Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:06:29.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

This Little Piggy Went to Market: The Xenotransplantation and Xenozoonose Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Margaret A. Clark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

New technologies are changing our lives radically and quickly. New biotechnologies are moving to commercial uses faster than government regulators or private citizens can monitor. This tension manifests itself in the current debates over xenotransplantation technologies in medicine. The possibility of removing cells, tissues, and organs from animals and transplanting them into human beings is startling and unnerving. Natural immunesystem barriers between species, and even between individuals within a species, are formidable. Typically, transplantation results in violent rejection and death of the grafted organ. But despite the natural barriers to transplantation, xenotransplantation aims specifically to overcome them.

In this paper, I will discuss applications of xenograft technology, which raises clinical risks, ethical concerns, and policy issues. I conclude with a set of specific recommendations. As a recent letter to the journal Nature puts it, there is a “split between those who want to get it right, and those who want to get it right now.” No one knows what all the risks, benefits, and unintended consequences of xenotransplantation will be.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , Summer 1999 , pp. 137 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Daar, A.S., Correspondence, “Xenotransplants: Proceed with Caution,” Nature, 392 (1998): 11.Google Scholar
See Michler, R.E., “Xenotransplantation: Risks, Clinical Potentials, and Future Prospects,” Emerging Infectious Disease, 2, no. 1 (1996) (visited June 14, 1999) <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidoc/vol2no1/michler.html>.Google Scholar
See Committee on Xenograft Transplantation Ethical Issues and Public Policy, Institute of Medicine, Xenotransplantation: Science, Ethics and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996): at 34 (discussing public education efforts after passage of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, 42 U.S.C. § 273) [hereinafter the Institute of Medicine].Google Scholar
See National Kidney Foundation, “Americans Recognize Organ Shortage,” at 1 (Jan. 21, 1998), (visited June 14, 1999) <http://www.kidney.org/general/news/anima2man.cfm>..>Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 69.Google Scholar
See National Kidney Foundation, supra note 4, at 1.Google Scholar
See “Egypt Doctors Trying to End Sale of Kidneys, Group to Ban Transplants from Most Living Donors,” San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 24, 1992, at A16.Google Scholar
See Hazarika, S., “India Debates Ethics of Buying Transplant Kidneys,” New York Times, Aug. 17, 1992, at A20.Google Scholar
See “Parts Needed for Transplants in Human Organs Stirs Global Attention,” Los Angeles Times, July 16, 1989, at 6.Google Scholar
See “Turk Who Masterminded Trade in Human Kidneys Jailed for Two Years,” The Independent, May 19, 1992, at 11 (discussing jailing of Turkish broker who brought poor Turks to England to donate organs).Google Scholar
See Edlune, B., “Courage Isn't Up to Bank Heists? Sell a Kidney, Cash Offered for Live Donors' Organs,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 13, 1988, at 12.Google Scholar
See O'Shaughnessy, H., “Murder and Mutilation Supply Human Organ Trade,” The Observer, Mar. 27, 1994, at 27 (noting that doctors in Poland and Budapest are selling organs to the Swiss).Google Scholar
See Dillon, S., “Poor in Uruguay Sell Kidneys to Rich,” Detroit Free Press, Dec. 9, 1991, at A3.Google Scholar
See Booth, W., “Witch Hunt,” Washington Post, May 17, 1994, at C1-C2.Google Scholar
See Rights of the Child, Sale of Children: Report of Mr. Vitit Muntarbhorn, Special Rapporteur, U.N. Commission on Human Rights, 49th Sess., Agenda Item 24, at 22, 127, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/67 (1993) and Summary Record, U.N. Commission on Human Rights, Subcomm. on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 41st Sess., 39th mtg., at 21, 94, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR (1989), cited in Morelli, N., “Organ Trafficking: Legislative Proposals to Protect Minors,” American Journal of International Law and Policy, 10 (1995): 917–54.Google Scholar
See Morelli, supra note 15, at 917 n.5.Google Scholar
See id. at 917 n.11. The American letter to the European Parliamentary Assembly explains that the type of facilities and professional staff necessary for successful removal and transplant of organs are more elaborate than makeshift facilities available in developing countries. Facilities in the United States are government certified and inspected so to uncover any such irregularities in organ procurement.Google Scholar
See id. Letter from James Mason, Assistant Secretary of Health, and C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General, to Karel de Gucht, Chair, Human Rights Commission of the European Parliament (June 1989).Google Scholar
See id., citing McIntosh, A., “Regulating the ‘Gift of Life’: The 1987 Uniform Anatomical Gift Act,” Washington Law Review, 65 (1990): 171–88, at 179.Google Scholar
See Engel, M., “Virginia Doctor Plans Company to Arrange Sale of Human Organ”, Washington Post, Sept. 19, 1983, at A9.Google Scholar
Keyes, C.D., ed., New Harvest: Transplanting Body Parts and Reaping the Benefits (Clifton: Human Press, 1991): at 273–79.Google Scholar
Since at least 1906, pigs, goats, and primates have donated kidneys to humans. The longest “successful” (survival time) for such transplants is nine months. This involved a chimpanzee in 1963. See Reemstra, K., “Xenotransplantation: A Personal History,” in Hardy, M.A., ed., Xenograft 25: Proceedings of the International Congress, 1988 (New York: Excerpta Medica, 1989): 7–16, at 10–16. In 1963, six baboons survived between ten and sixty days. See Staczl, T.E., “Baboon, Renal and Chimpanzee Liver Heterotransplantation,” in Hardy, , id., at 17–24.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 6–7.Google Scholar
See id. at 13–14. See also Isacson, O. Breakefield, X.O., Commentary and Review, “Benefits and Risks of Hosting Animal Cells in the Human Brain,” Nature Medicine, 3 (1997): 964–69.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 14–15. The Food and Drug Administration approved this experiment, following approval from University of California's Institutional Review Board and Laboratory Animal Care Use Committee. Incorporating a number of risk-reduction and surveillance measures, the experiment is characterized as “proceed[ing] cautiously [with] evaluat[ion] along the way” by Louisa Chapman of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).Google Scholar
See Chari, R.S. et al., Brief Report, “Treatment of Hepatic Failure with Ex Vivo Pig-Liver Perfusion Followed by Liver Transplantation,” N. Engl. J. Med., 331 (1994): 234–37.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 16.Google Scholar
See Platt, J.L., “New Directions for Organ Transplantation,” Nature, 392, Supp. (1998): A11–A17.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 26–38.Google Scholar
Enumerated in the Public Health Service (PHS) Guideline are the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, rabies, and the hepatitis B and C viruses. See “Draft Public Health Service (PHS) Guideline on Infectious Disease Issues in Xenotransplantation,” 61 Fed. Reg. 49, 919–32, at 49,921–23 (Sept. 23, 1996).Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 41.Google Scholar
CDC's animal virus expert Chapman tells the following. In 1993, she was asked to consider the possibility of new germs passing into the human population through xenotransplants, and she thought the question silly, not deserving the expenditure of public dollars. But as she looked into xenotransplants, she changed her mind. She now spends most of her professional time on xenotransplant issues, because it is now known that a number of viruses, including some retroviruses (like HIV) and endogenous viruses can and do move between species.Google Scholar
Simian immune viruses (SIVs), which are present in any simian species, do not apparently affect their hosts. They are thought, however, to be the origin of HIV-1 (from chimpanzees), and HIV-2 (from sooty mangebey monkeys). SIV infection of humans has been documented in a person working in a primate lab. An outbreak in Germany in 1967 of Marburg virus (from lab monkeys) infected 31 people and was 23 percent fatal. Ebola, a filovirus, infected at least 220 people in Zaire in 1976, with an 88 percent fatality rate. A shepherd in Pakistan underwent surgery while infected with a type of hemorrhagic fever from domestic animals, thus exposing 17 people with a 24 percent fatality rate. See Allan, J.S., “Xenograft Transplantation and the Infectious Disease Conundrum,” IALR Journal, 37 (1995): 37–48.Google Scholar
See Marcus, L.C. Marcus, E., Editorial, “Nosocomial Zoonoses,” N. Engl. J. Med., 338 (1998): 757–59.Google Scholar
For sources, see Platt, supra note 28 (citing eight-six sources).Google Scholar
Known zoonoses detected by laboratory tests include salmonella, herpes B virus of monkeys, and toxoplasmosis. Other organisms to screen for are Brucella and Erysipelothrix from swine, T. gonii viruses, and mycobacterium species. Recommended test methods are species-specific screening methods and the use of DNA analysis (polymerase chain reaction). See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 47.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 13–14. See Isacson, Breakefield, supra note 24, at 964–69.Google Scholar
Clark, C., “Virology DNA from Different Retroviruses Exchange Genetic Information,” AIDS Weekly Plus, Aug. 11, 1997, available in 1997 Westlaw IAC-NEWS-C 91AC.Google Scholar
See Ritter, J., “Pig Organs May Save Lives,” Chicago Sun Times, Oct. 6, 1997, at 12.Google Scholar
See Smith, D.M., Letter, “Endogenous Retroviruses in Xenografts,” N. Engl. J. Med., 328 (1993): 142–43.Google Scholar
See Isacson, Breakefield, supra note 24, at 964–69.Google Scholar
See Weiss, R., “Study Finds Danger from Pig Transplants,” Houston Chronicle, Oct. 17, 1997, at 14; and Le Tissier, P. et al., “Two Sets of Human-Tropic Pig Retrovirus,” Nature, 389 (1997): 681–82.Google Scholar
See Allan, supra note 33, at 37–48.Google Scholar
See Platt, supra note 28, at A12.Google Scholar
See Patience, C. Takeuchi, Y. Weiss, R.A., “Infection of Human Cells by an Endogenous Retrovirus of Pigs,” Nature Medicine, 3 (1997): 282–86.Google Scholar
See Nasto, B., “Xenotransplant Firms Get Xenophobic,” Nature Biotechnology, 15 (1997): 1239.Google Scholar
See “FDA Proposes Precautionary Ban Against Ruminant-to-Ruminant Feeding,” FDA Press Office Release, Jan. 2, 1997, at 1–2.Google Scholar
See Hill, A.F. et al., “The Same Prion Strain Causes CJD and BSE,” Nature, 389 (1997): 448–50, 498–501.Google Scholar
Early bone-marrow transplants had high mortality rates and serious immunological problems. Many patients died, but the net result is that the procedure is safer and more successful today.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 46.Google Scholar
Fritz Bach is a prominent transplant researcher. His letter, calling for a moratorium on clinical trials, was recently published. See Bach, F.H. et al., Correspondence, “Uncertainty in Xenotransplantation: Individual Benefit Versus Collective Risk,” Nature Medicine, 4 (1998): 141–44.Google Scholar
See Chang, J. et al., “An Epidemic of Malassezia Pachydermitis in an Intensive Care Nursery Associated with Colonization of Health Care Workers' Dogs,” N. Engl. J. Med., 338 (1998): 706–11, for an interesting account of an epidemic in a neonatal ward. The infectious organism, Malassezia pachydermatis, was apparently transmitted by health care workers who had dogs (12 of 39 dogs) that were infected.Google Scholar
See Platt, supra note 28, at A11-A17.Google Scholar
One commentator has suggested that the education of recipients' contacts be the responsibility of the institution or institutional regulatory board, not the patient. See Fredrickson, J.K., “He's All Heart … and a Little Pig, Too: A Look at the FDA Draft Xenotransplant Guideline,” Food and Drug Law Journal, 52 (1997): 429–51, at 445–46.Google Scholar
See id. at 450. The suggestion was made by the American Association of Transplant Surgeons.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 16.Google Scholar
Without attempting a complete cataloguing of mythical half-beast half humans, one can easily mention the Minotaur of Crete, the cloven-footed god Pan, and mermaids as examples. A biotech company in Massachusetts working with pigs calls itself Circe, presumably after the sorceress who turned Odysseus' sailors into swine.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 16.Google Scholar
Organ transplant patient Claire Sylvia feels presence of organ donor. See Weeks, I., “Transplant Recipient Tells Ghostly Tale,” Tacoma News Tribune, Aug. 13, 1996, at SL4.Google Scholar
See Groopman, J., “The Sudden Epidemic,” New Yorker, May 11, 1998, at 48–60. See also Weill, A., Health Newsletter, May 1998, at 1–2.Google Scholar
Goodman, N., Letter, “This is Where I Start to Draw the Line,” British Medical Journal, 313 (1996): 696. Neville Goodman says this: Shows how blinkered some human beings can be. The problem of viral infection was seen as a risk—which might be worth taking ‘in the quest to end human suffering.’ As if human suffering, in the global sense, has anything to do with a lack of organs. It makes me uneasy to think that many doctors do not seem to even think about these things. If they did, they might at least modify their rhetoric and stop inflating the importance of their interests. Id.Google Scholar
Note that the same sort of confusion and disagreement exists in later discussion of life patenting and xenotransplant, about which the commissioner of the Patent and Trademark Office has felt impelled to speak out on an application of chimera xenografting processes made by antibiotech activists, when technically and presumably morally equivalent patents have already been approved. These include technology to get cows to produce in their mammary glands the drug AAT (to treat cystic fibrosis); a xenograft process to move human immune complements into pigs, thereby making pigs' organs less “foreign” to human organ recipients' immune systems; a process to produce a blood-clot regulator in goats; and one to make a tissue plasminogen activator.Google Scholar
See Goodall, J., “Ethical Concerns in the Use of Animals as Donors,” in Hardy, supra note 22, at 335–49.Google Scholar
See id. at 347.Google Scholar
See id.; and Rothman, D.J., “Xenograft: Social and Ethical Dimensions,” in Hardy, supra note 22, 321–33, at 333.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 16.Google Scholar
See id. at 77, quoting philosopher James Walters. Walters's idea is that “the highest moral status should be accorded those animals who are closest to qualities that most humans possess …” which enables man to “value beings in terms of their proximity or likeness to persons … he thus holds that it may be more justifiable to use anencephalic infants as organ sources than to use chimpanzees.” Id., citing Walters, James, Remarks at Institute of Medicine Meeting “Xenograft Transplantation: Science, Ethics and Public Policy,” Bethesda (June 25–27, 1995).Google Scholar
See id. at 74. An extension of the rights approach would be to invest other species with the same rights.Google Scholar
See Rothman, supra note 65, at 327–32. Daniel Rothman points out that Victorian antivivisectionists feared that callous treatment of animals would encourage inhuman treatment of the poor.Google Scholar
See Sessions, G. Devall, B., Deep Ecology (Salt Lake City: Gibbes-Smith, 1986); Snyder, G., The Practice of the Wild (San Francisco: North Point, 1990); Aitken, R., The Mind of Clover (San Francisco: North Point, 1984); and Seed, J. et al., Thinking like a Mountain: Towards a Council of All Beings (Philadelphia: New Society, 1991).Google Scholar
See Macy, J., World as Lover, World as Self (Berkeley: Parallax Press, 1991): At 53–64. Joanne Macy writes:Google Scholar
See 61 Fed. Reg. 49, 924–25 (Sept. 23, 1996). Section 3.2 of the Guideline specifies that animals should be raised in accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, which is a standard of the American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care. No specific mention is made about animal rights issues.Google Scholar
Human organs are not to be bought or sold. See National Organ Transplant Act, 42 U.S.C. § 273 (1984).Google Scholar
See Keyes, supra note 21, at 273–79. Don Keyes uses the retransplantation decision to illustrate this last point: If the first organ graft fails, should another scarce organ be used to replace it, or should another patient get a chance?Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 54.Google Scholar
See Evans, R.W., “Xenotransplantation: A Panel Discussion of Some Non-Clinical Issues,” in Hardy, supra note 22, at 359–67.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 81.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, H.T. Jr., “Allocating Scarce Medical Resources and the Availability of Organ Transplantation: Some Moral Presuppositions,” in Mathieu, D., ed., Organ Substitution Technology; Ethical, Legal and Public Policy Issues (Boulder: Westview Press, 1988): 221–31, at 221–22.Google Scholar
See id. at 224–26.Google Scholar
See Daniels, N., “Justice and Big Ticket Technologies,” in Mathieu, supra note 78, at 211–220.Google Scholar
Transplant News, Feb. 13, 1998, available in 1998 Westlaw IAC-NEWS-C.Google Scholar
See Dickson, D., News, “Legal Fight Looms over Patent Bid on Human/Animal Chimaeras,” Nature, 392 (1998): 423–24.Google Scholar
See “Part-Human Inventions May Not Meet ‘Morality’ Requirement for Patentability,” Patent, Trademark and Copyright Law Daily (BNA), at d2 (Apr. 7, 1998).Google Scholar
Lowell v. Lewis, 15 F. Cas. 1018 (C.C.D. Mass. 1817) (No. 8568).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
“‘Morality’ Aspect of Utility Requirement Can Bar Patent for Part-Human Inventions,” Patent, Trademark and Copyright Journal News (BNA), at 555 (Apr. 9, 1998).Google Scholar
For a discussion about overcoming immune barriers, see Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 26–38.Google Scholar
See Dickson, supra note 82, at 423.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 434.Google Scholar
See “European Parliament Approves Draft Biotech Patent Directive,” Patent, Trademark and Copyright Law Daily (BNA), at d3 (Aug. 28, 1997).Google Scholar
Fredrickson, supra note 54, at 429.Google Scholar
See “Investigational New Drug Application,” 21 C.F.R. pt. 312, at 61–99 (1999).Google Scholar
See “Institutional Review Boards,” 21 C.F.R. pt. 56, at 254–62 (1999).Google Scholar
See “Protection of Human Subjects, Subpart B, Informed Consent of Human Subjects,” 21 C.F.R. pt. 50, at 246–51 (1999).Google Scholar
See “Draft Public Health Service (PHS) Guideline on Infectious Disease Issues in Xenotransplantation,” 61 Fed. Reg. 49,920–30 (Sept. 23, 1996). For details on the transplant team's composition, see id. at 49,222, § 2.1. Besides the transplant surgeon, the team should include: (1) an infectious disease physician with experience in zoonoses, transplantation, and microbiology; (2) a veterinarian with specific expertise in the animal husbandry and infectious diseases of the animal species serving as the organ donor; (3) a transplant immunologist; (4) a hospital epidemiologist/infection control specialist; and (5) the director of the clinical microbiology laboratory. See id.Google Scholar
For details on health surveillance plans, see id. at 49,923, § 2.4.Google Scholar
For details on the xenotransplantation site, see id. at 49,922, § 2.2.Google Scholar
For details on the clinical protocol review, see id. at 49922–23, § 2.3.Google Scholar
See id. at 49,922–23, §§ 2.1–.4; see also 61 Fed. Reg. at 49,923, § 2.5 and “Written Informed Consent and Recipient Education.” Informed consent is to be obtained in accordance with 45 C.F.R. pt. 46 (1999) and 21 C.F.R. pt. 50 (1999) and the principles outlined in The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research. See 61 Fed. Reg. at 49,922–23.Google Scholar
See 61 Fed. Reg. 49,923–26. The Guideline contains detailed specifications for animal facilities used to raise animals for transplant organs. See 61 Fed. Reg. at 49,923–26, §§ 3–3.7. They must meet at minimum the recommendations in the FDA regulations on the care and uses of laboratory animals, the basis of animal lab accreditation. The Guideline prescribes measures to ensure animal health, safety of workers, screening, qualification, and pretransplant quarantine. It provides for the procurement and screening of xenografts, including detailed record keeping, rehearsal of procedures, transportation, and necropsy following animal death. The Guideline reads in quality control terms—it is objective and detached from any sentiment or acknowledgment of the sentience of the pharm's residents, except perhaps in reference to their deaths as “euthanizing.”Google Scholar
See 61 Fed. Reg. 49,923, § 2.24; 49,927, § 4.1.14; 49,928, § 4.3.3.2; and 49,928, § 4.3.33.Google Scholar
See id. at 49,927, § 4.3.Google Scholar
See id. at 49,929, § 5.1; and 49,930, § 5.2.Google Scholar
The Guideline specifies that live animal cells, tissues, and organs intended for use in humans are subject to the Public Health and Services Act (PHSA), 42 U.S.C. § 262 (1994), IRB regulations, 21 C.F.R. pt. 56 (1999), and investigational new drug applications, 21 C.F.R. pt. 312 et seq. (1999). Whole organs for transplant have not historically been regulated by FDA; rather, they fall under NOTA, which functions through a national clearinghouse.Google Scholar
See Nowak, R., “FDA Puts Brakes on Xenotransplants,” Science, 268 (1995): 630.Google Scholar
See Groves, M., “Transgenic Livestock May Become Biotech's Cash Cow,” Los Angeles Times, May 1, 1997, at A1. Biotech companies PPL Therapeutics of Virginia, Nextran of New Jersey, and Alexion of Connecticut have been developing colonies of transgenic pigs for transplant. See also Allen, WH. “Farming for Spare Body Parts,” Bioscience, Feb. 1, 1995, at 73. Immutran of the United Kingdom has also been developing colonies of transgenic pigs for transplant.Google Scholar
See 21 C.F.R. pt. 50, at 246–51 (1999). The informed consent recommended under the PHS Guideline goes beyond that required by 21 C.F.R. pt. 50, in that it covers:Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 62–63.Google Scholar
See 61 Fed. Reg. 49,920–30, at 49,924–26, §§ 3.2–.7 (Sept. 23, 1996); see also id. at 49,923, § 2.4.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 55.Google Scholar
The report was funded by the National Cancer Institute, CDC, FDA, Health Resources and Services Administration, the U.S. Navy, and several private organizations, including the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Greenwall Foundation, WR. Grace, and Charles River Laboratories. See Bradbury, J., “Call for Xenotransplantation Moratorium,” Lancet, 351 (1998): 271.Google Scholar
The Institute of Medicine report recommends the following.Google Scholar
See Ritter, supra note 39, at 12.Google Scholar
See Kennedy, I. Letters, , “Xenotransplantation Moratorium,” Nature Biotechnology, 16 (1998): 120.Google Scholar
See Shapiro, D. Correspondence, , “Xenotransplantation,” Lancet, 349 (1997): 735–36.Google Scholar
See Editorial, “Have a Pig's Heart?,” Lancet, 349 (1997): 219. The editorial asks whetherGoogle Scholar
Bach, et al., supra note 51.Google Scholar
See Allan, supra note 33, at 37–48.Google Scholar
See Chastel, C. Letters, , “The Dilemma of Xenotransplantation,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2, no. 2 (1996): 10.Google Scholar
See Neergaard, L., “Scientists Want Use of Animal Organs in Humans Halted,” Arizona Republic, Jan. 28, 1998, at A10; Siegfried, T., “Virus Fears Evoke Concerns about Transplants from Pigs,” Dallas Morning News, Jan. 26, 1998, at 7D; Knox, R., “Caution Urged on Animal to Human Transplant,” Boston Globe, Jan. 22, 1998, at A16; Know, R., “Crossing the Divide: Researchers Expand Testing of Animal to Human Transplants,” Boston Globe, Feb. 2, 1998, at C1; and Knox, R., “Animal-to-Human Tissue Transplants are Gaining Ground,” Boston Globe, Feb. 8, 1998, at A9.Google Scholar
See Groves, M., “Transgenic Livestock May Become Biotech's Cash Cow,” Los Angeles Times, May 1, 1997, at A1; and Allen, supra note 106.Google Scholar
See Allen, supra note 107, at 73 (listing seven companies, including Nextran and Immutran, doing similar work with pigs). See also Fox, J., “FDA Seeks ‘Comfort Factors’ Before Removing Hold on Porcine Xenotransplantation Trials,” Nature Biotechnology, 16 (1998): 224.Google Scholar
“Leading Xenotransplant Researcher's Call for Moratorium on Human Clinical Trials Causes Furor,” Transplant News, Feb. 13, 1998, available in 1998 Westlaw IAC-NEWS-C.Google Scholar
See Butler, D., “Last Chance to Stop and Think on Risks of Xenotransplants,” Nature, 391 (1998): 320–24 (quoting Jonathan Allan as saying “Xenotransplant researchers haven't done their homework.”)Google Scholar
See “Xenotransplantation: US FDA Plans to be Tough on Pig Transplants,” Disease Weekly Plus, Jan. 5, 1998, available in 1998 Westlaw 904632.Google Scholar
See Wise, J., “Pig Virus Transfer Threatens Xenotransplantation,” British Medical Journal, 314 (1997): 623.Google Scholar
See News in Brief, “Pig Virus Discovery Underlines Risks of Xenotransplants,” Nature, 392 (1998): 10.Google Scholar
See “AIDS-Like Fear Warning Issued Against Use of Animal Organs in Humans,” Chicago Tribune, Mar. 25, 1998, at 7.Google Scholar
A survey conducted by the National Kidney Foundation found that 75 percent of all respondents would consider a xenotransplant for a loved one, if a human organ was not available. See National Kidney Foundation, supra note 4, at 1.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 3, at 87.Google Scholar
See Daar, supra note 1, at 11.Google Scholar
See Bodansky, D., Remarks in Law A545 Lecture, University of Washington School of Law (Fall 1997) (on file with author).Google Scholar
Daar, supra note 1, at 11.Google Scholar
See 21 C.F.R. pt. 50, at 246–51 (1999).Google Scholar
Evans, R.W. Manninen, D.L., “US Public Opinion Concerning the Procurement and Distribution of Donor Organs,” Transplantation Proceedings, 20 (1988): 781–85.Google Scholar
Evans, R.W. Manninen, D.L., Public Opinion Concerning Organ Donation, Procurement, and Distribution: Results of a National Probability Sample Survey (Seattle: Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers, 1987): at 367.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar