BN.com Gift Guide

More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement

Overview

Distilling the most radical accomplishments being made in labs around the world, including gene therapy, genetic engineering, life extension, brain-computer interfaces, and cloning, More Than Human offers an exciting tour of the impact biotechnology will have on our lives. Throughout this remarkable trip, author Ramez Naam shares an impassioned vision for the future with revealing insight into the ethical dilemmas posed by twenty-first-century science.

Encouraging us to ...

See more details below
Paperback
$12.46
BN.com price
(Save 16%)$15.00 List Price

Pick Up In Store

Reserve and pick up in 60 minutes at your local store

Other sellers (Paperback)
  • All (9) from $9.00   
  • New (6) from $12.77   
  • Used (3) from $9.00   
Sending request ...

Overview

Distilling the most radical accomplishments being made in labs around the world, including gene therapy, genetic engineering, life extension, brain-computer interfaces, and cloning, More Than Human offers an exciting tour of the impact biotechnology will have on our lives. Throughout this remarkable trip, author Ramez Naam shares an impassioned vision for the future with revealing insight into the ethical dilemmas posed by twenty-first-century science.

Encouraging us to celebrate rather than fear these innovations, Naam incisively separates fact from myth, arguing that these much-maligned technologies have the power to transform the human race for the better, so long as individuals and families are left free to decide how and if to use them.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

Publishers Weekly
Imagine a person severely disabled by a stroke who, with electrodes implanted in his brain, can type on a computer just by thinking of the letters. Or a man, blind for 20 years, driving a car around a parking lot via a camera hard-wired into his brain. Plots for science fiction? No, it's already happened, according to future technologies expert Naam. In an excellent and comprehensive survey, Naam investigates a wide swath of cutting-edge techniques that in a few years may be as common as plastic surgery. Genetic therapy for weight control isn't that far off-it's already being done with animals. Countless people who are blind, deaf or paralyzed will acquire the abilities that most people take for granted through advances in computer technology and understanding how the nervous system functions. Naam says the armed services are already investing millions of dollars in this research; they envision super-pilots and super-soldiers who will be able to control their planes and tanks more quickly via thought. Some of the author's prognostications, with their Nietzschean overtones of people being "more than human," may frighten readers, but Naam is persuasive that many of these advances are going to happen no matter what, and that despite the potential for abuses, they offer hope for our well-being and the survival of the species. Agent, Ted Weinstein. (On sale Mar. 8) Copyright 2005 Reed Business Information.
Kirkus Reviews
Wired minds, designer bodies, doubled life spans, a child for every happy couple: an optimistic portrayal of the brave new future of scientifically improved life. The subtitle is apt, as Naam (a computer engineer at Microsoft) makes no attempt to mask his enthusiasm for the drugs, therapies, products, and procedures of cutting-edge biotech. This is not a sage analysis of the immediate feasibility or likelihood of specific changes. Nor does the author claim experience in a biological field or medical training. His book, instead, is a logical and structured explanation of bioengineering projects underway: gene therapy to cure disease, enhance athletic performance, and lengthen life span; brain implants to allow the paralyzed to move, the mute to speak, the blind to see, and the deaf to hear; brain-computer interfaces to mimic telepathy ("Just as we can e-mail our words . . . we'll be able to broadcast the inner states of our minds"). There's little chance that all of these will ever become mainstream, but some certainly will, and that fact alone is both exciting and frightening. Naam doesn't shy away from trumpeting controversial propositions such as human cloning or genetic selection of embryos, and he audaciously sets out game plan and shining new playing field, though he still does address some of the bumps in any road that will lead to universal acceptance. He shows a knack for plain and clear explanations of highly complex and technical concepts without condescension or pedantry. He goes beyond the simple gee whiz and even takes time to address the economics of research (development is expensive, implementation thereafter often cheap). Along the way, he refers to political trends thatsuggest eventual acceptance of initially controversial practices and ideas, and he investigates large-scale implications of many of the biotechnologies, as, for example, the impact upon world population of life extension techniques. An intriguing presentation by an unabashed advocate of the technological tricking and co-opting of mother nature. Agent: Ted Weinstein/Ted Weinstein Literary Management
From the Publisher
Advance Praise for More Than Human

“Ramez Naam provides a reliable and informed cook’s tour of the world we might choose if we decide that we should fast-forward evolution. I disagree with virtually all his enthusiasms, but I think he has made his case cogently and well.” —Bill McKibben, author Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age

More Than Human is excellent—passionate yet balanced, clearly written and rich with fascinating details. A wonderful overview of a topic that will dominate the twenty-first century.” —Greg Bear, author of Dead Lines and Darwin’s Children

“Sixty years ago, human beings gave digital computers the ability to modify their own coded instructions—sparking a revolution that has now given us the ability to modify our own coded instructions, promising revolutions even more extreme. Whether for, against, or undecided about genetic modification of human beings, you should read this book—a bold, compelling look at what lies ahead.” —George Dyson, author of Darwin Among the Machines

More Than Human is one of those rare books that is both a delightful read and an important statement. You’ll relish the fascinating stories of physical and mental enhancement that Naam has assembled here, but you’ll also come away with a new sense of wonder at the human drive for pushing at the boundaries of what it means to be human. No one interested in the future intersections of science, technology, and medicine can afford to miss this book.” —Steven Johnson, author of Mind Wide Open: Your Brain and the Neuroscience of Everyday Life


“Ramez Naam’s look at the coming of human enhancement is a major contribution; he shows convincingly that the conceptual wall between therapy and enhancement is fast crumbling.” —Gregory Stock, author of Redesigning Humans

Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780557582334
  • Publisher: Lulu.com
  • Publication date: 8/9/2010
  • Pages: 232
  • Sales rank: 818,677
  • Product dimensions: 6.00 (w) x 9.00 (h) x 0.53 (d)

Meet the Author

RAMEZ NAAM helped develop two of the most widely used pieces of software in the world—Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Outlook. He serves as an advisor to several technology associations and speaks frequently at technology and futures conferences. He lives in Seattle.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

CHAPTER 1
Choosing
Our
Bodies

In 1989, Raj and Van DeSilva were desperate. Their daughter Ashanti, just four, was dying. She was born with a crippled immune system, a consequence of a problem in her genes.

Every human being has around thirty thousand genes. In fact, we have two copies of each of those genes—one inherited from our mother, the other from our father. Our genes tell our cells what proteins to make, and when.
Each protein is a tiny molecular machine. Every cell in your body is built out of millions of these little machines, working together in precise ways. Proteins break down food, ferry energy to the right places, and form scaffoldings that maintain cell health and structure. Some proteins synthesize messenger molecules to pass signals in the brain, and other proteins form receptors to receive those signals. Even the machines inside each of your cells that build new proteins—called ribosomes—are themselves made up of other proteins.

Ashanti DeSilva inherited two broken copies of the gene that contains the instructions for manufacturing a protein called adenoside deaminase (ADA). If she had had just one broken copy, she would have been fine. The other copy of the gene would have made up the difference. With two broken copies, her body didn’t have the right instructions to manufacture ADA at all.

ADA plays a crucial role in our resistance to disease. Without it, special white blood cells called T cells die off. Without T cells, ADA-deficient children are wide open to the attacks of viruses and bacteria. These children have what’s called severe combined immune deficiency (SCID) disorder, more commonly known as bubble boy disease.

To a person with a weak immune system, the outside world is threatening. Everyone you touch, share a glass with, or share the same air with is a potential source of dangerous pathogens. Lacking the ability to defend herself, Ashanti was largely confined to her home.

The standard treatment for ADA deficiency is frequent injections of PEG-ADA, a synthetic form of the ADA enzyme. PEG-ADA can mean the difference between life and death for an ADA-deficient child. Unfortunately, although it usually produces a rapid improvement when first used, children tend to respond less and less to the drug each time they receive a dose. Ashanti DeSilva started receiving PEG-ADA injections at the age of two, and initially she responded well. Her T-cell count rose sharply and she developed some resistance to disease. But by the age of four, she was slipping away, no longer responding strongly to her injections. If she was to live, she’d need something more than PEG-ADA. The only other option at the time, a bone-marrow transplant, was ruled out by the lack of matching donors.

In early 1990, while Ashanti’s parents were searching frantically for help, French Anderson, a geneticist at the National Institutes of Health, was seeking permission to perform the first gene-therapy trials on humans. Anderson, an intense fifth-degree blackbelt in tae kwon do and respected researcher in the field of genetics, wanted to show that he could treat genetic diseases caused by faulty copies of genes by inserting new, working copies of the same gene.

Scientists had already shown that it was possible to insert new genes into plants and animals. Genetic engineering got its start in 1972, when geneticists Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer first met at a scientific conference in Hawaii on plasmids, small circular loops of extra chromosomal DNA in which bacteria carry their genes. Cohen, then a professor at Stanford, had been working on ways to insert new plasmids into bacteria. Researchers in Boyer’s lab at the University of California in San Francisco had recently discovered restriction enzymes, molecular tools that could be used to slice and dice DNA at specific points.

Over hot pastrami and corned-beef sandwiches, the two Californian researchers concluded that their technologies complemented one another. Boyer’s restriction enzymes could isolate specific genes, and Cohen’s techniques could then deliver them to bacteria. Using both techniques researchers could alter the genes of bacteria. In 1973, just four months after meeting each other, Cohen and Boyer inserted a new gene into the Escherichia coli bacterium (a regular resident of the human intestine).

For the first time, humans were tinkering directly with the genes of another species. The field of genetic engineering was born. Boyer would go on to found Genentech, the world’s first biotechnology company. Cohen would go on to win the Nobel Prize in 1986 for his work on cell growth factors.

Building on Cohen and Boyer’s work with bacteria, hundreds of scientists went on to find ways to insert new genes into plants and animals. The hard work of genetically engineering these higher organisms lies in getting the new gene into the cells. To do this, one needs a gene vector—a way to get the gene to the right place. Most researchers use gene vectors provided by nature: viruses. In some ways, viruses are an ideal tool for ferrying genes into a cell, because penetrating cell walls is already one of their main abilities. Viruses are cellular parasites. Unlike plant or animal cells, or even bacteria, viruses can’t reproduce themselves. Instead, they penetrate cells and implant their viral genes; these genes then instruct the cell to make more of the virus, one protein at a time.

Early genetic engineers realized that they could use viruses to deliver whatever genes they wanted. Instead of delivering the genes to create more virus, a virus could be modified to deliver a different gene chosen by a scientist. Modified viruses were pressed into service as genetic “trucks,” carrying a payload of genes loaded onto them by researchers; these viruses don’t spread from cell to cell, because they don’t carry the genes necessary for the cell to make new copies of the virus.

By the late 1980s, researchers had used this technique to alter the genes of dozens of species of plants and animals—tobacco plants that glow, tomatoes that could survive freezing, corn resistant to pesticides. French Anderson and his colleagues reasoned that one could do the same in a human being. Given a patient who lacked a gene crucial to health, one ought to be able to give that person copies of the missing gene. This is what Anderson proposed to do for Ashanti.

Starting in June of 1988, Anderson’s proposed clinical protocols, or treatment plans, went through intense scrutiny and generated more than a little hostility. His first protocol was reviewed by both the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Over a period of seven months, seven regulatory committees conducted fifteen meetings and twenty hours of public hearings to assess the proposal.

In early 1990, Anderson and his collaborators received the final approval from the NIH’s Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee and had cleared all legal hurdles. By spring, they had identified Ashanti as a potential patient. Would her parents consent to an experimental treatment? Of course there were risks to the therapy, yet without it Ashanti would face a life of seclusion and probably death in the next few years. Given these odds, her parents opted to try the therapy. As Raj DeSilva told the Houston Chronicle, “What choice did we have?”

Ashanti and her parents flew to the NIH Clinical Center at Bethesda, Maryland. There, over the course of twelve days, Anderson and his colleagues Michael Blaese and Kenneth Culver slowly extracted some of Ashanti’s blood cells. Safely outside the body, the cells had new, working copies of the ADA gene inserted into them by a hollowed-out virus. Finally, starting on the afternoon of September 14, Culver injected the cells back into Ashanti’s body.

The gene therapy had roughly the same goal as a bone-marrow transplant—to give Ashanti a supply of her own cells that could produce ADA. Unlike a bone-marrow transplant, gene therapy carries no risk of rejection. The cells Culver injected back into Ashanti’s bloodstream were her own, so her body recognized them as such.

The impact of the gene therapy on Ashanti was striking. Within six months, her T-cell count rose to normal levels. Over the next two years, her health continued to improve, allowing her to enroll in school, venture out of the house, and lead a fairly normal childhood.

Ashanti is not completely cured—she still takes a low dose of PEG-ADA. Normally the dose size would increase with the patient’s age, but her doses have remained fixed at her four-year-old level. It’s possible that she could be taken off the PEG-ADA therapy entirely, but her doctors don’t think it’s yet worth the risk. The fact that she’s alive today—let alone healthy and active—is due to her gene therapy, and also helps prove a crucial point: genes can be inserted into humans to cure genetic diseases.

From Healing to Enhancing

After Ashanti’s treatment, the field of gene therapy blossomed. Since 1990, hundreds of labs have begun experimenting with gene therapy as a technique to cure disease, and more than five hundred human trials involving over four thousand patients have been launched. Researchers have shown that it may be possible to use gene therapy to cure diabetes, sickle-cell anemia, several kinds of cancer, Huntington’s disease and even to open blocked arteries.

While the goal of gene therapy researchers is to cure disease, gene therapy could also be used to boost human athletic performance. In many cases, the same research that is focused on saving lives has also shown that it can enhance the abilities of animals, with the suggestion that it could enhance men and women as well.

Consider the use of gene therapy to combat anemia. Circulating through your veins are trillions of red blood cells. Pumped by your heart, they serve to deliver oxygen from the lungs to the rest of your tissues, and carry carbon dioxide from the tissues back out to the lungs and out of the body. Without enough red blood cells, you can’t function. Your muscles can’t get enough oxygen to produce force, and your brain can’t get enough oxygen to think clearly. Anemia is the name of the condition of insufficient red blood cells. Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide live with anemia, and with the lethargy and weakness that are its symptoms. In the United States, at least eighty-five thousand patients are severely anemic as a result of kidney failure. Another fifty thousand AIDS patients are anemic due to side effects of the HIV drug AZT.

In 1985, researchers at Amgen, a biotech company based in Thousand Oaks, California, looking for a way to treat anemia isolated the gene responsible for producing the growth hormone erythropoietin (EPO). Your kidneys produce EPO in response to low levels of oxygen in the blood. EPO in turn causes your body to produce more red blood cells. For a patient whose kidneys have failed, injections of Amgen’s synthetic EPO can take up some of the slack. The drug is a lifesaver, so popular that the worldwide market for it is as high as $5 billion per year, and therein lies the problem: the cost of therapy is prohibitive. Three injections of EPO a week is a standard treatment, and patients who need this kind of therapy end up paying $7,000 to $9,000 a year. In poor countries struggling even to pay for HIV drugs like AZT, the added burden of paying for EPO to offset the side effects just isn’t feasible.

What if there was another way? What if the body could be instructed to produce more EPO on its own, to make up for that lost to kidney failure or AZT? That’s the question University of Chicago professor Jeffrey Leiden asked himself in the mid-1990s. In 1997, Leiden and his colleagues performed the first animal study of EPO gene therapy, injecting lab monkeys and mice with a virus carrying an extra copy of the EPO gene. The virus penetrated a tiny proportion of the cells in the mice and monkeys and unloaded the gene copies in them. The cells began to produce extra EPO, causing the animals’ bodies to create more red blood cells. In principle, this was no different from injecting extra copies of the ADA gene into Ashanti, except in this case the animals already had two working copies of the EPO gene. The one being inserted into some of their cells was a third copy; if the experiment worked, the animals’ levels of EPO production would be boosted beyond the norm for their species.

That’s just what happened. After just a single injection, the animals began producing more EPO, and their red-blood-cell counts soared. The mice went from a hematocrit of 49 percent (meaning that 49 percent of their blood volume was red blood cells) to 81 percent. The monkeys went from 40 percent to 70 percent. At least two other biotech companies, Chiron and Ariad Gene Therapies, have produced similar results in baboons and monkeys, respectively.

The increase in red-blood-cell count is impressive, but the real advantage of gene therapy is in the long-lasting effects. Doctors can produce an increase in red-blood-cell production in patients with injections of EPO itself—but the EPO injections have to be repeated three times a week. EPO gene therapy, on the other hand, could be administered just every few months, or even just once for the patient’s entire lifetime.

The research bears this out. In Leiden’s original experiment, the mice each received just one shot, but showed higher red-blood-cell counts for a year. In the monkeys, the effects lasted for twelve weeks. The monkeys in the Ariad trial, which went through gene therapy more than four years ago, still show higher red-blood-cell counts today.

This is a key difference between drug therapy and gene therapy. Drugs sent into the body have an effect for a while, but eventually are broken up or passed out. Gene therapy, on the other hand, gives the body the ability to manufacture the needed protein or enzyme or other chemical itself. The new genes can last for a few weeks or can become a permanent part of the patient’s genome.

The duration of the effect depends on the kind of gene vector used and where it delivers its payload of DNA. Almost all of the DNA you carry is located on twenty-three pairs of chromosomes that are inside the nuclei of your cells. The nucleus forms a protective barrier that shields your chromosomes from damage. It also contains sophisticated DNA repair mechanisms that patch up most of the damage that does occur.

Insertional gene vectors penetrate all the way into the nucleus of the cell and splice the genes they carry into the chromosomes. From that point on, the new genes get all the benefits your other genes enjoy. The new genes are shielded from most of the damage that can happen inside your cells. If the cell divides, the new genes get copied to the daughter cells, just like the rest of your DNA. Insertional vectors make more or less permanent changes to your genome.

Noninsertional vectors, on the other hand, don’t make it into the nucleus of your cells. They don’t splice the new genes they carry into your chromosomes. Instead, they deliver their payload of DNA and leave it floating around inside your cells. The new DNA still gets read by the cell. It still instructs the cell to make new proteins. But it doesn’t get copied when the cell divides. Over time, it suffers from wear and tear, until eventually it breaks up, and its effects end.

The difference in durations among drugs, noninsertional vectors and insertional vectors gives us choices. We can choose to make a temporary change with a drug, which will wear off in a few hours or days; a semipermanent change with noninsertional gene therapy, whose effects will last for weeks or months depending on the genes and type of cell infected; or a permanent change by inserting new genes directly into your genome. Each of these three options is appropriate in certain situations. In the context of EPO, the idea of semipermanent or permanent change by means of gene therapy has definite advantages. It cuts down on the need for frequent injections, which means that the gene therapy approach can end up being much cheaper than the drug therapy approach.

Read More Show Less

First Chapter

More Than Human


By Ramez Naam

Random House

Ramez Naam
All right reserved.

ISBN: 0385515189


Chapter One

Choosing
Our
Bodies


In 1989, Raj and Van DeSilva were desperate. Their daughter Ashanti, just four, was dying. She was born with a crippled immune system, a consequence of a problem in her genes.

Every human being has around thirty thousand genes. In fact, we have two copies of each of those genes-one inherited from our mother, the other from our father. Our genes tell our cells what proteins to make, and when.
Each protein is a tiny molecular machine. Every cell in your body is built out of millions of these little machines, working together in precise ways. Proteins break down food, ferry energy to the right places, and form scaffoldings that maintain cell health and structure. Some proteins synthesize messenger molecules to pass signals in the brain, and other proteins form receptors to receive those signals. Even the machines inside each of your cells that build new proteins—called ribosomes—are themselves made up of other proteins.

Ashanti DeSilva inherited two broken copies of the gene that contains the instructions for manufacturing a protein called adenoside deaminase (ADA). If she had had just one broken copy, she would have been fine. The other copy of the gene would have made up the difference. With two broken copies, her body didn't have the right instructions to manufacture ADA at all.

ADA plays a crucial role in our resistance to disease. Without it, special white blood cells called T cells die off. Without T cells, ADA-deficient children are wide open to the attacks of viruses and bacteria. These children have what's called severe combined immune deficiency (SCID) disorder, more commonly known as bubble boy disease.

To a person with a weak immune system, the outside world is threatening. Everyone you touch, share a glass with, or share the same air with is a potential source of dangerous pathogens. Lacking the ability to defend herself, Ashanti was largely confined to her home.

The standard treatment for ADA deficiency is frequent injections of PEG-ADA, a synthetic form of the ADA enzyme. PEG-ADA can mean the difference between life and death for an ADA-deficient child. Unfortunately, although it usually produces a rapid improvement when first used, children tend to respond less and less to the drug each time they receive a dose. Ashanti DeSilva started receiving PEG-ADA injections at the age of two, and initially she responded well. Her T-cell count rose sharply and she developed some resistance to disease. But by the age of four, she was slipping away, no longer responding strongly to her injections. If she was to live, she'd need something more than PEG-ADA. The only other option at the time, a bone-marrow transplant, was ruled out by the lack of matching donors.

In early 1990, while Ashanti's parents were searching frantically for help, French Anderson, a geneticist at the National Institutes of Health, was seeking permission to perform the first gene-therapy trials on humans. Anderson, an intense fifth-degree blackbelt in tae kwon do and respected researcher in the field of genetics, wanted to show that he could treat genetic diseases caused by faulty copies of genes by inserting new, working copies of the same gene.

Scientists had already shown that it was possible to insert new genes into plants and animals. Genetic engineering got its start in 1972, when geneticists Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer first met at a scientific conference in Hawaii on plasmids, small circular loops of extra chromosomal DNA in which bacteria carry their genes. Cohen, then a professor at Stanford, had been working on ways to insert new plasmids into bacteria. Researchers in Boyer's lab at the University of California in San Francisco had recently discovered restriction enzymes, molecular tools that could be used to slice and dice DNA at specific points.

Over hot pastrami and corned-beef sandwiches, the two Californian researchers concluded that their technologies complemented one another. Boyer's restriction enzymes could isolate specific genes, and Cohen's techniques could then deliver them to bacteria. Using both techniques researchers could alter the genes of bacteria. In 1973, just four months after meeting each other, Cohen and Boyer inserted a new gene into the Escherichia coli bacterium (a regular resident of the human intestine).

For the first time, humans were tinkering directly with the genes of another species. The field of genetic engineering was born. Boyer would go on to found Genentech, the world's first biotechnology company. Cohen would go on to win the Nobel Prize in 1986 for his work on cell growth factors.

Building on Cohen and Boyer's work with bacteria, hundreds of scientists went on to find ways to insert new genes into plants and animals. The hard work of genetically engineering these higher organisms lies in getting the new gene into the cells. To do this, one needs a gene vector—a way to get the gene to the right place. Most researchers use gene vectors provided by nature: viruses. In some ways, viruses are an ideal tool for ferrying genes into a cell, because penetrating cell walls is already one of their main abilities. Viruses are cellular parasites. Unlike plant or animal cells, or even bacteria, viruses can't reproduce themselves. Instead, they penetrate cells and implant their viral genes; these genes then instruct the cell to make more of the virus, one protein at a time.

Early genetic engineers realized that they could use viruses to deliver whatever genes they wanted. Instead of delivering the genes to create more virus, a virus could be modified to deliver a different gene chosen by a scientist. Modified viruses were pressed into service as genetic “trucks,” carrying a payload of genes loaded onto them by researchers; these viruses don't spread from cell to cell, because they don't carry the genes necessary for the cell to make new copies of the virus.

By the late 1980s, researchers had used this technique to alter the genes of dozens of species of plants and animals—tobacco plants that glow, tomatoes that could survive freezing, corn resistant to pesticides. French Anderson and his colleagues reasoned that one could do the same in a human being. Given a patient who lacked a gene crucial to health, one ought to be able to give that person copies of the missing gene. This is what Anderson proposed to do for Ashanti.

Starting in June of 1988, Anderson's proposed clinical protocols, or treatment plans, went through intense scrutiny and generated more than a little hostility. His first protocol was reviewed by both the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Over a period of seven months, seven regulatory committees conducted fifteen meetings and twenty hours of public hearings to assess the proposal.

In early 1990, Anderson and his collaborators received the final approval from the NIH's Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee and had cleared all legal hurdles. By spring, they had identified Ashanti as a potential patient. Would her parents consent to an experimental treatment? Of course there were risks to the therapy, yet without it Ashanti would face a life of seclusion and probably death in the next few years. Given these odds, her parents opted to try the therapy. As Raj DeSilva told the Houston Chronicle, “What choice did we have?”

Ashanti and her parents flew to the NIH Clinical Center at Bethesda, Maryland. There, over the course of twelve days, Anderson and his colleagues Michael Blaese and Kenneth Culver slowly extracted some of Ashanti's blood cells. Safely outside the body, the cells had new, working copies of the ADA gene inserted into them by a hollowed-out virus. Finally, starting on the afternoon of September 14, Culver injected the cells back into Ashanti's body.

The gene therapy had roughly the same goal as a bone-marrow transplant—to give Ashanti a supply of her own cells that could produce ADA. Unlike a bone-marrow transplant, gene therapy carries no risk of rejection. The cells Culver injected back into Ashanti's bloodstream were her own, so her body recognized them as such.

The impact of the gene therapy on Ashanti was striking. Within six months, her T-cell count rose to normal levels. Over the next two years, her health continued to improve, allowing her to enroll in school, venture out of the house, and lead a fairly normal childhood.

Ashanti is not completely cured—she still takes a low dose of PEG-ADA. Normally the dose size would increase with the patient's age, but her doses have remained fixed at her four-year-old level. It's possible that she could be taken off the PEG-ADA therapy entirely, but her doctors don't think it's yet worth the risk. The fact that she's alive today—let alone healthy and active—is due to her gene therapy, and also helps prove a crucial point: genes can be inserted into humans to cure genetic diseases.

From Healing to Enhancing

After Ashanti's treatment, the field of gene therapy blossomed. Since 1990, hundreds of labs have begun experimenting with gene therapy as a technique to cure disease, and more than five hundred human trials involving over four thousand patients have been launched. Researchers have shown that it may be possible to use gene therapy to cure diabetes, sickle-cell anemia, several kinds of cancer, Huntington's disease and even to open blocked arteries.

While the goal of gene therapy researchers is to cure disease, gene therapy could also be used to boost human athletic performance. In many cases, the same research that is focused on saving lives has also shown that it can enhance the abilities of animals, with the suggestion that it could enhance men and women as well.

Consider the use of gene therapy to combat anemia. Circulating through your veins are trillions of red blood cells. Pumped by your heart, they serve to deliver oxygen from the lungs to the rest of your tissues, and carry carbon dioxide from the tissues back out to the lungs and out of the body. Without enough red blood cells, you can't function. Your muscles can't get enough oxygen to produce force, and your brain can't get enough oxygen to think clearly. Anemia is the name of the condition of insufficient red blood cells. Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide live with anemia, and with the lethargy and weakness that are its symptoms. In the United States, at least eighty-five thousand patients are severely anemic as a result of kidney failure. Another fifty thousand AIDS patients are anemic due to side effects of the HIV drug AZT.

In 1985, researchers at Amgen, a biotech company based in Thousand Oaks, California, looking for a way to treat anemia isolated the gene responsible for producing the growth hormone erythropoietin (EPO). Your kidneys produce EPO in response to low levels of oxygen in the blood. EPO in turn causes your body to produce more red blood cells. For a patient whose kidneys have failed, injections of Amgen's synthetic EPO can take up some of the slack. The drug is a lifesaver, so popular that the worldwide market for it is as high as $5 billion per year, and therein lies the problem: the cost of therapy is prohibitive. Three injections of EPO a week is a standard treatment, and patients who need this kind of therapy end up paying $7,000 to $9,000 a year. In poor countries struggling even to pay for HIV drugs like AZT, the added burden of paying for EPO to offset the side effects just isn't feasible.

What if there was another way? What if the body could be instructed to produce more EPO on its own, to make up for that lost to kidney failure or AZT? That's the question University of Chicago professor Jeffrey Leiden asked himself in the mid-1990s. In 1997, Leiden and his colleagues performed the first animal study of EPO gene therapy, injecting lab monkeys and mice with a virus carrying an extra copy of the EPO gene. The virus penetrated a tiny proportion of the cells in the mice and monkeys and unloaded the gene copies in them. The cells began to produce extra EPO, causing the animals' bodies to create more red blood cells. In principle, this was no different from injecting extra copies of the ADA gene into Ashanti, except in this case the animals already had two working copies of the EPO gene. The one being inserted into some of their cells was a third copy; if the experiment worked, the animals' levels of EPO production would be boosted beyond the norm for their species.

That's just what happened. After just a single injection, the animals began producing more EPO, and their red-blood-cell counts soared. The mice went from a hematocrit of 49 percent (meaning that 49 percent of their blood volume was red blood cells) to 81 percent. The monkeys went from 40 percent to 70 percent. At least two other biotech companies, Chiron and Ariad Gene Therapies, have produced similar results in baboons and monkeys, respectively.

The increase in red-blood-cell count is impressive, but the real advantage of gene therapy is in the long-lasting effects. Doctors can produce an increase in red-blood-cell production in patients with injections of EPO itself—but the EPO injections have to be repeated three times a week. EPO gene therapy, on the other hand, could be administered just every few months, or even just once for the patient's entire lifetime.

The research bears this out. In Leiden's original experiment, the mice each received just one shot, but showed higher red-blood-cell counts for a year. In the monkeys, the effects lasted for twelve weeks. The monkeys in the Ariad trial, which went through gene therapy more than four years ago, still show higher red-blood-cell counts today.

This is a key difference between drug therapy and gene therapy. Drugs sent into the body have an effect for a while, but eventually are broken up or passed out. Gene therapy, on the other hand, gives the body the ability to manufacture the needed protein or enzyme or other chemical itself. The new genes can last for a few weeks or can become a permanent part of the patient's genome.

The duration of the effect depends on the kind of gene vector used and where it delivers its payload of DNA. Almost all of the DNA you carry is located on twenty-three pairs of chromosomes that are inside the nuclei of your cells. The nucleus forms a protective barrier that shields your chromosomes from damage. It also contains sophisticated DNA repair mechanisms that patch up most of the damage that does occur.

Insertional gene vectors penetrate all the way into the nucleus of the cell and splice the genes they carry into the chromosomes. From that point on, the new genes get all the benefits your other genes enjoy. The new genes are shielded from most of the damage that can happen inside your cells.

Continues...


Excerpted from More Than Human by Ramez Naam Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(0)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(0)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing all of 2 Customer Reviews
  • Anonymous

    Posted February 17, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted December 29, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing all of 2 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)