Potential CAR T-cell Therapy Targeting ROR1 Seen to Clear Cancer… – Immuno-Oncology News

A potential newCAR T-cell therapy by Oncternal Therapeutics showed strong activity against leukemia in mice, completely eliminating cancer cells from major tissue reservoirs in four weeks and extending survival by at least two months, according to preclinical data.

The CAR T-cells also remained highly active after being injected into the animals, and could be detected in the blood at least three months later without showing signs of exhaustion.

These findings were recently presented in a poster, Preclinical evaluation of anti-ROR1 CAR T cells employing a ROR1 binding SCFV derived from the clinical stage mab cirmtuzumab, at the ASCO-SITC Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium in Orlando, Florida.

CAR T-cell therapyis a type ofimmunotherapyin which researchers collect a patientsT-cells immune cells with anti-cancer activity and engineer them to recognize and eliminate cancer cells. This is done by introducing a gene in the cells genome that codes for a man-made receptor called a chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR which recognizes and targets a specific cancer molecule.

Upon finishing the genetic engineering step, the CAR T-cells are expanded in the lab and then injected into the patients blood. Typically, only one injection is needed, as the CAR T-cells are intended to be a long-lived treatment. By deriving the CAR T-cells from the patient, chances are also less likely of an immune system reaction to the re-introduced cells.

Oncternals CAR T-cell product is designed to target the ROR1 protein, which is produced during development but not usually found in adult tissues, except in some blood cancers a characteristic that makes it an attractive therapy target.

The therapeutic potential of the ROR1 protein was identified by researchers at the UC San Diego School of Medicine, who also developed a monoclonal antibody, called cirmtuzumab, targeting this protein.

Cirmtuzumab has been deemed safe in blood cancer trials, leading researchers at UCSC with support from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) to develop a CAR T-cell product that targeted ROR1 in the exact same location.

At the ASCO-SITC presentation, the researchers shared preclinical data demonstrating the effectiveness of the anti-ROR1 CAR T-cells. In the lab, they found the engineered cells were able to specifically locate and attack cells that expressed ROR1.

This led them to test these CAR T-cells in a mouse model of leukemia. Mice given the treatment survived for over 90 days, compared to an average of 21 days in a control group of mice given non-engineered T-cells from the same donor. Another control animal group received no therapy.

In the treated mice, leukemia cells were seen to clear from the bone marrow, kidney, and spleen four weeks after treatment administration. These CAR T-cells also remained with no signs of exhaustionin treated mice 90 or more days later.

We are encouraged by the preclinical results of this ROR1 CAR-T program and look forward to advancing it to clinical testing, initially for treating patients with hematological cancers, potentially in the fourth quarter of this year, James Breitmeyer, MD, PhD, the president and CEO of Oncternal, said in a press release.

It is exciting to see the potent preclinical activity of the ROR1 CAR-T cell therapy and its selectivity in targeting tumors, added Thomas Kipps, PhD, the lead researcher into ROR1 treatments at UCSD. Harnessing cirmtuzumabs specificity for ROR1 expressed on cancer cells has the potential to improve CAR-T efficacy and safety, and address the high unmet medical need for treating patients with aggressive cancers.

Cirmtuzumab is now being tested in clinical trials in people with advanced breast cancer and those with B-cell lymphoid cancers.

David earned a PhD in Biological Sciences from Columbia University in New York, NY, where he studied how Drosophila ovarian adult stem cells respond to cell signaling pathway manipulations. This work helped to redefine the organizational principles underlying adult stem cell growth models. He is currently a Science Writer, as part of the BioNews Services writing team.

Total Posts: 392

Ins holds a PhD in Biomedical Sciences from the University of Lisbon, Portugal, where she specialized in blood vessel biology, blood stem cells, and cancer. Before that, she studied Cell and Molecular Biology at Universidade Nova de Lisboa and worked as a research fellow at Faculdade de Cincias e Tecnologias and Instituto Gulbenkian de Cincia.Ins currently works as a Managing Science Editor, striving to deliver the latest scientific advances to patient communities in a clear and accurate manner.

Continue reading here:

Potential CAR T-cell Therapy Targeting ROR1 Seen to Clear Cancer... - Immuno-Oncology News

A Word That Everybody Hates | Bert Bigelow – Patheos

Google eugenics and you will find yourself buried under a mountain of different definitions. Some are fairly objective, but the vast majority disparage, even demonize, the idea. A few examples:

The study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Developed largely by Sir Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, eugenics was increasingly discredited as unscientific and racially biased during the 20th century, especially after the adoption of its doctrines by the Nazis in order to justify their treatment of Jews, disabled people, and other minority groups.

The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

A pseudoscience with the stated aim of improving the genetic constitution of the human species by selective breeding.

A writer of a recent article on another blog attacks Richard Dawkins for some statements he made about eugenics. Here is what Dawkins said:

Its one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. Its quite another to conclude that it wouldnt work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldnt it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.

For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesnt mean it wouldnt work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.

A eugenic policy would be bad. Im combating the illogical step from X would be bad to So X is impossible. It would work in the same sense as it works for cows. Lets fight it on moral grounds. Deny obvious scientific facts & we lose or at best derail the argument.

Even with his outspoken opposition to eugenics, he was excoriated, not only by the writer of the piece, but also by commenters. The final paragraph pretty much says it all:

Sorry, Dawkins, but whether eugenics worksand what it would even mean for it to workis actually an open question. Youre the one being unscientific, not your critics. Also, to say, in sum, Im not pro-eugenics, but it would work and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot, when in fact the jury is very much out on whether eugenics would workor even what that meansis weird.

A commentor says:

I think that any attempt to improve the human genome is very dangerous and perhaps existential in nature.

What if a couple, both blonde and blue-eyed, decide that they want a dark-haired, dark-eyed daughter? So, they have the genome in their fetus modified to make that happen. How is that an existential danger?

I acknowledge that I have moved the goalposts. The definitions I quoted above were based on earlier science, when genetic engineering was not possible. Now it is, although it is in an early stage of development, and many of the criticisms about unanticipated negative side-effects are valid. But Dawkins point was that science continues to advance, and saying that it will NEVER be possible is wrong.

Another commenter says:

The moral arguments against eugenics are profound.

How so? A religious believer might think that the design of a human being is the provenance of God, and usurping His authority is blasphemy, or even heresy. I dont share their beliefs, and see nothing fundamentally immoral about modifying a human genome. I recognize the dangers, and would not approve of it until there is reasonable assurance that no harm would result. But there is never a certainty of that, just as there is no certainty that if you get on an airplane, you will arrive at your destination safely. Life is full of risks.

The criticism of Dawkins for his comments is, in my opinion, unwarranted. He is a technologist. He understands the dangers and even said that he opposes eugenics. But that isnt enough to satisfy the defenders of Gods primacy in creating us according to His design. Or those who say that we will never be able to do it without risk. That is probably true, but who should decide what the risk vs. benefit ratio should be?

Continued here:

A Word That Everybody Hates | Bert Bigelow - Patheos

WHO: Therapeutic trial results against Covid-19 expected in three weeks – The Star Online

GENEVA/BEIJING (Xinhua): The World Health Organization (WHO) said Thursday (Feb 20) that preliminary results from clinical trials of therapeutics against the novel coronavirus (Covid-19) are expected in three weeks.

"We're also looking forward to results from two clinical trials of therapeutics prioritised by the WHO R&D Blueprint," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a daily briefing.

In Beijing, a senior National Health Commission official said Friday that Chinese scientists are racing to develop vaccines by adopting five technological approaches.

The approaches include inactivated vaccines, genetic engineering subunit vaccines, adenovirus vector vaccines, nucleic acid vaccines, and vaccines using attenuated influenza virus as vectors.

Of the two WHO trials, one is the combination of two drugs for HIV, lopinavir and ritonavir, the other is testing an antiviral called remdesivir

"We expect preliminary results in three weeks," the WHO chief said.

Remdesivir is a drug developed by US pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences. It has shown good antiviral activity against SARS and MERS coronavirus in previous cell and animal experiments.

It has also shown fairly good antiviral activity against the Covid-19 at the cellular level.

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of remdesivir started on Feb 6 in several hospitals in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, and the trial will last until the end of April.

A study published in 2004 showed the anti-HIV drug combination of Lopinavir and Ritonavir has "substantial clinical benefit" when given to patients who had SARS.

The Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital, where the first 41 known patients were treated, has already launched a randomised, controlled trial of the anti-HIV drug combination, according to a report by Chinese researchers in the Lancet medical journal late last month.

The third version of Covid-19 treatment guidelines published by China's National Health Commission suggested that taking two Lopinavir/Ritonavir pills and inhaling a dose of nebulised alpha-interferon twice a day could benefit patients.

"Some projects have entered the stage of animal testing," Zeng Yixin, deputy director of National Health Commission, told a press conference on China's fight against the novel coronavirus outbreak.

"Under the premise of ensuring safety, effectiveness and accessibility (of vaccines), (we) foresee that as soon as from April to May this year some vaccines could enter clinical trials, or under specific conditions, could be applied for emergency use," Zeng said.

"Our goal is that if required by the outbreak situation, the emergency use of vaccines, as well as the emergency review and approval process, can be activated in accordance with laws," the official said. - Xinhua

Read the rest here:

WHO: Therapeutic trial results against Covid-19 expected in three weeks - The Star Online

Connecting the Coronavirus to Agriculture – CounterPunch

A coronavirus.

A new deadlycoronavirus2019-nCoV, related toSARSandMERSand apparently originating in live animal markets in Wuhan, China, is starting to spread worldwide.

Chinese authorities havereported5974 cases nationwide, 1000 of them severe. With infections in nearly every province, authoritieswarned2019-nCoV appears to be spreading fast out of its epicenter.

The characterization appears supported byinitial modeling.

The virussbasic reproduction number, a measure of the number of new cases per infection given no cap on available susceptibles, is clocking in at a healthy 3.11. That means in the face of such momentum, a control campaign must stop up to 75% of new infections to reverse the outbreak. The modeling team estimates there are presently over 21,000 cases, reported or not, in Wuhan alone.

Full-genome sequences of the virus meanwhileshowfew differences between the samples isolated across China. Slower spread for such a fast-evolvingRNA viruswould be marked by mutations accumulating place-to-place.

The coronavirus is starting to open up theaters overseas. Travelers with 2019-nCoV havebeen treatedin Australia, France, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, Vietnam, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and the United States. Local outbreaks are nowstarting upwithin sink countries.

As the infection is characterized by human-to-human transmission and an apparent two-week incubation period before the sickness hits, the infection will likely continue to spread across the globe. Whether itll be Wuhan everywhere remains an open question.

The viruss finalpenetranceworldwide will depend on the difference between the rate of infection and the rate of removing infections by recovery or death. If the infection rate far exceeds removal, then the total population infected may approach the whole of humanity. That outcome, however, would likely be marked by large geographic variation brought about by a combination of dead chance and the differences in how countries responded to their outbreak.

Pandemic skeptics arent so sure of such a scenario.Far fewerpatients have been infected and killed by 2019-nCoV than even the typical seasonal influenza. But the mistake here is in confusing a moment early in an outbreak for a viruss essentialist nature.

Outbreaks are dynamic. Yes, some burn out, including, maybe, 2019-nCoV. It takes the right evolutionary draw and a little luck to beat out chance extirpation. Sometimes enough hosts dont line up to keep transmission going. Other outbreaks explode. Those that make it on the world stage can be game changers, even if they eventually die out. They upend the everyday routines of even a world already intumultor atwar.

The deadliness of any potential pandemic strain is the meat of the matter, of course.

Should the virus prove less infectious or deadly than initially thought, civilization goes on, however many people are killed. The H1N1 (2009) influenza outbreak that worried so many a decade-plus ago proved less virulent than it first seemed. But even that strain penetrated the global population, and quietly killed patients, at magnitudes far beyond these first follow-up dismissals. H1N1 (2009)killedas many as 579,000 people its first year, producing complications in fifteen times more cases than initially projected from lab tests alone.

The danger here is found in humanitysunprecedented connectivity. H1N1 (2009) crossed the Pacific Ocean in nine days, superseding predictions by the most sophisticated models of the global travel network by months. Airline data show atenfoldincrease in travel in China just since the SARS epidemic.

Under such widespread percolation, low mortality for a large number of infections can still cause a large number of deaths. If four billion people are infected at a mortality rate of only 2%, a death rate less than half that of the 1918 influenza pandemic, eighty million people are killed. And unlike for seasonal influenza, we have neitherherd immunity, nor a vaccine to slow it down. Even speeded-up development will at best takethree monthsto produce a vaccine for 2019-nCoV, assuming it even works. Scientists successfully produced a vaccine for the H5N2 avian influenza onlyafterthe U.S. outbreak ended.

A critical epidemiological parameter will be the relationship between infectivity and when those infected express symptoms. SARS and MERSprovedinfectious only upon symptoms. If this bears out for 2019-nCoV, we may be in relatively good shape, all things considered. Even without a vaccine or tailored antivirals, we can immediately quarantine the suddenly sick, breaking chains of transmission with nineteenth-century public health.

Sunday, however, Chinas health minister Ma Xiaoweistunnedthe world announcing that 2019-nCoV had expressed infectivitybeforesymptoms. Its such a turnabout that infuriated U.S. epidemiologists are demanding access to the data showing the new infectivity. The shock implies researchers stateside expect the virus couldnt possibly be able to evolve outside what they appear to imagine as some public health archetype. If the new infection life history holds true, health authorities arent going to be able to use symptoms to identify newly active cases.

These unknownsthe exact source, infectivity, penetrance, and possible treatmentstogether explain why epidemiologists and public health officials are worried about 2019-nCoV. Unlike the seasonal influenzas cited by pandemic skeptics, the uncertainty rattles practitioners.

It is the nature of the job, to worry, yes. Worry is built into the very probabilities and systemic errors embodied more broadly in the trade. The damage in failing to prepare for an outbreak that proves deadlyfar exceedsthat from the embarrassment of preparing for an outbreak that fails to live up to the hype. But in an era celebrating austerity, few jurisdictions wish to pay for a disaster that is no guarantee, whatever the collateral benefits of precaution or, on the other end of outcomes, the devastating losses associated with a bad gamble.

The choice how to respond is often entirely out of epidemiologist hands anyway. The national authorities who will make these decisions juggle multiple and often contrary agendas. Stopping even a deadly outbreak isnt always treated as the most important objective.

While authorities stumble about figuring out what to do, the scale of impact can suddenlyengagein escape velocity. As 2019-nCoV itself demonstrated moving from a single food market to the world stage in a month, the numbers can ramp up so far and fast that an epidemiologists best effort, theirraison dtre, is dealt a lethal blow by facts on the ground.

My own visceral reactions this disease round have skipped across worry, disappointment, and impatience.

Im an evolutionary biologist and public health phylogeographer who has worked on various aspects of these new pandemics for twenty-five years, much of my adult life. As Ivewrittenelsewhere, with the help of many others, I have tried parlaying a growing understanding of these pathogens, from thegenetic sequencesof my initial studies up through economic geographies of land use, the political economy of global agriculture, and the epistemology of science.

Clarity can sour a soul. As my social media chimed with queries about 2019-nCoV, my immediate response bordered on pique and exhaustion. What, pray, do you wish me to say? What do you want me to do about this?

In dispensing advice personal and professional to legitimately worried friends and colleagues, I made some wrong calls. To one farmer friends query about traveling abroad, I advised a surgeons mask, washing hands before all meals, and stop fucking livestock, bro. Darkly ribald humor gets me through stress, but his earnest reply, Stop fucking livestock? showed I had missed my mark. Not a good look on my part at all. I apologized. He laughed about it later.

Its an occupational hazard. There is the danger of an existential dread that arises from the political inertia epidemiologists must square off with in preparing the world for a nigh-on irresistible pandemic their constituencies pretend is no bother until its too late.

If 2019-nCoV is indeed the Big Bug, and it is not clear yet if thats the case, there is almost nothing to be done at this point. All we can do is batten down the public health hatches and hope the virus kills only a small part of the worlds population instead of 90%.

Clearly humanity shouldntstartreacting to a pandemic when its already underway. Its a total dereliction of any notion of forward-thinking theory or practice. And leaders and their learned supporters worldwide identify themselves asPrometheans!

As Iwroteseven years ago:

I expect it will be a long time before I address an outbreak of human influenza again other than in passing. While an understandable visceral reaction, getting worried at this point in the process is a bit bass-ackwards. The bug, whatever its point of origin, has long left the barn, quite literally.

This century weve already trainspotted novel strains of African swine fever,Campylobacter,Cryptosporidium,Cyclospora, Ebola, E. coli O157:H7, foot-and-mouth disease, hepatitis E,Listeria, Nipah virus, Q fever,Salmonella,Vibrio,Yersinia, Zika, and a variety of novel inuenza A variants, including H1N1 (2009), H1N2v, H3N2v, H5N1, H5N2, H5Nx, H6N1, H7N1, H7N3, H7N7,H7N9, and H9N2.

And near-nothingrealwas done about any of them. Authorities spent a sigh of relief upon eachs reversal and immediately took the next roll of the epidemiological dice, risking snake eyes of maximum virulence and transmissibility.

That approach suffers more than a failure of foresight or nerve. However necessary, emergency interventions cleaning up each of these messes can make mattersworse.

You see, sources of intervention compete. And, as my colleagues and I argue, emergency criteria are deployed as impositions inGramscian hegemonyto keep us from talking about structural interventions around power and production. Because, dont you know, were warned,ITSANEMERGENCYRIGHTNOW!

Atop this game of keep away, the failure to address structural problems can render these very emergency interventions ineffectual. TheAllee thresholdthat prophylaxes and quarantine aim to push pathogen populations belowso that infections may burn out on their own unable to find new susceptiblesissetby structural causes.

As our teamwroteabout the Ebola outbreak in West Africa:

Commoditizing the forest may have lowered the regions ecosystemic threshold to such a point that no emergency intervention can drive the Ebola outbreak low enough to burn out. Novel spillovers suddenly express larger forces of infection. On the other end of the epicurve, a mature outbreak continues to circulate, with the potential to intermittently rebound.

In short, neoliberalisms structural shifts are no mere background on which the emergency of Ebola takes place. The shiftsarethe emergency as much as the virus itself Deforestation and intensive agriculture may strip out traditional agroforestrys stochastic friction, which typically keeps the virus from lining up enough transmission.

Despite now with both an effectivevaccineandantivirals, Ebola is presently undergoing its longest recorded outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo. What got lost along the way? Where is our biomedical God now? Blaming the Congolese to cover up this failure is an exercise incolonial displacement, washing imperialisms hands of decades of structural adjustment and regime change in the global Norths favor.

Saying theres nothing we can do isnt quite right either, however, even as the complaint about reacting only upon a new diseases attack still stands.

Within any one locale, thereisa left program for an outbreak, including organizing neighborhood brigades in mutual aid, demanding any vaccine and antivirals developed be made available at no cost to everyone here and abroad, pirating antivirals and medical supplies, and securing unemployment and healthcare coverage as the economy tanks during the outbreak.

But that way of thinking and organizing, an integral part of thelefts legacy, appears to have left the building for more performative (and discursive) configurations online.

The reactionary bent to disease control left and right has since pivoted me to assisting efforts at anti-capitalist agricultures and conservation. Lets stop the outbreaks we cant handle from emerging in the first place. At this point in my career, with the structural pacing the emergencies, I generally write about infectious diseases in only tangential terms.

Structural causes of disease are themselves a source of debate. For one, questions remain as to 2019-nCoVs origins.

Muchinitial attentionhas been placed on a particular exotic food market in Wuhan, with an orientalist preoccupation with strange and unsavory diets, representing both the end of biodiversity the West itself is destroying and a revolting source of dangerous disease:

The typical market in China has fruits and vegetables, butchered beef, pork and lamb, whole plucked chickens with heads and beaks attached and live crabs and fish, spewing water out of churning tanks. Some sell more unusual fare, including live snakes, turtles and cicadas, guinea pigs, bamboo rats, badgers, hedgehogs, otters, palm civets, even wolf cubs.

Said snakes are brandished as both signifier and signified, aliteral sourceof 2019-nCoV that also harkens to a paradise lost and original sin from a serpents maw.

There is epidemiological evidence in the hypothesiss favor. Thirty-three of 585 samples at the Wuhan market werefoundpositive for 2019-nCoV, with 31 at the west end of the market where wildlife trading was concentrated.

On the other hand, only 41% of these positive samples werefoundin market streets where the wildlife were housed. A quarter of the original infecteesnever visitedthe Wuhan market or appeared directly exposed. The earliest case wasidentifiedbefore the market was hit. Other infected marketers trafficked in hog alone, a livestock species that expresses a common vulnerable molecular receptor, leading one team tohypothesizehog as the putative source for the new coronavirus.

AtopAfrican swine fever, which has killed as many ashalfof Chinas hog this past year, the latter possibility would represent quite the clusterfuck. Such disease convergences are not unheard of, even folding into an intimatereciprocal activation, wherein proteins of each pathogen catalyze each other, facilitating new clinical courses and transmission dynamics for both diseases.

At the same time, Western Sinophobiadoesnt absolveChinese public health. Certainly the anger and disappointment the Chinese public hasdirected atlocal and federal authorities for their slow reaction to 2019-nCoV cant be spun as weaponized xenophobia. And in our wise efforts to keep our foot out of that trap, we may also be missing a critical agroecological symmetry.

Setting aside the culture war,wet marketsandexotic foodarestaples in China, as is now industrial production, juxtaposed alongside each othersince economic liberalizationpost-Mao. Indeed, the two food modes may be integrated by way of land use.

Expanding industrial productionmay push increasingly capitalized wild foodsdeeperinto the last of the primary landscape,dredging outa wider variety of potentially protopandemic pathogens. Peri-urban loops of growing extent and population density mayincreasethe interface (and spillover) between wild nonhuman populations and newly urbanized rurality.

Worldwide, even the wildest subsistence species are being roped into ag value chains: among themostriches,porcupine,crocodiles,fruit bats, and thepalm civet, whose partially digested berries now supply the worlds most expensive coffee bean. Some wild species are making it onto forks before they are even scientifically identified, including one new short-nosed dogfishfoundin a Taiwanese market.

All are increasingly treated as food commodities. As nature is stripped place-by-place, species-by-species, whats left overbecomesthat much more valuable.

Weberian anthropologist Lyle Fearnleypointed outthat farmers in China repeatedly manipulate the distinction between wildness and domesticity as an economic signifier, producing new meanings and values attached to their animals, including in response to the very epidemiological alerts issued around their trade. A Marxist mightpush backthat these signifiers emerge out of a context that extends well beyond smallholder control and out onto global circuits of capital.

So while the distinction between factory farms and wet markets isnt unimportant, we may miss their similarities (and dialectical relationships).

The distinctions bleed together by a number of other mechanisms. Many a smallholder worldwide, including inChina, is in actuality acontractor, growing out day-old poultry, for instance, for industrial processing. So on a contractors smallholding along the forest edge, a food animal may catch a pathogen before being shipped back to a processing plant on the outer ring of a major city.

Spreading factory farms meanwhile may force increasingly corporatized wild foods companies to trawl deeper into the forest, increasing the likelihood of picking up a new pathogen, while reducing the kind of environmental complexity with which the forest disrupts transmission chains.

Capital weaponizes the resulting disease investigations.Blaming smallholdersis now a standard agribusiness crisis management practice, but clearly diseases are a matter ofsystemsof productionover time and space and mode, notjustspecific actors between whom we can juggle blame.

As a class, the coronaviruses appear to straddle these distinctions. While SARS and 2019-nCoV appeared to have emerged out of wet marketspossible pigs asideMERS, the other deadly coronavirus, emerged straight out of anindustrializing camel sectorin the Middle East. Its a path to virulence largely left out of broader scientific discussion about these viruses.

It should change how we think about them. I would recommend we err on the side of viewingdisease causalityand intervention beyond the biomedical or even ecohealth object and out into the field of ecosocial relationships.

Other ethoses see a different way out. Some researchersrecommendwe genetically engineer poultry and livestock to be resistant to these diseases. They leave out whether that would still allow these strains to circulate among what would now be asymptomatic food animals before spilling over into decidedly unengineered humans.

Again turning back the clock, a source of my pique, nine years ago Iwroteabout what efforts at genetically engineering out pathogens miss as matters of first principle:

Beyond the issue of the affordability of the new frankenchicken, especially for the poorest countries, influenzas success arises in part from its capacity to outwit and outlast such silver bullets. Hypotheses tied to a lucrative model of biology are routinely mistaken for expectations about material reality, expectations are mistaken for projections, and projections for predictions.

One source of vexation is the dimensionality of the problem. There is even among mainstream scholars a dawning realization influenza is more than mere virion or infection; that it respects little of disciplinary boundaries (and business plans) in both their form and content. Pathogens regularly use processes accumulating at one level of biocultural organization to solve problems they face at other levels, including the molecular.Agribusiness ever turns us toward a techno-utopian future to keep us in a past bounded by capitalist relations. We are spun round and round the very commodity tracks selecting for new diseases in the first place.

The secret thrill (and open terror) epidemiologists feel in an outbreak is nothing more than defeat disguised as heroism.

Almost the entirety of the profession is presently organized around post-hoc duties, much like a stable boy with a shovel following behind the elephants at a circus. Under the neoliberal program, epidemiologists and public health units are funded toclean upthe systems mess, while rationalizing even the worst practices that lead to many a deadly pandemics emergence.

In acommentaryon the new coronavirus, one Simon Reid, a professor of communicable disease control at the University of Queensland, instantiates the resulting incoherence.

Reid pings from topic to topic, failing to weave a whole out of his technicist observations. Such folly isnt necessarily a matter of incompetence or malicious intent upon Reids part. It is more a matter of the contradictory obligations of the neoliberal university.

U.S. leftists recently joined swords over the existence of theprofessional-managerial class.Jacobinsocial democratsrailat the capitalist PMC they angle to join in a Sanders administration, while tankies claim managers are proletarian too. Ill sidestep the metaphysical debatehow many PMC can dance on an epipen?only to observe that whether the PMCtheoreticallyexists in epidemiology, Ivemetits members in the flesh. They live!

Reid and other institutional epidemiologists are on the hook for cleaning up diseases of neoliberal originsyes, including out of Chinawhile meting out comforting platitudes that the system that pays them works. Its a double bind many practitioners choose to live with, nay, prosper from, even should the resulting epidemiologies threaten millions.

Reid here kinda gets the food system and conservation parts of the explanation for 2019-nCoV (and many of its celebrity forerunners out of the series of epidemiological reality shows run this century so far). But in introducing this protopandemic, he propositions, to paraphrase, that This utter horror has a saving gracehooray! And it is that China has been a source of repeated outbreaks, but it, and a WHO nowowned byphilanthrocapitalism, conducts exemplary biocontrol.

We can reject Sinophobia, offer material support, and still well remember Chinacovered upthe SARS outbreak in 2003. Beijing suppressed media and public health reports, allowing that coronavirus to splatter across its own country. Medical authorities one province over from an outbreak didnt know what their patients were suddenly showing up with at the ER. SARS eventually spread across multiple countries as far as Canada and was barely driven to extirpation.

The new century has meanwhile been marked by Chinas failure or refusal to unpack its near-perfect storm of rice, duck, and industrial poultry and hog production driving multiple novel strains of influenza. It is treated as a price for prosperity.

This is no Chinese exceptionalism, however. The U.S. and Europe have served as ground zeros for new influenzas as well, recentlyH5N2andH5Nx, and their multinationals and neocolonial proxies drove the emergence ofEbolain West Africa andZikain Brazil. U.S. public health officials covered for agribusiness during theH1N1 (2009) andH5N2outbreaks.

Perhaps then we should refrain from choosing between one of two cycles of capital accumulation: the end of the American cycle or the start of the Chinese one (or, as Reid appears to do, both). At the risk of accusations ofthird campism, choosing neither is another option.

If we must partake in the Great Game, lets choose an ecosocialism that mends themetabolic riftbetween ecology and economy, and between the urban and the rural and wilderness, keeping the worst of these pathogens from emerging in the first place. Lets choose international solidarity with everyday people the world over.

Lets realize a creaturely communism far from the Soviet model. Lets braid together a new world-system, indigenous liberation, farmer autonomy, strategic rewilding, and place-specific agroecologies that, redefining biosecurity, reintroduce immune firebreaks of widely diverse varieties in livestock, poultry, and crops.

Letsreintroducenatural selection as an ecosystem service and let our livestock and crops reproduce on-site, whereby they can pass along their outbreak-tested immunogenetics to the next generation.

Consider the options otherwise.

Maybe Ive been unfair to the Reids of the world, who as a matter of professional obligation must believe their own contradictions. But, as five hundred years of war and pestilence demonstrate, the sources of capital that many epidemiologists now serve are more than willing to scale mountains made of body bags.

Rob Wallace is the author ofBig Farms Make Big Flu.

A version of this article originally appeared on Monthly Review.

Link:

Connecting the Coronavirus to Agriculture - CounterPunch

Meet Emily Beecham: the actress set to dominate 2020 – harpersbazaar.com

Emily Beecham is in a very philosophical mood. Running a hand through her russet locks, she gazes contemplatively out of the window onto the bustling London streets below. Who knows whats going to happen in the future? she says. Humans might need to adapt to be able to absorb carbon dioxide like plants. That could be useful, with the oxygen becoming scarce... but lets not think about that!

It is her new film, the neon-bathed, anxiety-spiking thriller Little Joe, that has prompted this existential malaise. In the movie, Beecham plays Alice, a renegade botanist who forgoes the necessary safety checks to genetically engineer the worlds first mood-boosting antidepressant plant, a sample of which she smuggles home to her teenage son Joe. Starting out as a wholly commendable scientific breakthrough, the flower gradually appears to turn against its creator, confining those who inhale its head-spinning pollen to a deadened state of seeming happiness. There is a gnawing question at the centre of Little Joe: are these characters genuinely euphoric or just emotional suppressed? To its credit, the film eludes the Manichaeism of conventional storytelling and allows viewers to draw their own conclusions on the matter.

Courtesy of Festival de Cannes

It really makes you think for yourself, Beecham agrees. We had some very unexpected questions when we first screened it. Theres a scientific explanation, a psychological explanation and then theres also the idea that its all a load of nonsense and absolutely nothing is going on at all. My character is down this rabbit hole of not knowing what she believes. The movie premiered in competition at last years Cannes Film Festival, where its slippery grasp of medical ethics divided critical opinion; the actress, for her part, enjoyed her time on the Croisette. Id never been to Cannes before. It was very opulent, very glamorous and really fun.

She had already returned to the UK when she was summoned back to France to stand in contention for the festivals Best Actress prize (resulting in a rip-roaring journey that involved her zooming across the Cte dAzur by motorbike just in time for the ceremony). Beecham, visibly stunned, went on to clinch the trophy for her subtle work, a deliberately contrived, quasi-mechanical performance that soon descends into fully fledged paranoia her red-rimmed eyes darting about suspiciously over her surgical mask. Leaving with the award was a shock to say the least, she admits now. I just really wasnt expecting that. We celebrated with lots of food and drink, and a little dance. It was amazing, obviously, but completely overwhelming.

Toni Anne Barson

Equally overwhelming, I imagine, is answering big-picture questions on her puzzlingly unclassifiable film. Heres another one for her: how much freedom should scientists have when it comes to modifying living organisms? She exhales deeply, staring into the middle distance to really ponder before answering. I know there are strict regulations placed on it now after the French microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier who was an inspiration for my character in the film actually invented a revolutionary gene-editing tool that enables you to quickly genetically engineer something, she explains. Since then, and quite understandably, rules have been tight so that it doesnt get into the wrong hands. Genetic engineering is amazing for medicine, I hear, with its ability to help scientists try to cure diseases.

I pivot to another cornerstone of Little Joe: the open-ended, endlessly interpretable topic that is the meaning of happiness. Happiness is subjective, Beecham says firmly. Some people think material wealth or career success or relationships equal happiness. The Buddhists ideal is just to be. On a personal level, I feel happy if Im working with people who inspire me. I also like listening to music, seeing a friend, reading a book, watching a film... nothing that unusual really. I do love finding weird little treasures in vintage stores. She pauses, bright-eyed before adding: As long as I dont become a hoarder!

The superficially cheerful laboratory over which Alice presides in Little Joe unsurprisingly skews male, with Ben Whishaw featuring as a lower-ranking plant breeder. Meanwhile, the movies crew, led by the visionary director Jessica Hausner, was much more gender-balanced. Jessica is a really good leader who always follows her vision, says Beecham. There was a lot of respect and focus on set. She knew when to say, No, that isn't the film I want to make, this is the film I want to make. Everything was very choreographed: the timings, the camera movements, picking up props... She persists until we get the right take, which I really admire because that can be difficult.

Although mostly emanating authority, Beechams character, by contrast, is subject to micro-aggressions at the office, with men around her condescendingly remarking This has all been a bit much for you when she highlights her plants potential danger. Alice is very senior in her workplace in a very male-dominated environment, says Beecham. She is the boss and she has the most successful plant so she calls all the shots. There is subtle begrudgement about that and a bit of power play between her and Chris [Whishaw]. Perhaps women have to work harder to gain that dominance or respect.

Beecham is set to wade even further into the depths of scientific ethics with her upcoming Netflix project Outside the Wire, which explores the use of artificial intelligence in warfare (Its just a coincidence really!), but perhaps her most anticipated new film is Cruella. Due in cinemas next year, this is the live-action prequel to Disneys classic 101 Dalmatians in which Emma Stone plays the puppy-snatching, sartorially spotted villain. Fascinatingly, Craig Gillespie has been brought on to direct something of a left-field choice given that the film-maker is best known for zany indies in which Margot Robbie kneecaps a skating rival (I, Tonya) and Ryan Gosling falls in love with a sex doll (Lars and the Real Girl).

Its an edgy Disney story, Beecham reveals. Cruella is an anarchic girl with a rebellious streak, so Craig brought out that menacing fun, coupled with a certain vivacity and a real London feel. There was a naturalness to the shoot. It was this massive production and he would have us improvising lines, writing new scripts it was very fresh and authentic. Its going to be a really fun and interesting film. The movies costumes are fantastical, Vivienne Westwood-inspired creations whose outlandishness did prove challenging for the actress co-star. Emma [Stone]s costume was very elaborate. She was slightly paralysed in it because she couldnt really move her head, Beecham says, laughing. She had to lie down an awful lot between takes because she literally couldnt move. Until we see Cruellas origin story, prepare to be moved by Beechams faultlessly modulated turn in Little Joe, a masterclass of quietly unravelling containment.

Little Joe is released in cinemas on Friday.

Like this article? Sign up to our new newsletter to get more articles like this delivered straight to your inbox.

SIGN UP

Excerpt from:

Meet Emily Beecham: the actress set to dominate 2020 - harpersbazaar.com

Key findings about Americans’ confidence in science and their views on scientists’ role in society – Pew Research Center

(KTSDESIGN/Science Photo Library)

Science issues whether connected with climate, childhood vaccines or new techniques in biotechnology are part of the fabric of civic life, raising a range of social, ethical and policy issues for the citizenry. As members of the scientific community gather at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) this week, here is a roundup of key takeaways from our studies of U.S. public opinion about science issues and their effect on society.

The data for this post was drawn from multiple different surveys. The most recent was a survey of 3,627 U.S. adults conducted Oct. 1 to Oct. 13, 2019. This post also draws on data from surveys conducted in January 2019, December 2018, April-May 2018 and March 2016. All surveys were conducted using the American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of being selected. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, education and other categories. Read more about the ATPs methodology.

Following are the questions and responses for surveys used in this post, as well as each surveys methodology:

1Some public divides over science issues are aligned with partisanship, while many others are not. Science issues can be a key battleground for facts and information in society. Climate science has been part of an ongoing discourse around scientific evidence, how to attribute average temperature increases in the Earths climate system, and the kinds of policy actions needed. While public divides over climate and energy issues are often aligned with political party affiliation, public attitudes on other science-related issues are not.

For example, there are differences in public beliefs around the risks and benefits of childhood vaccines. Such differences arise amid civic debates about the spread of false information about vaccines. While such beliefs have important implications for public health, they are not particularly political in nature.

In fact, Republicans and independents who lean to the GOP are just as likely as Democrats and independents who lean to the Democratic Party to say that, overall, the benefits of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine outweigh the risks (89% and 88% respectively).

2Americans have differing views about some emerging scientific and technological developments. Scientific and technological developments are a key source of innovation and, therefore, change in society. Pew Research Center studies have explored public reactions to emergent developments from genetic engineering techniques, automation and more. One field at the forefront of public reaction is the use of gene editing of babies or genetic engineering of animals. Americans have mixed views over whether the use of gene editing to reduce a babys risk of serious disease that could occur over their lifetime is appropriate (60%) or is taking medical technology too far (38%), according to a 2018 survey. Similarly, about six-in-ten Americans (57%) said that genetic engineering of animals to grow organs or tissues for humans needing a transplant would be appropriate, while four-in-ten (41%) said it would be taking technology too far.

When we asked Americans about a future where a brain chip implant would give otherwise healthy individuals much improved cognitive abilities, a 69% majority said they were very or somewhat worried about the possibility. By contrast, about half as many (34%) were enthusiastic. Further, as people think about the effects of automation technologies in the workplace, more say automation has brought more harm than help to American workers.

One theme running through our findings on emerging science and technology is that public hesitancy often is tied to concern about the loss of human control, especially if such developments would be at odds with personal, religious and ethical values. In looking across seven developments related to automation and the potential use of biomedical interventions to enhance human abilities, Center studies found that proposals that would increase peoples control over these technologies were met with greater acceptance.

3Most in the U.S. see net benefits from science for society, and they expect more ahead. About three-quarters of Americans (73%) say science has, on balance, had a mostly positive effect on society. And 82% expect future scientific developments to yield benefits for society in years to come.

The overall portrait is one of strong public support for the benefits of science to society, though the degree to which Americans embrace this idea differs sizably by race and ethnicity as well as by levels of science knowledge.

Such findings are in line with those of the General Social Survey on the effects of scientific research. In 2018, about three-quarters of Americans (74%) said the benefits of scientific research outweigh any harmful results. Support for scientific research by this measure has been roughly stable since the 1980s.

4The share of Americans with confidence in scientists to act in the public interest has increased since 2016.

Public confidence in scientists to act in the public interest tilts positive and has increased over the past few years. As of 2019, 35% of Americans report a great deal of confidence in scientists to act in the public interest, up from 21% in 2016.

About half of the public (51%) reports a fair amount of confidence in scientists, and just 13% have not too much or no confidence in this group to act in the public interest.

Public trust in scientists by this measure stands in contrast to that for other groups and institutions. One of the hallmarks of the current times has been low trust in government and other institutions. One-in-ten or fewer say they have a great deal of confidence in elected officials (4%) or the news media (9%) to act in the public interest.

5Americans differ over the role and value of scientific experts in policy matters. While confidence in scientists overall tilts positive, peoples perspectives about the role and value of scientific experts on policy issues tends to vary. Six-in-ten U.S. adults believe that scientists should take an active role in policy debates about scientific issues, while about four-in-ten (39%) say, instead, that scientists should focus on establishing sound scientific facts and stay out of such debates.

Democrats are more inclined than Republicans to think scientists should have an active role in science policy matters. Indeed, most Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (73%) hold this position, compared with 43% of Republicans and GOP leaners.

More than four-in-ten U.S. adults (45%) say that scientific experts usually make better policy decisions than other people, while a similar share (48%) says such decisions are neither better nor worse than other peoples and 7% say scientific experts decisions are usually worse than other peoples.

Here, too, Democrats tend to hold scientific experts in higher esteem than do Republicans: 54% of Democrats say scientists policy decisions are usually better than those of other people, while two-thirds of Republicans (66%) say that scientists decisions are either no different from or worse than other peoples.

6Factual knowledge alone does not explain public confidence in the scientific method to produce sound conclusions. Overall, a 63% majority of Americans say the scientific method generally produces sound conclusions, while 35% think it can be used to produce any result a researcher wants. Peoples level of knowledge can influence beliefs about these matters, but it does so through the lens of partisanship, a tendency known as motivated reasoning.

Beliefs about this matter illustrate that science knowledge levels sometimes correlate with public attitudes. But partisanship has a stronger role.

Democrats are more likely to express confidence in the scientific method to produce accurate conclusions than do Republicans, on average. Most Democrats with high levels of science knowledge (86%, based on an 11-item index of factual knowledge questions) say the scientific method generally produces accurate conclusions. By comparison, 52% of Democrats with low science knowledge say this. But science knowledge has little bearing on Republicans beliefs about the scientific method.

7Trust in practitioners like medical doctors and dietitians is stronger than that for researchers in these fields, but skepticism about scientific integrity is widespread. Scientists work in a wide array of fields and specialties. A 2019 Pew Research Center survey found public trust in medical doctors and dietitians to be higher than that for researchers working in these areas. For example, 48% of U.S. adults say that medical doctors give fair and accurate information all or most of the time. By comparison, 32% of U.S. adults say the same about medical research scientists. And six-in-ten Americans say dietitians care about their patients best interests all or most of the time, while about half as many (29%) say this about nutrition research scientists with the same frequency.

One factor in public trust of scientists is familiarity with their work. For example, people who were more familiar with what medical science researchers do were more trusting of these researchers to express care or concern for the public interest, to do their job with competence and to provide fair and accurate information. Familiarity with the work of scientists was related to trust for all six specialties we studied.

But when it comes to questions of scientists transparency and accountability, most Americans are skeptical. About two-in-ten or fewer U.S. adults say that scientists are transparent about potential conflicts of interest with industry groups all or most of the time. Similar shares (roughly between one-in-ten and two-in-ten) say that scientists admit their mistakes and take responsibility for them all or most of the time.

This data shows clearly that when it comes to questions of transparency and accountability, most in the general public are attuned to the potential for self-serving interests to skew science findings and recommendations. These findings echo calls for increased transparency and accountability across many sectors and industries today.

8What boosts public trust in scientific research findings? Most say its making data openly available. A 57% majority of Americans say they trust scientific research findings more when the data is openly available to the public. And about half of the U.S. public (52%) say they are more likely to trust research that has been independently reviewed.

The question of who funds the research is also consequential for how people think about scientific research. A 58% majority say they have lower trust when research is funded by an industry group. By comparison, about half of Americans (48%) say government funding for research has no particular effect on how much they trust the findings; 28% say this decreases their trust and 23% say it increases their trust.

Read the rest here:

Key findings about Americans' confidence in science and their views on scientists' role in society - Pew Research Center

Fighting malnutrition: Golden Rice and the EU’s GMO conundrum – EURACTIV

This rice could save a million kids a year, read the July 2000 cover of Time Magazine, referring to a genetically modified rice, Golden Rice, that had been biofortified with life-saving nutrition. But in the nearly two decades that have passed since then, the cultivation of genetically biofortified crops, such as Golden Rice, to help solve the global humanitarian crisis of malnutrition remains elusive.

One major reason for the delay has been the systematic opposition to all forms of GMOs and genetic engineering by radical interest groups including Greenpeace and many Green party politicians, particularly in Europe. On December 18th, 2019, the Philippines joined a growing list of countries granting a permit for Golden Rice as food and feed, and for processing a major milestone in making it available to the people who need it most.

So, lets consider the facts.

Over two billion people worldwide continue to suffer from hidden hunger, or the lack of essential micronutrients, which impairs the physical and cognitive development of children, productivity in adults, and quality of life for all. There is a case to be made here for agricultural biotechnology, specifically in the context of biofortification to improve the nutritional value of staple crops through various means, including transgenic biofortification and genome editing. Biofortification allows for the delivery of additional life-improving and life-saving nutrients without the need to change dietary choices or preferences, and at relatively low cost. The potential benefits are especially pronounced in developing countries like the Philippines and Bangladesh, which suffer from high rates of malnutrition[1].

The cost of malnutrition in all its forms is unacceptably high, at 3.5 trillion USD per year worldwide. In the Philippines, the projected annual national economic burden of malnutrition is more than 4.65 billion USD per year, of which 33 million USD is attributable to Vitamin A deficiency. The relative affordability of biofortified crops like Golden Rice may make a world of difference to households who are most in need and yet least able to afford nutritious food. In Bangladesh, which has an average daily per capita rice consumption of 367g, ultra-poor households spend three-quarters of their income, or 75 out of 100 taka, on rice. Oftentimes, fruits, vegetables, eggs are not only unaffordable but also unavailable on a regular basis in marginalized and hard-to-reach communities. When rice is all that a nutrition-deficient household can afford, it is unconscionable to push for the adoption of a nutritional intervention that will financially burden its target communities. Coupled with a relatively longer shelf life, Golden Rice is therefore an affordable complement to a diet when access to other vitamin A-rich foods is difficult or lacking.

Global public goods like Golden Rice are developed with a clear humanitarian purpose and in partnership with national research organizations in the countries where they are intended for adoption[2]. The nomer of Golden Rice does not refer to a single line or variety. Rather, it is the result of technology that has been extensively researched and introduced into local varieties that are most consumed by the communities that need it most in their respective countries. This ensures that the developed product meets the needs and preferences of its target communities, and that appropriate deployment mechanisms are established to sustain adoption. In the case of Golden Rice, consumer benefit is established: its beta-carotene content can provide up to 50% of the estimated average requirement for Vitamin A. Initial estimates are even higher, with beta-carotene content ranging from 357-561 g/day for every 100 g of raw Golden Rice But whether it is adopted or not depends entirely on farmer and consumer preference.

In addition to helping solve immense public health issues through biofortification, agricultural biotechnology also holds enormous potential to contribute more substantially to other Sustainable Development Goals. Already today, more than 14 million farmers grow GM cotton on smallholder farms in Asia (comprising the vast majority of farmers who have adopted GM crops globally) in order to increase yields and improve farm safety and sustainability by lowering the cost of and need for inputs. Many other GM crops have also been developed around the world by public research institutions (see map here). Examples of biotech crops which have made it to market include virus resistant papaya (in Hawaii)[3] and insect resistant aubergines (in Bangladesh), which help to reduce the need for chemical control. A number of GM crops with health benefits also exist, such as soybeans to produce healthier oils, low acrylamide potatoes, and insect resistant maize, which significantly reduces naturally occurring mycotoxins that cause problems also in European maize harvests.

However, the majority of ag biotech innovations have unfortunately not had the immense financial resources needed to get safe GM crops through the regulatory process. In the EU, GM import approvals typically take six years and cost 11 to 16.7 million Euros. The costs and waiting times associated with such approvals are preventing public institutions from investing in ag biotech solutions to solve global challenges. The same EU predicament now also applies to genome edited crops, even if they do not have any added genes[4]. With the EUs stringent stance towards GMOs based largely on anti-corporate sentiment campaigns, and the false impression that GMOs are strictly the territory of profit-driven innovation, we tend to forget that these same technologies are also developing parts of the solution to help the poorest of the poor attain decent lives and livelihoods. Also, the majority of ag biotech solutions listed above are of course not available to European farmers, with the exception of one single type of insect resistant maize, which is available to Spanish and Portuguese farmers.

Those of us working and advocating for Golden Rice look forward to the day that regulatory approvals will allow us to respond to societal challenges. While the evaluation process has taken much longer than intended, this underscores the presence of regulatory protocol to independently assess the Golden Rice biosafety dossier which has already received food safety approvals in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

It is unfortunate then that regulatory delays in some parts of the world are held by critics, especially in Europe, as proof that the product is ineffective and unsafe. Yet any action taken to provide and assess the data needed to demonstrate its safety and benefits is viewed as an attempt to force feed Golden Rice to communities who need it the most. We sincerely hope that European decision makers will have the courage to listen to the science, given also that Europeans today are much less concerned with GMOs than they were a decade ago. After 25 years of millions of farmers growing GM crops, now on about 12% of the worlds fields, it would only be reasonable for Europe to look at the evidence surrounding the proven safety of GM crops, instead of demonising a technology which can and does provide multiple benefits.

About the authors

As the head of the Strategic Innovation Platform, Ajay Kohli leads a team primarily in the application of fundamental sciences such as genomics, genetics, and informatics instruments. His platform identifies genes and provides genetic materials and associated information that enables the institutes rice breeders and physiologists to harness upstream research into translational research, through a highly interdisciplinary approach. Ajay also leads IRRIs Plant Molecular Biology Group for the past 10 years. During this time, the group has gained recognition in gene discovery and characterization in environmental stress tolerance of rice, particularly in improving yield under drought condition. Ajay brings 27 years of experience in upstream research, innovation, and leadership in the agricultural sector.

Joanna Dupont-Inglis is the Secretary General of EuropaBio, where she has worked since 2009 in a variety of leadership positions. Prior to EuropaBio she worked for two leading Brussels-based consultancies on agriculture, healthcare, environment and energy policy together with a broad range of industries, international organisations, NGOs and with the EU Institutions. She has an academic background in environmental science and European studies and is a French-speaking UK/Irish national.

[1] See table 6 of Swamy et al (2019) for potential benefit of GR2E in the Philippines and Bangladesh. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6646955/

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6646955/

[3] GM papaya practically saved Hawaiis fifth largest crop from decimation (http://www.vib.be/en/about-vib/Documents/Virus%20resistant%20papaya%20in%20Hawaii.pdf) and results of the genome sequence of the GM papaya were reported as a measure of transparency (Kohli and Christou, 2008, Stable transgenes bear fruit. Nature Biotechnology 26(6):653-4

DOI: 10.1038/nbt0608-653

[4] https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/partner_article/eu-legislation-must-safeguard-precision-plant-breeding-technologies

View original post here:

Fighting malnutrition: Golden Rice and the EU's GMO conundrum - EURACTIV

CRISPR: Coroner tackles the ethics of gene editing – CBC.ca

It may sound like something from a fiction movie, and just over a decade ago it probably was, but in that time, scientists have discovered a ground-breaking genetic engineering tool called CRISPR-Cas9 (often referred to as only CRISPR).

It has the potential to revolutionize the future of human experience from creating drought resistant crops, augmenting mosquitoes to eliminating the transmission of malaria to, most importantly, eradicating specific genetic diseases like cancer by manipulating the blueprint of life. But could it have contradictory effects?

Coroner explores this topic in season two episode three, entitled 'CRISPR SISTR', where Dr. Jenny Cooper and Det. Donovan McAvoy investigate the death of a lab assistant who was helping in the CRISPR research that was to eradicate Lewy body dementia. Or so the scientists involved in the research implied during interrogation.

What really happened is a bit different and we'll get to it, but let's try to answer some complicated questions first.

You know how you can edit anything that needs a bit of fixing, such as a video an episode of Coroner for example or an Instagram picture by using various apps or tools? CRISPR-Cas9 issimilar, but a molecular tool, which is much more complex.

We can only scratch the surface, but to put it in simple terms: CRISPR-Cas9 is a gene editing tool that can be used to more precisely edit targeted bits of DNA in order to modify (strengthen, weaken, switch on and off) or eliminate specific genes in organisms like bacteria, animals, plants and even human cells. Imagine being able to prevent cancer by editing out the culprit?! Life changing!

"Think of it like editing text," says Dr. Janet Rossant, a researcher who uses CRISPR in her lab at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children.

"You can cursor in and you delete a few words, paste in a little sentence. And that is what people can now do in the genome."

Breaking it up, CRISPR (short for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) is a cluster of DNA sequences found within the genomes of specific microorganisms such as bacteria. And Cas9 (CRISPR associated protein 9) is an enzyme from bacterial antiviral systems that uses those sequences as a guide to recognize, interrogate and cleave foreign DNA by unwinding it and checking for complementary sites. And then snip snip.

In his interview with The Nature of Things, Dr. Eric Olson, a Molecular Biologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, explains it in everyday terms.

Metaphorically speaking, he says that we can think of CRISPR as a spell checker for DNA with a two component system. One component is the molecular scissors that can cut DNA and the other a GPS device for DNA which you can program to guide and deliver the scissors anywhere in the 6 billion letters of the DNA, and cut it in two.

There are many gene editing techniques which have been around for a while but CRISPR-Cas9 is revolutionary in its precision, timeliness and cost. Researchers are working tirelessly to add more to the CRISPR toolkit, but for now Cas9 is still the most popular.

"All methods are very efficient at making site-specific mutations, but CRISPR takes the least time and has the lowest costs," said Caixia Gao, a plant biologist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, to sciencemag.org.

If you need more detailed explanations on CRISPR and how it works, this is where we defer to the experts and we go back to Coroner.

Jenny's CRISPR case gets personal because of its ability to possibly heal her father who has the previously mentioned Lewy body dementia. Her hopes are up and after a conversation with her father, he is interested in being a part of the human trials.

Unfortunately, the scientists in the series end up on the unethical side. They've lied about experimenting with Lewy body dementia but instead were selfishly trying to cure themselves of Huntington's disease.

To make things worse, the methods which they applied turned deadly for the assistant who initially saw them as miracle workers while they used him as a guinea pig for their personal gain and research.

As the case closes, so does the CRISPR research along with Jenny's hopes for her father's recovery. The disappointment in this episode makes for a great story... but is reality any different?

While CRISPR has the potential to save many lives, there are still many safety wrinkles that need to be ironed out before we start to see it applied in Canadian labs. As Coroner points out, CRISPR-Cas9 could unleash consequences we can't predict which could be dire.

The method relies on Cas9 to be precise but sometimes it does veer off, makingoff-target cuts which is where the challenges begin. It also relies on the body's natural repair system to heal the snipped area that could cause DNA mutations and other diseases.

One of the biggest controversies of CRISPR is the possibility of making permanent gene alterations which could be passed down to future generations. Creating designer babies by altering their genes to create faster and more powerful athletes or changing their hair or eye colour may sound like a no big deal to some but along with many cons, it takes away one's choice to choose their life path.

In Canada, under theAssisted Human Reproduction Act of 2004, editing the human genome is prohibited and punishable by up to ten years in prison which is why in Coroner's episode three of season two, the CRISPR lab is shut down and the scientists arrested.

As we are propelled into the future with new bio technologies like CRISPR-Cas9, which are getting easier, cheaper and more widely accessible, the possibilities are endless and the responsibilities higher. There are many questions that still need to be answered around CRISPR like: what are the best ways of using these technologies responsibly and how can research be contained in order to avoid unethical applications?

While the scientists and the law ponder those questions, you can watch 'CRISPR SISTR' and past Coroner episodes on CBC Gem!

Read the original here:

CRISPR: Coroner tackles the ethics of gene editing - CBC.ca

First Proof CRISPR Can Be Safe in Cancer Therapy – BioSpace

Although CRISPR gene editing is touted as likely to revolutionize medicine, the actual proof of its effectiveness and safety in treating diseases has been slow in coming. At least until now. Sort of.

Researchers with the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, led by Carl June, published results from the first U.S. Phase I trial of CRISPR-Cas9-edited T-cells in humans with advanced cancer. The data was published in the journal Science.

The trial involved three patients with refractory cancer, two women and one man, all in their 60s. One of the patients had sarcoma and two had multiple myeloma. The approach was similar to that seen in CAR-T therapy, where the patients own T-cells are recovered, engineered to express a specific receptor that can detect and kill cancer cells, then reinfused into the patient.

In the case of this trial, instead of engineering the T-cells with a receptor to a protein like CD19, they used CRISPR to remove three genes from the T-cells. Two edits removed the T-cells natural receptors, which could then be reprogrammed to express a synthetic T-cell receptor called NY-ESO-1. The third edit eliminated PD-1, a checkpoint receptor that allows cancer cells to hide from T-cells.

The researchers are presenting the data as a positive because it appears to be safe. June told Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, CRISPR technology has proven safe in patients with advanced refractory and metastatic cancer. Our results demonstrate the ability to precisely edit the DNA code at three different genes.

In an accompanying article, Jennifer Hamilton and CRISPR pioneer Jennifer Doudna wrote, These findings provide a guide for the safe production and non-immunogenic administration of gene-edited somatic cells. The clinically validated long-term safety of CRISPR-Cas9 gene-edited cells reported [here] paves the way for next-generation cell-based therapies.

Before getting overly excited about this, it was also reported that one of the patients has since died and the disease became worse in the other two. June indicated the goal of the study wasnt to cure cancer, but to show that the CRISPR technique was feasible and safe.

With that goal in mind, its safe to say the trial was a success.

This is a Rubicon that has been decisively crossed, said Fyodor Urnov, a genome editor at the University of California (UC), Berkeley, in a Science article. He noted the trial was the first of its kind in the U.S. and answered questions that have frankly haunted the field.

The research also suggests what the limitations of the approach are, at least currently.

One of the big concerns in using CRISPR is off-target edits. CRISPR is generally pretty precise, but the human genome is quite larger and even a target of 20 or so specific nucleotides in a gene might be duplicated elsewhere, which could have unintended effects. And, studies of the three patients in the study confirmed that CRISPR had resulted in some off-target edits. There werent many and the number of cells affected decreased over time.

There have also been questions on how long gene edits last. In theory, they should last indefinitely, but some research has suggested the body tries to fix the edits and return them to their original state. However, this study showed the CRISPR-edited cells continued at least nine months, which is significant compared to about two months in similar CAR-T therapeutic studies.

So this study, which is significant, is more of a starting point for CRISPR-based therapies, particularly given the modest clinical response.

It wasnt like you turned off those genes and those T-cells started doing things that were amazing, Antoni Ribas, a UC Los Angeles oncologist told Science. But it was a needed start and going forward, Its going to be easierbecause they did it first.

More here:

First Proof CRISPR Can Be Safe in Cancer Therapy - BioSpace

Have humans evolved beyond nature? – The Independent

Such is the extent of our dominion on Earththat the answers to questions around whether we are still part of nature and whether we even need some of it rely on an understanding of what we want as Homo sapiens. And to know what we want, we need to grasp what we are.

It is a huge question but they are the best. And as a biologist, here is my humble suggestion to address it, and a personal conclusion. You may have a different one, but what matters is that we reflect on it.

Perhaps the best place to start is to consider what makes us human in the first place, which is not as obvious as it may seem.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

Many years ago, a novel written by Vercors called Les Animaux Dnaturs (Denatured Animals) told the story of a group of primitive hominids, the Tropis, found in an unexplored jungle in New Guinea, who seem to constitute a missing link. However, the prospect that this fictional group may be used as slave labour by an entrepreneurial businessman named Vancruysen forces society to decide whether the Tropis are simply sophisticated animals or whether they should be given human rights. And herein lies the difficulty.

Human status had hitherto seemed so obvious that the book describes how it is soon discovered that there is no definition of what a human actually is. Certainly, the string of experts consulted anthropologists, primatologists, psychologists, lawyers and clergymen could not agree. Perhaps prophetically, it is a layperson who suggested a possible way forward.

She asked whether some of the hominids habits could be described as the early signs of a spiritual or religious mind. In short, were there signs that, like us, the Tropis were no longer at one with nature, but had separated from it, and were now looking at it from the outside with some fear.

Pluto has a 'beating heart' of frozen nitrogen that is doing strange things to its surface, Nasa has found.The mysterious core seems to be the cause of features on its surface that have fascinated scientists since they were spotted by Nasa's New Horizons mission."Before New Horizons, everyone thought Pluto was going to be a netball - completely flat, almost no diversity," said Tanguy Bertrand, an astrophysicist and planetary scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center and the lead author on the new study."But it's completely different. It has a lot of different landscapes and we are trying to understand what's going on there."

Getty

The ancient invertabrate worm-like species rhenopyrgus viviani (pictured) is one of over 400 species previously unknown to science that were discovered by experts at the Natural History Museum this year

PA

Jackdaws can identify dangerous humans from listening to each others warning calls, scientists say. The highly social birds will also remember that person if they come near their nests again, according to researchers from the University of Exeter. In the study, a person unknown to the wild jackdaws approached their nest. At the same time scientists played a recording of a warning call (threatening) or contact calls (non-threatening). The next time jackdaws saw this same person, the birds that had previously heard the warning call were defensive and returned to their nests more than twice as quickly on average.

Getty

The sex of the turtle is determined by the temperatures at which they are incubated. Warm temperatures favour females.But by wiggling around the egg, embryos can find the Goldilocks Zone which means they are able to shield themselves against extreme thermal conditions and produce a balanced sex ratio, according to the new study published in Current Biology journal

Ye et al/Current Biology

African elephant poaching rates have dropped by 60 per cent in six years, an international study has found. It is thought the decline could be associated with the ivory trade ban introduced in China in 2017.

Reuters

Scientists have identified a four-legged creature with webbed feet to be an ancestor of the whale. Fossils unearthed in Peru have led scientists to conclude that the enormous creatures that traverse the planets oceans today are descended from small hoofed ancestors that lived in south Asia 50 million years ago

A. Gennari

A scientist has stumbled upon a creature with a transient anus that appears only when it is needed, before vanishing completely. Dr Sidney Tamm of the Marine Biological Laboratory could not initially find any trace of an anus on the species. However, as the animal gets full, a pore opens up to dispose of waste

Steven G Johnson

Feared extinct, the Wallace's Giant bee has been spotted for the first time in nearly 40 years. An international team of conservationists spotted the bee, that is four times the size of a typical honeybee, on an expedition to a group of Indonesian Islands

Clay Bolt

Fossilised bones digested by crocodiles have revealed the existence of three new mammal species that roamed the Cayman Islands 300 years ago. The bones belonged to two large rodent species and a small shrew-like animal

New Mexico Museum of Natural History

Scientists at the University of Maryland have created a fabric that adapts to heat, expanding to allow more heat to escape the body when warm and compacting to retain more heat when cold

Faye Levine, University of Maryland

A study from the University of Tokyo has found that the tears of baby mice cause female mice to be less interested in the sexual advances of males

Getty

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued a report which projects the impact of a rise in global temperatures of 1.5 degrees Celsius and warns against a higher increase

Getty

The nobel prize for chemistry has been awarded to three chemists working with evolution. Frances Smith is being awarded the prize for her work on directing the evolution of enzymes, while Gregory Winter and George Smith take the prize for their work on phage display of peptides and antibodies

Getty/AFP

The nobel prize for physics has been awarded to three physicists working with lasers. Arthur Ashkin (L) was awarded for his "optical tweezers" which use lasers to grab particles, atoms, viruses and other living cells. Donna Strickland and Grard Mourou were jointly awarded the prize for developing chirped-pulse amplification of lasers

Reuters/AP

The Ledumahadi Mafube roamed around 200 million years ago in what is now South Africa. Recently discovered by a team of international scientists, it was the largest land animal of its time, weighing 12 tons and standing at 13 feet. In Sesotho, the South African language of the region in which the dinosaur was discovered, its name means "a giant thunderclap at dawn"

Viktor Radermacher / SWNS

Scientists have witnessed the birth of a planet for the first time ever. This spectacular image from the SPHERE instrument on ESO's Very Large Telescope is the first clear image of a planet caught in the very act of formation around the dwarf star PDS 70. The planet stands clearly out, visible as a bright point to the right of the center of the image, which is blacked out by the coronagraph mask used to block the blinding light of the central star.

ESO/A. Mller et al

Layers long thought to be dense, connective tissue are actually a series of fluid-filled compartments researchers have termed the interstitium. These compartments are found beneath the skin, as well as lining the gut, lungs, blood vessels and muscles, and join together to form a network supported by a mesh of strong, flexible proteins

Getty

Working in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, a team led by archaeologists at the University of Exeter unearthed hundreds of villages hidden in the depths of the rainforest. These excavations included evidence of fortifications and mysterious earthworks called geoglyphs

Jos Iriarte

More than one in 10 people were found to have traces of class A drugs on their fingers by scientists developing a new fingerprint-based drug test.Using sensitive analysis of the chemical composition of sweat, researchers were able to tell the difference between those who had been directly exposed to heroin and cocaine, and those who had encountered it indirectly.

Getty

The storm bigger than the Earth, has been swhirling for 350 years. The image's colours have been enhanced after it was sent back to Earth.

Pictures by: Tom Momary

Pluto has a 'beating heart' of frozen nitrogen that is doing strange things to its surface, Nasa has found.The mysterious core seems to be the cause of features on its surface that have fascinated scientists since they were spotted by Nasa's New Horizons mission."Before New Horizons, everyone thought Pluto was going to be a netball - completely flat, almost no diversity," said Tanguy Bertrand, an astrophysicist and planetary scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center and the lead author on the new study."But it's completely different. It has a lot of different landscapes and we are trying to understand what's going on there."

Getty

The ancient invertabrate worm-like species rhenopyrgus viviani (pictured) is one of over 400 species previously unknown to science that were discovered by experts at the Natural History Museum this year

PA

Jackdaws can identify dangerous humans from listening to each others warning calls, scientists say. The highly social birds will also remember that person if they come near their nests again, according to researchers from the University of Exeter. In the study, a person unknown to the wild jackdaws approached their nest. At the same time scientists played a recording of a warning call (threatening) or contact calls (non-threatening). The next time jackdaws saw this same person, the birds that had previously heard the warning call were defensive and returned to their nests more than twice as quickly on average.

Getty

The sex of the turtle is determined by the temperatures at which they are incubated. Warm temperatures favour females.But by wiggling around the egg, embryos can find the Goldilocks Zone which means they are able to shield themselves against extreme thermal conditions and produce a balanced sex ratio, according to the new study published in Current Biology journal

Ye et al/Current Biology

African elephant poaching rates have dropped by 60 per cent in six years, an international study has found. It is thought the decline could be associated with the ivory trade ban introduced in China in 2017.

Reuters

Scientists have identified a four-legged creature with webbed feet to be an ancestor of the whale. Fossils unearthed in Peru have led scientists to conclude that the enormous creatures that traverse the planets oceans today are descended from small hoofed ancestors that lived in south Asia 50 million years ago

A. Gennari

A scientist has stumbled upon a creature with a transient anus that appears only when it is needed, before vanishing completely. Dr Sidney Tamm of the Marine Biological Laboratory could not initially find any trace of an anus on the species. However, as the animal gets full, a pore opens up to dispose of waste

Steven G Johnson

Feared extinct, the Wallace's Giant bee has been spotted for the first time in nearly 40 years. An international team of conservationists spotted the bee, that is four times the size of a typical honeybee, on an expedition to a group of Indonesian Islands

Clay Bolt

Fossilised bones digested by crocodiles have revealed the existence of three new mammal species that roamed the Cayman Islands 300 years ago. The bones belonged to two large rodent species and a small shrew-like animal

New Mexico Museum of Natural History

Scientists at the University of Maryland have created a fabric that adapts to heat, expanding to allow more heat to escape the body when warm and compacting to retain more heat when cold

Faye Levine, University of Maryland

A study from the University of Tokyo has found that the tears of baby mice cause female mice to be less interested in the sexual advances of males

Getty

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued a report which projects the impact of a rise in global temperatures of 1.5 degrees Celsius and warns against a higher increase

Getty

The nobel prize for chemistry has been awarded to three chemists working with evolution. Frances Smith is being awarded the prize for her work on directing the evolution of enzymes, while Gregory Winter and George Smith take the prize for their work on phage display of peptides and antibodies

Getty/AFP

The nobel prize for physics has been awarded to three physicists working with lasers. Arthur Ashkin (L) was awarded for his "optical tweezers" which use lasers to grab particles, atoms, viruses and other living cells. Donna Strickland and Grard Mourou were jointly awarded the prize for developing chirped-pulse amplification of lasers

Reuters/AP

The Ledumahadi Mafube roamed around 200 million years ago in what is now South Africa. Recently discovered by a team of international scientists, it was the largest land animal of its time, weighing 12 tons and standing at 13 feet. In Sesotho, the South African language of the region in which the dinosaur was discovered, its name means "a giant thunderclap at dawn"

Viktor Radermacher / SWNS

Scientists have witnessed the birth of a planet for the first time ever. This spectacular image from the SPHERE instrument on ESO's Very Large Telescope is the first clear image of a planet caught in the very act of formation around the dwarf star PDS 70. The planet stands clearly out, visible as a bright point to the right of the center of the image, which is blacked out by the coronagraph mask used to block the blinding light of the central star.

ESO/A. Mller et al

Layers long thought to be dense, connective tissue are actually a series of fluid-filled compartments researchers have termed the interstitium. These compartments are found beneath the skin, as well as lining the gut, lungs, blood vessels and muscles, and join together to form a network supported by a mesh of strong, flexible proteins

Getty

Working in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, a team led by archaeologists at the University of Exeter unearthed hundreds of villages hidden in the depths of the rainforest. These excavations included evidence of fortifications and mysterious earthworks called geoglyphs

Jos Iriarte

More than one in 10 people were found to have traces of class A drugs on their fingers by scientists developing a new fingerprint-based drug test.Using sensitive analysis of the chemical composition of sweat, researchers were able to tell the difference between those who had been directly exposed to heroin and cocaine, and those who had encountered it indirectly.

Getty

The storm bigger than the Earth, has been swhirling for 350 years. The image's colours have been enhanced after it was sent back to Earth.

Pictures by: Tom Momary

It is a telling perspective. Our status as altered or denatured animals creatures who have arguably separated from the natural world is perhaps both the source of our humanity and the cause of many of our troubles. In the words of the books author:

All mans troubles arise from the fact that we do not know what we are and do not agree on what we want to be

We will probably never know the timing of our gradual separation from nature although cave paintings perhaps contain some clues. But a key recent event in our relationship with the world around us is as well documented as it was abrupt. It happened on a sunny Monday morning, at precisely 8.15am.

A new age

Only the best news in your inbox

The atomic bomb that rocked Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 was a wake-up call so loud that it still resonates in our consciousness many decades later.

The day the sun rose twice was not only a forceful demonstration of the new era that we had entered buta reminder of how paradoxically primitive we remained: differential calculus, advanced electronics and almost godlike insights into the laws of the universe helped build, well a very big stick. Modern Homo sapiens seemingly had developed the powers of gods, while keeping the psyche of a stereotypical Stone Age killer.

We were no longer fearful of nature, but of what we would do to it, and ourselves. In short, we still did not know where we came from but began panicking about where we were going. We now know a lot more about our origins but we remain unsure about what we want to be in the future or, increasingly, as the climate crisis accelerates, whether we even have one.

Arguably, the greater choices granted by our technological advances make it even more difficult to decide which of the many paths to take. This is the cost of freedom. I am not arguing against our dominion over nature nor, even as a biologist, do I feel a need to preserve the status quo. Big changes are part of our evolution. After all, oxygen was first a poison which threatened the very existence of early life, yet it is now the fuel vital to our existence.

Similarly, we may have to accept that what we do, even our unprecedented dominion, is a natural consequence of what we have evolved into, and by a process nothing less natural than natural selection itself. If artificial birth control is unnatural, so is reduced infant mortality.

I am also not convinced by the argument against genetic engineering on the basis that it is unnatural. By artificially selecting specific strains of wheat or dogs, we had been tinkering more or less blindly with genomes for centuries before the genetic revolution. Even our choice of romantic partner is a form of genetic engineering. Sex is natures way of producing new genetic combinations quickly.

Even nature, it seems, can be impatient with itself.

Changing our world

View original post here:

Have humans evolved beyond nature? - The Independent

Big Brains podcast: Why the Doomsday Clock is Closer to Apocalypse Than Ever, with Rachel Bronson – UChicago News

Since its inception following World War II,the Doomsday Clock has measured our time untilapocalypse in minutes. This year, for the first time, the clock measured our time to midnight in just seconds.Rachel Bronson is the CEO and president of the Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists, the organization that sets the clock. Even though the Clock is a metaphor, she says understanding the meaning behind it is a matter of life and death.

This year, the Bulletin cited two major factors in their decision: the threat of nuclear destruction and the ever worsening problem of climate change. But are we really closer to nuclear destruction than during the Cold War? And is there any hope that we could turn the hands of doom back on climate change?

Paul Rand:How far are wefrom the end of the world?Athousand years?Tenthousand?Or is it much closer to say, fifty years.Some of the smartest scientists in the world say were much closerthan many of us think.

AnnouncementTAPE:Today, the bulletin of the atomic scientists moves the hands of the doomsday clock. It is 100 seconds to midnight. 21:04

Paul Rand:The Doomsday Clock has been awell-known piece of popularculture sinceitsinception in the 1940s.It is a symbolic representation of how close leading scientists believe humanity is to destroying itself. And this year, it was moved closer to midnight than ever been before

AnnouncementTape:What we called the new abnormal last year, adismal state of affairs in the realms of nuclear security and climate change,now has become an apparently enduring, disturbing reality in which things are not getting better.

Paul Rand:Nuclear security and climate change,scientists say these are thebiggestthreats to civilizationcombined with an era of alternative facts and misinformation.

AnnouncementTape:The continued use in 2019 of untruths, exaggerations and misrepresentations by world leaders to what they deem fake news, has made worse an already dangerous situation.

Paul Rand:According toThe Bulletin ofTheAtomic Scientist,the organization that sets the clock,catastrophe is upon us.

Rachel Bronson:So my organization looks at man-made threats to our existence.

Paul Rand:Thats Rachel Bronson, the President and CEO of the Bulletin ofTheAtomic Scientist which is housed at the University of Chicago. She saysthat whilethe clockmay just be a metaphor,understanding the thinking behind that metaphor isa matter of life and deathfor everyone.

Rachel Bronson:Weare fast moving into a period where all the rules certainly on nuclear issues, but in climate as well, and broader disruptive tech are either falling away or in the case of disruptive tech not really even yet created.And it's very reminiscent to 1953 in many ways: a global architecture that doesn't exist in terms of cooperation between countries, lack of trust between countries at a moment where the issues are compounding each other.

Paul Rand:From the University of Chicago, this is Big Brains,a podcast about pioneering research and pivotal breakthroughs reshaping our world.Today,how we got to 100 seconds to midnight. What the doomsday clock means, and what it would take to move it back. Im your host, Paul Rand.

Paul Rand:Since its inception, The Doomsday Clock hassymbolicallymeasured our time till certain destruction in minutes. This year,for the first time,the measurement was made in seconds.

Rachel Bronson:The closest it had been to midnight was 2 minutes to midnight, where we moved it in 2018, and we held it there in 2019. And it was the closest it had been to midnight since 1953 when it was also two minutes to midnight. And it's when the U.S. and the Soviets.

Paul Rand:The Cold War

Rachel Bronson:That's right. And right in the beginnings of the Cold War. So, when the U.S. and the Soviets had exploded hydrogen bombs. And we've been slowly moving the clock closer to midnight.

Paul Rand:This year it moved 20 seconds closer to midnight. With the fear of complete annihilation on the line, you might have the same question I had: why 20 seconds closer exactly? Why not 10, or 30? What does this time really mean?

Rachel Bronson:So why 20 seconds? It's a really great question. So what the Doomsday Clock is set by the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. And it's a judgment. There is not some computer somewhere where we feed all of these different facts in and a time pops up. The clock is a metaphor. And we answer the question: are we safer or at greater risk this year compared to last year, and this year compared to all the years we've set it, is humanity safer, or at greater risk? And what time best conveys the message that we're trying to get out there. And that 20 seconds, we really went back and forth. If we moved it 10 seconds, well, it seemed more important. So it's really a judgment. And that's where they got to this sense of being twenty seconds closer.

Paul Rand:You know, it's interesting, as I think through potential analogies on this, we're not all that far off from the Super Bowl this year. And, you know, when you get in-between the one-yard line, you almost assume it's a fait accompli that you're going to get into the in zone, right. Here we are pretty darn close. If I applied the same analogy, you'd just assume you're that close, tt doesn't take much to push it over. Is that how you guys think about this?

Rachel Bronson:Yeah, and the analogy is a really good one for that reason and another one.Itsboth on where we are on the one-yard line. But the other analogy that's appropriate, I think, is were within the two-minute warning. Any football fan knows there's one game that's played up until the two-minute warning, especially when you're in the fourth quarter. Everything changes, the intensity changes, the play calling changes, and a lot happens in that two minutes.We're kind of in that two-minute warning, which is this is just a different game where we are now. And it really requires our attention. And there is a moment where we can change the course of history, and that's not often true with these kinds of issues.

Paul Rand:So, if this isthe end game, what does it look like? How will we know when weve crossed the line into midnight?

Rachel Bronson:So, midnight was really easy to define when it was limited to nuclear issues. In truth, midnight was an exchange of nuclear weapons.And that's what drove the creation of the clock. It was really going to be the end of humanity as we knew it. That's very easy when you're talking about a nuclear exchange, minutes, it's all over.Wevebeen really lucky that there hasn't been a strategic exchange. There have been so many near misses.

JFK Tape:This government has maintained the closest surveillance of the Soviet military buildup on the island of Cuba. The purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere.

Rachel Bronson:So many accidents.

CBS News Tape:A newly disclosed document reviles a US hydrogen bomb almost dedicated near Goldsborough North Caroline back in 1961.

Democracy Now Tape:The so-called Damascus accident involved a titan two intercontinental ballistic missile mishap at a launch complex outside Damascus Arkansas.

Rachel Bronson:But we have been really lucky and we're now moving in the wrong direction.

Paul Rand:To people who grew up after the constant warnings and dread of the Cold War, the threat of nuclear war may seem benign. An ever-present issue, but not pressing or escalating. Are we really closer to nuclear war today, even closer than during the Cold War?

Rachel Bronson:A few days ago, but within the week, the U.S. deployed its first low yield nuclear weapon in a long time on to a nuclear powered submarine that also has other strategic weapons.

Democracy Now Tape:On Capitol Hill House Armed Services Committee Chairman, Adam Smith, said this destabilizing deployment further increases the potential for miscalculation during a crisis.

Rachel Bronson:And when I say low yield, and this is important because youll see this from time to time in the paper, it can mean as big as a Hiroshima, Nagasaki like bomb or a half as much. It is still multiple times the explosive force of the biggest bomb we have in our arsenal. And we've tended to try to walk away from these kinds of weapons because they have the risk of being felt to be usable.

Democracy Now Tape:Russian deputy foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov responded by saying, This reflects the fact that the United States is actually lowering the nuclear threshold and that theyre conceding the possibility of them waging a limited nuclear war and winning this war. This is extremely alarming he said.

Rachel Bronson:So we've just deployed this weapon within the week. A year from yesterday, so just slightly less than a year, the last remaining arms control agreement, New START, that exists between the US and the Russians will expire. The Russians want to extend it. The United States has shown no interest in extending it. Many of us are calling for an extension. And so, the last remaining arms control agreement that helps us verify what the Russians have, helps with the transparency and understanding what their forces are, all that that goes out the window. It has caps on what we can produce, that goes out the window. So, we're losing our arms control architecture. We're losing the transparency. We're deploying new weapons in the United States. Our Nuclear Posture Review, actually, widens the issues to which we would respond could respond with a nuclear response. So, there is so much changing

Paul Rand:Basically, the infrastructure we put in place to protect us from a nuclear war is crumbling. Just in the past year, the trump administration has ended several major arms control deals, it pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, is threatening to withdraw from The Open Skies Treaty, negotiations with North Korea have stalled and the New START Treaty with Russia is set to expire.

Rachel Bronson:And we've just authorized basically one point three trillion dollars over 30 years to refurbish and refresh and renew in some ways our nuclear arsenal. Every major nuclear power is operating and making decisions as if the use of nuclear weapons is easier or more likely. And so this is a moment where we can actually change that course, because, in 10 years, these are all going to be set in stone. And that's why, going back to our Doomsday Clock on the nuclear side, there's a belief that it's like we're in 1953 again.

Paul Rand:As if nuclear apocalypse wasnt enough, when Bulletin scientist made their announcement in January, they cited another major global threat in their reasoning. Thats after the break.

(Break)

Paul Rand:The mandate of the Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists is to track global threats that could lead to humanitys ultimate destruction. In the recent decade, that mandate has pushed them to move beyond just nuclear war to focus on another growing threat.

Announcement Tape:To test the limits of earths habitable temperature is madness. Its a madness akin to the nuclear madness that is again threatening the world.

Paul Rand:That threat isclimate change.

Announcement Tape:Despite these devastating warnings, and although some governments are echoing many scientists use of the term climate emergency, their policies are hardly commensurate to an emergency. A UN report was released underscoring what was already known, the pledges to curb greenhouse gases that governments committed to pursue by 2030 under the Paris climate agreementthey would need to be scaled up eight-fold to be consistent with the agreed aiming of keeping warming well below two degrees.

Rachel Bronson:We added climate to the clock in 2007. But what does midnight for climate look like? It's much harder to have a kind of before and after midnight clear sense of what that means. That being said, this metaphor is important because for the climate, folks, there are tipping points that you can't come back from. And you won't feel those effects until years out, but it'll be very difficult if even possible to recover from. And that sense of before and after for the climate experts, they still talk in those terms. It's just that we won't feel that for some decades.

Paul Rand:Its particularly interesting that theres actually a point where nuclear power and climate change meet, with important implications for both issues.

Rachel Bronson:Nuclear power right now is so desperately needed in terms of energy in this carbon constrained environment that we're in, right. We desperately need nuclear power because it doesn't emit carbon. But at the same time, we've been unable to fully manage its risks. The public doesn't trust it. We're worried about terrorism, we're worried about accidents, we're worried about meltdowns. Well, if we could manage those risks, we'd have this really unhindered energy source. But we are worried about those risks. And so we're not using nuclear power to its fullest advantage, which is exactly the kinds of issues that we are really interested in, because good policy should be able to help us get there. We just haven't been able to develop the political architecture or apparatus to make us feel safe. What's fascinating is that Sweden has found ways to kind of bury their nuclear waste, whereas here in the United States, we still can't figure out what to do with our nuclear power plants and what to do with their waste.Andwe're shutting down nuclear power plants that could be operating because they're not cost effective right now, but they're also not emitting carbon. So right now, we are in a fight to keep open nuclear power plants that have been decently regulated, safe in the United States just for the sake of because we don't like them. And it's so disruptive to our energy transformation, we need a bridge to all these renewables, and we need to find ways to power our economy at a moment where battery storage doesn't allow us to fully harness the power of other renewables. I do worry about that. I do worry about when there's not kind of a strategic view on how are we going to get to this energy transformation that we need. Because nobody thinks, at the moment, that solar and wind alone is going to do it.

Paul Rand:Are there other potential categories are a bit beyond nuclear war and climate change that you could see creeping into this?

Rachel Bronson:Yeah, absolutely.Around 2007 when climate gets introduced into the Clock,we were also really focused on bio-threats and the Board was really grappling with

Paul Rand:And what do you mean bio-threats

Rachel Bronson:Pandemics. So, you know, we're talking about coronavirus right now. But for my organization, The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists, they're really interested in can these be created in labs? And what if they're used as weapons to wipe out humanity? Should we be thinking of bio-threats in that way? The experts are saying, oh, I don't know that we have this under control anymore. The technology changed so quickly. We're actually concerned about where this is going, how this might be used. Like, things like genetic engineering. Right. If we think about threats to our existence, like what does it mean to be human, and what are the threats to humanity, the advancements in CRISPR and genetic engineering, the future of artificial intelligence? All of these are really kind of fascinating to us. And this goes back to our founders, this is actually about political action. Science is moving really quickly and that's going to bring huge benefits, but only if we can manage its risks.

Paul Rand:The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists was established after World War II as a way to not only warn the public about these risks, but also to offer solutions and push politicians to enact them. That history and those solutions, after the break.

(Break)

Rachel Bronson:Thescientists who started the Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists, many of them were involved in the Manhattan Project. They literally created the atomic weapons that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

VINTAGE TAPE:Thats the atomic bomb exploding at Nagasaki. The film was taken in a B29 many miles away. All who see this picture can judge for yourselves the extent to of the menace to civilization of this new weapon.

Rachel Bronson:And they were very, very quick to realize where the technology was going. Right. And they were also very engaged politically.

Vintage Tape:Civilized people can only demand that such power be used not toward their obliteration, but to the benefit of mankind.

Rachel Bronson:So the bulletin was founded in 1945 and it was literally a six page black and white bulletin that we distributed. In 1947, it's the time of Time magazine and Life magazine and we've got this great subscriber base, we decide we want to turn our bulletin into a magazine. We need a cover. So the first cover of the first magazine is the Doomsday Clock. Thats where it was created, and it was created to be a great cover. It was created by the wife of a Manhattan Project scientist.She understood the urgency he felt, and his colleagues felt about this technology they had created. And she was trying to figure out what would convey that urgency, so she creates a clock and she sets it at seven minutes to midnight. So that's our starting point. Seven minutes to midnight. There's an interview where she says because it looked good to her eye, her design eye, which it does. But also because that design conveys both the urgency that they feel but hope that we can turn it back right. And it was also I mean, it was also it was a cheap design to recreate. We were like a bunch of scientists at the University Chicago. We didnt have a lot of money or anything. So this clock gets it gets copied on each edition just because all she did was change the color and her daughters would pick what color they like.But the in nineteen forty-nine, the editor moved the clock forward and that's when the Soviets had tested their first atomic bomb.

Vintage Tape:President Truman dramatic announcement that Russia has created an atomic explosion sends reports racing for Flushing Meadow where Russias Vishinsky arrives to address the United Nations.

Rachel Bronson:So suddenly this static image becomes dynamic.Andsomeone had asked the original founder of the bulletin like what's the purpose of the bulletin? And he gives three reasons. One, it was to engage the public on nuclear energy. The second, which is so interesting to me, was to get scientists to engage in the politics of the day and talk to each other about these issues. Even today, there's this issue, do the experts belong in the ivory tower or should they come out and engage? And so, the bulletin was on record very early as saying we want the scientists to engage in these kind of policy discussions. And then the third issue, which is the one that animates me the most, is to manage Pandora's box of modern science. So that's the charge of the bulletin.

Paul Rand:So how has that charge been going? Are there any trends the Bulletin has seen in the last year to suggest that maybe, in the future, we could turn the hands of the clock backward, away from midnight?

Rachel Bronson:We do point out a bright spot and that's in the climate space.Andour experts really talked about this, about, you know, is this something we would move the clock away from midnight? On the climate space, what the what our experts recognized was there is a growing global awareness that that we are changing our climate and there's things that we can and need to do. Especially among the youth, the kind of youth movements that are embracing climate

CBS News:Groups of students across America say they will skip class tomorrow for the first national school strike over climate change.

Rachel Bronson:Is leading to, not enough political action, but you're seeing it be introduced into the public sphere.

Greta Thunberg Tape:The young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you and if you choose to fail us, I say we will never forgive you.

Rachel Bronson:We believe that that kind of on the street marching, sitting outside parliaments and missing school to do so, the kinds of large numbers that we're seeing who are owning this issue and putting pressure on their leaders to try to engage, is very promising. So all that's to say is public engagement still really matters. And so, in the climate space, that kind of awareness of the role and power that they have, even though it seems very out of reach, is actually very powerful.Wedlove to see the United States reengage in the Paris agreements around climate. We'd love to see the U.S. sitting down with the Russians and if not extending New START, which we'd love to see them extend just to buy us some breathing room but then what substitutes for these arms control agreements that have fallen away. The only thing that's going to move the politicians is if we all tell them that we care about these issues.

Paul Rand:You know its interesting that you mentioned the politicians because here we are moving into election season. And if you were going to sit down and say to the presidential candidates, I need answers on these topics, and we really think that for the American public to make a determination on who should be president, you need to answer these questions. What questions would you put on that list?

Rachel Bronson:Ask them who their science adviser would be. So, we don't have a science visor anymore in the United States.

Paul Rand:Who was our last science advisor?

Rachel Bronson:So our last science advisor was John Holdren. He's at Harvard now. But if you look at the arms control agreements and issues on climate, we've always relied on our key advisers with deep scientific knowledge not to dictate the direction we go, these are political problems, but to inform them.And so I think it's absolutely fair to ask the candidates, well, who are you considering to be your science adviser, your cabinet in general, but I'd be very interested ot know who theyre thinking of.

Paul Rand:What else would you want to know? So thats a key question, if you were to say I need to know positions on x, y and z.

Rachel Bronson:So this is going to be a really hard one for them to answer. And you could see this in the Democratic debates, but we've walked away for from the Iran deal. It's unlikely that we can get it back at this point. So how do you start again with Iran? Iran is clearly moving now towards rethinking starting up their nuclear program. So what does that look like?

Paul Rand:What about on climate change?

Rachel Bronson:On climate change how would you direct the American government and the private sector to be investing in terms of new technologies needed around climate change?Notjust do you believe in climate change, but what are what are you going to do? What's your first few days? What's your plan? How are we going to invest? The United States, this is true globally, but the United States is facing a massive energy transformation that's going to be huge winners and losers. How do we do this so we can move forward as a country without just, we're not going to do it by ripping up all of our infrastructure. So how are we going to get there? My favorite question because I find it a fascinating question, is how do you think about nuclear power? For Democrats, this is really hard. The Democratic base is not pro nuclear power for the most part. Certainly, on the left, it's just viewed as really evil. Well it's hard for me to see how you get a true energy transformation without nuclear power. So asking the candidates how they're going to get there is something that I find really fascinating. I'd love to hear more of. And then for Republicans, we're not having this discussion, but they are a lot more comfortable with nuclear power. But they're also comfortable with drill, baby, drill. So, we're not moving forward with a kind of coal future with the way it's currently configured. And we do need to find ways to keep some of the carbon in the ground. So how are they going to do it on their side? That's a conversation they're not having. But if they could have that conversation, it's a really important conversation to have about what's our carbon future.

Paul Rand:Isthere ever a time that you could see that you could retire the clock? Or is it we that it will never be retired because the genie is out of the bottle?

Rachel Bronson:Well, after the Cold War in 1991, we had moved it back to 17 minutes to midnight, and we would have loved to have kept moving it back up further. And so I think these issues are like crime or poverty. It never goes away. But it can be less horrific, or more horrific. And so to that, there's probably always going to be a clock. But it wouldn't be that interesting if we were moving it from 17 minutes to 19 minutes, to 20 minutes, to 25. And maybe there's a way we can, you know, that would be really exciting. That is just getting better and better. So, I shouldn't say it wouldn't be as exciting. Maybe it would be. We just have we haven't been there. So, 20 20 is a fascinating year as the fiftieth anniversary of Earth Day. It's the fiftieth anniversary of the nonproliferation treaty, which underpins all treaties, is the seventy fifth anniversary of the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The seventy fifth anniversary of the U.N. is the seventy fifth anniversary of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, because we're responding to those global issues. And so, we've been through this before and we have this opportunity to chart a different kind of history for the next 75 years. And we're in a pretty precarious place.

Read the original post:

Big Brains podcast: Why the Doomsday Clock is Closer to Apocalypse Than Ever, with Rachel Bronson - UChicago News

In small study, hints of promise for ‘natural killer’ cell therapy – BioPharma Dive

A new type of cancer cell therapy could avoid some of the serious side effects commonly associated with CAR-T treatments, and possibly offer an easier path to developing "off-the-shelf" treatments, suggest findings from a small study led by researchers at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas.

The results, which were published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, are from just 11 patients. Other factors, such as the use of postremission therapy, limit what conclusions can be drawn about the researchers' approach, which relies on "natural killer" cells rather than the T cells used in cellular drugs like Novartis' Kymriah.

Still, the data offer a glimpse into why Japanese drugmaker Takedaagreed last November to license the CAR NK cell therapy from MD Anderson, part of the company's broader push into cell and gene treatments. Some of the data published Wednesday was previously disclosed by the pharma.

The success of cancer immunotherapy, of which CAR-T treatments are a major part, has put T cells at the center of a now decade-long research revival in oncology.

But T cells are only one component of the body's immune system, and scientists in academia and in biotech are exploring whether other cellular defenders could be similarly recruited.

Researchers at MD Anderson have turned to natural killer cells, which by design recognize and attack cancers or other invaders. Such cells have been tested as an anti-cancer treatment before,but using genetic engineering to improve their tumor-killing properties, which the MD Anderson team has done, is a newer innovation.

"To my knowledge, this is the largest body of evidence on the use of CAR NK cells in patients with cancer," said Katayoun Rezvani, the study's corresponding author and a professor of stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at MD Anderson, in an interview.

Using NK cells derived from cord blood, Rezvani and her colleagues engineered the cells to express a receptor for a protein called CD19, commonly found on the surface of B-cell malignancies like leukemia and lymphoma. They also added a gene for interleukin-15 to boost the expansion and persistence of the infused NK cells, which without engineering would typically disappear after about two weeks.

While the CAR-T treatments Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) and Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) also target CD19, they are made from a patient's own T cells, which are extracted and then engineered outside the body. The personalized process is time-consuming and laborious, hampering the commercial uptake of both Kymriahand Yescarta.

By using cord blood, Rezvani and her team are pursuing an allogeneic, or "off-the-shelf," approach to cell treatment something many consider to be the next step for the field.

Initial data look promising. Seven of the 11 treated patients, who had either chronic lymphocytic leukemia or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, responded to treatment, with the cancers of three going into remission.Most notably, none experienced cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity, two severe side effects that commonly occur in patients treated with CAR-T therapy.

"The lack of toxicity is very exciting here," wrote Stephan Grupp, an oncologist at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a leader in the CAR-T field, in comments emailed to BioPharma Dive. He was not involved with the MD Anderson study.

"We really think that this is something inherent to the biology of the natural killer cells, which means their profile of toxicity is different than that of T cells,"Rezvanisaid.

Study participants did have blood toxicities that researchers associated with the chemotherapy given prior to infusion of the CAR NK cells.

While positive, the results are limited by several factors which make drawing broader conclusions about the ultimate potential of the treatment difficult.

Five of the seven responding patients received postremission treatment, including stem cell transplants, Rituxan (rituximab) and Revlimid (lenalidomide), so researchers did not assess the duration of response to CAR NK therapy.

Additionally, a fresh CAR NK cell product was manufactured for each patient in this study, rather than using the cord blood to produce multiple therapies as would be envisioned for a true off-the-shelf product.

"I think the potential for this approach to be 'off-the-shelf' is also a little speculative at this time," wrote Grupp.

"We would need to see multiple patients treated from the same expanded product with no HLAmatching to know if 'off-the-shelf' is going to be part of the story here," he added, referring to the process by which patients are matched to donor cells.

If cord blood-derived CAR NK cells were able to be given without matching to a patient's HLA genotype, any resulting treatment could be used more widely. Nine patients were partially matched in the MD Anderson study, while the last two were treated without consideration of HLA type.

The MD Anderson researchers plan to continue enrolling patients in the study and are working with Takeda to design a larger, multi-center trial.

The drugmaker is planning to advance the treatment, which it licensed and now calls TAK-007, into pivotal studies in two types of lymphoma and CLL by 2021, with a potential filing for approval in 2023.

"Targeting CD19 was a proof of concept and now that we've demonstrated that this CAR NK approach can work and is safe we want to use this platform to target other types of cancers," said Rezvani, indicating interest in multiple myeloma and acute myeloid leukemia.

Excerpt from:

In small study, hints of promise for 'natural killer' cell therapy - BioPharma Dive

Have humans evolved beyond nature and do we even need it? – The Conversation UK

Our society has evolved so much, can we still say that we are part of Nature? If not, should we worry and what should we do about it? Poppy, 21, Warwick.

Such is the extent of our dominion on Earth, that the answer to questions around whether we are still part of nature and whether we even need some of it rely on an understanding of what we want as Homo sapiens. And to know what we want, we need to grasp what we are.

It is a huge question but they are the best. And as a biologist, here is my humble suggestion to address it, and a personal conclusion. You may have a different one, but what matters is that we reflect on it.

Perhaps the best place to start is to consider what makes us human in the first place, which is not as obvious as it may seem.

This article is part of Lifes Big QuestionsThe Conversations new series, co-published with BBC Future, seeks to answer our readers nagging questions about life, love, death and the universe. We work with professional researchers who have dedicated their lives to uncovering new perspectives on the questions that shape our lives.

Many years ago, a novel written by Vercors called Les Animaux dnaturs (Denatured Animals) told the story of a group of primitive hominids, the Tropis, found in an unexplored jungle in New Guinea, who seem to constitute a missing link.

However, the prospect that this fictional group may be used as slave labour by an entrepreneurial businessman named Vancruysen forces society to decide whether the Tropis are simply sophisticated animals or whether they should be given human rights. And herein lies the difficulty.

Human status had hitherto seemed so obvious that the book describes how it is soon discovered that there is no definition of what a human actually is. Certainly, the string of experts consulted anthropologists, primatologists, psychologists, lawyers and clergymen could not agree. Perhaps prophetically, it is a layperson who suggested a possible way forward.

She asked whether some of the hominids habits could be described as the early signs of a spiritual or religious mind. In short, were there signs that, like us, the Tropis were no longer at one with nature, but had separated from it, and were now looking at it from the outside with some fear.

It is a telling perspective. Our status as altered or denatured animals creatures who have arguably separated from the natural world is perhaps both the source of our humanity and the cause of many of our troubles. In the words of the books author:

All mans troubles arise from the fact that we do not know what we are and do not agree on what we want to be.

We will probably never know the timing of our gradual separation from nature although cave paintings perhaps contain some clues. But a key recent event in our relationship with the world around us is as well documented as it was abrupt. It happened on a sunny Monday morning, at 8.15am precisely.

The atomic bomb that rocked Hiroshima on August 6 1945, was a wake-up call so loud that it still resonates in our consciousness many decades later.

The day the sun rose twice was not only a forceful demonstration of the new era that we had entered, it was a reminder of how paradoxically primitive we remained: differential calculus, advanced electronics and almost godlike insights into the laws of the universe helped build, well a very big stick. Modern Homo sapiens seemingly had developed the powers of gods, while keeping the psyche of a stereotypical Stone Age killer.

We were no longer fearful of nature, but of what we would do to it, and ourselves. In short, we still did not know where we came from, but began panicking about where we were going.

We now know a lot more about our origins but we remain unsure about what we want to be in the future or, increasingly, as the climate crisis accelerates, whether we even have one.

Arguably, the greater choices granted by our technological advances make it even more difficult to decide which of the many paths to take. This is the cost of freedom.

I am not arguing against our dominion over nature nor, even as a biologist, do I feel a need to preserve the status quo. Big changes are part of our evolution. After all, oxygen was first a poison which threatened the very existence of early life, yet it is now the fuel vital to our existence.

Similarly, we may have to accept that what we do, even our unprecedented dominion, is a natural consequence of what we have evolved into, and by a process nothing less natural than natural selection itself. If artificial birth control is unnatural, so is reduced infant mortality.

I am also not convinced by the argument against genetic engineering on the basis that it is unnatural. By artificially selecting specific strains of wheat or dogs, we had been tinkering more or less blindly with genomes for centuries before the genetic revolution. Even our choice of romantic partner is a form of genetic engineering. Sex is natures way of producing new genetic combinations quickly.

Even nature, it seems, can be impatient with itself.

Advances in genomics, however, have opened the door to another key turning point. Perhaps we can avoid blowing up the world, and instead change it and ourselves slowly, perhaps beyond recognition.

The development of genetically modified crops in the 1980s quickly moved from early aspirations to improve the taste of food to a more efficient way of destroying undesirable weeds or pests.

In what some saw as the genetic equivalent of the atomic bomb, our early forays into a new technology became once again largely about killing, coupled with worries about contamination. Not that everything was rosy before that. Artificial selection, intensive farming and our exploding population growth were long destroying species quicker than we could record them.

The increasing silent springs of the 1950s and 60s caused by the destruction of farmland birds and, consequently, their song was only the tip of a deeper and more sinister iceberg. There is, in principle, nothing unnatural about extinction, which has been a recurring pattern (of sometimes massive proportions) in the evolution of our planet long before we came on the scene. But is it really what we want?

The arguments for maintaining biodiversity are usually based on survival, economics or ethics. In addition to preserving obvious key environments essential to our ecosystem and global survival, the economic argument highlights the possibility that a hitherto insignificant lichen, bacteria or reptile might hold the key to the cure of a future disease. We simply cannot afford to destroy what we do not know.

But attaching an economic value to life makes it subject to the fluctuation of markets. It is reasonable to expect that, in time, most biological solutions will be able to be synthesised, and as the market worth of many lifeforms falls, we need to scrutinise the significance of the ethical argument. Do we need nature because of its inherent value?

Perhaps the answer may come from peering over the horizon. It is somewhat of an irony that as the third millennium coincided with decrypting the human genome, perhaps the start of the fourth may be about whether it has become redundant.

Just as genetic modification may one day lead to the end of Homo sapiens naturalis (that is, humans untouched by genetic engineering), we may one day wave goodbye to the last specimen of Homo sapiens genetica. That is the last fully genetically based human living in a world increasingly less burdened by our biological form minds in a machine.

If the essence of a human, including our memories, desires and values, is somehow reflected in the pattern of the delicate neuronal connections of our brain (and why should it not?) our minds may also one day be changeable like never before.

And this brings us to the essential question that surely we must ask ourselves now: if, or rather when, we have the power to change anything, what would we not change?

After all, we may be able to transform ourselves into more rational, more efficient and stronger individuals. We may venture out further, have greater dominion over greater areas of space, and inject enough insight to bridge the gap between the issues brought about by our cultural evolution and the abilities of a brain evolved to deal with much simpler problems. We might even decide to move into a bodiless intelligence: in the end, even the pleasures of the body are located in the brain.

And then what? When the secrets of the universe are no longer hidden, what makes it worth being part of it? Where is the fun?

Gossip and sex, of course! some might say. And in effect, I would agree (although I might put it differently), as it conveys to me the fundamental need that we have to reach out and connect with others. I believe that the attributes that define our worth in this vast and changing universe are simple: empathy and love. Not power or technology, which occupy so many of our thoughts but which are merely (almost boringly) related to the age of a civilisation.

Like many a traveller, Homo sapiens may need a goal. But from the strengths that come with attaining it, one realises that ones worth (whether as an individual or a species) ultimately lies elsewhere. So I believe that the extent of our ability for empathy and love will be the yardstick by which our civilisation is judged. It may well be an important benchmark by which we will judge other civilisations that we may encounter, or indeed be judged by them.

There is something of true wonder at the basis of it all. The fact that chemicals can arise from the austere confines of an ancient molecular soup, and through the cold laws of evolution, combine into organisms that care for other lifeforms (that is, other bags of chemicals) is the true miracle.

Some ancients believed that God made us in his image. Perhaps they were right in a sense, as empathy and love are truly godlike features, at least among the benevolent gods.

Cherish those traits and use them now, Poppy, as they hold the solution to our ethical dilemma. It is those very attributes that should compel us to improve the wellbeing of our fellow humans without lowering the condition of what surrounds us.

Anything less will pervert (our) nature.

To get all of lifes big answers, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value evidence-based news by subscribing to our newsletter. You can send us your big questions by email at bigquestions@theconversation.com and well try to get a researcher or expert on the case.

More Lifes Big Questions:

Read more here:

Have humans evolved beyond nature and do we even need it? - The Conversation UK

The Future Is Here, and Uncomfortably Close to Home – The New York Times

The power of speculative fiction often lies in its ability to make us look at the world around us with fresh eyes. Mundane acts have a way of becoming extraordinarily beautiful when we are faced with the prospect of their vanishing. Here, baseball becomes a site of resistance, an emblem of humanity, an antidote to the automation and artificial intelligence that controls every other aspect of life in AutoAmerica. After all, what would be the point of automating such a thing as nine human players throwing and catching balls to the best of their physical abilities? What significance could there possibly be in a robot pitching a perfect game? We are here, one coach says late in the novel, because we believe anything can happen in a ballgame. You can get a guy and all his stats but give him a stick to swing, and you still dont know what will happen. Its a marvelously refreshing concept in a world that is otherwise dominated by algorithms.

The Resisters is a book that grows directly out of the soil of our current political moment, and much of the books unsettling pleasure lies in Jens ingenious extrapolation (or, in some cases, redescription) of contemporary problems. The book brims with EnforceBots (police robots), ThoughtCommand (next-level voice command), PermaDerms (permanent skin whitening) and SmartGuns. AutoAmerica is a nation shaped by policies like ShipEmBack, a mass deportation of immigrants, and the One Chance Policy, wherein Surplus families are permitted only one pregnancy, no matter the outcome.

Jen has such a gifted ear for the manipulative languages of tech, marketing and government that at times the sheer abundance of clever details threatens to overwhelm the stories of her characters. But perhaps this overabundance is part of the novels method, a way of swallowing the characters and the reader into AutoAmericas reality. The Resisters is aimed at many catastrophes at once: surveillance technology, government overreach, authoritarianism, automation, economic inequality, racism, sexual assault and the institutional mishandling of it, geopolitical conflict and climate change.

The central thread of the book, though, or perhaps the most lingering, is its obsession with the threats of artificial intelligence. The Resisters is full of characters who voluntarily hand over their humanity by agreeing to GenetImprovement or by mindlessly following the orders of Aunt Nettie. In one unnerving section, the narrator recounts the incremental steps that led to this all-encompassing control first, he let Aunt Nettie keep his calendar, then respond to emails on his behalf. (The Resisters might make you stop and actually read your user agreements.)

In the most devastating moment of this ultimately quite tender novel, one characters mind is surgically merged against her will with Aunt Nettie, so that the line between human and internet is no longer clear, even to herself. Crucially, it is other human beings who carry out this dreadful procedure, which suggests that even in a dystopian world dominated by artificial intelligence, people are still the ones who carry out the most atrocious acts.

We live in a moment when The Handmaids Tale is a hit television show, and Kellyanne Conways use of the term alternative facts reminded so many readers of the double talk in George Orwells classic 1984 that the novel hit the best-seller list seven decades after its original publication. The public seems to feel that the worst speculative fictions are coming true. Of course, Margaret Atwood would contend that The Handmaids Tale was true even as it was written. Perhaps Gish Jen could make a similar argument about much of The Resisters. The hope she offers, though, lies in the books title, and in the heroism of its family of Bartlebys, who resist both the lure of conveniences and the threats of the powerful, with one phrase: I would prefer not to.

Read more:

The Future Is Here, and Uncomfortably Close to Home - The New York Times

Competing in the Global Infectious Disease Testing Market 2019 – Forecasts for 100 Tests – ResearchAndMarkets.com – Business Wire

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "Competing in the Global Infectious Disease Testing Market: Supplier Shares, Segment Forecasts for 100 Tests, Growth Opportunities" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The report contains 1,954 pages, 824 tables and provides market segmentation analysis of over 100 diseases and viruses in seven countries, assessment of emerging technologies, review of current instrumentation, as well as strategic profiles of leading suppliers and recent market entrants with innovative technologies and products.

Rationale

This comprehensive seven-country report is designed to assist diagnostics industry executives, as well as companies planning to diversify into the dynamic and rapidly expanding microbiology testing market, in evaluating emerging opportunities and developing effective business strategies.

The microbiology testing market is one of the most rapidly growing segments of the in vitro diagnostics industry, and the greatest challenge facing suppliers. Among the main driving forces is continuing spread of AIDS, which remains the world's major health threat and a key factor contributing to the rise of opportunistic infections; threat of bioterrorism; advances in molecular diagnostic technologies; and wider availability of immunosuppressive drugs.

Although for some infections the etiology is still a mystery, while for others the causative microorganisms are present in minute concentrations long before the occurrence of first clinical symptoms, recent advances in genetic engineering and detection technologies are creating exciting opportunities for highly sensitive, specific and cost-effective products.

Geographic Coverage

Market Segmentation Analysis

Current and Emerging Products

Technology Review

Competitive Assessments

Worldwide Market Overview

Opportunities and Strategic Recommendations

Companies Mentioned

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/cajv4i

Read more:

Competing in the Global Infectious Disease Testing Market 2019 - Forecasts for 100 Tests - ResearchAndMarkets.com - Business Wire

Sonoma Biotherapeutics launches with $40 million in Series A funding to advance regulatory T cell therapy in autoimmune and degenerative diseases -…

Company founded by four pioneers of Treg cell biology and cell therapy and financed by a syndicate of leading biotech investors

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. and SEATTLE, Feb. 6, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Sonoma Biotherapeutics, a privately held company developing regulatory T cell (Treg) therapies for autoimmune and degenerative diseases, launched today in South San Francisco, CA and Seattle, WA with $40 million in its Series A financing. Sonoma brings together next-generation research, development and manufacturing capabilities in cell therapy and genetic engineering with an accomplished team of executives, scientists, board members and investors with extensive experience in the fields of cell therapy and drug discovery.

"With this team and our assembled expertise and technologies, we are in an ideal position to move adoptive cell therapy beyond cancer, to establish safe, effective and long-lasting treatments for a range of conditions where current drugs and biologics are simply not good enough," said founder and CEO Jeffrey Bluestone, PhD. "As the immune system's master regulators of protecting the body against self-destruction, Treg cell therapy is perhaps the ideal means to shut down unwanted immune reactions and provide meaningful treatment for patients."

The financing involves an investor syndicate that includes Lyell Immunopharma, ARCH Venture Partners, Milky Way Ventures and 8VC. "Treg therapies have the potential to transform the treatment of autoimmune and degenerative diseases," said Robert Nelsen, managing partner and co-founder of ARCH Ventures Partners. "Sonoma Biotherapeutics has assembled the team and capabilities required to make this vision a reality for patients and their families."

The goal of Treg therapy is to restore a state of self-tolerance by halting harmful inflammatory responses in autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and multiple sclerosis, along with degenerative diseases including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Alzheimer's. Over 50 million Americans currently live with an autoimmune disease, and millions more with some form of degenerative diseases. For many, existing therapies are ineffective at controlling their disease.

Tregs have a clear role in many of these conditions. These cells' natural ability to migrate to inflamed tissues and control harmful immune responses make them ideal for treating a range of conditions. In addition, the ability to engineer Treg cells to target specific disease-causing antigens reduces the potential for unwanted systemic effects. The role of Tregs in tissue maintenance and repair offers the potential for effective, durable and restorative treatments.

Sonoma Biotherapeutics is co-founded by four of the foundational scientists in the Treg field:

Collectively, the founding team brings expertise and proprietary methodologies across the Treg drug discovery and development process, including selection, manipulation, editing, regulation and translation for clinical use. Together, Drs. Bluestone and Tang have pioneered adoptive Treg cell therapy in some of its first clinical uses in type 1 diabetes, lupus and organ transplantation. Drs. Rudensky and Ramsdell co-discovered FOXP3, a critical transcription factor for Treg development and function, and in 2017 were awarded the Crafoord Prize by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for their landmark studies. They are complemented by an experienced senior management team and seasoned board of directors.

"The Sonoma Biotherapeutics leadership are responsible for a significant portion of our understanding of the nature of Treg cells, their role in disease and their potential for use as a cell therapy," said Dr. Rick Klausner, CEO of Lyell Immunopharma and newly appointed Chair of the Sonoma Biotherapeutics Board of Directors. "Perhaps more importantly, they understand the requirements of a successful cell therapeutic and the corresponding challenges in defining the pathway to market. We look forward to a strong partnership between Lyell and Sonoma Biotherapeutics."

In this regard, Sonoma Biotherapeutics has entered into a strategic partnership with Lyell that provides both parties with access to technologies and know-how to enhance the durability, stability and specificity of cell therapies in their respective indications of focus. This partnership will further enable Sonoma's rapid translation of Treg therapies from target identification and discovery, through preclinical and clinical development.

Senior Management Team

Jeffrey Bluestone, PhD, Founder, CEO & PresidentFred Ramsdell, PhD, Founder & CSOPeter DiLaura, Chief Business & Strategy OfficerJoshua Beilke, MBA, PhD, VP Translational Development

Board of Directors

Rick Klausner, MD (Chair) Founder & CEO, Lyell Immunopharma, Inc.Maggie Wilderotter CEO, Grand Reserve Inn; former board member, Juno TherapeuticsToni Hoover, PhD Director, Strategy, Planning and Management for Global Health, Bill & Melinda Gates FoundationTerry Rosen, PhD CEO, Arcus BiosciencesDavid Moskowitz, PhD Principal, 8VC (observer)Jeffrey Bluestone, PhD, CEO & President, Sonoma Biotherapeutics

About Sonoma Biotherapeutics

Sonoma Biotherapeutics is a privately held, San Francisco and Seattle-based company leading the development of adoptive Treg therapies cell for autoimmune and degenerative diseases. Using next generation genome editing and target-specific cell therapy, Sonoma is focused on developing its best-in-class platform across the entire spectrum of Treg cell therapeutic capabilities. Founded by pioneers in Treg biology and cell therapy, the company brings together leading expertise and proprietary methodologies for the discovery and development of disease modifying and curative therapies.

Contact: media@sonomabio.com

View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sonoma-biotherapeutics-launches-with-40-million-in-series-a-funding-to-advance-regulatory-t-cell-therapy-in-autoimmune-and-degenerative-diseases-300999810.html

SOURCE Sonoma Biotherapeutics

Read the original post:

Sonoma Biotherapeutics launches with $40 million in Series A funding to advance regulatory T cell therapy in autoimmune and degenerative diseases -...

Brighton girls school welcomes boys for the first time – The Argus

BOYS will study at all-girls Roedean School for the first time in its 135-year history but only on a Wednesday evening.

The school has been a bastion of exclusively female education since it was founded in the 19th century to prepare girls for the rigours of newly opened Cambridge womens colleges Girton and Newnham. It has produced a stream of actors, politicians, journalists, human rights campaigners, scientists and artists, many achieving firsts in their fields.

But 2020 has seen the arrival of boys at its imposing wooden doors overlooking the English Channel as they take part in the schools Roedean Academy programme.

The programme invites Year 10 children from across Brighton and Hove to participate in lessons that stretch them beyond the national curriculum including genetic engineering, cryptology and the psychology of crime.

Each Wednesday evening 14 boys and 39 girls from local secondary schools visit Roedean to settle down to language code-breaking, philosophy and stats and hard maths sessions.

Stanley Bradley-Scott from Dorothy Stringer School said: I think that Roedeans academy is incredible there is a massive range of modules, so you can be super sciency or you can be the complete opposite. My friends are curious to see what its actually like we drive past here a lot and see this incredible building, but we never knew much about what was going on.

Kumi Kemp from Longhill School said: I thought Roedean would be a bit uptight with everyone following the rules exactly, but its completely different everyones really friendly. Its got opportunities for everyone, no matter what you want to do.

Roedean pupil Lola Clarke loves the co-ed nature at the academy. She said: Its great to participate in discussions with people who are bringing in new ideas and new perspectives. I think that Old Roedeanians would be really proud that we are able to have this experience of working with boys sometimes.

Headteacher Oliver Blond said: We have been running the Roedean Academy for quite a few years now and we just saw no reason why boys from the city couldnt start enjoying the classes too. They are tackling subjects that stretch and challenge them and go beyond whats on the curriculum and what they need to know to pass GCSEs. Its learning just for the love of it something Roedean has done throughout its history and we have seen children absolutely loving it.

However, there was one hiccup. Blond laughed: When I was giving a welcome talk, one boy raised his hand to ask where the toilets were and it only then occurred to us that there were no boys toilets in the school at all.

Staff toilets, of course, were made available.

More:

Brighton girls school welcomes boys for the first time - The Argus

10 games that would make perfect TV shows – GamesRadar

Although Hollywood studios have tried to make a buck on live-action film adaptations of video games for decades, aside from a collection of best video game movies, rarely do these attempts give us the kind of movie worth caring about as much as the games we play and love.

TV, on the other hand, seems to be ahead of the curve, especially with the recent success of The Witcher Netflix series. Granted, the series was inspired by Andrzej Sapkowskis written works which, in turn, became the basis of CD Projekt Reds acclaimed action RPG trilogy. But, lets face it, The Witcher entered Netflixs radar thanks to the success of the games. Even Henry Cavill got himself cast as mutated monster hunter Geralt of Rivia, in part, because hes a gamer who cant get enough of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Which made us think, which games or game series would be perfect for TV adaptation?

It has to be those with interesting characters, storylines and the kind of deep lore that sometimes needs more room to breathe than the two-hour runtime of a feature film. So here are the top 10 games that would be absolutely perfect for TV adaption.

NOTE: Spoilers to follow, so tread lightly.

This was obvious even before God of War director Cory Barlog suggested his critically-renowned PS4 exclusive would lend itself well to a Netflix-style series, but his endorsement certainly helps.

The original games - also exclusive to Sony consoles and set among the myths of ancient Greece - were never heavy on characterization and story. Sure, Kratos had his tragic reasons for setting out to murder every man, god, and titan who got in his way, and Greek mythology is rife with sordid, gripping tales. But, when you get down to it, the original God of War trilogy worked chiefly because it was fun to slash apart satyrs with some sweet looking swords attached to chains and pummel Zeuss head into mush.

Thats not great TV. But heres what is: a father trying to raise an adolescent son he kept at arms length for too long, largely because of his bottled rage and shame for his past sins. That level of pathos introduced in Sonys 2018 franchise reboot makes all the difference. Plus, that instalment opened up all sorts of possibilities to explore ancient gods from cultures across the globe, all while telling a human story of a father, a son, and the boys mysterious mother Faye.

Picture the use of Arrow-like flashbacks to tell parallel stories featuring Kratoss origins in Greece or even explore Fayes journey before Kratos arrived among her others from Norse mythology. Theres so much untapped potential within the relationship between Kratos and young Atreus, and TV has what it takes to bring their story to the masses the right way.

From Big Boss to Solid Snake, and all the clones and doppelgangers in between, Hideo Kojimas beloved tactical espionage action series is full of lore and political intrigue that screams binge-watching session.

Across all the Metal Gear games produced by Konami under the guidance of Kojima since 1987, the series explores ethical conundrums few games had considered either before or since. Nuclear proliferation, the ethics of cloning and genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and Cold War politics all would make for interesting themes to see breathe and be deconstructed during full seasons of TV, rather than crammed into a film or two.

Notorious for its lengthy cutscenes and long sections of little else but dialogue, Metal Gear feels readymade for a TV show, as it imagines a world where walking tanks are armed with nuclear missiles and super soldiers are just pawns in a greater game. Its cast of over-the-top villains across five decades worth of story would work well in an episodic setting, too, in much the same way Netflixs The Witcher gave Geralt something to resolve within each episode.

Ever sit down to watch the 2016 film starring Michael Fassbender? It wasnt great. Film just isnt the right medium for the millennia-old rivalry between the Assassins and the Templars. Its sci-fi elements really need more explanation than a movie would ever allow for. Better for a TV series to show how the Animus permits modern-day humans to experience the memories of their ancestors in order to track down artifacts of great power. Teasing out these Pieces of Eden and their origins over 10 episodes could build some serious intrigue from pilot to series finale.

Even if a show based on the popular Ubisoft series dropped the present-day meta story altogether, Assassins Creed would be ripe for an anthologized season structure. One season could go back to the Italian Renaissance, following the charismatic Ezio Auditore on his path to becoming one of the most revered assassins. Another could visit the American Revolution and the father-son struggle between Assassin Connor and his British Templar father Haytham Kenway. Theres no shortage of already established stories from various time periods to revisit.

As historical fiction, an Assassins Creed series could contextualize the past for modern audiences, especially those unfamiliar with, say, The Crusades or the Bolshevik Revolution.

Remember the game that taught children of the 80s and 90s about all the myriad diseases that claimed the lives of mid-1800s frontiersmen, who were just heading toward a place to make a better life? Yep, The Oregan Trail is perfect for a TV series.

Most people buy into the myth that the Old West as little more than a bunch of outlaws and lawmen firing repeaters and revolvers at one another. The reality was much tamer than John Wayne and Clint Eastwood films would have us believe, although no less hard for the bankers from Boston or carpenters from Ohio who set out toward the Pacific Northwest in search of a new life.

Oregon Trail would make for a nice limited-run miniseries, delving into the hardships and beauty of the time and place in American history. Picture a group of pioneers from all walks of life, travelling with the shared goal of beginning anew as the show explores what drives people to take a leap of faith and start from scratch.

A show like this would require top-notch dialogue from skilled writers, a truly talented cast of actors to carry the weight, and just the right amount of tension each week. Who wouldnt be on the edge of their seats waiting to see if the would-be settlers will successfully ford the river? We all know how badly that can go.

OK, so all that stuff about the real Old West not being full of outlaws and gunfights? Still true, but also true is people love outlaws and gunfights in their westerns. Thats where the story of the Van Der Linde gang comes into play.

Red Dead Redemption and its prequel - Red Dead Redemption 2 - are crowning achievements for Rockstar Games, building a well-developed collective of outlaws including protagonists John Marston and Arthur Morgan, gang leader and father figure Dutch Van Der Linde, revenge-minded widow Sadie Adler, and so many more. The proper approach to a TV series would be to put John, his wife Abigail and son Jack at the center of an ensemble thanks to their critical role throughout both games, while still devoting plenty of screen time to Arthur and the rest of the two-dozen strong gang.

Change is the thematic throughline of the games, and this should be central to any adaptation. In the case of the first Red Dead Redemption, we witness a world that violently paves over itself in the early 1910s without a care for what came before. And for the glass-half-full crowd, the actions of both Arthur and John show that its never too late to change your ways and attempt to right the wrongs of the past.

With so many interesting individuals and quirky characters to go along with thought-provoking themes as relevant to the 1800s as the 2000s, TV is the only way to do justice to this band of thieves.

Lets get this out of the way right now: Would you kindly couldnt possibly have the same effect in non-interactive media. But BioShock was always more than a mind-blowing mid-game twist. How many games heavily borrow from the works and objectivist philosophies of Ayn Rand? For that matter, how many TV series do that?

The murky Rapture of the first two BioShock games, with its distinct undersea art deco architecture and dimly lit environments at the bottom of the ocean, is the perfect setting for a season of claustrophobic, dystopian sci-fi/horror. Unlike film, a TV series will allow Jack to slowly discover the depravity that destroyed Andrew Ryans world.

Likewise, Columbia and its racist denizens among the clouds offer the type of biting satire thats all too relevant in 2020. A season based on BioShock Infinite wouldnt need heavy-handed writing to make the clear link to modern issues. Plus, the narrative following dimenson-hopping heroine Elizabeth and ex-Pinkerton agent Booker DeWitt deserves patience for their unique relationship to develop before that ending alters our understanding.

BioShock, from creator Ken Levine and published by 2K Games, would work best if the seasons are anthologized in much the same way as American Horror Story, with breadcrumbs along the way as connective threads between the flawed uptopian societies of Rapture, Columbia, or perhaps more worlds yet to be explored.

Horrors, both human and mutant, awaiting unsuspecting Vault dwellers emerging into the American wasteland long since ravaged by nuclear war. How will the Lone Wanderer survive the feral ghouls, deathclaws, super mutants and overall awful folks who prey upon one another? Tune in next week to find out!

Fallouts vision of a radiated United States centuries from now is its central character, unlike most games on this list who lean on established individual heroes and villains. That offers plenty of freedom to tell original stories about morality in the face of survival that could surprise and shock even fans of the games, with no need to tell a story weve all played before.

You could argue that The Walking Dead has tread similar ground, with its post-apocalyptic setting and savagery in the face of survival, and feral ghouls really are just zombies no matter what theyre called. But key differences would allow a Fallout series to stand on its own. The Fallout games posit that their hellish world was doomed by humanitys own need for conflict. Its a recurring theme of the series, in which the survivors of post-war America fight amongst themselves over resources and beliefs.

Ever-present atomic radiation and 200 years of rebuilding society, and its the same story throughout the Bethesda-produced games. War, it seems, isnt the only thing that never changes.

No film adaptation of a Final Fantasy game shall prosper. A TV series, on the other hand, offers a much better shot at making a successful transition for the long-running RPG titan from Square Enix.

Each season should take the same approach as the numbered games, telling unrelated stories but still maintaining all the little things that make a Final Fantasy game different from anything else Chocobos are a requirement, but they arent the only must-have. As such, the anthology route is the way to go with epic stories set among worlds filled with randomly-encountered beasts and powerful mana.

Not every game in the series told a riveting story, but the hypothetical showrunner would still have plenty of strong candidates. Most will be clamoring for Cloud, Sephiroth, and Aerith in Season 1, but a bolder and better choice would be the steampunk-heavy Final Fantasy 6 and its edge-of-your-seat plot twists (Kefka, anyone?). The masses who only discovered this franchise when it hit the original PlayStation with Final Fantasy 7 will be in for a narrative treat, and then we can travel to Midgar for Season 2.

But why stop at just bringing the numbered games to live-action television? Final Fantasy Tacticss plot ranks among the finest of the series. Its time for Ivalice to reach a new audience, too.

The Battlefield series from EA has bounced all over world history, but the tales contained in 2016s Battlefield 1, set during Earths first true global conflict, make for a brilliant jumping off point for a unique TV series.

World War 1 is ripe for a TV treatment. If recent Oscar-nominated films from Steven Spielberg (War Horse) and Sam Mendes (1917) have taught us anything, its that heart-wrenching tales from The Great War can resonate with modern audiences. Even Wonder Woman, in her critically lauded smash hit film, took to the Western Front to shatter German High Command.

A WW1-set Battlefield show would be grounded in human stories, much like the ones depicted in Battlefield 1s single-player campaign. The game drew praise for telling brief, disconnected stories from all over the globe throughout the four-year conflict.

Thats exactly how a TV series should play out. One season could deal with the infamous Gallipoli campaign, as was the case with the campaign story titled The Runner. Another could examine the legendary Red Baron, Manfred von Richthofen, and his exploits for the German Air Force. Hes more than just Snoopys nemesis, you know.

It would be hard to approach Band of Brothers-level accolades, as the World War 2 drama from HBO remains a classic nearly two decades later. But the world seems ready for a deeper exploration of the stories of the so-called war to end all wars to be depicted on the small screen.

Of all the games on this list, Horizon Zero Dawn might have the most breakout potential of all for mainstream audiences. Guerrilla Games created quite a world in its 2017 PlayStation exclusive. More importantly, the studio birthed one of the strongest protagonists of the current console generation in Aloy, the child outcast who comes of age to become the hero of a post-apocalyptic world dominated by dangerous machines.

What makes Aloys odyssey so incredible isnt just that shes slick with a bow and arrows, chopping down hulking machines like a super soldier. Its not even the fact that shes a clone because, come on, how many clones have we seen in film, TV and games?

No, her appeal comes from how relatable this heroine and the internal struggle that drive her are. She wants to understand where she came from to make sense of who she is. We can all relate to that on some level.

The world Aloy inhabits is full of fascinating lore, and to condense her epic journey for a single film treatment would be downright criminal. Give her the air she deserves, stretch her story out over several TV seasons, and bring her story to the masses for both gamers and non-gamers alike.

Read the original post:

10 games that would make perfect TV shows - GamesRadar

Brighton girls school welcomes boys for the first time in 135 years – Brighton & Hove Independent

Pupils from schools across the city are taking part in the Roedean Academy programme

The pupils will attend the school on Wednesday evenings to take part in the Roedean Academy programme which invites Year 10 students from across the city to participate in extra-curricular lessons; from genetic engineering, to cryptology, and the psychology of crime.

Every week, 14 boys and 39 girls from local secondary schools will study a range of interesting social and STEM subjects.

Headteacher Oliver Blond said: We have been running the Roedean Academy for quite a few years now and we just saw no reason why boys from the city couldnt start enjoying the classes too.

They are tackling subjects that stretch and challenge them and go beyond whats on the curriculum and what they need to know to pass GCSEs.

Its learning just for the love of it something Roedean has done throughout its history and we have seen children absolutely loving it.

The school was founded in 1885 to prepare girls for the newly-opened womens colleges at Cambridge, Girton and Newnham.

However, a small issue dawned on the headteacher following an innocent question from one of the visiting students.

When I was giving a welcome talk, one boy raised his hand to ask where the toilets were and it only then occurred to us that there were no boys toilets in the school at all. he said.

Thankfully, visiting male students have been allowed to use the staff toilets during their time at the school.

Stanley Bradley-Scott, from Dorothy Stringer School, said: I think that Roedeans academy is incredible there is a massive range of modules, so you can be super-sciency or you can be the complete opposite.

My friends are curious to see what its actually like we drive past here a lot and see this incredible building, but we never knew much about what was going on.

Roedean pupil Lola Clarke loves the co-ed classes, she said: Its great to participate in discussions with people who are bringing in new ideas and new perspectives.

I think that Old Roedeanians would be really proud that we are able to have this experience of working with boys sometimes.

Kumi Kemp from Longhill School said: I thought Roedean would be a bit uptight with everyone following the rules exactly, but its completely different everyones really friendly.

Its got opportunities for everyone, no matter what you want to do.

Link:

Brighton girls school welcomes boys for the first time in 135 years - Brighton & Hove Independent

Cell-based meat in focus: In conversation with Meatable, Finless Foods, New Age Meats – FoodNavigator-USA.com

Despite all the hype, most startups in the space are still working in a laboratory (as opposed to a factory), although several have recently raised more substantial sums (Memphis Meats: $161m, Future Meat Technologies: $14m, Wild Type: $12.5m, Aleph Farms: $12m, Meatable: $10m) to support the construction of pilot-scale facilities.

Maastricht-based Mosa Meat which is gearing up for a small scale commercial launch in 2022 assuming it has cleared regulatory hurdles - recently joined forces with Nutreco (which has invested an undisclosed sum in the firm along with Lower Carbon Capital) to work on growth media; San Diego-based BlueNalu has also partnered with Nutreco; while Jerusalem-basedFuture Meat Technologies plans to release hybrid products in 2021 and a second line of 100% cell-based ground meat products suitable for burgers and nuggets at a cost of less than $10 per pound in 2022.

However, the recent $161m investment in Memphis Meats - which says it has a pretty clear path to achieving cost parity with conventional meat has given the whole sector a confidence boost, says Krijn de Nood, CEO at Dutch cell-based meat startup Meatable.

Its a huge positive for the industry, it shows there are very serious investors that have done their due diligence and think this is really going to happen.

Meatable - which is working with porcine and bovine induced pluripotent stem cells [iPSCs] recently raised $10m from existing investors and a couple of new angel investors, and a grant from the European Commission, which we are pretty proud of, says de Nood.

While this is dwarfed by Memphis Meats latest round, it was a meaningful vote of confidence in a sector where most startups have not raised more than a couple of million, he says.

Defendibility is definitely important to investors and we have IP around the differentiation of the cells, the hardware we use to grow the meat in, on reducing the costs on a lot of components. We have one patent thats granted, and a couple of others in the making.

Were comfortable that by late summer we can present our first prototype product, a tenderloin. Were aiming to present a product that has a meat-like texture with fat and muscle, with edible scaffolding, although I cannot disclose the materials at this point.

In the beginning of 2022 we should have a small pilot facility online, enabling some consumers to get familiar with our product. By 2025, we hope to have an industry scale facility online when we can become more cost competitive with traditional meat.

He adds:Weve worked on stabilizing the cell lines, culturing them in suspension and optimizing the proliferation speed.

Our cells can grow in an FBS-free [fetal bovine serum-free]medium and weve made good progress on reducing dependency on expensive growth factors.

As for market entry, Meatable is currently building a dossier to make a Novel Food application [to access the EU market], but also exploring the potential of market entry in Singapore, he says.

Cell-based fish co Finless Foods, which has a team of 11 people in Emeryville California, raised $3.5m in 2018, but is now gearing up to raise a series A round, says CEO Mike Selden.

While the startup co-founded by Selden and Brian Wyrwas, molecular biologists who met at theUniversity of Massachusetts, Amherst has experimented with multiple species, they have focused on Bluefin tuna because its under threat (populations today are a fraction of what they were in the 1960s) and because its expensive (reaching price parity with a broiler chicken could take far longer).

Investors are looking for a unique IP angle, as well as well-rounded teams and proof youre doing regulatory the right way and not just moving fast and breaking things, says Selden.

Now were gearing up for a Series A, we think there are some interesting things we can file [patent]and not have stolen from us, but were never going to file our media formulation [which would remain a trade secret].

As to how Finless stacks up vs the competition, he says, I wont pretend to know exactly what all of the others are doing; there are something like 40 cell-based meat companies and six cell-based seafood companies that Im aware have been funded. But I do think were not only competitive but actually I think youll see in the next few months at the forefront, as we release more information about what weve been working on.

Were the tuna people, so it will be very difficult to work on tuna outside of Finless Foods, plus we can take varieties of seafood that Americans have no real access to and localize them to the American market; things that are only eaten in Japan because no ones figured out how to farm, or theyre only available in small quantities in the wild.

Right now, Finless is focused on muscle and fat cells, says Selden. Its easy to have the muscle and fat cells turn into connective tissue, so we dont need a separate culture for fibroblasts.

As for getting the cells to proliferate indefinitely (so you dont keep having to go back to the source), he says, The concept of immortalization isnt super-relevant for seafood; fish cells naturally have an extremely high amount of telomerase [an enzyme which helps prevent the shortening of the telomeres, repetitive DNA sequences at the ends of chromosomes].

Put more simply, every time cells divide, their telomeres shorten, which eventually prompts them to stop dividing and die, he explains. Telomerase prevents this decline in some kinds of cells by lengthening telomeres, which is why people interested in slowing cellular aging are so interested in it.

It basically means we dont have to do genetic engineering to immortalize the cells.

As for the growth medium that feeds the cells, he notes, We currently have multiple cell lines and bluefin populations that are growing out in completely serum-free media, no FBS, no FCS (fetal calf serum). The key ingredients are salts, sugars and proteins. Right now, were getting these proteins from recombinant microbial systems [ie. expressing proteins in microbes such as bacteria, yeasts and other hosts].

There is some research thats happening both inside of Finless Foods and out, on what I consider to be better, more efficient ways of doing that, but I wont pretend that its come to fruition yet at least internally, but I know that others have had success such as [Tokyo-based cell-based meat co]Integriculture, which has been able to use conditioned media [spent cell culture media that includes secreted factors that have accumulated in the medium over time, including growth factors] instead [of recombinant growth factors] to feed their cells.

At Finless Foods, he explained, Our costs have come down massively, but as were working on Bluefin tuna [a very expensive fish]we dont face quite the same challenges [as companies trying to make, say, cell-based chicken, beef or pork].

Asked about bioreactors, he says, Were creating different divisions of the company working on different types of bioreactors to see what scales up the best, but as of right now, weve had more success in single systems, where the proliferation happens in one bioreactor and instead of moving the cells to a different bioreactor for the differentiation phase, you basically just replace the media from growth media to differentiation media and leave the cells in the same tank.

As for different ways to culture cells in the growth/proliferation phase, he says, one division of the company is working on suspension culture, where the infrastructure is already in place; while the other is working on attachment culture [where cells attach to food grade materials], which has never been scaled up, but has the potential for higher efficiencies. In suspension we have some experiments where the cells are attached to beads and others where the cells are just free-floating.

Were also exploring both approaches [suspension and attachment] in the differentiation phase, but there isnt a scenario where the cells are proliferating in a single cell suspension, but then differentiating attached.

When it comes to creating more structured, steak-like products, its potentially easier to recreate the structure/texture of tuna, which is more like a gel, compared with something like beef steak, he notes.

The first wave of cell-based products is going to attract a premium, which makes launching at a small scale in high-end restaurants - a place where consumers may be more willing to try something novel - a good way to test the waters, he says.

We definitely face more regulatory and technical challenges than plant-based meat companies,but brands such as Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat have paved the way for us to some extent by getting consumers - but also chefs - open to the idea of eating meat without slaughtering animals. Theyve also made foodtech cool and sexy, so were really grateful for that.

Asked about terminology, which has proved a bone of contention in the nascent industry, he said:I like the term cell-based because its neutral and accurate. Yes, we know that everything is made of cells[including meat from slaughtered animals], but we think its the best term out there.

I dont really get the term cultivated meat[a term emerging from Mattson/GFI research last year],but if there was a ton of evidence to support it, or if stakeholders in the animal ag industry were all behind it, I could be convinced, as Im not super ideological about this.

But the North American Meat Institute has signed off on cell-based and the government seems pretty OK with using it [editor's note: USDA and FDA have yet to issue any formal declaration on terminology].

At fellow startup New Age Meats,which has just raised $2.7m in a round led by ff Venture Capital to fund its cell-based pork operation, founder Brian Spears says investors are looking for clear evidence that yields are going up, and costs are going down.

While investors understand that cell-based meat is a longer-term bet than plant-based meat, and fits more into the high risk, high reward category given its novelty, the total addressable market for both is clearly enormous provided the products are good and the price is right says Spears, a chemical engineer with a background in industrial automation.

Were very focused on automation, data science and bioprocess, and showing that the cost of making cultivated meat is continuing to decrease. Weve got a high throughput platform that optimizes media, and weve validated different types of bioreactors, one of which was 200 liters, which I think is the biggest bioreactor that has been made specifically for cultivated meat.

While the nascency of the industry has meant most cell-based meat companies are vertically integrated, more third parties are now creating platforms to help cell-based meat startups, he says:

Weve seen a lot of players step in, so 3M has a whole team dedicated to optimizing media for cultivated meat, while Black & Veatch is interested in working with companies on industrial scale manufacturing.

New Age Meats is looking at pork belly, bacon, and sausages, some of which present greater technical challenges than others, says Spears.

In all cases, he says, [animal]fat is crucial, its where the flavor is, the mouthfeel, the smell. Just growing muscle and then adding a plant-based fat gives you a very different experience. Right now the most, straightforward solution if youre making a simple product like a sausage is to grow muscle and fat cells separately, and then combine them at the end, but there are pros and cons to each method.

Asked about more structured products such as pork belly, he said:There are a lot of ways to create a 3D structure; people think you have to make this edible scaffolding or matrix, flow the cells in, they adhere to it and they grow and mature on that, but there are other methods of doing this.

There are some processes New Age Meats could patent, but at this point, given the expense, its not top of the priority list, says Spears, who has adopted the term cultivated meat.

Patents give an easy signal to investors, but some of the patents in this space are absolutely worthless.

Read the rest here:

Cell-based meat in focus: In conversation with Meatable, Finless Foods, New Age Meats - FoodNavigator-USA.com