Bullying by siblings just as damaging, research finds

Bullying and aggressive behavior

by a sibling can be as damaging as bullying by a classmate, neighbor or other peer, finds a new study that links it to increased depression, anxiety and anger among victimized kids and teens.

And that association holds true for the various types of aggressive behavior studied, both mild and severe, from physical and psychological aggression to property victimization, researchers say.

Although peer bullying has increasingly become a recognized problem and the focus of preventive efforts, sibling bullying has historically been viewed as "benign and normal and even beneficial" for a child's social development and ability "to learn to handle aggression in other relationships," according to the study, in the July issue of the journalPediatrics, published online today.

The study "shows that sibling aggression is linked to worse mental health (for the victim), and in some cases it's similar to what you find for peer aggression," says lead author Corinna Jenkins Tucker, an associate professor of family studies at the University of New Hampshire in Durham.

Tucker and colleagues analyzed data from The National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence, focusing on nearly 3,600 kids 17 and under with at least one sibling living in the household. Kids were interviewed by phone about victimization in the past year. A parent or other adult caregiver answered on behalf of children under age 9.

Measures of mental health and four different types of victimization were assessed:

• Mild physical assault (hit, beaten or kicked without an object/weapon or resulting injury);

• Severe physical assault (hit, beaten or kicked with an object/weapon or causing injury);

• Property aggression (forcible theft, taking and not returning property; breaking or ruining property on purpose);

• Psychological aggression (feeling bad or scared because a sibling said mean things, called them names or excluded them).

"For all types of sibling aggression, we found that being the victim was linked to lower well-being for both children and adolescents," Tucker says.

Mental health distress scores were greater for children than for adolescents who experienced mild physical assault, but kids and teens were similarly affected by the other forms of sibling aggression, she says. And even kids who reported just one type of sibling aggression in the past year had higher distress scores than kids who reported none.

Just as parental violence and marital violence occurs in families, "sibling violence happens, as well," says Nicole Campione-Barr, director of the Family Relationships and Adolescent Development Lab at the University of Missouri. "This is something we really need to be aware of." She was not involved in the new study.

One sign that a sibling relationship is troubled: When aggressive interactions are "repeatedly being done in one direction," where one sibling "is consistently the victim and the other is constantly the perpetrator," she says. "That is akin to what we see in bullying."

NEWS SOURCE:http://www.usatoday.com

Will The Court's Gene Ruling Stifle Bio Innovatioon?

This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I'm Scott Simon. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that patenting natural human genetic material must stop. But the court also ruled that synthetically produced DNA is fair. The decision was prompted by patents on a gene test for breast cancer which was issued to Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City. We're joined now in our studio by Arthur Caplan, who's head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU's Langone Medical Center. Thanks very much for being with us.

ARTHUR CAPLAN: Thanks for having me.

SIMON: What do you think this ruling means for Myriad Genetics and other biotech companies?

CAPLAN: Well, for Myriad, it means less than you might think because their patent was going to run out in another year. For other genetic testing companies that have sort of presumed we own the intellectual property, we see a gene sequence, we know that it associates with a disease, the decision is not good news. They're going to lose their monopoly practice, prices will drop, competition will enter the genetic testing market. So, I think that's good for patients, not so good for the industry.

SIMON: So, what's your general reaction to the Supreme Court's decision?

CAPLAN: I think it's way, way, way overdue. It's the correct decision. You know, to make a metaphor, it is as if Galileo Galilee had a telescope and looked up and saw the moons of Jupiter and said I'm patenting those. I discovered them. You don't get patents for discovery. You get publications. In my world, you get tenure. You might even get a Nobel Prize if it's a really interesting discovery, but you don't get a patent. And what the Supreme Court basically did was it said, look, these genes just exist. You're finding their function, you're understanding their correlation in terms of what a misprint causes a disease. But you didn't do anything. You just found what's out there. So, I think the decision is sound.

SIMON: Even if it's philosophically sound, did - if I might put it this way - monetizing discoveries provide incentive for new and better discoveries?

CAPLAN: It did. There's no doubt that people said, look, it's kind of like the Oklahoma land rush. We're going to rush out over the human genome, stake our claims, have patent protection. It gives us an incentive to go out there and look through the vast number of genes that make up us and figure out whether we can find disease correlations and so on. That said, that was kind of the old model, Scott. The newer way to go at this is to change those genes - try to insert a gene, alter a gene.

SIMON: This is the synthetic material.

CAPLAN: That's the synthetic side. And that's where the action is now. It's not, you know, the companies that were out there doing what I'm calling the turf grabs across the genome, in a way I think their work is over and the action is going to be on the synthetic side.

SIMON: Which I think to repeat - what we said when introducing you - that's legally fine, right?

CAPLAN: That's legally fine. The court made a point of saying if you change genes, alter genes, insert genes or put chemicals around genes to make them do something different or even thaw out certain genes so that you can get a cleaner understanding of what the key genetic components are - all patentable, all fine. And I would agree with that.

SIMON: I guess I didn't understand until I read about the decision, as we read about it this week, the degree to which, I guess it's been called, patent trolling has been going on.

CAPLAN: It's a big problem, because people will do two things: they will claim the patent, not really understanding fully what those genes do and just try to fend off anybody else from coming into that territory. And then there are people who sort of go around and say, you know, I'm going to buy that patent and block anybody from being able to enter research in this area unless you pay me a pretty good size fee. Not good for patients, not good for genetic testing - pretty good for entrepreneurs who get - and lawyers who get involved in that kind of trolling business.

SIMON: If you foresee - and a lot of people do - that synthetically produced DNA is going to be maybe in a better position to take off now, surely there are ethical implications for that, too.

CAPLAN: Oh, there are huge ones. One interesting angle here is, you know, we love our own genes. We're humans; we think our genes must be the best, we're at the top of the food chain of evolution. But synthetic biology has been working at the microbe level. There are simpler systems. They're easier to alter. This court decision is not restricted to human genes. That is patents have been taken out on the plants, on microbes, on animals. All of that moves into flex a little bit too. In the synthetic field, I think what we're seeing is a lot of activity of people trying to insert genes into a virus to say make proteins that would be useful medically, alter a virus to see whether it could act like a vaccine and attack, say, Ebola or something that got into us, or the flu. And in other areas, you're seeing people engineer viruses and bacteria to try and do things like suck pollution out of the ocean waters and so on. So, a big area of activity but probably not where you might think. It's not the humans that are the target so much as the microbes.

SIMON: Arthur Caplan. Head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU's Langone Medical Center. Thanks very much for joining us, Art.

CAPLAN: Thanks very much for having me. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

NEWS SOURCE:http://radio.krcb.org

Obama administration drops fight to limit age restrictions on Plan B

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- U.S. Catholic officials expressed disappointment with the June 10 announcement that the federal government will comply with a judge's ruling to allow girls of any age to buy the morning-after pill without a prescription.

The decision reversed recent course of action by the federal government. On May 1, the Justice Department announced that it would appeal a ruling by a federal judge in early April that said the Food and Drug Administration must make emergency contraceptives available to all ages by May 6.

In a June 10 letter to U.S. District Judge Edward Korman in Brooklyn, N.Y., department officials said they will submit a plan for compliance with his ruling and will drop their appeal. The letter also said the FDA has advised the drug's manufacturer to submit an application to make Plan B One-Step available over the counter without restrictions.

News reports June 11 said the Justice Department also told the judge it will not make available over the counter the two-pill Plan B product, which it described as being significantly different from the one-pill version. Two-pill generic versions of Plan B would remain behind store counters and require a prescription and ID for those under the age of 17.

Plan B, known generically as levonorgestrel, uses large doses of birth-control pills to prevent conception up to 72 hours after unprotected sex. According to the FDA, it will "not stop a pregnancy when a woman is already pregnant, and there is no medical evidence that the product will harm a developing fetus."

Catholic officials faulted the federal government's decision and some groups advocating women's rights called it a step forward and a public health benefit.

Deirdre McQuade, spokeswoman for the USCCB's Secretariat for Pro Life Activities, said in a June 11 email to Catholic News Service: "Many studies have shown that wider access to 'emergency contraception' among young people does not reduce pregnancy or abortion rates, but can contribute to higher rates of sexually transmitted disease. No public health consideration justifies the unregulated distribution of such drugs to children."

Jeanne Monahan, president of the March for Life Education & Defense Fund, called the decision "hugely disappointing and not in the best interest of young women's physical and emotional health."

John DiCamillo, an ethicist with the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia called the government's decision "a great disservice" that "brings profound moral harm to our society."

In a June 11 email to CNS, he said the wider availability of levonorgestrel in its pill form "continues to promote and entrench the contraception and abortion mentality that undermines the culture of life."

He noted that the National Catholic Bioethics Center is "not a scientific research body and does not itself determine whether Plan B or other levonorgestrel-based 'emergency contraceptives' are abortifacients." But he said a close analysis of the scientific and pharmacological literature indicates that this drug "can and very likely does act as an abortifacient when taken after ovulation has already occurred."

A June 11 Washington Post article said a senior administration official who spoke to the newspaper on the condition of anonymity insisted President Barack Obama did not change his position about the drug and still opposes over-the-counter access to emergency contraceptives for young girls. The official said the reason the Justice Department dropped its appeal was reportedly because of multiple setbacks the department experienced in federal courts.

In early June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit said it would immediately permit unrestricted sales of the two-pill version of the emergency contraception until the appeal was decided. 

That ruling, the senior administration official said, indicated that the court did not expect the legal challenge of the appeal to succeed.

NEWS SOURCE:http://www.thebostonpilot.com

U.S. top court bars patents on human genes unless synthetic

The ruling by the nine justices, the first of its kind for the top U.S. court, buttressed important patent protections relied upon by biotechnologycompanies while making it clear that genes extracted from the human body cannot be patented.

Researchers and advocates for patients said it could make it easier for people to get cheaper genetic tests for disease risk.

The court's ruling came in a challenge launched by medical researchers and others to seven patents owned by or licensed to Salt Lake City, Utah-based biotechnology company Myriad Genetics Inc on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer.

The decision "sets a fair and level playing field for open and responsible use of genetic information," said Dr. Robert Darnell, president and scientific director of the New York Genome Center, an alliance of medical centers and research universities. "At the same time, it does not preclude the opportunity for innovation in the genetic world."

Myriad's work on cancer screening gained worldwide attention this year when actress Angelina Jolie announced she had a double mastectomy after undergoing a test and finding she had an extremely high risk of developing breast cancer.

The biotech industry saw some good in the ruling, noting that the justices left intact patent protections on forms of DNA produced by scientists in laboratories and the processes used to carry out tests such as cancer screenings. The industry had said an expansive ruling against Myriad could have threatened billions of dollars of investment.

The contentious, uniquely 21st century question before the court was whether any human genes can ever be patented - meaning the holders have exclusive rights to their intellectual property for a defined period. The issue has gained increasing importance as scientists make progress in identifying specific genes, or mutations, linked to a variety of diseases.

The court, in an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, ruled that forms of DNA that have been manipulated in the lab in a way that alters their natural state can be patented.

Called cDNA - the "c" stands for "complementary" - it is essentially an edited form of a gene, with extraneous stretches excised. This DNA is patent eligible, the court said, because it is not naturally occurring, unlike isolated DNA simply extracted from a human body.

In the opinion, Thomas wrote that because cDNA is not naturally occurring, it can be patented under federal law. A laboratory technician, he added, "unquestionably creates something new when cDNA is made." Thomas noted that so-called method patents, which concern technical procedures for carrying out a certain process, are not affected by the ruling.

The compromise outcome, which had been recommended to the justices by the Obama administration, will have less impact on Myriad than if the court had barred patents for all types of human genetic material. The Myriad patents in dispute will all expire by 2015, though the company said it holds other patents that will protect its tests through 2018 and potentially beyond.

MYRIAD SHARES END THE DAY LOWER

Myriad's shares initially rose nearly 13 percent to as high as $33.87 after the company declared victory and several industry analysts said its most important patents had been upheld, providing protection for its BRCA test revenue. The genes at the heart of the case are called BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Shares gave back the gains and turned lower after potential rivals announced intentions to market BRCA gene tests. Myriad shares closed down $1.91, or 5.6 percent, at $32.01 on Nasdaq.

"Based on our initial review of the court's decision, we expect it will open opportunities for Quest Diagnostics to develop new testing services, including in the area of hereditary breast cancer," Quest spokeswoman Wendy Bost said.

"As the leader in women's health and cancer diagnostics, we are very interested in offering a BRCA testing service. We now intend to validate and offer a BRCA1 and BRCA2 test service to physicians and patients this year," Bost added.

Myriad said the decision left intact 24 different patents that relate to the BRACAnalysis test. Peter Meldrum, Myriad's president and CEO, said the ruling ensures "strong intellectual property protection for our BRACAnalysis test moving forward."

A group of medical researchers, associations and patients - represented by the American Civil Liberties Union - filed suit in 2009, saying human genes including synthetically produced material should not be patented.

The plaintiffs said they were not concerned about the ruling on cDNA because patents relating to that, in their view, have little impact on genetic testing, their focus in the case.

Harry Ostrer, a professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York, predicted a "much more even playing field" for genetic tests now that a company like Myriad cannot control access to the genes themselves.

With the ruling, "labs can begin to offer this testing immediately and many say they will," said Ellen Matloff, head of cancer genetic counseling at Yale Cancer Center and one of many academic scientists who tried to have patients tested for breast cancer genes only to be told it would violate a gene patent.

Gregory Graff of Colorado State University, who led a recent study analyzing gene patents, said people will now be able to "get a second opinion on their BRCA test because other companies will be able to offer tests" based on forms of DNA that the court said cannot be patented.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted patents on at least 4,000 human genes to companies, universities and others that have discovered and decoded them. Patents now cover some 40 percent of the human genome, according to one study.

The decision will stop the practice of the Patent and Trademark Office granting patents to companies that isolate DNA but will allow patents for firms that build DNA from its basic chemicals, said Ed Reines, of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.

"The patent office was granting patents on isolated biological composition, such as DNA. That will not be happening in the future," Reines said.

The case is Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-398

NEWS SOURCE:http://www.reuters.com

Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that human genes cannot be patented, a decision that could shape the future of medical and genetic research and have profound effects on pharmaceuticals and agriculture.

The ruling was a split decision for Myriad Genetics Inc., which holds patents on genes that have been linked to breast and ovarian cancer.Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said that merely isolating those specific genes — called BRCA1 and BRCA2 — was not worthy of a patent.

“Myriad found the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, but that discovery, by itself, does not render the BRCA genes . . . patent eligible,” Thomas wrote.

On the other hand, Thomas wrote, Myriad’s creation of a synthetic form of DNA — called cDNA — based on its discovery does deserve patent protection.

“The lab technician creates something new when cDNA is made,” Thomas wrote.

Responding to the decision, Myriad focused on the favorable cDNA ruling. “We believe the court appropriately upheld our claims on cDNA, and underscored the patent eligibility of our method claims, ensuring strong intellectual property protection for our BRACAnalysis test moving forward,” said Peter D. Meldrum, company president and chief executive. “More than 250,000 patients rely upon our BRACAnalysis test annually, and we remain focused on saving and improving peoples’ lives and lowering overall health-care costs.”

DNA research is a vital component of personalized medicine. The challenge to Myriad’s patents came from scientists and doctors who said that allowing patents on genes inflated the cost of testing and hindered research.

The American Civil Liberties Union praised the high court’s ruling as a victory. “Today, the court struck down a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation,” said Sandra Park of the ACLU, which represented the groups that brought the challenge. “Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing, and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued.”

The test that Myriad offers for determining whether a woman contains the genetic mutation that heightens her chance of cancer has received much attention lately after actress Angelina Jolie wrote about it in a letter to the editor to the New York Times. In the letter, Jolie revealed that she had a double mastectomy because the test showed she carried the defective gene.

NEWS SOURCE:http://www.washingtonpost.com

STUDY: Short Walks After Meals Help Cut Rise in Blood Sugar

WASHINGTON – A quick 10- or 15-minute stroll right after eating lunch or dinner may help older people to cut the dangers of developing Type-2 diabetes, new studies show.

The study, which was published in the Diabetes Care, found that going on three 15-minute walks after a (heavy) meal were as effective at minimizing the rise in blood sugar in a span of 24 hours as that of a 45-minute stroll on the same slow pace.

Medical experts found that the 3 after-meals walk cut blood-sugar levels for up to 3 hours more effectively compared to a one long walk.

The study was conducted by doctors and researchers at the School of Public Health and Health Services of the George Washington University.

Doctor Lorreta DiPeitro, lead research author, disclosed that the discovery could come as a positive news, especially for those that belong in the 70-80 year old bracket.

The research findings also show that regular physical activity could be more ideal to those belonging in the age group, especially if the 15-minute strolls are mixed with short running errands or taking the dog for a quick walk.

According to DiPeitro, muscle group contractions linked with with short walks are very effective in protecting against the damaging rise in blood-sugar after every meal that commonly occurs in older people.

NEWS SOURCE:http://www.pentagonpost.com

Drug may protect injection drug abusers from HIV

ATLANTA, June 13 (UPI) -- The medication tenofovir, or Viread, taken once a day may prevent HIV transmission among injection drug users, U.S. researchers say.

Dr. Michael Martin of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta said a randomized, phase III trial of injection drugs users in Bangkok found daily tenofovir reduced the risk of human immunodeficiency virus by nearly half compared with a placebo, MedPage Today reported.

The study, published in The Lancet, showed daily tenofovir reduced HIV transmission in injecting drug users and it should be considered as an additional prevention method for people at high risk for HIV from infection.

The researchers enrolled 2,413 volunteers ages 20-60 who were HIV-negative and reported injecting drugs within the previous 12 months -- from 17 drug-treatment clinics in Bangkok.

Study participants were randomly assigned either tenofovir or placebo and followed for an average of four years. They were also offered condoms and methadone treatment and got monthly HIV testing, combined with risk-reduction and adherence counseling and blood safety tests every three months.

Those in the trial who received the drug reduced HIV incidence by half, the study said.

NEWS SOURCE:http://www.upi.com/