- Email: [email protected]
Don't take it sitting down
EDITORIAL
LOCATIONS UK Lacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1200 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Australia Tower 2, 475 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, NSW 2067 Tel +61 2 9422 8559 Fax +61 2 9422 8552 USA 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451 Tel +1 781 734 8770 Fax +1 720 356 9217 201 Mission Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel +1 415 908 3348 Fax +1 415 704 3125 Subscription Service For our latest subscription offers, visit newscientist.com/subscribe Customer and subscription services are also available by: Telephone +44 (0) 844 543 80 70 Email [email protected] Web newscientist.com/subscribe Post New Scientist, Rockwood House, Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 3DH One year subscription (51 issues) UK £150 cONTACTS Contact us newscientist.com/contact Who’s who newscientist.com/people General & media enquiries Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202 [email protected] Editorial Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Picture desk Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Display Advertising Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1291 [email protected] Recruitment Advertising UK Tel +44 (0) 20 8652 4444 [email protected] UK Newsstand Tel +44 (0) 20 3148 3333 Newstrade distributed by Marketforce UK Ltd, The Blue Fin Building, 110 Southwark St, London SE1 OSU Syndication Tribune Media Services International Tel +44 (0) 20 7588 7588
© 2013 Reed Business Information Ltd, England New Scientist is published weekly by Reed Business Information Ltd. ISSN 0262 4079. Registered at the Post Office as a newspaper and printed in England by Polestar (Colchester)
Pushing the boundaries Ethical concerns about human-animal hybrids are serious but not fatal THERE’S something undeniably identified some experiments that creepy about an animal that is should not (yet) be done because partly human. And the more of strong ethical objections. One human it gets, the creepier it is to breed an animal that has becomes. That is why the news human sperm or eggs. Another is that a Japanese team is well on its to create a non-human primate way to creating pigs with human with a humanised brain. organs has been described as It is for Japan to decide how to something that will “ensure the regulate this new work, but it is employment of a generation of still worth asking how close it bioethicists” (see page 6). “How close does the new That is probably an research come to crossing exaggeration. Bioethicists have already examined the problem of one of the red lines? The answer is ‘very’” human-animal chimeras in depth. Even so, the new research suggests that they will need to be comes to crossing one of the called back into action very soon. UK report’s red lines. The answer Two years ago, the UK Academy is “very”. The Japanese team of Medical Sciences released a claims that their technique rules groundbreaking report on out the possibility of creating a “animals containing human pig with human gonads or brain, material”. It concluded that most but that remains an untested research on chimeras is permitted claim. If the technique fails, the by existing UK laws. But it also boundary will be crossed.
They have also spoken about switching focus to primates if pighuman chimeras don’t work. That would clearly overstep the mark. All of which leads to the unsurprising conclusion that the ultimate aim of this research – to provide desperately needed human organs for transplantation – can only be achieved if serious ethical and technical hurdles are surmounted. We are rapidly approaching those ethical hurdles. There are also looming questions of animal welfare. To satisfy the demand for organs would require the sacrifice of about a million pigs a year. Of course, any ethical concerns must be weighed against the potential benefits for human health and life. An entire generation of bioethicists may not be needed, but there is still plenty of work to be done. n
Keep taking the pills SHOULD countries continue to stockpile the flu drug Tamiflu in case there is a pandemic? Until now many governments have been happy to do so. But as stockpiles reach their “replace by” dates, cash-strapped politicians may be having second thoughts. Their uncertainty may be being fuelled by a campaign against Tamiflu (oseltamivir), motivated
by the entirely reasonable beef that manufacturer Roche has not released all of its clinical trial data. Roche says it is now prepared to open up, which is progress. But a vociferous group of critics seems to have decided that the evidence to be released is unlikely to justify stockpiling the drug. That is premature at best. The unreleased results concern
ordinary winter flu, which Tamiflu may not be too much use against. But the stockpiles are there to combat a fiercer pandemic virus. There is now evidence that the drug saved lives during the 2009 swine flu pandemic (see page 11). It is reasonable to demand that the data be released, and Roche should get a move on. By the same token, critics should not reach conclusions based on irrelevant evidence. And governments should continue to stockpile. n
Stand up for your health
in Rochester, Minnesota, is worth heeding. A leading light in research on the health effects of too much sitting, he has started working at a treadmill desk (see page 44). Why? The emerging consensus from work by Jensen and others is that long periods of sitting down – such as when watching TV or
working at a desk – are bad for your health regardless of how active you are at other times. Simply standing up, or walking gently on a treadmill, allows you to escape the effect. Hence the growing trend for “active” workstations and stand-up meetings. Desk jockeys take heed – and their employers, too. n
ONE interesting question to ask scientists who study health hazards is whether their research has led them to change their own behaviour. By that rule of thumb, Michael Jensen of the Mayo Clinic
29 June 2013 | NewScientist | 3
LOCATIONS UK Lacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1200 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Australia Tower 2, 475 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, NSW 2067 Tel +61 2 9422 8559 Fax +61 2 9422 8552 USA 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451 Tel +1 781 734 8770 Fax +1 720 356 9217 201 Mission Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel +1 415 908 3348 Fax +1 415 704 3125 Subscription Service For our latest subscription offers, visit newscientist.com/subscribe Customer and subscription services are also available by: Telephone +44 (0) 844 543 80 70 Email [email protected] Web newscientist.com/subscribe Post New Scientist, Rockwood House, Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 3DH One year subscription (51 issues) UK £150 cONTACTS Contact us newscientist.com/contact Who’s who newscientist.com/people General & media enquiries Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202 [email protected] Editorial Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Picture desk Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Display Advertising Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1291 [email protected] Recruitment Advertising UK Tel +44 (0) 20 8652 4444 [email protected] UK Newsstand Tel +44 (0) 20 3148 3333 Newstrade distributed by Marketforce UK Ltd, The Blue Fin Building, 110 Southwark St, London SE1 OSU Syndication Tribune Media Services International Tel +44 (0) 20 7588 7588
© 2013 Reed Business Information Ltd, England New Scientist is published weekly by Reed Business Information Ltd. ISSN 0262 4079. Registered at the Post Office as a newspaper and printed in England by Polestar (Colchester)
Pushing the boundaries Ethical concerns about human-animal hybrids are serious but not fatal THERE’S something undeniably identified some experiments that creepy about an animal that is should not (yet) be done because partly human. And the more of strong ethical objections. One human it gets, the creepier it is to breed an animal that has becomes. That is why the news human sperm or eggs. Another is that a Japanese team is well on its to create a non-human primate way to creating pigs with human with a humanised brain. organs has been described as It is for Japan to decide how to something that will “ensure the regulate this new work, but it is employment of a generation of still worth asking how close it bioethicists” (see page 6). “How close does the new That is probably an research come to crossing exaggeration. Bioethicists have already examined the problem of one of the red lines? The answer is ‘very’” human-animal chimeras in depth. Even so, the new research suggests that they will need to be comes to crossing one of the called back into action very soon. UK report’s red lines. The answer Two years ago, the UK Academy is “very”. The Japanese team of Medical Sciences released a claims that their technique rules groundbreaking report on out the possibility of creating a “animals containing human pig with human gonads or brain, material”. It concluded that most but that remains an untested research on chimeras is permitted claim. If the technique fails, the by existing UK laws. But it also boundary will be crossed.
They have also spoken about switching focus to primates if pighuman chimeras don’t work. That would clearly overstep the mark. All of which leads to the unsurprising conclusion that the ultimate aim of this research – to provide desperately needed human organs for transplantation – can only be achieved if serious ethical and technical hurdles are surmounted. We are rapidly approaching those ethical hurdles. There are also looming questions of animal welfare. To satisfy the demand for organs would require the sacrifice of about a million pigs a year. Of course, any ethical concerns must be weighed against the potential benefits for human health and life. An entire generation of bioethicists may not be needed, but there is still plenty of work to be done. n
Keep taking the pills SHOULD countries continue to stockpile the flu drug Tamiflu in case there is a pandemic? Until now many governments have been happy to do so. But as stockpiles reach their “replace by” dates, cash-strapped politicians may be having second thoughts. Their uncertainty may be being fuelled by a campaign against Tamiflu (oseltamivir), motivated
by the entirely reasonable beef that manufacturer Roche has not released all of its clinical trial data. Roche says it is now prepared to open up, which is progress. But a vociferous group of critics seems to have decided that the evidence to be released is unlikely to justify stockpiling the drug. That is premature at best. The unreleased results concern
ordinary winter flu, which Tamiflu may not be too much use against. But the stockpiles are there to combat a fiercer pandemic virus. There is now evidence that the drug saved lives during the 2009 swine flu pandemic (see page 11). It is reasonable to demand that the data be released, and Roche should get a move on. By the same token, critics should not reach conclusions based on irrelevant evidence. And governments should continue to stockpile. n
Stand up for your health
in Rochester, Minnesota, is worth heeding. A leading light in research on the health effects of too much sitting, he has started working at a treadmill desk (see page 44). Why? The emerging consensus from work by Jensen and others is that long periods of sitting down – such as when watching TV or
working at a desk – are bad for your health regardless of how active you are at other times. Simply standing up, or walking gently on a treadmill, allows you to escape the effect. Hence the growing trend for “active” workstations and stand-up meetings. Desk jockeys take heed – and their employers, too. n
ONE interesting question to ask scientists who study health hazards is whether their research has led them to change their own behaviour. By that rule of thumb, Michael Jensen of the Mayo Clinic
29 June 2013 | NewScientist | 3