1. Computer analysis will only eliminate the need for double blind medical trials when we can, from base principles, simulate a human from conception to death at the resolution of subatomic particles. (It may not be ethical to do so, as you'll be forcing a human being to live in a box their entire life.) Computer analysis will very likely reduce the amount of animal/human testing required, but will never prevent it.
2. Standard clinical trials in cases of critical disease do not use placebos. Instead they use the current gold standard for care for the disorder. These trials are not to determine if the new treatment works at all, but if it works better than what is available.
Actually, he only knew that he had glyphosphate resistant canola. He didn't know that it was someone's patented technology.
There is precedent for this. A significant amount of marijuana plants grown in areas with arial spraying campaigns are roundup-resistant. The farmers noted some plants were surviving the sprays and sent the seed to all their friends... There was concern that some drug cartel had hired a biotech specialist to engineer the plants, but DNA sequencing revealed no evidence of human tampering. The resistance was due to a novel mutation, distinct from the glyphosphate resistance mechanisms known before hand.
The canola farmer you mentioned did exactly what he is supposed to have done upon finding a superior variant in his crop.
The problem of escaped genes goes far beyond patent issues. Escaped genes can find their way into wild populations. The excaped genes in wild populations can be problematic because the genes provide such specific abilities.
This is not a problem unique to GMOs. Look up the plight of the California Walnut. In short it is being hybridized out of existence by the vast orchards of Carpathian Walnut now growing in California.
Product labeling is not difficult and is done for many reasons. The only argument against labeling products as GMO is that it takes product differentiation out of the hands of corporations and into the hands of consumers. "I won't tell you" and "I can't tell you" are outrageous responses to the natural desire to know what we are eating Using your past slashdot post as a reference is ridiculous especially as you have chosen to be no deep philosopher.
I like the idea of GMO labeling explaining what species the genetics in the plant come from, "This tomato includes a gene from the arctic char (available at the seafood counter)." Most schemes I've heard of seem to focus on simply stating that something is a GMO, without giving the consumer enough information to make a judgement.
The glyphosphate resistance gene was isolated from bacteria growing in the wastewater of a Monsanto chemical plant which manufactured glyphosphate. Also, glyphosphate kills nightshades just fine.
Proportion. You'd have to have a relatively small influence (mankind's greenhouse gas emissions) cause a huge out of proportion change.
The physics is pretty simple to go from the scale of influence we have and the consequences we're seeing and those we predict for our future. You seem to be imparting a minimal emotional significance to the pollution, but a high emotional significance to the result of that pollution. Emotional significance doesn't play into the physical reality we're dealing with.
If we were generating that much pollution, we would all be dead, there'd be no oxygen left in the atmosphere at all. There MUST be other influences.
"...we would all be dead" : strong assumption without evidence.
"...there'd be no oxygen left" : strong assumption without evidence.
Even then, there is no really good reason to think the very first life forms were all that different from the chemistry that was going on around them.
As organisms are organized chemicals and structures to deal with the environment, hence to
The vary earliest of life forms wouldn't have necessarily have had to deal with much of anything aside from absorbing the readily available food. The first predation probably occurred when some component of the slurry ran out and something figured out how to get that component from someone else (who was still figuring out how to use it).
what I meant. Especially the conditions we currently conceive of as probably on early Earth. But to put it generally, all non-life conditions are essentially hostile to lifeforms.
Now, generally, yes. At the very start, with useful molecules all over the place with nothing to eat them... it is not so certain. This is the sort of thing that makes this topic interesting.
Don't know that I have ever actually used this myself, but I actually LOLed.
So we go from internal to external digestion with just a little hint of biological warfare?
External digestion is the simpler state, and there is nothing in biology that isn't biological warfare.
The actual fact that the other organism is a highly organized set of chemicals to qualify as life in the first place perhaps might defy simply generalizing that one need only spit something at them which causes disorder and the other is barely distinguishable from food to the more evolved organism, given that the latter itself would have to be able to survive other harsh conditions that should cause disorder or breakdown without such countermeasures.
The other organism would not have to be a 'highly organized set of chemicals' to qualify as life in the first place. You and I are barely distinguishable from food for bacteria, but we've evolved to deal with them specifically. Why would there be other harsh conditions?
Fun to talk though, keep it coming. I am interested in anything you have to show me I am wrong, and eager to learn.
Abiogenesis is an area of spent a lot of time thinking about, but it is really hard to do real science in because... well, we have no idea how it really happened in our specific case.
I was a biology student until getting rather sick, and would be going back perhaps soon if it weren't for a family member needing oversight and care, so my exposure to the discipline for the good part of several years has been limited to neurobiology and to some advanced research on the role of a certain protein (I can't actually talk about in specifics) in effects upon mental development and capability for a friend getting a PhD in that arena, (checking for problems in her theories, papers, etc.), and helping sort through students' papers for problems in their grading (though of course ensuring all decisions made final are by her review since she was in charge of those classes; also to help check to see her standards were applied consistently from beginning to end of grading to make sure students are treated fairly rather than varying due to being near the top of the stack where a grader is sure to be less tired and frustrated, or near the end).
Fortunately, just taking a break from school doesn't impair your ability to get back into it in the future if you're interested in doing so. I was between school and school for six years. If the reason for the break was failing out of school... it will just take a bit more motivation.;-)
From that perspective, so sorry for your graduate status: it is often comparable to slavery these days, and no real protections or safeguards from the institution which can spit someone out at any time or heap enough atop someone to just crush them. Congrats on being in your final year: the proverbial light at the tunnel's end is good to see in any endeavor suffered long.
It's really not that bad, so long as you're interested in the subject within which you're working. It also helps if you're working in a modern science, as there will be plenty of money around. If you're in grad school for english rhetoric... maybe not.
It is fairly common for science writing to be in the passive tense... "This was done..." rather than "I did this..." The intent is to place the emphasis on the work, rather than who did the work. Sometimes it gets out of hand and is really annoying...
Yes, I actually am a biologist, a year away from completing my PhD on the subject.
Actually, this is exactly the dictionary biological definition of evolution. Random mutations are always happening in any yeast culture and their selection forces genetic changes in the resulting population. The term, 'clustering genotypes' does not in any way refer to genotypes existing before the experiment. As they will have started the experiment with a single cell, (standard yeast research practice which was not mentioned in the paper because they couldn't imagine anyone ever thinking they would do otherwise), there was no pre-existing clustering genotypes.The mutating agent in this case is the biology of the organism and is not the subject under examination, so of course they didn't discuss it.
Yes, I actually am a biologist, a year away from completing my PhD on the subject.
This elephant doesn't exist. Yeast researchers routinely streak out the cells on plate media. This process dilutes the cells until you can be sure of getting a few individual cells per square inch. Each single cell then grow up to form a visible colony, which is then used experimentally. In that one colony there is genetic diversity, but it did not exist from before the single cell was isolated.
Yes, I actually am a biologist, a year away from completing my PhD on the subject.
You don't need phagocytosis to feed on other new-biogenesised organisms. All you need is to spit something at them which adds some disorder or breaks down some component. As these new organisms would be barely distinguishable from the food for the first organism...
Yes, I actually am a biologist, a year away from completing my PhD on the subject.
Yeast are used because they are easy and cheap to grow in large numbers and are relatively simple to do a large range of experiments on.
Why haven't they already sequenced them? It takes a big chunk of time. I've been waiting for the past three months for the genomes of a set of strains I sent off for deep-sequencing.
Also, when my boss spoke with the researcher in question, they didn't seem interested in what the specific mutations involved in this transition were, but rather how the change can impact viability under specific scenarios. They may have changed their mind since then. (If I was really interested, I'd call them up and ask.... I've got enough on my plate, so I'm not that interested.)
Yes, I actually am a biologist, a year away from completing my PhD on the subject.
It's well known DNA can express in many different ways without true evolution. We've come a long way from the theory of Lamarckian evolutionary theory (evolution of acquired characteristics). One is example: exons, which can express differently across generations based on environmental conditions-- without actual change to the DNA.
An exon is simply the part of a gene which leaves the nucleus. Essentially what you've said is that genes are expressed differently under different conditions. This is true, but this is not what the researchers are seeing.
If the yeast cells were to clump when they were exposed to a specific drug, but then fragment again when the drug went away, your point would have some utility. In the conditions they have described, there is either a bona fide genetic change (change in the DNA) or there is an epigenetic change (change in the DNA) involved.
Yes, I actually am a biologist, a year away from completing my PhD on the subject.
'Genetic drift' actually refers to genetic change in an undirected, random manner. Vast space and time separations are not needed. You would explicitly expect genetic drift in a test-tube of yeast. Finding it would not be an interesting result in any way.
Yes, I actually am a biologist, a year away from completing my PhD on the subject.
All that activity isn't to maintain health in the zero-G environment... it is so the user will remain functional in full gravity when they return. If we're talking colonization, we can dispense with the heavy exercise.
People living in microgravity long term may find health issues related to those conditions, but we haven't yet seen them. Mice have gone through a full reproductive cycle in space, without significant defect.
I'm looking forward to therapies derived from studies of hibernating bears... which show none of the bone/muscle/etc loss a human would under a similar exercise routine.
The reason people die from extreme cold is generally cardiac arrest. Certain ion transporters are required for maintaining proper ionic balance in the blood. These transporters fail to operate at extremely low temperatures, resulting in ionic imbalance, resulting in heart attack. Medical treatments to fix this problem are being worked on by researchers in Russia.
There may yet be some other mechanism of death after this one, before death by cryo-disruption from ice crystals.
If we had tracking stations on these things, then we could use them to get a much better estimation of the distribution of mass in our solar system at any given time.
Alcohol does inhibit formation of new nerve connections... it makes the proteins used to stick the cell processes together less sticky. This is what leads to fetal alcohol syndrome. But, you're correct in that it doesn't kill the cells (without some extreme dosing).
Slashdot Mirror
I have two major responses :
1. Computer analysis will only eliminate the need for double blind medical trials when we can, from base principles, simulate a human from conception to death at the resolution of subatomic particles. (It may not be ethical to do so, as you'll be forcing a human being to live in a box their entire life.) Computer analysis will very likely reduce the amount of animal/human testing required, but will never prevent it.
2. Standard clinical trials in cases of critical disease do not use placebos. Instead they use the current gold standard for care for the disorder. These trials are not to determine if the new treatment works at all, but if it works better than what is available.
Actually, he only knew that he had glyphosphate resistant canola. He didn't know that it was someone's patented technology.
There is precedent for this. A significant amount of marijuana plants grown in areas with arial spraying campaigns are roundup-resistant. The farmers noted some plants were surviving the sprays and sent the seed to all their friends... There was concern that some drug cartel had hired a biotech specialist to engineer the plants, but DNA sequencing revealed no evidence of human tampering. The resistance was due to a novel mutation, distinct from the glyphosphate resistance mechanisms known before hand.
The canola farmer you mentioned did exactly what he is supposed to have done upon finding a superior variant in his crop.
The problem of escaped genes goes far beyond patent issues. Escaped genes can find their way into wild populations. The excaped genes in wild populations can be problematic because the genes provide such specific abilities.
This is not a problem unique to GMOs. Look up the plight of the California Walnut. In short it is being hybridized out of existence by the vast orchards of Carpathian Walnut now growing in California.
Product labeling is not difficult and is done for many reasons. The only argument against labeling products as GMO is that it takes product differentiation out of the hands of corporations and into the hands of consumers. "I won't tell you" and "I can't tell you" are outrageous responses to the natural desire to know what we are eating Using your past slashdot post as a reference is ridiculous especially as you have chosen to be no deep philosopher.
I like the idea of GMO labeling explaining what species the genetics in the plant come from, "This tomato includes a gene from the arctic char (available at the seafood counter)." Most schemes I've heard of seem to focus on simply stating that something is a GMO, without giving the consumer enough information to make a judgement.
The glyphosphate resistance gene was isolated from bacteria growing in the wastewater of a Monsanto chemical plant which manufactured glyphosphate. Also, glyphosphate kills nightshades just fine.
They don't inject radiation into you.
Yes, I am a biologist.
Proportion. You'd have to have a relatively small influence (mankind's greenhouse gas emissions) cause a huge out of proportion change.
The physics is pretty simple to go from the scale of influence we have and the consequences we're seeing and those we predict for our future. You seem to be imparting a minimal emotional significance to the pollution, but a high emotional significance to the result of that pollution. Emotional significance doesn't play into the physical reality we're dealing with.
If we were generating that much pollution, we would all be dead, there'd be no oxygen left in the atmosphere at all. There MUST be other influences.
"...we would all be dead" : strong assumption without evidence.
"...there'd be no oxygen left" : strong assumption without evidence.
Where are you getting these assumptions from?
Oh, we've already had it bumped because the primary vendor/collaborator was experiencing problems.
I mean compared to the environment around them.
Even then, there is no really good reason to think the very first life forms were all that different from the chemistry that was going on around them.
As organisms are organized chemicals and structures to deal with the environment, hence to
The vary earliest of life forms wouldn't have necessarily have had to deal with much of anything aside from absorbing the readily available food. The first predation probably occurred when some component of the slurry ran out and something figured out how to get that component from someone else (who was still figuring out how to use it).
what I meant. Especially the conditions we currently conceive of as probably on early Earth. But to put it generally, all non-life conditions are essentially hostile to lifeforms.
Now, generally, yes. At the very start, with useful molecules all over the place with nothing to eat them... it is not so certain. This is the sort of thing that makes this topic interesting.
Don't know that I have ever actually used this myself, but I actually LOLed.
;-)
So we go from internal to external digestion with just a little hint of biological warfare?
External digestion is the simpler state, and there is nothing in biology that isn't biological warfare.
The actual fact that the other organism is a highly organized set of chemicals to qualify as life in the first place perhaps might defy simply generalizing that one need only spit something at them which causes disorder and the other is barely distinguishable from food to the more evolved organism, given that the latter itself would have to be able to survive other harsh conditions that should cause disorder or breakdown without such countermeasures.
The other organism would not have to be a 'highly organized set of chemicals' to qualify as life in the first place. You and I are barely distinguishable from food for bacteria, but we've evolved to deal with them specifically. Why would there be other harsh conditions?
Fun to talk though, keep it coming. I am interested in anything you have to show me I am wrong, and eager to learn.
Abiogenesis is an area of spent a lot of time thinking about, but it is really hard to do real science in because... well, we have no idea how it really happened in our specific case.
I was a biology student until getting rather sick, and would be going back perhaps soon if it weren't for a family member needing oversight and care, so my exposure to the discipline for the good part of several years has been limited to neurobiology and to some advanced research on the role of a certain protein (I can't actually talk about in specifics) in effects upon mental development and capability for a friend getting a PhD in that arena, (checking for problems in her theories, papers, etc.), and helping sort through students' papers for problems in their grading (though of course ensuring all decisions made final are by her review since she was in charge of those classes; also to help check to see her standards were applied consistently from beginning to end of grading to make sure students are treated fairly rather than varying due to being near the top of the stack where a grader is sure to be less tired and frustrated, or near the end).
Fortunately, just taking a break from school doesn't impair your ability to get back into it in the future if you're interested in doing so. I was between school and school for six years. If the reason for the break was failing out of school... it will just take a bit more motivation. ;-)
From that perspective, so sorry for your graduate status: it is often comparable to slavery these days, and no real protections or safeguards from the institution which can spit someone out at any time or heap enough atop someone to just crush them. Congrats on being in your final year: the proverbial light at the tunnel's end is good to see in any endeavor suffered long.
It's really not that bad, so long as you're interested in the subject within which you're working. It also helps if you're working in a modern science, as there will be plenty of money around. If you're in grad school for english rhetoric... maybe not.
It is fairly common for science writing to be in the passive tense... "This was done..." rather than "I did this..." The intent is to place the emphasis on the work, rather than who did the work. Sometimes it gets out of hand and is really annoying...
Yes, I actually am a biologist, a year away from completing my PhD on the subject.
Actually, this is exactly the dictionary biological definition of evolution. Random mutations are always happening in any yeast culture and their selection forces genetic changes in the resulting population. The term, 'clustering genotypes' does not in any way refer to genotypes existing before the experiment. As they will have started the experiment with a single cell, (standard yeast research practice which was not mentioned in the paper because they couldn't imagine anyone ever thinking they would do otherwise), there was no pre-existing clustering genotypes.The mutating agent in this case is the biology of the organism and is not the subject under examination, so of course they didn't discuss it.
Yes, I actually am a biologist, a year away from completing my PhD on the subject.
This elephant doesn't exist. Yeast researchers routinely streak out the cells on plate media. This process dilutes the cells until you can be sure of getting a few individual cells per square inch. Each single cell then grow up to form a visible colony, which is then used experimentally. In that one colony there is genetic diversity, but it did not exist from before the single cell was isolated.
Yes, I actually am a biologist, a year away from completing my PhD on the subject.
You don't need phagocytosis to feed on other new-biogenesised organisms. All you need is to spit something at them which adds some disorder or breaks down some component. As these new organisms would be barely distinguishable from the food for the first organism...
Yes, I actually am a biologist, a year away from completing my PhD on the subject.
Yeast are used because they are easy and cheap to grow in large numbers and are relatively simple to do a large range of experiments on.
Why haven't they already sequenced them? It takes a big chunk of time. I've been waiting for the past three months for the genomes of a set of strains I sent off for deep-sequencing.
Also, when my boss spoke with the researcher in question, they didn't seem interested in what the specific mutations involved in this transition were, but rather how the change can impact viability under specific scenarios. They may have changed their mind since then. (If I was really interested, I'd call them up and ask.... I've got enough on my plate, so I'm not that interested.)
Yes, I actually am a biologist, a year away from completing my PhD on the subject.
It's well known DNA can express in many different ways without true evolution. We've come a long way from the theory of Lamarckian evolutionary theory (evolution of acquired characteristics). One is example: exons, which can express differently across generations based on environmental conditions-- without actual change to the DNA.
An exon is simply the part of a gene which leaves the nucleus. Essentially what you've said is that genes are expressed differently under different conditions. This is true, but this is not what the researchers are seeing.
If the yeast cells were to clump when they were exposed to a specific drug, but then fragment again when the drug went away, your point would have some utility. In the conditions they have described, there is either a bona fide genetic change (change in the DNA) or there is an epigenetic change (change in the DNA) involved.
Yes, I actually am a biologist, a year away from completing my PhD on the subject.
'Genetic drift' actually refers to genetic change in an undirected, random manner. Vast space and time separations are not needed. You would explicitly expect genetic drift in a test-tube of yeast. Finding it would not be an interesting result in any way.
Yes, I actually am a biologist, a year away from completing my PhD on the subject.
I read your comment three times and I still can't understand what you were trying to convey in the first sentence.
All that activity isn't to maintain health in the zero-G environment... it is so the user will remain functional in full gravity when they return. If we're talking colonization, we can dispense with the heavy exercise.
People living in microgravity long term may find health issues related to those conditions, but we haven't yet seen them. Mice have gone through a full reproductive cycle in space, without significant defect.
I'm looking forward to therapies derived from studies of hibernating bears... which show none of the bone/muscle/etc loss a human would under a similar exercise routine.
The reason people die from extreme cold is generally cardiac arrest. Certain ion transporters are required for maintaining proper ionic balance in the blood. These transporters fail to operate at extremely low temperatures, resulting in ionic imbalance, resulting in heart attack. Medical treatments to fix this problem are being worked on by researchers in Russia.
There may yet be some other mechanism of death after this one, before death by cryo-disruption from ice crystals.
I prefer the idea of a Venusian solar shield. That or transfer of Venusian atmosphere to Mars in order to get two usable planets.
Both are long term projects, but similar in scale to your proposal.
Keep in mind, when they say 'salmon DNA', they mean 'DNA from salmon sperm'. Why? Salmon sperm is the cheapest bulk DNA product on the market.
You might not have noticed that GoDaddy was strongly brought to heel in regard to this issue, by their clients leaving in droves.
If we had tracking stations on these things, then we could use them to get a much better estimation of the distribution of mass in our solar system at any given time.
Alcohol does inhibit formation of new nerve connections... it makes the proteins used to stick the cell processes together less sticky. This is what leads to fetal alcohol syndrome. But, you're correct in that it doesn't kill the cells (without some extreme dosing).
You can buy welding goggles which do exactly this, retail.