Category Archives: DNA

FABER: L #39;ECCELLENZA E #39; NEL NOSTRO DNA
FABER: L #39;ECCELLENZA E #39; NEL NOSTRO DNA Per Faber costruire cappe da cucina significa dedicare risorse, idee, passione ad un progetto senza fermarsi mai. Signi...

By: Faber on air

Read the original here:
FABER: L'ECCELLENZA E' NEL NOSTRO DNA - Video

Mathematical Modelling of the Repair Dynamics of Alkylation Damage to DNA in Mammalian Cells
This project will consider the dynamics of the base excision repair (BER) DNA repair pathway. An individual cell has to decide whether to repair damaged DNA,...

By: UniversityofSurrey

Continue reading here:
Mathematical Modelling of the Repair Dynamics of Alkylation Damage to DNA in Mammalian Cells - Video

Little Mix Makes U.S History DNA Hits #4 on Billboard 200!
British girl group Little Mix is making U.S. History!...

By: PopStopTV .

Read more from the original source:
Little Mix Makes U.S History DNA Hits #4 on Billboard 200! - Video

Celebrao do Dia do DNA
Learn more at https://www.facebook.com/lifetechnologiesbrasil Life Technologies junto com o Instituto de Cincias Biomdicas (ICB - USP), celebraram juntos, ...

By: LifeTechnologiesCorp

Here is the original post:
Celebração do Dia do DNA - Video

DNA changes 2013 Mollecular Atom Consciousness

By: OpenYourEyesNowTV

More:
DNA changes 2013 Mollecular Atom Consciousness - Video

DNA Swabs For Any Arrest? | My Take
A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday said police can routinely take DNA from people they arrest, equating a DNA cheek swab to other common jailhouse pro...

By: Alrighttv

Read the original:
DNA Swabs For Any Arrest? | My Take - Video

DNA swabbing a state by state basis
DNA swabbing a state by state basis.

By: WTHITV10

Read the rest here:
DNA swabbing a state by state basis - Video

RENATA PRATA DNA

By: renata clarice ribeiro prata

Read more here:
RENATA PRATA DNA - Video

The following editorial appeared in the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday, June 5:

Modern DNA analysis has been a godsend to the criminal justice system. By making it possible to identify individuals who leave behind biological material at crime scenes, it allows police and prosecutors to accurately implicate the guilty, particularly in murders and rapes. It has also exonerated hundreds of people who were wrongly convicted because of misleading evidence or false claims.

The potential of this tool is only starting to be realized fully. Thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday, that progress can proceed under sensible rules but no undue impediment.

Under Maryland law, anyone arrested for a serious crime is subject to a cheek swab for DNA, which is checked against a database of samples. In 2009, Alonzo King, arrested for brandishing a shotgun, was matched to DNA recovered from a 2003 rape victim. He was convicted of rape and sentenced to life without parole.

King appealed, arguing that taking his DNA was an unconstitutional search, since the police had no basis to suspect him of the rape. The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed, concluding that because he had not been convicted, King had a weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches making the sampling invalid.

But in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said that taking DNA from felony arrestees is permissible. It took the view that such material is valuable in establishing the identity of the person arrested, which helps in assessing if he should be granted bail. Someone implicated in a murder, for example, would warrant different treatment from someone whose DNA doesn't match any in the database.

The dissenting justices argued that the real purpose of the swab is to let law enforcement get evidence of crimes for which suspects have not been arrested. That may be true but it is also true of fingerprints, which police have been taking from suspects for decades without any objection from the Supreme Court.

As for the alleged invasion of privacy, keep in mind we are talking about people who have been arrested and who may be strip-searched to make sure they are not carrying weapons or contraband. The expectation of privacy in a jail cell is minimal. Taking a DNA sample is not appreciably more intrusive than taking a fingerprint and is even more useful. It's hard to think of a good reason fingerprinting should be allowed but DNA swabs should be forbidden. The dissenting justices seem to be more suspicious of the latter only because it's new and relatively unfamiliar.

There are protections for privacy written into the Maryland law. It applies only to those arrested for crimes involving violence or burglary. Police are not allowed to put the samples into the database unless and until the suspect has been arraigned. If the defendant is not convicted, the sample is destroyed. And the DNA may not be used for any other purpose.

Illinois' law allows for the collection of DNA after an indictment. Bills to broaden it to include those arrested for serious crimes have been introduced over the years. The court's verdict should spark interest in making greater use of a tool that helps only the innocent and endangers only the guilty.

The rest is here:
Solving crimes with DNA — the Supreme Court gets it right

Can someone else patent your genes? The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule some time this month on that question a suit filed against Myriad Genetics for its patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations, which raise the risk of breast, ovarian and certain other cancers.

Opponents of patenting human DNA say a ruling in favor of Myriad will mean companies can own your genes, even though experts say it's more complicated than that. The patents set off a cascade of effects, opponents argue: it gives the company a monopoly on the test that can identify whether patients have the BRCA mutations so other companies can't offer their own tests as a second opinion. There's also no one to compete with the Myriad's $3,000 price tag on the test.

Myriad has long argued that it's not patenting anyone's genes. Instead, the company says, it separates them from the rest of the DNA and creates lab-made copies and that's what is patented and used in the test. The company has also licensed a few medical centers to run second-opinion tests.

But some say that regardless of how the court decides, it's likely the average person won't really be affected in any obvious, immediate way. Myriad's first 20-year patent on the genes runs out next year, although patent experts say the company has a variety of opportunities to extend that by a few years.

(Read More: Crick LetterRevealing DNA Sells for $6 Million)

"Even if the patents are thrown out today, that doesn't make the test available" since it would take time for other companies to develop a test, said John Conley, a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who's taken a special interest in the case. "The patents are going to expire before any competitors could come into the field anyway.

"This case would have been a lot more important had it been decided 10 or 12 years ago," he added. "A lot of things have happened in law and science since then."

The science has now moved far beyond the clunky, whole-gene sequencing method that Myriad uses so it's becoming less relevant. Companies can now sequence your entire genome for you, and in a few years they might even be able to interpret the information in a meaningful way.

Others are working from the opposite end breaking the DNA sequences up into smaller, more digestible bits for analysis.

Myriad, the University of Utah and the U.S. government's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences filed an application for the first patent on the BRCA gene mutations in 1994. The Patent and Trademark Office granted the patent on BRCA1 mutations in 1997. Another patent, on BRCA2, was granted in 1998.

Read the original post:
A Patent on DNA? Top Court to Rule