asked about fears relating to gene therapy, many were concerned about the person behind the needle rather than the technology itself. A local woman had this to say, “My concerns with regard to gene therapy would be the ethical ramifications. For instance, what kinds of maladies are considered in need of cure? Who would decide?” Many share her fear, like Jeffery of Vernon Michigan, “…Great good and unimagined evil are usually the outcomes of man’s attempt bend nature...” Despite the fear of misuse, the general public seems to perceive gene therapy as a good thing. Many perceive it as a perfectly safe, yet underdeveloped technology. When asked about the future of gene therapy, a large majority agreed that it was the future of medicine. All of them agreed that they would subject their children to gene therapy if need be. Peggy Friess of Corunna Michigan had this to say, “I believe I would strongly consider this option. I would have to take into consideration, success rate, quality of life and moral concerns. This is a very interesting idea and the ramifications for good and bad are plentiful. As a mother, I would do anything to save my child.” This shows a disturbing willingness to use this technology. People have their doubts in gene therapy, yet condone its use. Those who wish to propagate gene therapy could easily exploit this primal instinct. Popular magazines and short news clips seem to be where the majority of people get their information. This is a very narrow channel of communication. However, in recent years, the Internet has been used more by the public. Websites from all over the world have been created for this purpose. A good example of such a web site is GMWatch.org. This web site focuses its energy on informing the public about topics such as designer babies, gene doping, and inbreeding effects due to gene manipulation (Matthews, 2005). A topic recently posted on the web site is that of designer babies. It shows an interview with Dr. W. French Anderson, the founder and father of gene therapy. Anderson is considered to be one of the largest advocates of gene therapy (Jaroff, 2003). The posting shows a very reassuring side to Anderson. He too shares the fears of gene therapy misuse. During an interview with CNN, Anderson had this to say about gene therapy, “The primary concern is the damage we could do while trying to manipulate, while trying to improve our genes. We have to be very careful that this powerful technology is used only for the treatment of disease and not in attempting to create designer babies or any other non-medical purpose.” He further claims that arguments brought against gene therapy are points he raised in the mid 1980’s. He seems to have a healthy respect for the power of gene manipulation and that comforts those fearful of gene therapy. Many scientists and researchers share Anderson’s feelings (Jaroff, 2003). “When it comes to research, there is always a risk associated with it.” said Dr. Andrea Amalfitano of Michigan State University. He is a medical geneticist who studies the Glycogen storage disorder known as Pompe’s Disease. He believes strongly in the research associated with gene therapy and that patient death is a natural consequence of this cutting edge technology. Dr. Amalfitano believes that a little bad justifies a greater good. Many researchers feel the same way. This type of trade off has been ubiquitous in pharmaceutical development since its incarnation (Amalfitano, 2005). When Dr. Amalfitano was asked what he feared of gene manipulation, he said that he doesn’t fear its implications any time in the near future, but that its potential should be closely monitored to avoid misuse. So it seems there are two primary positions on gene therapy. One position wishes to watch it closely and regulate it, the other wishes to push the technology to its limits, unnecessarily risking lives for the sake of a profit. The media has been publishing stories for years on gene therapy, some good, and some bad. It seems that biopharmaceutical companies have some influence on the stories published, making popular news media a tool. This may have given the public a false sense of security. The general public is aware of gene therapy and its objective. They are unaware of the corruption driving the development of this technology. Parents would do anything to save their children, including the solicitation of profit-hungry scientists. The large majority of scientists are not looking for profit or personal gain. Scientists like Drs. Amalfitano and Anderson expect gene therapy to revolutionize medicine, but they are conscientious of possible misuse. What can be done to keep gene therapy in check and under control? The answer lies with the public. A well-informed community is the most effective weapon against the misuse of this powerful technology. With an informed public, unnecessary gene manipulation would not be tolerated and corrupt scientists looking for money and personal gain would be under the critical eye of the people. This amazing technology is only in its youth; its full potential is far from being realized. To keep this research safe and ethically sound the people must have the power of knowledge. French Anderson said it best, “…The only protection is an informed society. It is imperative that we remain alert to insure that gene technology is not misused by anyone…” Works Cited Amalfitano, Andrea. Personal Interview. 3 November 2005. Angier, Natalie. “FDA Approves Radical Gene Therapy for Advanced Cancer.” New York Times. 14 Nov. 1990; A23 Barbaro, Michael. “Gene-Therapy Tests Show Positive Results, GenVec Says.” Washington Post. 21 Nov. 2002; E05 “Dr. French Anderson on the pros and cons of gene manipulation.” CNN. 2000. 26 Jun. 2000 <EDThttp://www.cnn.com/chat/transcripts/2000/6/26/genome. anderson/index.html> Fischer, Alain. “Integration of Retroviruses: A Fine Balance between Efficiency and Danger.” PloS Med. 2(1): e10 Foland, Barbara. Personal Interview. 6 November 2005. Foland, Jeffery. Personal Interview. 6 November 2005. Friess, Peggy. Personal Interview. 5 November 2005. Jaroff, Leon. “The Pioneers of Molecular Biology: W.French Anderson.” Time Magazine. 17 Feb.2003; A03 Matthews, Jonathan. “Grim tally from gene therapy / More on French Anderson.” GMWatch. 2005. 5 Nov. 2005 <http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=52>. Norris, Marie. Personal Interview. 5 November 2005. Stolberg, Sheryl. “Institute Restricted After Gene Therapy Death.” New York Times. 25 May 2000 Unknown. “Compensation for Paul H. Fischer, GENVEC, CEO President and Director GNVC Pay Salary.” Salary.com. 2005. <http://swz.salary.com/execcomp/layouthtmls /excl_execreport_122601.html> Unknown 2. “GenVec”. GenVec. 2005. <http//:www.genvec.com/> Weiss, Richard. “Boy’s Cancer Promts FDA to Halt Gene Therapy.” Washington Post. 4 Mar. 2005: A02 The Misuse Gene Therapy Walker Foland A32967279 LBS 492 Dr. Luckie