NIH Launches Genetic Testing Registry

By a GenomeWeb staff reporter

NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) The National Institutes of Health has launched a new web resource aimed at providing consumers and healthcare providers with information about all of the genetic tests that are currently on the market.

The Genetic Testing Registry, unveiled today international Rare Disease Day was developed to serve as an encyclopedia of the genetic tests that currently exist for around 2,500 genetic diseases, one which will be updated as new tests and applications come on the market.

The goal was to create a resource that would help healthcare providers and consumers sort through information about the available tests, because most do not require premarket review by the US Food and Drug Administration.

The GTR entries will cover information on the purpose of the test, its limitations, the name and location of the providers, whether it is for clinical or research use, what methods are used, and how the results are measured. NIH will not verify the content of the entries provided by the testing providers, but it will require that they agree to a code of conduct for accuracy that will enable NIH to require submitters to correct inaccuracies or to remove such information from the resource.

On top of the basic information, the voluntary GTR will provide details about a test's analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility.

"I'm delighted that NIH has created this powerful, new tool. It is a tremendous resource for all who are struggling to make sense of the complex world of genetic testing," NIH Director Francis Collins said in a statement.

"This registry will help a lot of people from healthcare professionals looking for answers to their patients' diseases to researchers seeking to identify gaps in scientific knowledge."

"Our new registry features a versatile search interface that allows users to search by tests, conditions, genes, genetic mutations, and laboratories," said GTR Director Wendy Rubinstein. "What's more, we designed this tool to serve as a portal to other medical genetics information, with context-specific links to practice guidelines and a variety of genetic, scientific and literature resources available through the National Library of Medicine at NIH."

The registry was developed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, with input from a range of stakeholders, including testing labs, healthcare providers, patients, and researchers, through a public comment period and public meetings.

See original here:
NIH Launches Genetic Testing Registry

Lafayette’s ‘R.U.R’ deals with robots, role of technology

Lafayette College theater director Michael O'Neill has never seen the classic Czech play "R.U.R," but after teaching it in his theater classes for years, he became intrigued by the relevance of its premise.

So after reading many translations of the play about robots and a mechanized world where people show no emotions, O'Neill decided to write his own translation and produce it at the college. The play opened Wednesday and continues through Saturday at the Williams arts center.

"I made a lot of cuts," O'Neill says. "In those days, they tended to be awfully talky."

"R.U.R." or "Rossum's Universal Robots" was written in 1920 by Karel Capek. It was a response to the death and destruction he had witnessed during World War I and the emotional dislocation and upheavals of the 1917 Communist revolution in Russia.

The play was written as an expressionistic journey into genetic engineering on a mass scale, O'Neill says. It predicted a mechanized world where people have no emotional connections and where workers have lost their human rights. The play takes place in a factory that makes Robots that can think for themselves and can be mistaken for humans.

"I thought that the play had a lot to say about today and our interest in human cloning and our dependence on technology," O'Neill says. "I was concerned about our growing dependence on our cell phones and our computers and the increasing mechanization of everyday life. I also thought that that this play was particularly relevant to Lafayette, which has such a big engineering program."

The play was the first to introduce the word robot to the English language.

"Actually the word robot means 'worker' in Czech, and the Robots in our production look less like Hollywood robots than Soviet workers from the 1920s," O'Neill says. Costume designer Locklyn Brooks has created gray and monochrome outfits that make the Robots look less like machines and more like people, he says.

O'Neill says the play is not so much science fiction as a social satire with a utopian vision.

"This is actually a very traditional play, and despite the presence of the Robots, its main theme is that the human race needs love to be able to survive," he says.

View post:
Lafayette's 'R.U.R' deals with robots, role of technology

‘Scope for innovation in genetic medicine’

There is a tremendous opportunity in genetic medicine for innovation and for new players to make significant contributions, because it is still experimental, noted biologist and Nobel Laureate Dr David Baltimore said yesterday.
“Today, it is mainly the province of biotechnology companies and universities, not big pharmaceutical companies,” he observed in a keynote presentation at the Qatar International Conference on Stem Cell Science and Policy 2012.
There are new genetic tools available – though they are still experimental - to treat diseases which involve adding, subtracting or modifying genes in the cells of the body.
“However, they are powerful tools and I am confident they will be an important part of the medicine of the future,” he said.
Speaking on ‘The hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) as a target for therapy against cancer and Aids,’ Dr Baltimore explained that HSCs are one of the few cell types routinely used for bone marrow transplant.
The HSCs are easily accessible, retroviruses can be used to carry genes into these stem cells, the genes are then expressed in all of cells that derive from the HSC and can correct inherited defects and bring genes that perform therapy under a programme called engineering immunity.
“Though the human immune system is a wondrous creation of evolution yet it is not without certain limitations. One, in particular, is its poor ability to stop the growth of cancer cells– another is its hosting of HIV.
“In the case of cancer, the machinery of immunity can attack cancers but it rarely attacks with the necessary power. For HIV, the ability of the virus to use the CD4 and CCR5 proteins as receptors means that CD4 cells are the major cell type in which the virus grows.
“We have been trying to supply genes to the immune system by gene transfer methods that would improve its ability to block cancer and block infection of CD4 cells by HIV.
“For cancer, we have focused on T cell receptor genes. For HIV, we have used a small interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) targeted to CCR5. We have been quite successful in mice with both strategies and are now moving to humans.
“In both cases, our experiments with mice have focused on putting genes into HSCs as, once these cells are altered, they provide modified blood cells to the body for life.
“In our human cancer trials we first used peripheral T cells for modification with dramatic effect but it has been transient.
“We are now moving to stem cells. For the siRNA against CCR5, we plan to initiate trials within six months using autologous, gene-modified stem cells,” he added.
The ensuing panel discussion on ‘Opportunities and challenges for stem cell research,’ saw Prof Irving Weissman (Stanford Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine) cautioning against ‘phoney organisations engaged in stem cell therapy.’
Prof Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte (Salk Institute for Biological Studies, US) stated that stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood should be considered as one of the key cells for use in regenerative medicine.
The session also featured Dr Alan Trounson (California Institute of Regenerative Medicine), Prof Roger Pedersen (The Anne McLaren Laboratory for Regenerative Medicine, University of Cambridge), Dr Lawrence Corey (University of Washington) and with Dr Richard Klausner (managing partner of biotechnology venture capital firm The Column Group) as moderator.
Earlier, Ambassador Edward P Djerejian (founding director, James A Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, Houston, Texas, US) spoke about the collaboration with Qatar Foundation on stem cell research.

Originally posted here:
‘Scope for innovation in genetic medicine’

Budget cuts force lay-offs at UN biotechnology centre

The International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, headquartered in Trieste, Italy, is facing its first budget cut in 25 years.

ICGEB

An international biotechnology research centre is facing lay-offs and equipment shortages following budget cuts by Italy, one of its main funders.

The International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) was set up in 1987 by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization to advance research and training in biomedicine and plant biotechnology for the developing world. The centre is now an autonomous, intergovernmental organization in the UN system. It has 61 member states, many of which are developing countries, and employs more than 500 scientists at campuses in Trieste, Italy; New Delhi; and Cape Town, South Africa. The Italian site focuses on biomedicine and molecular biology, the Indian one on virology, immunology and plant biotechnology, and the South African campus on infectious diseases and cancer.

Marc Van Montagu, founder of the Institute of Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries in Ghent, Belgium, and a scientific advisor to the ICGEB, says that the UN centre has an important role in international development. “The time of giving aid money to developing countries should come to an end; the ICGEB teaches these countries how to have access to their own agricultural resources,” he says. 

The governments of the countries that host the research campuses together cover 95% of the nearly €17-million (US$22.8-million) core budget. But this year, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is cutting €2 million from its €12.4-million contribution, as part of a multi-billion-euro package of austerity measures approved by the Italian parliament last November.

“This is the first time we have suffered cuts in 25 years,” says Francisco Baralle, a molecular biologist and director-general of the ICGEB. “Some personnel reduction will be necessary in Trieste and New Delhi.” The Cape Town campus has a separate budget provided by the South African government, and won’t be affected by the funding squeeze.

“No member state seems prepared to take over from Italy.”

Austerity measures

The cuts will be distributed equally between the Italian and Indian sites, which will have to lay off some of the 171 staffers who are paid from the core budget. The ICGEB has already asked for voluntary resignations, with a non-voluntary phase to follow if necessary.

Pierre Chambon, founder of the Institute for Genetics and Cellular and Molecular Biology in Strasbourg, France, and a former scientific adviser to the ICGEB, says that the Trieste campus is “one of the best research centres in Italy, but these cuts will hit it hard”.

Fabian Feiguin, a neurobiologist and group leader at the Trieste site, is worried. “These measures will affect the number and length of fellowships, and are already affecting equipment affordability,” he says.

The New Delhi campus is facing further problems. Its budget is already too small to cover electricity and maintenance expenses, says Baralle; researchers must seek authorization to perform experiments at night not only for security reasons, but also to reduce electricity costs.

In a statement to Nature, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Italy is asking for more cooperation from other member states. “We are supporting the ICGEB mainly on a voluntary basis and will continue to do so, but it is desirable to reach a new equilibrium among donors,” it said. Italy is also urging member states that are behind with their dues to pay up.

Baralle hopes to mitigate the effects of the cuts by expanding the centre’s non-core budget, which currently makes up 30% of the total and comes from external research grants. But, warns Chambon, “it’s not easy to cover such a sum with extra grants”.

The ICGEB will also ask other member countries to increase their contributions. However, Van Montagu fears that it will prove difficult to get more money. “No member state seems prepared to take over from Italy,” he says.

Read more:
Budget cuts force lay-offs at UN biotechnology centre

Decision on Bt. Brinjal not influenced by NGOs: Jairam

Home > News > india-news

Kochi, Feb 25: In the wake of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh questioning the role of foreign-aided NGOs in opposing use of genetic engineering, union Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh Saturday stressed that the decision to stay commercial use of Bt. Brinjal was not influenced by any NGO.

Answering queries from media persons on his visit here, Ramesh said his decision on Bt Brinjal was based on wide consultations with stakeholders, adding that the use of bio-technology for the crop to be consumed by humans needed to be carefully evaluated.

"No NGO influenced my decision," said Ramesh, who had decided to put on hold the commercial release of the Bt. Brinjal in February 2010 when he was union environment minister.

Ramesh's remarks assume significance in the wake of prime minister's interview to a science journal saying that India must make use of genetic engineering technology to increase agricultural productivity, and NGOs funded by the US and Scandinavian countries were not fully appreciative of the country's development challenges.

Ramesh said that the decision to put a moratorium on the commercial release of Bt. Brinjal was taken after seven months of consultations with the public, various stakeholders including the states, farmers and NGOs. He said he had written on the issue to the chief ministers of all states.

Bio-technology in agriculture was not merely a scientific issue but "political issue" as it affects human safety, he said.

Referring to his decision on Bt Brinjal, Ramesh said Greenpeace had accused him of propagating the line of genetic engineering firm Monsanto during a public hearing in Bangalore.

"So on Bt Brinjal, since I was directly involved, I can confidently say no NGOs influenced my views," he said.

The minister said that there was no scientific consensus on Bt. Brinjal, the full protocol on the test has not been completed and there was no independent professional mechanism to instil confidence in the public.

"I did not ban Bt Brinjal. I decided lets put moratorium (on it)," Ramesh said and added he could not have ignored opinion of chief ministers who opposed it.

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who supports Bt Cotton, did not support the move on Bt Brinjal, he noted.

"I cannot ignore states. Ultimately in agriculture, we have to take states along with us," he said. (IANS)

Share this article at

 

 

Yearly Horoscope of 2012 for the Zodiac Sign:

 

Sagittarius     Scorpio     Libra    Virgo    Leo     Cancer     Gemini     Taurus     Aries     Pisces     Aquarius     Capricon

 

 

TOP READ ARTICLES:

Meryl Streep wants Voila Davis to win Oscar
Jessica Alba is a strict mother
Houston's secret 'son' to get share in wealth
Dev Patel isn't comfortable with big roles
'My Week With Marilyn' - layered, poignant
Elton John keen to set up Katy Perry
Dev Patel 'uncomfortable' with big roles
Sinead O'Connor smokes pot 'secretly'
Reese Witherspoon would use dating sites to her advantage
Whitney Houston's grave site 'protected by armed guards'
Whitney Houston funeral home denies leaking casket photos
Brad Pitt - Angelina Jolie's reception hall in French home sparks wedding rumours
Sylvester Stallone arm wrestles with Bruce Willis
Hollywood snappers consider ban on Charlize Theron
Conrad Murray denied bail in Michael Jackson death appeal

Follow this link:
Decision on Bt. Brinjal not influenced by NGOs: Jairam

Bt.Brinjal decision not influenced by NGOs, asserts Jairam

Kochi, Feb 25 (IANS) In the wake of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh questioning the role of foreign-aided NGOs in opposing use of genetic engineering, union Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh Saturday stressed that the decision to ban commercial use of Bt. Brinjal was not influenced by any NGO.

Answering queries from media persons on his visit here, Ramesh said his decision on Bt Brinjal was based on wide consultations with stakeholders, adding that the use of bio-technology for the crop to be consumed by humans needed to be carefully evaluated.

'No NGO influenced my decision,' said Ramesh, who had decided to put on hold the commercial release of the Bt. Brinjal in February 2010 when he was union environment minister.

Ramesh's remarks assume significance in the wake of prime minister's interview to a science journal saying that India must make use of genetic engineering technology to increase agricultural productivity, and NGOs funded by the US and Scandinavian countries were not fully appreciative of the country's development challenges.

Ramesh said that the decision to put a moratorium on the commercial release of Bt. Brinjal was taken after seven months of consultations with the public, various stakeholders including the states, farmers and NGOs. He said he had written on the issue to the chief ministers of all states.

Bio-technology in agriculture was not merely a scientific issue but 'political issue' as it affects human safety, he said.

Referring to his decision on Bt Brinjal, Ramesh said Greenpeace had accused him of propagating the line of genetic engineering firm Monsanto during a public hearing in Bangalore.

'So on Bt Brinjal, since I was directly involved, I can confidently say no NGOs influenced my views,' he said.

The minister said that there was no scientific consensus on Bt. Brinjal, the full protocol on the test has not been completed and there was no independent professional mechanism to instil confidence in the public.

'I did not ban Bt Brinjal. I decided lets put moratorium (on it),' Ramesh said and added he could not have ignored opinion of chief ministers who opposed it.

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who supports Bt Cotton, did not support the move on Bt Brinjal, he noted.

'I cannot ignore states. Ultimately in agriculture, we have to take states along with us,' he said.

View post:
Bt.Brinjal decision not influenced by NGOs, asserts Jairam

GMO Labeling

MANILA, Philippines - Different countries have different policies/rules on the use of genetic engineering techniques in agriculture and food production. Genetic engineering simply means that the genes of one organism are injected (cut-out and pasted) into the genome of another organism using the so-called gene-splicing techniques of biotechnology in a laboratory resulting in the creations of combinations of plants, animals, bacteria and viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.

The products created through the technique of genetic engineering are the so-called GMO (genetically modified organisms) products or transgenic products.

The first genetically modified plants were introduced in the 1980s. Twenty years later (year 2000), genetically modified crops spread to about 44 million hectares of land from less than three (3) hectares in 1996. Common transgenic products include rice, corn, wheat, tomatoes, and soybeans.

To date, countries are not in total agreement as to the extent of regulations/rules the government should promulgate on GMOs. Some countries impose total ban on the production of GMO products because of the damage to human's health due to the presence of allergens, preservatives, and fertilizers used on GMO plants.

On the other hand, there are countries that impose no restrictions and allow the use of GMO products. Also, the reasons advanced using gene-splicing techniques are: it will result to bigger farm yield; higher profitability for the farmers; and cheaper prices of food.

Not many know that there at least thirty-two (32) countries that are imposing mandatory labeling for any product that has been genetically modified. For example, the European parliament passed on April 14, 2004, a rule that all products containing more than nine (0.9) percent of GMO must be labeled... including the labeling of animal feed containing GMOs. Once labeled, the GMOs are being allowed to be sold.

Yes, products containing genetically modified organisms (GMO) should be labeled as such. Also foods derived from GMO. This is the growing clamor of consumers here and abroad. And rightfully so. This is also adherence to the ''full disclosure'' relationship between sellers and buyers. And to use a more popular term for buyers - the consumers.

The consumers should be given the final option whether to patronize GMO products - especially food. Anyway, proponents of GMO products as well as those against such products both have the opportunity to sell their ideas as well as their products to the public. This is what democracy is all about.

By the way, there are countries that consider the use of labels to inform consumers in one country as a form of trade protectionism. Simply because the use of labels may limit the ability of GMO products to gain market access in one country. Different countries may also have different definitions of what is harmful to humans, animals, or environment.

The labeling of GMO products can either be initiated by the producers in the private sector or by the government. In the first case, the labeling is voluntary. In the second case, it is mandatory to protect the consumers. In mandatory GMO-labeling, private firms are held accountable for misrepresentation.

In the US, there is no federal regulation requiring the mandatory labeling of GMO. What is heartening to note though is that there are legislators in individual states in US that are crafting their own labeling registration. For example, Senator Maralyn Chase of Washington State has sponsored a bill that would require both raw GMOs and processed foods containing GMOs to be properly labeled beginning July 2014.

Also, ''Ireland recently banned the growth of any genetically modified foods, and the country has also made available a GMO-free label that can be placed on animal products like meat, poultry, eggs and dairy, fish, and crustaceans, that are raised with feed free of GMOs.''

Prince Charles also once called GMOs the ''biggest environmental disaster of all time,'' while agriculture industrialists like Monsanto swear they're safe for human consumption and a boon for the environment.

While biotechnology is concededly a boom to mankind not only in the area of food production and agriculture but also in other areas like environment and health - there are groups clamoring for the imposition of health and safety measures as there may be disastrous consequences in ''messing with nature.''

Why the so-called ''messing with nature''? Simply because one of the major branches of biotechnology is genetic engineering. The subject of genetic engineering involves the manipulation of genes in humans, animals, and plants. Admittedly, there are advantages as well as disadvantages of genetic engineering. These advantages and disadvantages have to be clearly articulated to our consumers otherwise the anti-GMO sentiment will spread throughout the country - especially when it comes to GMO food products. Food safety is understandably a major concern of cautious consumers nowadays - with the prevalence of different kinds of cancer and other diseases.

Finally, this question as to whether or not our government should impose mandatory labeling of GMO products - especially GMO food products should be resolved soonest by our legislators.

Have a joyful day!

Read this article:
GMO Labeling

Genetic engineering more dangerous than Morain thinks

Re "Label this one 'Do Not Touch'" (Dan Morain, Feb. 19): Morain's article shows a lack of understanding of the issues involved in genetic engineering with regard to foodstuffs, and an unfortunate willingness to accept the arguments of proponents of the technology rather than those who are critical of it.

I have been following this issue for over a decade, objectively looking at evidence on both sides, and have become convinced that there are serious questions with GMOs. At root is the fact that for the first time in the history of the planet, it has become possible for scientists to cross species boundaries as they endeavor to produce what are essentially new life forms.They may look like their natural counterparts, but they may contain genetic material from a variety of completely different life forms.

A tomato may contain material from animals, insects, vituses, bacteria, etc., together in a completely new mix. Consequences? Unknown! Problems already appearing.

-- Professor Robert Millar, Walnut Creek

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

What You Should Know About Comments on Sacbee.com

Sacbee.com is happy to provide a forum for reader interaction, discussion, feedback and reaction to our stories. However, we reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments or ban users who can't play nice. (See our full terms of service here.)

Here are some rules of the road:

• Keep your comments civil. Don't insult one another or the subjects of our articles. If you think a comment violates our guidelines click the "Report Abuse" link to notify the moderators. Responding to the comment will only encourage bad behavior.

• Don't use profanities, vulgarities or hate speech. This is a general interest news site. Sometimes, there are children present. Don't say anything in a way you wouldn't want your own child to hear.

• Do not attack other users; focus your comments on issues, not individuals.

• Stay on topic. Only post comments relevant to the article at hand.

• Do not copy and paste outside material into the comment box.

• Don't repeat the same comment over and over. We heard you the first time.

• Do not use the commenting system for advertising. That's spam and it isn't allowed.

• Don't use all capital letters. That's akin to yelling and not appreciated by the audience.

• Don't flag other users' comments just because you don't agree with their point of view. Please only flag comments that violate these guidelines.

You should also know that The Sacramento Bee does not screen comments before they are posted. You are more likely to see inappropriate comments before our staff does, so we ask that you click the "Report Abuse" link to submit those comments for moderator review. You also may notify us via email at feedback@sacbee.com. Note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us the profile name of the user who made the comment. Remember, comment moderation is subjective. You may find some material objectionable that we won't and vice versa.

If you submit a comment, the user name of your account will appear along with it. Users cannot remove their own comments once they have submitted them.

Originally posted here:
Genetic engineering more dangerous than Morain thinks

The GMO Debate, Food For Thought Part 1

POSTED: 12:50 am HST February 24, 2012
UPDATED: 6:05 am HST February 24, 2012

HONOLULU -- GMOs. GE. Transgenic.?I think a lot of people actually don't even know what that means,? said Maui Councilmember Elle Cochran.Genetic Engineering has entered our food chain in a big way.In 2012, more than half of the crops grown in the United States are GMOs.According to the USDA, 88% of all corn crops, 90% of cotton crops, and 94% of soybean crops are GMO crops.In 2010, U.S. farmers planted 165 million acres of GMO crops.In fact, the U.S. uses more genetically modified seeds than any other country in the world.?This is the kind of corn we work with here,? said Fred Perlak, head of operations for Monsanto Hawaii, as he showed reporter Lara Yamada ears of corn in a Kunia field.?This is an important location for our worldwide operations. What we do here is build new varieties of corn and soybean,? Perlak said.?You actually take a bag and put it over the tassel, knock the pollen off, then take the bag and pour the pollen on top of the silts and then put another bag on so no additional pollen will come on,? he said.?And you do that how many times over?? said Yamada.?500,000 times on this farm alone in one year,? he said.?It's all about research and development here in the state,? said Cochran.Cochran is one of many Hawaii lawmakers keeping a close eye on what's happening in Hawaii.?What they create on Maui is what they're sending out worldwide. It's the top breed, the cream of the crop, so to speak,? she said.Cochran is concerned about GMO crops statewide.The Hawaii State Association of Counties presents a package to lawmakers every session.Cochran championed a provision to support GMO labeling.All counties approved it, except for Oahu, so that provision was dropped.?We had hours and hours of testimony, really heart-felt testimony,? she said.According to the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, Monsanto is just one of five major companies planted here in the islands.There's also Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences, BASF, and Pioneer ? which is owned by DuPont.They are companies that own or lease 25,000 acres on Oahu, Kauai, Maui and Molokai, and they all test and grow genetically modified seeds.Perlak says it?s to add value to farmer's crops.?We?re talking about natural disease resistance, better root growth, longer stalks,? he said, giving a few examples.?We probably want to introduce something like 100 new varieties on an annual basis at Monsanto. To get those 100 varieties, we start with 100s of thousands,? he said.In genetic engineering, scientists insert new traits from a similar breed, or something completely different, right into the DNA of a plant or animal - and the reasons for doing it are endless:-Rainbow Papaya: genetically modified to resist the ring spot virus.-Soybeans: resistant to pesticides.-Corn: genetically modified to handle drought.-Rice: with added vitamins.And that's just the beginning:-Strawberries with flounder genes to resist frost.-Goats with spider genes to produce milk with silk fibers.-Pig's noses that glow in the dark - thanks to a jellyfish gene.The list goes on: plants and animals that grow faster, produce more, eat less, and leave less waste, but also make infection-fighting drugs, grow organs for human transplant, and treat chronic diseases.?These varieties will help increase the efficiency and productivity of farmers around the world, which has implications for all of us,? said Perlak.?You have people who are really up in arms,? said Cochran.She has not given up.She visited the capitol to keep the issue of what to do about GMOs on lawmakers' plates.And it?s an issue that's increasingly hard to ignore.?I'm digging more into it and learning and studying what it's about,? she said.Part 2: The Issues
Part 3: Laws, Lawmakers & Lawsuits

Copyright 2012 by KITV.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

See more here:
The GMO Debate, Food For Thought Part 1

Manmohan criticises NGOs for protests in Kudankulam

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has criticised non-governmental organisations that receive support from abroad for stalling the use of genetic engineering in agriculture and leading protests against the Kudankulam nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu.

In an interview published in the latest issue of journal Science, Dr. Singh pointed to the potential of biotechnology, saying “in due course of time we must make use of genetic engineering technologies to increase the productivity of our agriculture.”

But controversies had arisen. “There are NGOs, often funded from the United States and the Scandinavian countries, which are not fully appreciative of the development challenges that our country faces.”

Then, referring to the protests at Kudankulam, he said: “the atomic energy programme has got into difficulties because these NGOs, mostly I think based in the United States, don't appreciate need for our country to increase the energy supply.”

Asked whether nuclear power had a role in India despite the Fukushima disaster in Japan, he said, “Yes, where India is concerned, yes. The thinking segment of our population certainly is supportive of nuclear energy.”

On investment in R&D, he reiterated the view that such spending should be raised from about 1per cent of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) to about 2 per cent. Public sector spending on research as a proportion of the GDP was “roughly the same” as that of other developing countries. “It is the private sector in our country which has to do a lot more.”

Over the next five years, the effort would be to gradually increase the proportion of money spent on R&D and at the same time “create a system of incentives which will induce the private sector to increase their spending on science and technology.”

To a question whether India was competing with China, he said the two countries were at a stage of development where both had to compete and cooperate.

Read this article:
Manmohan criticises NGOs for protests in Kudankulam

Conn. bill looks to add labels to engineered food

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Consumers at Connecticut grocery stores would be able to know if genetically engineered foods are in the merchandise mix under a bill state lawmakers are considering to require the labeling of such foods.

Neither the federal government nor any state currently has a labeling requirement that applies to all genetically modified foods. Connecticut is among nearly 20 states considering a labeling mandate amid health concerns that supporters of the legislation have raised about such foods.

Connecticut's legislation would require clear labeling on any food sold in the state that is completely or partially produced with genetic engineering.

Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, said he introduced the legislation due to public concern over the issue. Roy co-chairs the state Environment Committee, which heard from supporters and opponents of the bill at a hearing Wednesday.

Roy said his bill has gained bipartisan support, and he expects the committee to pass it, although its fate after is unclear.

"We're not taking a stance on whether GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are good or bad," said Roy. "What we're saying is that we have a right to know what we're putting in our bodies."

Proponents of the legislation say that genetically engineered foods pose allergy and other health risks and that the labels will increase safety for consumers.

Analiese Paik, who runs the Fairfield Green Food Guide website and testified in favor of the labels, said that the Food and Drug Administration has yet to produce a scientific study on whether or not genetically modified foods are safe.

Paik pointed to a recent Canadian study that found toxins from genetically engineered corn circulating in the bloodstream of women.

"The burden of proof is on the FDA to prove that it's safe," she said.

U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesman R. Andre Bell, said the USDA, FDA and Environmental Protection Agency regulate genetically engineered crops to ensure they are safe to eat and grow.

Opponents of the proposed legislation, including grocery stores and farmers, say they disagree with Paik's claims and argue that genetically engineered food has been long-studied and is proven to be safe.

Brian Kennedy, a spokesman from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said in a statement that "a special declaration on the food label would...not provide any additional useful information."

FDA spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey said that genetically modified foods, as a class, pose no greater health risks than traditional foods. She said that genetically modified crops must meet regulatory standards and may undergo a voluntary consultation to ensure they are safe.

DeLancey said that while there are currently no genetically modified animal-based products on the market, they undergo substantial testing to ensure they are safe, as well.

She said the FDA has the authority to label products only when there is a material difference affecting things like nutritional values.

Henry Talmage, executive director of the Connecticut Farm Bureau, said that adding labels to genetically engineered foods would be costly for farmers and complicate selling products over state lines. He said that organic and GMO-free certified farmers currently have the option to label their products as such, making the bill's mandatory label proposal redundant.

While the legislation looks to add labels, it does not require genetically engineered ingredients to be listed or identified. Additionally, the label would not be placed on foods from animals that were fed genetically engineered crops or fast food.

Under the proposed legislation, genetically engineered foods include any food that is unnaturally produced by altering genetic material.

Growing genetically engineered crops is attractive to farmers because they are modified to resist insects and tolerate herbicides. According to USDA data, the growth of genetically engineered crops has increased tremendously since their commercial introduction in 1996.

Between 1996 and 2011, growth rates for genetically engineered soybeans that are herbicide tolerant rose from less than 10 to 94 percent. Likewise, the rates for genetically engineered cotton and corn have risen around 70 percent across the board.

In recent years, many states have pushed to require clear labeling of genetically engineered products. Earlier this month, a California bill calling for labeling of genetically engineered salmon narrowly failed to pass a committee vote.

Connecticut is among 18 states that are considering labeling requirements for genetically modified foods, said Scott Hendrick, a spokesman for the National Conference of State Legislatures. He said Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire are among surrounding states that are currently considering similar legislation.

Although no states require all genetically engineered food to be labeled, Alaska has a law requiring the labeling of genetically engineered fish, Hendrick said.

At the federal level, Congress is reviewing legislation in both the House of Representatives and Senate requiring labels on genetically engineered fish. The House is also reviewing legislation that calls for mandatory labeling of all genetically modified foods.

Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's office is reviewing the legislation, his spokesman, Andrew Doba, said.

Go here to see the original:
Conn. bill looks to add labels to engineered food

Can consuming caffeine while breastfeeding harm your baby?

Public release date: 21-Feb-2012
[ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Cathia Falvey
cfalvey@liebertpub.com
914-740-2100
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News

New Rochelle, NY, February 21, 2012?Babies are not able to metabolize or excrete caffeine very well, so a breastfeeding mother's consumption of caffeine may lead to caffeine accumulation and symptoms such as wakefulness and irritability, according to an interview with expert Ruth Lawrence, MD, published in Journal of Caffeine Research, a peer-reviewed journal from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. The interview is available on the Journal of Caffeine Research website at http://www.liebertpub.com/jcr.

Caffeine is found in a wide range of products in addition to coffee, tea, and chocolate, including soft drinks, sports drinks, and some over-the-counter medications.

In a provocative discussion with Dr. Ruth Lawrence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Jack E. James, PhD, Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Caffeine Research, asks a variety of probing questions. Is there a safe level of caffeine intake while breastfeeding? Are there potential long-term effects of caffeine exposure on development and intellect? Can a baby whose mother consumed caffeine during pregnancy experience withdrawal if she then abstains from caffeine while breastfeeding? Dr. Lawrence bases her responses on the scientific and medical evidence related to caffeine exposure in breastfed babies, and distinguishes between what is and what is not well understood in this developing field of study.

"Usually a mother, particularly if she is breastfeeding, is cautioned to limit her caffeine intake," says Dr. Lawrence, who is Editor-in-Chief of the peer-reviewed journal Breastfeeding Medicine. After giving birth, mothers "should consume all things in moderation and try to avoid the excesses that might really add up to a lot of caffeine."

###

About the Journal

Journal of Caffeine Research: The International Journal of Caffeine Science is a quarterly peer-reviewed journal published in print and online that covers the effects of caffeine on a wide range of diseases and conditions, including mood disorders, neurological disorders, cognitive performance, cardiovascular disease, and sports performance. The Journal explores all aspects of caffeine science including the biochemistry of caffeine; its actions on the human body; benefits, dangers, and contraindications; and caffeine addiction and withdrawal, across all stages of the human life span from prenatal exposure to end-of-life. Tables of content and a free sample issue may be viewed on the Journal of Caffeine Research website at http://www.liebertpub.com/jcr.

About the Company

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. is a privately held, fully integrated media company known for establishing authoritative peer-reviewed journals in many promising areas of science and biomedical research, including Breastfeeding Medicine, Journal of Medicinal Food, and Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology. Its biotechnology trade magazine, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN), was the first in its field and is today the industry's most widely read publication worldwide. A complete list of the firm's 70 journals, books, and newsmagazines is available online at http://www.liebertpub.com.

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 140 Huguenot Street, New Rochelle, NY 10801-5215 http://www.liebertpub.com
Phone (914) 740-2100 (800) M-LIEBERT Fax (914) 740-2101

[ | E-mail | Share ]

 

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

See original here:
Can consuming caffeine while breastfeeding harm your baby?

Childhood obesity — can faith-based organizations make a difference?

Public release date: 21-Feb-2012
[ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Cathia Falvey
cfalvey@liebertpub.com
914-740-2100
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News

New Rochelle, NY, February 21, 2012?Faith-based advocacy has been cited as a valuable tool in combating childhood obesity, but evidence is needed to support this assertion and to define how the link between advocacy and policy can contribute to promoting permanent lifestyle changes. This article is part of a special issue of the journal Childhood Obesity celebrating the second anniversary of First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move! initiative. The issue includes a special Foreword by Mrs. Obama and is available free on the Childhood Obesity website at http://www.liebertpub.com/chi.

"Faith-Based Advocacy To End Childhood Obesity: Using Evidence-Based Information," an article by Michael Minor, AB, MBA, MS, EdD, Director, H.O.P.E. Health Initiative, National Baptist Convention, USA, Incorporated, Hernando, Mississippi, discusses the development of a national evidence-based paradigm to support the belief that faith-based advocacy can have an effective role in preventing childhood obesity.

This special Let's Move! issue has a wide range of contributions from leaders in the fight against childhood obesity including Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, NFL quarterback Drew Brees, Stephen Daniels, MD, PhD, Sandra Hassink, MD, Margo Wootan, DSc, and Editor-in-Chief David Katz, MD, MPH.

The issue covers a broad range of topics including creating environments that support routine physical activity and a healthy lifestyle, after-school obesity prevention programs, nutrition standards for school meals, faith-based advocacy efforts to end childhood obesity, gaming and technology for weight control, parent training programs for 2-4 year old Latino children, the role of sleep in childhood obesity, a roundtable discussion about what we don't know about childhood obesity, industry efforts to help children make healthy food choices, and success stories from the Let's Move! initiative.

"If we compare our efforts to overcome the peril of childhood obesity to a war, we must acknowledge that it is being waged, and can only be won, on multiple fronts," says David L. Katz, MD, MPH, Editor-in-Chief of Childhood Obesity and Director of Yale University's Prevention Research Center. "The faith-based community represents a veritable army of good works that can make a vitally important contribution to this campaign. Dr. Minor shows us how that can happen in an evidence-based manner. As we wait for evidence to catch up with on-going efforts, he also gives us reason?to have a little faith!"

###

About the Journal

Childhood Obesity is a bimonthly journal, published in print and online, and the journal of record for all aspects of communication on the broad spectrum of issues and strategies related to weight management and obesity prevention in children and adolescents. The Journal includes peer-reviewed articles documenting cutting-edge research and clinical studies, opinion pieces and roundtable discussions, profiles of successful programs and interventions, and updates on task force recommendations, global initiatives, and policy platforms. It reports on news and developments in science and medicine, features programs and initiatives developed in the public and private sector, and a Literature Watch. Tables of content and a sample issue may be viewed on the Childhood Obesity website at http://www.liebertpub.com/chi.

Childhood Obesity is partly funded by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to ensure that the Journal is accessible as widely as possible, and to provide a framework that addresses the social and environmental conditions that influence opportunities for children to have access to healthy, affordable food and safe places to play and be physically active.

About the Company

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. is a privately held, fully integrated media company known for establishing authoritative medical and biomedical peer-reviewed journals, including Population Health Management, Pediatric Allergy, Immunology, and Pulmonology, Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, and Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders. Its biotechnology trade magazine, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN), was the first in its field and is today the industry's most widely read publication worldwide. A complete list of the firm's 70 journals, newsmagazines, and books is available online at http://www.liebertpub.com.

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 140 Huguenot St., New Rochelle, NY 10801-5215
Phone: (914) 740-2100 (800) M-LIEBERT Fax: (914) 740-2101 http://www.liebertpub.com

[ | E-mail | Share ]

 

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

Read more here:
Childhood obesity -- can faith-based organizations make a difference?

Designer life, mutant animals, genetic engineering, gene therapy, insurance – future health speaker – Video

27-06-2011 10:31 http://www.globalchange.com Future of gene tests, genetic counseling, gene therapy, pharmacogenomics, future of the pharmaceutical industry, genetic prophecy and predictions, predicting risk of illness and disease by analyzing genetic code. What is genetic engineering? Mutant animals and viruses, designer life. Future of pharma, drug research and drug development, patents and intellectual property rights. Genes linked to personality, mental illness, criminal behavior, violence and murder. Genes that influence long life, longevity, life expectancy and life insurance or medical or health insurance cover. Public Health Policy - institutes a and foundations for genome research. Gene therapy linked to choice of drug therapy. Analysing tumor genes in cancer chemotherapy to reduce side effects. Gene therapy in Parkinsons disease, diabetes and autoimmunde diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. Impact of genetic screening on health care planning, hospital admissions, discharge, diagnosis and treatment. Calculating risk of sudden illness or risk of sudden death from family history and gene matching -- human genome project. Sharing gene profiles matched to patient records, patents on human genes and ownership of genetic information by customers, consumers and patients. Marketing of confidential gene test results and other clinical data. Transgenic animals, using animal organs for transplant, stem cells to grow new organs, organogenesis. How scientists and medical research is combining ...

Read the original post:
Designer life, mutant animals, genetic engineering, gene therapy, insurance - future health speaker - Video

Scientists Under Attack: Genetic Engineering in the Magnetic Field of Money – Video

22-01-2012 17:29 There is no difference between natural foods and genetically modified foods? That's not what research says. This documentary discusses those who have spoken out against the scientific government scam of genetically modified foods and have been fired, harassed and other things as well as the results of their research.

Read the rest here:
Scientists Under Attack: Genetic Engineering in the Magnetic Field of Money - Video

Yosemite’s Alpine Chipmunks Threatened By Climate Change

Global warming has forced alpine chipmunks in Yosemite to higher ground, prompting a startling decline in the species’ genetic diversity, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.

The study, appearing Sunday, Feb. 19, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature Climate Change, is one of the first to show a hit to the genetic diversity of a species because of a recent climate-induced change in the animals’ geographic range. What’s more, the genetic erosion occurred in the relatively short span of 90 years, highlighting the rapid threat changing climate can pose to a species.

With low genetic diversity a species can be more vulnerable to the effects of inbreeding, disease and other problems that threaten species survival, the researchers said.

“Climate change is implicated as the cause of geographic shifts observed among birds, small mammals and plants, but this new work shows that, particularly for mountain species like the alpine chipmunk, such shifts can result in increasingly fragmented and genetically impoverished populations,” said study lead author Emily Rubidge, who conducted the research while a Ph.D. student at UC Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology and the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management. “Under continued warming, the alpine chipmunk could be on the trajectory towards becoming threatened or even extinct.”

Rubidge worked with Craig Moritz, professor of integrative biology and director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology; James Patton, professor emeritus of integrative biology and curator of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology; and Justin Brashares, associate professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management.

The new findings build upon previous research that found major shifts in the range of small mammals in Yosemite National Park since the early 1900s. In 2003, biologists at UC Berkeley began an ambitious resurvey of Yosemite’s birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, retracing the steps originally taken between 1914 and 1920 by Joseph Grinnell, founder and former director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology.

The Grinnell Resurvey Project, led by Moritz and museum colleagues, found that many small mammals in Yosemite moved or retracted their ranges to higher, cooler elevations over the past century, a period when the average temperature in the park increased by 3 degrees Celsius, or about 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

It is no surprise that the alpine chipmunk (Tamias alpinus) would be more sensitive to the temperature change, since it is a high-elevation species endemic to California’s Sierra Nevada, the researchers said. In the early 1900s, Grinnell and colleagues sighted alpine chipmunks at elevations of 7,800 feet. Now, the alpine chipmunk appears to be sticking to even higher elevations, retracting its range by about 1,640 feet upslope.

To test the genetic impact from that loss of geographic range, researchers compared genetic markers from 146 modern-day alpine chipmunks with those from 88 of their historical counterparts. Samples were collected from seven paired sites throughout Yosemite.

As a control, the researchers also looked at the genetics – both historic and modern – of lodgepole chipmunks (Tamias speciosus), a lower elevation species that had not changed its range over the past century.

The analysis of genetic markers revealed a significant decline in “allele richness” among the recently sampled alpine chipmunk populations compared with their historic counterparts. Moreover, the researchers noted that the modern chipmunks were more genetically differentiated across sites than in the past, a sign of increased fragmentation in the alpine chipmunk population.

In comparison, there were no significant changes in genetic diversity detected among the lodgepole chipmunks, a species found at elevations from 4,900 to 9,800 feet.

“Much of what we read and hear about the effects of climate change on biodiversity is based on model projections and simulations, and these models typically involve many moving parts and lots of uncertainty,” said Brashares. “Thanks to the baseline provided by Joseph Grinnell’s pioneering efforts in the early 20th century, we are able to go beyond projections to document how climate is altering life in California. The research led by Emily is novel and important because it shows empirically that climate change has led to the loss of genetic diversity in a wild mammal over the last several decades.”

Moritz added that this study exemplifies how patterns of change in California’s ecosystems can be uncovered through analyses of fossil, historic and modern records.

“At the heart of this whole enterprise is the incredibly dense historic record and specimens we have at UC Berkeley from 100 years ago,” said Moritz. “These collections allow us to conduct sophisticated analyses to better understand how ecosystems are reacting to environmental changes, and to create more detailed models of future changes.”

Other study co-authors are Marisa Lim, a UC Berkeley undergraduate student in integrative biology; and Cole Burton, former UC Berkeley graduate student in environmental science, policy and management (now a research associate at the University of Alberta in Canada).

Funding for this research was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, UC Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, the Yosemite Fund, the National Geographic Society and the National Science Foundation.

On the Net:

Read more from the original source:
Yosemite's Alpine Chipmunks Threatened By Climate Change

Yosemite’s alpine chipmunks take genetic hit from climate change

ScienceDaily (Feb. 19, 2012) — Global warming has forced alpine chipmunks in Yosemite to higher ground, prompting a startling decline in the species' genetic diversity, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.

The study, appearing Feb. 19, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature Climate Change, is one of the first to show a hit to the genetic diversity of a species because of a recent climate-induced change in the animals' geographic range. What's more, the genetic erosion occurred in the relatively short span of 90 years, highlighting the rapid threat changing climate can pose to a species.

With low genetic diversity a species can be more vulnerable to the effects of inbreeding, disease and other problems that threaten species survival, the researchers said.

"Climate change is implicated as the cause of geographic shifts observed among birds, small mammals and plants, but this new work shows that, particularly for mountain species like the alpine chipmunk, such shifts can result in increasingly fragmented and genetically impoverished populations," said study lead author Emily Rubidge, who conducted the research while a Ph.D. student at UC Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology and the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management. "Under continued warming, the alpine chipmunk could be on the trajectory towards becoming threatened or even extinct."

Rubidge worked with Craig Moritz, professor of integrative biology and director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology; James Patton, professor emeritus of integrative biology and curator of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology; and Justin Brashares, associate professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management.

The new findings build upon previous research that found major shifts in the range of small mammals in Yosemite National Park since the early 1900s. In 2003, biologists at UC Berkeley began an ambitious resurvey of Yosemite's birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, retracing the steps originally taken between 1914 and 1920 by Joseph Grinnell, founder and former director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology.

The Grinnell Resurvey Project, led by Moritz and museum colleagues, found that many small mammals in Yosemite moved or retracted their ranges to higher, cooler elevations over the past century, a period when the average temperature in the park increased by 3 degrees Celsius, or about 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

It is no surprise that the alpine chipmunk (Tamias alpinus) would be more sensitive to the temperature change, since it is a high-elevation species endemic to California's Sierra Nevada, the researchers said. In the early 1900s, Grinnell and colleagues sighted alpine chipmunks at elevations of 7,800 feet. Now, the alpine chipmunk appears to be sticking to even higher elevations, retracting its range by about 1,640 feet upslope.

To test the genetic impact from that loss of geographic range, researchers compared genetic markers from 146 modern-day alpine chipmunks with those from 88 of their historical counterparts. Samples were collected from seven paired sites throughout Yosemite.

As a control, the researchers also looked at the genetics -- both historic and modern -- of lodgepole chipmunks (Tamias speciosus), a lower elevation species that had not changed its range over the past century.

The analysis of genetic markers revealed a significant decline in "allele richness" among the recently sampled alpine chipmunk populations compared with their historic counterparts. Moreover, the researchers noted that the modern chipmunks were more genetically differentiated across sites than in the past, a sign of increased fragmentation in the alpine chipmunk population.

In comparison, there were no significant changes in genetic diversity detected among the lodgepole chipmunks, a species found at elevations from 4,900 to 9,800 feet.

"Much of what we read and hear about the effects of climate change on biodiversity is based on model projections and simulations, and these models typically involve many moving parts and lots of uncertainty," said Brashares. "Thanks to the baseline provided by Joseph Grinnell's pioneering efforts in the early 20th century, we are able to go beyond projections to document how climate is altering life in California. The research led by Emily is novel and important because it shows empirically that climate change has led to the loss of genetic diversity in a wild mammal over the last several decades."

Moritz added that this study exemplifies how patterns of change in California's ecosystems can be uncovered through analyses of fossil, historic and modern records.

"At the heart of this whole enterprise is the incredibly dense historic record and specimens we have at UC Berkeley from 100 years ago," said Moritz. "These collections allow us to conduct sophisticated analyses to better understand how ecosystems are reacting to environmental changes, and to create more detailed models of future changes."

Other study co-authors are Marisa Lim, a UC Berkeley undergraduate student in integrative biology; and Cole Burton, former UC Berkeley graduate student in environmental science, policy and management (now a research associate at the University of Alberta in Canada).

Funding for this research was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, UC Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, the Yosemite Fund, the National Geographic Society and the National Science Foundation.

Recommend this story on Facebook, Twitter,
and Google +1:

Other bookmarking and sharing tools:

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of California - Berkeley.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

Journal Reference:

Emily M. Rubidge, James L. Patton, Marisa Lim, A. Cole Burton, Justin S. Brashares, Craig Moritz. Climate-induced range contraction drives genetic erosion in an alpine mammal. Nature Climate Change, 2012; DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1415

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

Continue reading here:
Yosemite's alpine chipmunks take genetic hit from climate change

Health games emerge as important new therapeutic tools for physical and mental health and well-being

Public release date: 16-Feb-2012
[ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Cathia Falvey
cfalvey@liebertpub.com
914-740-2100 x2165
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News

New Rochelle, NY -- Millions of dollars and immeasurable hours of research and development are being invested to develop and employ increasingly sophisticated hardware and software technologies to deliver innovative new personalized health care interventions. Digital games are rapidly becoming an important tool for improving lifestyle habits, behavior modification, self-management of illness and chronic conditions, and motivating and supporting physical activity, according to a provocative Expert Panel Discussion in the premier issue of Games for Health Journal, a new bimonthly peer-reviewed publication from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers (http://www.liebertpub.com). The premier issue is available free online at http://www.liebertpub.com/g4h.

The Journal will be the only source for a broad range of hard-to-find and timely information related to health games. For example, the first issue offers a unique Roundtable Discussion, "Health Games Come of Age," an insightful conversation with leaders in the games for health field. Tom Baranowski, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine; Peter Bingham, MD, University of Vermont; Debra Lieberman, PhD, University of California, Santa Barbara; Ernie Medina, DrPH, Medplay Technologies; Jesse Schell, MS, Carnegie Mellon University; and Sam K. Yohannon, PT, MS, Cornell University Medical Center share their unique approaches and the creative evidenced-based outcomes research that has brought health games to the forefront of innovative patient care.

The Journal breaks new ground as the first to address this emerging and increasingly important area of health care and will provide a bimonthly forum in print and online for academic and clinical researchers, game designers and developers, health care providers, insurers, and information technology leaders. Articles in the Journal explore the use of game technology in a wide variety of clinical applications in disease prevention, promotion, and monitoring, including nutrition, weight management, medication adherence, diabetes monitoring, post-traumatic stress disorder, Alzheimer's, and cognitive, mental, emotional, and behavioral health.

The Journal is under the leadership of Bill Ferguson, PhD and a distinguished editorial board (http://www.liebertpub.com/editorialboard/games-for-health-journal/588/) including leaders from academia, health care, information technology, and government.

Other key contributions in this issue include an original article on "Use of Nintendo? Wii? During Physical Therapy of an Adult with Lower Extremity Burns" describing a fascinating intervention using health games to accelerate returning severe burn victims to independent living. "The United Health Group's Rx for Longer, Healthier Lives" is an informative program profile that examines the huge health provider's commitment to encouraging and enabling healthier lifestyles through games. Their goal is greater availability and lower cost of health care for people who actively manage their own health and well-being

A clinical brief on "Evaluating Efficacy and Validating Games for Health" suggests the importance and process for objectively assessing the results of games used to improve patients' health. A fascinating interview with Ben Sawyer, Co-Founder of Digitalmill?"Games? Seriously!"--explores the driving forces in the field and the gamification of health.

"The growing breadth and depth of research in health games will have powerful impacts on all stages of life, from infants with autism to geriatric patients wanting to extend their active lives," says Editor-in-Chief Bill Ferguson. "These advancements will impact the nature and availability of preventive and remedial care from physicians to therapists to self-management. The Journal will be a powerful voice for the researchers and clinicians, as well as a resource for state-of-the-art developments for everyone concerned with human well-being."

###

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. (http://www.liebertpub.com) is a privately held, fully integrated media company known for establishing authoritative peer-reviewed journals in many promising areas of science and biomedical research, including Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking and Telemedicine & e-Health. Its biotechnology trade magazine, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN), was the first in its field and is today the industry's most widely read publication worldwide. A complete list of the firm's 70 journals, books, and newsmagazines is available at http://www.liebertpub.com.

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
140 Huguenot Street, 3rd Floor
New Rochelle, NY 10801-5215, USA


[ | E-mail | Share ]

 

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

Original post:
Health games emerge as important new therapeutic tools for physical and mental health and well-being

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Approves Bevo Co-Sponsored Research Grant

LANGLEY, BC, Feb. 15, 2012 /CNW/ - The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) has approved a co-sponsored research grant submitted by Bevo Agro Inc. (TSX-V: BVO.V - News) and The University of British Columbia (UBC). The purpose of the grant is to develop a new cultivar of Pawpaw (Asimina triloba), North America's largest native fruit.

In August 2011 , Bevo, in concert with Dr. Kermit Ritland , a professor and plant geneticist at UBC, applied to NSERC for a $200,000 grant, (requiring matching support from Bevo), for a four year research program aimed at establishing a new patentable Pawpaw cultivar. This small tree, produces a tropical-like fruit similar in size and shape to a mango, and having a banana-mango flavour. Due to certain genetic characteristics including a short shelf life, large inedible seeds, and low fruit yields, to date, the Pawpaw has not been an attractive candidate for broad commercialization. Our research program aims to create a new commercially viable cultivar.

After a review of the grant proposal by an NSERC appointed scientific/industrial committee, the grant was conditionally approved in December 2011 pending the execution of a collaborative research agreement between Bevo and the University of British Columbia, which will administer the grant and direct the research program. The collaborative research agreement came into effect on February 06, 2012 .

About Bevo

Bevo Agro is North America's leading supplier of propagated agricultural plants, growing and distributing vegetable, flower, berry and other plant seedlings to North America's growers. Bevo propagates quality seedlings and plants for wholesale vegetable greenhouse growers, field growers and nursery operators from its 40 acres of greenhouse and related production infrastructure.

About NSERC

NSERC, an agency of the Government of Canada , promotes and supports discovery research, and fosters innovation by encouraging Canadian companies to participate and invest in research projects carried out at Canadian universities. Additionally, it helps to train university graduate students in their advanced studies, through participation in NSERC funded research programs.

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

More:
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Approves Bevo Co-Sponsored Research Grant

Scientists Debate How To Conduct Bird Flu Research

Scientists working with bird flu recently called a 60-day halt on some controversial experiments, and the unusual move has been compared to a famous moratorium on genetic engineering in the 1970s.

But key scientists involved in that event disagree on whether history is repeating itself.

"I see an amazing similarity," says Nobel Prize winner Paul Berg, of Stanford University.

To him, it's almost eerie to watch events unfold just like they did back then: There's been a startling scientific discovery, concerns raised by an expert committee, then a voluntary moratorium and calls for an international discussion to figure out how to move forward in a way that protects the public.

 

This time around, fears revolve around experiments on the bird flu virus H5N1. Scientists tweaked its genes and made it more transmissible between ferrets, which are the laboratory stand-in for people.

Some experts fear that if this virus ever escaped or fell into the wrong hands, it could cause a devastating pandemic. On Jan. 20, flu virologists said they'd temporarily halt this line of research. And a small group of experts will meet at the World Health Organization in Geneva on Thursday and Friday to discuss what to do next.

In the 1970s, the concerns centered on the first steps towards what's now known as genetic engineering. Berg had figured out how to splice together DNA from different organisms. This was new, and some people were disturbed by the experiments Berg wanted to do that involved viruses and bacteria.

"People said, 'Hey, you're doing this crazy experiment, you're potentially spreading cancer genes, etc., etc,' " recalls Berg. "I said, 'Nonsense!' "

But as he talked to people, he began to realize that he couldn't say there was zero risk. And the tools he had pioneered were advancing rapidly. More and more people were doing this kind of work. So Berg and some colleagues took an unusual step.

They asked scientists around the world to hold off on certain experiments until there was a consensus on how to do them safely. In February of 1975, about 150 researchers gathered at the Asilomar conference center in Pacific Grove, Calif.

"They developed guidelines and policy for how to do that research, and we still live with many of those guidelines and policies today," says Paul Keim, a microbiologist at Northern Arizona University who chairs a government advisory committee that recently reviewed the bird flu research.

It recommended keeping some details of the bird flu experiments under wraps, so as not to provide terrorists with a recipe for a new biological weapon. And Keim and the other committee members recently issued a statement that calls the bird flu situation "another Asilomar-type moment."

"The parallels are that, you know, there is so much uncertainty here. The potential for grave harm is obvious, to most of us," says Keim. "So the thought is, why not pause here, think about what we're doing."

Society's 'Implied Trust' In Scientists

But others say today's controversy over bird flu and the events leading up to Asilomar don't really match up at all.

"There's a whole bunch of differences, actually, that make the situation that we faced in '73 and '75 really quite different from this," says Maxine Singer, a prominent molecular biologist who also was one of the organizers of Asilomar.

The Asilomar conference was forward-looking and focused on the potential risks of hypothetical experiments that scientists hadn't yet done, says Singer. This time around, worrisome bird flu viruses have already been made.

"Now we're talking about locking the barn door after the horses have gone," Singer says. "So that's one big difference."

And a big part of today's debate is whether to try to limit who gets to see key details of those experiments. Singer says that discussions about bird flu research seem to be happening in closed-door meetings convened by government-level agencies. But Asilomar was open to reporters, and was organized by the scientists themselves.

Today's moratorium also feels very different to Stanley Falkow, a prominent microbiologist who was at Asilomar.

This time, scientists agreed to a pause in their work only after a public outcry. "My view is that they're doing it grudgingly," Falkow says.

Society supports scientists and gives them tremendous freedom in their pursuit of knowledge, notes Falkow, "and there's an implied trust. And I think in part what's happened has shaken the trust of many people."

In his view, it's not enough for scientists to think that what they're doing is fine — one of the lessons of Asilomar is to make sure the public will think that, too.

Excerpt from:
Scientists Debate How To Conduct Bird Flu Research