1. Clock Ticking on Vaccine Options
2. Egg Ethics Spark Stem-Cell Rift

(In response to both articles)

In recent years, the possibility and sensitivity of genetic screening have increased dramatically by technological advances introduced by top researchers and scientists. Such technology includes the Genelex’s GeneMedRx drug-interaction test, a new service in which one can “customize” his/her combination of medication according to his/her genetic makeup. Another new tool is the HIV test that promises not only portability but also faster result, features that current HIV testing lacks. Currently, biotech companies are applying similar technology for screenings of heart diseases, cancer, and other diseases.

(In response to "Drug Cocktail, No Hangover")
Genelex's GeneMedRx drug-interaction testing service is a terrific way to prevent thousands of perhaps preventable deaths a year. By simply giving a sample of blood, one’s genetic makeup is determined, which then allows for a patient's ability to metabolize certain types of drugs to be determined. This will then prevent them death due to ill drug interactions. Of course, such testing as that of the Genelex’s costs money; $800 for a bundle of tests, in fact. Right now, individuals have to dish out the money from their own pockets (we all know that healthcare doesn’t come cheap, especially for those who really can’t afford it, such as the elderly living off their monthly social security or those on welfare…but that’s a different story and we’ll save it for another time), which shouldn’t be the case. Prescribing these drugs that bring harm to a patient shouldn’t be done in the first place. Doctors should screen their patients to begin with, meaning the test fee should be paid by the doctors or refunded back to the their patients. After all, doctors are healthcare providers (to use the term loosely) and they should maximally care for their patients and be aware of the possible and individualized side effects their patients may experience. But, it’s still not necessarily the doctors’ fault for fringing harm to a patient’s health. Pharmaceutical companies are so advent about pushing their medicines that some go to the extent of giving free samples (a rather impressive advertising technique) to promote the drugs to physicians who then prescribe these to their patients to pick up at the pharmacy. The pharmaceutical companies should not market such drugs that have poor and harmful side effects. On top of that, however, drugs should be put through years and years of trials before the Food and Drug Administration approves them. Why? Because, according to Genelex, “21.3% of the 548 most recently FDA approved medications were subsequently withdrawn from the market or given a black box warning” (visit Genelex’s Adverse Drug Reactions Facts for more information). So, as much as I promote DNA testing, much more should be done to prevent adverse reactions from even occurring in the first place.

After reading “Handheld Puts AIDS Fight in Field,” I thought, “Finally!”

I know I’m not a bioengineer or anything, but it seems to me if the world has been using portable pregnancy tests for thirty years, I expected portable disease detectors to appear sooner or later.

Many scientists have been working to make diagnostic technology cheaper and more portable. The diagnostic process can take days or weeks, first getting a bodily fluid sample, then shipping it off, have it examined in a lab, and finally have your results delivered by phone or mail. Imagine how exhausting this process can be in a developing country, such as Africa, where people travel from an obscure place to get tested, and sometimes never know what they’re diagnosed with simply because they can’t be located later. The highlight of the article on HIV diagnosing is that the card can be reprogrammed to detect other diseases and cancers. I think it’s not uncommon for a person to get tested, and never receive their results. The “blissful” ignorance of not knowing if one is sick is not only harmful to one’s self, but to others as well. The sooner someone learns he/she is sick, the sooner we can attempt to cure it, prevent it from spreading, or at least buy some time for a longer life. I’m quite optimistic and looking forward to how this instrument will change diagnostic procedures and people’s personal lives.

An article I found from the University of Houston is more informative than the one from Wired.com:

What I would like to know that the articles from Wired.com and U.H. didn’t address is how accurate the tests are. It only stressed the convenience of the new technology.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to know things ahead before you make a mistake? Genelex has developed a lab process in which they can identify your genetic profile. This profile is then used to guide your decisions in medication intake so that your nutrition and drugs(s) will not cancel each other out—or worse, harm or kill you. The concept is similar to genetic counseling where two people’s genes can be examined to consider the possibility of a disease being passed onto their offspring. This preventive strategy sounds quite useful, and what I’m interested in is its psychological effects when conducted on different cases.

And interesting article from Washington Post discusses Genelex’s genetic profiling:

Think of how this test can affect our psyche and perception of risk when we know what exactly our chances of being harmed are. For instance, the article mentions smoking. Smokers overall have a 3X greater risk than nonsmokers of getting bladder cancer. Using genetic profiling, one can determine precisely what the chances of getting bladder cancer are. Those two genes that are “normal copies had a risk that was only two times greater. Those with one good gene and one bad one had a risk four times greater. And those with two bad genes had a risk seven times greater.”

This knowledge will no doubt have an effect on a person once they find out which “smoker’s” gene they have. It is likely that when a person knows their chances of getting a disease is significantly lower than every else, he/she may be more likely to take the risk and continue smoking or using whatever drug. A person who is already smoking knows that he/she is risking getting a disease. If he/she discovers that the chances of getting a disease is higher, one can say that since the risk is perceived as even higher now, the person is likely to quit the habit. I think the opposite; the person will continue with the habit because that person was willing to risk getting a disease in the first place, so their perceived risk wouldn’t really change.

On a note about the prescription process, the doctor is the one who prescribes the drugs, so why is it that doctors don’t already take it as their responsibility to make sure the patient isn’t harmed by the drug? It’s a little ridiculous to me that after we get a drug, then do we, the ones who aren’t medicine experts, seek out more medical aid and fork over the extra money to make sure the drug will fit well with other drugs and foods.

(In response to "Handheld Puts AIDS Fight in Field")
Kudos goes out to the team of scientists at Harvard and the University of Texas at Austin who developed the CD4 sensor system. Obviously, there are other HIV diagnostic instruments available. One of these is the Uni-Gold Recombigen HIV test that requires just one drop of whole blood, plasma, or serum to detect HIV(visit: US FDA approves 10 minute HIV test). What makes the CD4 different is the reprogramming of the chip to detect other diseases such as those of the heart as well as cancers. Now, this is all good in that it will detect HIV cheaply, but the question is for whom will it be cheap? It appears as if the cost for development along with all the reprogramming chips is going to be a tidy sum of money, and of course, the reproduction of this technology is going to cost money as well. And if this is going to be shipped to the sub-Saharan Africa, how much are these quick and easy tests going to cost the people getting tested or the testing programs in which that partake? Uni-Gold’s test costs approximately $10 U.S. dollars, which is by far too much when you take into account the total population that will be tested. With HIV and AIDS being a worldly and deadly epidemic, shouldn’t hands be lent (money saved) to save lives? Isn’t life a right? Now, let’s just say that the price of the CD4 is pretty cheap (at least less than Uni-Gold’s $10 price); what is going to be done for treatment? Treatment is still too costly for the general African population, not to say the least for the world population. Again, life is a right, and we should do all that can be done to promote it, even if it means putting less money in our pockets Mr. Scientist and Ms. LabNow Technician.

My name is Linda Nagasaki. I am currently a professor in the extremely under funded Department of Communication at University of Wisconsin. My work focuses mainly on gender, race and technology.

1. Handheld Puts AIDS Fight in Field
2. Drug Cocktail, No Hangover

Amendment for the Med-Tech Blog

- Blog entries are at least 250 words per article
- 2 blog entries on certain articles are submitted twice a week
- Articles are chosen on Tuesdays and will be announced on the blog
- Thursdays' times are used for blogging (but not required)
- Blog entries are due Fridays
- Blog responses are due Sunday nights, and are at least 100 words per response
- Two blog responses are required per week
- It would be appreciated if the classroom instructor participates, advise, and make suggestions on the issues at hand

Hello, my name is Gracie Robenstein. My short bright blonde hair is now almost white from the years of experience as a woman, wife, and mother. I am a busy woman in my fifties, but not tired yet. I am a university researcher and a radio personality on an A.M. talk show which I host between 8 until 10 on weeknights. Under the pen name, Dr. Mom, I offer parenting advice and discuss issues about children and families that are raised through my research, emails, and phone calls I receive on my show. I am an expert on child psychology, beginning from the time I was 16 and assisted my mom who was a pediatric nurse in a local children’s hospital. Since then, my interest in children bloomed, and I first walked in my mother’s footsteps as a nurse, and eventually went back to school to earn a doctorate in Child Psychology.

My education and experience is the backbone of my strength as an advisor, but my age is a different issue. It is hard keeping up with the times since technology is changing fast, and this has a profound impact on human behavior and culture. Even though I have been working as a child psychologist for 15 years, in the radio job for over 10 years, and addressed thousands of issues, I still enjoy it. I try my best to connect to my audience on a personal and empathetic as well as professional level without revealing too much about my personal identity. The issues discussed on my talk show are sensitive, and though I try my best to be unbiased, sometimes I receive negative mail and discouraging phone calls for my liberal ideas about parenting and familial relationships.

Allow me to introduce myself. I am my own mother’s daughter. I have been blessed; my mother’s greatest traits have surfaced in me and now make up a portion of my greatest traits and could possibly even define my character. This fact, in itself, is proof that I am my own mother’s daughter. Not many can say they are as lucky as I am lucky. Good judgment and morals are hard to come by these days. My mother is a woman who has good judgment and a strong set of morals and values. She may seem to be a physically frail woman, but this has not hindered her moral strength. Some may call her old fashioned, as do many of those from the most recent generation who have forgotten the essence of morality and values, but nonetheless, I am lucky enough to have been blessed with the very traits that allow me to sleep comfortably at night knowing that I am my own mother’s daughter.
I do not like the fact that the line between good and bad, between right and wrong, and between moral and immoral has been so skewed that much of the population finds it is too difficult to make a judgment call. I guess that is why some turn to others for help, for advice when the call needs to be made by someone who encompasses the knowledge of the distinction. I am one of those persons.