Category Archives: Transhuman News

Dame Bridget Ogilvie: Women in Science
Dame Bridget Ogilvie discusses her life and illustrious career, at The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics #39; Women in Science series. From studying rural...

By: OxfordNDM

More here:
Dame Bridget Ogilvie: Women in Science - Video

The Division of Structural Biology (STRUBI)
The Division of Structural Biology (STRUBI) is part of the Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine (NDM) at the University of Oxford. STRUBI is also part of...

By: OxfordNDM

Continued here:
The Division of Structural Biology (STRUBI) - Video

See Inside

Scientists are still unraveling natures secret olfactory signals

Since pheromones were first defined in 1959, scientists have found many examples of pheromonal communication. Credit: Thinkstock

Strange as it may sound, some scientists suspect that the humble armpit could be sending all kinds of signals from casual flirtation to sounding the alarm. Thats because the bodys secretions, some stinky and others below the threshold your nose can detect, may be rife with chemical messages called pheromones. Yet despite half a century of research into these subtle cues, we have yet to find direct evidence of their existence in humans. What Are Pheromones? Humans and other animals have an olfactory system designed to detect and discriminate between thousands of chemical compounds. For more than 50 years, scientists have been aware of the fact that certain insects and animals can release chemical compoundsoften as oils or sweatand that other creatures can detect and respond to these compounds, which allows for a form of silent, purely chemical communication.

Although the exact definition has been debated and redefined several times, pheromones are generally recognized as single or small sets of compounds that transmit signals between organisms of the same species. They are typically just one part of the larger potpourri of odorants emitted from an insect or animal, and some pheromones do not have a discernable scent.

Since pheromones were first defined in 1959, scientists have found many examples of pheromonal communication. The most striking of these signals elicits an immediate behavioral response. For example, the female silk moth releases a trail of the molecule bombykol, which unerringly draws males from the moment they encounter it. Slower-acting pheromones can affect the recipients reproductive physiology, as when the alpha-farnesene molecule in male mouse urine accelerates puberty in young female mice.

Some researchers have proposed a third group of pheromones called signalers that simply transmit information such as an individuals social status or health. Mice can select appropriate mates based on odor cues, deriving information in part from unique proteins associated with a mouses genetics. The Trouble with Humans

So far, scientists have had some success in demonstrating that exposure to body odor can elicit responses in other humans. As in rodent research, human sweat and secretions can affect the reproductive readiness of other humans. Since the 1970s researchers have observed changes in a womans menstrual cycle when she is exposed to the sweat of other women. In 2011 a Florida State University group demonstrated that the scent of ovulating women could cause testosterone levels to increase in men.

But there is no evidence of a consistent and strong behavioral response to any human-produced chemical cue. Maybe once upon a time we could react more viscerally, says chemist George Preti of the Monell Chemical Senses Center. Today, however, our reactions seem to be much subtlerand harder to detectthan those of a silk moth. This subtlety has led researchers to propose another kind of chemical messenger, known as a modulator pheromone, that affects the mood or mental state of the recipient. In an example of this type, researchers at Stony Brook University found in 2009 that sniffing the sweat of first-time parachute jumpers could increase a persons ability to discriminate between ambiguous emotional expressions. The implication is that chemicals in the jumpers sweat might constitute an alarm signal, which puts the recipient on high alert and makes them more attentive to details.

Yet to demonstrate definitively that pheromones are at work, researchers need to point to the molecules responsible, which they have not yet done. To date, scientists have collected evidence for possible pheromone effects but have not definitively identified a single human pheromone. A Signature Scent

View original post here:
Are Human Pheromones Real?

Beings Less and Less Dependent on Parents to Exist Washington, D.C., April 10, 2014 (Zenit.org) Denise Hunnell, MD | 454 hits

Both the 1932 novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and the 1997 science fiction movie Gattaca are classified as dystopias because they depict societies riddled with misery, tragedy, and a dehumanizing culture. Both attribute this decline in civilization to manipulations of human genetics and perversions of human reproduction. In Brave New World the traditional family structure has completely disintegrated and children are manufactured in hatcheries through in vitro fertilization (IVF) and gestation. In Gattaca, human beings are enhanced through genetic alterations, and those who do not have their DNA modified are seen as second-class citizens.

It is curious that genetically modified humans can be clearly seen as dangerous and undesirable in fiction but are celebrated as great achievements in current biomedical sciences. In the name of progress we are steadily marching forward to separate human procreation from human relationships and make it a laboratory procedure.

The floodgates of artificial reproductive technology were opened in Great Britain on July 25, 1978, with the birth of Louise Brown, the first test tube baby. In the ensuing years the use of IVF has fueled the growth of the multi-billion dollar fertility industry. The growing demand for ova to produce children for infertile couples has led to the widespread exploitation of young women as egg donors. Similar exploitation of poor women in countries like India has occurred as couples seek both egg donors to help conceive a child and a surrogate mother to gestate the child. Both women and children are dehumanized as human reproduction is commercialized.

The development of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) pushed artificial reproductive technology to a new level of genetic manipulation. It is no longer sufficient to conceive a child, but that child must now be defect free. Embryos are conceived through IVF, but before they are implanted in the uterus, their DNA is screened for chromosomal abnormalities. Embryos found to have undesirable genetics are discarded as medical waste with no regard for their humanity. These nascent human beings may be destroyed because they have chromosomal patterns linked to diseases like Down syndrome or Trisomy 18, or they may have the gene linked to familial cancers, or they may just be the wrong sex. Sex-selection abortions and sex-selection of embryos for implantation have led to serious gender imbalances in countries like China and India where sons are highly preferred over daughters.

If one can select against undesirable traits, the next logical leap is to choose embryos that have desirable features. With the help of a billion dollar investment from the Chinese government, the Chinese firm B.G.I. is working to make selecting the most intelligent embryo a viable option. It is not unreasonable to think that the selection for other traits such as physical attractiveness or athletic ability cannot be far behind.

The idea of building the perfect child is part of the philosophical principle of procreative beneficence. The term was coined by Oxford professor Julian Savulescu, and refers to a form of utilitarianism that asserts parents have a moral obligation to produce the best child possible. The utilitarian foundation of his reasoning only values those who produce a material benefit to others. The sick, the weak, and the disabled drain resources and are therefore disposable. Professor Savulescu freely admits this amounts to eugenics. He justifies it as providing the greatest good to most people. However, the good that he seeks only benefits the strong and powerful, and is obtained at the expense of the weak and vulnerable.

Current reproductive technology requires fully formed gametes, ova and sperm, to produce human embryos. What if that requirement was removed? The next big leap in artificial reproductive technology is in vitro gametogenesis. Adult or embryonic stem cells are manipulated in the laboratory to function as gametes. This removes the need for both male and female donors. Ova and sperm can be produced from stem cells from either a man or a woman. This would allow same-sex couples to have children that are genetically related to both partners. Theoretically, in vitro gametogenesis could allow a single person to use his own cells to produce two gametes and have a child with only one biological parent.

In a 2013 article in the Journal of Medical Ethics,Dr. Robert Sparrow of Monach University in Australia invokes Savulescus procreative beneficence and outlines the potential uses of in vitro gametogenesis. He suggests that this technology would allow the breeding of better humans. Embryos could be produced and screened for desirable traits. Instead of implanting these embryos for gestation, their stem cells could be harvested and used to make more gametes. These would be used to make another generation of embryos that are again screened and selected. This process could be repeated again and again until the desired refinement of the genome is achieved. The embryo who is ultimately selected for full gestation may actually be several generations removed from his last relative who was actually born. Dr. Sparrow points out that the use of in vitro gametogenesis could shorten the time span between successive generations to a matter of months instead of a matter of decades.

In vitro gametogenesis does not require naturally formed gametes, but it does require naturally formed DNA. Dr. Jef Boeke and his research team, working at both Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and New York University, are working to remove even that constraint. They have successfully constructed the first synthetic yeast chromosome. The yeast has a cell structure very similar to humans, so this work is seen as the first steps towards producing a completely synthetic human genome. While the research is in its infancy, the ultimate goal is mind-boggling. Children that have no biological parents could be produced from gametes made with synthetic DNA. Their DNA would be designed in the laboratory to meet the specifications of whoever is commissioning their creation.

Original post:
Artificial Reproductive Technology: Constructing a Dystopia