There has beenno scientific findingthat the novel coronavirus was bioengineered, but its origins are not entirely clear. Deadly pathogens discovered in the wild are sometimesstudied inlabs and sometimes made more dangerous. That possibility, and other plausible scenarios, have been incorrectly dismissed in remarks by some scientists andgovernment officials, and in the coverage of most major media outlets.

Regardless of the source of this pandemic, there is considerable documentation that a global biological arms race going on outside of public view could produce even more deadly pandemics in the future.

While much of the media and political establishment have minimized the threat from such lab work, some hawks on the American right like Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., have singled outChinese biodefense researchers as uniquely dangerous.

But there is every indication that U.S. lab work is every bit as threatening as that in Chinese labs. American labs also operate insecret, and are also known to beaccident-prone.

The current dynamics of the biological arms race have been driven by U.S. government decisions that extend back decades. In December 2009, Reuters reported that the Obama administration was refusing even to negotiate the possible monitoring of biological weapons.

Advertisement:

Much of the left in the U.S. now appears unwilling to scrutinize the origin of the pandemic or the wider issue of biowarfare perhaps because portions of the anti-Chinese right have been sovocal in making unfoundedallegations.

Governments that participate in such biological weapon research generally distinguish between "biowarfare" and "biodefense," as if to paint such "defense" programs as necessary. But this is rhetorical sleight-of-hand; the two concepts are largely indistinguishable.

"Biodefense" implies tacit biowarfare, breeding more dangerous pathogens for the alleged purposeof finding a way tofightthem. While this work appears to have succeeded in creating deadly and infectious agents, including deadlier flu strains, such "defense" research is impotent in its ability to defend us from this pandemic.

The legal scholar who drafted the main U.S. law on the subject, Francis Boyle, warned in his 2005 book "Biowarfare and Terrorism" that an "illegal biological arms race with potentially catastrophic consequences" was underway, largely driven by the U.S. government.

For years,many scientistshave raised concerns regarding bioweapons/biodefense lab work, and specifically aboutthe fact that huge increases in funding have taken place since 9/11. This was especially true afterthe anthrax-by-mail attacks that killed five people in the weeks after 9/11, which the FBI ultimately blamed on a U.S. government biodefense scientist.A 2013 study found that biodefense funding since2001 hadtotaled at least $78 billion, and more has surely been spent since then. This has led to aproliferation of laboratories, scientists and new organisms, effectively setting off a biological arms race.

Following the Ebola outbreak in west Africa in 2014, the U.S. governmentpaused fundingfor what are known as "gain-of-function" research on certain organisms. This work actually seeks to make deadly pathogensdeadlier, in some cases making pathogens airborne thatpreviously were not. With little notice outside the field, the pause on such research was lifted in late 2017.

During this pause, exceptions for funding were made for dangerous gain-of-function lab work. This included work jointly done by U.S. scientists from the University of North Carolina, Harvard and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This work which had funding from USAID and EcoHealth Alliance not originally acknowledged was published in2015 in Nature Medicine.

A different Nature Medicine article about the origin of the current pandemic,authored by five scientists andpublished on March 17,has been touted by major media outlet and some officials including current National Institutes of Health directorFrancis Collins as definitively disproving a lab origin for the novel coronavirus. That journal article, titled "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2," stated unequivocally: "Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus." This is a subtly misleading sentence. While the scientists state that there is no known laboratory "signature" in the SARS-Cov-2 RNA, their argument fails to take account of other lab methods that could have created coronavirus mutations without leaving such a signature.

Indeed, there is also thequestion of conflict of interest in the Nature Medicine article. Some of the authors of that article, as well as aFebruary 2020Lancet letter condemning "conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin" which seemed calculated to minimize outside scrutiny of biodefense lab work have troubling ties to thebiodefense complex,as well as to the U.S. government. Notably, neither of these articles makes clear that a virus can have a natural originand then be captured and studied in a controlled laboratory setting before being let loose, either intentionally or accidentallywhichis clearly a possibility in the case of the coronavirus.

Facts as "rumors"

This reporter raised questions about the subject at a news conference with a Center for Disease Control (CDC) representative at the now-shuttered National Press Club on Feb. 11. I asked if it was a "complete coincidence" that the pandemic had started in Wuhan, the only place in China with a declared biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory. BSL4 laboratories have the most stringent safety mechanisms, but handle the most deadly pathogens. As I mentioned, it was oddthat the ostensible origin of the novel coronavirus was bat caves in Yunnan province more than 1,000 miles from Wuhan. I noted that "gain-of-function" lab work can results in more deadly pathogens, and that major labs, including some in the U.S., have had accidental releases.

CDC Principal Deputy Director Anne Schuchat saidthatbased on the information she had seen, the virus was of "zoonotic origin." She also stated, regarding gain-of-function lab work, that it is important to "protect researchers and their laboratory workers as well as the community around them and that we use science for the benefit of people."

I followed up by asking whether an alleged natural origin did not preclude the possibility that this virus came through a lab, since a lab could have acquired a bat virus and been working on it. Schuchat replied to the assembled journalists that "it is very common for rumors to emerge that can take on life of their own," but did not directly answer the question. She noted that in the 2014 Ebola outbreak some observers had pointed to nearby labs as the possible cause, claiming this "was a key rumor that had to be overcome in order to help control the outbreak." She reiterated: "So based on everything that I know right now, I can tell you the circumstances of the origin really look like animals-to-human. But your question, I heard."

This is no rumor. It's a fact: Labs work with dangerous pathogens. The U.S. and China each have dual-use biowarfare/biodefense programs. China has major facilities at Wuhan a biosafety level 4 lab and a biosafety level 2 lab. There are leaks from labs. (See "Preventing a Biological Arms Race," MIT Press, 1990, edited by Susan Wright; also, a partial review in Journal of International Law from October 1992.)

Much of the discussion of this deadly serious subject is marred with snark that avoids or dodges the "gain-of-function" question. ABC ran a story on March 27 titled "Sorry, Conspiracy Theorists. Study Concludes COVID-19 'Is Not a Laboratory Construct.'" That story did not address the possibility that the virus could have been found in the wild, studied in a lab and thenreleased.

On March 21, USA Today published a piece headlined "Fact Check: Did the Coronavirus Originate In a Chinese Laboratory?" and rated it "FALSE."

That USA Today story rel
ied on the Washington Post, which publishedawidely cited article onFeb.17headlined,"Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked." That article quoted public comments fromRutgers University professor of chemical biology Richard Ebright, but out of context and only in part. Specifically, the story quoted from Ebright's tweet that the coronavirus was not an "engineered bioweapon." In fact, his full quote included the clarification that the virus could have "entered human population through lab accident." (An email requesting clarification sent toPost reporterPaulina Firoziwas met with silence.)

Bioengineered From a lab

Other pieces in the Post since then (some heavily sourced to U.S. government officials) have conveyed Ebright's thinking, but it gets worse. In a private exchange, Ebright who, again, has said clearly that the novel coronavirus was not technically bioengineered using known coronavirus sequences stated that other forms of lab manipulation could have beenresponsible for the current pandemic. This runs counter to much reporting, which is perhaps too scientifically illiterate to perceive the difference.

In response to the suggestion that the novel coronavirus could have come about through various methodsbesides bioengineering made by Dr. Meryl Nass, who has done groundbreaking work on biowarfareEbright responded in an email:

The genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 has no signatures of human manipulation.

This rules out the kinds of gain-of-function (GoF) research that leave signatures of human manipulation in genome sequences (e.g., use of recombinant DNA methods to construct chimeric viruses), but does not rule out kinds of GoF research that do not leave signatures (e.g., serial passage in animals). [emphasis added]

Very easy to imagine the equivalent of the Fouchier's "10 passages in ferrets" with H5N1 influenza virus, but, in this case, with 10 passages in non-human primates with bat coronavirus RaTG13 or bat coronavirus KP876546.

That last paragraph is very important. It refersto virologist Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, who performed research on intentionally increasing rates of viralmutation rate by spreading a virus from one animal to another in a sequence.The New York Times wrote about this in an editorial in January 2012, warning of "An Engineered Doomsday."

"Now scientists financed by the National Institutes of Health" have created a "virus that could kill tens or hundreds of millions of people" if it escaped confinement, the Times wrote. The story continued:

Working with ferrets, the animal that is most like humans in responding to influenza, the researchers found that a mere five genetic mutations allowed the virus to spread through the air from one ferret to another while maintaining its lethality. A separate study at the University of Wisconsin, about which little is known publicly, produced a virus that is thought to be less virulent.

The word "engineering" in the New York Times headline is technically incorrect, sincepassing a virus through animals is not "genetic engineering." This same distinction has hindered some from understanding the possible origins of the current pandemic.

Fouchier's flu work, in which an H5N1 virus was made more virulent by transmitting it repeatedly between individual ferrets, briefly sent shockwaves through the media. "Locked up in the bowels of the medical faculty building here and accessible to only a handful of scientists lies a man-made flu virus that could change world history if it were ever set free," wrote Science magazine in 2011 in a story titled "Scientists Brace for Media Storm Around Controversial Flu Studies." It continues:

The virus is an H5N1 avian influenza strain that has been genetically altered and is now easily transmissible between ferrets, the animals that most closely mimic the human response to flu. Scientists believe it's likely that the pathogen, if it emerged in nature or were released, would trigger an influenza pandemic, quite possibly with many millions of deaths.

In a 17th floor office in the same building, virologist Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center calmly explains why his team created what he says is "probably one of the most dangerous viruses you can make" and why he wants to publish a paper describing how they did it. Fouchier is also bracing for a media storm. After he talked to ScienceInsider yesterday, he had an appointment with an institutional press officer to chart a communication strategy.

Fouchier's paper is one of two studies that have triggered an intense debate about the limits of scientific freedom and that could portend changes in the way U.S. researchers handle so-called dual-use research: studies that have a potential public health benefit but could also be useful for nefarious purposes like biowarfare or bioterrorism.

Despite objections, Fouchier's article was published by Science in June 2012. Titled "Airborne Transmission of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets," it summarized how Fouchier's research team made the pathogen more virulent:

Highly pathogenic avian influenza A/H5N1 virus can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus far has not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet ("airborne transmission") between humans. To address the concern that the virus could acquire this ability under natural conditions, we genetically modified A/H5N1 virus by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. The genetically modified A/H5N1 virus acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets.

In other words, Fouchier's research took a flu virus that did not exhibit airborne transmission, then infected a number of ferrets until it mutated to the point that it was transmissible by air.

In thatsame year, 2012, asimilar studyby Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin was published in Nature:

Highly pathogenic avian H5N1 influenza A viruses occasionally infect humans, but currently do not transmit efficiently among humans. ... Here we assess the molecular changes ... that would allow a virus ... to be transmissible among mammals. We identified a ... virus ... with four mutations and the remaining seven gene segments from a 2009 pandemic H1N1 virus that was capable of droplet transmission in a ferret model.

In 2014, Marc Lipsitch of Harvard and Alison P. Galvani of Yale wrote regarding Fouchier and Kawaoka's work:

Recent experiments that create novel, highly virulent and transmissible pathogens against which there is no human immunity are unethical ... they impose a risk of accidental and deliberate release that, if it led to extensive spread of the new agent, could cost many lives. While such a release is unlikely in a specific laboratory conducting research under strict biosafety procedures, even a low likelihood should be taken seriously, given the scale of destruction if such an unlikely event were to occur. Furthermore, the likelihood of risk is multiplied as the number of laboratories conducting such research increases around the globe.

Given this risk, ethical principles, such as those embodied in the Nuremberg Code, dictate that such experiments would be permissible only if they provide humanitarian benefits commensurate with the risk, and if these benefits cannot be achieved by less risky means.

We argue that the two main benefits claimed for these experiments improved vaccine design and improved interpretation of surveillance are unlikely to be achieved by the creation of potential pandemic pathogens (PPP), often termed "gain-of-function" (GOF) experiments.

There may be a widespread notion that there is scientific consensus that the pandemic did not come out of a lab. But in factmany of the most knowledgeable scientists in the field are notably silent. This includes Lipsitch at Harvard, Jonathan A. King at MITand many others.

Just last year, Lynn Klotz of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Prolife
ration wrote a paperin the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientistsentitled "Human Error in High-biocontainment Labs: A Likely Pandemic Threat." Wrote Klotz:

Incidents causing potential exposures to pathogens occur frequently in the high security laboratories often known by their acronyms, BSL3 (Biosafety Level 3) and BSL4. Lab incidents that lead to undetected or unreported laboratory-acquired infections can lead to the release of a disease into the community outside the lab; lab workers with such infections will leave work carrying the pathogen with them. If the agent involved were a potential pandemic pathogen, such a community release could lead to a worldwide pandemic with many fatalities. Of greatest concern is a release of a lab-created, mammalian-airborne-transmissible, highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, such as the airborne-transmissible H5N1 viruses created in the laboratories of Ron Fouchier in the Netherlands and Yoshihiro Kawaoka in Madison, Wisconsin.

"Crazy, dangerous"

Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois, has condemned Fouchier, Kawaoka and others including at least one of the authors of the recent Nature Medicine article in the strongest terms, calling such work a "criminal enterprise." While Boyle has been embroiled in numerous controversies, he's been especially dismissed by many on this issue. The "fact-checking" websiteSnopeshas described him as "a lawyer with no formal training in virology" without noting that he wrote the relevant U.S. law.

As Boyle saidin 2015:

Since September 11, 2001, we have spent around $100 billion on biological warfare. Effectively we now have an Offensive Biological Warfare Industry in this country that violates theBiological Weapons Conventionand myBiological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.

The law Boyle drafted states: "Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States."

Boyle also warned:

Russia and China have undoubtedly reached the same conclusions I have derived from the same open and public sources, and have responded in kind. So what the world now witnesses is an all-out offensive biological warfare arms race among the major military powers of the world: United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, inter alia.

We have reconstructed the Offensive Biological Warfare Industry that we had deployed in this county before its prohibition by the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, described by Seymour Hersh in his groundbreaking expose "Chemical and Biological Warfare: America's Hidden Arsenal." (1968)

Boyle now states that he has been "blackballed" in the media on this issue, despite his having written the relevant statute. The group he worked with on the law, the Council for Responsible Genetics, went under several years ago, making Boyle's views against "biodefense" even more marginal as government money for dual use work poured into the field and criticswithin the scientific community have fallen silent. In turn, his denunciationshave grown more sweeping.

In the 1990 book "Preventing a Biological Arms Race," scholar Susan Wright argued that current laws regarding bioweapons were insufficient, as there were "projects in which offensive and defensive aspects can be distinguished only by claimed motive." Boyle notes, correctly, that current law he drafted does not makean exception for "defensive" work, but only for "prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes."

While Boyle is particularly vociferous in his condemnations, he is not alone. There has been irregular, but occasional media attention to this threat. The Guardian ran a piece in 2014,"Scientists condemn 'crazy, dangerous' creation of deadly airborne flu virus," afterKawaoka created a life-threatening virus that "closely resembles the 1918 Spanish flu strain that killed an estimated 50m people":

"The work they are doing is absolutely crazy. The whole thing is exceedingly dangerous," said Lord May, the former president of the Royal Society and one time chief science adviser to the UK government. "Yes, there is a danger, but it's not arising from the viruses out there in the animals, it's arising from the labs of grossly ambitious people."

Boyle'scharges beginning early this yearthat the coronavirus was bioengineered allegationsrecently mirrored by French virologist andNobel laureate Luc Montagnier have not been corroborated by any publicly produced findings of any U.S. scientist. Boyle even charges that scientists like Ebright, who is at Rutgers, arecompromised because the university got abiosafety level 3 lab in 2017though Ebright is perhaps the most vocal eminent critic of this research, among U.S. scientists. These and other controversies aside, Boyle's concerns about the dangers of biowarfare arelegitimate; indeed, Ebright shares them.

Some of the most vocal voices to discuss the origins of the novel coronavirushave been eager to minimizethe dangers of lab work, or have focused almost exclusively on "wet markets" or "exotic" animals as the likely cause.

The media celebrated Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer Prizewinning author and former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, when she declared on Twitter on March 3 (in a since-deleted tweet)that the origin of the pandemic was discovered: "It's pangolins. #COVID19 Researchers studied lung tissue from 12 of the scaled mammals that were illegally trafficked in Asia and found #SARSCoV2 in 3. The animals were found in Guangxi, China. Another virus+ smuggled sample found in Guangzhou."

She was swiftly corrected by Ebright: "Arrant nonsense. Did you even read the paper? Reported pangolin coronavirus is not SARS-CoV-2 and is not even particularly close to SARS-CoV-2. Bat coronavirus RaTG13 is much closer to SARS-CoV-2 (96.2% identical) than reported pangolin coronavirus (92.4% identical)." He added: "No reason to invoke pangolin as intermediate. When A is much closer than B to C, in the absence of additional data, there is no rational basis to favor pathway A>B>C over pathway A>C." When someone asked what Garrett was saying, Ebright responded: "She is saying she is scientifically illiterate."

The following day, Garrett corrected herself (without acknowledging Ebright): "I blew it on the #Pangolins paper, & then took a few hours break from Twitter. It did NOT prove the species = source of #SARSCoV2. There's a torrent of critique now, deservedly denouncing me & my posting. A lot of the critique is super-informative so leaving it all up 4 while."

At leastone Chinese governmentofficialhas respondedto the allegation that the labs in Wuhan could be the source for the pandemic by alleging that perhaps the U.S. isresponsibleinstead. In American mainstreammedia, that has been reflexivelytreated as evenmore ridiculousthan the original allegation that the virus could havecome froma lab.

Obviouslythe Chinese government'sallegations should not be taken at face value, but neither should U.S. government claims especially considering that U.S. government labs were the apparent source for theanthrax attacks in 2001. Those attacks sent panic through the U.S. and shut down Congress, allowing the Bushadministration to enact the PATRIOT Act and ramp up the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, in October2001, media darlings like Richard Butler and Andrew Sullivan propagandizedfor war with Iraq because of the anthrax attacks. (Neither Iraq nor al-Qaida was involved.)

The 2001 anthrax attacks also provided muchof the pretext forthe surge in biolab spending since then, even though they apparently originated in a U.S. or U.S.-allied lab. Indeed, thoseattacks remain shrouded in mystery.

The U.S. government has also
come up withelaborate cover stories to distract from its bioweapons work. For instance, the U.S. government infamously claimed the 1953 death of Frank Olson, a scientist at Fort Detrick, Maryland, was anLSD experiment gone wrong;it now appears to have been an execution to cover up for U.S.biological warfare.

Regardless of the cause of the current pandemic, these biowarfare/biodefense labs need far more scrutiny. The call to shut them down by Boyle and others needs to be clearly heard and light must be shone on precisely what research is being conducted.

The secrecy of these labs may prevent us ever knowing with certainty the origins of the current pandemic.What we do know is this kind of lab work comes with real dangers. One might make a comparison to climate change: We cannot attribute an individual hurricane to man-made climate disruption,yet science tells us that human activity makes stronger hurricanes more likely. Thatbrings us back to the imperative to cease the kinds of activities thatproduce such dangers in the first place.

If that doesn't happen, the people of the planet will be at the mercy of the machinations and mistakes of state actors who are playing with fire for their geopolitical interests.

Continue reading here:
Did this virus come from a lab? Maybe not but it exposes the threat of a biowarfare arms race - Salon

Is there anything that can be done to escape the death cult we seem trapped in?

One of the more radical visions for how to organize human society begins with a simple goal: lets resurrect everyone who has ever lived. Nikolai Fedorov, a nineteenth-century librarian and Russian Orthodoxy philosopher, went so far as to call this project the common task of humanity, calling for the living to be rejuvenated, the dead to be resurrected, and space to be colonized specifically to house them. From the 1860s to the 1930s, Fedorovs influence was present throughout the culturehe influenced a generation of Marxists ahead of the Russian Revolution, as well as literary writers like Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky, whose novel, The Brothers Karamazov, directly engaged with Federov's ideas about resurrection.

After his death, Federovs acolytes consolidated his ideas into a single text, A Philosophy of the Common Task, and created Cosmism, the movement based on his anti-death eschatology. Federov left the technical details to those who would someday create the prerequisite technology, but this did not stop his disciples: Alexander Bogdanov, who founded the Bolsheviks with Lenin, was an early pioneer of blood transfusions in hopes of rejuvenating humanity; Konstantin Tsiolkvosky, an astrophysicist who was the progenitor of Russia's space program, sought to colonize space to house the resurrected dead; and Alexander Chizhevsky, a biophysicist who sought to map out the effects of solar activity on Earth life and behavior, thought his research might help design the ideal society for the dead to return to.

The vast majority of cosmists were, by the 1930s, either murdered or purged by Stalin, muting the influence of their ambitious project but also leaving us with an incomplete body of work about what type of society resurrection requires or will result in, and whether that wouldas some cosmists believe nowbring us closer to the liberation of the species. Now, I think it is obvious thatdespite what todays transhumanists might tell youwe are in no position, now or anytime soon, to resurrect anyone let alone bring back to life the untold billions that have existed across human history and past it into the eons before civilizations dawn.

To be clear, I think cosmism is absolute madness, but I also find it fascinating. With an introduction to Cosmism and its implications, maybe we can further explore the arbitrary and calculated parts of our social and political order that prioritize capital instead of humanity, often for sinister ends.

**

What? Who gets resurrected? And how?

At its core, the Common Task calls for the subordination of all social relations, productive forces, and civilization itself to the single-minded goal of achieving immortality for the living and resurrection for the dead. Cosmists see this as a necessarily universal project for either everyone or no one at all. That constraint means that their fundamental overhaul of society must go a step further in securing a place where evil or ill-intentioned people cant hurt anyone, but also where immortality is freely accessible for everyone.

Its hard to imagine how that worldwhere resources are pooled together for this project, where humans cannot hurt one another, and where immortality is freeis compatible with the accumulation and exploitation that sit at the heart of capitalism. The crisis heightened by coronavirus should make painfully clear to us all that, as J.W. Masonan economist at CUNYrecently put it, we have a system organized around the threat of withholding people's subsistence, and it "will deeply resist measures to guarantee it, even when the particular circumstances make that necessary for the survival of the system itself." Universal immortality, already an optimistic vision, simply cannot happen in a system that relies on perpetual commodification.

Take one small front of the original cosmist project: blood transfusions. In the 1920s, after being pushed out of the Bolshevik party, Bogdanov focused on experimenting with blood transfusions to create a rejuvenation process for humans (theres little evidence they do this). He tried and failed to set up blood banks across the Soviet Union for the universal rejuvenation of the public, dying from complications of a transfusion himself. Today, young blood is offered for transfusion by industrious start-ups, largely to wealthy and eccentric clientsmost notably (and allegedly) Peter Thiel.

In a book of conversations on cosmism published in 2017 titled Art Without Death, the first dialogue between Anton Vidokle and Hito Steyerl, living artists and writers in Berlin, drives home this same point. Vidokle tells Steyerl that he believes Death is capital quite literally, because everything we accumulatefood, energy, raw material, etc.these are all products of death. For him, it is no surprise were in a capitalist death cult given that he sees value as created through perpetual acts of extraction or exhaustion.

Steyerl echoes these concerns in the conversation, comparing the resurrected dead to artificial general intelligences (AGIs), which oligarch billionaires warn pose an existential threat to humanity. Both groups anticipate fundamental reorganizations of human society, but capitalists diverge sharply from cosmists in that their reorganization necessitates more extraction, more exhaustion, and more death. In their conversation, Steyerl tells Vidokle:

Within the AGI Debate, several solutions have been suggested: first to program the AGI so it will not harm humans, or, on the alt-right/fascist end of the spectrum, to just accelerate extreme capitalisms tendency to exterminate humans and resurrect rich people as some sort of high-net-worth robot race.

These eugenicist ideas are already being implemented: cryogenics and blood transfusions for the rich get the headlines, but the breakdown of healthcare in particularand sustenance in generalfor poor people is literally shortening the lives of millions ... In the present reactionary backlash, oligarchic and neoreactionary eugenics are in full swing, with few attempts being made to contain or limit the impact on the living. The consequences of this are clear: the focus needs to be on the living first and foremost. Because if we dont sort out societycreate noncapitalist abundance and so forththe dead cannot be resurrected safely (or, by extension, AGI cannot be implemented without exterminating humankind or only preserving its most privileged parts).

One of the major problems of todays transhumanist movement is that we are currently unable to equally distribute even basic life-extension technology such as nutrition, medicine, and medical care. At least initially, transhumanists vision of a world in which people live forever is one in which the rich live forever, using the wealth theyve built by extracting value from the poor. Todays transhumanism exists largely within a capitalist framework, and the countrys foremost transhumanist, Zoltan Istvan, a Libertarian candidate for president, is currently campaigning on a platform that shutdown orders intended to preserve human life during the coronavirus pandemic are overblown and are causing irrevocable damage to the capitalist economy (Istvan has in the past written extensively for Motherboard, and has also in the past advocated for the abolition of money).

Cosmists were clear in explaining what resurrection would look like in their idealized version of society, even though they were thin on what the technological details would be. Some argue we must not only restructure our civilization, but our bodies so that we can acquire regenerative abilities, alter our metabolic activity so food or shelter are optional, and thus overcome the natural, social, sexual, and other limitations of the species as Arseny Zhilyaev puts it in a later conversation within the book.

Zhilyaev also invokes Federovs conception of a universal museum, a radicalized, expanded, and more inclusive version of the museums we have now as t
he site of resurrection. In our world, the closest example of this universal museum is the digital world which also doubles as an enormous data collector used for anything from commerce to government surveillance. The prospect of being resurrected because of government/corporate surveillance records or Mormon genealogy databases is sinister at best, but Zhilyaevs argumentand the larger one advanced by other cosmistsis that our world is already full of and defined by absurd and oppressive institutions that are hostile to our collective interests, yet still manage to thrive. The options for our digital worlds development have been defined by advertisers, state authorities, telecom companies, deep-pocketed investors, and the likewhat might it look like if we decided to focus instead on literally any other task?

All this brings us to the question of where the immortal and resurrected would go. The answer, for cosmists, is space. In the cosmist vision, space colonization must happen so that we can properly honor our ethical responsibility to take care of the resurrected by housing them on museum planets. If the universal museum looks like a digital world emancipated from the demands of capital returns, then the museum planet is a space saved from the whims of our knock-off Willy Wonkasthe Elon Musks and Jeff Bezos of the world. I am not saying it is a good or fair idea to segregate resurrected dead people to museum planets in space, but this is what cosmists suggested, and its a quainter, more peaceful vision for space than what todays capitalists believe we should do.

For Musk, Mars and other future worlds will become colonies that require space mortgages, are used for resource extraction, or, in some cases, be used as landing spots for the rich once we have completely destroyed the Earth. Bezos, the worlds richest man, says we will have "gigantic chip factories in space where heavy industry is kept off-planet. Beyond Earth, Bezos anticipates humanity will be contained to O'Neill cylinder space colonies. One might stop and consider the fact that while the cosmist vision calls for improving human civilization on Earth before resurrecting the dead and colonizing space, the capitalist vision sees space as the next frontier to colonize and extract stupendous returns fromtrillions of dollars of resource extraction is the goal. Even in space, they cannot imagine humanity without the same growth that demands the sort of material extraction and environmental degradation already despoiling the world. Better to export it to another place (another country, planet, etc.) than fix the underlying system.

Why?

Ostensibly, the why behind cosmism is a belief that we have an ethical responsibility to resurrect the dead, much like we have one to care for the sick or infirm. At a deeper level, however, cosmists not only see noncapitalist abundance as a virtue in of itself, but believe the process of realizing it would offer chances to challenge deep-seated assumptions about humanity that might aid political and cultural forms hostile to the better future cosmists seek.

Vidokle tells Steyerl in their conversation that he sees the path towards resurrection involving expanding the rights of the dead in ways that undermine certain political and cultural forms,

The dead ... dont have any rights in our society: they dont communicate, consume, or vote and so they are not political subjects. Their remains are removed further and further from the cities, where most of the living reside. Culturally, the dead are now largely pathetical comical figures: zombies in movies, he said. Financial capitalism does not care about the dead because they do not produce or consume. Fascism only uses them as a mythical proof of sacrifice. Communism is also indifferent to the dead because only the generation that achieves communism will benefit from it; everyone who died on the way gets nothing.

In another part of their conversation, Steyerl suggests that failing to pursue the cosmist project might cede ground to the right-wing accelerationism already killing millions:

There is another aspect to this: the maintenance and reproduction of life is of course a very gendered technologyand control of this is on a social battleground. Reactionaries try to grab control over lifes production and reproduction by any means: religious, economic, legal, and scientific. This affects womens rights on the one hand, and, on the other, it spawns fantasies of reproduction wrested from female control: in labs, via genetic engineering, etc.

In other words, the failure to imagine and pursue some alternative to this oligarchic project has real-world consequences that not only kill human beings, but undermine the collective agency of the majority of humanity. In order for this narrow minority to rejuvenate and resurrect themselves in a way that preserves their own privilege and power, they will have to sharply curtail the rights and agency of almost every other human being in every other sphere of society.

Elena Shaposhnikova, another artist who appears later in the book, wonders whether the end of deathor the arrival of a project promising to abolish itmight help us better imagine and pursue lives beyond capitalism:

It seems to me that most of us tend to sublimate our current life conditions and all its problems, tragedies, and inequalities, and project this into future scenarios, she said. So while its easy to imagine and represent life in a society without money and with intergalactic travel, the plot invariably defaults to essentialist conflicts of power, heroism, betrayal, revenge, or something along these lines.

In a conversation with Shaposhnikova, Zhilyaev offers that cosmism might help fight the general fear of socialism as he understands it:

According to Marx, or even Lenin, socialism as a goal is associated with something elsewith opportunities of unlimited plurality and playful creativity, wider than those offered by capitalism. ... the universal museum producing eternal life and resurrection for all as the last necessary step for establishing social justice.

In the conversations that this book, cosmism emerges not simply as an ambition to resurrect the dead but to create, for the first time in human history, a civilization committed to egalitarianism and justice. So committed, in fact, that no part of the human experienceincluding deathwould escape the frenzied wake of our restructuring.

Its a nice thought, and something worth thinking about. Ours is not that world but in fact, one that is committed, above all else, to capital accumulation. There will be no resurrection for the deadthere isnt even healthcare for most of the living, after all. Even in the Citadel of Capital, the heart of the World Empire, the belly of the beast, the richest country in human history, most are expected to fend for themselves as massive wealth transfers drain the public treasuries that mightve funded some measure of protection from the pandemic, the economic meltdown, and every disaster lurking just out of sight. And yet, for all our plumage, our death cult still holds true to Adam Smith's observation in The Wealth of Nations: "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

See more here:
The Proto-Communist Plan to Resurrect Everyone Who Ever Lived - VICE

An unprecedented amount of research has been focused solely on understanding the novel coronavirus that has taken nearly 150,000 lives across the globe. And while scientists have gotten to know some of the most intimate details of the virus called SARS-CoV-2, one question has evaded any definitive answers Where did the virus come from?

Live Science contacted several experts, and the reality, they said, is that we may never know where this deadly coronavirus originated. Among the theories circulating: That SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally, after passing from bats to a secondary animal and then to humans; that it was deliberately engineered and then accidentally released by humans; or that researchers were studying a naturally-occurring virus that subsequently escaped from a high-security biolab, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China. The head of the lab at WIV, for her part, has emphatically denied any link to the institute.

Just today (April 18), the vice director of WIV Zhiming Yuan CGTN, the Chinese state broadcaster, said "there is no way this virus came from us," NBC News reported. "We have a strict regulatory regime and code of conduct of research, so we are confident."

Furthermore, the notion that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered is pure conspiracy, experts told Live Science, but it's still impossible to rule out the notion that Chinese scientists were studying a naturally-occurring coronavirus that subsequently "escaped" from the lab. To prove any of these theories takes transparent data and information, which is reportedly not happening in China, scientists say. Several experts have said to Live Science and other media outlets have reported that the likeliest scenario is that SARS-CoV-2 is naturally occurring.

Related: 13 coronavirus myths busted by science

"Based on no data, but simply [a] likely scenario is that the virus went from bats to some mammalian species, currently unknown despite speculation, [and] spilled over to humans," said Gerald Keusch, associate director of the Boston University National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories. This spillover event may have happened before the virus found its way into a live animal market, "which then acted as an amplifying setting with many more infections that subsequently spread and the rest is history," Keusch said. "The timeline is fuzzy and I don't think we have real data to say when these things began, in large part because the data are being held back from inspection," Keusch told Live Science.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is most closely related to coronaviruses found in certain populations of horseshoe bats that live about 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) away in Yunnan province, China. The first known outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in humans occurred in Wuhan and initially was traced to a wet seafood market (which sold live fish and other animals), though some of the earliest cases have no link to that market, according to research published Feb. 15 in the journal The Lancet.

Related: 11 (sometimes) deadly diseases that hopped across species

What's more, despite several proposed candidates, from snakes to pangolins to dogs, researchers have failed to find a clear "intermediate host" an animal that would have served as a springboard for SARS-CoV-2 to jump from bats to humans. And if horseshoe bats were the primary host, how did the bat virus hop from its natural reservoir in a subtropical region to the bustling city of Wuhan hundreds of miles away?

These questions have led some people to look elsewhere in the hunt for the virus's origin, and some have focused on the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

In 2015, WIV became China's first lab to reach the highest level of bioresearch safety, or BSL-4, meaning the lab could host research on the world's most dangerous pathogens, such as Ebola and Marburg viruses. (SARS-CoV-2 would require a BSL-3 or higher, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) Labs like these must follow strict safety guidelines that include filtering air, treating water and waste before they exit, and requiring lab personnel to shower and change their clothes before and after entering the facility, Nature News reported in 2017.

These types of labs do spur concerns among some scientists who worry about the risks involved and the potential impact on public health if anything were to go wrong, Nature News reported.

Related: The 12 deadliest viruses on Earth

WIV was not immune to those concerns. In 2018, after scientist diplomats from the U.S. embassy in Beijing visited the WIV, they were so concerned by the lack of safety and management at the lab that the diplomats sent two official warnings back to the U.S. One of the official cables, obtained by The Washington Post, suggested that the lab's work on bat coronaviruses with the potential for human transmission could risk causing a new SARS-like pandemic, Post columnist Josh Rogin wrote.

"During interactions with scientists at the WIV laboratory, they noted the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory," the officials said in their cable dated to Jan. 19, 2018.

When reports of the coronavirus first popped up in China, the U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor Matthew Pottinger reportedly suspected a potential link to China labs. In mid-January, according to a New York Times report, Pottinger asked intelligence agencies like the C.I.A., particularly individuals with expertise on Asia and weapons of mass destruction, to investigate this idea. They came up empty-handed, the Times reported.

Meanwhile, the lab at the center of these speculations had long been sounding the alarm about the risk of the SARS-like coronaviruses they studied to spawn a pandemic.

The head of the lab's bat-coronavirus research, Shi Zhengli, published research on Nov. 30, 2017 in the journal PLOS Pathogens that traced the SARS coronavirus pandemic in 2003 to a single population of horseshoe bats in a remote cave in Yunnan province. The researchers also noted that other SARS-like coronaviruses discovered in that cave used the ACE2 receptor to infect cells and could "replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells," they wrote. (Both SARS and SARS-CoV-2 use the ACE2 receptor as the entry point into cells.)

Zhengli and her colleagues stressed the importance of monitoring and studying the SARS coronaviruses to help prevent another pandemic.

"Thus, we propose that monitoring of SARS-CoV evolution at this and other sites should continue, as well as examination of human behavioral risk for infection and serological surveys of people, to determine if spillover is already occurring at these sites and to design intervention strategies to avoid future disease emergence," they wrote.

Related: 20 of the worst epidemics and pandemics in history

The WIV lab, along with researchers in the U.S. and Switzerland, showed in 2015 the scary-good capability of bat coronaviruses to thrive in human cells. In that paper, which was published in 2015 in the journal Nature Medicine, they described how they had created a chimeric SARS-like virus out of the surface spike protein of a coronavirus found in horseshoe bats, called SHC014, and the backbone of a SARS virus that could be grown in mice. The idea was to look at the potential of coronaviruses circulating in bat populations to infect humans. In a lab dish, the chimeric coronavirus could infect and replicate in primary human airway cells; the virus also was able to infect lung cells in mice.

That study was met with some pushback from researchers who considered the risk of that kind of research to outweigh the benefits. Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, was one of those scientists. Wain-Hobson emphasized the fact that this chimeric virus "grows remarkably well" in human cells, adding that "If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory," Nature News reported.

None of this can
show the provenance of SARS-CoV-2.

But scientists can start to rule out an idea that the pandemic-causing coronavirus was engineered in that lab or further created as a bioweapon. Researchers say the overwhelming evidence indicates this is a natural-borne virus that emerged from an animal host, likely a bat, and was not engineered by humans.

Related: 28 devastating infectious diseases

"This origin story is not currently supported at all by the available data," said Adam Lauring, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School. Lauring pointed to a study published March 17 in the journal Nature Medicine, which provided evidence against the idea that the virus was engineered in a lab.

In that Nature medicine study one of the strongest rebukes of this idea Kristian Andersen, an associate professor of immunology and microbiology at Scripps Research, and his colleagues analyzed the genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2 and coronaviruses in animals. They found that a key part of SARS-CoV-2, the spike protein that the virus uses to attach to ACE2 receptors on the outsides of human cells, would almost certainly have emerged in nature and not as a lab creation.

"This analysis of coronavirus genome sequences from patients and from various animals suggests that the virus likely arose in an animal host and then may have undergone further changes once it transmitted and circulated in people," Lauring told Live Science.

That may rule out deliberate genetic engineering, but what about other scenarios that point to bats as the natural hosts, but WIV as the source of the outbreak?

Although researchers will likely continue to sample and sequence coronaviruses in bats to determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2, "you can't answer this question through genomics alone," said Dr. Alex Greninger, an assistant professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and an assistant director of the Clinical Virology Laboratory at the University of Washington Medical Center. That's because it's impossible to definitively tell whether SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a lab or from nature based on genetics alone. For this reason, it's really important to know which coronaviruses were being studied at WIV. "It really comes down to what was in the lab," Greninger told Live Science.

However, Lauring said that based on the Nature Medicine paper, "the SARS-CoV-2 virus has some key differences in specific genes relative to previously identified coronaviruses the ones a laboratory would be working with. This constellation of changes makes it unlikely that it is the result of a laboratory 'escape,'" he said.

As for what viruses were being studied at WIV, Zhengli says she did a thorough investigation. When she first was alerted to the viral outbreak in Wuhan on the night of Dec. 30, 2019, Zhengli immediately put her lab to work sequencing the genomes of SARS-CoV-2 from infected patients and comparing the results with records of coronavirus experiments in her lab. She also looked for any mishandling of viral material used in any experiments, Scientific American reported. She didn't find any match between the viruses her team was working with from bat caves and those found in infected patients. "That really took a load off my mind," she told Scientific American. "I had not slept a wink for days."

At the beginning of February, Zhengli sent a note over WeChat to reassure her friends that there was no link, saying "I swear with my life, [the virus] has nothing to do with the lab," the South China Morning Post reported Feb. 6. Zhengli and another colleague, Peng Zhou, did not reply to a Live Science email requesting comment.

The Wuhan lab does work with the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2, which is a bat coronavirus called RaTG13, evolutionary virologist Edward Holmes, of the Charles Perkins Center and the Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity at the University of Sydney, said in a statement from the Australian Media Center. But, he added, "the level of genome sequence divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 is equivalent to an average of 50 years (and at least 20 years) of evolutionary change." (That means that in the wild, it would take about 50 years for these viruses to evolve to be as different as they are.)

Though no scientists have come forth with even a speck of evidence that humans knowingly manipulated a virus using some sort of genetic engineering, a researcher at Flinders University in South Australia lays out another scenario that involves human intervention. Bat coronaviruses can be cultured in lab dishes with cells that have the human ACE2 receptor; over time, the virus will gain adaptations that let it efficiently bind to those receptors. Along the way, that virus would pick up random genetic mutations that pop up but don't do anything noticeable, said Nikolai Petrovsky, in the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders.

"The result of these experiments is a virus that is highly virulent in humans but is sufficiently different that it no longer resembles the original bat virus," Petrovsky said in a statement from the Australian Media Center. "Because the mutations are acquired randomly by selection, there is no signature of a human gene jockey, but this is clearly a virus still created by human intervention."

If that virus infected a staff member and that person then traveled to the nearby seafood market, the virus could have spread from there, he said. Or, he added, an "inappropriate disposal of waste from the facility" could have infected humans directly or from a susceptible intermediary, such as a stray cat.

Though we may never get a definitive answer, at least in the near-term, some say it doesn't matter.

"No matter the origin, evolution in nature and spillover to humans, accidental release from a lab, or deliberate release or genetic manipulation of a pathogen in the lab the way you develop countermeasures is the same," Keusch told Live Science. "Since one can never say 100% for anything, I think we always need to be aware of all possibilities in order to contravene. But the response to develop what is needed to respond, control and eliminate the outbreak remains the same."

Live Science senior writer Rachael Rettner contributed to this report.

Originally published on Live Science.

Read more:
Wuhan lab says there's no way coronavirus originated there. Here's the science. - Livescience.com

As a major vector for disease, the mosquito has harmed more human beings than just about any other animal, and a changing climate is only boosting those numbers. As the range of disease-carrying species of mosquitoes expands, so does their ability to transmit the parasites and viruses that result in malaria, chikungunya, Zika, yellow fever, West Nile, and dengue fever. In 2018, the continental United States saw a 25 percent increase in severe, neuroinvasive cases of West Nile virus compared with a decade earlier. And over the past three decades, the CDC reports, the worldwide incidence of dengue fever has risen 30-fold.

In cities with well-maintained infrastructure, mosquito populations can be kept in check by minimizing standing water and treating high-risk areas like storm drains. Elsewhere, lowering the risk carried by the creature that the World Health Organization describes as one of the deadliest animals in the world" comes with its own set of complications, including new dangers to the health of humans, other species, and the ecosystems that they depend on. Heres a short guide to the complicated science of mitigating that risk.

Pupae of Aedes mosquitoes at the Insect Pest Control Laboratory located at the FAO/IAEA Agriculture and Biotechnology Laboratories in Seibersdorf near Vienna. | Photo Courtesy of Jesus Reyes/IAEA

Insecticides

In our efforts to preserve health, reduce nuisance, and protect crops and livestock, human beings have a long history of trying to suppress insect populations. The practice of poisoning insects can be traced all the way from 2000 BCE Mesopotamia, when people dusted crops with sulfur, to our modern use of synthetic and natural pesticides. That long history means that mosquitoes have had plenty of opportunity to evolve a resistance to those chemicals, and those chemicalsmost notably DDThave had similar opportunity to accumulate in the environment and threaten other species. In recent years, mosquitoes have developed resistance to four common classes of insecticides. Insecticide-treated nets can reduce the incidence of malaria by nearly half, but (rising rates of resistance notwithstanding) some communities repurpose them as fishing nets, which indiscriminately trap all sizes of fish and pollute the water with insecticide.

Sterilization

In response to the growing global burden of mosquito-borne diseases and the above-mentioned problems with insecticides, the World Health Organization, in partnership with other United Nations branches (including a collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency on safety standards and risk assessment frameworks), are turning to the Sterile Insect Technique (SIT), which has been used to combat agricultural pests for more than 60 years in more than 40 countries. In this relatively straightforward method, male insects of a particular species (male insects arent the problemonly the females transmit disease and lay eggs on crops) are bred en masse in a lab, then sterilized via radiation. The sterile males are then released by drone in a community, where theyll matebut fail to reproducewith females, thus reducing the population.

Later this year, field trials will begin to evaluate the effectiveness of SIT against Aedes aegypti mosquitoes and the diseases they transmit. Field trials will take place at preapproved sites in approximately 10 countries.

SITs track record in reducing target insect populations without causing significant harm to the environment make it a promising tool. However, the same radiation that renders the mosquitoes sterile can also make them less healthy, allowing their wild (and fertile) counterparts to outcompete them. Furthermore, the scale production thats necessary to reduce large populations of sterilized mosquitoes is enormous and may be difficult to attain or maintain.

Genetically Self-limited

Another approach to withering mosquito populations is genetic editing. In its latest efforts, UK-based companyOxitec inserts self-limiting dominant lethal genes that pass on to subsequent generations of offspring. The edited gene causes female progeny to die before reaching adulthood, but allows males to survive and pass along the lethal gene to half of their offspring. While it still targets population numbers, this technology addresses one of the feasibility issues associated with SIT. Mosquito populations decline over multiple generations, so one introduction has a more sustained effect, yet as the population falls, the edited gene eventually disappears.

The big gain to be had from reducing populations of target mosquitoeswhether via sterilization or genetic modificationis that they should also suppress transmission of all the viruses that the species carries. There are roughly 3,500 species of mosquito in the world and only a handfulmostly within the Anopholes, Aedes, and Culex generacarry the viruses and parasites that cause diseases such as malaria and dengue. Remove the carriers and its likely that other insects with fill in their niche in the ecosystem.

Animals that consume mosquitoes dont appear to rely exclusively on a single species, or even solely on one type of insect. Decades of success with SIT in agriculture support this idea, says WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases researcher Florence Fouque: These predators eat plenty of different insects, so if you suppress the mosquitoes, they eat other insects. For example, in a 20092010 study, researchers examined prey DNA in the fecal matter collected from five species of bats in Australia. Though bats are often touted as heavily dependent on mosquitoes, the scientists found that mosquitoes represented a small proportion of the diet, even for the smallest bats, and that the bats were consuming a wide variety of species of mosquito beyond those that carry malaria.

The Replacement Strategy

At Colorado State Universitys Arthropod-borne and Infectious Diseases Laboratory, Kenneth Olson is working to replace the most disease-carrying mosquitoes instead of eliminating them. For roughly 15 years, he has been developing genetically modified mosquitoes that he hopes will one day replace wild type Aedes aegypti in particular environments. We (and others) have developed transgenic Aedes aegypti that are highly resistant to dengue and Zika viruses, at least in the laboratory, says Olson. The goal of this and similar gene drive projects is to eventually introduce these (male) mosquitoes into a natural environment, where they will breed with wild females and spread the gene that provides disease resistance into the unmodified population. The advantage of a replacement strategy is that we wouldnt eliminate Aedes aegyptiif that bothers peoplebut instead replace the population with mosquitoes that have a virus-resistant phenotype, Olson explains.

Gene editings proponents argue its still effective and less destructive to beneficial insects and other species than the most common alternative: insecticides. Insecticides as a basis of vector control, they are bad for the environment and may affect beneficial insect populations. Further, insecticide treatments can be expensive, and mosquitoes are evolving resistance, Olson says.

But gene drives also have their detractors. Once engineered mosquitoes are removed from the closed conditions of a lab, additional uncontrolled mutations may occur. And, in fact, while field trials of Oxitecs first generation of Friendly Aedes aegypti did demonstrate a substantial reduction in the local mosquito population, they also found a surprise. Reporting on an independent study, Kelly Servick wrote for Science magazine that between 5 and 60 percent of the insects collected in the months after the trial had some DNA from the Oxitec strain in their genome. Though lab studies indicated that about 3 percent of the engineered mosquitoes offspring would survive, field trials demonstrated that they could reproduce and pass pieces of their genomes to subsequent generations. While none of the modified genes were passed on, thi
s does support concerns about our ability to anticipate how things will play out in the natural environment.

Which is, arguably, the very point of the multiphased approach. Before field trials even begin, researchers must demonstrate success for generations in the labone line of mosquitoes has been in Olsons insectary since 2009 (thats 54 generations), and it remains highly resistant to the targeted arbovirus. And once they are launched, they are overseen and carried out in conjunction with host countries, local communities, and in the case of the SIT trials, multiple agencies. In its guidance frameworks for studying the efficacy and safety of various biotechnologies (including genetically manipulated mosquitoes and SIT), the WHO emphasizes the safety of nontarget organisms, responsible community engagement, and more. Gene drive engineering like Olson does is still relatively new and has yet to undergo any field trials, and guidelines for best practices are still being developed. For Olson, a key factor in protecting both the quality of research and the communities most affected by disease will be promoting transparency within the scientific community and with the public.

With the aim of eventually sterilizing and releasing them into the wild, male larvae are reared in laboratory-controlled environments. | Photo Courtesy of Dean Calma/IAEA

Is There a Better Way?

For many, including Olson and Fouque, biotechnology represents a safer and more efficient strategy for combating mosquito-borne diseases when compared with the insecticides that dominate today. Critics of biotechnology and especially genetic engineering are more likely to see it as an uncontrolled ecological experiment with too many unanticipated consequences for the environment and would rather see the energy and funding shift in different directions.

And, in fact, that research is happening as well. Scientists are developing biopesticides made from fungi; studying the efficacy of combating malaria with insecticides and antiparasitics made from nanoparticles (structures ranging from 10 to 100 nm in size) of gold, silver, and other elements; and infecting mosquitoes with a naturally occurring bacteria, Wolbachia, to reduce their lifespan and ability to transmit pathogens. Fish, tadpoles, and other aquatic animals have been shown to drastically reduce populations of mosquito larvae, though the extent to which this ends up affecting transmission remains unclear.

However, much of this work comes with the potential for unanticipated effects. Targeted biopesticides might be safer for other species threatened by conventional pesticides, but don't solve concerns raised above about how this could affect bats, birds, frogs, and other predators. Nanoparticles already occur in nature, but their impact on aquatic environments has been understudied and, as with pesticides, there is the risk of accumulation-related environmental toxicity. Even introducing natural predators to eat mosquitoes can shift ecological balance in unpredictable ways. For example, since mosquitoes represent a small proportion of birds' and bats diets, adding more predators could unintentionally lower populations of moths, beetles, and the other insects those predators consume.

With an array of potential solutions that are as complex as the environments in which they may ultimately be rolled out, no one solution will be perfect. Weve already put our collective thumbs on the scale, introducing mosquito species to new regions, creating conditions in which they flourish, and trying to combat them with sweepingly toxic insecticides. Now its just a question of how to do the least harm.

Note: This article is independent of the Sierra Clubs policy regarding biotechnology, which opposes field release of GMOs unless they are proven safe.

Here is the original post:
Can We Kill the Dreaded Mosquito? - Sierra Magazine

Humanity is currently facing a huge challenge imposed by the coronavirus. Borders are being shut down, planes grounded, and factories closed. At the same time, scientists and public health professionals are working on tests, treatments, and vaccines to soon provide a medical response. Coping with corona might be one of the largest tests humans have faced in the past decades but it wont be the last virus we need to defeat. It is time to embrace bioscience and allow more research and applications of genetic alteration methods.

For the layman, all this technobabble about mutagenesis and genetic engineering is difficult to comprehend and it took me personally a good amount of reading to start grasping what different methods exist and how these can massively improve our quality of life.

Lets first look at the four most common ways to alter the genes of a plant or animal:

This can be even done in grown humans that are alive, which is a blessing for everyone who suffers from genetic disorders. We are able to repair genes in live organisms. Gene editing is also thousands of times more accurate than just bombarding seeds with radiation. Some applied examples are deactivating the gene responsible for generating gluten in wheat: The result is gluten-free wheat. There are several methods that achieve this. One of the most popular ones these days is the so-called CRISPR Cas-9. These scissors are usually reprogrammed bacteria that transmit the new gene information or deactivate defunct or unwanted genes. Many science fiction novels and movies show a future in which we can deactivate genetic defects and cure humans from terrible diseases. Some examples of stories in which CRISPR-like techniques have been used are movies such as GATTACA, Star Treks Wrath of Khan, or the Expanse series in which gene editing plays a crucial role in growing crops in space.

Synthetic biologists have started usingCRISPR to synthetically create partsof the coronavirus in an attempt to launch a vaccine against this lung disease and be able to mass-produce it very quickly. In combination with computer simulations and artificial intelligence, the best design for such a vaccine is calculated on a computer and then synthetically created. This speeds up vaccine development and cuts it from years to merely months. Regulators and approval bodies have shown that in times of crisis they can also rapidly approve new testing and vaccination procedures which usually require years of back and forth with agencies such as the FDA?

CRISPR also allows the search for specific genes, also genes of a virus. This helped researchersto build fast and simple testing proceduresto test patients for corona.

In the long term, gene editing might allow us to increase the immunity of humans by altering our genes and making us more resistant to viruses and bacteria.

While the coronavirus seems to really test our modern society, we also need to be aware that this wont be the last pathogen that has the potential to kill millions. If we are unlucky, corona might mutate quickly and become harder to fight. The next dangerous virus, fungus, or bacteria is probably around the corner. Hence we need to embrace the latest inventions of biotechnology and not block genetic research and the deployment of its findings.

Right now a lot of red tape and even outright bans are standing between lifesaving innovations such as CRISPR and patients around the world. We need to rethink our hostility towards genetic engineering and embrace it. To be frank: We are in a constant struggle to fight newly occurring diseases and need to be able to deploy state of the art human answers to this.

Fred Roeder is a Health Economist from Germany and has worked in healthcare reform in North America, Europe, and several former Soviet Republics. One of his passions is to analyze how disruptive industries and technologies allow consumers more choice at a lower cost. Follow him on Twitter @FredCyrusRoeder

A version of this article was originally published at Consumer Choice Center and has been republished here with permission. The center can be found on Twitter @ConsumerChoiceC

Go here to read the rest:
What comic book super heroes and villains tell us about plant and human gene editing and the coronavirus - Genetic Literacy Project

SIOUX FALLS, S.D.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--SAB Biotherapeutics (SAB), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a proprietary technology to produce fully human polyclonal antibodies without the need for human donors, announced today that it has been awarded expanded scope on their Rapid Response contract for their new therapeutic drug candidate to treat COVID-19, from the Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense (JPEO - CBRND) Joint Project Lead for Enabling Biotechnologies (JPL-EB). This work, up to $9.4M, is supported by the Biomedical Advanced Research Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

SABs therapeutic candidate, SAB-185, is a new immunotherapy generated from the companys proprietary technology, the DiversitAb platform, to produce fully human polyclonal antibodies that target SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. SAB has the unique capability to scale like no other polyclonal antibody program in that it produces fully human antibodies without the need for convalescent plasma blood donations from people who have recovered from the virus. This approach, once enabled, is expected to produce greater quantities of a consistent, high potency neutralizing antibody product than is currently possible, while overcoming other challenges of traditional human antibody donor methods, such as the need to identify, screen, and draw blood from recovering volunteers that can limit production.

SAB has developed a unique system to naturally, rapidly, and consistently produce large amounts of targeted human antibodies without human donors, as we have done with MERS and Ebola, said Eddie J. Sullivan, PhD, SAB Biotherapeutics president, CEO and co-founder. Our targeted high-potency immunotherapies leverage the native immune response thereby providing a highly-specific match against the complexity, diversity and mutation of a disease. We have data in other indications demonstrating that our therapies are much more potent than those produced from convalescent plasma from recovered patients and data showing SABs therapies remain effective when other therapeutics may develop resistance.

SAB Biotherapeutics unique antibody platform shows real potential to address the critical need for fighting coronavirus and establishing a truly responsive model for combatting future threats, said Matthew Hepburn, M.D., Joint Project Lead CBRN Defense Enabling Biotechnologies. We are continually exploring new technologies to ensure the security and safety of our armed forces as well as the American and global public, he added.

Public health threats and emerging infectious diseases has been a strategic proving ground for SABs platform. For a novel unknown target, were able to move quickly to a proof-of-concept in about 90 days, added Sullivan. SAB Biotherapeutics has a successful preclinical track record in this space having developed more than a dozen effective antibodies from our DiversitAb platform in response to infectious disease targets during outbreaks of Ebola, Zika, Dengue, Hantavirus, and others.

The current pandemic is shining a light on the direct need for new and innovative therapies in addition to being prepared to react quickly for global health security, added Sullivan, This initiative is solidifying a place for targeted human polyclonal antibodies in the immunotherapy space, showcasing the power of the native human biological immune response, added Sullivan. More importantly, were providing an innovative solution, to address COVID-19 and be responsive to future emerging threats.

This expanded scope and funding was awarded by the Department of Defense as a new stage, Stage 4: COVID-19 Pandemic Response, of SABs current JPL-EB rapid response contract. SAB expects to have initial lots of their SAB-185 therapeutic candidate available for clinical evaluation as early as summer 2020 and has activated its network of collaborators to prepare for rapid transition to clinical studies and progress quickly toward FDA submission and approval.

SAB Biotherapeutics has successfully demonstrated their speed and capability to produce safe and efficacious cGMP material at an accelerated rate, added Dr. Hepburn. The company is significantly ahead of schedule within the Rapid Response Antibody Program and is increasing the scale of production to meet demands for large volumes of a prototype drug product that can be produced within months.

BARDA supports the development of innovative products and approaches, like SABs technology, that aim to solve major health security challenges through innovative approaches and products and has partnered with SAB on its MERS therapeutic. BARDA is working with its partners across industry and government to build a portfolio of medical countermeasures, including drugs, vaccines and diagnostic tests, for this COVID-19 pandemic and future coronavirus outbreaks.

Were proud to continue our work with JPL-EB who recognized the potential of our platform to rapidly and reliably respond to emerging threats with safe and effective human polyclonal antibody therapies, said Sullivan. The progress weve made with them has given us a head start on our work on SAB-185, and now with an expansion of this contract and our long-time collaboration with BARDA, we are applying this capability as a unified team to combat the COVID-19 public health crisis.

About the DoD Rapid Response Antibody Program:

The Rapid Response Antibody Program is a progressive and competitive three-stage rapid response contract awarded by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). The contract called for the development of a state-of-the-art, pharmaceutical platform technology capable of rapidly and reliably producing antibody-based medical countermeasures for biological threats to accelerate the delivery of a series of potent, fully-human, antibody therapeutics.

About the JPEO-CBRND:

The Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense is the Joint Service's lead for development, acquisition, fielding and life-cycle support of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense equipment and medical countermeasures. As an effective acquisition program, we put capable and supportable systems in the hands of the service members and first responders, when and where it is needed, at an affordable price. Our vision is a resilient Joint Force enabled to fight and win unencumbered by a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear environment; championed by innovative and state-of-the-art solutions. Joint Project Lead CBRND Enabling Biotechnologies (JPL-CBRND-EB) is an organization established for the purpose of providing medical solutions, during a crisis, against future threats.

About HHS, ASPR, and BARDA

HHS works to enhance and protect the health and well-being of all Americans, providing for effective health and human services and fostering advances in medicine, public health, and social services. The mission of ASPR is to save lives and protect Americans from 21st century health security threats. Within ASPR, BARDA invests in the innovation, advanced research and development, acquisition, and manufacturing of medical countermeasures vaccines, drugs, therapeutics, diagnostic tools, and non-pharmaceutical products needed to combat health security threats. To date, 54 BARDA-supported products have achieved regulatory approval, licensure or clearance.

About SAB Biotherapeutics, Inc.:

SAB Biotherapeutics, Inc. (SAB) is a clinical-stage, biopharmaceutical company advancing a new class of immunotherapies leveraging fully human polyclonal antibodies. Utilizing some of the most complex genetic engineering and antibody science in the world, SAB has developed the only platform that can rapidly produce natural, highly-targeted, high-potency, human polyclonal immunotherapies at commercial scale. The company is advancing program
s in autoimmunity, infectious diseases, inflammation and oncology. SAB is rapidly progressing on a new therapeutic for COVID-19, SAB-185, fully human polyclonal antibodies targeted to SARS-CoV-2 without using human donors. SAB-185 is expected to be ready for evaluation as early as summer 2020.

Read more here:
SAB Biotherapeutics Advances Therapeutic for COVID-19 in Partnership with Department of Defense and BARDA - Business Wire

KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa. and SIOUX FALLS, S.D., April 8, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --Global biotherapeutics leader, CSL Behringand innovative human antibody development company SAB Biotherapeutics(SAB) announced today their partnership to combat the coronavirus pandemic with the rapid development of SAB-185, a COVID-19 therapeutic candidate on track for clinical evaluation by early summer. The partnership joins the forces of CSL Behring's leading protein science capabilities with SAB's novel immunotherapy platform capable of rapidly developing and producing natural, highly-targeted, high-potency, fully human polyclonal antibodies without the need for blood plasma donations from recovered patients.

The therapeutic candidate, SAB-185, is generated from SAB's proprietary DiversitAb platform producing large volumes of human polyclonal antibodies targeted specifically to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Driven by advanced genetic engineering and antibody science, SAB's novel approach, leveraging genetically engineered cattle to produce fully human antibodies, enables a scalable and reliable production of targeted, higher potency neutralizing antibody product than has been previously possible. SAB's approach has expedited the rapid development of a novel immunotherapy for COVID-19 deploying the same natural immune response to fight the disease as recovered patients, but with a much higher concentration of targeted antibodies.

"COVID-19 is a nearly unprecedented public health crisis," said CSL Behring's Executive Vice President and Head of R&D Bill Mezzanotte, M.D. "That's why we're combining our leading capabilities in plasma product development and immunology with external collaborators to help find multiple, rapid solutions. In the near-term, SAB Biotherapeutics' novel immunotherapy platform provides a new and innovative solution to rapidly respond without the need for human plasma adding a different dimension to the industry-wide plasma-derived hyperimmune alliance effort we recently launched for the COVID-19 crisis. For future pandemics, SAB's platform may allow us to even more rapidly respond to patients' needs."

"Our targeted high-potency immunotherapies leverage the native immune response thereby providing a highly-specific match against the complexity, diversity and mutation of a disease," said Eddie J. Sullivan, PhD, SAB Biotherapeutics president, CEO and co-founder. "Our partnership with CSL Behring shifts our development trajectory to more rapidly scale-up and delivery of our highly targeted and potent COVID-19 therapeutic candidate, and deploy our unique capabilities to help combat this crisis. We have a successful preclinical track record for addressing infectious disease targets including Ebola, MERS, and SARS with our proprietary platform and appreciate that this collaboration with a global biopharmaceutical powerhouse will magnify the potential impact of a COVID-19 immunotherapy and provide an important framework for establishing sustainable solutions for the future."

CSL Behring has provided seed funding to offset some initial development costs that were funded by SAB in good faith, responding to the global pandemic as quickly as possible. SAB has already secured approximately $7.2 million in funding through an interagency agreement with the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense (JPEO - CBRND) and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)to support SAB to complete manufacturing and preclinical studies. CSL Behring will then commit its clinical, regulatory, manufacturing and supply chain expertise and resources to deliver the therapeutic to the market as soon as possible, on terms to be agreed with SAB.

Earlier this year, the companies announceda collaboration to investigate SAB's platform technology as a new source for human immunoglobulin G (IgG) and the potential for new therapies to treat challenging autoimmune, infectious and idiopathic diseases by leveraging SAB's DiversitAb platform.

About CSL Behring CSL Behring is a global biotherapeutics leader driven by its promise to save lives. Focused on serving patients' needs by using the latest technologies, we develop and deliver innovative therapies that are used to treat coagulation disorders, primary immune deficiencies, hereditary angioedema, inherited respiratory disease, and neurological disorders. The company's products are also used in cardiac surgery, burn treatment and to prevent hemolytic disease of the newborn. CSL Behring operates one of the world's largest plasma collection networks, CSL Plasma. The parent company, CSL Limited (ASX:CSL;USOTC:CSLLY), headquartered in Melbourne, Australia, employs more than 26,000 people, and delivers its life-saving therapies to people in more than 70 countries. For more information, visit http://www.cslbehring.com and for inspiring stories about the promise of biotechnology, visit Vita http://www.cslbehring.com/Vita

About SAB Biotherapeutics, Inc.SAB Biotherapeutics, Inc. (SAB), headquartered in Sioux Falls, S.D. is a clinical-stage, biopharmaceutical development company advancing a new class of immunotherapies leveraging fully human polyclonal antibodies. Utilizing some of the most complex genetic engineering and antibody science in the world, SAB has developed the only platform that can rapidly produce natural, highly targeted, high-potency, immunotherapies at commercial scale. The company is advancing programs in autoimmunity, infectious diseases, inflammation and exploratory oncology. SAB is rapidly progressing on a new therapeutic for COVID-19, SAB-185, a fully human polyclonal antibodies targeted to SARS-CoV-2 without using human donors. SAB-185 is expected to be ready for evaluation as early as summer 2020. The company was also recently awarded a $27 million contract from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to leverage its unique capabilities as part of a Rapid Response Antibody Program, valued at up to $27 million. For more information visit: http://www.sabbiotherapeutics.com.

See the original post:
CSL Behring and SAB Biotherapeutics Join Forces to Deliver New Potential COVID-19 Therapeutic - MDJOnline.com

Crisprs potential for curing inherited disease has made headlines, including at WIRED, for years. ( Here, here, here, and here.) Finally, at least for one family, the gene-editing technology is turning out to deliver more hope than hype. A year after 34-year-old Victoria Gray received an infusion of billions of Crisprd cells, NPR reported last week that those cells were still alive and alleviating the complications of her sickle cell disease. Researchers say its still too soon to call it a cure. But as the first person with a genetic disorder to be successfully treated with Crispr in the US, its a huge milestone. And with dozens more clinical trials currently in progress, Crispr is just getting started.

Yet for all its DNA-snipping precision, Crispr is best at breaking DNA. In Grays case, the gene editor built by Crispr Therapeutics intentionally crippled a regulatory gene in her bone marrow cells, boosting production of a dormant, fetal form of hemoglobin, and overcoming a mutation that leads to poor production of the adult form of the oxygen-carrying molecule. Its a clever way around Crisprs limitations. But it wont work for a lot of other inherited conditions. If you want to replace a faulty gene with a healthy one, you need a different tool. And if you need to insert a lot of DNA, well, youre kind of out of luck.

Not anymore, says Geoffrey von Maltzahn, the CEO of a new startup called Tessera Therapeutics. The company, founded in 2018 by Boston-based biotech investing powerhouse Flagship Pioneering, where von Maltzahn is a general partner, emerged from stealth on Tuesday with $50 million in initial financing. Tessera has spent the past two years developing a new class of molecular manipulators capable of doing lots of things Crispr can doand some that it cant, including precisely plugging in long stretches of DNA. Its not gene editing, says von Maltzahn. Its gene writing.

Simplistically, we think of it as a new category, says von Maltzahn. Gene writing is able to make either perfect deletions or simple base pair changes, but its wheelhouse is in the full spectrum, and in particular the ability to make large alterations to the genome.

To get beyond simplistics, to understand how gene writing works, you have to take a deep dive into the history of an ancient, invisible battle thats been raging for billions of years.

For nearly as long as there have been bacteria, there have been viruses trying to attack them. These viruses, called phages, are like strings of malicious computer code trying to hack into a bacterial genome to trick it into making more phages. Every day, phages invade and blast apart huge quantities of the worlds bacteria (up to 40 percent of the bacterial population in the oceans alone). To avoid the unrelenting slaughter, bacteria have had to constantly evolve defense systems. Crispr is one of them. Its a way for bacteria to steal a bit of a phages codeits DNA or RNAand store it in a memory bank, like a primordial immune system. Its the longest-running arms race in the history of Earth, says Joe Peters, a microbiologist at Cornell University: That level of evolutionary pressure has driven an incredible amount of novelty in molecular mechanisms for manipulating DNA and RNA.

But bacteria havent just had to contend with foreign viral invaders. Their genomes are also under perpetual assault from within. Through the millennia, as bacteria have been swapping bits of DNA with each other, trying to stay ahead of the next wave of phage attacks, some of those genes evolved the ability to move around and even replicate independently of the rest of their original genome. These so-called mobile genetic elements, or MGEs, carry self-contained code for the machinery to either cut and paste or copy and paste themselves into a new locality, either within their host or into nearby bacteria.

Read the original post:
This Company Wants to Rewrite the Future of Genetic DiseaseWithout Crispr Gene Editing - WIRED

The GlobalCRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes MarketResearch Report is a helpful source of insightful data for business strategists.It provides thedeep insights into the global market revenue, market segments, competitive landscape, manufacturing, and pricing and cost structures, growth factor. The industry overview is added after a widespread study of the significant business drivers, hindering factors and future industry prospect. CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes report studies the present state of the market to analyze the future opportunities and risks.

Get FREE Sample Copy (including COVID19 Impact Analysis, FULL TOC, Graphs, and Tables) of this report: https://www.globalmarketers.biz/report/life-sciences/global-crispr-and-crispr-associated-(cas)-genes-market-2019-by-manufacturers,-regions,-type-and-application,-forecast-to-2024/131472#request_sample

CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Report Scope:

Due to COVID-19 crisis takes over the globe, we are constantly track the changes in the markets, as well as the industry behaviors of the customers worldwide and our estimate about the newest market trends and forecasts are being done after in view of the impact of this pandemic.

Get an Upto 30% Discount On CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Report

Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Segmentation:

By Type:

Genome EditingGenetic engineeringgRNA Database/Gene LibrarCRISPR PlasmidHuman Stem CellsGenetically Modified Organisms/CropsCell Line Engineering

By Application:

Biotechnology CompaniesPharmaceutical CompaniesAcademic InstitutesResearch and Development Institutes

The Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market report includes the precisely studied and assessed statistics of the key vendor and their scope in the market utilizing several analytical tools. The Porters five forces analysis, SWOT analysis, feasibility study, and investment return breakdown and used to analyze the growth of key vendors in the market. Moreover, the report presents a 360-degree overview of the competitive.

Enquire Before Buying : https://www.globalmarketers.biz/report/life-sciences/global-crispr-and-crispr-associated-(cas)-genes-market-2019-by-manufacturers,-regions,-type-and-application,-forecast-to-2024/131472#inquiry_before_buying

Influence of the CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market report:

Inquire More about CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes MarketReport:

The CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Report Addresses the Following Queries:

Table of Contents: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market

Chapter 1: Overview of CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market

Chapter 2:Global Market Status and Forecast by Regions, Type

Chapter 3:Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Status and Forecast by Downstream Industry

Chapter 5:Market Driving Factor Analysis

Chapter 6:Market Competition Status by Major Key Vendors

Chapter 7:Upstream and Downstream CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Analysis

Chapter 8:Cost and Gross Margin Analysis

Chapter 9:Marketing Status Analysis

Chapter 10:CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Report Conclusion

For more Information or Browse the complete report @ https://www.globalmarketers.biz/report/life-sciences/global-crispr-and-crispr-associated-(cas)-genes-market-2019-by-manufacturers,-regions,-type-and-application,-forecast-to-2024/131472#table_of_contents

Read the original here:
Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market with focus on Industry Analysis, Growth Opportunities, Current Trends, Size, Competitive...

Back when we started WIRED magazine, it was all digital, all the time. In Silicon Valley, bodies were treated like the somewhat inconvenient and sometimes embarrassing things that needed to be fueled and occasionally rested so that they could support big heads that housed big ideas about the future. Human biology wasnt exactly on our radar, except in science fiction, where pandemics always seemed du jour.

WIRED OPINION

ABOUT

Jane Metcalfe is the founder, with Louis Rossetto, of WIRED. After a stint as the president of TCHO Chocolate, she created NEO.LIFE to track the ways we are changing as we bring an engineering mindset to our own biology. For more on this topic, read Neo.Life: 25 Visions for the Future of Our Species. To share your thoughts, please send email to visions@neo.life.

Then, in 1995, we published Scenarios, our first special issue, which imagined the future in 25 years, i.e. 2020. One article from that issue, The Plague Years, almost reads like a report from the current pandemic.

In it, a virus from China, of course named Mao flu, afflicts the elderly and the immunocompromised. A bio conference becomes a significant vector for infection. Singapore is initially able to contain the virus using draconian measures. The whole world goes into lockdown and cities empty as those who can afford it escape to the countryside. Theres an extensive loss of lives among medical personnel. Mao flu research becomes the only medical research taking place. The transgenic source of the virus is eventually traced back to a lab in China. There is even a cruise ship involved in our version. Ultimately, the cure is open sourced.

Our imagined solutions were based on a lot of computational and bioengineering virtuosity. In Scenarios, genomics, big data, sophisticated modeling, and immunotherapy end up solving the problem and saving our future selves. And thats pretty close to whats happening now. But what we didnt predict back in 1995 is the unprecedented amount of collaboration, cooperation, and data sharing thats going on now worldwide. And we certainly didnt anticipate the general disregard for who owns the intellectual property or who gets academic credit.

In Scenarios, it took 20 years to find the solution. Today we envision a vaccine within two years, and for frontline health care workers, probably much sooner. Its remarkable how fast science can happen when everyone is focused on the same problem. This devastating pandemic, with all its worldwide chaos and horror, has at the same time created a perfect alignment of technology, science, need, and opportunity. The global impact of Covid-19 could change science forever.

In the mid-20th century, World War II and the space race ignited the fields of computer science and communications. In the 1990s, the digital revolution came along and transformed, well, pretty much everything, from the way we communicate with each other to the way we do business, education, entertainment, and politics. Now, the next phase of technological innovationwe call it the Neobiological Revolutionis literally transforming our species. From gene editing to brain computer interfaces, our ability to engineer biological systems will redefine our species and its relation to all other species and the planet.

And Covid-19 is accelerating this transformation.

Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the day the White House announced the first draft of the human genome. In Bill Clintons words, it was the most important, most wondrous map ever produced by humankind. Since then, we have gone on to sequence over 12,000 other eukaryotes (which include humans, animals, plants, and fungi), along with even larger numbers of prokaryotes, viruses, plasmids, and organelles. We rapidly sequenced the SARS-CoV-2 virus and are watching it mutate in almost real time. We are sequencing individual patients who have had particularly adverse reactions to it, and using our big data technologies to help us understand why.

Read the rest here:
Covid-19 Is Accelerating Human TransformationLets Not Waste It - WIRED

(THE CONVERSATION) This summer, for the first time, genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in the U.S.

On May 1, 2020, the company Oxitec received anexperimental use permitfrom the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to releasemillions of GM mosquitoes(labeled by Oxitec as OX5034) every week over the next two years in Florida and Texas. Females of this mosquito species, Aedes aegypti, transmit dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever and Zika viruses. When these lab-bred GM males are released and mate with wild females, their female offspring die. Continual, large-scale releases of these OX5034 GM males should eventually cause the temporary collapse of a wild population.

However, as vector biologists, geneticists, policy experts and bioethicists, we are concerned that current government oversight and scientific evaluation of GM mosquitoes do not ensure their responsible deployment.

Genetic engineering for disease control

Coral reefs that can withstand rising sea temperatures,American chestnut treesthat can survive blight andmosquitoes that cant spread diseaseare examples of how genetic engineering may transform the natural world.

Genetic engineering offers an unprecedented opportunity for humans to reshape the fundamental structure of the biological world. Yet, as new advances ingenetic decodingandgene editingemerge with speed and enthusiasm, the ecological systems they could alter remain enormously complex and understudied.

Recently, no group of organisms has received more attention for genetic modification than mosquitoes toyield inviable offspringor make themunsuitable for disease transmission. These strategies hold considerable potential benefits for the hundreds of millions of people impacted bymosquito-borne diseaseseach year.

Although the EPA approved the permit for Oxitec, state approval is still required. A previously planned release in the Florida Keys of an earlier version of Oxitecs GM mosquito (OX513) waswithdrawn in 2018aftera referendum in 2016indicated significant opposition from local residents. Oxitec has field-trialed their GM mosquitoes inBrazil, the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Panama.

Thepublic forumon Oxitecs recent permit application garnered 31,174 comments opposing release and 56 in support. The EPA considered these during their review process.

Time to reassess risk assessment?

However, it is difficult toassess how EPA regulatorsweighed and considered public comments and how much of theevidence used in final risk determinationswas provided solely by the technology developers.

The closed nature of this risk assessment process is concerning to us.

There is a potential bias and conflict of interest when experimental trials and assessments of ecological risk lackpolitical accountabilityand are performed by, or in close collaboration with, the technology developers.

This scenario becomes more troubling with afor-profit technology companywhen cost- and risk-benefit analyses comparing GM mosquitoes to other approachesarent being conducted.

Another concern is thatrisk assessmentstend to focus on only a narrow set of biological parameters such as the potential for the GM mosquito to transmit disease or the potential of the mosquitoes new proteins to trigger an allergic response in people and neglect other importantbiological,ethicalandsocialconsiderations.

To address these shortcomings, the Institute for Sustainability, Energy and Environment at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign convened a Critical Conversation on GM mosquitoes. The discussion involved 35 participants from academic, government and nonprofit organizations from around the world with expertise in mosquito biology, community engagement and risk assessment.

A primary takeaway from this conversation was an urgent need to make regulatory procedures more transparent, comprehensive and protected from biases and conflicts of interest. In short, we believe it is time to reassess risk assessment for GM mosquitoes. Here are some of the key elements we recommend.

Steps to make risk assessment more open and comprehensive

First, an official, government-funded registry for GM organisms specifically designed to reproduce in the wild and intended for release in the U.S. would make risk assessments more transparent and accountable. Similar to the U.S.database that lists all human clinical trials, this field trial registry would require all technology developers to disclose intentions to release, information on their GM strategy, scale and location of release and intentions for data collection.

This registry could be presented in a way that protects intellectual property rights, just as therapies entering clinical trials are patent-protected in their registry. The GM organism registry would be updated in real time and made fully available to the public.

Second, a broader set of risks needs to be assessed and an evidence base needs to be generated by third-party researchers. Because each GM mosquito is released into a unique environment, risk assessments and experiments prior to and during trial releases should address local effects on the ecosystem and food webs. They should also probe the disease transmission potential of the mosquitos wild counterparts andecological competitors, examine evolutionary pressures on disease agents in the mosquito community andtrack the gene flowbetween GM and wild mosquitoes.

To identify and assess risks, a commitment of funding is necessary. The U.S.EPAs recent announcementthat it would improve general risk assessment analysis for biotechnology products is a good start. But regulatory and funding support for an external advisory committee to review assessments for GM organisms released in the wild is also needed;diverse expertise and local community representationwould secure a more fair and comprehensive assessment.

Furthermore, independent researchers and advisers could help guide what data are collected during trials to reduce uncertainty and inform future large-scale releases and risk assessments.

The objective to reduce or even eliminate mosquito-borne disease is laudable. GM mosquitoes could prove to be an important tool in alleviating global health burdens. However, to ensure their success, we believe that regulatory frameworks for open, comprehensive and participatory decision-making are urgently needed.

This article was updated to correct the date that Oxitec withdrew its OX513 trial application to 2018.

[Deep knowledge, daily.Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here:https://theconversation.com/genetically-modified-mosquitoes-could-be-released-in-florida-and-texas-beginning-this-summer-silver-bullet-or-jumping-the-gun-139710.

The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)

Brian Allan,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;Chris Stone,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;Holly Tuten,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;Jennifer Kuzma,North Carolina State University, andNatalie Kofler,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

See original here:
Genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in Florida this summer - WFLA

[98 pages report] This market research report includes a detailed segmentation of the global genome editing market by technology (CRISPR, TALEN, ZFN, and Others), by application (Cell Line Engineering, Genetic Engineering, and Others), By end-user (Research Institutes, Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Companies, and Contract Research Organizations), by regions (North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and Rest of the World).

Request For Report[emailprotected]https://www.trendsmarketresearch.com/report/sample/9845

Overview of the Global Genome Editing Market

Infoholics market research report predicts that the Global Genome Editing Market will grow at a CAGR of 14.4% during the forecast period. The market has witnessed steady growth in the past few years with the development in technology and the introduction of highly sensitive, robust, and reliable systems in the market. The market is fueled due to increase in genetic disorders, increasing investment and funds, and technological advancements in genome editing.

The market continues to grow and is one of the increasingly accepted market in many countries worldwide. Vendors are focusing towards obtaining funds and collaborating with universities to enlarge their research and development capabilities. The majority of the revenue is generated from the leading players in the market with dominating sales of ThermoFisher Scientific, GenScript Corp., Sangamo Therapeutics, Lonza Group, and Horizon Discovery Group plc.

According to Infoholic Research analysis, North America accounted for the largest share of the global genome editing market in 2018. US dominates the market with majority of genome editing companies being located in this region. However, China has not been too far behind and has great government support for the research in genome editing field.

Genome Editing Market by Technology:

In 2018, the CRISPR segment occupied the largest share due to specific, effective, and cost-effective nature of the technology. Many companies are focusing on providing genome editing services. For instance, in January 2019, Horizon Discovery extended CRISPR screening service to primary human T cells.

Get Complete TOC with Tables and[emailprotected]https://www.trendsmarketresearch.com/report/discount/9845

Genome Editing Market by Applications:

In 2018, the cell line engineering accounted the maximum share followed by genetic engineering. Increase in the number of people suffering with genetic disorders has driven the growth of the genome editing market.

Genome Editing Market by End Users:

In 2018, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies gained the highest market share for genome editing market due to increased pervasiveness of cancer and infectious diseases are driving research goings-on in biotechnology & pharmaceutical companies segment.

Genome Editing Market by Regions:

The market is dominated by North America, followed by Asia Pacific and Europe. The major share of the North America market is from the US due to quick adoption of new and advanced technologies.

Genome Editing Market Research Competitive Analysis The market is extremely fragmented with several smaller companies struggling for market share. Big pharmaceutical establishments have also united with venture capitalists to provide funding to the start-ups. In 2015, Bayer financed $335 million and in the very same year, Celgene combined with Abingworth invested $64 million in CRISPR Therapeutics. The NIH recently granted 21 somatic cell genome editing grants of almost $86 million over the next half a decade. These endowments are the foremost to be granted through the Somatic Cell Genome Editing (SCGE) program that was initiated in January 2018 with NIH Common Fund.

The companies are collaborating and licensing to increase their capabilities in the market. CRISPR, TALEN, ZFN, Meganuclease, ARCUS, and RTDS are some of the key technology areas concentrated by key players in the market. Since 2015, the deals on the CRISPR technology has drastically increased.

Key vendors:

Key competitive facts

Benefits The report provides complete details about the usage and adoption rate of genome editing market. Thus, the key stakeholders can know about the major trends, drivers, investments, vertical players initiatives, and government initiatives towards the healthcare segment in the upcoming years along with details of the pureplay companies entering the market. Moreover, the report provides details about the major challenges that are going to impact the market growth. Additionally, the report gives complete details about the key business opportunities to key stakeholders in order to expand their business and capture the revenue in specific verticals, and to analyze before investing or expanding the business in this market.

<<< Get COVID-19 Report Analysis >>>https://www.trendsmarketresearch.com/report/covid-19-analysis/9845

Key Takeaways:

See more here:
Genome Editing Market to Exhibit Rapid Surge in Consumption in the COVID-19 Crisis 2025 - 3rd Watch News

Each night, around 7 o'clock, I drift off into a little daydream. This has been the case for weeks now. My beloved Mets are jogging onto the grass at Citi Field, taking their positions; their ace, Jacob deGrom, making a beeline to the mound. I am up out of my seat, applauding, gazing out onto the field. I look up to the sky, and that's it, really. The scene tends to slip away from there. I look down to see the gates of my apartment's window guard and the emptied streets of Manhattan beyond them. I really am clapping, but it's got nothing to do with baseball. It's in support of local nurses and doctors at work or changing shifts. Across New York City, this ritual plays out night after night (the clapping for health care workersnot the Mets fantasies, I don't think).

There's a crossing of wires at play, like my precious sports memories are mingling with the signatures of my life during the COVID-19 eraclapping, quarantining, boredom. Will it stay this way? For a while, at least, I think it will.

As MLB, the NBA and other leagues near their returns, I find myself fascinated by questions pertaining to the virus and the ways it will ripple through our leagues. How many players will contract it? How will leagues' models evolve as they move forward? Even for mea lifelong overcommitted fan who sends excessive, neurotic text threads (unresponded to) during regular-season gamesI think most of the drama in sports will come not from daily games but from daily tests results. This is the virus overpowering the once-invincible sports machine.

Already, so much of the mystique of sports has been lost. I miss the steady, circular rhythm of leagues in-season, the way they appeared day after day, overlapping only a few sacred times a year as if choreographed by the moon instead of computers and marketing teams. I miss the shameless self-importance of teams playing no matter what. (Spring training continued for 10 days after the first cases of COVID-19 appeared in Florida.) It was simply more fun back when we could view athletes as impervious superheroes rather than as bored video-gamersor, worse, as medical patients. There is something uncomfortable about having seen a dominant, intimidating player like Rudy Gobert briefly exposed as reckless and unhygienic. Games will return soon enough, but what about the underlying myths that lend them relevance and depth?

The NBA's bubble-based return, set for July 30, cuts against team fandomso driven by proximityby moving everyone to Disney World. It admits that the game could go on without us, the fans, rowdy old faithful, by playing in near silence. Game rules are changing, too, yielding to the virus' demands. There are smaller coaching staffs to protect older people from exposure, and expanded rosters for when the inevitable happens. Every league is making compromises: MLB might ban its most endearing prop, the sunflower seed, and tweak its most fundamental, unique feature, the nine-inning game.

These leagues are right to weigh these measures and to take them. They are preventing tragedies, not creating them. But the bending of tradition makes me wonder about the future of sports, about how things just changed overnight, and how they might change again in 10 years or 50. Maybe that will be the enduring impact of COVID-19 when it comes to sportsthat it opened the gates to change.

Naturally, this is where things get strange. Stick it out anyway. Consider the ways that fans and leagues are already adapting to this odd time, this time of no sports, and then imagine what comes next, and what after that. One small bit of innovation leads to an unpredictable new one, and on it goes. Very quickly, this evolution brings us into the realm of science fiction.

We might be there already. While games were on hold, the public embraced something that in the past seemed both silly and dystopian: game simulations. Las Vegas offered sim-game betting lines; we hosted virtual Madden watch parties right here at B/R. They were and are an obvious placeholder for real sports. Still, their popularity made me curious about their power down the road, if animated graphics improve enough to match real sports. Technologically speaking, could that day be coming? I asked an expert.

Nicholas Bostrom is a professor at Oxford and a pioneer of the simulation theory, which posits that we may be living in a knockoff version of Earth created by a more advanced (real-life) society. (Assuming that computers will someday be able to produce unlimited realistic simulations of life, we might be wise, he suggests, to already "think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones.") Bostrom published Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? way back in 2003. Today, few are better equipped to tell us about the future of sims. So, Professor, how good can they get?

"Eventually we will have completely realistic virtual reality simulations that would be indistinguishable from physical reality," he says. "I don't see why in theory you couldn't have a purely artificial creature that was competing against another in a way that would create a sports event."

You might be wondering what the point of this would be once sports return. Well, consider the NBA's most exhausting debate topic: load (or injury) management. Back when there were regularly scheduled games, we wasted much time meditating on the notion of, say, Kawhi Leonard taking a night off, letting his teammates dominate the lowly Cavaliers or Knicks in front of a crowd that paid to see him play. It's obvious that if there were fewer games, the need to skip some of them would decrease. Fewer games would also soothe another of the league's concerns: players' lack of sleep amid a busy travel schedule.

Simulations could merge these issues and resolve them at once. Why not simulate lopsided games like Clippers-Cavs, providing rest for Leonard and everybody else involved? Each year, each team could sim 10 or 12 games, allowing a 70- or 72-game schedule for playersalready a desired ballparkand a full 82-game slate for the league's partners, like TV networks and casinos, who would package the simulated visuals and box scores.

Maybe this idea seems a little far out, but the NBA rarely minds. It is already welcoming the ideas of the future, from the four-point shot to aerospace revolution.

Indeed, Commissioner Adam Silver has long seen supersonic flight as the key to a truly global league. With it, Portland could face Sydney and return four hours later, in time for bed. We already have an Atlantic Division with teams from America's Northeast; how about adding a Transatlantic Division featuring Brazil, Spain and Nigeria? For now, the problem is a logistical one. "Under existing airline technology, the planes aren't fast enough to at least play in the current framework of our regular season," Silver told USA Today in 2017. Fortunately, with help from Elon Musk, Richard Branson and more, supersonic jets are on their way. Just one of many game-changers to come.

Robots have perfected three-point shooting and will someday make flawless floor-spacers. Salaries paid in cryptocurrency will provide a cap loophole and threaten the league's financial structure. Augmented reality on-screen willsomehowincrease complaints about players' shot selection. Advanced tracking through biometric data will grow into a major concern regarding personal privacy. How much should bidding teams know about a free agent's body? Who gets to dictate the right body fat percentage for somebody else or whether a balky ankle is strong enough to play on? And, as the Wall Street Journal once asked: If a fan gains access to a player's medical status and uses it to wager on a game, is that insider trading? (If the answers to these questions seem like a privacy violation, then consider how quickly athletes' COVID-19 test results became expected public information, even though they're irrelevant so long as sports are on hold. If there is already a demand to know whether Ezekiel Elliott, a running back, is
experiencing an inability to smell, then there's no doubting the future demand for intimate insight about his legs.)

Yes, the future can seem vast and spookythough not to Thomas Frey. Frey is an author and member of the Association of Professional Futurists. His job is to burst with ideas, and he's bursting all right, riffing on the future of medicine, tech, sports, you name it. He envisions not only the events of the future but also the issues that will counter those eventsthe future's future. "Drone racing is kind of a hot area right now," he says, "but my sense is that the drone racing eventually gets so fast that you can't even see it, and so I'm not sure that sport sticks around." Dang. What else? Frey wants to elevate existing sportsthe ones played on the groundthrough the control and reduction of gravity. (Think NFL meets Quidditch or Slamball with no need for trampolines.) He wonders about anti-aging, tooin this case, what 3,000-year lifespans might mean for athletic primes.

Other revolutions are impossible to imagine playing out (unless you happen to be a member of the APF). "We're close to reviving extinct species like woolly mammoths," Frey notes, before pondering the cruelty of secluding them from other, natural-born animals. An idea strikes him. "Creating a sport with woolly mammoth riders going around the trackthat would seem bizarre today," he says. "But I would definitely pay to go see that."

Of course, there is not only the matter of tweaking (or inventing) sports, but also that of tweaking the players themselves. One of Frey's favorite topics is genetic engineeringthe process of tinkering with human genes before birth. "We're reinventing people. We're making people more durable. We're giving rights to CRISPR [the bio-tech giant], who will give us superbabies who grow up to be superhumans," he says. OK then. Frey thinks it's inevitable that, someday, we'll be able to genetically manufacture superior athletes: bigger, faster, smarterto an uncanny degree. He wonders about "downloading the human brain" and uploading it into the mind of another person. In time, if this all gets easy and silly enough, a supertoddler could have the basketball IQ of LeBron James. (Just imagine the recruiting violations that would follow.)

Bostrom has explored genetic engineering as well. "The enhancement options being discussed," he wrote in 2003, "include radical extension of human health-span, eradication of disease, elimination of unnecessary suffering" and more. A superhuman ability to ward off illnesssay, a coronaviruswould certainly come in handy. So too would advancements that eliminate athletic limitations. Imagine how a perfect set of knees would have changed the careers of Greg Oden, Brandon Roy and others; imagine Shaquille O'Neal with a sprinter's endurance; imagine Jimmer Fredette at 7'3".

Sounds pretty greator actually it sounds like it would look pretty great, visually. But would this be good for sports? Is it ethical? Or the right spirit? And how would this impact the lives of the athletes we love?

Every tech innovation takes something away from the humans it replaces or (ostensibly) aids. Flawless three-and-D bots entering the NBA would not only change the game but also eliminate dozens or hundreds of lucrative jobs. Supersonic travel, alluring as it may be, could have untold effects on passengersespecially international-league athletes, flying overseas day after day. Genetic engineering could draw a devastating, permanent line between the haves and the have-nots.

When it arrives in full force, Frey says, crafting a given attribute"20/10 vision, a perfect heart"may well cost tens of thousands of dollars. There's no telling what else will be at the disposal of fortunate young athletes then (though Frey, of course, has some ideas, including advanced VR headsets).

Already, financial inequality pervades all of sports. Young basketball players need to be able to cover the costs of trainers and AAU travel teams to earn recognition; it's probably not a coincidence that the children of well-off former players are entering the league at a higher rate than ever. Young baseball players need not only training but also equipment, toomitts, balls, bats, helmets, cleats. (Cleveland pitcher Mike Clevinger recently blamed these costs for the sport's declining popularity among young athletes.) Golf, football, hockeyevery major sport operates behind a financial barrier to entry. In 2018, The Atlantic noted that "just 34 percent of children from families earning less than $25,000 played a team sport at least once a day in 2017, versus 69 percent from homes earning more than $100,000." (Those numbers came from a study by the Aspen Institute, which found that the gap was rapidly growing.)

Imagine a world in which the NBA MVP is an 8'6" trust-fund kid. It seems awfully shallow. Could a souped-up superhuman celebrate the award with the same tenderness as Kevin Durant did in 2014? Even if they did, would we bother to cry along with them? There is no great story in sports without long odds and a dash of relatability.Genetic engineering would destroy the enduring notion of the underdog. It would dull the sweetness of our games, the unpredictability, the misery, the reward. What, then, would be left?

"I'm not particularly excited about sports enhancements," Bostrom says, speaking broadly. "We shouldn't make the mistake of thinking everything that makes the sport easier or makes performance better makes the sport more enjoyable. I think we should think of these things more as, You're designing a game. Think creatively about what would make the most fun game. It's not always the easiest thing."

So far, leagues have mostly welcomed new tech as it arrives, a concerning trend. Consider the modern obsession with instant replay.

Think back to the men's NCAA title game last April. With the season on the line, the ball was knocked out of a Texas Tech dribbler's hands and flew out of bounds. For anybody who has ever picked up a basketball and played a game on any level, it was instantly recognizable as Tech's ball. But after several minutes of replaywhich included referee consultant Gene Steratore saying, "At times, guys, I will tell you, when you start running replay really, really slow, you get a little bit of distortion in there as well, so you've gotta be cognizant to that," suggesting that looking more closely may bring us further from the truththe ball was given to Virginia, the underlying logic being that the most important thing is to get the call right. Is it? What about the flow of the game, the sanity of the viewer, the unspoken understandingsI knocked it out; it's your ballthat run between players and fans, deepening the sport?

This, I will always believe, is the good stuff. Even Bostromwho is so technical that he at one point connects sports fandom to ancient Greek war and says, "You can speculate that, from an evolutionary point of view, being able to detect small differences in fitness would be valuable"agrees these intangibles are worth protecting. Even at the cost of, say, letting simulations run wild.

"You can't predict how an actual game will play out just by sort of measuring the circumference of the biceps and the speed on the treadmill of the athletes," Bostrom says. "And I think if you could predict it, in some sense it could reduce interest. It's not the same as seeing the struggle, the human spirit, the grit, the audience cheering them on."

The question, then, is not so much whether replay or sims or any other technical advance are helpful or efficient but whether we have the ability to recognize when they are aiding sports versus when they are harming them, and when the time is right to rein them in.

"Rather than just allowing everything that makes the performance better," Bostrom says, "we should think more about changes that make the game more fun and rewarding for both the players and the audience."

Are we doing this now? It's hard to say. The COVID-19 pandemic is accelerating change and the acceptance of change. It is clouding the r
ule-changing thought process. Already, long-standing traditions and powerful illusions have been altered across sports. After years of debate within baseball about the designated hitter, it will be implemented leaguewide as part of MLB's plan for a safe return. It is but a footnote to a much more complex story, which is fine. But also, how does the DH protect anybody from the coronavirus?

The NBA's bubble league will introduce its own oddities, though not everyone will be there to experience them firsthand. Several players have already tapped out of the NBA reboot, some fearing the virus, some having tested positive for it, some unwilling to separate from their loved ones. Others are sitting out so they can focus on social justice reform after expressing concerns that basketball could detract from those efforts. For those traveling to Disney World, it will be a lonely undertaking. Players themselves "are not permitted to enter each other's hotel rooms." Card games, if they do occur, will be monitored closely, and decks will be swapped out frequently.

Every league is drawing its own unprecedented game plan. The NFL is planning to cover the seats closest to the sidelines to keep fans away from players (though the league of course will advertise on the tarp). The NHL will reportedly route its action through two hub cities, Toronto and Edmonton. The measures that college sports will need to takeassuming anybody is on campus come Septemberfigure to be the most drastic of all.

Tech innovation will accompany each return: temperature screenings, artificial crowd noise, broadcasting from home. As quarantine warps our collective sense of time, it feels as though we've known these quirks forever. But not long ago they would have seemed quite strange, impossible, unwelcome, like somebody somewhere out there was toying with our settings.

Leo Sepkowitz joined B/R Mag in 2018. Previously, he was a Senior Writer at SLAM Magazine. You can follow him on Twitter: @LeoSepkowitz.

Read more:
The Future of Sports - Bleacher Report

This article originally appeared on The Conversation.

This summer, for the first time, genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in the U.S.

On May 1, 2020, the company Oxitec received an experimental use permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to release millions of GM mosquitoes (labeled by Oxitec as OX5034) every week over the next two years in Florida and Texas. Females of this mosquito species, Aedes aegypti, transmit dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever and Zika viruses. When these lab-bred GM males are released and mate with wild females, their female offspring die. Continual, large-scale releases of these OX5034 GM males should eventually cause the temporary collapse of a wild population.

However, as vector biologists, geneticists, policy experts and bioethicists, we are concerned that current government oversight and scientific evaluation of GM mosquitoes do not ensure their responsible deployment.

Coral reefs that can withstand rising sea temperatures, American chestnut trees that can survive blight and mosquitoes that cant spread disease are examples of how genetic engineering may transform the natural world.

Genetic engineering offers an unprecedented opportunity for humans to reshape the fundamental structure of the biological world. Yet, as new advances in genetic decoding and gene editing emerge with speed and enthusiasm, the ecological systems they could alter remain enormously complex and understudied.

Recently, no group of organisms has received more attention for genetic modification than mosquitoesto yield inviable offspring or make them unsuitable for disease transmission. These strategies hold considerable potential benefits for the hundreds of millions of people impacted by mosquito-borne diseases each year.

Although the EPA approved the permit for Oxitec, state approval is still required. A previously planned release in the Florida Keys of an earlier version of Oxitecs GM mosquito (OX513) was withdrawn in 2016 after a referendum indicated significant opposition from local residents. Oxitec has field-trialed their GM mosquitoes in Brazil, the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Panama.

The public forum on Oxitecs recent permit application garnered 31,174 comments opposing release and 56 in support. The EPA considered these during their review process.

However, it is difficult to assess how EPA regulators weighed and considered public comments and how much of the evidence used in final risk determinations was provided solely by the technology developers.

The closed nature of this risk assessment process is concerning to us.

There is a potential bias and conflict of interest when experimental trials and assessments of ecological risk lack political accountability and are performed by, or in close collaboration with, the technology developers.

This scenario becomes more troubling with a for-profit technology company when cost- and risk-benefit analyses comparing GM mosquitoes to other approaches arent being conducted.

Another concern is that risk assessments tend to focus on only a narrow set of biological parameterssuch as the potential for the GM mosquito to transmit disease or the potential of the mosquitoes new proteins to trigger an allergic response in peopleand neglect other important biological, ethical and social considerations.

To address these shortcomings, the Institute for Sustainability, Energy and Environment at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign convened a Critical Conversation on GM mosquitoes. The discussion involved 35 participants from academic, government and nonprofit organizations from around the world with expertise in mosquito biology, community engagement and risk assessment.

A primary takeaway from this conversation was an urgent need to make regulatory procedures more transparent, comprehensive and protected from biases and conflicts of interest. In short, we believe it is time to reassess risk assessment for GM mosquitoes. Here are some of the key elements we recommend.

First, an official, government-funded registry for GM organisms specifically designed to reproduce in the wild and intended for release in the U.S. would make risk assessments more transparent and accountable. Similar to the U.S. database that lists all human clinical trials, this field trial registry would require all technology developers to disclose intentions to release, information on their GM strategy, scale and location of release and intentions for data collection.

This registry could be presented in a way that protects intellectual property rights, just as therapies entering clinical trials are patent-protected in their registry. The GM organism registry would be updated in real time and made fully available to the public.

Second, a broader set of risks needs to be assessed and an evidence base needs to be generated by third-party researchers. Because each GM mosquito is released into a unique environment, risk assessments and experiments prior to and during trial releases should address local effects on the ecosystem and food webs. They should also probe the disease transmission potential of the mosquitos wild counterparts and ecological competitors, examine evolutionary pressures on disease agents in the mosquito community and track the gene flow between GM and wild mosquitoes.

To identify and assess risks, a commitment of funding is necessary. The U.S. EPAs recent announcement that it would improve general risk assessment analysis for biotechnology products is a good start. But regulatory and funding support for an external advisory committee to review assessments for GM organisms released in the wild is also needed; diverse expertise and local community representation would secure a more fair and comprehensive assessment.

Furthermore, independent researchers and advisers could help guide what data are collected during trials to reduce uncertainty and inform future large-scale releases and risk assessments.

The objective to reduce or even eliminate mosquito-borne disease is laudable. GM mosquitoes could prove to be an important tool in alleviating global health burdens. However, to ensure their success, we believe that regulatory frameworks for open, comprehensive and participatory decision-making are urgently needed.

Written by Brian Allan, Associate Professor of Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Chris Stone, Medical Entomologist, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Holly Tuten, Vector Ecologist, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Jennifer Kuzma, Goodnight-NCGSK Distinguished Professor, North Carolina State University; Natalie Kofler, Levenick Resident Scholar in Sustainability, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Follow this link:
Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Could be Released in Florida and Texas This Summer - The Daily Beast

On March 16, a single tweet mobilized an army of over 700 geneticists from 36 countries to battle a tiny virus by trying to understand the role human genetics plays in why some people have no reaction to COVID-19, and others get very sick and die. Goal: aggregate genetic and clinical information on individuals affected by COVID-19, tweeted Andrea Gemma, a geneticist at the Institute for Molecular Medicine in Helsinki, Finland. Just a few weeks later the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative was up and running and is now identifying human genes associated with COVID and its symptomsnothing definitive yet, although the possibility of breakthroughs has been substantially improved by the combined DNA-discovery firepower of over 150 labs and biobanks that store and analyze millions of human genomes.

Nor is this pandemic display of raw scientific muscle and intensity of focus unique right now. Pandemic-bound researchers around the world are combining forces for possibly the largest scientific hive-mind effort in history thats converging on a single conundrum. It also arrives as a slew of technologies developed over the past generation are coming online and being applied to the COVID puzzleeverything from CRISPR gene editing and faster and cheaper genetic sequencing to social media and the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning in bioresearch and health IT.

COVID-19 has ravaged bioscience just like it has cut a destructive and sometimes deadly swath through much of what we used to call normal. Yet even as labs have shuttered, experiments have halted, and droves of scientists and technicians have been laid offand research and clinical attention has been diverted from any disease thats non-COVIDis it possible that some scientific silver linings may emerge out of this tragic Year of the Pandemic?

Could we see a near-future surge of scientific advancement, what Stanford bio-informaticist Carlos Bustamante likened to what happened when we went to the moon? You had all this spillover technology that gave us, say, the Internet, he said. Or is it possible that somewhere, somehow, a new respect for science and evidence will emerge out of COVID-19? Theres kind of a reward system now for people to pay attention to facts, said George Church, Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School, rather than just making stuff up. And that reward is in terms of fewer relatives and friends and colleagues dying.

As the world is teetering and we struggle to absorb a daily barrage of less than sanguine newsnot only about COVID but also in politics, racial relations, and the economy NEO.LIFE asked prominent bioscientists and big thinkers if there might be glimmers of hope that will emerge when the all clear is finally declared.

Im seeing an intensity of purpose like Ive never seen before, said Eric Topol, director and founder of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. Putting this great big brain trust in science on such a seemingly insurmountable problem will change how we do things going forward.

We are seeing biologists working with statisticians, public health experts collaborating with logistics experts, added Katharina Voltz, founder and CEO of OccamzRazor. With the coronavirus, you need the experts on SARS, on spike proteins, on pulmonary diseases, to all come together and collaborate on a shared canvas.

Were asking questions we never asked about, say, the flu, added Carlos Bustamante, attributing this to the rise of the hive mind. For instance, were learning about COVID at a molecular phenotyping detail like weve not done for any other infectious disease. (Molecular refers mostly to genetics, and phenotype to observable traits in a human or other organism.) Its been amazing for this disease how weve accepted that different people respond differently to this infection. That is not true of almost any other large-scale infection we talk about.

We can take heart that for the first time in history we have the computing power to actually make sense of all of this complexity as artificial intelligence and machine learning in biology is moving from hype to reality. One of the trends that were seeing now is the application of machine learning to dissect and extract patterns from a deluge of genomic, proteomic, metabolic data, said Katharina Voltz. We can perform many experiments in silicoon the computerand only run the most important crucial parts of the experimental method in the lab, as a confirmation of our theoretical models.

Machine learning is going to transform how we think in biology, agreed Wayne Koff, CEO, Human Vaccines Project. Its going to generate hypotheses. We will be able to better focus on smaller groups of peoplethe vulnerable groups, the diseased, the elderly, the poor, the newborns, those living in the developing world.

Computers and the Internet are also lifelines for all of us personally needing to stay connected, and as biomedicine tries to navigate a world of shelter-in-place and social distancing. Weve just dragged the country through half a decade of telemedicine in three months, said Carlos Bustamante. Are we going to now give that all up and go back to having to wait in the doctors office with everybody else coughing to see a doctor?

I think this pandemic will be a big moment for biology, said synthetic biologist Pamela Silver, professor of Biochemistry and Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School. Biologys going to fix the COVID problem, but it can also fix a ton of other problems, tooproblems like the environment, food, and other diseases. And the only way were going to get there is with engineering biologymanipulating and improving the biological mechanisms.

One way to accomplish this is what Silver and other synthetic biologists call plug and playthe creation of basic biological components for research and for developing treatments and preventatives like vaccines that have been synthesized in a lab, ready to be deployed, say, when the next virus arrives. Im thinking that as we learn how to manipulate viruses and create methods for booting up responses faster it becomes a kind of plug-and-play system that is nimble, said Silver, and this goes not just for vaccines. It goes for everything, anything. You have a new disease, or any kind of therapeutic, and youre better prepared.

Eric Topol, however, frets about the neglect or lack of emphasis on non COVID-19 diseases. This is a concern and will continue to be for the near future. Katharina Volz added that once this crisis is over, we need to hyper-focus on other diseases, too. You really have to put this same urgency that we have for COVID now and apply it to other diseases that may have a potentially bigger economic and personal impact than COVID, she said, Alzheimers and Parkinsons and many others.

Weve just dragged the country through half a decade of telemedicine in three months.

Scientists also worry about the leadership vacuum they see in the world. I hope, as we go forward, we will get better leadership, said Eric Topol. Weve seen how science can contribute where it was given true authority, so I think thats going to be another path forwardI hopealthough in the U.S. we have horrible tensions between politics and science that shouldnt exist.

No one really knows what biomedicine will look like when this is over. But it is comforting to know that something positive may come out of COVID. As Carlos Bustamante said: I want everything I do to be drafted behind COVID. Im thinking of the mother of all cycling teams. [Cycling teams assign one cyclist to ride first in line so the others can draft behind them, which makes it easier for them to pedal]. And youre drafting behind COVID, and then once youve reached the finish line, you can take that energy and hopefully channel it into other disease areas that can be cured.

Read the original here:
After the MadnessPandemic Silver Linings in Bioscience - NEO.LIFE

There is "no evidence" supporting conspiracy theories that the coronavirus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, an expert has told parliament.

Claims that COVID-19 was created in a lab were amplified by Donald Trump earlier this month, although the president refused to offer any evidence or give specific details.

The coronavirus outbreak first emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan last year and international blame around the pandemic has incited conspiracy theories about its origin.

Rumours linking the virus to the Wuhan Institute of Virology - based on geographic proximity, and without any endorsement from qualified epidemiologists - have circulated.

But speaking to the House of Lords science and technology committee on Tuesday, Professor David Robertson dismissed the conspiracy theory as "unlikely".

Following the president's comments, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed there was a "significant amount of evidence" supporting the theory but, just two days later, admitted: "We don't have certainty."

:: Listen to the Daily podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker

Scientists have discovered that the coronavirus was 96% identical to coronavirus found in bats, one of the many animals sold at a Wuhan seafood market where it is suspected the virus jumped to humans.

British authorities believe it is highly likely the global pandemic is unconnected to the laboratory in Wuhan and was passed from animals to humans naturally.

"You have a virus that you think comes from an exotic species and then you have a wildlife market - that seems the most parsimonious explanation," Professor Robertson said.

He was asked whether a sample of the virus found at the Wuhan Institute of Virology - and thought to be about 40 to 50 years old - could have been behind the initial outbreak.

Professor Robertson, who is the head of viral genomics and bioinformatics at the University of Glasgow, firmly responded: "No, absolutely not.

"That's partly what has driven some of these conspiracy theories, is what is the chance they would have this virus in the labs that is close? And actually, even though it is close in sequence, it is not close in time."

"There is really no evidence for this. We can all enjoy a conspiracy theory but you need to have evidence," he added.

Scientists have analysed the entirety of the novel coronavirus' genomic sequence to assess claims that it may have been made in a laboratory or been otherwise engineered.

The value of the genomic sequence could prove vital for those developing a vaccine, but it also contains key details revealing how the virus evolved.

Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute in the US, UK and Australia discovered that the virus has proved so infectious because it developed a near-perfect mechanism to bind to human cells.

This mechanism is so sophisticated in its adaptions that the researchers say that it must have evolved and not been genetically engineered in their paper, titled "COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic has a natural origin", published in the journal Nature Medicine.

Dr Josie Golding, the epidemics lead at the Wellcome Trust in the UK, described the paper as "crucially important to bring an evidence-based view to the rumours that have been circulating about the origins of the virus causing COVID-19".

"They conclude that the virus is the product of natural evolution, ending any speculation about deliberate genetic engineering," Dr Golding added.

Original post:
Coronavirus: Parliament told there is 'no evidence' virus came from Wuhan laboratory - Sky News

Walking towards the school gate, as I adjusted the N-99 face mask on my four-year-old, I felt deeply disturbed. The AQI numbers in our city had soared to hazardous levels and the air pollution was causing worrisome adverse effects on the tiny lungs of our children.

Pollution was not the only cause for anxiety. The extreme weather conditions, the rise of vector-borne diseases like dengue and chikungunya, the continuing emergence of novel viruses, the increasing resistance of infectious agents to medication: everything was pointing towards an extremely grim future in the world of health. The thought of our children being the bearers of such a future perplexed me, both as a mother and as a pulmonologist.

Thus started my exploration of the obvious, yet oft-ignored, changes taking place in our ecosystems and led me to my research on climate change.

The AQI numbers in our city had soared to hazardous levels and the air pollution was causing worrisome adverse effects on the tiny lungs of our children. (Photo: Reuters)

The direct effects of climate change on our health are easy to guess. The average global temperature of the earth, which has increased by 1C since the pre-industrial era, is rising at a rate of 0.2C per decade. It may soon reach a level that is irreversible (2.5C above the pre-industrial average). 95 per cent of this global warming is being caused by greenhouse gases, the atmospheric levels of which are increasing alarmingly due to human activities. This global warming is causing melting of ice masses, the rise of sea levels and major alterations in regional precipitation patterns, resulting in unprecedented and extreme weather conditions heatwaves, wildfires, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis and snow-storms. These natural calamities are leading to deaths, diseases, malnutritionand mental health issues. Extreme temperatures are causing heat strokes, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Greenhouse effects are leading to diseases because of air pollution.

But what is more important and less obvious is the gradual and persistent damage that is being caused by climate change to the natural habitats and ecosystems of the world, and its quietyet devastating effects on our health.Think about it why are we having newer and frequent viral infections to deal with? Why are our children falling sick so often? Why is every simple viral cough leading to bronchitis? Why is the prescription of anti-inflammatory inhalers, medicines that were reserved for asthmatics, increasing rampantly?

Climate change, human behaviour and emerging infections

75 per cent of emerging infectious diseases, like Influenza, HIV/AIDS, Ebola, SARSand MERS are zoonotic. It means that they exist in animals but can be transmitted to humans.Most of them are caused by viruses predominantly RNA viruses.

Loss of Biodiversity: Climate change and land loss cause loss of habitat, leading to extinction or relocation of native species, with growing predominance of invasive, resilient species. These become likely to harbour and transmit pathogens (so-called reservoir hosts). In a healthy ecosystem, where biodiversity is high, multiple species dilute the effect of the reservoir species, the so-called dilution effect. Studies on hantavirus, West Nile virus etc. have shown strong links between low biodiversity and high rates of viral transmission.

The average global temperature of the earth, which has increased by 1C since the pre-industrial era, is rising at a rate of 0.2C per decade. (Photo: Reuters)

Migration of species: Global warming causes many species to migrate away from the equator and toward higher altitudes, bringing them in contact with new pathogens, to which they have not evolved resistance. These animals are also stressed and immunosuppressed, hence more susceptible to infection.

Contact with humans: Disruption of pristine forests by anthropogenic activities like mining,road building, urbanisation and livestock ranching brings people into closer contact with forest species, increasing the interaction between them. Ebola fever has had several outbreaks in Africa since 1970 because of increased interaction of local population with fruit bats due to population growth and encroachment into forest areas. Kyasanur forest disease, once limited to Karnataka, has spread to adjacent states over the last five years, because of conversion of forests into plantations and paddy fields, that has brought the locals nearer to monkeys.

Intermediate hosts and inter-species transmission: Although most of the novel viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, are generalist viruses that infect many different hosts, jumping into human species from wildlife species is not easy because of significant biological barriers. Transmission from mammalian species which are genetically closer to humans (the intermediate hosts), like pigs, is easier. Pig farming around forests facilitated the transmission of Nipah virus from bats in Malaysia, and civet cats sold in wet markets transmitted SARS-CoV from bats in China.

The market connection: In informal wet markets, animals are slaughtered, cut up and sold on the spot. The Wuhan wet market soldnumerous wild animals - live pangolins, wolf pups, crocodiles, foxes, civets. Wet markets in Africa sell monkeys, bats, birds, etc. They are a perfect platform for cross-species transmission of pathogens as novel interactions with a range of species occur in one place. 39per cent of the early cases in the SARS outbreak were wildlife food handlers, likely connected to the wet market of Guangdong, China.

The Wuhan wet market sold numerous wild animals, making it a perfect platform for cross-species transmission of pathogens.

Human transmission: Once inside new hosts, most viruses, fortunately, adapt, replicate and transmit inefficiently. Out of the 1,399 recognised human pathogens, 500 are transmissible between humans, and only 100to 150 are sufficiently transmissible to cause epidemics or pandemics. Restrictions occur at many cellular levels like entry into host cells by receptor binding, trafficking within cell, genome replication and gene expression. Each barrier requires a corresponding genetic change or mutation in the virus. RNA viruses, especially single-stranded RNA viruses like coronavirus, replicate rapidly and are prone to mutations due to lack of a proofreading mechanism. Only after extensive replications and re-assortments in the genome of H3N2 influenza A virus, was it capable of causing the 1968 pandemic.

Human behavioural changes: Factors like international travel, international trade of wildlife, urbanisation, and increase in population density further facilitate transmission.

Covid-19: What do we know?

In late December 2019, Wuhan Centre for Disease Control and Prevention detected a novel coronavirus in two hospital patients with atypical pneumonia. It sent the samples to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for further investigation. The genomic sequence of the virus, eventually named SARS-CoV-2, was 96 per cent identical to that of a coronavirus identified in horseshoe bats in a bat-cave in Yunnan during virus-hunting expeditions. It belonged to the SARS group of coronaviruses.

The expeditions were carried out by the Director of the Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Laboratory, Shi Zhengli (nicknamed Chinas Bat-woman) and her team, from 2004 for over 16 years, in an attempt to isolate the SARS coronavirus. They discovered hundreds of bat-borne coronaviruses with incredible genetic diversity in bat-caves deep inside forests. In bat dwellings, constant mixing of different viruses creates a great opportunity for dangerous new pathogens to emerge and the bats turn into flying factories of new viruses.

But bats were not present at the Wuhan wet market. The wild pangolin, sold for its exotic meat and medicinal scales, became suspect as an intermediate host when a SARS-CoV-2 like coronavirus was discovered in pangolins that were seized in illegal trade markets in southern China.

Whether or not
the SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally or deliberately released from the Wuhan Laboratory is a debate not proven. None of the coronaviruses that were under study in this laboratory were identical to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Also, researchers believe that the spike proteins present on the viral surface, that target the ACE2 receptors on human cells, are so effective in binding the virus to the cells, that they could have developed only by natural selection and not by genetic engineering. When computer simulations were carried out, the mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 genome did not work well in binding the virus to human cells, leading to the argument that if scientists were to deliberately engineer the virus, they would not choose mutations that computer models suggested did not work.

A recent analysis done in China estimates that there are now more than 30 strains of the virus spread across the globe.(Photo: Reuters)

Whatever the origin of the virus, the response to develop what is needed to control the present outbreak remains the same, as do the policies needed to prevent such outbreaks in the future.

A recent analysis done in China estimates that there are now more than 30 strains of the virus spread across the globe. This means that it has already mutated 30 times, which filters down to roughly one mutation every two weeks. More studies are needed to determine the effects of these mutations on the virulence and transmissibility of the virus. But going by the rapidity with which Covid is taking over the world, it should be an easy guess.

So really, is the Covid-19 pandemic a surprise? Not at all. It was coming, and so will others.

Covid-19 has thrown us into a world of turmoil and uncertainty. The impacts on health and economy have been devastating. The only thing that is flourishing is nature! Maybe nature will make us see what innumerable climate-related world conferences could not. It is there for us to appreciate in its full glory the blue skies, the clean air, the blooming flowers, the variety of birds and the wild creatures returning to claim the land that was once theirs. Nature is sending us a message. It would do us good to heed to it.

Also read| I don't believe you: Donald Trump, world's biggest climate change denier

More:
Climate change and coronavirus: Is the Covid-19 pandemic really a surprise? - DailyO

No one likes getting a shot at the doctors office. As kids, we werent used to having a sharp needle prick our skin, let alone by someone doing it on purpose. An estimated 10% of the population is affected by trypanophobia the fear of needles or injections. Luckily, for most, shots are an infrequent occurrence often limited to vaccinations. However, for millions of others, injections are a more frequent fact of life required in dealing with disease. The need for these injections and their associated doctor visits mean the physical discomfort of the treatment is often compounded by a financial burden.

Fortunately, plant biotechnology is poised to drastically improve how we consume medication. Using the modern tools of genetic engineering, researchers are developing plant-based drugs that are cheaper, easier to take and even more effective than their existing counterparts.

Cant more medicines be reformulated for oral delivery?

While many diseases can be treated with orally administered medications, other drugs such as biologics or biopharmaceuticals, medicines derived from living organisms, must be delivered using other strategies. Conventional drugs like aspirin are chemically synthesized and can survive digestion, whereas biologics like hormones, antibodies, enzymes, and other complex organic molecules are vulnerable to degradation by enzymes in our saliva and stomach, as well as environmental conditions like pH and heat. This makes biologics in pill form unlikely to survive the harsh environment of the digestive tract.

Pricey biologics

In addition to the unpleasant nature of biologic injections is their associated costs. Biologics are made by taking the DNA blueprint for the molecule and expressing it in bacterial, yeast, or mammalian cells. Once these cells, typically grown in large vats filled with nutrient media, produce the molecule of interest, it must be isolated and purified. Each step of this process must be exact and carefully maintained as small variations may change the structure and identity of the drug, potentially altering its behavior. This complex manufacturing process in addition to more rigorous FDA regulations mean higher drug prices for consumers. Combined with the price of doctor visits to get these frequent injections or infusions, the annual cost of some biologics can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars.

There are more than 200 FDA-approved biologic drugs. While less than two percent of people in the US rely on biologics, they make up 40 percent of prescription drug spending. Identifying a better way to produce and administer biologics has the potential to ease the physical and financial burden associated with these drugs. For this reason, researchers are turning to the original inspiration for medications: plants.

Turning plants into pharmaceutical factories

Evidence for plant use in medicine dates back all the way to the Palaeolithic Age. But instead of trying to find new plants that produce medically relevant compounds, researchers are turning to genetic engineering to express the same biologics currently grown in bacterial, yeast, or mammalian cells.

Producing biologics in plants has a number of advantages. Plants are potentially less costly to grow, requiring inexpensive fertilizers instead of specialized cell culture growth media. Plants can also be grown in fields or greenhouses without requiring sterile environments, meaning that scaling up production would just require more growing area as opposed to additional expensive bioreactors. An added benefit is that plants do not serve as hosts for human pathogens, reducing the likelihood of harm from contaminants that bacterial or mammalian cells may house.

Once the drug-producing plants are grown, the medically relevant proteins may be extracted and purified. But plants allow for this platform to be taken one step further: by turning the biologic- expressing plants into a freeze-dried (lyophilized) powder and placing it into a capsule, the drugs can be delivered orally. Plant cell walls contain cellulose which cannot be digested by enzymes in the stomach but can be broken down by the commensal bacteria living in our intestines. Plant-encapsulated drugs are then released in the blood-rich absorptive environment of the small intestine, where they become bioavailable and distributed to target tissues. By producing these drugs in a lyophilized form, manufacturers can cut out the expensive purification process and the need for cold transport and storage.

Current research efforts

Theres been some reported success using this method, including a March 2020 paper from a team at the University of Pennsylvania describing a lettuce expressing a novel human insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 helps promote skeletal muscle and bone development. For this reason, IGF-1 injections have been used in the treatment of several muscle disorders and have the potential for therapeutic benefit in healing bone fractures.

To study if plant-grown IGF-1 might be an effective replacement for traditional IGF injections, the team modified human IGF-1 to allow for uptake through the gut. They found that their modified version not only stimulated proliferation of several cell types better than current commercial IGF-1, but also that the plant-encapsulated drug could be administered orally to mice and would effectively be delivered to blood serum. The team also found that this administration of the drug significantly increased bone density in diabetic mice as compared to a control group.

In addition to medication production, companies are also looking to utilize some of the benefits of plant-based production for vaccines. Medicago, a Canada-based company seeking approval for their plant-produced flu vaccine, has announced that using this same technology, they have produced a candidate vaccine for COVID-19 in twenty days. By growing the protein for the vaccine in plants, as opposed to using eggs to propagate the virus, Medicago has been able to cut the cost and time required to produce a new vaccine. The vaccine is now awaiting clinical testing and FDA approval.

Similar to the work on orally administered IGF-1, theres also a lot of interest in making edible vaccines. In the future, you may no longer need to go to a clinic to get a seasonal flu vaccine, but instead eat a salad made with vaccine-containing lettuce or tomatoes. This could potentially reduce patient discomfort and increase vaccine compliance, minimizing everybodys risk of contracting infectious diseases. Edible vaccines would also help expand access to immunization in parts of the world were delivering vaccines may be difficult.

Plant-produced pharmaceuticals have the potential to improve the quality of life for millions of people by reducing the physical and financial burden of relying on biologics to stay healthy. There may even come a day when getting a shot at the doctors office is a thing of the past replaced by a quick trip to the grocery store.

Tautvydas Shuipys is a PhD candidate in the Genetics and Genomics Graduate Program at the University of Florida. Follow him on Twitter @tshuipys

Follow this link:
Drug factories: GMOs and gene editing are poised to transform medicine. Here's how. - Genetic Literacy Project

In March 1988, Popular Mechanics ran an article, written by sci-fi legend Isaac Asimov, exploring humanity's future on the moon. With NASA's plans to return to the moon in the coming years and President Trump's recent executive order clearing the way for companies to start mining the moon, Asimov's vision is more relevant than ever.

Reprinted here is the original article in its entirety.

Absolute silence.

The Lunarian stood in the eternal dark within the crater at the Moons south pole, and thought that silence was so characteristicand soothingand, yes, frighteningabout the Moon. He was not a true Lunarian, of course. He had come from Earth and when his 90-day stint was over, he would return to Earth and try to readjust to its strong pull of gravity.

There was no motion anywhere, no sound of living things. There was light along the crater top, as perpetual as the dark at this portion of the crater floor. Farther along the gently rolling floor, in the direction of the opposite side of the crater, was sunlight, too.

The Lunarian looked in that direction, and the photosensitive glass of his faceplate darkened at once.

The Lunarian thought: It is the year 2028 and the Moon has become our second world.

The line between dark and light swung slowly toward him and away in a 4-week cycle. It would never quite reach the point where he was standing, nor ever quite recede out of sight. If he were to move a few miles into the light, he would see the Sun skimming the crater edge along the horizon, but, of course, the faceplate grew virtually opaque if he accidentally looked in the Suns direction. At intervals, he could see the Earth, or a portion of it, edging above the crater wall. His heart would always melt at that sight. He tried not to think of Earth.

Pat Rawlins

For now, he was on the Moon. He could make out the line of photovoltaic cells in the sunlight and he knew that solar energy, never ending, was powering the world beneath his feetwhich was, as yet, very small. Already, dozens of human beings were housed there and in his lifetime it might well rise to hundreds. An experimental farm existed there, plus a chemical laboratory for the study of lunar soil, a furnace for baking out the small but precious amounts of volatile elements from appropriate ores.

This was not the only Moon base. A much larger one existed near the lunar equator, where the soil was mined and hurled into space to be used as a construction material. A much more specialized one existed on the Moon's far side where a huge radio telescope, insulated from Earth's radio interference by 2000 miles of solid Moon, was being completed.

The Lunarian thought: It is the year 2028 and the Moon has become our second world.

But it is now 1988. We have visited the Moon six times between 1969 and 1972, and 12 men have trod its surface. But those were visits only. We came, lingered and leftso that the total time human beings have spent on the Moon is less than two weeks.

But we have been sharpening our space abilities, and when we return to the Moon, it will be to stay. A day will come in the future after which there will never be a time when human beings will not be living on the Moon.

NASA is already planning Moon bases. In recent years, scientists, engineers, industrialists and scholars have met to discuss scientific, industrial and sociological issues in connection with living on the Moon. Former astronaut Dr. Sally K. Ride, America's first woman in space, recently produced a report outlining this nation's space goals. Satellite studies of the Earth will remain an important priority, along with the lofting of unmanned spacecraft to explore our solar system.

But the "Ride Report also stresses a manned permanent presence on the Moon before we embark on a manned mission to Mars, hoping to fully exploit the Moon's resources and scientific opportunities while boosting our own interplanetary learning curvebefore engaging in a Mars space spectacular.

Whether or not we choose to follow the Ride recommendations, the Moon will probably play an important role in man's future space explorations. But why bother? The Moon is a dead, desolate world, without air or water. It is a large super-Sahara. So what is there to make us want to go there, let alone live there?

Super-Sahara or not, the Moon would be useful, even vital, to us in many ways. Some of those ways are not material in nature. For instance, there is the question of knowledge. The Moon has not been seriously disturbed after the first half-billion years of the existence of the solar system (something that is not true of the Earth). We have been studying 800 pounds of Moon rocks astronauts retrieved, but merely bringing them to Earth has contaminated them, and the astronauts were only able to investigate isolated landing areas. If we can investigate the Moon's substance on the Moon, over extended periods and over every portion of its surface, we might learn a great detail about the early history of the Moon-and, therefore, of the Earth as well.

Unlike man's initial forays to the lunar surface, future trips to the Moon will be greatly aided by a space station positioned in low Earth orbit, by orbital transfer vehicles and by expendable lunar landers. It's envisioned that early lunar pioneers will reside in pressurized modules and airlocksnot unlike the modules currently being designed for the space station but with a significant difference. Because the Moon has no protective atmosphere, early settlers will cover their modules with up to 2 meters of lunar soil, or regolith, to protect them from solar radiation. These modules may give way to larger structures positioned beneath regolith archways or buildings made of lunar concrete as requirements change. Indeed, lunar building materials may one day be a principal lunar export.

Pat Rawlins

Solar collectors, photovoltaic systems and small nuclear powerplants positioned well away from lunar habitats would supply the power needs of an early Moon base. The resulting energy would support not only human explorers but a broad array of science and industrial activities, principally lunar mining and astronomical observation. Wheeled lunar rovers powered by the Sun would provide close-in transportation and cargo handling. Vertically launched rocket vehicles would aid in mapping and distant exploration. Some tasks may be performed by intelligent robots already on the drawing board.

After humans become established on the Moon, some visionaries foresee a complex of habitable dwellings and research labs for geochemical, physical and biological research. A life-giving atmosphere "manufactured on the Moon would promote ecological and agricultural pursuits, helping to make a Moon base self-supporting. Turning to the heavens, special detectors would analyze rays from astrophysical sources, and Moon-based particle accelerators would give new insight into the nature of matter. Spe cial units would process oxygen and refine new ceramic and metallurgical materials. "Moonmovers," adapted from Earthmovers, would excavate building and mining sites.

Think of the nuclear power stations we could build...where safety considerations did not bulk so large. Think of the efficiency of the solar power stations we could build on a world without an interfering atmosphere...

To what purpose? First, but not necessarily foremost, the Moon is a marvelous platform for astronomical observations. The absence of an atmosphere makes telescopic visibility far more acute. The far side of the Moon would allow radio telescopes to work without interference from human sources of light and radio waves. The Moon's slow rotation would allow objects in the sky to be followed, without interference from clouds or haze, for two weeks at a time. Neutrinos and gravity waves, together with other exotic cosmic manifestations, might be detected more easily and studied from the Moon than from the Earth. And, in fact, radio telescopes on the Moon and on the Earth could make observations
in combination, allowing us to study in the finest detail the active centers of the galaxies, including our own Milky Way.

The Moon can also be used for experiments we would not wish to perform in the midst of the Earth's teeming life. Think of the genetic engineering we could perform, of the experimental life forms we could devise. We could obtain energy in copious quantities for use not only on the Moon, but for transfer to space structures and even to the Earth. Think of the nuclear power stations we could build (both fission and, eventually, fusion) where safety considerations did not bulk so large. Think of the efficiency of the solar power stations we could build on a world without an interfering atmosphere to scatter, absorb and obscure light.

Pat Rawlings

From the Moon's soil, we would obtain various elements. The Moon's crust is 40-percent oxygen (in combination with other elements, of course). This can be isolated. A common mineral on the Moon is ilmenite, or titanium iron oxide. Treatment with hydrogen can cause the oxygen of ilmenite to combine with the hydrogen, forming water, which can be broken up into hydrogen and oxygen.

But where would the hydrogen come from? Those portions of the Moon we have studied are lacking in the vital light elements: hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen. That makes it seem that these "volatiles will have to be imported from Earth (which has plenty), but there may be places where they can be found in small amounts on the Moon, especially in the polar regions where there are places where the Sun rarely shines. Lunar hydrogen can then be used to obtain oxygen, and lunar nitrogen can be used to dilute it. There you have an atmosphere.

Other elements, particularly iron, aluminum and titanium, all very useful structurally, are common in the lunar crust and can be smelted out of the soil. In addition, silicon can be obtained for making computer chips. The Moon will be an active mining base to begin with. Quantities of lunar soil can be hurled off the Moon by a "mass-driver, powered by an electromagnetic field based on solar energy. This would not be difficult because the Moon is relatively small and has a gravitational pull much weaker than that of Earth. It takes less than 5 percent as much energy to lift a quantity of matter off the Moon than it would to lift the same quantity off the Earth.

Pat Rawlings

To build observatories, laboratories, factories and settlements in space, it would make sense to use lunar materials, especially since Earthly resources are badly needed by our planet's population.

Because of the Moon's feebler gravity, it would be a particularly useful site for the building and launching of space vessels. Since far less power would be required to lift a vessel off the Moon's surface than off the Earth's, less fuel and oxygen would be needed and more weight could be devoted to payload.

Eventually, when space settlements are constructed, they may be even more efficient as places where space vessels can be built and launched, but the Moon will retain certain advantages. First, it will be a world of huge spaces and will not have the claustrophobic aura of the space settlements. Second, a lunar gravity, though weak, will be constant. On space settlements, a pseudo-gravitational field based on centrifugal effects may be as intense as Earth's gravitation in places, but will complicate matters by varying considerably with change of position inside the settlement.

The Moon, as an independent world, will represent a complete new turning in human history. Humanity will have a second world.

Then, too, since the Moon exists and is already constructed, so to speak, it can surely be developed first and be used to experiment with artificial ecologies.

Once the lunar colonists discover how to create a balanced ecology based on a limited number of plant and animal species (which may take awhile) that knowledge can be used to make space settlements viable.

Finally, of course, our Moon, with its enormous supply of materials, may eventually become a self-supporting, inhabited body in the solar system, completely independent of Earth. Surely this will become possible sooner than much smaller settlements elsewhere in space can achieve true independence.

The Moon, as an independent world, will represent a complete new turning in human history. Humanity will have a second world. If Earth should be struck by an unexpected catastrophe from without, say by a cometary strike such as the one that may have possibly wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years agoor if humanity's own follies ruin Earth through nuclear war or otherwise then a second world will exist on which humanity will survive and on which human history, knowledge and culture will be remembered and preserved.

Asimov's Dream Coming True?

But when will this colonization take place? Naturally, we can't tell because so much of it depends not on technological ability but on unpredictable economic and political factors.

If all goes well, there is no reason why work on the project cannot be initiated in the 1990s. By 2005, the first outpost could be established, and by 2015, a permanently occupied Moon base may be in existence. After that, it may be that the Moon settlers will have developed their world to the point of being independent of Earth by the end of the 21st century.

On the other hand, if affairs on Earth are so mismanaged that there seems no money or effort to spare for space, or if humanity concentrates its efforts on turning space into a military arena and is not concerned with peaceful development or expansion, or if humanity ruins itself forever by means of a nuclear war in the course of the next few decades, then clearly there will be no Moon base, and perhaps no reasonable future of any kind.

This commenting section is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page. You may be able to find more information on their web site.

Read more here:
Isaac Asimov: 'How We'll Live on the Moon' - Popular Mechanics

The secret to predicting viral outbreaks like COVID-19 might be in our sewers. A Michigan State University researcher is spearheading a study to determine if viral outbreaks can be identified and forecasted through wastewater sampling.

Funded by the Great Lakes Water Authority, MSUs Irene Xagoraraki is using a method from one of her recently completed studies to test and predict COVID-19 in Detroit that can deliver warnings of potential outbreaks even before they appear in health facilities.

If our prediction models are showing early warning signals of a problem, we could sound the alarm for state and federal authorities to prepare for an outbreak, said Xagoraraki, associate professor in environmental engineering at MSU. The medical community needs to be armed with resources to help these communities and early action might be one of the answers.

For the initial study, funded by the National Science Foundation, Xagoraraki evaluated human viral pathogens excreted by the Detroit population that were collected from untreated wastewater samples between November 2017 to February 2018.

We developed two models; the first, a viral identification model, or Viral-ID, determines diversity and genetic makeup of viral infections in a certain population at a particular point in time, Xagoraraki said. The second, a viral prediction model, or Viral-PD, provides early signals of fluctuations of target viral diseases, such as hepatitis, COVID-19 and others, in certain geographical areas over time.

Using Viral-ID in the untreated wastewater, Xagoraraki was able to identify a number of enteric, respiratory, bloodborne and vector-borne viruses ranging from norovirus to human herpesviruses 8 (Kaposis sarcoma associated herpesvirus), the latter attributed to an HIV-AIDS outbreak in Detroit during the sampling period. Genetic sequences of multiple reported viral-related diseases in the Detroit population during the sampling period, found in clinical records reported by the state, were found in wastewater.

When testing the Viral-PD model, concentrations of hepatitis A in wastewater along with multiple other parameters were correlated with clinical data.

Increases in hepatitis A incidence in the surrounding community were revealed in wastewater approximately seven to nine days before cases were detected and reported by health care facilities, Xagoraraki said.

With the success of her first phase of research, Xagoraraki and her team are collecting samples weekly and measuring concentrations of beta coronavirus SARS-CoV2 (known as the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19) in wastewater. Assisting are MSU doctoral candidates Brijen Miyani and Camille McCall; recent graduates Huiyun Wu and Evan OBrian; and the Great Lakes Water Authority and the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department.

Xagoraraki said a critical component of genetic testing in environmental samples is concentrating and cleaning a sample to remove chemical or microbial contamination typically not found in a clinical sample.

To estimate virus detention times in the sewer collection network, hydrological and other network data are analyzed and modeled; to estimate contributing population, biomarkers and excreted metabolites are measured. Population health data and COVID-related characteristics, such as incubation times and shedding rates, are being collected and modeled to estimate delays between measured viral concentrations in wastewater and appearance of disease symptoms.

Results from Xagorarakis initial study can be seen in One Health, Water Research and Journal of Environmental Engineering.

If the predictive capability is validated for SARS-CoV-2, this method might provide a means to mitigate the current pandemic by enabling public health officials to act before an outbreak spreads farther, enabling the economy to stay open longer in the absence of expensive and time consuming massive testing, said John Verboncoeur, associate dean for research in the College of Engineering. In the longer term, this method might provide an early warning system to limit the effects of an emerging epidemic before it gets started, with multiple sites providing a spatiotemporal picture of the early spread of pathogens at low cost.

Xagoraraki is also working with the Institute for Global Health in the MSU College of Osteopathic Medicine to extend this to international locations.

According to Xagoraraki, this international work is critical as underserved populations in developing countries often dont seek or have access to medical care and outbreaks often go undetected. In such locations, in addition to centralized wastewater sampling, the team plans to include watershed sampling in critical locations to assess the viral load and viral diversity of the portion of the population that is not serviced by public utilities.

The implications for being able to detect viral shedding in wastewater before outbreaks of illnesses could guide future public health and public policy decisions related to epidemics and pandemics in these developing countries, said William Cunningham, associate dean for global health in the College of Osteopathic Medicine.

Everything were doing is at the research-level at this point however, it could be part of a larger solution across the country and world, Xagoraraki said. Our models are expected to describe patterns of endemic disease, identify potential novel viruses, and predict hot spots and critical moments for the onset or spread of outbreaks prior to full-blown demonstration of disease.

See original here:
Wastewater may help predict the next COVID-19 outbreak - MSUToday