RIP David Perlman, the Dean of American Science Writing – Scientific American

The world will sorely miss the wit and wisdom of David Perlman, long admired as the senior statesman of American science writing, who passed away on June 19, 2020, at age 101. He was born during the 1918 flu pandemic and died in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The former San Francisco Chronicle reporter andscience editor emeritus was remarkable not only for his longevityincluding more than seven decades in the news businessbut for the extraordinary breadth of his coverage, from space shots to fossil remains, womens reproductive health and nuclear disarmament.

Daves enthusiasm for each story was infectious; his curiosity about all things science was limitless. He entertained and informed generations of newspaper readers and inspired a cadre of American journalists to cover the wonders of science, as well as its influentialand sometimes controversialrole in modern society. I was one of the many kiddos fortunate enough to know Dave, first as a mentor and then as a lifelong colleague and friend.

I called him regularly, and, in recent months, he always answered with a cheerful, "I'm still alive." Wheelchair-bound in his longtime San Francisco home, Dave avidly followed newspaper and cable news coverage of the COVID-19 crisis. We reminisced about Tony Fauci, the widely admired government infectious disease guru on the White House Coronavirus Task Force who has often disagreed publicly with President Trump. We had both gotten to know Fauci while reporting on HIV/AIDS in the 1980s. "I hope he can survive under Mr. Trump. We are safer with him there," he said.

We also talked recently about one of the greatest problems facing American science: the rise of public denialism and its impact on all areas of research, from climate change to evolution. Those who distrust scientists and deny scientific findings are increasing in power, and their voices are growing louder. That worries me a lot, he said, noting the damaging effect of President Trumps anti-science stance, particularly on climate science research.

When Dave retired in August 2017, at age 98, he"was thought to be the oldest full-time reporter in the U.S.," according to the Chronicle. Known in the newsroom as "Dr. Dave,"his retirement party drew colleagues, friends, scientists, the late San Francisco mayor Ed Lee and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. Dave began as a copyboy for the paper in 1940, after a starter newspaper job in Bismarck, North Dakota and also had a postwar newspaper stint in Paris before returning to the Chronicle. I still get the Chronicle every day. I wouldnt miss it. And I will continue subscribing to the Chronicle until the day I die, he said in a 100th-birthday interview on the Chronicles podcast The Big Event. With characteristic humor, he added, Maybe theres a way of sending it to the afterlife; I dont know whether there is a posthumous edition. If there is, I will be reading it.

Last November, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) announced that Dave would receive its 2019 Presidential Citation for Science and Society, in a year in which AGU and the award recipient were both 100 years old. The award celebrates Davids stellar work but also the role he has played in mentoring and inspiring generations of science journalists, said AGUs executive director Chris McEntee. AGU earlier created the David Perlman Award for Excellence in Science JournalismNewsan honor made more desirable because of its namesake.

Throughout his career, Dave earned the trust of scientists for his fair, insightful reporting. He enjoyed extraordinary firsthand access to research in the lab and the field, with globe-trotting adventures that would be envied by todays time- and money-starved science journalists. In 1964 he boarded the California Maritime Academys training ship Golden Bearwith dozens of international scientists for a two-month expedition (two months!) to study the evolution of plants and animals in the Galpagos Islands. He covered countless NASA missions, reporting from Houston on the historic moon walk by American astronauts on July 20, 1969. He spent two weeks in Antarctica with the National Science Foundation in 1972. And at age 87, he camped in Ethiopia with a University of California, Berkeley, team searching for fossils of human ancestors.

Closer to home, Dave covered the tragedy of HIV/AIDS, as the deadly epidemic unfolded in San Francisco in the 1980s and, later, as new lifesaving treatments became available to patients. He wrote about genetic engineering techniques pioneered in laboratories around the Bay Area, as well as companies that capitalized on their findings. Earthquake research was de rigueur on the California science beat.

I came to know Dave when I was a biology student at Mills College in Oakland, Calif., in the early 1970s. I concluded I didnt have the patienceor persistenceto become a scientist but loved writing for the college newspaper. I found Daves byline as the Chronicles science correspondent at the library, cold-called him and then visited him at the paper. After one conversation, I knew I wanted to be a Perlman.

Little did I know then that I had struck it richthat this smart, funny and very kind man was already a superstar among science writers. I was even more fortunate to see Dave in action when I covered the historic February 1975 Asilomar recombinant DNA conference in California for the journal BioScience. Dave and other national science reporters asked hard questions about the science, safety and ethical concerns surrounding the then new technique to cut and splice DNA into organisms.

Other Dave sightings continued after I got my first newspaper job at the Washington Star. We spent weeks at NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., covering the first landing of a spacecraft on Mars in the July 20, 1976 Viking mission, as well as experiments looking for life on the Red Planet. I was fortunate to be part of the Perlman-led delegation of U.S. science writers that visited China in 1979, after the Mao-era Cultural Revolution ended. We started in Beijing, took an overnight train to the countryside to see a rudimentary factory and then went on to Shanghai and Guangzhou, talking with elderly Chinese scientists about everything from aquaculture to acupuncture. On a November, 2019 visit to Daves home on San Franciscos 5th Avenue, we reminisced about that trip: he recalled buying a box of Chinese birth-control devices to take back to Carl Djerassi, the late Stanford University chemist known as the father of the birth-control pill.

Dave was a New Yorker, raised on Manhattans Upper West Side, who was inspired at a young age to become a newspaper reporter after seeing the play The Front Page. He graduated from Columbia College in 1939, spending much of his time reporting and editing the student newspaper the Columbia Daily Spectator (you can read a great Perlman piece on a New York parade in the Spectators online archive) and went on to earn a graduate degree from the Columbia Journalism School in 1940. In a video interview I did with Dave in 2009, he talked about preparation for a science writing career, saying, I guess the best advice I could give is try to learn a little more science before you start than I ever had when I started. He added, As a matter of fact one of my colleagues ... was good enough to teach me and tell me what DNA stood for. And when I heard deoxyribonucleic acid, I nearly fell over cause Id never heard of the stuff. But I learned.

In another interview we did, he advised learning how to ask questions and how to make people explain the answers. Never be ashamed or afraid to pursue something that you don't understand. And then come prepared with as much background as you can possibly get. It means reading ... I dont know, Mars for Dummies or something that is highly technical, if you can. But prepare yourself. In one of his first medical stories, he heard the term bilirubin (a compound made during the break down of red blood cells) and assumed it was the name of a patient, Billy Rubin, before discovering what it actually meant.

Dave got interested in science writing in the late 1950s, after being given a book called The Nature of the Universe, by astrophysicist Fred Hoyle. He was hooked after he met a local astronomer and asked what he did for a living. He said he studied stars that are born in the Orion Nebula. I thought, My God, what an epiphany. Imagine stars being borna pregnant nebula. I wrote a whole story about that. I didnt use the word pregnancy either. But that was the start of everything, Dave recalled.

It was good timing, with the space race underway after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1, the first artificial Earth satellite, on October 4, 1957. He had to start science writing from scratch, with the most basic how and why reporters questions: How do you launch a small metal sphere into orbit around the Earth, and why doesnt it just fall from the sky? Basic, even humble, questions equal great science writing for the general public.

The universe is what intrigued Dave to the very end. I once asked him what he wished he could cover as a reporter in the years ahead. The quick answer was: Distant space and all that implieslooking at exoplanets and implications for the future of life itself. Closer to home, Dave said he would also want to write about the newest approaches to human disease and public health.

Dave was the ultimate mentor. Over the decades, I repeatedly saw him talking to young reporters or speaking to science journalism students. Dave spawned many science writers, as well as mentors of future science writers. Early in my career, he urged me to sponsor an American Association for the Advancement of Science mass media intern, the son of a Chronicle friend, for a summer at the Washington Star. I barely knew what I was doing, but yes, Dave prevailedthe intern was Richard Harris, who went on to a distinguished science journalism career at NPR.

Dave also did service to science writing as president of the National Association of Science Writers (19701971) and, later, of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, or CASW (19761980). He was always trying to improve science journalism, including making CASW-sponsored home visits to local newspapers, where he talked to reporters, editors and publishers about why covering science was important.

In 2017, U.S. science writers created the David Perlman Travel Fellowships in his honor, making more than $40,000 in personal donations to support international colleagues coming to the World Conference of Science Journalists in San Francisco.

Dave defied the odds until the end. He had a blood cancer called myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and went into hospice care last fall after deciding to discontinue blood transfusion treatments. His doctor expected he would die in a matter of weeks. Instead he lived for another eight months.

About now, I can hear Daves voice in my ear saying, Enough already. Despite the many accolades he received, Dave had limited tolerance for personal praise. There has never been a newspaper science reporter as in love with his craftor as good at itas Dave Perlman. Im among the many who owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude and will miss him greatly. When we last talked, he urged me to come visit on my next trip to the West Coast and ended with a cheerful "goodbye kiddo."

Goodbye to you too, kiddo. It's been swell.

Read more from the original source:

RIP David Perlman, the Dean of American Science Writing - Scientific American

Globally Leading Manufacturers of CRISPR Genome Editing product Scale up Production to Meet Sharp Spike in Demand Fueled by COVID-78 – Personal Injury…

The report on the CRISPR Genome Editing market provides a birds eye view of the current proceeding within the CRISPR Genome Editing market. Further, the report also takes into account the impact of the novel COVID-19 pandemic on the CRISPR Genome Editing market and offers a clear assessment of the projected market fluctuations during the forecast period. The different factors that are likely to impact the overall dynamics of the CRISPR Genome Editing market over the forecast period (2019-2029) including the current trends, growth opportunities, restraining factors, and more are discussed in detail in the market study.

For top companies in United States, European Union and China, this report investigates and analyzes the production, value, price, market share and growth rate for the top manufacturers, key data from 2019 to 2025.

The CRISPR Genome Editing market report firstly introduced the basics: definitions, classifications, applications and market overview; product specifications; manufacturing processes; cost structures, raw materials and so on. Then it analyzed the worlds main region market conditions, including the product price, profit, capacity, production, supply, demand and market growth rate and forecast etc. In the end, the CRISPR Genome Editing market report introduced new project SWOT analysis, investment feasibility analysis, and investment return analysis.

Get Free Sample PDF (including COVID19 Impact Analysis, full TOC, Tables and Figures) of Market Report @ https://www.marketresearchhub.com/enquiry.php?type=S&repid=2602918&source=atm

The major players profiled in this CRISPR Genome Editing market report include:

The key players covered in this studyEditas MedicineCRISPR TherapeuticsHorizon DiscoverySigma-AldrichGenscriptSangamo BiosciencesLonza GroupIntegrated DNA TechnologiesNew England BiolabsOrigene TechnologiesTransposagen BiopharmaceuticalsThermo Fisher ScientificCaribou BiosciencesPrecision BiosciencesCellectisIntellia Therapeutics

Market segment by Type, the product can be split intoGenetic EngineeringGene LibraryHuman Stem CellsOthersMarket segment by Application, split intoBiotechnology CompaniesPharmaceutical CompaniesOthers

Market segment by Regions/Countries, this report coversNorth AmericaEuropeChinaJapanSoutheast AsiaIndiaCentral & South America

The study objectives of this report are:To analyze global CRISPR Genome Editing status, future forecast, growth opportunity, key market and key players.To present the CRISPR Genome Editing development in North America, Europe, China, Japan, Southeast Asia, India and Central & South America.To strategically profile the key players and comprehensively analyze their development plan and strategies.To define, describe and forecast the market by type, market and key regions.

In this study, the years considered to estimate the market size of CRISPR Genome Editing are as follows:History Year: 2015-2019Base Year: 2019Estimated Year: 2020Forecast Year 2020 to 2026For the data information by region, company, type and application, 2019 is considered as the base year. Whenever data information was unavailable for the base year, the prior year has been considered.

You can Buy This Report from Here @ https://www.marketresearchhub.com/checkout?rep_id=2602918&licType=S&source=atm

Key Market Related Questions Addressed in the Report:

Important Information that can be extracted from the Report:

Do You Have Any Query Or Specific Requirement? Ask to Our Industry [emailprotected] https://www.marketresearchhub.com/enquiry.php?type=E&repid=2602918&source=atm

Read more:

Globally Leading Manufacturers of CRISPR Genome Editing product Scale up Production to Meet Sharp Spike in Demand Fueled by COVID-78 - Personal Injury...

Molecular Scissors Technology Market: Technological Advancement & Growth Analysis with Forecast to 2025 – Cole of Duty

The latest research report on the Molecular Scissors Technology market is an in-depth examination of this business sphere and is inclusive of information pertaining to vital parameters of the industry. The report provides details about the prevailing market trends, market share, industry size, current renumeration, periodic deliverables, and profits projections over the forecast timeframe.

Request a sample Report of Molecular Scissors Technology Market at:https://www.marketstudyreport.com/request-a-sample/2640187?utm_source=coleofduty.com&utm_medium=SP

An elaborate documentation of the Molecular Scissors Technology market performance during the analysis period is entailed in the report. Insights regarding the driving factors which will influence the market dynamics, alongside the growth pattern followed by the industry over the forecast period are presented. The report further focusses on analyzing the challenges existing in the market and growth prospects which define the business vertical over the forthcoming years.

Key highlights of the Molecular Scissors Technology market report:

Revealing the geographical landscape of the Molecular Scissors Technology market:

Summary of regional analysis presented in the Molecular Scissors Technology market report:

An exhaustive survey of Molecular Scissors Technology market with respect to product type and application scope:

Product scope:

Product types: Cas9, TALENs and MegaTALs, ZFN and Others

Major pointers mentioned in the report:

Ask for Discount on Molecular Scissors Technology Market Report at:https://www.marketstudyreport.com/check-for-discount/2640187?utm_source=coleofduty.com&utm_medium=SP

Application scope:

Application segmentation: Cell Line Engineering, Animal Genetic Engineering, Plant Genetic Engineering and Others

Insights entailed in the report:

Other takeaways from the Molecular Scissors Technology market report:

Elucidating details about the competitive topography of the Molecular Scissors Technology market:

Prominent players of the industry: Cibus, Cellectis, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Recombinetics, Sangamo Therapeutics, Merck, Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., Editas Medicine, Caribou Biosciences, Inc and Precision BioSciences

Key parameters included in the report which define the competitive landscape:

The Molecular Scissors Technology market report also emphasizes on major industry aspects like market concentration ratio.

For More Details On this Report:https://www.marketstudyreport.com/reports/global-molecular-scissors-technology-market-growth-status-and-outlook-2020-2025

Some of the Major Highlights of TOC covers:

Development Trend of Analysis of Molecular Scissors Technology Market

Marketing Channel

Market Dynamics

Methodology/Research Approach

Related Reports:

1. Global Leukemia Inhibitory Factor(LIF) Market Growth 2020-2025Leukemia Inhibitory Factor(LIF) market research report provides the newest industry data and industry future trends, allowing you to identify the products and end users driving Revenue growth and profitability. The industry report lists the leading competitors and provides the insights strategic industry Analysis of the key factors influencing the market.Read More: https://www.marketstudyreport.com/reports/global-leukemia-inhibitory-factor-lif-market-growth-2020-2025

2. Global Remdesivir (COVID-19) Market Growth 2020-2025Remdesivir (COVID-19) Market report characterize imperative Portion and contenders of the market regarding market estimate, volume, esteem. This report likewise covers every one of the locales and nations of the world, which demonstrates a territorial improvement status, it additionally incorporates Business Profile, Introduction, Revenue and so on.Read More: https://www.marketstudyreport.com/reports/global-remdesivir-covid-19-market-growth-2020-2025

Read More Reports On: https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/at-47-cagr-endoscope-reprocessing-market-size-is-expected-to-exhibit-us-16856-million-by-2025-2020-06-17

Contact Us:Corporate Sales,Market Study Report LLCPhone: 1-302-273-0910Toll Free: 1-866-764-2150 Email: sal[emailprotected]

Go here to read the rest:

Molecular Scissors Technology Market: Technological Advancement & Growth Analysis with Forecast to 2025 - Cole of Duty

Global Computational Breeding Market (2020-2027) With Top Growing Companies & COVID-19 Impact Analysis – Cole of Duty

With having published myriads of reports, Computational Breeding Market Research imparts its stalwartness to clients existing all over the globe. Our dedicated team of experts delivers reports with accurate data extracted from trusted sources. We ride the wave of digitalization facilitate clients with the changing trends in various industries, regions and consumers. As customer satisfaction is our top priority, our analysts are available to provide custom-made business solutions to the clients.

In this new business intelligence report, Computational Breeding Market Research serves a bunch of market forecast, structure, potential, and socioeconomic impacts associated with the global Computational Breeding market. With Porters Five Forces and DROT analyses, the research study incorporates a comprehensive evaluation of the positive and negative factors, as well as the opportunities regarding the Computational Breeding market.

Get Free sample copy of this report, @https://www.globalmarketers.biz/report/life-sciences/2015-2027-global-computational-breeding-industry-market-research-report,-segment-by-player,-type,-application,-marketing-channel,-and-region/146686#request_sample

The Computational Breeding market report has been fragmented into important regions that showcase worthwhile growth to the vendors. Each geographic segment has been measured based on supply-demand status, distribution, and pricing. Further, the study brings information about the local distributors with which the market players could create collaborations in a bid to sustain production footprint.

The following manufacturers are covered:

NRgeneBenson HillGeneTwisterNSIPKeygeneComputomicsHi Fidelity GeneticsGeneXPro

Segment by Regions

North America

Europe

China

Japan

Southeast Asia

India

Market Segmentation based on Type:

Biotechnological MethodMolecular BreedingHybrid BreedingGenome EditingGenetic Engineering

Market Segmentation based on Application:

Oilseeds & PulsesCereals & GrainsFruits & VegetablesOther Applications

Get Your Copy at a Discounted Rate!!!

Ask For Discount https://www.globalmarketers.biz/discount_inquiry/discount/146686

Segmentation of the Computational Breeding market to target the growth outlook and trends affecting these segments.

Make An Enquiry About This Report @What does the Computational Breeding market report contain?

https://www.globalmarketers.biz/report/life-sciences/2015-2027-global-computational-breeding-industry-market-research-report,-segment-by-player,-type,-application,-marketing-channel,-and-region/146686#inquiry_before_buying

Readers can get the answers of the following questions while going through the Computational Breeding market report:

Browse the complete report @https://www.globalmarketers.biz/report/life-sciences/2015-2027-global-computational-breeding-industry-market-research-report,-segment-by-player,-type,-application,-marketing-channel,-and-region/146686#table_of_contents

See the original post:

Global Computational Breeding Market (2020-2027) With Top Growing Companies & COVID-19 Impact Analysis - Cole of Duty

DNA Shows Plants Are Extraordinary Chemists Making Love and War – SciTechDaily

Gardenias newly sequenced genome highlights how evolutionary tinkering transforms plants into some of natures great chemical-makers.

Plants are some of natures most extraordinary chemists. Unlike animals, they cant run from predators or pathogens. They cant uproot themselves to seek out a mate or spread their seeds.

So instead, they manufacture chemicals: toxins to kill bacteria. Bitter alkaloids to ward off herbivores. Sweet nectar and jewel-colored pigments to draw in pollinators or birds that can help disperse seeds.

Chemicals, you could say, are one of a plants ways of making love and war.

But how did trees, shrubs and flowers obtain these capabilities?

In a new study, scientists explore this question through the evolution of the gardenia, Gardenia jasminoides, an evergreen shrub with white flowers thats planted as an ornamental in the tropics.

In a new study, researchers report sequencing the species genome. Credit: YW Low

Researchers sequenced the genome of the gardenia for the first time. Then, they looked in-depth at how the plant makes a compound called crocin. This brightly colored chemical,which gives saffron its vermillion hue, is also responsible for the red-orange shade of the gardenias ripened fruits.

The study identified the genes involved in making crocin and used them to create the compound in the lab. This work which included deciphering the step-by-step process that gardenias use to synthesize crocin lays the foundation for large-scale production of the chemical, which is thought to have medicinal properties as an antioxidant.

The research also explored the origins of crocin in gardenias. The findings, which will be published on June 18 inBMC Biology,highlight the power of an evolutionary process called tandem gene duplication, in which accidental copying of DNA gives organisms flexibility to expand the arsenal of genetic tools they have at their disposal. Its just one way that plants can evolve new capabilities, but its a crucial one.

The important principle is that plants can reinvent things, says study co-author Victor Albert, PhD, a University at Buffalo biologist. They can duplicate some parts of their genetic toolkit and twiddle the functions a little. So lets say you have a screwdriver, but the head is a super-big one. Imagine you could duplicate that screwdriver, but you could grind the head to make it smaller and useful for little screws, but you also still have the original one with the big head to handle large ones. Thats what these plants are doing.

A chemical compound called crocin gives the fruits their red-orange hue. Credit: YW Low

It was exciting to uncover these molecular tricks of the trade while researching the genome of a plant so important to traditional Chinese medicine, and now to modern biomedical research as well, says the studys co-corresponding author, Jingyuan Song, PhD, from the Engineering Research Center of Chinese Medicine Resource in China, who is also affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College.

The project was led by Song and Shilin Chen, PhD, from the Engineering Research Center of Chinese Medicine Resource and China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, and by Giovanni Giuliano, PhD, of the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA). The first authors were Zhichau Xu, PhD, and Xiangdong Pu, both of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College. Xu is also affiliated with the Engineering Research Center of Chinese Medicine Resource.

Albert, professor of biological sciences in the UB College of Arts and Sciences and a visiting professor at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, and his students made important contributions, conducting bioinformatics research that helped unravel the evolutionary history of crocin and caffeine synthesis in the gardenia and coffee plants, respectively.

In a tandem duplication event, a single gene gets replicated by mistake during reproduction. Then, as a species evolves over time, the excess DNA is free to mutate and take on new functions.

In Gardenia jasminoides, tandem duplication led to the evolution of a gene that is needed for crocin synthesis, the study concludes. This form of genetic replication also enabled a close relative of the gardenia the coffee plant Coffea canephora to develop caffeine-producing genes, according to the research, which compared the gardenias DNA to that of Coffea canephora and a few other plants.

This is a case where we see the same underlying evolutionary mechanism generating these tandem duplicates to create two different biosynthetic pathways of interest in two plants, Albert says. We have coffee and gardenia, which evolved from a close common ancestor, and in one case tandem duplicates formed and went crazy in coffee to make caffeine. And in the other, they formed and went crazy in gardenia to make crocins.

Made by plants, but useful for humans, too

Crocin is found not just in gardenias, but also in the crocus plant, which produces saffron. These species didnt inherit the ability to make crocin from a common ancestor: They evolved their arsenal of genes independently. The same goes for caffeine genes in coffee, tea and chocolate plants.

Plants are playing games with multiple evolutions of interesting phytochemicals, Albert says. And, of course, all of these phytochemicals are useful to the plants, maybe in fighting against pathogens or serving as attractants to insects.

When it comes to gardenias, the fiery color of the plants fruit helps to extend the species range, helping to attract animals that eat the fruits and expel the seeds in new locations.

But while plants perform chemistry for their own good, the compounds they produce can benefit humans too. Aspirin is closely related to a compound found in willow bark. Digoxin, used sparingly to treat heart problems, comes from the foxglove plant. Crocins antioxidant properties are of interest to researchers, and now, scientists have the knowledge they need to make that chemical in the lab.

Its a known fact that the same chemical (for instance, caffeine, or crocin) can appear again and again in distant plant species, says co-corresponding author Giuliano. One outstanding question was: How do the genes involved in the biosynthesis of such chemicals appear all at once in these different species? The work we published not only describes for the first time the complete pathway to crocin biosynthesis in any plant, but also shows that the pathway evolved in gardenias through the appearance of just one gene that acts early in the pathway, while the later ones were pre-existing, and were hitchhiked for making crocin. This is an elegant demonstration, at the biochemical level, of how nature reuses and adapts pre-existing mechanisms, rather than creating completely novel ones.

Reference: Tandem gene duplications drive divergent evolution of caffeine and crocin biosynthetic pathways in plants by Zhichao Xu, Xiangdong Pu, Ranran Gao, Olivia Costantina Demurtas, Steven J. Fleck, Michaela Richter, Chunnian He, Aijia Ji, Wei Sun, Jianqiang Kong, Kaizhi Hu, Fengming Ren, Jiejie Song, Zhe Wang, Ting Gao, Chao Xiong, Haoying Yu, Tianyi Xin, Victor A. Albert, Giovanni Giuliano, Shilin Chen and Jingyuan Song, 18 June 2020, BMC Biology.DOI: 10.1186/s12915-020-00795-3

Continued here:

DNA Shows Plants Are Extraordinary Chemists Making Love and War - SciTechDaily

Expert Insight: Discover the genetic dependencies of antibiotic function – SelectScience

Join us on Friday, June 19, to find out how massively parallel microbial strain engineering may lead to the development of novel therapeutics to combat the most difficult antibiotic-resistant pathogens

Massively parallel microbial strain engineering on a CRISPR-based benchtop platform has enabled the exploration of the genetic dependencies of antibiotic function in unprecedented scale and detail. The ability to design and deliver precisely determined edits throughout the entire E. coli genome has resulted in an unparalleled opportunity to query a diverse population of strain variants for their growth responses to antibiotics from multiple different functional classes.

Find out more in this expert webinar as Dr. Dan Held, Director of Synthetic Biology, Microbial Applications Development, Inscripta, outlines how the knowledge garnered through the use of this strain engineering technology has significant potential to lead to the development of novel therapeutics against our most difficult antibiotic-resistant pathogens.

Key learning objectives

Who should attend?

This webinar will run on Friday, June 19, 2020, at:

Register to watch the full webinar here>>

SelectScience runs 3-4 webinars a month across various scientific topics,discover more of our upcoming webinars>>

Go here to see the original:

Expert Insight: Discover the genetic dependencies of antibiotic function - SelectScience

Genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in Florida and Texas beginning this summer silver bullet or jumping the gun? – The Conversation US

This summer, for the first time, genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in the U.S.

On May 1, 2020, the company Oxitec received an experimental use permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to release millions of GM mosquitoes (labeled by Oxitec as OX5034) every week over the next two years in Florida and Texas. Females of this mosquito species, Aedes aegypti, transmit dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever and Zika viruses. When these lab-bred GM males are released and mate with wild females, their female offspring die. Continual, large-scale releases of these OX5034 GM males should eventually cause the temporary collapse of a wild population.

However, as vector biologists, geneticists, policy experts and bioethicists, we are concerned that current government oversight and scientific evaluation of GM mosquitoes do not ensure their responsible deployment.

Coral reefs that can withstand rising sea temperatures, American chestnut trees that can survive blight and mosquitoes that cant spread disease are examples of how genetic engineering may transform the natural world.

Genetic engineering offers an unprecedented opportunity for humans to reshape the fundamental structure of the biological world. Yet, as new advances in genetic decoding and gene editing emerge with speed and enthusiasm, the ecological systems they could alter remain enormously complex and understudied.

Recently, no group of organisms has received more attention for genetic modification than mosquitoes to yield inviable offspring or make them unsuitable for disease transmission. These strategies hold considerable potential benefits for the hundreds of millions of people impacted by mosquito-borne diseases each year.

Although the EPA approved the permit for Oxitec, state approval is still required. A previously planned release in the Florida Keys of an earlier version of Oxitecs GM mosquito (OX513) was withdrawn in 2018 after a referendum in 2016 indicated significant opposition from local residents. Oxitec has field-trialed their GM mosquitoes in Brazil, the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Panama.

The public forum on Oxitecs recent permit application garnered 31,174 comments opposing release and 56 in support. The EPA considered these during their review process.

However, it is difficult to assess how EPA regulators weighed and considered public comments and how much of the evidence used in final risk determinations was provided solely by the technology developers.

The closed nature of this risk assessment process is concerning to us.

There is a potential bias and conflict of interest when experimental trials and assessments of ecological risk lack political accountability and are performed by, or in close collaboration with, the technology developers.

This scenario becomes more troubling with a for-profit technology company when cost- and risk-benefit analyses comparing GM mosquitoes to other approaches arent being conducted.

Another concern is that risk assessments tend to focus on only a narrow set of biological parameters such as the potential for the GM mosquito to transmit disease or the potential of the mosquitoes new proteins to trigger an allergic response in people and neglect other important biological, ethical and social considerations.

To address these shortcomings, the Institute for Sustainability, Energy and Environment at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign convened a Critical Conversation on GM mosquitoes. The discussion involved 35 participants from academic, government and nonprofit organizations from around the world with expertise in mosquito biology, community engagement and risk assessment.

A primary takeaway from this conversation was an urgent need to make regulatory procedures more transparent, comprehensive and protected from biases and conflicts of interest. In short, we believe it is time to reassess risk assessment for GM mosquitoes. Here are some of the key elements we recommend.

First, an official, government-funded registry for GM organisms specifically designed to reproduce in the wild and intended for release in the U.S. would make risk assessments more transparent and accountable. Similar to the U.S. database that lists all human clinical trials, this field trial registry would require all technology developers to disclose intentions to release, information on their GM strategy, scale and location of release and intentions for data collection.

This registry could be presented in a way that protects intellectual property rights, just as therapies entering clinical trials are patent-protected in their registry. The GM organism registry would be updated in real time and made fully available to the public.

Second, a broader set of risks needs to be assessed and an evidence base needs to be generated by third-party researchers. Because each GM mosquito is released into a unique environment, risk assessments and experiments prior to and during trial releases should address local effects on the ecosystem and food webs. They should also probe the disease transmission potential of the mosquitos wild counterparts and ecological competitors, examine evolutionary pressures on disease agents in the mosquito community and track the gene flow between GM and wild mosquitoes.

To identify and assess risks, a commitment of funding is necessary. The U.S. EPAs recent announcement that it would improve general risk assessment analysis for biotechnology products is a good start. But regulatory and funding support for an external advisory committee to review assessments for GM organisms released in the wild is also needed; diverse expertise and local community representation would secure a more fair and comprehensive assessment.

Furthermore, independent researchers and advisers could help guide what data are collected during trials to reduce uncertainty and inform future large-scale releases and risk assessments.

The objective to reduce or even eliminate mosquito-borne disease is laudable. GM mosquitoes could prove to be an important tool in alleviating global health burdens. However, to ensure their success, we believe that regulatory frameworks for open, comprehensive and participatory decision-making are urgently needed.

This article was updated to correct the date that Oxitec withdrew its OX513 trial application to 2018.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

Read this article:

Genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in Florida and Texas beginning this summer silver bullet or jumping the gun? - The Conversation US

USDA revised regulations of GMO and gene edited plants. Here’s what it means. – Genetic Literacy Project

The long-awaited updates from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to its genetically engineered (GE) organism regulation have been issued. This final rule completed a more than 10-year process started back in 2008 to revise regulations promulgated in 1987. This article discusses these new regulations and some of their potential impacts. Overall, the rule ignores concerns raised by some industry, consumer and environmental groups that the new regulations, including an option for developers to self-determine whether their products are regulated, and could lead to adverse environmental and/or agricultural impacts, potential food safety risks, trade disruptions and a lack of consumer acceptance of new food technologies.USDA oversight from 1987 to the present

To understand the USDAs new regulation of GE plants, it is important to know how the agency has regulated GE plants since 1987. USDA regulates the import, interstate movement, and environmental release of GE plants under its legal authority to manage plant pests under the Plant Protection Act. A plant pest is any organism that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plants or plant product. Under USDA regulations, a GE plant has been considered a potential plant pest if any of its newly introduced DNA came from an organism on USDAs list of plant pests, or if the method of introducing DNA into the plants genome involved an organism on USDAs list of plant pests. For example, if a GE plant was developed using the plant pest Agrobacterium to introduce new DNA, as many are, it was regulated. However, if the same DNA were introduced using the gene-gun method of transformation, USDA would not regulate the GE plant.

Under those regulations (found at 7 CFR part 340), developers were required to submit their GE plant products to one of three oversight processes before environmental release.

The first process, known as notification, is used to regulate field trials of low-risk GE plants. The applicant provides the USDA with information detailing its trial and the agency has 30 days to decide whether to permit the trial to proceed. As many as 1,000 field trials are authorized yearly using this procedure.

The second process is permitting, which requires a more detailed application for any outdoor planting (e.g., field trial) of higher-risk GE plants. After reviewing the application, USDA may issue a permit authorizing the release. The USDA has issued hundreds of permits since 1987.

The third process involves a petition for non-regulated status, where a developer requests the USDA to determinebased on evidence from field trialsthat the GE plant presents no plant pest risk and no longer requires regulation. The petition process is the primary path to commercialization and more than 140 plants have been deregulated.

For each regulatory process, the USDA is ensuring that the GE plant is not going to become a plant pest and cause harm to agricultural interests.

Up until 2011, every GE plant tested outdoors either submitted a notification or received a permit, and all commercialized plants satisfactorily completed the petition process. Then, in 2011, the USDA established a process whereby GE seed developers could ask the agency whether the GE plants they were developing required regulation, or whether they were exempt because they did not involve any plant pest components. The USDA responded to these Am I regulated? inquiries stating whether the GE plant was not regulated and could be planted without oversight. By the end of 2019, USDA determined that more than 85 plants did not fall within its regulatory authority and are exempt from oversight. So, over the last eight years, we have seen a decrease in how many GE plants USDA regulates.[1]

The new rule (called the Sustainable, Ecological, Consistent, Uniform, Responsible, Efficient, (SECURE) Rule), which will be implemented over the next 18 months, applies to organisms produced through genetic engineering, which is defined to include techniques that use recombinant, synthesized, or amplified nucleic acids to modify or create a genome. This broad definition includes classical genetic engineering, which add one or more new genes to organism (transgenics, or what consumers consider GMOs), and newer gene editing techniques such as CRISPR, which can make edits within an organisms existing genome.

While the definition captures all GE plants, the USDA exempts many of them from any oversight. First, it exempts products with a single sequence deletion, substitution, or addition (if the addition is from the plants gene pool). Second, it exempts any GE plant that has the same plant-trait-mechanism of action as any GE plant previous regulated by the USDA. This means that if the USDA previously regulated a GE plant, such as an glyphosate-tolerant variety of corn, a new GE glyphosate-tolerant corn is exempt if it employs the same mechanism of action (meaning it biologically operates the same way to provide tolerance). Developers can self-determine whether they qualify for these exemptions; confirmation of their self-determination from the USDA is not required and the agency need not be informed.

If a GE plant is not exempt, the developer can either: (1) apply for a permit if the GE plant has potential plant pest risks; or (2) seek a Regulatory Status Review (RSR). The RSR starts with an initial 180-day process where the USDA determines if the GE plant has any plausible plant pest risks. That initial RSR step is a closer look at the GE plant than the current am I regulated? process, but less detailed than the process used for petitions for non-regulated status. The USDA stated that the initial review does not require any plant-specific laboratory or field-test data. If the USDA decides there are no plausible risks, it sends a letter to the developer stating the plant is not regulated and publishes the letter on its website. If the USDA cannot conclude that there are no plausible risks, then the developer can either: (1) request that the USDA conduct the second part of the RSR, which is detailed evaluation of potential plant pest risks that can take up to 15 month); or (2) apply for a permit. The more lengthy and detailed RSR evaluation is comparable to the current petition for non-regulated status process and ends in the USDA determining either that the GE plant is not regulated or that it needs a permit. If a developer receives a permit from the USDA, any outdoor planting (e.g. a field trial or a commercial planting) is subject to restrictions to prevent inadvertent release into the environment and any adverse plant pest impacts. These are the same restrictions that virtually all GE plants were subject to prior to 2012 under the notification and permitting processes. Only GE plants that receive permits have any continued USDA oversight.

The exemptions are one worrisome aspect of the new SECURE rule. First, they are not supported by scientific evidence showing that these categories of GE plants do not pose risks. Instead, the USDA states that since a single deletion, substitution or addition produces a plant that could be achieved by conventional breeding methods, and because conventionally bred plants have not raised plant pest risks, gene-edited plants that are the same as products that could be achieved through conventional breeding will not pose plant pest risks. The problem with this argument is that a science-based regulatory system should base its oversight on whether the plant possesses traits that make it a potential plant risks, not the plants method of production. One reason the USDA revised its rules was to focus on the properties of a product, not how it was developed, yet that is the very approach these exemptions enshrine. While many, if not most, plants with a single deletion may not present any plant pest risks, if one does, shouldnt USDA regulate it?

The second concern is that the developer self-determines if its product qualifies for an exemption. This sets up an inherent conflict of interest because developers have financial incentives to determine themselves exempt. While some developers will diligently determine the regulatory status of a GE plant, others may not. In addition, when a developer self-determines its product is exempt, neither the USDA nor the public know that the GE plant is being released into the environment and entering the food supply because there is no requirement to notify the agency of ones self-determination. If the USDA does not know which GE plants are self-determined as exempt, how can it confirm that the determination is correct?

One positive of the new rule is the agencys decision to limit the exemptions to single edits. The USDA reasons that while a single edit mimics a product that can be produced through conventional breeding methods, the same is not true for products with multiple edits. Therefore, if a developer makes two or more edits, the developer must apply for a permit or ask for an RSR. The first gene edited commercial product in the USCalyxts high oleic soybean, which the USDA exempted under the am I regulated? processwould not be exempt under the new rules because it has two edited genes. If most gene-edited products end up having two or more edits, the exemptions may have limited applicability.

While multi-edited products are not automatically exempt, the USDA is likely to find in the initial step of the RSR process that many do not pose any plausible plant pest risk. So the result may be the samethese products are not regulated. However, at least the initial RSR determination (instead of a developer self-determination), is made public, so stakeholders will know which multi-edited products are entering the market.

The USDA states that one goal of its revisions is to provide regulatory relief, and the final rule clearly achieves that. Many GE plants that historically required containment for field trials through either the notification or permitting process will no longer be subject to any substantive regulation. They either will be exempt or deemed to have no plausible plant pest risks through the initial step of the RSR process. What this means in practice is that GE plant developers (both private developers and academic scientists) can conduct field trials without any confinement conditions that ensure the GE plants do not persist in the environment after the trial is completed. The USDA stated in its proposed rule that it hopes developers voluntarily continue confinement measures, but that may or may not happen. GE plants have escaped from field trials with USDA oversight in the past and the likelihood of that happening will only increase without USDA oversight. That could mean new proteins inadvertently entering our food supply before they are deemed safe for human consumption. Experimental GE plants persisting in the environment after a field trial is concluded could also harm non-target organisms. Finally, if an unregulated GE plant escapes from a field trial and enters the export market, it could result in rejection of the US commodity because the experimental plant has not been approved in the importing country.

The final rule also fails to provide needed transparency on GE plants that will be commercialized. The USDA, food industry and consumers will be at the mercy of developers to make public information about products that they have deemed exempt. How will the food industry know which foods contain GE plants to ensure they are complying with export market legal requirements? How will food manufacturers and retailers answer questions from consumers asking whether their products contain ingredients from GE or gene-edited plants? If consumers are unable to access information about which GE plants are commercialized, will they become skeptical about those products and their safety? The lack of transparency inherent in the rule could result in international trade problems and misinformed consumers.

GE plants have provided benefits to farmers, the environment and consumers and are likely to continue to do so in the future. However, the USDA rule could impact the food industrys acceptance of those products and fuel consumer suspicions about biotech crops and foods.

[1] While the USDA is the primary agency regulating GE plants, the FDA and EPA regulate subsets of GE plants. If a GE plant is used for food or feed, the FDA regulates it under a voluntary consultation process set up under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. If a GE plant produces a pesticide, the EPA regulates it as a plant-incorporated protectant under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

Go here to see the original:

USDA revised regulations of GMO and gene edited plants. Here's what it means. - Genetic Literacy Project

How a rare bird and the coronavirus remind us that our safety depends on sciencenot wishful thinking – Genetic Literacy Project

There are worse places to spend a COVID-19 lockdown than next to a sanctuary with one of the worlds rarest birdsthe New Zealand takah. And during this strange moment in history, its wonderful to watch these remarkable relics from the pasttakah were twice declared extinct and twice rebounded unexpectedly from the deadin the shadow of their last wild refuge, the Murchison Mountains in Fiordland National Park.

Indeed, these colorful swamphens and the coronavirus pandemic both exemplify opposite extremes of widely held beliefs about the natural world; attitudes towards nature, moreover, that reflect much popular misunderstanding about evolutionary biologyand genetics in particular.

Given this, the much-regarded bird and the much-reviled virus can usefully illustrate some of the important contradictions and confusions that befuddle broader public appreciation of modern genetic science. So lets begin with a little more detail about the former, the amusingly clumsy-looking takah, the worlds largest rail.

Well-known in pre-contact times to New Zealands indigenous Maori, takah were initially thought extinct by the first European scientists to examine their fossilized remainsan assessment that proved mistaken when a small number of these flightless rails were caught during the latter part of the 19th century, the last in 1898.

Presumed extinct (for the second time) for the following fifty years, takah were famously rediscovered in the rugged and remote Fiordland mountains in 1948an event that triggered both an international avalanche of publicity and intense debate about how best to protect the last remnants of the species. Today considered a national taonga or treasure, this cherished bird is now a darling poster child for New Zealand conservation.

They are also, by all accounts, extremely tastyearly Maori hunted them extensively as a source of much-prized feathers and food, and the sealers who caught and cooked one in 1850 declared it a most delicious dainty.

This then raises a question that is less facetious than might first appear: Would it be okay to eat a takah? And if not, why not? Here we can start to explore the popular beliefs about nature alluded to above, ones that result in wider uncertainty about modern genetic science and, at an extreme, vocal opposition to genetic modification and genetic engineering.

To many nature-lovers, even talking about eating an animal like the takah would likely seem immoral; after all, these birds (like other endangered species everywhere, from black rhinos to gorillas to whales) are special. Yet if we examine this belief, being special appears to amount to little more than being rare. Nor could being wild be a cause for special status; this implies, for instance, that captive-bred rare animals are of less value than their free-living counterparts.

Yet while it is rationally unclear (independent of scarcity) why wild animals should have greater intrinsic value than farmed ones, it is nevertheless a distinction that many people maketreasuring rare or wild animals over well-known domesticated ones. (This inconsistency in attitudes is also evident in the furor over the euthanizing of a single giraffe in 2014 in a zoo in Denmark, an agricultural country where tens of thousands of farm animals are routinely slaughtered each day.) If takah were as common as chickens, sayor whales as widespread as cowswould they still be seen as special?

The old adage familiarity breeds contempt is also evident in antipathy towards genetically modified foods. That is, in the same way that familiar livestock are overlooked in comparison with wild/rare animals, so too are supposedly natural everyday foodstuffs in the vehement rejection of unnatural genetically adulterated Frankenfoods. In reality, of course, all of our staple crops have themselves been genetically modified through selective breeding over time, with manyincluding such common items as corn, peaches and watermelonsveritable monstrosities compared to their wild precursors.

Furthermore, such unexamined beliefs about what is natural and what is unnatural help explain how support for wildlife conservation can morph into opposition to genetic sciencemost especially, in the idea that human activities destroy the delicate balance of nature. Despite having been long-since rejected by ecologists, the romanticized concept of a natural balanceanthropomorphised as a wise and benign Mother Nature, constantly striving to maintain the natural harmonystill holds sway in public consciousness.

A surprising example of this concept of purpose and harmony in nature is Pope Franciss recent suggestion that COVID-19 is natures response to climate change. While the Pope is an odd source for such a claim (after all, traditionally God is the one who directs plagues for His own purposes, as many believers still insist), it is nevertheless based on the same belief in a natural (or supernatural) guiding force maintaining natures equilibrium in a world bespoilt by humankind.

Such a notion, of course, stands in stark contrast to the Darwinian concept of life, in which the illusion of harmony merely masks a precarious stalemate in the ceaseless competition between and among species. Moreover, the evolutionary view regards nature as purposeless and amoral, with the ultimate aim of living organisms being simply survival and replication.

In which case, COVID-19 is not natures revenge (or Gods wrath), but rather the mindless spread of an incredibly successful sequence of genes, a contagious virus replicating at the expense of other organisms that just happen to be us. Plagues and pestilence, in other words, are as much a part of nature as wonderful animals like the takah (a point humorously made in Monty Pythons All things dull and ugly).

Potentially, the current coronavirus crisis may disabuse many people of their romanticized notions about benevolent and harmonious nature; at any rate, the overwhelming world reaction is not simply to let nature take its course but rather to act to mitigate its worse effects. And while the unexpectedness and novelty of the pandemic has left many nations floundering over how best to respond, the ultimate solution(s) can only be derived from evidence and factsin other words from empirical science. At the same time, however, the fight against COVID-19 will likely be hindered by the very things that dog the rational application of genetics to human needsmisinformation, conspiracy thinking and pseudo-science.

But before drawing the disparate threads of this argument together, lets return to the takah, itself an excellent example of the pitiless Darwinian account of life. Like much of New Zealands avian fauna, the takahs ancestors were accidental, wind-blown arrivals on these remote South Pacific islands. Lacking competition in their new environment, takah numbers rapidly expanded while at the same time evolutionary processes, including island gigantism, gradually morphed them into the large, flightless and slow-breeding animals we see today. And, like numerous other New Zealand species, the takah were therefore easily out-competed by the next set of arrivals, the fast-breeding mammals introduced by human beings.

Yet while the ensuing tidal wave of bird extinctions was initially viewed as natural and inevitable, modern attitudes have changedand now New Zealands conservation efforts are directed at preserving the surviving native species by eradicating the more recent mammalian invaders. A tragic irony here is that, in the name of conservation, many native species are kept alive only through the mass killing of exotics.

Further ironies abound. Reassured by evidence-based science, the majority of New Zealanders accept the use of 1080 sodium monofluoroacetate poison as the most effective means to control pest speciesyet at the same time, research into more humane genetic alternatives (such as the use of gene drives) are stymied by the countrys vocal anti-GMO movement and its dated and restrictive legislation on genetic technology.

Indeed, the emotional, anti-scientific hostility to 1080 poison captures many of the points raised above, most especially in the belief that native and introduced species can coexist in a natural equilibrium (a notion belied by the estimated 25 million native New Zealand birds killed by introduced predators each year).

As for the takah itself, an initial willingness to let nature take its course was a factor in the species calamitous decline to just over 100 individuals by the 1980s, before more scientifically guided (and better funded) conservation policies began to take effect. Genetics has since played a strong part in hauling the takah back from the brink of extinction, particularly in mitigating the damaging effects of in-breeding. Genetic research has also uncovered surprising findings about the takahs origins; originally divided into two subspeciesone in New Zealands North Island and the other in the South Islandmore recent genetic analysis suggests these were instead two separate species, with the extinct northern variety descended from Australian swamphens and the extant southern species more closely related to South African rails. (Convergent evolution explains the physical similarities between the distinct species on either island.)

And here, takah genetics can usefully illustrate a final point about our conceptions (and misconceptions) of the natural world. Those most attracted to idealized visions of nature (and hence prey to anti-science attitudes), often assume that science robs nature of its glory and wonder. In fact it does the opposite; the more we understand about animals such as the takah (or indeed viruses such as SARS-cov-2), the more we are able to marvel at the wonders of evolved creation. And while romantic wishful thinking wont save the tasty takah from extinction (nor us humans from COVID-19), modern science just might.

Patrick Whittle has a PhD in philosophy and is a freelance writer with a particular interest in the social and political implications of modern biological science. Follow him on his website patrickmichaelwhittle.com or on Twitter @WhittlePM

Here is the original post:

How a rare bird and the coronavirus remind us that our safety depends on sciencenot wishful thinking - Genetic Literacy Project

Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Could be Released in Florida and Texas This Summer – The Daily Beast

This article originally appeared on The Conversation.

This summer, for the first time, genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in the U.S.

On May 1, 2020, the company Oxitec received an experimental use permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to release millions of GM mosquitoes (labeled by Oxitec as OX5034) every week over the next two years in Florida and Texas. Females of this mosquito species, Aedes aegypti, transmit dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever and Zika viruses. When these lab-bred GM males are released and mate with wild females, their female offspring die. Continual, large-scale releases of these OX5034 GM males should eventually cause the temporary collapse of a wild population.

However, as vector biologists, geneticists, policy experts and bioethicists, we are concerned that current government oversight and scientific evaluation of GM mosquitoes do not ensure their responsible deployment.

Coral reefs that can withstand rising sea temperatures, American chestnut trees that can survive blight and mosquitoes that cant spread disease are examples of how genetic engineering may transform the natural world.

Genetic engineering offers an unprecedented opportunity for humans to reshape the fundamental structure of the biological world. Yet, as new advances in genetic decoding and gene editing emerge with speed and enthusiasm, the ecological systems they could alter remain enormously complex and understudied.

Recently, no group of organisms has received more attention for genetic modification than mosquitoesto yield inviable offspring or make them unsuitable for disease transmission. These strategies hold considerable potential benefits for the hundreds of millions of people impacted by mosquito-borne diseases each year.

Although the EPA approved the permit for Oxitec, state approval is still required. A previously planned release in the Florida Keys of an earlier version of Oxitecs GM mosquito (OX513) was withdrawn in 2016 after a referendum indicated significant opposition from local residents. Oxitec has field-trialed their GM mosquitoes in Brazil, the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Panama.

The public forum on Oxitecs recent permit application garnered 31,174 comments opposing release and 56 in support. The EPA considered these during their review process.

However, it is difficult to assess how EPA regulators weighed and considered public comments and how much of the evidence used in final risk determinations was provided solely by the technology developers.

The closed nature of this risk assessment process is concerning to us.

There is a potential bias and conflict of interest when experimental trials and assessments of ecological risk lack political accountability and are performed by, or in close collaboration with, the technology developers.

This scenario becomes more troubling with a for-profit technology company when cost- and risk-benefit analyses comparing GM mosquitoes to other approaches arent being conducted.

Another concern is that risk assessments tend to focus on only a narrow set of biological parameterssuch as the potential for the GM mosquito to transmit disease or the potential of the mosquitoes new proteins to trigger an allergic response in peopleand neglect other important biological, ethical and social considerations.

To address these shortcomings, the Institute for Sustainability, Energy and Environment at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign convened a Critical Conversation on GM mosquitoes. The discussion involved 35 participants from academic, government and nonprofit organizations from around the world with expertise in mosquito biology, community engagement and risk assessment.

A primary takeaway from this conversation was an urgent need to make regulatory procedures more transparent, comprehensive and protected from biases and conflicts of interest. In short, we believe it is time to reassess risk assessment for GM mosquitoes. Here are some of the key elements we recommend.

First, an official, government-funded registry for GM organisms specifically designed to reproduce in the wild and intended for release in the U.S. would make risk assessments more transparent and accountable. Similar to the U.S. database that lists all human clinical trials, this field trial registry would require all technology developers to disclose intentions to release, information on their GM strategy, scale and location of release and intentions for data collection.

This registry could be presented in a way that protects intellectual property rights, just as therapies entering clinical trials are patent-protected in their registry. The GM organism registry would be updated in real time and made fully available to the public.

Second, a broader set of risks needs to be assessed and an evidence base needs to be generated by third-party researchers. Because each GM mosquito is released into a unique environment, risk assessments and experiments prior to and during trial releases should address local effects on the ecosystem and food webs. They should also probe the disease transmission potential of the mosquitos wild counterparts and ecological competitors, examine evolutionary pressures on disease agents in the mosquito community and track the gene flow between GM and wild mosquitoes.

To identify and assess risks, a commitment of funding is necessary. The U.S. EPAs recent announcement that it would improve general risk assessment analysis for biotechnology products is a good start. But regulatory and funding support for an external advisory committee to review assessments for GM organisms released in the wild is also needed; diverse expertise and local community representation would secure a more fair and comprehensive assessment.

Furthermore, independent researchers and advisers could help guide what data are collected during trials to reduce uncertainty and inform future large-scale releases and risk assessments.

The objective to reduce or even eliminate mosquito-borne disease is laudable. GM mosquitoes could prove to be an important tool in alleviating global health burdens. However, to ensure their success, we believe that regulatory frameworks for open, comprehensive and participatory decision-making are urgently needed.

Written by Brian Allan, Associate Professor of Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Chris Stone, Medical Entomologist, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Holly Tuten, Vector Ecologist, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Jennifer Kuzma, Goodnight-NCGSK Distinguished Professor, North Carolina State University; Natalie Kofler, Levenick Resident Scholar in Sustainability, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

See the original post here:

Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Could be Released in Florida and Texas This Summer - The Daily Beast

Novavax President of R&D Dr. Gregory Glenn to Discuss the Development of COVID-19 Vaccines on Panel at 2020 BIO Digital – Yahoo Finance

GAITHERSBURG, Md., June 08, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Novavax, Inc. (NVAX), a late-stage biotechnology company developing next-generation vaccines for serious infectious diseases, today announced that Gregory M. Glenn, M.D., President of Research and Development, will join other vaccine industry leaders for a panel discussion at 2020 BIO Digital. Taking place on Tuesday, June 9 at 11:30 a.m. EDT, the panel will discuss COVID-19 vaccines. The conversation will consider the complex path from lab to clinical trials, the impact of the evolving science on candidate development and consider how collaboration will bring life-saving vaccines to the world.

Details for the panel are as follows:

About Novavax

Novavax, Inc. (NVAX) is a late-stage biotechnology company that promotes improved health globally through the discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative vaccines to prevent serious infectious diseases. Novavax recently initiated development of NVX-CoV2373, its vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, with Phase 1 clinical trial results expected in July of 2020. NanoFlu, its quadrivalent influenza nanoparticle vaccine, met all primary objectives in its pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial in older adults. Both vaccine candidates incorporate Novavax proprietary saponin-based Matrix-M adjuvant in order to enhance the immune response and stimulate high levels of neutralizing antibodies. Novavax is a leading innovator of recombinant vaccines; its proprietary recombinant technology platform combines the power and speed of genetic engineering to efficiently produce highly immunogenic nanoparticles in order to address urgent global health needs.

For more information, visit http://www.novavax.com and connect with us on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Contacts:

InvestorsNovavax, Inc. Erika Trahanir@novavax.com240-268-2022

WestwickeJohn Woolfordjohn.woolford@westwicke.com443-213-0506

MediaBrandzone/KOGS CommunicationEdna Kaplankaplan@kogspr.com617-974-8659

Read this article:

Novavax President of R&D Dr. Gregory Glenn to Discuss the Development of COVID-19 Vaccines on Panel at 2020 BIO Digital - Yahoo Finance

Does China Have A Coronavirus Vaccine? Expert Says One Could Be Available Within Months – International Business Times

KEY POINTS

Chinas top respiratory expert said Tuesday a vaccine for the coronavirus could be ready as early as autumn for emergency use, months earlier than the timeline envisioned by U.S. experts. The comments came amid a Harvard University study that found the virus began circulating in China much earlier than previously suspected.

Zhong Nanshan, former president of the Chinese Medical Association and current the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Thoracic Disease, said guidelines are being drafted to determine who will get the vaccine first and when, along with what would constitute emergency use.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, has said 100 million doses of a vaccine could be ready by the end of the year even before trials on safety and efficacy are completed.

China has spent a reported $703 million on the development of a vaccine, with five currently undergoing testing. Several others developed elsewhere in the world also are undergoing trials, setting up a global competition akin to the space race.

The journal Cell on Saturday published a preliminary study of a vaccine developed by the Bejing Institute of Biological Products that effectively blocked infection in rhesus monkeys. Development of an effective vaccine by China likely would help deflect criticism of the countrys early handling of the outbreak.

Another vaccine developed by the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products is in the midst of human trials. Both vaccines use inactivated viruses. Research also is focused on other techniques including genetic engineering.

Zhong said without a vaccine, death tolls will continue to mount. By midmorning Tuesday, more than 407,000 people had died worldwide from COVID-19 -- more than a quarter in the United States alone.

Natural immunity needs 60- to 70% of a countrys population to be infected by the novel coronavirus, which could cause a death toll of 30 [million] to 40 million, Zhong told the South China Morning Post. The [only] solution is still mass vaccination.

He added: Large-scale vaccination will take one to two years. The new vaccine can be used in an emergency as early as this autumn or the end of the year.

China rejected findings by Harvard University that coronavirus began circulating in Wuhan as early as August by examining satellite images of hospital parking lots. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hua Chunying called the conclusions preposterous, but the researchers said the findings line up with the recent recognition that gastrointestinal symptoms are a unique feature of COVID-19 disease and may be the chief complaint of a significant proportion of presenting patients.

China has maintained the infection emerged in November but has been sharply criticized for suppressing information in the initial stages of the pandemic.

Follow this link:

Does China Have A Coronavirus Vaccine? Expert Says One Could Be Available Within Months - International Business Times

Swarm of MILLIONS of gene-hacked mosquitoes will be unleashed across USA to wipe out malaria with death sex – The Sun

MUTANT mosquitoes created in a lab to stop the spread of deadly diseases like malaria will be unleashed across the US this summer.

The gene-hacked bugs, crafted by UK biotech company Oxitec, are designed tokill off or reduce local populations of mosquitoes by mating with them.

3

Mosquitoes carry diseases like dengue, Zika and malaria which are then passed to anyone bitten by the creepy crawlies.

While the technology has shown promise in lab experiments, experts warn the scheme could go horribly wrong out in the wild.

"These strategies hold considerable potential benefits for the hundreds of millions of people impacted bymosquito-borne diseaseseach year," a group of scientists and ethicists wrote in The Conversation.

"However, we are concerned that current government oversight and scientific evaluation of genetically-modified mosquitoes do not ensure their responsible deployment."

3

Oxitec's controversial scheme was in May approved for "experimental use" in Florida and Texas by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Starting this summer, millions of genetically-modified (GM) male mosquitoes will be released every week over the next two years.

When the lab-bred bugs are released and mate with wild females, their female offspring die.

Only female mosquitoes bite, meaning Oxitec's male-only insects won't spread diseases to people.

What is gene editing?

Here's what you need to know

Over time, repeated, large-scale releases of the modified insects should drive the temporary collapse of wild populations.

This should halt the spread of nasty diseases carried by mosquitoes, potentially saving thousands of lives.

Mosquito-borne illnesses like malaria are on the rise in the southern United States as climate change pushes bug populations up from South America.

Scientists are concerned about the lack of oversight for Oxitec projects in Florida and Texas.

For its part, Oxitec said in a statement that the article is The Conversation contained "a number of false or baseless claims".

3

The company has run into trouble before.

In Brazil, an Oxitec project spectacularly backfired after millions of the GM bugs were released into neighbourhoods in Jacobina.

Some scientists believe the project accidentally created a super-resistant mosquito species that's tougher to kill than before.

Oxitec's work has been heavily criticised by Friends of the Earth, a charity dedicated to protecting the environment.

Back in 2012, Friends of the Earth's Eric Hoffman said: "Trials of its mosquitos must not move forward in the absence of comprehensive and impartial reviews of the environmental, human health and ethical risks."

In a statement at the time, Friends of the Earth said: "The GM mosquitoes are intended to reduce the wild population by mating with naturally occurring mosquitoes and producing progeny which dont survive, thus reducing the population and therefore the transmission of the tropical disease dengue fever.

"The company has been widely criticised for putting its commercial interests ahead of public and environmental safety.

"Its first releases of GM mosquitoes took place controversially in the Cayman Islands, where there is no biosafety law or regulation.

"Oxitec staff have been closely involved in developing risk assessment guidelines for GM insects worldwide, leading to concerns about lack of independent scrutiny and conflict of interest."

PLAN IT!How to see planets Jupiter, Saturn AND Mars rising in sky tonight with naked eye

LOST AND FOUNDLost Roman city revealed using radar uncovering temple, streets and sewers

SPACE STORMSaturn has a mystery 'mega storm' shaped like a perfect hexagon

AIR FAIR?Samsung invents Apple AirPods rivals that look like tiny BEANS in your ears

HIDE & SEEKGoogle text codes reveal your EXACT location if your address is hard to find

Exclusive

PLAY TIMEPS5 design revealed? Stunning 'first look' images show leaked Sony sketches in 3D

In other news, Nasa could create "GM astronauts" designed to be super-strong and feel no pain.

Scientists are trying to make grey squirrels extinct in Britain through genetic engineering.

And, breeding "super-cows" that fart less is the latest bonkers plot to halt climate change.

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online Tech & Science team? Email us at tech@the-sun.co.uk

Link:

Swarm of MILLIONS of gene-hacked mosquitoes will be unleashed across USA to wipe out malaria with death sex - The Sun

MIT Engineers Developed an Interesting Method to Extend the Shelf Life of Foods – Somag News

Benedetto Marelli and his teammates at MIT have discovered a method to naturally prolong the shelf life of foods. In the method, it was discovered that coating food with silk had a serious effect.

Benedetto Marelli, who worked as an assistant professor at the environmental engineering department at MIT, came across a book about the use of silk one day by chance while doing his post-doctoral study at Tufts University. When asked for each set to contain silk in the cooking contest for the universitys laboratory, Marelli accidentally forgot some strawberries wrapped in silk on her counter.

Realizing that the strawberries that were interacting with silk were still edible when she returned almost a week later, Marelli observed that the other strawberries were already spoiled. This situation had a shock effect on the researcher who had previously studied the biomedical applications of silk. Marelli realized that she could find a solution to the problem of food waste with this situation that she discovered by chance and started to work.

Benedetto Marelli, who is an associate professor at MIT, has decided to seek help from different scientists in this regard. Cambridge Crops, which includes these scientists, wanted to test and expand Marellis discovery.

The company aimed to develop products that would extend the shelf life for all easily perishable foods. Thanks to this discovery of the company, it is expected that the shelf life of the food will be prolonged and a solution to the problem of waste, which is of great importance. As a result, it will be possible to reach fresh food more easily.

As you know, while 10% of the worlds population is struggling with hunger, one third of the global food stock is unconsciously wasted every year. Food waste; It is a fact that it has a social and economic impact in developed and developing countries. Although many different technologies that we come across offer us solutions that will prolong the life of fresh foods, most of these solutions contain risks such as playing genetics with foods, and packaging materials and environmental hazards. We can say that this is often accompanied by high costs.

Marelli considers this situation as follows: To date, the vast majority of solutions developed on agricultural technologies and food have been based on genetic engineering, mechanical engineering, artificial intelligence, or computer science. However, nano materials and bio materials can be preferred instead.

According to Marelli, the use of silk can be an excellent opportunity for many problems faced by the food industry, and it can increase the shelf life of the foods without the need to change their essence. Marelli also stated that the food will not change in any way thanks to the coating of silk with flavors, smells and tissues. Allegedly, this practice can naturally increase the shelf life of foods by up to 200%.

Read more:

MIT Engineers Developed an Interesting Method to Extend the Shelf Life of Foods - Somag News

Optogenetic market 2020: Future Analysis and know what to expect from this Industry along with analysis Global Trends, Industry Growth, Top Company…

Optogenetic Market research added by the insight partners, offers a comprehensive analysis of growth trends prevailing in the global business domain. This report also provides definitive data concerning market, size, commercialization aspects and revenue forecast of the Optogenetic industry. In addition, the study explicitly highlights the competitive status of key players within the projection timeline while focusing on their portfolio and regional expansion endeavours.

This report on Optogenetic Market delivers an in-depth analysis that also comprises an elaborate assessment of this business. Also, segments of the Optogenetic Market have been evidently elucidated in this study, in addition to a basic overview pertaining to the markets current status as well as size, with respect to the profit and volume parameters. The study is ubiquitous of the major insights related to the regional spectrum of this vertical as well as the companies that have effectively gained a commendable status in the Optogenetic Market.

Get the inside scope of the Sample report @https://www.theinsightpartners.com/sample/TIPRE00004718/

MARKET INTRODUCTIONOptogenetic is the biological technique in which light is used to control the cell in living tissue, it is emerging technique. The optogenetics helps to understand the normal and abnormal functioning of brain and used to treat the neurological disorder. In Optogenetics light and genetic engineering is used to control the cell activity and neurons activity. Optogenetics is used to treat the retinal disease, hearing loss, memory disorder.

Key Competitors In Optogenetic Market areCoherent, Inc., Thorlabs, Inc., Cobalt International Energy, Inc., Scientifica, Laserglow Technologies, Gensight Biologics, Jackson Laboratories, Regenxbio Inc., Circuit Therapeutics, Inc., Bruker and Others

MARKET SCOPE

The Global Optogenetics Market Analysis to 2027 is a specialized and in-depth study with a special focus on the global medical device market trend analysis. The report aims to provide an overview of optogenetics market with detailed market segmentation by product type, application, and geography. The global optogenetics market is expected to witness high growth during the forecast period. The report provides key statistics on the market status of the leading Optogenetics market players and offers key trends and opportunities in the market.

Market segmentation:

By Product Type (Actuators, Sensors, Light Instruments);

By Application (Retinal Disease Treatment, Neuroscience, Cardiovascular Ailments, Pacing, Hearing Problem Treatment)

By Geography North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific (APAC), Middle East and Africa (MEA) and South & Central America. And 13 countries globally along with current trend and opportunities prevailing in the region.

Key Questions Answered

How big will the market for Optogenetic be in 2027? What is the current CAGR of the Optogenetic Market? Which product is expected to have the highest market growth? Which application should be used to win a large part of the market for Optogenetic ? Which region is likely to offer the most opportunities on the Optogenetic Market? Will the market competition change in the forecast period? Who are the main players currently active in the global Optogenetic Market? How will the market situation change within the coming years? What are the usual commercial tactics for players? What is the growth perspective of the global Optogenetic Market?

Answering these types of questions can be very useful for gamers to clear up their doubts as they implement their strategies to grow in the global Optogenetic Market. The report provides a transparent picture of the actual situation in the global Optogenetic Market so that companies can work more effectively. It can be tailored to the needs of readers to better understand the global market for Optogenetic.

Click here to buy full report with all description:-https://www.theinsightpartners.com/buy/TIPRE00004718/

About Us:

The Insight Partnersis a one stop industry research provider of actionable intelligence. We help our clients in getting solutions to their research requirements through our syndicated and consulting research services. We are committed to provide highest quality research and consulting services to our customers. We help our clients understand the key market trends, identify opportunities, and make informed decisions with our market research offerings at an affordable cost.

We understand syndicated reports may not meet precise research requirements of all our clients. We offer our clients multiple ways to customize research as per their specific needs and budget

Contact Us:

The Insight Partners,

Phone: +1-646-491-9876

Email:[emailprotected]

See the original post:

Optogenetic market 2020: Future Analysis and know what to expect from this Industry along with analysis Global Trends, Industry Growth, Top Company...

Eight Research Projects Receive Funding from Manning Fund for COVID-19 Research – University of Virginia

A recent gift of $1 million from the Manning family, strong supporters of the University of Virginia, established The Manning Fund for COVID-19 Research, designed to support the Universitys practically oriented research on COVID-19-related topics that can be acted upon quickly and have commercial potential.

More than 50 proposals were received from UVA faculty for projects related to developing COVID-19-related solutions.

The offices of the Provost and the Vice President for Research, which co-manage the fund, havefunded eight proposals that support improved antibody testing, vaccine development and improving patient outcomes.

These researchers showed they had both great ideas for conquering COVID-19, and a solid plan for how to accomplish their goals, said Melur Ram Ramasubramanian, vice president for research. We couldnt be more pleased with the projects proposed and their potential impact.

Many of our researchers have set current and pressing projects aside to redirect their energies to COVID-19, said Liz Magill, the Universitys provost. Were grateful that the Manning Fund has enabled this critical research that takes advantage of the cross-disciplinary networks UVA has nurtured over the past few years.

I want to thank the entire research team and administrationfor their acute sense of urgency and entrepreneurship to come up with these helpful solutions to the COVID crisis. They set short term goals and achieved them, said local businessman and investor Paul Manning. I am very grateful.

A rundown of the selected projects:

IgG to SARS-CoV-2 With ImmunoCAPJeffrey Wilson, School of Medicine, Asthma, Allergy & Immunology

Jeffrey Wilson and his team plan to develop a novel assay to measure antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, taking advantage of the lmmunoCAP platform and producing a quantitative readout of how much IgG is present instead of just a yes or a no, as is common in current commercial systems. This has implications in developing an understanding of the likely attachment sites of the virus and accelerating the development of effective vaccines.

A COVID-19 Killed Whole Cell Genome Reduced E. coli Fusion Peptide Subunit VaccineSteven Zeichner, School of Medicine, Pediatrics

A vaccine for COVID-19 is urgently needed to control the pandemic. Steven Zeichner and his team aim to develop a vaccine that helps the body develop antibodies directed against a specific fusion peptide found on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 virus as a component of its spike protein. The novelty of this project is the use a modified E. coli bacterial surface to display this peptide and help the body develop specific antibodies against it. When the real virus enters the body due to infection, the body can recognize this fusion peptide and neutralize the virus.

We expect the results from this project can be quickly translated into a safe, inexpensive, scalable, and effective vaccine appropriate for pandemic response globally, enabling an end to the COVID-19 pandemic not only in developed countries, but around the world, said Steven Zeichner.

Targeted Antibodies From Convalescent Plasma to Protect Against COVID-19Peter Kasson, School of Medicine, Molecular Physiology & Biomedical Engineering

Individuals vary substantially in their antibody response to COVID-19, both in amount and type of antibodies produced. Peter Kassons team aims to purify the serum from recovered patients and identify specific antibodies that are most potent against SARS-CoV-2 and to produce concentrated amounts of these target specific antibodies for the treatment of patients with increased potency.

Novel Reagents to Improve Testing for COVID-19 AntibodiesJames Zimring, School of Medicine, Pathology

The goal of James Zimring and his team is to develop novel testing reagents to eliminate the problem of cross-reactivity with common coronaviruses and develop a neutralization reagent that can be added to any serological assay and any analytic platform for antibody testing, which will eliminate signal from other non-COVID-19 antibodies and improve the accuracy of the test significantly.

Adenosine A2A Receptor Agonists in the Prevention of COVID-19-Related Lung Injury and Systemic Inflammatory ResponsesKenneth Brayman, School of Medicine, Surgery & Molecular Physiology, Infectious Diseases

The main cause of death in COVID-19 is acute respiratory distress syndrome, which is a type of respiratory failure characterized by rapid onset of widespread inflammation in the lungs. Kenneth Brayman and his team aim to test the use of Adenosine A2AR agonists to reduce the mortality associated with COVID-19. This immunotherapy is expected to be used preemptively, in the asymptomatic phase to prevent onset of COVID-19 or in the symptomatic phase, to reverse progression.

Isolation and Identification of Novel T-cell Receptors Responsive to SARS-CoV-2 for the Genetic Engineering of Third-Party T-cells for Off-the-Shelf Therapeutic UseDaniel Lee, School of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, Pediatric

Daniel Lee and his team plan to study the T-cell-based immune response from patients who have been infected SARS-CoV-2 to identify viral specific T-cell receptors with the future goal of genetically engineering third-party, allogeneic T-cells with the responsive T-cell receptor, thereby producing an off-the-shelf cellular therapeutic bank for the treatment of subsequent infected patients experiencing severe symptoms. This cell therapy would be especially beneficial for immunocompromised patients infected with COVID-19.

Mass Cytometry to Identify Biomarkers for COVID-19 Severity and Response to JAK InhibitionHema Kothari, School of Medicine, Medicine & Cardiovascular Medicine

Cytokine storm in patients has been linked to COVID-19 disease severity. Hema Kotharis team aims to develop a customized diagnostic biomarker assay for early identification of those at risk of a cytokine storm and improve patient outcomes by taking timely action to block cytokines.

COVID-19: Big Data and Analytics for Early Detection of Cardiorespiratory DeteriorationRandall Moorman, School of Medicine, Medicine, Biomedical Engineering and Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics

Randall Moormans team at UVA Center for Advanced Medical Analytics plans to apply artificial intelligence and big data techniques to the problem of acute and unsuspected clinical deterioration of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, with the goal to provide continuous risk estimation of imminent deterioration using mathematical analysis of readily available clinical and monitoring data.

More here:

Eight Research Projects Receive Funding from Manning Fund for COVID-19 Research - University of Virginia

The ‘Guardian’ of Honest Journalism? Hardly. – American Council on Science and Health

We grew up in an era when the mainstream media reported the news straightforwardly, but now much of it is bought and paid for. In other words, it is propaganda defined as information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

The British Guardian newspaper is Exhibit A, or maybe, as members of the scientific community, we should say Public Enemy No. 1. The paper sought and received a grant$886,600from an advocacy group, the Open Philanthropy Project (OPP), to publish a series titled "Animals farmed." The grant spurred a succession of articles that paint animal husbandry variously as inhumane, unhealthy, or dangerous to the environment:

To put it bluntly, the transactional arrangement between The Guardian and OPP has yielded propaganda, not news.

The Guardian's hypocrisy is prominently on display in view of its stated commitments: "We will inform our readers about threats to the environment based on scientific facts, not driven by commercial or political interests," and "The Guardian's editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Our journalism is free from commercial and political influence."

We can cite 886,600 rebuttals to those hollow promises.

What motivates the Open Philanthropy Project? It supports animal welfare, as do we, but the group has a conflict of interest from a financial interest in a competitor of animal husbandry. That is revealedhereby University of California Davis Professor of animal science Frank Mitloehner:

The Guardian was a likely candidate for such a shady arrangement, in any case. For decades, it has been a predictable source of disinformation and fear-mongering about molecular genetic engineering in agriculture, including asympathetic descriptionof Greenpeace's rationale for the wanton destruction of genetically engineered crop research, and stories supportingcritics of genetic engineering. The Guardian even had the audacity to run astoryclaiming that "Father of the Green Revolution" Dr. Norman Borlaug, killed millions, when in fact his research arguablysaveda billion people from starvation.

The reality is that four decades of research and development on genetically engineered food crops has confirmed what theory predicted from the outset, and what data have reinforced repeatedly that the use of the technology confers no incremental risk and is essentially an extension, or refinement, of earlier, less precise techniques for genetic improvement, and that it could yield monumental commercial and humanitarian successes.

The Guardian frequently propagates the myth that the terms "genetic modification" and the common shorthand "GMO" (for "genetically modified organism") represent a meaningful grouping of things that is, a genuine "category." In fact, organisms improved with the newest molecular genetic engineering techniques and the foods derived from them do not in any way constitute meaningful groupings, which makes any choice of what to include in them wholly arbitrary and misleading. Nor have they been shown to be lesssafeor, given the pedigree of the foods in our diet, in any way less "natural" than thousands of other common foods.

Genetic modification by means of selection and hybridization to say nothing of the "natural" movement of genes, as part of Darwinian natural selection has been with us for millennia, and the techniques employed along the way, including the newest ones, are part of a seamless continuum. For more than a century, plant breeders routinely have used radiation or chemical mutagens on seeds to scramble a plant's DNA to generate new traits.

Since the 1930s, "wide cross" hybridizations, which involve the movement of genes from one species or one genus to another, have given rise to plants thatdo not exist in nature; they include the varieties of corn, oats, pumpkin, wheat, rice, tomatoes and potatoes we buy and consume routinely. (Yes, even "heirloom" varieties and the overpriced, often inferiororganicstuff at Whole Foods.) With the exception of wild berries, wild game, wild mushrooms and fish and shellfish, virtually everything in North American and European diets has been genetically improved in some way.

The erroneous assumption that "genetic modification" is a meaningful category has led to various kinds of mischief, including the vandalization of field trials and the destruction of laboratories; local bans or restrictions; and a spate of spurious lawsuits of various kinds.

The Guardian has published a few accurate news articles about genetic engineering, such asoneabout Nobel Laureatesstatingthere are no unique health risks from GE crops, andanotherthat reported positive attributes about GE crops. The paper also ran anarticleby a British farmer that paints an accurate picture of animal agriculture.

But fear sells far better and can be more persuasive than facts and it gets more prominent presentation; recall the old adage about media, "If it bleeds, it leads." In any case, those few do not undo the litany of misrepresentation and bias. Responsible journalism is not served by a false equivalence between inaccurate, scurrilous, hit-pieces whether paid for or not and accurate news or opinion articles, especially when the former have predominated for decades. The Guardian's fear-mongering is part of a calculated "information cascade" that has stigmatized andstymiedthe adoption of this safe effective technology in many parts of the world.

In democracies, freedom of the press includes the right to be biased and dishonest. The Guardian invokes that right repeatedly and, thereby, lets down its readers.

Rob Wager is in the department of biology at Vancouver Island University. Please follow him @RobertWager1. Henry Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. He was the founding director of the U.S. FDA's Office of Biotechnology. Please follow him @henryimiller.

See the rest here:

The 'Guardian' of Honest Journalism? Hardly. - American Council on Science and Health

New CRISPR method edits crops without technically making them GMOs – New Atlas

CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing is one of the most powerful tools available to modern science, but genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in food are subject to some tight regulations. Now, researchers at North Carolina State University have created a new version of CRISPR that lets scientists edit crops without introducing new DNA, meaning they technically arent GMOs.

CRISPR-Cas9 allows for precise cut-n-paste edits to DNA in living cells. An RNA guide sequence directs the system to the target section of the genome. Once there, an enzyme, usually Cas9, snips out the sequence then deletes it or replaces it with something else. In this way, scientists can cut out problem genes, such as those that cause disease, or add new beneficial ones, such as giving crops better pest resistance.

For the new study, the researchers tweaked the process to make a cleaner edit in plants. It uses a process known as lipofection, where positively-charged lipids are used to build a kind of bubble around the Cas9 and RNA mechanisms. When injected into the organism, this bubble binds to and fuses with the cellular membrane, which pushes the CRISPR system into the cell itself. The method also uses a Cas9 protein itself, rather than the Cas9 DNA sequence.

The team tested the method by introducing fluorescent proteins into tobacco plants. And sure enough, after 48 hours the edited plants were glowing, indicating it had worked.

Wusheng Liu/NC State University

The new method has a few advantages over existing ones, the team says. Its easier to target the desired genetic sequence, and opens up new crops that couldnt be edited with existing methods. Plus, the protein only lasts for a few days before degrading, which reduces off-target edits.

But the most important advantage is that the resulting crops arent considered GMOs. Since the new method doesnt use Cas9 DNA, it doesnt introduce foreign DNA into the plant, which is an important distinction.

This was the first time anyone has come up with a method to deliver the Cas9 protein through lipofection into plant cells, says Wusheng Liu, lead author of the study. Our major achievement was to make that happen. Also, since many consumers prefer non-GMO specialty crops, this method delivers the Cas9 protein in a non-GMO manner.

As useful as genetic engineering can be, the term GMO has negative connotations for many people, who believe there are health concerns with eating these crops or meats. Other problems include the chance of modified plants or animals escaping into the wild, where they can spread their new genes to the native population, affecting ecosystems.

As such, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have regulations on which edited crops and animals are allowed in food. And theyve decided that the line is drawn at introducing foreign genes into an organism.

It makes sense. Humans have been genetically-engineering plants and animals for millennia, through selective breeding. Many of our most widely-eaten crops are bigger, tastier, and easier to eat or grow, to the point that they hardly resemble their wild counterparts anymore.

CRISPR and other gene-editing tools can be the next generation of this process. By removing problematic genes or ensuring that specific ones are turned on or off, scientists arent really creating anything new. Some individuals naturally have mutations that do the same thing all the scientists are really doing is removing the element of chance, genetically.

In 2015, a new type of salmon became the first genetically engineered animal approved by the FDA for human consumption. In 2016, a Swedish scientist grew, harvested and served up CRISPR cabbage after approval by the Swedish Board of Agriculture. In both cases, the products were allowed because they were functionally identical to wild-type organisms the scientists had just chosen beneficial genes from an existing natural pool, without introducing foreign DNA.

That said, the rules aren't the same everywhere. In 2018 the Court of Justice of the European Union somewhat controversially ruled that tough GMO laws applied to crops that had been edited even if new DNA hadn't been inserted. The issue will likely remain fragmented, but for the NC State team at least, their crops aren't GMOs according to their own country's regulations.

However, there are still some hurdles to overcome before the new method becomes viable. The team says that lipofection can only be done if the outer wall of the plant cell is removed first. This kind of plant cell, known as a protoplast, allows scientists to more easily tweak the genes, but it isnt possible in all types of crops, and even when it does work, its a complex process.

Instead, the researchers are exploring other options that dont require removing the cell wall at all. One such alternative is to use CRISPR to introduce the Cas9 protein into pollen grains, which can then go on to fertilize another plant. Some of the offspring will have the required genetic edits from day one.

The researchers plan to investigate this latter method in tomatoes and hemp first, before moving onto others.

The new study was published in the journal Plant Cell Reports.

Source: NC State University

See the article here:

New CRISPR method edits crops without technically making them GMOs - New Atlas

A Deep Look Into the Guts Hormones – Technology Networks

Researchers from the Hubrecht Institute and Utrecht University generated an in-depth description of the human hormone-producing cells of the gut, in a large collaborative effort with other research teams. These cells are hard to study, as they are very rare and unique to different species of animals. The researchers developed an extensive toolbox to study human hormone-producing cells in tiny versions of the gut grown in the lab, called organoids. These tools allowed them to uncover secrets of the human gut, for example which potential hormones can be made by the gut and how the secretion of these hormones is triggered. These findings offer potential new avenues for the treatment of diseases such as type 2 diabetes and obesity.Did you ever wonder where that sudden feeling of hunger comes from when your empty stomach rumbles? Thousands of hormone-producing cells, or enteroendocrine cells, scattered throughout your stomach and intestine just released millions of tiny vesicles filled with the hunger hormone ghrelin into your bloodstream.

Another effect to these hormones can be to increase the release of insulin from the pancreas, which is especially interesting in patients with type II diabetes. These patients are unable to produce sufficient insulin to stabilize their glucose levels on their own. One of the most successful treatments for type 2 diabetes is actually based on a gut hormone, called GLP1. With this treatment some patients are able to control their blood glucose without the need of insulin injections.

Most of our knowledge on enteroendocrine cells is derived from studies in mice. However, mice have a different diet and are therefore likely to sense other signals from their food. The differences are so striking that the counterparts of some human gut hormones do not even exist in mice.

To be able to study all the specific types of enteroendocrine cells, the researchers used another trick that was recently developed in the group of Hans Clevers. Clevers: "In our lab, we have optimized genetic engineering of organoids. We were therefore able to label the hormones that are made by the enteroendocrine cells in different colors and create a biobank of mini-intestines, called the EEC-Tag biobank, in which different hormones are tagged with different colors." When an enteroendocrine cell starts producing a labeled hormone, that cell will appear in the corresponding color. The researchers can use the EEC-Tag biobank to study ten major hormones and different combinations of these hormones within the same organoid.

Joep Beumer (Hubrecht Institute): "Marking all major gut hormones with colors allows us to selectively collect any subset of enteroendocrine cells and study even the rarest enteroendocrine cell types. Combining the EEC-Tag biobank with other cutting-edge techniques allowed us to gain deep insights into the biology of hormone production in the human intestine."

"With the EEC-Tag biobank we can measure hundreds of cells for each enteroendocrine cell subtype. The resulting atlas is a gold mine full of fascinating relationships between hormones, receptors and other genes used by well-defined subsets of enteroendocrine cells, which opens many new directions for future studies," says Jens Puschhof (Hubrecht Institute).

The key characteristic of enteroendocrine cells are the active hormones they secrete. To directly measure these hormones, the researchers collaborated with the group of Wei Wu at Utrecht University. The researchers in this group are specialists at mass spectrometry, a very sensitive method to identify different molecules. In the collection of molecules produced by the mini-intestines, they found many new molecules for which it was unknown that they are secreted in the intestine. These new molecules may have functions in our bodies' response to food that are so far unknown. This discovery underlines our limited knowledge of the hormones produced in our gut and will inspire more detailed studies into the functions of these molecules.

Wei Wu (Utrecht University): "Gut secretions contain a mix of hormones that can be either active or inactive. For the first time, we characterize this diversity in human mini-intestines, to reveal also if these hormones are processed into active functional pieces. Hormone activation is not determined by genes, but rather by the processing of the hormones afterwards. Therefore, this may also hint at an exciting route of intervention for broad-spectrum applications, such as controlling hunger or treating diabetes."

This article has been republished from the following materials. Note: material may have been edited for length and content. For further information, please contact the cited source.

Link:

A Deep Look Into the Guts Hormones - Technology Networks

Could Colorado Hop Terpenes Be the Latest in Brewing Innovation? – porchdrinking.com

While it may sound more like genetic engineering than advancements in beer, what if you could isolate and amplify only the flavor and aroma compounds in hops and distill it down to liquid form? Whats being described is what is already being applied through hop terpene extraction, and it may be the next major leap in how hops are used in beer.

When you think of new hop varietals, hopping techniques, and innovation in hop usage, its easy to assume that the work being done is coming from the Pacific Northwest. But with the resinous plant being so closely related genetically to cannabis and sharing a class of organic compounds called terpenes, it should come as no surprise that research from the cannabis industry here in Colorado has inspired innovation in hop usage as well.

Last Fall, when Telluride Brewing teamed up with Station 26 Brewing, and local craft beer bar, Freshcraft, to brew a collaboration for the Great American Beer Festival, they werent exactly intending to brew anything out of the ordinary besides a juicy Mosaic Pale Ale. However, when a member of the Station 26 team showed up to the brew day with a vial of hop terpenes from nearby Oast House Oils, it may have been the first step in a revolutionary new advancement that joins the ranks of lupulin powder, and cryo hops in terms of application.

As Telluride Brewing co-founder Chris Fish explains, what came out of that Mosiac Pale Ale was astonishing. From the moment we smelled the oil, everyone just lit up, said Fish. We couldnt believe the clearness and crispness of the hop flavor and aroma.

While hop oils have seen extensive experimentation in the past, The use of hop terpene extraction allows brewers to target specific compounds within hop plants including alpha acids, which bring out the bitterness in hops, or in the case of the ones used by Telluride, those associated with flavor and aroma. Those terpenes are procured from hop pellets through supercritical carbon dioxide which converts those compounds into liquid form. The process was adapted by Rob Kevwitch, who launched Oast House Oils as a subsidiary of Isolate Extraction Systems, which builds and sells extraction machinery for the cannabis industry.

Previously Kevwitch helped found and launch Grist Brewing in Highlands Ranch, and his passion for beer led him down a path to examine how the extraction process could be applied toward the brewing industry. Oast House Oils has now grown its operation to work with six breweries, a contract brewery, and has begun partnering with hop farms to source hops for extraction.

Since that initial Mosaic Pale Ale collaboration, Telluride Brewing has gone on to launch The Galloping Juice series, which has seen three iterations, the first with Cashmere hops, the second with Mosaic, the most recent with Azacca, with a fourth releasing in the next 2-4 weeks with a blend of Azzaca, Citra, and Mosaic. Additionally this June, theyll release Move Me Brightly, which employs exclusively hop terpenes in the dry-hop.

For brewers, the use of hop terpenes could help to amplify flavor and aroma in beer, but also serve as a significant cost saver as well. Adding hop terpenes after centrifuge is basically like dry-hopping so youre seeing bright hop flavors, while using a lot less hops, said Fish.

By reducing the use of vegetal matter from hop pellets or whole cone hops, brewers are also able to significantly increase yield as that vegetal matter soaks up beer and is eventually discarded. With their Galloping Juice series, Fish noted that theyve been able to reduce the use of hops by 30-40% with an increased yield of 2.5 barrels and expects that yield to increase to 3.5 barrels with Move Me Brightly.

Additionally, while it hasnt been fully tested, another added benefit from utilizing hop terpenes could result in extended shelf life for hop-forward beers. Because theres no degradation of alpha acids, we do see hop flavors remaining intact longer with pure terpenes, said Kevwitch.

And while Telluride Brewing has also begun experimenting with the partial use of hop terpenes in updated versions of some of their core brands like Russell Kelly Mosaic IPA, they dont foresee full adoption across all of their brands.

Weve seen nothing but benefits from using hop terpenes, sure theres a change in flavor, but its been for the better, said Fish. Its a matter of if we wanna tweak our best sellers or not, but havent felt a need to do so yet.

More here:

Could Colorado Hop Terpenes Be the Latest in Brewing Innovation? - porchdrinking.com