Police chiefs need the freedom to weed out bad cops – Washington Post

Police officers go into peoples homes ... and they have the authority to take peoples freedom. And youre going to return somebody into that role, somebody who has that responsibility and authority, and whos been involved in extreme misconduct? I dont think anybody is comfortable with that. D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham is exactly right in that observation about why police departments need to weed out officers who betray the publics trust. There should be plenty of discomfort about the revelations of a Post investigation chronicling how police chiefs are often thwarted when it comes to policing their own ranks.

Examination of some of the nations largest police departments found that hundreds of officers who had been fired for misconduct ranging from cheating on overtime to unjustified shootings and including convictions for criminal offenses were reinstated following appeals required by union contracts. Of 1,881 officers terminated since 2006, more than 450 officers were returned to duty, typically by outside arbitrators who did not dispute the underlying offense but found missteps in the administrative process or concluded that termination was too extreme a punishment.

Among the disturbing cases detailed by The Posts Kimbriell Kelly, Wesley Lowery and Steven Rich: a D.C. police officer convicted of sexually abusing a young woman in his patrol car ordered returned to the force; a Philadelphia officer reinstated despite a video of him striking a woman in the face; a San Antonio police officer regaining his job even though he had been caught on a dashboard camera challenging a handcuffed suspect to fight him for the chance to be released.

No question, there is a need for clear processes to guard against mistakes; some of the responsibility for having to reinstate undesirable officers falls on police agencies that make careless errors during disciplinary proceedings. But The Posts findings suggest a tilt in the system that makes it difficult to hold officers accountable for bad acts. That the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police actually had the nerve to complain about the higher standards that police are held to (You very seldom see any phone-cam indictments of trash collectors or utility workers) exemplifies one obstacle to the drive for accountability.

It is, as the Post investigation pointed out, rare for departments to fire officers. Most officers, as Montgomery County Police Chief J. Thomas Manger recently wrote to this page, are courageous and professional. ... They risk their lives every day to keep the public safe. That they are forced to work alongside police who have been deemed unfit for duty does them and the public they protect grave disservice.

Read the original:

Police chiefs need the freedom to weed out bad cops - Washington Post

Strong outing from Torres-Perez helps Freedom avoid sweep on rainy night at UC Health Stadium – User-generated content (press release) (registration)

On a rainy night in Northern Kentucky, the Florence Freedom, presented by Titan Mechanical Solutions, used a tremendous start from Braulio Torres-Perezto avoid a sweep with a 4-1 win over the Southern Illinois Miners on Sunday at UC Health Stadium.

For the third night in a row, Southern Illinois (30-42) plated a first-inning run, as Craig Massoni drove in Craig Massey with a single off Torres-Perez (3-1). But the left-hander would dance out of trouble through the next seven innings, stranding a total of five runners the rest of the way. Torres-Perez would finish with five strikeouts and allowed just seven scattered hits over eight innings.

Florence (45-28) would knot the score in the bottom of the third, thanks to a Taylor Oldham infield single that scored Austin Wobrock.

The 1-1 tie lasted until the bottom of the sixth inning, when Garrett Vail hit a line-drive, two-run shot to left field off Miners reliever Kyle Tinius (2-3) putting Florence in front, 3-1. Jordan Browers third double of the night would plate another run in the seventh pushing the Freedom ahead by the eventual final score, 4-1. The double also extended Browers hitting streak to ten games, matching his longest of the season.

Pete Perez took over in the ninth inning and, with one out, hit pinch-hitter London Lindley with a pitch before retiring the next two batters to record the save and help the Freedom avoid the series sweep.

After a day off Monday, the Freedom will travel to Evansville, Indiana to open a key three-game series against the Evansville Otters on Tuesday with first pitch scheduled for 6:35 p.m. at Bosse Field. Steve Hagen (5-4) will start for the Freedom against a yet-to-be-determined starter for Evansville.

The Florence Freedom are members of the independent Frontier League and play all home games at UC Health Stadium located at 7950 Freedom Way in Florence, KY.The Freedom can be found online at FlorenceFreedom.com, or by phone at 859-594-4487.

Follow this link:

Strong outing from Torres-Perez helps Freedom avoid sweep on rainy night at UC Health Stadium - User-generated content (press release) (registration)

Every woman’s quest for rights, freedom – The Hindu

Naval the Jewel is a universal story about women seeking their freedom, their rights, actor Reem Kadem has said.

The actor along with the cast and crew of the film was taking part at a meet-the-press here on Saturday.

Ms. Kadem, who is a Hollywood actor with roots in Iraq, said what happened to Naval happened to women around the world.

Actor Adil Hussain was all praise for director Renjilal Damodaran, saying the latter knew exactly what he wanted from the actors.

It was an important story to be told in todays India, he said.

Mr. Damodaran said the film, set in Iran, was about a 23-year-old woman Naval, an Iranian with a Malayali mother. Naval, played by Reem, is the product of a Malabari wedding her elderly father from Iran had married her mother Asma Beevi (played by Swetha Menon) when she was only 13.

In Iran, she gives birth to a girl. The father dies four years later.

In the film, Naval is shown being denied justice. Naval goes to jail in connection with a murder, and the court sentences her to be hanged to death. Naval, however, does not protest against the verdict.

Anu Sithara plays a young Swetha Menon. The screenplay is by V.K. Ajithkumar and Mr. Damodaran. The producer is Cyriac Mathew Alancheril. Lyrics are by Rafeek Ahmed and 15-year-old Kavyamayee, and music by M. Jayachandran.

View post:

Every woman's quest for rights, freedom - The Hindu

Virgin Media Ireland targets students with Freedom TV – Irish Times

Virgin Media Irelands Elvis preaches the merits of flexible contracts in a Las Vegas wedding chapel in an image from its new advertising campaign. Photograph: David Sexton

Virgin Media Ireland will woo students and other contract-averse customers with a new slimline television service called Freedom TV that requires only 30 days notice to cancel.

The move by the Liberty Global-owned company is the latest sign that pay-TV companies in Ireland are being forced to rethink their approach to recruiting younger customers.

Freedom TV, which costs 20 a month, includes a basic pack of 20 channels and mobile app Virgin TV Anywhere.

From Tuesday it will be marketed with a creatively risky television advertisement set in a Las Vegas wedding chapel.

This is our way of understanding this part of the market. Apps and streaming are at the heart of it, said Virgin Media Irelands vice-president of commercial Paul Farrell.

Streaming volumes on Virgin TV Anywhere have been rising at a rate of 8 per cent a month this year, Mr Farrell said, but some 95 per cent of app usage relates to people streaming on devices within the home, rather than out and about.

This suggests that a younger generation of viewers does not necessarily need a traditional television screen to watch content. Nor are they only watching linear television: the spot held by Netflix, which is integrated into Virgins electronic programme guide, is one of our top five channels, Mr Farrell said.

Virgins regular broadband and television services are subject to an initial 12-month contract.

Its move follows the April arrival on the Irish market of Skys Now TV, a no strings over-the-top streaming service that charges fees for monthly passes to entertainment, movies and sport.

Sky, which is 39 per cent owned by Rupert Murdochs News Corp and the subject of a bid for full ownership, said its research had found that a contract can be a barrier for people.

Younger people who dont own a television set are one of the key targets for Now TV.

In the US market, cord-cutting has been a marked feature for several years, with consumers dropping cable services and often replacing them with a combination of streaming devices such as the Roku player and cheaper subscription services such as Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime.

Freedom TV also follows the launch last year of Virgins Freedom Broadband, another 30-day notice product.

This was really aimed at students, Mr Farrell said, with users tending to cut their service at the end of term when they went home to their parents households or travelled abroad for the summer.

At the moment, the 20-channel pack is the only one available under the Freedom TV model, but Virgin hasnt ruled out extending its flexibility to its bigger channel packs.

Subscribers may have to wait some time before they regain access to Eir Sport through the Virgin platform, however. The service has not been available to Virgin customers since last summer when the two companies fell out over the wholesale price Eir sought to charge Virgin.

Glen Killane, the managing director of Eir Sport and Eir TV, recently told The Irish Times he would love to re-engage in conversation with Virgin but that it has to be fair deal.

But Virgin said it was unwilling to ask its customers to subsidise an Eir business model in which Eir gives Eir Sport free to its broadband users.

Were more than happy to meet Glen at any stage, but the reality is were never going to subsidise Eirs business, Mr Farrell said.

Virgin Media Ireland, previously known as UPC Ireland, saw its television customer base drop below 300,000 in the first quarter of 2017, continuing a pattern of decline in recent years.

Liberty Global publishes its second-quarter earnings after the close of US markets on Monday.

Follow this link:

Virgin Media Ireland targets students with Freedom TV - Irish Times

Blue green algae closes swim beaches on Keuka Lake – MPNnow.com

The beaches will remain closed until the state Department of Health clears the area for swimming.

As of Friday, swim beaches on Keuka Lake Indian Pines, Red Jacket, and the Keuka Lake State Park swimming areas are closed due to the presence of blue green algae.

While conditions can change based on wind and weather, the beaches will remain closed until the state Department of Health clears the area for swimming.

Earlier this summer, the Sandy Bottom swim beach on Honeoye Lake in Ontario County was also closed due to blue green algae.

According to public health officials: Blue-green algae occur naturally in bodies of water in low numbers. During prolonged hot weather algae can become abundant, discoloring water and forming scums-particularly in warm, shallow areas. Some blue-green algae produce toxins. These pose health risks to people and animals if exposed in large enough quantities. Symptoms of toxin exposure may include allergic reactions or eye, skin, nose, and throat irritation. Ingesting large amounts of water containing blue-green algae toxins has resulted in liver and nervous system damage in laboratory animals, pets, livestock and people.

People, pets and livestock should avoid contact with water that has scums on the surface or is discolored-blue-green, yellow, brown or red. If contact does occur, wash with soap and water or rinse thoroughly with clean water. Swimming, bathing or showering with water not visibly affected by a blue-green algae bloom is not expected to cause health effects. If symptoms of toxin exposure develop, stop using the water and seek medical attention.

Individuals should not drink untreated surface water. Home boiling, disinfecting (chlorine or UV), and filtering do not remove algal toxins. When using surface water to wash dishes, rinse with bottled water. In addition to toxins, untreated surface water may contain bacteria, parasites or viruses known to cause illness.

For more information, including information in Spanish, go to:

Follow this link:

Blue green algae closes swim beaches on Keuka Lake - MPNnow.com

Heatwave makes Istanbul beaches wildly popular – Daily Sabah

A heatwave coupled with aggravated humidity pushed many in the concrete jungle of Istanbul to find a calm shelter yesterday. As temperatures rose to 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit), anyone with a car and free time flocked to the city's beaches near the Marmara and Black Sea.

ile beach on the Istanbul shore of the Black Sea was so popular among locals that getting to the previously serene beach proved disastrous for many stuck in traffic amid the suffocating heat, only struggle to find an empty spot on the overcrowded beach upon arrival.

Meteorologists warn against unusually high temperatures and suffocating humidity, with 35-degree temperatures to become a norm throughout the week, saying citizens should avoid direct exposure to the sun that could lead to sunstroke. The new weather pattern comes only two weeks after a string of unprecedented rainstorms that drenched the city.

The General Directorate of Meteorology said the temperatures, already above the seasonal norms, will soar in the first 10 days of August, with a felt temperature as high as 40 degrees Celsius in the afternoon hours coupled wit

h a considerable decrease in wind speed.

Experts warn that the heatwave may impact both those with chronic illnesses and healthy individuals. They say that lack of green spaces in cities has led to a decrease in oxygen levels and therefore, to chronic fatigue, a risk in the heatwaves. Long exposures to sun and inaction, especially during long hours spent in traffic jams, pose a threat to healthy persons.

More:

Heatwave makes Istanbul beaches wildly popular - Daily Sabah

Family astronomy day coming to MSU center in Midland – Midland Daily News

The sun and moon will be the topics of a program at 10 a.m. Monday, Aug. 14, at the MSU St. Andrews Center, 1910 W. St. Andrews Road (the next driveway west of the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library).

The program will begin with a short presentation describing different telescopes, along with information on the sun and the moon, including some discussion of eclipses. An observation session will follow as participants view the sun through a telescope, using special filters designed for solar viewing. People never should look at the sun through a telescope without a solar filter.

Participants should be able to see sunspots if they are in view asa well as the effects of earth's atmosphere as it warms up during the day.

The moon will also be in the sky that morning. People can compare daytime vs. nighttime viewing. That day, the moon will be in last quarter phase. Many craters will be visible, as well as some of the lunar "seas" and the "Ocean of Storms."

The program is recommended for elementary-age children and above, and their families, but all are welcome. There is no cost.

This program is made possible in part by support from the Dow Chemical Co. Foundation.

In case of clouds or bad weather, the event will move to 10 a.m. Wednesday, Aug. 16.

Originally posted here:

Family astronomy day coming to MSU center in Midland - Midland Daily News

Artificial Intelligence will lead to the human soul, not destroy it | Fox … – Fox News

Elon Musk famously equated Artifical Intelligence with summoning the demon and sounds the alarm that AI is advancing faster than anyone realizes, posing an existential threat to humanity. Stephen Hawking has warned that AI could take off and leave the human race, limited by evolutions slow pace, in the dust. Bill Gates counts himself in the camp concerned about super intelligence. And, although Mark Zuckerburg is dismissive about AIs potential threat, Facebook recently shut down an AI engine after reportedly discovering that it had created a new language humans cant understand.

Concerns about AI are entirely logical if all that exists is physical matter. If so, itd be inevitable that AI -- designed by our intelligence but built on a better platform than biochemistry -- would exceed human capabilities that arise by chance.

In fact, in a purely physical world, fully-realized AI should be recognized as the appropriate outcome of natural selection; we humans should benefit from it while we can. After all, sooner or later, humanity will cease to exist, whether from the sun running out or something more mundane including AI-driven extinction. Until then, wouldnt it be better to maximize human flourishing with the help of AI rather than forgoing its benefits in hopes of extending humanitys end date?

As possible as all this might seem, in actuality, what we know about the human mind strongly suggests that full AI will not happen. Physical matter alone is not capable of producing whole, subjective experiences, such as watching a sunset while listening to sea gulls, and the mechanisms proposed to address the known shortfalls of matter vs. mind, such as emergent properties, are inadequate and falsifiable. Therefore, it is highly probable that we have immaterial minds.

Deep down, we all know were more than biological robots. Thats why almost everyone rebels against materialisms implications. We dont act as though we believe everything is ultimately meaningless.

Granted, forms of AI are already achieving impressive results. These use brute force, huge and fast memory, rules-based automation, and layers of pattern matching to perform their extraordinary feats. But this processing is not aware, perceiving, feeling, cognition. The processing doesnt go beyond its intended activities even if the outcomes are unpredictable. Technology based on this level of AI will often be quite remarkable and definitely must be managed well to avoid dangerous repercussions. However, in and of itself, this AI cannot lead to a true replication of the human mind.

Full AI that is, artificial intelligence capable of matching and perhaps exceeding the human mind -- cannot be achieved unless we discover, via material means, the basis for the existence of immaterial minds, and then learn how to confer that on machines. In philosophy the underlying issue is known as the qualia problem. Our awareness of external objects and colors; our self-consciousness; our conceptual understanding of time; our experiences of transcendence whether simple awe in front of beauty or mathematical truth; or our mystical states, all clearly point to something that is qualitatively different from the material world. Anyone with a decent understanding of physics, computer science and the human mind ought to be able to know this, especially those most concerned about AIs possibilities.

That those who fear AI dont see its limitations indicates that even the best minds fall victim to their biases. We should be cautious about believing that exceptional achievements in some areas translate to exceptional understanding in others. For too many including some in the media -- the mantra, question everything, applies only within certain boundaries. They never question methodological naturalism -- the belief that there is nothing that exists outside the material world -- which blinds them to other possibilities. Even with what seems like more open-minded thinking, some people seem to suffer from a lack of imagination or will. For example, Peter Thiel believes that the human mind and computers are deeply different yet doesnt acknowledge that implies that the mind comprises more than physical matter. Thomas Nagle believes that consciousness could not have arisen via materialistic evolution yet explicitly limits the implications of that because he doesnt want God to exist.

Realizing that we have immaterial minds, i.e. genuine souls, is far more important than just speculating on AIs future. Without immaterial minds, there is no sustainable basis for believing in human exceptionalism. When human life is viewed only through a materialistic lens, it gets valued based on utility. No wonder the young nones young Americans who dont identify with a religion think their lives are meaningless and some begin to despair. It is time to understand that evolution is not a strictly material process but one in which the immaterial mind plays a major role in human, and probably all sentient creatures, adaption and selection.

Deep down, we all know were more than biological robots. Thats why almost everyone rebels against materialisms implications. We dont act as though we believe everything is ultimately meaningless.

Were spiritual creatures, here by intent, living in a world where the supernatural is the norm; each and every moment of our lives is our souls in action. Immaterial ideas shape the material world and give it true meaning, not the other way around.

In the end, the greatest threat that humans face is a failure to recognize what we really are.

If were lucky, what people learn in the pursuit of full AI will lead us to the re-discovery of the human soul, where it comes from, and the important understanding that goes along with that.

Bruce Buff is a management consultant and the author of the acclaimed scientific-spiritual thriller The Soul of the Matter (Simon & Schuster).

Follow this link:

Artificial Intelligence will lead to the human soul, not destroy it | Fox ... - Fox News

Explainer: What is artificial intelligence? – ABC Online

Updated August 07, 2017 12:02:45

Artificial intelligence has jumped from sci-fi movie plots into mainstream news headlines in just a couple of years.

And the headlines are often contradictory. AI is either a technological leap into greater prosperity or mass unemployment; it will either be our most valuable servant or terrifying master.

But what is AI, how does it work, and what are the benefits and the concerns?

AI is a computer system that can do tasks that humans need intelligence to do.

"An intelligent computer system could be as simple as a program that plays chess or as complex as a driverless car," Mary-Anne Williams, professor of social robotics at the University of Technology, Sydney, said.

A driverless car, for example, relies on multiple sensors to understand where it is and what's around it. These include speed, location, direction and 360-degree vision. Based on those inputs, among others, the "intelligent" computer system controls the car by deciding, like a human would, when to turn the steering and when to accelerate or brake.

Then there's machine learning, a subset of AI, which involves teaching computer programs to learn by finding patterns in data. The more data, the more the computer system improves.

"Whether it's recognizing objects, identifying people in photos, reading lung scans or transcribing spoken mandarin, if we pick a narrow task like that [and] we give it enough data, the computer learns to do it as well as, if not better, than us," University of New South Wales professor of artificial intelligence Toby Walsh said.

AI doesn't have to sleep or make the same mistake twice. It can also access vast troves of digital data in seconds. Our brains cannot.

Yes, probably every day.

AI is in your smart phone; it's there every time you ask a question of iPhone's Siri or Amazon's Alexa. It's in your satellite navigation system and instant translation apps.

AI algorithms recognise your speech, provide search results, help sort your emails and recommend what you should buy, watch or read.

"AI is the new electricity," according to Andrew Ng, former chief scientist at Baidu, one of the leading Chinese web services companies. AI will increasingly be all around you from your phone to your TV, car and home appliances.

Four factors have now converged to push AI beyond games and into our everyday lives and workplaces:

The term artificial intelligence was first coined in 1956 by US computer scientist John McCarthy. Until recently, the public mostly heard about AI in Hollywood movies like The Terminator or whenever it defeated a human in a competition.

In 1997, IBM's Deep Blue computer beat Russian chess master Garry Kasparov. In 2011, IBM's supercomputer Watson beat human players on the US game show Jeopardy. Last year, Google's AlphaGo beat Go master Lee Sedol.

"We now have the compute power, the data, the algorithms and a lot of people working on the problems," Professor Walsh said.

AI promises spectacular benefits for humanity, including better and more precise medical diagnosis and treatment; relieving the drudgery and danger of repetitive and dehumanising jobs; and super-charging decision making and problem solving.

"Driverless cars could save many, many lives because 95 per cent of accidents are due to human error," Professor Walsh said.

"Many of the problems that are stressing our planet today will be tackled through having better decision making with computers" that access and analyse vast troves of data, he said.

There are a range of concerns:

Experts are famously split on this.

Prominent tech entrepreneurs and scientists such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking, among others, warn that AI could reach and quickly surpass humans, transforming into super-intelligence that would render us the second most intelligent species on the planet.

Musk has compared it to "summoning the demon". Scientists call it singularity, "where machines improve themselves almost without end," Professor Walsh said.

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg accuses Musk of being alarmist. Professor Walsh says we don't yet even fully understand all the facets of human intelligence and there may be limits to how far AI can develop.

He's surveyed 300 of his AI colleagues around the world and most believe if AI can reach human level intelligence, it is at least 50 to 100 years away.

If it happens, humanity will likely have already solved most of the problems about whether the machines' values are aligned with ours. "I'm not so worried about that," he says.

The recent push into AI came from big US tech companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Apple. And the US military. What could go wrong?

There's growing concern that these companies are too big and control too much data, which trains the AI algorithms.

China has now also joined the race with plans to dominate the world in AI development by 2030.

There's presently very little national or international regulation around how AI is developed. The Big Tech companies have begun discussing the need for guiding principles to ensure AI is only used for public good.

"One of those is what is the point of AI? It has to be to augment people, to support people, not replace them," Microsoft Australia national technology officer James Kavanagh says.

"Secondly, it has to be democratised. It can't be in the hands of a small number of technology companies.

"Thirdly, it has to be built on foundations of trust. We need to be able to understand any biases in algorithms and how they make decisions."

Topics: robots-and-artificial-intelligence, science-and-technology, australia

First posted August 07, 2017 06:02:12

Original post:

Explainer: What is artificial intelligence? - ABC Online

Why Japan will profit the most from artificial intelligence – South China Morning Post

A resident of the Silver Wing Social Care elderly care home in Tokyos Chuo Ward chats happily to a staff member in the facilitys communal area, while in a nearby room another senior is being helped by a rehabilitation specialist to walk again after a fall last month. These workers never take a day off, never complain and dont need to be paid, for they are robots.

Silver Wing Social Care provides a glimpse into the future of Japan and indeed other industrialised nations as they follow its path to ageing societies and labour shortages. The companys flagship care facility began using robots to help care for residents four years ago after being selected by the city government as a test project.

Japan is entering uncharted territory for a modern economy. A consistently low birth rate has shrunk the working-age population by around 10 million since its mid-1990s peak, with another 20 million set to disappear from workplaces in the coming decades. The situation is becoming critical, with nearly 1.5 vacancies for every jobseeker and chronic shortages in sectors such as nursing care, manufacturing, construction and parcel delivery.

At a time when the government is pressuring companies to cut infamously long working hours, raise wages and ensure holidays are taken, and in a country still unwilling to countenance mass immigration, robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) look to be the only solutions.

We tried out various kinds of robots to see which would work best for us. Weve gradually increased their use and now have 20 different models operating, including robots for nursing care, rehabilitation, communication and recreation, explains Silver Wings Yukari Sekiguchi, who oversees the programme.

The companys staff used to regularly injure their backs lifting residents, leading to them being off work or quitting the profession altogether, a major problem given the tight labour market. Workers can now use robots they stand inside to help them do such heavy lifting.

A lot of people thought that elderly people would be scared or uncomfortable with robots, but they are actually very interested and interact naturally with them. They really enjoy talking to them and their motivation goes up when they use the rehabilitation robots, helping them to walk again more quickly, says Sekiguchi.

Japan may be the best-placed country to cope with the advance of automation its likely to cause less unemployment than elsewhere, given the shortage of workers and lifetime employment practises. Unemployment has fallen to 2.8 per cent and a record-high 97.6 per cent of new university graduates found jobs by the start of the business year in April.

The situation should be a boon for workers, but gains are being distributed unequally. Despite the tight labour market and many companies logging record profits, wage inflation remains stubbornly sluggish.

There is a shortage of manual workers, but an excess of white-collar workers, especially middle-aged men, says Naohiro Yashiro, a labour economist and dean of the Global Business Department Showa Womens University in Tokyo.

The government has set an inflation target, but its not happening yet. My explanation of this mystery is there is a kind of structural reform going on. The seniority based wage system, whereby employees wages in Japan rise rapidly with their age is not sustainable anymore, with the ageing of the population, says Yashiro, an adviser on labour economics to three prime ministers.

Companies are thus trying to halt automatic salary raises for workers in their 40s and 50s, and increase pay for younger ones, with one largely offsetting the other, according to Yashiro.

It is these mid-level workers who would normally be most at threat from the oncoming wave of robotics, AI and other new technologies. But in Japan, they should be saved from unemployment, if not wage stagnation, according to Dr Martin Schulz, senior economist at the Fujitsu Research Institute.

Much of the debate about automation squeezing workers out of the labour market is not an issue in Japan. Wages at the lower end wont be squeezed much because automation is costly, so the cheapest workers wont be replaced. At the top end, people with skills are usually helped by digitalisation because they benefit from new systems, says Schulz.

The squeeze would be at the mid-level. But they are comparatively protected in Japan by labour regulations. So they are not hit as hard as they are in, for example, the UK or US, where we are seeing political disruptions as a result of this, says Schulz, referring to the Brexit vote and election of Donald Trump.

But neither the governments employment reforms nor automation are the solution to Japans labour problems, according to Toyonori Sugita, owner of Daimaru Seisakusho, a metalworking factory just outside Tokyo.

If we put up wages and reduced hours as the government is suggesting, wed go bankrupt. But the shortage of workers in technical industries is terrible now, says Sugita, who is looking at bringing back skilled workers in their 70s.

Automation isnt the answer either. The type of work that can be automated is going overseas to other Asian countries; work that requires high levels of technical skills is what remains in Japan and can be profitable, says Sugita.

We need more workers from overseas, from the Philippines and places like that. If the government is going to do something, it should promote that, adds Sugita.

But with advocating mass immigration still seen as political suicide in Japan, the march of the robots looks set to continue.

Continued here:

Why Japan will profit the most from artificial intelligence - South China Morning Post

Suicide Rate Hit 40-Year Peak Among Older Teen Girls In 2015 – LEX18 Lexington KY News

(CNN)-- The suicide rate among girls between the ages of 15 and 19 reached a 40-year high in 2015, according tonew data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

In the shorter term, the suicide rate for those girls doubled between 2007 and 2015, the research indicates.

By comparison, the 2015 suicide rate for boys in this age group was lower than in the peak years of the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s. The researchers derived suicide rates from official data from death certificates.

"These data show that between 2007 and 2015, there's substantial increases in suicide rates for both young males and young females," said Tom Simon, an author of the report and associate director for science in the division of violence protection at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published the new data Thursday.

"For young males, there was a 31% increase in suicide rates, and for young females, the suicide rate doubled," Simon said.

Potential factors

Specifically, the suicide rate for males between 15 and 19 increased from 12 per 100,000 population in 1975 to 18.1 per 100,000 in 1990. It then declined to 10.8 per 100,000 by 2007 and then increased again to 14.2 per 100,000 by 2015.

Among females, the suicide rate increased from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1975 to 3.7 per 100,000 in 1990, dipped to 2.4 per 100,000 in 2007 and then spiked to 5.1 per 100,000 in 2015.

"We know that overall in the US, we're seeing increases in suicide rates across all age groups," Simon said, putting the new report in perspective.

"We're not seeing the same kind of increases among the oldest adults, but we are seeing substantial and sustained increases now for the other age groups really going back to 2000," he said, adding that the the pattern is "pretty robust."

Carl Tishler, an adjunct associate professor of psychology and psychiatry at the Ohio State University who was not involved in the report, said the high suicide rates among older teens in 2015 "could be the result of a lot of things."

"Some of the opiate or heroin overdoses in adolescents may be interpreted by emergency departments as suicides. There may be more Internet suicides," Tishler said.

Simon said it's "unlikely" that increases in suicide rates are due to any single factor. Possible risk factors for suicide include a history of substance abuse, exposure to violence, social isolation, conflict within relationships, stigma and a lack of available support.

Simon suggested that the lingering effects of the Great Recession in the late 2000s may have contributed to stress within families, causing anxiety in teens.

"In times of economic prosperity, suicide rates go down," he said. "In times of economic instability, suicide rates go up."

Gender differences

Social media can have either negative or positive effects, Simon said. Cyberbullying and harmful content might push a vulnerable teen toward self-harm, yet "social media can help increase connections between people, and it's an opportunity to correct myths about suicide and to allow people to access prevention resources and materials."

Dorian A. Lamis, an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Emory University School of Medicine/Grady Health System, theorized that use of social media and cyberbullying may affect teenage girls more than boys, resulting in rising suicide deaths among older teen girls.

"Some research has suggested that the timing of puberty in girls is a contributing factor for the increased suicide rate," said Lamis, who was not involved in the new research. Puberty starts as early as 8 in some girls. The psychosocial and physical changes may leave girls "vulnerable to depression, anxiety and other psychiatric disorders earlier on in life." These known risk factors for suicide may catch up with a girl as she grows older.

Tishler noted thatprevious studiesfrom the CDC have indicated that males take their own lives at nearly four times the rate of females and thus represent 77.9% of all suicides. Yet females are more likely than males to have suicidal thoughts.

"If you look at suicide attempts by girls, it's typically that girls attempt suicide about four to one or three to one over boys, yet boys complete suicide in the reverse," Tishler said. "That tends, we think, to have to do with the modality of suicide attempt."

Simon noted that in this older teen age group, the primary method chosen by boys is firearms, yet for girls, the most common method is suffocation. Still, a significant number of females may choose to poison themselves with anoverdose, which can be remediated in an ER in some cases, Tishler said.

He theorized that girls now have access to pills that may be more lethal -- or more quickly lethal -- than those available to girls in the past, and this may have contributed to the rising rate of suicide deaths among teen girls. Similarly, Lamis conjectured that girls may have access to "more lethal methods in their suicide attempts, resulting in an increased number of deaths."

The new report also does not indicate how many of the teens who completed suicide were in treatment with a medical health professional and how many were receiving medication for depression or other mental illness, Tishler said. He added that he's convinced that the quickness to start or change these medications, which are categorized as psychotropic, "is done in such a manner that makes people more vulnerable to attempting suicide."

"Physicians need to be careful" when increasing, starting or stopping psychotropic medications, because this may "give someone energy to die by suicide," Tishler said.

One symptom of depression can be psychomotor retardation, which medication reduces, helping people become more active. They may attempt more activities to do better in school or to be more social. The medicines may give depressed teens more energy to plan and follow through with a suicide attempt or die by suicide.Psychotropic drugsalso can change mental status and in some cases may increase suicidal thoughts, which is why some of them come with warnings.

"The message for parents, teachers, coaches and religious leaders is to not be afraid to talk to a young person when they are concerned," Simon said. He added that anyone contemplating suicide or concerned for another should reach out to theNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

Original post:
Suicide Rate Hit 40-Year Peak Among Older Teen Girls In 2015 - LEX18 Lexington KY News

Kashmiri doctor helps gene editing of human embryos in US – Hindustan Times

For the first time, genetically modified human embryos have been developed in the US and Kashmir-born doctor Sanjeev Kaul has played a lead role in this breakthrough.

Scientists have now demonstrated an effective way of using a gene-editing tool to correct a disease-causing gene mutation in human embryos and stop it from passing to future generations.

Though this is not a full-fledged start of a revolution of having designer babies, the first steps, however, have been laid. China attempted this earlier.

A team of scientists has altered human embryos using a new technique called CRISPR CAS9 that edits genes and in this case it helped remove a fatal mutation that leads to heart attacks.

This now opens up an ethical Pandoras Box if germline repairs and enhancements may become a thing in vogue.

As of now, the human embryos were not implanted in humans. But this now opens up exciting prospects of the world having designer babies soon.

The research published in British journal Nature shows the first genetically modified human embryos made in America.

A team of South Korean, Chinese and American scientists has identified how they could edit out a faulty gene that causes heart attacks in later life due to the thickening of heart walls.

One of the team members is Dr Kaul, who was born in Kashmir, studied in New Delhi and later immigrated to America.

Although the rare heart mutation affects men and women of all ages, it is a common cause of sudden cardiac arrest in young people, and it could be eliminated in one generation in a particular family, said co-author Kaul, a professor of medicine (cardiovascular medicine) in the OHSU School of Medicine and director of the OHSU Knight Cardiovascular Institute.

Thanks to advances in stem cell technologies and gene editing, we are finally starting to address disease-causing mutations that impact potentially millions of people, says Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, a professor in California-based Salk Institutes Gene Expression Laboratory and a corresponding author of the paper.

Gene editing is still in its infancy so even though this preliminary effort was found to be safe and effective, it is crucial that we continue to proceed with the utmost caution, paying the highest attention to ethical considerations.

CRISPR CAS9 or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats is a kind of a precise molecular scissor the scientists use to edit faulty genes.

Only selected healthy embryos were allowed to grow further that too only for a few days. The embryos were not implanted in humans.

The big step forward is that a higher percentage embryos were found to have been repaired in this American experiment than earlier attempts.

CRISPR holds promise for correcting mutations in the human genome to prevent genetic disease. Using an enzyme called Cas9, it is possible to snip a specific target sequence on a mutant gene.

The new study found that human embryos effectively repair these breaks in the mutant gene using the normal copy of this gene from a second parent as a template.

The resulting embryos contain now repaired, mutation-free copies of this gene.

The technique already has been used in animals for generating mutant models; however, the new study is the first to demonstrate that technique can be used in human embryos to convert mutant genes back to normal.

The study also demonstrated a way for overcoming a crucial problem in genome editing in embryos known as mosaicism.

Mosaicism refers to an outcome when not all cells in a multicellular embryo get repaired and some cells still carry a mutation.

Every generation on would carry this repair because we have removed the disease-causing gene variant from that familys lineage, said senior author Shoukhrat Mitalipov, PhD, who directs the Center for Embryonic Cell and Gene Therapy at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), in Portland, Oregon, USA.

By using this technique, it is possible to reduce the burden of this heritable disease on the family and eventually the human population.

The study provides new insight into a technique that could apply to thousands of inherited genetic disorders affecting millions of people worldwide.

The gene-editing technique described in this study, done in concert with in vitro fertilisation, could provide a new avenue for people with known heritable disease-causing genetic mutations to eliminate the risk of passing the disease to their children.

If proven safe, this technique could potentially decrease the number of cycles needed for people trying to have children free of genetic disease, said co-author Paula Amato, associate professor of obstetrics and gynaecology in the OHSU School of Medicine.

Designer babies could be in the offing.

Our results demonstrate the great potential of embryonic gene editing, but we must continue to realistically assess the risks as well as the benefits, adds Belmonte.

In this landmark study, the researchers worked with healthy donated human oocytes and sperm carrying the genetic mutation that causes cardiomyopathy or the thickening of heart walls.

Embryos created in this study were used to answer pre- clinical questions about safety and effectiveness. The study noted that genome editing approaches must be further optimised before moving to clinical trials.

This research significantly advances scientific understanding of the procedures that would be necessary to ensure the safety and efficacy of germline gene correction, said Daniel Dorsa, senior vice president for research at OHSU.

The ethical considerations of moving this technology to clinical trials are complex and deserve significant public engagement before we can answer the broader question of whether its in humanitys interest to alter human genes for future generations.

Existing ethical guidelines did not permit the team to implant the genetically modified human embryos into women.

See the rest here:
Kashmiri doctor helps gene editing of human embryos in US - Hindustan Times

Don’t fear the rise of superbabies. Worry about who will own genetic engineering technology. – Chicago Tribune

Seen any clone armies in your backyard lately? Probably not. This might surprise you if you are old enough to remember the ethical panic that greeted the birth of Dolly the sheep, the first mammal cloned from an adult cell, in Scotland 21 years ago.

The cloned creature set off a crazy overreaction, with fears of clone armies, re-creating the dead, and a host of other horrors, monsters, abuses and terrors none of which has come to pass. That is why it is so important, amid all the moral hand-wringing about what could happen as human genetic engineering emerges, to keep our ethical eye on the right ball. Freaking out over impending superbabies and mutant humans with the powers of comic book characters is not what is needed.

An international team of scientists, led by researchers at the Oregon Health and Science University, has used genetic engineering on human sperm and a pre-embryo. The group is doing basic research to figure out if new forms of genetic engineering might be able to prevent or repair terrible hereditary diseases.

How close are they to making freakish superpeople using their technology? About as close as we are to traveling intergalactically using current rocket technology.

So what should we be worrying about as this rudimentary but promising technique tries to get off the launch pad?

First and foremost, oversight of what is going on. Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has banned federal funding for genetic engineering of sperm, eggs, pre-embryos or embryos. That means everything goes on in the private or philanthropic world here or overseas, without much guidance. We need clear rules with teeth to keep anyone from trying to go too fast or deciding to try to cure anything in an embryo intended to become an actual human being without rock-solid safety data.

Second, we need to determine who should own the techniques for genetic engineering. Important patent fights are underway among the technology's inventors. That means people smell lots of money. And that means it is time to talk about who gets to own what and charge what, lest we reinvent the world of the $250,000 drug in this area of medicine.

Finally, human genetic engineering needs to be monitored closely: all experiments registered, all data reported on a public database and all outcomes good and bad made available to all scientists and anyone else tracking this area of research. Secrecy is the worst enemy that human genetic engineering could possibly have.

Let your great-great-grandkids fret about whether they want to try to make a perfect baby. Today we need to worry about who will own genetic engineering technology, how we can oversee what is being done with it and how safe it needs to be before it is used to try to prevent or fix a disease.

That is plenty to worry about.

Arthur L. Caplan is head of the division of medical ethics at the New York University School of Medicine.

More:
Don't fear the rise of superbabies. Worry about who will own genetic engineering technology. - Chicago Tribune

Experts Call on US to Start Funding Scientists to Genetically Engineer Human Embryos – Gizmodo

Edited human embryos. Image: OHSYU

This week, news of a major scientific breakthrough brought a debate over genetically engineering humans front and center. For the first time ever, scientists genetically engineered a human embryo on American soil in order to remove a disease-causing mutation. It was the fourth time ever that such a feat has been published on, and with the most success to date. It may still be a long way off, but it seems likely that one day we will indeed have to grapple with the sticky, complicated philosophical mess of whether, and in which cases, genetically engineering a human being is morally permissible.

On the heels of this news, on Thursday a group of 11 genetics groups released policy recommendations for whats known as germline editingor altering the human genome in such a way that those changes could be passed down to future generations. The statement, from groups including the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said that doctors should not yet entertain implanting an altered embryo in a human womb, a step which would be against the law in the United States. But they also argued that there is no reason not to use public money to fund basic research on human germline editing, contrary to a National Institutes of Health policy that has banned funding research involving editing human embryo DNA.

Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing, they wrote. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research.

Safety, ethical concerns and the impact germline editing might have on societal inequality, they wrote, would all have to be worked out before such technology is ready for the clinic.

Genetic disease, once a universal common denominator, could instead become an artifact of class, geographic location, and culture, they wrote. In turn, reduced incidence and reduced sense of shared risk could affect the resources available to individuals and families dealing with genetic conditions.

If and when embryo editing is ready for primetime, the group concluded that there would need to be a good medical reason to use such technology, as well as a transparent public debate. Some have questioned the medical necessity of embryo editing, arguing that genetic screening combined with in vitro fertilization could allow doctors to simply pick disease-free eggs to implant, achieving the same results via a method that is less morally-fraught.

In February, the National Academy of Sciences released a 261-page report that also gave a cautious green light to human gene-editing, endorsing the practice for purposes of curing disease and for basic research, but determining that uses such as creating designer babies are unethical. Other nations, like China and the UK, have forged ahead with human embryo editing for basic research, though there have been no published accounts of research past the first few days of early embryo development.

Given the way the culture, religion and regional custom impact attitudes toward genetically-engineering human life, its safe to say that this debate will not be an easy one to settle. As the policy recommendations point out, views on the matter vary drastically not just across the US, but around the world, and yet one nation making the decision to go ahead with implanting edited embryos will create a world in which that technology exists for everyone.

In the meantime, though, there are still more than a few kinks to work out in the science before were faced with these questions in the real world.

Read the original here:
Experts Call on US to Start Funding Scientists to Genetically Engineer Human Embryos - Gizmodo

Genetic Engineering with ‘Strict Guidelines?’ Ha! – National Review

Human genetic engineering is moving forward exponentially and we are still not having any meaningful societal, regulatory, or legislative conversations about whether, how, and to what extent we should permit the human genome to be altered in ways that flow down the generations.

But dont worry. The scientists assure us, when that can be done, there will (somehow) beSTRICT OVERSIGHT From the AP story:

And lots more research is needed to tell if its really safe, added Britains Lovell-Badge. He and Kahn were part of a National Academy of Sciences report earlier this year that said if germline editing ever were allowed, it should be only for serious diseases with no good alternatives and done with strict oversight.

Please!No more! When I laugh this hard it makes mystomach hurt.

Heres the problem: Strict guidelines rarely are strict and the almost never permanently protect. Theyare ignored, unenforced, or stretched over time until they, essentially, cease to exist.

Thats awful with actions such as euthanasia. But wecant let that kind of pretense rule the day withtechnologies that could prove to be among themost powerful and potentially destructive inventions in human history. Indeed, other than nuclear weapons, I cant think of a technology with more destructive potential.

Strict oversight will have to include legal limitations and clear boundaries, enforced bystiff criminalpenalties, civil remedies, and international protocols.

They wont be easy to craft and it will take significant time to work through all of the scientific and ethical conundrums.

But we havent made a beginning. If we wait until what may be able to be done actually can be done, it will be too late.

Wheres the leadership? All we have now is drift.

See the article here:
Genetic Engineering with 'Strict Guidelines?' Ha! - National Review

Editing the human genome brings us one step closer to consumer eugenics – The Guardian

Hope for families with genetic conditions, and scientific breakthrough: that is how headlines are proclaiming a project that modified human embryos to remove mutations that cause heart failure. But anyone who has concerns about such research is often subjected to moral blackmail. We are regularly lumped in with religious reactionaries or anti-abortion campaigners.

The medical justification for spending millions on such research is thin: it would be better spent on developing cures

I am neither. If you peel away the hype, the truth is that we already have robust ways of avoiding the birth of children with such conditions, where that is appropriate, through genetic testing of embryos. In fact, the medical justification for spending millions of dollars on such research is extremely thin: it would be much better spent on developing cures for people living with those conditions. Its time we provided some critical scrutiny and stopped parroting the gospel of medical progress at all costs.

Where genetic engineering really can do something that embryo selection cannot is in genetic enhancement better known as designer babies. Unfortunately, thats where its real market will be. We have already seen that dynamic at work with the three-parent IVF technique, developed for very rare mitochondrial genetic conditions. Already, a scientist has created babies that way in Mexico (specifically to avoid US regulations) and a company has been set up with the aim of developing the science of designer babies.

Scientists who started their careers hoping to treat sick people and prevent suffering are now earning millions of dollars creating drugs to enhance cognitive performance or performing cosmetic surgery. We already have consumer eugenics in the US egg donor market, where ordinary working-class women get paid $5,000 for their eggs while tall, beautiful Ivy League students get $50,000. The free market effectively results in eugenics. So its not a matter of the law of unintended consequences or of scaremongering the consequences are completely predictable. The burden of proof should be on those who say it wont happen.

Once you start creating a society in which rich peoples children get biological advantages over other children, basic notions of human equality go out the window. Instead, what you get is social inequality written into DNA. Even using low-tech methods, such as those still used in many Asian countries to select out girls (with the result that the world is short of more than 100 million women), the social consequences of allowing prejudices and competitiveness to control which people get born are horrific.

Most enhancements in current use, such as those in cosmetic surgery, are intended to help people conform to expectations created by sexism, racism and ageism. More subtly, but equally profoundly, once we start designing our children to perform the way we want them to, we are erasing the fundamental ethical difference between consumer commodities and human beings. Again, this is not speculation: there is already an international surrogacy market in which babies are bought and sold. The job of parents is to love children unconditionally, however clever/athletic/superficially beautiful they are; not to write our whims and prejudices into their genes.

Its for these reasons that most industrialised countries have had legal bans against human genetic engineering for the last 30 years. Think about that for a moment: its pretty unusual for societies that normally put technological innovation at the centre of their policies to ban technologies before theyre even feasible. There have to be very good reasons for such an unprecedented step, and its not to do with protecting embryos. Its to do with the social consequences.

Genetically modified crops are a good comparison. Faced with a similarly irresponsible absolutism from the scientific community as well as with the obvious competition for fame and profit the green movement and the left felt they had to take the issue of GM food into their own hands. Now it looks like its time to campaign for a global ban on the genetic engineering of people. We must stop this race for the first GM baby.

Dr David King is a former molecular biologist and founder of Human Genetics Alert, an independent secular watchdog group that supports abortion rights

Read the original here:
Editing the human genome brings us one step closer to consumer eugenics - The Guardian

A Blueprint for Genetically Engineering a Super Coral – Smithsonian

A coral reef takes thousands of years to build, yet can vanish in an instant.

The culprit is usuallycoral bleaching, a disease exacerbated by warming watersthat today threatens reefs around the globe. The worst recorded bleaching eventstruck the South Pacific between 2014 and 2016, when rising ocean temperatures followed by a sudden influx of warm El Nio waters traumatizedthe Great Barrier Reef.In just one seasonbleaching decimated nearly a quarter of thevast ecosystem, which once sprawled nearly 150,000 square miles through the Coral Sea.

As awful as it was, that bleaching event was a wake-up call, says Rachel Levin, a molecular biologist who recently proposed a bold technique to save these key ecosystems. Her idea, published in the journal Frontiers in Microbiology, is simple:Rather than finding healthy symbiontsto repopulate bleached coral in nature, engineer them in the lab instead.Given that this would requiretampering with nature in a significant way, the proposal is likely to stir controversial waters.

But Levin argues that with time running out for reefs worldwide, the potential value could wellbe worth the risk.

Levin studied cancer pharmacology as an undergraduate, but became fascinated by the threats facing aquatic life while dabbling in marine science courses. She was struck by the fact that, unlike in human disease research, there were far fewer researchers fighting to restore ocean health. After she graduated, she moved from California to Sydney, Australia to pursue a Ph.D. at the Center for Marine Bio-Innovation in the University of New South Wales, with the hope of applying her expertise in human disease research to corals.

In medicine, it often takes the threat of a serious disease for researchers to try a new and controversial treatment (i.e. merging two womens healthy eggs with one mans sperm to make a three-parent baby).The same holds in environmental scienceto an extent.Like a terrible disease [in] humans, when people realize how dire the situation is becoming researchers start trying to propose much more, Levin says.When it comes to saving the environment, however, there are fewer advocates willing to implementrisky, groundbreaking techniques.

When it comes to reefscrucial marine regions that harbor an astonishing amount of diversity as well as protect land massesfrom storm surges, floods and erosionthat hesitation could be fatal.

Coral bleachingis often presented as the death of coral, which is a little misleading. Actually, its the breakdown of the symbiotic union that enables a coral to thrive. The coral animal itself is like a building developer who constructs the scaffolding of a high rise apartment complex. The developer rents out each of the billions of rooms to single-celled, photosynthetic microbes called Symbiodinium.

But in this case, in exchange for a safe place to live, Symbiodinium makes food for the coral using photosynthesis. A bleached coral, by contrast, is like a deserted building. With no tenants to make their meals, the coral eventually dies.

Though bleaching can be deadly, its actually a clever evolutionary strategy of the coral. The Symbiodinium are expected to uphold their end of the bargain. But when the water gets too warm, they stop photosynthesizing. When that food goes scarce, the coral sends an eviction notice. Its like having a bad tenantyoure going to get rid of what you have and see if you can find better, Levin says.

But as the oceans continue to warm, its harder and harder to find good tenants. That means evictions can be risky. In a warming ocean, the coral animal might die before it can find any better rentersa scenario that has decimated reef ecosystems around the planet.

Levin wanted to solve this problem,by creatinga straightforward recipe for building a super-symbiont that could repopulate bleached corals and help them to persist through climate changeessentially, the perfect tenants. But she had to start small. At the time, there were so many holes and gaps that prevented us from going forward, she says. All I wanted to do was show that we could genetically engineer [Symbiodinium].

Even that would prove to be a tall order. The first challenge was that, despite being a single-celled organism, Symbiodinium has an unwieldy genome. Usually symbiotic organisms have streamlined genomes, since they rely on their hosts for most of their needs. Yet while other species have genomes of around 2 million base pairs, Symbiodiniums genome is 3 orders of magnitude larger.

Theyre humongous, Levin says. In fact, the entire human genome is only slightly less than 3 times as big as Symbiodiniums.

Even after advances in DNA sequencing made deciphering these genomes possible, scientists still had no idea what 80 percent of the genes were for. We needed to backtrack and piece together which gene was doing what in this organism, Levin says. A member of a group of phytoplankton called dinoflagellates, Symbiodinium are incredibly diverse. Levin turned her attention to two key Symbiodinium strains she could grow in her lab.

The first strain, like most Symbiodinium, was vulnerable to the high temperatures that cause coral bleaching. Turn up the heat dial a few notches, and this critter was toast. But the other strain, which had been isolated from the rare corals that live in the warmest environments,seemed to be impervious to heat. If she could figure out how these two strains wielded their genes during bleaching conditions, then she might find the genetic keys to engineering a new super-strain.

When Levin turned up the heat, she saw that the hardySymbiodinium escalated its production of antioxidants and heat shock proteins, which help repair cellular damage caused by heat. Unsurprisingly, the normal Symbiodinium didnt. Levin then turned her attention to figuring out a way to insert more copies of these crucial heat tolerating genes into the weaker Symbiodinium, thereby creating a strain adapted to live with corals from temperate regionsbut with the tools to survive warming oceans.

Getting new DNA into a dinoflagellate cell is no easy task. While tiny, these cells are protected by armored plates, two cell membranes, and a cell wall. You can get through if you push hard enough, Levin says. But then again, you might end up killing the cells. So Levin solicited help from an unlikely collaborator: a virus. After all, viruses have evolved to be able to put their genes into their hosts genomethats how they survive and reproduce, she says.

Levin isolated a virus that infected Symbiodinium, and molecularly altered it it so that it no longer killed the cells. Instead, she engineered it to be a benign delivery system for those heat tolerating genes. In her paper, Levin argues that the viruss payload could use CRISPR, the breakthrough gene editing technique that relies on a natural process used by bacteria, to cut and paste those extra genes into a region of the Symbiodiniums genome where they would be highly expressed.

It sounds straightforward enough. But messing with a living ecosystem is never simple, says says Dustin Kemp, professor of biology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham who studies the ecological impacts of climate change on coral reefs. Im very much in favor of these solutions to conserve and genetically help, says Kemp. But rebuilding reefs that have taken thousands of years to form is going to be a very daunting task.

Considering the staggering diversity of the Symbiodinium strains that live within just one coral species, even if there was a robust system for genetic modification, Kemp wonders if it would ever be possible to engineer enough different super-Symbiodinium to restore that diversity. If you clear cut an old growth forest and then go out and plant a few pine trees, is that really saving or rebuilding the forest? asks Kemp, who was not involved with the study.

But Kemp agrees that reefs are dying at an alarming rate, too fast for the natural evolution of Symbiodinium to keep up. If corals were rapidly evolving to hand
le [warming waters], youd think we would have seen it by now, he says.

Thomas Mock, a marine microbiologist at the University of East Anglia in the UKand a pioneer in genetically modifying phytoplankton, also points out that dinoflagellate biology is still largely enshrouded in mystery. To me this is messing around, he says. But this is how it starts usually. Provocative argument is always goodits very very challenging, but lets get started somewhere and see what we can achieve. Recently, CSIRO, the Australian governments science division, has announced that it will fund laboratories to continue researching genetic modifications in coral symbionts.

When it comes to human healthfor instance, protecting humans from devastating diseases like malaria or Zikascientists have been willing to try more drastic techniques, such as releasing mosquitoes genetically programmed to pass on lethal genes. The genetic modifications needed to save corals, Levin argues, would not be nearly as extreme. She adds that much more controlled lab testing is required before genetically modified Symbiodinium could be released into the environment to repopulate dying corals reefs.

When were talking genetically engineered, were not significantly altering these species, she says. Were not making hugely mutant things. All were trying to do is give them an extra copy of a gene they already have to help them out ... were not trying to be crazy scientists.

More:
A Blueprint for Genetically Engineering a Super Coral - Smithsonian

Does a Declining Sperm Count Spell the End of Humanity? – Newsweek

This article first appeared on the Cato Institute site.

The BBC headline blares, " Sperm count drop 'could make humans extinct.

The story is based on a new systematic review and meta-regression analysis of recent trends in both sperm concentration and total sperm count.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

The study, published in Human Reproduction Update , reports "a significant decline in sperm counts...between 1973 and 2011, driven by a 5060 percent decline among men unselected by fertility from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand."

By "unselected," the authors basically mean young men who are screened for military service or college who are unlikely to be aware of their fertility status. (For example, the Danish military subjects its recruits to a compulsory medical examination that apparently includes measuring their sperm count and testes sizes.)

The meta-analysis encompassed the results of 185 studies involving 42,935 men from 50 countries on six continents who provided semen samples from 1973 to 2011. The researchers claim that their analysis tried to take into account confounding factors that lower sperm counts, including obesity, smoking, alcohol use, and stress.

They report that sperm counts among unselected men living in rich developed countries fell from 99 million spermatozoa per milliliter in 1973 to 47 million per milliliter in 2011. Total sperm counts fell from 337.5 million to 137.5 milliona decline of nearly 60 percent.

Men dressed in sperm outfits working for condom maker Durex, show condom samples during a campaign in Seoul on June 24, 2008 to mark the first sale of its products in South Korea. JUNG YEON-JE/AFP/Getty

On the other hand, the researchers found no decline in sperm counts among men living in South America, Asia, or Africa.

This not the first time a spermapocalypse has been declared. The claim was first made in 1992 article by Scandinavian researchers, who reported there had been a decline of nearly 50 percent in 50 years.

Ever ready to fan the flames of panic, the publicists at Greenpeace quickly initiated a clever campaign of advertisements declaring, "You're not half the man your father was."

As the researchers acknowledge, their study tells us nothing about what caused the declines it identifies. Nevertheless, they speculate that it could be result of endocrine disruption from lifestyle changes and exposures to pesticides and synthetic chemicals.

Endocrine disruption is the particular focus of one of the researchers, Shanna Swan, who teaches environmental medicine and public health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. This study will doubtlessly be cited in grant proposals for more funding for research on the toxicologically questionable endocrine disruption paradigm.

So the extinction of humanity due to falling sperm counts near at hand?

Perhaps not.

In a 2013 comprehensive review of 35 sperm quality studies published after 1992, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical College fertility specialist Harry Fisch and a colleague looked into the trend data on sperm counts.

The researchers reported that eight studies involving a total of 18,109 men suggest a decline in semen quality; 21 studies encompassing 112,386 men show either no change or an increase in semen quality; and six studies involving 26,007 men show ambiguous or conflicting results.

The upshot, Fisch says, is that "allegations for a worldwide decline in semen parameter values have not withstood scientific scrutiny." Asked if he stood by those findings, he replies, "Absolutely."

Fisch suggests that despite their efforts to consider confounding effects, the researchers may have failed to adequately take into account the more or less reversible effects on sperm production associated with rising obesity, marijuana use, sedentary lifestyles, and testicular temperature.

Given that the World Health Organization finds that 15 million sperm per milliliter is considered normal and adequate for fertilization, headlines suggesting the imminent extinction of humanity seem a bit overwrought.

Ronald Bailey is a science correspondent at Reason magazine and author of The End of Doom (July 2015).

Follow this link:
Does a Declining Sperm Count Spell the End of Humanity? - Newsweek

Human Gene Editing Is Leaving Ethics Dangerously Far Behind – HuffPost

In a breakthroughannouncedWednesday, scientists successfully edited the genes of a human embryo to eliminate a dangerous gene mutation. This hasnt yet produced the birth of an actual baby with genes selected by technological means, but that is on the way and soon. Science and technological capacity are racing ahead of ethics, safety regulations and our understanding of risks and societal implications.

The potential for designer babies has been circulating for years, not just in science fiction but in exciting new research and real-world effects. Already, in-vitro fertilization offers parents assistance in conception and, together with other technologies, allows parents to select healthy embryos, choose the sex of their children and manage a variety of aspects of human reproduction once thought simply to be matters of nature or divine action.

Sex selection, made possible by cruder technologies, has remade the marriage and life prospects of a generation of young Chinese, Indians and others. Now, these capacities have been taken to a new level by advances in technology that allows scientists to manipulate individual genes. The technology is called CRISPR-Cas9 (CRISPR stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats). The power of this approach was already clear in 2015 when Science magazine named it breakthrough of the year.

What makes the new research just announced another breakthrough is that it is a demonstration that this technique can safely remedy defective (mutated) genetic makeup, producing embryos in which cells are free of the mutation and no new, unwanted mutations are introduced. The specific mutation that was eliminated caused a dangerous heart condition. But there are some 10,000 potentially problematic medical conditions known to be caused by specific inherited mutations. The benefits of successful genetic engineering could be enormous and the attractions to potential parents are obvious.

Use of CRISPR-Cas9 technology in real life, as opposed to a research setting, is currently forbidden in the U.S. However, genetic modification of other organisms has been permitted (albeit within a complex regulatory regime) for several years, sparking controversies over genetically modified organisms and foods. Researchers can manipulate real human embryos at the point of fertilization but not implant them or facilitate their growth into viable fetuses. The main objection to this until the new research has been safety. This has centered on the worries that fetuses would not prove viable or would suffer new mutations.

A recent National Academy of Sciences report suggested that once these safety concerns were allayed, then clinical that is, real life use of the genetic engineering techniques should be allowed. It is already allowed in China, and some U.S. researchers worry this is giving the Chinese an unfair advantage. China is also backing some claims to patents for CRISPR-Cas9 while others are litigated in U.S. courts, with implications regarding who can control the technology and its future use.

But safety,in the sense of the well-being of the embryo and potential fetus, is not the only concern. Religious leaders have raised objections over physicians and others playing God. The Catholic Church insists that human beings are or must be begotten, not made. But there are concerns not only about the ultimate questions of the nature and meaning of life.There is also worry that IVF raises challenging ethical questions for young men and women who donate sperm and eggs, without adequate care for what it will mean to them to be anonymous, undisclosed parents. Pope Francis called artificial reproduction technologies a false compassion.

Secular thinkers also worry that technology is giving some decision makers a degree of control over human lives, and indeed the human future for which they are not adequately prepared. Are doctors prepared to help make fundamental ethical choices about which babies should receive which benefits or to assess risks? Are prospective parents? The premier bioethics research organization, the Hastings Center, asks: What does it mean to be a good parent in the genomic age?As children are genetically altered, what may this mean for natural family bonds?

It is hard to object to sparing newborn children the burden of inherited diseases. But consider the question: Which newborn children should get that benefit? Is it to be distributed on the basis of parents ability to pay? Should it be distributed by the state on the basis of some combination of considerations, like who is likely to be useful to the state and who has connections to those in power? Will the new technology only be available to parents in rich and scientifically advanced countries? Whatever the regulations developed in one country, in the absence of international agreements, will parents with enough money simply go to other countries as medical tourists? What will be the legal status of genetically modified offspring? Do parents own their children, and is this the basis for a right to decide their basic biological makeup?

Any new technique of enormous power raises questions about how to allocate access, about unintended consequences, and about social and moral responsibility.In a democratic country, it demands public debate. We are short of both. In his bookPlaying God?,the sociologist John H. Evans argues that our public debate is thin partly because we ask only about what techniques are legitimate, not what goals we should embrace. The potential benefits of gene editing do not stop with reducing the risk of heart disease or cancer. Parents could choose genetic modifications intended to boost intelligence, athletic ability or longevity. The social implications of genetic engineering could be dramatic. As is often the case, how big the impacts are and whether benefits exceed costs and damages depend on how the technologies are used.

Genetic modification produces inheritable differences among human beings. Parents could make their children taller or blonder, more often male, or less likely to get cancer. Governments could engineer children to win Olympic medals, be better soldiers, be compliant workers or be brilliant scientists. Could this reinforce old racial divisions or create new ones? Could this be, as the sociologist Troy Duster put it,the backdoor to eugenics?

Genetic modification challenges our very idea of human nature. It suggests that we can make human beings into what we want them to be. Thats a little less new than it sounds. Humanity has already been reshaped by the development of language, literacy and education. It has been reshaped by better nutrition and sanitation, with enormously positive consequences for human life expectancy. But the capacity to consciously alter human beings gene by gene is new.

What does this mean for the notion that all human beings are members of a single species and thus members of a common community of fate? This idea is basic to the notion of human rights. It is basic to the way citizenship is understood in most countries. Is it possible that genetic engineering could create such marked differences about human beings that they couldnt all be considered citizens even if they all descended from people who are citizens today?

Gene editing is one of the most promising medical technologies in years. But unless there is much more attention to the ethical and social choices before us, we risk seeing that promise mired in controversy or turned into a disaster.

See the original post here:
Human Gene Editing Is Leaving Ethics Dangerously Far Behind - HuffPost

Human embryos modified to eliminate a single-gene disease – BioEdge

American and Korean scientists have published in Nature the details of how they successfully edited a single gene in human embryos. A team of American, Chinese and Korean scientists led byShoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science University used gene-editing CRISPR/Cas9 technology to eliminate a gene, MYBPC3,linked to a heart disorder.

Stem cell scientist Paul Knoepfler said that the highly-anticipated paper was technically strong, innovative and rigorous which suggests that other scientists will soon be building on Mitalipovs achievements. Perhaps one of the most significant of these was its safety. The paper claims that there were no off-target mutations and no mosaic embryos.

The potential for the technique is immense. The article focuses on curing diseases. About 10,000 harmful single-gene mutations have been identified from breast cancer to Tay-Sachs. Interest in eliminating these will be intense.

However,when other less competent, less experienced and less ethical scientists scale up the number of embryos, safety could obviously suffer.

Nearly every observer stated the obvious: a technique for safely and effectively editing the human genome has significant ethical implications. It can be used not only for curing diseases but for enhancing embryos with better genes.

Therefore, Mitalipovs team took great care to dot their ethical is and cross their ts. Even though this preliminary effort was found to be safe and effective, it is crucial that we continue to proceed with the utmost caution, paying the highest attention to ethical considerations," said corresponding author Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte.

As Vivek Wadhwa, a technology expert from Carnegie-Mellon, wrote in the Washington Post, CRISPRs seductiveness is beginning to overtake the calls forcaution. For some scientists and bioethicists, the danger of haste can be averted with more reports and more ethics committees.

For others, creating and destroying human embryos for research is itself anathema. In this experiment, dozens of embryos were created, and all were destroyed before they had grown beyond a few days. But everyone recognised the potential for a new generation of eugenics, which has so long been under the shadow of the Nazis discredited ideology.

David Albert Jones, of the UKs Anscombe Institute, penned a withering critique, Unethical research with eugenic goals. The whole rationale for this experiment is to take a step towards genetic modification as an assisted reproductive technology, he writes. We are manufacturing new human beings for manipulation and quality control, and experimenting on them with the aim of forging greater eugenic control over human reproduction. This is not a case of using bad means for a good end, but of bad means to a worse end.

See the article here:
Human embryos modified to eliminate a single-gene disease - BioEdge