From today’s WSJ, ” Ova Time: Women Line Up to Donate Eggs — for Money”. Am I missing something, but I do NOT see what part of this story is about donation? It’s the economy stupid and the point that women are selling their eggs.

From the story:

Whenever the employment rate is down, we get more calls,” says Robin von Halle, president of Alternative Reproductive Resources, an agency in Chicago where inquiries from would-be egg donors are up 30% in recent weeks — to about 60 calls a day. “We’re even getting men offering up their wives. It’s pretty scary.

Nice that husbands are calling in and offering up their wives. Hey honey, how would you like your eggs!?

Too much in the news today to keep up with on the latest study on what to do with all the leftover embryos. People apparently don’t like their options. One article said “Women are Unhappy With Disposal Options“. Another article recognized the father and said, “Parents Torn Over Fate of Frozen Embryos“. And a third claimed, “The Largest Study of Fertility Patients Show Concerns About Embryo Disposition“.

Presently, what are the options that make them unhappy, torn or concerned? Briefly their options are:

1) Keep them frozen indefinitely (which requires on-going fees to pay for storage)
2) Donate them to others who can’t have children or just want to “rescue” the frozen
3) Give them to the scientists for research
4) Use them yourself for more children

I’ll be watching this space closely as we now the new administration is planning to allow more federal funding to be used to do research on these “surplus, leftover” embryos. Perhaps if the Federal government gives more funding, more couples will be inclined to give them to research?

What about this option? Since we know how we get “surplus” embryos is by hyperstimulating women’s ovaries AND we know that hyperstimulation drugs are dangerous (and sometimes life threatening), maybe we should adopt laws like in Germany and Italy which do not permit “surplus” embryos to be created. Makes good sense to me as a place to start.

>A colleague just sent me this article. Last year, when I was in London, attending the annual ISMAAR conference on Mild Approaches to Assisted Reproduction, I heard Teresa Woodruff from Northwestern speak on her research in this area.

This article in today’s London Telegraph states, “Scientists have grown eggs from tissue taken from five-year-old girls meaning future childhood cancer sufferers could go on to have children of their own.” Sounds wonderful and promising for these little girls, should they ever be at risk of lost fertility from cancer treatments.

What were their results? “They worked with 19 patients between the ages of five and 20. On average they were able to retrieve an average of nine eggs per patient and 34 per cent of them were successfully matured.”

Critically though, this technology can be used by women who just want to delay childbearing. Also, concerns over germ line manipulation taking place in ovarian tissue for screening in or screening out genetic traits for future children.

Curious, Dr. Woodruff spoke on this technique and its use for preserving endangered and threatened species.

“A disgraced South Korean scientist’s application for a patent to protect his disputed human embryo cloning technology is still under review, Australia’s intellectual property protection body says. Agency spokespeople have refused to comment on why the patent would not be granted as scheduled.”

It is now widely known that the cloning research of Dr. Hwang, published in 2004 and 2005 was not only fraudulent, but exploited hundreds of women for their eggs.

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times! And today, on the eve of the 30th anniversary of Louise Brown, the first test tube baby, I’ll say it again. We need to start studying and better understanding infertility. Once we were able to make life in the lab, we stopped studying and treating infertility. If you were having trouble getting pregnant, off to the IVF doctor you go to start mixing up a baby in the lab.

Two new studies presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) conference in Barcelona had this to say about male infertility.

Obesity in men has a negative effect on sperm volume and quality. Men with a higher BMI showed lower sperm volume and more abnormal sperm.

And another study found that men with Type-1 Diabetes had sperm with “genetic abnormalities in their sperm of sufficient severity to reduce its ability to fertilise an egg.”

Some experts in the UK are saying we should deny expensive fertility treatments to the obese.

Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a venture capital firm in the Silicon Valley has just bet on adult stem cell research. While the amount of funding is still not known, we do know that they’ve invested in a new Bay Area company, iZumi Bio Inc.

Collaborative work with iZumi and San Francisco based J.David Gladstone Institutes, “will build on breakthrough methods of creating “induced pluripotent stem cells,” which are adult skin cells that can be coaxed to develop into many cell types. These cells might some day help to regenerate injured spinal cords or damaged hearts, scientists hope.

The technology sidesteps the ethical objections raised against research in human embryonic stem cells, which are derived from early stage human embryos that are often destroyed in the process. In addition, the technology may help avoid immune system rejection of replacement tissues, because an adult patient’s cell could be the source of stem cells that are a genetic match to that individual.

“We all feel the (induced pluripotent stem cells) technology has the potential to transform the regenerative medicine space,” said Thane Kreiner, chief executive officer of iZumi.”"

The week was buzzing with stem cell news. Sadly, The Scientist blog has a piece claiming that Embryonic Stem Cells are Still the Gold Standard.

“”We need new human embryonic stem cells,” said Jaenisch. “They differ enormously from iPS cells,” and understanding the reprogrammed cells will be impossible without good human embryonic stem cells. In particular, these two types of cells are derived in completely different ways and therefore, a clear understanding of how safe iPS cells are, or how they may behave in therapies, is still a long way off. “

Of course the story below has nothing to do with embryonic stem cells but all to do with umbilical cord blood banking - which we need to get behind and start banking a whole lot more of cord blood! Leukemias are often treated with stem cell transplants from cord blood - which is why the couple below are going to create a “savior sibling” for their little girl. Unfortunately, that means they will make embryos in the lab and implant the donor ‘matched’ baby in the mother’s womb. And most likely discard the others . . .

Ethics of having a baby to harvest stem cells questioned:

Maria and Rick Kent want to do all they can to save their 23-month-old daughter from leukemia.

That desire is propelling the Simi Valley, Calif., couple down an intricate and controversial path. They plan on having another child to increase the chances that Hailey Joy will be able to find a match if she needs a second stem cell transplant.

We also learned this last week that the stem cell field has been energized and continues to grow. However, it is because of the breakthroughs in iPSC research that has prompted this ethical surge. At a meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell Research in Philadelphia tlast 2,500 delegates attended, something ISSCR president Dr. George Daley finds encouraging.

“The discovery last year of induced pluripotent stem cells — ordinary skin cells that can be transformed into something that looks very much like an embryonic stem cell — has energized the field, Dr. George Daley said.”

And Yamanaka has just announced that he has made improvement on his iPSC technique.

“In Saturday’s closing session of the annual meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell Researchers, Yamanaka reported that he had combined all six genes used by his lab and Thomson’s and had been able to double the reprogramming efficiency.

Yamanaka also reported that he had been able to reprogram liver and stomach cells in addition to skin cells.

Some of the genes used are known to cause cancer, and Yamanaka reported that reprogramming has led to tumors in a significant number of mice. Finding an alternative delivery system to viruses is “a technical issue,” he said, adding after the meeting that he expects to see it resolved relatively soon.”

Yamanaka, along with Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell have just been awarded the Shaw Prize. The prize in Life Sciences and Medicine is awarded for, “Discoveries in the biomedical sciences and innovations in clinical medicine have led to significant victories in our longstanding war against illness and suffering.”

My colleague, Evan Rosa, has a great piece here on the recent approval of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) to award $271 million dollars in facilities grants to 12 academic and research institutions. 800,000 square feet of buildings to be erected by 2010 for the purpose of embryonic stem cell and human cloning research funded by the California taxpayers.
10 of the 12 buildings will be on university campuses. Like the University of California, Berkeley’s Li Ka Shing Center for Biomedical and Health Sciences, which will boast 60,000 square-feet and 12 labs dedicated to embryonic stem cell research.

Rosa writes, “Structures are suggestive . And these buildings, bought on the Prop 71 budget, suggest something radical: academic, political and cultural approval of (human) embryonic stem cell research. They are monuments, monoliths even of scientific dominance and strength.

Even Robert Klein, chairman of CIRM’s governing agency , agrees, “This Prop 71 stem cell research facilities program is one of the largest building programs ever dedicated for a new field of medical science and it will deliver an impact that will be felt worldwide.”

Consider this final thought: Klein also responds to the May 7, 2008, hESC research facilities decision that “[California research institutions'] incredible commitment [of funding] underscores the promise that stem cell research holds for patients suffering from chronic disease and injury.”

There’s that word again. Promise . For such a politically skeptical culture, people so wary of the easy words of our would-be leaders, we sure have exhibited a lot of faith in the “promise” scientists and politicians are making for human embryos. We’re betting $271 million (and who knows how many human lives?) on that promise this month, and by 2010 and beyond we’ll see how these structures stack up: memorials or mausoleums?”

Monday, as was expected, the United Kingdom approved the creation of human-animal hybrids for research. British officials have bought it hook line and sinker . . . they want to maintain their reputation as leaders in stem cell research. And since a strong contingent of organized groups have been successful at slowing down the human egg trade, creating a shortage of human eggs for research, the researchers are moving forward using enucleated animal eggs and adding in human genetic material, typically from a skin cell. Add a small jolt of electricity and Voila! The cybrid is here. Interspecies cloning has occurred.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, “these embryos would bring to an end ‘the critical limiting factor in stem cell research: the lack of human eggs from which to create embryos and collect stem cells’. They would also bring new cures and treatments to millions of people.”

The bill also backs the creation of “savior siblings”. This means, if you have a sick child who needs a genetic match, you can make embryos in the lab through IVF technology, test them to identify the match, and then implant that embryo in order to save your sick child. Of course, this also means, generally the other embryos are either discarded or donated for research. Perhaps some of you have read Jodi Picoult’s book, My Sister’s Keeper? Chilling what happens when we treat people as means to an end.

And no new law would be complete without either a Hollywood celebrity with an illness or a politician with a sick child or relative beating the desperate drum of Cures, Cures, Cures.

May cool heads prevail as it looks as if we will stop at nothing?

Has the era of high tech embryo profiling arrived? I have been following the recent study published in the journal Human Reproduction. Researchers have combined the technology that allows them to screen embryos at the blastocyst stage with the DNA fingerprinting and microarray analysis technology in order to identify the viable blastocysts transferred into the mother. The search for the best embryo has always been part of the IVF equation with all the quality controls put in place in the lab.

So how is the research being conducted?

The researchers tested the DNA of early in vitro fertilization embryos before implanting them into the womb, and then compared the results with the DNA of the healthy babies that were born, and found a cluster of genes that could be used to establish which embryos are likely to make it to full term.”

And why is this research touted as progress?

The idea is that by using objective, measurable criteria rather than the current more subjective observations such as looking at the morphology of the blastocysts, the ability to predict which embryos are viable will improve to such an extent that IVF clinicians will be able to confidently implant single embryos without reducing pregnancy rates.”

Current methods of embryo testing and embryo grading occur daily in IVF clinics and are just part of the routine. I’ve always criticized embryo grading for being subjective, harmful and dangerous to the early embryo as well as just not a good indicator of the future health of the baby. We’re in dangerous waters here.

The timeline keeps getting moved back further and further in human development in our insatiable quest for the perfect people. We’ve become a people with zero tolerance with anything less than perfect.

In their closing statement, the United Methodist Church has adopted by a vote of 836 for and 28 against, for their book of resolutions, their statement titled Repentance for Support of Eugenics. The resolution passed at their General Conference on April 30,2008. this makes the United Methodist Church the first denominational church in the U.S. to openly repent of their support of or involvement in the early eugenic movement in the U.S.

Here’s how they wrapped up their 9 page resolution:

Repentance for Support of Eugenics
The United Methodist General Conference formally apologizes for Methodist leaders and Methodist bodies who in the past supported eugenics as sound science and sound theology. We lament the ways eugenics was used to justify the sterilization of persons deemed less worthy. We lament that Methodist support of eugenics policies was used to keep persons of different races from marrying and forming legally recognized families. We are especially grieved that the politics of eugenics led to the extermination of millions of people by the Nazi government and continues today as “ethnic cleansing” around the world.”

My friend and colleague has a review of the movie, Baby Mama, over here.

“Overall, Baby Mama was effective to the extent of its shallow portrayal of the enterprise of surrogacy as ridiculous and innocuous.
The problem is that a human culture that embraces surrogacy is a culture in human decline. “

Eggs and sperm for sale, wombs for rent, cut and paste cafeteria menu selections for baby making. All the necessary ingredients for a culture in decline.

My piece just out now on the egg sharing scheme proposed for the shortage of eggs in California.

In an effort to get more eggs into the hands of cloning researchers, the president of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), Alan Trounson, recently suggested the solution to the human egg shortage is to implement an “egg-sharing” program. Rule number one, always BEWARE of euphemisms!

At the February 28, 2008, the CIRM Standards Working Group, Trounson is quoted as saying , “The demand for oocytes may be way beyond what we can possibly deliver,” and

“Women are not prepared to go through those procedures without some form of compensation.” Of course, Trounson’s complaint is in direct response to the number of grant applications CIRM is receiving for cloning research requiring human eggs. You see, this was never really about all those surplus embryos . read full article here.