Breath test detects lung cancer
Israeli scientists have devised a portable breath tester that detects lung cancer. The sensor uses gold nanoparticles to detect chemicals that become more elevated in cancer patients.
Google News (AFP)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gD0oDWeDtMfAYl0C5bvx6Yyd78Yg
Gene technology and food
Discussion of some of the questions, key issues and concerns with the use of gene technology to develop novel crops.
First embryonic stem cell trial put on hold
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has put the first embryonic stem cell trial on hold. Geron, the company running the clinical trial, had succeeded in differentiating embryonic stem cells into oligodendrocytes that help keep neurons alive. Geron hoped the cells would promote healing in people with recently damaged spinal cords.
In Geron’s press release they say the FDA suspended the trial pending the FDA’s review of new nonclinical animal study data Geron submitted.
Is the FDA being cautious or was their something in the clinical data that aroused concern?
Stay tuned for the next exciting chapter.
Nature News blog also discusses this.
Embryonic stem cells are trickier to use than adult stem cells at this stage of our knowledge becasue in their undifferentiated state they are effectively immortal. That is, there is no limit to the number of times they can divide, which means in the human body they can form tumours. The trick is to differentiate them first, but you have to make sure there are no undifferentiated cells lurking in your batch. Adult stem cells have already gone through at least one stage of differentiation. More details on this can be found on Australian Stem Cell Centre’s web site
Jason, GNTIS
Will Chinese nanoparticle study fuel nano fear?
A new study revealing lung damage in seven Chinese factory workers is stoking the debate over the health effects of nanoparticles in the workplace.
The European Respiratory Journal has published a Chinese study linking workplace nanoparticle exposure to seven cases of progressive lung disease, in which two patients died.
Andrew Maynard in his 2020 blog covers this best, and it was reported in Nature News as well.
I suspect this paper will get considerable attention, especially in the media. But I hope the debate is kept in context. It is doubtless a useful and important study, but it was not a controlled experiment. For two patients it was an autopsy. As Andrew Maynard points out, this is a clinical study, not a toxicological one. Other toxicologists in the Nature article suggest the symptoms of the patients are more typical of chemical exposure, in this case the polystyrene and poly acrylic paste, rather than nanoparticles. The seven people were also placed in an environment where it appears standard Occupational Health and Safety practices were missing.
Until more is known we need to be careful about drawing conclusions, and it remains to be seen what effect this will have on stimulating further research into the safety and management of nanoparticles in the workplace.
Whatever the outcome of this research, hopefully it (and the research process itself) will be open and transparent and integrated into a proper dialogue with the public that results in appropriate action and some informed decision making. If it doesn’t then this will only harm the debate and likely send it along a similar road to that of GM foods.
European Resp Journal reference:
Y. Song, X. Li and X. DuEur. Respir. J. 34, 559–567; 2009).
Jason Major
GNTIS
World’s smallest laser unveiled
The world’s smallest laser has been unveiled. At about 10 times smaller than the wavelength of light, however, this is no ordinary laser, it is the first ever ‘spaser’.
Nature News: World’s smallest laser unveiled
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090816/full/news.2009.823.html?s=news_rss
Nanoparticle safety in doubt
Claims that seven Chinese factory workers developed lung damage from inhaling nanoparticles are stoking the debate over the health effects of nanotechnology.
Nature News: Nanoparticle safety in doubt
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090818/full/460937a.html?s=news_rss
Nanomagnets guide stem cells to damaged tissue
Microscopic magnetic particles have been used to bring stem cells to sites of cardiovascular injury in a new method designed to increase the capacity of cells to repair damaged tissue.
Eurekalert: Nanomagnets guide stem cells to damaged tissue
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-08/ucl-ngs081709.php
Nano diagnostics detects early signs of cancer
Researchers used tiny nano crystals to develop a highly sensitive test to look for the early warning signs of cancer.
John Hopkins: Nano diagnostics detects early signs of cancer
http://releases.jhu.edu/2009/08/17/new-dna-test-uses-nanotechnology-to-find-early-signs-of-cancer/
Adelaide Show
GNTIS will have its information stand in the Golden Grains Pavilion
Reform of gene patent law, or not
Should we be able to patent something that already exists and that you haven’t invented? You can if it is a human gene. The issue has polarized views, inflamed passions, and prompted an Australian Government senate enquiry.
The Australian Government’s Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs is holding an enquiry into the patenting of genes. That is, should we be able to patent a human gene or that of any other living organism, or the protein products of that gene.
You may ask how you can patent something that already exists and that you haven’t invented, key criteria if one is to be granted a patent on anything. There are many people asking this, but the question is more complex that it appears and it has polarized those involved and the passions are scolding hot.
The latest dog fight leading to this enquiry started last year when the company Genetic Technologies and its US mate Myriad Genetics Inc. wanted all labs performing genetic testing for the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 breast cancer genes to ‘cease and desist’ such nefarious activities because they were infringing their patents on the BRCA 1 and 2 genes. Up until then, Genetic Technologies allowed other laboratories in Australia to freely perform the BRCA testing, which meant patients could get the test cheaply or for free. But in November (2008) GTG got a new board and they wanted to do things differently, which could have seen patients paying more than $1000 for a single test. A month later they backed down and decided to continue to allow companies free access to the testing technologies.
Gene patent law in Australia
At the moment, you cannot patent a gene or gene sequence in its natural state. You have to isolate them and reproduce them and they have to have a function ascribed to them to be patentable – see IPRIA submission to senate enquiry
A key aspect of the debate is whether even the isolation and reproduction of a gene constitutes an invention or something novel. Its interpretation, as illustrated in the BRCA test spat, has potential effects on human health, equity of access to associated care and the potential advancement of technologies and knowledge that could lead to improved treatments.
But even in the eyes of the law, the debate is wider and more complex than this. There are social, scientific, legal and economic forces interacting here, and looking at the arguments and some of the submissions to the senate enquiry so far, these aspects are being considered – and delivered more passionately than the legal aspects.
So, will shutting down the ability to patent genes stifle investment in R&D? Or does a patent on a gene hinder research? What is the best balance? Personally, I have no idea, but I do struggle with the concept that even the isolations and copying of a gene is somehow an invention. I differentiate this from manipulating a gene in someway, for example, to turn it into a vaccine as happened with the cervical cancer vaccine. Nor do I have no issue with research groups or industry obtaining patents per se. If it costs more than $1billion to get a pharmaceutical drug to market then a company needs some protection against the risk and a chance to make a quid. But an isolated or copied gene is, to me, still effectively in its natural state.
Early in the year I went to a public forum on gene patenting run by the Uni Melbourne’s Intellectual Property Research Institute who have done some research into this topic.
If I read the feeling in the room correctly – and there were some strong feelings – then I think most people in the room were against the idea of gene patenting, even if was an intuitive feeling rather than based on any hard evidence. But gut feelings don’t have much sway in these games.
A summary of the speakers at the forum can be found on page 11 of the submission to the senate in Melbourne on 3 August.
From what I have read and heard so far, there is possibly enough impetus and public sentiment to force a reform of the law regarding gene patents, if for no other reason than the patent law is a bit too antiquated for the new era of genetics and other emerging technologies – something that has been raised in many reports including submissions to the senate enquiry, but it is early days and the wheels of government turn slow.
More reading
An interesting read for anyone trying to get beyond the media overview of this debate can be found in this article by Matthew Rimmer published in the Melbourne Journal of International Law. A discussion about the need for reform using the rush to patent the genome of the SARS virus as a case study
Ian Fraser Editorial, The Australian 8 August – Former Australian of the year and inventor of the cervical cancer vaccine, he is firmly against the patenting of genes
And so is this guy, Luigi Palombi, an intellectual property lawyer from ANU speaking here to the ABC’s Law Report, but he is not media shy or afraid to express his opinion on this topic as any web search will show.