According to George Church, a genetics professor from Harvard Medical School, Neanderthal cells could be significant in the discovery of treatments for largely human-specific diseases such as HIV or smallpox. He says that if they are different enough to modern humans, they may possess genetic immunity to these conditions. Also, differences in their biology could lead to new gene therapy or drug treatments.

A first draft of the Neanderthal genome was released a year ago, but it is likely to contain many errors. Creating an artificial genome is an even greater challenge, but if it can be done, is it ethical to use it to recreate Neanderthals?

The bioethicists interviewed by Archaeology were largely in favour of it. Bernard Rollin, of Colorado State University, has no serious ethical reservations, but warns that it all depends on how they are perceived by others. "I don't think it is fair to put people...into a circumstance where they are going to be mocked and possibly feared," he says. Lori Andrews, of Chicago-Kent College of Law, doesn't see any problem with cloning, but points out that the Neanderthal's legal rights would include the right not to be experimented on. Since experimentation is the main purpose of the exercise, this makes cloning futile.

YOUTUBE_VIDEO_MIDDLE James Noonan, a geneticist at Yale University, takes a dim view of cloning. "If your experiment succeeds and you generate a Neanderthal who talks, you have violated every ethical rule we have, and if your experiment fails... well. It's a lose-lose," he says.

On the other hand, Dr Church believes that it could be unethical not to clone them.

The Neanderthals' differently shaped brains might give them a different way of thinking that would be useful in problem-solving. They would also expand humanity's genetic diversity, helping protect our genus from future extinction. "Just saying 'no' is not necessarily the safest or most moral path," he says. "It is a very risky decision to do nothing."

John Hawks, a University of Wisconsin paleoanthropologist, says that he does not believe that it is ethical to recreate a Neanderthal, but also that it is inevitable that some people will ignore the ethics of the situation. "In the end,” he says, "we are going to have a cloned Neanderthal, I'm just sure of it." ~Archaeology Vol 63 No. 2 Mar/Apr 2010

This month, hESC defenders have staged a bare-knuckle public relations fightback.

In the London Times, Thomas Okarma, CEO of Geron, the only listed company doing research in hESCs, told journalist Mark Henderson that iPS cells were vastly over-rated.

“iPS cells have been talked up as therapy by people with no experience of developing therapies. There is simply no business model for getting treatments based on your own cells into your body. The degree of difficulty in getting regulatory approval is just too great when you’re making new therapeutic cells from scratch every time.”

Okarma is a canny operator. A Geron clinical trial with hESCs was given FDA approval within days after President Obama’s inauguration and his repudiation of the Bush policy on stem cells. It turns out that Geron engineered the timing of the approval to create a huge wave of publicity. Geron needs good publicity, as none of its many announcements that human trials are imminent have proved true.

In another public relations coup, Newsweek’s Sharon Begley interviewed Robert Lanza, a leading figure in hESC research. He works for Advanced Cell Technology, a company which claimed to have cloned a human being in 2001. He also rubbished the potential of iPS cells. His experience has been that iPS cells age early and are vastly inferior to hESCs. "This whole population of cells is screwed up,” he said. Cures will be impossible if iPS cells age prematurely, and they will also be useless for drug discovery.

Dr Lanza is an interesting figure. His personal website describes him as “one of the leading scientists in the world” and repeats Discovery magazine’s description of him as “the Bill Gates of science”. He describes his latest book, Biocentrism, as “a simple yet radical idea shakes the very foundations of knowledge”, that “consciousness creates reality”. In an article written with the New Age guru Deepak Chopra, he says that biocentrism makes Darwinism outdated. Yet the media never asks him about his drift into New Age spirituality.

Finally, the head of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Alan Trounson, one of the world’s leading cheerleaders for hESCs, and 2 colleagues have interviewed Stephen Bellamy, an Anglican priest in the latest issue of the journal Stem Cells. Rev Bellamy is a strong defender of hESC research and pre-natal genetic diagnosis. The main point of the interview is to give an overtly Christian theological justification for research on human embryos. It must be the first time that stem cell theology has featured in a science journal:

“As an evangelical Christian, I hold a high view of the authority of scripture. The Bible teaches about the value, in God's eyes, of prenatal life developing in the womb but does not and cannot directly address the situation of our having the remarkable power and responsibility of dealing with preimplantation, or in vitro embryos.”

Ultimately, which type of stem cells will be useful will be thrashed out in laboratories, not in the media. But regulation and government funding probably depend more on the media. This month the supporters of hESC research have showed that they are far from a spent force. They kicked goals.

The neurologist who examined Mr Houben, Steven Laureys, now acknowledges that his cautious endorsement of the miraculous story was wrong. It turns out that the dramatic comments credited to Mr Houben had been filtered through a speech therapist using a technique called facilitated communication. After more extensive tests, it seems that she had unwittingly been projecting her own story and presenting it as his.

Sceptics of Houben’s incredible story feel vindicated. "It's like using an Ouija board," said bioethicist Arthur Caplan, of the University of Pennsylvania. "It was too good to be true, and we shouldn't have believed it."

However, that is not the end of the story. What has been proved faulty is facilitated communication. According to a long article in Der Spiegel, Houben may be capable of communication, but it is very difficult to examine him because his body is constantly shaken by spasms.

“Researchers are fairly certain that Houben is conscious -- and they find themselves in the desperate position of a rescue team trying to dig out a person from under the rubble…. ‘We'll simply have to find another way to him,’ Laureys says.” ~ Guardian, Feb 19

London’s Daily Mail is a tabloid’s tabloid but its reporters are expert at tracking down and interviewing people with stories to tell, even if they don’t have publicists. Taking its cue from the euthanasia debate over whether people in pain, terminal illness, or severe disability should have the option of assisted suicide, the newspaper interviewed Elisabeth Shepherd. 

Ms Shepherd cares for her 36-year-old son James, her fifth child. At the age of 8 James was struck by a car and hovered between life and death for months. Now he is a quadriplegic, can barely speak and is incontinent. But she cheerfully soldiers on, alone, day after day, caring for him.

She contacted the Daily Mail after another mother, Kay Gilderdale, was acquitted of the attempted murder of her severely disabled daughter. “Your admiration for the mother of Lynn Gilderdale frightens me,” she told the newspaper. “My fear,” she says, “is that if people begin to think of assisted suicide as an option then the balance will change. As a society, we will shift towards a different mindset. A mindset in which people like James begin to appear expendable.”

Ms Shepherd says that her convictions are not religious, but based on her belief in an inalienable human dignity.

“I do believe in a God, but my instinct that life is precious is not just grounded in that. It's partly from watching doctors fight so hard to preserve the least glimmer of life. It's also because I feel we're sold an ideal and people feel that if they don't have it they're not enough. But if we become a tickbox society, where we say no because someone can't have sex or cannot feed themself, where will that leave us?

“What is a human being? Is my son any less of a human being? Am I, because having done a law degree I didn't pursue my legal career and became a carer? Does that make me, or James, any less of a contributor to society? We all want something. But my aspirations and James's are different. Others might long to be an air hostess; we just want to see him flex a finger.”  ~ Daily Mail, Feb 18

“In a hospital one hot afternoon, the doctor said ‘There’s nothing we can do’, and he was in terrible, terrible pain. I said to the doctor ‘Leave me just for a bit’ and he went away. I picked up the pillow and smothered him until he was dead. The doctor came back and I said ‘He’s gone’. Nothing more was ever said.”

Shortly after the program was broadcast, police called Mr Gosling in for questioning, but he refused to name the man or to give any details of the incident. He told the media that he had no regrets. “If there’s a heaven and he’s looking down, he’d be proud of me,” he told the BBC.

Mr Gosling’s confession, filmed artfully in a chilly graveyard, was made two months ago, but the BBC did not inform police. This has led to accusations that the UK’s public broadcaster is subtly supporting the cause of assisted suicide.

“It is somewhat bizarre and highly irresponsible that the BBC… made the decision to make it international news just before the [Director of Public Prosecutions] releases his assisted suicide prosecution guidelines,” said the lobby group Care Not Killing. ~ Independent, Feb 17; New York Times, Feb 17

Somewhat embarrassingly for Dr Nitschke and his organization, Exit International, six people in their 20s and eight in their 30s had died of Nembutal poisoning. Because this drug is illegal in Australia for human consumption, Dr Nitschke has been encouraging people to smuggle it in from overseas, mostly from Mexico, or to manufacture it themselves. The most pessimistic interpretation of the figures is that 14 young people who were not terminally ill discovered how to obtain lethal doses of the poison from Exit members.

However, the figures, which were generated for The Age newspaper in Melbourne, are difficult to interpret, because only 38 of the 51 cases were thoroughly examined by a coroner. And the total could be higher, as it includes only those which emerged from a search of a national database. Of the 38, only 11 were suffering from a serious physical illness. Of the 51, nearly two-thirds were under 60. Without a more detailed knowledge of the cases, the data strongly implies that most of the people who used Nembutal to kill themselves were either mentally ill or just weary of life.

Typically, Dr Nitschke was unapologetic about possible collateral damage from his campaign for euthanasia for people suffering from terminal illness and loss of autonomy. ''There will be some casualties… but this has to be balanced with the growing pool of older people who feel immense well-being from having access to this information,'' he said. ~ The Age, Feb 15  

The government is opposed. It feels that existing animal welfare laws are sufficient to protect animals from abuse. Farmers and animal breeders fear being buried under red tape. A group called No to the Useless Animal Lawyers’ Initiative says, “Animal rights advocates are useless to animals. They can’t prevent animal abuse because they only get involved after it has been perpetrated.”

Zurich’s animal advocate, Antoine Goetschel, a 50-year-old vegetarian, is enthusiastic about the initiative. "Humans accused of animal cruelty can hire a lawyer or get one assigned, but animals cannot," he told London's Sunday Times. "Which is where I come in."

In Zurich he helps to enforce a 2008 national law which protects the rights of goldfish, canaries and guinea pigs, amongst other animals. Goldfish, for instance are regarded as “social animals” which should always have a companion. The Swiss take this seriously. Goetschel told the Times of a recent case in which police entered a home to investigate possible domestic violence. They noticed that the couple’s canary was living in a cage all by itself, so animal abuse was added to spouse abuse in the list of charges.

The proposal is a controversial one. Clara Balestra, of a child protection group, the Sarah Oberson Foundation, points out that the advocate will be independent both from the government and the animal’s owner and defend only the interests of the animal. Swiss children are not protected this well, she complains: “The groups [which] enjoy the best advocacy of their rights are the ones with most influence on decision-makers. So, we face a strange case where animal rights advocates seem to be stronger (better organized? better funded? better represented?) than child advocates.” ~ London Sunday Times, Jan 31

New members of the National Academy of Sciences in the US are asked to pen an inaugural article for its journal, the PNAS. Biologist Anthony R. Cashmore, of the University of Pennsylvania, has used the opportunity to set down a sweeping program for the reorganisation of all of society. Professor Cashmore is a plant biologist. Based on his studies of the plant species Arabidopsis thaliana, he has researched photoreceptors and how they drive plant growth and development, including changes in pigmentation and gene expression, seed germination, stem elongation, circadian rhythms and flowering.

Moving boldly out of his area of specialisation he demands that biologists recognise that free will is nonsense, that we are not responsible for our actions and that the criminal law must be fundamentally restructured.

“if we no longer entertain the luxury of a belief in the ‘magic of the soul’, then there is little else to offer in support of the concept of free will. Whereas much is written claiming to provide an explanation for free will, such writings are invariably lacking any hint of molecular details concerning mechanisms. Also, it is often suggested that individuals are free to choose and modify their environment and that, in this respect, they control their destiny. This argument misses the simple but crucial point that any action, as ‘free’ as it may appear, simply reflects the genetics of the organism and the environmental history, right up to some fraction of a microsecond before any action.”

On the whole scientists are sceptical about the claims of religion, but they fail to be equally sceptical about the existence of free will. If they really believed that free will does not exist and that all behaviour is determined by genetics and environment, then society will have to accept radical changes.

“Progress in understanding the chemical basis of behavior will make it increasingly untenable to retain a belief in the concept of free will. To retain any degree of reality, the criminal justice system will need to adjust accordingly.” ~ PNAS, Feb 8 

They have already begun collecting signatures to lobby for a change in legislation.

In an interview in the NRC Handelsblad, three of them explain why the Netherlands needs to grant anyone sane over the age of 70 the right to die with a professionally-trained expert’s assistance. Under their plan the expert would determine whether they are of sound mind and not depressed. A doctor would  then confirm this assessment. After the death, the expert would write up a report for the local euthanasia committee. Only Dutch citizens would be eligible.

The specialist suicide assistants will need to complete a “Completed Life” training program and to join a professional association which will maintain standards of professional, transparent and safe conduct.

Dick Swaab, the head of the Amsterdam-based Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, and a leader of the group, explained that “Throughout the animal kingdom, individuals are simply replaced, rather than patched up endlessly.” Human beings are much the same and they should move on when it is time to go.

The age limit of 70 is arbitrary. “Whether it should be 65 or 90 is a good question,” says legal scholar Eugene Sutorius. “We think that once someone has reached old age, he has proved abilities at living. He can then choose to leave this life in a procedural, medicalised manner.”

The three spokesmen told the newspaper that abuse of the law was unlikely to be a problem, especially in view of the country’s positive experience with euthanasia. “It was thought to be the first step on a slippery slope that would lead the medical profession to lose its integrity,” says Mr Sutorius. “But I have seen nothing of the kind happen.” ~ NRC Handelsbad, Feb 8

The sad story began in 1998 when Dr Wakefield published a paper in The Lancet claiming that it was unsafe for children to receive a combined measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. The paper was based only on data gathered from 8 children, but there was enough evidence to suggest, he told a press conference, that single doses should be given a year apart. Many parents panicked and immunization rates dropped significantly. Subsequently there were outbreaks of measles in the UK amongst children whose parents refused to give them the vaccine.

The GMC found that Wakefield had flouted ethical rules in the trial. He subjected children to invasive tests such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies that they did not need and for which he had no ethical approval. He also concealed from The Lancet his financial interest in the outcome of the trial

Dr Shona Hilton, of the Medical Research Council, told the Guardian that the scare had undermined parents’ trust in MMR vaccination. "Thankfully confidence is returning and the uptake of MMR vaccine is increasing," she said. "We need to continue rebuilding trust with parents that MMR vaccination is safe and ensure that those parents caring for children with autism do not blame themselves."

In April the GMC will decide whether Wakefield and his two colleagues have been guilty of serious professional misconduct, which could result in their deregistration. Dr Wakefield told the media that "The allegations against me and against my colleagues are both unfounded and unjust .” Thousands, mainly parents of autistic children, still support him enthusiastically.

The Lancet withdrew the controversial article a few days after the GMC hearing, although it had published a partial retraction in 2004, signed by 10 of the 13 original authors, including the 2 doctors censured by the GMC along with Dr Wakefield. At the time The Lancet continued to insist that publication had not been a mistake because the journal existed to "raise new ideas". ~ Guardian, Jan 28; London Times, Feb 3

Some researchers are abusing the peer-review process by blocking or delaying rival research, they say. "Papers that are scientifically flawed or comprise only modest technical increments often attract undue profile. At the same time publication of truly original findings may be delayed or rejected". The letter is the culmination of rising concerns about the rejection of good research, and the publication of poor research, for personal or political reasons.

Sometimes, they say, reviewers demand further experimentation, which allows another researcher to scoop rivals with a similar paper. "It's hard to believe except you know it's happened to you that papers have been held up for months and months by reviewers asking for experiments that are not fair or relevant," said Professor Austin Smith, of Cambridge University.

One solution is to to publish anonymised comments from referees along with research papers, so that the validity and fairness of the research can be judged by all. Robin Lovell-Badge of the National Institute for Medical Research in London said,  "Because all comments would be published, it would hopefully make biased or careless refereeing less common, and it would embarrass journals if people could spot biased or stupid comments." ~ New Scientist Feb 2; BBC News Feb 2

In Britain, almost one in 50 babies is conceived through artificial means. Almost half are conceived using intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), a process that bypasses the competition that occurs between proportionally healthier and unhealthier sperm in natural fertilisation. Only the healthiest sperm cell will fertilise a given egg during natural fertilisation, whereas ICSI bypasses this process. The result is that unhealthier sperm may be forced into an egg, leading to a higher percentage chance of defects such as infertility. ~ Sunday Times, Feb 7

Snezhana Mitina, mother of a 10-year-old son with Hunter’s syndrome , and Svetlana Shtarkova, mother of a 3-year-old son with severe brain damage, were outraged. They filed a complaint with the Russian Union of Journalists which decided that Mr Nikonov’s words were extremist.

The two women say that many Russians share his ideas. "The opinion expressed by the author is not unique; statistics show that one-fourth of Russians share similar views," Shtarkova told the journalists’ union on February 2. "Complete strangers come up to me in the street and tell me that I'm depraved and deserve my fate. Doctors and social workers refuse to do their jobs, just because my child is severely disabled."

Mr Nikonov was unrepentant. He told the Radio Liberty “If you want to bring up a child with Down syndrome, you can do it. But if you don’t, you can euthanase him. Why is prenatal abortion legal, and postnatal abortion is not?”

This incident underscores Russia's reluctance to care for its citizens with disabilities who are widely regarded as burdens for society, says Radio Liberty.

“The issue is gaining traction as Russia faces a severe population crisis brought on by a low birthrate and poor pediatric health. Over the next two decades, Russia's population is expected to shrink by 17 million people. Faced with such statistics, advocates of people with disabilities say the country cannot afford to let prejudice stand in the way of caring for the country's estimated 15 million registered "invalids" -- adults and children suffering from a range of physical and mental ailments.” ~ Radio Liberty, Feb 8

But this week the Chicago Tribune asked whether a Catholic hospital would honour a patient’s advance directives if they stipulated that no food and water should be given. It interviewed elderly Catholics who were horrified at the thought of lingering unconsciousness. "My pleasure is in being part of the human race," said one of them. "If that's gone, if I can't interact with other people, even if they could give me nutrition and keep me hydrated, I'm not interested in being preserved."

However, the view of the bishops is that food and water, like cleanliness and avoiding bedsores, are ordinary care, not exceptional treatment, and they should be provided as long as they are not burdensome for the patient. Pope John Paul II sketched out this principle in a 2004 speech, and the Vatican made further clarifications in 2007. A new edition of the guidelines incorporates those positions in Directive 58 of the US bishops' Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. 

The head of Compassion and Choices, a prominent lobby group for assisted suicide, attacked the Church for not respecting patients’ autonomy. In her blog, its president, Barbara Coombs Lee, said that the guidelines were arrogant and authoritarian and hinted that she would fight them. “We must increase public awareness of the threats to their rights in Catholic institutions and take steps to stop the Vatican from unilaterally ignoring legally executed advance directives,” she wrote.

However, Catholic authorities told the Tribune that they did not foresee problems. "I have never seen an advance directive that says, 'If I am in a persistent vegetative state, I ask that you withdraw food and water,'” said Erica Laethem, a director of clinical ethics at Resurrection Health Care, Chicago's largest Catholic health care system. ~ Chicago Tribune, Feb 8; HT to Sheila Liaugminas

Tiller had become a controversial figure because he was one of the few doctors in the US who are willing to do late-term abortions.

National Right To Life disavowed the killer and said that it would continue to work in educational, legislative and political activities "to ensure the right to life for unborn children, people with disabilities and older people."

Abortion advocates now want a thorough investigation of whether others had worked with Roeder in planning the murder.

"Our sincere hope now is that with the door thrown wide open by the district attorney and her cross examination of Scott Roeder and by his own testimony of his relationship with other extremists who promote the murder of doctors, that a thorough and rigorous investigation will be conducted into whether or not this murder was part of a conspiracy to kill Dr Tiller and to kill other doctors," said Kathy Spillar, of the Feminist Majority Foundation.  ~ Wichita Eagle, Jan 30