Oh, unless of course the technique is useful to the embryo. Forgot to mention this important exception...
Nevertheless, the Court points out that
the patentability of uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes is not prohibited
under the Directive where it concerns the use for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which are
applied to the human embryo and which are useful to it – for example to correct a malformation
and improve the chances of life.
In conclusion,
the Court holds that an invention is excluded from patentability where the implementation of the
process requires either the prior destruction of human embryos or their prior use as base material,
even if, in the patent application, the description of that process, as in the present case, does not
refer to the use of human embryos.
Static magnetic fields definitely/do/ affect CRT displays, and it doesn't require that strong of a field, either.
Any regular old bar magnet will cause significant distortion (picture, color); actually this is one of the best ways of visualizing magnetic fields for students. Though it requires an old TV no one cares about it's a bit more exciting than iron filings or "black sand."
The Exploratorium in San Francisco has an exhibit demonstrating this.
There is a difference between an academic publication accessible to a small number of people, and science journalism conducted by reporters writing for a public audience.
They are suppressing a popularized account based on her explanations to reporters, not the technical account which few could understand.
Long-term population viability of Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) is threatened by unusually high levels of mortality as they swim to their spawning areas before they spawn. Functional genomic studies on biopsied gill tissue from tagged wild adults that were tracked through ocean and river environments revealed physiological profiles predictive of successful migration and spawning. We identified a common genomic profile that was correlated with survival in each study. In ocean-tagged fish, a mortality-related genomic signature was associated with a 13.5-fold greater chance of dying en route. In river-tagged fish, the same genomic signature was associated with a 50% increase in mortality before reaching the spawning grounds in one of three stocks tested. At the spawning grounds, the same signature was associated with 3.7-fold greater odds of dying without spawning. Functional analysis raises the possibility that the mortality-related signature reflects a viral infection.
The DOI is 10.1126/science.1196901.
The genomic signature that their microarray analysis identified suggests: 1) infection by a virus (virus associated pathways activated), 2) a possible connection to certain leukemias (same reason) and 3) osmotic gradient control malfunctions contributing to stress and mortality (same reason). Apologies to those without access - but Science isn't open - but their methods seem very sound.
I really don't see the point of suppressing this. All that media attention would change is how polished her presentation is when that commission or whatever gets around to talking to her.
The NIH eventually went even further and mandated that all future NIH-funded articles needed to be uploaded to the PubMed Central database after six months. I don't think they even agreed to compensate the journal publishers; NIH-funded research makes up such a huge fraction of biomedical publications that they can do whatever they want. Since virtually everyone, including biotech and pharma companies, despise the scientific publishers, there is considerable political support for further moves in this direction.
I think most of us (academics) agree on the issue, but the NIH needs to aggressively enforce the new rules. Whether or not one's NIH funded work was published in open-access journals or posted on PubMed should be a condition for the funding of future proposals, and one that is checked rigorously.
Many academics really are blissfully ignorant of the real struggles faced by researchers attempting to acquire essential literature at places like SFSU (e.g. moi) and the other California State Universities. Even our limited access isn't constant - depending on funding constraints and/or the time of year (!) I may or may not be able to read the same papers. When my ability to do research, and therefore the future of my career, is at stake I certainly stoop to using SSH accounts from previous institutions, long forgotten by the overworked sysadmins, to download papers. Shhhhhh, don't tell.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't require an atmosphere and can be done with one beam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers
No, the ruling is against techniques that destroy the embryo or require "their prior use as a base material."
Nevertheless, the Court points out that the patentability of uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes is not prohibited under the Directive where it concerns the use for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which are applied to the human embryo and which are useful to it – for example to correct a malformation and improve the chances of life.
The official press release is here. It is much more specific and easier to interpret than the BBC article, which is perfunctory as usual.
In conclusion, the Court holds that an invention is excluded from patentability where the implementation of the process requires either the prior destruction of human embryos or their prior use as base material, even if, in the patent application, the description of that process, as in the present case, does not refer to the use of human embryos.
a group of men
Maybe that's the problem.
Static magnetic fields definitely /do/ affect CRT displays, and it doesn't require that strong of a field, either.
Any regular old bar magnet will cause significant distortion (picture, color); actually this is one of the best ways of visualizing magnetic fields for students. Though it requires an old TV no one cares about it's a bit more exciting than iron filings or "black sand."
The Exploratorium in San Francisco has an exhibit demonstrating this.
There is a difference between an academic publication accessible to a small number of people, and science journalism conducted by reporters writing for a public audience.
They are suppressing a popularized account based on her explanations to reporters, not the technical account which few could understand.
Few years yet I guess.
Long-term population viability of Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) is threatened by unusually high levels of mortality as they swim to their spawning areas before they spawn. Functional genomic studies on biopsied gill tissue from tagged wild adults that were tracked through ocean and river environments revealed physiological profiles predictive of successful migration and spawning. We identified a common genomic profile that was correlated with survival in each study. In ocean-tagged fish, a mortality-related genomic signature was associated with a 13.5-fold greater chance of dying en route. In river-tagged fish, the same genomic signature was associated with a 50% increase in mortality before reaching the spawning grounds in one of three stocks tested. At the spawning grounds, the same signature was associated with 3.7-fold greater odds of dying without spawning. Functional analysis raises the possibility that the mortality-related signature reflects a viral infection.
The DOI is 10.1126/science.1196901.
The genomic signature that their microarray analysis identified suggests: 1) infection by a virus (virus associated pathways activated), 2) a possible connection to certain leukemias (same reason) and 3) osmotic gradient control malfunctions contributing to stress and mortality (same reason). Apologies to those without access - but Science isn't open - but their methods seem very sound. I really don't see the point of suppressing this. All that media attention would change is how polished her presentation is when that commission or whatever gets around to talking to her.
P.S. The biopsies were non-lethal!
The NIH eventually went even further and mandated that all future NIH-funded articles needed to be uploaded to the PubMed Central database after six months. I don't think they even agreed to compensate the journal publishers; NIH-funded research makes up such a huge fraction of biomedical publications that they can do whatever they want. Since virtually everyone, including biotech and pharma companies, despise the scientific publishers, there is considerable political support for further moves in this direction.
I think most of us (academics) agree on the issue, but the NIH needs to aggressively enforce the new rules. Whether or not one's NIH funded work was published in open-access journals or posted on PubMed should be a condition for the funding of future proposals, and one that is checked rigorously.
Many academics really are blissfully ignorant of the real struggles faced by researchers attempting to acquire essential literature at places like SFSU (e.g. moi) and the other California State Universities. Even our limited access isn't constant - depending on funding constraints and/or the time of year (!) I may or may not be able to read the same papers. When my ability to do research, and therefore the future of my career, is at stake I certainly stoop to using SSH accounts from previous institutions, long forgotten by the overworked sysadmins, to download papers. Shhhhhh, don't tell.