The Two Million Year Question

Careful studies of 2-million year old human-like fossils just published in the April 12, 2012 issue of Science raise more questions than they answer.

These papers provide highly detailed information about the teeth, rib cage, hands, and feet of this strange relative, known to scientists as Australopithecus sediba.  But we still do not know the answer to the biggest question of all.  How does sediba fit in the human family tree?  Is sediba a direct human ancestor?  If not, why are they so similar to us in some respects?

Photo Credit: The reconstructed skull and mandible of Australopithecus sediba.Reconstruction by Peter Schmid, Photo by Lee R. Berger. Image courtesy of Lee R. Berger and the University of the Witwatersrand.

The teeth are mostly like those of Australopithecus africanus but also quite a bit like the earliest examples of the genus Homo.  That is surprising.  For some experts, it calls into question the standard view that Homo evolved from Australopithecus afarensis, most commonly known as “Lucy.” 

The new analysis suggests an evolutionary pathway from africanus to sediba to Homo.  In that case, Lucy is a relative but not an ancestor.  Sediba is. 

Not so fast, others insist.  The first examples of Homo may go back to 2.3 million years ago, long before sediba appears at just under two million years ago.  Lucy and her afarensis kin lived much earlier, enough to be ancestral to Homo. 

Based on what we know now, the debate will continue because the facts just do not line up neatly or offer a simple story.  "Our study provides further evidence that sediba is indeed a very close relative of early humans, but we can't definitively determine its position relative to africanus,” study co-author Debbie Guatelli-Steinberg said according to a release from Ohio State University.

What these studies do provide is a remarkably complete picture of what early human-like ancestors look like.  They also provide another surprise.  Despite having a foot with a narrow heel, similar to chimpanzees, sediba definitely walked upright, maybe even using a somewhat awkward never known before to scientists.  They were clearly not knuckle-walkers, like the apes, but they were not nearly as graceful as the humans who followed.  It seems they walked upright differently.  

For now, what all this suggests is that the story of our deep ancestry is more complex than we usually imagine.  Straight ancestral lines are hard to draw.  More finds may help sort things out.  But they may also add new complexity.  The way it looks, multiple forms of early human life may have existed at once.  They differed slightly from each other and also in the degree to which they resemble us.  That makes it very hard to sort out the lineages.  

Is sediba a direct human ancestors?  Yes, at least according Lee Berger, who discovered sediba in a pit in northern South Africa in 2008.  Most experts, however, argue no, mainly the dates are out of line.  What difference does it make?  Perhaps the biggest significance of this debate is to show us that the more we know, the more we see a complex picture of multiple species and perhaps interweaving lineages, making it all the more remarkable that we are here at all. 

This research is published as a set of six research reports in the April 12, 2012 issue of the journal Science, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

"Three-parent babies" and the Human Germline Modification Debate

Human germline modification is back in the news. The current round of public conversation was launched in the UK by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). In the past few days, the media and the blogosphere have lit up with an intensifying debate. 

What HFEA wants people to consider is whether it is acceptable to use in vitro fertilization to try to avoid a specific category of genetic disease. Is it OK to help couples at risk for mitochondrial disorders by supplying donor mitochondria to the new embryo? If mom’s own mitochondrial DNA will lead to a disease, is it OK to add mitochondria from an outside donor?

PHOTO Transmission electron microscope image of a thin section cut through an area of mammalian lung tissue. The high magnification image shows a mitochondria. Source: Wikimedia. Credit: Louisa Howard, PhD. This work has been released into the public domain by its author.

Many refer to this as the “three-parent baby.” And for that reason alone, they object.

Others raise the stakes in the argument. They insist that the “three-parent baby” is just the tip of the looming germline modification iceberg. What’s really coming, they claim, is the era of “designer babies,” enhanced or improved versions of ourselves, a new form of high-tech eugenics.  And with that comes more mischief.

Consider what Stuart Newman (New York Medical College) had to say in his comment in The Huffington Post. Newman starts by asking whether the procedure is really as safe as it seems. Fair question. But then Newman writes that what is really going on here is “a new form of eugenics, the improvement of humans by deliberately choosing their inherited traits.” And then, a few short paragraphs later, he’s off to the Nazis, forced sterilization, and the Nurenberg Code.

Now it may be true that the “three-parent baby” is a pretty bad idea medically. But morally, is it really the fast-track to Nazi medicine?

Or consider Marcy Darnovsky’s comments in a press release from the Center for Genetics and Society:

“Changing the genes we pass on to our children is a bright ethical line that should not be crossed,” said Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, the Center's executive director. “It has been observed by scientists around the world, adopted as law by more than 40 countries, and incorporated in several international treaties. It would be wrong for the UK to disregard this global bioethical consensus, especially when there are safe alternatives available for the very few people who would be candidates for the procedures.”

The release concludes: “The Center for Genetics and Society calls for a domestic and international moratorium on approval of any procedures involving inheritable human genetic modification…”
Or consider the comment of David King of Human Genetics Alert as quoted by the BBC: 

Dr David King, the director of Human Genetics Alert, said: "Historians of the future will point to this as the moment when technocrats crossed the crucial line, the decision that led inexorably to the disaster of genetically engineered babies and consumer eugenics.

Is the “three-parent baby” really “crossing the germline barrier”? Back in 2001 when the first “three-parent babies” being created here in the US, Erik Parens and Eric Juengst wrote a response in the journal Science. They called it “Inadvertently Crossing the Germline.” Ever since then, many have agreed. Despite some really important distinctions, mitochondrial replacement is a kind of human germline modification.

A bit of a stretch, but OK, let’s call it that. But is that reason enough to condemn it? Is human germline modification itself morally wrong? It may be biomedically impossible. It may be excessively expensive considering all the other needs facing the world’s children. But is it intrinsically wrong? 

 

In 2008, I published an edited book that tried to take the temperature of religious opinions on the morality of germline modification. What I discovered surprised even me. Most religious scholars in my collection were not particularly troubled by the prospect of germline modification. Sure, they had their concerns—safety, social justice, over-controlling parents, an attitude of commodification. But in the end, almost without exception, they agreed: what can be religiously or morally wrong with wanting to use the latest technology to help parents have healthy children? For more on this, see Design and Destiny from MIT Press.

 

For many people, it comes as a total shock to hear that even some Vatican statements support the notion that germline modification is not inherently immoral—that, in fact, it could be “desirable.” The Vatican has specific constraints that must be met. No IVF, for one, so the “three-parent baby” strategy fails on that score. But if the means are acceptable, then the goal is laudable, at least according to this statement made by Pope John Paul II:

A strictly therapeutic intervention whose explicit objective is the healing of various maladies such as those stemming from chromosomal defects will, in principle, be considered desirable, provided it is directed to the true promotion of the personal well-being of the individual without doing harm to his integrity or worsening his conditions of life. Such an intervention would indeed fall within the logic of the Christian moral tradition.

I agree with the “three-parent” critics about the importance of the debate over human germline modification. For that very reason, I hope they tone down the rhetoric. This is not Nazi medicine.

 

There are sound moral reasons for wanting to move forward on human germline modification. Of course, there are incredibly important technical hurdles that must be overcome. Some of them, in fact, may prove impossible. If so, then of course human germline modification would be a bad idea because of the risks.

 

But if biomedical research can find its way through these technical barriers, what then? Yes, there are other objections, more religious or moral in nature, but there are also strong reasons for going forward. That, I suggest, is where the real discussion should focus.  

Stem Cell Advance: Brain Cells Inserted in Monkey Brains

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison are reporting a significant step forward toward the day when stem cells may be used to treat brain diseases such as Parkinson’s.

Working with three rhesus monkeys, the research team created a personalized stem cell culture for each monkey.  Cells taken from the skin of the monkey were induced to a state of pluripotency by means of a process called “induced pluripotency.”  Once in a state of pluripotency, the cells were guided forward in the process of differentiation until they became neurons and glial cells.  Along the way, the cells in the culture were given a genetic tag so the cells would glow under a florescent light. 

Then the cells were implanted in the brains of the rhesus monkeys.  Because the source of the cells was the monkeys themselves, the DNA matched and there was no immune reaction.  After six months, researchers discovered that the cells were so fully integrated into the monkey brains that in many cases, they could only be recognized by their green florescent glow.

"When you look at the brain, you cannot tell that it is a graft," says senior author Su-Chun Zhang, according to a press release from the University of Wisconsin. "Structurally the host brain looks like a normal brain; the graft can only be seen under the fluorescent microscope." 

Caption: This neuron, created in the Su-Chun Zhang lab at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, makes dopamine, a neurotransmitter involved in normal movement. The cell originated in an induced pluripotent stem cell, which derive from adult tissues. Similar neurons survived and integrated normally after transplant into monkey brains—as a proof of principle that personalized medicine may one day treat Parkinson's disease. Date: 2010.  Image: courtesy Yan Liu and Su-Chun Zhang, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

The three monkeys involved in the experiment were given tiny lesions or scars in their brain to mimic Parkinson’s disease.  Another lead researcher, Marina Emborg, commented on how the inserted cells integrated themselves into the brain.  “After six months, to see no scar, that was the best part."

What makes this work significant is that it is the first use of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) involving a primate, setting the stage for further work someday involving human beings.  According to Zhang, "It's really the first-ever transplant of iPS cells from a non-human primate back into the same animal, not just in the brain," says Zhang. "I have not seen anybody transplanting reprogrammed iPS cells into the blood, the pancreas or anywhere else, into the same primate. This proof-of-principle study in primates presents hopes for personalized regenerative medicine."

One of the keys to their success is that the iPS cells themselves were not transplanted into the monkeys.  Because iPS cells are pluripotent, they can give rise to cancer or other problems.  In this work, the researchers carefully guided the iPS cells so that they were almost at the final stage of differentiation, and then made sure that their cell culture was completely purified so that no potentially cancer-causing cells would slip through.  Quoting Zhang once again: "We differentiate the stem cells only into neural cells. It would not work to transplant a cell population contaminated by non-neural cells."

Because of these precautions, the experiment succeeded in introducing new cells into the monkey’s brains without any obvious problems.  But in this experiment, too few cells were introduced to help the monkeys overcome the symptoms of Parkinson’s.  Solving that problem is the obvious next step.

According to the paper, “this finding represents a significant step toward personalized medicine,” which may someday be used to treat a wide range of diseases in humans.  Because the original source of the cells was from the individual monkeys themselves, there was no immune rejection.  If the same technique can be applied to human beings, it may mean that an individualized culture of iPS cells could be created for each patient, then carefully guided forward in the process of differentiation, and then implanted to regenerate organs or tissues damaged by injury or disease.

What makes iPS cells especially attractive is that no embryos are used in their creation, and so almost no one objects to this line of medical research.  But if regenerative medicine is successful, someday it will be used not just to treat disease but to off-set the effects of aging or to enhance those who are well.  Then, we can be sure, many will object to this technology, but even more will use it.

The article, entitled “Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-DerivedNeural Cells Survive and Mature in the Nonhuman Primate Brain,” is freely available at the open access journal, Cell Reports in its March 28, 2013 issue. 

 

Enhancing Healthy Kids: A Warning, But Who's Listening?

The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) has just issued new guidelines calling on doctors to stop prescribing cognitive-enhancing drugs to healthy kids.

Drugs like Ritalin and Adderal are widely used, not just by adults and university students, but increasingly by children, and not just those who are appropriately diagnosed as experience difficulites with attention or focus, such as Attention Deficit Disorder. 

PHOTO: Ritalin SR (a brand-name sustained-release formulation of methylphenidate, from Wikimedia, 16 June 2006, created by Sponge. 

Perviously, the AAN raised concerns drug enhancement by adults.  It concluded that there is no moral basis for objecting, provided that the patient is acting autonomously in requesting the prescription.  But when it comes to prescribing for healthy children, the AAN report makes this claim:  "Pediatric neuroenhancement remains a particularly unsettled and value-laden practice, often without appropriate goals or justification."  

The Report notes that enhancing children is fundamentally different from enhancing adults.  For doctors, it raises concerns for "the fiduciary responsibility of physicians caring for children, the special integrity of the doctor–child–parent relationship, the vulnerability of children to various forms of coercion, distributive justice in school settings, and the moral obligation of physicians to prevent misuse of medication."

Based on these concerns, the AAN Report advises that "the prescription of neuroenhancements is inadvisable because of numerous social, developmental, and professional integrity issues."

The primary objection raised by the AAN is that children lack the competency to act as autonomous moral agents.  If they were competent, then their request for enhancement would be honored.  Sure, children can be coerced, manipulated, confused, and ambivalent about their needs.  Kind of like the rest of us. 

Whether age brings moral competence is a good question.  But perhaps what this report shows us once again is that when secular bioethics meets enhancement technology, about all it can say is this: If you want it and if you can prove your competence, you can have it. 

The AAN report, “Pediatric neuroenhancement: Ethical, legal,social, andneurodevelopmental implications,” is published in the March 13, 2013 issue of Neurology.

What a Smart Mouse Can Tell Us about Evolution

Just a few years ago, we thought that brains were all about neurons.  Sure, we also have glial cells, but the job of the lowly glia is to take care of the neurons, which do all the serious cognitive work. 

But why are the glia of humans and other primates so large and varied in their shape and structure?  Why are they so different from the simpler, smaller glia found in mice and other rodents?  Could the difference play a role in the evolution of human intelligence?

One way to compare a mouse and a human is to create a mouse that is part human.  That’s exactly what researchers at the University of Rochester did.  They implanted human cells into mouse brains.  More precisely, they implanted human glial progenitor cells into newborn mouse pups. 

What they got were chimeras, mice with human cells integrated into their brains.  When the researchers examined the brains of these chimeric mice, they found that the human cells proliferated and were widely present throughout the brain. Although interacting with mouse brain cells, the human cells remained distinctly human in their unusually large size and varied structures.

Photo credit:  A 23 week human culture astrocyte stained for GFAP.   From Wikimedia Commons.  Date: 24 February 2012.  Author: Bruno Pascal. 

Most surprising is that the chimeric mice were  smarter than unaltered mice born in the same litters.  Human glia in a mouse brain seems to make a smarter mouse.  

Why?  The answer probably involves one type of glial cell called astrocytes. Compared to other species, human brains have many more astrocytes.  Ours are larger and more varied in their structure, capable of connecting many neurons and coordinating the activity that occurs at many synapses. 

Based on this study, published in the March 7, 2013 issue of Cell Stem Cell, we now know that human astrocytes boost intelligence in chimeric mice as measured by standard testing procedures.  

This is pretty good evidence to suggest that the evolution of the larger, more complex glial cells was a critical aspect of the evolution of higher intelligence.  At least that is the conclusion drawn by one of the senior authors of the paper, Steven Goldman. “In a fundamental sense are we different from lower species,” he said, according to a press release from the University of Rochester. “Our advanced cognitive processing capabilities exist not only because of the size and complexity of our neural networks, but also because of the increase in functional capabilities and coordination afforded by human glia.”

What makes this study intriguing is that it uses stem cell technology to study brain function and to learn something important about evolution.  By implanting stem cells in create chimeric mice, researchers learn that glia play a critically important role in intelligence and that evolved changes in glial cells are a key part of the story of the rise of intelligence. 

Concerning the role of glial cells in the complex brain, Maiken Nedergaard, another senior author, had this to say:  “I have always found the concept that the human brain is more capable because we have more complex neural networks to be a little too simple, because if you put the entire neural network and all of its activity together all you just end up with a super computer.”

“But human cognition is far more than just processing data, it is also comprised of the coordination of emotion with memory that informs our higher abilities to abstract and learn,” Nedergaard added.

And concerning what chimeric mice have to teach us about evolution, Steven Goldman made this comment: “This study indicates that glia are not only essential to neural transmission, but also suggest that the development of human cognition may reflect the evolution of human-specific glial form and function.”

Or to quote the original paper: “These observations strongly support the notion that the evolution of human neural processing, and hence the species-specific aspects of human cognition, in part may reflect the course of astrocytic evolution.”

The paper does not address the interesting ethical questions raised by making smarter mice.  Over the past decade, ethicists have debated the moral legitimacy of chimeric animals.  One point of concern has been the creation of nonhuman animals with human brain cells.  To defend this practice, it is often said that a mouse brain with human cells is still a mouse brain.  It still has the structure or architecture of a mouse brain.  It may have human cells, but in no way is it a human brain or even a half mouse/half human brain.

This study suggests we should take a closer look at that line of thinking.  Maybe it is true that adding human neurons to a mouse brain does not change the mouse brain structure.  But this study implies that adding human astrocytes to a mouse brain may begin some small but significant change in structure and function. 

The study is clear about the fact these chimeric mice are more intelligent than the unmodified mice.  Their brains are quite literally faster. 

Once again, Goldman: “The bottom line is that these mice demonstrated an increase in plasticity and learning within their existing neural networks, essentially changing their functional capabilities.”

These animals have been cognitively “elevated,” to use a word sometimes found in the debate.  Probably no one will object to the idea of a slightly smarter mouse.  Researchers take special care to make sure these mice do not breed and produce pups of their own.  But even if they did, the added intelligence would not pass to future generations.  They would produce normal lab mice. 

Even so, this study—combining stem cells technology, neuroscience, and evolution in one elegant package—raises intriguing moral questions.  Are we smart enough to know how far we should go in creating smarter mice?  

The study, entitled “Forebrain engraftment by human glialprogenitor cells enhances synaptic plasticity and learning in adult mice,” appears in the March 7, 2013 issue of Cell Stem Cell. 

   

 

Parthenogenesis and "Virgin Birth"? Rhetoric and Research

Despite roadblocks, the field of stem cell research remains profoundly attractive. The idea of being able to regenerate damaged or diseased cells in the human body is appealing to nearly everyone who cares about human health.

But technical problems remain. Much has been learned in the past decade, but the pathway to medical treatments still faces many challenging problems. One worry in particular is that implanted stem cells might develop into cancer. Others challenges including getting the cells to multiply, integrate with other cells, function as they should, and avoid being rejected as an infection.

A new solution may be on the horizon, one that addresses many of these problems—moral and technical—all at once. At least that’s the claim made by a team led by Wolfram Zimmerman and colleagues at Georg-August-Universität Göttingen in Germany. Working with laboratory mice, Zimmerman’s team used mouse eggs to create what are known as parthenotes. Without being fertilized, the mouse eggs were manipulated so that they began to develop as if they were fertilized, up to a point.

PHOTO: Mouse embryonic stem cells. This image is a work of a National Science Foundation employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain. This image was copied from wikipedia:en.

Parthenogenesis exists in nature. It has been observed in some plants, fish, and reptiles. Over the past decade, researchers have learned how to induce parthenogenesis in mice, monkeys, and humans. In every case, however, the resulting parthenotes fail to develop normally, which means they could never be implanted to produce a child. But they do develop for a few days, long enough for the precursors of pluripotent stem cells to develop.

What is new in the research reported on February 22, 2013 is unexpected success in the use of these stem cells derived from mouse parthenotes. These cells—parthenogenetic stem cells or PSCs—were developed and eventually implanted into damaged mouse hearts. Quite simply, they worked in ways that seem to overcome most if not all of the technical hurdles.

The research appears in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, which carried a companion article claiming that the new research “may overcome all…formidable barriers” that currently stand in the way of stem cell medicine. The original article makes this claim: “One of our key observations involved the capacity of PSCs to exhibit essentially normal cardiogenesis in vitro and in vivo.” In other words, both in the dish and in the mouse, implanted cells fully integrate into the beating heart.

Both the research article and the companion piece make another claim: PSCs are ethically acceptable. That’s because parthenotes are not embryos. Taking cells from parthenotes avoids all the moral concerns that surround the use of cells derived from embryos. Here is the claim: Research using human PSCs, derived from human parthenotes, involves “no destruction of viable embryos,” according to the research article. The companion piece simply notes that compared to embryonic stem cells, PSCs “do not have the same ethical implications.”

If only it were that simple. But plain the fact is that some who object to the use of human embryos in research are already on record as objecting to the use of human parthenotes.

Their logic is fairly straightforward. If human embryos are off limits and if parthenotes cannot be clearly and definitely distinguished from embryos, then human parthenotes are equally off limits to research.
They are not claiming that parthenotes are little people, nor are they being silly or obstructionist. They are only claiming that we do not have enough scientific clarity and certitude to proceed with moral confidence in the work of creating and destroying parthenotes, regardless of the benefit.

Just to be clear, I personally disagree with this objection. But researchers and regulators should be aware that some, at least, will balk at this new line of research, technically attractive as it may be.

For example, in a statement given to the UK Parliament, the Church of Scotland made this comment:

“We reject the suggestion made by various researchers that hybrid embryos, parthenotes and embryos that have been modified to make then non-viable would be an ethical solution to deriving stem cells from embryos. Whatever the status of such creations, it is would be at least as unethical to use methods that would create an ‘embryo’ so deformed that it could not be viable and which therefore inherently denies its potential to develop.” 

Politically more important is the response that will come from Catholics. Some Catholic scholars have defended the moral legitimacy of research using human parthenotes. There is simply no way, they argue, to equate the parthenote with the embryo. The parthenote is not a product of conception. In more popular rhetoric: If “life begins at conception,” then the parthenote is not “life.” Nor can it develop normally. It meets none standard definitions of an embryo.

Others are not so certain. They translate scientific and theological uncertainty into a moral prohibition. Creating and destroying a parthenotes requires that we know for sure that they are not embryos. Such certainty is lacking, at least for now. In the face of uncertainty, they argue, we must not proceed.

On the Catholic website www.ewtn.com, E. Christian Brugger addresses the question: Is the parthenotes enough like and embryo to be considered an embryo? His answer:

“The question presently is unsettled.” He adds this: “Although the empirical question of the status of a human parthenote is unsettled, the underlying moral principle is straightforward. Unless we have moral certainty that a dividing parthenogenetically activated human oocyte is not an embryo, we have an obligation to avoid research with human parthenotes.”

And at the end he concludes:

“Having said this, the present evidence on whether parthenotes are ever embryos seems to me inconclusive. Given the evidence to date, at least with which I am familiar, I do not think it can be established with moral certitude that parthenotes are never human embryos.”

Personally, I want to see this research go forward, and so I have some suggestions for researchers and reporterss in this field.

First, help religious scholars build the case scientifically, showing in clear terms to the wider public why parthenotes are not functionally like embryos and why a morally robust boundary separates the two. Science itself cannot create that boundary, but it can provide evidence supporting moral and philosophical arguments in favour of such a boundary.

Second, stop using provocative phrases like “virgin birth.” Regrettably, the companion piece in the Journal of Clinical Investigation is published with this title: “Virgin birth: engineered heart muscles from parthenogenetic stem cells.”

Sure, “parthenos” is Greek for virgin, so the etymology supports the use of the term “virgin birth.” But for billions of Christians around this world, this term has a very special religious meaning, one that many associate with the most tender core of their faith.

For scientists to claim they are simulating the “virgin birth” is offensive to anyone who takes the religious meaning of the phrase seriously. It is needlessly provocative, almost the worst thing that could be said if religious support for research is desired.

What’s more, associating parthenogenesis with the “virgin birth” has the bizarre effect of equating the parthenote with the embryo. Christians who hold to the “virgin birth” will claim that in one profoundly non-trivial example (Jesus), what scientists now claim they are creating turned out to be a fully viable embryo. And then they say, “But don’t worry; it’s not a human being”?

The original article, entitled "Parthenogenetic stem cells for tissue engineered heart repair," is published in the February 22, 2013 issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, together with the companion piece.

Brain Renewal? Enhancing Aging Brains

An aging mind may be a fountain of wisdom, but an aging brain is not very good as a source of new neurons. As we age, quite apart from diseases like Alzheimer’s, we lose our ability to remember and to concentrate. It seems that in order to remain sharp, the brain has to regenerate itself by forming new neurons. While neurogenesis continues throughout life, it declines markedly in old age.

Photo credit: published under GNU Free Documentation License, uploaded 23 Sept 2007 by Ccrai008.

Research published today may suggest a way to change that. Scientists at the German Cancer Center in Heidelberg report on their work with mice. They identified a molecule called Dickkopf-1 or Dkk1 in the brains of old mice. When they blocked the production of Dkk1, old mouse brains began to create new brain cells.

“We released a brake on neuronal birth, thereby resetting performance in spatial memory tasks back to levels observed in younger animals,” said Ana Martin-Villalba in a press release from Cell Press, which published the results.

It turns out that clinical trials are already underway involving antibodies for Dkk1. These trials are not related to neurogenesis but to prevention of osteoporosis. What is learned there, however, may be directly helpful to the possibility that blocking Dkk1 is feasible, safe, and effective in countering the effects of declining neurogenesis, which includes both memory loss and depression.

The report concludes with these comments: “Our study raises the possibility that neutralization of Dkk1 might be beneficial in counteracting depression-like behavior and improving cognitive decline in the aging population….The contribution of newly generated young neurons to memory and affective behavior opens tantalizing opportunities for the prevention of affective impairments and age-related cognitive decline.”

These words are carefully chosen, first to caution against undue optimism but also to steer away from the idea of “human enhancement.” But unless we think of aging as a disease, what is envisioned here is clearly a form of enhancement. Normally aging human beings may, someday in the future, be treated not because they have a disease such as Alzheimer’s but because their memory is not as sharp as it once was or as retentive as they would like.

But labeling this an “enhancement” is not likely to dampen public interest. On the contrary, the enhancment potential of blocking Dkk1 is the very thing that is most likely to drive public support.

And that suggests we need to consider once again just what it is we say we do not like about enhancement.

The article is entitled "Loss of Dickkopf-1 restores neurogenesis in old age and counteracts cognitive decline" and appears in the February 7, 2013 issue of Cell Stem Cell.