HIV being a retrovirus puts its genome into the hosts genome. Basically it moves into a cell and settles in for the long haul, goes latent, then eventually sending out copies of itself at a leisurely pace. Other viruses like the cold come into cells and completely take over, pumping out copies of themselves in a mad dash, blowing up the cell in a matter of days, releasing more of the viruses. There's little time for the procedure here to take out the virus in such a situation: the cell is either uninfected or completely overrun by the time CRISPR would come along. With HIV, CRISpR can come along and take it out while it's hiding.
Moreover, HIV targets immune system cells roaming the blood. The researchers here injected the gene-editing vector (also a virus) into the blood where the vector also targeted the same cells. Other viruses don't do that. Rabies for example spreads inside nerves which are otherwise hard to target with viral vectors. HPV lives in the outer layers of the skin, safe from the immune system and any other easily injectable treatment. Cold viruses I believe infect the respiratory tract. None of these vector viruses are near 100% effective. You might have someone inhale a fog of the treatment, but at a minimum you'd need multiple treatments. No one is going to attempt to develop such a product for the cold due to liability problems alone.
That article makes the point though that STI rates in San Francisco are still way below "abstinence only" regions in the south. So it would seem that the AIDS scare isn't having an effect anyway in the areas it would matter most.
Again depends on where you work. And FWIW, a half an hour on the L train was much more enjoyable for me than my 20 minute drive, aside from that one time a crazy lady started attacking people and that time I had to wait in the snow for half an hour because the train was late.
Moving from a half an hour out of Gary Indiana to downtown Chicago, maybe. Moving from downtown Indianapolis to a Chicago suburb? I'd be surprised if the cost of living wasn't cheaper in Chicago. You'd have to know some specifics to be able to compare apples to apples.
There's something weird about saying the eighth version of a game is fun because multiplayer, then complaining you're tired of what I assume are JRPGs (which tend to be single player only) and FPS (which can be multiplayer or single player.)
In high school/college the group games played were mario kart, bond, timesplitters, and smash bros. Today from what I can tell, there are a ton of FPS multiplayer games ranging from very "serious" counterstrike or modern warfare to silly like team fortress 2 or splatoon. They've evolved a lot in 15-20 years.
And then there's kart and smash which are basically the same thing still...
I'd submit you're not "tired" of those games, you just don't like them as much. You don't need to justify your opinion! You can just not like FPS! Just don't pretend you dislike them because they're stale while you play mario kart 8.
I'd point out the structure at a microscopic level is important. It's not yet possible to set that up in a dish. The bile ducts and canniculi don't connect themselves into a functional network I think. Blood vessel formation in cultured liver tissues is also pretty rudimentary as of yet and doesn't make tissue that has proper blood flow. They're not getting liver samples in a dish that are close enough to functioning, at least as far as I've heard. But you're right that it does organize itself better than other organs or parts, and all the other organs and parts (aside from skin) have the same issues at the moment.
More importantly, your argument is stupid. Was anyone confused? If I say "I printed blue ink on the paper" do you assume the printer is making ink or using ink?
The "organ donation industry" is minuscule compared to big pharma who would be FOR this. As TFA says, "The company uses bioprinted tissue to test drug toxicity and effectiveness on behalf of Big Pharma companies including Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Merck & Co."
Drug safety testing in animals is woefully inaccurate and terribly expensive compared to using human cells in a dish. This improving would really decrease their costs.
... anyway, really? Conspiracy theories about the organ donation industry? Aren't they non-profit? If they're so powerful, why is organ donation still an opt-in rather than an opt-out process? "Hey, how about you make people sign their drivers licenses NOT to have their organs harvested if they die in a crash, so that way we can save more lives?" If the organ donation industry has lobbyists and they're not saying that and are instead saying "Hey, how about you not fund making organs outside of people," then the organ donation industry is so stupid that we really don't need to worry about them. Bioprinting is still decades away probably from replacing livers, whearas we should have done the opt out thing decades ago. JFC, you paranoid people...
No it's not yet because those things are more technically challenging. In genitals, you have dense arrays of nerves, pretty complex blood vessels, a bunch of "filler" tissue, the urethra, and skin. What is technically possible now is growing one type of cell or tissue, that's routine, with research starting to get into multiple types of cells grown together. Two different types of cells together gets much more complicated, and growing them together in a specific structure, rather than a random blend, at scales big enough to see without a microscope... that's beyond capabilities at the moment.
On top of that, the focus remains on the simpler tissues for economic reasons. If you can grow a liver in a dish (Organovo's main focus) you can make billions testing drugs for safety. One of the most common reasons expensive drug candidates fail is they kill your liver, another common reason is that drug candidates get processed in the liver to become something toxic to somewhere else. Doing this testing in animals is hideously expensive, slow, and often not very good at actually predicting how it will do in humans. Testing in human cells in a dish would be much easier. Drug testing is extremely expensive but also necessary. So it's a huge market. Genital replacement on the other hand is pretty low-demand compared to that. So there's huge economic advantages to focusing on the simpler goal, much less in creating much more complex genitals.
Genital repair should eventually be a goal though if we actually care at all about our soldiers or those other unfortunate individuals you mentioned. It's worth serious consideration, this is no joke, and feel free to smack down anyone in the future who brings it up lightly by pointing out it's an important goal even though "LOL WEINERS." And people are definitely working on it. Just it's not going to happen before we get livers in a dish.
Conservatives, ar least in the American form, do not care what color your skin is.
What's scary is that you actually believe this despite an abundance of scientific studies showing otherwise. Is there any way to disabuse you of this notion? How many peer-reviewed papers would it take to convince you that no, conservatives, liberals, apathetics, me, and you do in fact let race bias us?
And anyways isn't it a Progressive stance to bleat on about how there's too many undesirable people in the world and how to fix it?
No, and definitely not when it's thinly veiled "Brown people are to blame!" We are interested in fixing issues with the world, we're just uninterested in trying to claim it's all a massive moral failing on someone's part and make ourselves feel superior for it.
And you should realize that unlike the right, it's not a religion with us. If a key liberal position were there's too much babies and we need to stop trying to save lives, I'd be firmly opposed to that but would still be a liberal.
You mean like lobbying to have birth control coverage mandated for all women and providing free birth control to women to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Yeah, that is nice of them to do.
Not yet. There's still a significant window where babies can't be supported out of the womb. This would be useful for early premature born babies, born months early, not from conception on. Doctors have been pushing back how early a baby can be born and still survive for a while now.
I don't see a definite timeline on when technology will advance to the point of supporting embryos from conception to viability either. The research on pushing how long embryos are viable after conception without putting them in a mom is all academic for understanding how embryos form, it's not gearing towards what you're talking about in humans. There is a "14 day rule" established in the 70's saying you can't let human embryos develop beyond that in a petrie dish. That was established when 14 days after IVF seemed like an impossible barrier to overcome. Without a clear medical necessity, there's not going to be much of a push to remove that rule, and there is no clear medical necessity: surrogates, IVF, and adoption are all things. The pro-life crowd is going to oppose ending the rule. Granted, the pro-life crowd is really focused on slut-shaming and punishing women who don't want children, embryos in a dish are not really their thing, so it's not going to be as vicious as their attacks on planned parenthood.
I digress, my point is there's no strong push to figure out how to keep an embryo alive out of a womb from conception to a point where the bag would support life, so expect it will be a very long time before it's a possibility.
You can ask "don't we have too many people already" about medicine at any stage. A prematurely born kid has a better chance of contributing something positive to the world than some old boomer asshole who should be dead already. So lets bring this topic up next discussion about flu vaccines or alzheimers research.
The populations in Africa and the Middle East have far exceeded the available resources in those regions, and they're now heavily dependent on handouts from Western nations. There's no sign of the reproduction rates slowing down in those regions, either.
The focus should be on getting the reproduction rates in third-world regions back down to more reasonable levels, to prevent the never-ending stream of famines, wars, and disease outbreaks we've been witnessing in such regions lately.
Another Trump voter sign: imagining things used to be better in your youth when in fact they were quantifiably worse, and making decisions which are going to exacerbate the perceived problems. Diseases are at an all-time low thanks to hygiene, sanitation, and vaccines. Much of that has been thanks to aid from western nations to developing nations. Oil dependence is going to cause wars, climate change is going to cause famine, and neither of those things are going to be solved by lowering birth rates. Which, as we have already covered, are in decline already.
They were good when they first came out but literally ANYONE is now a better deal than Ting.
You've literally named one thing that appears to be better than ting in terms of price. AT&T is still a massive ripoff compared to Ting, I assume verizon and t mobile are too. Google fi isn't a clear winner over Ting in my experience either.
How toxic could it be if it wouldn't kill the caterpillars? Is it just plastic or is it plastic on the inside, concrete on the outside or something similar? Never spent much time around toxic ponds so I'm not familiar.
Why would caterpillars be any more dangerous than, say, good old explosives? I assume the caterpillars don't eat all plastic at a rate too rapid to stop, unlike a bomb.
Kind of skeptical any such plastic lined ponds are actually effective at anything aside from liability issues anyway. Or did I just arrive at the point?
There's a lot of finger pointing at the worst cases like those. Pretending it's only a few rotten apples allows investors and the industry to pretend it's not a vast sea of shit. Shkreli and Retrophin from the pharmaceutical industry for example, they were only the worst of the worst. Every damn pharma company out there is charging absurd amounts for old drugs and not spending any of it developing new ones. (The oft-cited 2.6 billion for each new drug is utter bullshit.)
Theranos was bad, but there are hundreds of "digital health" startups with way too much VC money for what amounts to either "lets put medical records on an ipad" or "it's like a fitbit but not called fitbit."
How the fuck is instagram or snapchat "innovative"?
"Innovation" means "creatively acting like the same old shit is new." So I guess yeah, money does follow innovation.
The event was already being criticized for "politicizing" science. "You're risking turning it from a non-partisan thing into a liberal vs conservative thing!" they say. "Conservatives will decide science is evil!"
While I think that's naive and stupid, thinking about how the message will be heard IS worthwhile.
"Science says you're having too many babies and that's contributing to climate change so stop!" Yeah, good fucking luck with that one. While you're at it, maybe sell republicans on the fact that taxes are necessary and can't always just be cut. Or Americans at large that Islamic terrorism is coming from our pointless defense of Israel and fighting wars on terrorism?
On top of that, it's a stupid fucking argument to be making. Carbon emissions are not evenly distributed. A handful of the worlds rich assholes (read: us) are doing the vast majority of the climate change (See figure 1). The fundamental problem is that you can get rich shitting in the water everyone is drinking, and there are also some shared benefits. All the birth control isn't going to do anything if people like those who run our government can still make a ton of money digging up carbon and the rest of us enjoy relatively cheap energy that everyone for generations to come is going to mostly pay for.
AND we can actually do something about that without doing anything unethical like forced sterilization. Carbon taxes. Nuclear or other clean energy. Those things you mentioned. Or burning fossil fuel industry people at the stake until no one is willing to do it anymore. All of those things make more sense, are more directly effective, and are less evil than prattling on about overpopulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Genius = two famous movies?
Now do methane, which is clearly the bigger danger
The guy who made "idiocracy" cannot be considered a "genius" except maybe at making idiots feel smarter about themselves.
I don't think so.
HIV being a retrovirus puts its genome into the hosts genome. Basically it moves into a cell and settles in for the long haul, goes latent, then eventually sending out copies of itself at a leisurely pace. Other viruses like the cold come into cells and completely take over, pumping out copies of themselves in a mad dash, blowing up the cell in a matter of days, releasing more of the viruses. There's little time for the procedure here to take out the virus in such a situation: the cell is either uninfected or completely overrun by the time CRISPR would come along. With HIV, CRISpR can come along and take it out while it's hiding.
Moreover, HIV targets immune system cells roaming the blood. The researchers here injected the gene-editing vector (also a virus) into the blood where the vector also targeted the same cells. Other viruses don't do that. Rabies for example spreads inside nerves which are otherwise hard to target with viral vectors. HPV lives in the outer layers of the skin, safe from the immune system and any other easily injectable treatment. Cold viruses I believe infect the respiratory tract. None of these vector viruses are near 100% effective. You might have someone inhale a fog of the treatment, but at a minimum you'd need multiple treatments. No one is going to attempt to develop such a product for the cold due to liability problems alone.
That's already happening in the gay community with PrEP.
That article makes the point though that STI rates in San Francisco are still way below "abstinence only" regions in the south. So it would seem that the AIDS scare isn't having an effect anyway in the areas it would matter most.
Again depends on where you work. And FWIW, a half an hour on the L train was much more enjoyable for me than my 20 minute drive, aside from that one time a crazy lady started attacking people and that time I had to wait in the snow for half an hour because the train was late.
Moving from a half an hour out of Gary Indiana to downtown Chicago, maybe. Moving from downtown Indianapolis to a Chicago suburb? I'd be surprised if the cost of living wasn't cheaper in Chicago. You'd have to know some specifics to be able to compare apples to apples.
4x empty drive bays for expansion
Given it would be apple, that's going to be most of the way to your $900 budget right there...
There's something weird about saying the eighth version of a game is fun because multiplayer, then complaining you're tired of what I assume are JRPGs (which tend to be single player only) and FPS (which can be multiplayer or single player.)
In high school/college the group games played were mario kart, bond, timesplitters, and smash bros. Today from what I can tell, there are a ton of FPS multiplayer games ranging from very "serious" counterstrike or modern warfare to silly like team fortress 2 or splatoon. They've evolved a lot in 15-20 years.
And then there's kart and smash which are basically the same thing still...
I'd submit you're not "tired" of those games, you just don't like them as much. You don't need to justify your opinion! You can just not like FPS! Just don't pretend you dislike them because they're stale while you play mario kart 8.
I'd point out the structure at a microscopic level is important. It's not yet possible to set that up in a dish. The bile ducts and canniculi don't connect themselves into a functional network I think. Blood vessel formation in cultured liver tissues is also pretty rudimentary as of yet and doesn't make tissue that has proper blood flow. They're not getting liver samples in a dish that are close enough to functioning, at least as far as I've heard. But you're right that it does organize itself better than other organs or parts, and all the other organs and parts (aside from skin) have the same issues at the moment.
Scientists have been making liposomes since 1961, they're adding more and more functions to them every year. They're using them for drug delivery.
More importantly, your argument is stupid. Was anyone confused? If I say "I printed blue ink on the paper" do you assume the printer is making ink or using ink?
The "organ donation industry" is minuscule compared to big pharma who would be FOR this. As TFA says, "The company uses bioprinted tissue to test drug toxicity and effectiveness on behalf of Big Pharma companies including Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Merck & Co."
... anyway, really? Conspiracy theories about the organ donation industry? Aren't they non-profit? If they're so powerful, why is organ donation still an opt-in rather than an opt-out process? "Hey, how about you make people sign their drivers licenses NOT to have their organs harvested if they die in a crash, so that way we can save more lives?" If the organ donation industry has lobbyists and they're not saying that and are instead saying "Hey, how about you not fund making organs outside of people," then the organ donation industry is so stupid that we really don't need to worry about them. Bioprinting is still decades away probably from replacing livers, whearas we should have done the opt out thing decades ago. JFC, you paranoid people...
Drug safety testing in animals is woefully inaccurate and terribly expensive compared to using human cells in a dish. This improving would really decrease their costs.
No it's not yet because those things are more technically challenging. In genitals, you have dense arrays of nerves, pretty complex blood vessels, a bunch of "filler" tissue, the urethra, and skin. What is technically possible now is growing one type of cell or tissue, that's routine, with research starting to get into multiple types of cells grown together. Two different types of cells together gets much more complicated, and growing them together in a specific structure, rather than a random blend, at scales big enough to see without a microscope... that's beyond capabilities at the moment.
On top of that, the focus remains on the simpler tissues for economic reasons. If you can grow a liver in a dish (Organovo's main focus) you can make billions testing drugs for safety. One of the most common reasons expensive drug candidates fail is they kill your liver, another common reason is that drug candidates get processed in the liver to become something toxic to somewhere else. Doing this testing in animals is hideously expensive, slow, and often not very good at actually predicting how it will do in humans. Testing in human cells in a dish would be much easier. Drug testing is extremely expensive but also necessary. So it's a huge market. Genital replacement on the other hand is pretty low-demand compared to that. So there's huge economic advantages to focusing on the simpler goal, much less in creating much more complex genitals.
Genital repair should eventually be a goal though if we actually care at all about our soldiers or those other unfortunate individuals you mentioned. It's worth serious consideration, this is no joke, and feel free to smack down anyone in the future who brings it up lightly by pointing out it's an important goal even though "LOL WEINERS." And people are definitely working on it. Just it's not going to happen before we get livers in a dish.
Conservatives, ar least in the American form, do not care what color your skin is.
What's scary is that you actually believe this despite an abundance of scientific studies showing otherwise. Is there any way to disabuse you of this notion? How many peer-reviewed papers would it take to convince you that no, conservatives, liberals, apathetics, me, and you do in fact let race bias us?
Oh wow, that changes... well, nothing relevant really about today. Regressives are the more racist ones these days. But it's almost interesting.
And anyways isn't it a Progressive stance to bleat on about how there's too many undesirable people in the world and how to fix it?
No, and definitely not when it's thinly veiled "Brown people are to blame!" We are interested in fixing issues with the world, we're just uninterested in trying to claim it's all a massive moral failing on someone's part and make ourselves feel superior for it.
And you should realize that unlike the right, it's not a religion with us. If a key liberal position were there's too much babies and we need to stop trying to save lives, I'd be firmly opposed to that but would still be a liberal.
or providing alternatives to abortion.
You mean like lobbying to have birth control coverage mandated for all women and providing free birth control to women to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Yeah, that is nice of them to do.
/sarcasm. You make this far too easy.
Not yet. There's still a significant window where babies can't be supported out of the womb. This would be useful for early premature born babies, born months early, not from conception on. Doctors have been pushing back how early a baby can be born and still survive for a while now.
Scientists have recently also had breakthroughs on the other side of things, keeping embryos alive from IVF longer without implanting them, but that was pushing it forward a matter of days, not say into the second trimester.
I don't see a definite timeline on when technology will advance to the point of supporting embryos from conception to viability either. The research on pushing how long embryos are viable after conception without putting them in a mom is all academic for understanding how embryos form, it's not gearing towards what you're talking about in humans. There is a "14 day rule" established in the 70's saying you can't let human embryos develop beyond that in a petrie dish. That was established when 14 days after IVF seemed like an impossible barrier to overcome. Without a clear medical necessity, there's not going to be much of a push to remove that rule, and there is no clear medical necessity: surrogates, IVF, and adoption are all things. The pro-life crowd is going to oppose ending the rule. Granted, the pro-life crowd is really focused on slut-shaming and punishing women who don't want children, embryos in a dish are not really their thing, so it's not going to be as vicious as their attacks on planned parenthood.
I digress, my point is there's no strong push to figure out how to keep an embryo alive out of a womb from conception to a point where the bag would support life, so expect it will be a very long time before it's a possibility.
You think that babies being born out of the womb was the problem with the society in "Brave New World?"
Might I suggest you read the cliffs notes for "Brave New World" instead?
The populations in Africa and the Middle East have far exceeded the available resources in those regions, and they're now heavily dependent on handouts from Western nations. There's no sign of the reproduction rates slowing down in those regions, either.
You must be a trump voter, because you're bringing up a lot of alternative facts. Developing nations are becoming less dependent on the west. And the birth rate is in fact slowing down in all areas.
The focus should be on getting the reproduction rates in third-world regions back down to more reasonable levels, to prevent the never-ending stream of famines, wars, and disease outbreaks we've been witnessing in such regions lately.
Another Trump voter sign: imagining things used to be better in your youth when in fact they were quantifiably worse, and making decisions which are going to exacerbate the perceived problems. Diseases are at an all-time low thanks to hygiene, sanitation, and vaccines. Much of that has been thanks to aid from western nations to developing nations. Oil dependence is going to cause wars, climate change is going to cause famine, and neither of those things are going to be solved by lowering birth rates. Which, as we have already covered, are in decline already.
They were good when they first came out but literally ANYONE is now a better deal than Ting.
You've literally named one thing that appears to be better than ting in terms of price. AT&T is still a massive ripoff compared to Ting, I assume verizon and t mobile are too. Google fi isn't a clear winner over Ting in my experience either.
How toxic could it be if it wouldn't kill the caterpillars? Is it just plastic or is it plastic on the inside, concrete on the outside or something similar? Never spent much time around toxic ponds so I'm not familiar.
Why would caterpillars be any more dangerous than, say, good old explosives? I assume the caterpillars don't eat all plastic at a rate too rapid to stop, unlike a bomb.
Kind of skeptical any such plastic lined ponds are actually effective at anything aside from liability issues anyway. Or did I just arrive at the point?
Oh hey, you caught the hyperbole there... Almost...
There's a lot of finger pointing at the worst cases like those. Pretending it's only a few rotten apples allows investors and the industry to pretend it's not a vast sea of shit. Shkreli and Retrophin from the pharmaceutical industry for example, they were only the worst of the worst. Every damn pharma company out there is charging absurd amounts for old drugs and not spending any of it developing new ones. (The oft-cited 2.6 billion for each new drug is utter bullshit.)
Theranos was bad, but there are hundreds of "digital health" startups with way too much VC money for what amounts to either "lets put medical records on an ipad" or "it's like a fitbit but not called fitbit."
How the fuck is instagram or snapchat "innovative"?
"Innovation" means "creatively acting like the same old shit is new." So I guess yeah, money does follow innovation.
The event was already being criticized for "politicizing" science. "You're risking turning it from a non-partisan thing into a liberal vs conservative thing!" they say. "Conservatives will decide science is evil!"
While I think that's naive and stupid, thinking about how the message will be heard IS worthwhile.
"Science says you're having too many babies and that's contributing to climate change so stop!" Yeah, good fucking luck with that one. While you're at it, maybe sell republicans on the fact that taxes are necessary and can't always just be cut. Or Americans at large that Islamic terrorism is coming from our pointless defense of Israel and fighting wars on terrorism?
On top of that, it's a stupid fucking argument to be making. Carbon emissions are not evenly distributed. A handful of the worlds rich assholes (read: us) are doing the vast majority of the climate change (See figure 1). The fundamental problem is that you can get rich shitting in the water everyone is drinking, and there are also some shared benefits. All the birth control isn't going to do anything if people like those who run our government can still make a ton of money digging up carbon and the rest of us enjoy relatively cheap energy that everyone for generations to come is going to mostly pay for.
AND we can actually do something about that without doing anything unethical like forced sterilization. Carbon taxes. Nuclear or other clean energy. Those things you mentioned. Or burning fossil fuel industry people at the stake until no one is willing to do it anymore. All of those things make more sense, are more directly effective, and are less evil than prattling on about overpopulation.