The Question of Questions: What is a Gene? Comments on Rolston and Griffths & Stotz

If the question “What is a gene?” proves to be worth asking it must be able to elicit an answer which both recognizes and address the reasons why the concept of the gene ever seemed to be something worth getting excited about in the first place as well analyzing and evaluating the latest develops in the molecular biology of DNA. Each of the preceding papers fails to do one of these and sufferrs the consequences. Where Rolston responds to the apparent failure of molecular biology to make good on the desideratum of the classical gene by veering off into fanciful talk about “cybernetic genes,” Griffiths and Stotz lose themselves in the molecular fine print and forget to ask themselves why “genes” should be of any special interst anyway

Fertility and pregnancy in patients below the age of 35 following chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Abstract Abstract #6148 Background&amp;#x2028; Counseling young breast cancer patients regarding the chances of conception following chemotherapy is a subject of great importance. Previous studies have reported a 50-70% rate of amenorrhea following standard breast cancer chemotherapy and very low rates of pregnancy. However a uniform definition of infertility is lacking and as a result many studies reported results observed in pre-menopausal women as a whole without specific analysis and separation according to age. In this retrospective, single institution study, we examined resumption of menses and pregnancy rates in young breast cancer patients who had received chemotherapy.&amp;#x2028; Methods&amp;#x2028; We identified 193 breast cancer patients aged 35 years or younger diagnosed at a single institution between 1996 and 2004. All patients who were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and had completed at least 1 year of follow-up without evidence of recurrence were included in the study.&amp;#x2028; Results&amp;#x2028; Forty seven patients met the eligibility criteria. The mean time of follow-up was 69 months (range, 12-124 mos.). The mean age at diagnosis was 30 years (range, 19-34 yrs). Chemotherapy consisted of Adriamycin based protocols in 29 cases and CMF (Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, 5-Fluorouracil) in 18 cases. GnRH agonists were administered to 28 (61%) of patients for at least two years. All patients had regular menses prior to the initiation of chemotherapy. Three patients continued to receive regular injections with a GnRH agonist beyond two years, one patient underwent oophorectomy, two patients developed amenorrhea whilst 35 patients (35/37 95%) resumed menses subsequent to chemotherapy. Information regarding menstruation was lacking for six patients. Sixteen patients (16/37 43%) gave birth to at least one child after menses resumed at a mean age of 35 years (range, 28-41yrs).&amp;#x2028; Discussion&amp;#x2028; Standard chemotherapy protocols in breast cancer patients under the age of 35 do not preclude fertility preservation and pregnancy. However, not all young breast cancer survivors wish to become pregnant following treatment and therefore the actual rate of fertility is in fact higher than those recorded. Further prospective studies which incorporate documentation regarding patient's desire for future pregnancies need to be undertaken in order to better advise young patients with respect to their individual chances of conceiving following chemotherapy. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 6148.</jats:p

Fertility and pregnancy in patients under age 38 following chemotherapy for breast cancer

e11541 Background: Chemotherapy improves breast cancer outcome, but may impact fertility. Post chemotherapy fertility rates range between 10–90% among studies. Fertility post chemotherapy is most often assessed by rate of menstruation resumption- an indirect method of evaluating childbearing potential. It is noteworthy that future pregnancy is a woman's first concern not menses preservation. Variability in fertility rates along with limited data on post chemotherapy pregnancies led us to undertake this single institute retrospective study evaluating fertility and pregnancy post chemotherapy in ≤ 38 y old breast cancer patients. Methods: We reviewed medical records of 222 consecutive stage II-IIIB breast cancer patients diagnosed, treated and followed at Sharette Institute of Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center from 1990–2004. Inclusion criteria included age ≤ 38 years, ≥3 cycles of standard metothrexate or adriamycine based chemotherapy, metastasis-free 12 months post chemotherapy initiation or one year following GnRH analog withdrawal. Patients diagnosed with infertility prior to breast cancer diagnosis (data present for part of patients), bilateral oophorectomy or patients surviving ≤3 years from diagnosis were excluded. Patient pregnancy preference was not recorded. Fertility was defined as resumption of recurrent menses or pregnancy anytime during follow up. In case of recurrence, date of recurrence diagnosis was assigned as date of last follow up. Results: Cohort included 65 patients. Mean age 32.5±4 ys (20.3–38.5) Almost all patients (95.4%), 38 ys or younger, preserve menses following chemotherapy, and 33.9% become pregnant. Most of patients who did not conceive post chemotherapy (66.1%), were under a familial status not promoting pregnancy; 44% of all women who did not give birth post chemotherapy had at least 3 offspring at the time of diagnosis and 83% out of all women who did not have any offspring by the end of follow up were single. Conclusions: This data suggest that pregnancy potential may be even higher than our actual finding, since pregnancy is most probably not attempted by multiparous or most single patients, whom cultural constrains affect their decisions. It seems prudent to offer the subgroup of unmarried women fertility preservation. No significant financial relationships to disclose. </jats:p

Preliminary analysis of the Hodgson Collection at the Zoological Society of London

While serving as Britain's diplomatic representative in Nepal between 1820 and 1843, Brian Houghton Hodgson (1801–1894) amassed a unique collection of paintings of Nepalese birds and mammals. A pioneer of nineteenth-century zoology, Hodgson's collection of images is one of the most important of its kind, providing crucial information for modern taxonomists and conservationists working in the Himalayan region. It is also an important and hitherto largely untapped source for the historian of science, indicating that Hodgson and other colonial naturalists, while geographically remote from London's scientific institutions, were fully engaged with London's scientific culture in the 1820s and 1830s. This paper outlines the extent of the Zoological Society of London's Hodgson holdings and the context of their creation. It draws parallels between the scientific content of Hodgson's images and the Quinarian system of natural classification, revising the established view of Hodgson as a wholly descriptive naturalist and opening the collection to new interpretations