AAAS News: Letter on Resuming Avian Flu Transmission Research

At the start of 2012, the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity recommended restricting the publication of results from research on H5N1 avian influenza virus. This was with regards to previous developments on the H5N1 virus leading to a discovery for the generation of the virus to be made transmissible to mammals.

The experiment involved ferrets who acquired the virus, previously almost exclusive only to birds, through respiratory droplets. There was concern that this discovery may lead to the virus affecting humans.

Based on rare cases of humans contracting H5N1, there is a 59% chance of mortality once the disease is contracted. To put this into perspective, the Spanish Flu in 1918 that killed an estimated 50 to 100 million people the world over, only had a mortality rate of just 2%.

The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity is a panel of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It was decided by the panel that the research behind H5N1 poses a significant health and security threat. They recommended restricting the publication of results from research on H5N1 avian influenza virus, leading to the generation of viruses that are more transmissible in mammals.

In January 2012, influenza researchers from around the world announced a voluntary pause on any research involving H5N1 influenza viruses which may lead to it being more transmissible in mammals.

H5N1 Controversy One Year Later

Correspondence signed by 40 influenza virus researchers and jointly published in Science and Nature this week announces that the voluntary pause on certain types of H5N1 avian influenza research should end in countries where the aims of this moratorium have been met and authorities have reached decisions about how best to conduct such work safely.

Study Identifies Risks Involved With Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART)

Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) refers to methods used to achieve pregnancy by artificial or partially artificial means. The 1992 Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act defines ART as "...all fertility treatments in which both eggs and sperm are handled."

The treatment primarily targets infertile persons and sometimes for genetic reasons.

The general procedure for ART involves surgically removing eggs from a woman’s ovaries, combining them with sperm in the laboratory, and returning them to the woman’s body or donating them to another woman.

Assisted Reproductive Technology should not be confused with artifical insemination where only sperm are handled or other treatements that only involves the woman taking medication to stimulate egg production without the intention of having eggs retrieved.

Assisted reproduction is usually invasive, expensive, and deals with matters of intense emotional content. More than 3.7 million babies are born annually as a result of ART.

There are some health concerns with regards to ART. Some of these concers are:

• Risks associated with multiple embryo transfer
• Risks to the health of the offspring as a result of treatment
• Patient mental health as a result of treatment
• Long-term social functioning of the offspring born as a result of assisted reproduction.

Higher risk of birth defects from assisted reproduction

In the most comprehensive study of its kind in the world, researchers from the University's Robinson Institute have compared the risk of major birth defects for each of the reproductive therapies commonly available internationally, such as: IVF (in vitro fertilization), ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) and ovulation induction. They also compared the risk of birth defects after fresh and frozen embryo transfer.

The results are being published today in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, and presented in Barcelona, Spain at the World Congress on Building Consensus in Gynecology, Infertility and Perinatology.

"While assisted reproductive technologies are associated with an increased risk of major birth defects overall, we found significant differences in risk between available treatments," says the lead author of the study, Associate Professor Michael Davies from the University of Adelaide's Robinson Institute and School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health.