Perhaps I am cynical, but do you think the Chinese government would require this software to be distributed with every new computer if there wasn't a backdoor to monitor citizens?
The drug is prostaglandin e2 (PGE2). The list you are referring to is mostly a list of drugs that will be administered in addition to untreated cells (placebo group) or PGE2-treated cells (study group) to prevent graft vs host disease and otherwise manage the patient. These people are sick and need a lot of other drugs.
The "drug" is prostaglandin e2 (PGE2), and the link for the clinical trial (from TFA) is here. This is a Phase I clinical trial, which means it's all about safety. (There are secondary endpoints that are related to efficacy.)
I said "drug" because PGE2 is a fatty acid derivative that naturally occurs in the body. The patient won't be exposed to a meaningful amount of PGE2, as it is used to make the cord blood stem cells divide.
What's interesting and exciting is that while it's not that different from current treatments, it will require fewer source cells per patient allowing for more people to be treated. Furthermore, the stem cells implanted into the patient will not be genetically modified, unlike a lot of the stem cells currently derived from adult tissues. So the patient has no drug exposure and no modified cells. If it works, it'll be pretty cool.
As someone with a PhD in genetics, I can tell you that most people in the US don't have the minimum level of biology to even understand what the results of a test could mean. Biology is a foreign language to those not trained in it. Trying to give a layperson the "bottom line" from such a test is potentially a bad idea. That doesn't mean I am opposed to the idea; I think it's great. But as others have pointed out, without any sort of genetic counseling, or attempt to understand the language on the consumer's part, it can be misinterpreted: all of this will only reveal predispositions, not guarantees.
Early in my grad school career I had many college and high school friends, as well as relatives, ask me about my research. I tried explaining it as simple and non-technical a manner as possible. But I quickly realized that many of them did not know very basic tenets governing genetics, such as:
1. Everybody has two copies of every gene. (Sex chromosomes excluded for simplicity's sake.) 2. One copy of each gene comes from your mother, and one copy comes from your father. 3. There are different versions of each gene; these versions are called alleles. 4. Alleles can have slightly different affects in the body, sometimes resulting in disease (*extreme hand waving*).
(Anyone with even half a semester in genetics realizes how many things I have glossed over (the definition of a gene, gene expression and regulation) or skipped (transcription, translation, epigenetics), never mind the fact that I didn't put forth the disclaimer that, beyond single gene diseases, we don't even understand how 99.9% of alleles interact.)
So I had just taught them how genes work in 2 minutes. There would be so many questions revolving around these 4 points, and each question lead on tangents unrelated to my research. Most of the time the actual subject of my research never came up.
Furthermore, this also assumes such a test is accurate. How many experimental replicates and technical replicates are run?
While it might be useful to watch video thumbnails to quickly find something, I don't think I'd actually watch entire videos in thumbnail mode. There is a reason my monitor is larger than EGA and I no longer use a 56.6 kb modem. Why watch thumbnails?
If someone or some company is going to take the time and money to make a genetic discovery, they ought to be given some time to try and profit from that discovery.
Sadly, if this law passed in its current state, it would outlaw transgenic lab animals, as you postulate. Therefore, I would be surprised if it passed in its current state. All the scientists at universities throughout Louisiana would jump all over this.
The human embryo in an animal womb, and vice versa, might survive. Such a need is beyond current science and technology. However, it is sad to see science pre-emptively stifled. What about growing human organs in pigs, or some other such creature? That would be a human-animal hybrid, and this law would make it illegal. (I realize that we aren't even close, if it is possible, but based on our existing biology it is not 'impossible'.)
Yes, the trailer, er I mean promo video, is cool, but since when were there canyons in Wisconsin? Oh, they'll be racing in empty sky over flat terrain? Somehow that doesn't seem as thrilling.
I thought that gas was sold by the liter (or is it 'litre'?) in Europe and the UK. Why publish ratings in miles per gallon instead of kilometers per liter? At least that would eliminate any confusion between US and Imperial gallons.
I hate to break it to you, but you are completely wrong. The article states that the pigs were created with the express intent of passing on genes through the germline, just like we (scientists) do with mice, worms, flies, etc. So the parent wasn't modified during it's adult life, but as an embryo, and that's how the GFP was introduced into the germ cells.
I am not moderating this article because I wanted to reply to you. (And this is a bit off-topic.)
You may or may not be aware, but stem cell research isn't banned. You cannot use federal money to support stem cell research using stem cell lines other than those specifically allowed, and you cannot use federal money to create new stem cell lines. However, if your funding is not from the federal government, you can do any stem cell research you want.
Also, this quandary arises from the president and those like-minded, who just don't know enough about stem cells to effectively make a decision, in my opinion. If they were as informed as myself and other scientists, I would be surprised if they were to continue to oppose stem cell research. Of course, religious fundamentalists are rarely found practicing biological research. I suspect it is considered witchcraft. Therefore, those legislators opposing stem cell research will never be as informed as scientists.
As others have already pointed out, this isn't artificial DNA. It is composed of the same molecules that DNA is, and in fact it is a lot of cobbled together pieces of DNA whose main functions we are aware of, with a few short bits of designed sequence to fill gaps or make construction easier. Nothing is being created de novo that hasn't been created many years ago.
Furthermore, why would any resultant life forms be artificial? Because man had a hand in shaping them? Look at the chihuahua. That is the most grossly perverted life form that man has shaped, in my opinion, yet I wouldn't call it artificial. It was generated via existing biological processes. Using DNA technologies accelerate the modification of organisms, but they don't do anything that couldn't be done via breeding, given a large enough sample and a large enough time scale. (But it would be like an army of monkeys sitting at typewriters and hitting random keys until one drafts up MacBeth, if you are trying to introduce a gene from one species to another unrelated species.)
As for danger, well, that depends on who uses it, and for what purpose. Inherently technology is not dangerous.
If we "fix that part where they're drug resistant", it would make no difference, unless we could eliminate those viruses in the first place. It's like trying to populate the world with only mice that were more likely to get caught in traps. It would only be possible if we could eliminate all the mice in the world, and then introduce these 'dumb' mice into the wild. What's the point of repopulating the world with dumb mice if we didn't want mice in the first place?
Second of all, if you read the article, you would know how the researchers 'fixed' the 'broken' viruses:
The team took ten versions of that virus (we carry more than thirty) and compared the thousands of nucleotides in the genetic sequence of each version. They were almost identical, but where they differed the researchers selected the nucleotides that appeared most frequently. That permitted them to piece together a working replica of the extinct retrovirus. "If you have a person with a lethal defect in the heart,'' Bieniasz explained, "and another with a lethal defect in the kidney, you could make one healthy person by transplanting the respective organs. That is what we did.
Lastly, and not that it will necessarily assuage your fears, but a species that carries an endogenous retrovirus in its genome is far less likely to be infected by that virus. Some developmental biologists employ a well-characterized and naturally occurring chicken retrovirus, engineering it to misexpress a normal chicken gene of their choice. This way, they can see what happens if they express that gene everywhere within a developing organ, as opposed to the normal expression of the gene only within a small population of cells within that organ. (As an example, they are studying gene X, which plays a role in bone development, and is only expressed in cells that will become bone cells. They make a chicken retrovirus that also expresses gene X, and infect the wing of a developing chicken. Now all the cells in the wing express gene X, and not just those that were going to become bone cells.) In order to do this, these researchers must use eggs from chickens that do not carry endogenous copies of this virus in their genome. Eggs from chickens that carry endogenous copies of this naturally-occurring retrovirus in their genome are far less susceptible to infection by the engineered virus, and therefore are not experimentally useful. Such endogenous retrovirus-free chickens were specially bred.
Sure, there are always potential risks from any type of science. But it is important to know how risky something is, and weigh that versus the potential benefits.
The linked article in the summary looks like a lot of FUD to me. Read at your own risk.
From the article:
The bank will have dual blast-proof doors with motion sensors, two airlocks, and walls of steel-reinforced concrete one meter thick.... There will be no full-time staff...
My question is, if there is a doomsday event, how do we get in?
This experiment was really performed. Many times. JBS Haldane is the narrator, and I don't think he'd narrate something that is fake. Watch the full length (and much better resolution) video here:
Unfortunately, I suspect a lot of the problem is a lack of awareness of political issues. There are about 300 million people living in the US. That's about 9 times the population of Canada. It would take a tremendous amount of time, effort, and money to attempt to inform all of those people.
Additionally, a ridiculous number of people here vote for a single party, across the board, regardless of what individual politicians stand for. I know somebody who is from an immigrant community. Her parents, unlike most in that community, speak English. They are also active in their church, like most of that community. Do you know what happens come election days? All the people of that community go to that church and vote exactly how the church tells them. They don't speak English, so they don't understand the politics. They only know what the church tells them. The church tells them to vote for one party, and they vote for that party. The church actually organizes buses to mobilize the entire community to vote the way its leaders have decided.
Imagine how many other communities are like that? How many church leaders are Republican and tell their congregation to vote Republican? Regardless of whether the community speaks English? (I'm not trying to point the finger at non-English speakers or certain church-goers; I'm just providing an example of how a herd of people is easily manipulated to all vote according to another's wishes.)
The only way this research would have an impact on evolution would be if:
1) The stem cells found their way into the gonads and gave rise to germ cells instead of nerve cells.
2) The stem cells were fundamentally different than the germ cells already present.
3) The recipient of the stem-cells-that-became-germ-cells had a child, where the gamete was produced from that modified stem cell.
Or, the stem cells allowed the recipient to lead a longer or healthier life or somehow improve their genetic fitness such that they could have a child. However, this would be indistinguishable from any life-saving medical treatment that allows people to have kids after their accident or onset of their terminal disease.
Of course I am sure. This is the internet. If I say that I am a 6'6" 230-pound ex-Navy Seal who professionally fights in "the Octagon", then it must be true! Do you really want to find out?;)
If I had my identity stolen, I'd just want 10 minutes alone in a locked room with the bastard. I'm pretty sure I could give him hospital bills equaling my losses in time and money. He might've ruined my credit, but I'd ruin his ability to walk.
Slashdot Mirror
So in other words, the collision will occur around the time that Duke Nukem Forever is released?
Perhaps I am cynical, but do you think the Chinese government would require this software to be distributed with every new computer if there wasn't a backdoor to monitor citizens?
The drug is prostaglandin e2 (PGE2). The list you are referring to is mostly a list of drugs that will be administered in addition to untreated cells (placebo group) or PGE2-treated cells (study group) to prevent graft vs host disease and otherwise manage the patient. These people are sick and need a lot of other drugs.
The "drug" is prostaglandin e2 (PGE2), and the link for the clinical trial (from TFA) is here. This is a Phase I clinical trial, which means it's all about safety. (There are secondary endpoints that are related to efficacy.)
I said "drug" because PGE2 is a fatty acid derivative that naturally occurs in the body. The patient won't be exposed to a meaningful amount of PGE2, as it is used to make the cord blood stem cells divide.
What's interesting and exciting is that while it's not that different from current treatments, it will require fewer source cells per patient allowing for more people to be treated. Furthermore, the stem cells implanted into the patient will not be genetically modified, unlike a lot of the stem cells currently derived from adult tissues. So the patient has no drug exposure and no modified cells. If it works, it'll be pretty cool.
As someone with a PhD in genetics, I can tell you that most people in the US don't have the minimum level of biology to even understand what the results of a test could mean. Biology is a foreign language to those not trained in it. Trying to give a layperson the "bottom line" from such a test is potentially a bad idea. That doesn't mean I am opposed to the idea; I think it's great. But as others have pointed out, without any sort of genetic counseling, or attempt to understand the language on the consumer's part, it can be misinterpreted: all of this will only reveal predispositions, not guarantees.
Early in my grad school career I had many college and high school friends, as well as relatives, ask me about my research. I tried explaining it as simple and non-technical a manner as possible. But I quickly realized that many of them did not know very basic tenets governing genetics, such as:
1. Everybody has two copies of every gene. (Sex chromosomes excluded for simplicity's sake.)
2. One copy of each gene comes from your mother, and one copy comes from your father.
3. There are different versions of each gene; these versions are called alleles.
4. Alleles can have slightly different affects in the body, sometimes resulting in disease (*extreme hand waving*).
(Anyone with even half a semester in genetics realizes how many things I have glossed over (the definition of a gene, gene expression and regulation) or skipped (transcription, translation, epigenetics), never mind the fact that I didn't put forth the disclaimer that, beyond single gene diseases, we don't even understand how 99.9% of alleles interact.)
So I had just taught them how genes work in 2 minutes. There would be so many questions revolving around these 4 points, and each question lead on tangents unrelated to my research. Most of the time the actual subject of my research never came up.
Furthermore, this also assumes such a test is accurate. How many experimental replicates and technical replicates are run?
While it might be useful to watch video thumbnails to quickly find something, I don't think I'd actually watch entire videos in thumbnail mode. There is a reason my monitor is larger than EGA and I no longer use a 56.6 kb modem. Why watch thumbnails?
If someone or some company is going to take the time and money to make a genetic discovery, they ought to be given some time to try and profit from that discovery.
Except that Myriad didn't discover BRCA1. Mary-Claire King did.
How can they patent this? I believe Lex Luthor beat them to the punch. (As have others, I am sure.)
Now, we'd better start hoarding coffee beans...
Sadly, if this law passed in its current state, it would outlaw transgenic lab animals, as you postulate. Therefore, I would be surprised if it passed in its current state. All the scientists at universities throughout Louisiana would jump all over this.
The human embryo in an animal womb, and vice versa, might survive. Such a need is beyond current science and technology. However, it is sad to see science pre-emptively stifled. What about growing human organs in pigs, or some other such creature? That would be a human-animal hybrid, and this law would make it illegal. (I realize that we aren't even close, if it is possible, but based on our existing biology it is not 'impossible'.)
I wonder, with the advent of robotic exoskeletons and mecha, will the Agriculture Ministry now be in charge of Gundam?
Back to normal now that the Olympics are over. Honestly, did anyone expect otherwise?
Yes, the trailer, er I mean promo video, is cool, but since when were there canyons in Wisconsin? Oh, they'll be racing in empty sky over flat terrain? Somehow that doesn't seem as thrilling.
I thought that gas was sold by the liter (or is it 'litre'?) in Europe and the UK. Why publish ratings in miles per gallon instead of kilometers per liter? At least that would eliminate any confusion between US and Imperial gallons.
"Use the Large Hadron Collider, Luke."
I hate to break it to you, but you are completely wrong. The article states that the pigs were created with the express intent of passing on genes through the germline, just like we (scientists) do with mice, worms, flies, etc. So the parent wasn't modified during it's adult life, but as an embryo, and that's how the GFP was introduced into the germ cells.
I am not moderating this article because I wanted to reply to you. (And this is a bit off-topic.)
You may or may not be aware, but stem cell research isn't banned. You cannot use federal money to support stem cell research using stem cell lines other than those specifically allowed, and you cannot use federal money to create new stem cell lines. However, if your funding is not from the federal government, you can do any stem cell research you want.
Also, this quandary arises from the president and those like-minded, who just don't know enough about stem cells to effectively make a decision, in my opinion. If they were as informed as myself and other scientists, I would be surprised if they were to continue to oppose stem cell research. Of course, religious fundamentalists are rarely found practicing biological research. I suspect it is considered witchcraft. Therefore, those legislators opposing stem cell research will never be as informed as scientists.
As others have already pointed out, this isn't artificial DNA. It is composed of the same molecules that DNA is, and in fact it is a lot of cobbled together pieces of DNA whose main functions we are aware of, with a few short bits of designed sequence to fill gaps or make construction easier. Nothing is being created de novo that hasn't been created many years ago.
Furthermore, why would any resultant life forms be artificial? Because man had a hand in shaping them? Look at the chihuahua. That is the most grossly perverted life form that man has shaped, in my opinion, yet I wouldn't call it artificial. It was generated via existing biological processes. Using DNA technologies accelerate the modification of organisms, but they don't do anything that couldn't be done via breeding, given a large enough sample and a large enough time scale. (But it would be like an army of monkeys sitting at typewriters and hitting random keys until one drafts up MacBeth, if you are trying to introduce a gene from one species to another unrelated species.)
As for danger, well, that depends on who uses it, and for what purpose. Inherently technology is not dangerous.
If we "fix that part where they're drug resistant", it would make no difference, unless we could eliminate those viruses in the first place. It's like trying to populate the world with only mice that were more likely to get caught in traps. It would only be possible if we could eliminate all the mice in the world, and then introduce these 'dumb' mice into the wild. What's the point of repopulating the world with dumb mice if we didn't want mice in the first place?
Second of all, if you read the article, you would know how the researchers 'fixed' the 'broken' viruses:
The team took ten versions of that virus (we carry more than thirty) and compared the thousands of nucleotides in the genetic sequence of each version. They were almost identical, but where they differed the researchers selected the nucleotides that appeared most frequently. That permitted them to piece together a working replica of the extinct retrovirus. "If you have a person with a lethal defect in the heart,'' Bieniasz explained, "and another with a lethal defect in the kidney, you could make one healthy person by transplanting the respective organs. That is what we did.Lastly, and not that it will necessarily assuage your fears, but a species that carries an endogenous retrovirus in its genome is far less likely to be infected by that virus. Some developmental biologists employ a well-characterized and naturally occurring chicken retrovirus, engineering it to misexpress a normal chicken gene of their choice. This way, they can see what happens if they express that gene everywhere within a developing organ, as opposed to the normal expression of the gene only within a small population of cells within that organ. (As an example, they are studying gene X, which plays a role in bone development, and is only expressed in cells that will become bone cells. They make a chicken retrovirus that also expresses gene X, and infect the wing of a developing chicken. Now all the cells in the wing express gene X, and not just those that were going to become bone cells.) In order to do this, these researchers must use eggs from chickens that do not carry endogenous copies of this virus in their genome. Eggs from chickens that carry endogenous copies of this naturally-occurring retrovirus in their genome are far less susceptible to infection by the engineered virus, and therefore are not experimentally useful. Such endogenous retrovirus-free chickens were specially bred.
Sure, there are always potential risks from any type of science. But it is important to know how risky something is, and weigh that versus the potential benefits.
The linked article in the summary looks like a lot of FUD to me. Read at your own risk.
From the article:
The bank will have dual blast-proof doors with motion sensors, two airlocks, and walls of steel-reinforced concrete one meter thick.My question is, if there is a doomsday event, how do we get in?
It's good to know that in Sweden cops have options beyond boxes of donuts. ;P
This experiment was really performed. Many times. JBS Haldane is the narrator, and I don't think he'd narrate something that is fake. Watch the full length (and much better resolution) video here:
http://www.archive.org/details/Experime1940
I agree with you.
Unfortunately, I suspect a lot of the problem is a lack of awareness of political issues. There are about 300 million people living in the US. That's about 9 times the population of Canada. It would take a tremendous amount of time, effort, and money to attempt to inform all of those people.
Additionally, a ridiculous number of people here vote for a single party, across the board, regardless of what individual politicians stand for. I know somebody who is from an immigrant community. Her parents, unlike most in that community, speak English. They are also active in their church, like most of that community. Do you know what happens come election days? All the people of that community go to that church and vote exactly how the church tells them. They don't speak English, so they don't understand the politics. They only know what the church tells them. The church tells them to vote for one party, and they vote for that party. The church actually organizes buses to mobilize the entire community to vote the way its leaders have decided.
Imagine how many other communities are like that? How many church leaders are Republican and tell their congregation to vote Republican? Regardless of whether the community speaks English? (I'm not trying to point the finger at non-English speakers or certain church-goers; I'm just providing an example of how a herd of people is easily manipulated to all vote according to another's wishes.)
I wish it were as easy as you state.
The only way this research would have an impact on evolution would be if:
1) The stem cells found their way into the gonads and gave rise to germ cells instead of nerve cells.
2) The stem cells were fundamentally different than the germ cells already present.
3) The recipient of the stem-cells-that-became-germ-cells had a child, where the gamete was produced from that modified stem cell.
Or, the stem cells allowed the recipient to lead a longer or healthier life or somehow improve their genetic fitness such that they could have a child. However, this would be indistinguishable from any life-saving medical treatment that allows people to have kids after their accident or onset of their terminal disease.
Can it predict the Spanish Inquisition?!
Of course I am sure. This is the internet. If I say that I am a 6'6" 230-pound ex-Navy Seal who professionally fights in "the Octagon", then it must be true! Do you really want to find out? ;)
If I had my identity stolen, I'd just want 10 minutes alone in a locked room with the bastard. I'm pretty sure I could give him hospital bills equaling my losses in time and money. He might've ruined my credit, but I'd ruin his ability to walk.