This morning I checked in at some of my regular reading sites, and I found one headline about the "secret serum" that has been obtained and used on the American Ebola patients. First, I rolled my eyes about headline writers, but then I actually did read the article. At CNN, it is described this way on the site, but differently in the crawl:
Experimental drug likely saved Ebola patients [warning--auto-launch video over there]
A representative from the National Institutes of Health contacted Samaritan's Purse in Liberia and offered the experimental treatment, known as ZMapp, for the two patients, according to the source.
The drug was developed by the biotech firm Mapp Biopharmaceutical Inc., which is based in San Diego. The patients were told that this treatment had never been tried before in a human being but had shown promise in small experiments with monkeys.
Ok, besides the other issues with the phrasing, it's too early to say "likely saved". They will have to wait and see what the actual outcomes are, and whether or not this treatment was a factor.
However, I'm glad there was a treatment option available to try. We all know how deadly Ebola has been, and certainly a medicine would be welcomed to stop the horror. And I think it's fine to try experimental treatments when the alternative is so dire. Last year I had seen the film "How to Survive a Plague" about the early AIDS years--and I was remembering the demands for access to novel treatments for compassionate use. I think if adults want to try experimental treatments, it's fine for them to do so, as long as they understand the risks.
What I found out later today about this treatment also pleased me. The treatment option appears to come from a GMO tobacco plant.
Bio-high-tech treatment for Ebola may have saved two US citizens
Antibodies from mice, made to look human, then produced in tobacco.
This ArsTechnica piece has a lot more detail about the process, but I want to draw your attention to this specific bit:
They then needed to produce the antibodies in large quantities. So they managed to insert the genes into cells from a tobacco plant, which can be grown in large numbers with little fuss. The potential therapy was ready for testing.
That's right--g
enetically modified tobacco is probably the source of this potentially life-saving treatment. This is a technology that I find very exciting. I just recently
had a book chapter published on it, in fact. I wrote about a number of very interesting strategies for
edible vaccines, numerous treatments like this Ebola one with antibody production, and even
repair of wounds with GMO collagen made in plants.
In the case of this transient expression in tobacco plants, it could be rapidly deployed where it needs to be--assuming the training and appropriate regulations are in place to do so. It's not just Ebola. This tech may also be rolled out for flu and other situations as well.
Now, some of you are going to say--well, that's different, tobacco is not food.... Yes, I am aware of that. However, you need to know there are extensive similarities in this science. Researchers need to be trained in studying plant GMOs to do this. The technology has to be developed to be useful and effective in plant systems. And production has to occur by folks who understand this plant technology and harvesting. Further, a country has to have a biosafety regulatory system that permits this technology.
When you demand an end to GMOs, there are other consequences to this. People don't get trained. The technology is not developed. Funding does not flow towards this purpose. And local researchers might not be able to use it.
Even worse--when you work against training researchers in the developing world in biotechnology, you may keep them from having access to this as well. (By the way, Jill was wrong about what that bill did.)
Let's say we wanted to grow this tobacco plant in the African countries affected by Ebola. Have we got the trained researchers? Have we got the trained production staff? Do we have the appropriate biosafety regulations--or have you been working to keep this technology away from Africa because you hate Monsanto?
Working to prevent technology you dislike has other consequences that you may not realize. It's just like conservatives attempting to keep stem cell research from happening. Downstream of that we have folks who are not trained, questions unanswered, and potential solutions unavailable.
Please think your opposition to GMO technology through fully. You might be standing in the way of something lifesaving. Really.