Forum Bioethik
-international -
English |
INFO/ Human Genetics Alert
November 21, 2001
Contents
1. Law change planned
to stop patents of humans
2. Genetic evidence
links Jews to their ancient tribe
3. THE APPLIANCE
OF SCIENCE; SCIENTISTS FEEL THAT JOURNALISTS DON'T
UNDERSTAND THEM. A NEW MEDIA CENTRE COULD BRING THE TWO
CAMPS TOGETHER, WRITES TRISTRAM HUNT
The Dominion (Wellington) November 16, 2001
HEADLINE: Law change planned to stop patents of humans
BODY: THE Government says it is changing the patents
law to ban attempts to
patent human beings. The law change -- announced yesterday
is in line with
recommendations made by the world-first Royal Commission
on Genetic
Modification in its report in July.
One of the recommendations was that a specific exclusion
be added to patent
law for the copyright of humans and the biological processes
for generating
them. The commission said that questions of morality
arose when considering
whether patents should be granted for humans and human-related
matter. In
theory a patent could not be taken over a human, a human
body part, or a
human gene in its natural host. "At best, a patent could
be granted for a synthetic dna
molecule carrying the same information as found in the
human body, or a
method for producing a novel human organ or body part
suitable for
transplantation."
It was unlikely that a patent covering human beings
would be granted under
existing New Zealand law and practice, but "to put the
issue beyond doubt it
would be desirable to cover the point specifically by
statute".
* NZPA Supplied
by New Zealand Press Association LOAD-DATE: November
19,
2001 [Entered November 20, 2001]
Genetic evidence links Jews to their ancient tribe
By Judy Siegel
JERUSALEM (November 20) - Genetic evidence continues
to provide additional
proof to the claims that the Jewish people are descended
from a common
ancient Israelite father: Despite being separated for
over 1,000 years,
Sephardi Jews of North African origin are genetically
indistinguishable from
their brethren from Iraq, according to The Hebrew University
of Jerusalem.
They also proved that Sephardi Jews are very close genetically
to the Jews
of Kurdistan, and only slight differences exist between
these two groups and
Ashkenazi Jews from Europe.
These conclusions are reached in an article published
recently in the
American Journal of Human Genetics and written by Prof.
Ariella Oppenheim of
the Hebrew University (HU) and Hadassah-University Hospital
in Ein Kerem.
Others involved are German doctoral student Almut Nebel,
Dr. Marina Faerman
of HU, Dr. Dvora Filon of Hadassah-University Hospital,
and other colleagues
from Germany and India.
The researchers conducted blood tests of Ashkenazi, Sephardi
and Kurdish
Jews and examined their Y chromosomes, which are carried
only by males. They
then compared them with those of various Arab groups
- Palestinians,
Beduins, Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese - as well as
to non-Arab
populations from Transcaucasia - Turks, Armenians and
Moslem Kurds.
The study is based on 526 Y chromosomes typed by the
Israeli team and
additional data on 1,321 individuals from 12 populations.
The typing of the
Jewish groups was performed at the National Genome Center
at HU's Silberman
Institute of Life Sciences.
The Fertile Crescent of the Middle East was one of the
few centers in which
the transition from hunting-gathering to permanent settlement
and
agriculture took place. Genetic studies suggest that
migrating Neolithic
farmers dispersed their technological innovations and
domesticated animals
from the Middle East towards Europe, North Africa and
Southwest Asia.
Studies of Y chromosomes have become powerful tools for
the investigation of
the genetic history of males, since these chromosomes
are transmitted from
fathers to sons.
Surprisingly, the study shows a closer genetic affinity
by Jews to the
non-Jewish, non-Arab populations in the northern part
of the Middle East
than to Arabs. These findings are consistent with known
cultural links that
existed among populations in the Fertile Crescent in
early history, and
indicate that the Jews are direct descendants of the
early Middle Eastern
core populations, which later divided into distinct ethnic
groups speaking
different languages.
Previous investigations by the HU researchers suggested
a common origin for
Jewish and non-Jewish populations living in the Middle
East. The current
study refines and delineates that connection.
It is believed that the majority of today's Jews - not
including converts
and non-Jews with whom Jews intermarried - descended
from the ancient
Israelis that lived in the historic Land of Israel until
the destruction of
the Second Temple and their dispersal into the Diaspora.
The researchers say that a genetic analysis of the chromosomes
of Jews from
various countries show that there was practically no
genetic intermixing
between them and the host populations among which they
were scattered during
their dispersion - whether in Eastern Europe, Spain,
Portugal or North
Africa.
A particularly intriguing case illustrating this is that
of the Kurdish
Jews, said to be the descendants of the Ten Tribes of
Israel who were exiled
in 723 BCE. to the area known today as Kurdistan, located
in Northern Iraq,
Iran and Eastern Turkey. They continued to live there
as a separate entity
until their immigration to Israel in the 1950s. The Kurdish
Jews of today
show a much greater affinity to their fellow Jews elsewhere
than to the
Kurdish Moslems.
The Jerusalem Post
Contents
The Independent (London) November 20, 2001, Tuesday
SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 8 LENGTH: 706 words
HEADLINE: MEDIA: THE APPLIANCE OF SCIENCE; SCIENTISTS
FEEL THAT JOURNALISTS DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM. A NEW MEDIA CENTRE COULD BRING
THE TWO CAMPS TOGETHER, WRITES TRISTRAM HUNT
BYLINE: Tristram Hunt Susan Greenfield: media don
BODY: SCIENCE IS dictating how we live with a brutal
momentum. Climate
change, surveillance technology and, now, bio-terrorism
are unassailable components
of modern society. Yet the British public is still ignorant
of the most
elementary aspects of scientific inquiry, and the scientific
establishment is arrogantly complicit in that ignorance. While much of
society is now media-savvy, science has
been left behind.
Groups opposed to scientific research are always there
to take the call.
And scientists have shown a masochistic lack of interest
in public debate;
their preferred medium is there are f ied pages of peer-reviewed
journals such as Nature. Scientists have a proper concern for the
discipline of their method and are wary of speaking
out before their thesis has been tested by colleagues.
The memory of the
cold fusion "breakthrough", later proved horribly wrong,
weighs heavy.
Pressure groups talk in the black- and-white language
loved by reporters;
academics are usually more diffident. Scientists have
been further scared
away from public engagement by the media frenzy around
GM technology in
1999, science's annus horribilis. The reduction of a
complex branch of
biological engineering to "Frankenstein food" was typical
of media hopelessly ill equipped to discuss scientific progress rationally.
And into the vacuum stepped big business. What
inflicted the greatest damage on GM science was that
the case for the defence was fronted by the bio-tech groups Monsanto and
AstraZeneca. Science's self-abnegation has undermined
support for the very principle of scientific endeavour.
At a time when most people glean
scientific knowledge from the media, a refusal to engage
with the popular
press has been deeply detrimental. But this hapless amateurism
may be about
to change. Next month comes the official launch of the
Royal Institute's
Science Media Centre - a belated attempt to claw back
some of the lost
ground in public trust. The centre is the brainchild
of the institute's
director, Susan Greenfield, and the broadcaster Lord
Bragg of Wigton. As an Oxford professor in pharmacology and a media don,
Greenfield has watched the collapse of
faith in science and trust in scientists. Much of it,
she believes, can be put down to an often
unintentional media bias. While lobby groups get their
message out quickly,
science is left behind by the media cycle. Greenfield's
aim is to help
journalists to find the right scientist to talk
to at the right time. "We need to help scientists understand the demands
of the media," she says. And it is vital, says Lord Bragg, "that scientists
learn to communicate if they are not to be marginalised". The centre's
target is
busy news journalists who need the "science view". The
Astronomer Royal, Sir
Martin Rees, says that making sure all journalists have
a grasp of science
issues is the only way to "raise the debate above tabloid
sloganising". The
challenge is to place science firmly in the public realm,
where "it can be
discussed properly as part of general news and culture".
The Royal Society
is now taking a more proactive stance on science controversies.
Recent
briefing papers on stem-cell therapy and nuclear energy
have been deployed
with far greater media acumen than usual. Stories are
being placed and even
"leaked" - a sure sign of professionalism. Also in London,
the Science
Museum is providing a forum for pro-science pressure
groups and universities to meet;
next year the British Association for the Advancement
of Science relocates
to the museum's Wellcome Wing. Is all this making a difference?
Things do seem to be
improving slowly. Most people remain opposed to GM technology
but are less
opposed to researching it.
Government support for the animal research company
Huntingdon Life Sciences
met with general approval.
Parliament passed a Bill allowing research into
stem-cell therapy. The idea
that the more we learn about science the more we will
love it is misguided.
We can know as much as we like about genetic engineering
and still oppose it. But with proper debate, we would at least have sufficient
knowledge to choose whether to
embrace new discoveries or fear them. At the moment we
are given only half the story.
Contents
home
back
side
|