Search Immortality Topics:

Page 5«..4567..1020..»


Category Archives: Human Genetic Engineering

Viewpoint: Anti-GMO activists, from Organic Consumers Association to Joe Mercola to Vandana Shiva, have formed an alliance. Here’s why this is good…

Viewpoint: Anti-GMO activists, from Organic Consumers Association to Joe Mercola to Vandana Shiva, have formed an alliance. Here's why this is good news for crop biotechnology and science supporters  Genetic Literacy Project

Link:
Viewpoint: Anti-GMO activists, from Organic Consumers Association to Joe Mercola to Vandana Shiva, have formed an alliance. Here's why this is good...

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Viewpoint: Anti-GMO activists, from Organic Consumers Association to Joe Mercola to Vandana Shiva, have formed an alliance. Here’s why this is good…

Engineering the Perfect Baby | MIT Technology Review

Indeed, some people are adamant that germ-line engineering is being pushed ahead with false arguments. That is the view of Edward Lanphier, CEO of Sangamo Biosciences, a California biotechnology company that is using another gene-editing technique, called zinc fingers nucleases, to try to treat HIV in adults by altering their blood cells. Weve looked at [germ-line engineering] for a disease rationale, and there is none, he says. You can do it. But there really isnt a medical reason. People say, well, we dont want children born with this, or born with thatbut its a completely false argument and a slippery slope toward much more unacceptable uses.

Critics cite a host of fears. Children would be the subject of experiments. Parents would be influenced by genetic advertising from IVF clinics. Germ-line engineering would encourage the spread of allegedly superior traits. And it would affect people not yet born, without their being able to agree to it. The American Medical Association, for instance, holds that germ-line engineering shouldnt be done at this time because it affects the welfare of future generations and could cause unpredictable and irreversible results. But like a lot of official statements that forbid changing the genome, the AMAs, which was last updated in 1996, predates todays technology. A lot of people just agreed to these statements, says Greely. It wasnt hard to renounce something that you couldnt do.

The fear? A dystopia of superpeople and designer babies for those who can afford it.

Others predict that hard-to-oppose medical uses will be identified. A couple with several genetic diseases at once might not be able to find a suitable embryo. Treating infertility is another possibility. Some men dont produce any sperm, a condition called azoospermia. One cause is a genetic defect in which a region of about one million to six million DNA letters is missing from the Y chromosome. It might be possible to take a skin cell from such a man, turn it into a stem cell, repair the DNA, and then make sperm, says Werner Neuhausser, a young Austrian doctor who splits his time between the Boston IVF fertility-clinic network and Harvards Stem Cell Institute. That will change medicine forever, right? You could cure infertility, that is for sure, he says.

I spoke with Church several times by telephone over the last few months, and he told me whats driving everything is the incredible specificity of CRISPR. Although not all the details have been worked out, he thinks the technology could replace DNA letters essentially without side effects. He says this is what makes it tempting to use. Church says his laboratory is focused mostly on experiments in engineering animals. He added that his lab would not make or edit human embryos, calling such a step not our style.

What is Churchs style is human enhancement. And hes been making a broad case that CRISPR can do more than eliminate disease genes. It can lead to augmentation. At meetings, some involving groups of transhumanists interested in next steps for human evolution, Church likes to show a slide on which he lists naturally occurring variants of around 10 genes that, when people are born with them, confer extraordinary qualities or resistance to disease. One makes your bones so hard theyll break a surgical drill. Another drastically cuts the risk of heart attacks. And a variant of the gene for the amyloid precursor protein, or APP, was found by Icelandic researchers to protect against Alzheimers. People with it never get dementia and remain sharp into old age.

Church thinks CRISPR could be used to provide people with favorable versions of genes, making DNA edits that would act as vaccines against some of the most common diseases we face today. Although he told me anything edgy should be done only to adults who can consent, its obvious to him that the earlier such interventions occur, the better.

Church tends to dodge questions about genetically modified babies. The idea of improving the human species has always had enormously bad press, he wrote in the introduction to Regenesis, his 2012 book on synthetic biology, whose cover was a painting by Eustache Le Sueur of a bearded God creating the world. But thats ultimately what hes suggesting: enhancements in the form of protective genes. An argument will be made that the ultimate prevention is that the earlier you go, the better the prevention, he told an audience at MITs Media Lab last spring. I do think its the ultimate preventive, if we get to the point where its very inexpensive, extremely safe, and very predictable. Church, who has a less cautious side, proceeded to tell the audience that he thought changing genes is going to get to the point where its like you are doing the equivalent of cosmetic surgery.

Some thinkers have concluded that we should not pass up the chance to make improvements to our species. The human genome is not perfect, says John Harris, a bioethicist at Manchester University, in the U.K. Its ethically imperative to positively support this technology. By some measures, U.S. public opinion is not particularly negative toward the idea. A Pew Research survey carried out last August found that 46 percent of adults approved of genetic modification of babies to reduce the risk of serious diseases.

Link:
Engineering the Perfect Baby | MIT Technology Review

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Engineering the Perfect Baby | MIT Technology Review

CIA Just Invested In Woolly Mammoth Resurrection Tech – The Intercept

As a rapidly advancing climate emergency turns the planet ever hotter, the Dallas-based biotechnology company Colossal Biosciences has a vision: To see the Woolly Mammoth thunder upon the tundra once again. Founders George Church and Ben Lamm have already racked up an impressive list of high-profile funders and investors, including Peter Thiel, Tony Robbins, Paris Hilton, Winklevoss Capital and, according to the public portfolio its venture capital arm released this month, the CIA.

Colossal says it hopes to use advanced genetic sequencing to resurrect two extinct mammals not just the giant, ice age mammoth, but also a mid-sized marsupial known as the thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger, that died out less than a century ago. On its website, the company vows: Combining the science of genetics with the business of discovery, we endeavor to jumpstart natures ancestral heartbeat.

In-Q-Tel, its new investor, is registered as a nonprofit venture capital firm funded by the CIA. On its surface, the group funds technology startups with the potential to safeguard national security. In addition to its long-standing pursuit of intelligence and weapons technologies, the CIA outfit has lately displayed an increased interest in biotechnology and particularly DNA sequencing.

Why the interest in a company like Colossal, which was founded with a mission to de-extinct the wooly mammoth and other species? reads an In-Q-Tel blog post published on September 22. Strategically, its less about the mammoths and more about the capability.

Biotechnology and the broader bioeconomy are critical for humanity to further develop. It is important for all facets of our government to develop them and have an understanding of what is possible, Colossal co-founder Ben Lammwrote in an email to The Intercept. (A spokesperson for Lamm stressed that while Thiel provided Church with$100,000 in funding to launchthe woolly mammoth project that became Colossal, he is not a stakeholderlike Robbins, Hilton, Winklevoss Capital, and In-Q-Tel.)

Colossal uses CRISPR gene editing, a method of genetic engineering based on a naturally occurring type of DNA sequence. CRISPR sequences present on their own in some bacterial cells and act as an immune defense system, allowing the cellto detect and excise viral material thattries to invade. The eponymous gene editing technique was developed to function the same way, allowing users to snip unwanted genes and program a more ideal version of the genetic code.

CRISPR is the use of genetic scissors, Robert Klitzman, a bioethicist at Columbia University and a prominent voice of caution on genetic engineering, told The Intercept. Youre going into DNA, which is a 3-billion-molecule-long chain, and clipping some of it out and replacing it. You can clip out bad mutations and put in good genes, but these editing scissors can also take out too much.

The embrace of this technology, according to In-Q-Tels blog post, will help allow U.S. government agencies to read, write, and edit genetic material, and, importantly, tosteerglobal biological phenomena that impact nation-to-nation competition whileenabling the United States to help set the ethical, as well as the technological, standards for its use.

In-Q-Tel did not respond to The Intercepts requests for comment.

In recent years, the venture firms portfolio has expanded to include Ginkgo Bioworks, a bioengineering startup focused on manufacturing bacteria for biofuel and other industrial uses; Claremont BioSolutions, a firm that produces DNA sequencing hardware; Biomatrica and T2 Biosystems, two manufacturers for DNA testing components; and Metabiota, an infectious disease mapping and risk analysis database powered by artificial intelligence. As The Intercept reported in 2016, In-Q-Tel also invested in Clearista, a skincare brand that removes a thin outer epidermal layer to reveal a fresher face beneath it and allow DNA collection from the skin cells scraped off.

President Joe Bidens administration signaled its prioritization of related advances earlier this month, when Biden signed an executive order on biotechnology and biomanufacturing. The order includes directives to spur public-private collaboration, bolster biological risk management, expand bioenergy-based products, and engage the international community to enhance biotechnology R&D cooperation in a way that is consistent with United States principles and values.

The governments penchant for controversial biotechnology long predates the Biden administration. In 2001, a New York Times investigation found that American defense agencies under Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton had continued to experiment with biological weapons, despite a 1972 international treaty prohibiting them. In 2011, The Guardian revealed that the CIA under President Barack Obama organized a fake Hepatitis B vaccine drive in Pakistan that sought to locate family members of Osama bin Laden through nonconsensual DNA collection, leading the agency to eventually promise a cessation of falseimmunization campaigns.

CIA Labs, a 2020 initiative overseen by Donald Trumps CIA director, Gina Haspel infamous for running a torture laboratory in Thailand follows a model similar to In-Q-Tels. The program created a research network to incubate top talent and technology for use across U.S. defense agencies, while simultaneously allowing participating CIA officers to personally profit off their research and patents.

In-Q-Tel board members are allowed to sit on the boards of companies in which the firm invests, raising ethics concerns over howthe non-profit selects companies to back with government dollars. A 2016 Wall Street Journal investigation found that almost half of In-Q-Tel board members were connected to the companies where it had invested.

The size of In-Q-Tels stake in Colossal wont be known until the nonprofit releases its financial statements next year, but the investment may provide a boon on reputation alone: In-Q-Tel has claimed that every dollar it invests in a business attracts 15 more from other investors.

Colossals co-founders, Lamm and Church, represent the ventures business and science minds, respectively. Lamm, a self-proclaimed serial technology entrepreneur, founded his first company as a senior in college, then pivoted to mobile apps and artificial intelligence before helping to start Colossal.

Church a Harvard geneticist, genome-based dating app visionary, and former Jeffrey Epstein funding recipient has proposed the revival of extinct species before. Speaking to Der Spiegel in 2013, Church suggested the resurrection of the Neanderthal an idea met with controversy because it would require technology capable of human cloning.

We can clone all kinds of mammals, so its very likely that we could clone a human, Church said. Why shouldnt we be able to do so? When the interviewer reminded him of a ban on human cloning, Church said, And laws can change, by the way.

Even when the methods used for de-extinction are legal, many scientists are skeptical of its promise. In a 2017 paper for Nature Ecology & Evolution, a group of biologists from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand found that [s]pending limited resources on de-extinction could lead to net biodiversity loss.

De-extinction is a fairytale science, Jeremy Austin, a University of Adelaide professor and director of the Australian Center for Ancient DNA,toldthe Sydney Morning Herald over the summer, when Colossal pledged to sink $10 million into the University of Melbourne for its Tasmanian tiger project. Its pretty clear to people like me that thylacine or mammoth de-extinction is more about media attention for the scientists and less about doing serious science.

Critics who say de-extinction of genes to create proxy species is impossible are critics who are simply not fully informed and do not know the science. We have been clear from day one that on the path to de-extinction we will be developing technologies which we hope to be beneficial to both human healthcare as well as conservation, Lamm wrote to The Intercept. We will conitnue [sic] to share these technologies we develop with the world.

It remains to be seen if Colossal, with In-Q-Tels backing, can make good on its promises. And its unclear what, exactly, the intelligence world might gain from the use of CRISPR. But perhaps the CIA shares the companys altruistic, if vague, motives: To advance the economies of biology and healing through genetics. To make humanity more human. And to reawaken the lost wilds of Earth. So we, and our planet, can breathe easier.

Update: September 28, 2022, 1:00 p.m. ETThis story has been updated with a statement from Colossal co-founder Ben Lamm.

Continue reading here:
CIA Just Invested In Woolly Mammoth Resurrection Tech - The Intercept

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on CIA Just Invested In Woolly Mammoth Resurrection Tech – The Intercept

‘Vesper’ Ending, Explained: What Happens To Vesper And Camellia? What Does He Do With The Seeds? | DMT – DMT

Vesper is a delightful concoction of detail and simplicity, one that is easy to gulp down and leaves an effect for a long time. Although the drama films premise is a science-fiction post-apocalyptic world, its story is universal and relatable enough to make it seem almost like a coming-of-age tale. With the eponymous protagonist, Vesper, learning to find her way and take responsibilities in a world with no hope, the adventures she comes across and the ultimate choice that she has to make turn Vesper into a lovely tale of hope as well.

Spoilers Ahead

Set in the future world termed the New Dark Ages, the plot unfolds in a barren wasteland. Humans had made an attempt to prevent the ecological crisis by investing in genetic technology largely, but the process ultimately had failed. Instead, genetically engineered viruses and other harmful organisms escaped into the world and killed off vast numbers of life forms. While some humans survived, all food sources, be they plants or animals, were wiped out and left human society starkly divided. On the one hand are the rich and affluent, who live in protected cities called citadels, and on the other hand, everyone else, who are never permitted into these citadels. Although these citadels grow their own food from the seeds they had presumably preserved before the apocalypse, those outside rely only on these seeds that the citadels trade with them in exchange for other items. Even more harshly, these seeds traded are coded to produce a single harvest, and therefore the outsiders need to forever stay in need of the mercy of the citadels.

In such a world, Vesper is a thirteen-year-old girl with an exceptional talent for studying organisms of this new world and creating new life by mixing them with each other. However, her responsibilities weigh more than her respite for passionate experimentation, for Vesper has to look after her ailing father, especially since her mother left them about a year or so ago. The father, Darius, is bedridden and cannot move or speak on his own but communicates through the body of a metallic drone. It is with this drone, essentially her father, that Vesper goes around searching for new plants and forms of life to gather for food, medicine, and her own research. The world has other factions of danger, too, for a group of humans calling themselves the pilgrims mysteriously roam around, scavenging any and every metal they can find, and Vespers mother, too, had joined this group of pilgrims. Along with that, there are also raiders and bandits who go around looting and, on one occasion, visit Vespers house as well, taking away all the power resources. When she finds her father struggling for life without power because his heart and other organs are supported and kept running through external power, Vesper looks for help at her uncle Jonas farm. However, Jonas is a crooked leader of a group of outsiders, and he runs a business of trading the blood of young children in exchange for food and resources with the citadels. Vesper, too, has had to give her blood to get some minor help from her uncle once or twice, but she denies turning into a blood-breeding machine for Jonas.

One day, while sneaking around Jonas farm in search of food and medicine, Vesper gets hold of a great treasureshe manages to enter a room full of seeds that Jonas had received from the citadel and steals a few of them. On her way out, though, she also spots a few citadel drones flying in the sky, of which one falls out and crashes, and this poses a new possibility in Vespers young life.

Although Vesper manages to steal the seeds, they are clearly not worth much since they would only yield one harvest, and they would again have to depend on Jonas supply. But in young Vespers mind, she is confident that she will be able to engineer a way to decode the seeds and remove the single-harvest characteristic from them. With this, she plans to approach the citadels and secure a job and residency inside them, and then get her fathers ailment treated. All these plans keep buzzing in her head when she goes out the next day in search of more supplies. She spots a young woman lying unconscious in the forest and brings her back to her house. Vesper treats her back to health, and the woman is introduced as a member of the rich society living inside the nearest citadel. Camellia, as she is called, regains consciousness and looks for a man who had been inside the drone when it crashed. She tells Vesper that the missing man is her father, Elias, and offers to help the young girl and her father if she helps her find him. Camellia herself seems to possess special powers, as she can calm down and put one to sleep instantly with a kiss, as she does to Darius one night when he struggles with his pains.

On the other side, Vesper goes through the forest looking for the crashed drone and finds it too, but before she can rescue the trapped man inside, Jonas and his cult of children join her. They strip open the drone, and Jonas murders Elias and then collects whatever useful material they can find on him and the drone. Vesper returns home disheartened, but she does not tell Camellia anything about her fathers death. The young girl soon develops a bond with the woman, and she even takes her to see the countless different experiments Vesper had done and their results. Camellia also grows affectionate towards Vesper and learns more about her parents and their lives. But all things come to a sharp halt when Vesper is one day caught sneaking around Jonas farm. The cruel uncle had been suspecting that Vesper was stealing his germinating seeds, and now he confronts her. Vesper tries to run away but is intercepted by the children of the cult inside the forest, and they brand her with Jonas mark, meaning that she is considered part of the blood-selling group from now on. She runs back home and is comforted by Camellia, and now Vesper cannot help but reveal the truth that she has been keeping hidden for so long. She tells Camellia about her fathers fate and even takes her to the place where Jonas had thrown the mans body, and Camellia has an outburst of grief and anguish. She now makes revelations of her own and tells Vesper that she is not a real human being but is instead a Jug, an artificial humanoid that people inside the citadels create to keep them as workers, almost like slaves. Despite it being a major crime to create a Jug with human-like intelligence, Elias had created Camellia exactly like a human being and had kept her safe for so long. But, her true nature had been revealed, and she and her father, therefore, had to escape from the citadel. They had indeed been escaping the citadel in their drone and were being chased by the authoritarian drones when their vehicle crashed, and they landed in the outside wastelands.

Hearing all this, Vesper realizes that her plan of escaping to the citadels with Camellias help is never an option, and she throws a childish fit at the woman. This further affects Camellia, and even though Vesper gets over her grief in some time, Camellia has a tougher time dealing with hers, and she tries to kill herself. Vesper intervenes, and then she asks Camellia if she could study a sample of her, and the woman agrees to let her do it. While researching the humanoids genetic sample, Vesper finally makes an immense breakthrough. She realizes that the real reason Elias had made Camellia was to hide inside her the secret to breaking the code of seeds yielding only a single harvest. When they had escaped their citadel, Elias had already made an agreement with a different citadel where they were promised safe shelter in exchange for Elias engineering masterpiece. Vesper now learns of it and immediately starts off to gather ingredients for her new research. However, Jonas visits her house in the meantime and finds Camellia there, and he also quickly learns that the woman is a Jug. Vesper returns and stops the man from causing any serious harm, and the two women take control of the situation. Although they can kill Jonas, Vesper decides to let him go instead and even treats the wounds he incurred. Before setting him free, the young girl tells him that she wants to make a deal with the citadels and would therefore want him to contact them. But Jonas seems to have something else in mind. As a man regularly trading with the citadels, he does have direct contacts there, and he does get in touch with them too, but only to inform them that he knows the location of Camellia, the Jug they have been looking for.

Much like most other things in the film, the character of Vesper is a fine balance between emotions and intelligence. From early on, she yearns for love and affection. She desires to have a family. The young girl still does not understand why her mother had left them, and she even has a close affection for a dead, unmoving human skeleton inside their old laboratory. It is because of this yearning that she takes Camellia into her life very quickly and opens up to her so easily. Perhaps the womans age makes her a good fit to be Vespers elder sister or young mother. In the end, when Vesper declines to kill Jonas, it is perhaps because the man is her uncle, her own blood tie, even though he had never wanted any good for them. On the other hand, Vesper is also not emotional enough to immediately use the power of her knowledge to help everyone around her. She decides to take the seeds and the new science she has learned to the citadel because, after all, she wants personal favorsto cure her fathers sickness.

The citadel police quickly arrive at the wasteland settlement, and the very first thing they do is cruelly shoot their informer, Jonas, dead. Knowing well that there was no way to avoid the citadel police force, Darius convinces Vesper and Camellia to escape the house and hide in the swamps while he distracts the police and sends them some other way. The girl reluctantly agrees and goes to the swamps, from where she painstakingly sees her house, and therefore her father, get blown to bits. Two of the personnel chase them inside the swamp too, and ultimately, Camellia decides to surrender herself to the police in order to save Vesper. The young girl continually pleads with her not to do so, not to leave her completely alone, but the more mature Camellia perhaps realizes the worth of Vesper to the world if she lives. With a kiss, she puts Vesper to sleep and then turns herself in; although her fate is not shown or mentioned, it is most likely that Camellia is immediately killed in the citadel.

The next morning, Vesper wakes up and finds herself all alone in the woods. She returns to her house, which is just debris now and plants three of the genetically modified seeds in the ground. Hearing scuffling noises, Vesper looks up to see that some of the children who had been part of Jonas cult are now following her since their leader is now dead. She walks across the vast barren land, clearly looking for something, and the kids follow her around. Gradually they become a group, and they come across the pilgrims, and Vesper now follows them to their camp. She had, in fact, always wanted to follow pilgrims to find out where they went, and now she sees that they have built a giant tower in the middle of the forest with all the scavenged wood and metal pieces. Vesper climbs up the tower and sees the citadels in the distance. Perhaps knowing too well that there was no need for any personal favors now since she had lost her father and also everyone else, Vesper decides to let the seeds go into the air, where they will naturally grow into new life wherever they land. A sad tale of loss and suffering thus ends with a bright ray of hope. Even though she could not perhaps save her own dream, Vesper compensates it with the dream of a new world with no shortage of food and supply.

Vesper is a 2022 drama science fiction film directed by Kristina Buozyte and Bruno Samper.

Read the rest here:
'Vesper' Ending, Explained: What Happens To Vesper And Camellia? What Does He Do With The Seeds? | DMT - DMT

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on ‘Vesper’ Ending, Explained: What Happens To Vesper And Camellia? What Does He Do With The Seeds? | DMT – DMT

Studying yeast DNA in space may help protect astronauts from cosmic radiation – The Conversation

Nuclear fusion reactions in the sun are the source of heat and light we receive on Earth. These reactions release a massive amount of cosmic radiation including x-rays and gamma rays and charged particles that can be harmful for any living organisms.

Life on Earth has been protected thanks to a magnetic field that forces charged particles to bounce from pole to pole as well as an atmosphere that filters harmful radiation.

During space travel, however, it is a different situation. To find out what happens in a cell when travelling in outer space, scientists are sending bakers yeast to the moon as part of NASAs Artemis 1 mission.

Read more: Artemis 1: how this 2022 lunar mission will pave the way for a human return to the Moon

Cosmic radiation can damage cell DNA, significantly increasing human risk of neurodegenerative disorders and fatal diseases, like cancer. Because the International Space Station (ISS) is located in one of two of Earths Van Allen radiation belts which provides a safe zone astronauts are not exposed too much. Astronauts in the ISS experience microgravity, however, which is another stress that can dramatically change cell physiology.

As NASA is planning to send astronauts to the moon, and later on to Mars, these environmental stresses become more challenging.

Read more: Twins in space: How space travel affects gene expression

The most common strategy to protect astronauts from the negative effects of cosmic rays is to physically shield them using state-of-the-art materials.

Several studies show that hibernators are more resistant to high doses of radiation, and some scholars have suggested the use of synthetic or induced torpor during space missions to protect astronauts.

Another way to protect life from cosmic rays is studying extremophiles organisms that can remarkably tolerate environmental stresses. Tardigrades, for instance, are micro-animals that have shown an astonishing resistance to a number of stresses, including harmful radiation. This unusual sturdiness stems from a class of proteins known as tardigrade-specific proteins.

Under the supervision of molecular biologist Corey Nislow, I use bakers yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, to study cosmic DNA damage stress. We are participating in NASAs Artemis 1 mission, where our collection of yeast cells will travel to the moon and back in the Orion spacecraft for 42 days.

This collection contains about 6,000 bar-coded strains of yeast, where in each strain, one gene is deleted. When exposed to the environment in space, those strains would begin to lag if deletion of a specific gene affects cell growth and replication.

My primary project at Nislow lab is genetically engineering yeast cells to make them express tardigrade-specific proteins. We can then study how those proteins can alter the physiology of cells and their resistance to environmental stresses most importantly radiation with the hope that such information would come in handy when scientists try to engineer mammals with these proteins.

When the mission is completed and we receive our samples back, using the barcodes, the number of each strain could be counted to identify genes and gene pathways essential for surviving damage induced by cosmic radiation.

Yeast has long served as a model organism in DNA damage studies, which means there is solid background knowledge about the mechanisms in yeast that respond to DNA-damaging agents. Most of the yeast genes playing roles in DNA damage response have been well studied.

Despite the differences in genetic complexity between yeast and humans, the function of most genes involved in DNA replication and DNA damage response have remained so conserved between the two that we can obtain a great deal of information about human cells DNA damage response by studying yeast.

Furthermore, the simplicity of yeast cells compared to human cells (yeast has 6,000 genes while we have more than 20,000 genes) allows us to draw more solid conclusions.

And in yeast studies, it is possible to automate the whole process of feeding the cells and stopping their growth in an electronic apparatus the size of a shoe box, whereas culturing mammalian cells requires more room in the spacecraft and far more complex machinery.

Such studies are essential to understand how astronauts bodies can cope with long-term space missions, and to develop effective countermeasures. Once we identify the genes playing key roles in surviving cosmic radiation and microgravity, wed be able to look for drugs or treatments that could help boost the cells durability to withstand such stresses.

We could then test them in other models (such as mice) before actually applying them to astronauts. This knowledge might also be potentially useful for growing plants beyond Earth.

Read more from the original source:
Studying yeast DNA in space may help protect astronauts from cosmic radiation - The Conversation

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Studying yeast DNA in space may help protect astronauts from cosmic radiation – The Conversation

Should University Agricultural Research Scientists Partner With Industry? – Genetic Literacy Project

Paul Vincelli, extension professor and Provosts Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Kentucky| March 7, 2017

HIGHLIGHTS:

Biases, conflicts of interest come from many sources, including associations with industry, advocacy groups, other non-profits Industry funding of studies on GE crops does not appear to be important bias source Personal experience suggests corporations receptive to negative results, as they improve products, limit liability Limited resources for much agricultural research without industry support Dubious shill accusations against biotech scientists discourage public engagement, depress discourse

Agricultural scientists who interact with the public often feel under enormous scrutiny. One of the most common concerns is that professional ties with industryespecially obtaining funding from industrycompromise scientific credibility. This concern is particularly acute in the area of genetically engineered crops (GE crops, commonly known as GMOs).

Research into genetically engineered crops is not my specialtymy work is focused on plant pathologyand I have never solicited nor received private-sector funding on this issue. Over my career, my industry interactions have dealt with non-GMO products for plant disease control. My interest in GE crops arises from their potential to address genuine human needs and to reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture. And I am concerned that a dark shadow has been cast over many independent scientists because of their collaborative efforts with various stakeholders, including companies.

Biases From Many Sources

Across multiple disciplines, industry-funded projects may be more likely to report positive outcomes, or less likely to report negative outcomes [1-4]. However, industry funding is not always associated with biased outcomes [5, 6]. Furthermore, many sources of funding NGOs, non-profits, other civil and governmental organizationsmay engender conflicts of interest (COIs) and biases that influence reported research. Powerful biases may arise for non-monetary reasons [7] in both researchers and in non-researcherspossibly including you and me.

Regarding GE crops, I am aware of three journal articles on the topic of industry funding and bias. In the first [8], the authors found no evidence of bias due to financial COIs (studies sponsored by an industry source that may benefit from the outcome), but they did document bias associated with professional COIs (where at least one author was affiliated with a company that could benefit from the study outcome). In that study, among the 70 studies examined (see their Table 2), 61% had either a financial or a professional COI. Among the much larger sample size (698 studies) examined by Sanchez [9], the majority had no COI, and only one quarter had COIs related to author affiliation and/or declared funding source.

A recent study by Guillemaud et al [10] had similar findings: among 579 studies with definitive COI information (see their Figure 3), the majority did not report a COI. However, among those with COIs, there was a higher probability of reported outcomes favorable to the GE crop industry. In addition to these journal articles, another independent analysis [11] suggested that industry funding did not bias study outcomes for GE crops, but these data have not been analyzed statistically nor published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Thus, while evidence to date shows that the majority of studies on GE crops are not influenced by COIs, some fraction is so influenced. Therefore, there is value in remaining alert to the possibility of bias and in continuing to practice full disclosure. I believe it is important to remain alert to COIs and biases of all sortsnot only those associated with corporate influences, but also those of NGOs or other civil organizations that may have explicit or implicit agendas.

Some people simply do not trust corporations. This is understandable, given the indefensible behavior of some in business, such as the tobacco industry, the chemical industry, Exxon, and Volkswagen [12-15]. Consequently, some members of the public perfunctorily dismiss commercial-sector scientists who may have solid scientific skills and high personal integrity. I personally must admit to a measure of distrust of corporations, which may even express itself occasionally as an anti-industry bias. But I also believe it is unwise to categorically reject all industry-funded data, solely on the basis of their provenance. In fact, I would label such an attitude a bias itself. Thoughtful, evidence-based analysis must always trump bias and ideologyand does, for a good scientist.

Why do researchers accept industry funding? Public-sector and private-sector scientists may share common interests. Industry scientists and I share a common interest in knowing what works in the field and what doesnt. Consequently, industry sources provide funding for field tests of their products for plant disease control. Furthermore, public funding for science in the USA is insufficient to support even a fraction of the worthy research projects. Inadequate funding can quickly and thoroughly undercut a career in science at any stage. Since researchers are hired to do research on important topics and not to whine about the difficult state of public funding, some will welcome funding from commercial sources, if it allows them to continue to do research they believe is intellectually compelling, important to society, or both. Also, industry scientists may have knowledge, skills, and facilities that we public scientists may not.

My Funding Choices: Scientific Rigor Coupled With Personal Integrity

Discussing my own practices should provide an idea of how many scientists work. Roughly half of my funding over the years has been from industry, primarily to support product testing for plant disease control. I have commonly tested synthetic fungicides, but I have also tested natural products of various sorts. In fact, commercial pesticide manufacturers can fairly accuse me of an anti-pesticide bias. I say this because I have tended to favor testing products that might be perceived as more consistent with sustainability (biocontrol products, for example) than applications of synthetic chemicals, often requesting limited, or no, funding for such tests. Besides industry funding, I have received federal funds for research and outreach on detection and management of plant diseases.

I publish all efficacy trials in Plant Disease Management Reports. We commonly publish data showing inadequate efficacy or phytotoxicity, and I never consider funding sources when the report is drafted. In fact, the reports are drafted by the Senior Research Analyst who conducts the field work, and he doesnt know who provided funding nor for what amount. Thus, our testing program does not suffer from publication bias. This approach is not exceptional [16, 17].

I accept no personal giftsmonetary or materialfrom private-sector sources.

I have no hesitation about challenging multinational corporations. For example, I provided a degree of national leadership in challenging a major pesticide manufacturer over certain uses of a commercial crop fungicide. I was one of the lead authors of a letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency raising questions about the paucity of public data to support plant health claims. I gave a similar talk in a major scientific conference, the 2009 American Phytopathological Society meeting.

Several factors may help me and other scientists to offset natural human tendencies towards bias:

A common concern is that providing funding buys access to researchers. This may sometimes be the case, but for me, this criticism doesnt fit. I am an Extension Specialist everybody has access to me and my expertise. I dont recall a single instance in my entire career when I failed to return a phone call or email from anyone. In fact, it is a federal requirement that Extension programming be grounded in engagement with diverse stake- holdersincluding, but certainly not limited to, industry [18].

What Happens When Data Fall Short Of Company Expectations?

We regularly see poor product performance in our experiments. In a memorable instance, we observed visible injury to a creeping bentgrass putting green from a particular formulation of the widely used fungicide, chlorothalonil. On the day of application, the turfgrass was suffering exceptionally severe drought stress, due to an irrigation equipment failure, which probably was a predisposing factor.

I notified the company of my observations, which is my standard practice if a product provides unexpectedly poor performance or unexpected phytotoxicity. This is not to provide the company the opportunity to help me see the error of my ways. Rather, this is simply good scientific practice. I want industry scientists to collect their own samples, so that they may better understand the poor results obtained; and to offer hypotheses or insights that may account for the unexpected results, as they often know things about their product and its performance that I do not.

In the case of the turfgrass injury caused by chlorothalonil, a company representative and I visited the experiment together and shared observations. I listened to the representatives hypotheses and shared my own. After the meeting and additional lab work, I reported my findings in various outlets. In my research program, unfavorable results get reported no differently than favorable results.

I must state emphatically that, in my 34 years of product testing for plant disease control, I cannot recall a single instance where a company representative attempted to pressure me to report favorable results. Company representatives do not like to receive bad news, but in my experience, almost every company representative I have interacted with has been professional enough to recognize the importance of discovering the limitations of their products sooner rather than later. The consequences of introducing an inadequate product can be catastrophic for a corporation.

Corporate Funding for Outreach

What about private-sector funding for outreach? To my knowledge, such funds are never provided with a quid pro quo that the scientist will make particular claims about a companys products. To the contrary, private-sector representatives take note of speakers whose scientific understanding is consistent with their own. They may approach those speakers to discuss possible support for outreach, but without specifying the content of such presentations. Although I refuse industry funding for all aspects of GE crops, I do not suspect undue industry influence when funds are provided for travel expenses or supplies of invited speakers. Even honoraria or stipends for speaking engagements dont particularly concern me. This is true for such funding across the full spectrum of possible funding sources, ranging from advocacy groups for organic agriculture to multinational pesticide manufacturers. I want to see the scientific methods and data, no matter who did the study.

Who Should Pay For Research?

Should publicly funded professors even do product testing? Yes: there is a public interest in independent assessments of how products perform. The more public data on performance, the better.

If you agree that third-party testing is desirable, the question arises, Who pays for it? I believe that, usually, the manufacturer is responsible, not the taxpayer. Of course, this raises concern about funding bias. If a researcher wishes to avoid funding bias, can they tap into other sources? Not in my discipline. Pools of public funding for product testing are essentially non-existent.

What about studies of possible impacts of products to the environment? Who should pay for that? Again, in my opinion, such costs fall to the manufacturer, although in some cases, there is a compelling public interest that justifies the use of public funds for product testing.

Final thoughts: Does industry-researcher cooperation undermine the credibility of scientific research?

For me, the answer is, No. We should be cognizant of possible biases and COIs due to source of fundingwhether the source is industry, NGOs, advocacy organizations, or other sources. Disclosure is critical [7, 19]. However, industry scientists are often excellent scientists who take pride in their work, no differently than any industry critic. Yes, we should exercise a degree of caution when reviewing industry-funded research, but the same holds for research funded by advocacy organizations, since each has an agenda. Personally, in all cases, I will not reject either source out of hand; I will judge the work based on its scientific merit.

Sometimes the bias against industry-funded research on GE becomes hurtful, especially in the social media. Witnessing dedicated public servants being unfairly attacked as industry shills is demoralizing to public scientists, and it has the unintended consequence of discouraging public engagement by scientists who already have very busy professional and personal lives. Such unfounded charges are not only divisive and unproductive: they are unkind and can be abusive. (Sadly, unkind behavior can be found in all sides of the GMO debate.)

My freedom from industry funding on all aspects of GE protects me from similar accusations. Yet it doesnt surprise good scientists that, after years of studying the scientific literature, I independently arrived at an understanding very similar to that presented in the re- port of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) published earlier this year [20]. This isnt because industry has somehow influenced me or the members of the NASEM review committee. It is because there is a substantial body of credible science supporting the conclusions presented in the NASEM report. In reviewing the body of peer-reviewed scientific literature on GE crops, one is likely to arrive at similar conclusions. I had an identical experience with the scientific consensus on climate change [21].

Ultimately, with enough careful study of evidence from credible sources, fidelity to good scientific practice, and a degree of humility, it is hard not to arrive at findings rather similar to those of journal-published experts of a scientific discipline. They actually do know something about their subject after all.

Paul Vincelli is an Extension Professor and Provosts Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Kentucky. Over the 26 at UK, he has developed specializations in management of diseases of corn, forages, and turfgrasses, molecular diagnostics, and international agriculture. He also has provided Extension programming on climate change and on genetic engineering of crops. He currently is UKs Coordinator for the USDAs Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program, and he serves as Councilor-At-Large for the American Phytopathological Society.

The Genetic Literacy Project is a 501(c)(3) non profit dedicated to helping the public, journalists, policy makers and scientists better communicate the advances and ethical and technological challenges ushered in by the biotechnology and genetics revolution, addressing both human genetics and food and farming. We are one of two websites overseen by the Science Literacy Project; our sister site, the Epigenetics Literacy Project, addresses the challenges surrounding emerging data-rich technologies.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are expressed to John R. Hartman and Jon Entine, for reviewing earlier drafts of the manuscript.

Disclosure Statement

The author declares no conflicts of interest in the topic of GE crops. Detailed disclosure documents may be found here. The author donated the full amount of his monetary honorarium for writing this article to Human Rights Watch.

Literature Cited

1. Bes-Rastrollo, M., Schulze, M. B., Ruiz-Canela, M. and Martinez-Gonzalez, M. A., Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: A systematic review of systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine, 2013, Vol. 10, p. e1001578, DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pmed.1001578. Available from: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001578

2. Lesser, L. I., Ebbeling, C. B., Goozner, M., Wypij, D. and Ludwig, D. S., Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Medicine, 2007, Vol. 4, p. e5, DOI: 10.1371/journal. pmed.0040005. Available from: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005

3. Vera-Badillo, F. E., Shapiro, R., Ocana, A., Amir, E. and Tannock, I. F., Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol, 2013, Vol. 24, p. 1238-44, DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds636. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23303339

4. Landefeld, C. S., Commercial support and bias in pharmaceutical research. Am J Med, 2004, Vol. 117, p. 876-8, DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.10.001. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15589496

5. Barden, J., Derry, S., McQuay, H. J. and Moore, R. A., Bias from industry trial funding? A framework, a suggested approach, and a negative result. Pain, 2006, Vol. 121, p. 207-18, DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2005.12.011. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16495012

6. Kaplan, R. M. and Irvin, V. L., Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time. PLoS One, 2015, Vol. 10, p. e0132382, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132382. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26244868

7. Young, S. N., Bias in the research literature and conflict of interest: an issue for publishers, editors, reviewers and authors, and it is not just about the money. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 2009, Vol. 34, p. 412-417. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2783432/

8. Diels, J., Cunha, M., Manaia, C., Sabugosa-Madeira, B. and Silva, M., Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products. Food Policy, 2011, Vol. 36, p. 197-203, DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.016. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919210001302

9. Sanchez, M. A., Conflict of interests and evidence base for GM crops food/feed safety research. Nat Biotechnol, 2015, Vol. 33, p. 135-7, DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3133. Available from:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25658276

10. Guillemaud, T., Lombaert, E. and Bourguet, D., Conflicts of interest in GM Bt crop efficacy and durability studies. PLoS One, 2016, Vol. 11, p. e0167777, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167777. Available from:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27977705

11. Brazeau, M., GM Food is Safe According to Independent Studies, in Cosmos. 2014. Available from: https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/gm-food-safe-according-independent-studies.

12. Gates, G., Ewing, J., Russell, K. and Watkins, D. Explaining Volkswagens Emissions Scandal. New York Times. 19 Jul 2016. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/vw-diesel-emissions-scandal-explained.html.

13. Markowitz, G. and Rosner, D., Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution, With a New Epilogue. 2013, California/Milbank Books on Health and the Public. 446 pp. pp, ISBN 9780520275829.

14. Ingram, D. Judge Orders Tobacco Companies to Admit Deception. Reuters News Agency. 27 Nov 2012. Available from: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tobacco-idUSBRE8AQ18A20121128.

15. Banerjee, N., Lisa Song, L. and Hasemyer, D., Exxons Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels Role in Global Warming Decades Ago. 2015 16 Sep 2015 [Accessed 18 Aug 2016]; Available from: https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken.

16. Lipsky, P. E., Bias, conflict of interest and publishing. Nature Reviews Rheumatology, 2009, Vol. 5, p. 175-176, DOI: 10.1038/nrrheum.2009.52. Available from: http://www.nature.com/nrrheum/journal/v5/n4/full/nrrheum.2009.52.html

17. Kniss, A., I Am Biased and So Are You: Thoughts on Funding and Influence in Science. 2016 [Accessed 18 Aug 2016]; Available from: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/08/i-am-biased-and-so-are-you-thoughts-on-funding-and-influence-in-science/.

18. Kelsey, K. D. and Mariger, S. C., A case study of stakeholder needs for Extension education Journal of Extension, 2002, Vol. 40, 2RIB2. Available from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002april/rb2.php

19. Lewandowsky, S. and Bishop, D., Dont let transparency damage science. Nature, 2016, Vol. 529, p. 459-461. Available from: http://www.nature.com/news/research-integrity-don-t-let-transparency-damage-science-1.19219

20. National Academies Press. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. 2016, ISBN 978-0-309-43738-7. Washington DC. 420 pp. Available from: http://www.nap.edu/23395Accessed18May2016.

21. Vincelli, P., Scientific consensus as a foundation for Extension programming. Journal of Extension, 2015, Vol. 53, 1COM2. Available from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2015february/comm2.php

The rest is here:
Should University Agricultural Research Scientists Partner With Industry? - Genetic Literacy Project

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Should University Agricultural Research Scientists Partner With Industry? – Genetic Literacy Project