Scientists Search Deep Sea Reefs for Wonder Drugs

ScienceDaily is reporting that a team of scientists will be venturing some 2000-3000 feet below the ocean surface in order to explore deep-sea reefs discovered last December. From the article: "A primary goal of the upcoming expedition, which is funded largely by the State of Florida's 'Florida Oceans Initiative,' will be to search for marine organisms that produce chemical compounds with the potential to treat human diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer's."

Comments

Curse of the Blue Gold

[eldavojohn]

First off, this isn't really 'news' as it is an alarm. When a new coral reef is discovered, we aren't sending people to look for new species or attempting to preserve it ... instead we're sending people to take samples to see if we can benefit medically from the reef.

Modern man has an impeccable record for destroying the natural environment that produces his fruits & resources. Then we sit and bitch about how it went away. Reefs are probably going to be no different. They're harder to get at, but if the run-off doesn't destroy them, I'm sure our medical companies will.

There's a report written by the UN University that details the problems being raised by this treasure of "blue gold."

Significantly, the ratio of potentially useful natural compounds to compounds screened is higher in marinesourced materials than with terrestrial organisms. There is, therefore, a higher probability of commercial success. Potential applications for marine organisms include: pharmaceuticals; enzymes; cryoprotectants; cosmaceuticals; agrichemicals; bioremediators; nutraceuticals; and fine chemicals. All the major pharmaceutical firms, including Merck, Lilly, Pfizer, Hoffman-Laroche and Bristol-Myers Squibb, have marine biology departments. Estimates put worldwide sales of marine biotechnology-related products at US$ 100 billion for the year 2000. Profits from a compound derived from a sea sponge to treat herpes were estimated to be worth US$ 50 million to US$ 100 million annually, and estimates of the value of anti-cancer agents from marine organisms are up to US$ 1 billion a year.

One of the interesting sources it cites is Blue Genes: Sharing and Conserving the World's Aquatic Biodiversity (another interesting document on the global problem of sharing the world's oceans).

Hypothetical scenario time! So, Pfizer's scientists find that a fairly common sponge produces a natural chemical that slows the growth of cancer. Unfortunately, each sponge only produces an ounce of this chemical when refined and there is no way to naturally synthesize it on a mass scale. Pfizer tries to buy the rights to harvest the sponge at a restricted rate in Florida. But they have to get permits from the local, state & federal governments and it costs them a lot of money because they send people down to the reef to hand pick the sponges. Instead, they find a supplier in a third world country (possibly around Indonesia) that promises them mass quantities of the sponge at a reduced rate. Now, the government there forbids it too but an official receives a large sum from this company and suddenly Pfizer has got incoming shipments of the sponge. The problem is that the company working for Pfizer is doing so with total blatant disregard for the ecosystem & probably its workers.

A farfetched scenario? Or something that's happened so often in the past, we'd be naïve to imagine it to stop here?

Re:Curse of the Blue Gold

[Johnny5000]

The problem is that the company working for Pfizer is doing so with total blatant disregard for the ecosystem & probably its workers.

I'm the last person to make apologies for some company, but I'd like to think they're probably smart enough to not kill the golden goose. If they're making billions of dollars from reef extracts, it wouldn't do them any good to destroy the reef and lose that potential source of profits.

Of course, I could be wrong.. they could decide that they'll destroy the reef at a rate that will take 100 years (or 50, or 10) and decide that's a good window of time to make a huge profit, and by the time the reef is destroyed, they will have perfected an in-vitro method of production or been able to move onto the next wonder drug, or whatever.

Re:Curse of the Blue Gold

[Anonymous Coward]

While some of your comments are rational, some of them don't apply to these particular reefs.

They are 2-3km deep -- coastal runoff is largely irrelevant, and they aren't going to be hand-collected by divers.

On the more negative side, the life at these locations probably grows very, very, very slowly (low temperature, low nutrient supply), and would be easy to damage or destroy. However, ordinary fishing operations in the vicinity of these deep sea reefs already do *immense* damage in some parts of the world. Compared to that, harvesting anything for medical purposes would be a minor effect. If it is worth protecting these deep-sea reefs (and I think it is), then it is more important to protect them from the harvesting and damage that is already occurring than it is to worry about any additional effect from potentially new applications such as medicine. If anything, a medical use for some of the biota there might provide the incentive for fishing operations to cease or adopt a less damaging approach than dragging gear across the bottom (which tears down the corals and other biota as destructively as if you were clear-cutting trees).

I guess the bottom line, from my perspective, is that these deep sea reefs are relatively poorly understood, and yet they are being severely impacted in some regions by fishing, so it makes sense to try to understand them via studies like this. Opposing the studies only because of the *chance* it could make the situation worse is silly. We need more information about them *in*order* to try to protect them. While scientific studies can pave the way for irresponsible exploitation, they can also be the means for preservation. Either way, you aren't going to have an effective management of anything if you don't know anything about what you are trying to manage.

Re:Curse of the Blue Gold

[cashman73]

Now that we're beginning to understand genomics, it's becoming a lot easier to synthesize complex biomolecules. If we can identify the genes that are involved in making the proteins that go into how certain organisms produce a particular compound, we can modify those genes, put them in a particular order, then place those same genes into a bacterium and let nature do our dirty work for us! ;-)

Hopefully, it won't be like...

[magores]

Hopefully, it won't be like...

The rainforest(s).

Lots of potential, but wasted.

Sea Exploration

[gmiley]

We really need to get back on this train. Oceanography wasn't really even around until relatively recent times. Even once it started catching on, it quickly died off. To date, one of our biggest contributions to oceanography and marine biology has been the H.M.S. Challenger in the 1870's, it's three year mission to explore strange... well, nevermind you get the picture. Sure we have made some large steps since then, but nothing that comes close.

Re:Sea Exploration

[icebrain]

Sounds eerily familiar, like the space program... we get one (or a couple) good efforts going, finally start learning stuff... and then people drop it with the mentality of "all right, that's good enough." I'm sure there's a good supply of young people who would be very willing to do out on new oceanographic research trips... but I'm betting they're either lured away by bigger research grants in other areas, or no one wants to fund them for the above-mentioned reason. And I think the public perception of the field is either of Mr. Cousteau ("a dead guy who lived on a boat") or Robert Ballard ("oh, the guy that found the Titanic"). And everyone thinks oceanography is finding old shipwrecks, and they quickly turn to thoughts of salvaging an old wreck or finding some hidden conspiracy... (or maybe that's just my lack of coffee speaking). The above probably holds true for most areas of science... people want lots of amazing new scientific discoveries fast, thrilling, and cheap. They don't understand how science works, and write it off as boring and useless... then move on to "American Idol."

Humans are not that unique in the world

[BinaryOne]

The fact is, most of the health problems (or most of the problems, period) we face as humans, ie: cellular degeneration, bacterial infections, etc. have some analog in other forms of nature.

The production of antibiotics by fungi and other bacteria to reduce the population of competing organisms has been honed by centuries of evolution. If preserved, supported and studied the processes, and the compounds are there to be used.

The science is slow and tedious, but many of the cultures that live in these rich habitats are well versed in the properties of the flora they have around them.

Reefs

[Sqreater]

How can we be expected to destroy them if we don't know where they are? Let's put more money into hunting down these "reef" things so we can pit-mine them for a solution to athlete's foot.

Or, maybe we can just leave them the hell alone. How about it scientists? Just a thought.

Re:This is pretty common, actually

[Frumious Wombat]

Coming from the deliberately-synthesized school of chemistry, I was surprised when I sat on a PhD committee recently, and asked the student what the sponge did with the chemical she was discussing. I got a blank stare from the student, and one of the committee members told me that nobody knows, and the natural-product researchers just pick an organism, puree it (or some part of it), make separations, then try them on anything they'd like to cure/killl, and see what works.

As much as I applaud my colleagues for getting the state to fund their diving expedition, it would be nice if some of that money went to trying to understand what role the compounds have in the original organism, then working outward from there to design new pharmaceuticals. It might give us to the tools to stop prospecting, and instead rationally design our molecular targets to fit the application.

Of course, if you read this week's New Yorker, you can see how much effort has gone into rationally designing a replacement for sugar in food, versus how much success on the other end.

If Mother Nature Keeps Fucking Us...

[enjahova]

We better fuck her back!

"Oceans lash our coasts. Deserts Burn. The sky provides no shelter. Turmoil of Biblical proportions threatens not just our weather but life itself."

Don't those sound like great reasons to fight back? :)

In all seriousness I feel totally out of the loop on global warming, but Al Gore's scaremongering movie makes me think the current attitude is exaggerated. I believe that there is truth to global warming, but I am starting to disbelieve anything that threatens impending doom (this includes terrorism).

Every generation thinks theirs is the last, why should ours be any different?