Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

Its too early to write off farm animals just yet, says Darren Streiler, investment director at ADM Ventures (ADMs corporate venturing arm, which has invested in Geltor, Perfect Day and Sustainable Bioproducts), but this technology is rapidly moving from the laboratory to the real world.

At this stage, a lot of these companies are reaching Series B and they are raising significant amounts of funding and a lot of these companies have pilots that have now been performing for a number of years, said Streiler, who was speaking to FoodNavigator-USA at Rabobanks FoodBytes! pitch competition in Chicago last month (where he served as one of the judges).

So wed characterize this space particularly in the mycoprotein and the fermentation-based and the cell cultured space, all in all, there are probably around 100 companies at this time.

What interesting is that were really able to scale these technologies. For instance, ADM has some of the largest fermentation tanks in the US, and with one of our startups Perfect Day, we have ajoint development agreementto manufacture their fermentation-based dairy proteins. We have 250,000 liter tanks that could really scale this type of technology.

Asked whether proteins produced in cultivators/fermentation tanks/bioreactors (proponents are still arguing over the most consumer-friendly terminology) could ultimately account for a bigger market share than plant-based proteins, he said:Not every type of protein is going to fit every type of customer.

"We see segments in the market and were aiming to provide options to satisfy all of those different segments.

Producing protein from microbes has certain obvious advantages, say startups in the space.

For a start, instead of growing a living breathing animal just to break it down into products, they are designing the most efficient process to produce just the components we need, which can be manufactured from a distributed network of local production facilities (fermentation tanks) using a fraction of the land, water, and inputs required to raise and feed animals.

(Not to mention, it also doesnt involve raising and slaughtering animals on an industrial level.)

The resulting ingredients have the added appeal of consistent quality, a lack of price volatility, and security of supply.

While several food ingredients from enzymes to sweeteners, vitamins, colors, and the heme protein in the Impossible Burger are already produced by tiny microorganisms, a new wave of startups is using microbes to produce things currently produced by mammals, from whey and casein proteins and egg white to sugars and proteins found in human breast milk.

Some companies such asMotif FoodWorks use synthetic biology to write DNA sequences that can be inserted into microorganisms to instruct them to produce animal proteins; others such asSustainable Bioproductshave identified microbes that naturally produce new to the world proteins; while others such asNoblegen are working with microorganisms that can be coaxed into producing multiple high-value ingredients without using genetic engineering.

Others such asAir Protein(which utilizes single-cell organisms called hydrogenotrophs first studied by NASA in the 1960s),Solar Foods,NovoNutrientsandDeep Branch Biotechnologyare converting components found in the air - notably carbon dioxide (which can be recycled from industrial waste) - into proteins.

View post:
WATCH: What role will microscopic microbial factories play in the future of protein? - FoodNavigator-USA.com

Japans rugby dream finally ended on Sunday. The Brave Blossoms lost to South Africa in the quarterfinals of the 2019 Rugby World Cup. I take my hat off to the team. Were really proud of what we have achieved, said Japans head coach Jamie Joseph, and so is everybody else in Japan.

Compared to baseball or soccer, rugby has never been a popular sport in Japan. For the past month since the World Cup opened on Sept. 20, however, millions of Japanese sports fans have converted to rugby. Although overpowered by South Africa, Japan performed well with its high-intensity running style of rugby.

Having said that, while watching this past Sundays historic match live on TV, I was contemplating something different. When a commentator said that Japans battle for the world cup was over, I thought no, the battle didnt end. No matter how well the Japan team had fought, it lost the battle. Isnt that the reality?

In a recent Washington Post column, U.S. Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell said, As neo-isolationism rears its head on both the left and the right, we can expect to hear more talk of endless wars. But rhetoric cannot change the fact that wars do not just end; wars are won or lost.

The Senate majority leader from Kentucky eloquently criticized U.S. President Donald Trumps abrupt decision to pull out of Syria to end the endless war. I interpreted this as saying that ending the war in Syria should not be an objective because you are losing, not winning, the war by trying to end it. Isnt that the reality as well?

A similar rhetoric is still dominant in Tokyo. On Aug. 15 every year, Japan the government, people and media alike commemorates the anniversary of the end of the Pacific War. We dont say we lost the war. We behave as if our longest war in Asia and the Pacific had ended spontaneously in 1945.

Since then, the Japanese have forgotten what a war really means. Similarly, a growing number of Americans now indulge themselves in such an illusion. Richard Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security laments this in his latest essay for Foreign Affairs: The Nonintervention Delusion What War Is Good For.

Pacifists in Tokyo always say, Peace loving nations do not go to war. Yes, sometimes they do especially when they must. War is merely a means to physically achieve a nations objective. If an illegal attack on other nations is taking place to change the status quo, a war of self-defense is justified under the United Nations Charter.

Now back to the war in Syria, which the U.S. is losing by ending it. In his column, McConnell presented three principal lessons about combating the complex threat. The lessons are the threat is real and cannot be wished away, there is no substitute for American leadership and we are not in this fight alone.

Unfortunately, the Republican senator wrote, the administrations recent steps in Syria do not reflect these crucial lessons. He may be right, but he needs some connotations for his argument. Here are some additional thoughts to add to his important essay:

First, McConnell said, the threat is real and cannot be wished away. Yes, the threat is real, of course. But we should also keep in mind that threats are often consequences of the past. In the case of the Islamic State or other extremists, they are part of popular reactions to legitimate U.S. support for illegitimate and unpopular presidents or rulers in the region.

Second, McConnell stated, there is no substitute for American leadership. Yes, there is, whether Americans like it or not. There are people, unfortunately, who are willing to submit to dictatorial governance in the Middle East and elsewhere. Those who have no experience in democracy and freedom do not appreciate their true values.

Finally, he argued that we are not in this fight alone. Not at all. But the U.S. would have to be alone if the Trump administration behaved as if America first meant America can do without its friends and allies. You cannot take their commitment and support for granted if you ignore them.

This means that the U.S. must face the troubles in the Middle East that Washington has been partly responsible for. Authoritarian leaders can easily be a substitute for the U.S. leadership. And finally, Americans may have to fight alone if Washington continues to make light of its traditional allies and friends.

Having said that, McConnell is wise and brave in criticizing the incumbent Republican president. He said We will see those troubles anew in Syria and Afghanistan if we abandon our partners and retreat from these conflicts before they are won. Americas wars will be endless only if America refuses to win them.

In order to avoid such endless wars, the U.S. must do two things. First, do something with the Trump administration. In his capacity as Senate majority leader, Americas friends and allies sincerely hope that McConnell will immediately multiply his efforts to make the Republican Party the Grand Old Party once again.

Second, in the medium to long term, as Andrew Krepinevich, a respected member of Americas strategic studies community puts it, the U.S. must be ready for the new forms of warfare. In his testimony last month before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, he listed the following three forms:

Algorithmic warfare by artificial intelligence systems, hyper war conducted at unprecedented speeds with advanced cyber or directed energy or hypersonic weaponry and precision biological warfare with advanced genetic engineering techniques.

Is the U.S. ready to do this? Krepinevich says no. If thats the case, how can Tokyo fight and win a defensive war against the status quo challengers? The U.S. and its allies have no time to waste. If we cant restore our alliance, we must work to refine it together maybe with a new administration in Washington.

Kuni Miyake is president of the Foreign Policy Institute and research director at Canon Institute for Global Studies.

Read the original:
Ending a war isn't the same as winning it - The Japan Times

Ridley Scott'sBlade Runnerwas a game changer in the world of science-fiction. In 1982, the same year that kid-friendly films likeE.T.were released conveying the adventures of a cuddly extra-terrestrial,Scott's vision of the near-future was introducing thought-provoking questions about the advancement of artificial intelligence, humankind's desire to play God, andwhat constituted being "human" with the rise of genetic engineering.

RELATED: 10 Hidden Details Everyone Missed In The Original Blade Runner

Set in 2019 Los Angeles after the degradation of Earth from a nuclear war, resources are scarce and anyone wealthy enough to do so ventures off-world. Off-world planets are colonized by replicants, synthetic beings created for the purpose of slave labor and dangerous activities unfit for humans. After a replicant revolt, they're forbidden from returning to Earth, but a few escape in a shuttle intent on making a better life for themselves. Deckard is the "Blade Runner" sent to "retire" them, along the way discovering more about his own humanity as he hunts those considered "more human than human." Here are five things that are scientifically accurate about the film andfive that make no sense.

Click the button below to start this article in quick view

InBlade Runner,Roy Batty pays a visit to the scientist behind the replicant's synthetic eyes. This man deals in eyes, but the rest of replicant's organs are synthetic as well. Today, the technology and science exists to generate organs in a lab that gives hope to those on lists for organ transplants.

Referred to as "bioartificial organ manufacturing technologies," organ substitutes (or artificial organs) will soon be made from cells designed to adapt to the tissue around them and become part and parcel with the individual who needs them. Stem cell research has been instrumental in 3D-printing bio-organs today, such as the thyroid gland.

Blade Runnertakes place in 2019, and the world has been made into an over-crowded, gritty, dystopian environment. In Philip K Dick's book Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep?, this is due to the "World War Terminus," a nuclear war that left the world almost uninhabitable. Ifyou're wealthy, you move off-world.

RELATED:Blade Runner: 10 Things That Make No Sense

The film never exactly explains why there was a nuclear war, or who started it. As it stands with the state of nuclear weaponry in the world,90% of which is owned by the United States and Russia, both countries are aware that a nuclear holocaust would make the world uninhabitable due to ensuing firestorms, nuclear winters, and radioactive fallout. Ergo, how would all of this advanced technology from the Tyrell Corp even exist?

While we're nowhere near able to make a replicant as advanced as Roy Batty and those seen in the film, the fields of robotics has made significant strides in recent years. Sophia, the social robot programmed with hundreds of different algorithms and 50 facial expressions does a good job of "replicating" a human's appearance enough to interact with her comfortably.

Of course, we as a society have to be ready for such advancements. Even with artificial organ transplants, at what point is a human still a human? What will rights and civil liberties look like as we make advancements in the technology of artificial intelligence to the point that, as the Tyrell Corp says, there are individuals among us that "look more human than human?"

After the nuclear war that devastated the planet, humans had two choices: either scramble for resources on their home planet, or look to outer space for other livable conditions on a new planet. Thanks to the Tyrell Corp and its replicants, other planets can be colonized with minimal danger to humans, allowing them to live off world.

How far away are they from Earth? How far can humans get in this near future? The film takes place in 2019, and we have only just been able to land a chemical-rocket without ditching it out to see on its de-burn into our atmosphere. And is there a lottery to get off-world or is it simply a matter of being able to afford the space travel?

Because of the possibility of replicants going rogue, Tyrell Corp put in a limited lifespan (four years) to act as a sort of "kill switch." Some replicants had displayed erratic behavior around that time, particularly where emotional overload was concerned. Their actions could be dangerous to humans since they were so much stronger and faster, so it also served to make humans more comfortable with the replicant presence.

RELATED:10 Things From Blade Runner That Haven't Aged Well

Today, genetic engineers that have been working with T-cell therapy have already considered this. Since they work with manipulating T-cells outside the body that are then put into a human, there is a chance they'll eventually go rogue or reject their new environment. They could become cancerous and start an attack on the human body.

Roy Batty, a Nexus-6 replicant designed to be a perfect soldier for Earth's military, has a poetic monologue towards the end of the film. He explains to Deckard that he's seen things he can't possibly imagine, like"attack ships off the shoulder of Orion"and something about "glittering C-beams".

This is fantastic for world-building purposes and painting a vivid picture of the sort of interstellar battles Roy Batty has been in during his short four-year life span, but it doesn't explainhow as a society, after anuclear holocaust,we would have the technology at all to build space ships (not chemical-rockets) capable of engaging in skirmishes with...aliens? What exactly were they fighting out there in the off-world colonies?

InBlade Runner,the fictional Voight-Kampff test is used to identify if an individual is a replicant or a human. It's designed to trigger emotions in the subject, which replicants wouldn't be able to have. Through a series of questions and images, it monitors the subject's physiological response, such as reaction time and pupillary movement.

Neuroscientists today use a test that's very similar. A database called the International Affective Picture System contains emotionally disturbing pictures and some neutral ones, and is used to measure a person's emotional response by their reactions. These days it can also be coupled with brain scans, something that wasn't around when Philip K. Dick wrote the novel on whichBlade Runneris based.

Unlike the android Ash of Ridley Scott'sAlien, replicants like Roy Batty are more biological in nature. When you cut them open, you won't see wires, motors, and metal, but soft, genetically-engineered tissue. That being said, there's no mention of what "powers" a replicant.

RELATED: 10 Best Sci-Fi Movies About Artificial Intelligence, Ranked

They appear human, but don't require "sleep" or "food" or "social contact" to exist. They are efficient slave laborers, soldiers, and pleasure bots precisely because they're more effective at their tasks than humans ,who would require time away from their work. Even our most advanced robots today can't handlecertain physical environments, never mind be nimble, store power, and move autonomously for days on end.

One of the biggest ways a replicant differs from a human is their memories. As they were never "born" and had no childhood, but emerge as fully-formed adult humans in appearance when they're constructed, they have to have memories implanted. This is a way for them to have an "anchor" on their emotions, which would override their systems otherwise.

Today, cognition researchers use memory implantation as a technique in relation to cognitive psychology. They make subjects believe a memory happened to them that never actually did. These implanted memories prove how easy it is to distort a human's memory of a past event, casting doubt over the repressed therapy techniques of digging for memories that may not be valid. At that point, would a human and a replicant be so different if they both believed their memories to be true?

The robot-doomsday scenario is a mainstay in the sci-fi genre. In films likeTerminatorandI, Robot,the artificially intelligent beings turn on their human creators and threaten to wipe out humankind. It always boils down to the robot/AI/replicant either becoming "self aware" and wanting to preserve itself over humans who wish to destroy it, or deciding humans should be destroyed because they're inefficient/a danger to themselves (think Ultron inAvengers).

However, the crucial issue with the scenario is that while AI is still programmed by humans, AI doesn't think like humans. Humans can learn from very few examples of failure, but AI must replicate scenarios over and over to learn patterns not to repeat. In this way, they are far from developing consciousness. We should be more afraid of how humans would use AI, than how it would use itself.

NEXT:IO: IO: 5Things That Are Scientifically Accurate (& 5 Things That Make No Sense)

Tags:blade runner

Originally posted here:
Blade Runner: 5 Things That Are Scientifically Accurate (And 5 That Make No Sense) - Screen Rant

Heres what we know: Its 2026, and Buck Bokai is at the plate. Whether its his first at-bat, his third, or his sixth doesnt matter he has hit safely in 56 games in a row. Its 2026, and with every at-bat, Buck Bokai might break a Major League record that has stood since 1941. The pitcher hurls the ball at the plate, what kind of pitch lost to history Bokai swings, and makes contact. The sound of wood on leather rings out, sharp and sweet, but its a ground ball. Bokai runs. Fielder Eddie Newsom tries to make a play, but the ball just squeaks out under his glove. Bokai is safe. 57 games. A new record. A legend for all time.

Heres what we know: Its 2042, sixteen years later, and Buck Bokai is at the plate. He isnt such a young man anymore. Baseball isnt such a young sport, either. Invented in 1839, the game became the national pastime of America, and loved and played around the world. It survived corruption, scandal, steroids, and two world wars, but the world is turning sour again and it wont survive a third. This is the final World Series. There are 300 people in the stands. The pitcher hurls his ball at the plate. Bokai swings, makes contact. The sound of wood on leather rings out, louder than it should, and its a home run. He rounds the bases, touches home, and thats it for baseball. So long, folks.

Buck Bokai is one of Star Treks odder tragic figures. A once-in-a-lifetime talent who peaked at the decline of his craft, hes remembered solely, so far as we know, by an android playing a holodeck recreation of 20th century San Francisco, the commanding officer of a space station perched tenuously at the mouth of the galaxys only stable wormhole, and that officers son. That hes remembered at all is a miracle given the fate of the sport he played, and the fate of the world some years after he clubbed his last homer. Khan Noonien Singh, after all, was an obscure name in the database of the original starship Enterprises computers, and he was once the undisputed ruler of over a quarter of Earth. Were it not for the long memories of the sports few 24th century devotees, Bokais life, his accomplishments, would have fallen to dust.

Though the episode we see him in, Deep Space Nines If Wishes Were Horses, is more infamous than good, its a gift for anybody with an interest in the fabric of Star Treks vision of humanitys future. The Bokai who breaks DiMaggios hit streak is a nameless figure, a point of data recited by Data on The Next Generation because hes learned the facts of 20th and 21st century life to better fit into his captains Dixon Hill holonovel. The Bokai that appears in Deep Space Nine is a fully realized man, one whose exploits inspire Benjamin Sisko, one of the Federations greatest heroes. He provides context for stories that take place in Earths distant past. He stands as a hero at the intersection of skill and chance. He is, by virtue of his existence, one of the few models were given for what becomes of human sport as we stretch out from earth and take our place among the stars.

By subscribing to the Star Trek newsletter, which may include personalized offers from our advertising partners, you agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data collection and usage practices outlined in our Privacy Policy.

Heres what we know: Captain Jonathan Archer enjoys water polo. Lieutenant Commander Worf brutally learns the differences between human and Klingon physiology when he accidentally kills a classmate during a game of soccer. Captain Jean Luc-Picard loves to fence. Chief Miles OBrien cant help but kayak, even if it means tearing his rotator cuff. Doctor Julian Bashir, as a consequence of his genetic engineering, is too skilled to lose at darts. Doctor Phlox, a Denobulan serving on a human ship, hits shots effortlessly without truly grasping the concept of basketball. As humanity betters itself and encounters new races, its sports become obsolete. Springball, parrises squares, tsunkatse these are the games of the future.

It makes sense. One of the quintessential assertions Star Trek makes about Humanity is that we, as a species, are driven to seek out, introduce ourselves to, and live among other species. We grow attached to the games those species play first as a means of finding a foothold in their culture, then because it presents the unending challenge of mastery. The same is not true of the species we meet. In 2375 the Vulcan Logicians visit Deep Space Nine and destroy Benjamin Siskos Niners 10-1. The Niners one run is framed as a moral victory, but whats a moral victory to a Vulcan? What is baseball to a Vulcan?

StarTrek.com

A nostalgist would say that baseball is a living connection to Americas past, though I suspect Abner Doubleday wouldnt recognize the game as its played today as the one he invented in a pre-Civil War America. Its a global game, but not to the extent that Star Trek envisions. The Major Leagues have yet to become the Planetary League, and the Toronto Blue Jays are still the only foreign team eligible to play in the World Series. There are no teams in London, but it seems unlikely that the game is destined for an ignoble end in our time. 2019 is Buck Bokais rookie season for the Crenshaw Monarchs, and if the story of his career is that his genius is as obvious as it is underappreciated, the same cannot be said for generational talents like Mike Trout or Vladimir Guerrero Jr. Even the worst teams in memory, like my beloved 2003 Detroit Tigers, drew more than 300 fans to the ballpark. As long as there is time to pass, theres baseball to be played.

Heres what we know: Its 2063, and humanity has no time left to pass. Zefram Cochrane takes his seat in the cockpit of Earths first warp-capable ship, the Phoenix, and his flight catches the attention of a Vulcan ship nearby. Its been 20 years since Buck Bokai hit his last home run and, at least professionally, there are no home runs in his, or our, future. Buck Bokai is 65 years old. The game of baseball is 224 years old. Most games arent meant to last forever. The legacies of great men are often forgotten. Would Buck Bokai be Benjamin Siskos favorite ballplayer had he struck out, the count 3-2, his legacy that he merely tied with Joltin Joe? Would he be Siskos favorite ballplayer without the tinge of tragedy and finality that came with his last swing of the bat?

Baseball, like many sports, is a medium through which humans tell stories about themselves. In 2063 we learn that there is more to the universe than humanity, a vast number of races with whom we wish to communicate. Try explaining the rules of baseball to someone who doesnt like baseball. Now try explaining the rules of baseball to an alien. Whats more interesting to an interplanetary visitor: the man who broke the warp barrier, or the intricacies of the infield fly rule? Buck Bokai was a great baseball player, but his role in human history is to haunt a corner of it, a story written in a dead language and passed from one hobbyist to the next. Its not that hes the last boy of summer. Its just that summer eventually comes to mean something else.

Colette Arrand (she/her) is a transsexual poet from Athens, Georgia. She is the author of THE FUTURE IS HERE AND EVERYTHING MUST BE DESTROYED (Split Lip Press, 2019) and HOLD ME GORILLA MONSOON (OPO Books & Objects, 2017). She can be found on Twitter @colettearrand

More:
Buck Bokai: The Last Boy of Summer - Star Trek

Vol. 256's Editorial Board is largely in favor of the First-Year Shared Intellectual Experience and Exploration design team's proposal for revamping the frosh academic experience, but cautions that success relies on good execution. (Stanford News)

A thousand students shuffle to Frost Amphitheater in the cold for another lecture required by Stanfords new mandatory core. The lecture is boring. People scroll discreetly on their phones. They complain about being forced to take a class they dislike when hundreds of classes interest them more. This is the risk Stanford is taking with its ambitious plan to redesign the first-year academic experience.

But those same thousand students could also be brought together by the Core, meeting after class to debate a point of contention, sharing ideas over dinner as friends and applying their experiences to later challenges as alumni.

Out of our belief in the latter vision, we support the Long-Range Planning efforts to redesign and centralize Stanfords first-year experience. The plans promise to revitalize liberal education at Stanford if delivered upon is compelling. However, there are key concerns the University must address in its implementation of the plan, should the Faculty Senate approve it, ranging from explanations of syllabi to a greater focus on pedagogy.

In the last decade, Stanford has been embroiled in a conversation about the undergraduate curriculums fidelity to the Universitys stated goals. In 2012, Stanford abolished the then first-year requirement, Introduction to the Humanities (IHUM), in favor of the current Thinking Matters Program. Though the goal was to encourage exploration, the First-Year Shared Intellectual Experience and Exploration Design team concedes that the gambit failed. First-year students overwhelmingly use their increased flexibility to fulfill pre-major requirements, primarily in large STEM classes, according to the report. This is the crux of the design committees concern: that Stanford has lost sight of the intellectual exploration and humanistic focus a first-year liberal arts experience demands.

What then does recommitting to a liberal arts education look like, according to the proposal? PWR 1 will remain a first-year requirement, though Thinking Matters is on the chopping block. In its place will come a three-quarter mandatory Stanford Core sequence, in which all first-year students apart from those in SLE and ITALIC will be enrolled. The Core will cover a different theme every quarter: Liberal Education in the fall, Citizenship in the 21st Century in the winter and Global Perspectives in the spring. These three focus areas are designed to center upon the self, society and the world, respectively.

The fall quarter Liberal Education course will be a lecture series designed for 1,000 students, delving into issues ranging from the self versus community to free speech. In the winter, the Core turns its attention to topics like ethics and citizenship, utilitarianism, genetic engineering and Stanfords Fundamental Standard in weekly seminars and larger plenary sessions. Spring quarters Global Perspectives requirement is the most flexible, fulfilled by an array of classes including but not limited to HISTORY 1C: History in Global Perspective and EARTHSYS 106: World Food Economy.

We concur with some justifications the report presents in favor of the Core. We agree that standardizing the freshman year intellectual experience would unify students and build a stronger academic community. Having something in common with every other frosh can foster intellectual discussion outside the classroom that doesnt always crop up organically. Though the proposal does not mandate a residential requirement, the committee hopes that residential programming will supplement each of the three quarters to cement the Core as a shared first-year learning experience.

For students not in SLE or ITALIC, the center of gravity of the first-year academic experience largely lies in STEM pre-major requirements and large introductory classes. Over 71% of students take CS106A or CS106B in their first year. STEM enrollment grows even larger when including Math, Physics and Chemistry classes.

Early exposure to the liberal arts offers students still deciding between STEM and humanities fields the space to try the latter without falling behind. As the report points out, all-around pressure to decide and start fulfilling a major right away prevents exploration, especially for prospective premeds and STEM students. A major should reflect a path of interest, not an obligation. The Core wont necessarily change that path for everyone, but it might for some.

All of these potential benefits of the proposed Core depend, however, on how well the program is executed. First, besides proffering a lengthy philosophical defense of the liberal education model, the current proposal neither explains why particular texts and authors have been included nor describes why they are believed to dialogue effectively with each other. There are a great number of candidate texts that may be included in a class that investigates themes of the self, society, and world. The Core should be commended for recognizing the diversity of influences on contemporary thought, but its task now must be to justify these selections and to animate dialogue between them in a coherent fashion.

In this vein, the Core staff should not shy away from the inevitable criticisms that will be levied against the Cores implementation. Students, as citizens of the Stanford community, have not only a right but an imperative to engage in ongoing conversation on what the ideal form of a universal requirement should be. While it may be easy to label such responses as reactionary, we believe that discourse on the course itself may well turn out to be one of the most productive conversations generated by the first-year core. That conversation should be embraced, not dismissed as intellectually immature.

More importantly, teaching quality will determine the new Cores success. Engaging lecturers transform mundane topics into fascinating stories, while dry lecturers twist compelling content into forgettable narratives. The report expounds on its hopes for a shared intellectual community that will serve as a wellspring for conversation. But we found its lack of focus on pedagogy concerning. Ensuring cohesion between different lecturers and assuring individual lecturer quality is critical. The committee discusses incentives for faculty who teach in the new core, such as a $5,000 salary supplement. But these incentives dont differentiate between better teachers and worse ones: attracting faculty isnt the same as attracting the best faculty.

Students are commonly advised to take the professor, not the class. For two of the three quarters in the core sequence, they lack that choice. We think the promise of liberal education justifies this constriction of agency. We also think it means the institution has an obligation to deliver on that promise.

Contact the Editorial Board at opinions at stanford.edu.

We're a student-run organization committed to providing hands-on experience in journalism, digital media and business for the next generation of reporters.Your support makes a difference in helping give staff members from all backgrounds the opportunity to develop important professional skills and conduct meaningful reporting. All contributions are tax-deductible.

Continue reading here:
Will Stanford live up to its vision for a first-year shared intellectual experience? - The Stanford Daily

Humankind is on the verge of a genetic revolution that holds great promise and potential. It will change the ways food is grown, medicine is produced, animals are altered and will give rise to new ways of producing plastics, biofuels and chemicals.

Many object to the genetic revolution, insisting we should not be playing God by tinkering with the building blocks of life; we should leave the genie in the bottle. This is the view held by many opponents of GMO foods. But few transformative scientific advances are widely embraced at first. Once a discovery has been made and its impact widely felt it is impossible to stop despite the pleas of doubters and critics concerned about potential unintended consequences. Otherwise, science would not have experienced great leaps throughout historyand we would still be living a primitive existence.

[Editors note: This is the first in a four-part series examining genetic engineerings impact on our lives. The second installment examines regulatory obstacles blunting the potential of genetically engineered animals;the third looks at the role of gene editing in medicine; and the final segment looks at synthetic biology and other novel applications.]

Gene editing of humans and plantsa revolutionary technique developed just a few years ago that makes genetic tinkering dramatically easier, safer and less expensivehas begun to accelerate this revolution. University of California-Berkeley biochemistJennifer Doudna, one of the co-inventors of the CRISPR technique:

Within the next few years, this new biotechnology will give us higher-yielding crops, healthier livestock, and more nutritious foods. Within a few decades, we might well have genetically engineered pigs that can serve as human organ donorswe are on the cusp of a new era in the history of life on earthan age in which humans exercise an unprecedented level of control over the genetic composition of the species that co-inhabit our planet. It wont be long before CRISPR allows us to bend nature to our will in the way that humans have dreamed of since prehistory.

The four articles in this series will examine the dramatic changes that gene editing and other forms of genetic engineering will usher in.

Despite the best efforts of opponents, GE crops have become so embedded and pervasive in the food systemseven in Europe which has bans in place on growing GMOs in most countriesthat it is impossible to dislodge them without doing serious damage to the agricultural sector and boosting food costs for consumers.

Even countries which ban the growing of GMOs or who have such strict labeling laws that few foods with GE ingredients are sold in supermarkets are huge consumers of GE products.

Europe is one of the largest importers of GMO feed in the world. Most of the meat we consume from cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, turkeys, pigs and fish farms are fed genetically modified corn, soybeans and alfalfa.

And the overwhelming majority of cheeses are made with an enzyme produced by GM microbes and some beers and wines are made with genetically engineered yeast.

North America, much of South America and Australia are major consumers of foods grown from GE seeds. Much of the corn oil, cotton seed oil, soybean oil and canola oil used for frying and cooking, and in salad dressings and mayonnaise is genetically modified. GM soybeans are used to make tofu, miso, soybean meal, soy ice cream, soy flour and soy milk. GM corn is processed into corn starch and corn syrup and is used to make whiskey. Much of our sugar is derived from GM sugar beets and GE sugarcane is on the horizon. Over 90 percent of the papaya grown in Hawaii has been genetically modified to make it resistant to the ringspot virus. Some of the squash eaten in the US is made from GM disease-resistant seeds and developing countries are field testing GM disease-resistant cassava.

Many critics of GE in agriculture focus on the fact that by volume most crops are used in commodity food manufacturing, specifically corn and soybeans. One reason for that is the high cost of getting new traits approved. Indeed, research continues on commodity crops, although many of the scientists work for academia and independent research institutes.

For example, in November 2016, researchers in the UK were granted the authority to begin trials of a genetically engineered wheat that has the potential to increase yields by 40 percent. The wheat, altered to produce a higher level of an enzyme critical for turning sunlight and carbon dioxide into plant fuel, was developed in part by Christine Raines, the Head of the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Essex.

A new generation of foods are now on the horizon, some as the result of new breeding techniques (NBTs), such as gene editing. Many of these foods will be nutritionally fortified, which will be critical to boosting the health of many of the poorest people in developing nations and increase yields.

Golden rice is a prime example of such a nutrition-enhanced crop. It is genetically engineered to have high levels of beta carotene, a precursor of Vitamin A. This is particularly important as many people in developing countries suffer from Vitamin A deficiency which leads to blindness and even death. Bangladesh is expected to begin cultivation of golden rice in 2018. The Philippines may also be close to growing it.

A strain of golden rice that includes not only high levels of beta carotene but also high levels of zinc and iron could be commercialized within 5 years. Our results demonstrate that it is possible to combine several essential micronutrients iron, zinc and beta carotene in a single rice plant for healthy nutrition, said Navreet Bhullar, senior scientist at ETH Zurich, which developed the rice.

The Science in the News group at Harvard University discussed some of the next generation foods.

Looking beyond Golden Rice, there are a large number of biofortified staple crops in development. Many of these crops are designed to supply other micronutrients, notably vitamin E in corn, canola and soybeansProtein content is also a key focus; protein-energy malnutrition affects 25% of children because many staple crops have low levels ofessential amino acids. Essential amino acids are building blocks of proteins and must be taken in through the diet or supplements. So far, corn, canola, and soybeans have been engineered to contain higher amounts of the essential amino acid lysine. Crops like corn, potatoes and sugar beets have also been modified to contain more dietary fiber, a component with multiple positive health benefits.

Other vitamin-enhanced crops have been developed though they have yet to be commercialized. Australian scientists created a GE Vitamin A enriched banana, scientists in Kenya developed GE Vitamin A enhanced sorghum and plant scientists in Switzerland developed a GE Vitamin B6 enhanced cassava plant.

Scientists genetically engineered canola, a type of rapeseed, to produce additional omega-3 fatty acids. Research is being conducted on developing GM gluten free wheat and vegetables with higher levels of Vitamin E to fight heart disease.

Other more consumer-focused genetically-engineered crops that do not use transgenics, and have sailed through the approval system include:

Other products are in development that fight viruses and disease. Scientists have used genetic engineering to develop disease-resistant rice. A new plum variety resists the plum pox virus. It has not yet been commercialized. GE solutions may be the only answer to save the orange industry from citrus greening, which is devastating orange groves in Florida. GE might be utilized to curb the damage caused by stem rust fungus in wheat and diseases effecting the coffee crop.

In Africa, GE solutions could be used to combat the ravages of banana wilt and cassava brown streak disease and diseases that impact cocoa trees and potatoes. A GE bean has been developed in Brazil that is resistant to the golden mosaic virus. Researchers at the University of Florida, the University of California-Berkeley and the 2Blades Foundation have developed a disease resistant GM tomato.

Scientists at the John Innes Center in the UK are attempting to create a strain of barley capable of making its own ammonium fertilizer from nitrogen in the soil. This would be particularly beneficial to farmers who grow crops in poor soil conditions or who lack the financial resources to buy synthetic fertilizers.

Peggy Ozias-Akins, a horticulture expert at the University of Georgia has developed and tested genetically-engineered peanuts that do not produce two proteins linked to intense allergens.

New gene editing techniques (NBTs) such as CRISPR offer great potential and face lower approval hurdles, at least for now.

In June 2017, the EPA approved a new first of its kind GE corn known as SmartStaxPro, in which the plants genes are tweaked without transgenics to produce a natural toxin designed to kill western corn rootworm larvae. It also produces a piece of RNA that shuts down a specific gene in the larvae, thereby killing them. The new GE corn is expected to be commercialized by the end of the decade.

What could slowor even stopthis revolution? In an opinion piece for Nature Biology, Richard B. Flavell, a British molecular biologist and former director of the John Innes Center in the UK, which conducts research in plant science, genetics and microbiology, warned about the dangers of vilifying and hindering new GE technologies:

The consequences of simply sustaining the chaotic status quoin which GMOs and other innovative plant products are summarily demonized by activists and the organic lobbyare frightening when one considers mounting challenges to food production, balanced nutrition and poverty alleviation across the world. Those who seek to fuel the GMO versus the non-GMO debate are perpetuating irresolvable difference of opinion. Those who seek to perpetuate the GMO controversy and actively prevent use of new technology to crop breeding are not only on the wrong side of the debate, they are on the wrong side of the evidence. If they continue to uphold beliefs against evidence, they will find themselves on the wrong side of history.

A version of this article previously ran on the GLP on January 24, 2018.

Steven E. Cerier is a freelance international economist and a frequent contributor to the Genetic Literacy Project

Read more:
Genetic engineering, CRISPR and food: What the 'revolution' will bring in the near future - Genetic Literacy Project

Jamie Metzl is an extremely impressive man. Having held senior positions on Clinton's National Security Council and Department of State, and Joe Biden's Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he's also been Executive VP of the Asia Society, a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council and a former partner in Cranmere LLC, a global investment company. Today, while he's not running ultra-marathons, he's best known as a geopolitics expert, futurist and author.

Metzl writes in science fiction and scientific non-fiction, and his latest book, Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity, delivers a serious, strongly-researched warning on what's likely to happen if we sleepwalk into the genetics age.

We spoke to Metzl at WCIT 2019 in Yerevan, Armenia, where he appeared as a keynote speaker, moderator and panel member.

Vahram Baghdasaryan/WCIT Yerevan 2019

"Right now were at this moment of super-convergence," Metzl tells us. "Its not any one technology thats determinative, its all these technologies happening at the same time, because theyre all influencing each other."

The first of these, Metzl outlines, is cheap sequencing of the human genome. Well need a ton of genetic information to be able to find the patterns needed to move forward, and while the cost of full genome sequencing is currently the limiting factor, it's dropping steeply, from around US$2.7 billion in 2003, to less than US$600 today. That's going to have to come down by another order or two of magnitude before it starts getting used as a matter of routine.

Secondly, 5G connectivity and the Internet of Things promises to teach us enormous amounts of information about people's health over the years, as wearable health analysis devices begin to stream back colossal piles of dynamic data about what's going on in people's bodies. Eventually, this will enable population-wide phenotypical research to be cross-checked against the genome to learn even more about how genes express themselves, individually and in concert with one another.

Thirdly, big data and analytics tools. The 2.9 billion haploid pairs making up each sequenced human genome represent about 725 megabytes of data, and dynamic health records will likely require even more storage space, in formats that can easily be cross-checked against each other at a massive scale.

Metzl notes that artificial intelligence or more precisely, deep learning is the only way we'll ever be able to meaningfully process such monstrous amounts of data, and its capabilities are rocketing forward daily. Perhaps when it's ready for serious commercial use, the speed and power of quantum computing will prove invaluable in quickly crunching through these petabytes of data.

Then of course, there are the wetter technologies: vastly improved IVF technologies that will soon enable us to generate egg and sperm cells from skin cells without needing invasive or embarrassing procedures to be carried out. Eventually, we'll have the capability to cheaply produce dozens, or even hundreds of embryos to sequence, select and implant.

And of course, gene editing tools. CRISPR/Cas9 editing is the most famous example of these, but it's already being compared to "genetic vandalism" due to its imprecise nature. More accurate and precise tools are constantly being discovered and refined to edit the genome of living subjects.

"We have to stitch together all these technologies," says Metzl, "and its already starting to happen. And itll happen increasingly until the end of time."

Vahram Baghdasaryan/WCIT Yerevan 2019

The first step, says Metzl, will be in healthcare. Our interactions with health care professionals will move from the current generalized model, to something more personal and precise as we start to understand what treatments work for people with certain genetic markers. Eventually, we'll have enough information to start engaging in predictive health care.

"You dont need to be perfect to make a huge impact on health care," says Metzl, "you just have to be better than the status quo, where nobody has that information, for it to be applied." It'll inch forward, offering probabilities rather than certainties as more and more is discovered.

Next and soon, we'll start seeing advanced embryo selection as a core part of any IVF treatment. Prospective parents will start having multiple embryos to choose from, each of which will have its genome fully sequenced so they'll be able to choose between offspring with a growing amount of information.

To begin with, this will allow parents to select against crippling genetic diseases, much the same as how parents who can afford the right scans can "select against" things like Down syndrome now.

But as science learns more and more about what individual genes, and combinations of them, do to the final outcome of a human, we'll quickly gain the ability to select for certain traits as well as against others. Will you want your child to be taller? More athletic, with a greater proportion of fast twitch muscle fibers? What about intelligence? Skin color? Eye color? Would you select for a child with a higher probability of living longer? Would you select for a child with a higher degree of extraversion, or a more even temperament?

All these things, and many more, are already known to have genetic underpinnings. And soon, parents will be able to choose between dozens, or potentially hundreds of their own biological embryos with this information at hand. All these possible kids are yours, so why wouldn't you choose the one that appears to have the best possible shot at life? Not doing so, says Metzl, could grow to be seen as a "crime against potential."

The disadvantages of having children the old-fashioned way will soon become apparent, as smarter, stronger, faster, healthier kids born from selection processes begin to dominate across a range of competitive situations, from sport to business to earning capacity and these advantages will multiply with subsequent generations, as more and more science is applied to the reproductive process.

"Embryo selection uses technologies that already exist," says Metzl. "IVF, embryo screening, and genome sequencing. Obviously we need to get better at all these things, but its happening very, very quickly."

And that's just using our naturally-occurring genetics. Soon afterward will follow precision gene editing, in which you select option J from your pre-implanted embryos, but make a few tweaks before you implant it. Here's where things start getting a little sketchy, as you're making edits to the germ line of the human species.

"Editing the genome requires the understanding that one gene might not just do one thing; it might do a lot of things," Metzl tells us. "If its a particularly harmful gene, then we know the alternative is deadly, so that decision will be easier. But when we move into the world of non-deadly single gene mutations, well, then the costs of not having a full understanding go higher."

Metzl says it's clear which direction things will go."We are going to do more and more complex genome editing," he tells us, "either to address risks, or to create enhancements - and there will be no natural boundary between the two. This is all about ethics. The science is advancing, theres nothing we can do to stop the science. The question is ethics."

The dawn of a new age of superhumans could nearly be upon us, in which a lucky, selected, edited few will have extraordinary genetic potentials in a wide range of areas. Sports could become almost meaningless, as it'll be impossible to tell a selected or edited human from a "natural born" one. Humanity will begin steering its own evolution for the first time in history, with some predictable results and some we can't see coming.

Negative results, says Metzl, could include everything from a gaping division between genetic haves and have-nots which could express itself within and between countries all the way up to eliminating all human life altogether. "We may make choices based on something we think is really good, like eliminating a terrible disease," says Metzl, "but then that genetic pattern that enabled that disease, in some other formulation, could be protective against some threat we cant even imagine, thats coming our way a thousand years from now. Thats why we need to be so respectful of our diversity. Genetic diversity, up to this point, has been our sole survival strategy. If we didnt have diversity, you could say wed still be single-celled organisms. We wouldnt, wed probably just have died. When the world changes around us, diversity is what helps us survive."

And then there's the potential of creating genetically engineered weapons. "Researchers in Canada spent $100,000 a couple of years ago," says Metzl, "to create essentially a weaponized version of horse pox in the lab, to show what could be done. Well, that could probably now be done for $20,000. In five years, you might be talking $2,000. These tools are agnostic. They dont come with their own value system. Just like nuclear power. We had to work out what are the OK uses, what are the not OK uses, and how do we structure things to we minimize the downsides."

Metzl wants people across the world to be informed about the technologies and capabilities that are barreling down the pipeline toward us, so meaningful efforts can be made to steer them in a direction that everyone can agree on, and set up clear redlines past which we agree not to venture. Each country, he says, needs to set up a national regulatory infrastructure to control the pace of these changes, and there also needs to be an international body with some teeth to make sure certain nations don't leap ahead and change the nature of humanity just due to lax regulations.

"This is always going to be changing," says Metzl. "The science is changing, the societal norms about what is and isnt OK are going to be changing too, and we need a dynamic process that can at least try to do a better job of keeping up with that rapid change."

Where does Metzl stand personally on how this next phase should be approached? "I'm a conservative person about this," he says. "I mean, four billion years of evolution is a lot. Life has made a lot of trade-offs. So if youre going against four billion years of evolution, you have to be humble. We know so little about the body. We cant let our hubris run away with us."

If you want to get informed on this incredibly complex, multilayered and potentially explosive technological revolution, Metzl's book Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity (April 2019) is an outstanding summary with more examples and possible future situations laid out than you could possibly need, written in an engaging style designed to be accessible to anyone. I found it extremely enlightening and recommend it thoroughly.

Source: Jamie Metzl, WCIT Yerevan 2019

See the original post here:
Hacking Darwin: How the coming genetics revolution will play out - New Atlas

With the impending premier of HBOs new Watchmen series looming over us like the Doomsday Clock, its probably a good time to revisit the original story so you know what the hell is going on. The new series, from Lost showrunner Damon Lindelof, looks in part like HBOs attempt to fill the violent intrigue and nudity void left by Game of Thrones with violent intrigue and superhero capes (and probably also nudity). Such is the burden of prestige television.

However, if youve never read Watchmen, youre going to be confused when you tune into the first episode this Sunday. Thats because the HBO show is a sequel to the graphic novel specifically (and not the 2009 film). Lindelof is a longtime fan of the graphic novel, written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons. In fact, a praise-heaping quote from Lindelof has been included on the back cover of every trade paperback edition of Watchmen since the mid-2000s, and he has said that it was a huge inspiration on Losts time-hopping narrative of interconnected flashbacks. So its no surprise he wanted to base his new story on the source material, rather than do a continuation of the film adaptation.

But odds are you probably dont have time to cram in a reading of Moore and Gibbons notoriously dense story before the show airs this weekend. Luckily, I have nothing but time for things like that, because Im catastrophically irresponsible and great at compartmentalizing. And Ive written a helpful summary of the story of Watchmen to tell you everything you need to know before using your friends parents HBO account to watch the show this Sunday.

Image via Vertigo

Watchmen takes place in an alternate history 1985, in a world where costumed superheroes are real. However, only one person with actual superpowers exists Jon Osterman, AKA Dr. Manhattan, a physicist who gained near-omnipotence after a freak accident. Among Dr. Manhattans powers are the ability to rearrange matter at will, teleport anywhere in the universe instantaneously, clone himself infinitely, see backwards and forwards in time simultaneously, and blow people up with a hand gesture. Hes like a mix between Superman and Professor X, with some Dr. Strange thrown in for good measure.

In the storys timeline, superheroes become outlawed in the 1970s. Only Dr. Manhattan and The Comedian a violent, Punisher-type militant are allowed to continue to operate, because they agree to work exclusively as agents of the U.S. government. The rest of the heroes Dan Dreiberg AKA Nite Owl, Laurie Jupiter AKA Silk Spectre, and Adrian Veidt AKA Ozymandias are forced to retire. Adrian retires publicly, revealing his identity to the world. Hes basically Tony Stark. Dan and Lauries identities remain secret, although Laurie lives with Dr. Manhattan in a government facility as his lover / babysitter. Dan is kind of a sad Batman, while Laurie is sort of like Black Widow meets Black Canary (again, without any superpowers). The only hero who refuses to retire is Rorschach, a brutal, murderous vigilante clad in a fedora and a white mask covered in ink blot patterns that are constantly shifting. Hes still prowling the streets, attacking criminals and evading capture by the police. Were also led to believe that he smells like a sack of dead cats in a diaper bin.

Meanwhile, Dr. Manhattan has allowed the U.S. to keep a stranglehold on the world. The Vietnam War was a decisive American victory, Richard Nixon has been president for several terms, the Watergate scandal never happened (its implied The Comedian murdered Woodward and Bernstein), and the Cold War has mostly consisted of the United States using Dr. Manhattan to flex on the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union is getting tired of it, and threatens to invade Afghanistan to goad the U.S. into mutually-assured destruction. (This happened in real life as well, for those of you who dont remember, but in Watchmen the Soviet Unions invasion of Afghanistan happens much later.) So, despite the presence of an honest-to-god Superman who could stop 98% of incoming nuclear missiles from ever reaching the U.S., the world is still on the brink of world-ending nuclear war.

Still with me? Great, because thats just all the stuff that happens before the story starts. So, deep breath, here we go:

Image via Vertigo

The story begins with the Comedian getting murdered by an unknown attacker. Rorschach investigates, initially believing that someone is bumping off all the old superheroes. He notifies Dan, Adrian, Laurie, and Dr. Manhattan of both the Comedians death and of his superhero killer theory, but none of them take his warning very seriously. Particularly unfazed is Laurie, because the Comedian had assaulted and nearly raped her mother, the original Silk Spectre, back when her mother and the Comedian were on the same superhero team, the Minutemen.

Meanwhile, Dr. Manhattan gets hit with a series of allegations from former friends and coworkers claiming that exposure to his super-powered body gave them all terminal cancer. Manhattan, whose god-like status already has him struggling to continue to care about regular humans, has a good old fashioned freakout and teleports to Mars, like you do. With him gone, the Soviet Union takes the opportunity to invade Afghanistan, bringing the world even closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile, an assassin shows up at Adrians office and tries to kill him, and Rorschach finally gets arrested after a meeting with an informant turns out to be a setup. (The informant, a former supervillain named Moloch, is murdered before Rorschach arrives.)

Dan and Laurie get together, and begin to suspect that some aspects of Rorschachs theory may be accurate. They bust Rorschach out of prison, at which point Dr. Manhattan reappears and admits that he cant really find a reason why he should care about humanity or what happens to the world, because in addition to being an immortal metahuman, he is also a colossal douche canoe. Laurie goes with him back to Mars to try and convince him to help them stop the impending nuclear war and whatever sinister conspiracy seems to be egging it on.

During her talk with Dr. Manhattan, and partially using his ability to see past events as clearly as the present, Laurie realizes that the Comedian is her father, and that he and her mother loved each other. The news devastates and confuses her, as she struggles to reconcile how her mother couldve gone on to have a romantic relationship with the man who had brutally attacked her years before. Dr. Manhattan is intrigued by the random, unpredictable chaos that brings each human life into being, and decides to return with Laurie to Earth to help stop the war. Like I said, hes a dickhead.

Dan and Rorschach, now on the run from the police, follow a series of leads that leads them to Adrians office. Adrian, it turns out, owns both the company that employed Moloch, and the company that employed all of Dr. Manhattans former coworkers now stricken with cancer. Uncertain if they will survive confronting Adrian, Rorschach mails a journal detailing all of the incriminating evidence against Adrian to a newspaper. He and Dan then travel to Adrians Arctic getaway, Karnak, to talk to him, at which point Adrian freely admits to being behind the entire plot.

Image via Warner Bros.

Adrians plan is complicated, so Im going to give you the short version, followed by the longer-but-still short version. Basically, Adrian wants to put an end to nuclear war and achieve a form of world peace. He does this by staging a catastrophic alien invasion, which he triggers just before Dan and Rorschach arrive to confront him. He stages the invasion by genetically engineering a giant psychic alien and teleporting it into the middle of Times Square. As the alien dies, it lets out a psychic explosion that wipes out millions of people. By staging a terrifyingly violent alien attack, the impending nuclear war with Russia is averted and the world powers unite under the belief that the aliens could strike again at any moment. Dan and Rorschach try to stop him, but a pitying Adrian reveals that the attack has already happened, and millions of people in New York City are already dead. Ok, thats the short version. Maybe hit the bathroom, grab a glass of water, and lets continue.

To accomplish his goal, Adrian hires a writer, a surrealist painter, a science fiction author, a radical architect, an avant-garde composer, and a eugenicist, and brings them to a secluded island, paying them handsomely to sever all ties with friends and family for the duration of their stay. He uses the teams specialized talents to create his alien monster, which the team believes is for a movie. Adrian has the eugenicist genetically engineer the alien and fill it with the cloned brain of a famous psychic, who died recently of a stroke, although it is heavily implied that Adrian simply murdered him. Adrian has the mammoth psychic brain exposed to bizarre, otherworldly sounds and imagery created by his team of artists, to ensure that the psychic burst triggered by the aliens teleportation death will be mind-shreddingly lethal.

Oh, yeah genetic engineering exists in the world of Watchmen, along with a number of other incredible scientific advances. Thanks to Dr. Manhattan, things like clean energy and teleportation technology also exist, although teleportation is ultimately deemed unworkable because it immediately kills any living thing you try to teleport. Also, psychics apparently exist, but the book kind of hand-waves that one.

Anyway, once the alien is completed, Adrian puts his team of scientists and artists on a tugboat and blows them straight the fuck up. His murder of The Comedian, the inciting event of the story, occurs after the Comedian just happens to stumble on the island while flying over it on a mission for the U.S. government. Thinking it might be an insurgent base, he goes in for a closer look and uncovers Adrians plan, the scope of which totally breaks him. And although the Comedian never attempts to spill the beans, Adrian kills him anyway, just to be certain. Adrian also murdered Rorschachs informant and orchestrated his arrest, to prevent him from uncovering the plan. Ok, long version over. Now here comes the climax.

Dr. Manhattan and Laurie teleport back to Earth in the middle of Times Square and see the carnage firsthand dead bodies littering every square inch of asphalt, buildings demolished, and the carcass of an impossibly huge alien monster bursting from the ruins of Madison Square Garden. They teleport to Karnak and confront Adrian alongside Dan and Rorschach. After a brief fight, Adrian shows them a series of news broadcasts from around the world, each one reporting that hostilities between nations have virtually disappeared, with the worlds super powers agreeing to an indefinite peace in order to prepare against further attacks from the alien threat.

Image via Warner Bros.

Realizing that exposing Adrians crime would essentially mean dooming the world, the heroes agree to keep it a secret and play along with the alien invasion. That is, except for Rorschach. Enraged by the cowardice of the rest of the group, Rorschach insists that peace earned through deception and the mass murder of civilians is worthless. He leaves, vowing to reveal the truth. Dr. Manhattan intercepts him outside of the base and asks him to rethink his position. Rorschach refuses, and Dr. Manhattan disintegrates him.

The graphic novel ends with the remaining heroes agreeing to keep Adrians secret for the good of the world. Dr. Manhattan travels to another galaxy to create his own planet full of life. Dan and Laurie change their names, and indicate that they intend to start fighting crime again as Nite Owl and Silk Spectre (although Laurie insists shes going to update her superhero name and costume, and maybe start carrying a gun). Rorschachs incriminating journal revealing Adrians involvement arrives at The New Frontiersman, a radical right-wing newspaper, after he dropped it in the mail before his death. Judging by the trailers for the HBO series, Rorschachs journal was definitely published, but not everyone believes it.

Heres a couple of other things to know while diving into the new series, which wont necessarily affect the plot but will help to explain the context of the original story, as well as the direction the HBO series appears to be taking.

The title Watchmen is a reference to a line from the Roman poet Juvenals work Satires Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, which roughly translates to who watches the watchmen? The graphic novels author, Alan Moore, was referencing the term in how it relates to the policing of people in positions of power. Specifically, the comic was meant, in part, as an indictment of Reaganism. Ironically, the quote from Juvenal would eventually appear as an epigraph in the Tower Commission Report, which was the report written by the committee tasked with investigating then-President Reagan and his administrations involvement / culpability in the Iran-Contra Affair, although Moore and Gibbons began publishing the series almost a year before the report was written. (In a further dose of irony, the report was commissioned by President Reagan himself.) The quote, and a reference to its inclusion in the Tower Commission Report, is included as an epigraph in subsequent reprintings of Watchmen.

Image via HBO

The last major thing that needs to be addressed is Rorschach himself. Some of his more fanatical edges were smoothed out for the 2009 Zack Snyder film, to transform him into a murderous vigilante that we can ultimately still root for, like the Punisher or John Wick. But the Rorschach of Moore and Gibbons original work is a radical, violent nationalist. He constantly espouses his hatred of homosexuals, women, intellectuals, social programs, liberals, and foreigners. He only ventures out into public to pick up the latest issue of The New Frontiersman, the books far-right tabloid newspaper. In the novel, were shown an editorial from The New Frontiersman that rails against the Marxist mainstream media while arguing that the KKK was the original superhero team, begun with noble intentions of defending the antebellum South before it was corrupted by racist members (a common, false talking point frequently made by the Klans supporters to minimize the hate groups racist history). The editorial is accompanied by a disgustingly racist, Anti-Semitic political cartoon, depicting a white superhero and his white wife and child besieged at all angles by Jewish businessmen, Communist agitators, Italian criminals, and Black drug dealers. This is the only newspaper Rorschach reads, and he reads it every day.

Its important to understand this aspect of Rorschachs character because the inciting incident of the HBO series is a coordinated attack on the homes of several police officers, conducted by a group of white supremacists wearing Rorschach masks and calling themselves the Seventh Cavalry. The Seventh Cavalry was the Regiment George A. Custer led into his famed last stand at The Battle of Little Big Horn, and its a reference Adrian makes in the graphic novel (only, in Adrians reference, the Seventh Cavalry is the last line of defense against the four horsemen of the Apocalypse).

SPEED ROUND! Here Ill cite some final, minor plot points, just in case theyre referenced or somehow become important in the series:

Nobody witnesses Rorschachs death at the hands of Dr. Manhattan. Its ultimately unclear whether the rest of the superheroes Adrian, Dan, and Laurie even know Rorschach is dead.

Image via HBO

Its implied that the Comedian murders Hooded Justice, a gigantic hooded superhero who intervenes when the Comedian assaults the first Silk Spectre. Its also revealed that Hooded Justice had a romantic relationship with Captain Metropolis, the leader of the Minutemen.

The book contains a reference, on the very last page, to Robert Redfords upcoming presidential campaign, which is derided with who wants a cowboy president? (Insert wink.) When the HBO series begins, Redford is president, and has been in office since 1992. They even got Redford to come out of retirement and guest star as himself. Not even Avengers: Endgame could do that they had to rely on a CGI ghost bearing his digitally plaster-cast face.

And with that, you should be fully primed and ready to watch the Watchmen this Sunday without growing distraught with angry confusion. That is, outside of the angry confusion Damon Lindelof normally deals in.

Watchmen premiers this Sunday on HBO. For more on the series, read our review.

Read the original post:
Watchmen Comic Book Recap: What Happens in the Graphic Novel? - Collider.com

Welcome to Final Frontier Friday! Were doing something a little different this week and reviewing a new episode. The newest episode, in fact. Im referring of course, to The Trouble With Edward, the latest installment of the second season (or whatever were calling these production blocks) of Short Treks.

Penned by Graham Wagner, The Trouble With Edward functions as a prequel of sorts to the original series episode to which its title so clearly alludes. If theres one thing that should be apparent after the first two seasons of Discovery, its that this can be sticky territory. Discovery, after all, is often at its best when it embraces the spirit of the original Star Trek without trying to shoehorn itself into that shows continuity. That being said, when those continuity ties have worked, theyve actually tended to work quite well (case in point: any time Anson Mount is on screen as Captain Pike). But when it doesnt work? It gets a bit rough. The first season, in particular, is replete with examples of the latter. So which category does The Trouble With Edward fall into?

Lynne Lucero, a newly-minted captain, bids Captain Pike a fond farewell as she prepares to transfer to the Cabot to begin her first command. Once aboard the Cabot, Lucero meets with her staff in preparation for their mission providing famine relief to the inhabitants of Pragine 63, a planet near the Klingon border. The meeting is fairly by the numbers until its time for protein specialist Edward Larkin to bring everyone up to speed on his own pet project: tribbles. Specifically, tribbles as a food source. The only problem, he says, is that they breed too slowly, but thats nothing a little genetic engineering cant fix. His colleagues are taken aback and Lucero asks if tribbles are intelligent. Not immediately realizing that its an ethical question, Larkin reassures her that theyre easy prey before adding that he can engineer some brain damage into their genome. Lucero orders the tribble project suspended and reassigns Larkin to climatology.

The Cabots crew scrambles to respond to a lab breech Larkins augmented tribbles have gotten loose and begun breeding out of control. Its instantly clear to everyone what Larkin was doing, though he merely points out that it worked. Despite their best efforts, the crew is unable to clear the tribble infestation which eventually begins to threaten their oxygen supply. Lucero eventually has no choice but to order her crew to abandon ship. True to form, however, Larkin continues to argue with her. Rather than board an escape pod, he insists that his own intelligence and the success of his work be acknowledged.

Instead, he is overcome by what can only be described as a tribble tsunami as the pods are jettisoned. Sometime later, Lucero stands before a board of inquiry. Admiral Quinn is stunned at how disastrous Luceros first command was: In the space of two weeks, she lost not only a member of her crew but her entire ship in a debacle that resulted in a genetically modified invasive species being released on Pragine 63, all of which she has laid at Larkins feet. When asked how she can blame all of this on one man, she simply states, He was an idiot.

See the rest here:
Final Frontier Friday: 'The Trouble With Edward' - Science Fiction

(Credit: Odua Images/Shutterstock)

Scan the aisles of any grocery store, and youll find a plethora of infant formula options, all designed to meet the nutrient needs of growing infants, who nearly triple their body weight in the first year of life. And yet researchers and companies are busy testing new formulations all the time.

Thats in part because much has changed in our understanding of breast milks complexities over the decades from early knowledge of its nutrient composition to modern revelations that its a living, bioactive substance that evolved not just to nourish babies, but also protect them from pathogens, train their immune systems and send signals between mother and baby.

Formula may never be able to replicate all this complexity, but science could guide development of better products, says Tony Ryan, a neonatologist and emeritus professor at University College Cork in Ireland, who coauthored an overview of baby formula R&D in the 2019 Annual Review of Food Science and Technology. Though breastfeeding is optimal, not every baby can be breastfed, and so we do need safe and effective formulas and with the maximum possible benefit, Ryan says.

But its also a fact that companies are apt to hype the benefits of added ingredients. The brain-nourishing promises made for supplementing formula with the omega-3 fatty acid DHA, starting in the early 2000s, are a case in point. DHA increased the cost of formula, and its now ubiquitous across brands, but whether its necessary is controversial; a 2017 review of the scientific literature, published by the international research network Cochrane, found no clear evidence that it benefits babies brain development.

As the understanding and the knowledge become more and more sophisticated, and we learn about new molecules and new things that are in breast milk, the goal would be to mimic that, says Susan Baker, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences. But, she adds, ingredients should be added only if theres evidence theyre beneficial, not just to sell more formula or increase its price.

So how to separate the marketing from the science? Heres a look at some formula ingredients under study, many of them already on store shelves.

Throughout time, alternatives to breastfeeding have always had their place, for example when mothers had to work, didnt produce enough milk or died in childbirth. Until around 1900, wealthy families could hire a wet nurse, an arrangement that often compromised the health of the nurses own infant. Orphanages kept herds of lactating donkeys or goats, and babies would feed directly from their teats (which may have been safer than gambling with bacterial contamination of unpasteurized, unrefrigerated milk and hard-to-clean feeding vessels with nipples made from fabric or leather).

The emergence of formula, along with an understanding of germ theory, made feeding such infants simpler and safer. The earliest known patented formula was Justus von Liebigs soup for infants, introduced in Germany in 1865 and made from cows milk, potassium bicarbonate and wheat and malt flour. Similar products followed, but most people used homemade recipes with affordable ingredients such as canned milk and Karo syrup, and supplemented babies diets with orange juice and cod-liver oil to prevent scurvy and rickets.

By the mid-1900s, as nutrition science advanced, formula companies were making better, more complex products, tweaking the types of protein and fat to better match human milk and supplementing with required vitamins and minerals. Today, parents who cant or choose not to breastfeed can be assured that commercial formulas, governed by the nutrition and food safety requirements of the US Food and Drug Administration, are safe and meet a babys nutrient needs.

But there are detectable differences: Formula-fed babies are more likely to have gastrointestinal, respiratory and ear infections in early life, for example. Researchers and formula companies are still probing the suite of human milk molecules for new formula ingredients that might benefit babies health.

The third-most abundant component in human milk, after lactose and fat, is a large family of as many as 200 different sugar molecules called human milk oligosaccharides. Despite their prominence, they arent digestible by infants but instead serve as a food source for species of beneficial Bifidobacteria that dominate the gut microbiomes of breastfed babies, thus serving as prebiotics. The oligosaccharides also appear to act as decoys that can bind microbial pathogens and may prevent them from infecting the infant, and other antimicrobial and immune-modulating functions are being investigated by researchers.

As studies uncovered the importance of human milk oligosaccharides, so began attempts to mimic them in infant formula. But cows milk contains only a fraction of the oligosaccharides in human milk, and until recently the technology to synthesize large amounts didnt exist. And so formula manufacturers instead added different, easier-to-make indigestible carbohydrates such as galacto-oligosaccharides and fructo-oligosaccharides, which also act as prebiotics for Bifidobacteria species.

But these molecules are structurally very different from human milk oligosaccharides and are unlikely to recapitulate their diverse functions, says Lars Bode, a nutrition scientist at the University of California, San Diego. Im always a bit skeptical when something is added to infant formula that is not inherently in human milk, he says, because you never know what these things do, really. Bode points to rare reports of severe allergic reactions in children and adults from galacto-oligosaccharides and the fact that, overall, theres little evidence that these prebiotics are beneficial. A 2018 review of 41 randomized controlled trials of prebiotic-supplemented formula concluded that while the products seemed safe, they didnt lead to tangible health benefits.

Several human milk oligosaccharides are now commercially available, their synthesis in bulk made possible by genetic engineering of yeast and bacteria. In a Nestl-funded trial of a formula containing two of these, 2-fucosyllactose and lacto-N-neotetraose, babies receiving the substances had a lower rate of bronchitis than babies receiving unsupplemented formula (10 percent vs. 28 percent), as well as lower rates of lower respiratory tract infections (19 percent vs. 35 percent) and antibiotic use (42 percent vs. 61 percent) in the first year of life, although the authors say these potential benefits need to be confirmed in larger studies.

Bode says this is a step in the right direction but that formula makers need to look beyond one or two oligosaccharides and also consider the importance of balance. If you only give one oligosaccharide and if you start doing that in higher doses, you might get some effects that would otherwise be kept in check by adding other oligosaccharides as well, he says.

In 2018, for example, he and colleagues reported that higher levels of 2-fucosyllactose, lacto-N-tetraose and a third oligosaccharide in breast milk of mothers in India were associated with a greater incidence of symptomatic rotavirus infections in their babies, and that in cell culture experiments, the oligosaccharides increased the infectivity of a virus strain that causes severe gastrointestinal infections in infants.

Other studies suggest that specific oligosaccharides or mixtures of them in breast milk correlate with excessive weight gain and risk of allergies in breastfeeding infants. There could be potential in designing mixtures of five or 10 oligosaccharides that would benefit infant health, but more research is needed to identify which molecules to pick, and in what ratios.

Studies also have investigated adding different strains of bacteria, or probiotics, directly to formula. And here, too, results have been mixed, with some strains appearing to lower rates of diarrhea, and others leading to softer stools, but most showing no measurable benefit. Were on a very exciting pathway, Ryan says but with much more work still to do.

Lactoferrin is a protein found in high concentrations in human milk. It fights pathogens by binding to the iron they need to grow, and punches holes in the membranes of some bacteria. Lactoferrin concentrations are much higher in human milk than cows milk, and appear to rise in mothers milk when the baby gets sick.

A couple of studies find benefits of adding lactoferrin to formula: One in China reported a decrease in the incidence of respiratory and diarrhea-related illnesses by 32 percent and 35 percent, respectively, and a small US study reported 70 percent fewer lower-respiratory tract infections. But the largest published study, conducted by Enfamil and enrolling 480 US infants, found that while lactoferrin-supplemented formula was safe and well-tolerated, it didnt decrease infections or allergy symptoms. Even so, Enfamil now includes lactoferrin as an immune-supporting protein in one of its most expensive products.

When milk fat is secreted from the mammary gland, its packaged in a triple-layer membrane made of phospholipids, cholesterol and a multitude of proteins (including lactoferrin). Synthesis of these milk fat globule membranes is orchestrated by one of the most well-conserved parts of the mammalian lactation genome, says food scientist Bruce German of the University of California, Davis. Yet the membranes are discarded during manufacture of infant formula, which is based on nonfat milk powder with vegetable oils added as a fat source. Evolution thought it was real important, German says of the milk fat globule material. Then we just threw it away.

Researchers are now experimenting with adding the bovine version of milk fat globule membranes often made from byproducts of dairy processing, such as butter- or cheese-making to infant formula. This is probably a good idea, German says, but chronic underfunding of basic lactation research means theres very little known about the role of the membranes in human milk, so its hard to know how to measure the effects of this addition. Embarrassingly, we dont even know the composition, much less the mechanistic function, he says.

Trials of formula supplemented with bovine milk fat globule membranes have shown confusing results. One study, conducted in France and Italy and funded by Nestl, found that babies grew normally and tolerated the ingredient, but they were no less likely to get sick. And there was a concerning outcome: Babies consuming one of the two experimental formulas were four times more likely to have eczema (13.9 percent vs. 3.5 percent in the standard formula group) inflamed, itchy skin that often precedes the development of food allergies, hay fever and asthma.

But a Swedish study testing the same ingredient in a different formula recipe found no such effect. Funded in part by Swedish formula manufacturer Semper, it found that babies consuming the formula had fewer ear infections (1 percent vs. 9 percent in the standard formula group) in the first 6 months of life. And at 12 months, babies getting the supplement tested 4 points higher on a cognitive scale than those receiving standard formula, and the same as a breastfed group. Formula with milk fat globule membranes is now marketed in the US with the claim that it supports cognitive development similar to breast milk.

Steven Abrams, a neonatologist at Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin and chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition, cautions against getting excited about these results. The cognitive scale used in the Swedish study, called the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, wasnt designed to measure small differences among a group of normally developing infants, he says, and you cant determine from a tiny difference on a Bayley at 12 months whether or not that child will actually be more likely to make it in to MIT.

Despite the potential for advances in infant formula and the claims of benefits made for these new formula ingredients, a skeptical eye is in order, researchers and clinicians say. Abrams, for his part, is not convinced that these new ingredients have been adequately studied, especially over the long term. Most studies in this area are funded by the formula industry, he adds, raising concerns of bias and making the case for more federal funding of infant nutrition research.

In 2015, Abrams published a commentary in the Journal of Pediatrics suggesting a moratorium on new formula ingredients until more research could be conducted. He notes that the Food and Drug Administration requires little clinical data on effectiveness or long-term safety before allowing addition of new ingredients. Since then, the issue has gotten bigger, not smaller, he says with more new ingredients accompanied by vague, structure/function claims, such as immune-supporting and brain-building, based on minimal evidence. The FDA drafted guidance in 2016 that would require companies to show more meaningful clinical outcomes before making such claims, but the new guidelines havent yet been finalized and an agency spokesperson was unable to provide an estimate for completion.

Helen Hughes, a pediatrician at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, says she doesnt usually recommend any formula product over another, including those touting ingredients that mimic bioactive molecules in breast milk. A coauthor of a 2017 commentary in JAMA Pediatricsurging a higher bar for evidence for claims on formula labels, she worries that the claims may persuade parents to unnecessarily switch formulas or choose more expensive products premium formulas with the newest ingredients can cost more than 50 percent more than standard products from the same companies.

I, as a physician, would love to see more evidence about what they do before theyre added into formula, Hughes says. Its hard as a parent, she adds, to say Im going to buy the formula thats not for brain health.

10.1146/knowable-101519-1

Alice Callahan is a nutrition scientist-turned-science-writer in Eugene, Oregon, and the author of The Science of Mom: A Research-Based Guide to Your Babys First Year. Twitter: @ScienceofMom.

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews.

The rest is here:
Why It's So Hard to Make a Better Baby Formula - The Crux - Discover Magazine