Future Visioning the Role of CRISPR Gene Editing: Navigating Law and Ethics to Regenerate Health and Cure Disease – IPWatchdog.com

Posted on November 28, 2020 by Danzig

As society adjusts to a new world of social distance and remote everything, rapid advancements in the digital, physical, and biological spheres are accelerating fundamental changes to the way we live, work, and relate to one another. What Klaus Schwab prophesized in his 2015 book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution, is playing out before our very eyes. Quantum computing power, a network architecture that is moving function closer to the edge of our interconnected devices, bandwidth speeds of 5G and beyond, natural language processing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning are all working together to accelerate innovation in fundamental ways. Given the global pandemic, in the biological sphere, government industrial policy drives the public sector to work hand-in-glove with private industry and academia to develop new therapies and vaccines to treat and prevent COVID-19 and other lethal diseases. This post will envision the future of gene editing technologies and the legal and ethical challenges that could imperil their mission of saving lives.

There are thousands of diseases occurring in humans, animals, and plants caused by aberrant DNA sequences. Traditional small molecule and biologic therapies have only had minimal success in treating many of these diseases because they mitigate symptoms while failing to address the underlying genetic causes. While human understanding of genetic diseases has increased tremendously since the mapping of the human genome in the late 1990s, our ability to treat them effectively has been limited by our historical inability to alter genetic sequences.

The science of gene editing was born in the 1990s, as scientists developed tools such as zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs) and TALE nucleases (TALENs) to study the genome and attempt to alter sequences that caused disease. While these systems were an essential first step to demonstrate the potential of gene editing, their development was challenging in practice due to the complexity of engineering protein-DNA interactions.

Then, in 2011, Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier, a French professor of microbiology, genetics, and biochemistry, and Jennifer Doudna, an American professor of biochemistry, pioneered a revolutionary new gene-editing technology called CRISPR/Cas9. Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) and Cas9 stands for CRISPR-associated protein 9. In 2020, the revolutionary work of Drs. Charpentier and Doudna developing CRISPR/Cas9 were recognized with the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. The technology was also the source of a long-running and high-profile patent battle between two groups of scientsists.

CRISPR/Cas9 for gene editing came about from a naturally occurring viral defense mechanism in bacteria. The system is cheaper and easier to use than previous technologies. It delivers the Cas9 nuclease complexed with a synthetic guide RNA (gRNA) into a cell, cutting the cells genome at the desired location, allowing existing genes to be removed and new ones added to a living organisms genome. The technique is essential in biotechnology and medicine as it provides for the genomes to be edited in vivo with extremely high precision, efficiently, and with comparative ease. It can create new drugs, agricultural products, and genetically modified organisms or control pathogens and pests. More possibilities include the treatment of inherited genetic diseases and diseases arising from somatic mutations such as cancer. However, its use in human germline genetic modification is highly controversial.

The following diagram from CRISPR Therapeutics AG, a Swiss company, illustrates how it functions:

In the 1990s, nanotechnology and gene editing were necessary plot points for science fiction films. In 2020, developments like nano-sensors and CRISPR gene editing technology have moved these technologies directly into the mainstream, opening a new frontier of novel market applications. According to The Business Research Company, the global CRISPR technology market reached a value of nearly $700 million in 2019, is expected to more than double in 2020, and reach $6.7 billion by 2030. Market applications target all forms of life, from animals to plants to humans.

Gene editings primary market applications are for the treatment of genetically-defined diseases. CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing promises to enable the engineering of genomes of cell-based therapies and make them safer and available to a broader group of patients. Cell therapies have already begun to make a meaningful impact on specific diseases, and gene editing helps to accelerate that progress across diverse disease areas, including oncology and diabetes.

In the area of human therapy, millions of people worldwide suffer from genetic conditions. Gene-editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 have introduced a way to address the cause of debilitating illnesses like cystic fibrosis and create better interventions and therapies. They also have promising market applications for agriculture, food safety, supply, and distribution. For example, grocery retailers are even looking at how gene editing could impact the products they sell. Scientists have created gene-edited crops like non-browning mushrooms and mildew-resistant grapes experiments that are part of an effort to prevent spoilage, which could ultimately change the way food is sold.

Despite the inability to travel and conduct face-to-face meetings, attend industry conferences or conduct business other than remotely or with social distance, the investment markets for venture, growth, and private equity capital, as well as corporate R&D budgets, have remained buoyant through 2020 to date. Indeed, the third quarter of 2020 was the second strongest quarter ever for VC-backed companies, with 88 companies raising rounds worth $100 million or more according to the latest PwC/Moneytree report. Healthcare startups raised over $8 billion in the quarter in the United States alone. Gene-editing company Mammouth Biosciences raised a $45 million round of Series B capital in the second quarter of 2020. CRISPR Therapeutics AG raised more in the public markets in primary and secondary capital.

Bayer, Humboldt Fund and Leaps are co-leading a $65 million Series A round for Metagenomi, a biotech startup launched by UC Berkeley scientists. Metagenomi, which will be run by Berkeleys Brian Thomas, is developing a toolbox of CRISPR- and non-CRISPR-based gene-editing systems beyond the Cas9 protein. The goal is to apply machine learning to search through the genomes of these microorganisms, finding new nucleases that can be used in gene therapies. Other investors in the Series A include Sozo Ventures, Agent Capital, InCube Ventures and HOF Capital. Given the focus on new therapies and vaccines to treat the novel coronavirus, we expect continued wind in the sails for gene-editing companies, particularly those with strong product portfolios that leverage the technology.

Despite the projected growth in market applications and abundant investment capital, there is a danger that legal and ethical concerns related to genetic research could put the brakes on gene-editing technologies and product programs emanating therefrom. The possibility of off-target effects, lack of informed consent for germline therapy, and other ethical concerns could cause government regulators to put a stop on important research and development required to cure disease and regenerate human health.

Gene-editing companies can only make money by developing products that involve editing the human genome. The clinical and commercial success of these product candidates depends on public acceptance of gene-editing therapies for the treatment of human diseases. Public attitudes could be influenced by claims that gene editing is unsafe, unethical, or
immoral. Consequently, products created through gene editing may not gain the acceptance of the government, the public, or the medical community. Adverse public reaction to gene therapy, in general, could result in greater government regulation and stricter labeling requirements of gene-editing products. Stakeholders in government, third-party payors, the medical community, and private industry must work to create standards that are both safe and comply with prevailing ethical norms.

The most significant danger to growth in gene-editing technologies lies in ethical concerns about their application to human embryos or the human germline. In 2016, a group of scientists edited the genome of human embryos to modify the gene for hemoglobin beta, the gene in which a mutation occurs in patients with the inherited blood disorder beta thalassemia. Although conducted in non-viable embryos, it shocked the public that scientists could be experimenting with human eggs, sperm, and embryos to alter human life at creation. Then, in 2018, a biophysics researcher in China created the first human genetically edited babies, twin girls, causing public outcry (and triggering government sanctioning of the researcher). In response, the World Health Organization established a committee to advise on the creation of standards for gene editing oversight and governance standards on a global basis.

Some influential non-governmental agencies have called for a moratorium on gene editing, particularly as applied to altering the creation or editing of human life. Other have set forth guidelines on how to use gene-editing technologies in therapeutic applications. In the United States, the National Institute of Health has stated that it will not fund gene-editing studies in human embryos. A U.S. statute called The Dickey-Wicker Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds for research projects that would create or destroy human life. Laws in the United Kingdom prohibit genetically modified embryos from being implanted into women. Still, embryos can be altered in research labs under license from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

Regulations must keep pace with the change that CRISPR-Cas9 has brought to research labs worldwide. Developing international guidelines could be a step towards establishing cohesive national frameworks. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences recommended seven principles for the governance of human genome editing, including promoting well-being, transparency, due care, responsible science, respect for persons, fairness, and transnational co-operation. In the United Kingdom, a non-governmental organization formed in 1991 called The Nuffield Council has proposed two principles for the ethical acceptability of genome editing in the context of reproduction. First, the intervention intends to secure the welfare of the individual born due to such technology. Second, social justice and solidarity principles are upheld, and the intervention should not result in an intensifying of social divides or marginalizing of disadvantaged groups in society. In 2016, in application of the same, the Crick Institute in London was approved to use CRISPR-Cas9 in human embryos to study early development. In response to a cacophony of conflicting national frameworks, the International Summit on Human Gene Editing was formed in 2015 by NGOs in the United States, the United Kingdom and China, and is working to harmonize regulations global from both the ethical and safety perspectives. As CRISPR co-inventor Jennifer Doudna has written in a now infamous editorial in SCIENCE, stakeholders must engage in thoughtfully crafting regulations of the technology without stifling it.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to rely more on new technologies to keep us healthy, adapt to working from home, and more. The pandemic makes us more reliant on innovative digital, biological, and physical solutions. It has created a united sense of urgency among the public and private industry (together with government and academia) to be more creative about using technology to regenerate health. With continued advances in computing power, network architecture, communications bandwidths, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and gene editing, society will undoubtedly find more cures for debilitating disease and succeed in regenerating human health. As science advances, it inevitably intersects with legal and ethical norms, both for individuals and civil society, and there are new externalities to consider. Legal and ethical norms will adapt, rebalancing the interests of each. The fourth industrial revolution is accelerating, and hopefully towards curing disease.

Continue reading here:
Future Visioning the Role of CRISPR Gene Editing: Navigating Law and Ethics to Regenerate Health and Cure Disease - IPWatchdog.com

SAB Biotherapeutics Awarded $57.5M from BARDA and US Department of Defense for Manufacturing of SAB-185 for the Treatment of COVID-19 | Antibodies |…

Posted on December 1, 2020 by Danzig

DetailsCategory: AntibodiesPublished on Tuesday, 01 December 2020 10:26Hits: 181

SIOUX FALLS, SD, USA I November 30, 2020 I SAB Biotherapeutics (SAB), a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company developing a novel immunotherapy platform to produce specifically targeted, high-potency, fully human polyclonal antibodies without the need for human serum, today announced that, as part of Operation Warp Speed, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Defense Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND) have awarded SAB $57.5 million in expanded scope for its DiversitAb Rapid Response Antibody Program contract for the manufacturing of SAB-185, the companys clinical stage therapeutic candidate for COVID-19.

"We are pleased to be awarded this additional contract scope, which we believe is a reflection of the compelling science that supports SAB-185s potential in COVID-19, as well as the urgent need for treatment options amidst the global pandemic. Previous data has indicated that this human polyclonal antibody therapeutic has potent neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2, potentially driving more available doses, giving us the confidence to continue to progress our clinical development programs for SAB-185, said Eddie J. Sullivan, PhD, co-founder, president and CEO of SAB Biotherapeutics. This manufacturing agreement with BARDA and the Department of Defense supports our vision of bringing a novel, first-of-its-kind human polyclonal antibody therapeutic candidate for COVID-19 to patients, and I am proud of the work by our team and appreciate the continued support from BARDA and JPEO as we continue to rapidly advance SAB-185.

SAB-185 is currently being tested as a COVID-19 therapeutic in an ongoing Phase 1 trial in healthy volunteers and an ongoing Phase Ib trial in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. SAB has leveraged its expertise to develop scalable manufacturing capabilities to support clinical activities, and continues to increase capacities in working with contract manufacturing organizations.

About SAB-185

SAB-185 is a fully-human, specifically-targeted and broadly neutralizing polyclonal antibody therapeutic candidate for COVID-19. The therapeutic was developed from SABs novel proprietary DiversitAb Rapid Response Antibody Program. SAB filed the Investigational New Drug (IND) application and produced the initial clinical doses in just 98 days from program initiation. The novel therapeutic has shown neutralization of both the Munich and Washington strains of mutated virus in preclinical studies. Preclinical data has also demonstrated SAB-185 to be significantly more potent than human-derived convalescent plasma.

About SAB Biotherapeutics, Inc.

SAB Biotherapeutics, Inc. (SAB) is a clinical-stage, biopharmaceutical company advancing a new class of immunotherapies leveraging fully human polyclonal antibodies. Utilizing some of the most complex genetic engineering and antibody science in the world, SAB has developed the only platform that can rapidly produce natural, specifically-targeted, high-potency, human polyclonal immunotherapies at commercial scale. SAB-185, a fully-human polyclonal antibody therapeutic candidate for COVID-19, is being developed with initial funding supported by the Biomedical Advanced Research Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND) Joint Project Lead for Enabling Biotechnologies (JPL-EB). In addition to COVID-19, the companys pipeline also includes programs in Type 1 diabetes, organ transplant and influenza. For more information visit: http://www.sabbiotherapeutics.com or follow @SABBantibody on Twitter.

SOURCE: SAB Biotherapeutics

Read the original here:
SAB Biotherapeutics Awarded $57.5M from BARDA and US Department of Defense for Manufacturing of SAB-185 for the Treatment of COVID-19 | Antibodies |...

Future Visioning The Role Of CRISPR Gene Editing: Navigating Law And Ethics To Regenerate Health And Cure Disease – Technology – United States -…

Posted on November 28, 2020 by Danzig

"Despite the projected growth in market applications andabundant investment capital, there is a danger that legal andethical concerns related to genetic research could put the brakeson gene editing technologies and product programs emanatingtherefrom."

There are thousands of diseases occurring in humans, animals,and plants caused by aberrant DNA sequences. Traditional smallmolecule and biologic therapies have only had minimal success intreating many of these diseases because they mitigate symptomswhile failing to address the underlying genetic causes. While humanunderstanding of genetic diseases has increased tremendously sincethe mapping of the human genome in the late 1990s, our ability totreat them effectively has been limited by our historical inabilityto alter genetic sequences.

The science of gene editing was born in the 1990s, as scientistsdeveloped tools such as zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs) and TALEnucleases (TALENs) to study the genome and attempt to altersequences that caused disease. While these systems were anessential first step to demonstrate the potential of gene editing,their development was challenging in practice due to the complexityof engineering protein-DNA interactions.

Then, in 2011, Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier, a French professor ofmicrobiology, genetics, and biochemistry, and Jennifer Doudna, anAmerican professor of biochemistry, pioneered a revolutionary newgene-editing technology called CRISPR/Cas9. Clustered Regularly InterspacedShort Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) and Cas9 stands forCRISPR-associated protein 9. In 2020, the revolutionary work ofDrs. Charpentier and Doudna developing CRISPR/Cas9 were recognizedwith the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. The technology was also thesource of a long-running and high-profile patent battle between two groups ofscientsists.

CRISPR/Cas9 for gene editing came about from a naturallyoccurring viral defense mechanism in bacteria. The system ischeaper and easier to use than previous technologies. It deliversthe Cas9 nuclease complexed with a synthetic guide RNA (gRNA) intoa cell, cutting the 'cell's genome at the desired location,allowing existing genes to be removed and new ones added to aliving organism's genome. The technique is essential inbiotechnology and medicine as it provides for the genomes to beedited in vivo with extremely high precision, efficiently, and withcomparative ease. It can create new drugs, agricultural products,and genetically modified organisms or control pathogens and pests.More possibilities include the treatment of inherited geneticdiseases and diseases arising from somatic mutations such ascancer. However, its use in human germline genetic modification ishighly controversial.

The following diagram from CRISPR Therapeutics AG, a Swisscompany, illustrates how it functions:

In the 1990s, nanotechnology and gene editing were necessaryplot points for science fiction films. In 2020, developments likenano-sensors and CRISPR gene editing technology have moved thesetechnologies directly into the mainstream, opening a new frontierof novel market applications. According to The Business ResearchCompany, the global CRISPR technology market reached a value ofnearly $700 million in 2019, is expected to more than double in2020, and reach $6.7 billion by 2030. Market applications targetall forms of life, from animals to plants to humans.

Gene editing's primary market applications are for thetreatment of genetically-defined diseases. CRISPR/Cas9 gene editingpromises to enable the engineering of genomes of cell-basedtherapies and make them safer and available to a broader group ofpatients. Cell therapies have already begun to make a meaningfulimpact on specific diseases, and gene editing helps to acceleratethat progress across diverse disease areas, including oncology anddiabetes.

In the area of human therapy, millions of people worldwidesuffer from genetic conditions. Gene-editing technologies likeCRISPR-Cas9 have introduced a way to address the cause ofdebilitating illnesses like cystic fibrosis and create betterinterventions and therapies. They also have promising marketapplications for agriculture, food safety, supply, anddistribution. For example, grocery retailers are even looking athow gene editing could impact the products they sell. Scientistshave created gene-edited crops like non-browning mushrooms andmildew-resistant grapes - experiments that are part of an effort toprevent spoilage, which could ultimately change the way food issold.

Despite the inability to travel and conduct face-to-facemeetings, attend industry conferences or conduct business otherthan remotely or with social distance, the investment markets forventure, growth, and private equity capital, as well as corporateR&D budgets, have remained buoyant through 2020 to date.Indeed, the third quarter of 2020 was the second strongest quarterever for VC-backed companies, with 88 companies raising roundsworth $100 million or more according to the latest PwC/Moneytreereport. Healthcare startups raised over $8 billion in the quarterin the United States alone. Gene-editing company MammouthBiosciences raised a $45 million round of Series B capital in thesecond quarter of 2020. CRISPR Therapeutics AG raised more in thepublic markets in primary and secondary capital.

Bayer, Humboldt Fund and Leaps are co-leading a $65 million Series A round for Metagenomi, abiotech startup launched by UC Berkeley scientists. Metagenomi,which will be run by Berkeley's Brian Thomas, is developing atoolbox of CRISPR- and non-CRISPR-based gene-editing systems beyondthe Cas9 protein. The goal is to apply machine learning to searchthrough the genomes of these microorganisms, finding new nucleasesthat can be used in gene therapies. Other investors in the Series Ainclude Sozo Ventures, Agent Capital, InCube Ventures and HOFCapital. Given the focus on new therapies and vaccines to treat thenovel coronavirus, we expect continued wind in the sails forgene-editing companies, particularly those with strong productportfolios that leverage the technology.

Despite the projected growth in market applications and abundantinvestment capital, there is a danger that legal and ethicalconcerns related to genetic research could put the brakes ongene-editing technologies and product programs emanating therefrom.The possibility of off-target effects, lack of informed consent forgermline therapy, and other ethical concerns could cause governmentregulators to put a stop on important research and developmentrequired to cure disease and regenerate human health.

Gene-editing companies can only make money by developingproducts that involve editing the human genome. The clinical andcommercial success of these product candidates depends on publicacceptance of gene-editing therapies for the treatment of humandiseases. Public attitudes could be influenced by claims that geneediting is unsafe, unethical, or immoral. Consequently, productscreated through gene editing may not gain the acceptance of thegovernment, the public, or the medical community. Adverse publicreaction to gene therapy, in general, could result in greatergovernment regulation and stricter labeling requirements ofgene-editing products. Stakeholders in government, third-partypayors, the medical community, and private industry must work tocreate standards that are both safe and comply with prevailingethical norms.

The most significant danger to growth in gene-editingtechnologies lies in ethical concerns about their application tohuman embryos or the human germline. In 2016, a group of scientistsedited the genome of human embryos to modify the gene forhemoglobin beta, the gene in which a mutation occurs in patientswith the inherited blood disorder beta thalassemia. Althoughconducted in non-viable embryos, it shocked the public thatscientists could be experimenting with human eggs, sperm, andembryos to alter human life at creation. Then, in 2018, abiophysics researcher in China created the first human geneticallyedited babies, twin girls, causing public outcry (and triggeringgovernme
nt sanctioning of the researcher). In response, the WorldHealth Organization established a committee to advise on thecreation of standards for gene editing oversight and governancestandards on a global basis.

Some influential non-governmental agencies have called for amoratorium on gene editing, particularly as applied to altering thecreation or editing of human life. Other have set forth guidelineson how to use gene-editing technologies in therapeuticapplications. In the United States, the National Institute ofHealth has stated that it will not fund gene-editing studies inhuman embryos. A U.S. statute called "The Dickey-WickerAmendment" prohibits the use of federal funds for researchprojects that would create or destroy human life. Laws in theUnited Kingdom prohibit genetically modified embryos from beingimplanted into women. Still, embryos can be altered in researchlabs under license from the Human Fertilisation and EmbryologyAuthority.

Regulations must keep pace with the change that CRISPR-Cas9 hasbrought to research labs worldwide. Developing international guidelines could be a steptowards establishing cohesive national frameworks. The U.S.National Academy of Sciences recommended seven principles for thegovernance of human genome editing, including promoting well-being,transparency, due care, responsible science, respect for persons,fairness, and transnational co-operation. In the United Kingdom, anon-governmental organization formed in 1991 called The NuffieldCouncil has proposed two principles for the ethical acceptabilityof genome editing in the context of reproduction. First, theintervention intends to secure the welfare of the individual borndue to such technology. Second, social justice and solidarityprinciples are upheld, and the intervention should not result in anintensifying of social divides or marginalizing of disadvantagedgroups in society. In 2016, in application of the same, the CrickInstitute in London was approved to use CRISPR-Cas9 in humanembryos to study early development. In response to a cacophony ofconflicting national frameworks, the International Summit on HumanGene Editing was formed in 2015 by NGOs in the United States, theUnited Kingdom and China, and is working to harmonize regulationsglobal from both the ethical and safety perspectives. As CRISPRco-inventor Jennifer Doudna has written in a now infamous editorialin SCIENCE, "stakeholders must engage in thoughtfullycrafting regulations of the technology without stiflingit."

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to rely more on newtechnologies to keep us healthy, adapt to working from home, andmore. The pandemic makes us more reliant on innovative digital,biological, and physical solutions. It has created a united senseof urgency among the public and private industry (together withgovernment and academia) to be more creative about using technologyto regenerate health. With continued advances in computing power, networkarchitecture, communications bandwidths, artificial intelligence,machine learning, and gene editing, society will undoubtedly findmore cures for debilitating disease and succeed in regeneratinghuman health. As science advances, it inevitably intersects withlegal and ethical norms, both for individuals and civil society,and there are new externalities to consider. Legal and ethicalnorms will adapt, rebalancing the interests of each. The fourthindustrial revolution is accelerating, and hopefully towards curingdisease.

Originally published by IPWatchdog.com, November 24,2020.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

To End Suffering, Blow up the Universe: A Dodgy Philosophy of Human Extinction – The Wire Science

Posted on November 20, 2020 by Danzig

Representative image of an explosion in space. Photo: Pixabay

At a time when humans are threatening the extinction of so many other species, it might not seem so surprising that some people think that the extinction of our own species would be a good thing. Take, for example, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, whose founder believes that our extinction would put an end to the damage we inflict on each other and ecosystems more generally.

Or theres the South African philosopher David Benatar, who argues that bringing people into existence always does them harm. He recommends we cease procreating and gradually desert the Earth.

But humans arent the only beings to feel pain. Non-human animals would continue suffering without us. So, driven by a desire to eliminate suffering entirely, some people have shockingly advocated taking the rest of nature with us. They recommend that we actively abolish the world, rather than simply desert it.

This disturbing and extremist position goes surprisingly far back in history.

Benevolent world-exploders

Around 1,600 years ago, Saint Augustine suggested that humans stop procreating. He endorsed this, however, because he wanted to hasten the Last Judgement and the eternity of joy thereafter.

If you dont believe in an afterlife, this becomes a less attractive option. Youd have to be motivated exclusively by removing suffering from nature, without any promise of gaining supernatural rewards. Probably the first person to advocate human extinction in this way was Arthur Schopenhauer. He did so 200 years ago, in 1819, urging that we spare the coming generations of the burden of existence.

Schopenhauer saw existence as pain so he believed we should stop bringing humans into existence. And he was clear about the result if everyone obeyed: The human race would die out.

But what about the pain of non-human animals? Schopenhauer had an answer, but it wasnt a convincing one. He was a philosophical idealist, believing that the existence of external nature depends on our self-consciousness of it. So, with the abolition of human brains, the sufferings of less self-aware animals would also vanish as they ceased to exist without us around to perceive them.

Even on Schopenhauers own terms, theres a problem. What if other intelligent and self-conscious beings exist? Perhaps on other planets? Surely, then, our sacrifice would mean nothing; existence and painful perception of it would continue. It fell to Schopenhauers disciple, Eduard von Hartmann, to propose a more complete solution.

Abolishing the universe

Hartmann, born in Berlin in 1842, wrote a system of pessimistic philosophy that was almost as lengthy as his impressive beard. Infamous in his own time, but completely forgotten in ours, Hartmann proposed a shockingly radical vision.

Writing in 1869, Hartmann rebuked Schopenhauer for thinking of the problem of suffering in only a local and temporary sense. His predecessors vision of human extinction by sexual continence would not suffice. Hartmann was convinced that, after a few aeons, another self-conscious species would re-evolve on Earth. This would merely perpetuate the misery of existence.

Hartmann also believed that life exists on other planets. Given his belief that most of it was probably unintelligent, the suffering of such beings would be helpless. They wouldnt be able to do anything about it.

So, rather than only destroying our own kind, Hartmann thought that, as intelligent beings, we are obligated to find a way to eliminate suffering, permanently and universally. He believed that it is up to humanity to annihilate the universe: it is our duty, he wrote, to cause the whole kosmos to disappear.

Hartmann hoped that if humanity did not prove up to this task then some planets might evolve beings that would be, long after our own sun is frozen. But he didnt think this meant we could be complacent. He noted the stringency of conditions required for a planet to be habitable (let alone evolve creatures with complex brains), and concluded that the duty might fall exclusively on humans, here and now.

Also Read: How Humanity Came To Contemplate Its Possible Extinction a Timeline

Euthanasia shockwaves

Hartmann was convinced this was the purpose of creation: that our universe exists in order to evolve beings compassionate and clever enough to decide to abolish existence itself. He imagined this final moment as a shockwave of deadly euthanasia rippling outwards from Earth, blotting out the existence of this cosmos until all its world-lenses and nebulae have been abolished.

He remained unclear as to exactly how this goal would be achieved. Speaking vaguely of humanitys increasing global unification and spiritual disillusion, he hinted to future scientific and technological discoveries. He was, thankfully, a metaphysician not a physicist.

Hartmanns philosophy is fascinating. It is also unimaginably wrong. This is because he confuses the eradication of suffering with the eradication of sufferers. Conflating this distinction leads to crazy visions of omnicide. To get rid of suffering you dont need to get rid of sufferers: you could instead try removing the causes of pain. We should eliminate suffering, not the sufferer.

Indeed, so long as there are intelligent beings around, theres at least the opportunity for a radical removal of suffering. Philosophers such as David Pearce even argue that, in the future, technologies like genetic engineering will be able to entirely phase it out, abolishing pain from the Earth. With the right interventions, Pearce contends, humans and non-humans could plausibly be driven by gradients of bliss, not privation and pain.

This wouldnt necessarily need to be a Brave New World, populated by blissed-out, stupefied beings: plausibly, people could still be highly motivated, just by pursuing a range of sublime joys, rather than avoiding negative feeling. Pearce even argues that, in the far future, our descendants might be able to effect the same change on other biospheres, throughout the observable universe.

So, even if you think removing suffering is our absolute priority, there is astronomical value in us sticking around. We may owe it to sufferers generally.

Thomas Moynihan, researcher, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

See the article here:
To End Suffering, Blow up the Universe: A Dodgy Philosophy of Human Extinction - The Wire Science

Solve suffering by blowing up the universe? The dubious philosophy of human extinction – The Conversation UK

Posted on November 20, 2020 by Danzig

Or theres the South African philosopher David Benatar, who argues that bringing people into existence always does them harm. He recommends we cease procreating and gradually desert the Earth.

This disturbing and extremist position goes surprisingly far back in history.

Around 1600 years ago, Saint Augustine suggested that humans stop procreating. He endorsed this, however, because he wanted to hasten the Last Judgement and the eternity of joy thereafter.

Schopenhauer saw existence as pain so he believed we should stop bringing humans into existence. And he was clear about the result if everyone obeyed: The human race would die out.

This wouldnt necessarily need to be a Brave New World, populated by blissed-out, stupefied beings: plausibly, people could still be highly motivated, just by pursuing a range of sublime joys, rather than avoiding negative feeling. Pearce even argues that, in the far future, our descendents might be able to effect the same change on other biospheres, throughout the observable universe.

So, even if you think removing suffering is our absolute priority, there is astronomical value in us sticking around. We may owe it to sufferers generally.

See the original post:
Solve suffering by blowing up the universe? The dubious philosophy of human extinction - The Conversation UK

Genetic disorder – Wikipedia

Posted on October 26, 2021 by Danzig

Health problem caused by one or more abnormalities in the genome

Medical condition

A genetic disorder is a health problem caused by one or more abnormalities in the genome. It can be caused by a mutation in a single gene (monogenic) or multiple genes (polygenic) or by a chromosomal abnormality. Although polygenic disorders are the most common, the term is mostly used when discussing disorders with a single genetic cause, either in a gene or chromosome.[1][2] The mutation responsible can occur spontaneously before embryonic development (a de novo mutation), or it can be inherited from two parents who are carriers of a faulty gene (autosomal recessive inheritance) or from a parent with the disorder (autosomal dominant inheritance). When the genetic disorder is inherited from one or both parents, it is also classified as a hereditary disease. Some disorders are caused by a mutation on the X chromosome and have X-linked inheritance. Very few disorders are inherited on the Y chromosome or mitochondrial DNA (due to their size).[3]

There are well over 6,000 known genetic disorders,[4] and new genetic disorders are constantly being described in medical literature.[5] More than 600 genetic disorders are treatable.[6] Around 1 in 50 people are affected by a known single-gene disorder, while around 1 in 263 are affected by a chromosomal disorder.[7] Around 65% of people have some kind of health problem as a result of congenital genetic mutations.[7] Due to the significantly large number of genetic disorders, approximately 1 in 21 people are affected by a genetic disorder classified as "rare" (usually defined as affecting less than 1 in 2,000 people). Most genetic disorders are rare in themselves.[5][8]

Genetic disorders are present before birth, and some genetic disorders produce birth defects, but birth defects can also be developmental rather than hereditary. The opposite of a hereditary disease is an acquired disease. Most cancers, although they involve genetic mutations to a small proportion of cells in the body, are acquired diseases. Some cancer syndromes, however, such as BRCA mutations, are hereditary genetic disorders.[9]

A single-gene disorder (or monogenic disorder) is the result of a single mutated gene. Single-gene disorders can be passed on to subsequent generations in several ways. Genomic imprinting and uniparental disomy, however, may affect inheritance patterns. The divisions between recessive and dominant types are not "hard and fast", although the divisions between autosomal and X-linked types are (since the latter types are distinguished purely based on the chromosomal location of the gene). For example, the common form of dwarfism, achondroplasia, is typically considered a dominant disorder, but children with two genes for achondroplasia have a severe and usually lethal skeletal disorder, one that achondroplasics could be considered carriers for. Sickle-cell anemia is also considered a recessive condition, but heterozygous carriers have increased resistance to malaria in early childhood, which could be described as a related dominant condition.[17] When a couple where one partner or both are sufferers or carriers of a single-gene disorder wish to have a child, they can do so through in vitro fertilization, which enables preimplantation genetic diagnosis to occur to check whether the embryo has the genetic disorder.[18]

Most congenital metabolic disorders known as inborn errors of metabolism result from single-gene defects. Many such single-gene defects can decrease the fitness of affected people and are therefore present in the population in lower frequencies compared to what would be expected based on simple probabilistic calculations.[19]

Only one mutated copy of the gene will be necessary for a person to be affected by an autosomal dominant disorder. Each affected person usually has one affected parent.[20]:57 The chance a child will inherit the mutated gene is 50%. Autosomal dominant conditions sometimes have reduced penetrance, which means although only one mutated copy is needed, not all individuals who inherit that mutation go on to develop the disease. Examples of this type of disorder are Huntington's disease,[20]:58 neurofibromatosis type 1, neurofibromatosis type 2, Marfan syndrome, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, hereditary multiple exostoses (a highly penetrant autosomal dominant disorder), tuberous sclerosis, Von Willebrand disease, and acute intermittent porphyria. Birth defects are also called congenital anomalies.

Two copies of the gene must be mutated for a person to be affected by an autosomal recessive disorder. An affected person usually has unaffected parents who each carry a single copy of the mutated gene and are referred to as genetic carriers. Each parent with a defective gene normally do not have symptoms.[21] Two unaffected people who each carry one copy of the mutated gene have a 25% risk with each pregnancy of having a child affected by the disorder. Examples of this type of disorder are albinism, medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, TaySachs disease, NiemannPick disease, spinal muscular atrophy, and Roberts syndrome. Certain other phenotypes, such as wet versus dry earwax, are also determined in an autosomal recessive fashion.[22][23] Some autosomal recessive disorders are common because, in the past, carrying one of the faulty genes led to a slight protection against an infectious disease or toxin such as tuberculosis or malaria.[24] Such disorders include cystic fibrosis,[25] sickle cell disease,[26] phenylketonuria[27] and thalassaemia.[28]

X-linked dominant disorders are caused by mutations in genes on the X chromosome. Only a few disorders have this inheritance pattern, with a prime example being X-linked hypophosphatemic rickets. Males and females are both affected in these disorders, with males typically being more severely affected than females. Some X-linked dominant conditions, such as Rett syndrome, incontinentia pigmenti type 2, and Aicardi syndrome, are usually fatal in males either in utero or shortly after birth, and are therefore predominantly seen in females. Exceptions to this finding are extremely rare cases in which boys with Klinefelter syndrome (44+xxy) also inherit an X-linked dominant condition and exhibit symptoms more similar to those of a female in terms of disease severity. The chance of passing on an X-linked dominant disorder differs between men and women. The sons of a man with an X-linked dominant disorder will all be unaffected (since they receive their father's Y chromosome), but his daughters will all inherit the condition. A woman with an X-linked dominant disorder has a 50% chance of having an affected fetus with each pregnancy, although in cases such as incontinentia pigmenti, only female offspring are generally viable.

X-linked recessive conditions are also caused by mutations in genes on the X chromosome. Males are much more frequently affected than females, because they only have the one X chromosome necessary for the condition to present. The chance of passing on the disorder differs between men and women. The sons of a man with an X-linked recessive disorder will not be affected (since they receive their father's Y chromosome), but his daughters will be carriers of one copy of the mutated gene. A woman who is a carrier of an X-linked recessive disorder (XRXr) has a 50% chance of having sons who are affected and a 50% chance of having daughters who are carriers of one copy of the mutated gene. X-linked recessive conditions include the serious diseases hemophilia A, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and LeschNyhan syndrome, as well as common and less serious conditions such as male pattern baldness and redgreen color blindness. X-linked recessive conditions can sometimes manifest in females due to skewed X-inactivation or monosomy X (Turner syndrome).

Y-linked disorders are caused by mutations on the Y chromosome. These conditions may only be transmitted from the heterogametic sex (e.g. male humans) to
offspring of the same sex. More simply, this means that Y-linked disorders in humans can only be passed from men to their sons; females can never be affected because they do not possess Y-allosomes.

Y-linked disorders are exceedingly rare but the most well-known examples typically cause infertility. Reproduction in such conditions is only possible through the circumvention of infertility by medical intervention.

This type of inheritance, also known as maternal inheritance, is the rarest and applies to the 13 genes encoded by mitochondrial DNA. Because only egg cells contribute mitochondria to the developing embryo, only mothers (who are affected) can pass on mitochondrial DNA conditions to their children. An example of this type of disorder is Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy.

It is important to stress that the vast majority of mitochondrial diseases (particularly when symptoms develop in early life) are actually caused by a nuclear gene defect, as the mitochondria are mostly developed by non-mitochondrial DNA. These diseases most often follow autosomal recessive inheritance.[29]

Genetic disorders may also be complex, multifactorial, or polygenic, meaning they are likely associated with the effects of multiple genes in combination with lifestyles and environmental factors. Multifactorial disorders include heart disease and diabetes. Although complex disorders often cluster in families, they do not have a clear-cut pattern of inheritance. This makes it difficult to determine a person's risk of inheriting or passing on these disorders. Complex disorders are also difficult to study and treat because the specific factors that cause most of these disorders have not yet been identified. Studies that aim to identify the cause of complex disorders can use several methodological approaches to determine genotypephenotype associations. One method, the genotype-first approach, starts by identifying genetic variants within patients and then determining the associated clinical manifestations. This is opposed to the more traditional phenotype-first approach, and may identify causal factors that have previously been obscured by clinical heterogeneity, penetrance, and expressivity.

On a pedigree, polygenic diseases do tend to "run in families", but the inheritance does not fit simple patterns as with Mendelian diseases. This does not mean that the genes cannot eventually be located and studied. There is also a strong environmental component to many of them (e.g., blood pressure). Other factors include:

A chromosomal disorder is a missing, extra, or irregular portion of chromosomal DNA. It can be from an atypical number of chromosomes or a structural abnormality in one or more chromosomes. An example of these disorders is trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), in which there is an extra copy of chromosome 21.

Due to the wide range of genetic disorders that are known, diagnosis is widely varied and dependent of the disorder. Most genetic disorders are diagnosed pre-birth, at birth, or during early childhood however some, such as Huntington's disease, can escape detection until the patient is well into adulthood.

The basic aspects of a genetic disorder rests on the inheritance of genetic material. With an in depth family history, it is possible to anticipate possible disorders in children which direct medical professionals to specific tests depending on the disorder and allow parents the chance to prepare for potential lifestyle changes, anticipate the possibility of stillbirth, or contemplate termination.[30] Prenatal diagnosis can detect the presence of characteristic abnormalities in fetal development through ultrasound, or detect the presence of characteristic substances via invasive procedures which involve inserting probes or needles into the uterus such as in amniocentesis.[31]

Not all genetic disorders directly result in death; however, there are no known cures for genetic disorders. Many genetic disorders affect stages of development, such as Down syndrome, while others result in purely physical symptoms such as muscular dystrophy. Other disorders, such as Huntington's disease, show no signs until adulthood. During the active time of a genetic disorder, patients mostly rely on maintaining or slowing the degradation of quality of life and maintain patient autonomy. This includes physical therapy, pain management, and may include a selection of alternative medicine programs.

The treatment of genetic disorders is an ongoing battle, with over 1,800 gene therapy clinical trials having been completed, are ongoing, or have been approved worldwide.[32] Despite this, most treatment options revolve around treating the symptoms of the disorders in an attempt to improve patient quality of life.

Gene therapy refers to a form of treatment where a healthy gene is introduced to a patient. This should alleviate the defect caused by a faulty gene or slow the progression of the disease. A major obstacle has been the delivery of genes to the appropriate cell, tissue, and organ affected by the disorder. Researchers have investigated how they can introduce a gene into the potentially trillions of cells that carry the defective copy. Finding an answer to this has been a roadblock between understanding the genetic disorder and correcting the genetic disorder.[33]

Around 1 in 50 people are affected by a known single-gene disorder, while around 1 in 263 are affected by a chromosomal disorder.[7] Around 65% of people have some kind of health problem as a result of congenital genetic mutations.[7] Due to the significantly large number of genetic disorders, approximately 1 in 21 people are affected by a genetic disorder classified as "rare" (usually defined as affecting less than 1 in 2,000 people). Most genetic disorders are rare in themselves.[5][8] There are well over 6,000 known genetic disorders,[4] and new genetic disorders are constantly being described in medical literature.[5]

The earliest known genetic condition in a hominid was in the fossil species Paranthropus robustus, with over a third of individuals displaying amelogenesis imperfecta.[34]

Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Views: Taking A Nimble Approach To Explores Huge Growth In Near Future With Eminent Players -…

Posted on November 2, 2020 by Danzig

Scope of the Report:

CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes industry is relatively concentrated, manufacturers are mostly in the Europe and North America. Among them, North America region accounted for more than 45.70% of the total market of global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes.Although this market has great potential for future development, we do not recommend entering the market for investors who do not have strong capital or do not have key technology.

The worldwide market for CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes is expected to grow at a CAGR of roughly 39.8% over the next five years, will reach 2640 million US$ in 2024, from 350 million US$ in 2019, according to a new Globalmarketers.biz Research study.

This report focuses on the CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes in global market, especially in North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific, South America, Middle East and Africa. This report categorizes the market based on manufacturers, regions, type and application.

To Understand How Covid-19 Impact on this industry. Get Free Sample Report:

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

Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes report portrays the fundamental details of the dominant market players elaborating their business profiles, CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market revenue, sales volume, press releases, technical developments taking place in this industry.

Report is segmented into different parts as below:

Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Details Based On Key Players:

Caribou BiosciencesAddgeneCRISPR THERAPEUTICSMerck KGaAMirus Bio LLCEditas MedicineTakara Bio USAThermo Fisher ScientificHorizon Discovery GroupIntellia TherapeuticsGE Healthcare Dharmacon

Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Details Based on Product Category:

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

Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Details Based On Key Product Applications:

Biotechnology CompaniesPharmaceutical CompaniesAcademic InstitutesResearch and Development Institutes

Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Details Based On Regions

Inquire Before Buying Or Ask For Custom Requirement:

The first part of the report portrays the information related to the basic CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes introduction, key market players, their company profiles, sales ratio, demand and supply volume, CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market gains during 2018 and 2019. The second part of the CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes report extracts more details stating the sales revenue of each CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes industry player, the business strategies followed by them. The third part of the report displays the competitive scenario of all the CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market players on basis of the revenue gains.

The fourth part of the report enlists the CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes details based on key producing regions and CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market gains during the period from 2015 to 2019. Fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth part of the CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes report enlists the major countries within the regions and the CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes revenue generated during the period from 2012 to 2017. Tenth and eleventh part of the CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes report mentions the variety of CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes product applications, CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes statistics during 2015 to 2019.

Part number twelve, thirteen, fourteen and fifteen provides information regarding the futuristic CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market trends expected during the forecast period from 2020 to 2024, CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes marketing strategies, CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market vendors, facts and figures of the CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market and vital CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes business conclusion along with data collection sources and appendix.

What CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Report Contributes?

View Full Table Of Content: @

Name: Alex White

Phone: US: +1(806)4400782/ UK: +44 33 3303 4979

Email: [emailprotected]

Original post:
Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Views: Taking A Nimble Approach To Explores Huge Growth In Near Future With Eminent Players -...

A breakthrough on the horizon: Humans could begin receiving transplanted pig hearts by 2021 – Cardiovascular Business

Posted on October 10, 2020 by Danzig

In addition, the team added, researchers have developed new drugs that suppress the immune systems of transplant recipients when the organ comes from a different species. Before this crucial step, researchers would attempt to transplant, say, a pig heart into a baboonbut the heart would ultimately be rejected.

One of the biggest questions surrounding cardiac xenotransplantation with pigs and humans, of course, is patient safety. Could such a process lead to humans being infected with infectious diseases, for example?

That looks quite unlikely, lead author Richard N. Pierson III, MD, division of cardiac surgery at MGH and a professor at Harvard Medical School, said in a prepared statement.

The culmination of a lot of research and hard work by our group and others over the last 35 years is that it now looks as though pig-to-human heart transplantation is feasible, he added.

Pierson thinks the first humans could receive pig hearts by the end of 2021. The teams full analysis is available here.

Interview: Elizabeth Kolbert on why well never stop messing with nature – Grist

Posted on February 15, 2021 by Danzig

In Australia, scientists collect buckets of coral sperm, mixing one species with another in an attempt to create a new super coral that can withstand rising temperatures and acidifying seas. In Nevada, scientists nurse a tiny colony of one-inch long Devils Hole pupfish in an uncomfortably hot, Styrofoam-molded pool. And in Massachusetts, Harvard University scientists research injecting chemicals into the atmosphere to dim the suns light and slow down the runaway pace of global warming.

These are some of the scenes from Elizabeth Kolberts new book, Under a White Sky, a global exploration of the ways that humanity is attempting to engineer, fix, or reroute the course of nature in a climate-changed world. (The title refers to one of the consequences of engineering the Earth to better reflect sunlight: Our usual blue sky could turn a pale white.)

Kolbert, a New Yorker staff writer, has been covering the environment for decades: Her first book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, traced the scientific evidence for global warming from Greenland to Alaska; her second, The Sixth Extinction, followed the growing pace of animal extinctions.

Under a White Sky covers slightly different ground. Humanity is now, Kolbert explains, in the midst of the Anthropocene a geologic era in which we are the dominant force shaping earth, sea, and sky. Faced with that reality, humans have gotten more creative at using technology to fix the problems that we unwittingly spawned: Stamping out Australias cane toad invasion with genetic engineering, for example, or using giant air conditioners to suck carbon dioxide out of air and turn it into rock. As Kolbert notes, tongue-in-cheek: What could possibly go wrong?

This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

Q.Under a White Sky is about a lot of things rivers, solar geoengineering, coral reefs but its also about what nature means in our current world. What got you interested in that topic?

A.All books have complicated births, as it were. But about four years ago, I went to Hawaii to report on a project that had been nicknamed the super coral project. And it was run by a very charismatic scientist named Ruth Gates, who very sadly passed away about two years ago. We have very radically altered the oceans by pouring hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into the air and we cant get that heat out of the oceans in any foreseeable timescale. We cant change the chemistry back. And if we want coral reefs in the future, were going to have to counter what weve done to the oceans by remaking reefs so they can withstand warmer temperatures. The aim of the project was to see if you could hybridize or crossbreed corals to get more vigorous varieties.

This idea that we have to counteract one form of intervention in the natural world (climate change) with another form of intervention (trying to recreate reefs) just struck me as a very interesting new chapter in our long and very complicated relationship with nature. And once I started to think about it that way, I started to see that as a pretty widespread pattern. Thats really what prompted the book.

Q.Some of these human interventions to save nature seem hopeful and positive and others go wrong in pretty epic ways. How do you balance those two types of stories?

A.The book starts with examples that probably will strike many Grist readers as OK, that makes sense. That makes sense. But it goes from regional engineering solutions through biotechnology, through gene editing, and all the way up to solar geoengineering. So it kind of leads you down what we might call a slippery slope. And one of the interesting things about these cases is that they will divide up people differently. Even people who consider themselves environmentalists will come down on different sides of some of these technologies. The bind were in is so profound that theres no right answer.

Q.So someone who accepts what were doing to save the Devils Hole pupfish might not necessarily accept gene-editing mosquitos or dimming the sun through solar geoengineering.

A.Exactly. And I think sometimes those lines seem clearer than they are once you start to think about it.

Q.At one point in the book, theres a quote that is (apocryphally) attributed to Einstein: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. But you dont say whether you agree with that sentiment or not. Is that on purpose?

A.Yeah, you can read the book and say, Im really glad people are doing these things, and I feel better. Or you can read the book and say, as one scientific quote does, This is a broad highway to hell. And both of those are very valid reactions.

Q.When you write about geoengineering, you point out that many scientists conclude that its necessary to avoid catastrophic levels of warming, but that it could also be a really bad idea. Do you think that in 15 or 20 years youll be writing about a geoengineering experiment gone wrong, much as youre writing now about failed attempts to protect Louisiana from flooding?

A.I might argue about the timescales. Im not sure Ill be reporting on it in 15 years, but I think you might be reporting on it in 30 years.

At the moment, its still the realm of sci-fi, and Im not claiming to have any particular insight into how people are going to respond in the future. But the case thats made in the book by some very smart scientists is that we dont have very many tools in our toolbox for dealing with climate change quickly, because the system has so much inertia. Its like turning around a supertanker: It takes literally decades, even if we do everything absolutely right.

Q.Youve reported on climate change for a long time. How does it feel to see geoengineering being explored as a more valuable and potentially necessary option?

A.Well, one thing I learned in the course of reporting the book was that what we now refer to as geoengineering was actually the very first thing that people started to think about when they realized we were warming the climate. The very first report about climate change that was handed to Lyndon Johnson in 1965 wasnt about how we should stop emitting it was: Maybe we should find some reflective stuff to throw into the ocean to bounce more sunlight back into space!

Its odd, its kind of almost freakish, and I cant explain it, except to say that it sort of fits the pattern of the book.

Q.Theres been a longstanding fight in environmentalism between a technology-will-save-us philosophy and a return-to-nature philosophy. Based on the reporting in this book, do you think that the technology camp has won?

A.I think the book is an attempt to take on both of those schools of thought. On some level, technology has won even people who would say dont do geoengineering still want to put up solar panels and build huge arrays of batteries, and those are technologies! But where does that leave us? It goes back to Ruth Gates and the super coral project. There was a big fight among coral biologists about whether a project like that should even be pursued. The Great Barrier Reef is the size of Italy even if you have some replacement coral, how are you going to get them out on the reef? But Gatess point was, were not returning. Even if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, youre not getting the Great Barrier Reef back as it was in a foreseeable timeframe.

My impulse as an old-school environmentalist is to say Well, lets just leave things alone. But the sad fact is that weve intervened so much at this point that even not intervening is itself an intervention.

Q.Now that we have a U.S. president who takes climate change seriously, do you think we could actually start cutting carbon emissions quickly?

A.I really do want to applaud the first steps that the Biden administration has taken. I think they show a pretty profound understanding of the problem. But the question, and its a big one, is What are the limits? Will Congress do anything? What will happen in the Supreme Court? The U.S. i
s no longer the biggest emitter on an annual basis, but on a cumulative basis were still the biggest. And we still dont have resolution on how much CO2 we can put up there to avoid 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius of warming. Those are questions with big error bars. If were lucky, I think we can avoid disastrous climate change. But if were not lucky, were already in deep trouble.

Q.Is there anything else you want to say about the book?

A.It sounds kind of weird after our conversation, but the book was actually a lot of fun to write. It sounds odd when youre talking about a book where the subject is so immensely serious.

Q.You mean like when the undergraduates in Australia are tossing each other buckets of coral sperm?

A.Yes! There is always humor in all these situations. I hope that sense of fun comes through.

Will Biden deliver on climate? Get weekly analysis of federal climate policy action in the first months of Bidens term.

Here is the original post:
Interview: Elizabeth Kolbert on why well never stop messing with nature - Grist

CRISPR Revolution: Do We Need Tighter Gene-Editing Regulations? No – American Council on Science and Health

Posted on October 26, 2021 by Danzig

Life goes on as gene-edited foods begin to hit the market. Japanese consumers have recently startedbuying tomatoes that fight high blood pressure, and Americans have been consuming soy engineered to produce high amounts of heart-healthy oils for a little over two years. Few people noticed these developments because, as scientists have said for a long time, the safety profile of a crop is not dictated by the breeding method that produced it. For all intents and purposes, it seems that food-safety regulators have done a reasonablejob of safeguarding public health against whatever hypothetical risks gene editing may pose.

But this has not stopped critics of genetic engineering from advocating for more federal oversight of CRISPR and othertechniquesused to make discrete changes to the genomes of plants, animals and other organisms we use for food or medicine. Over at The Conversation, a team of scientists recently made the case for tighter rules in Calling the latest gene technologies natural is a semantic distraction they must still be regulated.

Many scientists have defended gene editing, in part, by arguing that it simply mimics nature. A mutation that boosts the nutrient content of rice, for example, is the same whether it was induced by a plant breeder or some natural phenomenon. Indeed, the DNA of plants and animals we eat contains untold numbers of harmless, naturally occurringmutations. But The Conversation authors will have none of this:

Unfortunately, the risks from technology dont disappear by calling it natural... Proponents of deregulation of gene technology use the naturalness argument to make their case. But we argue this is not a good basis for deciding whether a technology should be regulated.

They have written a very long peer-reviewed article outlining a regulatory framework based on "scale of use."The ideais that the more widely a technology is implemented, the greater risk it may pose to human health and the environment, which necessitates regulatory "control points" to ensure its safe use. It's an interesting proposal, but it's plagued by several serious flaws.

Where's the data?

The most significant issue with a scale-based regulatory approachis that it's a reaction to risks that have never materialized. This isn't to say that a potentially harmful genetically engineered organism will never be commercialized. But if we're going to upend our biotechnology regulatory framework, we need to do so based on real-world evidence. Some experts have actually argued, based on decades of safety data, that the US over-regulates biotech products. As biologist and ACSHadvisorDr. Henry Miller and legal scholar John Cohrssen wrote recently in Nature:

After 35 years of real-world experience with genetically engineered plants and microorganisms, and countless risk-assessment experiments, it is past time to reevaluate the rationale for, and the costs and benefits of, the case-by-case reviews of genetically engineered products now required by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The problem with scale

Real-world data aside for the moment, there are some theoretical problems with the scalabilitymodel as well. Theargument assumes thatrisks associated with gene editing proliferate as use of the technology expands, because each gene edit carries a certain level of risk. This is a false assumption, as plant geneticist Kevin Folta pointed out on a recent episode of the podcast we co-host (21 minute mark).

Scientists have a variety of tools with which to monitor and limit the effects of specific gene edits. For example, proteins known as anti-CRISPRs can be utilized to halt the gene-editing machinery so it makes only the changes we want it to. University of Toronto biochemist Karen Maxwell has explained how this could work in practice:

In genome editing applications, anti-CRISPRs may provide a valuable 'off switch for Cas9 activity for therapeutic uses and gene drives. One concern of CRISPR-Cas gene editing technology is the limited ability to control its activity after it has been delivered to the cell . which can lead to off-target mutations. Anti-CRISPRs can potentially be exploited to target Cas9 activity to particular tissues or organs, to particular points of the cell cycle, or to limit the amount of time it is active

Suffice it to say that these and other safeguards significantly alter the risk equation and weaken concerns about a gene-edits-gone-wild scenario. Parenthetically, scientists design these sorts of preventative measures as they develop more genetic engineering applications for widespread use. This is why the wide variety of cars in production today have safety features that would have been unheard of in years past.

Absurdity alert: The A-Bomb analogy

To bolster their argument, The Conversation authors made the following analogy:

Imagine if other technologies with the capacity to harm were governed by resemblance to nature. Should we deregulate nuclear bombs because the natural decay chain of uranium-238 also produces heat, gamma radiation and alpha and beta particles? We inherently recognize the fallacy of this logic. The technology risk equation is more complicated than a supercilious 'its just like nature' argument

If someone has to resort to this kind of rhetoric, the chances are excellent that their argument is weak. Fat Man and Little Boy, the bombs dropped on Japan in 1945, didn't destroy two cities because a nuclear physicist in New Mexico made a technical mistake. These weapons are designed to wreak havoc. Tomatoes bred to produce more of an amino acid, in contrast, are not.

The point of arguing that gene-editing techniques mimic natural processes isn't to assert that natural stuff is good; therefore, gene editing is also good. Instead, the point is to illustrate that inducing mutations in the genomes of plants and animals is not novel or uniquely risky. Even the overpriced products marketed as all-natural have been improved by mutations resulting from many years of plant breeding.

Nonetheless, some scientists have argued that reframing the gene-editing conversation in terms of risk vs benefit would be a smarter approach than making comparisons to nature. I agree with them, so let's start now. The benefits of employing gene editing to improve our food supply and treat disease far outweigh the potential risks, which we can mitigate. Very little about modern life is naturaland it's time we all got over it.

Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market (2020 to 2030) – Focus on Products, Applications, End-users, Country Data and Competitive Landscape -…

Posted on February 15, 2021 by Danzig

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market: Focus on Products, Applications, End Users, Country Data (16 Countries), and Competitive Landscape - Analysis and Forecast, 2020-2030" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The global CRISPR gene editing market was valued at $846.2 million in 2019 and is expected to reach $10,825.1 million by 2030, registering a CAGR of 26.86% during the forecast.

The development of genome engineering with potential applications proved to reflect a remarkable impact on the future of the healthcare and life science industry. The high efficiency of the CRISPR-Cas9 system has been demonstrated in various studies for genome editing, which resulted in significant investments within the field of genome engineering. However, there are several limitations, which need consideration before clinical applications. Further, many researchers are working on the limitations of CRISPR gene editing technology for better results. The potential of CRISPR gene editing to alter the human genome and modify the disease conditions is incredible but exists with ethical and social concerns.

The growth is attributed to the increasing demand in the food industry for better products with improved quality and nutrient enrichment and the pharmaceutical industry for targeted treatment for various diseases. Further, the continued significant investments by healthcare companies to meet the industry demand and growing prominence for the gene therapy procedures with less turnaround time are the prominent factors propelling the growth of the global CRISPR gene editing market.

Research organizations, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and institutes are looking for more efficient genome editing technologies to increase the specificity and cost-effectiveness, also to reduce turnaround time and human errors. Further, the evolution of genome editing technologies has enabled wide range of applications in various fields, such as industrial biotech and agricultural research. These advanced methods are simple, super-efficient, cost-effective, provide multiplexing, and high throughput capabilities. The increase in the geriatric population and increasing number of cancer cases, and genetic disorders across the globe are expected to translate into significantly higher demand for CRISPR gene editing market.

Furthermore, the companies are investing huge amounts in the research and development of CRISPR gene editing products, and gene therapies. The clinical trial landscape of various genetic and chronic diseases has been on the rise in recent years, and this will fuel the CRISPR gene editing market in the future.

Within the research report, the market is segmented based on product type, application, end-user, and region. Each of these segments covers the snapshot of the market over the projected years, the inclination of the market revenue, underlying patterns, and trends by using analytics on the primary and secondary data obtained.

Key Questions Answered in this Report:

Market Dynamics

Growth Drivers

Restraints

Opportunities

Companies Mentioned

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/rky1va

See the original post here:
Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market (2020 to 2030) - Focus on Products, Applications, End-users, Country Data and Competitive Landscape -...

Global CRISPR Technology Market Report 2020: COVID-19 Growth and Change – Market is Expected to Recover to Reach $1.55 Billion in 2023 – Forecast to…

Posted on January 9, 2021 by Danzig

DUBLIN, Jan. 6, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- The "CRISPR Technology Global Market Report 2020-30: COVID-19 Growth and Change" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

CRISPR Technology Global Market Report 2020-30: COVID-19 Growth and Change provides the strategists, marketers and senior management with the critical information they need to assess the global crispr technology market.

Major players in the CRISPR technology market are Thermo Fisher Scientific, GenScript Biotech Corporation, CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Editas Medicine, Horizon Discovery Plc., Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. (Danaher), Origene Technologies, Inc., Transposagenbio Biopharmaceuticals (Hera Biolabs), Intellia Therapeutics Inc., and GeneCopoeia, Inc.

The global CRISPR technology market is expected to increase from $0.76 billion in 2019 to $0.92 billion in 2020 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20.91%. The exponential growth is mainly due to the COVID-19 outbreak that has led to the research for drugs for COVID-19 with gene-editing using CRISPR technology. The market is expected to reach $1.55 billion in 2023 at a CAGR of 19.13%.

The CRISPR technology market consists of sales of CRISPR technology products and services which is a gene-editing technology that allows researchers to alter DNA sequences and modify gene function. The revenue generated by the market includes the sales of products such as design tools, plasmid & vector, Cas9 & gRNA, libraries & delivery system products and services that include design & vector construction, screening and cell line engineering.

These products and services are used in genome editing/genetic engineering, genetically modifying organisms, agricultural biotechnology and others which include gRNA database/gene library, CRISPR plasmid, human stem cell & cell line engineering by end-users. The end-users include pharmaceutical & biopharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, academic & research institutes and contract research organizations.

North America was the largest region in the CRISPR technology market in 2019. Europe was the second-largest region in the CRISPR technology market in 2019.

In 2019, Cardea Bio Inc., a US-based biotechnology infrastructure company that manufactures biology-gated transistors (Cardean transistors) that utilizes biocompatible graphene instead of silicon and replaces optical signal observations with direct electrical molecular signal analysis, merged with Nanosens Innovations, Inc. The merger is aimed at accelerating the development of the genome sensor that combines Nanosens' CRISPR-Chip technology with Cardea's graphene biosensor infrastructure and is the first DNA search engine globally that runs on CRISPR-Chip technology. Nanosens will be operating as a subsidiary of Cardea Bio. Nanosens Innovations, Inc. is a US-based biotechnology company that develops CRISPR-Chip and FEB technology.

The CRISPR technology market covered in this report is segmented by product type into design tools; plasmid and vector; CAS9 and G-RNA; delivery system products. It is also segmented by application into genome editing/ genetic engineering; genetically modified organisms; agricultural biotechnology; others and by end-user into industrial biotech; biological research; agricultural research; therapeutics and drug discovery.

Stringent government regulations are expected to retard the growth of the CRISPR technology market during the period. There is no existence of internationally agreed regulatory framework for gene editing products and countries are in the process of evaluating whether and to what extent current regulations are adequate for research conducted with gene editing and applications and products related to gene editing. In July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that it would treat gene-edited crops as genetically modified organisms, subject to stringent regulation.

In April 2019, the Australian government stated that the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) will regulate only the gene-editing technologies that use a template, or that insert other genetic material into the cell. According to an article of 2020, in India, as per the National Guidelines for Stem Cell Research, genome modification including gene-editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology of stem cells, germ-line stem cells or gamete and human embryos is restricted only to in-vitro studies. Thus, strict regulations by the government present a threat to the growth of the market.

Several advancements in CRISPR technology are trending in the market during the period. Advancements in technology will help in reducing errors, limiting unintended effects, improving the accuracy of the tool, widening its applications, developing gene therapies and more. In 2019, a study published in Springer Nature stated the development of an advanced super-precise new CRISPR tool that allows researchers more control over DNA changes. This tool seems to have the capability of providing a wider variety of gene edits which might potentially open up conditions that have challenged gene-editors.

Also, in 2020, another study in Springer Nature stated that researchers have used enzyme engineering to boost the accuracy of the technique of error-prone CRISPR-Cas9 system to precisely target DNA without introducing as many unwanted mutations. The advancements in CRISPR technology will result in better tools that are capable of providing better outcomes.

The application of CRISPR technology as a diagnostic tool is expected to boost the market during the period. The Sherlock CRISPR SARS-CoV-2 kit is the first diagnostic kit based on CRISPR technology for infectious diseases caused due to COVID-19. In May 2020, FDA announced the emergency use authorization to the Sherlock BioSciences Inc's Sherlock CRISPR SARS-CoV-2 kit which is a CRISPR-based SHERLOCK (Specific High-sensitivity Enzymatic Reporter unLOCKing) diagnostic test.

This test helps in specifically targeting RNA or DNA sequences of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from specimens or samples such as nasal swabs from the upper respiratory tract and fluid in the lungs from bronchoalveolar lavage specimens. This diagnostic kit has high specificity and sensitivity and does not provide false negative or positive results. Widening the application of CRISPR technology for the diagnosis of infectious diseases will increase the demand for CRISPR technology products and services.

Key Topics Covered:

1. Executive Summary

2. CRISPR Technology Market Characteristics

3. CRISPR Technology Market Size And Growth

3.1. Global CRISPR Technology Historic Market, 2015 - 2019, $ Billion

3.1.1. Drivers Of The Market

3.1.2. Restraints On The Market

3.2. Global CRISPR Technology Forecast Market, 2019 - 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

3.2.1. Drivers Of The Market

3.2.2. Restraints On the Market

4. CRISPR Technology Market Segmentation

4.1. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Segmentation By Product Type, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

4.2. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Segmentation By Application, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

4.3. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Segmentation By End-User, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

5. CRISPR Technology Market Regional And Country Analysis 5.1. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Split By Region, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion 5.2. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Split By Country, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

Companies Mentioned

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/vnvkue

Research and Markets also offers Custom Research services providing focused, comprehensive and tailored research.

Media Contact:

Research and Markets Laura Wood, Senior Manager [emailprotected]

For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-
0470 For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907 Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716

SOURCE Research and Markets

http://www.researchandmarkets.com

Follow this link:
Global CRISPR Technology Market Report 2020: COVID-19 Growth and Change - Market is Expected to Recover to Reach $1.55 Billion in 2023 - Forecast to...

Genetic Analysis Reveals Evolution of the Enigmatic Y Chromosome in Great Apes – SciTechDaily

Posted on February 6, 2021 by Danzig

Researchers have reconstructed the ancestral sequence of the great ape Y chromosome by comparing three existing (gorilla, human, and chimpanzee) and two newly generated (orangutan and bonobo) Y chromosome assemblies. The new research shows that many gene families and multi-copy sequences were already present in the great ape Y common ancestor and that the chimpanzee and bonobo lineages experienced accelerated gene death and nucleotide substitution rates after their divergence from the human lineage. Credit: Dani Zemba and Monika Cechova, Penn State

Researchers reconstruct the ancestral great ape Y and show its rapid evolution in bonobo and chimpanzee.

New analysis of the DNA sequence of the male-specific Y chromosomes from all living species of the great ape family helps to clarify our understanding of how this enigmatic chromosome evolved. A clearer picture of the evolution of the Y chromosome is important for studying male fertility in humans as well as our understanding of reproduction patterns and the ability to track male lineages in the great apes, which can help with conservation efforts for these endangered species.

A team of biologists and computer scientists at Penn State sequenced and assembled the Y chromosome from orangutan and bonobo and compared those sequences to the existing human, chimpanzee, and gorilla Y sequences. From the comparison, the team was able to clarify patterns of evolution that seem to fit with behavioral differences between the species and reconstruct a model of what the Y chromosome might have looked like in the ancestor of all great apes.

A paper describing the research was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The Y chromosome is important for male fertility and contains the genes critical for sperm production, but it is often neglected in genomic studies because it is so difficult to sequence and assemble, said Monika Cechova, a graduate student at Penn State at the time of the research and co-first author of the paper. The Y chromosome contains a lot of repetitive sequences, which are challenging for DNA sequencing, assembling sequences, and aligning sequences for comparison. There arent out-of-the-box software packages to deal with the Y chromosome, so we had to overcome these hurdles and optimize our experimental and computational protocols, which allowed us to address interesting biological questions.

The Y chromosome is unusual. It contains relatively few genes, many of which are involved in male sex determination and sperm production; large sections of repetitive DNA, short sequences repeated over and over again; and large DNA palindromes, inverted repeats that can be many thousands of letters long and read the same forwards and backwards.

Previous work by the team comparing human, chimpanzee, and gorilla sequences had revealed some unexpected patterns. Humans are more closely related to chimpanzees, but for some characteristics, the human Y was more similar to the gorilla Y.

If you just compare the sequence identitycomparing the As, Ts, Cs, and Gs of the chromosomeshumans are more similar to chimpanzees, as you would expect, said Kateryna Makova, Pentz Professor of Biology at Penn State and one of the leaders of the research team. But if you look at which genes are present, the types of repetitive sequences, and the shared palindromes, humans look more similar to gorillas. We needed the Y chromosome of more great ape species to tease out the details of what was going on.

The team, therefore, sequenced the Y chromosome of a bonobo, a close relative of the chimpanzee, and an orangutan, a more distantly related great ape. With these new sequences, the researchers could see that the bonobo and chimpanzee shared the unusual pattern of accelerated rates of DNA sequence change and gene loss, suggesting that this pattern emerged prior to the evolutionary split between the two species. The orangutan Y chromosome, on the other hand, which serves as an outgroup to ground the comparisons, looked about like what you expect based on its known relationship to the other great apes.

Our hypothesis is that the accelerated change that we see in chimpanzees and bonobos could be related to their mating habits, said Rahulsimham Vegesna, a graduate student at Penn State and co-first author of the paper. In chimpanzees and bonobos, one female mates with multiple males during a single cycle. This leads to what we call sperm competition, the sperm from several males trying to fertilize a single egg. We think that this situation could provide the evolutionary pressure to accelerate change on the chimpanzee and bonobo Y chromosome, compared to other apes with different mating patterns, but this hypothesis, while consistent with our findings, needs to be evaluated in subsequent studies.

In addition to teasing out some of the details of how the Y chromosome evolved in individual species, the team used the set of great ape sequences to reconstruct what the Y chromosome might have looked like in the ancestor of modern great apes.

Having the ancestral great ape Y chromosome helps us to understand how the chromosome evolved, said Vegesna. For example, we can see that many of the repetitive regions and palindromes on the Y were already present on the ancestral chromosome. This, in turn, argues for the importance of these features for the Y chromosome in all great apes and allows us to explore how they evolved in each of the separate species.

The Y chromosome is also unusual because, unlike most chromosomes it doesnt have a matching partner. We each get two copies of chromosomes 1 through 22, and then some of us (females) get two X chromosomes and some of us (males) get one X and one Y. Partner chromosomes can exchange sections in a process called recombination, which is important to preserve the chromosomes evolutionarily. Because the Y doesnt have a partner, it had been hypothesized that the long palindromic sequences on the Y might be able to recombine with themselves and thus still be able to preserve their genes, but the mechanism was not known.

We used the data from a technique called Hi-C, which captures the three-dimensional organization of the chromosome, to try to see how this self-recombination is facilitated, said Cechova. What we found was that regions of the chromosome that recombine with each other are kept in close proximity to one another spatially by the structure of the chromosome.

Working on the Y chromosome presents a lot of challenges, said Paul Medvedev, associate professor of computer science and engineering and of biochemistry and molecular biology at Penn State and the other leader of the research team. We had to develop specialized methods and computational analyses to account for the highly repetitive nature of the sequence of the Y. This project is truly cross-disciplinary and could not have happened without the combination of computational and biological scientists that we have on our team.

Reference: Dynamic evolution of great ape Y chromosomes by Monika Cechova, Rahulsimham Vegesna, Marta Tomaszkiewicz, Robert S. Harris, Di Chen, Samarth Rangavittal, Paul Medvedev and Kateryna D. Makova, 5 October 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2001749117

In addition to Cechova, Makova, Vegesna, and Medvedev, the research team at Penn State included Marta Tomaszkiewicz, Robert S. Harris, Di Chen, and Samarth Rangavittal. The research was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, the Institute of Computational and Data Sciences, the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, and the Eberly College of Science of the Pennsylvania State University, and by the CBIOS Predoctoral Training Program awarded to Penn State by the National Institutes of Health.

See more here:
Genetic Analysis Reveals Evolution of the Enigmatic Y Chromosome in Great Apes - SciTechDaily

The tricky ethics of neurotechnologies – Axios

Posted on November 20, 2020 by Danzig

As the science of brain-computer interfaces (BCI) and other neurotechnologies progresses, researchers are calling for ethical guidelines to be established now before the technology fully matures.

Why it matters: Were still far away from technologies that fully access and even read the human brain, but the sheer power of such tools and the highly personal data they could gather means society needs to determine what they should do before they actually can do it.

Whats happening: Columbia Universitys NeuroRights Initiative held a symposium today in conjunction with IBM on the scientific, security and social issues raised by neurotech.

The big picture: In the future, BCIs could provide an unprecedented view of the human brain at work, which in turn could unlock new clinical insights into largely untreatable mental and neurological diseases, as well as change how humans interface with the world.

What theyre saying: The ethical issues raised by that power were the focus of IBM director of research Daro Gils symposium remarks, which touched on first-generation ethical principles for neurotech developed by the company.

Details: Many of the ethical issues created by BCI questions of transparency and fairness resemble those raised by AI or even social media, only intensified.

To that end, Gil says IBM is committed to respecting mental privacy and autonomy, being transparent in its neurotech work, and ensuring that people have an equal opportunity to choose whether or not they want to use the technology.

The catch: Scientific codes of ethics may not mean that much to notoriously independent players like Elon Musk, who has made promises about the potential for the BCI technology developed by his company Neuralink to eventually allow AI symbiosis, as he said at an event in August.

The bottom line: BCI could be a revolution for humanity, as Yuste put it. But revolutions have a way of getting out of hand.

Link:
The tricky ethics of neurotechnologies - Axios

How Tech Trends Among Runners Help Us Envision the Future of Athletics and Society – Built In

Posted on December 11, 2020 by Danzig

The rapid progression of science and technology is converging with societal, economic, environmental and geopolitical shifts in ways that alter our future. As a result, people everywhere are focused on the future of X, where X increasingly represents every domain.

It is not surprising then to see the future of sports impacted by this convergence. There is no doubt that the future of sports and running in particular is changing. Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) launched #ThisRun, a new worldwide community for runners, reinforcing its long-standing commitment to global marathon and running partnership platforms. In support of this initiative, TCS conducted This Run Tech Survey, which captured runners views of technology and its role in the sport now and in the future. It provides a glimpse into the minds of a broad spectrum of runners, giving us foresight to see across horizons. With it, we can envision the future of running and explore how it may impact societal wellness.

Every analysis of future scenarios now includes the impact of COVID-19, and running is no exception. Our survey indicates that running has sparked more enjoyment and importance in the pandemic-filled lives of people. In fact, 67 percent of respondents said that running during the pandemic has been especially important in their life. With stress and depression amplified, running has reduced some of those worries. While the pandemic has been one key motivator, technology adoption represents another. Currently, running technology is used to track fundamental metrics such as pace, distance and time. The focus is primarily on individual runners connecting, capturing and leveraging data and technologies to improve their experience and performance. The survey indicates that runners are interested in practical uses of running-based technologies, with respondents interested in injury prevention (59 percent), runner performance (58 percent) and nutrition/hydration (58 percent).

Popular technology includes smart watches, distance tracking apps and heart-rate monitors. Our survey highlights several other technologies embraced by both avid and casual runners. The early adopter nature of runners creates a virtuous cycle, where technologies are adopted at a faster rate, thus accelerating product innovation and product demand. COVID-19 has amplified this virtuous cycle, as it has in many different domains. As the cycle continues, a broader lens illuminates the potential role that technology will play in the future of running (or any sport). Imagine how we might maximize performance through wearables, game technology, AI coaching, VR tracking, gene doping, neuro-coaching and, ultimately, brain-to-brain communication.

If we pull back our lens even further and envision the future athlete, we can see the total reimagination of sports. We are likely to experience a complete blurring of boundaries between technology and the athlete. Exoskeletons, implants, artificial body parts or human-machine convergence could alter the athlete and therefore the sports themselves. Does this lead to enhanced leagues versus natural leagues? What happens if genetic engineering enables the creation of super athletes or genetic screening allows us to pick only the best children for participation in sports? It is not far-fetched to imagine leagues where robots compete against each other. Now, go even broader. These early indicators from our survey portend a world that is to come. As we look to this future, does the survey provide signals that help envision that future? Two key signals include the environment and wellness.

Our survey found that avid runners are more likely to be motivated by green technology specifically the carbon footprint of races (59 percent of avid runners would be more interested in participating in a carbon-neutral or zero-carbon-footprint race).

From a wellness perspective, a connected health platform emerges to improve the health of athletes and humans more broadly. This connectedness ultimately drives a wellness ecosystem that accrues value to the collective. The ecosystem evolves to support individual needs, while athletes contribute to collective intelligence on wellness. This enables wellness that permeates every aspect of our lives.

Were now able to monitor our health at the cellular level and our environment through the smart home; we enjoy 3D-printed food that meets our individual nutritional needs; our clothing regulates our body temperature based on our internal and ambient temperature; injuries are healed through smart bandages and rapid cell regeneration; and all of our health and wellness data is integrated into an AI-powered dashboard. These metrics improve overall health and wellness, contributing to the extension of healthy lives.

In this era of genomics, precision medicine and rejuvenation biotechnology, extending our healthy lives is not only possible but likely. Life scientists believe that the first person to live to 200 has already been born. When I look at innovation in the health domain and the rapid progression experienced in the last two decades, I see the possibilities. Catalysts like pandemics have always served as both obstacles and accelerants. In the area of health, it is the latter. Imagine the extended athletic careers these advancements may enable. When viewed through the lens of the athlete, a broader view of our emerging future materializes. Enjoy the journey!

Read More Fantastical StoriesThe Incredible, Sci-Fi-Like Future of Blood Testing

Read the rest here:
How Tech Trends Among Runners Help Us Envision the Future of Athletics and Society - Built In

Hamsters genetically engineered by USU researchers are on the front lines of COVID-19 vaccine trials in Belgium – KSL.com

Posted on December 9, 2020 by Danzig

LOGAN Genetically engineered golden Syrian hamsters developed by Utah State University researchers played a key role in animal trials of a possible vaccine to protect against the virus that causes COVID-19.

The Rega Institute in Leuven, Belgium, has used the hamsters produced by professor Zhongde Wang and his lab at USU to test the safety and effectiveness of a possible vaccine.

Details of the research conducted by the Rega Institute and its findings were published online in the journal Nature this week.

The candidate vaccine was found to be safe and effective in several animal models by a team of scientists at the institute.

Animal models play a vital role in vaccine research "because we cannot directly test them in humans. We need to use animal models, (it's) very critical," Wang said.

Wang said two pairs of hamsters were shipped to the Belgium lab in 2018 to start a breeding colony in an agreement with his lab.

"The scientists in my lab and I are very gratified that our research is contributing to combating this raging COVID-19 pandemic," Wang said in a statement.

"We also feel grateful for the excellent support from USU's Laboratory Animal Research Center to help us to carry out the research."

The Wang lab, established at USU in 2012, developed the first genetic hamster models in the world. The models are used in more than a dozen labs and institutions including the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, and Public Health Agency of Canada.

Hamsters from Wang's lab are also utilized in COVID-19 and other studies in USU's Institute for Antiviral Research.

"We pioneered development of genetic engineering techniques in this species and now we have about 30 different models. These are 30 different genetic modifications," Wang said in an interview Wednesday,

Typically, rodents carry many disease-causing organisms without becoming sick. The USU lab genetically engineered the golden Syrian hamsters to be susceptible to viruses that infect humans.

Viruses frequently attach to receptors in humans that are not present in animals, which limits effective testing of potential drugs to prevent or treat diseases. Hamsters from Wang's lab have a human gene inserted into their DNA for the receptor to which this coronavirus binds to facilitate testing, according to a university press release.

Because the hamsters are designed specifically to react to disease challenges more like humans, it takes fewer experiments to verify results, which expedites the process and can reduce numbers of animals used in research.

"We take animal welfare extremely seriously, and only the minimum numbers of animals required are used," said Wang, a professor in the Department of Animal, Dairy and Veterinary Sciences, in an article posted on a university website.

"In addition to that, all procedures are approved by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees. It is essential to use these animals in vaccine studies before trials can be done in human subjects."

See the article here:
Hamsters genetically engineered by USU researchers are on the front lines of COVID-19 vaccine trials in Belgium - KSL.com

The great reset: new danger on the horizon – Amandala

Posted on November 7, 2020 by Danzig

Belize City, Nov. 2, 2020 Most people in Belize are either taken up these days with finding a job/income, with fears of COVID-19, or with anticipation of the General Elections of Nov. 11, 2020. But lurking in the shadows is a much more dangerous foe.

In the past it was called The New World Order, but that has been so discredited, that the wizard behind the curtain had to change the name to The Great Reset. What is this Great Reset?

The Great Reset is a new social contract that ties you to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, and a social credit ID that will dictate every facet of your life. While the COVID-19 pandemic is being used as a justification for the Great Reset movement, the agenda has nothing to do with health and everything to do with a long-term plan to monitor and control the world through digital surveillance and artificial intelligence.

The Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution are rebranded terms for the old New World Order, melded with the trans-humanist movement. Technocracy (which is the new name for Fascism) is an economic system of resource allocation that revolves around computer technology in particular artificial intelligence, digital surveillance, and Big Data (5G) collection and the digitization of industry and government, which in turn allows for the automation of social engineering and social rule, thereby doing away with the need for democratically elected leadership.

While the real plan is to usher in a tech-driven dystopia free of democratic controls, the elites speak of this plan as a way to bring us back into harmony with nature the Green New Deal. Importantly, the pandemic is being used to destroy local economies around the world, which will then allow the World Economic Forum to come in through the IMF and rescue debt-ridden countries through facilitated financial bailouts.

However, the price for this salvation is your personal freedom and liberty. And, again, one of the aspects of the Fascist plan is to eliminate national borders and nationalism in general.

Who are the main actors behind the Great Reset?

Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum, along with the United Nations (which keeps a relatively low profile), appear to be at the heart of the big boys agenda. Gates is also the largest money-bag for the World Health Organization the medical branch of the U.N. Other key partners that play important roles in the implementation of the elites/globalists agenda include foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Ford Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the UN Foundation, and George Soros Open Society Foundation; companies such as: Avanti Communications, a British provider of satellite technology with global connectivity, and 2030 Vision, a partnership of technology giants that is aimed at providing the infrastructure and technology solutions needed to realize the U.N.s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. 2030 Vision is also partnered with Frontier 2030, which is a partnership of organizations under the helm of the World Economic Forum.

These organizations include the major Wall Street bankers/financiers; Google, the No. 1 Big Data collector in the world and a leader in AI services; MasterCard, which is leading the globalist charge to develop digital IDs and banking services, and Salesforce, a global leader in cloud computing, the internet of things and artificial intelligence.

Incidentally, Salesforce is led by Marc Benioff, who is also on the World Economic Forums board of directors, and Professor Klaus Schwab, chairman of the World Economic Forum.

Most Belizeans know little or nothing about the trans-humanist movement, or Human 2.0, which is geared at transcending biology through computer technology. Or, as Dr. Carrie Madej of USA explains in a blog, their goal is to meld human biology with computer technology and artificial intelligence. Two visible proponents of trans-humanism are Ray Kurzweil (director of engineering at Google since 2012) and Elon Musk (founder of SpaceX, Tesla and Neuralink). According to Dr. Madej, today we may be standing at the literal crossroads of trans-humanism, thanks to the fast approaching release of one or more mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Many of the COVID 19 vaccines https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/22/coronavirus-vaccine-timetable.aspx are not conventional vaccines. Their design is aimed at manipulating your very biology, and therefore have the potential to alter the biology of the entire human race. Conventional vaccines train your body to recognize and respond to the proteins of a particular virus by injecting a small amount of the actual viral protein into your body, thereby triggering an immune response from your body and the development of antibodies.This is not what happens with an mRNA vaccine. The theory behind these vaccines is that when you inject the mRNA into your cells, it will stimulate your cells to manufacture their own viral protein. The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine will be the first of its kind. No mRNA vaccine has ever been licensed before. And, to add insult to injury, theyre forgoing all animal safety testing.

Madej has reviewed the background of certain individuals participating in the race for a COVID-19 vaccine, which include Moderna co-founder Derrick Rossi, a Harvard researcher who successfully reprogrammed stem cells using modified RNA, thus changing the function of the stem cells. Moderna was founded on this concept of being able to modify human biological function through genetic engineering.

The mRNA vaccines are designed to instruct your cells to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the glycoprotein that attaches to the ACE2 receptor of the cell. The idea is that by creating the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, your immune system will mount a response to it and begin producing antibodies to the virus.

However, as we now know, Moderna is having problems, because both the CEO and CFO have, according to the Wall Street Journal, dumped their shares and sold everything, making some $350 million + dollars.

But the biggest insult by the globalists to our intelligence is the censorship of the news about the research done by genetic analysis using the Oak Ridge National Lab supercomputer called the Summit which has revealed an interesting new hypothesis that helps explain the disease progression of COVID-19. A September 1, 2020 Medium article1 by Thomas Smith reviewed the findings of what is now referred to as the Bradykinin hypothesis.

As reported by Smith, the computer crunched data on more than 40,000 genes obtained from 17,000 genetic samples.

Summit is the second-fastest computer in the world, but the process which involved analysing 2.5 billion genetic combinations still took more than a week. When Summit was done, researchers analysed the results. It was, in the words of Dr. Daniel Jacobson, lead researcher and chief scientist for computational systems biology at Oak Ridge, a eureka moment.

Bradykinin is a chemical that helps regulate your blood pressure and is controlled by your renin-angiotensin system (RAS). As explained in the Academic Press book on vitamin D (which has a significant impact on the RAS):

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is a central regulator of renal and cardiovascular functions. Over-activation of the RAS leads to renal and cardiovascular disorders, such as hypertension and chronic kidney disease, the major risk factors for stroke, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, progressive atherosclerosis, and renal failure.

The Bradykinin hypothesis provides a model that helps explain some of the more unusual symptoms of COVID-19, including its bizarre effects on the cardiovascular system. It also strengthens the hypothesis that vitamin D plays a really important role in the disease.

Your ACE2 receptors are the primary gateways of the virus, as the virus spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor. As explained2 by Smith:

COVID-19 infection generally
begins when the virus enters the body through ACE2 receptors in the nose The virus then proceeds through the body, entering cells in other places where ACE2 is also present But once Covid-19 has established itself in the body, things start to get really interesting The data Summit analysed shows that COVID-19 isnt content to simply infect cells that already express lots of ACE2 receptors. Instead, it actively hijacks the bodys own systems, tricking it into up-regulating ACE2 receptors in places where theyre usually expressed at low or medium levels, including the lungs.

In this sense, COVID-19 is like a burglar who slips in your unlocked second-floor window and starts to ransack your house. Once inside, though, they dont just take your stuff they also throw open all your doors and windows so their accomplices can rush in and help pillage more efficiently.

The end result is a Bradykinin storm, and according to the researchers, this appears to be an important factor in many of COVID-19s lethal effects, even more so than the Cytokine storms associated with the disease. As Bradykinin accumulates, the more serious COVID-19 symptoms appear. Mounting clinical data suggest COVID-19 is actually primarily a vascular disease rather than a respiratory one, and runaway Bradykinin build-up help explain this.

The good news is that since Bradykinin storms are to blame, there are a number of already existing drugs (Icatibant, Danazol, Stanozolol) that can help prevent Bradykinin storms, and there are many other safe, inexpensive strategies like nebulized peroxide, ozone, molecular hydrogen, steroids, exogenous ketones, and Quercetin with zinc, vitamin D, and high-dose vitamin C.

And there are two reports by the American CDC. One says that 70.6% of COVID-19 patients always wore a mask3. The other says only 6% of all COVID-19 deaths were due ONLY to coronavirus4. And yet another said that the common seasonal flu caused more deaths than COVID-19.

So, if COVID-19 deaths are not what is being reported by the mass media, if the SAR CoV-2 virus is not as deadly to humans, then why the lockdowns, the face masks, the social distancing, the destruction of the way we live, of our economies? Why? Why?

But not all men are blind. On Oct 25, 2020, the Archbishop of Ulpiana, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, Carlo Maria Vigano, wrote an open letter (which over 100 million Americans have read) to President Donald Trump. The letter is long and is all over the internet. This is some of it:

at this hour in which the fate of the whole world is being threatened by a global conspiracy against God and humanityin the midst of the silence of both civil and religious authoritiesthis historical moment sees the forces of Evil aligned in a battle against the children of Lightwe see heads of nations and religious leaders pandering to this suicide of Western culture and its Christian soul, while the fundamental rights of citizens and believers are denied in the name of a health emergency that is revealing itself more and more fully as instrumental to the establishment of an inhuman faceless tyranny.

A global plan called the Great Reset is underway. Its architect is a global lite that wants to subdue all of humanity, imposing coercive measures with which to drastically limit individual freedoms and those of entire populations Behind the world leaders who are the accomplices and executors of this infernal project, there are unscrupulous characters who finance the World Economic Forum and Event 201, promoting their agenda.

The purpose of the Great Reset is the imposition of a health dictatorship aiming at the imposition of liberticidal measures, hidden behind tempting promises of ensuring a universal income and cancelling individual debt. The price of these concessions from the International Monetary Fund will be the renunciation of private property and adherence to a program of vaccination against Covid-19 and Covid-21 promoted by Bill Gates with the collaboration of the main pharmaceutical groups. Beyond the enormous economic interests that motivate the promoters of the Great Reset, the imposition of the vaccination will be accompanied by the requirement of a health passport and a digital ID, with the consequent contact tracing of the population of the entire world. Those who do not accept these measures will be confined in detention camps or placed under house arrest, and all their assets will be confiscated.

Mr President, I imagine that you are already aware that in some countries the Great Reset will be activated between the end of this year and the first trimester of 2021. For this purpose, further lockdowns are planned, which will be officially justified by a supposed second and third wave of the pandemic. But this world, Mr. President, includes people, affections, institutions, faith, culture, traditions, and ideals: people and values that do not act like automatons, who do not obey like machines, because they are endowed with a soul and a heart, because they are tied together by a spiritual bond that draws its strength from above, from that God that our adversaries want to challenge, just as Lucifer did at the beginning of time with his non serviam.

Until a few months ago, it was easy to smear as conspiracy theorists those who denounced these terrible plans, which we now see being carried out down to the smallest detail. No one, up until last February, would ever have thought that, in all of our cities, citizens would be arrested simply for wanting to walk down the street, to breathe, to want to keep their business open, to want to go to church on Sunday. Yet, now it is happening all over the world.

Mr. President, you have clearly stated that you want to defend the nation One Nation under God, fundamental liberties, and non-negotiable values that are denied and fought against today. It is you, dear President, who are the one who opposes the deep state, the final assault of the children of darkness.

For this reason, it is necessary that all people of goodwill be persuaded of the epochal importance of the imminent election Your adversary is also our adversary: it is the Enemy of the human race, He who is a murderer from the beginning (Jn 8:44).

And yet, in the midst of this bleak picture, this apparently unstoppable advance of the Invisible Enemy, an element of hope emerges. The adversary does not know how to love, and it does not understand that it is not enough to assure a universal income or to cancel mortgages in order to subjugate the masses and convince them to be branded like cattle. This people, which for too long has endured the abuses of a hateful and tyrannical power, is rediscovering that it has a soul; it is understanding that it is not willing to exchange its freedom for the homogenization and cancellation of its identity; it is beginning to understand the value of familial and social ties, of the bonds of faith and culture that unite honest people.

This Great Reset is destined to fail because those who planned it do not understand that there are still people ready to take to the streets to defend their rights, to protect their loved ones, to give a future to their children and grandchildren. The levelling inhumanity of the globalist project will shatter miserably in the face of the firm and courageous. To be an instrument of Divine Providence is a great responsibility, for which you will certainly receive all the graces of state that you need, since they are being fervently implored for you by the many people who support you with their prayers.

Meanwhile, here in Belize, we kill our so-called COVID-19 patients. Ventilators will kill you. Doctors of Belize, read the report of the US Oak Ridge National Lab on COVID-19. NO one needs to die anymore from COVID-19. US President Trump, who is 74 years old, was cured after 3 days of COVID-19.

And by the time you read this article, the world will know who won the elections in the United States.

Curfew on Nov. 11, election night in Belize, is part of the Globalist agenda. Let the people cel
ebrate their victory. Open the churches, the schools, the bars; open the society. Send the globalist/elites back to Hell with Lucifer.

(Footnotes)1https://elemental.medium.com/a-supercomputer-analyzed-covid-19-and-an-interesting-new-theory-has-emerged-31cb8eba9d63

2ibid3https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htmRead the table at the end.4https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.html

See more here:
The great reset: new danger on the horizon - Amandala

No evidence that coronavirus genetic sequences were fabricated, contrary to preprint by Li-Meng Yan and colleagues – Health Feedback

Posted on October 17, 2020 by Danzig

CLAIM

Fabricated genetic sequences were used to support the hypothesis that the virus arose naturally

DETAILS

Inadequate support: The preprint by Yan et al. offers no evidence to support their claim that the genetic sequences of other coronavirus strains were fabricated to support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally.Incorrect: The fact that multiple coronavirus strains share highly similar or identical genetic or protein sequences is not evidence that those viruses were fabricated. Shared genetic or protein sequences is common among viruses that belong to the same family and indicates their evolutionary relatedness.

KEY TAKE AWAY

There is no evidence supporting the claim by Yan et al. that genetic sequences of several coronaviruses were fabricated to support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally. The presence of highly similar or identical gene and protein sequences are common among organisms that are evolutionarily related to each other. Therefore, it is expected that members of the coronavirus family share similar or identical genetic or protein features. Scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that the virus arose naturally in wildlife before it crossed over to humans.

REVIEW Uncertainty surrounding the origin of the novel coronavirus has provided fertile ground for breeding conspiracy theories, some of which Health Feedback previously found to be inaccurate and unsubstantiated (see here and here). The recent claim by virologist Li-Meng Yan that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is manmade is the latest in a long series of conspiracy theories stretching back to the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic.

On 14 September 2020, Yan and her colleagues published a preprint on the online repository Zenodo claiming that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a product of genetic engineering. A preprint is a research paper that has not been peer-reviewed by other scientists yet. Experts who examined the preprint found it was highly flawed and provided no supporting evidence for their claims, as detailed in this Health Feedback review.

Yan et al. published a second preprint on 8 October 2020 claiming that the virus is an unrestricted bioweapon and alleging that the genetic sequences of ten other coronaviruses are fabricated and do not exist in nature. Contrary to this claim, these ten coronaviruses, including RaTG13which is the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2 and has about 96% genome sequence identity to SARS-CoV-2[1]and some pangolin coronaviruses, were analyzed by other scientists and found to support the natural origin hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2[2-7]. The second preprint from Yan et al. received more than 130,000 views on Zenodo since it was published, and was promoted by outlets known for publishing misinformation, such as Zero Hedge and National Pulse.

The alleged motivation for fabricating genetic sequences is related to one of the primary claims by Yan et al., specifically that the bat coronaviruses ZC45 and ZXC21 provided the genetic backbone for SARS-CoV-2. In support of this claim, Yan et al. point to the 100% identity in the envelope (E) protein sequence that exists between these three viruses. The E protein is a small protein on the surface of the membrane that encloses the viral genome and is important for producing virus particles that can efficiently infect cells[8].

Firstly, the claim that the bat coronaviruses ZC45 and ZXC21 provided the genetic backbone to artificially create SARS-CoV-2 was presented in the first preprint by Yan et al. This claim was debunked by scientists, who pointed out that the genetic sequences of ZC45 and ZXC21 are very different to that of SARS-CoV-2. In fact, the virus ZC45 is only 89% related to SARS-CoV-2, said Stanley Perlman, a professor at the University of Iowa who studies coronaviruses, in this FactCheck.org article:

Perlman said it would be nearly impossible to make the reverse genetics system needed to manipulate the virus and changing its sequence to arrive at SARS-CoV-2 would be virtually impossible since it would not be known how to manipulate the virus.

Kristian Andersen, a professor at Scripps Research who studies the evolution of viruses including SARS-CoV-2, also pointed out the incongruency of the claim on Twitter: This simply cant be true there are more than 3,500 nucleotide differences between SARS-CoV-2 and these viruses.

Marvin Reitz, a virologist at the University of Maryland, put it more bluntly in his review of the first preprint: [I]t still would require more than 3,000 nucleotide substitutions [for ZC45] to become SARS-CoV-2. This is not even slightly credible; it beggars reason.

A response by scientists at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security also provides a detailed rebuttal of the claims made by Yan et al. in their first preprint. It also highlights the implausible use of ZC45 and ZXC21 as the genetic backbone for SARS-CoV-2.

In short, ZC45 and ZXC21 are very different from SARS-CoV-2 in terms of genome identity. Altering a backbone from either of the two to transform it into the genome of SARS-CoV-2 would require a feat of genetic engineering that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish with current technology.

Based on their spurious initial assumption that ZC45 and ZXC21 provided the genetic backbone for SARS-CoV-2, Yan et al. claim that the genetic sequences of RaTG13 and the other coronaviruses were fabricated to obscure the link between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21, and that RaTG13 and the other coronaviruses do not exist. To support this claim, they point to the observation that all these viruses also have an E protein sequence that is 100% identical to that of ZC45 and ZXC21.

The argument by Yan et al. that the genetic sequences of some coronaviruses were fabricated to support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally does not hold up to scrutiny. In a Business Insider interview, Emma Hodcroft, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Basel and co-developer of the Nextstrain project that studies the evolution of pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, pointed out that most of the samples that Yans group says are fake predate the start of the pandemic. Hodcroft also explained:

This accusation implies there were years of coordination and fake sequence generation, Hodcroft said, adding: This is an incredible claim, and would require a significant evidence burden to back it up, which is missing from the paper.

Virologists have also analyzed the genome sequence of RaTG13 and found it to be authentic and supported by good-quality data.

Although some coronaviruses share certain identical genetic sequences with SARS-CoV-2, this is not evidence that the other coronaviruses were fabricated. Instead, similar or identical genetic and protein sequences of coronaviruses are evidence of their evolutionary relatedness, which is expected since these viruses all belong to the coronavirus family. Specifically, the E protein sequence of SARS-CoV-2, RaTG13, and the other coronaviruses analyzed in the preprint by Yan et al. are indeed identical to that of ZC45 and ZXC21, but this in itself does not indicate that the RaTG13 and the other coronaviruses were fabricated to mimic the E protein sequence of ZC45 and ZXC21.

Lastly, one feature of concern in both preprints by Yan and her co-authors is the listing of their affiliations as the Rule of Law Society and the Rule of Law Foundation. These two organizations have no prior experience in conducting biological research and are linked to Stephen Bannon and Wengui Guo, both of whom have published COVID-19 misinformation in the past.

Overall, the claims in the second preprint by Yan and her colleagues are as ill-founded as the claims made in their first preprint. Evidence supporting claims that the virus was engineered is lacking. In contrast, scientific analyses support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally in wildlife before crossing over to humans during a zoonotic infection (transmission of pathogens from animals/insects to hum
ans). There are numerous examples of emerging zoonotic pathogens causing disease outbreaks throughout human history and across the world[9].

Original post:
No evidence that coronavirus genetic sequences were fabricated, contrary to preprint by Li-Meng Yan and colleagues - Health Feedback

Despite fearmongering, GMOs are the key to a healthy and sustainable future – Queen’s Journal

Posted on October 10, 2020 by Danzig

A lot of plant-based foods at the grocery store are labeled non-GMOas if genetically modified crops should be avoided. In reality, we ought to embrace the technology.

Genetic modification to our food is as old as agriculture itself. When humans began domesticating plants, we used selective breeding to enhance desired traits. This meant greater crop yields and bigger, tastier fruits and vegetables.

With the discovery of the DNA double helix in 1953, it eventually became possible to directly transfer favourable genes from one species to another. Naturally, this has dramatically expanded the scope of what we can do when compared to traditional methods of selective breeding.

The Non-GMO Project, which is responsible for all those labels on our food, argues consumers should have an informed choice about what they buy. But widespread anti-GMO sentiments are based on superstition, not facts.

Those who vehemently oppose GMOs claim our food is injected with viral particles and bacteria which are harmful to human health. In the most common genetically modified crop, corn, a gene from aninsect-killing bacterium is inserted. This allows the corn to produce a protein that kills insects but is harmless to humans, negating farmers need to spray potentially harmful insecticides on their crops.

There are plenty of substances that are deadly to one species but not another. Caffeine is a naturally-produced insecticide, but is consumed and enjoyed by humans every day.

Moreover, GMOs are essential to meeting the food demands of a growing population while minimizing the negative effects of agriculture on climate change. By engineering crops that need less water, we can create drought-resistant food sources at a time when droughts are becoming more frequent.

In addition, it may be possible to produce crops with a much greater yield so we can continue using farmland we already have and avoid clearing forests to create more.

Next time you see the label non-GMO on packaging at the grocery store, dont celebrate it. Theres no reason to shy away from a revolutionary technology that stands to aid us in the fight against climate change while improving human health.

Nathan is a fourth-year English student and The Journals Arts Editor.

See original here:
Despite fearmongering, GMOs are the key to a healthy and sustainable future - Queen's Journal

Dont tell me the COVID-19 virus could not have been manufactured by China – WION

Posted on October 10, 2020 by Danzig

So far, the global scientific community has been unable to identify a natural origin of, or a logical evolutionary pathway for, the COVID-19 virus.

In contrast, the entire history of coronavirus research is punctuated by the ubiquitous use of genetic engineering to produce new viral combinations, which makes a laboratory origin a far more likely scenario.

In 2008, just five years after the first 2002-2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic, Dr. Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina published an article entitled Synthetic recombinant bat SARS-like coronavirus is infectious in cultured cells and in mice, in which he described the creation in the laboratory of an entirely new virus capable of producing a human SARS-like infection:

Here, we report the design, synthesis, and recovery of the largest synthetic replicating life form, a 29.7-kb bat severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronavirus (Bat-SCoV), a likely progenitor to the SARS-CoV epidemic.

In that study, Baric demonstrated that his new synthetic virus was capable of infecting human lung cells to a similar extent as the first human SARS pandemic virus because he had genetically spliced the receptor binding domain (RBD) from the SARS virus onto his new artificial virus.

It is important to note that Dr Baric has been a long-time research collaborator with Zheng-Li Shi, the bat woman from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Similar to the 2008 study described above, Baric and Zheng-Li Shi jointly published a 2015 scientific article describing the insertion of the RBD from a newly isolated coronavirus (SHC014) into SARS-CoV-1, the coronavirus responsible for the 2002-2003 pandemic.

Baric and Zheng-Li Shi combined the components of two coronaviruses and produced another novel virus, SHC014-MA15, which showed robust viral replication both in vitro [cell cultures] and in vivo [animals], using models adapted to test for human infectivity.

Other genetic engineering techniques, such as the insertion of a furin polybasic basic cleavage site, which is found in the COVID-19 virus and in no other close natural relative, as well as individual artificial point mutations, have been widely used in coronavirus research.

Since the initial 2002-2003 SARS pandemic, which also originated in China, there have been attempts to create a broad-spectrum vaccine that would provide long-lasting protection against a variety of coronaviruses that might emerge from nature and infect humans.

One such approach has been the development of live-attenuated vaccines like those used for the childhood diseases measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox, in which a weakened or attenuated form of the virus that causes the disease is manufactured.

Because live-attenuated vaccines are so similar to the natural infection that they help prevent, a strong and long-lasting, even life-time immune response can be produced.

In a 2018 scientific article, Dr Baric offered a strategy for the development of a broad-spectrum, live-attenuated vaccine for coronaviruses.

Baric also identified the inherent danger of live-attenuated virus vaccines that they have been shown to revert back to their original pathogenic structure after administration to a recipient.

That risk is exponentially increased for self-spreading vaccines, which are essentially genetically engineered live-attenuated vaccines designed to move through populations in the same way as viruses, but rather than causing disease, conferring protection.

In my two previous articles, here and here, I cited evidence supporting the argument that the COVID-19 virus originated in connection with Chinas vaccine development program, in which a live-attenuated virus may have reverted to its deadly form after a human infection and then leaked from laboratory containment.

Given the mounting evidence, a non-natural origin for the COVID-19 pandemic demands investigation.

Go here to read the rest:
Dont tell me the COVID-19 virus could not have been manufactured by China - WION

Futurist Transhuman News Blog

Category Archives: Human Genetic Engineering

Future Visioning the Role of CRISPR Gene Editing: Navigating Law and Ethics to Regenerate Health and Cure Disease – IPWatchdog.com

SAB Biotherapeutics Awarded $57.5M from BARDA and US Department of Defense for Manufacturing of SAB-185 for the Treatment of COVID-19 | Antibodies |…

Future Visioning The Role Of CRISPR Gene Editing: Navigating Law And Ethics To Regenerate Health And Cure Disease – Technology – United States -…

To End Suffering, Blow up the Universe: A Dodgy Philosophy of Human Extinction – The Wire Science

Solve suffering by blowing up the universe? The dubious philosophy of human extinction – The Conversation UK

Genetic disorder – Wikipedia

Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Views: Taking A Nimble Approach To Explores Huge Growth In Near Future With Eminent Players -…

A breakthrough on the horizon: Humans could begin receiving transplanted pig hearts by 2021 – Cardiovascular Business

Interview: Elizabeth Kolbert on why well never stop messing with nature – Grist

CRISPR Revolution: Do We Need Tighter Gene-Editing Regulations? No – American Council on Science and Health

Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market (2020 to 2030) – Focus on Products, Applications, End-users, Country Data and Competitive Landscape -…

Global CRISPR Technology Market Report 2020: COVID-19 Growth and Change – Market is Expected to Recover to Reach $1.55 Billion in 2023 – Forecast to…

Genetic Analysis Reveals Evolution of the Enigmatic Y Chromosome in Great Apes – SciTechDaily

The tricky ethics of neurotechnologies – Axios

How Tech Trends Among Runners Help Us Envision the Future of Athletics and Society – Built In

Hamsters genetically engineered by USU researchers are on the front lines of COVID-19 vaccine trials in Belgium – KSL.com

The great reset: new danger on the horizon – Amandala

No evidence that coronavirus genetic sequences were fabricated, contrary to preprint by Li-Meng Yan and colleagues – Health Feedback

Despite fearmongering, GMOs are the key to a healthy and sustainable future – Queen’s Journal

Dont tell me the COVID-19 virus could not have been manufactured by China – WION