Solutions for the Higher Education Financial Quagmire

This has not been a good year for higher education. Economic downturns traditionally benefit the educational community by providing a surge of displaced workers to fill the classrooms, but the severity of the current economic situation actually has had a negative effect on campuses across the U.S. While people are returning to higher education, the financial mess on Wall Street has crippled the financial backbone of academia. Across the country, state budgets are in crisis.

In my own backyard, for example, the University System of North Carolina experienced a 5.8 percent reduction in funding in 2008-2009, and the North Carolina state budget is facing a $3.4 billion shortfall for 2009-2010. In addition to budget cuts, the General Assembly enacted a 7 percent reversion in the budgets of higher education — the new name for supplemental budget cuts.

On a more individual basis, since this recession directly involves the financial sector, people are having a hard time securing the funding to return to school, and scholarships and grants are reducing their support as their endowments struggle. Somehow, we have become accustomed to this type of news, with many wondering how any good can come out of this situation.

The Bright Side of Budget Woes
The budgetary quagmire facing academia often is viewed as an obstacle to program and curriculum development. But this actually may be the event that finally catalyzes the blending of higher education and industry.

Across academia there always has been a rather small minority that actively has promoted and fostered direct interactions with the corporate world, not just in the form of grants, but in direct collaborations in research activities and the training of skilled workers to satisfy the needs of industry. Even though the current economic woes also are influencing the private sector, the time may be ideal for a revolution in the way that academia and industry (including big pharma) interact.

We are beginning to see that happen already. At Appalachian State, my home institution, the faculty is actively encouraged to develop partnerships with both the private and government sectors. Within the past few years, long-standing ultra-conservative policies regarding copyrights and ownership of patents have been discarded in favor of more liberal policies that promote technology transfer and cooperative agreements with industry.

The Ethics of Industry-Academic Collaborations
We do, however, need to get a handle on the ethics of these new relationships. In countless committees on college campuses, faculty and administrators are questioning whether these new relationships are in the best interests of the students. As is always the case, a few bad cases can upset years of progress. An excellent example of how ethical problems can cause havoc in an academic program is at Harvard Medical School. A March 2 article in The New York Times outlines Harvard's problems with both faculty and administrative personnel receiving financial support for their research from the pharmaceutical industry. In this case, individuals at Harvard are accused of placing their personal interests over those of professional interests. Even though the faculty and administration at Harvard had disclosed that they were working as consultants to private industry, the students' perception was that the faculty was using these relationships to influence the students' views on certain drugs. While the matter is still being debated at Harvard, it does show that potential problems exist.

Of course, the overall issue is one of transparency. Most of us recognize that transparency is the key to an effective workplace. When all issues are on the table and open to discussion, people feel more comfortable with their environment and their leaders. This type of change has been slow to develop on college campuses, where the authoritarian role of professors and administrators resembles a form of medieval caste system. Most institutions, including Harvard, fail the transparency test — but not all. As pointed out in the article, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford and Columbia have developed more transparent reporting systems and have received high grades for their achievements.

Promoting Collaborations Through Peer Review
There is another solution, and one that is deeply embedded in the scientific process. The scientific community, both academic and private, prides itself on the peer review process. With regards to research, review by one's peers is considered to be the benchmark of ensuring academic integrity.

What is needed in order to ensure that academic-industry relationships are handled ethically is an adaptation of the peer review process in academic-biopharma partnerships. Simply put, faculty must disclose their relationships to a community of peers, including representatives from industry. Since we are dealing with finances, these peer review committees should be inter-institutional, further compelling an environment of transparency in higher education.

This process will ensure that transparency is maintained, and it will promote the interactions of academia and big pharma. Furthermore, it will help encourage the interaction of academia with the biopharma community, which may result in an influx of much-needed capital into an increasingly bankrupt educational system. These are the types of partnerships that higher education, the industry, and even more importantly, the students, desperately need.

This article was first published in BioWorld Perspectives (May 28, 2009 vol 3 #21) by AHC Media and reproduced here by permission.

Suing Your Parents' Genes

It is said that people go into psychology to understand themselves...well, one of my main reasons why I went into genetics was to prove that I was not related to my family. That, of course, didn't happen - the Adams family is a more functional collection of misfits than my assortment of relatives, but now I may have a second option. Maybe I can sue my parents for the genetic material that they gave me.

Does it sound like I just took a break from reality? Maybe...but in today's world anything may be possible. A recent case in New York State may have set the stage for me to actually proceed with my lawsuit.

In this case, a law team representing a young girl has successfully convinced a judge to hear a case against Idant Laboratories - a sperm bank. The team alleges that the sperm bank provided the girl with cells from a donor that contained an allele for fragile-x syndrome, a genetic cause of mental retardation.

This case basically establishes that gametes, and the genetic information that they contain, may be considered to be a commodity, and are suing the labs on the basis of a "breach of the express warranty of merchantability". While the details of this case are very interesting, namely how several different labs differed in their results in screening for fragile-X syndrome, and how the lab is alleged for not discovering that the donor displayed symptoms of fragile-X. But even more intriguing is the fact that sperm is now a commodity. That is right, sperm may be now covered by a warranty, just like a TV or iPod.

Which leads me back to my parents. You may think that may approach to using the parents is just a get-rich scheme, but actually it may be the perfect solution for the high-cost of medical treatment. Luckily for me, as least so far, my parents did not give me anything by a colorful childhood and a decent dose of lunacy. I have suffered from anxiety-related issues my entire life, and given the pattern of inheritance in the male members of my family, I am sure that I can trace this trait directly back down my paternal line. But lets just say that I had inherited some sort of more-damaging, and costly genetic defect - maybe even fragile-X syndrome. Then, based on what this case may be proposing - I could sue my parents, and more important their insurance companies, for providing a defective product. In theory, if I could get DNA samples, I could go back multiple generations (we have plenty of loonies in our closet), and possible recoup the cost of my medical treatments. My children could then sue me, etc., etc.

In other words, while I do support the efforts of the family of this young lady to provide for their daughter and prevent future people from suffering from neglect - the courts need to be very careful with what precedent that they set on this one. One wrong turn and the insurance agencies will insist that everyone undergo genetic screening - and that their insurance rates be based on the results of that screening. I am fairly sure, especially if you have a family like mine, that you don't want people peeing into that closet!

Neandertals in Our Midst

The commercials featuring the Geico caveman made it seem as if a Neandertal could readily interact within a Homo sapiens society.... we may soon find out if that is true.

Recently, scientists at the Max Plank Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig Germany announced that they had completed the sequencing of the Neandertal genome.

Neandertals went extinct around 30,000 years ago - most likely because of an untimely interaction with the Cro-Magnon, our early ancestors. As was the case with most species on the planet, Neandertals did not fare well from their encounters with us. For some time scientists have believed that it may have been possible that Neandertals simply bred into the Cro-Magnon population and the two became genetically integrated. Based on the work of these German scientists, it is now clear that this did not happen. There is no significant evidence of a transfer of Neandertal genes into our species.

While nature intends for extinction to be permanent, our mastering of the molecular world has made it possible to bring some species back to life. Wolly mammoths, the dodo bird, and passenger pidgeons have all been nominated as species to be returned to the surface of the planet. We can now add a new species - the Neandertals.

Once the genomic analysis is complete, it may be possible to transplant Neandertal DNA into a chimpanzee, or even human, ovum. Since there is very little genetic difference between these three, there should be relatively few developmental probems. In fact, it is estimated that this could occur within the next few years at the nominal cost of around $30 million.

So what would we do with these Neandertals? We should decide that before we begin. Our initial instinct may be to put them in a zoo. But we should be careful about that decision. For although we may consider ourselves to be the evolutionary favorite - we may have just gotten lucky the first time. We now know that Neandertals possessed the gene for speech, FOXP2, and they had a larger brain size than ours, and had the at least the beginnings of culture. They may give us a serious run for our money this time around. Who knows, maybe this time they will let us integrate into their culture..... or maybe not.

Walmart Offers Genome Sequencing? Not Yet...But Maybe Soon

Within the next few years it may be possible to go to Walmart, pick up a gallon of milk, and then stop by and have your genome sequenced while you wait. Sound unbelievable? Recent developments in the sequencing of your genome may make this a reality in the near future.

A company called Complete Genomics has recently announced that they intend to market the $5000 complete genome sequencing package. $5000 is not cheap, but it is definitely cheaper than some of the earlier efforts at genome sequencing.

The Human Genome Project cost 2.7 billion dollars, or roughly $1 per nucleotide in our genome. If the claims by Complete Genomics are correct, then the cost of having your 3 billion (+) nucleotides in your genome sequenced is be reduced to around $0.000016 each. And that opens the door for some pretty interesting developments....

First of all is the fact that the $5000 genome will ignite a form of biotech price war. When the first wide-screen plasma TVs hit the market, their average price was well over $5000. Many people wondered who would pay that much for a TV? But, very quickly, the price came down to the point where now you can get a wide-screen plasma for around $500. The same thing should happen with genome sequencing. Competition and technological advances will drive down the price, maybe even to less than $500. There is already financial incentive, the Archon X Prize in Genomics is offering $10 million to the first company to sequence 100 human genomes in less than 10 days. This is still a formidable task, but so was getting around the world in less than 80 days to Jules Verne.

The availability of inexpensive and rapid sequencing of individual genomes will be a huge asset to companies who need large databases for genomics work. Once these large databases become available, extensive association studies of the human genome become possible. These studies have the potential to reveal rare gene combinations that may be associated with some forms of diseases. This, in turn, has the potential to facilitate the development of new treatment options. As in any scientific experiment, the larger the database, the greater the chance of finding something rare and interesting. Right now, we are limited the availability of these large databases by cost...but it looks as if that may be changing.

Of course, there are real ethical questions that need to be addressed, mainly to do with the confidentiality of the genetics information and who ultimately owns the rights to your DNA. After all, the insurance companies would love to know about that rare allele you are hiding that will not only shorten your life (and time paying premiums) and cost them thousands in medical costs. We should be cautious of who has access to this information, but not so overly cautious as to delay development time of new technologies. In the long run, the availability of inexpensive genomic sequencing will advance medicine in ways that are currently only science fiction.




For more information on the work being done by Complete Genomics, see the article by Peter Aldhous "Genome Sequencing Falls to $5000"

The Reality of Race

What really makes us different? As the father of two young children, I am constantly amazed at how my children begin to distinguish themselves from others in their class. At a very young age, they barely recognized that not all people were the same, and what differences they did note were more of a curiosity to them than a type of distinction.

Now, however, as they exit middle school, they are well aware that some people are "different" from them. Sure, some of it is their social environment — we all know that middle schools are not the model of social integration. But as a scientist, I always have been intrigued by the apparent need to define ourselves as unique, even when it is clear from a scientific perspective that the majority of these differences are due to very minor variations in our genetic makeup.

Despite the ongoing "nature versus nurture" argument between the social scientists and geneticists, as scientists we always have suspected that our underlying differences would have to be controlled by genetics and the biochemical pathways that those genes regulate. While we now recognize that the environment does play a role in gene expression, and few of us believe that we are genetic automatons, barely a week goes by when we are not made aware of a new discovery on the genetic basis of a behavior or a disease. Genes control phenotypes. If race is such an important aspect of our society, as is clearly demonstrated by the latest political cycle, why has it taken us so long to really take a good look at the "phenotype" of race, and determine whether race is genetic?

Over the past several years there have been a number of articles that address the concept of race. One of my favorites is "Does Race Exist?" by Michael Bamshad and Steve Olson, from the Nov. 10, 2003, issue of Scientific American. I make this a required reading article for all of my science classes, from non-scientists to future geneticists.

The basic premise of this article is that the pigmentation level of an individual's skin is a poor criteria to use to identify them as belonging to a specific race, and that the use of these phenotypic races in medicine is bound to create problems.

The authors give an example of African Americans, who are typically identified as being of African descent. However, Africa is not home to a group of genetically identical individuals. Sub-Saharan Africans are genetically different from those from South Africa and the Mediterranean regions.

What is really important is how these populations of humans have historically adapted to selective forces including disease and the environment. Groups that have responded to similar selective forces are more correctly classified as a "race" than those with similar skin colors.

A recent NewScientist article, "Watson vs Venter: the loser is race-based medicine," brings two of biotech's big names to center stage on the discussion of race. James Watson and Craig Venter have made their genomes available publically. (For details see Venter and Watson.)

As Ewen Callaway reports in the article, an analysis of Watson's genome indicates that Watson, a phenotypic Caucasian, possesses a number of mutations that are found most commonly in populations from East Asia.

What this means is that Watson's doctor may prescribe him codeine or antidepressant drugs based upon his Caucasian phenotype, without realizing that at the metabolic level, Watson's cells are operating as if he is Asian.

The same thing is probably happening in each of us. Now that the two big boys, and their associated financial clout, are involved in the discussion, maybe we can really start to talk about what race means.

I, for one, am encouraged that these discussions are starting to gain momentum. At a time when humanity appears to be obsessed in establishing differences based upon race, sexual orientation, ethnicity and religious preference, it is promising to see that the scientific community is working to dispel these notions.

Research into the genetic basis of race needs to continue, not only for the development of new drugs, but to break down society's stereotypes of race. We need to recognize that while the person next to us may look different than we do, he or she may have more in common with us as an individual than a person of our perceived "race." I have a hard time seeing how anything negative can come from this realization.

This entry was originally published as "The Differences Within Us: The Latest Scientific Discussions on Race and Medicine" in the Sept 11, 2008 volume of Bioworld Perspectives. It is reprinted here by permission of AHC Media.

Nondisclosure Agreements for First Dates

Michael Creighton's latest thriller, Next, presents all sorts of what-if scenarios for the genetic community. While most of us will not have to deal with foul-mouthed orangutans or smart-ass parrots, a recent report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that there may be a genetic factor contributing to fear of commitment in males. As reported today by the BBC ("Commitment phobes can blame genes", Sept 2, 2008), this gene is called AVPR1A. Males with a certain allele for this gene (allele 334)have an aversion to commitment, and are less likely to have happy, fulfilled marriages.

Maybe this is not a surprise...but it could be a problem for some males. In a Creighton-world scenario, a male goes out for a date with an attractive women. As he excuses himself to go use the restroom, the woman quietly swabs the inside of his glass, removing a few epithelial cells. She then sends these off to a genetic screening lab where she finds out that the male possesses two copies of AVPR1A allele 334. The next day she ends the relationship and then publishes his name on her blog to warn her friends that he is a hopeless cause. If you think that these tests do not exist - click here.

Why would she do this? Because there are evolutionary differences between the ways that men and women view relationships. Like it or not, in the animal kingdom (to which humans belong), women often form long-term relationships for the purpose of rearing young. Men, on the other hand, are more likely to seek multiple, short-term relationships. So back to humans.... why should the female invest valuable time and energy in a relationship that is genetically bound for failure? No longer do women have to contemplate whether he will "change" - the genetic evidence will tell them. Anyone else hear warning sirens?


So guys, the next time you go out on that first date, make sure that you have your partner sign a non-disclosure agreement stating that any genetic information that she obtains as a result of your date is to remain your legal property unless you consent to its release. Of course, that type of conversation will probably also stop you from getting a second date, but at least your little genetic secret may remain private.

Hockey Players and the Minority Report

What if society could identify aggressive behavior in individuals before a criminal act was committed? Sound a little like the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report (2002)?,well it should. Researchers at Brock University in Canada have recently completed a study of hockey players and found out that the aggressive tendencies of these individuals is associated with a higher width-to-height ratio of the face. This increased ratio is linked to higher levels of testosterone, which is linked to aggressiveness.

The problem with this research is that someone may attempt to pre-identify a criminal based upon an inherited characteristic. Sounds good? Well, maybe, if the study is done right. Not too long ago, studies of Jacob's syndrome, males with an extra Y chromosome (XYY), predicted that since these males had an extra Y chromosome, that they should have higher testosterone levels and be more aggressive than "normal" (XY) males. Unfortunately, this is not entirely true. These males do not typically have high testosterone levels, and although they may show higher levels of aggression, this is usually attributed to learning and social problems as a result of the syndrome. These, of course, are treatable with proper identification.

So back the minority report. Should I be keeping an eye on my block-headed neighbor for signs of criminal intent based upon this study. Probably not. Another explanation may be that people with different width-to-height ratio of the face may prefer to play hockey rather than other sports. Who knows, maybe this gives them advantage when being knocked in the head by a stick, or maybe low width-to-height ratio people are selected against in tryouts. In either case, lets not make Minority Report a reality. People should be prosecuted for their actions, not their genetics.

Men: The Next Endangered Species?

Men, have you recently had one of those feelings that something was not exactly right? A sense of impending doom? An uneasiness with the state of the world? While it was not exactly front-page news, an article by Nick Lane in the June 7^th issue of New Scientist (One Baby, Two Moms) should have all men worried. Lane’s article has to do with the generation of a embryonic cell that is basically a hybrid of three parents. The purpose was to transfer mitochondria from one cell to another to potentially prevent disease. The implications for men in general may be much more severe.

Mitochondria are the powerhouses of your cells. These small internal compartments are where your body converts food, usually carbohydrates, into the energy that runs all cellular processes. They use lots of oxygen in the process. In fact, if it wasn’t for mitochondria, the oxygen that you breathe would be lethal.

Mitochondria are interesting for several other reasons. One is the fact that they really don’t belong to us. If you take a good look at the genetics of the mitochondria you will quickly discover that they closely resemble those of the bacteria. The mitochondrial chromosome is circular, just like those of a bacterium, and the structure of the genes on the chromosome is very similar as well. Creationists absolutely hate mitochondria since they provide strong evidence of a major evolutionary event (over 600 million years ago) in the formation of modern cells. Each of our cells contains the remnants of a bacterial infestation hundreds of millions of years ago. But that fact has very little to do with the extinction of males.

What is more important is that we get our mitochondria from our mother. When a sperm cell fertilizes an egg, only the mitochondria in the egg survive. Thus, the mitochondria in my cells are all derived from my mother, who in turn got them from her mother, etc, etc. In fact, our mitochondria provide a history of our heritage. (For excellent coverage of this topic, read Brian Sykes book The Seven Daughters of Eve). But there is a flaw in this process. If there is a defect in a woman’s mitochondria, then she will pass that defect on to her offspring. Since the male doesn’t contribute mitochondria, then there is no chance of getting a “normal” mitochondria from the male. Mitochondria disorders are associated with a number of neurological disorders. Women with a history of these disorders have always been concerned about reproduction.

To bypass this problem, scientists have recently developed a procedure to produce embryos from three parents – two females and one male. This process allows a woman with a known mitochondrial disorder to produce a healthy embryo by using her DNA, mitochondria from another woman, and DNA from a man. The result is a child with the same genetic make-up as would be produced by any normal fertilization event between a man and a woman, but minus the mitochondrial disorder.

Sounds good right? Well, what this has done is place us one step closer to the ability to combine two eggs to produce an embryo. And once that happens men, there will be little reason to keep us around anymore.

Females reproducing without males is nothing new to the animal world. There are several species can either reproduce without males (called parthenogenesis). But until recently, it appeared that males were absolutely necessary for reproduction in mammals. There are several important genetic reasons for this, and the information in Nick Lane’s article does not necessarily indicate that men are doomed – yet. But it does indicate that scientists have overcome another hurdle in their ability to manipulate cells. Soon, perhaps sooner than we think, it will be possible to merge two eggs to form a zygote.

With the news being presented in this article, men are one step closer to joining the dodo bird and passenger pigeons. Author Bryan Sykes has already foretold this in another of his books - Adam’s Curse: A Future Without Men. This should be required reading for all men. For now we are one step closer to that reality. And if the guy at the top of this post is an endangered species…..men in general are doomed.

Fountain of Youth??

Growth hormones are once again in the news. The difference is that this time it is not the debate over the presence of growth hormones in the food supply. Instead, the focus is now over the use of growth hormone supplements. Over the past few months the media has been covering a set of stories regarding human growth hormone, also known as hGH or somatotropin.

The controversy of the Mitchell report and Roger Clemens in professional baseball (although mostly focused on steroid use), admittance by performing artists that they have used somatotropin to look younger, and even Rambo's confession that he not only uses synthetic growth hormones, but also recently tried to illegally transport some into Australia, are just a few of the more recent headlines that have raised public interest in learning more about the use of performance-enhancing growth hormones. And as usual, the public may not be getting the complete story.

Growth Hormones: Fact vs. Fiction

If idols in Hollywood and professional sports are using growth hormones, then why shouldn't we all use human growth hormone supplements? After all, the scientific community presented evidence in 1990 that injections of somatotropin can provide small decreases in body fat and increase muscle mass — neither of which appears to be a bad idea when we are faced with the fact that our population is getting older and heavier. There are claims that it can increase the sex drive and remove wrinkles.

As an aging science writer, that doesn't sound too bad, except that in the back of my head the nagging voice of the scientist in me keeps saying that maybe I should check the facts first.

So what are the facts? Well, the truth is that the biotechnology community is still investigating whether the use of somatotropin really has any of these beneficial effects. The hormone is used clinically to treat complications from HIV, dwarfism in children, and burn victims, but as a performance-enhancer the debate is ongoing.

More recent studies appear to contradict the 1990 report, and the few longer-term projects on the effects of growth hormone supplements in seniors have indicated that use of somatotropin does not provide a significant increase in muscle strength, but it does increase swelling, joint pain and chances of carpal tunnel syndrome. Several researchers are currently looking at whether use of growth hormones increases the rate and spread of certain types of cancers.

Reevaluating Role Models

But really, if an adult wants to take a supplement, should we be concerned? After all, a trip into any pharmacy or grocery store reveals aisle upon aisle of unproven remedies for any number of conditions. One story in general explains why as a society we should not condone the use of somatotropin for reasons other than those approved by the FDA.

In January 2008 Luis Fernando Llosa and L. Jon Wertheim reported in the rather disturbing Sports Illustrated article "Sins of the Father" on the real costs of the use of human growth hormone. The story focused on Corey Gahan, a teen-age in-line skating champion who admitted that he was pressured by his coaches and father into receiving injections of steroids and human growth hormones for the sole purpose of improving athletic performance. The combination was highly successful, and Corey became a national champion in his age class. However, after routine testing Corey was stripped of his titles and banned from additional competition.

The truly sad aspect of this is the fact that both Corey and his father, who served jail time for providing the drugs to Corey, both believed that the only way to be competitive was to take performance-enhancing compounds.

And where did they get this idea? From professional athletes of course — the very ones teen-age athletes put on the pedestal as role models. In other words, society set the standards and the young athletes pay the price. Unfortunate as it may sound, youth look to us as role models.

Too Good to Be True?

There is a real chance that supplements of growth hormone may provide some real medical benefits. Ongoing trials have already hinted that this is the case. But as scientists in the biotech community, we should begin an aggressive campaign of our own to let society know that they need to be patient and wait for all of the evidence to come in before jumping on the somatotropin bandwagon. The medical community should make it clear that they will report all illicit use of their drugs, in any form, since failing to do so seems to send the message that doctors and physicians don't really care about what is done with the medicines that are prescribed.

And let us agree that we will research the long-term effects of growth hormone use before we sell it as the next miracle drug. Our experience should tell us that when something seems too good to be true, it usually is.

Note: this article first appeared in Bioworld Perspectives, (vol 2; #7) on February 14, 2008 and is reprinted here by permission of AHC Media, LLC