Its the rumour that wont go away that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally leaked from a high biosecurity lab in Wuhan, China. The allegation is that the laboratory was conducting gain of function (GOF) research, and that this produced a potent version of coronavirus that led to the pandemic.

This has led to some scepticism and distrust of the field of research and whether it is necessary to conduct experiments using GOF techniques.

Essentially, GOF research is used to learn how viruses gain new functions through mutation and evolution.

A function is simply a property of an organism, such as plants that are more tolerant to drought or disease, or enzymes that evolved to make our bodies work.

The language about GOF has become loaded with negative connotations that associate this work with dangerous or risky research. But like rhetoric about genetic modification, these connections dont represent the diversity of the field or the security precautions that regulate the research. At its core, though, the research does exactly what the name suggests.

GOF research observes these mutations and sees how certain stimuli might affect evolutionary changes and properties of a virus or organism.

However, in our current climate its often spoken about in a much narrower context, as though its specifically about how a virus changes to move more easily between humans, or how viruses become more lethal. This just doesnt represent the full picture of GOF research.

Viruses evolve rapidly thats why there are so many new SARS-CoV-2 variants. GOF seeks to understand why and how these changes occur, and what environmental factors might influence the process.

In a sense, this is a know-your-enemy approach.

Beyond the benefit to fundamental biology research about the nature of viruses and evolution, GOF contributes to three clear areas: pandemic preparedness, vaccine development, and identification of new or potential pathogens.

GOF research can help us understand the rate at which mutations occur, and how many generations may be needed for a virus to change in a way that will require extra precautions in the community, which is information that is fed into epidemiological modelling.

This GOF information helps predict things such as how likely a virus is to become a nasty variant in a certain population size or density, during a certain season, or within a particular period or time. This informs how we react to a pandemic. Beyond this, it also informs how quickly a virus might mutate to overcome vaccines, and provides genetic information that may be useful in vaccine development. Specifically, GOF research can accumulate potential vaccine candidates in a database that can be accessed if an outbreak occurs because of natural evolution.

In turn, this means vaccine development can be sped up exponentially because candidates are already available.

For instance, a report from a 2015 GOF risk-assessment workshop for expert organisations revealed the genomics information from GOF research. This showed that bat-borne, SARS-like coronaviruses had many strains and mutations that had pandemic potential against which countermeasures need to be developed.

This information led to current pandemic responses and vaccine development the pandemic was already predicted because of a thorough understanding of the evolution of coronaviruses.

In another example, GOF experiments about influenza showed that the virus had the potential to be transmitted between different mammals with only a few changes to the genetic code, and has contributed to seasonal flu vaccines.

GOF research is based on observed evolution and changes to DNA or RNA.

The genome is the sum of all the genetic information in an organism. Some of this DNA or RNA is made up of genes, which often hold information on how to make a protein. These proteins perform functions in our body to make everything work.

These genes can naturally change a bit every generation. This happens because, to reproduce, the DNA of the parent must be replicated. The mechanisms that do this arent perfect, so little mistakes can be made when the DNA is copied.

Most of the time, the changes are tiny just a single unit of DNA (called a nucleotide) could be changed, and it may have no effect on the proteins made. At other times, the tiny change of a single nucleotide can make a gene gain a whole new function, which could be beneficial to an organism.

Natural mutations that occur during reproduction are one example of evolution in action.

These changes happen every generation, so organisms that can breed quickly, such as flies, can also evolve quickly as a species.

This process happens in essentially the same way with viruses, except that viruses have RNA instead of DNA and reproduce asexually. They still make proteins, and they still accumulate mutations, but the major difference is that they can reproduce very, very fast they can start reproducing within hours of being born and evolve at an exceptionally rapid rate.

This is why we have identified so many new variants of SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of 2020. Every time the virus enters a new host, it reproduces rapidly, and mutations occur. Over time these mutations change the properties of the virus itself.

For example, new mutations may end up making the virus more virulent or cause worse symptoms because the proteins have changed their properties.

In these cases, we would say that the mutant strain has gained a function, and this is what GOF research aims to understand.

The viruses in a lab dont have a human host in which to grow, so researchers grow them in Petri dishes or animals instead.

There are two ways of using GOF in a lab: you can observe the virus mutate on its own (without intervention), or you can control small changes through genetic modification.

The first type of use involves putting the virus in different situations to see how it will evolve without intervention or aid.

This video is an example of GOF research with bacteria (not a virus, but the method is similar). The researchers put bacteria onto a giant petri dish with different concentrations of antibiotics. They leave the bacteria and watch how it naturally evolves to overcome the antibiotic.

The new strains of bacteria were able to be genetically sequenced to see what genetic changes had caused them to become antibiotic-resistant. This experiment can show how quickly the bacteria evolve, which can inform when or how often antibiotics are given, and whether there is a high-enough concentration of antibiotic that can halt the speed at which the antibiotic is overcome by resistance.

Similar experiments can be conducted with viruses to see how they might change to overcome human antibodies and other immune system protections.

Read more: What happens in a virology lab?

The second type of use is through small changes using genetic modification. This type of experiment occurs after a lot of other genetic information has already been gathered to identify which nucleotides in virus RNA might particularly contribute to a new function.

After these have been identified, a single or small nucleotide change will be made to the virus to confirm the predictions gained from genomic research. The modified virus will then be placed on a petri dish or inserted into an animal, such as a rabbit or a mouse, to see how the change affects the properties of the virus.

This type of research is done in specialised laboratories that are tightly controlled and heavily regulated under biosecurity laws that involve containment and decontamination processes.

Read more: How are dangerous viruses contained in Australia?

While the benefits of virus GOF research centre around pandemic preparedness, concerns have been raised about whether the research is ethical or safe.

In 2005, researchers used this technique for viruses when they reconstructed influenza (H1N1) from samples taken in 1918. The aim was to learn more about the properties of influenza and future pandemics, as influenza still circulates, but the controversial study sparked heavy debate about whether it should be acceptable.

The two major concerns are about whether this poses any threat to public health if a virus escapes the lab, or whether the techniques could be used for nefarious purposes.

In the past year, 16 years after the H1N1 study, there has been debate about whether SARS-CoV-2 had spontaneous zoonotic origins, or whether it was created in a lab in GOF experiments, and then escaped.

So now, 16 years after the first controversial H1N1 study, this speculation has pushed GOF research back into the public eye and led to many criticisms of the research field, and regulation of laboratories that use this technique.

In 2017, the US government lifted bans on GOF pathogen research after the National Institute of Health concluded that the risks of research into influenza and MERS were outweighed by the benefits, and that few posed significant threats to public health.

Following concerns about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, however, the rules surrounding GOF research, risk assessments and disclosure of experiments are now under review again, in order to clarify policy.

Read more: The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and dont know

Beyond this, the speculation has sparked further inquiries into the origin of SARS-CoV-2, although the World Health Organization concluded that viral escape from a laboratory was very unlikely.

Regardless, its never a bad thing to review biosafety, biosecurity and transparency policy as new evidence becomes available, and they have been frequently reviewed throughout history.

As for the concern that a government or private entity might abuse scientific techniques for malevolent purposes, scientists can, and do, support bans on research they deem ethically irresponsible, such as the controversial CRISPR babies.

Ultimately, the parameters around how scientific techniques like GOF are used and by whom is not a scientific question, but one that must be answered by ethicists.

The rest is here:

What is gain of function research in genetics? - Cosmos Magazine

New Delhi: Coronavirus was first identified in 1967 in the United Kingdom and then in the United States. That same year the first pseudo-virus was created in a laboratory in the US. Until the SARS pandemic of 2002, no new human coronavirus was discovered. Bats, coronaviruses and wet markets have existed for centuries without even an epidemic. Then suddenly in the past 20 years for the first time in history we have had SARS, MERS and Covid-19 coronavirus pandemics, all blamed on bats without convincing evidence. It is well known that clandestine bio-warfare research has been going on since World War 1. Initially, these efforts focused on historically important pathogens and the influenza virus of the first flu pandemic of 1918. Historically, all pandemics and large epidemics were due to plague, cholera, typhus or smallpox. Bacteria cause the first three of these diseases and all these have been suppressed by better hygiene. Smallpox virus has become extinct thanks to worldwide vaccination. Then suddenly pandemics due to newly discovered HIV virus in 1981, Ebola virus in 2004 and coronaviruses appeared from the wild or at least that is what we were told.

In the past few years, military researchers have been busy collecting viruses from wild animals, especially bats. They have focused their energies on deadly viruses that have existed in wild animals since centuries. From prehistoric times humans have hunted, consumed, poached and used parts of exotic wild animals as in Chinese medicine. Still the first zoonotic virus pandemics were in the past few years. These recent episodes are too many to be just a coincidence. The simultaneous development of genetic engineering technology and search for deadly wild viruses by military researchers cannot be a coincidence either.

Detailed report: Zoonoses blamed for man-made pandemics

Continued here:

Manmade viruses being blamed on animals - The Sunday Guardian Live - The Sunday Guardian

We've got potentially about 200,000 algae species that we know of on planet Earth - we don't even think we've scratched the surface yet - and out of those, only about 20,000 have been characterized, and from these, only about 15 have been grown commercially at any scale, Provectus Algae founder and CEO Nusqe Spanton told FoodNavigator-USA.

And the reason is because algae is extremely particular about the light which it absorbs to grow [most algae species are photosynthetic, in that they require light along with carbon dioxide and water - to produce organic compounds].

When it grows really fast, it tends to block out its own light, and the specificity of the light that's required to grow all of these algae species is vastly different. Think about the environments in which algae grows on the surface of the ocean, at 500 meters deep. And if you think about the way light is utilized in these environments, it's very different, so the vast majority of algae species we know of cannot handle natural sunlight to grow.

But more importantly, 99% of all algae species are extremely fragile, and because of that, you cant put many species in traditional production systems because you can destroy the algae cells, which has limited our ability to use algae [as a microbial host]for synthetic biology purposes, because its so hard to grow on an industrial scale without killing it.

But these are two key problems we solved early on, claimed Spanton, who is based in Queensland, Australia, but is targeting the US, Europe, and Asia. Weve got a fundamentally different industrial process for growing algae and this enables us to look at vastly different product lines and species to push through into industrial scale.

So, we don't see ourselves as a competitor to anyone [growing things like spirulina or astaxanthin in outdoor ponds, or chlorella for protein, or Schizochytriumsp forDHA omega-3s].We're a complementary platform, to deliver novel products in algae that's never been utilized commercially before.

He added: Were seeing huge interest from corporates; there's a significant move within the industry to move towards more sustainable and environmentally friendly production systems and alleviate some of the pain points associated with specialty food and beverage ingredients.

Provectus Algae has developed closed system automated bioreactors using photosynthetic algae as a platform for growing high-value compounds at extreme densities with a series of LED lights, said Spanton, a marine biotechlogist who founded the business in April 2018 after years working with large-scale aquaculture systems.

Seeing the rapid technological developments in synthetic biology; what became clear to me was that existing microbial platforms using bacteria and yeast really limit our ability to produce more complex molecules found in plants and animals.

Yeast and bacteria, he said, are simple organisms good at converting sugar into carbon dioxide and energy. So with yeast, say, youre basically starting with an empty chassis of a cell, so you have to genetically engineer the entire metabolic process inside that cell.

The beauty of using algae is that the majority of that process may already be done it already has the metabolic components to deliver those products already. Algae is what all plants and animals evolved from originally, and so its vastly different from other microbial platforms that are existing today.

He added:The advantage of using algae compared to those other [microbial expression]systems is that sometimes 90% of the genetic work is already done for us naturally by the algae, so utilizing these existing biological components to our advantage, we're able to speed up product development time, which offers a huge advantage for our customers.

He added: I realized that photosynthetic algae could be the third pillar in synthetic biology, used alongside existing platforms [yeast, bacteria]to produce more complex molecules. So were building an entire bio manufacturing platform that is turnkey for customers, providing product development all the way through to contract manufacturing.

So how does it work?

Provectus deploys a couple of approaches: the first uses algae species that naturally produce a given compound such as a pigment or fatty acid.

Here, deploying what it calls precision photosynthesis, Provectus can optimize and improve the algaes productivity by exposing it to light, which effectively alters its DNA and improves its productivity without using techniques that would be classified as genetic engineering from a regulatory perspective, said Spanton.

If we can control the light, we can control the DNA, and were able to deliver any type of light in the visible spectrum but also in the infrared and UV spectrum, manipulate the algae and push it down a metabolic pathway to vastly increase the production of a target substance naturally inside the algae."

The second approach involves using the entire synthetic biology toolkit, such as CRISPR [gene editing],insertion of genes, design and synthesis of DNA, and inserting those genes into the algae, and we can then use that to upregulate [the production of a given substance]or to produce products that aren't naturally occurring at all in the algae, he added.

We have the capability to do both naturally occurring products in novel algae species that have never been commercially grown before, and also biosynthetic products using our synthetic biology toolkit to design and engineer new algae strains for novel high performance products that don't exist today.

According to an international patent application published in April 2020,Provectus Algae has developed bioreactors for growing algae with a controller connected to sensors that monitor everything from dissolved gases (oxygen, carbon dioxide) to cell density, temperature, pH, salinity, nitrates, and cell health.

This data is then sent to a remote device such as a laptop or cellphone from which users can set the spectrum, intensity, and flickering frequency of the LED lights, and make adjustments to the inputs and growing conditions, which can be optimized via artificial intelligence.

Right now, the company has a 20,000 liter pilot facility for product development, but is building a 200,000 liter facility, said Spanton, who has raised around $3.5m to date and is currently raising additional funds. We expect to scale up very rapidly over the next two years.

The business model is designed for speed and agility, said Spanton, who is working with large ingredients suppliers and CPG companies.

Unlike companies focused on driving an individual product to market, he said, Our product is our platform; customers pay for product development through to contract manufacturing. Once we've produced a commercially viable product, we then take a small share of the revenue in a royalty agreement once thats taken to market.

Lets say you're producing plant-based burgers, and maybe you cant source enough beets from conventional farming to produce your [pink color].So companies will come to us, well identify an algae that can [produce the target color/ingredient]for their application.

If you need something vegan friendly and non GMO, we can deliver a product to those specifications. Well look for a naturally occurring algae species that can deliver the particular coloring you want, perhaps within a novel algae species, and then we can control and upregulate the process to vastly increase the production of that pigment in the algae.

Asked about IP, he said:Weve got patents on using a cloud-enabled platform to produce algae, and there's a lot of trade secrets, IP that go around that in not only the production systems, in the hardware and software that go behind it, but also in the detailed components of how to grow algae, so there's a lifetime of knowledge behind Provectus Algae as well.

Right now the company is exploring scores of ingredients from peptides to antibiotics for markets from nutraceuticals to pharma with partners in the US, Europe and Asia, but on the food side, he said, there is strong potential in high-value ingredients such as pigments, antioxidants, sweet proteins, specialty additives, and binding agents.

As for bulk protein, he said, At the moment the production metrics just aren't there, although we fully expect that over the next decade as our as our technology comes to market, products like bulk proteins for alternative proteins markets will become commercially viable.

More:

'If we can control the light, we can control the DNA' Provectus Algae unlocks algae's potential as an industrial platform for high-value ingredients -...

Creative destruction plays a key role in entrepreneurship and economic development.

Coined by economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1942, the theory of creative destruction suggests that business cycles operate under long waves of innovation. Specifically, as markets are disrupted, key clusters of industries have outsized effects on the economy.

Take the railway industry, for example. At the turn of the 19th century, railways completely reshaped urban demographics and trade. Similarly, the internet disrupted entire industriesfrom media to retail.

The above infographic shows how innovation cycles have impacted economies since 1785, and whats next for the future.

From the first wave of textiles and water power in the industrial revolution, to the internet in the 1990s, here are the six waves of innovation and their key breakthroughs.

Source: Edelsen Institute, Detlef Reis

During the first wave of the Industrial Revolution, water power was instrumental in manufacturing paper, textiles, and iron goods. Unlike the mills of the past, full-sized dams fed turbines through complex belt systems. Advances in textiles brought the first factory, and cities expanded around them.

With the second wave, between about 1845 and 1900, came significant rail, steam, and steel advancements. The rail industry alone affected countless industries, from iron and oil to steel and copper. In turn, great railway monopolies were formed.

The emergence of electricity powering light and telephone communication through the third wave dominated the first half of the 1900s. Henry Ford introduced the Model T, and the assembly line transformed the auto industry. Automobiles became closely linked with the expansion of the American metropolis. Later, in the fourth wave, aviation revolutionized travel.

After the internet emerged by the early 1990s, barriers to information were upended. New media changed political discourse, news cycles, and communication in the fifth wave. The internet ushered in a new frontier of globalization, a borderless landscape of digital information flows.

To the economist Schumpeter, technological innovations boosted economic growth and improved living standards.

However, these disruptors can also have a tendency to lead to monopolies. Especially during a cycles upswing, the strongest players realize wide margins, establish moats, and fend off rivals. Typically, these cycles begin when the innovations become of general use.

Of course, this can be seen todaynever has the world been so closely connected. Information is more centralized than it has ever been, with Big Tech dominating global search traffic, social networks, and advertising.

Like the Big Tech behemoths of today, the rail industry had the power to control prices and push out competitors during the 19th century. At the peak, listed shares of rail companies on the New York Stock Exchange made up 60% of total stock market capitalization.

As cycle longevity continues to shorten, the fifth wave may have a few years left under its belt.

The sixth wave, marked by artificial intelligence and digitization across information of things (IoT), robotics, and drones, will likely paint an entirely new picture. Namely, the automation of systems, predictive analytics, and data processing could make an impact. In turn, physical goods and services will likely be digitized. The time to complete tasks could shift from hours to even seconds.

At the same time, clean tech could come to the forefront. At the heart of each technological innovation is solving complex problems, and climate concerns are becoming increasingly pressing. Lower costs in solar PV and wind are also predicating efficiency advantages.

Continue reading here:

The World's Tech Giants, Compared to the Size of Economies - Visual Capitalist

Only if a human employs his imagination and technology, there is almost nothing that can trouble this race for long.

Plastic has become a nuisance for this planet since eternity: clutching marine souls, smothering lives in deep cold waters, clogging waterways and streams in hills etc.

According to a Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) report, nearly 3.3 million metric tonnes ofplastic wasteget generated yearly in India alone, forming approximately 9,200 tonnes aday(TPD).

Worst is when it gets broken down into microplastics due to extensive wind movement and integrates with human immediate surroundings finally polluting the Mother Nature.

Annually, 8 million tons of this plastic trash gets dumped into no-more-serene oceans, reducing its dissolved oxygen available for the flora-fauna in the marine ecosystem.

But its not just plastic thats competing for the available resource in vast waters.

When the excessive nutrients drain in the water bodies, this may lead to uncontrolled growth of algal blooms through a process called Eutrophication.

This can eventually ruin the drinking water supplies and create hypoxic dead zones in waters where nothing can survive literally, destabilizing the ecological balance in water systems and adversely affecting aquaculture.

Just like any other mishap on this human-damned planet, Climate change has a role to play in this too, accelerating the overall growth.

This can further trigger other problems, like according to anew study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, algal blooms have increased the global methane emissions by 30 to 90 percent.

Methane is more dangerous greenhouse gas it remains for long in the atmosphere and is34 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the short term.

Unless we put our minds and hands at work, this problem will persist and is bound to increase too.

Another study claims that with extra sewage, fertilizers, and other nutrients entering waterways entering waters by 2050, they will register an increase of 200 percent or maybe quadruple by 2100.

There are several companies those have started manufacturing articles using Bloom, a material that is a blend of polymers and algae.

According to a collaborator at Bloom: Humans are responsible for excessive amounts of nutrients like CO2, nitrogen and phosphorus leaking into our waterways, lakes and oceans leading to environmental and societal problems.

Our idea for founding BLOOM was to transform algae blooms from an environmental problem into a sustainable material that incentivizes capturing CO2 and cleaning water while reducing our use of oil and plastics.

The idea involves extracting the water saturated with algal blooms and preparing algal pellets after significant drying and reinforcing into such shapes.

These pellets are then mixed in 10-30% proportion along with the plastic pellets supplied to the manufacturers, using plastics in their end products.

Varied blending materials can be obtained from usage of algal biomass, for instance, PLA, PHA, cellulose, starch and protein.

It is to note that the mechanical properties of such microalgae-embedded plastic films were found comparable to the ones manufactured with significant environmental impact.

The principle of genetic engineering can prove to be a promising way in modifying the algae strains to synthesize compounds for bioplastics production like thermoplastics.

Through genetic engineering, alterations can be made to reduce the production cost as the bacterial fermentation system for producing PHB is costly for bioplastics manufacturing

Brands like Adidas, Dr. Scholl etc. those adopt BLOOM materials into their products are supporting lake restoration and environmental protection projects that have verifiable positive impact that end consumers can understand and embrace.

Even a single sole of a shoe produced has successfully restored and cleaned 17ltrs of water and helped clean 8gms of CO2.

Subsequently, there has been a petition filed with UNESCO for greater punishment for the pollution of water bodies worldwide.

We urge UNESCO to develop and implement a global education program work with governments to end destructive agricultural and industrial practices, especially the use of phosphates and nitrates, and start implementing proven, regenerative, nature-based solutions.

Follow this link:

Plastic and algae helping each other to make sustainable and biodegradable stuff - The Indian Wire

Is there anything more natural than birth? The birth of our planet. The birth of a human being. The cycle of birth, life, death forms the foundation of our being.

You might even say that God gave us a soul because the gift of immortality would be seen as overindulgence. Now science and technology are changing all that.

Throughout history, there has been a fascination to make a better human. To eliminate the fundamental flaw in the human lifecycleto overcome ageing, the cruel deterioration of ones faculties and, ultimately, death.

The ideal of replicating ourselves as something smarter, stronger, and impervious to the ravages of time is perhaps humanitys greatest unfinished ambition. To elevate ourselves from mere mortals to God status.

From a science and technology perspective, this kind of pseudo-immortality is called transhumanism: the biotechnological enhancement of humans that virtually eliminates the terminal frailties of human biology.

Transhumanists envision that we will soon haveimplants to augment our senses and enhance our cognitive processes by bonding ourselves to brain interface memory chips and other human-enhancement technologies.

In short: the merging of man and machine is becoming a reality, perhaps within the next one or two decades.

The endgame is that science and technology will create humans with hugely enhanced intelligence, superhuman strength, speed and stamina, and significantly extended lifespans.

An odd endeavour when globally, the principal driver of environmental degradation, greenhouse gas emissions and thus climate change is exponential population growth.

A far cry from Paul and Anne Ehrlichs inciteful warning in their bookThe Population Bomb(1968). In which they predicted a deteriorating natural environment, social upheaval, and mass starvation as a consequence of overpopulation hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.

Of course, this hasnt happened yet, although our planet shows signs of severe wear and tear, and starvation and malnutrition regularly occur on varying scales.

Conversely, the global fertility rate has halved since 1950 and continues to fall. Predictions suggest that the global population willpeak at 10.9 billion by 2100and go into reverse. By that time, however, things could have gone seriously awry.

Nonetheless, the quest for immortality is unwavering as it is timeless. Author Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (1797-1851) set the cat among the pigeons with one of literatures classic allegories,Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus(1831).

Not only did Victor Frankenstein create artificial life that was void of a soula sacrilege of sorts in a time dominated by the Church but one that would not experience death.

A dramatic leap from the wooden legs, false teeth, and average life expectancy of around 35 years in seventeenth-century England.

ShelleysFrankensteinwas originally published anonymously in 1818 following the French Revolution in 1789 and the end of the Enlightenment (1685-1815).

The famed German philosopher Immanuel Kant, in his essayWhat Is Enlightenment?(1784), captured the zeitgeist of the period with the maxim Dare to know! Have courage to use your own reason.

In accord with this maxim, both Mary Shelleys parents were Enlightenment philosophers, and both influenced her writing.

The tenets of the Enlightenment centred on egalitarianism a social doctrine that emphasises equality among all societys members which inspired Mary Shelleys mother, Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1787), to writeVindication of the Rights of Women(1792), in which she argued that women were not naturally inferior to men.

Mary Wollstonecraft passed away soon after Mary Shelleys birth. However, the spirit of her fight for equality is reflected inFrankenstein, which is, in essence, a metaphorical retort to the philosophical and political values that beset societys progress and equality at the time.

Mary Shelleys father, William Godwin (17561836), was a political philosopher and writer. He is celebrated for his workEnquiry Concerning Political Justice(1793).

Godwin argued that government was a corrupting force in society that propagated dependency and ignorance but would gradually be rendered powerless once people became educated and human understanding expanded.

The substance of her fathers thesis parallels Mary Shellys own novel. Victor Frankensteins Monster was rejected by society and solely dependent on its creator, who likewise rejects him.

Governments foster dependency similarly by providing sustenance with one hand while oppressing with the other.

Shelley uses the themes of isolation and loneliness, rejection and oppression to mirror her societys fears and bigotry. But which also reflect modern society: the hegemonic constructs of the privileged class define the constitution of humanity and reject self-determination by individuals. Indigenous communities and other minority groups can attest to this.

Shelley moreover instils her mothers innate influence, gender inequality one of societys enduring prejudices when Frankenstein reneges on his promise to create a female companion for the Monster, denying her the right to life. Even though he had mastered the science to do so.

Far from being the smartest possible biological species, we are probably better thought of as the stupidest possible biological species capable of starting a technological civilization (sic) a niche we filled because we got there first, not because we are in any sense optimally adapted to it.

Nick Bostromis a theoretical physicist and philosopher at Oxford University. He believes sentient beings, the sort created via genetic engineering, molecular nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence, posea greater threat to humanity than climate change.

But like everything else, Bostroms endeavour to mitigate anthropocentric stupidity is drowned out by our overwhelming obsession with technology. I mean, we cannot seem to divert our attention from it, literally!

And we all have an opinion about Artificial Intelligence (AI): succinctly defined as the systematic separation of information and knowledge from the human body-brain to some other non-human form of embodiment.

And if knowledge is power, and we can assume that it is, it need only be instantiated in some other medium to exist, thereby excluding the need for a human presence.

And a human presence is destined for redundancy. As the final phase in AIs evolution is to replicate, or displace, the consciousness of modern humans. An enterprise that will contribute nothing to the enlightenment of humanity.

One must therefore ask the question: what price are we willing to pay for perfection? Is this question significantly more complex than we can imagine? Bearing in mind that increased efficiencies in this sense is an infinite proposition, not unlike pi.

And in the context of capitalism, all humans are imperfect because of the cost of their labour and the maintenance of their physical and mental health.

ShelleysFrankensteinremains an indictment on modern society and its inability, or undesirability, to escape the ugliness of privilege and prejudice and survives as a counter to the Enlightenment philosophers who believed that scientific endeavour and economic progress would continually improve the human condition.

Enlightenment philosophers held that once the barriers to knowledge were eliminated, the conditions for perpetual peace and prosperity will have been established.

In short: they embraced the ideal that advancements in science and technology comprised the principal elements for the evolution of a better society.

Much the same as transhumanists. AsBostrom writes: Transhumanists view human nature as a work-in-progress, a half-baked beginning that we can learn to remold (sic) in desirable ways. Current humanity need not be the endpoint of evolution.

However, like the Enlightenment philosophers, transhumanists fail to acknowledge the double-edged sword of knowledge as both a promise of prosperity and an insidious threat.

That is, 400 years of history tells us that traditional religious beliefs and medieval philosophy might have failed, but the promise of science to solve the problem of human morality has also failed.

Shelley embodies this with Victors bloody-minded pursuit to create a monster that eventually transforms into the destroyer of his own life.

We can place this in todays context by referencing a 2017 journal article in Bioscience titledFrankenstein and the Horrors of Competitive Exclusionby evolutionary biologistsNathaniel J. Dominy and Justin D. Yeakel.

Dominy and Yeakel conclude that Frankensteins reasoning for denying a female mate for his male monster can be justified empirically. They show that if such a union was successful, it would have led to the extinction of our own species through competitive exclusion two species cannot coexist indefinitely if they compete for the exact same resources.

Even a slight advantage of one over the other will lead to the extinction of the inferior. Today, wealth might constitute that advantage. A human with enhanced intelligence, strength, stamina and an extended lifespan would constitute another.

More pointedly, with only the single-minded quest of science in mind, and disregard for its possible ruinous consequences, prioritising societal advancement engenders a less moral and equal world.

An imbalance occurs that favours the privileged who are insulated from the threats posed by technological and scientific progress but can use them to their utmost advantage.

To paraphraseJoshua Gans and Andrew Leigh, from their 2019 bookInnovation + Equality: the world today is more unequal than ever and more technologically advanced than ever. While the top one per cent increases its share of wealth, those with few skills and few assets languish at the bottom. For them, it can seem like the worst of times.

We can affirm the unavoidable use of technical devices, and also deny them the right to dominate us, and so to warp, confuse, and lay waste our nature.

The influential German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) was not blindly anti-tech. His concern was societys failure to recognise its danger as a means to an end, like creating an enhanced human with no expiry date.

The essence of which poses a moral question: what is perfection? And if the quest for longevity, or perhaps immortality, is achieved, who decides how long the human lifespan will be? And what will that do to an already overpopulated planet?

We might thus deem perfection as immoral. For instance, we can view Frankensteins Monster as a human chimera of sorts, although fashioned from a compilation of human body parts. Sure its perceived as a monster, but only from a human perspective.

Shelley uses the word chimera in her book, defining it as the elixir of life as opposed to chemistry which promised much but delivered little.

And its this hodgepodge creation of a simulated human being a chimera that constitutes the elixir of life. Thus, if its immortality that we desire, the Monster embodies that kind of perfection, however immoral.

With this in mind, in April of this year,scientists injected embryos from a macaque with human stem cellsto study how the two cells developed together. Macaques are Old World monkeys that share a common ancestor with humans from about 25 million years ago.

For reasons of immorality, the cells were allowed to grow for 20 days before being terminated. But there is this unwavering desire to see what we can create by modifying the current human condition in the name of scientific progress.

Arguably, however, the human machine in the context of science and technology, whether artificial, robotic, or transhuman, was not meant to be perfect.

The backaches and absentmindedness are part of the bargain of reaching old age, relatively unscathed and with some semblance of our faculties in place, and finally exiting the field of life.

Whats more, our finite planet could not cope with humans of a limitless capacity. Its under immense pressure as it is.

Despite knowing this, we are still unable to separate the ecological from the technological. We seem oblivious to their inseparability, which has led to the relentless degradation of the former.

Recognising this inseparability would enable us to reconcile our existence with the natural world and put aside our techno-centric fixations, even momentarily, and see humankinds future possibilities, with all its imperfections, in a whole new light.

Dr Stephen Dark has a PhD in Climate Change Policy and Science. He has lectured at Bond University in the Faculty of Society & Design, teaching Sustainable Development and Sustainability Economics. He is a member of the Urban Development Institute of Australia and the author of the bookContemplating Climate Change: Mental Models and Human Reasoning.

View original post here:

In search of perfection: a new kind of Frankensteins Monster - The Fifth Estate

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Twist Bioscience (Nasdaq: TWST), a company enabling customers to succeed through its offering of high-quality synthetic DNA using its silicon platform, today announced that its CEO and co-founder, Emily M. Leproust, Ph.D., will receive the 2020 Rosalind Franklin Award for Leadership at the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) IMPACT conference. The award will be presented on Tuesday, September 22, 2020 during a virtual fireside chat with Julianna Lemieux of Genetic Engineering News and the Rosalind Franklin Society.

It is a great honor to receive the BIO Rosalind Franklin Award, particularly in 2020, the year she would have turned 100, said Dr. Leproust. At Twist, we stand on the shoulders of giants like DNA pioneer Rosalind Franklin, advancing DNA-based products to write the future of chemical, medical, food and even data storage. We continue to push the boundaries of what is possible, disrupting markets to improve health and sustainability through precisely written DNA.

Emily Leproust is a driven, authentic and thoughtful leader, disrupting the synthetic biology marketplace; she actively works with industry and government leaders to drive innovation and further the bioeconomy, commented Stephanie Batchelor, vice president of BIOs industrial and environmental section. Twists focus on the power of synthetic DNA to revolutionize multiple markets directly reflects the spirit of the Rosalind Franklin Society and Award.

About the BIO Rosalind Franklin Award

Just as Rosalind Franklin paved the way for women in the biotechnology field, the BIO Rosalind Franklin Award is presented to a pioneering woman in the industrial biotechnology and agriculture sectors who has made significant contributions to the advancement of the biobased economy and biotech innovation. The Rosalind Franklin Award will stand as a lasting memory to the legacy left by Rosalind Franklin, who was instrumental in the discovery and our greater understanding of the molecular structure of DNA, by honoring those women who too have made significant contributions in industrial biotechnology and agriculture. With this award BIO honors Rosalind Franklins legacy, but also those women who have shown exemplary leadership and led the way through previously uncharted territory. The Award is sponsored by the Rosalind Franklin Society, whose goal is to support and showcase the careers of eminent women in science.

Rosalind Franklin conceived and captured Photograph 51 of the "B" form of DNA in 1952, while at King's College in London. This photograph, acquired through 100 hours of X-ray exposure from a machine Dr. Franklin herself refined, revealed the structure of DNA. The discovery of the structure of DNA was the single most important advance of modern biology. James Watson and Francis Crick, working at Cambridge University, used Photograph 51 as the basis for their famous model of DNA, which earned them a Nobel Prize in 1962. Though sometimes overlooked, Rosalind Franklins critical work and discovery in the field has allowed the biotechnology industry to become what it is today.

About Twist Bioscience Corporation

Twist Bioscience is a leading and rapidly growing synthetic biology company that has developed a disruptive DNA synthesis platform to industrialize the engineering of biology. The core of the platform is a proprietary technology that pioneers a new method of manufacturing synthetic DNA by writing DNA on a silicon chip. Twist is leveraging its unique technology to manufacture a broad range of synthetic DNA-based products, including synthetic genes, tools for next-generation sequencing (NGS) preparation, and antibody libraries for drug discovery and development. Twist is also pursuing longer-term opportunities in digital data storage in DNA and biologics drug discovery. Twist makes products for use across many industries including healthcare, industrial chemicals, agriculture and academic research.

Follow us on Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

Legal Notice Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained herein are forward-looking statements reflecting the current beliefs and expectations of management made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other important factors that may cause Twist Biosciences actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, among others, the risks and uncertainties of the ability to attract new customers and retain and grow sales from existing customers; risks and uncertainties of rapidly changing technologies and extensive competition in synthetic biology could make the products Twist Bioscience is developing obsolete or non-competitive; uncertainties of the retention of a significant customer; risks of third party claims alleging infringement of patents and proprietary rights or seeking to invalidate Twist Biosciences patents or proprietary rights; and the risk that Twist Biosciences proprietary rights may be insufficient to protect its technologies. For a further description of the risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ from those expressed in these forward-looking statements, as well as risks relating to Twist Biosciences business in general, see Twist Biosciences risk factors set forth in Twist Biosciences Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q dated August 12, 2020. Any forward-looking statements contained in this press release speak only as of the date hereof, and Twist Bioscience specifically disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Follow this link:

Emily Leproust, Ph.D., to Receive 2020 Rosalind Franklin Award - Business Wire

New York, Sept. 18, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Reportlinker.com announces the release of the report "Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market Research Report by Technology, by Application - Global Forecast to 2025 - Cumulative Impact of COVID-19" - https://www.reportlinker.com/p05953106/?utm_source=GNW

The Global Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market is expected to grow from USD 4,901.67 Million in 2019 to USD 14,012.67 Million by the end of 2025 at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 19.13%.

Market Segmentation & Coverage:This research report categorizes the Genome Editing/Genome Engineering to forecast the revenues and analyze the trends in each of the following sub-markets:

Based on Technology, the Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market studied across Antisense, Crispr, Talen, and Zfn.

Based on Application, the Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market studied across Cell Line Engineering, Diagnostic Applications, Drug Discovery & Development, and Genetic Engineering. The Genetic Engineering further studied across Animal Genetic Engineering and Plant Genetic Engineering.

Based on Geography, the Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market studied across Americas, Asia-Pacific, and Europe, Middle East & Africa. The Americas region surveyed across Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and United States. The Asia-Pacific region surveyed across Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand. The Europe, Middle East & Africa region surveyed across France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, United Arab Emirates, and United Kingdom.

Company Usability Profiles:The report deeply explores the recent significant developments by the leading vendors and innovation profiles in the Global Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market including Creative Biogene, Crispr Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, Epigenie, Eurofins Scientific SE, Genscript Biotech, Horizon Discovery Group PLC, Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc., Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., Lonza Group AG, Merck & Co., Inc., New England Biolabs, OriGene Technologies, Inc., Oxford Genetics Ltd., Precision Biosciences, Sangamo Therapeutics, Synthego Corporation, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Transposagen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., and Vigene Bioscience Inc..

FPNV Positioning Matrix:The FPNV Positioning Matrix evaluates and categorizes the vendors in the Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market on the basis of Business Strategy (Business Growth, Industry Coverage, Financial Viability, and Channel Support) and Product Satisfaction (Value for Money, Ease of Use, Product Features, and Customer Support) that aids businesses in better decision making and understanding the competitive landscape.

Competitive Strategic Window:The Competitive Strategic Window analyses the competitive landscape in terms of markets, applications, and geographies. The Competitive Strategic Window helps the vendor define an alignment or fit between their capabilities and opportunities for future growth prospects. During a forecast period, it defines the optimal or favorable fit for the vendors to adopt successive merger and acquisition strategies, geography expansion, research & development, and new product introduction strategies to execute further business expansion and growth.

Cumulative Impact of COVID-19:COVID-19 is an incomparable global public health emergency that has affected almost every industry, so for and, the long-term effects projected to impact the industry growth during the forecast period. Our ongoing research amplifies our research framework to ensure the inclusion of underlaying COVID-19 issues and potential paths forward. The report is delivering insights on COVID-19 considering the changes in consumer behavior and demand, purchasing patterns, re-routing of the supply chain, dynamics of current market forces, and the significant interventions of governments. The updated study provides insights, analysis, estimations, and forecast, considering the COVID-19 impact on the market.

The report provides insights on the following pointers:1. Market Penetration: Provides comprehensive information on the market offered by the key players2. Market Development: Provides in-depth information about lucrative emerging markets and analyzes the markets3. Market Diversification: Provides detailed information about new product launches, untapped geographies, recent developments, and investments4. Competitive Assessment & Intelligence: Provides an exhaustive assessment of market shares, strategies, products, and manufacturing capabilities of the leading players5. Product Development & Innovation: Provides intelligent insights on future technologies, R&D activities, and new product developments

The report answers questions such as:1. What is the market size and forecast of the Global Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market?2. What are the inhibiting factors and impact of COVID-19 shaping the Global Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market during the forecast period?3. Which are the products/segments/applications/areas to invest in over the forecast period in the Global Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market?4. What is the competitive strategic window for opportunities in the Global Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market?5. What are the technology trends and regulatory frameworks in the Global Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market?6. What are the modes and strategic moves considered suitable for entering the Global Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market?Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p05953106/?utm_source=GNW

About ReportlinkerReportLinker is an award-winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need - instantly, in one place.

__________________________

Read more:

Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market Research Report by Technology, by Application - Global Forecast to 2025 - Cumulative Impact of COVID-19 -...

More than 1 million Americans are diagnosed with a chronic brain disorder each year, yet effective treatments for most complex brain disorders are inadequate or even nonexistent.

A major new research effort at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT aims to change how we treat brain disorders by developing innovative molecular tools that precisely target dysfunctional genetic, molecular, and circuit pathways.

The K. Lisa Yang and Hock E. Tan Center for Molecular Therapeutics in Neuroscience was established at MIT through a $28 million gift from philanthropist Lisa Yang and MIT alumnus Hock Tan 75. Yang is a former investment banker who has devoted much of her time to advocacy for individuals with disabilities and autism spectrum disorders. Tan is president and CEO of Broadcom, a global technology infrastructure company.This latest gift brings Yang and Tans total philanthropy to MIT to more than $72 million.

In the best MIT spirit, Lisa and Hock have always focused their generosity on insights that lead to real impact," says MIT President L. Rafael Reif. Scientifically, we stand at a moment when the tools and insights to make progress against major brain disorders are finally within reach. By accelerating the development of promising treatments, the new center opens the door to a hopeful new future for all those who suffer from these disorders and those who love them. I am deeply grateful to Lisa and Hock for making MIT the home of this pivotal research.

Engineering with precision

Research at the K. Lisa Yang and Hock E. Tan Center for Molecular Therapeutics in Neuroscience will initially focus on three major lines of investigation: genetic engineering using CRISPR tools, delivery of genetic and molecular cargo across the blood-brain barrier, and the translation of basic research into the clinical setting. The center will serve as a hub for researchers with backgrounds ranging from biological engineering and genetics to computer science and medicine.

Developing the next generation of molecular therapeutics demands collaboration among researchers with diverse backgrounds, says Robert Desimone, McGovern Institute director and the Doris and Don Berkey Professor of Neuroscience at MIT. I am confident that the multidisciplinary expertise convened by this center will revolutionize how we improve our health and fight disease in the coming decade. Although our initial focus will be on the brain and its relationship to the body, many of the new therapies could have other health applications.

There are an estimated 19,000 to 22,000 genes in the human genome and a third of those genes are active in the brain the highest proportion of genes expressed in any part of the body. Variations in genetic code have been linked to many complex brain disorders, including depression and Parkinsons disease. Emerging genetic technologies, such as the CRISPR gene editing platform pioneered by McGovern Investigator Feng Zhang, hold great potential in both targeting and fixing these errant genes. But the safe and effective delivery of this genetic cargo to the brain remains a challenge.

Researchers within the new Yang-Tan Center will improve and fine-tune CRISPR gene therapies and develop innovative ways of delivering gene therapy cargo into the brain and other organs. In addition, the center will leverage newly developed single-cell analysis technologies that are revealing cellular targets for modulating brain functions with unprecedented precision, opening the door for noninvasive neuromodulation as well as the development of medicines. The center will also focus on developing novel engineering approaches to delivering small molecules and proteins from the bloodstream into the brain. Desimone will direct the center and some of the initial research initiatives will be led by associate professor of materials science and engineering Polina Anikeeva; Ed Boyden, the Y. Eva Tan Professor in Neurotechnology at MIT; Guoping Feng, the James W. (1963) and Patricia T. Poitras Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT; and Feng Zhang, James and Patricia Poitras Professor of Neuroscience at MIT.

Building a research hub

My goal in creating this center is to cement the Cambridge and Boston region as the global epicenter of next-generation therapeutics research. The novel ideas I have seen undertaken at MITs McGovern Institute and Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard leave no doubt in my mind that major therapeutic breakthroughs for mental illness, neurodegenerative disease, autism, and epilepsy are just around the corner, says Yang.

Center funding will also be earmarked to create the Y. Eva Tan Fellows program, named for Tan and Yangs daughter Eva, which will support fellowships for young neuroscientists and engineers eager to design revolutionary treatments for human diseases.

We want to build a strong pipeline for tomorrows scientists and neuroengineers, explains Hock Tan. We depend on the next generation of bright young minds to help improve the lives of people suffering from chronic illnesses, and I can think of no better place to provide the very best education and training than MIT.

The molecular therapeutics center is the second research center established by Yang and Tan at MIT. In 2017, they launched the Hock E. Tan and K. Lisa Yang Center for Autism Research, and, two years later, they created a sister center at Harvard Medical School, with the unique strengths of each institution converging toward a shared goal: understanding the basic biology of autism and how genetic and environmental influences converge to give rise to the condition, then translating those insights into novel treatment approaches.

All tools developed at the molecular therapeutics center will be shared globally with academic and clinical researchers with the goal of bringing one or more novel molecular tools to human clinical trials by 2025.

We are hopeful that our centers, located in the heart of the Cambridge-Boston biotech ecosystem, will spur further innovation and fuel critical new insights to our understanding of health and disease, says Yang.

Follow this link:

New molecular therapeutics center established at MIT's McGovern Institute - MIT News

SAN DIEGO, Sept. 18, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --Poseida Therapeutics, Inc., (Nasdaq: PSTX), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company dedicated to utilizing its proprietary gene engineering platform technologies to create next generation cell and gene therapeutics with the capacity to cure, today announced its addition as a member of the US small-cap Russell 2000Index, effective September 18, 2020, as part of the index's quarterly initial public offering (IPO) additions.

"We are pleased to be added to the US small-cap Russell 2000 Index, which will help increase investor exposure to our Company's mission of providing cell and gene therapies for patients with high unmet medical need," said Eric Ostertag, M.D., Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer ofPoseida. "We look forward to the opportunity to expand awareness around our pipeline of differentiated product candidates for the treatment of a variety of oncology indications and orphan genetic diseases."

Russell indexes are widely used by investment managers and institutional investors for index funds and as benchmarks for active investment strategies. Approximately $9 trillion in assets are benchmarked against Russell's US indexes. Russell indexes are part of FTSE Russell, a leading global index provider.

For more information on the Russell 2000 Index and the Russell indexes IPO additions, please visit the "Russell U.S. Index IPO Additions" section on the FTSE Russell website.

About Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.Poseida Therapeutics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company dedicated to utilizing our proprietary gene engineering platform technologies to create next generation cell and gene therapeutics with the capacity to cure. We have discovered and are developing a broad portfolio of product candidates in a variety of indications based on our core proprietary platforms, including our non-viral piggyBacDNA Modification System, Cas-CLOVER site-specific gene editing system and nanoparticle- and AAV-based gene delivery technologies. Our core platform technologies have utility, either alone or in combination, across many cell and gene therapeutic modalities and enable us to engineer our wholly-owned portfolio of product candidates that are designed to overcome the primary limitations of current generation cell and gene therapeutics.

About FTSE RussellFTSE Russell is a leading global index provider creating and managing a wide range of indexes, data and analytic solutions to meet client needs across asset classes, style and strategies. Covering 98% of the investable market, FTSE Russell indexes offer a true picture of global markets, combined with the specialist knowledge gained from developing local benchmarks around the world.

FTSE Russell index expertise and products are used extensively by institutional and retail investors globally. Approximately $16 trillion is currently benchmarked to FTSE Russell indexes. For over 30 years, leading asset owners, asset managers, ETF providers and investment banks have chosen FTSE Russell indexes to benchmark their investment performance and create investment funds, ETFs, structured products and index-based derivatives. FTSE Russell indexes also provide clients with tools for asset allocation, investment strategy analysis and risk management.

A core set of universal principles guides FTSE Russell index design and management: a transparent rules-based methodology is informed by independent committees of leading market participants. FTSE Russell is focused on index innovation and customer partnership applying the highest industry standards and embracing the IOSCO Principles. FTSE Russell is wholly owned by London Stock Exchange Group.

For more information, visit http://www.ftserussell.com

Forward-Looking StatementsStatements contained in this press release regarding matters that are not historical facts are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements include statements regarding the impact of Poseida's addition to the US small-cap Russell 2000Index, the potential benefits ofPoseida'stechnology platforms and product candidates andPoseida'splans and strategy with respect to developing its technologies and product candidates. Because such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based uponPoseida'scurrent expectations and involve assumptions that may never materialize or may prove to be incorrect. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements as a result of various risks and uncertainties, which include, without limitation, risks and uncertainties associated with development and regulatory approval of novel product candidates in the biopharmaceutical industry and the other risks described inPoseida'sfilings with theSecurities and Exchange Commission. All forward-looking statements contained in this press release speak only as of the date on which they were made.Poseidaundertakes no obligation to update such statements to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after the date on which they were made, except as required by law.

The rest is here:

Poseida Therapeutics Added to Membership of US Small-Cap Russell 2000 Index - Monterey County Weekly

The Boston Cannabis Board yesterday approved a proposal by the city's first medicinal-marijuana dispensary, on Milk Street, to add recreational pot to its offerings and approved a number of proposed pot shops from East Boston to Roslindale.

The votes by the board do not mean the shops can now open - they still need to win approval from the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, which can prove a lengthy process.

However, Patriot Care, which won city approval for its medical dispensary at 21 Milk St. after promising it would not seek to add "adult use" products, will get an expedited review for its shop because it already has approval to sell medical marijuana.

In its vote yesterday, the city board set several conditions on its approval, including that the new shop sell recreational pot only on an appointment basis for its first six months and that it would have to return to that model if, starting in the seventh month, lines start forming outside. Also, the shop can't sell "pre-rolled cannabis products," has to set a minimum order of $35, and has to include educational information about marijuana in each products.

Also yesterday, the board approved:

The board rejected a proposal by Dragon Vapors, LLC for a pot shop at 354-358 Chestnut Hill Ave. in Brighton and deferred until October a vote on a proposal by New Dia LLC for a pot shop that would share space in the building housing the Cask and Flagon across from Fenway Park.

The board approved a proposal by Beacon Compassion, Inc. for a medical dispensary at 1524 VFW Parkway in West Roxbury - it would go in the basement of the building that already houses a liquor store and a sex-toys shop.

Continued here:

Recreational pot wins nod in Downtown Crossing and across the city - Universal Hub

Depression is a dark horse.

The disease often goes unnoticed, but affects work performance, social interaction and the ability to take pleasure in everyday life. According to theNational Center for Biotechnology Information, antidepressants only help around 50 percent of those who struggle with depression and anxiety and, even when they are effective, scientists have yet to understand how they work in the brain.

MSU associate professor of physiology A.J. Robison and his lab used new CRISPR-based technology to uncover pathways of depression-like behavior in the mouse brain. Credit: College of Natural Science

But groundbreaking research in the lab of Michigan State University scientistA.J. Robison, associate professor in theDepartment of Physiologyand MSUsNeuroscience Program, is directing some new rays of light onto the molecular, cellular and circuit-level mechanisms underlying depression-like diseases.

Theresultswere recently published inNature Communications.

In this paper, we perform the first ever CRISPR-based gene editing [a genetic engineering technique in molecular biology by which the genomes of living organisms may be modified] in a single circuit between two areas of the mouse brain, explained Robison about the culmination of five years of research funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. We can reach into the mouse brain and manipulate specific genes in a circuit involved in depression and anxiety-like behaviors a critical advance on the road to genetic medicine for psychiatric diseases.

Scientists estimate there are roughly 80-100 billion neurons connecting regions of the brain. To accomplish the feat of locating and manipulating a single gene in a single circuit required new and sophisticated technology. With the expertise of co-author Rachael Neve, director of theGene Transfer Core at Massachusetts General Hospital, they developed it.

The key advance is that we designed a dual-vector system to manipulate a specific gene in the connections between two brain areas, and that has never been done before, Robison said.

Cross section of a mouse brain. The projections of the cells between the vHPC and NAc, shown here in neon green, are manipulated by the new CRISPR viral vector-based technology developed by Rachael Neve and the Robison Lab. Credit: Andrew Eagle

The neurons that Robison and his team zeroed in on originate in the ventral hippocampus (vHPC), a deep-seated structure that projects to regions in the brain important in stress susceptibility, mood and social avoidance. Neurons rooted in the vHPC reach out with branch-like structures called axons to connect with the nucleus accumbens, or NAc. The completed circuit is regulated by the star of the pioneering paper, the transcription factor known as DFosB.

Using the viral vector technology specifically designed and packaged by Neve, the team split the CRISPR system in half. Half of the system, inert on its own, was an enzyme that can mutate DNA in the vHPC. The other half, a guide RNA, was sent to all cells that project to the NAc and tells the enzyme where to bind and the specific gene to mutate. Only those cells specific to the circuit from the vHPC to the NAc got both halves, triggering the enzyme to bind with and turn off a single gene: FosB.

When the FosB gene was turned off in the neurons, we were able to get a circuit-specific behavioral effect relevant to a disease like depression, said Robison about the landmark discovery. When we put it back, or rescued it within the circuit, the effect was erased.

Claire Manning was a key contributor to the groundbreaking study and is now a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford University. Credit: Ken Moon

One of the most exciting findings from our investigations was the circuit-specific role of the FosB protein in conferring resilience to stress, Eagle said. We also discovered that FosB altered the excitability of hippocampal circuit neurons and may be affecting long-term downstream changes that lead to changes in the activity of this circuit. But removing DFosB permanently altered the expression of a suite of genes, in effect removing the conductor from the orchestra. To that end, the paper goes on to report in-depth experiments on DFosB largely done by the members of theRobison Labincluding co-first authorsClaire Manning, a 2019 neuroscience graduate, now a postdoc at Stanford University; andAndrew Eagle, a former postdoctoral researcher, now an assistant professor in the MSU Department of Physiology.

Andrew Eagle, shown here imaging a mouse brain, played a major role in conducting experiments to further probe the function of DFosB. Credit: Research@MSU.

Based on the findings in the paper, the Robison Lab will continue to develop highly collaborative and cutting-edge techniques, accelerated by MSUs newly completed Interdisciplinary Science and Technology Building. This work is important because it elucidates a potential mechanism, namely FosB, for how stress may contribute to depression, Eagle continued. Future clinical work may find ways to directly manipulate FosB, or more likely one of its gene targets, to provide resilience to stress and decrease the incidence of depression in vulnerable people.

The end of this paper, which shows us measuring the changes of expression in hundreds of genes when we remove DFosB, is only the beginning of years of work for our lab, Robison said. Which genes are important and what are they doing in the brain? This is the challenge of a lifetime for me and my lab.

This article is repurposed content originally featured on the College of Natural Sciences website.

The rest is here:

Illuminating the opaque pathways of depression | MSUToday - MSUToday

Myotonic dystrophy type I (DM1) is the most common type of adult-onset muscular dystrophy. DM1 is caused by mutations in the DMPK gene. A normal DMPK gene has 3 to 37 repetitions of the CTG sequence, while in DM1, there are hundreds to thousands of repetitions of this sequence. When a DMPK gene with too many CTG repeats is transcribed, the resulting RNA is too long. This abnormally long RNA is toxic to cells, and those affected experience progressive muscle wasting and weakness.

CRISPR-Cas9 is a technique increasingly used in efforts to correct the genetic defects that cause a variety of diseases. Now a research team from the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), School of Medicine, reports they redirected the technique to modify RNA in a method they call RNA-targeting Cas9 (RCas9), to eliminate the toxic RNA and almost fully reverse symptoms in a mouse model of myotonic dystrophy.

Their findings, The sustained expression of Cas9 targeting toxic RNAs reverses disease phenotypes in mouse models of myotonic dystrophy type 1, was published in Nature Biomedical Engineering and led by Gene Yeo, PhD, professor of cellular and molecular medicine at UCSD School of Medicine.

Myotonic dystrophy is part of a group of inherited disorders called muscular dystrophies. There are two major types of myotonic dystrophy: type 1 and type 2. The muscle weakness associated with type 1 particularly affects muscles farthest from the center of the body, such as those of the lower legs, hands, neck, and face. Muscle weakness in type 2 primarily involves muscles close to the center of the body, such as those of the neck, shoulders, elbows, and hips. The two types of myotonic dystrophy are caused by mutations in different genes.

Many other severe neuromuscular diseases, such as Huntingtons and ALS, are also caused by similar RNA buildup, explained Yeo. There are no cures for these diseases. Yeo led the study with collaborators at Locanabio and the University of Florida.

CRISPR-Cas9 works by directing Cas9 to cut a specific target gene, allowing researchers to inactivate or replace the gene. However, the Cas9 in the RCas9 method is guided to an RNA molecule instead of DNA. In a previous study, Yeo and his team established RCas9 as a means to track RNA in living cells in a programmable manner without genetically encoded tags. In a 2017 study, in lab models and patient-derived cells, the researchers used RCas9 to eliminate 95% of the abnormal RNA linked to myotonic dystrophy type 1 and type 2, one type of ALS and Huntingtons disease.

In the current study, the method goes further, by reversing myotonic dystrophy type 1 in a mouse model of the disease. Toxic RNAs expressed from such repetitive sequences can be eliminated using CRISPR-mediated RNA targeting, yet evidence of its in vivo efficacy and durability is lacking, noted the researchers. Here, using adult and neonatal mouse models of DM1, we show that intramuscular or systemic injections of adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors encoding nuclease-dead Cas9 and a single-guide RNA targeting CUG repeats results in the expression of the RNA-targeting Cas9 for up to three months, redistribution of the RNA-splicing protein muscleblind-like splicing regulator 1, elimination of foci of toxic RNA, reversal of splicing biomarkers and amelioration of myotonia.

The researchers packaged RCas9 in a non-infectious virus. They then gave the mice a single dose of the therapy or a placebo. RCas9 reduced the abnormal RNA repeats by more than 50%, varying a bit depending on the tissue, and the treated myotonic dystrophy mice became indistinguishable from healthy mice.

To prevent the potential of the RCas9 proteins, developing an immune reaction in the mice, the researchers tried suppressing the mices immune systems briefly during treatment. As a result, they were surprised to see that they successfully prevented immune reaction and clearance. The researchers did not see signs of muscle damage, but found an increase in the activity of genes involved in new muscle formation.

Yeo believes the findings will open a new avenue of understanding and lead the way for treating other genetic diseases. This opens up the floodgates to start testing RNA-targeting CRISPR-Cas9 as a potential approach to treat other human genetic diseasesthere are at least 20 caused by buildup of repetitive RNAs, Yeo added.

Read this article:

Muscular Dystrophy Condition in Mice Reversed by RNA-Targeting Cas9 - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

Latest updates on Gene Editing market, a comprehensive study enumerating the latest price trends and pivotal drivers rendering a positive impact on the industry landscape. Further, the report is inclusive of the competitive terrain of this vertical in addition to the market share analysis and the contribution of the prominent contenders toward the overall industry.

Rising prevalence of cancer and other genetic disorders coupled with increasing demand for personalized medicine should stimulate gene editing industry expansion. As per WHO 2018 report, cancer is the second leading cause of death globally and is responsible for an estimated 9.6 million deaths. Increasing use of the gene editing tools for treatment of these chronic disorders will favor business growth. Moreover, increased government funding programs will significantly impact industry growth over the forecast timeframe.

Many biopharmaceutical companies are focused on developing innovative drugs for various genetic disorders because of high disease burden across the world and their considerable market potential. Other parameters contributing to the industry growth are increasing demand for synthetic genes, extensive investments in R&D, technological advancements in the field of molecular biology. However, ethical issues regarding misuse of genome editing is a major concern and may hamper the industry growth.

Request Sample Copy of this Report @ https://www.theresearchprocess.com/request-sample/5571

Gene Editing Market will exceed USD 7.5 billion by 2024; as per a new research report.

Request Sample Copy of this Report @ https://www.theresearchprocess.com/request-sample/5571

Zinc Finger Nucleases (ZFNs) segment will witness 14.5% CAGR from 2018 to 2024. The segment growth is attributed to increasing adoption of these advanced gene editing tools in research institutes and biotech industries. ZFNs technology offers various advantages including, the mutations made by this technology are permeant and heritable. Zinc finger nucleases are useful to manipulate the genomes of many plants and animals and also has important role in gene editing processes.

Research institutes segment accounted for 30.2% revenue share in 2017 owing to increasing focus on developing innovative therapeutics models in CRISPR and ZFN. Moreover, growing incidences of rare genetic diseases has resulted in high demand for research activities for developing new therapies will propel segmental growth over the coming years.

Animal genetic engineering segment was valued at USD 785.4 million in 2017 and is projected to grow significantly over the forecast timeframe. Growing applications of products obtained from domestic animals has boosted the demand for gene editing technique. In addition, wide applicability of these techniques in animal genetic engineering is also a contributing factor for business growth. For instance, Pigs are susceptible to an infection called Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS). Gene editing techniques have managed to produce pigs that are resistance to this disease.

U.S. gene editing market will witness 14.5% CAGR by 2024 owing to increasing funding for research and development in genetic editing technologies. As per National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences 2018 report, National Institute of Health (NIH) got $86 million funding for improving genome editing techniques. Moreover, rising prevalence of Alzheimer, cancer and infectious diseases in country. As per Alzheimer?s association 2018 report, an estimated 5.7 million Americans of all ages are living with Alzheimer's. Increasing patient preference towards advanced gene editing tools such as CRISPR/Cas9 for the treatment of Alzheimer's should drive gene editing business expansion.

China gene editing market was valued at USD 154.6 million in 2017 and is estimated to experience considerable growth due to rising R&D expenditure and growing number of industry players. Moreover, various initiatives taken by the Chinese government for promoting life science research in biotechnology sector will stimulate gene editing market growth in forthcoming years.

Major Highlights from Table of contents are listed below for quick lookup into Gene Editing Market report

Chapter 1. Methodology and Scope

Chapter 2. Executive Summary

Chapter 3. Gene Editing Industry Insights

Chapter 4. Company Profiles

Request Customization on This Report @ https://www.theresearchprocess.com/request-for-customization/5571

Read the original here:

Gene Editing Market Trends, Companies, Driver, Segmentation, Forecast to 2024 - The Research Process

The eyes of many insects, including the fruit fly, are covered by a thin and transparent coating made up of tiny protuberances with anti-reflective, anti-adhesive properties. An article published in the journalNaturereveals the secrets of how this nano-coating is made. The authors, from the University of Geneva (UNIGE) and University of Lausanne (UNIL) - together with ETH Zurich (ETHZ) - show that the coating only consists of two ingredients: a protein called retinin and corneal wax. These two components automatically generate the regular network of protuberances by playing the roles of activator and inhibitor, respectively, in a morphogenesis process modelled in the 1950s by Alan Turing. The multi-disciplinary team even succeeded in artificially reproducing the phenomenon by mixing retinin and wax on different kinds of surface. This process, which is very inexpensive and is based on biodegradable materials, was used to obtain nano-coatings with a morphology similar to that of insects, with anti-adhesive and anti-reflective functionalities that could have numerous applications in areas as diverse as contact lenses, medical implants and textiles.

"The nano-coating that covers the surface of the eyes of some insects was discovered in the late 1960s in moths," begins Vladimir Katanaev, a professor in the Department of Cell Physiology and Metabolism in UNIGE's Faculty of Medicine and the study's lead investigator. "It's made up of a dense network of small protrusions about 200 nanometres in diameter and several dozens of nanometres in height. It has the effect of reducing light reflection."

The cornea of an insect without a coating typically reflects about 4% of the incident light, whereas the proportion drops to zero in insects that do have the covering. Although an improvement of 4% may seem small, it is enough of an advantage - especially in dark conditions - to have been selected during evolution. Thanks to its anti-adhesive properties, the coating also provides physical protection against the tiniest dust particles in the air.

Professor Katanaev moved into this research field ten years ago. In 2011, he and his team were the first to discover the nano-coating on the eyes of fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster). This insect is much more suited to scientific research than moths, in particular because its genome has been completely sequenced.

The Geneva-based researcher has now gathered more evidence to support this hypothesis. Thanks to biochemical analyses and the use of genetic engineering, Professor Katanaev and his colleagues have succeeded in identifying the two components involved in the reaction-diffusion model developed by Turing. This hinges on a protein called retinin and wax produced by several specialised enzymes, two of which have been identified. Retinin plays the role of activator: with its initially unstructured shape, it adopts a globular structure upon contact with the wax and begins to generate the pattern. The wax, on the other hand, plays the role of inhibitor. The powerplay between the two leads to the emergence of the nano-coating.

Initial tests have shown that the coating is resistant to 20 hours of washing in water (it is easily damaged by detergent or scratching, although technological improvements could make it more robust). The anti-reflective properties have already aroused a certain degree of interest among manufacturers of contact lenses, while the anti-adhesive properties could appeal to the producers of medical implants. Indeed, this type of coating could make it possible to control where human cells hook on. Industry already has the techniques needed to obtain this outcome. But they use harsh methods, such as lasers or acids. The Geneva team's solution has the advantage of being inexpensive, benign and totally biodegradable.Reference:

This article has been republished from the following materials. Note: material may have been edited for length and content. For further information, please contact the cited source.

See original here:

Nanoscale Reflective Coating Reverse-Engineered From Fly Eyes - Technology Networks

What, he wonders, if the highly educated harden into a hereditary aristocracy? And what if this occurs under a flag of fairness, during a time when B.A.s and higher degrees are ever more closely tied to income and prestige? Lets set aside the case of rich parents who bribe corrupt officials or donate huge sums to get their child into a good college. Lets focus instead, Sandel writes, on the inequity that creeps in without breaking any rules. At Princeton and Yale, for example, more students come from families in the top 1 percent of income than from the bottom 60 percent. Two-thirds of students in all the Ivy League schools come from families in the top 20 percent. This is very largely because of the head start woven into upper-income life itself: engaging dinner conversation, better schools, private tutors, foreign travel.

Sandel is not about guilt-tripping anxious parents of front-row kids; theyre suffering too, he says. But the credentialed have come to imagine themselves as smarter, wiser, more tolerant and therefore more deserving of recognition and respect than the noncredentialed. One reason for this, he suggests, lies in our American rhetoric of rising. Both rich and poor parents tell their kids, if you try hard enough, you can achieve your goals. For the upper strata, things may work out, but for the downwardly mobile blue collar and poor, theres a Catch-22. If they fail to reach their goals which a torpid economy almost guarantees they blame themselves. If only I could have gotten that degree, they say. Even the poorly educated, Sandel notes, look down on the poorly educated.

Donald Trump has reached out to this group with open arms I love the poorly educated. He has harvested their demoralization, their grief and their shame, most certainly if they are white. But, Sandel notes, two-thirds of all American adults lack four-year degrees. And in the wake of automation, in real wages, the white man without a B.A. earns less now than he did in 1979. The dignity of his labor has steeply declined. And since 1965, high-school-educated men in the very prime of life 25 to 54 have been slipping out of the labor force, from 98 percent in 1965 to 85 percent in 2015. Of all Americans whose highest degree is a high school diploma, in 2017 only 68 percent worked. And with rising deaths of despair, many are giving up on life itself. So you who are highly educated, Sandel concludes, should understand that youre contributing to a resentment fueling the toxic politics you deplore. Respect the vast diversity of talents and contributions others make to this nation. Empathize with the undeserved shame of the less educated. Eat a little humble pie.

But we are left with an important issue Sandel does not address: the targeting by the right wing of colleges themselves. This isnt new: Running parallel to the rise of the meritocracy in America has been a suspicion of the egghead who cant skin a rabbit, build a house or change a tire. As the historian Richard Hofstadter observed in Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, and Tocqueville before him, many Americans have valued not simply the cultivated intelligence of heroes in a culture of merit but also the creative genius of the common man in a culture of survival.

Today this has taken a shockingly partisan turn. For the first time in recent history, the less education you have, the more you lean right and distrust higher education itself. In a 2019 Pew survey, 59 percent of Republicans (and Republican-leaning independents) agree that colleges have a negative effect on the way things are going in the country these days, whereas only 18 percent of Democrats (and those leaning left) agree.

View original post here:

Whats Wrong With the Meritocracy - The New York Times

Fort Collins, Colorado The report on the CRISPR Market provides an in-depth assessment of the CRISPR market including technological advancements, market drivers, challenges, current and emerging trends, opportunities, threats, risks, strategic developments, product advancements, and other key features. The report covers market size estimation, share, growth rate, global position, and regional analysis of the market. The report also covers forecast estimations for investments in the CRISPR industry from 2020 to 2027.

The report is furnished with the latest market dynamics and economic scenario in regards to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has brought about drastic changes in the economy of the world and has affected several key segments and growth opportunities. The report provides an in-depth impact analysis of the pandemic on the market to better understand the latest changes in the market and gain a futuristic outlook on a post-COVID-19 scenario.

Global CRISPR Market Size Study by Application(Genome Editing, Genetic Engineering, Gene Library, CRISPR Plasmid, Human Stem cells, Genetically Modified Organism, Cell Line Engineering), by End-User (Biotechnology Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies, Academic Institutes, Research & Development Institutes) and Regional Forecast 2017-2025.

Get a sample of the report @ https://reportsglobe.com/download-sample/?rid=5977

The report provides an in-depth analysis of the key developments and innovations of the market, such as research and development advancements, product launches, mergers & acquisitions, joint ventures, partnerships, government deals, and collaborations. The report provides a comprehensive overview of the regional growth of each market player.

Additionally, the report provides details about the revenue estimation, financial standings, capacity, import/export, supply and demand ratio, production and consumption trends, CAGR, market share, market growth dynamics, and market segmentation analysis.

The report covers extensive analysis of the key market players in the market, along with their business overview, expansion plans, and strategies. The key players studied in the report include:

Furthermore, the report utilizes advanced analytical tools such as SWOT analysis and Porters Five Forces Analysis to analyze key industry players and their market scope. The report also provides feasibility analysis and investment return analysis. It also provides strategic recommendations to formulate investment strategies and provides insights for new entrants.

Request a discount on the report @ https://reportsglobe.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=5977

The report is designed with an aim to assist the reader in taking beneficial data and making fruitful decisions to accelerate their businesses. The report provides an examination of the economic scenario, along with benefits, limitations, supply, production, demands, and development rate of the market.

By Applications:

By End User:

Request customization of the report @https://reportsglobe.com/need-customization/?rid=5977

Regional Analysis of the Market:

For a better understanding of the global CRISPR market dynamics, a regional analysis of the market across key geographical areas is offered in the report. The market is spread acrossNorth America, Europe, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, and Middle East & Africa.Each region is analyzed on the basis of the market scenario in the major countries of the regions to provide a deeper understanding of the market.

Benefits of the Global CRISPR Report:

To learn more about the report, visit @ https://reportsglobe.com/product/global-crispr-market/

Thank you for reading our report. To learn more about report details or for customization information, please contact us. Our team will ensure that the report is customized according to your requirements.

How Reports Globe is different than other Market Research Providers

The inception of Reports Globe has been backed by providing clients with a holistic view of market conditions and future possibilities/opportunities to reap maximum profits out of their businesses and assist in decision making. Our team of in-house analysts and consultants works tirelessly to understand your needs and suggest the best possible solutions to fulfill your research requirements.

Our team at Reports Globe follows a rigorous process of data validation, which allows us to publish reports from publishers with minimum or no deviations. Reports Globe collects, segregates, and publishes more than 500 reports annually that cater to products and services across numerous domains.

Contact us:

Mr. Mark Willams

Account Manager

US: +1-970-672-0390

Email:[emailprotected]

Web:reportsglobe.com

The rest is here:

CRISPR Market to Witness Exponential Growth by 2020-2027 | Leading Players Thermo Fisher Scientific, Editas Medicine, Caribou Biosciences, CRISPR...

How seriously does one take Dr Li-Meng Yan? And how seriously does one take the paper Unusual Features of the Sars-CoV2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of its Probable Synthetic Route, published by her and co-authors, under the aegis of the Rule of Law Society and the Rule of Law Foundation, New York, on September 14? As the title suggests, the paper claims the coronavirus was man-made, in a laboratory.

The paper was uploaded on open-source research repository Zenodo, run by CERN, and was reported by Hindustan Times on Wednesday (bit.ly/33uFyy4). It wasnt as widely reported as Dr Yans comments in Loose Women, a segment of a TV show hosted by a UK TV channel, on which she pretty much said the same thing, albeit without any of the scientific arguments -- unsubstantiated ones -- presented in the paper.

Heres what that paper claimed:

One, ZC45, a bat virus, or a closely related variant or mutant, bears a striking similarity with Sars-CoV2, as shown by genome sequencing, with a 94%-100% similarity of key viral proteins.

The spike protein of Sars-CoV2 is essentially a trimer (essentially three parts) each of which has an S1 and S2 part with a furin cleavage site at the boundary between the two. Other research has already established that the human cellular enzyme furin cleaves, or breaks, the S1 and S2 unit at the cleavage site, and that the S1 unit then attaches to the ACE receptor, another protein found on the surface of most human cells. This binding then facilitates the entry of the viral protein into human cells. The virus ability to bind with the receptor, and the presence of the cleavage site that responds to a cannon human enzyme, are the reasons Covid-19 is as infective as it is.

Click here for complete coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic

Both the furin cleavage site, and the binding ability of the spike protein with the ACE2 receptor arent natural, the paper argued.

In their preface to this scientific hypothesis, the authors also claim that the process of creating such a virus in a laboratory could take only six months. They ask for further research and investigation into the origin of the virus. Even if their hypothesis is subsequently proven erroneous, this is a recommendation that no can argue with the origin of the virus needs to be investigated, not so much to assign blame (although there will be some that too), but to prepare for the next virus and the next pandemic.

Dr Yan, currently in the US, where she fled to in late April, is a virologist who used to work at the University of Hong Kong School of Public Health, and who has for long claimed that China knew of the virus and the fact that human-to-human transmission of the infection was happening, long before it let on. Her claims on the virus being man-made are more recent.

Interestingly, a March paper in Nature titled The Proximal Origin of Sars-Cov2, authored by Kristian G Andersen of Californias Scripps Research Institute, argued, again picking on the same two distinctive features of Sars-CoV2, that the virus was natural. The viral protein showed a high affinity to bind with the receptor, they said, but this interaction wasnt ideal or optimal. In plain English this meant that if anyone had set out to engineer the virus, they would have picked the ideal binding relation, not just another optimal one. The paper also said that there were other coronaviruses that had similar cleavage sites and that this wasnt unique to Sars-CoV2.

However, the two papers differ in one significant aspect. The one published in Nature said the genetic data irrefutably show that Sars-CoV2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone. Dr Yans said (again, without substantiation that) a genomic sequence analysis reveals that ZC45, or a closely related bat coronavirus, should be the backbone used for the creation of Sars-CoV2.

Also read|Over 5,000 Indians died in West, East Asian countries amid Covid-19 pandemic: Govt informs Parliament

Dr Yans claims are also being seen through a political lens, with scientists in the US pointing out that the two non-profits that published the paper were linked to Steve Bannon, former Trump adviser and former executive chairman of the far-right Breitbart News, casting aspersions on the studys findings.

Clearly, only further research and investigation can shed light on the origin of the virus which has thus far infected 29,927,685 and killed 942,564 around the world. India ended Wednesday with 5,115,846 cases and 83,230 deaths.

But as Vivek Wadhwa, a columnist for this paper, a top technology thinker, and distinguished fellow at Harvard Law Schools Labor and Worklife Program, said in a recent article in Foreign Policy: If genetic engineering wasnt behind this pandemic, it could very well unleash the next one. Thats because, genetic engineering with all its potential for good and bad has become democratised, Wadhwa wrote.

Thanks to a technological revolution in genetic engineering, all the tools needed to create a virus have become so cheap, simple, and readily available that any rogue scientist or college-age biohacker can use them.

More here:

Covid-19: What you need to know today - Hindustan Times

Text Size:A- A+

Earlier this month, the Narendra Modi government reportedly sanctioned biosafety field trials of two new transgenic varieties of brinjal, developed by a public sector research institute. The news created quite the buzz.

Brinjal is among the most widely available and consumed vegetables in India, after potato, onion and tomato. But a brinjal crop is susceptible to pests, particularly the fruit and shoot borer (FSB), which often affects 50-80 per cent of the crop. Farmers frequently spend over half their input costs on pest control, and insecticides may have to be sprayed 30 to 70 times in a five-month crop cycle.

Many farmers spray products derived from naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), as a bio-pesticide to control several destructive pests, particularly in vegetable crops. But now, advanced molecular biology tools have enabled scientists to identify certain genes in the bacterium that produce insecticidal proteins that specifically kill a certain group of insect pests, and incorporate them in the desired plant by genetic engineering. When the target insects feed on such transgenic plants, they ingest Bt protein and get killed. Thus, this technology provides a built-in control mechanism against the pests, thereby greatly reducing the need to use chemical insecticides. Bt Brinjal has been developed to achieve this objective.

Also read: GM brinjals are helping Bangladesh farmers earn more, save more, study finds

There are two basic technology platforms offering Bt Brinjal today. One, developed by Maharashtra-based company Mahyco, is built on the gene Cry1Ac, with the event EE-1. This has been commercially grown in Bangladesh since 2013. Another Bt Brinjal technology was indigenously developed by the Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI), using the gene Cry1Fa1, with the Event-142.

Bt Brinjal Cry1Ac, EE-1: 2001 to 2010

Bt Brinjal Cry1Fa1, Event-142: 2001-2010

This transgenic Bt Brinjal expressing the gene Cry1Fa1 was developed by IARI in 2001-2004.

But eventually, the science of both these Bt Brinjals failed the political test. On 9 February 2010, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF) announced an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal following a round of national consultations. Subsequently, all field trials of the GM crops were stopped in 2013.

Also read: APMC laws had shackled farmers, Modi govts ordinance makes them as free as other sectors

In 2009, Bangladesh began tests and trials for Bt Brinjal Cry1Ac with EE-1. It approved the first Bt Brinjal (EE-1) variety for commercial release, with 20 farmers sowing the new seeds in 2013.

The year 2018 marked the fifth anniversary of Bt Brinjal in Bangladesh. During its meeting in September 2018, the GEAC noted that nearly 50,000 farmers in Bangladesh were growing Bt Brinjal.Over 27,000 farmers had adopted Bt brinjal in 2017-18, not including the farmers who had saved their own seeds from the previous season.

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), together with Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), carried out a randomised control trial among Bt Brinjal and non-Bt Brinjal farmers in Bangladesh in 2018. The key findings showed that net yields were 42 per cent higher for Bt Brinjal farmers. The Bt Brinjal farmers also witnessed a 31 per cent reduction in costs per kg of produce, and a 27.3 per cent increase in gross revenue per hectare.

While the quantity of pesticides used decreased by 39 per cent, the rate of FSB infestation in Bt Brinjal plants was only 1.8 per cent, in contrast to 33.9 per cent of the other. A report published in 2020, assessed the impact based on a survey of brinjal farmers in five districts. Results indicated that Bt Brinjal provided an average of 19.6 per cent higher yield and 21.7 cent higher revenue compared to non-Bt varieties.

Bangladesh recognises that Bt Brinjal needs to be made available in more varieties suitable for different agro-climatic areas in the country, and in varieties that appeal to local tastes.

Also read: Halt Bt brinjal trials, it is against the national interest, RSS affiliate writes to Modi

Prime Minister Modis 2014 claim that there was a possibility of genetic engineering in ancient India raised expectations among many farmers on the prospects of genetically modified (GM) crops. But here is a glance at what really happened to the GM crops.

Also read: Why farmers are still having to protest for their right to sow GM seeds, even in a pandemic

The second decade of the 21st century, 2011 to 2020, has turned out to be the lost decade for India, as far as agriculture biotechnology is concerned. The GEAC has held only 35 meetings in 10 years, and even recommended trials were not held. This contrasts sharply with the previous decade, when the GEAC held almost 81 meetings, and over a dozen GM crops were in various stages of development.

In May 2020, the GEAC, once again granted permission to BSSPL to conduct BRL-II confined field trials with two transgenic Bt Brinjal hybrids (Event-42), in at least two of the eight designated states, provided the state governments issue NOCs. This is a repeat of the recommendations for confined field trials issued in 2010, and again in 2014, both of which had failed to make any difference on the ground. In September, BSSPL said that it hopes to begin the field trials in April 2021.

This chronology of Bt Brinjals development in India suggests that policymakers have merely used the regulatory mechanism to avoid taking a clear decision, focussing on hypothetical risks rather than real ones. The endless demand for trials and tests only suggests that in the name of science, there is an attempt to choke the progress of science and stop its adoption for practical use.

This is a complete reversal of the fundamental legal philosophy of modern civilisation, which holds that one is innocent unless proven guilty. The yardstick now being used for GM crops is that these crops are inherently dangerous, and therefore presumed guilty, unless it can be shown that they are not. But a negative can never be proven.

As any toxicologist knows, it is the dosage that makes a poison.

Increasingly, it is the farmers, who bear the daily risks of agriculture, who are now speaking up in support of technologies that could reduce their risks and improve their wellbeing. It is the farmers who are defying the legal diktat. By taking the risk of sowing unapproved GM crops without any assurance of quality, they are engaging in the largest field trial ever possible. These brave farmers are demonstrating their capacity to take on the risk society is imposing on them by denying them access to new technologies, including GM crops.

Indian farmers are the true representatives of Aatmanirbhar Bharat, and their produce is the original Make in India, long before these slogans were coined.

The author isan independent policy analyst and the former founder-director of Liberty Institute.He has an interest in agriculture reforms and is working with farmers networks on the ground. Views are personal.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it

You are reading this because you value good, intelligent and objective journalism. We thank you for your time and your trust.

You also know that the news media is facing an unprecedented crisis. It is likely that you are also hearing of the brutal layoffs and pay-cuts hitting the industry. There are many reasons why the medias economics is broken. But a big one is that good people are not yet paying enough for good journalism.

We have a newsroom filled with talented young reporters. We also have the countrys most robust editing and fact-checking team, finest news photographers and video professionals. We are building Indias most ambitious and energetic news platform. And have just turned three.

At ThePrint, we invest in quality journalists. We pay them fairly. As you may have noticed, we do not flinch from spending whatever it takes to make sure our reporters reach where the story is.

This comes with a sizable cost. For us to continue bringing quality journalism, we need readers like you to pay for it.

If you think we deserve your support, do join us in this endeavour to strengthen fair, free, courageous and questioning journalism. Please click on the link below. Your support will define ThePrints future.

Support Our Journalism

Go here to see the original:

Indian farmers cant wait anymore, they are sowing seeds of GM crops one Bt brinjal at a time - ThePrint

Its early days, says the Good Food Institute (GFI), but microbial fermentation is rapidly emerging as the third pillar in the alternative protein industry [alongside cell-cultured and plant-based]," attracting $435m in investment capital in 2020 alone.

Right now, producing protein whether from peas and soybeans or cows and chickens is resource-intensive and time-consuming, requiring large amounts of land, energy and water, says the GFI, which has just released a 72-page reporton fermentation in the alternative protein industry, arguing that itspotential is still largely untapped.

Put another way, it takes years to grow animals, and months or years to grow plants, while microbes can double their biomass in a matter of hours, as Natures Fynd CEO Thomas Jonas recently observed: Microbes are pretty damn efficient. They make great protein and they do it really fast.

Many microorganisms also offer innately high protein content (over 50% by dry weight) coupled with extraordinarily fast and self-sufficient growth, requiring only simple and inexpensive nutrient feedstocks, noted the GFI.

Fermentation-based products can also be manufactured from a distributed network of local production facilities using a fraction of the land, water, and inputs required to raise and feed animals with the added appeal of consistent quality, a lack of price volatility, and security of supply (plus it does not require killing animals on an industrial scale).

While many food ingredients, from enzymes (chymosin, a coagulating enzyme used in cheese production) to sweeteners (Reb M), vitamins (B12, Riboflavin), and colors (beta carotene) have been made via microbial fermentation for years, investment in a new wave of fermentation players focused on the alternative protein industry has exploded over the past two years.

Approaches vary, with some startups using synthetic biology (so-called precision fermentation) to write DNA sequences that can be inserted into microorganisms to instruct them to produce substances currently produced by mammals, from whey and casein proteins (Perfect Day), egg white (Clara Foods), and collagen (Geltor) to proteins found in human breast milk (Triton Algae Innovations).

Other are deploying precision fermentation to produce components that are found in plants, but can be produced more efficiently via fermentation. For example, Impossible Foods uses a genetically engineered yeast strain to produce its flagship meaty-tasting and red-colored ingredient leghemoglobin - heme - which is found in nodules attached to the roots of nitrogen-fixing plants such as soy.

A third group of companies (using so-called biomass fermentation) such as Natures Fynd,Meati Foods, Brewed Foods (Plentify), Air Proteinand Noblegen are growing naturally occurring organisms from protists and bacteria to extremophiles that are inherently high in protein.

Globally, fermentation companies devoted to alternative proteins received more than $274m in venture capital funding in 2019 and $435m in the first seven months of 2020 from investors such as Bill Gates-backed Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Temasek and Horizons Ventures to major CPG and ingredients players such as Kellogg, ADM, Danone, Kraft Heinz, Mars and Tyson.

By mid-2020, 44 fermentation companies focused on alternative proteins had formed around the globe, while several of the worlds largest food and life science companies, including DuPont, Novozymes, and DSM, have also been developing fermentation-derived product lines and solutions tailored to the alternative protein industry, said GFI.

But they're still just scratching the surface, argued report authors Dr Liz Specht and Nate Crosser.

While fermentation has a rich history of use in food, as the modern era has demonstrated, its innovative potential is still largely untapped.

The vast biological diversity of microbial species, coupled with virtually limitless biological synthesis capabilities, translates to immense opportunity for novel alternative protein solutions to emerge from fermentation-based approaches.

Fermentation is a key means of producing animal-origin-free growth factors for cell-cultured meat production, with firms such as ORF Genetics, Richcore, and Peprotech now working in this space.

While some of the strain development work to identify and optimize microbes with potential in this segment uses tools such as gene editing and genetic engineering, noted the GFI, vast progress is also possiblethrough simple adaptation and breeding strategies powered by advanced genomic insights.

The urgency of the moment calls for bold research to explore novel hosts that could significantly outperform the incumbents.

More work is also needed to identify more cost effective or sustainable feedstocks (for the microbes) via converting waste products or agro-industrial byproducts into high-quality protein biomass, says the GFI, noting that the extremophile microorganism developed by Natures Fynd, for example, exhibits wide metabolic flexibility and therefore suitability to diverse feedstocks.

The organism used byAir Protein,meanwhile, uses components found in the air - notably carbon dioxide as feedstock.

This is just the beginning: The opportunity landscape for technology development is completely untapped in this area. Many alternative protein products of the future will harness the plethora of protein production methods now available, with the option of leveraging combinations of proteins derived from plants, animal cell culture, and microbial fermentation.

Dr. Liz Specht, associate director of science and technology, The Good Food Institute

But what about price?

According to the GFI, there is reason to believe that fermentation can achieve price parity with most products through a combination of approaches including increasing scale, improving volumetric productivity (better yields), and prolonging continuous bioprocessing (the longer a process runs continuously at its peak in steady-state growth, the more efficient the overall run will be because the cells are continuously harvested from their maximum productivity).

Fermentation is not just valuable in its own right, offering competitive prices, unparalleled functionality and scalability, and validated mechanisms for establishing and ensuring safety; it stands to revolutionize the entire alternative protein industry, with spillover applications in both plant-based products and cultivated meat.

In 2019, fermentation companies raised over 3.5 times more capital than all cell-cultured meat companies combined.

One aspect of the technology that is less explored in the report is consumer perception, which is less of an issue for companies using microbes to produce ingredients consumers already recognize such as whey or collagen, but could present novel challenges for companies making new-to-the-world ingredients, as Lever VC managing partner Nick Cooney told FoodNavigator-USA in a recent interview.

Consumer acceptance is definitely something we think about in the alternative proteins space when were evaluating companies, and I do think there will be an increased challenge for companies producing novel proteins.

Clearly, bacteria-sourced protein is not something youd find in Grandmas kitchen cupboard, Brewed Foods co-founder Dr Jonathan Gordon, told Food Navigator-USA.

But its not some kind of sci-fi fantasy either, he stressed:The notion of consuming bacteria has become very well established thanks to probiotics, although in our case, the bacteria are not live, but are fully deactivated, so theyre entirely dead, and non spore-forming.

KarunaRawal, CMO at Natures Fynd, added: What we found was that consumers just want to know what it is [the protein source], they dont like it when companies cloud things in[euphemistic]language, and we dont want to confuse anyone.

But Id say were in a different time to when Quorn[a soil micro-organism described on pack as mycoprotein]came to market and since then, the notion of good bacteria, and fermented products have become very mainstream and the landscape has changed.

The GFI breaks the market down into three segments:

Perfect Day,a startup producing milk proteins via microbial fermentation (minus the cows), recently expanded its Series C round from a previously-announced $140m, up to $300m through a new tranche led by CPP Investments and bolstered by long-time supporters Temasek and Horizons Ventures.

The cash injection -bringing its cumulative funding to over $360m -was announced as Berkeley, Calif.-based Perfect Day revealed a series of incremental improvements in recent months enabling it to increase the efficiency of its production process, substantially reducing costs two years ahead of expectations.

While Perfect Day is a b2b company, it recently moved into the b2c space via spinoff The Urgent Company, which is focused on consumer brands, beginning with animal-free ice cream Brave Robot.

Plentify a novel protein sourced from a strain of bacteria that naturally produces high levels of protein is more efficient to produce than plant-based proteins, and compared to animal husbandry, is ludicrously efficient,"claims Brewed Foods co-founder Dr Jonathan Gordon.

The obvious advantage here is the incredible compactness of production. You can basically use waste products to fuel the process. We can produce tons of protein in an incredibly small footprintconsistently and efficiently.

"Protein production is also the primary purpose of the process[whereas most plants harvested for protein also contain large quantities of starch, oil or other components that producers need to find a market for, both for economic and sustainability reasons].

Air Protein(which utilizes single-cell organisms called hydrogenotrophs first studied by NASA in the 1960s),is using components found in the air - notably carbon dioxide - as a low-cost feedstock.

See the article here:

Microbes, the third pillar in the alternative protein industry: 'The rationale is simple: Fermentation is just more efficient' - FoodNavigator-USA.com