Letting the blind see…
March 19th, 2008 by AndyThis is really neat. Dean Li at the University of Utah has discovered a way to let blind mice, suffering from either macular degeneration or diabetic retinopathy, fix themselves and regain complete vision. Let me try to explain. Both of these blindness-causing diseases are the result of uncontrolled blood vessel growth in the retina, leading to eyes filled with too many, leaky capillaries. Substances in the body called netrins stimulate the growth of these capillaries, and these netrins are essential for things such as injury repair or growth. Normally netrins are regulated by a gene, Robo4, which prevents their growth from getting out of hand. However, in animals with macular degeneration or diabetic retinopathy, Robo4 gets turned off and blood vessels go wild. What Dr. Li was able to do was turn Robo4 back on in the eyes of blind mice using an enzyme mammals already produce, albeit elsewhere in their bodies. The reactivated Robo4 not only prevented further blood vessel growth, but actually caused the disassembly of excess blood vessels already present, allowing the mice to see normally. Dr. Li thinks human trials are possible within 5 years. I think he’s a kickass dude. And people unconditionally opposed to research on animals can suck my dick.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Straight up!
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Speciesism!
Are people that are unconditionally opposed to human testing also homo-suck-worthy?
March 25th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I will openly admit that I am a speciesist. Human rights trump animal rights.
I would say people opposed to human testing are just as bad, yeah. Worse, actually, since something needs to be tested on people at least a FEW times before it can be safely prescribed. But you’d never get enough human test subjects to test ANY medication / procedure / etc. from start to finish.
(Brief animal rights tangent: there are ads all over Vancouver bus shelters that say stuff like “250000 baby seals are about to be slaughtered and your coffee is too weak. GET ANGRY FOR THE RIGHT REASONS.” Makes me so mad. Not only because it’s actually been illegal since 1987 to kill the cute white-coat seals, but because thousands of PEOPLE are getting slaughtered. Prioritize! Seals are not the right reason to get angry either! And here begins the callous subdivision/ranking of important issues.)
March 25th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I agree. Speciesism is the way to go.
Are there people unconditionally opposed to human testing? It doesn’t seem likely, because people can actually consent to being tested upon… who has the right to take that away? Yes, yes, I know the boundaries are tricky, and testors might get lied to by testees (haha.. testes), but overall I can think of a large number of treatments in the pipeline that are being held up by regulatory agencies and their notion of precaution. Sometimes I feel like you should only be allowed to sit on these regulatory boards if you actually suffer from the illness that the proposed treatment targets. There are a lot of suffering, terminal patients out there who would love to be guinea pigs no matter the risk, and I think it’s pretty shitty to take that right away from them… I mean, we DO let people opt out of “conventional” medicine and choose bullshit herbal/spiritual healing methods - basically condemning them to death. Why can’t people try experimental drugs? I know the chance for the sick to be exploited is huge, but we gotta find a way around it that’s not a ban.
Finally, just because I love semantics so much, “cute white-coat seals” become brown-coated seals at about 18 days of age. I’m still willing to call that a baby.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:20 am
Ahh. Well, I’ll concede the semantics of ‘baby’ then, though I am not willing to forgive the perpetual misdirection of the white-coat used by activists. They also like to say that the hunt is government subsidized, which it isn’t. Aren’t there enough arguments that they don’t need to resort to lies? And if there aren’t, then there are plenty of causes with more than enough substance to back’em up. Grumble.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:32 am
There’s some pretty strict FDA reasons for not letting the sickos get involved with the experiments. One sicko who is weak can fudge up your survival numbers all skewy, leaving you with poor results and no approval. Researchers, doctors and pharma companies all have a risk and apparently a “responsibility” that their drug actually makes it to market, and improperly “choosing” the right people to experiment/try new treatment on might occasionally save a few sick lives, but likely leave thousands/millions without the meds should stuff go wrong.