Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Surprised it took them six months to announce this. Some more background on the Flying Doctor:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1307737
Ann, I've always disliked the look and feel and navigation of the DNAP website. Like anything else though it is a function of how much you want to pay. A sexy site may not be the best use of funds currently. It also depends to some extent on what their ecommerce strategy si going forward. A few people have ideas about electronic service delivery in this context.
Here is the original press release from the Boulder Police Department re Susannah Chase:
http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/comm/pressrelease/2004/0120Susannah%20Chase%20update.pdf
SYNOPSIS
Boulder detectives have continually worked leads and explored new investigative methods in the 1997 Susannah Chase murder. Recently, investigators submitted DNA samples to Florida-based DNA Print Genomics, Inc. The company claims that it can presumptively determine the DNA donor’s ancestral origin. Other law enforcement agencies have used DNA Print Genomics’ services in certain investigations.
The DNA detectives submitted in the Chase case is from semen recovered from the victim. Thus far, detectives have not identified who the DNA is from. However, DNA Print reported that the DNA investigators submitted is "indicative of someone exhibiting features that are common to Hispanics or Native Americans." This information will assist detectives with prioritizing tips and possibly generate more investigative leads.
Below is a statement provided to Boulder police by DNA Print Genomics, Inc.:
DNA Print Genomics, Inc. is a Florida-based company which offers the world’s first forensic test to determine an individual’s genetic ancestry. This unique test, DNA Witness™, has been used in a wide variety of forensic cases, from recent homicides to cold cases. The test results from the DNA Witness™ technology reveal the percentage of ethnic admixture from four subgroups: Indo-European, Sub-Saharan African, East Asian and Native American. Certain physical characteristics are strongly associated with continental ancestry admixture. This allows the investigators to concentrate on specific physical characteristics of the DNA donor and focuses their search parameters in a more efficient manner. This methodology, due to DNA Witness™, has assisted law enforcement in apprehending the perpetrator in a more timely fashion or has assisted in bringing closure to previously unsolved cold cases and sexual assaults.
Information about DNA Print Genomics, Inc. may be found at their web site: www.dnaprint.com.
Boulder police investigators encourage anyone who has information related to this case to call detectives at (303) 441-3330. Those who wish to remain anonymous should call Boulder County Crime Stoppers at (303) 440-STOP.
Note the plurals above...
You have to think this will be of some use to somebody:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040203/cgtu004_1.html
First Patent for High Security Genetic Banking System Issued to First Genetic Trust
Tuesday February 3, 8:05 am ET
Technology Allows Genetic Data To Be Securely Used for Research and Clinical Medicine
CHICAGO, Feb. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- First Genetic Trust Inc. today announced it has received the first patent to be issued for an e-genetic banking system and supporting technology.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued Patent No. 6,460,211 B1 for First Genetic Trust's proprietary e-genetic banking system, which enables genetic profile data to be securely stored while remaining accessible for authorized purposes, reconsent, and reuse. The patent covers the methods, processes, and e-systems for securely storing, analyzing, and managing genetic data for translational genomic research, pharmacogenomics, and molecular diagnostics.
"This is an important patent not only for the future of First Genetic Trust, but also because of the enabling impact the technology will have on biomedical, pharmaceutical, and diagnostic research in the genomic era," said Arthur L. Holden, the chief founder, chairman, and chief executive officer of First Genetic Trust. "We have created a novel e-technology which, for the first time, fully addresses the critical issues of genetic data privacy, confidentiality, and reuse at the information systems level."
Using this technology, First Genetic Trust is embarking upon an effort to develop and commercialize a broad range of genetic banking and research management applications for use by biomedical research institutions, government-sponsored large-scale research initiatives, and the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. The company's web-enabled genetic banking system, known as enTRUST® was developed based on this key patent and other intellectual properties of First Genetic Trust.
About First Genetic Trust
Founded by leaders in the fields of pharmacogenetics, bioinformatics, and information systems technology, First Genetic Trust provides genetic data handling and bioinformatics services to pharmaceutical companies, medical researchers, and health care providers engaged in genetic research. The company has developed its enTRUST®genetic banking platform to provide coordinated management of sample and phenotype data with capabilities for sample tracking and reuse, data acquisition and management, data security, and management of informed consent in support of pharmaceutical research, clinical development and post-marketing studies, as well as large-scale genetic programs in the provider and government sectors. First Genetic Trust ( www.firstgenetic.net ) is headquartered in Chicago and has its research and development facilities in Rutherford, New Jersey.
Might not have posted this before. A bit technical!
Measuring and using admixture to study the genetics of complex diseases. Indrani Halder and Mark D. Shriver. Human Genetics, Volume 1, No 1, 52-62, November 2003.
http://www.henrystewart.com/journals/hg/Review%20paper.pdf
arch, I noticed that it took Shriver the best part of two years to get the course approved, even though it clearly had the backing of the Department concerned!
frog, I'm going to run out of posts at this rate. I wasn't using the royal "we" but referring to the like minded individuals here (you know who they are) who you consider to be delusional longs. BTW, if I don't respond to individual posts I'll reply with one consolidated post tomorrow. You have a nice day now frog - concentrate on that design and development and forget the trading for once.
frog, sorry I was referring to the sum total of posts from your cohorts. BTW, I think retro knew very well the alleged identity of stockpimpdaddy, one of his modus operandii is to post leading questions for you to respond to. You must think we are stupid.
And I don't care where you look personally, but it is obvious to me who has more answers. Thanks for the opportunity to correct one misapprehension.
Frog, oh it's not me that keeps revisiting the issue. There seems to be an obsession with Eyecolor in some quarters...
Apparently. OK, let's look at the facts such as they are:
Gabriel, Gomez and Bookbinder joined the Life Sciences practice of Semaphore (the US office of which is in Boston) in 2002. We knew that from this (now invalid) link:
http://www.sema4usa.com/Company/events/LifeSciences2002.htm
MBO Announcement
... Richard Gabriel former CEO of Calix Corporation is the point person for the firm
as head of ... I am delighted to join the quality team represented by Semaphore. ...
www.sema4usa.com/Company/events/LifeSciences2002.htm - 43k - Cached - Similar pages
At present there is no mention of personnel in Semaphore's Life Sciences practice on their website and I would imagine that Gabriel and Gomez are no longer involved with Semaphore, but I have no factual evidence of this per se.
Gabriel, Gomez and Bookbinder are also partners in Genbiomics - a Florida registered consulting company. We know very little about Genbiomics and I do not know why it was reinstated in November 2003.
The most revealing item is from the bio about Gabriel on the DNAP website:
http://www.dnaprint.com/2003/corporate/officers.html
"From 2001 until becoming the Chief Executive Officer and President for DNAPrint, he consulted for several start-up companies while working as a partner at Genbiomics, LLC and as head of Life Sciences Practice at Semaphore, Inc."
Now this is still slightly ambiguous in that it is not absolutely clear that he ceased being a partner in Genbiomics and working as Head of the Life Sciences practice at Semaphore on becoming the CEO and President for DNAP, but that would be my reading of the text.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is my belief that Gabriel and Gomez are no longer involved with Semaphore and that Genbiomics is essentially a dormant (though reinstated) entity. Therefore there is no conflict of interest and no undue lack of focus on DNAP as a result of involvement in these entities.
It might be more profitable for you to look at the other things that Gomez is involved in currently.
Is this the final version of this post before I answer it?
Mark Shriver had a good day yesterday. He got approval for a new course at PSU - Molecular Anthropology. Here are the details:
http://psula02.la.psu.edu/laus/curraff.nsf/0/cdbdf6b1cc11f29c85256a2b00647429?OpenDocument
I especially like this bit:
The aim of this course is to provide students with the framework to understand current issues in biology, genetics, and anthropology as they relate to the evolution of our species. Basic methods in molecular biology, structure of the genome, molecular evolution, and human population genetics will be covered in the first part of the course. Once these tools are in place we will examine both classical and contemporary research reports on a number of topics, including the place of humans among the apes; mitochondrial Eve, DNA in forensics; Neandertal DNA and other applications of ancient DNA; reconstructing recent human evolution; the biological meaning of race; disease gene mapping; recent technological advances in genomics; skin, hair, and eye color genes; and the genetic future of our species.
The DNA Witness Collection Kit
http://www.lynnpeavey.com/product_info.php?products_id=804
The text on the site is a bit garbled. It should read:
The DNA Witness Collection Kit makes presumptive DNA testing for biogeographical ancestry a breeze! Find out what geneology your suspect is. Contents of the kit include: one PreZerve, one IntegriSwab, a speciman envelope, a request for service form, an integrity sea, and a FedEx envelope and airbill.
I might be wrong but I don't think GeneTree markets any DNAP product e.g. Ancestry.
retro IYO how much time are Gomez and Gabriel devoting to activities other than DNAP? I will be interested in seeing your answer and the facts that you produce to back it up. BTW they didn't create their own Bio consulting company in November 2003 - it was a reinstatement of an existing entity (Genbiomics LLC).
http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?a1=DETFIL&n1=L01000011481&n2=NAMFWD&n3=0000&...
An interesting link has appeared on a website devoted to an ongoing appeal over a rape conviction:
http://www.benlaguer.com/id16.html
The link is towards the bottom of the page:
Tony Frudakis, a director of DNAPrint genomics
Also interesting is the link beneath:
Prof. Willaim C. Thompson (U.C. Irvine)
This is the same person that appeared here:
http://bioforensics.com/conference/Racial%20Identification/
Professor Bill Thompson is a Professor in the Department of Criminology, Law & Society at the University of California, Irvine, and editor of an on-line journal about forensic DNA evidence, Scientific Testimony. In addition to a J.D., Bill has earned a Ph.D. in Psychology. Before joining the UIC faculty in 1983, he practiced law in the San Francisco Bay area. Bill argued the first case concerning the admissibility of DNA evidence before the New Mexico Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, and was the first attorney in California to successfully challenge the admissibility of an FBI DNA test. He was been prominently involved in many high-profile criminal trials, including O.J. Simpson, Sammy Marshall, John Cuff, and Dirk Greineder.
I do not know why these two are linked on this page, in particular Tony, but an obvious theory presents itself.
This case notwithstanding it is IMO a matter of time before DNAP contributes towards the overturning of a wrongful conviction - which is at least as important as helping police in their search for crime suspects.
Miss Scarlet, I likewise am confident. For me stock investment is about more than just long term monetary reward. Like others here a portion of my investment is on behalf of charity anyway. However, a big personal motivation for me is the knowledge that our little company is going to help change the world for the better in a number of ways. It will be nice to be a part of it. My regards to you as well.
frog, I see that we are revisiting this issue. Oh good, I do like reviewing stockpimpdaddy's posts. Although not my favorite (I think you can guess which one is), I do like the sentiment expressed in this one:
It comes straight from...
the horses mouth. Good day to all of you and hang in there. You guys are the ones that make the technology possible - you took Richard Todd Lee off the streets by investing in a good, solid little company. It is your investment that has made it possible fpr a small, underrated company, to innovate and grow revenues in the middle of a depression. DNAP is good people, who would do anything on the right side of the law to keep their company and dreams alive. Wait and see what you enable next. You will be proud of yourselves. Hang in there and remember - there is always an idiot on the fringes of the bell curve somewhere out there trying to destroy what good men and women are trying to build. Shame on them. I hope you refer back to my few posts in the future.
Classic!
Miss Scarlet, we all miss him. I understand that he is quite busy at the moment.
Then let's hope that small drug company is DNAP itself!
Those are exactly the same arguments that are used in favor of e.g. GMED's regime being used to reduce renal dialysis. Has it been adopted? No. Why not? Because even if in theory it is the logical thing to do, it will save money, and it is in the interests of the end user (baby boomers in this case), the vested interests will still be able to preserve the status quo - right up to the point where they go the same way as the dinosaurs...
Who is being naive here? Are you familiar with GMED?
frog, my memory fails me? Surely not. Perhaps this is the sort of thing that you are looking for:
There is no intention of issuing 1 billion shares anytime soon. We'd be lucky to place 100 Million during the warrants plan and this would bring our issued shares to 600 Million. At that point we will have to live off of license fees from deals, product revenues and the proceeds from the 100 Million shares placed. I dont see the 1.5 billion authorized shares dictating our market cap rather than the 600 million that would be outstanding at that time, which is not that much greater than the 500 million we are at right now. The warrants plan is not a float bloating plan - remember its to existing investors not investment bankers. If we go to another strategy after the warrants plan, perhaps due to low participation, we would seek to place restricted stock in the hands of legitimate investors via a private placement.
On the other hand, if a pharmaceutical company came along to buy equity in DNAPrint, issuing restricted shares to them would increase the issued number, but we would try to have them also purchase on the open market and we believe that in such a scenario, the dilution would be likely be well worth it for the average shareholder (for several reasons).
If our stock becomes devalued prior to any of this, well change our tactics to adjust. We see enough genuine interest in DNAPrint from "big contract" companies to warrant enthusiasm for the plan we have put forth and the long term viability of the company we have built. Down sizing would be a mammoth mistake at the present time.
Getting warmer...
Stakddek, and that's the problem. It is all too rational to you and me, but we underestimate the pressure to preserve the status quo. Blockbuster drug mentality and mega profits good, segmented market bad (and who cares about the patient).
Exactly, it has to be mandated by the FDA and I personally think that the chances of that are very slim due to the political environment.
Frog, it was the January 2003 newsletter. I knew that someday somebody would regret that Roger's website was removed and that this document in particular was no longer available. Don't tell me you didn't keep a copy...
bag8ger, we ran the numbers on this before:
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAP&read=236196
Let's hypothesize that the FDA in it's wisdom decided to adopt biogeographical ancestry (BGA) for racial classification in US clinical trials. Given that DNAP has the patent it is safe to assume that they (or their service provider) would be the provider of relevant services. What might that mean in terms of revenue?
You have to make assumptions about number of clinical trials, average trial size (number of patients), average length of trial, cost of each BGA test, number of patients participating in trials per annum, etc. This information is not easy to come by for a number of reasons. One problem is that there seems to be no central statistical resource (I have looked at the FDA, NIH, etc). The best sources of data are sites like:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/
http://www.cancer.gov/clinical_trials/doc.aspx?viewid=115667A1-3A71-412C-94D6-82F4DA9234A2
From this type of source you can see that there are some 3,000 trials currently underway (excluding synonyms), of which anywhere between 1,500-1,700 relate to cancer. Some of these trials it may not be appropriate to include but let's say that are 2,000 that are relevant for our purposes.
Average trial size is difficult. I assumed this to be hundreds but one study quotes 75 studies per NDA and 4,850 patients per NDA on average (implied trial size 65). Let's be conservative and say it is 50 patients per trial.
I have seen one estimate for the average length of trials of 26 months, let's say 2 years.
Tony has given us the cost of a BGA bulk test as $160.
One source I found stated that some 25,000 people join cancer trials in the US annually. Let's say that you add on another 50% for non-cancer trials i.e. 37,500 patients.
Method 1:
2,000 trials of 50 patients each at $160 is $16 million, or $8 million per year.
Method 2:
37,500 new patients per year at $160 is $6 million per year.
Looks like a lot of revenue (using conservative assumptions) for just this one service if the FDA would be kind enough to mandate our approach.
It certainly does Chris. Will be interesting to see what else they know about...
A very recent paper on race/ethnicity and cancer
Wiencke JK. Impact of race/ethnicity on molecular pathways in human cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004 Jan;4(1):79-84.
Understanding the molecular circuitry of the cancer cell is within the grasp of the basic scientist; however, harnessing this knowledge to predict cancer risk requires integration of molecular and population sciences. But, what role, if any, does race/ethnicity have in cancer research and, more specifically, in the nature of genetic and epigenetic alterations that programme the malignant behaviour of the cancer cell?
Here is a link to the full article:
http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/view/0401/53.PDF
The article itself is a bit heavy going, but the last two sections are (relatively) plain English and the subject matter should be relatively familiar:
Race and human-genome science
Although scientists debate the value of racial information 12, it is likely to be counterproductive to continue to ignore race while searching for the molecular underpinnings of human cancer. Developments in evolutionary biology and genetics compel us to address the value of ethnic and racial categories to ensure that we do not pass up any opportunity to improve the prospects for cancer prevention and patient outcome, or to gain a more complete understanding of cancer pathogenesis 66,67. This recommendation does not indicate a static categorization scheme for race/ethnicity, nor one of strict divisions between continental groups, because migration and interbreeding degrade the endogamy that is required to maintain genetically clustered groups. The implications of unique allelic combinations among racial groups for pharmacology have recently been outlined 68,69.
Future directions
It could be said that our approach to investigating cancer pathogenesis has been ‘race blind’ or ‘race neutral’. Many of the time-honoured tools for dissecting the crucial control pathways in cancer are cancer cell lines from patients whose race/ethnicity is unknown. As we move forward, cancer biologists should collect data that are based on the basic demographic characteristics of the patients whose tumours they study. Even the substantial international database of acquired mutations in the TP53 gene is poorly annotated for race — a fact that could threaten the validity of some of the conclusions that are drawn from this extensive database. Future submissions of specimens to the database should include race/ethnicity information. Clearly,we should encourage a closer collaboration between the population scientist, who views cancer pathogenesis as a multifactorial web of causal processes, and the cancer biologist.
It is clear that exposure to infectious and chemical agents affects the genetic and epigenetic profiles of tumours, and it is also known that these exposures vary according to race/ethnicity. Exposure variability by race/ethnicity is the simplest way in which differences in cancer type can arise. As the specific aetiological exposures that lead to most cancer types are incompletely understood, race/ethnicity information could be useful for understanding how differences among populations can affect carcinogenesis. Attention to racial differences might help in identifying new cancer-causing agents — if a specific cancer is prevalent among one racial/ethnic group, investigations into the lifestyle and environment of that group could uncover a previously unrecognized carcinogen. Clues to help explain race/ethnicity differences in cancer risk and prognosis will come about through combining race/ethnicity information with molecular profiles.
From population genetics,we know that race/ethnicity categories correspond to and help identify unique germline alleles and allelic combinations. These ancestral genetic groupings can modify both cancer risk and the molecular subtype of tumours. It is possible that there are complex interactions between ancestry-specific genes and race-associated environmental exposures. In addition to collecting race/ethnicity data, population specific polymorphisms have been identified that can be used to directly estimate individuals’ ancestry, and this approach could supplant or replace self-reported ancestry 19,70. It is still too early to assess the full impact of race/ethnicity in human carcinogenesis and many questions have been raised by recent research. But, it is important to note that as therapies evolve that target specific pathway defects, information on differences in cancer pathways between patient groups will become increasingly more clinically relevant. Therefore, in the future, clinical scientists can expect more, not less, emphasis on learning about the racial makeup of the individuals who are involved in clinical trials.
The citation number 19 above refers to this paper:
Parra EJ, Kittles RA, Argyropoulos G, Pfaff CL, Hiester K, Bonilla C, Sylvester N, Parrish-Gause D, Garvey WT, Jin L, McKeigue PM, Kamboh MI, Ferrell RE, Pollitzer WS, Shriver MD. Ancestral proportions and admixture dynamics in geographically defined African Americans living in South Carolina. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2001 Jan;114(1):18-29.
It seems that the significance of AIMs is starting to be widely recognized.
OT (ish): Robert, I love your posts. To give a previous post of mine (which was I suspect misunderstood) some context, let me quote from the aforementioned Hitchhiker's Guide:
The Sirius Cybernetics Corporation is "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes." An edition of the Encyclopaedia Galactica that had the good fortune to fall through a time warp from a thousand years in the future defined the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came."
BTW, I suspect that "hitchhiker" is probably one of only a few words in English that has two consecutive "H"'s. I wonder how many people know which English word has five consecutive vowels?
frog, I took the phrase "How many of you interpreted the PR phrase..." to mean that we were invited to choose a side. My apologies. I believe I have already answered your specific point once this evening. You have a nice day now.
It probably won't come as any surprise in some quarters, but I'm with Doug on this one.
Jim, it's what happens when you are not as smart as you think you are! I hope the QA department at M********* are on the ball (by the look of it they need to be).
frog, yes of course I know that I was being facetious. Now let's see you be so smart about the rest of the post...
Frog, so we have gone from 25% (plus or minus one eighth) to 12.5%. Well, we are getting there. Now the PR referred to "low levels of admixture (such as that which may have been contributed by a single great grandparent)." Now what this means is that the test can detect admixture resulting from the ancestry (a number between 0-100% for the ancestry concerned) contributed by the ancestor in question. That is not the same thing at all as what you are inferring (as I suspect you know very well). Now either you do not understand this or you are being deliberately obtuse (dare I use the phrase "wilfully misunderstanding").
frog, I don't want to have to keep on correcting you, but I do believe that you are possibly mistaken with regard to the Ancestry accuracy. Let me quote Tony Frudakis from this post on RootsWeb (dated 24 January, 2004):
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2004-01/1074965434
"...the 71 marker test exhibits an average MLE error of a few percent, where few means from 4%-8%..."
"...a heck of a lot less than the estimates of error bantered about on the roots-web of a ridiculous 20-30% error."
Or you could refer to the AncestryByDNA website:
http://www.ancestrybydna.com/simulation.asp
"From this table one can see that the average level of artificial admixture using the 71 marker test is about 5% and the level using the 175 marker test is lower, at about 3%..."
So your assertion that the Ancestry accuracy is of the order of 25% falls within the "ridiculous" range that is "bantered about" on RootsWeb. If I didn't know better I would suspect that your surname was Chandler or Whritenour...
Now frog that's not quite right is it? Apart from DNAP receiving a description of the material such that they could identify it's type, there is the little matter of the Defendant having to make a motion to the court for in-camera inspection of all such material. I agree that this is dragging on far too long. At the end of the day Kodragunta is just racking up his legal fees IMO - the contents of the computer will be examined in due course, these are just delaying tactics. Anyway, at least we get to know all his message board aliases!
This is a useful page, allowing you to search abstracts to be presented at the 2004 American Association of Physical Anthropologists annual meeting:
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/dbman/db.cgi?db=schedule2004&uid=default&view_search=1
Here is one paper that caught my eye:
Morphometric analysis of craniofacial traits used in ancestral identification.
S.J. Decker, J.L. Thompson. Dept. of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
The determination of ancestry is a critical component in forensic identification, and/or repatriation, of human skeletal remains. Ancestry is commonly assessed using a suite of metric and non-metric traits whose grouping tendencies have been extensively researched. However, many non-metric traits cannot be measured with traditional osteological tools. For example, the zygomatic's angle, in relation to the entire craniofacial region, can vary from retreating to vertical to projecting. The distinction between populations is made by placing a pencil across the nasal aperture and attempting to insert a finger beneath it. While these traditional methods are useful, they do not take individual variation into account. This paper uses geometric morphometric coordinate data to 'metricize' non-metric traits used in ancestral identification and to evaluate their accuracy of correctly assigning unknown individuals to statistically defined groups.
A 3-D digitizer was used to collect coordinate data from 38 craniofacial landmarks to capture the form of several ancestral morphologies. The sample consisted of individuals of known origin representing ancestral populations traditionally used in forensic analysis. Principle components analysis confirmed that ancestral shape groupings could be identified while Generalized Procrustes Analysis and Thin-Plate Splines were used to assess the nature of form variation within and between groups. Discriminant function analysis calculated the probability of accurately assigning new individuals to their correct ancestral group. The results indicate that ancestral morphologies, while variable, can be distinguished and used successfully to predict group membership. This work therefore augments traditional osteological methods and lends accuracy to ancestral identification.
The thing is, if you can infer ancestry from a set of craniofacial landmarks then the reverse must also be true to some extent: if you know the ancestry you can infer something about possible craniofacial morphology...
I can think of one prerequisite...
http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Ask_an_Expert/answer.aspx?articleID=2004-01-28-3
When might gene therapy be available to alter eye color?
While this will almost certainly be possible soon, we must ask whether it would be safe and justified
Answered by Theodore Friedmann
1/28/2004 • Hits: 119 • Comments: 0
How long before we can use gene therapy to change our eye color?
Brooke Fiechter
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
This is a question loaded with scientific and ethical issues, and perhaps a far better question might be whether this is the kind of genetic change we would like to engineer into our offspring.
The current gene transferring technology is not ripe enough for this or any other enhancement purpose, and there certainly would need to be a great improvement in gene transferring technology before this could be done effectively and safely.
Whether it would be permanent or not depends on how the genetic manipulation is carried out, into which cells the new gene is put and how the gene is regulated. It could be permanent or transient.
With respect to the genes involved, the determination of eye color is a complex result of the actions of a number of genes on different chromosomes in the human. It's not a single gene trait. And so just how one could manipulate the expression of those several genes to produce a desired eye color is far from clear.
The methods for carrying out such a change will almost certainly be developed in the foreseeable future, but it's also clear that, for the foreseeable future, we will not know enough about the possible unforeseen deleterious effects of interfering with or modifying human genetic traits. We know how difficult it is to do so effectively and safely even in the case of terrible disease, in which case we are all willing to accept a degree of risk in the name of disease treatment.
It's not at all clear to me that it is justified to go ahead for cosmetic and ethically and socially questionable applications such as eye color manipulations, even once questions of safety are better understood.
Theodore Friedmann is the director of the University of California, San Diego Program in Human Gene Therapy as well as a professor of pediatrics. He and a colleague published a landmark Science paper in 1972 describing the use of viruses to carry normal genes into defective cells. Friedmann has served as a member of the US Congressional Biomedical Ethics Advisory Committee and the California Commission on Human Cloning, and is chairman of the National Institutes of Health Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee that helps to oversee all gene therapy trials in the US.