The facility lies midway between Munichs city center and its international airport, roughly 23 miles to the north. From the outside, it still looks like the state-run farm it once was, but peer through the windows of the old farmhouse and youll see rooms stuffed with cutting-edge laboratory equipment.

In a newer building at the back of the farm, Barbara Kessler pulls off her sneakers and sprays her bare feet and hands with antiseptic. The wiry veterinarian steps over a taped line in the shower room, leaving behind everything she can from the outside world: clothes, watch, earrings. She scrubs her body and haira buzz cut, so its easier to manage these frequent washings.

After the shower, she finds her size among the neat stacks of supplied clothes and pulls on a pair of black pants, a red shirt, and black Crocs. Outside the dressing room, she adds a black knit cap to keep even her short-cropped hair from passing on germs, and then strides down the hall to the boot room, where she carefully steps into knee-high rubber boots that are power-washed after each wearing.

LAETITIA VANCON

All these precautions are to protect animals not known for their cleanliness: pigs. And once Kessler opens the door to the indoor pens, the smell is unmistakable. Its a pigsty, after all.

When Kessler unlocks one pen to show off its resident, a young sow wanders out and starts exploring. Like other pigs here, the sow is left nameless, so her caregivers wont get too attached. She has to be coaxed back behind a metal gate. To the untrained eye, she acts and looks like pretty much any other pig, but smaller.

Its whats inside this animal that matters. Her body has been made a little less pig-like, with four genetic modifications that make her organs more likely to be accepted when transplanted into a human. If all goes according to plan, the heart busily pumping inside a pig like this might one day beat instead inside a person.

Different types of tissues from genetically engineered pigs are already being tested in humans. In China, researchers have transplanted insulin-producing pancreatic islet cells from gene-edited pigs into people with diabetes. A team in South Korea says its ready to try transplanting pig corneas into people, once it gets government approval. And at Massachusetts General Hospital, researchers announced in October that they had used gene-edited pig skin as a temporary wound covering for a person with severe burns. The skin patch, they say, worked as effectively as human skin, which is much harder to obtain.

But when it comes to life-or-death organs, like hearts and livers, transplant surgeons still must rely on human parts. One day, the dream goes, genetically modified pigs like this sow will be sliced open, their hearts, kidneys, lungs and livers sped to transplant centers to save desperately sick patients from death.

Laetitia Vancon

The death of Baby Fae

Today in the United States, 7,300 people die each year because they cant find an organ donortwo-thirds of them for want of a kidney. In many cases, the only hope is someone elses tragedy: an accident that kills someone whose organs can be harvested.

Surgeons looking for another source of organs at first looked to monkeys, because theyre the animals most similar to us. In 1984, a little girl known as Baby Fae received a baboon heart but died 20 days later, after her immune system attacked it. Baby Faes short life and quick death received global attention; many condemned the idea of killing our closest animal relatives to save ourselves. An opinion piece by a cardiologist in the Washington Post described the procedure as medical adventurism. Another, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, was headlined Baby Fae: A beastly business.

Sign up for The Download your daily dose of what's up in emerging technology

Then, in the 1990s, researchers and biotech companies turned to pigs as the donor of choice. Since we eat pigs (120 million of them a year in the US alone), taking their organs seemed less morally fraught to many. Scientifically, their organs are roughly the right size, with similar anatomy, and pigs reach adulthood in about six monthsmuch faster than primates. But a problem arose: pigs harbor viruses that might make the jump to people. Whats more, with the simple genetic engineering available at the time, the transplanted organs didnt last long when they were tested in monkeys. They were simply, genetically speaking, too foreign.

When it comes to life-or-death organs, like hearts and livers, transplant surgeons still must rely on human parts.

More than two decades later, advances in genetic engineering have revived the prospect of so-called xenotransplants. The hottest source of debate in the field: exactly how many gene edits are needed in pigs like these to overcome the species barrier. A well-funded US company, eGenesis, which leads the more-is-better-camp, says it has made a double-digit number of changes to the pigs it raises with a sister company in China.

The Germans at the Munich facility are in the less-is-more camp. The pigs they work with have three key genetic modifications originally made more than a decade agoall designed to keep baboons and humans from rejecting their organs. Knocking out a gene that produces a sugar called galactosyltransferase prevented the recipients immune system from immediately rejecting an organ from a different species. The second change added a gene expressing human CD46, a protein that helps the immune system attack foreign invaders without overreacting and causing autoimmune disease; the third introduced a gene for a protein called thrombomodulin, which prevents the blood clots that would otherwise destroy the transplanted organ.

A smaller number of edits can be better controlled and measured, and their effects are easier to document, says Eckhard Wolf, who runs this former state farm on the outskirts of Munich, now called the Center for Innovative Medical Models. If something goes wrong, as often happens in xenotransplantation, it will be clear where the issue lies. With more edits come more potential problems. At some point, you are in a situation that you have no idea what an additional genetic modification does, he says.

The size of a heart

In 2018, the hearts of pigs from the Munich center were transplanted into 14 baboons. Two of the monkeys survived for six months, the longest any animal has lived with a heart from another species. In a report in Nature last December, the German researchers described their achievement as a milestone on the way to clinical cardiac xenotransplantation.

Laetitia Vancon

Of the first five baboons to get a pig heart, four died within a day or two, and when the fifth died after a month, its heart was diseased. In the next batch of baboons, Wolfs collaborator Bruno Reichart, a retired heart transplant surgeon, flooded the organ with nutrients, hormones, and red blood cells from the time it was removed from the pig until it was fully functional in the recipient animal. Three baboons treated with this approach lived for 18, 27, and 40days.

The last five baboons had the same procedure but were also kept on an immunosuppressant drug. Two lived for 182 and 195 days, but they had to be euthanized last year when still in good health, because it was so challenging to continue the anti-rejection therapy.It isnt practical to leave an intravenous line in a baboon for longer than six months. But neither is it a simple thing to convince a baboon to take drugs. Like young children, they resist drinking anything that smells like medication.

Reichart says he is working on a better delivery system that will enable the baboons to stay on the anti-rejection drugs for at least a yearthe amount of time he says is needed to prove that xenotransplantation is ready to be tested in people.

Midway through their baboon study, however, Wolf and Reichart noticed an unanticipated problem: the hearts, harvested from juvenile pigs to make sure they were small enough for
baboons, kept on growing as if they were still destined to keep alive a 600-pound (270-kilogram) pig. The transplanted heart weighed 62% more than a typical baboon heart: massive cardiac overgrowth, as their paper described it. In the baboons, the new hearts crowded out other essential organs and, in a few cases, caused the animals death.

Laetitia Vancon

At the pig facility, Kessler showed me Wolfs solution to this problem: two sister sows, created with one more CRISPR gene edit. Researchers have turned off the animals growth hormone receptor(GHR) gene, leaving them roughly half the weight of a typical pig. Both tip the scales at about 175 pounds (79 kg),compared with nearly 400 pounds for a normal sow. The pregnant sister stood across the hall, alone in a pen facing the wall. Metal bars kept her from lying down against the wallsa precaution to protect the piglet litter. Though she was bred with a full-sized male pig, roughly half of her offspring should be missing their GHR gene.

The cost of saving a life

It isnt cheap to create a gene-edited pig and then raise it to the standard required by the US Food and Drug Administration and other agencies that would regulate pig-to-human transplants around the world. Kessler and her colleagues clone pig embryos by putting the desired genetic material into eggs collected Mondays and Tuesdays from a local slaughterhouse. To minimize germs, every new line of pigs must start by conceiving the animal in a lab dish, delivering it by Caesarean section, and separating it from its mother at birth. Later germ-free generations dont require as many precautions and cost only about 10 times the price of raising a pig for bacon and pork, Kessler says.

About 120 gene-edited adult pigs and 150 piglets live on this pig farm (one of only a handful worldwide), but even it cant afford to raise pigs to the standard that will be needed before an organ is transplanted into a person. Wolfs government grant wont cover the cost of HEPA filters to clean the air in every room of the pig facility, or to irradiate the special vegetarian feed pellets that are trucked in. The researchers lobbied for years for funding to build a perimeter fence to keep wild boarsand their germsoff the property.

LAETITIA VANCON

Reichart says he just needs funding to complete one more trial, keeping baboons alive for a full year with the pigs hearts, before hell be ready to test them in people. Other groups are also getting close. In Florida, transplant surgeon Joseph Tector, newly relocated to the University of Miami, says he just needs time to build a pig facility like Wolfs only stricter, and then hell be ready to test pig kidneys in people. The University of Alabama-Birmingham has a pig facility to support clinical transplants, with experts looking at both hearts and kidneys. Their first clinical trial of xenotransplantation might be in babies born with congenital heart malformations. A pig heart could serveas was hoped for Baby Faea bridge until they can receive a human heart.

Reichart says he doesnt need to be the first to successfully do a xenotransplant. But he believes hes likely to be among the first, since hes so close. After decades of research, the pigs in the Munich lab just might be the ones that allow surgeons to break the species barrier.

Read more here:
Meet the pigs that could solve the human organ transplant crisis - MIT Technology Review

Genetic engineering, the artificial manipulation, modification, and recombination of DNA or other nucleic acid molecules in order to modify an organism or population of organisms.

The term genetic engineering initially referred to various techniques used for the modification or manipulation of organisms through the processes of heredity and reproduction. As such, the term embraced both artificial selection and all the interventions of biomedical techniques, among them artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (e.g., test-tube babies), cloning, and gene manipulation. In the latter part of the 20th century, however, the term came to refer more specifically to methods of recombinant DNA technology (or gene cloning), in which DNA molecules from two or more sources are combined either within cells or in vitro and are then inserted into host organisms in which they are able to propagate.

The possibility for recombinant DNA technology emerged with the discovery of restriction enzymes in 1968 by Swiss microbiologist Werner Arber. The following year American microbiologist Hamilton O. Smith purified so-called type II restriction enzymes, which were found to be essential to genetic engineering for their ability to cleave a specific site within the DNA (as opposed to type I restriction enzymes, which cleave DNA at random sites). Drawing on Smiths work, American molecular biologist Daniel Nathans helped advance the technique of DNA recombination in 197071 and demonstrated that type II enzymes could be useful in genetic studies. Genetic engineering based on recombination was pioneered in 1973 by American biochemists Stanley N. Cohen and Herbert W. Boyer, who were among the first to cut DNA into fragments, rejoin different fragments, and insert the new genes into E. coli bacteria, which then reproduced.

Most recombinant DNA technology involves the insertion of foreign genes into the plasmids of common laboratory strains of bacteria. Plasmids are small rings of DNA; they are not part of the bacteriums chromosome (the main repository of the organisms genetic information). Nonetheless, they are capable of directing protein synthesis, and, like chromosomal DNA, they are reproduced and passed on to the bacteriums progeny. Thus, by incorporating foreign DNA (for example, a mammalian gene) into a bacterium, researchers can obtain an almost limitless number of copies of the inserted gene. Furthermore, if the inserted gene is operative (i.e., if it directs protein synthesis), the modified bacterium will produce the protein specified by the foreign DNA.

A subsequent generation of genetic engineering techniques that emerged in the early 21st century centred on gene editing. Gene editing, based on a technology known as CRISPR-Cas9, allows researchers to customize a living organisms genetic sequence by making very specific changes to its DNA. Gene editing has a wide array of applications, being used for the genetic modification of crop plants and livestock and of laboratory model organisms (e.g., mice). The correction of genetic errors associated with disease in animals suggests that gene editing has potential applications in gene therapy for humans.

Genetic engineering has advanced the understanding of many theoretical and practical aspects of gene function and organization. Through recombinant DNA techniques, bacteria have been created that are capable of synthesizing human insulin, human growth hormone, alpha interferon, a hepatitis B vaccine, and other medically useful substances. Plants may be genetically adjusted to enable them to fix nitrogen, and genetic diseases can possibly be corrected by replacing dysfunctional genes with normally functioning genes. Nevertheless, special concern has been focused on such achievements for fear that they might result in the introduction of unfavourable and possibly dangerous traits into microorganisms that were previously free of theme.g., resistance to antibiotics, production of toxins, or a tendency to cause disease. Likewise, the application of gene editing in humans has raised ethical concerns, particularly regarding its potential use to alter traits such as intelligence and beauty.

In 1980 the new microorganisms created by recombinant DNA research were deemed patentable, and in 1986 the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the sale of the first living genetically altered organisma virus, used as a pseudorabies vaccine, from which a single gene had been cut. Since then several hundred patents have been awarded for genetically altered bacteria and plants. Patents on genetically engineered and genetically modified organisms, particularly crops and other foods, however, were a contentious issue, and they remained so into the first part of the 21st century.

Here is the original post:
genetic engineering | Definition, Process, & Uses ...

Manipulation of genes in natural organisms, such as plants, animals, and even humans, is considered genetic engineering. This is done using a variety of different techniques like molecular cloning. These processes can cause dramatic changes in the natural makeup and characteristic of the organism. There are benefits and risks associated with genetic engineering, just like most other scientific practices.

Genetic engineering offers benefits such as:

1. Better Flavor, Growth Rate and NutritionCrops like potatoes, soybeans and tomatoes are now sometimes genetically engineered in order to improve size, crop yield, and nutritional values of the plants. These genetically engineered crops also possess the ability to grow in lands that would normally not be suitable for cultivation.

2. Pest-resistant Crops and Extended Shelf LifeEngineered seeds can resist pests and having a better chance at survival in harsh weather. Biotechnology could be in increasing the shelf life of many foods.

3. Genetic Alteration to Supply New FoodsGenetic engineering can also be used in producing completely new substances like proteins or other nutrients in food. This may up the benefits they have for medical uses.

4. Modification of the Human DNAGenes that are responsible for unique and desirable qualities in the human DNA can be exposed and introduced into the genes of another person. This changes the structural elements of a persons DNA. The effects of this are not know.

The following are the issues that genetic engineering can trigger:

1. May Hamper Nutritional ValueGenetic engineering on food also includes the infectivity of genes in root crops. These crops might supersede the natural weeds. These can be dangerous for the natural plants. Unpleasant genetic mutations could result to an increased allergy occurrence of the crop. Some people believe that this science on foods can hamper the nutrients contained by the crops although their appearance and taste were enhanced.

2. May Introduce Risky PathogensHorizontal gene shift could give increase to other pathogens. While it increases the immunity against diseases among the plants, the resistant genes can be transmitted to harmful pathogens.

3. May Result to Genetic ProblemsGene therapy on humans can end to some side effects. While relieving one problem, the treatment may cause the onset of another issue. As a single cell is liable for various characteristics, the cell isolation process will be responsible for one trait will be complicated.

4. Unfavorable to Genetic DiversityGenetic engineering can affect the diversity among the individuals. Cloning might be unfavorable to individualism. Furthermore, such process might not be affordable for poor. Hence, it makes the gene therapy impossible for an average person.

Genetic engineering might work excellently but after all, it is a kind of process that manipulates the natural. This is altering something which has not been created originally by humans. What can you say about this?

Read the original post:
Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering - HRF

Artists from Brooklyn to So Paulo will travel to UB to beautify open water sewers, engineer living perfumes, construct an evolutionary tree of skulls, craft sculptures made of bacteria-dyed llama wool and more.

The seven artists are the fourth cohort of art residents in the UB Coalesce: Center for Biological Art, which helps artists, scientists, architects and designers explore and examine the cultural meanings of their work.

The residents will have the opportunity to form partnerships with UB faculty in the life sciences, gain access to laboratory equipment, and take advantage of the creative space and technical support to study genomic and microbiomic concepts.

Artists selected for this years residency embrace projects situated within the Anthropocene, our Earths most recent geological era defined by overwhelming evidence of dramatic human alteration of atmospheric, geologic and hydrologic systems on our planet, says Paul Vanouse, Coalesce director and professor in the Department of Art in the UB College of Arts and Sciences. The theme is explored through projects that begin both inside and outside the laboratory, and also inspire questions about the human and non-human divide.

Coalesce is a collaboration between UBs Genome, Environment and Microbiome (GEM) Community of Excellence and the Department of Art. An initiative of GEM, the program aims to expand public understanding of and participation in the life sciences.

Over the past four years, the UB and Western New York communities have benefited from thought-provoking installations, workshops and discussions focused on social and ethical questions surrounding the genome and microbiome, says Jennifer Surtees, GEM co-director and associate professor in the Department of Biochemistry in the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at UB. These artists creative research informs public science literacy, helping to make the science more accessible, and has made UB a top research destination for biological art. I look forward to seeing how this years projects evolve and develop through artist interactions at Coalesce.

In-progress projects and explorations will be on view during a Coalesce open house from 1-3 p.m. Nov. 1 in the Coalesce BioArt Lab, 308 Hochstetter Hall, North Campus. The event will feature previews and experiments of ongoing projects by residents and associated researchers.

The 2019-20 class of artists-in-residence:

Zeelie Brown: The worlds most beautiful septic tank

Thousands of people nationwide, many of whom are among the countrys poorest, are believed to live near open sewers. The unsanitary conditions are prevalent in rural African American communities in Alabama, where Brown was raised.

The worlds most beautiful septic tank seeks to resurrect these areas by converting open sewers into lush septic gardens filled with lavender, basil and various flowers. The garden will also contain mosquito repellant plants to counter the risk of mosquito-borne illnesses, one of many diseases that people face living near the putrid waters.

Made from commonly found materials, the permaculture septic garden will filter and recycle human waste. The project aims to increase public thought surrounding how waste is managed and experienced, as the management of waste products has increasingly become one of societys greatest social, scientific and aesthetic problems.

Brown is a Brooklyn-based, interdisciplinary visual artist and cellist.

Tiare Ribeaux and Ruth Schmidt: Microbial Scents and Olfactory Prosthesis for the Future

As climate change threatens to alter the habitats in which humans live, Microbial Scents and Olfactory Prosthesis for the Future hopes to preserve natures scents for future generations through living perfumes and 3D-printed filtration masks.

The project will recreate geosmin a compound with an earthy aroma that is produced by bacteria in soil and other natural scents, as well as craft new odors using communities of microbes. The scents will be encased in vials as living perfumes.

The artists will also place the scents in 3D-printed filtration masks and prosthesis that can be worn under the nose or around the neck. The devices could improve air quality or be used to house customized familiar aromas.

Ribeaux is a San Francisco-based, new media and interdisciplinary artist; Schmidt is a Montreal-based microbial ecologist.

Sun Young Kang: Humans place in the evolutionary tree of life

Humanitys location in the evolutionary tree will be explored through Humans place in the evolutionary tree of life, a display of hundreds of hanging primate and human skulls made of paper materials aged at varying degrees.

At Coalesce, Kang will focus on discovering soil and paper qualities that facilitate aging and decay of the paper, as well as understanding the roles of microbes. Using time as the central theme, the skulls will be hung from the ceiling in a tree-like arrangement, and organized based on genetic and physical similarities between the species.

Ancestral skulls will be situated at the roots, genetically younger species will occupy the branches, and hypothetical skull shapes representing theoretical evolutionary paths for humans and primates will radiate from the tree as rays of light.

Kang is a book and installation artist based in Buffalo. She is collaborating on the project with evolutionary anatomist Jack Tseng, assistant professor of pathology and anatomical sciences in the Jacobs School; and Patrick Ravines, associate professor and director of the Art Conservation Department at SUNY Buffalo State.

Laura Splan: Conformations

Using photography, video, sound, digital animation, sculpture and textiles, Conformations will examine the institutionalized notion of boundaries, and the hidden materiality and labor of biotechnology through a performance of language, image and movement.

The project will include sculptures made from 200 pounds of hand-spun, laboratory llama and alpaca wool. The textiles will be dyed with pigments extracted from bacteria harvested for drug development.

The wool will serve as a synecdoche a figure of speech in which a part is used to reference the whole for the use of immunized animals to produce antibodies for human drugs.

Splan is a Brooklyn-based mixed media artist.

Cesar Baio and Lucy H.G. Solomon: Thinking within Ecosystems: Collective Cell Consciousness

The project will explore what is human through an artwork that merges cellular and digital networks to enable communication between microbiomes, the human body and machine.

The artists aim to better understand the relationship between human and non-human entities through a pragmatic rethinking of a human-centered ontology, which is the philosophical study of being and existence.

To explore what they call collective cell consciousness, Baio and Solomon will draw on computer science and engineering approaches to create an integrated cellular and technological network that would accommodate cross-network or inter-species communication.

Baio, a Brazil-based media artist, and Solomon, a California-based media artist, form the art collective Cesar & Lois.

More here:
Artists to explore waste, evolution, climate change and more through UB bioart residencies - UB Now: News and views for UB faculty and staff -...

There are two ways to upgrade a human - tinker with biology or augment with technology. So when the time comes to upgrade to human 2.0, should we become Bioshock-style splicers or Halo-esque spartans?

This week we look at the science behind a genetic boost.

Science fiction isnt afraid to mess with genetics. Bioshocks ADAM is a syrup of stem cells augmented with plasmids that carry superhuman genetic traits. Preys Neuromod enhances cognitive abilities by splicing alien genetics into viruses delivered directly into the brain through the eyes. And Prototype's Blacklight gets in to cells and tweaks their genetic code, activating and editing dormant sequences.

So how close are we to game-changing genetic upgrades?

(Image: I.C. Baianu et al.)

The genetic revolution started in the 1950s with two wily Cambridge scientists. With data nabbed from colleagues in London, Watson and Crick deciphered the structure of DNA and opened Pandoras box. Since then, the field has moved fast, and it's littered with Nobel Prizes.

By the mid 1970s, scientists had discovered DNA-snipping molecular scissors known as restriction enzymes, and DNA-stitching enzymes called ligases. It became possible to cut and splice the genetic code, stitching components from different organisms to create recombinant DNA.Bacteria were turned into factories, churning out molecules that they were never intended to make, and genetic engineering began in ernest.

(Image: Bethesda)

In the 1980s, everything sped up. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was invented, allowing chunks of DNA to be copied millions of times in a matter of hours. And DNA sequencing became automated, enabling the genetic code to be read faster than ever before.

And the next logical step once you can read the genetic code? Read all of it.

In 2003, the Human Genome Project was completed , revealing the recipe for a human in its entirety. All three billion letters and over 20,000 genes. And, what took an international team decades can now be repeated in days.

We've got the manual to make a human being. We have the tools to read, write and edit DNA. Time to get creative.

(Image: Irrational Games/2K Games)

Interested in making fire with your fingers? Bioshock-style plasmids are already here. Every day scientists stuff them with genes and jam them into cells to give them new abilities.

Real-world plasmids are loops of DNA most often found in bacteria, where they carry genes for useful traits like antibiotic resistance. They replicate independently of the main bacterial genetic code and can be swapped between cells like trading cards that upgrade the microbes' abilities.

And, with a molecular toolkit, they can be cut open and edited, carrying thousands of letters of genetic code like miniature trojan horses.

(Image: Minestrone Soup )

Plasmids can force cells to make new molecules or switch the behaviour of their existing genes. Bacteria will make infinite copies of them on demand. And, they can be frozen down and stored for years.

But, they tend stay out of chromosomes, floating about in the cell and never meshing with the host unless some serious selective pressure is applied.

They're good for a temporary upgrade, but maybe not for a permanent human 2.0 changes. Maybe thats why splicers need a constant ADAM or EVE fix to keep their abilities topped up.

(Image: 2K Games)

Looking for something a little more permanent than a plasmid? Augments in Prey are delivered by viruses, a step up in terms of persistence.

Retroviruses (like HIV) stitch their own genetic code into the code of the cells they infect, permanently merging with their host to ensure that their genes remain active generation after generation. Every time the cell copies its own DNA, it copies the viral genes too.

So, scientists stripped them out, snipping away the genes that cause disease and turning them into empty genetic transport vessels.

(Image: Bethesda Softworks)

Like plasmids, these 'viral vectors' can be stuffed with genetic code, but this time theyll stitch the new genes straight into the cell, adding the new trait permanently. This is the tech is used in Prey to deliver alien genetics into human brains.

Trouble is, viruses aren't that picky about where they choose to integrate. And, if they tuck their DNA right in the middle of something important, they can ruin a crucial gene and destroy the cell they've infected. Worse still, inserting into some genes can cause cancer.

Then there's the problem of getting them to infect the right cells. If you want fire at your fingertips, you'd need a virus that knew the difference between a hand and a foot.

Scientists are working on improving the usability of viral vectors, but to achieve true human 2.0 without the unpredictable side effects, we'll probably need a more targeted approach. Enter CRISPR.

(Image: Thomas Splettstoesser)

Bioshock or Prey-style approaches to gene editing work well, but they're fuzzy and they take time. CRISPR delivers precision genetic manipulation, fast.

Here's how it works.

Viruses, known as bacteriophages, inject their genetic code into bacteria, turning the microbes into miniature virus factories. But the bacteria evolved a way to fight back.

When they come under attack, they store strips of viral genetic code in a CRISPR reference library so that they'll have a head start if the virus returns. When it attacks again, they check the library and an enzyme called Cas9 chops out any matching code, stopping the infection in its tracks.

(Image: National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) from Bethesda, MD, USA)

The great thing about CRISPR is that it's programmable. Give Cas9 a 20-letter strip of genetic code to guide it, and it'll chew up any DNA you want. These are quick and cheap to make in the lab, and the sequence can be made to match all kinds of different genes. And, when the cell goes to repair the cut, you can swoop in with any new DNA you want to add.

The technique has the scientific community so excited that it was named 'breakthrough of the year' by Science in 2015. But is the world about to be overrun with splicers?

(Image: Ingrid Moen et al. 2012)

Splicers can make fire with their hands, hurl balls of ice and cling to the ceiling like spiders. Morgan Yu can morph into a cup, superheat plasma and create telekinetic shields. What could we do with CRISPR at our disposal?

So far, scientists have repaired a gene that causes muscular dystrophy in mice, and they're trialling the technique to reprogram immune cells in people with cancer. We're now in a CRISPR arms race as scientists across the world rush to be the first to make a gene editing breakthrough.

(Image: Bethesda)

It's early days, but the tech has a lot of potential. We could edit single letter mistakes in genetic code, switch genes off, turn genes on, make genetic tweaks. Or, best of all, we could borrow genes from other species and smash them into our cells to acquire traits we were never supposed to have, glow in the dark jellyfish genes, anyone?

In 2010, scientists created the first synthetic cell. In 2016, they designed and built a genome. In the future, it's possible that we could design brand new genes of our own.

Let's face it, this is still a dream, but the toolkit to make it happen is there.

We still don't know what all of our DNA is for, let alone what changes we'd need to make to improve it. Good luck finding the right genes to edit if you're looking to make yourself taller, smarter or funnier, let alone inventing one that'll give you wings.

And then there's the issue of inheritance. Editing adult, or 'somatic', cells could change a person Bioshock-style, but editing sperm and eggs, or 'germline' cells, could change a whole species.

At the moment, genetic engineering tech is moving faster than the regulation to contr
ol it, and it's got scientists worried. We all saw what happened to Rapture when the brakes were taken off scientific advancement.

Gene editing germline cells is restricted in many countries, including the UK, but in July 2017, Chinese scientists got CRISPR working in human embryos for the first time. It was a huge breakthrough, but out of 86 embryos only 28 were successfully edited, and not all of them ended up with the right gene mod at the end.

Rapture, a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, Where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well.

Luckily, no-one is trying to take edited human embryos all the way though to birth, yet. But, CRISPR opens a whole can of ethical worms, and if youre in any doubt that human modification is coming, watch this.

Pandora's box is open, and we're betting humans of the future will be genetically augmented, but it isn't the only way our species could upgrade. Come back next week when we'll be looking at tech and what it'd take to join the ranks of Halo's Master Chief or Deus Ex's Adam Jensen.

See original here:
Genetic engineering: upgrading to human 2.0 - T3

David King

The main debate around human genetics currently centres on theethics of genetic testing, and possibilities for geneticdiscrimination and selective eugenics. But while ethicists andthe media constantly re-hash these issues, a small group ofscientists and publicists are working towards an even morefrightening prospect: the intentional genetic engineering ofhuman beings. Just as Ian Wilmut presented us with the firstclone of an adult mammal, Dolly, as a fait accompli, so thesescientists aim to set in place the tools of a newtechno-eugenics, before the public has ever had a chance todecide whether this is the direction we want to go in. Thepublicists, meanwhile are trying to convince us that thesedevelopments are inevitable. The Campaign Against Human GeneticEngineering, has been set up in response to this threat.

Currently, genetic engineering is only applied tonon-reproductive cells (this is known as 'gene therapy') in orderto treat diseases in a single patient, rather than in all theirdescendants. Gene therapy is still very unsuccessful, and we areoften told that the prospect of reproductive genetic engineeringis remote. In fact, the basic technologies for human geneticengineering (HGE) have been available for some time and atpresent are being refined and improved in a number of ways. Weshould not make the same mistake that was made with cloning, andassume that the issue is one for the far future.

In the first instance, the likely justifications of HGE willbe medical. One major step towards reproductive geneticengineering is the proposal by US gene therapy pioneer, FrenchAnderson, to begin doing gene therapy on foetuses, to treatcertain genetic diseases. Although not directly targeted atreproductive cells, Anderson's proposed technique poses arelatively high risk that genes will be 'inadvertently' alteredin the reproductive cells of the foetus, as well as in the bloodcells which he wants to fix. Thus, if he is allowed to go ahead,the descendants of the foetus will be genetically engineered inevery cell of their body. Another scientist, James Grifo of NewYork University is transferring cell nuclei from the eggs ofolder to younger women, using similar techniques to those used incloning. He aims to overcome certain fertility problems, but theresult would be babies with three genetic parents, arguably aform of HGE. In addition to the two normal parents, these babieswill have mitochondria (gene-containing subcellular bodies whichcontrol energy production in cells) from the younger woman.

Anderson is a declared advocate of HGE for medical purposes,and was a speaker at a symposium last year at UCLA, at whichadvocates of HGE set out their stall. At the symposium, which wasattended by nearly 1,000 people, James Watson, of DNA discoveryfame, advocated the use of HGE not merely for medical purposes,but for 'enhancement': 'And the other thing, because no onereally has the guts to say it, I mean, if we could make betterhuman beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we doit?'

In his recent book, Re-Making Eden (1998), Princetonbiologist, Lee Silver celebrates the coming future of human'enhancement', in which the health, appearance, personality,cognitive ability, sensory capacity, and life-span of ourchildren all become artifacts of genetic engineering, literallyselected from a catalog. Silver acknowledges that the costs ofthese technologies will limit their full use to only a small'elite', so that over time society will segregate into the"GenRich" and the "Naturals":

"The GenRich - who account for 10 percent of the Americanpopulation - all carry synthetic genes... that were created inthe laboratory ...All aspects of the economy, the media, theentertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlledby members of the GenRich class...Naturals work as low-paidservice providers or as labourers, and their children go topublic schools... If the accumulation of genetic knowledge andadvances in genetic enhancement technology continue ... theGenRich class and the Natural class will become...entirelyseparate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as muchromantic interest in each other as a current human would have fora chimpanzee."

Silver, another speaker at the UCLA symposium, believes thatthese trends should not and cannot be stopped, because to do sowould infringe on liberty.

Most scientists say that what is preventing them fromembarking on HGE is the risk that the process will itselfgenerate new mutations, which will be passed on to futuregenerations. Official scientific and ethical bodies tend to relyon this as the basis for forbidding attempts at HGE, rather thanany principled opposition to the idea.

In my view, we should not allow ourselves to be lulled into afalse sense of security by this argument. Experience withgenetically engineered crops, for example, shows that we areunlikely ever to arrive at a situation when we can be sure thatthe risks are zero. Instead, when scientists are ready toproceed, we will be told that the risks are 'acceptable',compared to the benefits. Meanwhile, there will be people tellingus loudly that since they are taking the risks with theirchildren, we have no right to interfere.

One of the flaws in the argument of those who support thepossibility of HGE for medical purposes is that there seem to bevery few good examples where it is the only solution to themedical problem of genetic disease. The main advantage of HGE issaid to be the elimination of disease genes from a family. Yet innearly all cases, existing technologies of prenatal andpreimplantation genetic testing of embryos allow the avoidance ofactual disease. There are only a few very rare cases where HGE isthe only option.

Furthermore, there is always another solution for thosecouples who are certain to produce a genetically disabled childand cannot, or do not want to deal with this possibility. Theycan choose not to have children, to adopt a child, or to usedonor eggs or sperm. Parenthood is not the only way to createfulfilment through close, intimate and long lasting relationshipswith children. The question we have to ask is whether we shoulddevelop the technology for HGE, in order to satisfy a very smallnumber of people.

Although the arguments for the first uses of HGE will bemedical, in fact the main market for the technology will be'enhancement'. Once it was available, how would it be possible toensure that HGE was used for purely medical purposes? The sameproblem applies to prenatal genetic screening and to somatic genetherapy, and not only are there no accepted criteria for decidingwhat constitutes a medical condition, but in a free marketsociety there seems to be no convincing mechanism for arriving atsuch decision. The best answer that conventional medical ethicsseems to have is to `leave it up to the parents', ie. to marketforces.

Existing trends leave little doubt about what to expect.Sophisticated medical technology and medical personnel arealready employed in increasingly fashionable cosmetic surgery.Another example is the use of genetically engineered human growthhormone (HGH), developed to remedy the medical condition ofgrowth hormone deficiency. Because of aggressive marketing by itsmanufacturers, HGH is routinely prescribed in the USA to normalshort children with no hormone deficiency. If these pressuresalready exist, how much stronger will they be for a technologywith as great a power to manipulate human life as HGE?

Germ line manipulation opens up, for the first time in humanhistory, the possibility of consciously designing human beings,in a myriad of different ways. I am not generally happy aboutusing the concept of playing God, but it is difficult to avoid inthis case. The advocates of genetic engineering point out thathumans constantly 'play God', in a sense, by interfering withnature. Yet the environmental crisis has forced us to realisethat many of the ways we already do this are not wise, destroythe environment and cannot be sustained. Furthermore, HGE is notjust a continuation of
existing trends. Once we begin toconsciously design ourselves, we will have entered a completelynew era of human history, in which human subjects, rather thanbeing accepted as they are will become just another kind ofobject, shaped according to parental whims and market forces.

In essence, the vision of the advocates of HGE is a sanitisedversion of the old eugenics doctrines, updated for the 1990s.Instead of 'elimination of the unfit', HGE is presented as a toolto end, once and for all, the suffering associated with geneticdiseases. And in place of 'improving the race', the 1990semphasis is on freedom of choice, where 'reproductive rights'become consumer rights to choose the characteristics of yourchild. No doubt the resulting eugenic society would be a littleless brutal than those of earlier this century. On the other handthe capabilities of geneticists are much greater now than theywere then. Unrestrained, HGE is perfectly capable of producingLee Silver's dystopia.

In most cases, the public's function with respect to scienceis to consume its products, or to pay to clean up the mess. Butwith HGE, there is still time to prevent it, before it becomesreality. We need an international ban on HGE and cloning. Thereis a good chance this can be achieved, since both are alreadyillegal in many countries. Of course it may be impossible toprevent a scientist, somewhere, from attempting to clone orgenetically engineer humans. But there is a great differencebetween a society which would jail such a scientist and one whichwould permit HGE to become widespread and respectable. If we failto act now, we will only have ourselves to blame.

Read more:
The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering - hgalert.org

It is perhaps the United Kingdom that first realized that its strategy to mitigate the impact of the Covid 19 Pandemic would not work unless the outbreak can be suppressed. The mitigation and home quarantine alone cannot solve this global issue at large; however, it may slow down the global epidemic but not necessarily stop it. In a report published by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team on Monday, it said that the mitigation approach that the government of various countries all across the world is emphasizing is not working anymore, and it needs something more robust to check the spread of this deadly virus. The report reads like, Our most significant conclusion is that mitigation is unlikely to be feasible without emergency surge capacity limits of the UK and US healthcare systems being exceeded many times over.

Now the US government is taking the initiative to oar the world out of this crisis period, by inventing the first Coronavirus vaccine. It has begun the phase 1 clinical trial of an investigational vaccine named mRNA -1273 designed to protect against the coronavirus disease, which has already claimed thousands of lives all across the world. The vaccine is developed by the NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is a wing of NIH or the National Institutes of Health), scientists and their collaborators at Moderna, Inc. which is a renowned biotechnology company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The trial began at the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (KPWHRI), which is based in Seattle. To encourage the US government to take the research forward, many volunteers are coming up to take the trial vaccine. As such, this open-label trial needs at least 45 healthy adult volunteers aged between 18 to 55 years who will be kept under medical surveillance for approximately six weeks. They would be given two vaccines, one month apart. Till now, only four patients have been given the vaccine and the researches said that even though the vaccine was incorporated in record time, it will take months to almost a year to know the result, whether this vaccine is actually working or not.

The first person in Seattle who has received the vaccine is a 43-year-old woman who is also a mother of two. Even though the biotechnology company, Moderna Therapeutics, assured that the vaccine has been made using a tried and tested process. They said that the vaccine would certainly not cause Covid-19, but it contains a harmless genetic code that is copied from the Covid 19 virus that causes the disease.

Dr. John Tregoning, an expert in infectious diseases from Imperial College London, said, This vaccine uses pre-existing technology. Its been made to a very high standard, using things that we know are safe to use in people and those taking part in the trial will be very closely monitored. Yes, this is very fast but it is a race against the virus, not against each other as scientists, and its being done for the benefit of humanity.

US President Donald Trump said in a conference, Im pleased to report today that a vaccine candidate has begun the phase one clinical trial. This is one of the fastest vaccine development launches in history. Not even close. Were also racing to develop antiviral therapies and other treatments.

A day after the U.S. had launched its first investigational vaccine subjected to human trials for the novel coronavirus, China also announced on Tuesday said its scientists are implementing five different approaches (namely inactivated vaccines, nucleic acid vaccines, adenovirus vector vaccines, genetic engineering subunit vaccines, and vaccines using attenuated influenza virus as vectors) to develop the Coronavirus vaccines. A vaccine is being developed in Shanghai, which is expected to enter the clinical trials latest by the mid of April.

2 Indian companies, namely Gujarat-based Zydus Cadila and Pune based Serum Institute, are collaborating with the pharmaceutical company named Codagenix, which is based in America to develop Covid 19 vaccines in India. Zydus had announced last month to schedule for an accelerated research program with multiple Indian and European teams to develop the nCoV vaccine. But then it also said that the process could not happen overnight, and it needs a significant amount of time to bear with the crisis.

The countries all over the world have announced for isolation procedures to be taken seriously, because the less the amount of human exposure, the lesser will be the risks of the virus spread.

View original post here:
U.S. Researchers Starts First Human Trial of the Covid 19 Vaccine - CryptoNewsZ

News that U.S. scientists led by Oregon Health and Sciences University biologist Shoukrat Mitalipov have used the gene-editing technique known as CRISPR to modify the DNA of human embryos has led to renewed debate over human genetic engineering. Although scientists in China and the United Kingdom have already used gene editing on human embryos, the announcement that the research is now being done in the United States makes a U.S. policy response all the more urgent.

The scientists created 131 embryos that carried a genetic mutation that causes hypertrophic cardiomyopathya condition that can lead to sudden and unexpected heart attacks but has few other symptomsand attempted to correct the mutation in 112 of them (leaving 19 as unmodified controls).By injecting the CRISPR complex together with the sperm cells that carried the mutation, rather than injecting CRISPR into already fertilized embryos, the scientists were able to successfully correct the mutated genes in 72 percent of the embryos.Whether the embryos were successfully or unsuccessfully treated, all were destroyed after the researchers were finished with the study.

Much of the debate over CRISPR has been framed around concerns over the creation of so-called designer babieschildren genetically engineered to possess desirable traits that will then be passed on to subsequent generations. Some science writers and journalists have tried to downplay these concerns by noting that the gene editing was done only for basic research, rather than as an attempt to create a genetically engineered human. Writing in The New York Times, Pam Belluck argued that even if scientists do modify the genes of human embryos, fears that embryo modification could allow parents to custom order a baby with Lin-Manuel Mirandas imagination or Usain Bolts speed are closer to science fiction than science.

Those downplaying concerns also argue that preexisting practices such as the abortion of fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome or the selective discarding of embryos diagnosed with genetic disease through preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) are exactly the reason gene-editing

Go here to see the original:
CRISPR and the Ethics of Human Embryo Research - Foreign Affairs

Like it? Share it!

With the advancements in the field of genetic engineering, science in the future may give us the power to genetically modify and create near perfect life. Read this write-up to know more about genetic engineering in humans.

The term genetic engineering was first used in Dragons Island, a science fiction novel by Jack Williamson in 1951. With the discovery of deoxyribonucleic acid or mitochondrial DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick, this fictional plot started to turn into a reality. Watson and Crick, with their experiments, could prove that DNA was the genetic material that was transferred generation to generation, with genetic information. This genetic information determined all the characteristics of a living being.

Would you like to write for us? Well, we're looking for good writers who want to spread the word. Get in touch with us and we'll talk...

Let's Work Together!

The tiny, microscopic DNA contained all the genetic information related to the person, like color of the eyes, hair, skin tone, height, weight, IQ, EQ, diseases, disorders, etc., and was even able to determine a smile or the shape of ones nose. This blueprint of life is the most important ingredient of genetic engineering.

This biotechnology was first applied to produce synthetic human insulin. This technology was gradually used to apply to a number of vaccines and drugs that would prove to be beneficial to the human race. It was applied to plants in order to produce genetically modified foods, with higher resistance to infections and high nutritional values.

With the advancement in technologies and major breakthroughs in genetic engineering, more and more scientists are experimenting with human genes. The completion of the Human Genome Project in 2006 has given a major opening to medical companies, to carry out experiments and tests using genetic engineering.

There are many possible benefits of genetic engineering in humans, like end of hunger, cure for all ailments, long life, ageless beauty, super intelligent humans, etc. But one should always give a thought to all the disadvantages listed. It is often said that man should not attempt to play God. Thats correct. But if God has bestowed us the power to make some beneficial changes to his creations, then we should surely do so wisely.

Genetic engineers have turned into modern-day alchemists, who are searching for the ultimate elixir of life, to produce the genetically modified, perfect human. This precious knowledge is being exploited by greedy men, who are using it just to earn more money. Nothing is bad if exploited within limits. When we harness our present, we should keep in mind all the possible effects it will have on our future. We may not be alive to view the beauty and the ugliness of the future, but our beloved children may have to face the consequences.

Learn some genetic engineering ethics when it comes to practices like cloning, that are in the eyes of many, immoral and a perverse attack on creation.

Genetic engineering process manipulates the DNA sequence to create a new one. The write-up focuses on the various benefits of genetic engineering.

See more here:
The Possibilities and Pitfalls of Genetic Engineering in ...

(Inside Science) -- Castles made of sand could, with the help of bacteria, grow copies of themselves and become as strong as the cement that commonly holds bricks together, a new study suggests.

Such living materials could one day help people colonize Mars, scientists added.

After water, concrete is the most used material on Earth, at a rate of about 3 metric tons used per year for every person in the world. Cement, the primary component of concrete, is the oldest artificial construction material, dating back to the Roman Empire.

Cement and concrete have changed little as technology for more than a century. Now scientists are seeking inspiration from natural processes, such as the way colonies of coral polyps build reefs.

"We want to blur the boundaries between the natural world and the built environment, between what is nonliving and what is living, and create a material that displays both structural and biological functions," said materials scientist Wil Srubar, who heads the Living Materials Laboratory at the University of Colorado Boulder.

The researchers started with sand, gelatin and a kind of photosynthetic bacteria known asSynechococcusthat is widespread in ocean surface waters. The gelatin retained moisture and nutrients for the bacteria to proliferate and mineralize calcium carbonate in a way that is similar to how seashells form.

In experiments, the resulting material was roughly as strong as typical cement-based mortars.

"I have a small cube of the material on my desk that is 2 inches across that I can stand on," Srubar said.

The material not only is alive, but can reproduce. When researchers halve one of the bricks, the bacteria can help grow those halves into two complete bricks when supplied with extra sand and gelatin. Instead of manufacturing bricks one by one, the researchers showed they could grow up to eight bricks from one.

"Conventional manufacturing approaches make one widget at a time," Srubar said. "By using one brick to grow two bricks, and then four, and then so on, we can explore the idea of exponential manufacturing of building materials. Given that time is money, I think anyone involved in manufacturing would find speeding up manufacturing time very interesting."

Previous research used bacteria to repair cracks in concrete and oil and gas wells by mineralizing calcium carbonate. However, such work typically used microbes that fare very poorly in typical materials used like cement, which are highly acidic -- only 0.1 percent to 0.4 percent of such bacteria survived after 30 days. In contrast, in this new work, 9% to 14 percent of the bacteria remained viable after 30 days assuming at least 50 percent humidity was maintained.

One challenge the scientists face is that the material needs to get completely dried out to reach its maximum strength, but such drying stresses out the bacteria. To help keep the microbes alive, the researchers currently have to control the humidity surrounding the material.

"We're looking to create a desiccation-tolerant strain of bacteria so that we can get full structural capacity while also enhancing microbial viability in super-dry conditions," Srubar said.

All in all, "we're particularly excited about the possibilities of this material technology in austere environments with limited resources," Srubar said. "If you have microorganisms that can grow structural materials in remote places, that could help build everything from a military installation to human settlements on other planets."

Srubar said the current research acts as a proof of concept for the stronger compounds that could be made with the technique.

Ultimately the scientists envision using microbes that not only help build materials but impart structures with extra biological functions.

"You can imagine bacteria that provide materials with self-healing capabilities, or can sense and respond to toxins in the air, or can interact with the environment in other ways," Srubar said. "The sky's the limit with creativity."

"I find it exciting that this new work develops materials that are truly living, in that the microorganisms incorporated into their materials survived at very high rates over time periods of weeks," said Anne Meyer, a synthetic biologist at the University of Rochester in New York, who did not take part in this research. "Creating a truly living material allows the possibility of using genetic engineering techniques to add additional behaviors to the microbes living within the material. Could you incorporate a microbe that could respond to environmental cues to change the toughness or stiffness of the bacteria?"

She added that it might be possible to combine the new research with work from her lab that uses 3D printers to build shapes from bacteria.

The scientists detailedtheir findingsonline Jan. 15 in the journalMatter.

[This article originally appeared on Inside Science. Read the original here.]

Read more from the original source:
This Regenerative Building Material is Made From Sand and Bacteria - Discover Magazine

Illustrations by Lisa Larson Walker, Franco Zacharzewski, Natalie Matthews-Ramo, and Sarula Bao.

Future Tense started experimenting with publishing science fiction in 2016 and 2017, but we really invested in it in 2018, publishing one story each month. That year was capped off by Annalee Newitzs quirky and urgent When Robot and Crow Saved East St. Louis, which won the Theodore Sturgeon Memorial Award for the best short science fiction of the year. Our hope was that these glimpses into possible futures could provide a thought-provoking parallel to our coverage of emerging technology, policy, and society today, inviting us to imagine how the decisions were making today might shape the way we live tomorrow, illuminating key decision points and issues that we might not be giving enough attention.

In 2019, buoyed by the enthusiastic reactions of our readers, we published 12 stories by a diverse array of talented authors. Every story is paired with a response essay by an expert who provides additional context and delves into themes and challenges raised by the fictionand each story comes with arresting original illustrations in a plethora of styles, from bracing realism to mind-bending abstraction and surrealism. Each quarter is organized around a broad theme, giving us the chance to create a dialogue among the pieces and underlining our conviction that the future is a spectrum of possibilities, shaped by our collective decisionsnot a fait accompli or a foregone conclusion.

This October, we celebrated another milestone, publishing our first anthology, Future Tense Fiction: Stories of Tomorrow, with Unnamed Press. The book, which collects our short stories from 2016 through 2018, received starred reviews from Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. We launched the anthology with scintillating public conversations with fiction authors, experts, and others in Washington, San Francisco, New York, and Phoenix.

Were more convinced than ever of the power of science fiction to expand our sense of empathy for people whose identities and day-to-day experiences are vastly different from our owneven beyond the bounds of what we currently consider human. This year, many of our authors grappled with issues of difference, exclusion, and inequality; with bullying and abusive behavior, from the schoolyard to the space station; with the dangers of alienation in digital spaces, and the opacity of technologies designed solely for profit; and with radical possibility and hope, from giant nutritious plants grown in space to entirely new forms of music and self-expression enabled by technological change. In a moment where the future seems impossibly turbulent, leaving us feeling powerless, science fiction can help us get our heads around the complexity, reminding us of the human minds, relationships, and problems buried under branding, hype, and jargon.

Future Tense Fiction will continue in 2020, with a new story, essay, and illustration each month. The first theme of the year (we couldnt resist): politics.

You can find all of our stories on the Future Tense Fiction landing page, and sign up for the Future Tense newsletter to get notified whenever we publish something new. (Its been on hiatus for a little while, but it will be back in 2020.) And dont forget to follow Future Tense on Twitter.

Thoughts and Prayers, by Ken Liu: A family grieving in the wake of a mass shooting finds themselves in a maelstrom of abusive, inescapable trolling powered by cutting-edge artificial intelligence.

Response essay: Whats in It for the Trolls? by digital culture researcher Adrienne Massanari

Mpendulo: The Answer, by Nosipho Dumisa: Two genetically modified young people navigate bullying and prejudice, and discover the secrets locked inside their DNA, in a world wracked by anxiety after a pandemic.

Response essay: Why Are We So Afraid of Each New Advance in Reproductive Technology? by journalist Sarah Elizabeth Richards, who often reports on reproductive technology and genomics

The Arisen, by Louisa Hall: A fairy tale from a future where truth-checkers, an elite caste implanted with chips that suppress emotion, are charged with sorting official fact from distortion and fiction.

Response essay: What Are Facts Without Fiction? by librarian Jim ODonnell

The Song Between Worlds, by Indrapramit Das: An overprivileged teen dragged to Mars on a family vacation stumbles beyond the cushy confines of their resort and encounters an entirely new form of musical performance.

Response essay: What Would Sound Be Like on Mars? by astronomer Lucianne Walkowicz

No Moon and Flat Calm, by Elizabeth Bear: A team of safety engineering students in a spacefaring future are plunged into a real disaster.

Response essay: How Will People Behave in Deep Space Disasters? by disaster journalist Amanda Ripley

Space Leek, by Chen Qiufan: An astrobotanist for the China National Space Administration, assigned to a distant space station, contends with stifling family expectations while researching how to successfully grow food off-worldand deals with a sudden, deadly crisis.

Response essay: What Will Humans Really Need in Space? by architecture professor Fred Scharmen

Zero in Babel, by E. Lily Yu: In a world where on-demand and even DIY genetic modification is commonplace, a young woman struggles to keep up with the punishing cycle of high school trends.

Response essay: The Future Will Grind On, by law professor Diana M. Bowman

What the Dead Man Said, by Chinelo Onwualu: A woman returns to her hometown in Nigeria after her fathers death, opening old wounds, in a future entirely reshaped by migration and climate chaos.

Response essay: The Scars of Being Uprooted, by journalist Valeria Fernndez, who frequently covers immigration

Double Spiral, by Marcy Kelly: An at-home DNA testing company turns to targeted advertising after a privacy scandal and a spate of new regulations, and a researcher at the firm uncovers a shattering conspiracy.

Response essay: Crossing the Germline, by bioethicist Josephine Johnston

Affordances by Cory Doctorow: People from all walks of lifefrom migrants and hapless teens to tech CEOsfind themselves in the clutches of terrible algorithms and search for ways to evade, confound, and even reclaim these technologies of oppression.

Response essay: Not Just a Number, by artist and educator Nettrice Gaskins

A Priest, a Rabbi, and a Robot Walk Into a Bar, by Andrew Dana Hudson: A rabbinical school dropout and a seminary dropout start a company that trains algorithms to be sensitive to issues of faith and beliefand find themselves in an escalating series of ethical conundrums.

Response essay: A.I. Could Bring a Sea Change in How People Experience Religious Faith, by Slates Ruth Graham, who often writes about religion

Actually Naneen, by Malka Older: In a future where artificially intelligent nannies are the norm for the wealthy, a mother copes with complicated emotions when her familys nanny becomes buggy and perhaps obsolete.

Response Essay: What Role Should Technology Play in Childhood? by digital humanities professor Ed Finn

View original post here:
All of the Sci-Fi Stories We Published This Year - Slate

A medical technician prepares embryo and sperm samples for freezing at the Laboratory of Reproductive Biology CECOS of Tenon Hospital in Paris, France, September 19, 2019. (Benoit Tessier/Reuters)

A two womb baby has been born proving to me that the new reproductive advances promote profound solipsism. From the I-News story:

Scientists have claimed a breakthrough after delivering the worlds first two-womb baby to a British lesbian couple.

Otis, who was born in London in July, grew from a fertilised egg created using IVF treatment incubated in both womens wombs during the course of their pregnancy.

Here is how it was done:

The procedure is carried out by incubating the fertilised egg in one partners uterus rather than in an artificial environment for the first 18 hours following fertilisation, before being transferred to the second partners womb for the duration of the pregnancy.

The mothers are very pleased:

Mothers Donna and Jasmine Francis-Smith were overjoyed by the birth.The procedure really made me and Donna feel quite equal in the whole process and has emotionally brought us closer together, said Jasmine.

Ah, did you catch it? The procedure made them feel equal and closer together. That is a vanity desire that has absolutely nothing to do with the health, safety, and welfare of the gestating baby.

Thats where the focus should be when judging the wisdom of this procedure. We already know that babies born from IVF have a poorer health outlook than babies conceived naturally. This multi-stage process can only increase the potential for problems.

Think about what the entirety of the undertaking: First, the technologists make an embryo in a dish instead of the natural environment of the fallopian tube. Perhaps that is accompanied by PGD that removes a cell for quality control testing. Then, at about ten days development, the embryo is transferred to the first uterus. A day and a half later for no medical purpose the embryo is removed from the first uterus and implanted in the second uterus. As the cherry on top, if many embryos are implanted to ensure that a pregnancy is achieved which is often part of the IVF approach perhaps selective reduction will later be undertaken to prevent multiple births.

Thats a lot of manipulation of life at its most delicate and vulnerable stage! Oh well, if things go wrong, the abortion option is always available.

Those who shush critics of the new reproductive technologies such as three-parent embryos, and human CRISPR germ line genetic engineering by claiming such innovations will only be about health, are full of beans. This technique was designed solely to benefit the mothers, not the baby.

Big fertility desperately needs regulating. But it wont happen. Our contemporary me-me, I-I values wont permit it.

Continued here:
The Vanity of the Two Womb Baby - National Review

By Jon Atherton

Scientists at Yale have explained a potentially important connection in the evolution of mammalian pregnancy and the spread of cancer.

In many mammals, including humans, the placenta invades the wall of the uterus in much the same way that cancer cells invade the surrounding tissues at the outset of metastasis. But in other mammals where the placenta does not implant as invasively including horses, cows, and pigsskin cancers rarely metastasize.

To explain this apparent coincidence, scholars at Yales Systems Biology Institute investigated the evolution of invasibility, or ELI, of connecting stromal tissue, that affect both placental and cancer invasion.

Previous research has shown that cancer progression in humans includes the reactivation of embryonic gene expression normally controlling placenta development and immune evasion, said Gnter Wagner, the Alison Richard Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and the studys senior author.

We wanted to find out why, for example, melanoma occurs in bovines and equines but remains largely benign, while it is highly malignant in humans.

Published today in Nature Ecology & Evolution, the scholars focused on differences between cows and humans in the rates of cancer cell invasion rather than differences in rates of tumor origination examined in previous studies.

Dr Kshitiz, a Research Associate in the laboratory of Andre Levchenko, director of the Yale Systems Biology Institute and the John C. Malone Professor of Biomedical Engineering, worked with the Wagner and Levchenko labs on in vitro models and experimental gene expression manipulation to identify genes that affect the vulnerability of human stroma to invasion by cancer cells.

Based on experimental results the authors modified a group of genes in human fibroblast cells towards the genetic profile in cow cells, with the modified cells showing increased resistance to melanoma invasion.

The results demonstrate that differences in malignancy rates between species may, in part, be caused by species differences in the resistance of stromal cells against invasion.

The findings also suggest that the higher metastatic potential of human cancers may be a consequence of an evolutionary compromise, allowing for better fetus development at the expense of more deadly cancer outcomes later in life.

Making human cells more resistant to the spread of cancer by manipulating their gene expression effectively making them similar to cow cells could lead to therapies to make tumors more manageable rather than eradicate them, which brings with it the danger of selecting for resistant tumors.

Alongside senior authors Levchenko and Wagner, first author of the study was Dr. Kshitiz, Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Connecticut. The collaborators are members of the Cancer Systems Biology at Yale (CaSB @ Yale)program, funded by the National Cancer Institute.

Read more:
Linkage between evolution of pregnancy and cancer spread explained - Yale News

Growing up in Tanzania, I knew that fruit trees were useful. Climbing a mango tree to pick a fruit was a common thing to do when I was hungry, even though at times there were unintended consequences. My failure to resist consuming unripened fruit, for example, caused my stomach to hurt. With such incidents becoming frequent, it was helpful to learn from my mother that consuming the leaves of a particular plant helped alleviate my stomach pain.

This lesson helped me appreciate the medicinal value of plants. However, I also witnessed my family and neighboring farmers clearing the land by slashing and burning unwanted trees and shrubs, seemingly unaware of their medicinal value, to create space for food crops.

But this lack of appreciation for the medicinal value of plants extends beyond my childhood community. As fires continue to burn in the Amazon and land is cleared for agriculture, most of the concerns have focused on the drop in global oxygen production if swaths of the forests disappear. But Im also worried about the loss of potential medicines that are plentiful in forests and have not yet been discovered. Plants and humans also share many genes, so it may be possible to test various medicines in plants, providing a new strategy for drug testing.

As a plant physiologist, I am interested in plant biodiversity because of the potential to develop more resilient and nutritious crops. I am also interested in plant biodiversity because of its contribution to human health. About 80% of the world population relies on compounds derived from plants for medicines to treat various ailments, such as malaria and cancer, and to suppress pain.

One of the greatest challenges in fighting diseases is the emergence of drug resistance that renders treatment ineffective. Physicians have observed drug resistance in the fight against malaria, cancer, tuberculosis and fungal infections. It is likely that drug resistance will emerge with other diseases, forcing researchers to find new medicines.

Plants are a rich source of new and diverse compounds that may prove to have medicinal properties or serve as building blocks for new drugs. And, as tropical rainforests are the largest reservoir of diverse species of plants, preserving biodiversity in tropical forests is important to ensure the supply of medicines of the future.

The goal of my own research is to understand how plants control the production of biochemical compounds called sterols. Humans produce one sterol, called cholesterol, which has functions including formation of testosterone and progesterone - hormones essential for normal body function. By contrast, plants produce a diverse array of sterols, including sitosterol, stigmasterol, campesterol, and cholesterol. These sterols are used for plant growth and defense against stress but also serve as precursors to medicinal compounds such as those found in the Indian Ayurvedic medicinal plant, ashwagandha.

Humans produce cholesterol through a string of genes, and some of these genes produce proteins that are the target of medicines for treating high cholesterol. Plants also use this collection of genes to make their sterols. In fact, the sterol production systems in plants and humans are so similar that medicines used to treat high cholesterol in people also block sterol production in plant cells.

I am fascinated by the similarities between how humans and plants manufacture sterols, because identifying new medicines that block sterol production in plants might lead to medicines to treat high cholesterol in humans.

An example of a gene with medical implications that is present in both plants and humans is NPC1, which controls the transport of cholesterol. However, the protein made by the NPC1 gene is also the doorway through which the Ebola virus infects cells. Since plants contain NPC1 genes, they represent potential systems for developing and testing new medicines to block Ebola.

This will involve identifying new chemical compounds that interfere with plant NPC1. This can be done by extracting chemical compounds from plants and testing whether they can effectively prevent the Ebola virus from infecting cells.

There are many conditions that might benefit from plant research, including high cholesterol, cancer and even infectious diseases such as Ebola, all of which have significant global impact. To treat high cholesterol, medicines called statins are used. Statins may also help to fight cancer. However, not all patients tolerate statins, which means that alternative therapies must be developed.

The need for new medicines to combat heart disease and cancer is dire. A rich and diverse source of chemicals can be found in natural plant products. With knowledge of genes and enzymes that make medicinal compounds in native plant species, scientists can apply genetic engineering approaches to increase their production in a sustainable manner.

Tropical rainforests house vast biodiversity of plants, but this diversity faces significant threat from human activity.

To help students in my genetics and biotechnology class appreciate the value of plants in medical research, I refer to findings from my research on plant sterols. My goal is to help them recognize that many cellular processes are similar between plants and humans. My hope is that, by learning that plants and animals share similar genes and metabolic pathways with health implications, my students will value plants as a source of medicines and become advocates for preservation of plant biodiversity.

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

Go here to read the rest:
Dwindling tropical rainforests mean lost medicines yet to be discovered in their plants - The Conversation US

For the first time human life changed significantly in the 20th century after several centuries of incremental progress. After hundreds of years of social, economic and political change, technology was the harbinger of a complete transformation. Commercial electricity, automobiles, aircraft, refrigeration, radar, sound recording, radio, film, television, x-rays, rayon, aspirin, antibiotics, organ transplants, transistors, microchips, nuclear power, spaceflights, genetic engineering, ATMs, credit cards, mobile phone, computers, robotics Internet and the whole gamut of digital services, around which our lives revolve all in the course of a few decades altered our human society. The speed of change has only increased. Since the turn of the millennium, we have already discarded some of the things which came into existence in our childhood. E-commerce shared services and AI are creating a new ecosystem of 24 & 7 engagement and consumption. What will come in the next 10 years will supersede a lot of what came in fifty years earlier, including some products and services we consider au courant and new age today.

The most obvious change in the next decade will still be in the digital domain. While it may seem that we are already submerged in a sea of devices and media constantly glaring at us through various screens. The next iteration of all such familiar services will be smarter, effective and personal. With faster and more powerful microchips AI (Artificial Intelligence) will be the framework of tomorrow's mindscape. What exactly is AI? Simply put AI is the use of massive amounts of data that is processed through machine learning to mimic human intelligence. A computer or any other device with a microchip to process data acquires an ability to respond to certain actions and behavior through the use of algorithms in a manner the user would have in a similar situation. We already see AI being used in several home appliances or even websites like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and online news services. Depending on your viewing pattern content is served (and suggested) for you to read, listen or watch. Newer models of cars have AI embedded in their navigation system. In the years to come most of our mundane and routine tasks will be done by machines, often very inexpensive and omnipresent. Much of the tedium and often dangerous work will be tackled by AI-assisted service providers and devices. Smart homes and cities which for example Prime Minister Modi keeps talking about are not some Utopian dreams but tomorrow's reality.

Sine 2015-16 we are using Web 3.0 as the overlay of our digital universe. This is a Semantic web that incorporates Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, Data Mining, Natural Language Search and Machine Learning technologies, Social Media, Internet of Things (IoT) and other customized online services including social media and streaming services. By 2025 we should usher in Web 4.0. This next development of the Internet will create services that will be autonomous, proactive, self-learning, collaborative and safe and secure, interacting with sensors and implants, natural-language services, or virtual reality. In simple terms, it means self-driving cars, remote diagnostics, and surgery, instant accounting, virtual reality in films and gaming, curated content and commerce, voice-activated devices and services, virtual assistants, digital concierge, and smart homes and offices. Blockchain ensures flawless data analytics and transparency in every transaction. From utility bills to land records, banking to governance all enabled seamlessly. The role of JAM (Jandhan Bank Account, Aadhar, and Mobile) along with India stack is what will enable the big leap forward in India-similar initiatives at different scales elsewhere too. While most are familiar with JAM, India Stack is less known. This truly empowering technology is the creation of a unified software platform that brings a billion-plus Indians into the digital age. A set of API (application programming interface)s that allows governments, businesses, start-ups, shop keepers, merchants and traders and soon farmers to utilize a unique digital Infrastructure to solve India's hard problems. Initially championed by Nandan Nilekani India Stacks is going to be a force multiplier in our lives tomorrow. Almost any service can be used anywhere in the world using a particular API and this infrastructure is cheap and convenient. There are concerns about privacy and data theft which I will tackle later in this article.

One of the fundamental principles of anything which is shared is trust. In a networked society that is increasingly based on a transactional economy or shared information, it is imperative that this trust is not only apparent but is inbuilt in the architecture of all contracts, monetary or otherwise. Today and in future blockchain provides trust and transparency. In a way similar to how Wikipedia is built where anyone can identify herself and participate in creating a shared resource, a blockchain, too, is just an immutable of record of data that is managed by cluster (or more) of computers and every bit of this data is simultaneously visible to all who are a part of the particular blockchain. It's a shared ledger that transparently records every transaction in real-time. Since each block of data is secured and bound to each other using cryptography it is entirely trustworthy. Blockchain is now used in social networks, banking, e-commerce, governance, Industry, security, trade, taxation, storage platforms, Intellectual Property Protection (IPR), education, content production, and distribution. In the next few years, blockchain will be the digital backbone of our existence. Cryptocurrency Bitcoin was the first to popularize blockchain but even in 2019, it is a bit unconventional to find mass acceptance. In India for example blockchain in the years to come will allow instant polling in a fully transparent manner eliminating a lot of costs and political bickering. Internet of Things (IoT) is dependent on blockchain as is autonomous mobility.

In the last 50 years owing to advances in science and technology-enabled healthcare humans are living longer. Thus for the first time, the world is faced with a demographic dilemma. How to take care of an increased number of geriatrics even as it grapples to treat millions of people suffering from various small and terminal ailments. There have been substantial breakthroughs in medicine. Vaccines for diseases like smallpox, measles, rotavirus, polio, yellow fever, rabies, hepatitis, HIV to common ailments like influenza and pneumonia are saving millions of lives every year. Digital technology is now routinely used for diagnostics. CAT Scan, MRI, Ultra Sound Scan, Doppler have in the recent past changed both the speed and accuracy of curative and palliative care. In the coming years, not only smartphones but other inexpensive wearables will allow almost anyone to monitor body functions. Blockchain will allow a healthcare professionals with access to a mobile phone to access the most advanced advice. Robotic surgery will in the next decade become miniaturized and much more ubiquitous. The most pressing need for the healthcare industry is to upgrade skills. Medical education has to move beyond Gray's Anatomy and stethoscope to next-gen healthcare. 60 percent of the world's population still has little access to a doctor or a hospital. Broadband and blockchain will empower even a paramedic or midwife to be able to provide first point care to the sick and injured. New digital tools paired with AI analytics will almost certainly boost diagnosticians' accuracy and speed, improving disease detection at early stages and thus raising the odds of successful treatment or cure.

Living well and longer are two primordial human obsessions. Helping us to be healthier for longer in the next decade will be rapid advances in genetic engineering, new age diagnostics, and stem cell therapy. As more research is done in genomics, microbiome and molecular biology we can expect the
beginning of a new range of pharmaceuticals. Although we have had pacemakers and other simple implantable devices like contact lenses and cochlear aids for years the next decade will see the advent of IEMDs such as phrenic nerve stimulation to restore breathing function in patients with breathing disorders, glucose sensors for diabetics, sacral nerve stimulation for patients with bladder disorders, and implantable drug delivery systems. Epilepsy, Alzheimer's and other neurological illnesses will be treated by electrochemical sensors and miniature tissue oxygenators and drug delivery systems will be introduced within the next decade. Immunology, 3 D printed organs and Cancer treatment are other areas where data analytics and web-based tools will help tomorrow's healthcare professionals a lot. For billions of people around the world, these small scientific interventions may be the difference between life and death. However, the physical presence and skill of a doctor will be the basis of all technological advancements in medicine. In fact, technology is opening up several new opportunities for employment in diagnostic centers in small towns, even villages, online supply and delivery of medicines and other medical goods. Riding on Internet schemes like Ayushman Bharat will not only provide affordable healthcare to the poorer sections of India but also provide employment to young paramedics, nurses, pharmacists and other health professionals across various touchpoints.

There are other changes in the offing. Most of these too are web-based technologies like cloud computing, AI, VR, Blockchain, Robotics, and Machine learning. According to a McKinsey report released in 2017, 800 million people around the world will lose their jobs in ten years due to automation. I believe while the actual job losses will exceed a billion, several hundred million will get redeployed in other jobs that the digital value chain creates. We have seen while e-commerce has displaced traditional merchants and shopkeepers, it has created perhaps a larger number of jobs in logistics, customer experience, and transportation. In India hundreds of thousands of artisans, craftspeople and small merchants were getting bogged down by a shortage of capital or changing of customer preferences. I recently bought a handcrafted lace table cloth from Amazon. After that, I got a message from an artisan based in South India who was the actual supplier. He messaged me a list of other items he could custom make for me and I did place a small order with him directly. When I called him up he said Amazon has changed his life by enlarging his customer base manifold that he now employs 12 people in his new workshop. In the last decade, we have seen how mobile phones empowered our neighborhood vegetable seller or fisherwoman. I spend regular periods in a village in Himachal. I am surprised at the speed which phones and the Internet are transforming the lives of these simple hill folk especially youngsters. This non-formal economy is where the growth will happen in the next decade. So expect more services like home improvement, repair & maintenance and sundry other service providers riding the digital infrastructure. So more Urban Claps, Zomatos, Just Dials, Swiggys, Groffers, Country Delight, Home Advisors, Prato, 1mg, etc all offering convenience to consumers and employment to others.

Transport is another area that will see a radical change. In 10 years more than half the automobiles in the world will switch to non-fossil fuel engines, largely electric. Of course, solar-powered vehicles, hydrogen cell cars will also appear on the road before the end of the next decade. Autonomous mobility should be a reality in the next five years. A switch to shared self-driving vehicles is already exciting for the large automakers to innovate and customize their product portfolio. The self-driving car market should start coming into its own in 10 years. In India, the Metro network will grow exponentially even as shared mobility expands. Maglev trains and vehicles and Hyperloop should be visible in some countries. Traffic management will be entirely managed by computers and GPS will sit on the AI engine. However, there is a limit to how many more vehicles the existing infrastructure even after upgradation can support. Obviously by the end of decade reverse migration from large metropolises will begin as newer towns and cities emerge. More airports and intra-city helicopter services will necessary. Smaller air ambulances will make an appearance. Drones will be a common form of delivery for various kinds of packages besides being used for security and surveillance.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column are strictly those of the author.

More:
From self-drive cars to IoT, these next-wave techs will rule 2020s decade - Business Standard

The Shed explores the impact of technology on our lives in Manual Override, a group exhibition that will include six works, four of which are newly commissioned. On view in The Shed's Griffin Theater from November 13, 2019 through January 12, 2020, the exhibition features work by Morehshin Allahyari, Simon Fujiwara, Lynn Hershman Leeson, Sondra Perry, and Martine Syms. Manual Override is organized by critic Nora N. Khan, The Shed's first guest curator, with Alessandra Gomez, curatorial assistant.

Manual Override features artists who critique the social, cultural, and ethical issues embedded in emerging technological systems and infrastructures ranging from mass surveillance to predictive policing. Central to the exhibition is the idea of a manual override, or human interference in an automated system, a gesture in response to an error in programming, or poor judgment in design. "How do you pause a system you can't see, touch, or access? As these systems become increasingly oppressive and beyond our understanding, and management, what options do we have?" asks Nora Khan. In response, each artist posits new forms of "overriding" to subvert the values of invasive technological systems. They do so through building networks of artistic collaboration across scientific and technological fields, including genetic engineering, simulation design, machine learning, and experimental computation.

For decades, pioneering artist and filmmaker Lynn Hershman Leeson has been working with scientists, geneticists, and engineers to explore the impact of technological progress on our understanding of the self. Hershman Leeson premieres the final episode in her seminal video series, The Electronic Diaries (1984-2019), and the new Shed commission, Shadow Stalker (2019). A new generation of artists-Morehshin Allahyari, Sondra Perry, Simon Fujiwara, and Martine Syms-have developed research practices that echo Hershman Leeson's hybrid collaborative model, which serves as the conceptual foundation for Manual Override.

"Manual Override challenges us to think in new ways about the ever-growing role and effect of technology in our lives," said Alex Poots, Artistic Director and CEO of The Shed. "Inspired by the groundbreaking work of Lynn Hershman Leeson, whose vision continues to influence generations of artists, our guest curator Nora Khan's exhibition explores the intersection between art, science, technology, psychology, and sociology in contemporary life. An important part of Manual Override is the range of new commissions that enable featured artists to realize their ambitious vision."

For more information visit: https://theshed.org/program/63-manual-override?sourceNumber=&utm_campaign=PressRelease%3AManualOverride&utm_content=version_A&utm_medium=email&utm_source=wordfly

Concert of Les Misrables Starring Michael Ball, Alfie Boe and Matt Lucas Will Be Broadcast Live In UK/Ireland Cinemas Daily Mail reporter Baz Bamigboye has reported that a staged concert ofLes Misrables starring Michael Ball, Alfie Boe and Matt Lucas Will Be Broadca... (read more)

Tony Nominee Ann Crumb Passes Away from Ovarian Cancer BroadwayWorld is saddened to report that Broadway actress and 1993 Tony Award nominee Ann Crumb has passed away following a long struggle with ovarian... (read more)

Patrick Dunn, Preston Truman Boyd, & Michelle Dowdy Join LES MISERABLES On Tour Cameron Mackintosh announced today that Patrick Dunn, Preston Truman Boyd and Michelle Dowdy will join the acclaimed production of Alain Boublil and C... (read more)

Lesli Margherita and Josh Lamon Will Lead Off-Broadway Run Of EMOJILAND The Musical After its critically-acclaimed sold out run in NYMF 2018, the new musical Emojiland will make a triumphant return to New York in a limited Off-Broadwa... (read more)

BEETLEJUICE's 'Say My Name' Is Amazon Music's Song Of The Day For Halloween BEETLEJUICE is currently featured as Amazon Music's Song of the Day on Halloween, Thursday, October 31, 2019. By saying, a?oeAlexa, play the song of t... (read more)

More here:
The Shed Will Present New Exhibition 'Manual Override' - Broadway World

Have you heard? A revolution has seized the scientific community. Within only a few years, research labs worldwide have adopted a new technology that facilitates making specific changes in the DNA of humans, other animals, and plants. Compared to previous techniques for modifying DNA, this new approach is much faster and easier. This technology is referred to as CRISPR, and it has changed not only the way basic research is conducted, but also the way we can now think about treating diseases [1,2].

CRISPR is an acronym for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat. This name refers to the unique organization of short, partially palindromic repeated DNA sequences found in the genomes of bacteria and other microorganisms. While seemingly innocuous, CRISPR sequences are a crucial component of the immune systems [3] of these simple life forms. The immune system is responsible for protecting an organisms health and well-being. Just like us, bacterial cells can be invaded by viruses, which are small, infectious agents. If a viral infection threatens a bacterial cell, the CRISPR immune system can thwart the attack by destroying the genome of the invading virus [4]. The genome of the virus includes genetic material that is necessary for the virus to continue replicating. Thus, by destroying the viral genome, the CRISPR immune system protects bacteria from ongoing viral infection.

Figure 1 ~ The steps of CRISPR-mediated immunity. CRISPRs are regions in the bacterial genome that help defend against invading viruses. These regions are composed of short DNA repeats (black diamonds) and spacers (colored boxes). When a previously unseen virus infects a bacterium, a new spacer derived from the virus is incorporated amongst existing spacers. The CRISPR sequence is transcribed and processed to generate short CRISPR RNA molecules. The CRISPR RNA associates with and guides bacterial molecular machinery to a matching target sequence in the invading virus. The molecular machinery cuts up and destroys the invading viral genome. Figure adapted from Molecular Cell 54, April 24, 2014 [5].

Interspersed between the short DNA repeats of bacterial CRISPRs are similarly short variable sequences called spacers (FIGURE 1). These spacers are derived from DNA of viruses that have previously attacked the host bacterium [3]. Hence, spacers serve as a genetic memory of previous infections. If another infection by the same virus should occur, the CRISPR defense system will cut up any viral DNA sequence matching the spacer sequence and thus protect the bacterium from viral attack. If a previously unseen virus attacks, a new spacer is made and added to the chain of spacers and repeats.

The CRISPR immune system works to protect bacteria from repeated viral attack via three basic steps [5]:

Step 1) Adaptation DNA from an invading virus is processed into short segments that are inserted into the CRISPR sequence as new spacers.

Step 2) Production of CRISPR RNA CRISPR repeats and spacers in the bacterial DNA undergo transcription, the process of copying DNA into RNA (ribonucleic acid). Unlike the double-chain helix structure of DNA, the resulting RNA is a single-chain molecule. This RNA chain is cut into short pieces called CRISPR RNAs.

Step 3) Targeting CRISPR RNAs guide bacterial molecular machinery to destroy the viral material. Because CRISPR RNA sequences are copied from the viral DNA sequences acquired during adaptation, they are exact matches to the viral genome and thus serve as excellent guides.

The specificity of CRISPR-based immunity in recognizing and destroying invading viruses is not just useful for bacteria. Creative applications of this primitive yet elegant defense system have emerged in disciplines as diverse as industry, basic research, and medicine.

In Industry

The inherent functions of the CRISPR system are advantageous for industrial processes that utilize bacterial cultures. CRISPR-based immunity can be employed to make these cultures more resistant to viral attack, which would otherwise impede productivity. In fact, the original discovery of CRISPR immunity came from researchers at Danisco, a company in the food production industry [2,3]. Danisco scientists were studying a bacterium called Streptococcus thermophilus, which is used to make yogurts and cheeses. Certain viruses can infect this bacterium and damage the quality or quantity of the food. It was discovered that CRISPR sequences equipped S. thermophilus with immunity against such viral attack. Expanding beyond S. thermophilus to other useful bacteria, manufacturers can apply the same principles to improve culture sustainability and lifespan.

In the Lab

Beyond applications encompassing bacterial immune defenses, scientists have learned how to harness CRISPR technology in the lab [6] to make precise changes in the genes of organisms as diverse as fruit flies, fish, mice, plants and even human cells. Genes are defined by their specific sequences, which provide instructions on how to build and maintain an organisms cells. A change in the sequence of even one gene can significantly affect the biology of the cell and in turn may affect the health of an organism. CRISPR techniques allow scientists to modify specific genes while sparing all others, thus clarifying the association between a given gene and its consequence to the organism.

Rather than relying on bacteria to generate CRISPR RNAs, scientists first design and synthesize short RNA molecules that match a specific DNA sequencefor example, in a human cell. Then, like in the targeting step of the bacterial system, this guide RNA shuttles molecular machinery to the intended DNA target. Once localized to the DNA region of interest, the molecular machinery can silence a gene or even change the sequence of a gene (Figure 2)! This type of gene editing can be likened to editing a sentence with a word processor to delete words or correct spelling mistakes. One important application of such technology is to facilitate making animal models with precise genetic changes to study the progress and treatment of human diseases.

Figure 2 ~ Gene silencing and editing with CRISPR. Guide RNA designed to match the DNA region of interest directs molecular machinery to cut both strands of the targeted DNA. During gene silencing, the cell attempts to repair the broken DNA, but often does so with errors that disrupt the geneeffectively silencing it. For gene editing, a repair template with a specified change in sequence is added to the cell and incorporated into the DNA during the repair process. The targeted DNA is now altered to carry this new sequence.

In Medicine

With early successes in the lab, many are looking toward medical applications of CRISPR technology. One application is for the treatment of genetic diseases. The first evidence that CRISPR can be used to correct a mutant gene and reverse disease symptoms in a living animal was published earlier this year [7]. By replacing the mutant form of a gene with its correct sequence in adult mice, researchers demonstrated a cure for a rare liver disorder that could be achieved with a single treatment. In addition to treating heritable diseases, CRISPR can be used in the realm of infectious diseases, possibly providing a way to make more specific antibiotics that target only disease-causing bacterial strains while sparing beneficial bacteria [8]. A recent SITN Waves article discusses how this technique was also used to make white blood cells resistant to HIV infection [9].

Of course, any new technology takes some time to understand and perfect. It will be important to verify that a particular guide RNA is specific for its target gene, so that the CRISPR system does not mistakenly attack other genes. It will also be important to find a way to deliver CRISPR therapies into the body before they can become widely used in medicine. Although a lot remains to be discovered, there is no doubt that CRISPR has become a valuable tool in research. In fact, there is enou
gh excitement in the field to warrant the launch of several Biotech start-ups that hope to use CRISPR-inspired technology to treat human diseases [8].

Ekaterina Pak is a Ph.D. student in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences program at Harvard Medical School.

1. Palca, J. A CRISPR way to fix faulty genes. (26 June 2014) NPR < http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/06/26/325213397/a-crispr-way-to-fix-faulty-genes> [29 June 2014]

2. Pennisi, E. The CRISPR Craze. (2013) Science, 341 (6148): 833-836.

3. Barrangou, R., Fremaux, C., Deveau, H., Richards, M., Boyaval, P., Moineau, S., Romero, D.A., and Horvath, P. (2007). CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 315, 17091712.

4. Brouns, S.J., Jore, M.M., Lundgren, M., Westra, E.R., Slijkhuis, R.J., Snijders, A.P., Dickman, M.J., Makarova, K.S., Koonin, E.V., and van der Oost, J. (2008). Small CRISPR RNAs guide antiviral defense in prokaryotes. Science 321, 960964.

5. Barrangou, R. and Marraffini, L. CRISPR-Cas Systems: Prokaryotes Upgrade to Adaptive Immunity (2014). Molecular Cell 54, 234-244.

6. Jinkek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. (2012) 337(6096):816-21.

7. CRISPR reverses disease symptoms in living animals for first time. (31 March 2014). Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. <http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/crispr-reverses-disease-symptoms-in-living-animals-for-first-time/81249682/> [27 July 2014]

8. Pollack, A. A powerful new way to edit DNA. (3 March 2014). NYTimes < http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/health/a-powerful-new-way-to-edit-dna.html?_r=0> [16 July 2014]

9. Gene editing technique allows for HIV resistance? <http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/waves/2014/gene-editing-technique-allows-for-hiv-resistance/> [13 June 2014]

Go here to see the original:
CRISPR: A game-changing genetic engineering technique ...

(Pixabay)

I have been covering the bioethics movement since the late 1990s, writing several books (one award-winning) on the subject.

When bioethics began, there was a great internal intellectual struggle for dominance between Paul Ramseys traditional Christian-focused sanctity-of-life thought and the lapsed Episcopalian priest Joseph Fletchers crassly relativistic autonomy utilitarianism. Alas, Fletcher won that battle and the mainstream movement became, if not strictly utilitarian, certainly utilitarianish.

Bioethics also veered sharply left politically with ambitions of leading the technocracy in which movement luminaries would be the new high priests establishing public health policies, funding priorities, and determining the ethics of medicine (such as obliterating the rights of medical conscience). You certainly saw that paradigm in action in the administration of Obamacare, although the laws most dangerous technocratic threats were blunted by subsequent events, such as the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

For a time, it looked like bioethics would assume broad societal power. But now, Nature perhaps the worlds most prestigious science journal has published a long, and I must say surprising, piece concluding that at least with regard to biotechnology, bioethics is obsolete. From, Ethical ResearchThe Long and Bumpy Road from Shirked to Shared, by Sarah Franklin, the chair of sociology and director of the Reproductive Sociology Research Group at the University of Cambridge.

Just as the ramifications of the birth of modern biology were hard to delineate in the late nineteenth century, so there is a sense of ethical bewilderment today. The feeling of being overwhelmed is exacerbated by a lack of regulatory infrastructure or adequate policy precedents. Bioethics, once a beacon of principled pathways to policy, is increasingly lost, like Simba, in a sea of thundering wildebeest.

Exactly true. For example, rather than push hard for international regulatory controls of CRISPR germ line genetic engineering techniques in humans, bioethicists mostly wrung their hands and advocated a non-binding self-restraint until the technology becomes safe.

Franklin says bioethicists have ceased being thought leaders but merely so many PR professionals in the service of Big Biotech:

The field no longer relies on philosophically derived mandates codified into textbook formulas. Instead, it functions as a dashboard of pragmatic instruments, and is less expert-driven, more interdisciplinary, less multipurpose and more bespoke.

In the wake of the turn to dialogue in science, bioethics often looks more like public engagement and vice versa. Policymakers, polling companies and government quangos tasked with organizing ethical consultations on questions such as mitochondrial donation (three-parent embryos, as the media would have it) now perform the evaluations formerly assigned to bioethicists. Journal editors, funding bodies, grant-review boards and policymakers are increasingly the new ethical adjudicators.

And here I thought the power of bioethics was alarming! But the virtual moral anarchy dictated by the golden rule (he who has the money makes the rules) Franklin describes is even worse.

In a social-media-saturated age wary of fake news, the new holy grail is the ability to create trustworthy systems for governing controversial research such as chimeric embryos and face-recognition algorithms. The pursuit of a more ethical science has come to be associated with building trust by creating transparent processes, inclusive participation and openness to uncertainty, as opposed to distinguishing between is and ought...

The result is less reliance on specialized ethical expertise and more attention to diversity of representationThe implication of this new model is that the most ethical science is the most sociable one, and thus that scientific excellence depends on greater inclusivity. We are better together we must all be ethicists now.

In such a milieu in which there really is no right and wrong, who needs bioethicists?

The huge problem Franklin ignores is that we are not having the kind of democratic discourse about the future of biotechnology that Franklin envisions. Good grief, these issues barely break into the news. All that matters today is love or hate Trump!

Franklin is right that bioethics has lost substantial influence in biotechnology, which is a distinction without a substantial difference as the movement has mostly served as a rubber stamp for approving controversial research in the media and halls of government anyway.

But it is much too early to put the movement into hospice care. Bioethics still exerts tremendous influence in the public policy of healthcare. So, we are stuck with the worst of both worlds. We stand helpless before a biotechnology sector creating inventions of almost limitless power beyond substantial ethical or legal control as our medical system is dominated by so-called experts who deny the sanctity and intrinsic dignity of human life.

Unless there is a great ethical awakening, this will not end well.

Read the original:
Nature Magazine Article Argues Bioethics Is Obsolete - National Review

Warning: This article contains SPOILERS from Watchmen episode 2.

The nature of Adrian Veidt's (Jeremy Irons) creepy servants is one of the biggest questions inWatchmen, but it's possible that Mr. Phillips (Tom Mison) could actually be Doctor Manhattan, or rather, a clone of his human alter ego Jon Osterman. Phillips and Veidt's maid, Ms. Crookshanks (Sara Vickers), appeared in Watchmen's pilot happily serving their master in his ornate castle. This includes acting in a bizarre play Adrian wrote called "The Watchmaker's Son". However, their twisted performance gives the powerful impression that Veidt is mocking Doctor Manhattan and his dead girlfriend Janey Slater via Phillips and Crookshanks, who could be their genetically-engineered doppelgangers.

Though Watchmen hasn't explicitly declared that Jeremy Irons' is playing Adrian Veidt, the second episode, "Martial Feats of Comanche Horsemanship", leaves little doubt that Irons' mystery man is indeed Ozymandias. HBO's tie-in website, Peteypedia, contains supplemental materials about the series, including a news clipping dated September 9, 2019 titled "Veidt Declared Dead". The article states that Adrian Veidt vanished in 2012 - 7 years before Watchmen begins - but in the premiere episode, Irons' character is celebrating some sort of anniversary, complete with a special gold and purple cake, which are the colors of Ozymandias. Further erasing doubts that Irons is Veidt, he declared he was writing a play - a tragedy in five acts called "The Watchmaker's Son" - and now that it has been performed by Phillips and Crookshanks, it's absolutely about Doctor Manhattan's tragic origin - a tale Veidt knows very well.

Related: Watchmen: A Theory About Jeremy Irons' Ozymandias

Every fan of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' graphic novel or Zack Snyder's Watchmen movie remembers how Doctor Manhattan was created and "The Watchmaker's Son" picks up at the story's tragic end: in 1959 at the Gila Flats research lab, physicist Dr. Jon Osterman (Phillips) and his girlfriend Janey Slater (Vickers) are desperately in love but Jon mistakenly left his father's pocket watch in their creation, the Intrinsic Field Generator. After going in to retrieve the watch, Osterman is sealed inside and is disintegrated, only to re-emerge weeks later as the superpowered being Doctor Manhattan. "The Watchmaker's Son" bombastically mocks Jon's ordeal, with Veidt in the crowd urging Crookshanks/Slater that he wants to "see those tears!"as Phillips/Osterman dies horribly. Seconds later, a nude Phillips painted blue emerges from the sealing as Doctor Manhattan, accompanied by Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" (a nod to Snyder's film). The play concludes with Veidt resignedly joining Phillips/Manhattan in reciting the ominous final words, "Nothing ever ends".

To make the play believable, Veidt actually has Phillips roasted alive in his mock "Intrinsic Field Generator", which leads to the next big shock: there are multiple Mr. Phillips and Ms. Crookshanks because they are indeed all clones. This makes sense since Ozymandias is a master of genetic engineering; in the 1980s, his prized pet was a giant cloned lynx named Bubastis and Veidt made a fortune selling his cloning technology in the 1990s. Veidt's expertise must have expanded to creating (not quite perfect) humans.

But since Phillips and Crookshanks are clones, who did Veidt model them after? It's quite possible he chose to base his disposable servants on Jon Osterman and Janey Slater. After all, Ozymandias knew both of them quite well; he first met Doctor Manhattan and Slater at the ill-fated only meeting of the Crime Busters superhero team in the 1960s. In 1985, he conspired to infect Slater with cancer as part of his scheme to force Doctor Manhattan to leave the planet, paving the way for his hoax that would ultimately save the worldin Watchmen's ending. Given what he did to the real Janey, he clearly would have no qualms about killing their duplicates. Further, Watchmen has teased Doctor Manhattan will appear in the series but has not announced who plays the blue super-being - could it be because Tom Mison is already 'cast' in a version of the role and is right there in plain sight?

If the servants really are clones of Jon Osterman and Janey Slater, then Adrian Veidt must despise Doctor Manhattan enough so that in his exile, wherever he is, Ozymandias could have chosen to make replicas of his nemesis and his girlfriend to literally dote on him hand and foot - and then kill them for his own amusement. "The Watchmaker's Son" feels like a kind of excessively petty revenge by a bitter old man who is powerless against the real Doctor Manhattan. But nothing ever ends in Watchmen, including Veidt's ire at Doctor Manhattan, so much so that it looks like Ozymandias ruthlessly murders clones of Jon Osterman and Janey Slater as a sick form of recreation and catharsis.

Next: Everything That Happened Between The Watchmen Graphic Novel And HBO Series

Watchmen airs Sundays @ 9pm on HBO.

Tags:watchmen

Everything That Happened In Between The Watchmen Graphic Novel & HBO Series

Read the original:
Watchmen Theory: Jeremy Irons' Butler Is Doctor Manhattan - Screen Rant

Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

There is a move afoot to reprogram humanity. To redefine it in the limited terms of scientific understanding, place it in a box, and then, all wrapped up in a pretty package, attempt to deliver this convoluted mess to us as progress.

There are those who think that, given the chance, they could and should genetically manipulate the earth and the creatures that inhabit it, including man, to suite a purpose of their own imaginings. They want to experiment on all of our precious resources, turn our rivers into streams of pollution, and take each and every living thing on earth and use it to create something better.

According to whose design? Well, the so-called scientific one, of course. And if this means combining cows and humans, goats and spiders, man and machine in order to achieve the goal? Well, so be it. After all, the only thing that is important is the end result. And the end result is that a few will obtain immortality or so they think. And if a few eggs get broken in the process, well, that is the price paid for success.

This is Transhumanism the natural culmination of something called reprogenetics. Some call it designer evolution.

What is Reprogenetics?

In short, reprogenetics is the genetic engineering of man to create a human race according to scientific design. Here is a definition from Lee M. Silver, author of the book Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family (1998).

Reprogenetics will involve advances in a number of technologies not yet achieved, but not inherently impossible. Among these are improvements in interpreting the effects of different expressions of DNA, the ability to harvest large numbers of embryos from females, and a far higher rate of reinsertion of embryos into host mothers. The end result, according to Silver, is that those parents who can afford it will be able to pick out the genetic characteristics of their own children, which Silver says will trigger a number of social changes in the decades after its implementation. Possible early applications, however, might be closer to eliminating disease genes passed on to children.

According to Silver, the main differences between reprogenetics and eugenics, the belief in the possibility of improving the gene pool which in the first half of the 20th century became infamous for the brutal policies it inspired, is that most eugenics programs were compulsory programs imposed upon citizens by governments trying to enact an ultimate goal.

It becomes quite apparent, after reading the quote above, that the main difference between reprogenetics and eugenics is consent, according to Lee M. Silver. Eugenics forced. Reprogenetics consented to. Same thing, different mode of action. From the forced culling of those deemed inferior to creating a superior race through genetic engineering, the end result is the same. Those deemed inferior are eventually culled from the system using DNA manipulation techniques.

Eugenics renamed and defined as scientific progress. A life-saving technique that can reprogram the human race and create the ideal human family. Thats the spin. Im sure the promoters said the same thing about nuclear energy. Dangerous? Naw. We know what we are doing. Arrogance.

So, lets take this technique of reprogramming humanity through reprogenetics/eugenics and dig a little deeper, shall we?

Meet Genome Compiler

OUR STORY:

Genome Compiler is built on the idea that biology is information technology. We can design and program living things the same way that we design computer code. Genetic designers today are still writing in 1s and 0s they lack the missing tools to design, debug, and compile the biological code into new living things.

At Genome Compiler, weve built just that a simplified solution for designing DNA.

We are inspired by the breakthrough research done by the JCVI and Harvard with their achievement of whole bacterial genome engineering, as required for functional changes in the form of new codes, new amino acids, safety and virus-resistance and a vision of making biological design easier, cheaper, and open to people outside the research labs.

http://www.genomecompiler.com/

After all, when all is said and done, DNA is simply DNA, and mixing it up has no inherent consequences, right? That is what we are supposed to believe. And who is to say what is human and what is not? Arent we all made of molecules?

The Transhumanist Agenda

The following quote pretty much sums up the Transhumanist attitude towards the relationship between you, me, the computer I am using to write this, and the chair I am sitting on:

Whether somebody is implemented on silicon or biological tissue, if it does not affect functionality or consciousness, is of no moral significance. Carbon-chauvinism, in the form of anthropomorphism, speciesism, bioism or even fundamentalist humanism, is objectionable on the same grounds as racism.

A Transhumanist Manifesto [Redux]

If we want to be half human, half frog, isnt that our right? If everything is the same, then anything goes. This is put forth in the guise of freedom of choice, freedom from disease, and freedom from suffering. Actually, this is a sure road to slavery, disease and suffering, and a path towards erasing who we are and simply becoming just another set of molecules on planet earth, much like a chair, or car, or vacuum cleaner.

The Transhumanist goal, based on this oneness of all things biologically and artificially created, is to use science and technology to control evolution of the species, because science is safer than nature.

Biological evolution is perpetual but slow, inefficient, blind and dangerous. Technological evolution is fast, efficient, accelerating and better by design. To ensure the best chances of survival, take control of our own destiny and to be free, we must master evolution.

A Transhumanist Manifesto [Redux]

This mastering of evolution is accomplished through a scientific dictatorship:

Scientific Dictatorship is the utopian concept of scientific managerism whereby all facets of political, social and economic life are managed solely by the scientific method and dictates of science. (Patrick Wood)

And precaution? Well, that goes out the window. Quote from Dr. Max Moore, a leader in Transhumanism:

Many factors conspire to warp our reasoning about risks and benefits as individuals. The bad news is that such foolish thinking has been institutionalized and turned into a principle. Zealous pursuit of precaution has been enshrined in the precautionary principle. Regulators, negotiators, and activists refer to and defer to this principle when considering possible restrictions on productive activity and technological innovation.

In this chapter, I aim to explain how the precautionary principle, and the mindset that underlies it, threaten our well-being and our future.

http://www.maxmore.com/perils.htm

Dr. Max More, the author of The Principles of Extropy, is one of the top leaders of the Transhumanist movement, and the two are tightly interconnected. One could consider Extropy as as the metaphysical backbone of Transhumanism. (Patrick Wood)

In other words, according to one of the top leaders in the transhumanist movement, the precautionary principle actually endangers us. How convoluted can you get?

So, throwing caution aside, onward we go by experimenting through DNA manipulation to create a world where the pseudo-science of a scientific dictatorship rules supreme.

Here are just some examples of DNA mixing going on right now:

http://s-special4you.com/10-insane-cases-of-genetic-engineering/

The future of war is going to look really, really weird. The super soldier research that DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is working on right now is unlike anything we have ever seen before. If DARPA is su
ccessful, and if the American people dont object, the soldiers of the future will be genetically modified transhumans capable of superhuman feats.

http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/vanilla/discussion/322/u-s-super-soldiers-of-the-future-will-be-genetically-modified-transhumans-capable-of-superhuman-/p1

We are in for a lot more than those who actually believe in the medical benefits of DNA manipulation bargained for. All these examples are leading us down the road to the real Transhumanist agenda:

Transhumanism is the application of science to the condition of man to achieve characteristics of immortality, omniscience and omnipresence, among others, and to produce a God-like race of post-humans. (Patrick Wood)

Yes, there are people who are actively attempting a complete takeover of humanity in order to set themselves up as supreme beings. To transcend physical boundaries by intermixing any DNA that so-called scientists think is appropriate, discard the precautionary principle as too dangerous for proper evolution, full speed ahead, meld man, machine, computer, and eventually, transcend to Godhood. It doesnt matter if it works, it doesnt matter if it is sane, it is a plan in the works. And the people who are involved think that they know how to create a better man.

Here is a bit of the history of Transhumanism and its ties to eugenics:

Julian Huxley, brother of Aldous who authored Brave New World, first used this word (1957): Transhumanism. Huxley was a member of the British Eugenics Society, eugenics being the foundation of Transhumanism.

Quote:

Eugenics is a science dedicated to a Darwinist philosophy applied to humanity, that the strong should thrive and evolve, while the weak are culled and eradicated.

Eugenics rests on a necessity of there being superior and inferior genetic pools in the human population. It might be very socially unacceptable to speak publicly of there being some races, ethnic or cultural groups who are inferior to the rest, yet in secrecy this is exactly what elite Eugenicists believe.

The public is guided to love the idea of Transhumanism by being persuaded that it is not a goal attached to race or ethnicity, but simply a means of bettering all of humanity. This is quite untrue.

Elite Transhumanists have no desire to evolve all humankind, their goal is one which seeks to advance only their own bloodlines and to leave the rest in disadvantage to them so that these unfortunate ones have no choice but to become their slaves, their lab animals and their labor force.

The lowest strata are reproducing too fast. Therefore they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilization.

Julian Huxley

http://www.zengardner.com/transhumanism-techno-eugenics-usurping-humanity/

And wouldnt you know it, the Rockefeller Foundation can be found providing funding for the eugenics movement:

In 1927, the Rockefeller Foundation provided funds to construct the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics in Berlin, which came under the directorship of the appropriately named Eugen Fischer. Adolf Hitler read Fischers textbook Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene while in prison at Landsberg and used eugenical notions to support the ideal of a pure Aryan society in his manifesto, Mein Kampf (My Struggle).

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/topics_fs.pl?theme=41

What was termed in its early stages as a pure Aryan society, is now being repackaged as a pure Transhumanist society in which DNA is programmed to conform to the design of a scientific dictatorship, and sold as the salvation of man. The New Age of ascention. Same story, new box. When will we learn?

And the motivation for all of this? As usual, there are many:

Profit

Human transcendence

Control

Power

Eternal life immortality

The justification? Thats easy: Progress always requires sacrifice. To quote a famous activist:

Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable. Even a superficial look at history reveals that no social advance rolls in on wheels of inevitability. Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals. Without persistent effort, time itself becomes an ally of the insurgent and primitive forces of irrational emotionalism and social destruction. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action. (MLK Jr.)

Except in this case, it is not the beneficiary of the technologys sacrifice that is required, but the sacrifice of dedicated and ignorant servants and an unwitting populace. We sacrifice our health, wealth, and minds to the slavery of junk science that says it is okay to maim, torture, and impoverish millions so that a few may gain. It is okay to run widespread experiments on humanity so that a few may benefit from those experiments and transcend to a God-like state and rule over the universe. It doesnt matter if you believe it, or if I believe it. It doesnt have to be rational or sane. What matters is that people with enough money and power to go forth with this agenda do believe it, are working steadily towards it, and know how to market it in order to get the public to accept it as beneficial.

Transhumanism is being sold to the public as bringing forth a new age of enlightenment. This story is as old as the Biblical account of the Garden of Eden, where Lucifer, masquerading as the angel of light, tells Eve that he knows a better way. It is also being touted as an extension of Darwinism: another step in the evolutionary process the better, scientific way, because the slow, biological way is simply too dangerous and inherently unpredictable.

Humans are about to decommission natural selection in favour of guided evolution. Darwinian processes gave humanity a good start, but Homo sapiens can be improved. Owing to advances in genetics, cybernetics, nanotechnology, computer science, and cognitive science, humans are set to redefine the human condition. Future humans can look forward to longer lives, enhanced intelligence, memory, communication and physical skills, and improved emotional control. Humans may eventually cease to be biological and gendered organisms altogether, giving rise to the posthuman entity. Human enhancement will irrevocably alter social arrangements, interpersonal relationships, and society itself. And theres also the added potential for nonhuman enhancement.

http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2007/01/must-know-terms-for-21st-century_11.html

Much better to trust in man and his scientific knowledge to create a better evolutionary path, and manipulating our DNA is that way. And just who comes to mind as an expert at manipulating DNA and public perception?

The Monsanto Connection

Remember when Craig Venture of Atlas Venture created Synthia, a synthetic life form, and partnered with Monsanto?

Monsanto and Atlas Venture

And now Monsanto has recently signed a deal with Atlas Venture for funding of, well, who knows? Monsanto does. And Monsanto isnt telling. But we do know that it will most likely be some sort of disruptive innovation because that is Atlas Ventures specialty. Atlas Venture is an early stage investment firm dedicated to financing disruptive innovation in Life Sciences and Technology.

http://farmwars.info/?p=6141

Well, it appears that Monsanto and Atlas Venture are working on a new type of genetic engineering using RNA. Is this the disruptive technology that I mentioned in my article cited above?

Generations of high school kids have been taught that only about 3 percent of the human genome is actually usefulmeaning it contains genes that code proteinsand the rest is junk DNA. Cambridge, MA-based RaNA Therapeutics was founded on the idea that the so
-called junk is actually gold, because it contains a type of RNA that can flip genes on inside cells, potentially offering a new approach to modulating diseases.RaNA is coming out of stealth mode today and announcing a $20.7 million Series A financing led by Atlas Venture, SR One, and agricultural giant Monsanto (NYSE: MON). Partners Innovation Fund also participated in the funding.

http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2012/01/18/rana-raises-20-7m-from-atlas-sr-one-monsanto-for-rna-based-tech/

What is RaNA Therapeutics?

RaNA Therapeutics is pioneering the discovery of a new class of medicines that target RNA to selectively activate protein expression, thereby enabling the body to produce desirable proteins to treat or prevent disease. RaNAs novel therapeutics work by precisely activating the expression of select genes within the patients own cells, increasing the synthesis of therapeutic proteins. The companys proprietary RNA targeting technology works epigenetically to make it possible, for the first time, to increase the expression of therapeutic proteins with exquisite selectivity.

http://ranarx.com/

This has the potential to turn on and silence, with a great degree of accuracy, gene expression in anyones body. For example,

The patchy colours of a tortoiseshell cat are the result of different levels of expression of pigmentation genes in different areas of the skin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_expression

Monsanto is not working at Curing world hunger through biotechnology. That is a successful smokescreen and marketing slogan gone viral. Edward Bernays, the father of marketing propaganda to the masses, would have been proud.

The Inevitable Conclusion

Remember the definition of reprogenetics in the beginning of this article? Reprogenetics is the genetic engineering of man to create a human race according to scientific design. Well, it is 2013, and we now have the tools to silence and turn on genes through RNA manipulation. And its coming to us courtesy of Monsanto, the chemical/life sciences company that brought us Agent Orange, PCBs, and most of the genetically engineered ingredients in 80% of the processed foods we eat every day.

We know that a pseudo-scientific agenda called Transhumanism, which is bankrolled by some very rich and influential people, is intended to change us as a species, knows no bounds, is set to replace biology as we know it and is inexorably connected to eugenics. We know that this Transhumanist agenda is well on its way to changing the world in ways that we cannot fathom, and we know that Monsanto is involved through its research and application of DNA manipulation techniques in our food supply. Happy eating, America

2013 Barbara H. Peterson

View post:
Transhumanism: Genetic Engineering of Man - the New ...