They'll do that too. This just lets you see one important aspect of the drug's activity really clearly and let's you get a little quantitative about the effects too. Admittedly, the really cool thing isn't the application but that they've built something that moves like a jellyfish when you apply an electric field across it in water.
From the source story: "For decades, scientists have known that Andromeda is falling towards our home Galaxy at a rate of 110 kilometres per second and that the two might eventually collide as a result of their mutual gravity. But because astronomers could easily measure Andromeda’s velocity only along the line of sight to Earth, no one could be sure whether the future encounter would constitute a major merger, a near-miss or a glancing blow. Hubble’s visual acuity in recording the transverse or sideways motion of 15,000 stars in different parts of Andromeda has now provided the missing components of the galaxy’s motion. In determining that the overall sideways velocity of Andromeda is much smaller than its line-of-sight speed, van der Marel and his colleagues have shown that a merger of Andromeda and the Milky Way is inevitable."
Wow. It's almost like Slashdot links to sources for a reason.
Right - Yes GPS doesn't work underwater but that doesn't matter. The detectors are mostly close to shore - they detect the seismic waves. As tsunamis are caused by earthquakes out to sea (as one commenter notes) the tsunami follows some time later - depending on how far from shore the earthquake happened. According to the source story, GPS measurements of the ground movement (close to shore) is MORE accurate than the seismometer readings. Seismometers detect the amount of shaking but struggle with the duration - which is a key part of what makes big earthquakes big.
Quoting from the source: "But seismometers have limitations. "They do a beautiful job discriminating among magnitude 2, 3, 4, 6, earthquakes," says Melbourne. "But they run into trouble where you have to distinguish a magnitude 8 from a magnitude 9." This is partly because in big quakes, the ground may shake for longer, but not significantly harder.
Melbourne and Allen use the Japan earthquake as an example. In March 2011, Japanese officials relying on seismometer data were able to issue earthquake warnings within eight seconds of detecting that something major was going on. "But they thought it was magnitude 7.1," says Allen. The estimate increased to 8.1 within 2 minutes, but it took another 20 minutes to reach the final value of magnitude 9.
Right! Essentially, as the source story says, dinosaurs ended up competing with their own young in a way that mammals didn't. Mammals were able to occupy all niches - ie niches appropriate for small and medium sized animals, while adult dinos had to keep getting larger and larger to keep their competitive edge. The two papers are pretty neat and work well together - one shows the traditional hypothesis isn't right (environment doesn't correlate to dino size), the other suggests a credible reason why.
So the algorithm found 329 adverse effects which were not known previously. Has someone spent the time in checking the validity of the algorithm by doing studies to check these claims? If not, this is mostly paranoia.
RTFS. They've looked at electronic medical records and confirmed the prediction in the case of thiazides and SSRIs. They're planning more tests - eg a clinical trial.
Some studies in the 1950s that used LSD to treat alcoholism professed a 50% success rate,[29] five times higher than estimates near 10% for Alcoholics Anonymous.[30] A 1998 review was inconclusive.[31]
Because it's a meta-analysis - like the story says. Each of the trials that wikipedia mentions is underpowered by itself - the results are not strongly significant even when they did show 'an effect'. The reason was they were often unable to recruit enough people for the trial. There were also trials that showed little effect (and as the review you quote says - the overall evidence was 'inconclusive'). This is the most comprehensive analysis to date of exactly those past studies - and the picture is more complete and convincing - there IS an effect. The question is now - is there enough evidence to warrant a proper trial and collect the really important long term data?
Hi - digging a bit deeper into this story - 1. Demethylation - removing methyl groups from DNA - generally activates genes. 2. In this case, the scientists are not 100% sure what demethylation of these genes means - it could mean they're being activated but they're not sure yet. More research required... 3. The observation that there are these sorts of epigenetic changes though in response to exercise is in itself really interesting. You do some exercise and within minutes you get changes to your DNA? That's pretty awesome. 4. The metabolic genes cited are not directly involved with metabolism - they're on various pathways involved in metabolism. So it's quite possible that what they're seeing is an uptick in genes linked to energy production.
As for the New Scientist article "Now there is no excuse to avoid the gym: just one hour of exercise instantly changes your genes to boost the breakdown of fat." There's no evidence of that at all. It may not have anything to do with 'fat' - they're genes involved in metabolism - I think that's all we know.
Yep exactly. There are two problems here. 1. Celltex hasn't done any clinical trials of any sort. To prove a treatment works you need a double-blind trial at least - administer placebo to one group, and the cells to another and make sure the physician in charge doesn't know which one is being given to which patient. Then when you 'unblind' the trial and reveal which patient got what - that's when (if it's worked) you start charging. In the trial phase, a company should be providing the treatment free with placebo and working with the FDA. They shouldn't be charging for voodoo treatments/homeopathy. 2. Big conflict of interest for McGee from the start - it's difficult to claim you can independently assess papers on bioethics, when many of the papers are likely to be about stem cells and trials but you're being paid by a firm that is growing stem cells.
As the (accidentally unlinked when I submitted) Nature story says, McGee claimed he hoped by being inside the company, he could push them to do trials properly. When it became clear they were already treating patients and probably weren't too interested in testing the treatments, he quit. At least, that's one interpretation....
....since the last post on this - check the comment stream on the last slashdot update.
As I said there:
"It's more than a rumour, as this later report from Nature makes clear. There is an OPERA statement circulating today that suggests two potential problems with the set-up. One is the one reported here - the cable issue - the second is a problem with "the experiment’s pioneering use of Global Positioning System (GPS) signals to synchronize atomic clocks at each end of its neutrino beam". But you're right - they haven't made a public statement yet nor been able to quantify yet the contribution of each to the potential error. It doesn't look good for them though."
Here's the Nature story from three days ago. It explains there were two sources of error, and that "These two issues can modify the neutrino time of flight in opposite directions". The story posted by ScienceInsider seems in-fact to have been wide of the mark - it stated that the cable issue alone could account for the 60 nanosecond effect. OPERA have yet to confirm that - and as the new post above says - the other error could push things the other way. But it doesn't look good for those FTL neutrinos.
So in short, I guess I should have slashdotted the Nature story instead of making a community contribution to a post that got the story er... wrong by being just plain too quick off the mark. Doh.
Oh yeah and quit blaming 'the press'. I saw lots of accurate coverage - not just by Nature and Science but by the Guardian and the BBC. All stories stated the results were incredibly unlikely to hold and explained why. But you expect journalists not to report on a paper that was posted to arXiv - thus in the public domain - and suggested that Einstein's special theory of relativity might have been broken? Let's get real.
It's more than a rumour, as this later report from Nature makes clear. There is an OPERA statement circulating today that suggests two potential problems with the set-up. One is the one reported here - the cable issue - the second is a problem with "the experiment’s pioneering use of Global Positioning System (GPS) signals to synchronize atomic clocks at each end of its neutrino beam". But you're right - they haven't made a public statement yet nor been able to quantify yet the contribution of each to the potential error. It doesn't look good for them though.
Well this piece isn't about sex, car crashes or celeb gossip - so I guess it's news.
Seriously folks - this is a piece relating to a huge piece of scientific equipment that won scientists a few Nobels.It ties in that to the current financial situation in science. It also reports that the plan to display this to the public may be shelved (if the proposal to gut it entirely is accepted). Important stuff for scientists and those who are interested in the climate for basic science in the US. This isn't news?
If it isn't to you, it clearly is to other Slashdotters.
I'm confused why this is news. Can I buy the parts or something? What does it matter if they're selling the parts.
Woah! So it's not news or interesting unless you are *directly* affected? Generation Me or what, dude? They're taking apart one of your nation's national treasures. Bits of it are being recommissioned because your physicists are broke. It's OK, you're right. Let's leave this "peer into the fabric of the universe and wonder at its awesomeness" stuff up to the Europeans. They'll have the Higgs by the end of the year anyway.
Hi - I think actually that the linked Nature news article answers your question. In short, yes it is a problem with the technology as it stands but...
"What’s more, the nanorobots are quickly cleared by the liver or destroyed by nucleases, enzymes chew up stray bits of DNA. It might be possible to coat them with a substance such as polyethylene glycol, widely used to boost the length of time a drug can remain in the body, says Douglas, or “maybe to borrow inspiration from other biomolecules or cells” — such as red blood cells — “that can circulate in the blood for a long time”. He and his colleagues are just beginning to think about testing the nanobots in mice, he says."
So its possible PEG might prevent the bots from being broken down quickly. As for the DNA somehow getting into the cell, the danger seems quite small - not only would it have to get into the cell, but it would then have to get into the nucleus. Unless it then had a start codon, I guess it would have to incorporate into the genome, and then somehow avoid then immediately being removed by DNA correction enzymes...?
WSJ has now published a letter from climate scientists challenging this op-ed (Quoting first 3 pars):
"Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.
You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.
Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter."
"The result, they say, is a challenge to proponents of intelligent design who maintain that complex biological systems can only have been created by a divine force."
Oh, come on! You aren't even trying to be honest at this point! No one who can access the Internet has any excuse to give such a sloppy definition of Intelligent Design.
OK, say it with me: "Irreducible Complexity." Do you understand the words coming out of my keyboard? Apparently not! The term is IC, not just C. Even though some evolutionists deny that any complex system is irreducibly complex, that is not justification for distorting the ID position.
I think it would be fair to say that the blog post is more of an excuse for highlighting some mind-blowingly good molecular biology and the ID is an after-thought. As it should be to anyone with a fair grip on biology.
Ananyo
A database of negative results is actually already in beta:
http://figshare.com/
Psychology professor Jonathan Schooler also called for a negative trials database in Nature in February last year. He says it's possible such results could explain the 'decline effect' that plagues science
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110223/full/470437a.html
They've banned animal dissection in -universities- not high school (check the article).
"The University Grants Commission (UGC), the national body in New Delhi that funds and governs Indian universities, announced new rules earlier this month that would phase out almost all animal dissection and replace it with teaching using computer simulations and models."
This is about research. The less experience biology students have in dissecting animals, the more problems they'll have during their PhD and the more problems biotechs and phara companies will have in getting the skills they need to do proper animal experiments and trials with new therapies.
So this is a bad move IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. In an extraordinarily limited and uninteresting way.
They'll do that too. This just lets you see one important aspect of the drug's activity really clearly and let's you get a little quantitative about the effects too. Admittedly, the really cool thing isn't the application but that they've built something that moves like a jellyfish when you apply an electric field across it in water.
Nature also has a story on the research for those seeking an overview.
Thank-you!
From the source story:
"For decades, scientists have known that Andromeda is falling towards our home Galaxy at a rate of 110 kilometres per second and that the two might eventually collide as a result of their mutual gravity. But because astronomers could easily measure Andromeda’s velocity only along the line of sight to Earth, no one could be sure whether the future encounter would constitute a major merger, a near-miss or a glancing blow.
Hubble’s visual acuity in recording the transverse or sideways motion of 15,000 stars in different parts of Andromeda has now provided the missing components of the galaxy’s motion. In determining that the overall sideways velocity of Andromeda is much smaller than its line-of-sight speed, van der Marel and his colleagues have shown that a merger of Andromeda and the Milky Way is inevitable."
Wow. It's almost like Slashdot links to sources for a reason.
Right - Yes GPS doesn't work underwater but that doesn't matter. The detectors are mostly close to shore - they detect the seismic waves. As tsunamis are caused by earthquakes out to sea (as one commenter notes) the tsunami follows some time later - depending on how far from shore the earthquake happened.
According to the source story, GPS measurements of the ground movement (close to shore) is MORE accurate than the seismometer readings. Seismometers detect the amount of shaking but struggle with the duration - which is a key part of what makes big earthquakes big.
Quoting from the source:
"But seismometers have limitations. "They do a beautiful job discriminating among magnitude 2, 3, 4, 6, earthquakes," says Melbourne. "But they run into trouble where you have to distinguish a magnitude 8 from a magnitude 9." This is partly because in big quakes, the ground may shake for longer, but not significantly harder.
Melbourne and Allen use the Japan earthquake as an example. In March 2011, Japanese officials relying on seismometer data were able to issue earthquake warnings within eight seconds of detecting that something major was going on. "But they thought it was magnitude 7.1," says Allen. The estimate increased to 8.1 within 2 minutes, but it took another 20 minutes to reach the final value of magnitude 9.
Right! Essentially, as the source story says, dinosaurs ended up competing with their own young in a way that mammals didn't. Mammals were able to occupy all niches - ie niches appropriate for small and medium sized animals, while adult dinos had to keep getting larger and larger to keep their competitive edge. The two papers are pretty neat and work well together - one shows the traditional hypothesis isn't right (environment doesn't correlate to dino size), the other suggests a credible reason why.
So the algorithm found 329 adverse effects which were not known previously. Has someone spent the time in checking the validity of the algorithm by doing studies to check these claims? If not, this is mostly paranoia.
RTFS. They've looked at electronic medical records and confirmed the prediction in the case of thiazides and SSRIs. They're planning more tests - eg a clinical trial.
Some studies in the 1950s that used LSD to treat alcoholism professed a 50% success rate,[29] five times higher than estimates near 10% for Alcoholics Anonymous.[30] A 1998 review was inconclusive.[31]
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Alcoholism
Because it's a meta-analysis - like the story says. Each of the trials that wikipedia mentions is underpowered by itself - the results are not strongly significant even when they did show 'an effect'. The reason was they were often unable to recruit enough people for the trial. There were also trials that showed little effect (and as the review you quote says - the overall evidence was 'inconclusive'). This is the most comprehensive analysis to date of exactly those past studies - and the picture is more complete and convincing - there IS an effect.
The question is now - is there enough evidence to warrant a proper trial and collect the really important long term data?
Hi - digging a bit deeper into this story -
1. Demethylation - removing methyl groups from DNA - generally activates genes.
2. In this case, the scientists are not 100% sure what demethylation of these genes means - it could mean they're being activated but they're not sure yet. More research required...
3. The observation that there are these sorts of epigenetic changes though in response to exercise is in itself really interesting. You do some exercise and within minutes you get changes to your DNA? That's pretty awesome.
4. The metabolic genes cited are not directly involved with metabolism - they're on various pathways involved in metabolism. So it's quite possible that what they're seeing is an uptick in genes linked to energy production.
As for the New Scientist article
"Now there is no excuse to avoid the gym: just one hour of exercise instantly changes your genes to boost the breakdown of fat."
There's no evidence of that at all. It may not have anything to do with 'fat' - they're genes involved in metabolism - I think that's all we know.
Yep exactly. There are two problems here.
1. Celltex hasn't done any clinical trials of any sort. To prove a treatment works you need a double-blind trial at least - administer placebo to one group, and the cells to another and make sure the physician in charge doesn't know which one is being given to which patient. Then when you 'unblind' the trial and reveal which patient got what - that's when (if it's worked) you start charging. In the trial phase, a company should be providing the treatment free with placebo and working with the FDA. They shouldn't be charging for voodoo treatments/homeopathy.
2. Big conflict of interest for McGee from the start - it's difficult to claim you can independently assess papers on bioethics, when many of the papers are likely to be about stem cells and trials but you're being paid by a firm that is growing stem cells.
As the (accidentally unlinked when I submitted) Nature story says, McGee claimed he hoped by being inside the company, he could push them to do trials properly. When it became clear they were already treating patients and probably weren't too interested in testing the treatments, he quit. At least, that's one interpretation....
....since the last post on this - check the comment stream on the last slashdot update. As I said there: "It's more than a rumour, as this later report from Nature makes clear. There is an OPERA statement circulating today that suggests two potential problems with the set-up. One is the one reported here - the cable issue - the second is a problem with "the experiment’s pioneering use of Global Positioning System (GPS) signals to synchronize atomic clocks at each end of its neutrino beam". But you're right - they haven't made a public statement yet nor been able to quantify yet the contribution of each to the potential error. It doesn't look good for them though." Here's the Nature story from three days ago. It explains there were two sources of error, and that "These two issues can modify the neutrino time of flight in opposite directions". The story posted by ScienceInsider seems in-fact to have been wide of the mark - it stated that the cable issue alone could account for the 60 nanosecond effect. OPERA have yet to confirm that - and as the new post above says - the other error could push things the other way. But it doesn't look good for those FTL neutrinos. So in short, I guess I should have slashdotted the Nature story instead of making a community contribution to a post that got the story er... wrong by being just plain too quick off the mark. Doh. Oh yeah and quit blaming 'the press'. I saw lots of accurate coverage - not just by Nature and Science but by the Guardian and the BBC. All stories stated the results were incredibly unlikely to hold and explained why. But you expect journalists not to report on a paper that was posted to arXiv - thus in the public domain - and suggested that Einstein's special theory of relativity might have been broken? Let's get real.
And this time, the correct link. Doh.
It's more than a rumour, as this later report from Nature makes clear. There is an OPERA statement circulating today that suggests two potential problems with the set-up. One is the one reported here - the cable issue - the second is a problem with "the experiment’s pioneering use of Global Positioning System (GPS) signals to synchronize atomic clocks at each end of its neutrino beam". But you're right - they haven't made a public statement yet nor been able to quantify yet the contribution of each to the potential error. It doesn't look good for them though.
Well this piece isn't about sex, car crashes or celeb gossip - so I guess it's news. Seriously folks - this is a piece relating to a huge piece of scientific equipment that won scientists a few Nobels.It ties in that to the current financial situation in science. It also reports that the plan to display this to the public may be shelved (if the proposal to gut it entirely is accepted). Important stuff for scientists and those who are interested in the climate for basic science in the US. This isn't news? If it isn't to you, it clearly is to other Slashdotters.
Neither am I. Still interesting. Point still stands. See comment below by JoshuaZ.
I'm confused why this is news. Can I buy the parts or something? What does it matter if they're selling the parts.
Woah! So it's not news or interesting unless you are *directly* affected? Generation Me or what, dude? They're taking apart one of your nation's national treasures. Bits of it are being recommissioned because your physicists are broke. It's OK, you're right. Let's leave this "peer into the fabric of the universe and wonder at its awesomeness" stuff up to the Europeans. They'll have the Higgs by the end of the year anyway.
Hi - I think actually that the linked Nature news article answers your question. In short, yes it is a problem with the technology as it stands but... "What’s more, the nanorobots are quickly cleared by the liver or destroyed by nucleases, enzymes chew up stray bits of DNA. It might be possible to coat them with a substance such as polyethylene glycol, widely used to boost the length of time a drug can remain in the body, says Douglas, or “maybe to borrow inspiration from other biomolecules or cells” — such as red blood cells — “that can circulate in the blood for a long time”. He and his colleagues are just beginning to think about testing the nanobots in mice, he says." So its possible PEG might prevent the bots from being broken down quickly. As for the DNA somehow getting into the cell, the danger seems quite small - not only would it have to get into the cell, but it would then have to get into the nucleus. Unless it then had a start codon, I guess it would have to incorporate into the genome, and then somehow avoid then immediately being removed by DNA correction enzymes...?
WSJ has now published a letter from climate scientists challenging this op-ed (Quoting first 3 pars): "Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations. You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science. Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter."
"The result, they say, is a challenge to proponents of intelligent design who maintain that complex biological systems can only have been created by a divine force."
Oh, come on! You aren't even trying to be honest at this point! No one who can access the Internet has any excuse to give such a sloppy definition of Intelligent Design.
OK, say it with me: "Irreducible Complexity." Do you understand the words coming out of my keyboard? Apparently not! The term is IC, not just C. Even though some evolutionists deny that any complex system is irreducibly complex, that is not justification for distorting the ID position.
I think it would be fair to say that the blog post is more of an excuse for highlighting some mind-blowingly good molecular biology and the ID is an after-thought. As it should be to anyone with a fair grip on biology. Ananyo
A database of negative results is actually already in beta: http://figshare.com/ Psychology professor Jonathan Schooler also called for a negative trials database in Nature in February last year. He says it's possible such results could explain the 'decline effect' that plagues science http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110223/full/470437a.html
They've banned animal dissection in -universities- not high school (check the article). "The University Grants Commission (UGC), the national body in New Delhi that funds and governs Indian universities, announced new rules earlier this month that would phase out almost all animal dissection and replace it with teaching using computer simulations and models."
This is about research. The less experience biology students have in dissecting animals, the more problems they'll have during their PhD and the more problems biotechs and phara companies will have in getting the skills they need to do proper animal experiments and trials with new therapies. So this is a bad move IMO.
Here's a step-by-step guide outlining how difficult it would be to clone a mammoth. you have to gestate the damned thing for example....
spot on. exactly right. The piece also has a lot more detail in it than -ooh just sphere. watch it spin!