Defining Faith – Patheos (blog)

Posted on August 2, 2017 by ev1

This last weekend, I participated in the Gateway to Reasonconference in St Louis, Missouri. One of the speakers there was John Loftus.Hes an author of religious philosophy with a bachelors degree from Great Lakes Christian College, a Master of Divinity degree from Lincoln Christian University, and a Masters of Theology degree from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Now to me, all of that is equivalent to having advanced degrees in Aesops fables. But at least we know that he should have a pretty good idea what faith is according to the Christian tradition. In his presentation at that conference, he defined faith thusly: Apart from the overt acknowledgement that faith is irrational, this is essentially the same definition given by EVERY former theologian, and I know several. Some of them are with the Clergy Project, where professional ministers, priests, and pastors realize they just cant pretend anymore.

Faith is the acceptance of the truth of a statement in spite of insufficientevidence. . . . Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertionis by faith, then you are conceding that it cant be taken on its own merits.Dan Barker; Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist

This definition is also commonly implied in the hymns, sermons, and even scriptures of all three of the most popular religions.The Quran (for example) saysthose who are mindful of God, believe in the unseen.The Bible describes faith as things hoped for but not seen, looking at things that arenot seen, and not seeing what is seen. All according to the circular argument of the question begging fallacy in addition to confirmation bias and so on; where we are expected to see what is not there, and we are blessed if we believe impossible absurdities for no good reason. Because you have to believe everything youre told, or else risk a fate worse than death if you just cant convince yourself of what you know cant be true.

To illustrate another aspect of faith, if you think your brother is telling you the truth, then regardless whether his testimony would be considered evidence by others evaluating all sides collectively, were still talking about why you accept his particular claim individually: especially when pitted against evidence or other testimony to the contrary. You might believe him solely on his authority as your brother. In which case, you dont need any evidence to back him up. You might even go so far as to deny evidence against himwhich of course would be dishonest. Do you accept what he says without question or reservation, simply because he says so? Or do you first need to see facts that show whether what he says is true? This is the difference between faith and reason.

With faith, you could have evidence, but you dont need it.With evidence, you dont need faith, and wouldnt want it.

This is why dictionaries also reflect the common usage that faith is a firm belief or complete trust that is not dependent on evidence, but may be accepted on the assumption of authority instead.That definition is also admitted by many current believers too, sometimes including even the part about it being irrational. Several times believers have confessed to me that they dont care what the facts are because they dont really want to know what the truth is. Why cant I believe what I want to believe? Many have said theyll take the authority of scripture as the only sources of truth in this world, and that everything else in the whole of reality is a lie. One guy even admitted to me that hed rather take a bullet in the ear than listen to reason and give up his faith.Many otheradmissions by religious people make clear that their belief matters more tothem than does truth, and this is explicitly expressed by the 2nd centuryapologist Tertullian:

We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquiringafter enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief.

And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it isabsurd. And he was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it isimpossible.

After Jesus Christ we have no need of speculation, after the Gospel noneed of research. When we come to believe, we have no desire to believeanything else; for we begin by believing that there is nothing else whichwe have to believe.

Religious faith must be a helluva drug.

I often hear the faithful making these admissions, but they usually wont unless theyre only talking to each other. Whenever I catch them making that confession, I point it outlike I did when Pastor David C Pack did that in one of the videos aimed at his own subscribers.I did it again with Pastor John Christy. I found one of his sermons, which I showed in one of my presentations. In it he confessed that he (and by extension his entire congregation) were delusional by definition. Because hes gonna believe whatever he wants to believe regardless what the facts are, because [he admitted] he doesnt care whether its really true or not. Of course I have many other examples like that too.

Faith means not wanting to know what is true. Friedrich Nietzsche.Faith is believing what you know aint so. Mark Twain

Many sectarian organizations publish a statement of faith (as if this were something to be proud of) wherein they admit that their beliefs are required, not indicated. They assert unsupported speculation as absolute truth, stating facts that are not facts, which is already dishonest. But then they also use apologetics to systematically make up excuses to rationalize or reject any and all arguments or evidence there could ever be against their desired/required belief, admitting only that theyll never admit when theyre wrong. This makes faith the most dishonest position it is possible to have.

Faith does not ignore the facts,it ignores the power of the factstelevangelist, Benny Hinn

Thats why Im an apistevist, one who will not believe anything on faith. We either believe certain claims because of our past experience, knowledge of probabilities, trust in credentialed expertise, objectively verifiable facts and so on, or we believe on faith instead, just cuz some perceived authority said so. But any belief that requires faith should be rejected for that reason. The only thing in the universe that desires or requires your faith is a bad salesman.

I often see equivocation used as a defense of such indefensible beliefs, confusing the religious context with the colloquial context of having faith *in* someone. The reason why I might believe what my wife says is not the same reason that I believe she exists. Religious faith is not a synonym of trust. Theres a prefix and suffix required. Faith is a [complete] trust [that is not based on evidence].

Now realize that a rational person is typically defined as having reason and being open to reason, meaning that they should only believe what they have good reason to believe, rather than believing anything on faith. They also have to be reasonable, being able to be reasoned with. But since apologists typically refuse to admit when theyre proven wrong, or that they even could be wrong, because God has revealed it to me in such a way that I know it for certain (for example) then this is the second point where faith is irrational by definition.

For this reason, believers will sometimes completely invert their definition of faith to the opposite of itself whenever theyre trying to seem reasonable to unbelievers, such that suddenly faith depends on evidence. Then theyll say that I got the definition wrongeven though Ive already shown that an overwhelming consensus of definitive/authoritative and uncontested sources from every relevant field that proves I obviously got this right.

This reversed redefinition that faith suddenly demands evidence appears to be a combination of the logical fallacies of projection, tu quoque, strawman, equivocation, and false equivalence that I see frequently repeated by most defenders of the faith. Every logical fallacy has been used as an argument for God, and every argument for God is a logical fallacy. Believers assume their belief without reason and defend it against all reason. They know how unreasonable that is, but theyre hoping you dont know that. So in such cases, they stand firm behind a cloak of seemingly rational intellectual argumentsto create the illusion that their belief was determined by, or could be effected by reason.

But every time they do that, they betray themselves one of two ways:Sometimes theyll tell me there is no evidence of evolution and thus my belief in atheism requires more faith than their belief in supernatural things. Of course this is a Freudian admission that they already realize that faith is not based on evidence, and they just dont want to admit that to me.

Otherwise, if they pretend to believe what they do because they were convinced by the evidence, then Ill inquire as to what evidence supports their belief. I invariably learn that they never had any reason that would qualify as actual evidence: not one verifiable fact that is either positively indicative of that conclusion nor exclusively concordant with it.

Either that or they redefine and thus negate every other relevant word toosuch that facts are no longer factual and evidence cant be evident anymore. Sometimes theyll invert or pervert both of these at once, effectively turning faith into science and evidence into subjective speculation, as if the make-believers are trying to trade places with rational thinkers.

Either way, this exercise shows that their faith is typically based on a presupposed assumption of authority instead of any evaluation of objectively verifiable data. Regardless whatever bullshit excuse they use to hide this fact, the real reason they believe as they do is almost always unchallenged cultural conditioning. Theyve simply bought the lie theyve been fed since they were children. They dont know how to question that, or dont want to, and typically never believed anything elseeven if they pretend they were once atheist.

Atheist: anyone who is unconvinced that an actual deity really exists.

Theists like to change the definition of atheism as necessary too. Theyll minimize the number of admitted unbelievers by saying that atheists are only those who know for certain that no god exists, and that everyone else is merely agnosticas if that makes any difference. (Gnostism pertains to knowledge rather than belief. Agnosticism says no one can know anything about the nature of the supernatural, but that has nothing to do with one believes there is a god or not. You can be atheist and agnostic. You can also be theist and agnostic. Theyre not mutually-exclusive.) But if believers want to pretend to have once been atheists who have since seen the light and turned to God, then theyll use the etymological definition of lacking-theism, of simply not yet practicing the religion they were almost always born into. They usually know no other way.

The same goes for when they say they used to believe in evolution-ism, yet they still cant tell you what that even is or show you anything they honestly believed about it.

Ive actually known three people who could confirm having once been atheist; two were even activists. However when I inquired as to what evidence brought them back to their faith, it turned out there never was any. One simply missed the community of her church. Another said she just didnt want any flak from the overwhelmingly religious environment she lived in. Another initially claimed to have been convinced by the evidence, but after continued interrogation, she still could not cite any. Instead she finally admitted that she changed her mind only because the guys at the Christian table in her college were hot. Seriously. So even on the rare occasion that an atheist does convert, there still isnt either logic or evidence compelling that decision, as there would have to be for me.

So if you ever find yourself having this argument with a spiritual devotee who says their faith depends on evidence, and/or that evidence is either subjective impressions or philosophical argumentsrather than what either common language or a court of law would recognize as actual factual evidence, then let them know that we can all see through their smoke screen.Then challenge them with the following questions:

What body of facts convinced you that your previously materialist perspective was wrong, and that there is a supernatural/magical aspect to the universe?

What body of facts convinced you that a bona fide deity not only could exist but actually does exist? How does it exist? How does it do anything? Especially when it comes to helping you get that job, find your keys, or win the big game?

What body of facts convinced you that your particular denomination of one of many different faith-based belief systems was significantly more accurate than all the other seemingly man-made mythologies including the older ones yours is apparently based on?

What did you believe before learning these facts that changed your mind? And why did you believe whatever that was?

What body of facts convinced you that any of humanitys supposedly sacred fables of any religion even could have any divine authority, such as several such tomes to other gods discordantly claim?

[If youre talking to a creationist, throw in this one too.]What body of facts convinced you that all the worlds best-educated expert specialists in any field are all wrong, and that the theories of evolution, cosmology, and atomic chemistry are all fundamentally fatally flawed?

My experience has been that these questions unmask the problem with faith-based beliefs so well that it is highly doubtful that any believer trying to promote faith as a rational position would risk exposing their true condition by answering any of these. Because they know that if they do, we will see that theirFaith [as it is commonly defined according to a consensus of definitive/authoritative religious or secular sources] really is a firm belief or complete trust, which is not based on, or not dependent onevidence [as that too is commonly defined, again according to virtually every relevant source for both scientific and common language].

If the above definition was not correct, whether about all religious faith or any particular believers allegedly exceptional brand of faith, then they should have no problem answering all the preceding questions. Theyd even want to. How could they not? Even if they believed they had metaphysical evidence, they still could answer these and reveal their reasoning. But if they already know that this definition really is correct, and that it is applicable to their particular faith, but they dont want you to see through their obfuscation, there will be some excuse as to why they wont, or dont have to answer any of these. Because faith really is the most dishonest position it is possible to have.

Read the original here:
Defining Faith - Patheos (blog)

When genetic engineering is the environmentally friendly choice – Ensia

Posted on August 2, 2017 by ev1

July 27, 2017 Which is more disruptive to a plant: genetic engineering or conventional breeding?

It often surprises people to learn that GE commonly causes less disruption to plants than conventional techniques of breeding. But equally profound is the realization that the latest GE techniques, coupled with a rapidly expanding ability to analyze massive amounts of genetic material, allow us to make super-modest changes in crop plant genes that will enable farmers to produce more food with fewer adverse environmental impacts. Such super-modest changes are possible with CRISPR-based genome editing, a powerful set of new genetic tools that is leading a revolution in biology.

My interest in GE crops stems from my desire to provide more effective and sustainable plant disease control for farmers worldwide. Diseases often destroy 10 to 15 percent of potential crop production, resulting in global losses of billions of dollars annually. The risk of disease-related losses provides an incentive to farmers to use disease-control products such as pesticides. One of my strongest areas of expertise is in the use of pesticides for disease control. Pesticides certainly can be useful in farming systems worldwide, but they have significant downsides from a sustainability perspective. Used improperly, they can contaminate foods. They can pose a risk to farm workers. And they must be manufactured, shipped and applied all processes with a measurable environmental footprint. Therefore, I am always seeking to reduce pesticide use by offering farmers more sustainable approaches to disease management.

What follows are examples of how minimal GE changes can be applied to make farming more environmentally friendly by protecting crops from disease. They represent just a small sampling of the broad landscape of opportunities for enhancing food security and agricultural sustainability that innovations in molecular biology offer today.

Genetically altering crops the way these examples demonstrate creates no cause for concern for plants or people. Mutations occur naturally every time a plant makes a seed; in fact, they are the very foundation of evolution. All of the food we eat has all kinds of mutations, and eating plants with mutations does not cause mutations in us.

Knocking Out Susceptibility

A striking example of how a tiny genetic change can make a big difference to plant health is the strategy of knocking out a plant gene that microorganisms can benefit from. Invading microorganisms sometimes hijack certain plant molecules to help themselves infect the plant. A gene that produces such a plant molecule is known as a susceptibility gene.

We can use CRISPR-based genome editing to create a targeted mutation in a susceptibility gene. A change of as little as a single nucleotide in the plants genetic material the smallest genetic change possible can confer disease resistance in a way that is absolutely indistinguishable from natural mutations that can happen spontaneously. Yet if the target gene and mutation site are carefully selected, a one-nucleotide mutation may be enough to achieve an important outcome.

There is a substantial body of research showing proof-of-concept that a knockout of a susceptibility gene can increase resistance in plants to a very wide variety of disease-causing microorganisms. An example that caught my attention pertained to powdery mildew of wheat, because fungicides (pesticides that control fungi) are commonly used against this disease. While this particular genetic knockout is not yet commercialized, I personally would rather eat wheat products from varieties that control disease through genetics than from crops treated with fungicides.

The Power of Viral Snippets

Plant viruses are often difficult to control in susceptible crop varieties. Conventional breeding can help make plants resistant to viruses, but sometimes it is not successful.

Early approaches to engineering virus resistance in plants involved inserting a gene from the virus into the plants genetic material. For example, plant-infecting viruses are surrounded by a protective layer of protein, called the coat protein. The gene for the coat protein of a virus called papaya ring spot virus was inserted into papaya. Through a process called RNAi, this empowers the plant to inactivate the virus when it invades. GE papaya has been a spectacular success, in large part saving the Hawaiian papaya industry.

Aerial view of a field trial showing virus-resistant papaya growing well while the surrounding susceptible papaya is severely damaged by the virus. Reproduced with permission from Gonsalves, D., et al. 2004. Transgenic virus-resistant papaya: From hope to reality in controlling papaya ringspot virus in Hawaii. APSnet Features. Online. DOI: 10.1094/APSnetFeature-2004-0704

Through time, researchers discovered that even just a very small fragment from one viral gene can stimulate RNAi-based resistance if precisely placed within a specific location in the plants DNA. Even better, they found we can stack resistance genes engineered with extremely modest changes in order to create a plant highly resistant to multiple viruses. This is important because, in the field, crops are often exposed to infection by several viruses.

Does eating this tiny bit of a viral gene sequence concern me? Absolutely not, for many reasons, including:

Tweaking Sentry Molecules

Microorganisms can often overcome plants biochemical defenses by producing molecules called effectors that interfere with those defenses. Plants respond by evolving proteins to recognize and disable these effector molecules. These recognition proteins are called R proteins (R standing for resistance). Their job is to recognize the invading effector molecule and trigger additional defenses. A third interesting approach, then, to help plants resist an invading microorganism is to engineer an R protein so that it recognizes effector molecules other than the one it evolved to detect. We can then use CRISPR to supply a plant with the very small amount of DNA needed to empower it to make this protein.

This approach, like susceptibility knockouts, is quite feasible, based on published research. Commercial implementation will require some willing private- or public-sector entity to do the development work and to face the very substantial and costly challenges of the regulatory process.

Engineered for Sustainability

The three examples here show that extremely modest engineered changes in plant genetics can result in very important benefits. All three examples involve engineered changes that trigger the natural defenses of the plant. No novel defense mechanisms were introduced in these research projects, a fact that may appeal to some consumers. The wise use of the advanced GE methods illustrated here, as well as others described elsewhere, has the potential to increase the sustainability of our food production systems, particularly given the well-established safety of GE crops and their products for consumption.

Link:
When genetic engineering is the environmentally friendly choice - Ensia

Doug Brooks returns to Parkersburg as a physician – Parkersburg News

Posted on August 2, 2017 by ev1

Photo ProvidedDr. Doug Brooks has joined Camden Clark Medical Center-WVU Medicine.

PARKERSBURG Dr. Doug Brooks has returned to his hometown of Parkersburg to practice family medicine.

Tuesday is Brooks first day as a physician with Camden Clark Medical Center-WVU Medicine at 2012 Garfield Ave., Suite 1 in the Garfield Medical Complex in Parkersburg.

Brooks, a 1989 graduate of Parkersburg High School, obtained a bachelors of arts in biology in 1993 from West Virginia University and a medical degree from West Virginia University School of Medicine in 1997.

For the past 17 years, Brooks has been a physician in Tampa and Charlotte.

Brooks, 46, said he is looking forward to making an impact in his hometown, something that was lacking at times while working in larger cities.

He found it not as meaningful, not as personalized working in big cities.

Brooks has friends in the Parkersburg area and his father, Dr. Paul Brooks, is a retired family doctor in Parkersburg who graduated from the WVU School of Medicine in 1966.

From 2000-2006, Brooks was a family physician with Morton Plant Mease Primary Care, the largest medical corporation in Tampa, Fla., he said. From 2007-2012, he practiced as a family physician for Carolinas Health Care system, the largest medical corporation in North Carolina.

From 2012 to early 2017, Brooks practiced with several companies in North Carolina, including a mens center, nursing homes, urgent care and occupational medical centers, and a primary care center that focused on anti-aging medicine.

Brooks considers his 17-year journey through multiple disciplines of medicine to have made him a more knowledgeable and experienced physician with expertise in many different areas.

Brooks noted he has expertise in evidence-based medicine, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, premature coronary artery disease, obesity, anxiety and depression, dermatology, and sports medicine.

Brooks said he has taken a special interest in mens health and wellness, hormone therapy, erectile dysfunction, anti-aging, and skin care.

Men, in general, often dont want to see a physician about their medical issues, Brooks said.

Men are more reluctant, embarrassed to bring up problems, Brooks said.

I want to create an environment on a personal level, where patients will feel comfortable and want to seek his medical advice and expertise, Brooks said.

Wanting to see a physician is not a sign of weakness, he said. Instead, being proactive in ones health care is a sign of strength, Brooks said.

Brooks has served as a preceptor for 17 years, teaching medical students, residents, nurse practitioners and physician assistants from the University of South Florida, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Wake Forest School of Medicine, respectively.

Brooks wants to help in the community by possibly becoming a team physician at a high school.

Brooks was a state champion wrestler (at 125 pounds) his junior year at PHS in 1988 and finished second in the state at 130 pounds his senior year in 1989.

Brooks is a WVU football fan. He has season tickets to Mountaineer football games and used to attend games in Morgantown when he lived in the South.

Besides his father, other members of his family are, or have been, involved in the medical field. His mother, Ann Brooks, who lives in Hickory, N.C., was a nurse at Camden Clark Memorial Hospital. His stepmother, Nancy Brooks, is director of organizational development at Camden Clark Medical Center and his brother, Dr. Gregory Brooks, is a physician in Hickory, N.C.

WVU Medicine Camden Clark Medical Center is delighted to welcome Parkersburg native and WVU School of Medicine graduate Dr. Doug Brooks back home! the hospital said in a release.

Brooks plans to attend the Camden Clark Community Health and Wellness Day from 9-3 p.m. Saturday at Grand Central Mall.

He is accepting new patients at 304-865-5140.

Brooks is board certified by the American Board of Family Medicine and has an unrestricted license with the West Virginia Board of Medicine. He is a member of the American Academy of Family Physicians and the West Virginia Academy of Family Physicians.

Brooks resume notes he is a 5-star physician on vitals.com and has received the Patients Choice Award, given to only 5 percent of physicians, and the Most Compassionate Doctor Award, given to only 3 percent of physicians.

A Parkersburg man on Wednesday was charged with child abuse causing death, Parkersburg Police said.Charged was ...

The YMCA of Parkersburg's Market Street site will close effective Sept. 1, the board of directors announced ...

Originally posted here:
Doug Brooks returns to Parkersburg as a physician - Parkersburg News

AI Is Helping This Anti-Aging Startup Uncover Ways for You to Live a Longer, Healthier Life – Futurism

Posted on August 2, 2017 by ev1

In BriefA new venture that aims to combine longevity research with artificial intelligence is in the works, thanks to funding from British billionaire Jim Mellon. The new company will focus on finding faster ways to develop drugs that fight aging.

It turns out, writing about your investment ideas before actually putting money into them is a nifty strategy for ensuring success. Itsproven to work for British billionaire Jim Mellon, anyways. He hopes to continue the trend with his latest book,Juvenescence: Investing in the Age of Longevity, by using it as the jumpingoff point for a new biotech company with a focus on putting an end to aging.

Juvenescence Limited is a joint venture between Mellon and longevity researchers Gregory Bailey and Declan Doogan. Under that parent umbrella is Juvenescence AI, a joint venturewithAlexander Zhavoronkov, CEO of Baltimore-based Insilico Medicine, Inc., a drug research company that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to explore ways to end aging and age-related diseases.

Research under Juvenescence AI will focus on examining cellular pathways to aging, as well as affecting change in the mitochondria and finding ways to clean senescent cells, which accumulate when the body grows old.

The team atJuvenescenceisnt just hoping to prolong life, however. As Doogan, a former executive at Pfizer,explained toEndpoints News, Not just longer, but better longer. Healthy aging is the objective here.

More and more doctors and scientists are starting to view aging itself as a diseasethat can be cured, and now,many researchers are also working todevelop drugs to address aging.

However, as with any drug development research, this process could take time, and Juvenescence Limited hopes to find a shortcut through their use of AI technology.

We are excited by the potential for AI to streamline the longest and most costly portions of the drug development cycle: clinical trials, Mellon saidin a press release. With Insilico Medicines help, we hope Juvenescence AI will both develop therapeutics that treat the diseases that plague all of us as we age and eventually treat the aging process itself.

Bailey, the CEO of Juvenescence, sees the company as being positioned for great success in this endeavor:We are at an inflection point for the treatment of aging. I think this is going to be the biggest deal Ive ever done.

Read the rest here:
AI Is Helping This Anti-Aging Startup Uncover Ways for You to Live a Longer, Healthier Life - Futurism

Study shows Western men’s sperm counts are in freefall and KC is no exception – Kansas City Star

Posted on August 2, 2017 by ev1

Dr. Ryan Riggs sees them almost every day in his fertility clinic at Research Medical Center: Kansas City men struggling with low sperm counts.

Now he knows theyre part of a much larger trend that threatens the population stability of several developed nations, including the United States.

A large-scale study published last week in the journal Human Reproduction Update found that sperm counts declined 59 percent in men from the U.S., Europe, Australia and New Zealand over a 38-year period that ended in 2011. Men in less developed nations in Asia, South America and Africa exhibited no such decline.

This is amazing, Riggs said. I dont want to be an alarmist but what if, in another 40 years, the numbers are 50 percent lower?

The birth rate in the U.S. is already at a historic low, and Riggs noted that were it not for immigration, the country would be like some in Western Europe with declining populations and shrinking workforces struggling to support the needs of the elderly.

Riggs called the dropping sperm counts a societal, macro-epidemiological problem.

It has very significant and grave implications, Riggs said. It means Ill have patients in the short term, but in the long term its concerning.

Riggs opened Blue Sky Fertility last October after previously working at a large clinic called Conceptions Reproductive Associates in Colorado.

He said what he has seen personally fits with the results of the much larger study.

We certainly feel like we see an increasing frequency of gentlemen who have abnormal sperm counts, Riggs said. In fact, if you look at the data, in 40 or perhaps even 50 percent of couples, sperm is a factor in their struggle to conceive.

The studys authors expressed similar shock and concern at the results, but did not offer any possible explanations for the stark difference between men in the two cohorts.

Riggs pointed to two potential factors driving down sperm counts in developed nations: unhealthy diets and near-constant exposure to chemicals that alter hormone production.

I personally would look to the endocrine disruptors and obesity as significant factors impacting sperm health, Riggs said.

While its hard to avoid endocrine disruptors such as phthalates, which are in deodorants and perfumes and leach from all kinds of plastic products, Riggs said maintaining a healthy weight which has long been known to help with fertility is an important step to take before fertility treatments.

There are folks who come through my door and I have to advise them, Before we go down this route and potentially spend a lot of money, we need to optimize your health, Riggs said.

On a larger level, Riggs said he would be interested in more research to see if there are sperm count differences within different regions in the U.S. and to find out if immigrants sperm counts decline after they move to U.S. and how quickly.

See the original post:
Study shows Western men's sperm counts are in freefall and KC is no exception - Kansas City Star

US Scientists Just Edited a Human Embryo for the First Time. (Yes, People Are Freaking Out.) – Mother Jones

Posted on August 2, 2017 by ev1

US Scientists Just Edited a Human Embryo for the First Time. (Yes, People Are Freaking Out.)Ben Birchall/Associated Press

For the first known time in the United States, scientists used a gene-editing technique called CRISPR to modify early-stage human embryos, according to a report published Wednesday in MIT Technology Review.

Since the development several years ago ofCRISPR, a tool that allows scientists to change sequences of DNA within a cell, scientists have speculated about its potential to free families of genetic disease or stop the spread of other diseases like malaria, among other possibilities. But the technology also raises major ethical questions.

Heres a quick rundown of the latest breakthroughand how it could change the way we think about humanreproduction and, well, humans themselves.

How did the experiment work?

According to MIT Technology Reviews report, a team of researchers at Oregon Health & Science University, led by geneticist Shoukhrat Mitalipov, used CRISPR to correct disease-causing genes in human embryos. Its not yet clear whether these were viable embryosembryos that could, theoretically, grow into humans.

A wide range of diseaseslike Huntingtons, sickle-cell anemia, and Tay-Sachs, for exampleare caused by mutations in genes. Its also not clear what genes Mitalipov and his team edited in their experiment. But regardless, it appears that their study was successful in a couple ways: First, they reportedly edited a greater number of embryos than scientists had in previous studies. Second, Mitalipov and his team claim they did so without causing as manyerrors as previous scientists.

CRISPR has been used to edit human embryos a few times before; Chinese scientists did it in March. But in prior experiments, scientists ran into problems when CRISPR edits were taken up only by some of the cells in an embryo. This is called mosaicism:it means that the child that develops from the embryo could still inherit the disease that scientists tried to edit away.

According to MITs report, Mitalipov reduced the occurrence of mosaicism and seemed to largely avoid off-target edits (another kind of CRISPR error, wherein scientists accidentally alter a gene other than the one they aim to change).

Why is this important?

A couple reasons. First, its the only known attempt to use CRISPR to edit human embryos in the United States. More on the legality of that below.

Second, if this attempt really was successful, its big news for people whose families carry genetic disease. In theory, using this technique, scientists could edit not just our offspring, but our offsprings offspring. This is called human germline editing. When scientists edit the DNA in an embryo, the changes will theoretically be inherited by each successive generation, permanently fixing the germlinethe genetic inheritanceof a family.

This seems ethically complex.

Right. The ethics and laws surrounding human germline editingare murky. Scientists in favor of human germlinemodification often argue that the techniquewill help us reduce the occurrence of genetic diseases.

But criticsdisagree.This is just not needed for preventing inheritable disease, said Marcy Darnovsky, Executive Director of the Center for Genetics and Society. There are [other techniques that] can already be used safely to prevent the births of children with serious genetic diseases in almost every case. One example of such a technique is preimplantation diagnosis, commonly referred to as PGD, which allows parents to screen embryos for certain disease-causing genes before implanting them through in vitro fertilization (IVF). But its not always effectiveif someone carries two copies of a defective gene, for example, all their embryos would carry that gene, as well.

Darnovsky also worries about safety. Despite whatever the claims are about safety, [like] no mosaicism, we still dont know if that would mean its safe to create a new human being and anyone who tried it would be taking an enormous and unacceptable risk with that future persons life.

Another concern: Right now, scientists aresupposed to stick to editing disease-causing genes. But the technology opens up the possibility of editing genes for enhancementallowing parents to edit for certain kinds of physical and behavioral characteristics in their children. Darnovsky worries that this would usher in an era of genetic discrimination. That would be layering new forms of inequality and discrimination onto the ones we already live with, she said.

Is this legal?

Probably.In 2015, Congress passed a law forbidding the Food and Drug Administration from reviewing applications for germline editing of human embryos, meaning no clinical trials can move forward with FDA funding. We dont yet knowhow Mitalipov funded his project, but assuming it was funded privately, its perfectly legal.

That wouldnt be the case in many other countries. The Center for Genetics and Society reports that over 40 countries, including most with established biotech sectors, have established legal prohibitions on germline modification for human reproduction. An international treaty also prohibits it. The United States has no such policy.

Whats next?

Well know more once the study is released, but its worth noting that in February of this year, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy published a report that said human germline editing could be permitted in the future. It outlined criteria for germline editing, recommending that it only be used for disease prevention. The authors of the report wrote that editing for the enhancement of human traits and capacities should not be allowed at this time. But the report didnt eliminate the possibility of editing for enhancement in the future.

Reactions to the report were mixed. Some experts, like Darnovsky, feel that human germline modification should not be done for any purpose. But in an interview with Science, Eric Lander, president and founding director of MIT and Harvards Broad Institute, a genomics research center, said he thought the report struck the right balance of optimism and caution. They want to put friction tape on the slope so the slope isnt slippery, Lander said. Whether and for how long the tape will hold is an open question.

More:
US Scientists Just Edited a Human Embryo for the First Time. (Yes, People Are Freaking Out.) - Mother Jones

Sperm Counts Plummet In Western Men, Study Finds – NPR

Posted on August 2, 2017 by ev1

An international team of scientists analyzed data from men around the world and found sperm counts declining in Western countries. Hanna Barczyk for NPR hide caption

An international team of scientists analyzed data from men around the world and found sperm counts declining in Western countries.

Sperm counts appear to be plummeting throughout the Western world, according to a large study of men around the world.

An international team of scientists analyzed data from nearly 43,000 men in dozens of industrialized countries and found that sperm counts dropped by more than half over nearly four decades.

"I think that we should take this very seriously," says Shanna Swan, a reproductive epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. She helped conduct the study published in the journal Human Reproduction Update. "I think it's a wake-up call," Swan says.

Previous studies have suggested that sperm counts may be falling around the world. This study is the largest and most comprehensive to date. It was designed to resolve doubts about the earlier findings, Swan says.

"I've always been very skeptical of previous reports that have suggested that sperm counts are declining," says Allan Pacey, a professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield in England who was not involved in the new research. "I'm a bit more of a believer that sperm counts are declining than I was at this time yesterday," he says.

Even at the reduced sperm counts, infertility has not become a widespread problem. At the most, the lower levels of sperm may make it harder for some couples to conceive, Pacey says.

But there's no sign the decline is slowing, which means that male infertility could become a more common problem in the future.

"Since this is the best study that's ever been done, it is concerning that it suggests such a progressive and dramatic decrease in sperm counts over time," says Peter Schlegel, a professor and chairman of urology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. Schlegel serves as vice president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Schlegel stresses, however, that more research is needed to confirm the findings and try to determine possible causes.

"Since we don't know what could be causing it, it's worrisome," Schlegel says.

Swan and her colleagues combed the scientific literature for studies that had examined sperm counts and concentrations and screened more than 7,000 studies, excluding those that had shortcomings or flaws. The researchers then analyzed data collected by 185 studies of 42,935 men who provided semen samples between 1973 and 2011 in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand.

One of the ways the researchers tried to alleviate concerns about previous studies was to include men who weren't just being tested at fertility clinics because they might be infertile. They included sperm counts from other men soldiers and college students, for example.

The analysis found an overall 52.4 percent decline in sperm concentration and a 59.3 percent decline in the total sperm count over the 39-year period. (Sperm concentration is the measure of the concentration of sperm in a man's sample how many millions of sperm are in a milliliter of semen. Total sperm count is the number doctors get when they multiply that by the volume of the sample.)

"I think these are extremely concerning findings," Swan says.

And Swan says it's not just the concern about fertility. A decreased sperm count has been linked to an increased risk for premature death, Swan says. So it may be a marker for other health problems, she says.

While no one knows why sperm counts and concentrations may be falling, there are a variety of theories.

Swan suspects that one factor may be exposure to chemicals while in the womb, which could harm the normal development of males' reproductive systems.

"The mother's exposure to a number of chemicals can alter the reproductive tract of baby boys significantly," she says.

But Pacey questions that theory and worries about alarming pregnant women unnecessarily.

"There's a real danger here that researchers publish papers like this, that are then reported irresponsibly, that then lead to people getting really paranoid about what may or may not be happening," Pacey says.

The problems many couples encounter when they attempt to get pregnant could be avoided if they started trying just a few years earlier, Pacey says.

Swan acknowledges that other factors could be playing a role. The global obesity epidemic could be cutting sperms counts, for example.

"There's also stress, which is related to sperm count," she says. "So there are a number of factors which you could cluster under the heading of 'modern living' that could be playing a role in what we're seeing."

There wasn't enough data from non-Western countries to reach any conclusions about whether sperm counts are falling there, too, Swan says.

Continue reading here:
Sperm Counts Plummet In Western Men, Study Finds - NPR

James Harden, Chris Paul already making strides in chemistry during offseason – ClutchPoints (blog)

Posted on August 1, 2017 by ev1

New teammates James Harden and Chris Paul have already started making all the strides to put themselves among the best backcourts in the NBA, working on their chemistry this early in the offseason.

The two played in the same team in the Drew League, a tradition of Hardens, but one Paul had not been a part of during his six years as an L.A. Clipper, despite being right in his backyard. This disposition has shown Pauls effort to take this chemistry past the workouts and into the hardwood, to see just how two ball-dominant players can glue together in the backcourt.

Harden and Paul have communicated daily and even worked out together, trying to jell from early on and bring an already established sense of substance to this brand new team, which has let go of more than half of last years faces to make this partnership happen.

In any relationship or partnership, you need to have communication, Harden toldBen Golliver of Sports Illustrateds The Crossover. Youve got to know that person. Me and Chris have communicated every single day. Weve worked out several times already, just to build that relationship, that togetherness before training camp hits. Once it starts, well be rolling already.

General manager Daryl Morey admitted than acquiring Paul wasnt a matter of his vision of the two fitting together, but rather trusting that two elite-caliber players will figure it out among each other in order to win.

Generally, when youre looking at long-term acquisitions of top-10 players in the league, its better to not be too selective and then work out the best way to create synergy second, Morey said.

Both Paul and Harden know the great gap in talent shown in this past postseason, as the Golden State Warriors swept their way to the NBA Finals and closed out a 16-1 run to an eventual championship, making a task to dethrone them a rather direct, but challenging one.

Theyre really, really talented, but the chemistry that theyve built the last few years is what makes everything mesh, Morey added. Adding Chris, its going to take some time, but were trying to get ahead of the game right now in the summer. Its chemistry and talent (together), thats when youve got something special.

Read the original post:
James Harden, Chris Paul already making strides in chemistry during offseason - ClutchPoints (blog)

John DeShazier: Saints linemates Larry Warford, Zach Strief already developing chemistry – NewOrleansSaints.com

Posted on August 1, 2017 by ev1

Theres a hint of pride in Zach Striefs voice when he describes himself and Larry Warford as offensive line nerds.

Not that Strief isnt accustomed to studious teammates. But the veteran right tackle has found a kindred spirit in the New Orleans Saints free agent right guard, a meticulousness that delves to a depth that perhaps few understand, or care to understand, how to explore.

I think were very into the intricacies and I think theres a lot of guys that have beliefs on techniques and how to do things, Strief said. We were legitimately excited (Friday) because we took better first steps on a naked (bootleg). Legitimately, like, high-fived each other. Its kind of weird.

Its just fun having somebody else there who can offer a different viewpoint on body mechanics and offensive line play, Warford said. It is kind of nerdy. Just (talking about) motion, what muscles are engaged, if inefficiencies are happening on a certain play, being able to diagnose whats going on and trace it back to whats leading back to mistakes.

Its a fresh dynamic for Strief.

For much of the first 11 years of his NFL career, when he looked to his immediate left, there stood Jahri Evans, one of Striefs 2006 draft classmates. Evans, a six-time Pro Bowler and five-time All-Pro, became the second-most decorated offensive lineman in franchise history and earned franchise-wide respect.

But when the Saints signed Warford in free agency, the separation from Evans was solidified. Warford (6 feet 3, 317 pounds and entering his fifth season) seamlessly has adapted to playing alongside Strief after spending his first four seasons with Detroit.

With Zach, its real easy to transition into this offense, Warford said. Hes been in there for so long, he knows everything thats going on. He knows how he and Jah used to set and hes explained that to me.

Hed tell me how to incorporate how I play a little bit into what hes used to, and vice versa. Weve been bouncing opinions back and forth on each other and its going real smooth, as smooth as I could have hoped. With Zach, this transition has been real easy for me.

Said Strief: I think more than anything, theres just differences in how theyre moving. I felt like I could overlap Jah in play sometimes on the backside. His release from certain blocks was different, hes a different type of player.

Larry is so explosive, I feel like Im behind him half the time. So thats pushed me a lot to get going, get out of the stance and get moving because hes gone quicker than Jah was. Theyre just different types of players and I think that stuff will come. But I think its already going well. I think were already getting a good feel for each other.

So good is the chemistry, Warford said, that the two nearly have reached the point where they dont have to speak in order to have an understanding of how best to coordinate on a given play.

Cohesion-wise, were way ahead of where I would have thought we would be, Strief said. We do no doubt, in meetings all the time well get, like, all excited about a step. Like, You see that? You see that step? Its like, Thats good. Hes like, Thats nice. Its really weird.

Its a weird relationship but were both really into it. Were not going to run into any issues. I think were already getting to a point here where communication is easier, we dont have to be as descriptive. I think were seeing things.

The realization that they were on the same page came early.

I realized it pretty quick, just from the first day, Warford said. I think he was talking to Landon (Turner) about something, about engaging his hips and how he should go about doing it, and it was exactly how Id been taught. From there, I was like, Let me stand by this guy. It went on from there.

I call him Yoda. Just his vast understanding about our position from the ground up, in and out. Its on another level. I love talking about it, so I just call him Yoda.

His meticulous teammate doesnt mind at all.

Larry referred to me as Yoda, and I thought that was a nice compliment, Strief said. Thats nerdy.

Read the original:
John DeShazier: Saints linemates Larry Warford, Zach Strief already developing chemistry - NewOrleansSaints.com

Cancer survivor becomes a cancer fighter at a Philly start-up – Philly.com

Posted on August 1, 2017 by ev1

What Debra Travers really wanted to be was a marine biologist, until I found out Jacques Cousteau wasnt hiring.

How she wound up as chief executive of PolyAurum LLC, a Philadelphia start-up developing biodegradable gold nanoparticles for treating cancerous tumors, involved a professional journey of more than 30 years in pharmaceutical and diagnostics industries, and a personal battle with the disease shes now in business to defeat.

After determining that studying sea creatures was not a viable career choice, Travers a military kid from all over switched her major at Cedar Crest College in Allentown to medical technology. She graduated in 1979, then worked for three years in a hospital laboratory until she concluded she didnt like shift work and could do more.

What followed was an impressive career progression: Travers started as a chemistry technician at DuPont Biomedical Products Division, advancing to executive positions in marketing and product development at Centocor, GlaxoSmithKline, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and IMS Health.

Much of that work involved bringing new products through the long development and regulation-heavy process from concept to launch, with experience in therapeutic areas including oncology, urology, pain medicine, cardiology, and rheumatology. In an industry of specialty silos, Travers developed a uniquely blended expertise in marketing and R&D.

It was on March 23, 2006, that her health-care vocation turned personal: Travers, then a 50-year-old mother of two, was diagnosed with breast cancer.

An oncologist recommended a double mastectomy, removal of both ovaries, and chemotherapy. The tearful pleadings of her daughter, Kelly, then 18 I need you here when I graduate college, when I get married, when I have kids persuaded Travers to follow that recommendation.

She returned to work at Endo for seven more years, as a director in project management, before being laid off in June 2013, one month before her daughters wedding. The break gave Travers time to concentrate on the big event and to start to think what Id like to do when I grow up.

That process would lead her in late 2015 to PolyAurum, a start-up spun out of the University of Pennsylvania.

I became a CEO and a grandmother in the same year, said Travers, now 61, chuckling during a recent interview at the Pennovation Center incubator in West Philadelphia. From there, her home in Delaware, and the sites of pitch opportunities with investors, she is working to raise $1.3 million in seed funding by early in the fourth quarter, to help get PolyAurum closer to clinical trials on humans.

So far, research and testing funded through $4 million in grants to the university has been limited to mice with tumors. It has shown that gold nanocrystals greatly enhance the effectiveness of radiation on tumors without increasing harm to healthy surrounding tissue, said Jay Dorsey, an associate professor and radiation oncologist at Penn and one of four university faculty who developed the technology.

The effectiveness of metals in improving a tumors ability to absorb radiation has long been known, Dorsey said. But one of the stumbling blocks to incorporating gold nanoparticles in such therapeutics is that the metal is not eliminated from the body well, posing serious problems to vital organs such as the liver and spleen.

Penns David Cormode, a professor of radiology, and Andrew Tsourkas, a professor of bioengineering, have worked to make gold more biocompatible, resulting in PolyAurums current technology, Dorsey said. The gold nanocrystals are contained in a biodegradable polymer that allows enough metal to collect in a tumor. The polymer then breaks down, releasing the gold for excretion from the body so that it does not build up in key organs.

The companys name is a combination of those two essential ingredients: Poly, derived from polymer, and Aurum, the Latin word for gold.

Explaining all that, and the potential that PolyAurums founders see for extending and saving lives, is the message Travers now is in charge of disseminating the part of the critical path to commercialization that is not the strength of most researchers toiling in laboratories.

She knows what the founders dont know it just makes a perfect match, said Michael Dishowitz, portfolio manager at PCI Ventures, an arm of Penn that helps university start-ups find investors, recruit management, and get to market.

Since its formation about eight years ago, PCI has helped more than 150 companies secure more than $100 million in funding, said Dishowitz, who has a doctoratein bioengineering from Penn and spent several years studying the impact of cell-signaling pathways on orthopedic injury.

While calling PolyAurums technology cool and very transformative for treatment, Dishowitz also delivered a dose of reality about the rigors ahead, as health-care start-ups must navigate a course with no guarantees their products will lead to actual clinical implementation.

PolyAurum is one of 13 companies that entered Philadelphia Media Networks second annual Stellar StartUps competition in the health-care/life sciences category. A total of nine categories drew 88 applicants. The winners will be announced Sept. 12 at an event at the Franklin Institutes Fels Planetarium. (Details at http://www.philly.com/stellarstartups.)

A lot has to go right, all the planets and stars have to align for this to hit the market, Dishowitz said of PolyAurums commercial prospects.

Which is why the team behind any start-up is so essential to investors, he said, calling Travers interest in joining a company that has yet been unable to pay her (she has equity in PolyAurum) incredibly lucky.

Margo Reed

At the Nanomedicine and Molecular Imaging Lab at Penn Medicine are (front row, from left) Jay Dorsey, a radiation oncologist and a founder of PolyAurum; Debra Travers, CEO; and Andrew Tsourkas, another founder of PolyAurum; and (back row, from left) Michael Dishowitz, portfolio manager, PCI Ventures at Penn; and David Cormode, lab director and PolyAurum founder. (MARGO REED / Staff Photographer)

The only thing Travers corporate-heavy background lacked, he said, was raising money for a start-up. It doesnt worry him, Dishowitz said, citing Travers perseverance, no-quit attitude.

When youre out there raising money, youre going to hear no about 100, 150 times before you hear yes, Dishowitz said.

When it comes to pitching for PolyAurum, Travers has extra incentive.

I am working on a cancer therapeutic, which is very important to the 11-year cancer survivor in me, she said.

As for handling nos, shes had plenty of professional experience with that.

After spending 30-plus years in the drug and diagnostic industries, where it is hard to find women CEOs or board members, Travers said, Ive learned to ignore the negative voices.

When: 5:30-8:30 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 12.

Where: Fels Planetarium, Franklin Institute, 222 N. 20th St., Philadelphia 19103

For more information: http://www.philly.com/stellarstartups

Published: July 28, 2017 3:01 AM EDT

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day.We're thankful for your support in every way.

More:
Cancer survivor becomes a cancer fighter at a Philly start-up - Philly.com

In US first, scientists edit genes of human embryos – Indiana Gazette

Posted on August 1, 2017 by ev1

For the first time in the United States, scientists have edited the genes of human embryos, a controversial step toward someday helping babies avoid inherited diseases.

The experiment was just an exercise in science the embryos were not allowed to develop for more than a few days and were never intended to be implanted into a womb, according to MIT Technology Review, which first reported the news.

Officials at Oregon Health & Science University confirmed Thursday that the work took place there and said results would be published in a journal soon. It is thought to be the first such work in the U.S.; previous experiments like this have been reported from China. How many embryos were created and edited in the experiments has not been revealed.

The Oregon scientists reportedly used a technique called CRISPR, which allows specific sections of DNA to be altered or replaced. It's like using a molecular scissors to cut and paste DNA, and is much more precise than some types of gene therapy that cannot ensure that desired changes will take place exactly where and as intended. With gene editing, these so-called "germline" changes are permanent and would be passed down to any offspring.

The approach holds great potential to avoid many genetic diseases, but has raised fears of "designer babies" if done for less lofty reasons, such as producing desirable traits.

Last year, Britain said some of its scientists could edit embryo genes to better understand human development.

And earlier this year in the U.S., the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine said in a report that altering the genes of embryos might be OK if done under strict criteria and aimed at preventing serious disease.

"This is the kind of research that the report discussed," University of Wisconsin-Madison bioethicist R. Alta Charo said of the news of Oregon's work. She co-led the National Academies panel but was not commenting on its behalf Thursday.

"This was purely laboratory-based work that is incredibly valuable for helping us understand how one might make these germline changes in a way that is precise and safe. But it's only a first step," she said.

"We still have regulatory barriers in the United States to ever trying this to achieve a pregnancy. The public has plenty of time" to weigh in on whether that should occur, she said. "Any such experiment aimed at a pregnancy would need FDA approval, and the agency is currently not allowed to even consider such a request" because of limits set by Congress.

One prominent genetics expert, Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif., said gene editing of embryos is "an unstoppable, inevitable science, and this is more proof it can be done."

Experiments are in the works now in the U.S. using gene-edited cells to try to treat people with various diseases, but "in order to really have a cure, you want to get this at the embryo stage," he said. "If it isn't done in this country, it will be done elsewhere."

There are other ways that some parents who know they carry a problem gene can avoid passing it to their children, he added. They can create embryos through in vitro fertilization, screen them in the lab and implant only ones free of the defect.

Dr. Robert C. Green, a medical geneticist at Harvard Medical School, said the prospect of editing embryos to avoid disease "is inevitable and exciting," and that "with proper controls in place, it's going to lead to huge advances in human health."

The need for it is clear, he added: "Our research has suggested that there are far more disease-associated mutations in the general public than was previously suspected."

Hank Greely, director of Stanford University's Center for Law and the Biosciences, called CRISPR "the most exciting thing I've seen in biology in the 25 years I've been watching it," with tremendous possibilities to aid human health.

"Everybody should calm down" because this is just one of many steps advancing the science, and there are regulatory safeguards already in place. "We've got time to do it carefully," he said.

Michael Watson, executive director of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, said the college thinks that any work aimed at pregnancy is premature, but the lab work is a necessary first step.

"That's the only way we're going to learn" if it's safe or feasible, he said.

See the article here:
In US first, scientists edit genes of human embryos - Indiana Gazette

University of Maryland scientists research gene linked to depression – Baltimore Sun

Posted on August 1, 2017 by ev1

Although medications exist to treat depression, many scientists arent sure why theyre effective and why they dont work for everyone.

Researchers at the University of Maryland School of Medicine believe they may have found a key to the puzzle of major depression that could lead to therapies for those who dont respond to medications already on the market.

A new study by the researchers has identified the central role a gene known as Slc6a15 plays in either protecting from stress or contributing to depression, depending on its level of activity in a part of the brain associated with motivation, pleasure and reward seeking.

Published in the Journal of Neuroscience in July, the study is the first to illuminate in detail how the gene works in a kind of neuron that plays a key role in depression, according to the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Specifically, the researchers found that mice with depression had reduced levels of the genes activity, while those with high levels of the genes activity handled chronic stress better.

Though senior researcher Mary Kay Lobos primary studies were done with mice, she also examined the brains of people who had committed suicide and found reduced levels of the genes activity, confirming a likely link.

She hopes now that drugs could be developed that would encourage the genes activity.

I thought it was fascinating we had this system in place that allows us to go after things or be motivated or have pleasure and I was interested in how it becomes dysfunctional in certain diseases like depression, Lobo said. I hope that we can identify molecules that could potentially be therapeutically treated or targeted to treat depression.

Lobo and her colleagues have been examining the gene for years. In 2006, they discovered that it was more common among specific neurons in the brain that they later learned were related to depression. Five years later, other researchers learned the gene played a role in depression and Lobo and her research colleagues decided to investigate what that role is in those specific neurons.

About 15 million adults, or 6.7 percent of all U.S. adults, experience major depression in a given year, according to the Anxiety and Depression Association of America. It is the leading cause of disability for Americans aged 15 to 44. It is more prevalent in women and can develop at any age, but the median age of onset is 32.5.

David Dietz, an associate professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the State University of New York at Buffalo, said little was known previously about the biological basis of depression in the brain. Many drugs used to treat depression were discovered serendipitously, he said, and it wasnt clear why they worked.

Were starting to really get an idea of what does the depressed brain look like, Dietz said. When you put the whole puzzle together, you see where the problem is. For too long weve been throwing things at individual pieces. Its so complex and we have so little information that it was almost bound to be that way. For the first time this is one of those bigger pieces you can slide into the jigsaw puzzle.

Lobo said its not clear yet how Slc6a15 works in the brain, but she believes it may be transporting three types of amino acids into a subset of neurons called D2 neurons in a part of the brain called the nucleus accumbens. The nucleus accumbens and D2 neurons are known to play a role in pleasure, activating when one eats a delicious meal, has sex or drinks alcohol.

The amino acids would then be synthesized into neurotransmitters. Depression previously has been linked to imbalances of the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine.

So even though people may have proper levels of amino acids in their bodies, the neurons in their brains that need them may not be getting enough if the transporter is not working as it should.

This gene is critical for putting very specific amino acids in the right place so that neurotransmitters can be synthesized, said A.J. Robison, an assistant professor in the Department of Physiology at Michigan State University. Its the location, location, location idea. Its not the amino acids, its where theyre at and in which cells.

Robison said Lobos next step would be discovering more about how the transporter gene works.

The fact that this transporter seems to be important is what the paper shows and how it does it is not shown, and thats a challenge for her, he said. Figuring out the how of it is the next step and Dr. Lobo is particularly positioned to do it.

Lobos team was able to use gene therapy, a form of therapy in the early stages of being studied in humans, in the mice to boost the genes activity. The mice were exposed to larger, more aggressive mice, which usually causes depressive symptoms. But the gene therapy helped protect the mice against the stress, the team found. When the team reduced the genes activity in the mice, just one day of exposure to the aggressive mice was enough to cause symptoms of depression.

Gene therapy is starting to be used in the treatment of some types of cancers, but Lobo said science had not yet advanced to the point where it can be used for treating neurological issues in human patients. A more likely treatment would be a drug that targets the genes activity directly, she said.

I think this is a major step toward our understanding of the precise maladaptive changes that occur in response to stress, said Vanna Zachariou, an associate professor in the Department of Neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It can be a more efficient way to target depression because its not simply targeting monoamine receptors or dopamine but targeting molecular adaptations that occur. It doesnt act necessarily as the drugs we have available, so it might create an alternative avenue to treat depression.

Lobo said she wouldnt refer to Slc6a15 as a depression gene, saying the disease was complex and could have many factors.

I wouldnt say theres one depression gene she said. A number of things play a role, and also theres no depression neuron, theres multiple depression neurons.

There also may be different types of depression with different symptoms, she said. With the disease, some sufferers sleep a lot, while others sleep a lot less, for example.

With all these complex diseases, its hard to link it to something, she said. Like Huntingtons disease, we know theres a specific gene that causes Huntingtons disease. For depression we dont have that.

cwells@baltsun.com

See the article here:
University of Maryland scientists research gene linked to depression - Baltimore Sun

Allahabad University scientists create ‘accelerated ageing model’ in … – Hindustan Times

Posted on July 31, 2017 by ev1

Decoding aging is one complicated process that scientists across globe are busy working on.

While a revolutionary breakthrough is still awaited, a group of scientists from Allahabad have developed unique model of rat which can go a long way in helping them find a formula to control the process.

Perhaps taking a cue from Bollywood blockbuster Paa, the scientists have developed a model of rat which displays a higher rate of aging.

The accelerated aging model of rat provides a great tool for scientists to study aging and also to test anti-aging drugs, claims prof SI Rizvi from the Biochemistry department of Allahabad University (AU).

Rizvi is leading the research team.

The teams findings and achievement have been published in the recent issue of the prestigious research journal Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications published from US.

Explaining his new research, prof Rizvi said that his team created a rat model which mimics the human condition of Progeria, a disease in which the patient starts to show a faster rate of aging.

Progeria syndrome was highlighted in the acclaimed Hindi movie Paa wherein the character was portrayed effectively by Amitabh Bachchan.

Progeria is a rare genetic condition that causes a childs body to age fast. Most kids with progeria do not live past the age of 13. The disease affects both sexes and all races equally. It affects about 1 in every 4 million births worldwide. Medical experts believe that India has around 8-10 reported cases of progeria and potentially 66 unreported cases.

To study aging, scientists rely on animal models such as C elegans (an earthworm), fruit flies, and mice. The consideration for choosing an animal is primarily based on its lifespan. Shorter lifespan provides an opportunity to study age-dependent changes in a shorter time frame.

To create the Progeria model of rat, the Allahabad University scientists subjected normal rats to chronic treatment of 30 days with dihydrotachysterol, a chemical similar to vitamin D. A look into relevant scientific literature reveals that very few studies have been conducted on such a model of rat.

Normal experimental rats have a lifespan of two years, which is too large a time for conducting experiments. The rat model mimicking Progeria provides a very good model to study aging process in a short span of time, added prof Rizvi.

The young progeria-mimicking rats display a certain level of oxidative stress (an established hallmark of aging) equivalent to old age rats.

The research group will now test Metformin, a common anti-diabetic drug, as an experimental anti-aging drug on increased aging model rats. Initial results using Metformin as an anti aging drug have been very exciting, added prof Rizvi.

Q&A: Mark Spong | Dean of ECCS – The UTD Mercury

Posted on July 31, 2017 by ev1

6 hours ago

This August marks the last month of Mark Spong as the dean of the Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science. He will step down and become a regular faculty member after taking the upcoming school year off. In an interview with The Mercury, Spong spoke about what the Jonsson School has accomplished and what the future will look like.

Q:Why are you stepping down from the dean position?

Before I was dean, I was a faculty member, and I still am a faculty member doing research and teaching and other things. For personal and professional reasons, I thought it was a good time to pass it on to someone else. I think we have accomplished a lot here at the Jonsson School. After 9 years, its always good to get new administration in place and Im ready to go back.

Q:Who will the new dean be?

Basically, theyve hired a professional search firm to look nationwide for a new dean. Theyll be bringing in candidates in the fall, and in the spring they will start interviewing them. I think they are looking to introduce the new dean in the fall 2018 term. That would be a good time, or maybe even summer 2018. I am completely out of the process.

Q:What are your plans after August?

Im not going anywhere; Im just going to teach and research. Im going to be on leave for this year, but when I come back, I will be teaching robotics and control systems. My title would just be professor.

Q:Who will handle the dean responsibilities in the meantime?

The interim dean will be Poras Balsara (a professor of electrical engineering). Hes been a longstanding faculty member, and he has done a lot for the Jonsson School. Hes been here doing research and teaching. He has served as an associate dean, helping me a lot. He serves on university-wide committees. Hes done it all in terms of service for the university.

Q:Over the past 30 years, what do you think has been the biggest accomplishment for the Jonsson School?

Thirty years ago, there was nothing. I think it has been tremendous to grow from nothing to the third place engineering school in the state behind UT (Austin) and Texas A&M. When I came on board in 2008, we had very bold plans to start the mechanical and bioengineering departments, and they have both been very successful. Prior to 2008, we only had electrical engineering and computer science. Weve gone from two departments to six now.

Q:What else do you see in the future for the Jonsson School?

I think the Jonsson chool should continue to grow, We added more than 10 faculty members and more than 10 percent of the student population every year, and I think soon we will double in terms of faculty size and research. I think the student population aspect will start to level out, however.

Q:What do you think has been the biggest reason for your growth?

I think that one, of course, is the six million and growing people in DFW. Theres a real hunger for our research university. The Tier 1 Initiative has been really good for our university and for the Jonsson School. Both of these have led to the new departments of bioengineering and mechanical engineering, which did not exist prior to 2008.

Q:What is your biggest contribution to the Jonsson School?

Everything that weve done has been a team effort. Its not just me who has been growing this school; its a collaborative effort between me and all the other faculty (and) staff members. That being said, weve hired a lot of outstanding research faculty and theyve been doing an amazing job. Our annual research expenditures have gone from about $20 million to over $50 million. We produce about 80 Ph.D.s a year now, which I think is really impressive. Weve opened the bioengineering and sciences building the BSB is brand new. On Rutford and Franklyn Jenifer, we are constructing a new engineering building, which will be the primary home for mechanical engineering.

See the rest here:
Q&A: Mark Spong | Dean of ECCS - The UTD Mercury

Human Genetic Engineering Cons

Posted on July 31, 2017 by ev1

Many Human Genetic Engineering Cons are there that can stop a person from getting through the entire gene therapy. It is a process in which there is a modification or change in the genes of a human. The aim or objective of using Human Genetic Engineering is to choose newborn phenotype or to change or alter the existing phenotype of an adult or an already grown child. Human Genetic Engineering has shown a lot of promise for curing cystic fibrosis. It is a kind of genetic disease that exist in humans. It will increase the level of immunity in people. Increased immunity will make them resistant to several severe diseases.

There is also a speculation that Human Genetic Engineering can be used in other area of work. It can be used for making changes in the physical appearances. Metabolism may notice some improvements. Human Genetic Engineering Cons can be seen on the mental abilities of a human.

However, it can make certain improvements in the intelligence level. Human Genetic Engineering has made a lot of contributions in the field of advanced medical sciences. There is not much data about Human Genetic Engineering Cons . One can easily think of it as a successful invention in the field of medical science.

Gene therapy can be used for curing several deadly diseases. Many diseases are there that have no cure, so this is a helpful invention in this field. It can lead to various health benefits. Genetic engineering can also lead to population free from any diseases. However, some Human Genetic Engineering Cons are also there that can trouble human beings.

This is because of the complications involved in human genes. A person has multiple physical attributes that differ from each other, so chances are there that these attributes get controlled by only one gene sequence. This helps the scientists to make changes or alteration in only one gene at a time and the remaining multiple sequences of genes will automatically be altered.

Scientists involved in this alteration process also noticed that whenever a DNA strand gets a new gene, then it becomes difficult for the DNA strand to make a decision about where the new gene will be settled. It is one of the factors that contribute to Human Genetic Engineering Cons. With the help of genetic engineering scientists will find no difficulty at the time of altering a part of DNA in a human. This will keep them resistant or away from any genetic disease or effects. These effects might be there on the reproductive cells of a person.

For an instance, it these reproductive cells are there on parents that their children will automatically acquire the effects of genetics. Such Human Genetic Engineering Cons can cause few genetic diseases on humans. Chances of errors are always there in making use of genetic engineering for human cloning, agriculture, and in any other related field. Entire human generation can lead to mutation if these Human Genetic Engineering Cons do get removed at their earliest.

Human Genetic Engineering Cons

1.39 (27.87%) 6001 votes

See more here:
Human Genetic Engineering Cons

Will Healthcare Inequality Cause Genetic Diseases to Disproportionately Impact the Poor? – Gizmodo

Posted on July 31, 2017 by ev1

Artwork via Angelica Alzona/Gizmodo

Today in America, if you are poor, you are also more likely to suffer from poor health. Low socioeconomic statusand the lack of access to healthcare that often accompanies ithas been tied to mental illness, obesity, heart disease and diabetes, to name just a few.

Imagine now, that in the future, being poor also meant you were more likely than others to suffer from major genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis, TaySachs disease, and muscular dystrophy. That is a future, some experts fear, that may not be all that far off.

Most genetic diseases are non-discriminating, blind to either race or class. But for some parents, prenatal genetic testing has turned what was once fate into choice. There are tests that can screen for hundreds of disorders, including rare ones like Huntingtons disease and 1p36 deletion syndrome. Should a prenatal diagnosis bring news of a genetic disease, parents can either arm themselves with information on how best to prepare, or make the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy. That is, if they can pay for it. Without insurance, the costs of a single prenatal test can range from a few hundred dollars up to $2,000.

And genome editing, should laws ever be changed to allow for legally editing a human embryo in the United States, could also be a far-out future factor. Its difficult to imagine how much genetically engineering an embryo might cost, but its a safe bet that it wont be cheap.

Reproductive technology is technology that belongs to certain classes, Laura Hercher, a genetic counselor and professor at Sarah Lawrence College, told Gizmodo. Restricting access to prenatal testing threatens to turn existing inequalities in our society into something biological and permanent.

Hercher raised this point earlier this month in pages of Genome magazine, in a piece provocatively titled, The Ghettoization of Genetic Disease. Within the genetics community, it caused quite a stir. It wasnt that no one had ever considered the idea. But for a community of geneticists and genetic counsellors focused on how to help curb the impact of devastating diseases, it was a difficult thing to see articulated in writing.

Prenatal testing is a miraculous technology that has drastically altered the course of a womans pregnancy since it was first developed in the 1960s. The more recent advent of noninvasive prenatal tests made the procedure even less risky and more widely available. Today, most women are offered screenings for diseases like Down syndrome that result from an abnormal presence of chromosomes, and targeted testing of the parents can hunt for inherited disease traits like Huntingtons at risk of being passed on to a child, as well.

But there is a dark side to this miracle of modern medicine, which is that choice is exclusive to those who can afford and access it.

This is one of those aspects of prenatal testing that we dont want to talk about, Megan Allyse, who studies reproductive ethics at the Mayo Clinic, told Gizmodo. Theres a wide variety of reasons people might not get access to reproductive technologies. But what is unavoidable is that you are more likely to have access if you are socio-economically well-off.

The scenario Hercher imagines is this: Say you dont have insurance, or have insurance that does not cover the roster of prenatal tests that OB/GYNs commonly recommend. You also cannot afford the tests out-of-pocket, and your baby is born with a genetic disease. This scenario plays out over and over again among people who cannot afford testing, while at the same time many of those who can afford the test for that disease and test positive choose to terminate a pregnancy. Over time, Hercher predicts, that disease would become more prevalent in those communities that could not afford the tests.

Whether this hypothetical scenario will play out in the real world isnt totally clear, in part because there are many variables besides socioeconomic status at work. Maybe you live in a state where abortions are more difficult to access or against local norms, influencing your decision to undergo prenatal testing. Perhaps you oppose abortion for cultural or religious reasons. And there isnt data for on individuals who refuse prenatal testing altogether, even if they could afford it. Somewhere around 70 percent of women opt-in to some form of prenatal testing, but those numbers vary wildly by region, jumping up to about 90 percent on the coasts and dropping significantly in the midwest.

At this point, all researchers can really do is speculate about future disparities in genetic disease. For example, a 2012 meta-analysis published in Prenatal Diagnosis found that across the country, the mean termination rate for Down syndrome was 67 percent, meaning that a significant number of people who undergo prenatal testing and wind up testing positive for Down syndrome choose to end the pregnancy. Of course, not every parent who learns their future child will have Down syndrome wants to terminate the pregnancy. Its is a complex, personal choice. But access to prenatal testing also allows a parent to better plan for their childs future needs.

Some geneticists already see evidence of an accessibility gap in their own clinical practices.

Certainly we know that access to care varies, Massachusetts General medical geneticist Brian Skotko told Gizmodo. His own work has studied the demographic breakdown of Down syndrome, and has found a clear racial pattern in both Down syndrome births and pregnancy terminations.

In Massachusetts, were seeing more Hispanic and black mothers with Down syndrome babies, he said, and what weve learned from their stories is either they dont have access to testing or that if they did get tested, they had strong religious beliefs.

As access to prenatal testing increases, Skotko said, it is likely we will see a drastic reduction in genetic diseases. In the next five years, as tests get better and better, the global market for them is expected to balloon by 25 percent to over $10 billion. We can look to historical evidence, Skotko said. As more people get access to prenatal tests, there will be an increase in number of selective terminations.

Access to prenatal testing isnt the only thing that could lead to Herchers fear becoming a reality, either. Abortion access has become increasingly difficult in some parts of the country, with states like Texas stripping funding for clinics and placing more restrictions on the conditions under which they can take place. In vitro fertilization could one day also contribute, allowing those who can afford the tens of thousands of dollars to undergo IVF to select the most genetically-desirable eggs for implantation.

In her new book, Whittier Law School professor Judith Daar makes a terrifying prediction: that unequal access to IVF may wind up bringing about a new eugenics.

The growth and success of reproductive technologies, accounting for three out of every one hundred babies born in the United States today, have prompted lawmakers to introduce and occasionally pass legislation that expressly or indirectly limits access to [assisted reproductive technologies] by certain individuals, she writes. These formal legal barriers, combined with individual and practice-wide physician conduct, coalesce to suppress access to assisted conception for those who have historically experienced a devaluation of their reproductive worth.

Daar points out that while in the 1942 case Skinner v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court affirmed that procreation is a right, striking down the states compulsory sterilization of certain criminals, the ruling only weighs in on procreating naturally. The court has yet to rule on anything that might also equalize access to technologies that could help with conception, or to ensure that a child conceived is healthy.

Whats missing in the conversation is how we adopt all of these technologies to a society that considers well-being for all, Eleonore Pauwels, a bioethicist at the Wils
on Center, told Gizmodo. There is already an access problem. But what about when were editing out diseases? Who will pay for CRISPR? We are looking at much more disruption in the future.

The only real way to prevent genetic diseases from becoming diseases of poverty, said Josephine Johnston, a bioethicist at The Hastings Institute, is to make sure everyone has access to the same services. While the costs of todays tests may one day be affordable for more people, there will inevitably also be newer, more expensive technologies that create the same issues in the future. Thus is the cycle of healthcares disparity of accessthere are always people for whom treatment is not equal to the rest.

People have to have access to healthcare services, and [genetic testing] needs to be part of what those services include, she told Gizmodo. If you dont have access to testing and termination servicesor support if you continue the pregnancyyou dont really have a choice about what to do. Its not a choice if youre backed into a corner.

The inequality threat that prenatal testing, IVF and germline editing present, is of course a version of the same inequality that has always existed. If you are poor, there is a good chance your access to healthcare is not as good as someone who has more money.

But as these technologies grow in power and expense, the gulf of that inequality widens. Genetic disease has always been our shared vulnerability, Hercher wrote in Genome. When one part of society can opt out of risk, will they continue to feel the same obligation to provide support and resources to those who remain vulnerable, especially if at least some of them have deliberately chosen to accept the risk?

Hercher presents what is really a common vision of dystopia: a future of genetic haves and have-nots in which inequality becomes encoded in our basic biology. But arriving at that future does not require genetic engineering or some other as-yet-unknown technology. All it requires is that we keep doing what we are already doing, living in a world in which access to necessary healthcare is often a luxury off-limits to the poor.

Read the rest here:
Will Healthcare Inequality Cause Genetic Diseases to Disproportionately Impact the Poor? - Gizmodo

‘As I Have Always Said’: Trump’s Ever-Changing Positions on Health Care – The Atlantic

Posted on July 31, 2017 by ev1

In the aftermath of the Republican health-care collapse early Friday morning, President Trumps response proved surprisingly restrained. There were no personal attacks on senators who voted against the plan, no multi-tweet tantrum. There was just one remark (followed hours later by a non sequitur about ending filibusters). That remark was, however, no more candid than many of Trumps prior statements:

As I said from the beginning. Its an amusing statement because Trumps views about health care have been anything but consistent. Rather, there have been three constants: agnosticism about what a plan should look like; a fanatical desire to notch a win regardless of the quality of that win; and a refusal to give up.

In the meantime, Trump has vacillated frequently, mostly pinging between three incompatible positions: first, that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced; second, that Republicans should repeal Obamacare and worry about a replacement later; and third, as here, that Republicans should simply let Obamacare die. Lets consider a somewhat simplified timeline of Trumps views.

September 27, 2015: Repeal and replace

Obamacare's going to be repealed and replaced, Trump told Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes. Obamacare is a disaster if you look at what's going on with premiums where they're up 45, 50, 55 percent.

He was vague on the details, but insisted that all Americans will have insurance. There's many different ways, by the way. Everybody's got to be covered I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now.

November 11, 2016: No preference

Jump ahead to right after the election. Trump told The Wall Street Journal he has no fixed position, but would consider just trying to fix the existing law. Either Obamacare will be amended, or repealed and replaced, he said.

November 13, 2016: Simultaneous repeal and replace

Two days later, Trump was again on 60 Minutes, where he told Lesley Stahl he wants both to eliminate the law and to put in place a new one at the same time.

Lesley Stahl: And there's going to be a period if you repeal it and before you replace it, when millions of people could loseno?

Donald Trump: No, we're going to do it simultaneously. It'll be just fine. We're not going to have, like, a two-day period and we're not going to have a two-year period where there's nothing. It will be repealed and replaced. And we'll know. And it'll be great health care for much less money. So it'll be better health care, much better, for less money. Not a bad combination.

January 9, 2017: Simultaneous repeal and replace

Despite Trumps statements, Republican leaders began floating the idea of repealing Obamacare first and replacing it later, likely recognizing that while a majority of the GOP caucus in both houses favors repeal, they have divergent views about what a replacement look like. (After seven years of promising repeal, leaders still had no viable plan.) But Senator Rand Paul believes that Congress should do both at once, and he convinced Trump to go along with it. The Wall Street Journal reported:

I believe we should vote on replacement the same day we vote on repeal, Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) said in an interview Monday. Mr. Trump called the senator on Friday night to say he agrees completely, Mr. Paul said.

January 15, 2017: Insurance for everybody

Trump told The Washington Post that he was close to unveiling a plan with the leaders of the House and Senate that would give insurance to everybody, lower deductibles, and lower premiums.

Although he was coy about its detailslower numbers, much lower deductibleshe said he is ready to unveil it alongside Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).Its very much formulated down to the final strokes. We havent put it in quite yet but were going to be doing it soon, Trump said.

Were going to have insurance for everybody, Trump said. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you cant pay for it, you dont get it. Thats not going to happen with us.

As of late July, Republicans have not offered any plan remotely resembling this.

March 7, 2017: Trump backs House plan

On March 6, House Republican leaders unveiled their repeal-and-replace plan, which immediately took fire from all sides. Conservatives saw it as far too timid, but it also failed to meet the criteria that Trump had laid out. It increased premiums, slashed Medicaid (despite a Trump campaign promise not to touch entitlements), and would resultthe CBO said a week laterin 21 million more uninsured Americans by 2021. Nonetheless, Trump backed the plan:

March 24, 2017: Wait for Obamacare to collapse

On March 24, the House bill collapsed, with Speaker Paul Ryan pulling it and acknowledging he didnt have the votes to pass it. I've been saying for the last year and a half that the best thing we can do politically speaking is let Obamacare explode, Trump says in the Oval Office. He said he planned to move on to tax reform and let Democrats come to him when the current system collapses.

I honestly believe the Democrats will come to us and say, look, let's get together and get a great healthcare bill or plan that's really great for the people of our country, he said. And I think that's going to happen.

April 2, 2017: Repeal and replace

Trump scolded anyone who was so foolish as to take him at his word when he said he was going to move on and let Obamacare collapse:

April 30, 2017: Lower premiums and deductibles

The president again promised that any plan will have lower premiums and deductibles:

May 4, 2017: Trump praises the Houses second repeal-and-replace plan

On May 4, the House managed to pass a revised version of their bill, salvaging a significant victory from what had seemed like defeat. Trump threw a party in the Rose Garden for House leaders.

And I will say this, that as far as Im concerned, your premiums, theyre going to start to come down. Were going to get this passed through the Senate. I feel so confident. Your deductibles, when it comes to deductibles, they were so ridiculous that nobody got to use their current planthis nonexistent plan that I heard so many wonderful things about over the last three or four days. And this is, make no mistake, this is a repeal and replace of Obamacare.

June 13, 2017: Trump calls the House plan mean

Despite his public praise for the House plan, he told senators that it is mean, mean, mean during a meeting at the White House and added, We need to be more generous.

June 26, 2017: Wait for Obamacare to collapse

With the Senate process faltering, Trump once again returned to the idea of simply allowing the existing market to collapse:

June 30, 2017: Repeal now, replace later

Four days later, Trump returned to the leadership plan he had rejected back in January at Rand Pauls suggestion. He now thought it might be best to repeal and worry about the replacement down the road:

July 17, 2017: Repeal now, replace later

On July 12, Vice President Pence traveled to Kentucky, where he promised simultaneous action: And before the summer is out, we will repeal and replace Obamacare. But five days later, Trump was once again pushing the repeal-and-wait strategy.

July 18, 2017: Wait for Obamacare to collapse

No sooner had Trump reaffirmed his commitment to repeal-and-wait than he changed his mind, once again deciding the best thing to do is allow the current system to collapse. The next day, he tweeted:

July 22, 2017: Simultaneous repeal and replace

Five days later, Trump was once again backing the Senates repeal-and-replace plan.

July 28, 2017: Wait for Obamacare to collapse

So much for that. With the Senate plan having collapsed again, Trump claimed he had always supported simply letting the system run its course. In addition to his early morning tweet, he told an audience on Long Island, You know, I said from the beginning, let Obamacare implode, and then do it. I turned out to be right. Let Obamacare implode.

* * *

The historical record shows just how untrue Trumps claim to have always supported letting Obamacare fail is. Other than his commitment to do something about Obamacare, everything else has been negotiable. One element of this is surely Trumps continued illiteracy about both the existing health-insurance market and what the current plans will dosee, for example, his repeated promises of lower premiums. But it also reflects his determination to win. When your priority is a win at all costs, its less important what sort of win that is. Thats also why Trumps most recent insistence that hes going to let Obamacare collapse should not be taken at face value, nor should the apparent death of the bill be considered final. Several times now, the Republican repeal effort has been declared dead, and several times it has been brought back to life mostly by force of the presidents determination to act. Its the one thing that really hasnt changed.

See the rest here:
'As I Have Always Said': Trump's Ever-Changing Positions on Health Care - The Atlantic

Scientists, theologians ponder if latest biological findings are more compatible with religion – National Catholic Reporter

Posted on July 31, 2017 by ev1

When Charles Darwin published his landmark theory of evolution by natural selection in the 19th century, religious leaders were confronted with a powerful challenge to some of their oldest beliefs about the origins of life.

Then evolutionary theory was expanded with the insights of genetics, which gave further support for a scientific and secular view of how humans evolved.

Faith and tradition were forced further onto the defensive.

Now, exciting progress in biology in recent decades may be building up a third new phase in the scientific explanation of life, according to thinkers gathered at a University of Oxford conference July 19-22.

Although this 21st-century wave has no single discovery to mark its arrival, new insights into developing technologies such as genetic engineering and human enhancement may end up giving another important boost to the belief that science has (or eventually will have) the answers to life's mysteries.

Some scientists, theologians and philosophers see in this ever deeper knowledge of how genes work a possible alternative to the more reductive approach to evolution one that brings in a broader view that also considers the influence of the environment.

Unlike the earlier views, which seemed to lead toward either agnosticism or atheism, the theologians see this "new biology" or "holistic biology" as more compatible with religious belief.

"We've added definition to the picture of evolution that has deepened and enriched our understanding of biological processes," Donovan Schaefer, an Oxford lecturer in science and religion who co-organized the conference, told the opening session of the July 19-22 meeting.

But he added: "It would be naive to imagine that the grander questions about biology, religion, the humanities and evolutionary theory generally have been put to death."

The achievements on their list include new fields like epigenetics, the science of how genes are turned on or off to influence our bodies, and advances in cognitive and social sciences that yield ever more detailed empirical research into how we behave.

Waiting in the wings are new technologies such as genome editing, which can modify human genes to repair, enhance or customize human beings. Scientists in China are believed to have already genetically modified human embryos and the first known attempt to do so in the United States was reported July 26.

Schaefer compared today's deeper understanding of biology to the higher resolution that photographers enjoy now that photography has advanced from film to digital images.

Genes once thought to be fairly mechanical in influencing human development leading to the "my genes made me do it" kind of thinking have been found to be part of complex systems that can act in response to a person's environment.

Since scientists succeeded in sequencing the genome in the late 1990s, they have found that epigenetic markers that regulate patterns of gene expression can reflect outside influences on a body.

Even simpler living objects such as plants contain a complex internal genetic system that governs their growth according to information they receive from outside.

To theologians who see a "new biology" emerging, this knowledge points to a more holistic system than scientists have traditionally seen, one more open to some divine inspiration for life.

In this view, the fact that epigenetic markers can bring outside pressures to bear on the genome deep inside a human means genetics is not a closed system, but part of the wider sweep of nature in which they, as religious thinkers, also see God's hand.

"Nature is so complex and rich and that prompts questions about why on earth is this the case? If you're an atheist, how do you explain a universe that seems to have the capacity to produce these things in the first place?" asked Alister McGrath, an Oxford theologian who is director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion that hosted the conference.

This in turn opened a space for theologians to augment the discussion about the "new biology," he said.

Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at New York's City College with doctorates in genetics and evolutionary biology, also said scientism the idea that science can answer all life's important questions was too limited.

"Science informs and grounds certain philosophical positions; it doesn't determine them," he said. "But the data can't settle ethical questions."

Pigliucci agrees with the trend to use the evolutionary paradigm to analyze fields outside of biology, including topics such as ethics and morality.

"The life sciences tell us that the building blocks of what we call morality are actually found presumably they were selected for in nonhuman social primates," he said. "Science gives you an account of what otherwise looks like magic: Why do we have a moral sense to begin with? How did we develop it?"

Not all present agreed that science could explain religion.

"Some suspect that biology has triggered some kind of devotion and there are too many people who practice this cult," said Lluis Oviedo, a theologian at the Pontifical University Antonianum in Rome.

His own research has found at least 75 books and academic articles trying to explain religion through evolution and he knew of about 20 more on the way, he said.

Although he thinks, "the time of explaining through radical reduction is over," he admitted few biologists seemed ready to accept the more holistic "new biology."

Even some scientists at the conference, while ready to engage with the philosophers and theologians, showed less interest in discussions about whether a "new biology" was emerging.

"I'm pragmatic," explained Ottoline Leyser of the University of Cambridge, whose lecture on plant genetics was one of the conference's highlights.

Theologians in the decadeslong science and religion debate, which argues the two disciplines complement each other, have also become more pragmatic as their dialogue proceeds.

Oxford's McGrath said the theologians had become more modest in the claims they made about what religion could contribute to this debate. Unlike some more doctrinaire scientists, he said, they did not think they had all the answers.

"They don't say These observations in nature prove or disprove God,'" he said. "Our religious way of thinking gives you a framework which allows you to look at the scientific approach to the world and understand why it makes sense, but at the same time also to understand its limits."

"Those things need to be in the picture if we're going to lead meaningful lives."

Read the original post:
Scientists, theologians ponder if latest biological findings are more compatible with religion - National Catholic Reporter

The Great American Eclipse – Washington Blade

Posted on July 31, 2017 by ev1

Marie Curie (Photo public domain)

Its a known scientific fact that I love science. Marie Curie is a goddess to me. It is miraculous that I have any curiosity at all. I was raised floridly Catholic. If you had a question, God was the answer. Q: Why is the sky blue? A: God.

So you can just stop blaming that curiosity-killing cat.

Besides the biological sciences, I love astronomy. Maria Mitchell, the first American woman to become a professional astronomer, is a rock star to me. I studied the less mathematical branch of astronomy called, Hey honey, Im out here just looking at the stars.

My hitchhikers guide through the constellations was the childrens book illustrator H.A. Reys The Stars: A New Way to See Them. He redrew constellation diagrams so that you could actually recognize the Twins of Gemini walking and holding hands. You might also recognize the name H.A. Rey for his Curious George series, which was about an adorably curious monkey, not about Incurious George and his pet goat.

I never studied astrology. My dear Catholic mother, unlike my dear Hindu mother-in-law, thought astrology was the devils art, so would never tell me the actual time of my birth. Consequently any reading of my chart is based on imprecise information. The fakery generally induces complete amnesia in me. I can never remember what was said at a session; have never successfully taped a session and a note-taking friend, allowed to accompany me once, fell soundly asleep before the sun even rose in my first house.

My astrological agnosticism has also skepticized other solar and lunar alignment events.

In August 1987, the exceptional alignment of the Sun, moon, Mars and Venus with eight planets in our solar system was called The Harmonic Convergence. The big Converge was supposed to be a shift that would cause a five-year period of energy cleansing. Not so much. Instead it was the tail end of the Reign of Reagan and a raging AIDS epidemic.

For 2000, experts predicted that the Y2K Millennium bug would cause network crashes, global dysfunction, power failures, data transmission interruption and other end-time internet catastrophes. Jan. 1, 2000 did bring some monster hangovers but the apocalypse foretold seems to have only now arrived in Y2K17.

The next big look-up event is more solar than stellar the total solar eclipse on Monday, Aug. 21, 2017. You might not have heard much about the The Great American Eclipse. Dont feel bad. It has gotten less press than the buildups to The Convergence or The Y2K. Our current prehistoric parallel political universe, with its Orange cis-narcissist Sun King and all the human sacrifices he demands, has totally eclipsed actual solar events.

And this eclipse with its fabulous sounding Path of Totality is, if youll pardon the expression, huge. The last solar eclipse in America in 1991 was seen only for a brief moment in Hawaii.

This 2017 eclipse will make landfall in Oregon and then will throw some total shade through Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, finally through South Carolina and then on out to sea. Even though the eclipse will pass through the blue states of Oregon and Illinois, the actual districts it will unenlighten are red, as is the rest of the path. Towns along the route are expecting thousands of revelers to celebrate at Solarfests, Moonstocks, and Eclipse Experience weekends.

Despite my avowed agnosticism, I find myself squinting at eclipse path maps, and reading them as if they are necromantic charts sure to yield some clue to our own path forward. Sometimes I read as if it were an X-ray negative and the ecliptic path is searing a path of enlightenment diagonally across a darkened country.

Provincetown is north of the eclipse path and will have only a penumbral eclipse experience. Some will think the dimming is a hangover from the Gods and Goddesses themed Carnival Week a few days before.At my Path of Totality party, I will be glowing in my Marie Curie goddess dress.

Kate Clinton is a longtime humorist who writes regularly for the Blade.

Excerpt from:
The Great American Eclipse - Washington Blade

Essential California: More questions about how USC handled its former med school dean – Los Angeles Times

Posted on July 31, 2017 by ev1

Good morning, and welcome to the Essential California newsletter. Its Monday, July 31, and heres whats happening across California:

Futurist Transhuman News Blog

Author Archives: ev1

Defining Faith – Patheos (blog)

When genetic engineering is the environmentally friendly choice – Ensia

Doug Brooks returns to Parkersburg as a physician – Parkersburg News

AI Is Helping This Anti-Aging Startup Uncover Ways for You to Live a Longer, Healthier Life – Futurism

Study shows Western men’s sperm counts are in freefall and KC is no exception – Kansas City Star

US Scientists Just Edited a Human Embryo for the First Time. (Yes, People Are Freaking Out.) – Mother Jones

Sperm Counts Plummet In Western Men, Study Finds – NPR

James Harden, Chris Paul already making strides in chemistry during offseason – ClutchPoints (blog)

John DeShazier: Saints linemates Larry Warford, Zach Strief already developing chemistry – NewOrleansSaints.com

Cancer survivor becomes a cancer fighter at a Philly start-up – Philly.com

In US first, scientists edit genes of human embryos – Indiana Gazette

University of Maryland scientists research gene linked to depression – Baltimore Sun

Allahabad University scientists create ‘accelerated ageing model’ in … – Hindustan Times

Q&A: Mark Spong | Dean of ECCS – The UTD Mercury

Human Genetic Engineering Cons

Will Healthcare Inequality Cause Genetic Diseases to Disproportionately Impact the Poor? – Gizmodo

‘As I Have Always Said’: Trump’s Ever-Changing Positions on Health Care – The Atlantic

Scientists, theologians ponder if latest biological findings are more compatible with religion – National Catholic Reporter

The Great American Eclipse – Washington Blade

Essential California: More questions about how USC handled its former med school dean – Los Angeles Times