Ethicist Jeff Kahn discusses ANDi, the genetically modified monkey

ANDi is the first genetically modified primate

(CNN) -- A genetically modified monkey could be the key to curing a number of human diseases, researchers said. The baby rhesus monkey -- named ANDi, for "inserted DNA" spelled backwards -- carries in him an extra bit of DNA from a jellyfish. Although mice have been altered in this way for years, ANDi is the first primate to be similarly modified. Researchers at the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center said their technique could eventually be used to insert a human disease gene into a monkey, creating a better way of studying diseases like Alzheimer's, diabetes and breast cancer.

Jeffrey Kahn is director of the Center for Bioethics, and an associate professor at the University of Minnesota. The center is one of the leading research centers for bioethics, with 15 full- and part-time faculty.

CNN Moderator: Welcome to CNN Health Chat, Jeff Kahn. We're pleased to have you with us today.

	MESSAGE BOARD
Genetic Tinkering

Jeff Kahn: Thanks -- great to be here.

CNN Moderator: To begin, can you explain how this monkey was genetically engineered, and what ethical concerns do you have about the creation of this genetically altered monkey?

Jeff Kahn: As I understand it, monkey eggs were mixed with a virus that contained the DNA coding for luminescence. Those eggs were then fertilized, and 40 were implanted into the uterus of surrogate monkeys. Of those 40, five pregnancies resulted, and three baby monkeys were born. Only one, ANDI, has the gene for luminescence in his cells, but in every one of his cells. So they produced a genetically modified monkey. It raises questions about whether this technique could be used to genetically modify humans, since this success represents the first time primates have been so modified. We could think about parents trying to modify their future children with this technique, though that's a long way off, technically speaking. It also raises questions about the use of animals in research.

Question from Patrick78: What ethical standard or measurements should be used in genetic testing?

Jeff Kahn: Genetic testing is a different issue than genetic modification, of course, but it raises its own issues. For one, we need to ask if there should be limits on what kinds of genetic tests ought to be available, and for what purposes they may be used. There are few restrictions at the moment, though over half the states now have laws restricting the use of genetic information for health insurance eligibility and premium setting. Otherwise, it's up to the market, and doctors and patients to decide which tests to use.

Question from ShimSham: Why did they need to combine the monkey with a jellyfish, since they have already combined a rabbit and a jellyfish to the same effect? Isn't this irresponsible science?

Jeff Kahn: The reason they needed to try to do this in primates is that monkeys are much closer to humans than rabbits, and the hope is that this technique could be used to create animal models of human disease. Once the models are perfected, the hope is that they can lead to improved understanding of human diseases, and how to treat them. Now all this presumes that you think it's acceptable to create animal models of disease for the purpose of research benefiting humans.

Question from Girl: Will the legal system eventually be forced to make laws that define the rights or lack of rights in monkey and human experimentation?

Jeff Kahn: That's an interesting question. There is already a very built-up bureaucracy that defines the limits and acceptable practices for research on animals and research on humans, so that may answer part of the question. It limits the kinds of research that can be done, requires oversight (both before and after research takes place), and is in place to protect the interests of research subjects. There is a question, however, of whether we have sufficient rules in place to deal with the kinds of genetic modification research today's report entails. I happen to think the answer is yes, but others have suggested we need more and stronger oversight.

Question from What: What do they hope to accomplish by this test? Will it be used to possibly weed out birth defects in unborn children?

Jeff Kahn: They hope they can perfect techniques that will first allow animals to be modified to mimic human disease, but I think eventually could be put to human use. By that I mean being able to not exactly weed out, but actually correct genetic defects in humans, or even add genes to humans to cure (or enhance) them.

Question from Perkins: Is it fair to science to limit the extent to which genetic R&D should mature? For example, for man to successfully colonize this galaxy and beyond man must be more than he is now.

Jeff Kahn: That's a great question. There is an ongoing tension between allowing freedom in science and trying to responsibly assess its implications. A good example of that was research that led to the atomic bomb. The basic scientists -- like Einstein -- working on splitting the atom may not have foreseen the implications of that research. But Einstein argued later in his life that it is the responsibility of scientists not only to seek new discoveries, but also to understand and advocate for responsible use to which those discoveries might be put.

Question from Gmud: Do you think the United States could fall behind in genetic research to other countries that might have less strict regulations on cloning experiments?

Jeff Kahn: That's a real concern, I think, and a really good point. England recently passed a law that allows research to be done on what is called "therapeutic cloning," which cannot now be done in the U.S. So we will undoubtedly fall behind in that area of research. That will have various impacts -- we won't have the benefits of that research. We won't get the research funding from industry or foundations devoted to it and the best scientists in this area will leave the U.S. for the UK. Those are all real effects of the limits that are put on scientific research. That said, we are generally the least restrictive country when it comes to controversial areas of research, so we tend to lead rather than follow.

CNN Moderator: Do you have any final thoughts for us today?

Jeff Kahn: We all should stay tuned, since this is an area that will only continue to have novel, fascinating and ethically interesting issues.

CNN Moderator: Thank you for joining us today.

Jeff Kahn: My pleasure. See you all again soon.

Jeff Kahn joined the chat room from Minneapolis, Minnesota. The above is an edited transcript of the interview, which occurred Friday, January 12, 2001.

Check out the CNN Chat calendar
Post your opinion on our message boards

Center for Bioethics - Faculty & Staff

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.