Data support the initiation of an upcoming first-in-human trial for first-line, MRD+ multiple myeloma patients post-ASCT

NEW HAVEN, Conn., May 15, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Kleo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a leading company in the field of developing next-generation, fully synthetic bispecific compounds designed to emulate or enhance the activity of biologics, today announced preclinical data for the companys lead program, KP1237 in combination with autologous, cytokine-induced, memory-like (CIML) natural killer (NK) cells with low dose IL-2 in multiple myeloma (MM). KP1237 is a CD38-targeting antibody recruiting molecule (ARMTM). These data, to be presented as a poster at the 2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting being held May 2931, will support the initiation of an upcoming Phase 1/2 clinical trial for MM patients receiving an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), who remain minimum residual disease positive (MRD+)

This research, in collaboration with Dr. Rizwan Romee, Director of the Haploidentical Donor Transplantation Program at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, will be presented as a poster and highlight the activity of the combination of KP1237 with CIML NK cells against CD38-expressing MM target cells. Several in vitro and ex vivo experiments show how KP1237 targets the NK cell therapy to the tumor cells and increases their cytotoxicity. These data led to the clinical exploration of this combination product in the high unmet medical need population of multiple myeloma patients who are MRD+ pre-ASCT.

These data mark an important milestone for the ARM platform as we advance towards the first clinical trials for our growing company, said Doug Manion, Kleos Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board. Initiation of these trials will allow us to demonstrate clinical proof of concept and, ultimately, facilitate the expansion of our technology platforms across indications. Additionally, this milestone moves us closer to our primary goal of having a meaningful impact on patient survival and quality of life.

ARMs are unique, bispecific molecules composed of two active ends connected by a linker. One of the ends binds to a target molecule on a cancer cell, while the other end can bind to and thus recruit all endogenous IgG antibodies circulating in the body, which then bind to and activate NK cells. Therefore, ARMTM molecules behave similarly to chimeric antigen receptors to target immune cells to tumors, though their synthetic nature eliminates the need for genetic engineering of the cells. KP1237, by targeting CD38 expressed on the surface of multiple myeloma cells, facilitates NK-cell mediated killing of these tumor cells. The modular design enable ARMTM molecules to be broadly applicable as targeting tolls for all types of NK cell products across a range of tumor types.

Details of the poster presentation are as follows:

Title: A first-in-class ex vivo combination between cytokine-induced memory like (CIML) NK cells and a CD38 targeting antibody recruiting molecule (ARM) as a novel approach to target NK cells without cellular engineering for the treatment of multiple myeloma.Session: Hematologic MalignanciesPlasma Cell DyscrasiaAbstract: #8523

This ASCO abstract is now available at https://meetinglibrary.asco.org/record/187657/abstract. The poster presentation will include additional data not available in the abstract.

About Kleo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Kleo Pharmaceuticals is a unique biotechnology company developing next-generation, bispecific compounds designed to emulate or enhance the activity of biologics based on the groundbreaking research of its scientific founder Dr. David Spiegel at Yale University. Kleos compounds are designed to direct the immune system to destroy cancerous or virally infected cells and are currently in development for the treatment of various diseases, including multiple myeloma and COVID-19. Compared to biologics, Kleos compounds are smaller and more versatile, leading to potentially improved safety and efficacy. They are also much faster and more efficient to design and produce, particularly against novel targets. Kleo develops drug candidates based on its proprietary technology platforms, all of which are modular in design and enable rapid generation of novel immunotherapies that can be optimized against specified biological targets and combined with existing cell- or antibody-based therapies. These include Antibody Recruiting Molecules (ARMs) and Monoclonal Antibody Therapy Enhancers (MATEs). Biohaven Pharmaceutical Holding Company (BHVN) and PeptiDream Inc. (PPTDF) are investors in Kleo Pharmaceuticals. For more information visit http://kleopharmaceuticals.com.

Story continues

Forward-Looking StatementsThis news release includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements involve substantial risks and uncertainties, including statements that are based on the current expectations and assumptions of the Company's management. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, included in this press release regarding the Company's plans and objectives, expectations and assumptions of management are forward-looking statements. The use of certain words, including the words "estimate," "project," "intend," "expect," "believe," "anticipate," "will, "plan," "could," "may" and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements are made as of this date and the Company does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

CONTACT INFORMATION

LifeSci Advisors (Investors)

Irina Koffler

646-970-4681

ikoffler@lifesciadvisors.com

Kleo Pharmaceuticals (Press)

Brian Dowd, PhD

203-390-9375

bdowd@kleopharmaceuticals.com

See more here:
Kleo Pharmaceuticals to Present Preclinical Data Highlighting the Synergistic Potential of Kleo Asset KP1237 and Autologous NK Cells in the Treatment...

A U.N. report released in May 2019 by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) warned that, as Common Dreams reported at the time, "human exploitation of the natural world has pushed a million plant and animal species to the brink of extinctionwith potentially devastating implications for the future of civilization."

That report and a growing body of scientific research on rapidly declining biodiversity has led scientists and policymakers alike to raise the alarm about the consequences of not acting ambitiously enough to address what experts have called the "sixth mass extinction." U.N. biodiversity chief Elizabeth Maruma Mrema told the Guardian last month that humanity risks being left to contend with an "empty world."

The new statement from diplomats came before the Feb. 2429 meeting of the Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, which was recently moved from Kunming, China to Rome, Italy due to the ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. The event will build on an August 2019 meeting in Nairobi, Kenya. A third meeting in Cali, Colombia is planned for July.

Those three events will culminate in the adoption of a "Paris-style U.N. agreement" to protect nature at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which is still set to be held in Kunming in October. A 20-point draft plan to stop and reverse biodiversity loss worldwide, which will be a focus of the Rome talks, was unveiled last month.

The foreign ministers' statement specifically expresses support for "setting a global target of strongly protecting at least 30 percent of the land and 30 percent of the ocean by 2030." The 30 percent conservation target, as the statement notes, is backed by "a broad coalitionincluding youth, the business community, and representatives from the developing world."

"We also support the finalization of a new international legally binding treaty in 2020 for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in the high seas currently being negotiated under the U.N . Convention on Law of the Sea," the statement says, noting that nearly two-thirds of the ocean is beyond the legal jurisdiction of any one nation.

The statement was released through the international nonprofit think tank the Aspen Institute by members of the Aspen Ministers Forum, which was founded in 2003 by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Along with Albright, the statement was signed by Lloyd Axworthy (Canada), Mohamed Benaissa (Morocco), Maria Eugenia Brizuela de Avila (El Salvador), Erik Derycke (Belgium), Lamberto Dini (Italy), Alexander Downer (Australia), Jan Eliasson (Sweden), Joschka Fischer (Germany), Jaime Gama (Portugal), Ibrahim Gambari (Nigeria), Marina Kaljurand (Estonia), Tzipi Livni (Israel), Susana Malcorra (Argentina), Donald McKinnon (New Zealand), Daniel Mitov (Bulgaria), Amre Moussa (Egypt), Marwan Muasher (Jordan), George Papandreou (Greece), Malcolm Rifkind (United Kingdom), Claudia Ruiz Massieu (Mexico), Javier Solana (Spain), and Knut Vollebk (Norway).

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Read more:
New Device Can Generate Renewable Energy Out of Thin Air - EcoWatch

Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market 2020 Report comprises of strong research of global business which empowers the consumer to look at the possible requirement as well as foresee the implementation. The restraints and drivers have been assembled following a deep study of the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market proficiency. The development ratio thats requested from the viewpoint of the rational analysis offers detailed info of the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes industry. CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Research report has analyzed all current trends and previous status of business under the supervision of business specialists. By which report supplies impending assessment of CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market that includes market size in value and volume by region, manufacturers, kind and application.

Get Sample Report @ https://www.reportsintellect.com/sample-request/974351

Top Companies in the CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Report:Caribou BiosciencesIntellia TherapeuticsAddgeneMerck KGaAMirus Bio LLCCRISPR THERAPEUTICSThermo Fisher ScientificEditas MedicineHorizon Discovery GroupTakara Bio USAGE Healthcare Dharmacon

Description:

In this report were presenting our clients with the most in detailed records of the CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market and as the global markets are converting very rapidly especially in the last few years the markets are becoming tougher to get a hold of and subsequently our analysts have organized a detailed review while considering the history of the marketplace and a very specific forecast in accordance with the past.

The given document specializes in prominent manufacturers of CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes marketplace and discusses aspects such as organization profiles, production, fee, cost, sales, product photograph and specification, potential, and other essentials to make it big in the market. Upstream raw materials, device, and additives, and downstream demand evaluation are also discussed. The Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market growth developments and advertising and marketing channels are also taken into consideration.

CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Segmentation by Types:

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

CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Segmentation by Applications:

Biotechnology CompaniesPharmaceutical CompaniesAcademic InstitutesResearch and Development Institutes

Get Discounted Report @ https://www.reportsintellect.com/discount-request/974351

Table of Content:

1 Market Overview2 Companys Profiles3 Sales, Revenue and Market Share by companies4 Global Market Analysis by Regions5 North America by Country6 Europe by Country7 Asia-Pacific by Regions8 South America by Country9 Middle East & Africa by Countries10 Market Segment by Type11 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Segment by Application12 Market Forecast13 Sales Channel, Distributors, Traders and Dealers14 Research Findings and Conclusion15 Appendix

The file can help to understand the marketplace and strategize for commercial enterprise growth for this reason. In the approach analysis, it gives insights from advertising channel and marketplace positioning to capacity boom strategies, presenting in-intensity evaluation for new entrants or exists competitors within the CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes industry.

Reasonsto Buythis CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Report:

About us:Reports Intellect is your one-stop solution for everythingassociated withmarketing researchand market insight. We understand the importance of market intelligence & its need in todays competitive world.

Our professional team works hard to fetchthe foremostauthentic research reports backed with spotless data figures which guarantee outstanding resultswheneverfor you.

So, whetheritsthe newestreport from the researchers or a custom requirement, our team is hereto assistyouwithin theabsolute bestway.

Contact Us:Sales@reportsintellect.comPH + 1-706-996-2486US Address:225 Peachtree Street NE,Suite 400,Atlanta, GA 30303

Read more:
CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Expected to Witness a Sustainable Growth by 2026 - New Day Live

Imagine a world where a mosquito bite is just an itchy annoyance. No malaria. No dengue fever.

Last month, scientists announced they had taken one more step toward that vision. A paper in the journal PLOS Pathogens described how they synthetically engineered mosquitoes to stop the spread of dengue fever, a viral tropical disease that sickens as many as 100 million people each year.

Now imagine genetically tweaking an invasive species of mosquito to save native Hawaiian birds from extinction, or transferring genes from one species of endangered chestnut tree to another to help the latter resist blight. Employing the same sort of genetic engineering used to make a plant-based burger bleed, scientists are beginning to explore the ways synthetic biology could help protect biodiversity and conserve species.

Synthetic biology, or synbio, employs the latest and greatest gene-editing tools, such as the cut-and-paste technology known as CRISPR-Cas9. Combined with new techniques to digitize and automate the design and modeling of various genetic elements, scientists can now engineer organisms to produce novel food ingredients or to rewire the switches that express genes that control certain functions.

In the case of those dengue-carrying mosquitoes, scientists genetically tweaked members of the Aedes aegypti species by transferring genes from the human immune system that create an antibody to suppress dengue fever into the blood-sucking insect. The antibody is activated and expressed once the female mosquito draws blood. In effect, the mosquito is cured of dengue fever before it can transmit the disease.

The next step would be to propagate the new genetic element to confer dengue immunity through a population. Thats where a gene drive comes in. Gene drive systems, which can be natural or synthetically engineered, skew inheritance of a certain genetic element so that it will spread more quickly through generations.

The idea is to bypass normal inheritance rulesthat classic Darwinian concept that inheritance is driven by genetic variations that improve an organisms ability to compete in a dog-eat-dog worldso that re-engineered traits become dominant.

In terms of conservation, synbio could potentially address several areas of concern, such as curbing invasive species, reducing pressures from wildlife trade, improving resistance to disease, and even bringing a species back from the brink of extinction.

Biologists at the University of California San Diego (UCSD), who also led the team that wrote the PLOS Pathogens paper on mosquitoes, developed a novel gene drive system for manipulating genetic inheritance in Drosophila suzukii, a fruit fly with the common name spotted-wing drosophila.

This particular pest, native to Japan and first discovered in the US in 2008, injects its eggs into soft ripening fruit like berries. Current practices to defend against spotted-wing drosophila rely on either heavy insecticide use or early harvesting. Its estimated the pest costs the US economy as much as $700 million each year in losses.

The engineered gene drive from UCSD, dubbed Medea after the character in Greek mythology that killed her offspring, uses a synthetic toxin and a corresponding antidote function to achieve 100 percent inheritance bias in less than 20 generations.

This genetic Trojan Horse could then be used to spread elements that confer susceptibility to certain environmental factors, such as triggering the death of the modified fruit flies at a certain temperature.

UC San Diego associate professor Omar Akbari told Singularity Hub that his team is getting close to field testing some of our technologies. The furthest along for our group would be the use of [precision guided sterile insect technique] to control wild populations of D. Suzuki.

A number of companies are turning to synbio to create ingredients where the natural product is expensive, rare, or threatened. Take the well-known example of vanilla. Most products on the market use a synthetic version of vanillas main ingredient, vanillin, made from petrochemicals.

Swiss company Evolva has developed a genetically modified yeast to produce vanillin in a manner similar to brewing beer. Modern Meadow also uses DNA editing tools to engineer specialized collagen-producing yeast cells for making leather products.

In a case more directly related to wildlife conservation, Singaporean scientists engineered a synthetic replacement for horseshoe crab blood cells, which have been used in biomedical applications for decades. All four species of horseshoe crabs are considered imperiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

However, while a replacement product for horseshoe crab blood has been commercially available for more than 15 years, it has yet to be broadly adopted for various reasons. Thats finally changing, as new studies have confirmed that available synthetics are just as reliable as horseshoe crab blood for detecting endotoxins in biomedical manufacturing.

The long-lived American chestnut was once one of the dominant tree species of forests in the eastern US. A blight from Asia introduced in the late 1800s has all but wiped them out. Efforts to breed American chestnuts with disease-resistant chestnut trees in China have had limited success, as its not easy to propagate the desired traits from several genes through succeeding generations.

A project led by the College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, New York is using synbio to produce a blight-resistant American chestnut without even harming the fungus.

The researchers have copied a single gene from wheat and transferred it into American chestnuts. The gene produces an enzyme called oxalate oxidase that doesnt kill the fungus. Instead, it breaks down the fungus toxin that attacks the trees tissue properties.

The bonus is that the fungus itself is left untouched, so the blight remains dormant and doesnt evolve resistance over time.

While bringing the dead back to life is one trick that will likely elude scientists in our lifetime, synbio researchers have been actively working to resurrect the woolly mammoth and other extinct species such as the passenger pigeon, which disappeared for good more than a century ago.

These projects arent strictly creating pure examples of these long-gone species. Rather, scientists are inserting sections of ancient DNA code into modern relatives. In the case of the woolly mammoth, researchers are attempting to create a mammoth-elephant hybrid using the Asian elephant.

Proponents of this sort of resurrection science say its less about trying to revive extinct species than about saving those that are currently at risk of disappearing. The Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) is on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

A team led by George Church out of Harvard University hopes that by transferring genes in the mammoth genome to the Asian elephant it will be able to survive in the Arctic; relevant genes might include those that code for extra fat and dense hair. That would extend the animals range into regions that are already changing due to a warming climate.

Like geoengineeringmanipulating the environment to stave off the effects of climate changebioengineering has its critics and detractors. Some react viscerally to the idea of altering natural systems in any way.

One of the main arguments revolves around the concern that introducing a genetically modified species could have unintended consequences. While no one expects a Jurassic Park scenario where genetically enhanced monsters chase Jeff Goldblum through the jungle, there is a chance that genetically tweaked traits could jump species or otherwise go off script.

Kent Redford believes fostering a conversation about the possible advantages and disadvantages of the role of synbio in conservation is important regardless of where one stands on the divide.

My mission is to make sure that the conservation community knows about these techno
logies and has taken a considered and informed opinion on them, and tried to influence [these] technologies for the good of biodiversityto minimize harm and to increase positive outcomes, he told Singularity Hub during a phone interview.

A conservation expert who has served at the The Nature Conservancy and Wildlife Conservation Society, Redford is the chair of an IUCN task force on synthetic biology and biodiversity conservation. He was the lead editor on an assessment report, Genetic Frontiers for Conservation, which will be presented this summer at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in France.

The opinion of the IUCN matters. Its 1,300 member organizations include governments, non-governmental organizations, business associations, and scientific and academic institutions.

Redford declined to speculate as to what sort of recommendations may come out of the IUCN meeting. He did note that the intersection of synbio and conservation remains on the periphery for many in the conservation community.

Most of my colleagues dont see why they should be paying much attention to this, he said. Some of those who are aware of these emerging technologies consider them to be relevant tools to help solve some of the intractable problems in conservation. Others believe these genetic techniques have the potential to completely ruin the natural world and the lives of poor people.

Akbari agreed that the biggest challenge for synbio in conservation isnt the technology but securing regulatory approvals and public support. I think we need time, he said. As more technologies are developed and tested with positive outcomesI believe the resistance will lessen.

While the scientific community debates the potential and the pitfalls of synbio, biodiversity will continue to decline.

A report last year by the United Nations Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services issued a number of disturbing statistics. For example, the average abundance of native species in most major land-based habitats has fallen by at least 20 percent, mainly since 1900. And nearly 10 percent of all domesticated breeds of mammals humans have used for food and agriculture throughout history were extinct by 2016, with at least 1,000 more breeds still threatened.

I think the natural world is in serious trouble, Redford said. Whether synbio can be part of the answer to that problem remains a big question.

Image Credit: Image by RayNight from Pixabay

Read the original post:
Engineering Bugs, Resurrecting Species: The Wild World of Synthetic Biology for Conservation - Singularity Hub

Venezuelan philosopher, Antonio Pasquali, who wrote extensively about how media and society affected each other, passed away on Oct. 5, 2019, in Spain.

In 1984, Pasquali was appointed Deputy Director General of the Communications Sector of UNESCO and Regional Coordinator for Latin America and the Caribbean of UNESCO from 1986-1989. He played an important role in UNESCOs New World Information and Communication discussions.

Pasqualis contributions to media studies are well-known in Latin America, but his research is less known in the English-speaking world. His research on media and communication inspired many Latin American scholars and media practitioners including myself who place ethics at the centre of the discussion.

Pasquali was a fierce critic of Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhans view that the medium is the message that the medium in which things are disseminated determines their meaning. Always returning to human communication as the basis of relationships betwwen people, Pasquali warned us about the necessary conceptual and practical difference between communication and media.

For Pasquali, the ability to communicate is inherent to the formation of society. And so, any modification or control of communications becomes to a modification or control of society itself. He argued that technological changes, with their benefits and disruptions, have yet to transform the essence of human communication.

Pasqualis work is important to consider because he warned us about some troubling challenges that we can see around us.

Pasquali wrote about the ethics of communication, or what he called the moral dimension of communication. In his book 18 essays about communications, he identified six hard trends that would mark humanitys future:

1) A process of human-made environmental degradation that approaches the point of no return, as in the impending ecological crisis brought about by climate change and its consequences;

Read more: Dealing with the absurdity of human existence in the face of converging catastrophes

2) Human interference in natural evolutionary processes. He warned that advances in genetic engineering that bring hope for the treatment of diseases and also open the door to sophisticated mechanisms of social engineering and control;

3) Challenging the very idea of what being human is by: a) machines combined with living beings (cyborgs), and b) by the shift of human decision-making to artificial intelligence that could make humans irrelevant and even disposable. This will require new ways of understanding the relations between digital machines and human;

4) The persistence of nuclear, bacteriological, chemical and terrorist dangers, in a context of political polarization coupled with the emergence of extremist ideologies that could lead to internal and external violent confrontations;

5) The consolidation of the disparity between rich and poor that is already generating social unrest in different regions, as we have seen recently in Latin America and the Middle East;

6) The transformation of democracy into a plutocratic dictatorship (the government by the wealthy) based on the technological manipulation of social consensus, as illustrated in the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook scandal.

Pasquali was persistent in his struggle to establish a public broadcasting service in Latin American countries. His passion in defence of the need for a public media service never declined, and seems to be more relevant than ever in the midst of the Internet explosion.

Pasquali observed that the internet is now largely controlled by monopolies such as Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple, and manipulated by big emerging powers like China. He vehemently denounced the communication hegemony of the authoritarian government of Hugo Chvez and his successor Nicols Maduro. Pasquali documented the setbacks that the regime has inflicted on Venezuelan society from the point of view of telecommunications, the media and transportation infrastructure.

At the end of his essay Will we communicate or inform ourselves?, Pasquali wondered if we are ready to give up a fundamental condition for our existence the ability and experience of communication. For him, communication was a mixture of intellect, passions and will that was intrinsic to how people and made meaning, personally and socially. He asked: Are we going to give up without a fight the possibility of communicating to another human being that we love him/her?

The great body of work that Pasquali produced will help us to answer these fundamental questions about the future of communication. Pasqualis intellectual legacy will live on through his writings and teachings.

[ Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on todays news, every day. ]

Read the rest here:
Society can be controlled through its means of communication - The Conversation CA

In these waning days of the second decade of the twenty-first century, technologists and investors are beginning to lay the foundations for new, truly transformational technologies that have the potential to reshape entire industries and rewrite the rules of human understanding.

It may sound lofty, but new achievements from businesses and research institutions in areas like machine learning, quantum computing and genetic engineering mean that the futures imagined in science fiction are simply becoming science.

And among the technologies that could potentially have the biggest effect on the way we live, nothing looms larger than genetic engineering.

Investors and entrepreneurs are deploying hundreds of millions of dollars to create the tools that researchers, scientists and industry will use to re-engineer the building blocks of life to perform different functions in agriculture, manufacturing and medicine.

One of these companies, 10X Genomics, which gives users hardware and software to determine the functionality of different genetic code, has already proven how lucrative this early market can be. The company, which had its initial public offering earlier this year, is now worth $6 billion.

Another, the still-private company Inscripta, is helmed by a former 10X Genomics executive. The Boulder, Colo.-based startup is commercializing a machine that can let researchers design and manufacture small quantities of new organisms. If 10X Genomics is giving scientists and businesses a better way to read and understand the genome, then Inscripta is giving those same users a new way to write their own genetic code and make their own organisms.

Its a technology that investors are falling over themselves to finance. The company, which closed on $105 million in financing earlier in the year (through several tranches, which began in late 2018), has just raised another $125 million on the heels of launching its first commercial product. Investors in the round include new and previous investors like Paladin Capital Group, JS Capital Management, Oak HC/FT and Venrock.

Biology has unlimited potential to positively change this world, says Kevin Ness, the chief executive of Inscripta . Its one of the most important new technology forces that will be a major player in the global economy.

Ness sees Inscripta as breaking down one of the biggest barriers to the commercialization of genetic engineering, which is access to the technology.

While genome centers and biology foundries can manufacture massive quantities of new biological material for industrial uses, its too costly and centralized for most researchers. We can put the biofoundry capabilities into a box that can be pushed to a global researcher, says Ness.

Earlier this year, the company announced that it was taking orders for its first bio-manufacturing product; the new capital is designed to pay for expanding its manufacturing capabilities.

That wasnt the only barrier that Inscripta felt that it needed to break down. The company also developed a proprietary biochemistry for gene editing, hoping to avoid having to pay fees to one of the two laboratories that were engaged in a pitched legal battle over who owned the CRISPR technology (the Broad Institute and the University of California both had claims to the technology).

See the original post:
$125 million for Inscripta may usher in the next wave of genetic engineering - TechCrunch

By Santanu Chakraborty

The problem extends beyond that of accuracy of snipping out bits of DNA and replacing them with other sequences

Editing of human genomes is commonplace in laboratories around the world. What I mean by that is scientists routinely tinker with the genomes of individual cells derived from humans and being grown in a dish. More generally, various mammals typically mice are used as model systems to develop genetic technologies of the future. It is in these systems small animals and cells growing in dishes that the technologies of the future are first developed. The aim is two fold, one is to understand the mechanisms of life well and the other is to use them for human benefit. So it is hardly a surprise that the editing of entire human genomes would happen sooner or later, even if it should violate ethical norms of the day. One such work was revealed recently when scientists in China led by He Jiankui used a newly developed gene editing tool, commonly known as CRISPR, to create babies meant to be resistant to the HIV virus. This proved extremely controversial setting off a debate, to put it politely, that continues to rage.

There is a de-facto embargo on editing the genomes on embryos. Why should that be a problem and editing single cells in the laboratory not? To understand that and put some more recent work, which I will refer to later, into context let us consider the following. How would you go about curing a genetic disease if you had the ability to alter the genome of a single cell? Note that the genome of a human cell is contained in a few massive threadlike molecules made up of only four component molecules whose combined length when strung together is approximately four billion molecules long. This exists inside the nucleus, a balloon like compartment inside the cell. Now all this happens on a tiny scale as each cell is only a few microns in diameter with one micron being only a millionth of a meter. Life has evolved molecular machines to work at this scale selecting its components and ways of putting them together over millions of years.

Experiments of mice have yielded extremely powerful proofs of concept which continues to drive the development of such technologies. A recent paper by Peter et al. (Nature Communications, 2019, 10:4112) used CRISPR to alter the genome of mice to recover lost neuronal connectivity. A certain gene (something called C11orf46 but we will call it Gene 1 for short) is implicated in the loss of neuronal fibers that connect one half of the brain to the other.

Read the original post:
Another way to edit the genome - Bangalore Mirror

A Chinese court sentenced biomedical scientist He Jiankui and two accomplices to prison on Monday for illegal medical practice for genetically engineering three babies.

In November 2018, He announced the birth of the first two children, twin girls named Lulu and Nana, as well as the pregnancy of a second woman carrying a genetically engineered fetus. The news created a scientific firestorm, with human genetic engineering experiments widely viewed as dangerous and unethical by scientific organizations worldwide. The third baby has now been born, according to reporting from Chinas state news agency.

The genetic engineering team fabricated an ethics review of their experiment, according to the Nanshan District People's Court of Shenzhen City ruling. They used the faked permissions to recruit couples living with HIV in hopes of helping them to conceive children genetically engineered to receive a mutation giving them immunity to some forms of the disease.

He, formerly a biomedical scientist at the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzen, received a prison sentence of three years and a fine equivalent to $480,000. His associates, Zhang Renli and Qin Jinzhou, received jail terms of two years and 18 months with a two-year reprieve, according to the ruling, for practicing medicine without a license and violating Chinese regulations governing assisted reproduction.

The prison sentence and stiff financial penalty sends a message to other Chinese scientists that unsanctioned efforts at human germline editing will not be tolerated, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine researcher Kiran Musunuru told BuzzFeed News, by email. I expect that it will have a deterrent effect, certainly in China and possibly elsewhere.

At an October conference, Musunuru had reported that a draft study submitted to a scientific journal about the twins by Hes team suggested that the genetic engineering attempt had badly misfired, targeting the wrong location for the mutation and potentially seeding other mutations throughout the DNA of the children.

Science academies worldwide formed an oversight commission in March, following widespread condemnation of the experiments.

The court ruling found the three sentenced scientists acted "in the pursuit of personal fame and gain" and have seriously "disrupted medical order, according to Chinese state media.

Read the rest here:
The Chinese Scientist Who Made The First Genetically Engineered Babies Is Going To Prison - BuzzFeed News

While it seems increasingly difficult to find a crew to delve into role playing games these days, they hold a special place for me.

Few gaming experiences have been as well-remembered as the first months of playing Dungeons & Dragons, and the pure combination of wonder and amazement that provided.

There have been other RPGs since then of course, and in most every case they have been fun because you become immersed in the world of the game, and the character you play becomes near and dear to you.

As a result I often look at RPGs on Kickstarter, and on one such excursion GeneFunk 2090 from CRISPR Monkey Studios.

There was some great art to the game that was advertising itself as a Biopunk RPG so I looked a little deeper.

That led to the biggest discovery, that the studio doing the game is based in Saskatoon, which made me curious to learn more.

To begin with the game is a biopunk/cyberpunk RPG and setting made using the D&D 5E Open Gaming License. Players take on the role of elite mercenaries that specialize in investigation and violence. No magic or fantasy, but tons of cybernetics, genetic enhancements, nanobots, drones, hacking, androids, high tech guns and armor, and other amazing tech, explains a quick intro on the successful Kickstarter page.

Comparisons of course are natural, and this one immediately had me thinking a game in the same vein as Shadowrun, a long-running RPG, many will know.

So next I contacted James Armstrong regarding the game he has been involved in creating, to find out some information first hand.

He said the game is certainly Biopunk on nature.

I love biology, and the idea of genetic engineering, he replied via email. I actually have a M.Sc. in molecular biology, partially because I was interested in understanding the science behind genetic modification.

Also, Ive always loved speculative fiction, especially of the biopunk variety, from Brave New World, to Cronenberg movies. While I first started this game in 2001, I can tell its only now that biopunk is starting to come into the zeitgeist. Theres currently a Netflix special on biohacking, Jaimie Metzl is on Joe Rogan speaking about his Hacking Darwin book, and CRISPR is part of school curricula.

Theres been an open niche for biopunk RPGs, especially near-future ones and I wanted to address that, and see where I could take it. Endogenous DNA computers, genetic enhancement, mind-hacking, transgenic beasts, and anything else I could think of.

Not surprisingly Armstrong comes at creating an RPG based on his own long held interest.

Ive been an RPG fan since I was in Grade 3, he said. It was the Dungeons and Dragons box sets, red and blue. My older brother brought them home and I was immediately fascinated by the art, and the idea that I could be a character in a fantasy story.

From there, it was the Marvel Super Heroes game, T.M.N.T, WEG Star Wars, and whatever else I could get my hands on! Ive made plenty of my own systems along the way as well.

So where did the germ of the idea for GeneFunk come from.

It was really a convergence of creative influences, and an open niche! I grew up reading the Eastman and Laird T.M.N.T. graphic novels and RPG, loved cyberpunk fiction of every kind, and felt the Gattaca movie was well ahead of its time, related Armstrong. I wanted to play in a world filled will genetically enhanced humans and ubiquitous biotechnology.

Armstrong went into the creative process with a vision.

Create a modern take on the cyberpunk genre using the 5e ruleset, with a biopunk twist, he said. While I love the 80s vision of cyberpunk, most cyberpunk games I see tend to fit into this mold. It could use some updating, some new spice!

Its now apparent that a great deal of human enhancement will be at the genetic level, not necessarily grafted-on chrome arms and robot bodies. I want to show how the world might look if that genetic enhancement started before birth, and how biologically specializing humans might affect society, (and) an informal genetic caste system that emerges from a global market economy.

I also wanted to make some of the cyberpunk tropes a little more fluid. Rather than an explicitly dystopian world, I wanted to showcase a series of double-edged swords. Not technological and capitalistic doom-and-gloom, but something more ambiguous, with some parts being wonderful, and other parts being nightmarish, depending on your perspective. There are pros to living in a technological wonderland. Who needs Huntingtons disease? Alienation due to a collapse of a common human condition? Yes. Ultimate expression of personal identity and diversity through a fluid human form? Also yes.

With such a vast vision to capture the game took years to develop 18-years in fact.

I started in 2001, said Armstrong. I have homebrew versions of it in 3.5e and 4e as well, but once 5e came out, I knew it fit with the mechanics well and I wanted to take it to the next level. Granted, many of those years only had very part-time development, I really kicked it into high-gear over the last three years.

So what was the most difficult aspect of designing the game?

Capturing the powerful nature of genetic enhancement at character creation, said Armstrong. I wanted a characters base genome to provide a great deal of mechanical influence, much more so than a D&D race does. Genetic enhancement is unambiguously superior in GeneFunk, and I needed the mechanics to capture that. As such, starting characters are more powerful than they are in D&D. Theyre not close to X-Men level or anything like that, but they certainly wont be spending level 1 killing boars.

But the game is more than fights and battles.

Asked what is the best element of the game Armstrong said the biohacking, and the great variety of different genomes and upgrades.

There are 42 genetic enhancements and 58 upgrades. Theres even a tool included for players and GMs to make their own genomes.

Being able to play a character with completely different abilities at level 1, each time you make a character, is great for replayability. Ive always loved the meta-game of making characters, Ive probably made 10 characters for every 1 Ive played, regardless of system.

Also, diversity is fun! D&D groups are often a hodge-podge of dragon born, tieflings, gnomes, and goliaths, even if a campaign world might describe these races as rare. I built it so that there is baked-in fluff to support the fact that youre a party of genetic weirdos, stylishly exotic appearances and all.

The vibrancy of a new game world, and the built in diversity of characters to play make GeneFunk a game well worth looking into. Like any RPG the experience of course is only partly dictated by the ruleset, the game master, the one guiding things much as the director of a stage performance, being at least equally important to the overall experience.

It will help to know the base rules of 5e, the most recent incarnation of D&D and one admittedly turned me off the game completely. While I think 5e homogenized D&D into a world of overpowered clones, in a different world setting the core rules can shine.

So check out GeneFunk, it may not be the setting for every taste, but it offers an interesting vision of a future which may be closer than we think.

Check it out via the GeneFunk 2090 page on Facebook.

View post:
New RPG from Sask. creators - Yorkton This Week

In his 2001 book, The Botany of Desire: A Plants-Eye View of the World, author Michael Pollan challenges the conventional anthropocentric view of the world and encourages his readers to look at life from a plants perspective. Are humans or plants really calling the shots? Perhaps were not controlling plants for our survival as much as theyre controlling us for theirs. Pollan highlights how several plants appeal to basic human desires, and throughout history we have been selectively breeding different crops for certain traits and spreading them around the world seemingly for our benefit. These crops include apples (for sweetness), tulips (for beauty), marijuana (for intoxication) and many more.

Similarly, microbes have been co-evolving with humans, forming a symbiotic relationship over millions of years. In fact, each human is colonized by trillions of microbes. The food we eat feeds beneficial microbes that live in our guts, and in return they outcompete pathogenic microbes and produce metabolites that modulate our immune systems. Additionally, microbes have been aiding humans in one of the oldest methods of food processing fermentation whereby microbes transform food from one form into another, four thousands of years. In the late 20th century, we began engineering microbes to produce drugs, such as insulin, and other ingredients via industrial fermentation a process akin to brewing beer. Since then, we have been harnessing this technology for numerous applications across the agriculture, energy, food, and healthcare industries.

Today, were accelerating our joint venture with these nifty little creatures. Were engineering and evolving them, feeding and growing them, and protecting and spreading them all over the world. The question is, are we doing all this work for our benefit or for theirs? Perhaps its not the humans or plants, but rather the microbes calling the shots.

Source: Global Engage.

As the cost of technologies such as genome sequencing and cloud computing have been exponentially decreasing over the last several years, scientists have been increasing their research on microbes, leading to several discoveries around the functions of microbes and their interaction with other organisms. Industry is harnessing this research for a variety of commercial applications, such as using microbes as mini factories to produce animal-free proteins, healthy crops, and medicines. As part of this movement, three startups, enEvolv (Cultivian portfolio company), Ginkgo Bioworks, and Zymergen, have collectively raised over $1.5 billion in venture capital to engineer and evolve microbes for several of these applications. Leveraging tools such as next-generation DNA sequencing and machine learning, these innovators are vastly increasing the volume and diversity of useful microbes and, compared to prior technologies, significantly reducing the time and cost required to commercialize bio-based products for our benefit.

In his 2011 article, Software is Eating the World, technology venture capitalist Marc Andreessen demonstrates how software companies have been taking over some of the worlds largest industries. Today, it seems like microbes are eating the world (sometimes literally) as microbial fermentation is becoming the go-to manufacturing process for proteins, medicines and other products.

To design microbes for these processes, we utilize in silico modeling and computer code (0s and 1s) to modify the genetic code (As, Cs, Ts, and Gs) of microbes to engineer certain strains that nourish us and, to some extent, other strains to produce the sugars that nourish them. According to some estimates, the probiotics (live microbes that nourish us) and prebiotics (sugars that nourish them) markets are forecasted to reach $77 billion and $7 billion, respectively, by 2024. In anticipation of rising demand, venture capital investment in the microbiome space has exploded in recent years.

Several startups are leveraging microbes and their derivative products for commercial applications. These use cases help demonstrate the symbiosis that exists between humans and microbes. We engineer and evolve microbes, and then we feed and grow them; in return they generate products that benefit us. Our relationship with microbes has also unlocked new value propositions and reduced our reliance on the natural world, such as the need to harvest animals for food, drugs and other products. Geltor (Cultivian portfolio company) for example, is an emerging leader in the field of producing animal-free proteins via fermentation. The companys initial focus is collagen protein, which historically could only be extracted from animal skin, bone, and connective tissue. Geltor recently announced a major partnership with GELITA to launch the worlds first animal-free collagen protein in 2020.

Bacterial microbiome mapping, bioartistic experiment. Credit: Franois-Joseph Lapointe, Universit de Montral. CC BY

Like the variety of plants Pollan highlights in his 2001 book, humans have been protecting and spreading microbes all over the world ostensibly to suit our needs. Recently, consumer preferences for the reduction or elimination of antibiotics and pesticides in the food supply chain are beginning to transform agriculture. As a result, increasing demand for and adoption of bio-based products are protecting the beneficial microbes in our crops, in our livestock and, consequently, in our guts. In fact, companies like Eligo Bioscience, Folium Science and General Probiotics are engineering microbes that selectively destroy pathogenic microbes while keeping beneficial microbes intact as an alternative to broad spectrum antibiotics that wipe out both beneficial and pathogenic microbes kind of like a well keep you alive if you do the same for us quid pro quo.

Additionally, we have been spreading beneficial microbes around the world. As certain microbes demonstrate their usefulness to humans in developed countries, Gates Foundation is investing in and partnering with venture-backed startups, such as AgBiome (for crop health) and Evolve BioSystems (for infant nutrition), to deploy these same microbial products in developing countries.

These are just a few examples of our ability to leverage microbes apparently for our advantage. Today we are domesticating microbes just like we have domesticated plants in the past. Like apples, tulips and marijuana, humans are harnessing the genetic potential of microbes and art of fermentation to produce chocolate (for sweetness), collagen (for beauty), and wine (for intoxication). Although they are far from a panacea, investing in microbial-related technologies holds tremendous promise for humans, plants and the rest of the natural world.

As I wrap up this article, I begin to wonder if my purpose was to promote investments in this space or if I was subconsciously hired by these nifty little creatures for their PR campaign? Now that I think about it, I think theyre the ones calling the shots!

Continued here:
The Microbiology of Desire: A Microbe's View of the World - SynBioBeta

Not only is it the end of a year this month, but its also the end of a decade. After ten long years, we can say goodbye to the 2010s and hello to the 2020s.

Along with looking at data pulled by other companies on the top movies, songs, artists, and more of the last ten years, I asked people what their opinions were on the last ten years. I was surprised at their responses.

Majority of the respondents were on the younger side and female. 89.47% of voters were female, leaving the remaining 10.53% as male. (And yes, I did allow people to not answer their gender, but nobody clicked that.) 5.26% of voters are 65 or older, 52.63% are 18-24, and the remaining 42.11% are under 18 years old. All responders were left anonymous.

I askedrespondentsthe following questions:

-How old are you now?

-How old were you at the beginning of the decade?

-What is your preferred gender?

-What was your favorite song from 2010-2019?

-What was your favorite movie from 2010-2019?

-What was your favorite memory from 2010-2019?

-What big accomplishment happened between 2010-2019 for you?

-What was your favorite meme from the decade?

-What was your favorite show from 2010-2019?

-What is your favorite thing that has come out in the last decade (food, drink, toy, clothing item, brand, etc.)

And the answers ranged from cute, to sad, to funny, to serious. But as people answered, it made me realize how many things did happen in the last decade. Like ten years ago we didnt have Alexa, Google Homes, tablets, Curiosity (the space vehicle on Mars), Augmented Reality, human like robots, genetic engineering, hoverboards, smart watches, drone delivery, Spotify, and as one responder from the survey said, Noodles Zoodles. Could you imagine a world where you couldnt get your Top Artists of the Year data? Yeah, me neither.

Album covers including newer and older artists.

Want to take a wild guess at the top songs over the last decade? Well here it is:

5) Girls Like You by Maroon 5 featuring Cardi B

4) Closer by The Chainsmokers featuring Halsey

3) Shape of You by Ed Sheeran

2) Party Rock Anthem by LMFAO featuring Lauren Bennett andGoonRock

And the number one song of the decade is none other than Uptown Funk by MarkRonsonfeaturing Bruno Mars.

You can find the other 95 hits over the last ten years athttps://www.billboard.com/charts/decade-end/hot-100

However only one survey respondent said their favorite song was a part of the top five. Other people commented that their favorites included Lights Up by Harry Styles, 22 by Taylor Swift, Juice by Lizzo, Need You Now by Lady Antebellum, Flicker by Niall Horan, Hurts Like Heaven by Coldplay, and more.

Now moving on to TV shows and movies of the last decade. Everyone knows how Marvel has taken over Hollywood with 23 movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or the MCU in the last decade. They also beat out Avatar this year with Avengers: End Game. But those movies werent the only ones people enjoyed (although they were personally my favorites). People also enjoyed Baby Driver, The Greatest Showman, Tangled, IT Chapter One and Two, Into theSpiderverse, Frozen and Frozen 2, Shutter Island, and Love, Simon.

I bet you forgot that the last three Twilight movies, the last two Harry Potter movies, and all the Hunger Games movies came out in the last ten years. In all honesty, it feels like it was a lot longer than that.

Image via Charles on UnsplashJust a glance at what you can view on Netflix a streaming platform that has grown in the last decade.

Survey respondents also gave their favorite TV shows over the last year and they really pushed to have some shows count as part of the last decade. Especially the numerous amounts of people who put Hannah Montana which started in 2006 and ended in 2011, but they argued it technically was airing in this decade. So, well let it slide. People also put down The Vampire Diaries, The 100, The Office, Supernatural, Stranger Things, The Goldbergs, American Horror Story, Oak Island, and Criminal Minds.

And although lots of things have happened in the last decade, like people graduating, people getting married, people came out, people started working, and people retired, there was one thing nobody could escape. And those were the memes.

I asked people to submit their favorite memes and well Im pleased to say the least. (Although side note there was someone whosaid and I quote None. I think memes are dumb ) However those memes included: The Area 51 Raid, Im Fine (Dog on Fire), You Almost Made Me Drop My Croissant, The Lady Screaming at the Cat, Gabe the Dog, Grumpy Cat, Blinking White Guy, and the Good vs Bad Kermit. It was a beautiful decade for memes. Vine was even a thing from 2013-2017 before it shut down and TikTok took over.

If youre curious about some of the top songs, tv shows, movies, or anything else that has happened in the last decade, you can check out the Billboard 100 (https://www.billboard.com/charts/decade-end/hot-100), IMDb (https://www.imdb.com/list/ls026040906/), or Buzzfeed has some funny articles and quizzes where you can figure out how much you remember from the last decade (https://www.buzzfeed.com/)

Hopefully this last decade was memorable and you had a great 2019! Heres to a new decade and a new year! 2020 here we come.

See the rest here:
The Final Moments of the 2010's - Pinnacle

On the anniversary of an ill-fated monkey's journey into space, there's a growing belief that genetic engineering could hold the key to exploring the universe.

Seventy years ago today, a monkey named Albert IV was strapped into a small spacecraft, hooked up to monitors and propelled into orbit.

The US launched a series of V-2 rockets carrying monkey astronauts throughout the late 1940s and early 1950s as a precursor to the space race.

Albert II became the first monkey in space on June 14 1949, a year after the original Albert suffocated before his rocket could make it past the Karman line - the 100km height above Earth marking the beginning of space.

Albert II survived his flight, which reached a height of 134km, but died on impact after his parachute failed.

He was followed by Albert III, who made it just 10km up before his rocket exploded.

On December 12, 1949, Albert IV was launched from New Mexico and successfully made it into space. He stayed safe and well throughout the flight until it was time to land, when yet another parachute failure killed him on impact.

Albert IV was the last of the V-2 monkeys, but the experiments continued in other forms.

Eventually, advances in space technology meant that the US and the Soviet Union were able to send animals into space and bring them back alive.

But the enormous stress of space travel had a huge impact on them, with many suffering heart attacks brought on by dehydration.

The weightlessness also affected their bodily functions: when the European Space Agency sent crickets into space for 16 days in 1998, the insects failed to develop the organs needed for balance that they would on Earth.

Human astronauts suffer a huge range of side-effects as well, from muscle atrophy to congestion to eyesight problems.

The rise of the animal rights movement means that even as space agencies look to Mars as the next destination to conquer, they may refrain from testing the technology on animals due to public pressure.

But Elon Musk may have found a way around it. Last week SpaceX sent a 'crew' of genetically modified mice and worms into space.

The rocket docked at the International Space Station where its precious cargo will be used in a variety of experiments investigating how to improve space travel.

Of the 40 mice onboard the 'Dragon' capsule, eight have been genetically engineered to have twice the muscle mass of a normal mouse. They're known as 'mighty mice', and they'll be able to better cope with the muscle-shrinking and bone density-decreasing effects of space.

Scientists hope these results will help them to understand how to limit muscle and bone loss in humans while they're in space.

SpaceX intends to send humans to Mars in 2024, with the eventual goal of colonising the red planet into a "self-sustaining civilisation".

It would take between six and eight months for a spacecraft to travel from Earth to Mars. That's a long exposure to space radiation, which has been proven to have devastating effects on humans including an increased risk of cancer.

But if scientists were able to strengthen our cells to better withstand the radiation, astronauts could stay healthier in space for longer.

US geneticist Chris Mason recently spoke about the possibility of changing human DNA to allow us to explore the universe further than we are currently able to.

One potential method would involve splicing human DNA with that of tardigrades - tiny micro-animals capable of surviving extreme conditions including direct exposure to deep space.

While genetic engineering is controversial, Mr Mason says in the future it may be more unethical not to enhance our DNA.

"In terms of a question of liberty, you're engineering it [a future human] to have lots more opportunities, again assuming we haven't taken away opportunities," he told Space.com.

"If we learned that, in some way, when we decided to try and prove the ability of humans to live beyond Earth, and we take away their ability to live on Earth, I think that would be unjust."

In his words: "It's not if we evolve, it's when we evolve."

Read the original here:
Modifying DNA 'will get humans on Mars' 70 years after monkey in space - Daily Star

And speaking of both Disney+ and Star Wars, that combination resulted in the most-watched show of any of the streaming services, The Mandalorian. Oh, and then there's Baby Yoda. Which brings us to the most recent reason Iger is having a good year: he was just named Time's Businessperson of the Year. Make no mistake, Baby Yoda is a perfect example of why that honorwas well-earned.

The Time article tells a brief story of how Iger knew immediately Baby Yoda would be an enormous hit with fans. For Disney, by the way, enormous hits are the standard operating procedure. In fact, the entire strategy looks something like this:

Create a story with adorable characters. Mass market both the story and the characters. Manufacture merchandise featuring adorable characters. Stuff more cash than you can imagine into the bank account.

In the case of Baby Yoda, Iger not only knew that the character would lead to huge sales, but also that the best play was radio silence until after the first episode of The Mandalorian streamed, so as not to spoil the reveal.

He wasright, of course.

Look, regardless of what you think of the mysterious green alien that has become the star of the Disney+ service and the mascot of the internet, there's really no arguing that from a business standpoint, Baby Yoda is brilliant. And it's a great lesson for entrepreneurs.

Here's why: Bob Iger isn't a storyteller--at least not in the classic sense of someonewho writesa scriptor directs a film. That isn't his role.But he has one thing that might be even more important--a sense of how stories connect with audiences. I'm not sure anyone would disagree that Iger knows his audience, and knows how to steward both the Disney brand as a whole, as well as the individual stories within it (Star Wars, Marvel, etc.)to make sure they resonate with that audience.

But Iger didn't create The Mandalorian or its most famous character. He didn't invent streaming video. He didn't dream upthe Star Wars universe. He isn't a comic book illustrator.

The puzzle that makes up Disney has an extraordinary number of pieces, none of which originated with its CEO. Instead, Iger's job is to see how all of those pieces fit together, and sell the resulting picture tothe rest of us.

And, just because you aren't running the world's largest media and entertainment company, doesn't mean that you don't have a story to tell.And, it doesn't mean you can't learn from what made Bob Iger so successful this year.

In most of the areas Disney competes, it is the apex predator. It's the biggest player in theme parks. It's the biggest licensor of toy characters. It's the biggest sports broadcaster. It's the biggest animation studio. It's the biggest family-friendlymovie producer.

It is not the biggeststreaming video service. It isn't the biggest player--Netflix has over 150 million subscribers--a number that dwarfs Disney+. But it made a huge bet that owning its own platform to stream its own library of content would pay off in a big way.

So far it has. And the lesson here is that when you align your story with your audience, you will win.

That's one of the most important qualities in any marketer, but also in every entrepreneur. Your primary job, at least at first,is to figure out how to tell the story of your brand, and then tell it to the right audience.

And you don't even need Baby Yoda for that--but it can'thurt.

The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

Read the original here:
Disney's Bob Iger Was Just Named Time's Businessperson of the Year and Baby Yoda Is Exactly the Reason Why - Inc.

MEDIA CONTACT

Available for logged-in reporters only

Newswise The microbes populating the human body play an important role in health and disease, but with few exceptions, how individual microbial species affect health and disease states remains poorly understood. A new study by Princeton researcherMohamed Abou Doniaand his colleagues, appearing in the Dec. 13 issue of the journalScience, gives scientists new tools to explore and understand the human microbiome.

Using a massive dataset drawn from the genomes of hundreds of people, the researchers identified two microbes that function as powerful antibiotics, said Donia, an assistant professor in the Department of Molecular Biology, "as potent as their clinically used relatives against neighboring microbes in the oral microbiome." Finding novel antibiotics is important because pathogens are evolving resistance to antibiotics currently in clinical use.

The human microbiome -- the identity and balance of bacterial species on human skin and mucosal surfaces -- influences a variety of disease conditions, from digestive ailments to halitosis, bacterial vaginosis and eczema. The microbiome also aids immune development and the fight against pathogens. However, the human microbiome is incredibly diverse; the communities of bacteria, viruses, fungi and other tiny organisms differ according to the tissue where they live, and across human populations and individuals. It's unclear what constitutes a normal, healthy microbiome, much less how one might go about bringing a sick one back into balance.

A common approach to solving this problem is to culture an individual microbe in the lab and explore how it contributes to health or disease states. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to identify and isolate very rare species, or find the conditions necessary to support their growth outside their natural niche. To do this with every species would be a daunting task. Alternatively, scientists can examine the microbiome in situ, with the aim of describing its individual components and how they interact.

One way microbes communicate -- and do battle -- with each other and with human cells is through biologically active small molecules.

"Our long-term goal is to define the chemical space of the human microbiome," explained Donia. His group set out to identify the set of genes that manufacture such chemicals (termed a biosynthetic gene cluster, or BGC) directly in clinical samples. This would allow scientists to listen in on the chemical conversation taking place, and discover who is speaking and when.

Led by co-first authors Yuki Sugimoto, a postdoctoral research associate, and graduate student Francine Camacho, the researchers developed computer algorithms that can detect BGCs by analyzing and interpreting data sets known as "metagenomic sequencing data," genetic sequences obtained from the tissues or excretions of hundreds of human subjects. Some metagenomic data sets are drawn from clinical samples taken from diverse populations, including persons in different states of health or disease, or people in different geographical locales. Intensive analysis is needed to make sense of the rich but often fragmentary information contained in these data sets.

Donia's team began by identifying genes essential for the synthesis of a particular molecule or chemical of interest, then using computational algorithms to sort through metagenomic data for similar (homologous) genetic sequences, and grouping these sequence fragments together. They then assessed the prevalence of each group in the human population, and used the grouped sequences to piece together full-length BGCs. Importantly, this approach allowed identification of novel BGCs even if they are extremely rare.

To validate this approach, the researchers investigated whether they could detect BGCs involved in the synthesis of type II polyketides. This class of chemicals, which includes the anti-cancer drug doxorubicin and several antibiotic drugs, was previously found in soil bacteria but had never before been found in bacteria of the human microbiome.

"To our surprise, we discovered 13 such gene clusters, which are widely distributed in the gut, oral and skin microbiome of people all the way from the U.S. to Fiji," said Donia. To test if these newly identified BGCs actually make type II polyketides, the researchers selected two of the BGCs and inserted their genes into bacteria that can be easily grown in the lab, then used mass spectrometry to detect any new chemical products. These compounds were then purified and tested for antibiotic or anticancer activity.

"Two of the five new molecules we discovered are potent antibiotics," said Donia, "revealing a potential mechanism for niche competition and defense against intruders and pathogens." More work will be needed to discover the biological activity of the other three molecules, and the role of all five in human health or disease. Such studies may uncover new pathways for interaction between microbes, or between the microbiome and its human host.

With this technology, it is now possible to mine our own microbiomes for drug discovery or novel biological interactions. What other treasures might this type of analysis reveal? As Donia observed, "This was only one clinically important class of molecules that we went after -- there are dozens more to do, and we can't even start to predict what we will discover!"

###

"A metagenomic strategy for harnessing the chemical repertoire of the human microbiome," by Yuki Sugimoto, Francine R. Camacho, Shuo Wang, Pranatchareeya Chankhamjon, Arman Odabas '17, Abhishek Biswas, Philip D. Jeffrey and Mohamed S. Donia, appears in the Dec. 13 issue of the journalScienceand was released online Oct. 3 (DOI: 10.1126/science.aax9176). This work was supported the National Institutes of Health Director's New Innovator Award (1DP2AI124441), the Pew Biomedical Scholars Program, and a Focused Research Team on Precision Antibiotics Award by the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University. The researchers are all at Princeton University, in the Department of Molecular Biology, the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, or Princeton Research Computing.

SEE ORIGINAL STUDY

View post:
Eavesdropping on the human microbiome uncovers 'potent' new antibiotics - Newswise

Over the last century, the field of genetics and biotechnology has greatly developed because of the better understanding of the gene. Because of the improvement of technology, scientists have already gone up until the manipulation of the genome (complete set of genes) of organisms. This process is called genetic engineering. In this article, we will explore 13 important genetic engineering pros and cons.

The sharing of genetic material among living organisms is known to be a natural event. This phenomenon is known to be very evident among bacteria, hence they are called natures own genetic engineer. Such phenomenon is the inspiration of scientists in this endeavor.

In literature, there are in fact many synonyms of the term genetic engineering: genetic modification, genome manipulation, genetic enhancement, and many more. However, this term shall not be confused with cloning because genetic engineering involves the production of new set of genes while the latter only involves the production of the same copies of genes in the organism.

Genetic engineering is the process of manipulating an organisms genome using biotechnology and the products of it are either referred to as genetically modified or transgenic organisms. Check out the disadvantages of genetically modified foods here.

Basically, genetic engineering is done by inserting a gene of interest from sources like bacteria, viruses, plants, and animals into the target organism. As a result, the organism with the inserted gene of interest is now able to carry out the new trait or characteristic.

This technology grants us the ability to overcome barriers, exchange genes among organisms, and produce new organisms with favorable traits.

For a more detailed explanation of the process, check out this video below:

Now we will dive into the pros and cons of Genetic Engineering now.

Supporters of genetic engineering believe that genetic engineering is indeed safe and is still comparable to the traditional process of breeding in plants and animals. Advocates of genetic engineering support the technology primarily because of the following reasons:

On the other hand, there are several types of potential health effects that could arise from the insertion of a novel gene into an organism. Critics disagree with the methods of genetic engineering because of:

Because of the technology used to create genetically modified crops and animals, private companies that produce them do not share their products at a reasonable cost with the public.

In addition, they believe that the process is somewhat disrupting the natural way and complexity of life. In addition to this, critics fear the misuse and abuse of biotechnology.

Indeed, genetic engineering will always have two opposite sides. While the possibilities of what science can create are endless, and the harmful effects also are. At present, it is important to know that the real risks and benefits of genetic engineering lie in how science is interpreted and used.

But theres really no doubt that with the rapid advancements in technology, the creation of GM organisms are also increasing.

What do you think? Are GM organisms slowly becoming the future?

See the rest here:
13 Important Genetic Engineering Pros And Cons | Bio Explorer

Genetic engineering in is founded on the idea of manipulating the gene pool in order to make lives better. One way of doing this is to start from the basic, from the egg cell and sperm cell. Another way is to swap bad genes in a fully formed human with good ones.

There are moral and ethical controversies surrounding genetic engineering or genetic mutation in humans. Personal convictions alone dictate people what to oppose and what to accept. However, it takes an objective inspection of this medical technology for us to draw a more acceptable conclusion and prevent pre-created biases.

1. Helps Prevent Genetic DisordersMany of the diseases today are hereditary or genetic. By manipulating the genes in humans, scientists find a way to prevent people from suffering from an otherwise hereditary health condition.

2. Helps Individual Have Better LifeGenetic engineering helps humans have a chance at a healthier, longer life with more desirable physical characteristics. By altering the genes of fetuses, there is a strong likelihood that future generations will be taller, stronger, healthier and better looking.

3. Helps Deepen Understanding of GenesPromoting genetic engineering is one way of deepening our understanding about human genetics. It helps scientists find ways to cure or prevent hereditary diseases, most especially.

4. Allows Parents to Choose Babys TraitsSome parents would want their children not to inherit their less desirable traits, if given the chance. By modifying the genes of babies, parents have a chance at designing their own babies, according to what they want gender, color of hair, etc.

5. Probes into Medical AdvancementsThere are many areas in science, which continue to be a mystery to even the most learned scientists and researchers today. Other advancements in the medical field can spring from genetic engineering.

1. Test Failure Leads to Termination of EmbryosSince genetic engineering is not a perfect science, and far from being so, there will be failures along the way, and this leads to termination of embryos with undesirable gene pool. To some people, this is tantamount to abortion.

2. Who Decides the Good and Bad GenesNo one has the right to decide or judge what specific traits are good or bad. With genetic engineering, the power likely rests on the scientists, the future parents, or the political leader. However, are these people accountable or responsible when experiments go wrong?

3. Engineered Babies Could Have Worse Imperfections When the actual results are not the outcome initially intended, society could have grave issues regarding the presence of erroneously engineered humans, specifically if they turn out to be mentally ill, psychotic, abusive, or non-responsive. How does society control these badly designed humans by murder, by further experimentation or by imprisonment?

4. It Is Very ExpensiveEngineering the genes of animals is already intricate and expensive enough, how much more an entire human being? It takes a team of skilled geneticists and researchers, plus a topnotch facility, to perform the experiment. This means that genetic engineering may only be available to the wealthy, furthering the gap in society.

5. Reduces the Individuality among HumansWhen there is a consensus as to which traits are good or bad, there is a tendency for future generations to lose their diversity and individuality. There will be no short people because being tall is more desirable. There will be no fat people because being slender is more desirable. Ultimately, the reduction of undesirable traits in humans would lead to a generation of pure breeds with very little capability of adapting to changes in the environment as in the case of pure breed animals, which are prone to disease.

Read more:
Genetic Engineering in Humans Pros and Cons List | NYLN.org

The 4,000-square-foot suite, tucked into a small office park in the heart of San Diegos biotech corridor, is about as small and unassuming as a university biology-lab classroom. But the 16 people who work here at Molecular Assemblies are chasing a goal that could revolutionize synthetic biology: the ability to write DNA molecules using enzymes.

The field of synthetic biology has, for years, been promising the ability to custom-design organisms that serve as everything from new antibiotics to plastic eaters. But despite substantial advances in both sequencing and editing DNA, one of the big holdups in fulfilling this potential is that whipping up DNA to order is slow andespecially for long moleculesexpensive. In truth, the way scientists write DNA hasnt changed much since the process was first developed in 1981. Its slow, laborious, and environmentally hazardous.

But several startup companies believe they can do it cheaper, faster, and more accurately with a new method. They believe that using enzymes, which is how DNA is written in nature, is the way to go.

Molecular Assemblies recently raised $12.2 million in an initial round of funding, though its far from alone in its quest to use enzymes for building DNA. At least seven startups are trying to do it. Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, who have published the only paper so far to describe a successful enzymatic approach, founded Ansa Biotechnologies to commercialize it. Ansa, like Molecular Assemblies, is building its business model around providing DNA to customers who send in orders. But another contender, DNA Script, recently announced $38.5 million in a second round of funding for a benchtop machine that would enable labs and hospitals to build DNA themselves.

Today, commercially available DNA synthesis uses a process called phosphoramidite chemistry, which relies on toxic, flammable reagents that create hazardous waste. The process has important limitationsmost companies that build DNA this way top off at lengths of about 100 to 150 base pairs, which isnt even as long as many genes, and the harsh chemistry involved in adding each A, G, C, or T can start to degrade the already-written part as the molecule grows longer. This method also produces molecules that arent compatible with water-based biology. Thats acceptable if you want to use DNA as a form of data storage, but to be useful in biological applications, DNA made through phosphoramidite chemistry has to be put through additional processing, which increases the cost.

Its amazing that they get chemical synthesis of DNA to work, says Andrew Hessel, president of Humane Genomics, which is developing new cancer therapies by reprogramming viruses, and co-founder of Genome Project-write. GP-write, as its known, an international effort to explore the prospects of redesigning human cells, just concluded its annual meeting in New York City. The reality is that nature uses enzymes to write DNA, and that is an incredibly complex process. Every time a cell in your body divides, it has to write a whole human genome perfectly without any additional modifications.

As synthetic biology advances, researchers want longer and longer segments of DNAideally, at least the length of genes. The longer the DNA molecule, the fewer the segments that scientists have to stitch together to make a desired sequence, which should reduce the cost and the chances for errors to be introduced.

Those involved in Hessels GP-write project have their sights set on writing full genomes, which would allow them to engineer human cells (and other organisms cells) so as to better understand health and disease. For example, some scientists involved in GP-write are exploring ways of making cells resistant to viruses. Others are investigating how cells could produce essential nutrients that people now have to derive from food. But making genome-length DNAeven bacterial genomesusing chemical synthesis is currently cost-prohibitive.

William Efcavitch, chief science officer and co-founder of Molecular Assemblies, helped lead the development and commercialization of the original phosphoramidite method in the early 1980s, but now he says its clear a better approach is required. Rather than trying to push 35-year-old chemistry to make longer strands, we said: Lets start with an enzymatic process that can already make long strands and teach it to do it in a user-friendly fashion, says Efcavitch.

You have to control the enzyme and tell it what to write. And thats tricky.

The challenge is that in their natural habitat within a cell, enzymes dont create DNA from scratch. Instead, they duplicate a pre-existing strand by pulling nucleic acids, one by one, to the growing molecule. So Molecular Assemblies and most of the other companies have turned to the only enzyme known to build DNA without a template. This DNA-creating enzyme, or polymerase, is called terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT). Typically found in vertebrate immune cells, it is responsible for building the new and ever-changing antigen receptors a cell needs to fight unfamiliar viruses and bacteria.

TdT evolved to make long strands of DNA in a random fashion, but the new breed of DNA-writing startups think they can program it. All of them, however, are still working to figure out exactly how. The challenge with enzymatic synthesis from scratch is that you have to control the enzyme and tell it what to write, Hessel says. And thats tricky.

Chemical synthesis uses a computer to control a system that adds A, G, C, or Tone drop at a timein a four-step process: The DNA molecule is extended by one nucleotide held in place with an unstable bond; then the incomplete end is capped off; then the newly linked nucleotide is stabilized; and then the molecule is prepared for the next addition. Enzymatic synthesis eliminates two of those steps: the polymerase just needs to be stopped and started for each additional nucleotide. Right now, Efcavitch says, were trying to optimize those two steps.

The enzymatic synthesis startups have shown modest success. Ansa has built short DNA fragments called oligonucleotides (or oligos) of 50 base pairs. DNA Script has hit 200, and another companyCamena Biosciencerecently announced it had reached 300. Molecular Assemblies wont specify how long its oligos have gotten other than to say they havent yet reached 150.

The companies claims remain largely untested by the synthetic biology community.

There have been almost no publications, says Calin Plesa, a synthetic biology researcherat the University of Oregon. Its been very difficult to know whats beengoing on inside these companies.

Plesa himself is a heavy user of synthetic DNA for building DNA libraries, as is Sri Kosuri, a synthetic biologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, and co-founder of a startup called Octant. Kosuri describes himself as a synthetic DNA addict whose lab consumes large amounts of oligonucleotides to explore the relationship between DNA sequences and their functions. He appreciates how the companies pursuing enzymatic DNA synthesis are trying to improve the accuracy of the technology. Accuracy is an issue. Its what limits even our own work, Kosuri says. But he adds that it doesnt yet appear that the DNA-writing startups have gotten the enzymatic process near the accuracy of phosphoramidite chemistry.

George Church, a geneticist at Harvard University who is a cofounder of both the Human Genome Project and GP-write, says chemical DNA synthesis methods generally induce an error every 1 in 300 bases. Error-correction methods can improve the figure to 1 in 10,000. When enzymes naturally copy a strand of DNA in cells, however, the error rate is close to one in a billion. But he agrees with Kosuri that no enyzmatic synthesis company has come even close to such low error rates. Right now, theres no evidence than enzymatics is more accurate [than chemical synthesis]. I think its likely but not proven, Church says.

Today, the longest oligonucleotid
es being produced are coming out of South San Francisco-based Twist Bioscience, which has miniaturized the chemistry using a silicon chip with thousands of tiny wells, creating a platform that that can make one million oligos simultaneously. They are used for screening, diagnostics, therapeutics, and genetic research. Twist can now make oligos up to 300 base pairs long in these wells, more than twice what most enzymatic companies are capable of at the moment.

But Twist Bioscience CEO Emily Leproust saysthat if a better method of synthesizing DNA presents itself, Twists method canaccommodate it. We dont really have a dog in the fight, she says. If thereis better [synthesis through] enzyme chemistry, Ill be the first customer. Oncethe approach reaches one of any number of milestoneslonger, fewer errors, orfaster productionshed be on board. Ill take cheaper but frankly Ill paymore if its faster or better or longer.

Shes confident that one or more of the companies pursingthe enzymatic approach will hit the target eventually. I dont think they haveto break any rule of physics to get thereI think its just engineering, shesays. Its a question of how much money do you need, and how much time do youneed, and can you recoup that investment in commercialization.

Church and Hessel both agree that enzymatic synthesis will start to gain traction soon. I fully expect that bacterial-scale genomes will be within anyones reach within the next 10 years, Hessel says. And that would be just the start. I dont think weve started to unlock the possibilities here. I cant wait to see how these tools and technologies change the world.

Read the original post:
The Dawn of Cheap and Easy DNA Writing - NEO.LIFE

As Americans consider the possible uses of genetic engineering in animals, their reactions are neither uniformly accepting nor resistant; instead, public reactions vary depending on the mechanism and intended purpose of the technology, particularly the extent to which it would bring health benefits to humans.

Presented with five different scenarios of animal genetic engineering that are currently available, in development or considered possible in the future, Americans provide majority support only for the two that have clear potential to pre-empt or ameliorate human illness.

The surveys most widely accepted use of genetic intervention of animals involves mosquitoes. Seven-in-ten Americans (70%) believe that genetically engineering mosquitoes to prevent their reproduction and therefore the spread of some mosquito-borne diseases would be an appropriate use of technology, while about three-in-ten (29%) see the use of genetic engineering for this purpose as taking technology too far.

And a 57% majority considers it appropriate to genetically engineer animals to grow organs or tissues that could be used for humans needing a transplant.

But other uses of animal biotechnology are less acceptable to the public, including the creation of more nutritious meat for human consumption (43% say this is appropriate) or restoring an extinct animal species from a closely related species (32% say this is appropriate). And one application that is already commercially available is largely met with resistance: Just 21% of Americans consider it an appropriate use of technology to genetically engineer aquarium fish to glow using a fluorescence gene, while 77% say this is taking technology too far.

These are some of the findings from a new Pew Research Center survey, conducted April 23-May 6 among a nationally representative sample of 2,537 U.S. adults that looks at public views about genetic engineering of animals a term that encompasses a range of biotechnologies that can add, delete or change an animals existing genetic material and thereby introduce new traits or characteristics.

Although most Americans are largely in agreement that using genetic engineering in mosquitoes to prevent the spread of mosquito-borne illnesses is appropriate, views about other uses of genetic engineering of animals considered in the survey differ by gender, levels of science knowledge andreligiosity. Men are more accepting of these uses of technology than women, those with high science knowledge are more accepting than those with medium or low science knowledge and those low in religious commitment are more accepting than those with medium or high levels of religious commitment.

For example, about two-thirds of men (65%) see genetic engineering of animals to grow human organs or tissues for transplants as appropriate, compared with about half of women (49%). Also, Americans with high science knowledge (72%) are more inclined than those with medium (55%) or low (47%) science knowledge to say this would be appropriate. And a larger share of those with low religious commitment (68%) than medium (54%) or high (48%) religious commitment consider genetic engineering of animals to grow human organs or tissues for transplants to be appropriate.

Emerging developments in animal biotechnology raise new social, ethical and policy issues for society, including the potential impact on animal welfare.

The survey finds that the 52% of Americans who in general oppose the use of animals in scientific research are, perhaps not surprisingly, also more inclined to consider specific uses of genetic engineering of animals to be taking technology too far.

There are large differences between these groups when it comes to using animal biotechnology for humans needing an organ or tissue transplant and the idea of using such technology to produce more nutritious meat.

To better understand peoples beliefs about genetic engineering of animals, the survey asked a subset of respondents to explain, in their own words, the main reason behind their view that genetic engineering in each of these circumstances would be taking technology too far.

A common refrain in these responses raised the possibility of unknown risks for animals, humans or the ecosystem. Some saw these technologies as humankind inappropriately interfering with the natural world or raised general concerns about unknown risks.

About three-in-ten of those who said genetic engineering of mosquitoes would be taking technology too far explained that humankind would be disrupting nature (23%) or interfering with Gods plan (8%).

One respondent put it this way:

Nature is a balance and every time man interferes with it, it doesnt turn out well.

Some 24% of those with objections to the idea of reducing the fertility of mosquitoes through genetic engineering in order to reduce mosquito-borne illnesses raised concerns about the possible impact on the ecosystem.

Such responses include:

I do not think we know enough about the effects of removing a whole class of insectsfrom the environment. What would be the effects on those animal and plants up the chain?

Mosquitoes are part of a complex ecosystem and food chain. By preventing their reproduction, we risk disrupting the entire ecosystem.

Objections to the idea of using animal biotechnology to grow organs or tissues for transplant in humans focused on beliefs about using animals for human benefit (21%) and potential risks for human health from creating human organs from animals (16%).

For example:

In manufacturing organs, the existence of these animals would be miserable in order to cultivate such organs the animals would need to be in a lab setting and would more than likely never see the light of day. I cant ethically say that I would agree with such a practice.

When you mix human and nonhuman genetics I believe that will cause extreme problems down the road.

Animal organs are not made for humans even though some animal and human organs may be very similar. Who knows what side effects this could cause? Even human-to-human organ transplants often reject, so I can only imagine the bad side effects that an animal-to-human transplant would cause. Keep things simple and the way nature intended.

Genetic engineering could produce more nutritious meat by altering animal proteins. Those who think this is taking technology too far raised a number of different concerns. Some cited general concerns about as-yet-unknown risks (20% of those asked), while a similar share (19%) saw this as messing with nature or Gods plan in a way that goes beyond what humans should do.

One respondent put it this way:

Should we as human beings change the course of natures natural selection and potentially introduce unintended serious consequences?

About one-in-ten (12%) objected to the idea on the grounds that people should rely less on meat in their diet or that any genetic engineering in foods is a likely health risk.

One example of these concerns:

Meat is nutritious as it is. There is no need to try to increase nutrition. Rather we should be decreasing human reliance on meat as a foodstuff.

Those who objected to the idea of bringing back extinct species often raised concerns about unintended harm to the ecosystem. Roughly two-in-ten (18%) of those asked explained their views by saying there is a reason that these animals are currently extinct, with some saying these animals would be unlikely to survive if brought back, and another 12% of this group raised potential risks to other species and the ecosystem from bringing an extinct animal into a different world.

For example:

Beware of unintended consequences. The universe is in balance with them extinct. Consider the problems man has created by reintroducing species that have become extinct [in] a given area, i.e., wolves and mountain lions to areas now occupied by humans and domestic livestock.

Others discussed these ideas in terms of Gods plan and hu
man interference with the natural world (23%).

A few examples:

God is the creator of all living things, not mankind. Extinction is part of evolution of the universe.

Nature has selected species to become extinct over millions and millions of years. We have no right to bring animals back and play God.

And 14% said they regard bringing back an extinct species as taking technology too far because they do not see a need or purpose to this, especially as it does not seem to bring any benefit to humans, or that resources should be focused elsewhere.

A sampling of these concerns:

For what purpose would it be done? Is there a benefit to humanity other than having a rare zoo specimen? Would the extinct species cease to become extinct through natural reproduction if not that, the whole effort is without merit.

I dont see the purpose of bringing any animal back. Would it provide a better way of life for humans?

Objections to the idea of changing the appearance of aquarium fish using genetic engineering to make the fish glow often focused on the lack of apparent need or benefit to either humans or animals.

About half (48%) of those who say engineering a glowing fish takes technology too far said they do not see the purpose for humans or society, questioned its necessity or considered it frivolous or a waste of resources.

Some examples:

[While] changing a fish to glow might sound like something people would want to see its not something beneficial to humankind. At this point it would just [be] playing God to entertain rather [than] help us.

Its frivolous. Technology should be used to help people, animals and the environment, not put on a glow show.

Why? If you only do something because you can is not a good reason. If any genetic engineering is allowed it will get out of hand. It would be a fine line that I am sure we would cross.

It seems a frivolous thing to do, much like someone getting plastic surgery to remove wrinkles or other signs of aging. The persons life is not extended by a better appearance. The aquarium fish also do not benefit from their changed appearance.

Read more:
Most Americans Accept Genetic Engineering of Animals That ...

Human Genetic Engineering - A Hot Issue!Human genetic engineering is a hot topic in the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government. Time will tell how committed the United States will be regarding the absolute ban on human cloning.

Human Genetic Engineering - Position of the U.S. GovernmentHuman genetic engineering has made its way to Capitol Hill. On July 31, 2001, the House of Representatives passed a bill which would ban human cloning, not only for reproduction, but for medical research purposes as well. The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, sponsored by Rep. Weldon (R-fL) and co-sponsored by over 100 Representatives, passed by a bipartisan vote of 265-to-162. The Act makes it unlawful to: "1) perform or attempt to perform human cloning, 2) participate in an attempt to perform cloning, or 3) ship or receive the product of human cloning for any purpose." The Act also imposes penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment and no less than $1,000,000 for breaking the law. The same bill, sponsored by Sen. Brownback (R-kS), is currently being debated in the Senate.

The White House also opposes "any and all attempts to clone a human being; [they] oppose the use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning techniques either to assist human reproduction or to develop cell or tissue-based therapies."

Human Genetic Engineering - The ProblemsThere are many arguments against human genetic engineering, including the established safety issues, the loss of identity and individuality, and human diversity. With therapeutic cloning, not only do the above issues apply, but you add all the moral and religious issues related to the willful killing of human embryos. Maybe the greatest concern of all is that man would become simply another man-made thing. As with any other man-made thing, the designer "stands above [its design], not as an equal but as a superior, transcending it by his will and creative prowess." The cloned child will be dehumanized. (See, Leon Kass, Preventing a Brave New World: Why we should ban human cloning now, New Republic Online, May 21, 2001.)

Human Genetic Engineering - A Final ThoughtHuman genetic engineering leads to man usurping God as the almighty creator and designer of life. No longer will a child be considered a blessing from God, but rather, a product manufactured by a scientist. Man will be a created being of man. However, man was always intended to be a created being of God, in His absolute love, wisdom and glory.

Learn More Now!

What is your response?

Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus

Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus

I still have questions

See more here:
Human Genetic Engineering - Popular Issues

Genetic engineering is a term that was first introduced into our language in the 1970s to describe the emerging field of recombinant DNA technology and some of the things that were going on. As most people who read textbooks and things know, recombinant DNA technology started with pretty simple things--cloning very small pieces of DNA and growing them in bacteria--and has evolved to an enormous field where whole genomes can be cloned and moved from cell to cell, to cell using variations of techniques that all would come under genetic engineering as a very broad definition. To me, genetic engineering, broadly defined, means that you are taking pieces of DNA and combining them with other pieces of DNA. [This] doesn't really happen in nature, but is something that you engineer in your own laboratory and test tubes. And then taking what you have engineered and propagating that in any number of different organisms that range from bacterial cells to yeast cells, to plants and animals. So while there isn't a precise definition of genetic engineering, I think it more defines an entire field of recombinant DNA technology, genomics, and genetics in the 2000s.

See the article here:
Genetic Engineering | Talking Glossary of Genetic Terms ...