Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘gene editing

Science Policy Around the Web – June 10, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Allison Dennis, BS

Source: pixabay

Animal Testing

Lack of Clarity Puts Chemical Safety and Animal Welfare at Odds

In the lineup of American stereotypes, the health-nut who cares about the chemicals in his shampoo is often the same person who cares if that shampoo was tested on animals or not. However, a bill signed June 22, 2016, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, may be placing those two views at odds. The bill requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement a risk-based process to evaluate the safety of chemical substances currently being used in the marketplace and approve the use of new chemicals before their introduction. The bill was passed with bipartisan support and offered EPA the new-found power to fully regulate the use of well-known carcinogens like asbestos.

Yet the pathway forward for the EPA is daunting. More than 62,000 substances find their way into and onto our bodies through the products we use and our environment. While many of these substances have become associated with disease over time, how can the EPA certify the risks associated with different exposures to varying amounts of each substance on such an extensive list? The Act itself suggested that once the EPA has evaluated the existing information on the 62,000 substances currently in use, it spend the next twelve months triaging chemicals according to their potential risk. Next, the highest priority chemicals will be evaluated on a three-year deadline to develop knowledge of their toxicity and guidelines for their regulation. Ultimately, by clearly cataloging the risk of common chemicals the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act promises to greatly reduce the amount of animal testing needed in the long-term.

In the meantime, however, the companies that use to-be-regulated substances in their products may be inclined to undertake independent toxicity testing, collecting enough data to guarantee that their favorite substances meet the low-risk criteria and avoid a drawn-out evaluation. Defining toxicity requires careful experimentation, which can sometimes be carried out in human cells outside of the body, but often require evaluation in animals. Animal rights groups like the Human Society find concern with the lack of transparency in the pre-prioritization process. They fear the eagerness of companies to provide data without any clear guidelines about how that data will be evaluated or what substances will require extensive evaluation could result in extensive and unnecessary animal testing. Further they suggested that the EPA require any new pre-approval data obtained by companies to be collected using non-animal methods. (Maggie Koerth-Baker, FiveThirtyEight)

CRISPR

Small Study may Reveal Big Concerns over CRISPR-Based Therapy

A one-page letter published in Nature Methods last week reports unexpectedly high levels of unintended changes to the genomes of mice that underwent a CRISPR-based therapy. Since it’s renaissance as a therapeutic tool in 2012, CRISPR has occupied the imaginations of scientists, doctors, patients, investors, and ethicists. CRISPR technology provides a relatively straight-forward and reproducible means to gene editing on the cellular level, but its applications to create heritable mutations in the human germ line is on hold until more is understood about the long-term effects such treatments would have.

The original study sought to explore potential long-term effects of germline manipulation by CRISPR in a mouse model. Guide RNA along with the Cas9 enzyme were injected into mouse zygotes, which introduced a correction in a mutation in the rd1 gene of otherwise blind mice. Initiating this change before the first cell division enabled this corrected mutation to be inherited by all cells arising in the developing mouse, consequently restoring the ability for the eyes to develop normally. In a follow-up experiment described in their one page letter, the researchers looked for mutations in the genomic DNA of two CRISPR-treated adult mice compared with a control mouse, revealing over 2,000 unintended mutations following CRISPR treatments. None of these mutations appeared to affect the mice, suggesting that deep genomic sequencing may be required to reveal unanticipated changes in an outwardly healthy mouse. Further, the nature of these unintended mutations offered few clues explaining how they might have occurred.

This result stands in contrast with other reports quantifying the extent of these unintended changes, which found CRISPR to be highly specific. While the CRISPR-Cas9 system has been observed to sometimes alter off-target regions of the genome, this activity can usually be curbed through the careful design and evaluation of the guide RNA. The limitations of this small study have been discussed extensively since its publication. However, the findings have sparked the need for further investigation into the long-term-whole-animal effects of germline-editing by CRISPR. As human germline-editing creeps closer to reality, the FDA will be tasked with developing an entirely new means of evaluating the safety of such technologies (Megan Molteni, Wired)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Advertisements

Written by sciencepolicyforall

June 10, 2017 at 11:33 am

Science Policy Around the Web – February 24, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Alida Palmisano, PhD

Source: usda [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Public Access to Data

Lawsuit Aims to Force USDA to Repost Scrubbed Animal Welfare Records

“Put the records back on the internet.”

An article published in Science discusses a lawsuit filed on February 13 against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) by an animal law expert at Harvard University. According to the plaintiffs, USDA violated the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when it removed thousands of animal welfare inspection reports and other records from a publicly accessible website. USDA generated records that document animal facility inspections, enforcement actions, animal censuses, and other information collected by the agency in the course of enforcing the federal Animal Welfare Act.  The law covers animals in more than 7800 facilities, including zoos, roadside circuses, and research laboratories at government agencies and academic medical centers.

The decision to remove the public access to these records may have been a response to a lawsuit involving another law, the Horse Protection Act. The plaintiffs in a 2016 Texas lawsuit accused USDA of violating their rights under the Privacy Act by posting inspection documents required by the Horse Protection Act. A resulting USDA review of all its public postings led the agency to scrub from its website documents generated under both the Horse Protection Act and the Animal Welfare Act.  In the future, the agency announced, people who want access to those records will need to file a FOIA request. The agency’s most recent FOIA report states that it takes an average of 94 days for the agency to respond to a simple FOIA request and 234 days on average for more complicated requests.

In February 13’s lawsuit, the plaintiffs invoke a section of FOIA that requires agencies to make publicly available electronically all records that it has released under FOIA which “because of the nature of the subject matter, the agency determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records.” (Meredith Wadman, ScienceInsider)

Science and Immigration

Grad Students, Postdocs with U.S. Visas Face Uncertainty

While U.S. courts are busy handling President Donald Trump’s travel ban on immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, the temporary shut down of the executive order, the appeal to reinstate the travel ban, the rejection of the immediate restoration of the ban, and more appeals and rulings, graduates and postdoctoral students already in the United States are weighing their options and trying to plan rationally in an unpredictable and fluid situation.

Many scientists in the U.S. are on student or other working visas. All these visas may not be renewable, depending on future executive orders and regulations. The dilemma “simply ruins their future. It’s a catastrophe,” says a Yemeni biologist who is on a university faculty on an H-1B, a 3-year visa for professionals. For years, lawmakers in Washington have tried to reform abuses of visa regulations by companies using visas to bring workers to the U.S. to learn the ropes, and then send the trained workers to other countries where the job can be done cheaply. The H-1B system is contentious: on one side labor advocates want the exploitation of the H-1B system to stop supporting an outsourcing business model. On the other hand, tech companies like Google and Facebook say they can’t get enough visas for top foreign talent, as the cap on the number of H-1Bs issued every year means that sometimes foreign graduates from top U.S. universities, places like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California, Berkeley, can’t get one. The travel ban already has harmed the top universities in the U.S., stranding students, faculty and scholars abroad, and making foreign schools more attractive to some of the world’s brightest students.

In papers filed in Brooklyn federal court, the schools (that include Columbia, Duke, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Princeton, Stanford, Yale, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and several more) said that the order blocking travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries threatens their abilities to educate future leaders from every continent. They said the executive order has “serious and chilling implications” and that the ban “casts doubt on the prospect and value of studying and working here for everyone,” the papers said. (Meredith Wadman, Richard Stone, Science)

Genetic Engineering

US Science Advisers Outline Path to Genetically Modified Babies

“Scientists should be permitted to modify human embryos destined for implantation in the womb to eliminate devastating genetic diseases such as sickle-cell anaemia or cystic fibrosis — once gene-editing techniques advance sufficiently for use in people and proper restrictions are in place. That’s the conclusion of a 14 February report from the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.”

The report follows a 2015 National Academies summit between scientists, ethicists, legal experts and patient groups from around the world. At the time of the meeting, given the outstanding scientific, ethical and legal questions surrounding the issue, the organizers concluded that scientists shouldn’t yet perform germline editing on embryos intended for establishing a pregnancy. However, the organizers also stated that altering human embryos for basic research was acceptable.

The latest iteration of this ongoing CRISPR debate moves the bar a little further. The report recommends restricting the technique to severe medical conditions for which no other treatment exists. Eric Lander, president of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, said, “It’s a very careful, conservative position that’s just a little bit beyond an absolute bar.” In the report, the committee also called for international cooperation, strict regulatory and oversight framework, public input into decisions and long-term follow-ups of children who have edited genomes. The report adds that for now, genome editing should not be used for human enhancement, such as improving a person’s intelligence or giving them super-strength.

The report drew immediate criticism from a California-based non-profit organization called the Center for Genetics and Society. “This report is a dramatic departure from the widespread global agreement that human germline modification should remain off limits,” said Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the center. “It acknowledges many of the widely recognized risks, including stigmatizing people with disabilities, exacerbating existing inequalities, and introducing new eugenic abuses. Strangely, there’s no apparent connection between those dire risks and the recommendation to move ahead.” (Sara Reardon, Nature)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

February 24, 2017 at 11:23 am