irsday - June 12, 1997
The Battalion
D
l)f mice and men
\edical research, advancements stray too far within laboratory environment
'ighty Mouse may
have been a cartoon
.icon almost two
ides ago, but today things
1 0 r I echanged. Some of the
I sdcharacter’s family,
I ids and enemies have be-
. r iiecatalysts in the further-
ijtofmedical research and
jancement. While it is true
itpeople would do any-
ftofind a cure for AIDS
has
ked
Inf
old
Opinion Editor
James Francis
Junior English major
iminate other ailments facing the
Id today, questions arise of whether
search for a healthier earth and hu-
obeinghas gone too much in the di-
of “Mad Scientism.”
llthough “healing the world” is a
itcause, medical science continues
loss boundaries set by nature and
rality everyday.
Hecently, the science field encoun-
;da new breakthrough as scientists
itable to implant portions of human
tin mice, in order to further research
mg genetics and birth defects.
InAssociated Press report from
dork issued the statement, “Re-
achershave put human DNA into
eforyears, but not on this scale.”
[experimental mice have func-
lednormally throughout this re
ach,with some of the specimens
nially being able to pass on their
usplanted DNA to their newborn
iomeofthe male mice, however,
reborn with small testes and they
jerienced sterility,
llcino Silva, a mouse genetics re
adier at Cold Spring Harbor Labora-
ainCold Spring Harbor, NY, mar-
Itdatthe results.
It's amazing that such large frag-
tntsofDNA can be passed on to their
[spring,’’ Silva said in the AP release.
Ihesame AP report said, “The Japan-
iscientists said they are already devel-
(ingmice with a human chromosome
lioinvestigate Down syndrome...” In
older experiments, DNA taken
from humans would attach itself
to chromosomes within the
mice. In the tests conducted by
the Japanese, however, the hu
man chromosomes have man
aged to separate themselves.
With this occurrence, scientists
might be able to transplant even
larger portions in the future.
The Japanese
scientists also
have success
parts generated a human ear and
placed it under a mouse’s skin to see if
the artificial ear could survive in a
mammal’s matrix of body systems. The
ear was surgically inserted onto the
mouse’s back, creating an animal im
age of Quasimodo.
Although the scientists assured their
viewing audience that the mouse felt no
pain and could not tell the ear was under
its skin, it can be assumed that no human
wants to walk around with synthetic ad
ditions either — at least additions that do
not benefit the experimental host.
Human-to-mouse DNA transfers are
only the beginning in a long line of
medical science advancements. As long
as scientists and researchers keep in
mind that the experiments they are
conducting are to make for a healthier
population across the world, there
might never have to be the worry of
dangerous results. Although these ‘‘mir
acles of modern science" so far have
not had any degenerative effects on
mice, it may only be a matter of time
before some scientist with a bright idea
leads to world domination by a super
human mouse with the intelligence of
Albert Einstein.
fully transplanted hu
man chromosomes 2
and 22, with these spec
imens passing on the
spliced genes to their
offspring as well.
Isao Ishida, a re
searcher at the Kirin
Brewery Co. in Yoka-
hama, Japan, said he
and others wanted to
“create mice that make
human versions of
blood proteins called
antibodies.” This kind
of testing would result
in appropriate uses for
the creation of new
types of medicine.
Another notable ex
ample of more experi
mentation on mice for
the betterment of
mankind was displayed
in a Discovery Channel
special. The show chron
icled a segment about
the life of a girl who had
been born with a birth
defect which resulted in
her having one normal
ear and one dwarfed ear.
Scientists and re
searchers working on
developing synthetic
human skin and body
lupus Voice
a ?jjJ Photograph: Robert McKay
oc l tmcerning the state of
i xie mical advancements:
^ When science has
11 technology to take
i enext step, whether
is ethical or not, they
1 forays seem to take it.
Matt Beaton
r environmental design major
Mail Call
Disney not at fault
for animal troubles
This letter is in response to Rob-
by Ray’s June 11th column on
animal abandonment:
Blame the people who are re
ally responsible for animal shel
ter problems in the United States
— irresponsible pet owners who
buy pets and dump them or who
don’t get their pets neutered and
leave puppies and kittens in their
wake. Don’t blame Disney for
spineless, irresponsible people.
In addition, every year these
breeds win dog competitions, there
is a large increase in numbers. We
should not ban those shows. We
should educate the public on the
responsibilities of pet ownership.
College students are the worst.
Ask any year-round resident who
lives in an apartment complex,
and he or she will tell you stories
of pets dumped by students
whose parents won’t allow them
to bring the animals home.
Personal responsibility is the key.
Don’t give a pet as a gift. The deci
sion to buy a pet is a serious one,
and it should not be done on a
whim. I don’t think tobacco compa
nies are responsible either. People
choose to smoke — they know the
consequences, but smoke anyway.
The same can be said for alcohol
companies. So now, we need a so
lution. But like all good Americans,
we simply sue the other guy for our
own mistakes. Get a spine, folks.
Khristy Hullett
graduate student
Kyle Field situation
deserves discussion
It is really disheartening to
see fellow aggies with their own
(economic) agendas and not fol
lowing the heart of the student
body. If there is a more unappar-
ent issue involved (other than
greed), please let it be known.
Darin Keever
class of’98
Government interference
stalls medical technology
IF Tj|E IMP
ISNr removed,
you Could die.
■ ^
Rather than uavins tie
LUMP REMOVED, MAYBE I
CAN PERSUADE Him 70 SW>KE
nunaDE...
T he acquittal of
controversial
oncologist Dr.
Stanislaw Burzynski
will bolster the efforts
of alternative medi
cine in spite of uneth
ical and retaliatory
practices of the Food
and Drug Administra
tion. Consequently,
patients with terminal
illness will now have vital ac
cess to techniques without the
unnecessary and arduous de
lays of FDA approval.
To understand the defects of
the FDA approval process, it is im
portant to get to know Burzynski,
the brilliant Polish doctor who
spent decades trying to gain ap
proval for his discovery of tumor
suppressors found within pro
teins called antineoplastons.
Burzynski first discovered
these “natural cancer in
hibitors” while analyzing blood
samples for his Ph.D. disserta
tion in 1968. Using thin-layer
chromatography, he found a
mysterious protein later called
antineoplastons within the
blood of ill patients.
Next, he presented his new find
ings and was awarded his Ph.D. in
biochemistry from the Medical
Academy of Lublin, Poland.
The discovery of antineo
plastons solidified Burzynski’s
interest in cancer research. Af
ter earning a position at the
Baylor College of Medicine, he
continued probing the actual
function of antineoplastons. At
the College, the doctor deter
mined antineoplastons were a
part of a biochemical commu
nication system which “compli
ments the function of white
blood cells” for the immune
system and “protects cell func
tion in the body.”
Burzynski’s research on this
matter was met with great acclaim
at the 1976 meeting of the Federa
tion of Associations for Experimen
tal Biology convention. As the Asso
ciated Press reported,“A chemical
with power to change cancer cells
back to normal cells... has been ex
tracted from urine.” These antineo
plastons, which also can be found
in other body fluids, “detect cells...
out of line and feed them the new
[corrective] information.”
Columnist
General Franklin
Junior history major
Moreover, in 1976,
Burzynski began the
long procedure for
FDA approval. Despite
his consistent compli
ance with FDA poli
cies, the agency re
fused to recognize the
validity of his research.
To strengthen his
claim about the effica
cy of antineoplastons,
Burzynski attempted to conduct
clinical trials in partnership with
several independent scientists.
This was met with barriers as
the FDA denied the petition.
Undaunted, the doctor con
tinued to compile support and
additional data until the FDA fi
nally agreed in 1983 to allow re
search to continue under the
agency’s approval.
After the experimental re
quirement of approval was met,
Burzynski sought-the partner
ship of 12 major pharmaceutical
companies to develop an artifi
cial antineoplaston for cancer
therapy. All 12 of the companies
refused involvement, wary of
the lengthy approval process as
well as the FDA penchant for
vindictive litigation.
In light of
these obsta-
cles, Burzyns
ki continued
to work inde
pendently
with other re
searchers to
complete the
approval re
quirements of
antineoplas
ton, just as the
FDA began
the first of five frivolous grand
jury investigations against him
in 1988. In spite of the unethical
machinations of FDA prosecu
tors, four of the grand jury pro
ceedings ended with acquittal
— the final investigation result
ing in an indictment.
In 1995, Burzynski was re
manded for trial on the flimsy
charge “of violating interstate
commerce,” by giving antineo
plaston to out-of-state
patients.This indictment was
completely false since, as a re
searcher, the doctor is within the
law when he conducts studies and
The efforts of
many devoted
scientists ... have
been thwarted by an
overzealous FDA ...
experiments of new medication.
Furthermore, this trial ended
in an acquittal for Burzynski be
cause of FDA misconduct and
the illegitimacy of the charges.
Consequently, Congressman Joe
Barton of Houston, chair of the
House Oversight Committee,
launched a recent probe into the
Burzynski matter as well as the
overall FDA approval policy dur
ing hearings in Nov. 1995.
The efforts of many devoted
scientists such as Burzynski
have been thwarted by an
overzealous FDA, obsessed
more with power and influence
than with the efficacy of new
medicine and techniques. In
fact, a top level official named
Michael Friedman revealed in a
secret Oct. 31,1991 FDA memo,
“Antineoplaston are well-de
fined, pure chemical moieties”
which trigger decreased growth
of cancerous tumors.
Friedman, as an FDA insider,
must be questioned in allowing
the scurrilous attacks made to
ward Burzynski and his re
search if he believed the data to
be legitimate.
Furthermore, evidence of
the FDA’s motive for profit
emerged in a
1983 memo
from the office
of Dr. Grout,
the FDA direc
tor of Drug Bu
reau. In the
memo, Grout
said, “I never
have and nev
er will approve
a new drug to
an individual,
but only to
large pharmaceutical firms
with unlimited finances.”
Certainly, this epic struggle
continues between Burzynski
and the FDA bureaucracy. The
questionable tactics of the
agency is demonstrated as one
FDA lawyer involved in the
Burzynski case stated in Reason
magazine, “an angry FDA
[lawyer] is willing to slit your
throat.” Until needed reforms of
the approval policy occur, the
FDA will continue to thwart
medical techniques and materi
als which would otherwise save
thousands of lives.