Search

Results

Eight is more than enough

08 Mar 2009 - Preaching the News for Sunday

God promises Abraham abundant descendants in this Sunday's reading from the Book of Genesis. The recent and widely reported birth of octuplets in California, however, is sparking concerns that fertility clinics nationwide may be ignoring federal guidelines with regard to embryo implants. The tabloid-friendly tale of Nadya Suleman, the so-called California "Octomom," continues to stir debate. Although the doctor who supervised in-vitro fertilization for Suleman, 33, is regarded by many in the field as having violated professional norms, U.S. health records indicate a large majority of fertility clinics disregarded implant guidelines in 2006, the Oakland (Calif.) Tribune reported. Citing data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the newspaper said 80 percent of U.S. fertility clinics in 2006--the most recent year for which records are available--did not follow embryo implant guidelines set in 1999 by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. "Assisted reproduction is a multibillion-dollar business," Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland said. "Like other commercial enterprises, it needs rules." Along those lines, a Georgia state senator introduced legislation this week to limit the number of embryos that can be implanted in a woman's uterus during in-vitro fertilization procedures in that state. Sen. Ralph Hudgens said his legislation was inspired by Suleman, who gave birth to octuplets after reportedly being fertilized with six embryos. Suleman had six children at the time the procedure was performed. State lawmakers in Missouri are considering a similar bill. Source: Articles by United Press International and CNN

georgia missouri center for genetics and society marcy darnovsky us centers for disease control and prevention in-vitro fertilization nadya suleman embryo implants fertility clinics octuplets ralph hudgens

Restricted
Google doodles father of genetics, may he rest in peas

24 Jul 2011 - Preaching the News for Sunday

The treasure may be buried in a field, Jesus says in this Sunday’s gospel, but the diligent will seek and possess it. The popular search engine Google, known for tailoring its logo into “Google Doodles” to commemorate events, Wednesday marked the 189th birthday of Augustinian monk Father Gregor Johann Mendel, father of the science of genetics, with a logo made of pea pods. Mendel discovered the secrets of genetics buried in his garden by diligently studying inherited traits in generations of pea pods. "We celebrate Gregor Mendel, Austrian botanist and father of genetics, born July 20, 1822. Peas enjoy!" Google tweeted Wednesday morning. Testing tens of thousands of pea plants, Mendel studied the patterns of dominant, recessive, and hybrid traits and developed theories that became instrumental in the development of the science of genetics. But Mendel's work was rejected by his contemporaries and not widely accepted until well after his death in 1884. Mendel’s theories finally were verified by independent studies done by other scientists early in the 20th century. Science now credits Mendel with being the first to understand the process of genetic inheritance. The monastic with a gift for science also studied the secret lives of bees as well as astronomy and meteorology. While a student in Vienna he had studied physics under Prof. Christian Doppler of “Doppler effect” fame. But after he was elected an abbot in 1868, Mendel’s scientific work largely ended when he became consumed with his increased administrative responsibilities. Sources: Articles by Michael Cayna for the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and Wikipedia.com

google gregor mendel genetics peas

Restricted
Consider the noble bonobo

17 Jun 2012 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Though we are much more than our mortal bodies, we will be held accountable for the good and the evil we do while we inhabit them, Saint Paul reminds us in this Sunday’s reading from 2 Corinthians. Scientists working with the genetic code of one of humanity's closest evolutionary cousins, the bonobo ape, may be able to shed some light on the mystery of why humans have the capacity to use those bodies in peaceful ways as well as very violent ones.Scientists have mapped the primate’s DNA, and some researchers say that it may eventually reveal secrets about how the darker side of our nature evolved. They have found that we are as close genetically to the peace-loving but little-known bonobo as we are to the more violent and better understood chimpanzee, sharing some traits only with bonobos and other characteristics only with chimps.Bonobos and humans share 98.7 percent of the same genetic blueprint, the identical percentage shared with chimps, according to a study released Wednesday by the journal Nature. “Humans are a little like a mosaic of bonobo and chimpanzee genomes,” said the study’s lead author, Kay Prufer, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany.Bonobos and chimps have distinctly different behaviors that can both be seen in humans, with bonobos displaying what might be thought of as our better angels, said Duke University researcher Brian Hare. Chimps have been documented to kill and make war. Bonobos prefer cuddling to killing and share food with total strangers, which chimps do not.“Is the bonobo genome the secret to the biology of peace?” asked Hare, who was not involved in the new research. “They have done something in their evolution that even humans can’t do. They don’t have the dark side we do. If we only studied chimps, we’d get a skewed view of human evolution,” he said. Source: An article by Seth Borenstein for the Associated Press

Violence chimpanzees human beings kay prufer max planck institute genomes brian hare killing genetics dna war Peace bonobo apes

Restricted
Will court let the gene out of the bottle?

21 Apr 2013 - Preaching the News for Sunday

The psalmist this Sunday attests to a truth at the center of the Judeo-Christian tradition: God “made us, his we are.” The U.S. Supreme Court this week grappled with the question of whether something as intrinsic to nature as a human gene be patented. Justices seemed skeptical but also worried about what a decision to bar such patents might mean for private scientific inquiry and research.The court is considering a challenge to a decision to award a patent to Myriad Genetics for isolating human genes that indicate a hereditary disposition to breast and ovarian cancer. Doctors and patients must use the diagnostic test that Myriad has developed and others are restricted from research in that area.The patents are being challenged by organizations of physicians and researchers, geneticists, patients, and others who say that the snippets of DNA are “products of nature” and may not be patented, even though the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued such patents for decades.The justices’ concern is warranted, court observers say. Their decision could shape the future of medical and genetic research and have profound effects on pharmaceuticals and genetically modified crops.Homily hint: As science blurs the boundaries between natural creations and laboratory creations, many ethical questions are raised. Though some would like to turn back the clock or stop the experimentation, history suggests that will not happen. The question is whether or not we will experiment with fully informed ethical consciences or not. Source: Robert Barnes for the Washington Post

dna us supreme court genetics patents genes myriad genetics genetic research

Restricted
Will court let the gene out of the bottle?

21 Apr 2013 - Preaching the News for Sunday

The psalmist this Sunday attests to a truth at the center of the Judeo-Christian tradition: God “made us, his we are.” The U.S. Supreme Court this week grappled with the question of whether something as intrinsic to nature as a human gene be patented. Justices seemed skeptical but also worried about what a decision to bar such patents might mean for private scientific inquiry and research.The court is considering a challenge to a decision to award a patent to Myriad Genetics for isolating human genes that indicate a hereditary disposition to breast and ovarian cancer. Doctors and patients must use the diagnostic test that Myriad has developed and others are restricted from research in that area.The patents are being challenged by organizations of physicians and researchers, geneticists, patients, and others who say that the snippets of DNA are “products of nature” and may not be patented, even though the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued such patents for decades.The justices’ concern is warranted, court observers say. Their decision could shape the future of medical and genetic research and have profound effects on pharmaceuticals and genetically modified crops.Homily hint: As science blurs the boundaries between natural creations and laboratory creations, many ethical questions are raised. Though some would like to turn back the clock or stop the experimentation, history suggests that will not happen. The question is whether or not we will experiment with fully informed ethical consciences or not. Source: Robert Barnes for the Washington Post

dna us supreme court genetics patents genes myriad genetics genetic research

Restricted