Researchers from George Washington University have published in Animal Cognition that monkeys make character judgments based on reputation. In the past research has suggested that primates use eavesdropping and third-party interactions to help judge character, now Dr. Francy’s Subiaul believes that his work provides further evidence that a primate system exist similar to human social skills. Dr. Subiaul performed three experiments which showed that chimpanzee’s demonstrate judgment of reputation of individuals through observational interactions with strangers.

This further brings to light questions regarding our use of animals for pharmaceutical testing. Clearly more evidence is suggesting social interactions of many animals that we use in vivariums. Anyone in science realizes the benefits these test bring to the table but we should recognize, at the minimum, the intelligence of these animals.

A review published in Acta Paediatrica has found that from 1996 to 2002 only 2 percent of 739 children drug trials had independent safety monitoring. Independent safety monitoring gives an unbiased review of the drugs side affects and can determine if a drug trial should be stopped due to unwanted and harmful results. This is particularly important in children as they are more prone to issues than adults and could live with harmful effects for the rest of their lives.

When I read this earlier today I was shocked. I had always believed that compared to adult trials, children drug trials had higher standards and more emphasis on safety, however this report strongly shows my ignorance. The lead author Dr. Helen Sammons commented that “We were very surprised by the low level of trials that had independent safety monitoring committees and are urging pharmaceutical companies to include these in all future trials involving children.” Some surprising statistics come out of this report:

·     Seven out of ten trials reported adverse events and a fifth of the trials reported a serious adverse event, ie. an untoward medical occurrence, not necessarily related to a drug.

·     Adverse drug reactions were reported in just under 37 per cent of trials, with 11 per cent of trials reporting moderate or severe adverse drug reactions.

·     Six clinical trials — which all had safety monitoring committees — were terminated early because of significant drug toxicity.

·     Deaths were reported in 11 per cent of the trials, but the majority were thought to be unrelated to the drug use.

·     Death rates were highest in trials involving newborn babies, with 56 per cent of the 99 trials included reporting a death.

·     Other major specialities in which deaths were reported included infectious diseases, neurology, respiratory and kidney problems.

It should be noted that almost three fourths of the trials had safety monitoring but were not independent and could be considered unreliable. Finally it should be mentioned that in many respects these type of trials are needed if children’s health and conditions are to ever improve but it should be done in a manner that is responsible.

As reported yesterday in LiveScience, Mark Briffa, a behavioral ecologist published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B that hermit crabs have different personalities. In the past he has examined how they behave in combat and the value they place on a shell.

Dr. Briffa’s method for determining a crab’s personality was to flip crabs upside down and measure how long it took them to exit their shell. Based on this measurement he did a statistical comparison between a crabs behavioral consistency verses their behavioral plasticity. From this result he found a pattern in behavior and was able to show statistically that certain crabs are more bold than others.

In 2006, I remember reading an interesting article in the New York Times, by Charles Siebert, describing the different personalities of the giant Pacific octopus, an article definitely worth a read if you have the time. What was so surprising by this report was the distinctive stories passed to Charles by the marine biologist working at the aquarium. They could specifically describe the distinct personalities of each octopus, the jealous one or the one sensitive to light who would spray you with water if you flashed him , etc. This brings up a very interesting and perplexing ethical question that I think is far too often overlooked in the Biotech community. Is animal testing an appropriate way for testing new drugs or technologies? For example, monkeys clearly have personalities, so is it proper to be injecting them with Ebola to determine if the new vaccine is successful? These are questions that if the community is being intellectually honest, at a minimum, should be discussing. We all know the benefits from testing on animal models but have we recognized or even acknowledged some of the negatives.

Researchers from the University of Tokyo have announced they have successfully grown kidneys and pancreas in mice missing the ability to grow their own said organs. According to Japan Today, the researchers injected embryonic stem cells from healthy mice into eggs of genetically engineered mice that do not grow kidneys and pancreases three days after fertilization and implanted the eggs into surrogate mice. The newborn mice turned out to have kidneys and pancreases and the researchers confirmed that they derived from the embryonic stem cells while vascular tracts and nerves were those of the host mice. Both types of organs functioned normally. Professor Hiromitsu Nakauchi, lead researcher, said a potential application of this technique in the future includes reproducing in reprogrammed swine the pancreas of a diabetic patient using stem cells produced from the patient’s skin tissue.

Embryonic stem cell research has been a very controversial issue. Interesting is the suggestion by Dr. Nakauchi that this technique could be used to take stem cells from a patient’s skin, not embryonic. If this was the case, I would fail to see how this would be an issue with anyone who is an opponent of embryonic stem cell research.

The New York Times is reporting that patients are submitting to underground genetic testing, but are not informing their doctors of the results because these patients have legitimate fears of insurance discrimination. With recent advancements in technology, companies such as 23andMe and deCODEme have been able to remove the last barrier, cost, for personalized genetic screening. 

The article addresses issues regarding privacy fears, in addition to the use of genetic results to prescreen policies/increase the cost of premiums by insurance companies.  An admittance by some insurance companies in a recent Georgetown University Health Policy Institute study is frightening; they admit they would raise premiums or deny coverage based on genetic results.

It is disheartening that fears of discrimination by insurance companies are hindering the advent of new genetic tests to help patients make informed medical decisions before undergoing treatment. Hope is on the horizon; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act would make it illegal for insurers to deny coverage based solely on a genetic predisposition.  We wait for the passage of this act as this bill is before the congress for a seventh time.