Let's tone down the sensationalism. My heart beat started to race as I read the chimera article and I am a biologist who works with this stuff all the time. Half of that article was full of things sexed up to sound so much scarier than they really are. The most accurate line was how timid our current mixes have been. The majority of medical/biology breakthroughs are scary. Thirty years ago when we started to clone individual genes and put human and mouse genes into bacteria to replicate more copies it sounded scary and unnatural. So did the idea of blood transfusions. When people don't understand science they have a hard time trusting the people who do to stay in control and within ethical bounds. Tough. I don't understand the economy but I don't spend tons of time freaking out about new and scary financial derivatives created on wall street but those are honestly more likely to actually effect our well being than the vast majority of biomedical research. Why not worry? There are people who do that, who are passionate about it, and my uneducated opinion probably wouldn't bring much insight on the matter.

By the way, the scary hamster cells that are being used to make an anemia treatment-- they are just a factory. Why is it so much scarier to inject something made by a hamster cell than from a purely chemical process. Both are quality controlled to make sure that what is in the drug is exactly what was intended, nothing less, nothing more. How do you know? Well, there are smart, passionate, properly educated people who make sure and if they don't we punish them and their corporation.

Right! I agree with you completely.

The point is were are not evolved from animals, not at all. We ARE animals, human animals with our own set of genes and our own DNA. We aren't horses or dogs, pigs or chimps or chickens. We are animals, like the Sun Caw on my shoulder. Humans, yes, but we are no more or less than any other animal you might care to name. We happen to be the top of the intelligence chain, and we must use our intelligence to tackle the problems we face. If we find a way to defeat some disease by using our brains to make hamptsters or pigs or horses produce the medicines we need, we win. Okey, it's perhaps a moral question should that require the death of the hampster, pig or horse, but then we have a contract with those spieces that they will not go extinct, thoght individuials may be sacrifaced. Just like our contract with steaks and pork chops and Kentucky Fried Chicken... but I won't give you my pet Sun Caw or my dog.

Contrary but not contradictory points can be true, and in this case are true: that we haven't gone very far, and that we have very sound -- probably inexorable -- reasons to go further, and that it's scary. That's why I explicitly said this is NOT the work of mad scientists; it's the logical direction of research. Scary doesn't mean wrong. It just means scary.

>>By the way, the scary hamster cells that are being used to make an anemia treatment-- they are just a factory.<<

Just a factory that may contain a viruses or prions that can be co-purified with the intended product and injected into the drug/vaccine recipient. There are several know iatrogenic diseases that make your confidence in scientist always knowing what they are doing highly dubious. Your blood transfusion example is a good example. Before blood was routinely tested for HCV 100s of thousands of people became infected from transfusion for operations that weren’t life threatening.

is why epidemiologists studying things like cross-species infection of variant strains aren't in apoplectics about this.

Don't you see the potential for potentially catastrophic problems in this area?

honestly, for the most part, as an immunologist I don't see much potential for catastrophe. bugs that can cross species are actually much less common than those that do. The natural world/environment where selection (ie evolutionary pressure) applies is where bugs that cross species are born, not the lab. Think about it, to cross species a bug must mutate in multiple ways, this happens when there is a large reservoir of both species exposed to each other's bodily fluids-- something we REALLY try to avoid in the lab, not so much when you're housing chickens under your hut and you don't have money for shoes. Plus, extreme care is taken to keep lab animals free of all pathogenic infections and animals are closely monitored and rapidly culled whenever things do get into the colony.

We have already decided humans aren't going to be given cells contaminated with animal cells as treatments. Other than that, things made in animal cells are purified. Precautions are taken.

So, because it's uncommon for a bug to cross the species barrier we shouldn't worry? By your reasoning it should be safe to make a classic vaccine in a monkey brain, right?

Yeah, well, I'm certainly no immunologist. I'm thinking I can predict the storyline of Michael Crichton's next novel, though. Think I could whip something out and beat him to the punch? Doubtful - its probably already at the publisher's.

Somehow I'm thinking this doesn't enhance my credibility a whit.

Cross-contamination with primates occurs far more often than, say, with avians, because of the degree of genetic similarity, right? Also, an infection may be pathogenic in one species but relatively benign in another, right? My concern is that lowering the bar of cross-species contamination might prove problematic even without the large populations interacting with each other, with free exchange of body fluids. While I understand there are appropriate safeguards in place, it does occur to me that in this big wide wonderful world of ours, should this activity become relatively commonplace, both laxness and abuse are more likely inevitable than predictable.

If genetic relatedness isn't an issue, then why all the focus on primates for cross-species infection?

[When people don't understand science they have a hard time trusting the people who do to stay in control and within ethical bounds. Tough. I don't understand the economy but I don't spend tons of time freaking out about new and scary financial derivatives created on wall street but those are honestly more likely to actually effect our well being than the vast majority of biomedical research. Why not worry? There are people who do that, who are passionate about it, and my uneducated opinion probably wouldn't bring much insight on the matter.]

Okay, let's think this thing through a minute. We the people would never let the financial "experts" just do whatever they wanted and trust them to do what's ethical, fair, and good for society. We hem them in with all kinds of rules, regulations, and oversight by the public. No one would dream of saying that just because they CAN do something, it automatically means they SHOULD.

I fail to see why this is any different. Sure, the Syphillis experiments on blacks in the '70's were carried out by scientists and professionals. That didn't mean that we the people shouldn't have put a stop to it. Being an expert and a proffessional in your field is no guarrantee that you are ethical or even a decent human being. Society has not only the right, but the obligation, to provide oversight of science.

If people have concerns about biological experiments, explain WHY they are harmless, or the good outweighs the harm. But spare me this patronizing nonsense about how we commoners couldn't possibly understand what the experts are doing and have no role in deciding what should and should not be allowed. Yes we do. It's our country.

"When people don't understand science they have a hard time trusting the people who do to stay in control and within ethical bounds. Tough!"

See, the problem isn't with people who “stay in control.” It is those who are so arrogant they think that they are in control; that is really scary and where the true problem arises. As was pointed out previously regarding economics, the good folks in charge of Enron thought that they were in control too. And while financial woes can certainly hurt folks, it won’t spread like biologicals have the potential to do. True, chances are pretty small that such a thing would or could ever happen, but they’re not “zero” as any good scientist would have to agree to. And seeing arrogance on the part of those doing the research…well, events like Tuskegee do come to mind pretty quickly. It’s a lot easier to trust people to “stay in control and within ethical bounds” if they at least pretend like they care about such things…”tough” is an unacceptable answer to these questions.

When Salk made the first polio vaccine using Vero cells I'm sure he and the regulators thought it would be safe. It was later learned those cells contained the SV40 virus, which was not always completely inactivated with the formalin viral inactivation treatment. Currently SV40 has been implicated in causing cancer by suppressing the tumor-suppressor p53. The arrogance of those on this thread asking to be trusted, especially the immunologist that should know better, is baffling.

Your answer to those of us who don't perfectly trust scientists to be ethically and morally pure in all this is "tough"?

Let me summarize my view of your position. That's simply not good enough. Scientists are not some elite class. Nor are they inherently wise and sage in their judgments. They are people of whom we should be exceedingly skeptical.

Why? Because skepticism is pure and right in this instance. Every single human being ought to smirk and mock scientists at every point. Scientists may be on the cutting edge of medical breakthroughs and so forth. But until they stand on absolutely solid ground, every thought, every word, every proposition should be frightening to them, more than to us. We should hold them accountable to an enormous degree. If they fail at any point, scientists should be labeled as quacks, shysters, and idiots, and publicly mocked. That way they might begin weighing the significance of their findings, and seeing their true value in its valid light...

how many people died of polio, how many people died of SV40 contaminated polio vaccine, nuf said.

ok, tough was harsh, but my point is really that this is a technical field that is already heavily regulated by scientific review boards with scientific experts, bioethicists, and lay members. the article throws all this "scary" stuff out there but barely gives a whif of how can and should are separated and public safety is 99.9999999999999999% assured. the cutting edge of biomedical treatments are always inherently dangerous as they have not been tested but standard practice is (for many people) to weigh how much danger the patient is in from disease and how much danger there is from the treatment.

as for rogue infectious agents breaking into the community due to scientific, purely in the lab experiments, which is the VAST majority of what was talked about in the article, there are so many safe guards to keep our experimental animal colonies free of infection. Barriers, gown up, gloves, bleach (really enough bleach kills almost anything but a prion and as long as you don't eat or inject yourself with prion you are OK.) and we never eat anything that has been in contact with our animals: first cause that is gross, and second because it is against the rules. also we try our damnest to never inject ourselves with stuff for self preservation reasons.

Don't you wonder how those scientists study HIV, flu, every bug under the sun and with the exception of cases so rare as to not be epidemiologically significant don't manage to infect themselves much less anyone else.

You want to worry about an infectious agent, worry about getting HIV from a sexual partner or the flu from the guy next to you on the plane, not some lab created super infection.

true the consequences of an economic disaster are considered less dangerous (whether that is true or not I'll leave for another day). However, there are extensive regulatory committees that review all non-standard practices and new techniques before they ever start.

as for tuskegee, that was clearly against the hippocratic oath and the problem was not giving some bad treatment but NO TREATMENT AT ALL.

honestly, scientists do care, but we don't appreciate articles that go all Micheal Crichton without even mentioning the extensive regulations (and checks to make sure regulations are being compiled with) that are in place already.

DocMWood:

"When people don't understand science they have a hard time trusting the people who do to stay in control and within ethical bounds. Tough!"

See, the problem isn't with people who “stay in control.” It is those who are so arrogant they think that they are in control; that is really scary and where the true problem arises. As was pointed out previously regarding economics, the good folks in charge of Enron thought that they were in control too. And while financial woes can certainly hurt folks, it won’t spread like biologicals have the potential to do. True, chances are pretty small that such a thing would or could ever happen, but they’re not “zero” as any good scientist would have to agree to. And seeing arrogance on the part of those doing the research…well, events like Tuskegee do come to mind pretty quickly. It’s a lot easier to trust people to “stay in control and within ethical bounds” if they at least pretend like they care about such things…”tough” is an unacceptable answer to these questions.