Tag Archives: animal research

Animal rights activism and medicine 100 years ago

There is a rather interesting book, Animal Experimentation and Medical Progress by William Williams Keen, published in 1914, which describes some of the incidents in the animal research debate during the early 1900s.  What is  striking about this book is that it illustrates very clearly how little (if at all) the arguments and tactics of animal rights proponents have changed over the last 100 years.

Consider the kind of letters that scientists received because of their work with animals:

letter2

Sometimes, animal rights activists also felt it was also important in making their point to include other members of the scientist’s family in their missives.

letterThe language is nearly identical to the anonymous emails or web-postings attacking scientists today.

A century ago those opposed to the use of animals in medical research were already using deceptive, calumnious imagery, suggesting animals underwent surgical procedures without anesthetic,  which evoked the following, unanimous response from the English Royal Commission:

Image

And a hundred years ago, the scientific  community was already expressing  disbelief and regret at the lack of understanding of the work, and the activists’ willful ignorance of those that denied its benefits –

faseb_v2Scientists were not alone in their outrage.  One hundred years ago medical professionals from all over the world were prompted to issue a  statement at the International Medical Congress supporting animal research:

Image

Of course, Charles Darwin himself, had these famous words to offer some 30 years earlier:

Fortunately, some things have in fact changed over the last 100 years.

Back then we did not have antibiotics, nor vaccinations for terrible childhood diseases.  We do today.  Vaccines that save more than 3 millions people per year, and prevent millions of others from suffering from disease and permanent disabilities.

Back then X-rays machines were just being created, the machines were bulky and access was extremely difficult.  Today X-rays, doppler ultrasound, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, are all widely available providing some of the most useful diagnostic tools.

1901 Bayer Heroin ad

Back then Heroin was used in children’s syrup to treat cough and bloodletting was still used to treat fever and inflammation. Today, effective pain relievers and anti-inflammatories are widely available in the pharmacy at the corner.

Back then premature babies almost invariably died.  Today, the development of lung surfactants is saving the lives of babies across the world every day.

And the list of the benefits of animal research goes on and on…

Perhaps it can all be summarized by the fact that that back then life expectancy in the US was 52 years.  Today, we are living an average of 80 years.  In other words, in merely 3 generations, we increased our life expectancy by 60%.  This is time we all now enjoy with our loved ones, children and grandchildren.  Thanks to science.  Thanks to scientists. Thanks to responsible, animal research.

That is why one cannot help but keep repeating Darwin’s famous words “…he who retards the progress of physiology is committing a crime against mankind.”

Challenging Scientific Dishonesty Across Italy

With the Pro-Test Italia rally only 2 weeks away, there is a growing movement against the widespread misrepresentation of science in Italy. To counter this, two members of Pro-Test Italia – Giulia and Federico – have set up “Italy United against Scientific Disinformation“. They will hold a set of public talks around Italy on June 8th 2013, one week after Pro-Test Italia hold a rally in defence of medical research using animals. Click on the image below to share it on Facebook.

Italia Unita Per La Corretta Informazione ScientificaThe new organisation intends to debunk scientific misinformation wherever it exists. This includes issues surrounding vaccinations (and the myth that it causes Autism), stem cell research and of course the use of animals in biomedical research.

The group provided Speaking of Research with the following message:

“Italy United against Scientific Disinformation” is a mega-project. A very ambitious grass-roots initiative, it is the brain child of two young members of Pro-Test Italia , who worked together to reach out to the community, and found that there are many good people who share their ideals and were willing to join them.

Starting with a budget of zero, and in record time, the project already involves events in several Italian cities and volunteers from all over Italy, with more joining every day.

At the heart of this movement are young science enthusiasts, who are fed up with the way that the Italian public are being manipulated.

Are you fed up with how science is condemned by ordinary people, who prefer to be carried away by phantasmagorical conspiracy theories, despite all the contrary evidence?

If the problem was limited to merely erroneous beliefs it would be tolerable, but in Italy legislative measures are often taken based on mistaken beliefs, so research also suffers many limitations (funding cuts, incorrect regulations and so on). As a result of this we witness daily the phenomenon of brain drain, which afflicts our country severely.

Science is our future. Everything starts with the correct scientific information, but in Italy this is sadly absent from public discourse.

Young people have thus decided to involve their universities and their teachers, to involve associations, to call on the experts, who together will expose the most common misconceptions in this country!

On June 8 we will all unite against misinformation, unite for science, and above all unite for the future of our country.

Giulia and Federico

Contacts: italiaxlascienza@live.com

Events are planned all over Italy

Events are planned all over Italy

So stand up and be counted in support of science. Such events will no doubt play an important part in the developing public dialogue about how Italian politics and media interact with important scientific issues.

Speaking of Research

First human stem cells created through cloning…thank Mitalipov’s macaques!

Today is one of those days that will go down in medical and scientific history, the day that scientists at Oregon Health and Science University led by Professor Shoukhrat Mitalipov announced that they had successfully created pluripotent human stem cells by cloning  skin cells. This is the first time that this has been accomplished in human cells, and is a major milestone in the developing field of regenerative medicine. It is also an achievement that rests on over a decade of careful studies of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) – the cloning technique they used - in monkeys by Professor Mitalipov and his colleagues.

A donor egg moments after injection of the skin cell nucleus. Image courtesy OHSU photos

A donor egg moments after injection of the skin cell nucleus. Image courtesy OHSU photos

An article on the ONPRC News highlights the importance of research in monkeys to overcoming the barriers that had foiled previous attempts to clone primate cells.

The Mitalipov team’s success in reprogramming human skin cells came through a series of studies in both human and monkey cells. Previous unsuccessful attempts by several labs showed that human egg cells appear to be more fragile than eggs from other species. Therefore, known reprogramming methods stalled before stem cells were produced.

To solve this problem, the OHSU group studied various alternative approaches first developed in monkey cells and then applied to human cells. Through moving findings between monkey cells and human cells, the researchers were able to develop a successful method.

The key to this success was finding a way to prompt egg cells to stay in a state called “metaphase” during the nuclear transfer process. Metaphase is a stage in the cell’s natural division process (meiosis) when genetic material aligns in the middle of the cell before the cell divides. The research team found that chemically maintaining metaphase throughout the transfer process prevented the process from stalling and allowed the cells to develop and produce stem cells.”

While this announcement, coinciding with publication of a scientific paper reporting their work that is published in the prestigious journal Cell (1), was a surprise, the fact that the team was led by Professor Mitalipov was not. Professor Mitalipov is one of the leading experts in reproductive biology, cloning and stem cell biology, and it was only back in March that we discussed how the technique of spindle-chromosomal transfer that he developed to prevent mitochondrial disease had been approved for human trails by the UK’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

The key publication by Professor Mitalipov and his colleagues was in 2007 (2) when they reported that they has successfully produced two rhesus macaque embryonic stem cell lines through SCNT.  In their 2010 commentary “Cloning of non-human primate: the “road less travelled by” “ Professor Mitalipov and his co-authors describe this study and  subsequent modifications that they made to the SCNT technique to further improve its efficiency in primates. Their many modifications covered changes to the way in which the nuclei of the cells were visualised and manipulated, changes in the conditions under which the donor nucleus and enucleated egg are fused, and precise regulation of the reactivation of the fused cell. One key innovation was the use of the coat protein from the Sendai (HVJ-E) virus to improve the efficiency of cell membrane fusion between the skin cell nucleus and egg cytoplasm while prolonging the activity of a protein called  maturation-promoting factor (MPF) that keeps the egg in the correct cell cycle stage to allow the introduced nucleus to integrate. Avoiding premature activation of cell division in the egg turned out to be even more difficult  in human cells. Initially the technique they had used successfully in macaques failed to yield stable stem cell lines from cloned human cells, and the problem appeared to be that the eggs were still activating too quickly following fusion, but as Professor Robin Lovell-Badge of the MRC National Institute for Medical Research explained to the Science Media Centre earlier today, they were able to make an additional tweak to their method, by adding a shot of caffeine to the mix.

The idea of using caffeine came from previous experiments they had performed with monkey eggs. Caffeine inhibits certain protein phosphatase enzymes that are involved in the degradation of “maturation promoting factor (MPF)”, a factor that is essential for controlling the cell cycle machinery in the egg.”

It is worth noting that they found that while they could produce embryonic stem cell lines using this technique, macaque embryos created using it failed to develop normally when implanted into female macaques, indicating that while this technique is viable for therapeutic cloning it cannot be used for reproductive cloning.

Professor Mitalipov discusses the first macaque stem cells produced through cloning in 2007.

The potential uses for stem cells produced through this therapeutic cloning technique are myriad; the fact that you can take a person’s own adult cells and convert then into pluripotent cells that can differentiate into any cell type makes them ideal for many transplant purposes, ranging from bioengineered replacement tissues to genetically engineered cell transplants to cure inherited disorders, and of course stem cells created from cloned adult cells from people with a wide range of diseases can be used to create a huge range of in vitro disease models to improve our understanding of the biological process at work and hasten the development of new therapies.

Of course there is already another technology that allows scientists to reprogram cells to a pluripotent state, in 2006 induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell technology burst onto the scene and quickly became the methodology of choice for many stem cell researchers, with the first clinical trial in human patients expected to start later this year. Has human therapeutic cloning missed the boat?  In an excellent commentary in Nature News on today’s announcement David Cyranoski points out that there is evidence (from studies comparing  SCNT with iPS cells in mice) that cells produced through SCNT are more completely reprogrammed to an embryonic state than iPS cells. So, it is likely that each technique will have its advantages and disadvantages depending on the goal of the research…and in scientific research it is always a good idea to have more than one horse in the race.

We congratulate Professor Mitalipov and his colleagues at OHSU on another stunning scientific achievement, one that will advance medicine, and no doubt be read about by students for many years to come!

Speaking of Research

(1) Tachibana M. et al. “Human Embryonic Stem Cells Derived by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer” Cell, published online 15 May 2013 DOI:10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.006

2) Byrne J.A. et al. “Producing primate embryonic stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer.” Nature. 2007 Nov 22;450(7169):497-502. PubMed:18004281

Statement on Harvard’s Decision to Close the New England Primate Research Center

Speaking of Research is saddened to learn about Harvard’s decision to wind down operations at the New England Primate Research Center (NEPRC) within the next two years.

Over the years the Primate Center has contributed important discoveries in many fields, including AIDS, Parkinson’s disease, primate retroviruses, addiction, cardiology and stem cells.

The University cited difficult financial times and shifting long-term strategic plans as the reason for the closing.  Meanwhile animal right activists groups fought among themselves to take credit for Harvard’s decision.

Perhaps a combination of both, the planned closure is a reflection of decreasing Federal support for medical research and a growing anti-scientific movement in the United States and elsewhere.

In Harvard’s decision one can find many lessons for the scientific community, NIH and the public at large, which are likely to be the subject of debate and discussion in the near future. The wider research community will need work together with faculty and staff at NEPRC to ensure that Harvard Medical school keeps to its commitment to provide full support to them during this transition, so that vital research programs and gifted personnel are not lost to science.

For now Speaking of Research join others in expressing our surprise and disappointment at these developments, and offer our support for the scientists, staff and others affected by these events.

Speaking of Research

Pro-Test Italia in Milan: A silver lining to a grey cloud

In December 2012 we reported that scientists in Italy had founded Pro-Test Italia to counter the rising tide of ignorance and intimidation that threatens the future of science in Italy. Last weekend we heard about a new animal rights outrage in Italy.  As reported in Nature News, activists broke into the Department of Pharmacology in the University of Milan on Saturday, where they wrecked valuable research projects before leaving with over a hundred mice, rats and rabbits. On previous occasions the response from the scientific community to such raids and theft in Italy has been lacklustre at best, but this time things would be different . Our colleagues in Pro-Test Italia take up the story.

Scientists take to the streets of Milan!

Scientists take to the streets of Milan!

On Saturday the 20th of April, a national rally against “vivisection” took place in Milan, with about 200 people participating. Just before the rally’s beginning, 5 animal rights activists posted on the “Coordinamento Fermare Green Hill” (Coordination to stop Green Hill) Facebook page announcing that they had forced entry inside the Pharmacology Department of Milan’s University. Those activists barricaded themselves inside the animal facilities, tying chains both around their necks and around the doors’ handles to prevent police from breaking in.

They demanded that every animal in the facilities should be released in their hands – about a thousand rats and seventeen rabbits; meanwhile they removed the animals’ tags, rendering them effectively useless and throwing away years of research about Parkinson’s, Multiple sclerosis, autism and such. In an effort to prevent injuries to the people involved, the director of the department started negotiations that ended with the release of the activists from the department. The activists got to take away with them about a hundred mice and rats and a rabbit, with the promise that even more animals released into their hands in the following days. Of course at that point the animals were already useless for research.

Meanwhile, the “anti-vivisection” rally reached the building, and started throwing names at the researchers, calling them “Killers” and “Monsters”.

CNR Researchers in an open letter speak of serious damages. “It’s hard to quantify the damage, but it will be in the order of hundreds of thousands of euros, and goes far beyond the removal of some animals because the activists removed tags from all of the cages: we cannot identify the animals any more, which means years of research have been thrown away, along with the funding.”

Bice Chini, researcher at the CNR Institute of Neuroscience, explained during an interview with La Repubblica why the damage isn’t only monetary.

Everyone expecting new remedies and cures for serious, deadly diseases, has been damaged. Years of studies have been lost, we are unable to determine the consequences this will have on research, namely how much it will be slowed down.”

Some of the animals that activists took away are genetically modified, and are precious models for some degenerative genetic diseases; researchers were hoping to observe these animals and understand the causes and workings of these pathologies, in order to create new treatments. “Sometimes years are needed to select the right animals to observe a specific disease’s development” says Francesco Scaglione, Pharmacology professor in Milan State University, during an interview with TV news La7 Cronache “When animals are studied, there is no useless suffering, and when they have to be euthanised, we always use anesthesia.”

This time the Italian scientific community raised its head. On Saturday afternoon our association, Pro-Test Italia, with help from the organization Federfauna - which supports the interests of people who work with animals - and the Facebook page “A Favore Della Sperimentazione Animale“, managed to get authority’s permission for a peaceful rally on Sunday morning in Milan. About 60 people, mostly students and young researchers, took part in the rally, wearing white coats and carrying banners in support of science and against bullying, ignorance and misinformation..

The first objective of the rally was information: participants were good mannered, never stooping down to insults, and explained to passers by why animal research is important and what makes this latest action by animal rights activists so despicable. A small group of said activists tried to disturb the peaceful rally, but with no success.

Our friends from OMG! Science, took part in the rally with us: they interviewed passers by many of whom did understand the gravity of Saturday’s actions by animal rights activists.

Our rally was reported both on a local (TG3 Regione) and national TV News (Tg1, La7 Cronache), and many leading Italian newspapers and press agencies also spoke of these events, including Corriere della SeraLa Repubblica, ANSA, La Stampa, Il Giornale and  Il Giorno. What has also been striking over the past few days is the volume of messages of support that we have received, and the many new likes on our FaceBook page, all of which shows how many Italians were waiting for somebody to stand up to animal rights extremism.

The biggest animal rights associations in Italy (such as LAV, ENPA, LeIDA) said nothing about Saturday’s activists crimes, and it’s not the first time they avoid condemning such acts. We can only wonder why.

Sunday was something of a milestone: for the first time members of the Italian scientific community took action against animal rights activists’ violence and criminal behavior, and we took part in our very first rally. We look at these brave young scientists and students with trust and expectation, hoping that things will now really start to change.

Pro-Test Italia

Update 13.55 BST, 23 April 2013- The Rector of the University of Milan has stated that there is no agreement between the University and the animal rights extremists, and that no more animals will be handed over to them by the depatement. This is welcome but not entirely surprising as to do so would violate animal welfare regulations – especially those governing the care of genetically modified animals.

Addendum: Pro-Test Italia have informed us that they will be holding another rally in Milan on Saturday June 1st, you can find the details on FaceBook!

Not All In It Together

In February of this year I got into an argument on the SR blog comments section about whether we should be taking an all or nothing approach to animal use. If we wanted to best support the use of animals in biomedical research, should we also be defending eating animals, hunting animals, cosmetic testing, fur farming, etc.

“I’ve been working to get people to understand that if they want their pet dogs, gerbils, monkeys, foxes, lions, or whatever, they had better be on the side of medical researchers, hunters including “canned” hunters, fur farmers, and all animal users”

I imagine that different readers of our blog will have diverse views on some of these things. Living in the UK there is not much of a culture of hunting (and can be seen as a pastime of the rich elite). Fox-hunting was banned in 2004, and other forms of hunting are banned or heavily regulated. I am also fully in support of the UK’s 1998 ban on cosmetic testing – I do not believe the harm to animals outweighs the benefits in this situation. On the other hand I eat meat, and do not feel morally in the wrong to do so (though I would say that medical research on animals has a stronger justification). I also believe that animal welfare should remain a priority in the food industry. In short, support some forms of animal use and not others.

So what was our commenter’s reasoning for his ‘all for one and one for all’ argument.

All that happens with that attitude is that they take us apart piece by piece. I am very much for cosmetics testing and fox hunting because if I give them the power to take those away, they have already come and taken away dog breeding and pet ownership.

This slippery slope argument makes no sense if you have reasons for supporting one activity and not the other. If you think there might be some logic in the above sentence, then consider this argument instead: “I am for bear baiting and dog fighting, because if I allow that to be taken away, they’ll ban owning pets”.

While it would be hard to ban pet ownership before banning animal research or hunting (or indeed bear-baiting; which is now banned), this is not an argument for keeping it. In other words, we should keep animal research because it is vitally important to medicine, NOT because it ensures pet ownership stays off the animal rights hit list.

The argument continued.

You’ve also given hunters, dog breeders, and exotic animal owners much less reason to support you and they will end up giving the extremists the power to take you out. Everyone must support everyone.

Well I couldn’t give a toss. They should support animal research because it may one day save their life, or the lives of those around them, not to save their own cause.

In the US, Great Ape research has been at the forefront of the scientific debate. Now personally, I’m not convinced of the arguments in favour of great ape research (aside from research aimed at conserving great apes from disease like Ebola) and I live in a country which has banned it (since 1986). Nonetheless, there are two types of arguments being had about Great Ape research. The first is a legitimate and important debate about whether  Great Apes are necessary research subjects, and whether the suffering caused is justified by medical advances that could not come any other way. The second is a meaningless (and thankfully much less used) argument that says “if they ban Great Ape research then later they’ll ban research on lower primates – which are really important to research”.  I’m afraid this second argument just doesn’t hold water.

Some Philosophy

I start by using a model used previously by Dario Ringach on another SR post. On the far left we have the Cartesian view that animals are automaton who cannot feel pain in any way, at the other end we have absolute animal rights whereby animals have right to land and liberty – so at its absolute limit you couldn’t displace a worm to build a house.

animal welfare model of animal research

Now let’s modify it slightly by cutting off the ends.

animal welfare model of animal research 1.5

You don’t have to travel far from the Cartesian view before the idea that an animal has no more moral importance than a brick doesn’t hold true. So we have a cut off there; to the left is the do-what-you-want-to-animals zone; and to the right is the balance-suffering-and-benefit zone. So everything to the right of that split allows the idea that animals have a level of moral consideration (more consideration as you move rightwards). On the right hand side, we have a cut off further away from the end. Everything cut off on the animal rights side fundamentally says you cannot use an animal for the benefit of a human. There is still some gradation of views between “leave-the-animal-completely-alone” to “carry-out-tests-on-an-animal-to-save-that-specific-animal” (obviously this is without consent, thus why it is further away from pure animal rights views).

Between the two splits is a region where animal research is permissible in principle, but would need some level of cost-benefit analysis before it could be carried out.

Let us look a bit deeper.

animal welfare model of animal research 2

Now the whole area marked by the no-entry sign is what Dario described as the “forbidden zone”. We know animals can suffer and so cutting open monkeys without anaesthetic is clearly a no-no. Similarly using ten thousand monkeys to make another common cold remedy is a no-no – the moral balance doesn’t make sense. Similarly bear baiting is clearly in this forbidden zone since it treats animals as having minimal moral worth.

Most researchers’ views will be in the blue arrow region. At one end some would agree you could do invasive and potentially painful surgery on many animals for some small human benefit (e.g. new indigestion treatment). At the other end would suggest that, perhaps, only a few mice could be used, if no pain was expected, in order to find a cure of cancer.

In truth, regulations probably mean that what some researchers and members of the public would find acceptable (the far left of the blue arrow) is not allowed. For example, in the UK, cosmetic testing would probably come at the far end of the blue arrow (so some people find it acceptable, others do not) yet regulations do not permit it. The same might be said for fox hunting. Food production’s position on the line would depend on the animal welfare considerations it was done under.

The green arrow would be the views of an animal rights advocate. Few exist right at the far right end (where, say, you couldn’t take a medicine to kill a tapeworm), but few will cross the gap into suggesting that we have a right to use animals in testing (and those that do probably shouldn’t be considered animal rights activists).

What can clearly be seen is that there is no “middle ground” where both sides generally agree. No matter how many improvements are made in animal welfare, they will never agree to animal research, or eating meat.

As someone who supports animal welfare and animal research we are not all in it together. I am not “in it” with those who care little for animal welfare. Neither am I “in it” with those who believe animals have rights.

Tom Holder

Treating Progeria; How GM mice give hope to some very special children

Something big is going on right now in the world of research.

Something very specific for some very special children with a very rare disease. It may not be widely known by name but I am sure you have seen these children. The disease is called Progeria. From the Progeria Research Foundation’s website, we learn:

Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome “Progeria” or “HGPS” is a rare, fatal genetic condition characterized by an appearance of accelerated aging in children*.  Its name is derived from Greek and means “prematurely old.”  While there are different forms of Progeria, the classic type is Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome, which was named after the doctors who first described it in England: in 1886 by Dr. Jonathan Hutchinson, and in 1897 by Dr. Hastings Gilford.

Progeria affects approximately 1 in 4 – 8 million newborns.  There are an estimated 200-250 children living with Progeria worldwide at any one time.  It affects both sexes equally and all races.  Since The Progeria Research Foundation was created in 1999, we have discovered children with Progeria living in over 40 countries.”

Most of us will have come across a picture of one of these children in the papers, on TV, or on the internet. We remember them because they look different from other kids their age. If you ever get the privilege to chat with them, you will find that are some of the wisest people you will ever meet. To speak with them is truly inspiring because of their personalities and outlook on life. It is also heart wrenching because we know most will never reach their twenties.

About eight years ago I was working as a veterinary technician in a research facility. During that time a new investigator moved his lab into our facility, and we received his colony of mice a few weeks before he arrived. After we had cared for the mice for a few days, we started to see some very strange things. The weanlings were sometimes very small, and occasionally they were also thin. It was strange to see mice that were so young but  looked like such old men. The reason was simple, these mice had been genetically modified to carry the same defective Lamin A gene that is responsible for Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome in children. The ‘sick’ mice we saw were actually mice with Progeria!”

GM mice aided the development of a therapy for Progeria

GM mice aided the development of a therapy for Progeria

Several years later Dr. Stephen G. Young and colleagues at UCLA  published a study that detailed what they found within this small population of mice (1). Once a GM model of mice had been developed, cells from these mice were studied (2). When a farnesyltransferase inhibitor  was used in vitro on these cells, it showed this drug was a possible treatment for this terrible disease. Once this was learned, they went on to the next step which was to test farnesyltransferase inhibitor in vitro on cells from actual Progeria patients (3). When these studies looked very promising, confirming that the process occurring in the mouse and human cells were very similar, the GM mice were once again indispensable for the first in vivo study to determine if farnesyltransferase inhibitors could improve the health of mice with Progeria (1). This is the part that cannot be replicated by any calculations, test tube chemicals or computer programs. Without in vivo studies, it is impossible to know what a treatment will do in a living creature. The mice that were born with Progeria were given a farnesyltransferase inhibitor. Would they get better or would they stay the same? Once the study was complete, all results were compared and this therapy looked very promising indeed!

Professor Young gave a talk on his progeria research to the Congressional Medical Research Caucus in 2009, in which he discusses his group’s GM mouse studies in much more detail, and you can watch the video here.

From there, a drug needed to be developed that could be evaluated in children with Progeria. This is a process that can often take many years, but fortunately some farnesyltransferase inhibitors designed as cancer treatments looked promising (see more about it here). lonafarnib was selected for clinical trials in progeria because it had already been assessed in pediatric cancer clinical trials where it had a demonstrated an acceptable safety profile. This is how decades of drug development happened in less than 10 years.

Researchers were able to move many steps ahead, much closer to the Progeria clinical trials that were needed. Remember, the one thing these children do not have is time. They grow old and die, sometimes as young as seven, and very rarely live past twenty. Most die in their teens. If a completely new drug had been needed, nearly every child alive with the disease that day would have passed away by the time it was ready for a clinical trial.

I think it is very important to explain briefly genetic disease and the role GM play in finding treatments and cures. Francis Collins is a well known and oft cited geneticist and physician, and currently Director of the National Institutes of Health, who gave a TED talk in April 2012 about this very topic.  Dr. Collins has long been interested in Progeria, he led the team that first identified defects in the Lamin A gene as a cause of Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome in 2003, and later in 2008 published a study that examine the effect of farnesyltransferase inhibitors on cardiac defects in a mouse model of Progeria (cardiac defects are the most common cause of death in children with Progeria).


At the most basic, a genetic disease is caused when there is a faulty gene somewhere in the genetic code. While the *reason* the gene is broken may be a mystery, there are roughly 4,000 genetic diseases that scientists at least know what gene is causing the problem, which is the case for Progeria. Scientists know what is causing the problem, but how do you fix it? Dr. Collins has a vision of accelerating the transition from the bench to the bedside, and the example of progeria shows that one of best tools for finding the treatments and cures is Genetically Modified mice. Our GM mice.

In the case with Progeria, researchers were able to create the same disease in mice that was found in humans, effectively mirroring the disease. By doing this, they are able to study not just the disease itself, but study treatments on a live organism with the disease. With GM mice, researchers are able to find treatments and cures at an unprecedented pace. As Dr. Mark Kieran, who led the first clinical trial of  lonafarnib to treat progeria (4), said:

PRF (Progeria Research Foundation)provides a model for disease research organizations, and is a good example of successful translational research, moving from gene discovery to clinical treatment at an unprecedented pace,”

There are over 4,000 genetic diseases known to us right now, yet only 250 of them have treatments. If we can find help for these people so quickly, why are there so few cures? One reason is that in many cases there are still no mouse model available to study. In our case of Progeria, a mouse model of the disease was developed which sped up research by years or even decades. Without GM mice, this treatment would not be available now. Progeria clinical trials moved very quickly compared to most treatments and it was announced in September of 2012. Finally, these children had a treatment! While this is not a cure, it is a huge step forward. With early diagnosis and treatment, these children have a much better chance at a normal life!

Because of the extremely rare occurrence of this disease, these children can be hard to find, especially in less developed countries where they may have never seen this disease before. In 2009, the Progeria Research Foundation  (PRF)launched the “Find the Other 150” campaign. As of September 2012, they were aware of 96 of the estimated 200-250 children living with Progeria. If you are aware of any of these children, please visit www.FindTheOther150.org to find information on how to participate in future studies.

I have spent nearly a decade in this field now. I will always remember those mice and those children. To see a treatment developed and to even have played a small part it helping it happen is humbling. Will I make headlines? No. Will my name ever be in a published paper? Probably not. Will I make millions off any of the discoveries I participate it? Never. I went into this field knowing full well I will never get rich or retire early and wealthy. That is not why I am here.  I choose to do what I do because of people out there like these Progeria kids. I do this for them, and all the millions of cancer patients out there like my late husband. I do this so we can find a cure.

And to know I had even a tiny part in making that cure happen, that, is priceless.

Pamela Bass

1)  Yang SH, Meta M, Qiao X, Frost D, Bauch J, Coffinier C, Majumdar S, Bergo MO, Young SG, Fong LG.”A farnesyltransferase inhibitor improves disease phenotypes in mice with a Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome mutation.” J Clin Invest. 2006 Aug;116(8):2115-21

2)  Yang SH, Bergo MO, Toth JI, Qiao X, Hu Y, Sandoval S, Meta M, Bendale P, Gelb MH, Young SG, Fong LG.”Blocking protein farnesyltransferase improves nuclear blebbing in mouse fibroblasts with a targeted Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome mutation.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jul 19;102(29):10291-6. Epub 2005 Jul 12.

3) Toth JI, Yang SH, Qiao X, Beigneux AP, Gelb MH, Moulson CL, Miner JH, Young SG, Fong LG. “Blocking protein farnesyltransferase improves nuclear shape in fibroblasts from humans with progeroid syndromes.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Sep 6;102(36):12873-8. Epub 2005 Aug 29.

4) Gordon LB, Kleinman ME, Miller DT, Neuberg DS, Giobbie-Hurder A, Gerhard-Herman M, Smoot LB, Gordon CM, Cleveland R, Snyder BD, Fligor B, Bishop WR, Statkevich P, Regen A, Sonis A, Riley S, Ploski C, Correia A, Quinn N, Ullrich NJ, Nazarian A, Liang MG, Huh SY, Schwartzman A, Kieran MW. “Clinical trial of a farnesyltransferase inhibitor in children with Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 9;109(41):16666-71. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1202529109. Epub 2012 Sep 24.

IVF pioneer Sir Robert Edwards dies aged 87

We are saddened to learn that IVF pioneer Professor Sir Bob Edwards has died at the age of 87, following a long illness. The University of Cambridge announced his death earlier today, noting that through his work Professor Edwards had improved the lives of millions of people around the world. Speaking about his former colleague, Professor Martin Johnson, Emeritus Professor of Reproductive Science at the University of Cambridge noted that Professor Bob was not only a scientific pioneer, but recognized the importance of explaining your research to the public:

Bob Edwards was a remarkable man who changed the lives of so many people. He was not only a visionary in his science but also in his communication to the wider public about matters scientific in which he was a great pioneer.”

Professor Sir Robert Edwards, Nobel Laureate and IVF pioneer

Professor Sir Robert Edwards, Nobel Laureate and IVF pioneer

With his colleague Dr Patrick Steptoe, Professor Edwards performed the first human in-vitro fertilization procedure, which resulted the birth of Louise Joy Brown in 1978.  35 years later more than 4 million children have been born through IVF around the world, and in 2010 Professor Edwards was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine “for the development of in vitro fertilization”. Unfortunately, as the University of Cambridge statement notes, Professor Edwards was already in poor health when the prize was announced.

The developments for which Edwards and Steptoe were responsible attracted much publicity, some of it, not least from the Vatican, highly critical.

Formal recognition therefore came late, but when it did come, it was decisive, with the award of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 2010 ‘for the development of in vitro fertilization.”

For Professor Edwards the Nobel Prize came late, but for his colleague Dr. Steptoe, who had predeceased him in 1988, it came too late. Dr. Steptoe was not alone in this. When Professor Edwards was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2010 we published a blog post welcoming the award and discussing the key contribution of animal research to the development of IVF, noteing that Dr. Min Chueh Chang – whose studies in rodents and rabbits led directly to the techniques used by Professor Edwards and Dr. Steptoe – was also denied a share in the 2010 Nobel prize as he had died in 1991. Knowing this adds to the poignancy of a moment when we remember the achievements of some of the greatest scientists of the 20th century.

Today our thoughts are with Professor Edwards’ family, friends and colleagues, but we also remember those other scientists and surgeons who worked with him to usher in a revolution in medical care that has brought happiness to millions of people across the globe.

Speaking of Research