Nature's Answer to Extinction

       

One of the key issues Emily Anthes Brings up in her book Frankenstein's Cat is the possible extinction of certain species due loss of natural habitats and over-exploitation. She states that almost a quarter of mammalian species, 1 in 3 amphibians species, and 1 in 8 bird species are at risk of extinction. (Anthes, p.80) Scientists have now turned to cloning to help with this massive extinction problem. Although recent attempts at cloning small cats have been successful, behind the scenes, cloning is a very long and more often than not unsuccessful process. It seems that reproductive technology is in need of help from other fields to solve the problems it cannot tackle alone.

        

So could there be another way for helping solve this extinction problem? In the article, “Hola, Olinguito! The Smithsonian Discovers a New Mammal” by Bryan Walsh, there seems to be a possible answer. The article is about the discovery of a new mammalian species, "a raccoon-like olinguito". While studying the olingos, which are native to Central and South America, Smithsonian zoologist Kristofer M. Helgen discovered numerous olingo specimens which did not fit the normal description of olingos. With the help of Roland Kays of the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences and C. Miguel Pinto of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, the new species was identified, sharing only 90% of its DNA with nearby olingos. (Walsh, p. 1)

                                    Image by: Mark Gurney

       

Walsh states that such discoveries of new species could be a victory for the scientists fighting extinction, because there still seems to be a lot we haven't discovered about the world. And comparing these efforts of identifying and preserving new species with the cloning efforts, it seems that he may be right. Although reproductive technology is promising, it doesn't solve genetic-diversity problems (Anthes, p. 93). The low diversity in species at risk of extinction makes them more susceptible to serious genetic diseases caused by generations of interbreeding. Creating duplicates of these animals in need of genetic diversity is counterproductive. The discovery of new species, however, can solve that problem without interfering with the species' natural reproduction habits. 

        If reproductive technology (creating more of the species needed), is combined with other efforts such as identifying and preserving new species (potentially solving problems faced by reproductive technology), we may have a better shot at reducing the extinction rates to a manageable level. With new species being discovered more often, it seems that nature itself is posing possible solutions for extinction.

Resources:

Anthes, Emily. Frankenstein's Cat: Cuddling Up to Biotech's Brave New Beasts. New York: Scientific American / Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2013. Print. 

Walsh, Bryan. "Hola, Olinguito! The Smithsonian Discovers a New Mammal". Time. 15 Aug, 2013. Web. 10 Oct, 2013. 
http://science.time.com/2013/08/15/hola-olinguito-the-smithsonian-discovers-a-new-mammal/

Biotechnology is the new GATTACA

          What we learn from Emily Anthes' Frankenstein's Cat: Cuddling up to Biotech's Brave New Beasts, is that humans are always fascinated by what the next new trend will be. Usually that calls for whatever is aesthetically pleasing to the public. With technological advances becoming more prevalent, we have turned the necessity of technology into a commodity that can be broken and replaced because it isn't as good as the next new update. It is ironic when you realize that animals have been put on the same scale as the next new technological upgrade. Thereby sacrificing it's "intrinsic value"... and limiting them to "instrumental value, treating them as mere tools to be resources to be tapped" (Anthes 41).  It is interesting however, that idea of eugenics in animals, stemmed from eugenics of humans. 

                                                                            
                                                    Picking out the child you want is more or less like grocery shopping.

          According to the article Human testing, the Eugenics Movement and IRBs  by Dr. Karen Norrgard, the term Eugenics was first coined by British Scientist Francis Galton in 1869, meaning "well born". By assembling "biographical information from obituaries and other sources, [he] constructed pedigrees of leading English families, concluding that superior intelligence and abilities were inherited with an efficacy of 20% (Norrgard). His work allowed him to theorize that humanity could be improved by "encouraging the fittest members of society to have more children" (Norrgard). This seemingly plausible theory caused one of the most infamous forms of eugenics recorded in history. 

                                                                                 
                                                                                 Let's measure your genetics.

          The 1997 sci-fi movie Gattaca paid close attention to the theme of eugenics forged by Galton, making this fiction seem too far away to be reality. The story is of a society which analyzes DNA and determines where you belong in life. Because the main character was born with a congenital heart condition, his intrinsic value as a person was less important than that of an athlete, removing his opportunity to travel in space. By assuming an identity from an athlete, the main character uses it to his advantage to live his dreams but must also face the threat of being caught and having his real identity exposed. This sci-fi flick was far from fiction because it brought to light the events history that were rooted in eugenics.  
          In 1933, Nazi Germany issued the Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases. This law allowed the government to involuntarily sterilize Germans who had known hereditary conditions or physical deformities in order to allow the advancement of the Aryan race (Norrgard). Continuing on through the remainder of the 1930s, the law progressed into a race hygiene program that was implemented to euthanize those exhibiting physical and mental deformities (Norrgard). Eventually this policy led to the Holocaust in which millions of Jews were murdered. It is interesting how this movie was almost satirical, criticizing science for reducing the populous in terms of it's worth.
          Because we have learned from history, the 1940's presented a solution that would end human eugenics. The Nuremberg trials which later formed the Nuremberg Codes in 1947 "provided guidelines for research that....require ...informed consent and adherence to strict policies aimed at protecting the welfare of [human] subjects" (Norrgard). Furthermore, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) gives impartial reviews and criticisms over human trials that occur today (Norrgard). Sadly, these sanctions were not put in place to help animals, therefore allowing allowing "genetic engineering... to exploit other species for new reasons and in new ways, expanding our supply of creature commodities (Anthes 36).  This has caused selective breeding within animal species, to produce the best outcome for the owner. Although it can be done naturally by the means of reproduction, scientists have challenged the idea of letting nature take its course by breeding species that divert from nature altogether, with some species defying evolutionary tales.

                                                                                 
                                                                                     Human-animal hybrid
     
         Pharm animals have slowly become popular since scientists have been able to insert human genes in animals in hopes of creating medicinal cures. This  discovery has formed what is called human-animal chimeras which "have cells that come from two different species (Anthes 45). The argument can be made that this form of animal eugenics has given us insight on major scientific discoveries that has allowed us to evolve. But Anthes states that many argue this is a threat to our uniqueness because it harms the dignity of humans. It is interesting how we don't hear it being a threat to that of animal dignity (Anthes 45- 46). Our own evolution requires that "pets are products" because "we have long desired creature companions tailored to our exact specifications." (Anthes 18, 16). The federal Animal Welfare Act doesn't come to the aid of animals either, unless said animal is experiencing pain or neglect, with the latter applying to dogs specifically (Anthes 72). In essence, the continuous use of human eugenics has lessened over the years, with animal eugenics on the rise. It seems that it will not be slowing down any time soon either.

References:

Anthes, E. (2013). "Got Milk?" Frankenstein's Cat: Cuddling up to Biotech's Brave New Beasts. (pp. 16-45). New York: Scientific American/Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Norrgard, K. (2008). "Human Testing, the Eugenics Movement, and IRBs." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group. Retrieved October 10, 2013 from http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/human-testing-the-eugenics-movement-and-irbs-724

Neuroscience Evidence in the Courtroom

Neuroscience evidence in the courtroom is becoming more and more common.  This is leading to apprehension on the part of both  neuroscientists and law professionals.  What is the hesitation for neuroscience evidence being used?  Dr. Deborah Denno has conducted research attempting to answer this question.

Some may suggest that neuroscience evidence will allow men or women who are a danger to society the ability to walk free as innocent because they are found mentally unfit and cannot be tried fairly.  This is a reasonable fear for anybody to have.  However, Dr. Denno has found this to be overwhelmingly false.  It is just one of the many unfounded fears of neuroscience evidence in the courtroom.  Neuroscience evidence is used most often for the mitigation of a sentence rather than for proving innocence or guilt.  Mitigation is simply lessening the sentence, usually from the death sentence to a lifetime sentence.  Denno also found that in only 50% of these cases was the evidence even accepted, yet facts such as, "his mother loves him" were acceptable.  This exemplifies Denno's main point throughout her talk.  There are many "unfounded fears" about neuroscience evidence in the courtroom.  Those in opposition have talked about brain scans creating a "Christmas tree" effect for the jurors, yet a bloodied t-shirt demonstrating the severity of an attack is allowed.

Those in opposition to neuroscience evidence suggest a scan such as this may be too "impressive-looking" for jurors and awe them into submission.  

What all of this unfounded fear does, argues Denno, is take attention away from flaws in other evidence used in the courtroom.  Eye-witness testimony, for example, is very unreliable, yet is commonly used in the courtroom.  Denno argues that we must move forward and move past these unfounded fears and create a way for neuroscience evidence to become accepted in the courtroom.

One way for this to happen may be fore those in both fields to learn more about the other, and for both to see how neuroscience evidence is applied.  Dr. Ruben Gur's talk explained how neuroscience evidence is commonly presented in the court of law.  Dr. Gur used his presentation as he would had he been presenting in a courtroom, with much less time to operate of course.  PET scans and MRI scans were presented. Dr. Gur referred to many trials he had been apart of, such as the infamous Ted Kaczynski.  He explained how he diagnosed the patients with schizophrenia or other neurological disorders in a simple manner and showed scans that supported his claims.  None of his presentation seemed like it would have a "Christmas tree" effect or that it would "wow" anyone into submission.  In some cases, he explained, defendants did not want to use the evidence themselves because they didn't believe it or were ashamed.  Gur's presentation was easy to follow, understand and convincing.  It seems hard to believe this type of a presentation would not be allowed in the courtroom, yet it is what many people fear.

After listening to both of these speakers I would have to agree with Denno's ending statement.  Both fields need to come together and attempt to move past these "unfounded fears" and bring neuroscience evidence unhampered into the court of law.     

African Wild Cat 

Extinct Pyrenean ibex

            

            

          

          The recent New York Times article written by Gina Kolata, “So You’re Extinct? Scientists Have Gleam in Eye,” discusses the ethics and outcomes of cloning extinct animals. As of today, the only extinct species that could be resurrected for a brief amount of time was the Pyrenean ibex, a mammal with the similar appearance of a large goat. Though the cloned species only lived for a few minutes, it gave rise to the possibly of bringing back other species that once roamed the Earth. Furthermore, due to some shortfalls in the process behind cloning that have yet to be adjusted for, scientists have come up with more direct methods of de-extinction in lieu of cloning. Cloning needs an intact cell directly from the species, which can create an issue if one wanted to bring back a woolly mammoth since the DNA is undoubtedly broken. However, to accommodate for the lack of intact DNA, one can “compare the DNA of the extinct species to that of a closely related existing species and then start substituting chunks of the extinct species’ DNA into DNA in the cells of the existing species,” (Kolata, 2). This will form hybrid cells, which will then be cloned, and after some time the animal will have a DNA sequence that is more similar to the extinct species. A major benefit of de-extinction is that it has the propensity to increase the biodiversity on our planet. If scientists were able to make elephants adaptable to the arctic by using parts of the woolly mammoth DNA, it could benefit the environment. When these prehistoric creatures roamed the arctic, they increased plant growth by pushing down trees allowing the native plant life to flourish. Permafrost has a lot of carbon build up, and these elephants would stomp on the snow, and it would improve the layer of land (Kolata 2-3). A negative aspect of cloning is that it directly alters laws like the Endangered Species Act, because developers can now freely destroy habitats of endangered animals. The issue would not be taken as seriously anymore since they can say we will pay for cloning the species (Kolata, 3). Although, cloning might compensate for the destruction of the species through de-extinctions, questions will still remain regarding whether the cloned animal can sustain itself in a new environment. Ethical questions brought up by Hank Greely, the director of the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University, ask are we as humans responsible for bringing back animals that we drove to extinction? (Kolata, 3). If resurrecting the extinct species is a means of delivering justice to these animals, then how far should we go? This then leads to classifying and prioritizing the extinct species we will first save, allocating sufficient funds, and finding time for this process. So who then should be responsible for financing this burden, because not everyone is responsible for their extinction.

            Discussed in the book, Frankenstein’s Cat Cuddling Up to Biotech’s Brave New Beasts, are issues related to genetically modified animals as well as cloning. The author, Emily Anthes, writes about the benefits and harms of using biotechnology. She visits the Audubon Center for Research of Endangered Species (ACRES) where she conducts an interview with the reproductive physiologist and director of ACRES, Dr. Betsy Dresser, to learn more about Dresser’s species survival efforts in repopulating a number of endangered species. She discusses how cloning can provide many advantages. For one, the DNA required for cloning comes from skin cells, which is much easier to acquire than other processes, and it can transmit the genes of old, infertile, and dead animals since no feasible sperm or egg is needed (Anthes, 84). Although cloning by itself would never save a species, Dr. Dresser says, “reproductive technology is an important piece of the puzzle,” (Anthes, 85). After may tries and losses, she was able to successfully clone Jazz, a three-year-old African wildcat through interspecies nuclear transfer. Similar to the resurrection methods for the Pyrenean ibex, egg donors and surrogate mothers have to be closely related to the species, and in order to create Jazz’s clone a domestic cat was used (Anthes 86). Both de-extinction and cloning may provide direct benefits as they can reintroduce extinct or endangered species back into the environment. At Yellowstone National Park, the gray wolf had become scarce in the 1920s, and the elk population vastly increased and there was more destruction to the vegetation. When wolves from Canada were reintroduced in the mid 1990s, the vegetation grew back since elk and wolf population were each at maintainable levels (Anthes, 91). This can also be related to reintroducing arctic elephants and the benefits it can give to the environment. This concept can be described as a ripple effect, where animal reintroduction can help restore equilibrium within the environment (Anthes, 90). Another advantage of cloning is that it conserves animal DNA from species that are not yet endangered, as it can preserve their cell diversity for future use. Through frozen zoos, we can store the DNA of many endangered species like birds, so that scientists can ultimately clone these organisms in the future once they have developed the appropriate techniques to do so. This can reintroduce extinct species or increase the population of endangered species. However, many ethical issues arise from cloning and resurrecting extinct animals.  Will reproducing once extinct animals do more harm than good for these animals? Anthes states that the world is different from when they roamed the Earth. Taking the woolly mammoth for instance, the Earth can no longer provide for them in the way it once could (Anthes, 98). Furthermore, it is stressed that cloning does not substitute for conservation of species, since it does not address the problems due to “habitat loss, poaching, pollution, and other human activities that put wildlife at risk in the first place,” (Anthes, 99). In the future, scientists may be able to engineer a method that can simultaneously clone an animal without these obstacles. 

References:

Anthes, E. (2013). Nine Lives. Frankenstein's Cat Cuddling Up to Biotech's Brave New   

            Beasts (pp. 80-101). New York City: Scientific American / Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kolata, G. (2013, March 18). So You’re Extinct? Scientists Have Gleam in Eye. The New

            York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Retrieved October 8, 2013,

            from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/science/earth/research-to-bring-back-

            extinct-frog-points-to-new-path-and-quandaries.html?ref=cloning&_r=0

Move over Charlotte—there’s a new kid in town: Genetically Modified Silk-Producing Goats

“The difference between utility and utility plus beauty is the difference between telephone wires and the spider web.”

 –Edwin Way Teale

The unlikely merging of goats and spiders [Credit: National Science Foundation]

Perhaps in no other creature has the dichotomy of human fascination and revulsion with the natural world been so pronounced as in the common spider. In the creation of such memorable characters as Shelob of Lord of the Rings and Aragog of Harry Potter, as well as rather more sympathetic portrayals like Charlotte of Charlotte’s Web, humans immortalize their bizarre love-hate relationship with spiders. These weird and wonderful creatures have long been the subject of intrigue for one primary reason—their incredible ability to spin webs from spider silk.

Even those who would happily have nothing to do with spiders can marvel at the gossamer beauty of a newly- spun spider web. Spider silk is stronger than steel, a property that has caused spiders to be the subject of intense study by bioengineers, who foresee its use in medical and military applications, as well as scientists who are determined to pave the way for a certain beloved arachnoid superhero (and actually may be well on their way to it). And it seems studies have paid off in one extraordinarily important and unexpected way: silk-producing goats.

According to a recent article from the Berkeley Science Review, past attempts to harvest spider silk have been hampered by the territoriality of spiders and the sheer tedium of gathering large numbers of spiders. Noting these difficulties, Randy Lewis, a molecular biologist at Utah State University, decided to place the gene that makes the protein responsible for producing dragline silk in goats, which they would then harvest from the goats’ milk. The researchers were successful—several of the transgenic goats were able to produce the protein with no other side effects.

Randy Lewis with a silk-producing goat kid

The article emphasizes the future benefits of such research. Spider silk can eventually become a cheaper and stronger alternative to Kevlar, especially due to its unique adhesion properties that allow it to hold up underwater, a discovery that may drastically change military technology as we know it. In a grander scheme, silk can potentially be used to suture wounds and, mind-bogglingly, even to build bridges.

In spite of these benefits, many question the ethics of using animals in scientific experiments. Are we justified in genetically modifying animals in such a manner, arrogantly "playing God" simply for our own gain? How do we draw the limits of such experimentation? The answer is a complex “troubled middle,” as Emily Anthes points out in her delightful and absorbing book Frankenstein’s Cat. She argues that the most ethical method is to evaluate each biotechnological application as it comes and to keep the best interests of the animals in mind through humane treatment. After all, there is no knowing what the possible future benefits are of such research. Indeed, the results of such studies could actually positively impact the very animals upon which we are experimenting. As Anthes states, “We’ve only scratched the surface of what’s possible.”

References:

Anthes, Emily. (2013). Frankenstein’s Cat: Cuddling Up to Biotech’s Brave New Beasts. New York, NY: Scientific American FSG. 

Boatman, Liz. (2012). “Bridges made of spider silk? You can thank the goats for that.” Berkeley Science Review. Retrieved from: http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/bridges-made-of-spider-silk-you-can-thank-the-goats-for-that/.

Keep your head on—examining the heated debate on the use of neuroscience in the courtroom

“A lawyer’s performance in the courtroom is responsible for about 25 percent of the outcome; the remaining 75 percent depends on the facts.” –Melvin Belli

Illustration courtesy of Brian Patterson.

The recent surge in the use of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom has caused an uproar in both the scientific community and in the nation at large. Many scientists decry the utilization of brain scans as a “dangerous distortion of science” and warn against all such use. Others argue that our understanding of neuroscience is still minimal and that it is too early to begin using such evidence in a practical way, especially in cases of life-and-death, as is often the case in criminal justice cases. Still others accuse neuroscientists of using powerful biological data to dazzle and sway naïve jurors and judges into supporting their position. Such arguments lead to the inevitable question—should neuroscientific findings be banned from the courtroom?

Not necessarily, argues psychologist Ruben Gur, who has testified in over thirty criminal cases throughout his career, including that of the infamous Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski. Gur uses PET scans to determine if the defendants have a form of mental illness, like schizophrenia, and is a strong proponent of using brain scans in the courtroom.  He contends that other forms of biological testimony, such as fingerprint analysis and DNA testing, are embraced in the courtroom. Why is neuroscientific evidence not treated with the same level of support?

PET scans of normal and schizophrenic brains.

Deborah Denno, a psychology and law professor at Fordham Law School, agrees with Gur, pointing out that not only are other forms of biological evidence being used without controversy, but that other discredited forms of evidence continue to be used in the courtroom today. Consistent evidence has found that eyewitness testimony is highly unreliable in determining culpability; yet such testimony remains popular in courtrooms. Denno also argues that the majority of the arguments against the use of neuroscience are based on mere hypotheticals, and that there is no actual evidence that such neuroscientific data has been used in the ways that critics are suggesting. There is little evidence to suggest that neuroscientific data is used to get criminals “off the hook” or as proof of "further dangerousness." Basing the argument against neuroscience in courtrooms solely on abstract theoretical points is dangerous, and constructs a barrier against future attempts at trying to use neuroscientific data in a practical way.

Accusations that neuroscientists take advantage by throwing impressive-looking brain scans at jurors and juries to dazzle them into submission may also be ruled out. Aside from the fact that such an argument disparages the intelligence of jurors at large, Denno and her colleagues have found that jurors are far more resilient to the so-called "Christmas Tree Effect" than their opponents suppose. She also points out that prosecutors often use visually jarring images to support their case. This is an important inconsistency that many opponents of neuroscience in courtrooms conveniently neglect to mention.

 

Basic functions of parts of the brain [Credit: Elizabeth Traynor].

What, then, is the cause of this vehement refusal to accept neuroscientific evidence as valid forms of proof in the courtroom? Is it a fear that these criminals, many of whom have committed unspeakable crimes, will get off scot-free? Such a fear is certainly understandable. However, the purpose of using brain scans in the vast majority of these cases is not about whether the culprit is guilty. Rather, it is most often used to determine whether the defendant should be given the death penalty.  It would enable a person who suffers from mental illness to not be unduly punished for his or her crimes. Understanding this key difference is vital to understanding how and why neuroscience is being used in the courtroom, and that the practical benefits of the judicious use of brains scans outweigh the potential negatives.

The arguments against using neuroscientific evidence are as diverse in nature as they are in validity. Given historical abuses of biological evidence, it is natural to be wary of the potential misuse of neuroscience in the courtroom. However, we must also be careful not to be too hasty to reject all use of neuroscientific findings. Such a step would be a terrible mistake, and would lead to the loss of a potentially powerful tool in criminal justice.

References:

Deborah Denno. “The Impact of Neuroscience on Criminal Law Cases across Two Decades, 1992-2012.”  Loyola University Chicago, Brain Matters—Neuroscience in Criminal Law and Policy Colloquium. Chicago. 26 Sept. 2013.

Ruben Gur. “Neuroscience in the Courtroom: Too Early, Too Late, or Just in Time?” Loyola University Chicago, Brain Matters—Neuroscience in Criminal Law and Policy Colloquium. Chicago. 26 Sept. 2013.

Research in Insect Flight Mechanisms

In Frankenstein’s Cat, Emily Anthes speaks about “cyborg bugs” that the United States government could potentially use for reconnaissance and safety missions. The problem with this concept is that not a whole lot is known about the mechanisms of insect flight. Anthes notes how Michel Maharbiz, a scientist researching at University of California-Berkely was able to control basic flight patterns by stimulating the brain and muscles of the flower beetle (Mecynorrhina torquata). Hopefully in the future we will able to control more complex movements in insects, but first we must understand what makes insects fly. Michael Dickinson has dedicated his life’s work to answering just this question.

            A recent article in the New York Times, “Focusing on Fruit Flies, Curiosity Takes Flight”, written by James Gorman, describes the life and research of Michael Dickinson. Dickinson studies fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) or as my cell biology professor jokingly calls them “dark-bellied dew lovers”, due to the Greek meaning of the name. Fruit flies have been used in a variety of scientific environments since the early 1900s. Dickinson is interested in the neuroscience of fruit flies because he is fascinated how such a small, simple brain can complete such complex movements. Have you ever realized how hard it is to kill something as simple as a fly? Gorman writes how when a fruit fly senses a predator, its response is not just a simple reflex. Dr. Card, a researcher in Dickinson’s lab, found that “somewhere in the fly’s brain the best response to a threat was being computed…” Recently, Dickinson has been imaging the brain of fruit flies to understand what is occurring during flight. He has found that during flight, activity in the brain is very different than when the brain is at rest. Dickinson attributes the complexity of the fruit fly’s brain to neuromodulators. Neuromodulators are chemicals that can change a neuron’s response to other neurotransmitters. Dickinson states how these neuromodulators can alter the response of a group of neurons in the fruit fly brain at different times. There are other beneficial aspects of studying the fruit fly besides its brain though.

A common problem addressed by Emily Anthes with “cyborg bugs” was flight distance. Dickinson states that the fruit fly “can fly for over 10 kilometers without eating anything.” This is a very important feature if one needs to utilize the fruit fly for a prolonged amount of time. Dickinson’s work, funded by the United States Defense Department, will hopefully prove useful in military technology for the future. Gorman points out that as far is the future is concerned, Dickinson wants more. I look forward to seeing the impact that Dickinson’s research has on neuroscience, biotechnology, and even military technology.

 References:

Anthes, Emily. Frankenstein's Cat: Cuddling Up to Biotech's Brave New Beasts. New York: Scientific American / Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2013. Print. 

Gorman, James. "Focusing on Fruit Flies, Curiosity Takes Flight." Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 7 Oct. 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.