Page 141«..1020..140141142143..150160..»

Category Archives: Transhuman News

Elon Musk Racing To Colonize Mars, He Says This Will ‘Destroy All Life On Earth’ – PayPal Holdings (NASDA – Benzinga

Posted: October 13, 2022 at 12:55 pm

Elon Musk is the CEO of Tesla Inc TSLA and SpaceX, two companies attempting to solve world problems. Heres the latest on Musks grand ambitions to colonize Mars.

What Happened: Founded in 2002, SpaceX is now a $127 billion company that has transformed the space industry. While the company has already accomplished a lot for the space sector, Musk has grand ambitions to use SpaceX for the next evolution of space travel.

Something will happen to Earth eventually, its just a question of time, Musk told Financial Times editor Roula Khalaf. Eventually the sun will expand and destroy all life on Earth, so we do need to move at some point, or at least be a multi-planet species.

Talks of colonizing Mars arent new for Musk, but the latest comments call into the timeliness and speed that could be needed.

Its a question of what percentage of resources should we devote to such an endeavor? I think if you say 1 percent of resources, thats probably a reasonable amount.

Musk told Khalaf that he would consider going to Mars in the future if hes older.

If Im getting old, Ill do it. Why not?

Musk said there is a non-trivial chance of dying, which leads him to prefer to go when hes older so he can see his kids grow up.

Rather than right now, where little X is only two-and-a-half. I think hed miss me.

Maybe someday Musk could go to Mars or space with X, his son, who is currently obsessed with toy rockets.

Related Link:Elon Musk Says 'It's A Fixer Upper Of A Planet': Can We Live On Mars?

Why Its Important: Over the years, Musk has sought to help provide solutions to problems he recognized. This includes co-founding what would become PayPal Holdings PYPL to change banking, leading Tesla to change the electric vehicle and clean energy sector and creating SpaceX to change space travel.

SpaceX has landed deals with NASA and is helping make transportation of satellites and other items to space cheaper for companies.

The reusable rockets that are a staple to SpaceX have transformed the space industry forever and could be the precursor to increased space travel and eventually colonizing Mars.

Photo courtesy Steve Jurvetson on Flickr

Go here to see the original:
Elon Musk Racing To Colonize Mars, He Says This Will 'Destroy All Life On Earth' - PayPal Holdings (NASDA - Benzinga

Posted in Mars Colonization | Comments Off on Elon Musk Racing To Colonize Mars, He Says This Will ‘Destroy All Life On Earth’ – PayPal Holdings (NASDA – Benzinga

The Origin of the Hollow Earth Theory – History of Yesterday

Posted: at 12:55 pm

Before reading this article, I would like to state that I am only presenting this theory, this isnt an argument for or against its veracity.

sometimes see our world with different eyes based on the knowledge that we have. If a child is born with no knowledge of Earth and indoctrinated that our planet is flat they have no reason to doubt their parent or mentor. Our curiosity is what drives us towards education from a very young age, not only to our origins but also to this rock that we have been given life on.

Based on the historical notes from early researchers and explorers of this Earth, we have accumulated knowledge that allows us to acknowledge the size, shape, and resources available on our home rock, but when it comes to the core of the Earth, we dont have any questions as we think that besides thousands of kilometers of bedrock and some very hot magma, there is nothing of interest. So, why wonder right?

Well, this is because, over the last two centuries, the modern era of exploration, not that many people ventured towards exploring the corners of the world that are still left in the shade and which may be drawn on the map just to fill the empty space, but truly there may be nothing there or something we are not yet aware of.

This is because exploring takes not only a lot of time and resources, but its quite a risky business, hence why only a few come back.

We are already proceeding to colonize Mars whilst there are many undiscovered places on Earth or places that have been lost in time. We dont know what lies at the bottom of oceans and the deepest hole we dug in the crust of our earth is only 12.2 kilometers deep. Therefore there are still a lot of unknowns.

For many years, people didnt really wonder that much about what is within Earth and this is because they always had bigger problems on their hands such as wars, famine, or pandemics. The wonder was brought by early geologists but it never reached public attention.

It was not until the late 19th century that this wonder reached public attention and it did not only reach the support of the public but even the support of scientists, politicians, and world leaders.A map from the early 19th century representing Atvatabar, the world within the crust of our Earth (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The idea behind the theory is that the Earth is actually hollow inside and that it encapsulates more land and water with a separate ecosystem sustained by the Sun represented as the core of the Earth. The Earths crust or bedrock of 2,400 kilometers (1,500 miles) is what separates what has been described as a separate civilization from us which lives outside the crust.Julse Verne (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The origin of the theory was fueled by the famous novelJourney to the Centre of the Earthby Jules Verne, published in 1864. The novel was originally published in French, but it quickly got translated into different languages and distributed all over the world. The book got so much attention that in 1867 Jules Verne published another version that expanded on the detail of the center of the Earth.

The novels story represents a team of explorers who go down into a volcanic creature towards the center of the Earth through the South Pole. After 2 months the exploration team finally reaches the core of the Earth where they discover a whole new civilization powered by their own Sun.This civilization was as advanced as our own world in the 19th century, with a great emphasis on infrastructure.

This is where the problems started, as the book got more and more popular some people actually took this book not as a novel, but as if it was actually stating the findings of new discovery (remember this was back in the 1870s). This also attracted the attention of different scientists that were inspired by the novel to actually believe that this theory could be true.

Many writers have started a mediatization campaign of this new discovery to the rest of the world, just like how social media today misinforms the masses, but a lot slower.

The first evidence of this was seen published in the late 19th century by a researcher within the field of Geography. The book is entitledPhysical Geographywritten by Arnoldo de Azevedo who writes about a mysterious world beneath our own feet with the argument that scientists at the time knew nothing about what is five miles beneath their feet.

The author goes over saying that scientists only come up with theories and hypotheses to entertain the world without having any hard evidence and allowing the reputation of scientists to define the reliability of any theory. Based on 19th-century scientific standards it is pretty true.

We have below our feet an immense region whose radius is 6,290 kilometers, which is completely unknown, challenging the conceit and competence of scientists. (Quote taken from Physical Geography by Arnoldo de Azevedo)

Azevedo also came up with his own scientific hypothesis behind the theory. When the Earth was still forming as a planet, most of the Earth was just soft lava and due to this the centrifugal speed at which the planet was spinning forced the lava from the center or core of the Earth to settle on the side, therefore making the Earth hollow. Due to lower centrifugal force at the two poles of the Earth, holes to the hollow center have also formed.

Believe it or not, there is actually a calculation that supports this theory. The total size of our planets surface is 431.5 million kilometers squared which should give a weight six times bigger than the actual weight of the Earth which is 5.972 10 kg. This means that the Earth is not necessarily hollow (although it can be a logical explanation), but for some reason, our planet is a lot lighter.

What is even more interesting is that the 19th century isnt actually the first time this theory was mentioned as a possible scientific theory. The first mention of this theory was done in 1692 by Edmond Halley, a researcher in astrology and mathematics from the University of Oxford who put forward the idea that Earth has different size hollow shells inside, just as presented in this image.

If we were to go even further in history we would see mentions of similar theories of the Earth being Hollow, although the reference and ideologies are very vague, with, of course, Greek scholars being the first to think of it.

Going back to the 19th century, after the publication of Azevedos work there have been a large number of scholars who came up with support for this theory, or very similar variants to the theory itself.

Where it gets really interesting is in the 20th century with the bookThe Hollow Earthby Doctor Raymond Bernard (also known as Walter Siegmeister) who was a very popular writer, but also very controversial and this book is one of the main reasons. In the book, Bernard talks about the expeditions held by Richard Evelyn Byrd From the Artic in 1947 and Antarctica in 1956.Richard Evelyn Byrd in the Artic 1947 (Source: Virginmuseum of History & Culture)

Byrd and the rest of his team found the interior concavity that leads to the hollow center of the Earth. The North Pole with a distance of 2,700 kilometers until the scope of the inner land and the South Pole with a distance of 3,700 kilometers. The land inside hollow Earth is quite tropical and filled with a civilization that is 10 times more advanced than ours.

In the book, there is also a reference to all this in another book that debates these two holes from each of the poles towards the center of the Earth. The book is entitledWorlds Beyond the Polesby Amadeo Giannini, published in 1959. It is amazing how many books have been published on this matter, and these are the most popular ones, not taking into consideration the thousands of others lost in time.

During the early 20th century the theory really got the attention of scholars from various fields. A group of Russian scientists discovered that the magnetic North Pole isnt represented by a single spot, but by a line that is almost 1,500 kilometers long which goes over the polar river up until the Taimir Peninsula from Siberia.

Based on this hypothesis, this represents the edge of the polar concavity and any on the edge of the magnetic pole can be called the Magnetic North Pole because on this edge any compass would point to the North, no matter the position of the compass. Science isnt able to explain this phenomenon and blames it on the particles that are electrically charged by the Sun.

Even German Scientists before the Second World War had researched this theory but sadly all the research papers have been lost or destroyed during the war.

Since the middle of the 20th century, there have been smaller writers publishing about this theory, but around the 1970s when the scientific revolution took place, the interest in this theory was lost. It is interesting to see how many papers have been published disregarding the theory, yet we still only base our belief that the world is not hollow on calculations that for some reason dont add up.

Is it all a big lie supported by scientists and writers seeking attention? I will let you be the judge of that.

See the rest here:
The Origin of the Hollow Earth Theory - History of Yesterday

Posted in Mars Colonization | Comments Off on The Origin of the Hollow Earth Theory – History of Yesterday

Why sending a Native American into space is a big deal – WBUR News

Posted: at 12:55 pm

Outer space has been grabbing headlines over the past few months. The James Webb Space Telescope continues to wow astronomers and the masses alike withunparalleled images ofdistant galaxies, stellar nurseries,Neptunes ringsand more.

A couple of weeks ago, NASAs Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) altered an asteroids trajectory byslamming a spacecraft into it,a feat that,in theory, could help humanity avoid the fate of the dinosaurs. Even the thrice-delayedlaunch of NASAs Artemis I, which will eventually take a crew to the moon, continues tomakefront-page news.

However, another cosmic achievement has been eclipsed by these flashier feats: On Oct. 5,Nicole Mann, a registered member of theWailaki tribe, became the first Indigenous woman to go to space.

Spaceexplorationhasalwaysbeen marked by firsts: the first person or country in space, on the moon, and someday, on Mars. There are countless practical and symbolic reasons representation matters in space, just as it doeseverywhere else, particularly for Indigenous people.

Agencies, organizations and companies that spearhead space programs and interests have always been dominated by wealthy white men. John Glenntestified in front of a Congressional subcommitteethatwomen shouldnt participate in NASAs astronaut program. The naming of the James Webb Space Telescope hasgenerated much controversybecause ofWebbs participationin theLavender Scare, when the U.S. government tried to identify and jettison any employees who werent demonstrably heterosexual. The first all-female spacewalk happened just three years ago, andonly after a debacle involving a lack of spacesuitssized for non-male crew members.

Diversity and representation in NASAs astronaut classes, as well as in other astronaut programs around the world,are slowly improving. But not quickly enough.

The existence of overwhelmingly white, male crews and space tourists suggests false homogeneity on Earth and perpetuates destructive power dynamics. Private space companies run by rich, white men imply that space is accessible only to certain people if they just work and save up.

The dominance of space ventures by the white and wealthy also paves the way forcosmic capitalism. The finders-keepers and frontier mentality prioritizes exploration, not for the sake of knowledge or even of species survival, but rather, for power. But space,like Earth,is not a commodity and shouldnt be treated as such.

Indigenous people have lost far too much on Earth already, and we need to prevent that from happening in space, too. Problematic rhetoric around manifest destiny, pushing the space frontier or colonizing celestial bodiesperpetuates those ideologies and behaviors. Quantifying how muchNative Americanshavelost is impossible; what is entirely possible, however, is disrupting these patterns before they reach the stars.

Most of us don't think much about the cosmos except when we glimpse the occasional eclipse or shooting star.However, thats not the case for Indigenous communities, whose connection to the cosmos is spiritual, cultural and practical. These communities use the stars to navigate,celebrate holidays dictated by the position of the planets, and incorporate constellations intoreligious and spiritual practices. Space X currently has over2,300 Starlink satellites orbiting Earth(with some 30,000 more on deck), whichdisrupt ground-based astronomyand create a gap between Indigenous communities and the natural elements that have guided their customs for centuries.

Indigenous communities have also had to fight to retain land that offers superlative access to the sky. The controversy about the plannedThirty Meter Telescopeon Hawaiis Maunakea mountain is one recent example. Maunakea, an inactive volcano with a sacred summit used for prayer, already accommodates13independent observatories, each of which is committed to sustainability andstewardship. The Thirty Meter Telescope would be far larger than the existing observatories, and most problematically, its plans didnt involve local Indigenous communities or consider the impact its construction would have on them.

Fortunately, the National Science Foundation isassessing the environmental impactsof the telescopes construction, and the Environmental Protection Agencyrecommended that the Foundation find an alternative sitethat wouldnt have such negative impacts on the lives of native people.

Still, the clear implication is that Native American land is ripe for theft, especially in the name of "progress." Powerful white people still get to decide which Indigenous beliefs, values, practices and property to respect and which tobulldozefor their own use.

A team of astronomers concernedabout the impacts of such developments suggests treating space asanancestral global commonsthat contains the heritage and future of humanitys scientific and cultural practices.That legacy, as well as the present and future, should be accessible toall people. In corporate terms, all of us are shareholders and stakeholders in the sky and in space, and that paradigm should guide decisions about who does what in space, why and at what cost to whom.

In this context, its hard to overstate the significance of the first Native American woman in space. Mann, commander of theCREW-5 mission, is the second Native American in space (20 years ago,John Harrington, of theChickasaw Nationbecame the first). She will live on theInternational Space Stationfor up to six months, where she and the other astronauts will conduct research on the effects of microgravity on the human body and other processes essential to life off-Earth.

This missionpavesthe way forArtemis, which aims to send astronauts back to the moon and eventually to Mars. One of thegoals of the Artemis mission is to put thefirst female and the first person of color on the moon some 50 years after Neil Armstrong set foot there. Whoever NASA selects will, like Mann, serve as inspiration for generations,and as a reminder that cycles can be broken. As we think about the future, we can choose not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Follow Cognoscenti on Facebook and Twitter.

See the rest here:
Why sending a Native American into space is a big deal - WBUR News

Posted in Mars Colonization | Comments Off on Why sending a Native American into space is a big deal – WBUR News

Going to Space Will Not Save Us – Jezebel

Posted: at 12:55 pm

Photo: Mario Tama / Adastra (Getty Images)

Attention cosmo-cowboys who think rocketing themselves into outer space will take away their suffering: It wont. Variety recently published an excerpt from William Shatners upcoming memoir Boldly Go: Reflections on a Life of Awe and Wonder, and Captain Kirks verdict is in: Space makes you sad. In Shatners case, it was among the strongest feelings of grief [he has] ever encountered.

I, a permanent Earth dweller, have always believed this to be true. Ive often imagined the horror of looking out at Earth beneath me and fully understanding how insignificant my little life as a blogger is. All I saw was death, Shatner writes of riding on Bezos rocket. My trip to space was supposed to be a celebration; instead, it felt like a funeral. The whole essay reads like a middle school diary entry, the most honest and dire genre to exist.

Despite billionaires like Jeff Bezos calling his trip to space the best day ever, or lowly millionaire (humiliating) Tom Cruise teasing a movie filmed on the International Space Station, a trip to space is not a rock-and-roll adventure. Instead, it is a Mount Eerie album: depressing, isolating, and bleak. Sure, moving through zero gravity would be neat to experience, but when you go to space, your sense of self completely bottoms out, too. Im sure theres a theme park on the edge of your towns warehouse district where you can pay $119 to feel like youre floating, or whatever.

Elon Musk has made inane promises of creating a colony on Mars. Bezos shares this vision. Richard Branson charges almost half a million dollars for civilians to drag race around the moon. Like many people, Ive been skeptical of the billionaire boys clubs dick-measuring rocket race. There are a lot of problems to address on this side of the ozone layer, many a result of said billionaires bad behavior, before we go gallivanting outside of it. More pressingly, why on earth (heh) would we trust what these mega-billionaires consider fun? They are miserable men who only know how to exploit people, throw money at problems, and lie. Perhaps, for them, space isnt sad, because, in comparison to Earth, where theyve isolated themselves from real human connection, it is at least a fun little trip. Everyone loves a fun little trip. But dont let their distorted perspective fool you. Space is the saddest frontier!

The regular person is more like Shatner than Musk, Bezos, or Branson. Were even more like Shatner than Tom Cruise, if not only financially, then for the fact that we cant do backflips. Going to space is not awesome. Going to space is not the future. Going to space will make you sad. It will make you feel insignificant and lonely. Stick to doing your little affirmations and mental health walks here on Earth. Those will alleviate your problems much more effectively than colonizing Mars. In the meantime, we should let the billionaires launch themselves into the cosmos and let them discover the depths of their own depression.

Read the rest here:
Going to Space Will Not Save Us - Jezebel

Posted in Mars Colonization | Comments Off on Going to Space Will Not Save Us – Jezebel

Its Science Over Capitalism: Kim Stanley Robinson and the Imperative of Hope – The MIT Press Reader

Posted: at 12:55 pm

What cant go on wont go on. Capitalism is breaking the system, meaning peoples lives and the biosphere.

There is no question Kim Stanley Robinson is one of the most important writers working today. Across almost four decades and more than 20 novels, his scrupulously imagined fiction has consistently explored questions of social justice, political and environmental economy, and utopian possibility.

Robinson is probably best known for his Mars trilogy, which envisions the settlement and transformation of Mars over several centuries, and the ethical and political challenges of building a new society. Yet it is possible his most significant legacy will turn out to be the remarkable sequence of novels that began with 2312. Published across less than a decade, these six books reimagine both our past and our future in startlingly new ways, emphasizing the indivisibility of ecological and economic systems and placing the climate emergency center stage.

The most recent, The Ministry for the Future, published in 2020, is a work of extraordinary scale and ambition. Simultaneously a deeply confronting vision of the true scale of the climate crisis, a future history of the next 50 years, and a manifesto outlining the revolutionary change that will be necessary to avert catastrophe, it is by turns terrifying, exhilarating, and finally, perhaps surprisingly, guardedly hopeful. It is also one of the most important books published in recent years.

This interview was conducted between January and March 2021, beginning in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the United States Capitol and the inauguration of President Biden, and ending as a second wave of the COVID pandemic began to gather pace in many countries around the world. As we bounced questions back and forth across the Pacific, a drumbeat of impending disaster grew louder by the day: atmospheric carbon dioxide reached 417 ppm, a level 50 percent higher than preindustrial levels; a study showed the current system responsible for the relative warmth of the Northern Hemisphere the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at its weakest level in a thousand years; and Kyotos cherry blossoms bloomed earlier than they have at any time since records began in the ninth century CE.

James Bradley: In several of your recent novels, youve characterized the first few decades of the 21st century as a time of inaction and indecision in 2312, for instance, you called them the Dithering but in The Ministry for the Future, you talk about the 2030s as the zombie years, a moment when civilization had been killed but it kept walking the Earth, staggering toward some fate even worse than death. I wonder whether you could talk a little bit about that idea. Whats brought us to this point? And what does it mean for a civilization to be dead?

Kim Stanley Robinson: Im thinking now that my sense of our global civilization dithering, and also trying to operate on old ideas and systems that are clearly inadequate to the present crisis, has been radically impacted by the COVID pandemic, which I think has been somewhat of a wake-up call for everyone showing that we are indeed in a global civilization in every important sense (food supply, for instance), and also that we are utterly dependent on science and technology to keep eight billion people alive.

So 2312 was written in 2010. In that novel, I provided a timeline of sorts, looking backward from 2312, that was notional and intended to shock, also to fill the many decades it takes to make three centuries, and in a way that got my story in place the way I wanted it. In other words, it was a literary device, not a prediction. But its interesting now to look back and see me describing the Dithering as lasting so long. These are all affect states, not chronological predictions; I think its very important to emphasize science fictions double action, as both prophecy and metaphor for our present. As prophecy, SF is always wrong; as metaphor, it is always right, being an expression of the feeling of the time of writing.

So following that, The Ministry for the Future was written in 2019, before the pandemic. It expresses both fears and hopes specific to 2019 and now, because of the shock of the pandemic, it can serve as an image of how it felt before. Its already a historical artifact. Thats fine, and I think it might be possible that the book can be read better now than it could have been in January 2020 when I finished it.

Now I dont think there will be a period of zombie years, and certainly not the 2030s. The pandemic as a shock has sped up civilizations awareness of the existential dangers of climate change. Now, post COVID, a fictional future history might speak of the Trembling Twenties as its described in The Ministry for the Future, but it also seems it will be a period of galvanized, spasmodic, intense struggle for control over history, starting right now. With that new feeling, the 2030s seem very far off and impossible to predict at all.

JB: In The Ministry for the Future, the thing that finally triggers change is the catastrophic heat wave that opens the book. Its a profoundly upsetting and very powerful piece of writing, partly because an event of the sort it depicts is likely to be a reality within a decade or so. But as somebody whose country has already experienced catastrophic climate disaster in the form of fire and flood and seen little or no change in our political discourse, I found myself wondering whether the idea such a disaster would trigger change mightnt be too optimistic. Do you think it will take catastrophe to create real change? Or will the impetus come from elsewhere?

KSR: People are good at imagining the catastrophe will always happen somewhere else and to other people. Thus in Australia, people will tend to think, But it never could happen in Sydney, in Melbourne, in Perth. Even though it could. So it wont be catastrophe per se that changes peoples politics and their votes. The impetus comes from ideology, from ones invented imaginary relationship to the real situation. Here the discursive battle is paramount. The stories we tell each other will make the difference. The scientific community keeps telling us a story: that if we continue burning carbon into the atmosphere, and otherwise wrecking the biosphere, we will crash as a species. This story is making headway; Ive seen the headway, everyone has, in the last two decades. A tipping point will arrive soon where it is the obvious story that everyone accepts as real; it will become hegemonic. And the sooner the better.

People are good at imagining the catastrophe will always happen somewhere else and to other people.

The radically cold temperatures hitting the U.S. as I write this are located in many of the red states that voted for Trump, especially Texas. Voting Republican now is in effect a vote against science, a denial of science. So as I write, everyone in those regions without electrical power has to contemplate that in fact they depend completely on science and technology to stay alive. Will that change their thinking and their votes? Probably not not all of them, and not immediately. But repeated shocks from reality will soon change the window of acceptable discourse, and then the hegemonic space. We are utterly dependent on the science and technology that is both civilizations invention and its enabling device. This story needs to be insisted on. One way I try to do this is to remind everyone that when youre sick and scared for your life, you run to a scientist, which is to say your doctor. Thats proof of what you really believe, more than your vote or your words.

In Australia, I can only say Im mystified. Thirty million is a small population to include so many science deniers. An advanced, developed, rich nation, but also an island that can feel separate from the rest of the world who knows? No one can understand other political entities from the outside. Even inside them, they are mysterious. But Id have expected your science deniers and coal burners to be defeated at the polls by now. Maybe that will happen. Maybe electing an idiot like Trump helped to speed the process here.

JB: Part of the process of change has to be about rethinking our relationship with the past and the future. The idea of how we reimagine our relationship with the future is one you return to often: in The Ministry for the Future, your characters discuss the way economists discount the value of future lives when making decisions now, and the entire plot of Aurora is driven by the failure of people in the present to consider the effect of their actions on the lives of their descendants. But in an odd way, arent these questions about the future the easy ones? Because its the poisonous legacies of the past, of racism, slavery, colonialism, and extractivism, and their human and environmental costs, that are really intractable. Can we solve those questions of the future without solving the problems of the past? Or is that a false dichotomy?

KSR: This question reminds me of a slogan one sees in Marx, also Tolkien: We have to deal with the historical situation weve been given. Things could have been different, but theyre not so on we go, free to act, and obliged to act, but not in a situation of our choosing.

Thats not to suggest we ignore history. Studying it teaches a lot (maybe everything) about where we are now. Seeing how we got to this moment which is to say arguing about how we got to this moment is part of the discursive battle about what to do now.

So there are indeed poisonous legacies of the past, inscribed into current practices, hegemonic beliefs, structures of feeling, and laws. The dead hand of the past, trying to strangle the new baby future that we, in the present, midwife. What I often feel that one can see very clearly is two major strands, braided together although often in direct conflict. I call it science versus capitalism. Its like Australian economist Dick Bryan once said to me about finance and the state: They are hand in hand, but theyre arm-wrestling for control.

So the project becomes to strengthen the strand that is working for justice and a sustainable balance with the biosphere I call that science, though it has to be admitted that this is a signaling word for a whole strand of history, which includes in it democracy, justice, progress, etcetera. Then, against that, theres capitalism, again a signal word for feudalism, patriarchy, and all the older power systems of the few over the many, most of which emerged with agriculture about 10,000 years ago. That power system has an ancient lineage and is hard to beat.

Into this mythic dualism, lots of elements of history can be slotted, but it is a view from space, or a sock puppet play, very Manichean, and maybe often unhelpful. Maybe its my own false dichotomy, but I still feel it has some explanatory power. So its not the future over the past, except as a version of this: Its science over capitalism.

JB: Im interested by your decision to define the conflict as science versus capitalism, because it forces us to think about a lot of these questions differently and to recognize that many things we dont usually think of as technologies economic policy, finance, social justice, education, and all the other drivers of social change can be usefully treated as precisely that. But doesnt it also demand we recognize the real challenge isnt electrifying the grid or rolling out solar panels, its a much more fundamental realignment of political power?

KSR: Yes, I think thats right. Technology can be thought of as machinery only, but here computers are really helpful as an analogy; they have to have both hardware and software. In civilization as a technology, as with computers, the software is crucial; otherwise its just an inert hunk of metal and plastic. So in this case, we need to focus on software technologies like finance, economics, law, and politics. Then justice becomes a technology, and language itself. This blows up questions like, Can there be a technological solution without political reform? Maybe people are there asking, Could we just make new machines that would overcome the disastrous effects of our unjust and unsustainable political economy, which is to say neoliberal capitalism?

I think the feeling of a massive immovable system has begun to creak, shift, crack, and let in new light.

I think the answer to that is no. We need to change our political economy so that a single index, profit, isnt our measure of doing well. We need to figure out a financial system that pays us for doing things good for the biosphere, including all its citizens, human and not this would be safest, and indeed its necessary for humans rather than rewarding activities that hurt people and biosphere, which profit-seeking will do.

Capital gets invested at the highest rate of return. Thats the law, often literally the law. Repairing the biosphere and creating justice among humans is not the highest rate of return now. So it wont happen. End of story.

Or beginning of new chapter. This is what were seeing in new terms like Modern Monetary Theory, full employment, carbon quantitative easing, the social cost of carbon, universal basic income and services, Half Earth plans, and wage parity. Also in the return of older terms like socialism, or social security. All these ideas or systems or software technologies are being proposed to get out of the death spiral of neoliberal capitalism. What I find interesting and really encouraging is that these ideas are being discussed by people in the central banks and the national governments and the international diplomatic community. Even among economists, who for the most part have devoted all their work to an analysis of capitalism. These are no longer marginal or science fictional ideas; they are on the table as potential legislation.

JB: Those ideas and that sense a new world is being brought into being around us is very much a part of The Ministry for the Future, which, despite the grief and anger that make it so wrenching to read, shares the essentially utopian vision of your work in general. But its often not easy to see how much change is afoot, if only because, as Mark Fisher put it, capitalism occupies the horizons of the thinkable. Do you think this difficulty contributes to the sense of despair and powerlessness so many people feel at the moment?

KSR: Yes. I think of it in terms known to many now: ideology, hegemony, structure of feeling, capitalist realism: There is no alternative. And so on. Its been 40 years of a dominant political economy, following a couple of centuries of expanding capitalist power over world history, so its hard to imagine how that could change. Thus the famous Jameson/Zizek slogan: Easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

But I think now theres also a widespread feeling that it cant go on. And what cant go on wont go on. Capitalism is breaking the system, meaning peoples lives and the biosphere. Were on the brink of causing a mass extinction event that will hammer humans, too; its not just climate change, which can be imagined as a matter of turning down the thermostat, but a much wider habitat collapse our only habitat.

Given that feeling, people are looking for a way out of the current system and also for some ideas as to what that next system might look like. Even at the heart of the capitalist order which is to say the central banks, the big corporations and investment firms, and in governments from local to nation-state level there is talk of change. Of course, very often many of those speaking are hoping to manage change while retaining power. But some very interesting changes are part of that discussion. So I think the feeling of a massive immovable system has begun to creak, shift, crack, and let in new light.

JB: Theres a question here about how the change takes place, though, isnt there? Especially given the power of the interests that oppose it. In New York 2140, you imagine a kind of Velvet Revolution, a peaceful reorganization of society and the economy, but in The Ministry for the Future you quote Keyness line about the euthanasia of the rentiers. Do you think well see an acceleration of violent resistance as the climate crisis intensifies? And how should we think about that?

KSR: Im not sure about this. In The Ministry for the Future, I described all kinds of political violence and also sabotage against fossil fuel or antihuman infrastructures. The novel was an attempt to describe the next three decades in terms that were antidystopian, but also plausible given the world of stark disagreements that we live in. If people see their families die as a result of climate change impacts, then the slow violence of capitalism will spark the fast violence of spasmodic revolt. Very often these violent acts of resistance do little good; the resistance fighters are killed or jailed, and the oppressive system doubles down in its oppression.

So I am among many who are trying to imagine ways of gaining the good results of a revolution without going through the trauma of old-style violent revolutions, which very often backfire anyway. Some better way to a better situation, which can be imagined in the realms of the discursive battle (Can we get more persuasive?); the political battle (Can we win a working majority?); the legislative battle (Can we pass laws that will help?); and then, also, sabotage of life-destroying machinery, mass civil disobedience, and alternative systems of governance that are simply lived outside the current nation-state system and so on. The list could be extended.

I am among many who are trying to imagine ways of gaining the good results of a revolution without going through the trauma of old-style violent revolutions, which very often backfire anyway.

My objections to violent resistance are both moral and tactical: First, it isnt right to hurt other human beings, if not being attacked by them and defending oneself. Then, tactically, violence often seems to backfire and increase the misery being resisted. This is either because the state monopoly on violence is jealously held (and possibly a good thing) or because even if you seem to succeed by violence, you fail in the long run because the effort has used bad means, and the most violent among the revolutionaries tend to seize power and then use that same violence against any dissent of any kind.

This isnt the whole story of history, obviously, but its the way it feels to me now, in our current situation. So a very rapid, stepwise, legal reformist revolution seems to me the best thing to try now. Later, if we get into the 2030s without meaningful progress on the various justice and sustainability fronts, I think more violent forms of resistance are more likely and maybe more justified. Were in a closing window of opportunity for peaceful tactics to work.

JB: That closing window of opportunity means some very radical ideas are now on the table, some of which such as proposals to dim the sun or seed the oceans with iron are likely to have significant side effects. The idea that humans might terraform or re-engineer the environment in this way is central to your Mars trilogy and plays a big role in 2312, Green Earth, and The Ministry for the Future. Do you think were now at a point where some of these sorts of schemes have to be seriously entertained? And to what extent should we see them as a symptom of the failure of democratic means?

KSR: Were in an all-hands-on-deck situation, so all these radical ideas need to be explored to see if they might help in safe ways. Geoengineering has been defined in advance as doing dangerous things to save capitalism, so naturally people tend to be wary of it. But everything humans do at scale has planetary effects and could be called geoengineering in some literal sense. Maximizing womens education and political power worldwide could be called geoengineering because it would slow the population rise as a result of increased human agency, and this would have biosphere effects we could measure. As its a good and needed thing in and of itself, its ancillary benefits to the biosphere make it a double good.

So at that point the term geoengineering is exploded, and if you wanted to discuss it further it should be on a case-by-case basis. Deflecting some sunlight away by casting dust into the atmosphere (solar radiation management), if the dust were not volcanic but chosen for its inertness (like limestone dust), would reduce temperatures slightly for a few yearsthen the dust would fall to Earth, and the results of the act could be evaluated. If it was done by international agreement, then it would be the result of representative governments. It would be an experiment. Seeding the ocean with iron dust to create algal blooms, which would then die and fall to the sea floor, taking their carbon with them well, the oceans are already sick because of our carbon burn, plastic pollution, bottom dragging, and overfishing. Doing more to it seems stupid to me, but on the other hand, a single experiment wouldnt change much and might teach us some things. On this particular tactic, Im like most people in thinking theres got to be a better, safer way.

But this discussion is part of what it means to be in the Anthropocene weve damaged the biosphere so badly that we now have to work at repairing it, without knowing enough to be sure how to do that well. Still, some actions are obvious. Stop emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Stop destroying habitat. Invent regenerative agriculture. End poverty and extend equal rights and education to all. These good acts will all have positive biosphere effects. The various emergency actions being discussed are marginal to these big, obvious things we need to do. You asked if I thought we were already at the point where we will need to do these things; I dont think so. But were close. And if millions die in a wet bulb 35C heat wave, then the nation-state where that happens may take matters into their own hands. No one in the developed world will have any right to object to that.

JB: The vision of our future you articulate in The Ministry for the Future is deeply confronting, but also, ultimately, hopeful in that it runs counter to the growing belief in the developed world that collapse is inevitable. Do you see hope as an imperative?

KSR: Yes, I do. Also, its very natural and biological; life hopes, hunger is a hope. Again, its too big a word to help much. Is it good to be alive? Do you hope to go on living therefore? That kind of hope is very persistent.

But then also there is fear. And there are reasons for fear. Is there a growing belief in the developed world that collapse is inevitable? Im not so sure. And what would collapse mean? That you have to live like people in the Global South live now? Or that three-quarters of all humans will suddenly die in a spasm of civilizational incompetence? These are very different kinds of collapse. So hopes and fears, we always have them in a great overflow.

What I like about science is the way it tries to get particular. Is enough food being grown to feed everyone on Earth? Yes. Is it automatic that that continues? No. Is wilderness a good idea or a bad one? (This is one Im thinking about now.) Well, scientists involved would ask which of the eight or ten definitions of wilderness youre talking about. I like that kind of specificity.

But I think with this question youre inquiring about our cultures structure of feeling, the vibe, how the young feel, what the internet is saying if you just link around reading, and so on. There, in the realm of the general intellect or the feeling of our time, were inside a ringing bell. There is a great roaring, a cacophony. You can pull out the sounds you want to hear and call it an accidental symphony of sorts, and then get on with what needs doing. Your hopes and fears will still keep you awake at night. Meanwhile, the work goes on. People want their children to have a good life. Capitalism isnt working, and what cant go on wont go on. So well be experimenting our way into a different political economy. Hopefully well dodge a mass extinction event, and then all kinds of good possibilities will open up. I think it really is a crux moment in history. The 2020s are going to be wild.

James Bradley is a writer and critic. His books include the novels Wrack, The Deep Field, The Resurrectionist, and Clade, all of which have won or been nominated for major literary awards; a book of poetry, Paper Nautilus; and The Penguin Book of the Ocean. In 2012 he won the Pascall Prize for Australias Critic of the Year. His newest novel, Ghost Species, is published by Hodder Studio. He lives on Gadigal Land in Sydney, Australia.

This interview is excerpted from the book Tomorrows Parties: Life in the Anthropocene.

Originally posted here:
Its Science Over Capitalism: Kim Stanley Robinson and the Imperative of Hope - The MIT Press Reader

Posted in Mars Colonization | Comments Off on Its Science Over Capitalism: Kim Stanley Robinson and the Imperative of Hope – The MIT Press Reader

Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution’s Human Origins Program

Posted: at 12:50 pm

DNA

Through news accounts and crime stories, were all familiar with the fact that the DNA in our cells reflects each individuals unique identity and how closely related we are to one another. The same is true for the relationships among organisms. DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the molecule that makes up an organisms genome in the nucleus of every cell. It consists of genes, which are the molecular codes for proteins the building blocks of our tissues and their functions. It also consists of the molecular codes that regulate the output of genes that is, the timing and degree of protein-making. DNA shapes how an organism grows up and the physiology of its blood, bone, and brains.

DNA is thus especially important in the study of evolution. The amount of difference in DNA is a test of the difference between one species and another and thus how closely or distantly related they are.

While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule about 0.1%, on average study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA.

Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.

The strong similarities between humans and the African great apes led Charles Darwin in 1871 to predict that Africa was the likely place where the human lineage branched off from other animals that is, the place where the common ancestor of chimpanzees, humans, and gorillas once lived. The DNA evidence shows an amazing confirmation of this daring prediction. The African great apes, including humans, have a closer kinship bond with one another than the African apes have with orangutans or other primates. Hardly ever has a scientific prediction so bold, so out there for its time, been upheld as the one made in 1871 that human evolution began in Africa.

The DNA evidence informs this conclusion, and the fossils do, too. Even though Europe and Asia were scoured for early human fossils long before Africa was even thought of, ongoing fossil discoveries confirm that the first 4 million years or so of human evolutionary history took place exclusively on the African continent. It is there that the search continues for fossils at or near the branching point of the chimpanzee and human lineages from our last common ancestor.

Due to billions of years of evolution, humans share genes with all living organisms. The percentage of genes or DNA that organisms share records their similarities. We share more genes with organisms that are more closely related to us.

Humans belong to the biological group known as Primates, and are classified with the great apes, one of the major groups of the primate evolutionary tree. Besides similarities in anatomy and behavior, our close biological kinship with other primate species is indicated by DNA evidence. It confirms that our closest living biological relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos, with whom we share many traits. But we did not evolve directly from any primates living today.

DNA also shows that our species and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor species that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. The last common ancestor of monkeys and apes lived about 25 million years ago.

Continue reading here:
Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Posted in Human Genetics | Comments Off on Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution’s Human Origins Program

Genetics – Wikipedia

Posted: at 12:50 pm

Science of genes, heredity, and variation in living organisms

Genetics is a branch of biology concerned with the study of genes, genetic variation, and heredity in organisms.[1][2][3]

Though heredity had been observed for millennia, Gregor Mendel, Moravian scientist and Augustinian friar working in the 19th century in Brno, was the first to study genetics scientifically. Mendel studied "trait inheritance", patterns in the way traits are handed down from parents to offspring over time. He observed that organisms (pea plants) inherit traits by way of discrete "units of inheritance". This term, still used today, is a somewhat ambiguous definition of what is referred to as a gene.

Trait inheritance and molecular inheritance mechanisms of genes are still primary principles of genetics in the 21st century, but modern genetics has expanded beyond inheritance to studying the function and behavior of genes. Gene structure and function, variation, and distribution are studied within the context of the cell, the organism (e.g. dominance), and within the context of a population. Genetics has given rise to a number of subfields, including molecular genetics, epigenetics and population genetics. Organisms studied within the broad field span the domains of life (archaea, bacteria, and eukarya).

Genetic processes work in combination with an organism's environment and experiences to influence development and behavior, often referred to as nature versus nurture. The intracellular or extracellular environment of a living cell or organism may switch gene transcription on or off. A classic example is two seeds of genetically identical corn, one placed in a temperate climate and one in an arid climate (lacking sufficient waterfall or rain). While the average height of the two corn stalks may be genetically determined to be equal, the one in the arid climate only grows to half the height of the one in the temperate climate due to lack of water and nutrients in its environment.

The word genetics stems from the ancient Greek genetikos meaning "genitive"/"generative", which in turn derives from genesis meaning "origin".[4][5][6]

The observation that living things inherit traits from their parents has been used since prehistoric times to improve crop plants and animals through selective breeding.[7] [8] The modern science of genetics, seeking to understand this process, began with the work of the Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel in the mid-19th century.[9]

Prior to Mendel, Imre Festetics, a Hungarian noble, who lived in Kszeg before Mendel, was the first who used the word "genetic" in hereditarian context. He described several rules of biological inheritance in his works The genetic laws of the Nature (Die genetischen Gesetze der Natur, 1819).[10] His second law is the same as what Mendel published.[11] In his third law, he developed the basic principles of mutation (he can be considered a forerunner of Hugo de Vries).[12] Festetics argued that changes observed in the generation of farm animals, plants, and humans are the result of scientific laws.[13] Festetics empirically deduced that organisms inherit their characteristics, not acquire them. He recognized recessive traits and inherent variation by postulating that traits of past generations could reappear later, and organisms could produce progeny with different attributes.[14] These observations represent an important prelude to Mendels theory of particulate inheritance insofar as it features a transition of heredity from its status as myth to that of a scientific discipline, by providing a fundamental theoretical basis for genetics in the twentieth century.[10][15]

Other theories of inheritance preceded Mendel's work. A popular theory during the 19th century, and implied by Charles Darwin's 1859 On the Origin of Species, was blending inheritance: the idea that individuals inherit a smooth blend of traits from their parents.[16] Mendel's work provided examples where traits were definitely not blended after hybridization, showing that traits are produced by combinations of distinct genes rather than a continuous blend. Blending of traits in the progeny is now explained by the action of multiple genes with quantitative effects. Another theory that had some support at that time was the inheritance of acquired characteristics: the belief that individuals inherit traits strengthened by their parents. This theory (commonly associated with Jean-Baptiste Lamarck) is now known to be wrongthe experiences of individuals do not affect the genes they pass to their children.[17] Other theories included Darwin's pangenesis (which had both acquired and inherited aspects) and Francis Galton's reformulation of pangenesis as both particulate and inherited.[18]

Modern genetics started with Mendel's studies of the nature of inheritance in plants. In his paper "Versuche ber Pflanzenhybriden" ("Experiments on Plant Hybridization"), presented in 1865 to the Naturforschender Verein (Society for Research in Nature) in Brnn, Mendel traced the inheritance patterns of certain traits in pea plants and described them mathematically.[19] Although this pattern of inheritance could only be observed for a few traits, Mendel's work suggested that heredity was particulate, not acquired, and that the inheritance patterns of many traits could be explained through simple rules and ratios.

The importance of Mendel's work did not gain wide understanding until 1900, after his death, when Hugo de Vries and other scientists rediscovered his research. William Bateson, a proponent of Mendel's work, coined the word genetics in 1905.[20][21] (The adjective genetic, derived from the Greek word genesis, "origin", predates the noun and was first used in a biological sense in 1860.)[22] Bateson both acted as a mentor and was aided significantly by the work of other scientists from Newnham College at Cambridge, specifically the work of Becky Saunders, Nora Darwin Barlow, and Muriel Wheldale Onslow.[23] Bateson popularized the usage of the word genetics to describe the study of inheritance in his inaugural address to the Third International Conference on Plant Hybridization in London in 1906.[24]

After the rediscovery of Mendel's work, scientists tried to determine which molecules in the cell were responsible for inheritance. In 1900, Nettie Stevens began studying the mealworm.[25] Over the next 11 years, she discovered that females only had the X chromosome and males had both X and Y chromosomes.[25] She was able to conclude that sex is a chromosomal factor and is determined by the male.[25] In 1911, Thomas Hunt Morgan argued that genes are on chromosomes, based on observations of a sex-linked white eye mutation in fruit flies.[26] In 1913, his student Alfred Sturtevant used the phenomenon of genetic linkage to show that genes are arranged linearly on the chromosome.[27]

Although genes were known to exist on chromosomes, chromosomes are composed of both protein and DNA, and scientists did not know which of the two is responsible for inheritance. In 1928, Frederick Griffith discovered the phenomenon of transformation: dead bacteria could transfer genetic material to "transform" other still-living bacteria. Sixteen years later, in 1944, the AveryMacLeodMcCarty experiment identified DNA as the molecule responsible for transformation.[28] The role of the nucleus as the repository of genetic information in eukaryotes had been established by Hmmerling in 1943 in his work on the single celled alga Acetabularia.[29] The HersheyChase experiment in 1952 confirmed that DNA (rather than protein) is the genetic material of the viruses that infect bacteria, providing further evidence that DNA is the molecule responsible for inheritance.[30]

James Watson and Francis Crick determined the structure of DNA in 1953, using the X-ray crystallography work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins that indicated DNA has a helical structure (i.e., shaped like a corkscrew).[31][32] Their double-helix model had two strands of DNA with the nucleotides pointing inward, each matching a complementary nucleotide on the other strand to form what look like rungs on a twisted ladder.[33] The a-helix is a secondary structure and the twisting in the a-helix is caused by hydrogen bonds between the carboxyl (C=O) and the amine H (N-H) constituents of the polypeptide backbone.[34] This structure showed that genetic information exists in the sequence of nucleotides on each strand of DNA. The structure also suggested a simple method for replication: if the strands are separated, new partner strands can be reconstructed for each based on the sequence of the old strand. This property is what gives DNA its semi-conservative nature where one strand of new DNA is from an original parent strand.[35]

Although the structure of DNA showed how inheritance works, it was still not known how DNA influences the behavior of cells. In the following years, scientists tried to understand how DNA controls the process of protein production.[36] It was discovered that the cell uses DNA as a template to create matching messenger RNA, molecules with nucleotides very similar to DNA. The nucleotide sequence of a messenger RNA is used to create an amino acid sequence in protein; this translation between nucleotide sequences and amino acid sequences is known as the genetic code.[37]

With the newfound molecular understanding of inheritance came an explosion of research.[38] A notable theory arose from Tomoko Ohta in 1973 with her amendment to the neutral theory of molecular evolution through publishing the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution. In this theory, Ohta stressed the importance of natural selection and the environment to the rate at which genetic evolution occurs.[39] One important development was chain-termination DNA sequencing in 1977 by Frederick Sanger. This technology allows scientists to read the nucleotide sequence of a DNA molecule.[40] In 1983, Kary Banks Mullis developed the polymerase chain reaction, providing a quick way to isolate and amplify a specific section of DNA from a mixture.[41] The efforts of the Human Genome Project, Department of Energy, NIH, and parallel private efforts by Celera Genomics led to the sequencing of the human genome in 2003.[42][43]

At its most fundamental level, inheritance in organisms occurs by passing discrete heritable units, called genes, from parents to offspring.[44] This property was first observed by Gregor Mendel, who studied the segregation of heritable traits in pea plants.[19][45] In his experiments studying the trait for flower color, Mendel observed that the flowers of each pea plant were either purple or whitebut never an intermediate between the two colors. These different, discrete versions of the same gene are called alleles.

In the case of the pea, which is a diploid species, each individual plant has two copies of each gene, one copy inherited from each parent.[46] Many species, including humans, have this pattern of inheritance. Diploid organisms with two copies of the same allele of a given gene are called homozygous at that gene locus, while organisms with two different alleles of a given gene are called heterozygous.

The set of alleles for a given organism is called its genotype, while the observable traits of the organism are called its phenotype. When organisms are heterozygous at a gene, often one allele is called dominant as its qualities dominate the phenotype of the organism, while the other allele is called recessive as its qualities recede and are not observed. Some alleles do not have complete dominance and instead have incomplete dominance by expressing an intermediate phenotype, or codominance by expressing both alleles at once.[47]

When a pair of organisms reproduce sexually, their offspring randomly inherit one of the two alleles from each parent. These observations of discrete inheritance and the segregation of alleles are collectively known as Mendel's first law or the Law of Segregation. However, the probability of getting one gene over the other can change due to dominant, recessive, homozygous, or heterozygous genes. For example, Mendel found that if you cross homozygous dominate trait and homozygous recessive trait your odds of getting the dominant trait is 3:1. Real geneticist study and calculate probabilities by using theoretical probabilities, empirical probabilities, the product rule, the sum rule, and more.[48]

Geneticists use diagrams and symbols to describe inheritance. A gene is represented by one or a few letters. Often a "+" symbol is used to mark the usual, non-mutant allele for a gene.[49]

In fertilization and breeding experiments (and especially when discussing Mendel's laws) the parents are referred to as the "P" generation and the offspring as the "F1" (first filial) generation. When the F1 offspring mate with each other, the offspring are called the "F2" (second filial) generation. One of the common diagrams used to predict the result of cross-breeding is the Punnett square.

When studying human genetic diseases, geneticists often use pedigree charts to represent the inheritance of traits.[50] These charts map the inheritance of a trait in a family tree.

Organisms have thousands of genes, and in sexually reproducing organisms these genes generally assort independently of each other. This means that the inheritance of an allele for yellow or green pea color is unrelated to the inheritance of alleles for white or purple flowers. This phenomenon, known as "Mendel's second law" or the "law of independent assortment," means that the alleles of different genes get shuffled between parents to form offspring with many different combinations. (Some genes do not assort independently, demonstrating genetic linkage, a topic discussed later in this article.)

Often different genes can interact in a way that influences the same trait. In the Blue-eyed Mary (Omphalodes verna), for example, there exists a gene with alleles that determine the color of flowers: blue or magenta. Another gene, however, controls whether the flowers have color at all or are white. When a plant has two copies of this white allele, its flowers are whiteregardless of whether the first gene has blue or magenta alleles. This interaction between genes is called epistasis, with the second gene epistatic to the first.[51]

Many traits are not discrete features (e.g. purple or white flowers) but are instead continuous features (e.g. human height and skin color). These complex traits are products of many genes.[52] The influence of these genes is mediated, to varying degrees, by the environment an organism has experienced. The degree to which an organism's genes contribute to a complex trait is called heritability.[53] Measurement of the heritability of a trait is relativein a more variable environment, the environment has a bigger influence on the total variation of the trait. For example, human height is a trait with complex causes. It has a heritability of 89% in the United States. In Nigeria, however, where people experience a more variable access to good nutrition and health care, height has a heritability of only 62%.[54]

The molecular basis for genes is deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). DNA is composed of deoxyribose (sugar molecule), a phosphate group, and a base (amine group). There are four types of bases: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T). The phosphates make hydrogen bonds with the sugars to make long phosphate-sugar backbones. Bases specifically pair together (T&A, C&G) between two backbones and make like rungs on a ladder. The bases, phosphates, and sugars together make a nucleotide that connects to make long chains of DNA.[55] Genetic information exists in the sequence of these nucleotides, and genes exist as stretches of sequence along the DNA chain.[56] These chains coil into a double a-helix structure and wrap around proteins called Histones which provide the structural support. DNA wrapped around these histones are called chromosomes.[57] Viruses sometimes use the similar molecule RNA instead of DNA as their genetic material.[58] Viruses cannot reproduce without a host and are unaffected by many genetic processes, so tend not to be considered living organisms.

DNA normally exists as a double-stranded molecule, coiled into the shape of a double helix. Each nucleotide in DNA preferentially pairs with its partner nucleotide on the opposite strand: A pairs with T, and C pairs with G. Thus, in its two-stranded form, each strand effectively contains all necessary information, redundant with its partner strand. This structure of DNA is the physical basis for inheritance: DNA replication duplicates the genetic information by splitting the strands and using each strand as a template for synthesis of a new partner strand.[59]

Genes are arranged linearly along long chains of DNA base-pair sequences. In bacteria, each cell usually contains a single circular genophore, while eukaryotic organisms (such as plants and animals) have their DNA arranged in multiple linear chromosomes. These DNA strands are often extremely long; the largest human chromosome, for example, is about 247 million base pairs in length.[60] The DNA of a chromosome is associated with structural proteins that organize, compact, and control access to the DNA, forming a material called chromatin; in eukaryotes, chromatin is usually composed of nucleosomes, segments of DNA wound around cores of histone proteins.[61] The full set of hereditary material in an organism (usually the combined DNA sequences of all chromosomes) is called the genome.

DNA is most often found in the nucleus of cells, but Ruth Sager helped in the discovery of nonchromosomal genes found outside of the nucleus.[62] In plants, these are often found in the chloroplasts and in other organisms, in the mitochondria.[62] These nonchromosomal genes can still be passed on by either partner in sexual reproduction and they control a variety of hereditary characteristics that replicate and remain active throughout generations.[62]

While haploid organisms have only one copy of each chromosome, most animals and many plants are diploid, containing two of each chromosome and thus two copies of every gene.[46] The two alleles for a gene are located on identical loci of the two homologous chromosomes, each allele inherited from a different parent.

Many species have so-called sex chromosomes that determine the gender of each organism.[63] In humans and many other animals, the Y chromosome contains the gene that triggers the development of the specifically male characteristics. In evolution, this chromosome has lost most of its content and also most of its genes, while the X chromosome is similar to the other chromosomes and contains many genes. This being said, Mary Frances Lyon discovered that there is X-chromosome inactivation during reproduction to avoid passing on twice as many genes to the offspring.[64] Lyon's discovery led to the discovery of other things including X-linked diseases.[64] The X and Y chromosomes form a strongly heterogeneous pair.

When cells divide, their full genome is copied and each daughter cell inherits one copy. This process, called mitosis, is the simplest form of reproduction and is the basis for asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction can also occur in multicellular organisms, producing offspring that inherit their genome from a single parent. Offspring that are genetically identical to their parents are called clones.

Eukaryotic organisms often use sexual reproduction to generate offspring that contain a mixture of genetic material inherited from two different parents. The process of sexual reproduction alternates between forms that contain single copies of the genome (haploid) and double copies (diploid).[46] Haploid cells fuse and combine genetic material to create a diploid cell with paired chromosomes. Diploid organisms form haploids by dividing, without replicating their DNA, to create daughter cells that randomly inherit one of each pair of chromosomes. Most animals and many plants are diploid for most of their lifespan, with the haploid form reduced to single cell gametes such as sperm or eggs.

Although they do not use the haploid/diploid method of sexual reproduction, bacteria have many methods of acquiring new genetic information. Some bacteria can undergo conjugation, transferring a small circular piece of DNA to another bacterium.[65] Bacteria can also take up raw DNA fragments found in the environment and integrate them into their genomes, a phenomenon known as transformation.[66] These processes result in horizontal gene transfer, transmitting fragments of genetic information between organisms that would be otherwise unrelated. Natural bacterial transformation occurs in many bacterial species, and can be regarded as a sexual process for transferring DNA from one cell to another cell (usually of the same species).[67] Transformation requires the action of numerous bacterial gene products, and its primary adaptive function appears to be repair of DNA damages in the recipient cell.[67]

The diploid nature of chromosomes allows for genes on different chromosomes to assort independently or be separated from their homologous pair during sexual reproduction wherein haploid gametes are formed. In this way new combinations of genes can occur in the offspring of a mating pair. Genes on the same chromosome would theoretically never recombine. However, they do, via the cellular process of chromosomal crossover. During crossover, chromosomes exchange stretches of DNA, effectively shuffling the gene alleles between the chromosomes.[68] This process of chromosomal crossover generally occurs during meiosis, a series of cell divisions that creates haploid cells. Meiotic recombination, particularly in microbial eukaryotes, appears to serve the adaptive function of repair of DNA damages.[67]

The first cytological demonstration of crossing over was performed by Harriet Creighton and Barbara McClintock in 1931. Their research and experiments on corn provided cytological evidence for the genetic theory that linked genes on paired chromosomes do in fact exchange places from one homolog to the other.[69]

The probability of chromosomal crossover occurring between two given points on the chromosome is related to the distance between the points. For an arbitrarily long distance, the probability of crossover is high enough that the inheritance of the genes is effectively uncorrelated.[70] For genes that are closer together, however, the lower probability of crossover means that the genes demonstrate genetic linkage; alleles for the two genes tend to be inherited together. The amounts of linkage between a series of genes can be combined to form a linear linkage map that roughly describes the arrangement of the genes along the chromosome.[71]

Genes generally express their functional effect through the production of proteins, which are complex molecules responsible for most functions in the cell. Proteins are made up of one or more polypeptide chains, each of which is composed of a sequence of amino acids, and the DNA sequence of a gene (through an RNA intermediate) is used to produce a specific amino acid sequence. This process begins with the production of an RNA molecule with a sequence matching the gene's DNA sequence, a process called transcription.

This messenger RNA molecule then serves to produce a corresponding amino acid sequence through a process called translation. Each group of three nucleotides in the sequence, called a codon, corresponds either to one of the twenty possible amino acids in a protein or an instruction to end the amino acid sequence; this correspondence is called the genetic code.[72] The flow of information is unidirectional: information is transferred from nucleotide sequences into the amino acid sequence of proteins, but it never transfers from protein back into the sequence of DNAa phenomenon Francis Crick called the central dogma of molecular biology.[73]

The specific sequence of amino acids results in a unique three-dimensional structure for that protein, and the three-dimensional structures of proteins are related to their functions.[74][75] Some are simple structural molecules, like the fibers formed by the protein collagen. Proteins can bind to other proteins and simple molecules, sometimes acting as enzymes by facilitating chemical reactions within the bound molecules (without changing the structure of the protein itself). Protein structure is dynamic; the protein hemoglobin bends into slightly different forms as it facilitates the capture, transport, and release of oxygen molecules within mammalian blood.

A single nucleotide difference within DNA can cause a change in the amino acid sequence of a protein. Because protein structures are the result of their amino acid sequences, some changes can dramatically change the properties of a protein by destabilizing the structure or changing the surface of the protein in a way that changes its interaction with other proteins and molecules. For example, sickle-cell anemia is a human genetic disease that results from a single base difference within the coding region for the -globin section of hemoglobin, causing a single amino acid change that changes hemoglobin's physical properties.[76]Sickle-cell versions of hemoglobin stick to themselves, stacking to form fibers that distort the shape of red blood cells carrying the protein. These sickle-shaped cells no longer flow smoothly through blood vessels, having a tendency to clog or degrade, causing the medical problems associated with this disease.

Some DNA sequences are transcribed into RNA but are not translated into protein productssuch RNA molecules are called non-coding RNA. In some cases, these products fold into structures which are involved in critical cell functions (e.g. ribosomal RNA and transfer RNA). RNA can also have regulatory effects through hybridization interactions with other RNA molecules (such as microRNA).

Although genes contain all the information an organism uses to function, the environment plays an important role in determining the ultimate phenotypes an organism displays. The phrase "nature and nurture" refers to this complementary relationship. The phenotype of an organism depends on the interaction of genes and the environment. An interesting example is the coat coloration of the Siamese cat. In this case, the body temperature of the cat plays the role of the environment. The cat's genes code for dark hair, thus the hair-producing cells in the cat make cellular proteins resulting in dark hair. But these dark hair-producing proteins are sensitive to temperature (i.e. have a mutation causing temperature-sensitivity) and denature in higher-temperature environments, failing to produce dark-hair pigment in areas where the cat has a higher body temperature. In a low-temperature environment, however, the protein's structure is stable and produces dark-hair pigment normally. The protein remains functional in areas of skin that are coldersuch as its legs, ears, tail, and faceso the cat has dark hair at its extremities.[77]

Environment plays a major role in effects of the human genetic disease phenylketonuria.[78] The mutation that causes phenylketonuria disrupts the ability of the body to break down the amino acid phenylalanine, causing a toxic build-up of an intermediate molecule that, in turn, causes severe symptoms of progressive intellectual disability and seizures. However, if someone with the phenylketonuria mutation follows a strict diet that avoids this amino acid, they remain normal and healthy.

A common method for determining how genes and environment ("nature and nurture") contribute to a phenotype involves studying identical and fraternal twins, or other siblings of multiple births.[79] Identical siblings are genetically the same since they come from the same zygote. Meanwhile, fraternal twins are as genetically different from one another as normal siblings. By comparing how often a certain disorder occurs in a pair of identical twins to how often it occurs in a pair of fraternal twins, scientists can determine whether that disorder is caused by genetic or postnatal environmental factors. One famous example involved the study of the Genain quadruplets, who were identical quadruplets all diagnosed with schizophrenia.[80]However, such tests cannot separate genetic factors from environmental factors affecting fetal development.

The genome of a given organism contains thousands of genes, but not all these genes need to be active at any given moment. A gene is expressed when it is being transcribed into mRNA and there exist many cellular methods of controlling the expression of genes such that proteins are produced only when needed by the cell. Transcription factors are regulatory proteins that bind to DNA, either promoting or inhibiting the transcription of a gene.[81] Within the genome of Escherichia coli bacteria, for example, there exists a series of genes necessary for the synthesis of the amino acid tryptophan. However, when tryptophan is already available to the cell, these genes for tryptophan synthesis are no longer needed. The presence of tryptophan directly affects the activity of the genestryptophan molecules bind to the tryptophan repressor (a transcription factor), changing the repressor's structure such that the repressor binds to the genes. The tryptophan repressor blocks the transcription and expression of the genes, thereby creating negative feedback regulation of the tryptophan synthesis process.[82]

Differences in gene expression are especially clear within multicellular organisms, where cells all contain the same genome but have very different structures and behaviors due to the expression of different sets of genes. All the cells in a multicellular organism derive from a single cell, differentiating into variant cell types in response to external and intercellular signals and gradually establishing different patterns of gene expression to create different behaviors. As no single gene is responsible for the development of structures within multicellular organisms, these patterns arise from the complex interactions between many cells.

Within eukaryotes, there exist structural features of chromatin that influence the transcription of genes, often in the form of modifications to DNA and chromatin that are stably inherited by daughter cells.[83] These features are called "epigenetic" because they exist "on top" of the DNA sequence and retain inheritance from one cell generation to the next. Because of epigenetic features, different cell types grown within the same medium can retain very different properties. Although epigenetic features are generally dynamic over the course of development, some, like the phenomenon of paramutation, have multigenerational inheritance and exist as rare exceptions to the general rule of DNA as the basis for inheritance.[84]

During the process of DNA replication, errors occasionally occur in the polymerization of the second strand. These errors, called mutations, can affect the phenotype of an organism, especially if they occur within the protein coding sequence of a gene. Error rates are usually very low1 error in every 10100million basesdue to the "proofreading" ability of DNA polymerases.[85][86] Processes that increase the rate of changes in DNA are called mutagenic: mutagenic chemicals promote errors in DNA replication, often by interfering with the structure of base-pairing, while UV radiation induces mutations by causing damage to the DNA structure.[87] Chemical damage to DNA occurs naturally as well and cells use DNA repair mechanisms to repair mismatches and breaks. The repair does not, however, always restore the original sequence. A particularly important source of DNA damages appears to be reactive oxygen species[88] produced by cellular aerobic respiration, and these can lead to mutations.[89]

In organisms that use chromosomal crossover to exchange DNA and recombine genes, errors in alignment during meiosis can also cause mutations.[90] Errors in crossover are especially likely when similar sequences cause partner chromosomes to adopt a mistaken alignment; this makes some regions in genomes more prone to mutating in this way. These errors create large structural changes in DNA sequenceduplications, inversions, deletions of entire regionsor the accidental exchange of whole parts of sequences between different chromosomes (chromosomal translocation).

Mutations alter an organism's genotype and occasionally this causes different phenotypes to appear. Most mutations have little effect on an organism's phenotype, health, or reproductive fitness.[91] Mutations that do have an effect are usually detrimental, but occasionally some can be beneficial.[92] Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, about 70 percent of these mutations will be harmful with the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[93]

Population genetics studies the distribution of genetic differences within populations and how these distributions change over time.[94] Changes in the frequency of an allele in a population are mainly influenced by natural selection, where a given allele provides a selective or reproductive advantage to the organism,[95] as well as other factors such as mutation, genetic drift, genetic hitchhiking,[96] artificial selection and migration.[97]

Over many generations, the genomes of organisms can change significantly, resulting in evolution. In the process called adaptation, selection for beneficial mutations can cause a species to evolve into forms better able to survive in their environment.[98] New species are formed through the process of speciation, often caused by geographical separations that prevent populations from exchanging genes with each other.[99]

By comparing the homology between different species' genomes, it is possible to calculate the evolutionary distance between them and when they may have diverged. Genetic comparisons are generally considered a more accurate method of characterizing the relatedness between species than the comparison of phenotypic characteristics. The evolutionary distances between species can be used to form evolutionary trees; these trees represent the common descent and divergence of species over time, although they do not show the transfer of genetic material between unrelated species (known as horizontal gene transfer and most common in bacteria).[100]

Although geneticists originally studied inheritance in a wide range of organisms, researchers began to specialize in studying the genetics of a particular subset of organisms. The fact that significant research already existed for a given organism would encourage new researchers to choose it for further study, and so eventually a few model organisms became the basis for most genetics research.[101] Common research topics in model organism genetics include the study of gene regulation and the involvement of genes in development and cancer.

Organisms were chosen, in part, for convenienceshort generation times and easy genetic manipulation made some organisms popular genetics research tools. Widely used model organisms include the gut bacterium Escherichia coli, the plant Arabidopsis thaliana, baker's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, the common fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster), the zebrafish (Danio rerio), and the common house mouse (Mus musculus).

Medical genetics seeks to understand how genetic variation relates to human health and disease.[102] When searching for an unknown gene that may be involved in a disease, researchers commonly use genetic linkage and genetic pedigree charts to find the location on the genome associated with the disease. At the population level, researchers take advantage of Mendelian randomization to look for locations in the genome that are associated with diseases, a method especially useful for multigenic traits not clearly defined by a single gene.[103] Once a candidate gene is found, further research is often done on the corresponding (or homologous) genes of model organisms. In addition to studying genetic diseases, the increased availability of genotyping methods has led to the field of pharmacogenetics: the study of how genotype can affect drug responses.[104]

Individuals differ in their inherited tendency to develop cancer,[105] and cancer is a genetic disease.[106] The process of cancer development in the body is a combination of events. Mutations occasionally occur within cells in the body as they divide. Although these mutations will not be inherited by any offspring, they can affect the behavior of cells, sometimes causing them to grow and divide more frequently. There are biological mechanisms that attempt to stop this process; signals are given to inappropriately dividing cells that should trigger cell death, but sometimes additional mutations occur that cause cells to ignore these messages. An internal process of natural selection occurs within the body and eventually mutations accumulate within cells to promote their own growth, creating a cancerous tumor that grows and invades various tissues of the body.

Normally, a cell divides only in response to signals called growth factors and stops growing once in contact with surrounding cells and in response to growth-inhibitory signals. It usually then divides a limited number of times and dies, staying within the epithelium where it is unable to migrate to other organs. To become a cancer cell, a cell has to accumulate mutations in a number of genes (three to seven). A cancer cell can divide without growth factor and ignores inhibitory signals. Also, it is immortal and can grow indefinitely, even after it makes contact with neighboring cells. It may escape from the epithelium and ultimately from the primary tumor. Then, the escaped cell can cross the endothelium of a blood vessel and get transported by the bloodstream to colonize a new organ, forming deadly metastasis. Although there are some genetic predispositions in a small fraction of cancers, the major fraction is due to a set of new genetic mutations that originally appear and accumulate in one or a small number of cells that will divide to form the tumor and are not transmitted to the progeny (somatic mutations). The most frequent mutations are a loss of function of p53 protein, a tumor suppressor, or in the p53 pathway, and gain of function mutations in the Ras proteins, or in other oncogenes.

DNA can be manipulated in the laboratory. Restriction enzymes are commonly used enzymes that cut DNA at specific sequences, producing predictable fragments of DNA.[107] DNA fragments can be visualized through use of gel electrophoresis, which separates fragments according to their length.

The use of ligation enzymes allows DNA fragments to be connected. By binding ("ligating") fragments of DNA together from different sources, researchers can create recombinant DNA, the DNA often associated with genetically modified organisms. Recombinant DNA is commonly used in the context of plasmids: short circular DNA molecules with a few genes on them. In the process known as molecular cloning, researchers can amplify the DNA fragments by inserting plasmids into bacteria and then culturing them on plates of agar (to isolate clones of bacteria cells). "Cloning" can also refer to the various means of creating cloned ("clonal") organisms.

DNA can also be amplified using a procedure called the polymerase chain reaction (PCR).[108] By using specific short sequences of DNA, PCR can isolate and exponentially amplify a targeted region of DNA. Because it can amplify from extremely small amounts of DNA, PCR is also often used to detect the presence of specific DNA sequences.

DNA sequencing, one of the most fundamental technologies developed to study genetics, allows researchers to determine the sequence of nucleotides in DNA fragments. The technique of chain-termination sequencing, developed in 1977 by a team led by Frederick Sanger, is still routinely used to sequence DNA fragments.[109] Using this technology, researchers have been able to study the molecular sequences associated with many human diseases.

As sequencing has become less expensive, researchers have sequenced the genomes of many organisms using a process called genome assembly, which utilizes computational tools to stitch together sequences from many different fragments.[110] These technologies were used to sequence the human genome in the Human Genome Project completed in 2003.[42] New high-throughput sequencing technologies are dramatically lowering the cost of DNA sequencing, with many researchers hoping to bring the cost of resequencing a human genome down to a thousand dollars.[111]

Next-generation sequencing (or high-throughput sequencing) came about due to the ever-increasing demand for low-cost sequencing. These sequencing technologies allow the production of potentially millions of sequences concurrently.[112][113] The large amount of sequence data available has created the subfield of genomics, research that uses computational tools to search for and analyze patterns in the full genomes of organisms. Genomics can also be considered a subfield of bioinformatics, which uses computational approaches to analyze large sets of biological data. A common problem to these fields of research is how to manage and share data that deals with human subject and personally identifiable information.

On 19 March 2015, a group of leading biologists urged a worldwide ban on clinical use of methods, particularly the use of CRISPR and zinc finger, to edit the human genome in a way that can be inherited.[114][115][116][117] In April 2015, Chinese researchers reported results of basic research to edit the DNA of non-viable human embryos using CRISPR.[118][119]

Originally posted here:
Genetics - Wikipedia

Posted in Human Genetics | Comments Off on Genetics – Wikipedia

Study looking at human genetics and Covid vaccine immune responses – Science Media Centre

Posted: at 12:50 pm

October 13, 2022

Scientists at the University of Oxford have carried out a study to investigate whether and how peoples genes influence how strong an immune response they mount after vaccination with either the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

The study has been published in Nature Medicine.

The scientists analysed DNA samples from 1,190 participants whod enrolled in the University of Oxfords COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, as well as from 1,677 adults who had enrolled on the Com-COV research programme, and from children who had participated in clinical trials for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.

Journalists dialled in to this briefing to hear from the scientists who did the study discuss aspects such as:

which genes in people determine how well their immune system responds to Covid vaccination?

which bits of the immune system seem to respond differently with different versions of these genes?

are there certain populations that tend to have specific versions of these genes?

what is the normal role of these genes?

are there implications?

Speakers included:

Prof Julian Knight, Professor of Genomic Medicine, Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford

Dr Alexander Mentzer, Group Leader at the Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, and an Infectious Disease doctor

Dr Daniel OConnor, University Research Lecturer and Senior Bioinformatician, Oxford Vaccine Group, University of Oxford

This Briefing was accompanied by an SMC Roundup of comments.

Original post:
Study looking at human genetics and Covid vaccine immune responses - Science Media Centre

Posted in Human Genetics | Comments Off on Study looking at human genetics and Covid vaccine immune responses – Science Media Centre

ASHG 2022 in Los Angeles brings together researchers from around the world to advance discoveries in genetics, genomics research – EurekAlert

Posted: at 12:50 pm

Note: All in-person attendees and media must be fully vaccinated. Prior to arriving on-site, please upload your vaccination record to the ASHG/Safe Expo Portal to ensure timely access to the event.

ROCKVILLE, MD--Thousands of human genomics and genetics researchers, clinicians, counselors, public health experts and others will attend the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) in Los Angeles, California, October 25-29. Journalists covering ASHG 2022, the world's largest and most influential human genetics and genomics meeting, will have access to thousands of scientific papers and oral presentations, workshops, and collaborative events. The annual meeting fosters discussion about individual research and the big picture of cutting-edge science across the field. It is a remarkable opportunity to meet sources, chart trends and uncover story ideas.

This years meeting will offer in-person opportunities for networking, sharing the latest scientific findings with nearly 400 live presentations, more than 2,500 published posters, and over 200 exhibitors. A post-meeting virtual program will capture highlights, provide additional learning, and feature live networking for those unable to attend in person.

ASHG is thrilled to bring together attendees in person for the first time in three years to present, learn and discuss the most recent findings in human genetics and genomics in the worlds largest venue for geneticists on earth, said ASHG President Charles Rotimi, PhD. The breadth of science being presented at this years meeting reflects the expansive reach of genomics in all areas of research and its role to help promote health and prevent disease.

This years program features exciting sessions highlighting many breakthroughs in research progress and ongoing field dialogue on emerging issues that can realize benefits of this research for science, health, and society. Learn more in the online planner.

COVID-19 in the Post-Pandemic Era: Long COVID, Vaccine Response, and Beyond This event will share information about the contributions of human genetic variation to susceptibility to COVID and risk of long COVID as well as response to vaccines.

Tuesday, October 25, from 4:30 p.m. 6:00 p.m.

Presidential Symposium on H3Africa and the African Genomics Ecosystem This event featuring former NIH Director, Francis Collins, MD will highlight Africa, a profoundly dynamic and diverse continent, and its major advances, new directions and goals, emerging scientific leadership, exciting investment in technology infrastructure, and more. How can and will genomics in Africa spread its wings and what areas are most exciting?Thursday, October 27, 8:30 a.m.10:00 a.m.

Upset the Set Up: Moving from Community Engagement to Community Empowerment The overarching objectives of this session are to: (1) examine ongoing efforts that break the mold of transactional community engaged research; and (2) explore remaining needs for community empowered research in genetics and genomics. It does so by bringing together diverse stakeholders in the field to consider the need to transition from community engagement to community empowerment.

Friday, October 28, from 8:30 a.m.- 10:00 a.m.

Research presented at the annual meeting will also cover:

In addition, ASHG will hold a special media availability session with geneticists from ASHGs Public Education and Awareness Committee on Wednesday, October 26 from 9:45-10:15 a.m., exclusively for registered media. During this discussion, presenters will highlight new initiatives; findings related to basic, translational, and clinical genetics; therapeutics and drug discovery; population genetics and evolution; and more. Media can register for credentials here.

* * *

About the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG)

Founded in 1948, the American Society of Human Genetics is the primary professional membership organization for human genetics specialists worldwide. Its community of nearly 8,000 members include researchers, academicians, clinicians, laboratory practice professionals, genetic counselors, nurses, and others with an interest in human genetics. The Society serves scientists, health professionals, and the public by providing forums to: (1) share research results through theASHG Annual Meetingand inThe American Journal of Human GeneticsandHuman Genetics and Genomics Advances; (2) advance genetic research by advocating for research support; (3) educate current and future genetics professionals, health care providers, advocates, policymakers, educators, students, and the public about all aspects of human genetics; and (4) promote genetic services and support responsible social and scientific policies. For more information, visit:http://www.ashg.org.

6120 Executive Blvd, Suite 500 | Rockville, MD 20852 | 301.634.7300 |society@ashg.org|www.ashg.orgConnect with ASHG onTwitter(@GeneticsSociety) |Facebook|LinkedIn

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

View post:
ASHG 2022 in Los Angeles brings together researchers from around the world to advance discoveries in genetics, genomics research - EurekAlert

Posted in Human Genetics | Comments Off on ASHG 2022 in Los Angeles brings together researchers from around the world to advance discoveries in genetics, genomics research – EurekAlert

Maze Therapeutics Appoints Harold Bernstein, M.D., Ph.D., as President, Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer – Yahoo Finance

Posted: at 12:50 pm

Eric Green, M.D., Ph.D., Promoted to Chief Scientific Officer

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., October 13, 2022--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Maze Therapeutics, a company translating genetic insights into new precision medicines, today announced that Harold Bernstein, M.D., Ph.D., a 30-year industry veteran, has been appointed as president, head of research and development (R&D) and chief medical officer. In addition, Eric Green, M.D., Ph.D., who has served as Mazes senior vice president, research and translational sciences, has been promoted to chief scientific officer.

"Harold brings an impressive combination of industry and academic experience, as well as the unique perspective of a practicing physician, to the Maze team at an important stage of our development. Further, with much of Harolds experience having focused on human genetics, he is a natural candidate for this position, and Im thrilled to welcome him to our team and mission," said Jason Coloma, Ph.D., chief executive officer of Maze. "I am also pleased to announce the promotion of Eric to CSO, who has been a true leader and driving force behind much of Mazes platform and pipeline advancement since our founding. Eric and Harold will be instrumental in executing the advancement of our diverse pipeline, which spans monogenic diseases like Pompe disease, and more complex diseases, like chronic kidney disease. I look forward to partnering with these two experts as we deliver on our vision of harnessing the power of human genetics to transform the lives of patients."

"Maze has attracted some of the best minds in biotech and has proven itself through impressive progress since its founding, including the build-out of its Compass platform and rapid advancement into the clinic," said Dr. Bernstein. "I was drawn to the Maze teams lofty goal of shifting the paradigm in medicine, in particular for more complex diseases such as chronic kidney disease, during an unprecedented time for the field of genetics and precision medicine. As head of R&D, I look forward to shaping and contributing to a creative strategy and thorough scientific process aimed at delivering new, genetic-based medicines. I am thrilled to join the Maze team as we urgently work to create and advance therapeutically meaningful treatments to help patients in need."

Story continues

Dr. Bernstein brings more than three decades of experience in basic scientific research, translational medicine and clinical development both in industry and academia. He joins Maze from BioMarin, where he served as senior vice president, chief medical officer and head of global clinical development. In this role, he was responsible for fortifying clinical development from early to late stages, working seamlessly with research discovery and overseeing the late-stage and lifecycle products. Prior to BioMarin, he was head of translational medicine and vice president of global medicines development and medical affairs at Vertex, and earlier held roles at Merck, including head of early development for cardiometabolic diseases. Dr. Bernstein was professor of pediatrics and a senior investigator at the Cardiovascular Research Institute and the Broad Center of Regeneration Medicine and Stem Cell Research at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). He also served as attending physician at UCSF Benioff Childrens Hospital in pediatric cardiology, and at the Mount Sinai Kravis Childrens Hospital in cardiovascular genetics. Dr. Bernstein currently holds an appointment as adjunct professor of pediatrics and the Mindich Child Health and Development Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. He studied biomedical science, human genetics and medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, earning an M.Phil., Ph.D. and M.D. He completed a pediatric residency, cardiology fellowship and postdoctoral fellowship at UCSF and earned an A.B. in biological sciences from Harvard College.

Dr. Green is a physician-scientist and entrepreneur with more than 15 years of experience building and operating innovative scientific organizations. Prior to Maze, Dr. Green was an entrepreneur-in-residence at Third Rock Ventures, where he was involved in launching and building multiple Third Rock portfolio companies, including MyoKardia where he led the translational research group working on mavacamten, which was eventually acquired by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Green is a board-certified physician with training in internal medicine and cardiovascular medicine from Brigham and Womens Hospital. He holds an M.D. and Ph.D. in chemical and systems biology from Stanford University and an A.B. in history and science from Harvard College.

About Maze Therapeutics

Maze Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company applying advanced data science methods in tandem with a robust suite of research and development capabilities to advance a pipeline of novel precision medicines for patients with genetically defined diseases. Maze has developed the Maze CompassTM platform, a proprietary, purpose-built platform that combines human genetic data, functional genomic tools and data science technology to map novel connections between known genes and their influence on susceptibility, timing of onset and rate of disease progression. Using Compass, Maze is building a broad portfolio of wholly owned and partnered programs. Maze is based in South San Francisco. For more information, please visit mazetx.com, or follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20221013005211/en/

Contacts

Jillian Connell, Maze Therapeuticsjconnell@mazetx.com 650.850.5080

Media: Katie Engleman, 1ABkatie@1abmedia.com

Read the original:
Maze Therapeutics Appoints Harold Bernstein, M.D., Ph.D., as President, Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer - Yahoo Finance

Posted in Human Genetics | Comments Off on Maze Therapeutics Appoints Harold Bernstein, M.D., Ph.D., as President, Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer – Yahoo Finance

Page 141«..1020..140141142143..150160..»