Public release date: 25-Mar-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Aileen Sheehy as22@sanger.ac.uk 44-122-349-2368 Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute

A genetic finding could help explain why influenza becomes a life-threating disease to some people while it has only mild effects in others. New research led by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute has identified for the first time a human gene that influences how we respond to influenza infection.

People who carry a particular variant of a gene called IFITM3 are significantly more likely to be hospitalised when they fall ill with influenza than those who carry other variants, the team found. This gene plays a critical role in protecting the body against infection with influenza and a rare version of it appears to make people more susceptible to severe forms of the disease. The results are published in the journal Nature.

A central question about viruses is why some people suffer badly from an infection and others do not. IFITM3 is an important protein that protects cells against virus infection and is thought to play a critical role in the immune system's response against such viruses as H1N1 pandemic influenza, commonly known as 'swine flu'. When the protein is present in large quantities, the spread of the virus in lungs is hindered, but if the protein is defective or absent, the virus can spread more easily, causing severe disease.

"Although this protein is extremely important in limiting the spread of viruses in cells, little is known about how it works in lungs," explains Aaron Everitt, first author from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. "Our research plays a fundamental part in explaining how both the gene and protein are linked to viral susceptibility."

The antiviral role of IFITM3 in humans was first suggested by studies using a genetic screen, which showed that the protein blocked the growth of influenza virus and dengue virus in cells. This led the team to ask whether IFITM3 protected mice from viral infections. They removed the IFITM3 gene in mice and found that once they contracted influenza, the symptoms became much more severe compared to mice with IFITM3. In effect, they found the loss of this single gene in mice can turn a mild case of influenza into a fatal infection.

The researchers then sequenced the IFITM3 genes of 53 patients hospitalised with influenza and found that some have a genetic mutant form of IFITM3, which is rare in normal people. This variant gene encodes a shortened version of the protein which makes cells more susceptible to viral infection.

"Since IFITM3 appears to be a first line defender against infection, our efforts suggest that individuals and populations with less IFITM3 activity may be at increased risk during a pandemic and that IFITM3 could be vital for defending human populations against other viruses such as avian influenza virus and dengue virus" says Dr. Abraham Brass, co-senior author and Assistant Professor at the Ragon Institute and Gastrointestinal Unit of Massachusetts General Hospital.

This research was a collaboration between institutes in the United States and the United Kingdom. The samples for this study were obtained from the MOSAIC consortium in England and Scotland, co-ordinated from the Centre for Respiratory Infection (CRI) at Imperial College London, and the GenISIS consortium in Scotland at the Roslin Institute of the University of Edinburgh. These were pivotal for the human genetics component of the work.

Read more:
Genetics of flu susceptibility

Murray Close / Lionsgate / Everett Collection

Peacekeepers escort Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) in a scene from "The Hunger Games."

By Alan Boyle

The technological divide between the rulers and the ruled is at the heart of "The Hunger Games": While the good guys struggle to survive, the bad guys employ fictional gee-whiz technologies inspired by real-life frontiers. And just as in real life, technology gets tripped up by unintended consequences.

That's not to say the post-apocalyptic North America of the book series and the much-anticipated movie, opening Friday, is anything close to real life. On one level, the technologies used by the villainous government of the nation known as Panem, ranging from force fields to extreme genetic engineering, serve as science-fiction plot devices and special effects. But on another level, the contrast between bows and arrows on one side, and death-dealing hovercraft on the other, accentuates the saga's David vs. Goliath angle or, in this case, Katniss vs. the Capitol.

Here are a few of the technological trends that provide the twists in "The Hunger Games," along with real-world analogs:

What? No cellphones? Much has been made of the fact that the starving, downtrodden residents of Panem's districts don't seem to have access to cellphones or the Internet. Instead, they have to huddle around giant television sets to find out what their overlords in the Capitol want them to see. But if you think of Panem as a fictional tweak of modern-day North Korea, "The Hunger Games" might not be that far off the mark: You've got a leadership capable of long-range missile launches, exercising virtually total control over what its impoverished populace sees and hears. Cellphones were outlawed until 2008, and even today they're confiscated from international visitors upon arrival. Internet access and international calling are limited to the elite.

The outlook for change is mixed: Today, a million North Koreans are said to be using mobile phones, but the State Department's Alec Ross told the Korea Times during a recent visit to Seoul that "it will be very difficult for technology to drive change in North Korea, given the extreme measures that North Korea has taken to create a media blackout." That's life in Panem ... er, Pyongyang.

Genetic engineering The most vivid special effects are connected to genetic engineering of various organisms, including humanized animals. To minimize the plot-spoiler effect, the only "muttation" I'll mention in detail is the mockingjay, which figures so prominently in the advance publicity and provides the title for the third book in Suzanne Collins' "Hunger Games" trilogy. The geniuses at the Panem high command created genetically modified birds known as jabberjays that were able to listen in on rebel conversations and report them back to the authorities. When the rebels caught onto this, they started feeding the jays false information. And when the Capitol figured this out, they left the jabberjays to fend for themselves. Male jabberjays mated with female mockingbirds, resulting in birds that could learn and repeat musical notes but not human speech.

The twist illustrates a time-honored movie maxim about genetic engineering, enunciated in the first "Jurassic Park" film: "Life will not be contained." That may be putting it too simply, but the field has certainly raised a lot of questions about how to keep genetic genies in the bottle. This month, more than 100 groups issued a call to hold back on synthetic biology until new guidelines are drawn up.

See original here:
Reality check on 'Hunger Games' tech

ScienceDaily (Mar. 19, 2012) Mayo Clinic researchers have trained mouse immune systems to eradicate skin cancer from within, using a genetic combination of human DNA from melanoma cells and a cousin of the rabies virus. The strategy, called cancer immunotherapy, uses a genetically engineered version of the vesicular stomatitis virus to deliver a broad spectrum of genes derived from melanoma cancer cells directly into tumors. In early studies, 60 percent of tumor-burdened mice were cured in fewer than three months and with minimal side effects.

Results of the latest study appear this week in the journal Nature Biotechnology.

"We believe that this new technique will help us to identify a whole new set of genes that encode antigens that are important in stimulating the immune system to reject cancer. In particular, we have seen that several proteins need to be expressed together to generate the most effective rejection of the tumors in mice," says Richard Vile, Ph.D., a Mayo Clinic researcher in the Department of Molecular Medicine and a coauthor of the study, along with Jose Pulido, M.D., a Mayo Clinic ophthalmologist and ocular oncologist.

Dr. Vile's success with melanoma adds to Mayo Clinic's growing portfolio of experimental cancer vaccines, which includes an active clinical trial of vesicular stomatitis vaccines for liver cancers. Future studies could include similar vaccines for more aggressive cancers, such as lung, brain and pancreatic.

"I do believe we can create vaccines that will knock them off one by one," Dr. Vile says. "By vaccinating against multiple proteins at once, we hope that we will be able to treat both the primary tumor and also protect against recurrence."

The immune system functions on a seek-and-destroy platform and has fine-tuned its capacity to identify viral invaders such as vesicular stomatitis virus. Part of the appeal of building cancer vaccines from the whole spectrum of tumor DNA is that tumors can adapt to the repeated attacks of a healthy immune system and display fewer antigens (or signposts) that the immune system can identify.

Cancers can learn to hide from a normal immune system, but appear unable to escape an immune system trained by the vesicular stomatitis virus with the wide range of DNA used in the library approach.

"Nobody knows how many antigens the immune system can really see on tumor cells," says Dr. Vile. "By expressing all of these proteins in highly immunogenic viruses, we increased their visibility to the immune system. The immune system now thinks it is being invaded by the viruses, which are expressing cancer-related antigens that should be eliminated."

Much immunotherapy research has slowed because of researchers' inability to isolate a sufficiently diverse collection of antigens in tumor cells. Tumors in these scenarios are able to mutate and reestablish themselves in spite of the body's immune system.

The study was a Mayo collaboration with professors Alan Melcher and Peter Selby at the Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds, U.K. They were also co-authors.

See the original post:
Researchers building melanoma vaccine to combat skin cancer

In a guest post at Scientific American's Lab Rat blog, iGEM-UANL team member Miguel Angel Loera Snchez discusses what he calls the "mainstream fronts of synthetic biology." These five fronts DNA synthesis, biological parts standardization, genetic code expansion, synthetic genetic circuits, and metabolic engineering have helped synthetic biology become "a fast growing and productive field," Snchez says. While much work remains to be done, the field "is attracting many smart and active young minds from different disciplines," he adds, leading him to believe that "the growth and innovation rate will likely increase in the years to come."

Meanwhile, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars's Synthetic Biology Project seeks to assess the societal impacts of advances in the field through a new public survey. The survey asks participants a variety of questions to investigate the ethical, legal, and social implications of synthetic biology research. "The results of this anonymous survey will be analyzed and compiled into a report, which will be released in mid- to late-May 2012," the Synthetic Biology Project group notes.

Go here to read the rest:
Spotlight on Synthetic Biology

12-03-2012 21:39 The threat of global climate change has prompted us to redesign many of our technologies to be more energy-efficient. From lightweight hybrid cars to long-lasting LED's, engineers have made well-known products smaller and less wasteful. But tinkering with our tools will only get us so far, because however smart our technologies become, the human body has its own ecological footprint, and there are more of them than ever before. So, some scholars are asking, what if we could engineer human beings to be more energy efficient? A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment proposes a series of biomedical modifications that could help humans, themselves, consume less. Some of the proposed modifications are simple and noninvasive. For instance, many people wish to give up meat for ecological reasons, but lack the willpower to do so on their own. The paper suggests that such individuals could take a pill that would trigger mild nausea upon the ingestion of meat, which would then lead to a lasting aversion to meat-eating. Other techniques are bound to be more controversial. For instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less resource-intensive children. The lead author of the paper, S. Matthew Liao, is a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University. Liao is keen to point out that the paper is not meant to advocate for any particular human modifications, or even human ...

Read more here:
Engineering the Human Body to Combat Climate Change - Video

Public release date: 19-Mar-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Robert Nellis newsbureau@mayo.edu 507-284-5005 Mayo Clinic

ROCHESTER, Minn. -- Mayo Clinic researchers have trained mouse immune systems to eradicate skin cancer from within, using a genetic combination of human DNA from melanoma cells and a cousin of the rabies virus. The strategy, called cancer immunotherapy, uses a genetically engineered version of the vesicular stomatitis virus to deliver a broad spectrum of genes derived from melanoma cancer cells directly into tumors. In early studies, 60 percent of tumor-burdened mice were cured in fewer than three months and with minimal side effects. Results of the latest study appear this week in the journal Nature Biotechnology.

"We believe that this new technique will help us to identify a whole new set of genes that encode antigens that are important in stimulating the immune system to reject cancer. In particular, we have seen that several proteins need to be expressed together to generate the most effective rejection of the tumors in mice," says Richard Vile, Ph.D., a Mayo Clinic researcher in the Department of Molecular Medicine and a coauthor of the study, along with Jose Pulido, M.D., a Mayo Clinic ophthalmologist and ocular oncologist.

Dr. Vile's success with melanoma adds to Mayo Clinic's growing portfolio of experimental cancer vaccines, which includes an active clinical trial of vesicular stomatitis vaccines for liver cancers. Future studies could include similar vaccines for more aggressive cancers, such as lung, brain and pancreatic.

"I do believe we can create vaccines that will knock them off one by one," Dr. Vile says. "By vaccinating against multiple proteins at once, we hope that we will be able to treat both the primary tumor and also protect against recurrence."

The immune system functions on a seek-and-destroy platform and has fine-tuned its capacity to identify viral invaders such as vesicular stomatitis virus. Part of the appeal of building cancer vaccines from the whole spectrum of tumor DNA is that tumors can adapt to the repeated attacks of a healthy immune system and display fewer antigens (or signposts) that the immune system can identify.

Cancers can learn to hide from a normal immune system, but appear unable to escape an immune system trained by the vesicular stomatitis virus with the wide range of DNA used in the library approach.

"Nobody knows how many antigens the immune system can really see on tumor cells," says Dr. Vile. "By expressing all of these proteins in highly immunogenic viruses, we increased their visibility to the immune system. The immune system now thinks it is being invaded by the viruses, which are expressing cancer-related antigens that should be eliminated."

Much immunotherapy research has slowed because of researchers' inability to isolate a sufficiently diverse collection of antigens in tumor cells. Tumors in these scenarios are able to mutate and reestablish themselves in spite of the body's immune system.

Read the original post:
Mayo Clinic researchers building melanoma vaccine to combat skin cancer

In PLoS One this week, researchers at Thailand's National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology present microPIR, a database of "microRNA-promoter target interactions for experimental microRNA researchers and computational biologists to study the microRNA regulation through gene promoter." The database "integrates various annotated genomic sequence databases repetitive elements, transcription factor binding sites, CpG islands, and SNPs offering users the facility to extensively explore relationships among target sites and other genomic features," the authors write. "The built-in genome browser of microPIR provides a comprehensive view of multidimensional genomic data." The resource also includes a PCR primer design module to facilitate experimental validation, and functional data from the OMIM and other resources, the team adds.

Elsewhere in the journal, a Japanese team led by investigators at Kitasato University presents the carbonic anhydrase XII, or CAXII, antibody as a sero-diagnostic marker for lung cancer, based on immunoprecipitation and MADLI TOF/TOF-mass spectrometry analysis.

Over in PLoS Genetics, the University of California, Davis' Daniele Filiault and Julin Maloof report on a GWAS for variants associated with increased hypocotyl elongation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Filiault and Maloof describe variants that underlie the shade-avoidance response in the plant.

A team led by investigators at Princeton University this week describes the "genetic architecture of highly complex chemical resistance traits across four yeast strains," through an extreme QTL mapping approach. The team says its results "improve our understanding of complex traits in yeast and have implications for study design in other organisms."

View post:
This Week in PLoS

26-10-2011 07:18 Genetic engineering may be one of the greatest breakthroughs in recent history, however, with scientific advancements new ethical issues are raised, forcing us to ask not how, but if we should push genetic research to its absolute limit. This programme looks at the possible benefits of genetic engineering, such as the curing of hereditary diseases and the creation of better, more efficient crops. It also explores the potential issues that arise with this new technology - the questionable morality of cloning, and the controversy that surrounds stem-cell research are two topics which are also investigated. Students will hear both a secular and religious perspectives on the morality of intervening in nature at the most fundamental level. To find out more about this film, follow this link: http://www.classroomvideo.co.uk

View post:
Genetic Engineering (excerpt) - Video

At the Huffington Post's Science blog, Singularity University's Andrew Hessel says it's high time for a second Human Genome Project. "Today, in 2012, reading a human genome is no big deal," Hessel says. The next big frontier? "Genetic engineering," he adds.

Hessel proposes a challenge to the international research community:

I want to be absolutely clear that I'm talking only about the task of writing a complete 3 billion basepair human genome, correctly organized into 23 chromosomes, and packaged into a nucleus. A technical challenge, validated by showing the synthetic genome is functional if microinjected into a cultured cell. What I'm definitely not suggesting is growing a baby from a synthetic genome. Before we can fly, we need to be able to walk.

Hessel goes on to detail the reasons why writing a human genome is the next logical step in genomics, and suggests that "a coordinated effort to write a human genome would likely be completed in less than a decade, cost significantly less than the first HGP, and result in countless new biotech applications."

"It seems a no-brainer," he adds.

Go here to read the rest:
The Next Big Frontier?

Green revolution:Fast-track breeding is beginning to develop crops that can produce more and healthier food without controversial genetic engineering.

In Zambia during the current planting season, a corn crop will go into the fields that begins the process of rapidly boosting vitamin A content by as much ten-fold helping to address a nutritional deficiency that causes 250,000-500,000 children to go blind annually, most of them in Africa and Asia. In China, Kenya, and Madagascar, also this planting season, farmers will put out a crop of Artemisia annua that yields 20 to 30 percent more of the chemical compound artemisinin, the basis for what is now the worlds standard treatment for malaria.

Both improvements are happening because of fast-track breeding technology that promises to produce a 21st-century green revolution. It is already putting more food on tables though its unclear whether it can add enough food to keep pace as the worlds human population booms to 9 billion people by 2050.

Fast-track breeding is also giving agronomists a remarkable tool for quickly adapting crops to climate change and the increasing challenges of drought, flooding, emerging diseases, and shifting agricultural zones. And it can help save lives: In the absence of prevention, half those victims of vitamin A deficiency now die shortly after going blind, according to the World Health Organization; and in 2010, lack of adequate treatment meaning artemisinin contributed to the deaths of 655,000 children from malaria.

The fast-track technology, called marker-assisted selection (MAS), or molecular breeding, takes advantage of rapid improvements in genetic sequencing, but avoids all the regulatory and political baggage of genetic engineering. Bill Freese, a science policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit advocacy group, calls it a perfectly acceptable tool. I dont see any food safety issue. It can be a very useful technique if its used by breeders who are working in the public interest.

Molecular breeding isnt genetic engineering, a technology that has long alarmed critics on two counts. Its methods seem outlandish taking genes from spiders and putting them in goats, or borrowing insect resistance from soil bacteria and transferring it into corn and it has also seemed to benefit a handful of agribusiness giants armed with patents, at the expense of public interest.

By contrast, molecular breeding is merely a much faster and more efficient way of doing what nature and farmers have always done, by natural selection and artificial selection respectively: It takes existing genes that happen to be advantageous in a given situation and increases their frequency in a population.

In the past, farmers and breeders did it by walking around their fields and looking at individual plants or animals that seemed to have desirable traits, like greater productivity, or resistance to a particular disease. Then they went to work cross-breeding to see if they could tease out that trait and get it to appear reliably in subsequent generations. It could take decades, and success at breeding in one trait often meant bringing along some deleterious fellow traveler, or inadvertently breeding out some other essential trait.

Go here to see the original:
Fast-track breeding could bring a second Green Revolution

14-03-2012 22:24 I am actually here to get everybody to live much longer. Japanese yogurt LKM512 lkm512.com doubles lab mammal life. I have not tried it, Do not know what it tastes like yet there is a yogurt from Japan published at the peer reviwed journal PLoS one that more than doubles the lifespan of mice. Its possible the yogurt scientist made a drawn manga comic at youtube http://www.youtube.com that perhaps people here would appreciate. I strongly support longevity to immortality research sometimes writing at imminst.org longecity.com as treonsverdery http://www.longecity.org all the kawaii made me super sympathetic to cosplayers Any humans or humanoids that dress up as creatures might have fun at conventions carrying around the yogurt that makes mice live twice as long. New hair colors Genetically engineering peoples hair to be different colors might be cosplay. anyway there is a medical journal article at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov called Nonviral in situ green fluorescent protein labeling and culture of primary, adult human hair follicle epithelial progenitor cells. Im not linked to the author or anything, I just thought that people here might like being genetically modified organisms. phycobilins are ocean colors that can also be made a part of genetic engineering actual cosplayer is verykindwhitecat visit her video at http://www.youtube.com

Link:
Genetically engineered human cosplay hair - Video

15-03-2012 00:18 PLEASE SUBSCRIBE Please visit: http://www.ggnonline.com or http for the latest news commentary by Global Government News Please donate to GGN: http://www.paypal.com because it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. HEADLINES WITH LINKS: Can Lure of Driver's License Keep Kids in School? bit.ly DARPA wants swarms of "disposable" satellites to provide almost-live images on demand bit.ly Gingrich: Package Tracking Could Be Used To Locate Illegal Immigrants huff.to Obama administration blocks Texas voter ID law yhoo.it Turning the Homeless Into 4G Hotspots at SXSW yhoo.it Marketing to Your DNA: The Suits Want To Know More About You bit.ly How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did onforb.es New York State Set to Add All Convict DNA to Its Database nyti.ms Flu Vaccine Causes Death Of 7 Year Old Kaylynne Matten bit.ly Treating Children Whose Parents Refuse to Have Them Vaccinated bit.ly DNA database in doubt after teenager spends three months behind bars for rape in city he has never even visited because gene samples were mixed up bit.ly Critics warn that thousands of Britons could be extradited under plans for EU states to be given access to our DNA bank bit.ly Why the British are free-thinking and the Chinese love conformity: It's all in the genes claim scientists bit.ly Spanish doctors successfully perform 1st fetal lung surgery bit.ly Forget Asteroids and Volcanoes: Chemically Induced Infertility Threatens Human Race bit.ly Want to become a father? Put down ...

Visit link:
GGN: Homeless Turned Into Mobile WI-FI, Genetic Engineering to Fight Warming, DNA is Your Destiny - Video

NYU professor suggests we genetically engineer babies to be smaller and more 'energy-efficient' Other suggestions to save the planet include making humans intolerant to meat through pills or patches 'The Kyoto Protocol, has not produced demonstrable reductions in global emissions' Authors of study stress they are not advocating the ideas, just opening the debate up for radical cures

By Eddie Wrenn

PUBLISHED: 10:56 EST, 13 March 2012 | UPDATED: 02:43 EST, 14 March 2012

Mankind should consider extreme options - such as taking pills to wean humanity away from eating meat or genetically engineering ourselves to be smaller - in order to reduce our ecological footprint, says a leading philosopher.

From reducing our reliance on fossil fuels to finding more energy-efficient ways to travel, the push is on for humans to combat the threat of global climate change.

But the ways in which we change our behaviour - either culturally or through technology - are still up for debate.

Engineering of the future: Could we re-wire humans to be intolerant of meat and less of a drain on our planet's resources?

Professor Matthew Liao of New York University has outlined some of the dramatic ways we can alter our future.

Professor Matthew Liao suggests we debate new methods to reduce our damage to the environment

He and his co-authors make suggestions ranging from providing pills that give people an aversion to eating meat to genetic engineering or hormone therapy so that parents give birth to smaller, less resource-intensive children.

See more here:
Save the planet by genetically engineering humans to be smaller, suggests NYU philosopher

23-02-2012 10:25 DENVER 2001.

Read the original post:
Arizona Wilder - Bizarre Experiences Of A Mind Control Slave - Video

16-01-2012 07:28 http://WWW.LUCIENNOCELLI.COM AVAILABLE ON ITUNES itunes.apple.com FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com SPLAT MOD MUSIC TV sits down with recording artist Lucien Nocelli to discuss his latest jazz fusion release EvoLucien - a Jazz Fusion concept album containing artwork, and a 24 page booklet describing the song inspirations which tell an interesting take on the human creation story, human evolution, genetics, genetic engineering, our human genome and many more interesting takes on our origins. TRACK LISTING: 1 - Life Beyond the Trees 2 - Stone Tools 3 - Lake Turkana 4 - Out of Africa (First Migration, Second Migration) 5 - Tones of Stones and Bones 6 - Intervention 7 - FOXP2 8 - Lulu Upgrade 9 - Eden (Mitochondrial Eve, Y Chromosomal Adam) 10 - March of the Ancestral Modern Humans / Discovering New Lands 11 - Evolution (Mutation, Natural Selection, Genetic Drift) Includes topics covering: adam and eve, sumarians, dna, ergaster, cradle of mankind, ancients, ancient civilizations, africa, homo erectus, hominids, neaderthal, origins, genome, intervention, genetic engineering,

Follow this link:
LUCIEN NOCELLI talks Jazz Fusion Album EVOLUCIEN with SPLAT MOD MUSIC TV (2012 OFFICIAL) - Video

24-02-2012 05:57 Jeffrey M. Smith, a leading consumer advocate promoting healthier, non-GMO foods. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. Smith is also featured in Scientists Under Attack: Genetic Engineering in the Magnetic Field of Money, a 60 minute, award winning film by Bertram Verhaag. Smith's books and Verhaag's film are available at the Infowars Store. http://www.seedsofdeception.com [Seeds of Deception] Your Price: $17.95 http://www.infowarsshop.com _________________________________________ http://www.infowars.com http http://www.infowars.net http http://www.youtube.com (New Section Added to Prisonplanet.tv) http://www.prisonplanet.tv twitter.com SIGN UP FOR A MEMBERSHIP (FULL ACCESS to all files and content on PrisonPlanet.tv) prisonplanet.tv _________________________________________ The Light of the World,Movie(Full Length) http://www.youtube.com

Read the original post:
GMO Foods Exposed-Jeffrey M. Smith - Video

Some of the proposed modifications are simple and noninvasive. For instance, many people wish to give up meat for ecological reasons, but lack the willpower to do so on their own. The paper suggests that such individuals could take a pill that would trigger mild nausea upon the ingestion of meat, which would then lead to a lasting aversion to meat-eating. Other techniques are bound to be more controversial. For instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less resource-intensive children.

The lead author of the paper, S. Matthew Liao, is a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University. Liao is keen to point out that the paper is not meant to advocate for any particular human modifications, or even human engineering generally; rather, it is only meant to introduce human engineering as one possible, partial solution to climate change. He also emphasized the voluntary nature of the proposed modifications. Neither Liao or his co-authors, Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache of Oxford, approve of any coercive human engineering; they favor modifications borne of individual choices, not technocratic mandates. What follows is my conversation with Liao about why he thinks human engineering could be the most ethical and effective solution to global climate change.

Judging from your paper, you seem skeptical about current efforts to mitigate climate change, including market based solutions like carbon pricing or even more radical solutions like geoengineering. Why is that?

Liao: It's not that I don't think that some of those solutions could succeed under the right conditions; it's more that I think that they might turn out to be inadequate, or in some cases too risky. Take market solutions---so far it seems like it's pretty difficult to orchestrate workable international agreements to affect international emissions trading. The Kyoto Protocol, for instance, has not produced demonstrable reductions in global emissions, and in any event demand for petrol and for electricity seems to be pretty inelastic. And so it's questionable whether carbon taxation alone can deliver the kind of reduction that we need to really take on climate change.

With respect to geoengineering, the worry is that it's just too risky---many of the technologies involved have never been attempted on such a large scale, and so you have to worry that by implementing these techniques we could endanger ourselves or future generations. For example it's been suggested that we could alter the reflectivity of the atmosphere using sulfate aerosol so as to turn away a portion of the sun's heat, but it could be that doing so would destroy the ozone layer, which would obviously be problematic. Others have argued that we ought to fertilize the ocean with iron, because doing so might encourage a massive bloom of carbon-sucking plankton. But doing so could potentially render the ocean inhospitable to fish, which would obviously also be quite problematic.

One human engineering strategy you mention is a kind of pharmacologically induced meat intolerance. You suggest that humans could be given meat alongside a medication that triggers extreme nausea, which would then cause a long-lasting aversion to meat eating. Why is it that you expect this could have such a dramatic impact on climate change?

Liao: There is a widely cited U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization report that estimates that 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and CO2 equivalents come from livestock farming, which is actually a much higher share than from transportation. More recently it's been suggested that livestock farming accounts for as much as 51% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. And then there are estimates that as much as 9% of human emissions occur as a result of deforestation for the expansion of pastures for livestock. And that doesn't even to take into account the emissions that arise from manure, or from the livestock directly. Since a large portion of these cows and other grazing animals are raised for consumption, it seems obvious that reducing the consumption of these meats could have considerable environmental benefits.

Even a minor 21% to 24% reduction in the consumption of these kinds of meats could result in the same reduction in emissions as the total localization of food production, which would mean reducing "food miles" to zero. And, I think it's important to note that it wouldn't necessarily need to be a pill. We have also toyed around with the idea of a patch that might stimulate the immune system to reject common bovine proteins, which could lead to a similar kind of lasting aversion to meat products.

Your paper also discusses the use of human engineering to make humans smaller. Why would this be a powerful technique in the fight against climate change?

Liao: Well one of the things that we noticed is that human ecological footprints are partly correlated with size. Each kilogram of body mass requires a certain amount of food and nutrients and so, other things being equal, the larger person is the more food and energy they are going to soak up over the course of a lifetime. There are also other, less obvious ways in which larger people consume more energy than smaller people---for example a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person, more fabric is needed to clothe larger people, and heavier people wear out shoes, carpets and furniture at a quicker rate than lighter people, and so on.

Read the original post:
How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change

Some of the proposed modifications are simple and noninvasive. For instance, many people wish to give up meat for ecological reasons, but lack the willpower to do so on their own. The paper suggests that such individuals could take a pill that would trigger mild nausea upon the ingestion of meat, which would then lead to a lasting aversion to meat-eating. Other techniques are bound to be more controversial. For instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less resource-intensive children.

The lead author of the paper, S. Matthew Liao, is a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University. Liao is keen to point out that the paper is not meant to advocate for any particular human modifications, or even human engineering generally; rather, it is only meant to introduce human engineering as one possible, partial solution to climate change. He also emphasized the voluntary nature of the proposed modifications. Neither Liao or his co-authors, Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache of Oxford, approve of any coercive human engineering; they favor modifications borne of individual choices, not technocratic mandates. What follows is my conversation with Liao about why he thinks human engineering could be the most ethical and effective solution to global climate change.

Judging from your paper, you seem skeptical about current efforts to mitigate climate change, including market based solutions like carbon pricing or even more radical solutions like geoengineering. Why is that?

Liao: It's not that I don't think that some of those solutions could succeed under the right conditions; it's more that I think that they might turn out to be inadequate, or in some cases too risky. Take market solutions---so far it seems like it's pretty difficult to orchestrate workable international agreements to affect international emissions trading. The Kyoto Protocol, for instance, has not produced demonstrable reductions in global emissions, and in any event demand for petrol and for electricity seems to be pretty inelastic. And so it's questionable whether carbon taxation alone can deliver the kind of reduction that we need to really take on climate change.

With respect to geoengineering, the worry is that it's just too risky---many of the technologies involved have never been attempted on such a large scale, and so you have to worry that by implementing these techniques we could endanger ourselves or future generations. For example it's been suggested that we could alter the reflectivity of the atmosphere using sulfate aerosol so as to turn away a portion of the sun's heat, but it could be that doing so would destroy the ozone layer, which would obviously be problematic. Others have argued that we ought to fertilize the ocean with iron, because doing so might encourage a massive bloom of carbon-sucking plankton. But doing so could potentially render the ocean inhospitable to fish, which would obviously also be quite problematic.

One human engineering strategy you mention is a kind of pharmacologically induced meat intolerance. You suggest that humans could be given meat alongside a medication that triggers extreme nausea, which would then cause a long-lasting aversion to meat eating. Why is it that you expect this could have such a dramatic impact on climate change?

Liao: There is a widely cited U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization report that estimates that 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and CO2 equivalents come from livestock farming, which is actually a much higher share than from transportation. More recently it's been suggested that livestock farming accounts for as much as 51% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. And then there are estimates that as much as 9% of human emissions occur as a result of deforestation for the expansion of pastures for livestock. And that doesn't even to take into account the emissions that arise from manure, or from the livestock directly. Since a large portion of these cows and other grazing animals are raised for consumption, it seems obvious that reducing the consumption of these meats could have considerable environmental benefits.

Even a minor 21% to 24% reduction in the consumption of these kinds of meats could result in the same reduction in emissions as the total localization of food production, which would mean reducing "food miles" to zero. And, I think it's important to note that it wouldn't necessarily need to be a pill. We have also toyed around with the idea of a patch that might stimulate the immune system to reject common bovine proteins, which could lead to a similar kind of lasting aversion to meat products.

Your paper also discusses the use of human engineering to make humans smaller. Why would this be a powerful technique in the fight against climate change?

Liao: Well one of the things that we noticed is that human ecological footprints are partly correlated with size. Each kilogram of body mass requires a certain amount of food and nutrients and so, other things being equal, the larger person is the more food and energy they are going to soak up over the course of a lifetime. There are also other, less obvious ways in which larger people consume more energy than smaller people---for example a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person, more fabric is needed to clothe larger people, and heavier people wear out shoes, carpets and furniture at a quicker rate than lighter people, and so on.

Visit link:
How Human Engineering Could Be the Solution to Climate Change

18-10-2011 02:20 Host Aaron Dykes interviews Jeffrey Smith about a Bertram Verhaag documentary, Scientists Under Attack: Genetic Engineering in the Magnetic Field of Money, about GMOs and the need for the independence of science. http://www.seedsofdeception.com http://www.prisonplanet.tv Scientists Under Attack: Genetic Engineering in the Magnetic Field of Money is a 60 minute, award winning film by Bertram Verhaag about GMOs and the need for the independence of science. Nearly 95% of genetic engineering research is paid for and controlled by international corporations such as Monsanto. This film exposes how these globalist companies manipulate scientific research to hide the dangers of genetically altered plants and animals. (Buy Your Copy Today at The Infowars Store) http://www.infowarsshop.com

Read more here:
Monsanto's Crimes Against Humanity with Jeffrey M. Smith 2/2 - Video

09-01-2012 15:45 Dorey is a graduate of Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario where she studied English, History and mythology. Her interests were expanded into religious studies after studying the New Testament at the University of Windsor in 1991. She began her writing career as a journalist and still continues writing articles for various online publications. She joins us to discuss her second book, The Nummo. The Dogon talked about alien beings known as Nummo who came to Earth from another star system. These fish and serpent like beings were hermaphrodites who spent more time in water than on land. Shannon presents examples of how these amphibious aliens appeared all over the ancient world and makes connection with mitochondrial Eve, Mary Magdalene, Masonic symbolism and more. She reveals how the Dogon religion is the core religion from which other religions including Judaism and Christianity have evolved. We'll discuss the Nummo's voyage to Earth, their knowledge of genetic engineering, Dogon mythology and their intention with humanity. http://www.redicecreations.com

Here is the original post:
Red Ice Radio - Shannon Dorey - Hour 1 - The Nummo