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

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

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

At the Crossroads of Art and Biotech, a Warning: Be Careful What You Wish For. – INDY Week

ARTS WORK IN THE AGE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY: SHAPING OUR GENETIC FUTURES

Through Sunday, March 15

The Gregg Museum of Art & Design, Raleigh

Where do we draw the lines dividing art from science, natural from unnatural, and boldness from hubris?

An exhibit at N.C. States Gregg Museum of Art & Design doesnt answer these questions. Instead, it offers head-spinning new ways to ask them at the nexus of art and biotechnology, sharpening our insight into the fields future and expanding our understanding of it into the past.

These hard-to-classify collaborations between artists and scientistsseethe with hot-button issues related to ethics, privacy, human nature, and more. But if they have one message in common, its to be careful what you wish for.

Arts Work in the Age of Biotechnology: Shaping Our Genetic Futures is the result of more than two years of planning led by Molly Renda, the exhibit program librarian at N.C. State University Libraries, and the universitys Genetic Engineering and Society Center. Guest-curated by Hannah Star Rogers, who studies the intersection of art and science, the main exhibit at the Gregg has annexes in Hill and Hunt libraries.

On a recent tour of the exhibit, Renda and Fred Gould, the co-director of the GESC, said that they wanted to bring artists into the welter of science-and-design innovation taking place at the university because their differing perspectives on fundamental human issues create balance, tension, and discovery.

In the course of this, Ive found that artists tend to be more dystopian and designers are more utopian, Renda says.

There are different ways of knowing things, Gould adds. Thats why Molly came up with the name: not artwork, but arts work. What is an artist supposed to do?

Some pieces take on the dangers of day-after-tomorrow DNA testing and engineering technology. Heather Dewey-Hagborg is best known for Probably Chelsea, a piece in which she collected DNA samples from Chelsea Manning and generated thirty-two possible portraits of the soldier and activist.

When we worry about biotechnology, we usually worry that our food is going to be dangerous. But sometimes you wish for something thats rare: What happens when biotechnology makes it available to you?

The Gregg is showing a similar piece in which Dewey-Hagborg harvested DNA from cigarette butts and gum she found on the street and created probablebut not definitereplicas of the litterers faces, which hang on the walls above the specimens. Dewey-Hagborg demonstrates not only the unnerving extent of whats currently possible with DNA testing, but also the limits, which create misidentification risks.

Other pieces probe how biotechnology might reshape life as we know it. In a film and a sculpture representing an ancient Greek rite for women, Charlotte Jarvis raises the possibility of creating female sperm, based on the idea that, because stem cells are undifferentiated, you could theoretically teach womens stem cells to develop into sperm.

Still other pieces pointedly poke holes in the boundary between science and art. Adam Zaretskys Errorarium (entitled "Bipolar Flowers")looks like a cross between an arcade cabinet and a terrarium. It houses a few genetically modified Arabidopsis specimens, which Gould calls the white mice of research plants. When you turn the knobs, it changes the sonic parameters of a synthesizer, notionally testing the effects of the sound on the mutant plants.

It doesnt really do anythingor does it? Zaretskys experiment with no hypothesis is a playful tweak on science with something a little dangerous in the background.

Joe Davis, a bio-art pioneer, touches on something similar in his piece, which consists of documentation of an experiment where mice roll dice to determine if luck can be bred. Renda says that Davis couldnt get permission to run the test (universities are wary of drawing attention for ridiculous-seeming experiments), so he did it as conceptual art at N.C. State, instead.

Its notable that two artists home in on luck, one of many human concepts that genetic engineering, which will allow us to take control of our bodies and environment in untested ways, will transform. In We Make Our Own Luck Here, Ciara Redmond has bred four-leaf clovers (without genetic modification), which ruins themtheyrelucks evidence, not its cause. This whimsical iteration of unconsidered consequences raises a serious question: What else are we not thinking of?

When we worry about biotechnology, we usually worry that our food is going to be dangerous, Gould says. But sometimes you wish for something thats rare: What happens when biotechnology makes it available to you?

The exhibit takes an expansive view of biotechnology. Maria McKinney uses semen-extraction straws to sculpt proteins from double-muscled breeding bulls, underscoring that weve been tampering with life since long before CRISPR. Biotech feels radically new, but its revealed as part of a centuries-long process.

Another part of the exhibit, which closed at the end of October but can still be experienced through virtual reality at the Gregg, was From Teosinte to Tomorrow, Rendas land-art project at the North Carolina Museum of Art. In what was essentially a walk back through agricultural history, a bed of teosinte, which is thought to be the ancestor of modern maize, waited at the center of a corn maze.

That teosinte was in some sense genetically enhanced by subsistence farmers in Mexico since the time of the Aztecs, Gould says. Now were doing it in the laboratory with the same genesso whats the difference? Arts work is to make us think and question.

Contact arts and culture editor Brian Howe at bhowe@indyweek.com

Support independent local journalism.Join the INDY Press Clubto help us keep fearless watchdog reporting and essential arts and culture coverage viable in the Triangle.

Link:

At the Crossroads of Art and Biotech, a Warning: Be Careful What You Wish For. - INDY Week

Cuba’s revolutionary cancer vaccine builds bridges between the island and the United States – AL DIA News

Despite the fact that Donald Trump's government is determined to continue sanctioning Cuba - the charter flights from the U.S. to nine Cuban airports were suspended last week because of the country's support for Maduro's regime, according to statements by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo - the collaboration between the United States and the island continues, at least on scientific matters. And this should not surprise us, taking into account the great medical advances made by Cuban professionals in the treatment of various types of cancer.

This is what we'll be able to witness in "Cuba's Cancer Hope," a documentary by Llew Smith that will be released next April by PBS and that sheds light on CimaVax, a revolutionary treatment against lung cancer that prolongs the life of patients in very advanced stages and that the Center of Molecular Immunology (CIM) in Habana has taken more than twenty years to develop.

In fact, the results are so encouraging that the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in New York soon joined the project and will be the first U.S. institution to conduct a clinical trial of the drug produced on the island.

"The future of our country must necessarily be a future of men of science and thought, because that is precisely what we are sowing most," Fidel Castro, 1960.

Llew Smith himself was one of the volunteers to test this pioneering treatment, according to Prensa Latina, and his results, which were made known two years ago, will be part of the documentary.

"The wonderful thing about working with our Cuban colleagues is that they really believe, in their heart of hearts, that medical care is a human right," said Dr. Kevin Lee, director of the Roswell Park immunology department, in a dialogue with the press, praising the medical advances being made in Cuba and its "great potential to treat and prevent cancer of various kinds."

Cuba a pioneer in science

Biotechnology is one of the most developed branches of Cuban science, which began to be promoted in 1980, when Fidel Castro's government created a group dedicated to the production of interphenon, a possible cancer drug, in addition to promoting scientific parks.

This is a commitment to progress that the current president of Cuba, Miguel Daz-Canel Bermdez, acknowledged to Castro on the occasion of the documentary, and which the late revolutionary leader already advocated in a speech made in 1960when he said:

"The future of our country must necessarily be a future of men of science and thoughtbecause that is precisely what we are sowing most."

But the CimaVax is not the only discovery of Cuban scientists, whose achievements can be traced in the history of the island:

In 1881, the scientist Carlos Juan Finlay was the discoverer of the agent that transmits yellow fever, the Aedes aegypti mosquito, which made it possible to clean up the areas invaded by this infectious agent and which, in the end, has prevented millions of deaths.

"The wonderful thing about working with our Cuban colleagues is that they truly believe, deep in their hearts, that medical care is a human right," Dr. Kevin Lee from Roswell Park.

Also at Cuba's Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB), Heberprot-P was developed, a unique drug that prevents the amputation of diabetic feet by healing ulcers.

In addition, Cuba was recognized by WHO as the first country in the world to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

The documentary "Cuba's Cancer Hope" also includes other therapies being experimented with on the island, specifically for the treatment of different types of cancer, which once again confirms thatscientific advances are breaking down the walls that apparently separate us.

See original here:

Cuba's revolutionary cancer vaccine builds bridges between the island and the United States - AL DIA News

Scientists write to US universities for inviting anti-science activist Vandana Shiva – ThePrint

Text Size:A- A+

Bengaluru: Scientists and biotechnology experts from around the world have written two open letters to the Stanford University and the University of California-Santa Cruz (UC-SC) protesting invitations extended to Indian anti-biotechnology activist Vandana Shiva to speak on equitable and sustainable farming methods.

The letters raise concern about Shivas constant use of anti-scientific rhetoric to support unethical positions. They also lay out some of her earlier positions on farming and comments which the experts believe are factually incorrect.

Shiva is a prominent proponent of land redistribution and farmers rights, besides Ayurveda and organic foods. She has been accused of being funded by organic food companies to speak out against conventional agriculture practices.

Known as one of the staunchest critics of genetically modified organisms (GMO), she claims them to be toxic for human consumption a stance that has attractedstrong criticism from the scientific community.

GMOs are widely considered safe and endorsed by most scientific and medical bodies across the world.

Shiva has also been profiled by The New Yorker in an article titled Seeds of Doubt by Michael Specter. The piece is an attempt too debunk her claims.

She has also spoken out against the company Monsanto, which has been accused of engaging in predatory practices while funding genetic and cancer research as well as protecting its seed patents.

ThePrint tried to get in touch with Shiva and both the universities via emails. This report will be updated if and when replies are received.

Also read: A post-chemical world is building as agribusinesses go green

Calling Shivas philosophy unscientific and anti-social, the letter addressed to Stanford cites some ironies associated with Shiva being invited by the institution.

The first concerns Shivas invitation having come from Students for a Sustainable Stanford, because her views are demonstrably, unequivocally anti-sustainable. Her ideas on farming would relegate it to a primitive, low-yielding, wasteful activity.

It goes on to read: Second, the co-discoverer in 1973 of recombinant DNA technology, the prototypic, iconic molecular technique for genetic engineering, was Stanford biochemist Dr. Stanley N. Cohen, who is still a professor of genetics and medicine at the university. Shivas appearance at Stanford is an affront to Professor Cohen and all of the universitys other scientists.

The letter also accuses Shiva of taking large honoraria for dispensing her mendacious and antisocial opinion.

The one addressed to UC-SC similarly expresses surprise that a science-based and ethically inspired institution has extended an invitation to her.

Read the full text of the letter to UC-SC below:

Dear Organizers and Professors,

We are scholars of life sciences and social sciences who have published many scholarly papers and articles about agriculture, food and related biotechnologies.

Perhaps you are unaware of Dr. Vandana Shivas constant use of anti-scientific rhetoric to support unethical positions. We are very surprised that any science-based and ethically inspired institution would invite her to speak.

Here are some (only some) examples of her prejudicial, anti-science, anti-social stances:

Her astonishing tendency to nonsense. See the absurd statement regarding the supposed functioning of the Genetic Use Restriction technology (GURT), from her book Stolen Harvest (p. 82-83):

Molecular biologists are examining the risk of the Terminator function escaping the genome of the crops into which it has been intentionally incorporated, and moving into surrounding open-pollinated crops or wild, related plants in fields nearby.Given Natures incredible adaptability and the fact that the technology has never been tested on a large scale, the possibility that the Terminator may spread to surrounding food crops or to the natural environment MUST be taken seriously. The gradual spread of sterility in seeding plants would result in a global catastrophe that could eventually wipe out higher life forms, including humans, from the planet.

One may need to read these statements twice, because they are too bewildering to be understood at first sight. In fact, she claims that sterile seeds which of course cannot germinate can spread sterility. A middle school student expressing such views would fail the biology exam.

Her stunning ignorance: Most #GMOs are #Bt toxin or #HT herbicide tolerant crops. Toxins are poisons. GMOs=Poison Producing Plants. Poisons have no place in food.

Somebody should explain to her that Bt proteins are toxic to some clearly identified classes of insects (plant pests), but not to fish, birds, mammals. See also the scientific papers quoted in response to her delusional post, in particular, a classic study which clarifies that plants naturally produce substances to defend themselves from pests and 99.99% of pesticidal substances in food are natural and harmless to humans.

Her proclivity to offend: Saying farmers should be free to grow GMOs which can contaminate organic farms is like saying rapists should have freedom to rape. She is comparing farmers, who grow crops which are scientifically and legally recognized as safe, to rapists! Its a grotesque insult to millions of honest workers who use modern technologies to farm sustainably and efficiently. Understandably, her outrageous abuse raised many angry reactions (see the replies to the same post).

Her rejection of technologies which help farmers (mostly women and children) to alleviate the painful, back-breaking labor of hand-weeding: Indian women selectively do weeding by hand, hereby preserving our biodiversity (Photo and caption at p. 21.) This is a preposterous statement; any act of weeding is exactly aimed at eliminating detrimental plant biodiversity which, in a field, stifles crops.

As a final treat, a ridiculous statement: Fertilizer should never have been allowed in agriculture, she said in a 2011 speech. I think its time to ban it. Its a weapon of mass destruction. Its use is like war, because it came from war. Let us ask her if she is going to ban metallurgy, since it has been used to forge cannons.

We are confident that our reasoned remarks will be seen by the addressees of this letter, by their colleagues and by students at UCSC as constructive criticism. We are afraid that none of us will be able to attend the event to challenge Dr. Shiva in person. We would appreciate if you can make our letter available to the participants.

Also read: Whats the fuss over the new variety of GM cotton that farmers are batting for

ThePrint is now on Telegram. For the best reports & opinion on politics, governance and more, subscribe to ThePrint on Telegram.

Read the rest here:

Scientists write to US universities for inviting anti-science activist Vandana Shiva - ThePrint

Postdoctoral Fellowship Under A Indo-French Academia-Industry job with VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY | 192385 – Times Higher Education (THE)

Job Description

Applications are invited for a temporary Post ofPostdoctoral Fellowship under a Indo-French Academia-Industry Collaborative Projectfunded by CEFIPRA, in Centre for Bio Separation Technology, Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT).

Title of the Project:

Cost effective strategy for the induction of immune tolerance to therapeutic Factor VIII in haemophilia A

Qualification:

PhD in Biochemistry /Molecular Biology/Genetic Engineering/Biotechnology/ Microbiology/Life Sciences

Desirable (if any):

Experience in molecular cloning, expression and purification of proteins

Stipend:Rs.47,000/ per month + 10% HRASponsoring Agency:CEFIPRADuration:Upto April 2020 (3 months)

Principal Investigator:

Principal Investigator: Dr.Krishnan V (Professor & Director, Centre for BioSeparation Technology)

Coinvestigator: Prof.M.A.Vijyalakshmi (Professor, Centre for BioSeparation Technology)

Send your resume along with relevant documents pertaining to the details of qualifications, scientific accomplishments, experience (if any) and latest passport size photo etc. on or before(20/01/2020)through onlinehttp://careers.vit.ac.in

Salary:Not Disclosed by RecruiterIndustry:Education / Teaching / TrainingFunctional Area:Teaching, Education, Training, CounsellingRole:Trainee

Keyskills

immune toleranceBiochemistry/

Desired Candidate Profile

Please refer to the Job description above

Education-

Doctorate:Ph.D - Microbiology, Bio-Chemistry/Bio-Technology

Company Profile

Vellore Institute of Technology

VIT was established with the aim of providing quality higher education on par with international standards. It persistently seeks and adopts innovative methods to improve the quality of higher education on a consistent basis.The campus has a cosmopolitan atmosphere with students from all corners of the globe. Experienced and learned teachers are strongly encouraged to nurture the students. The global standards set at VIT in the field of teaching and research spur us on in our relentless pursuit of excellence. In fact, it has become a way of life for us. The highly motivated youngsters on the campus are a constant source of pride. Our Memoranda of Understanding with various international universities are our major strength. They provide for an exchange of students and faculty and encourage joint research projects for the mutual benefit of these universities. Many of our students, who pursue their research projects in foreign universities, bring high quality to their work and esteem to India and have done us proud. With steady steps, we continue our march forward. We look forward to meeting you here at VIT.

Go here to read the rest:

Postdoctoral Fellowship Under A Indo-French Academia-Industry job with VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY | 192385 - Times Higher Education (THE)

Red Biotechnology Market Size, Status and Recent Advancements, Forecast 2020 to 2025 – MENAFN.COM

(MENAFN - Ameliorate Solutions)

The report presents an in-depth assessment of the Global Red Biotechnology including enabling technologies, key trends, market drivers, challenges, standardization, regulatory landscape, deployment models, operator case studies, opportunities, future roadmap, value chain, ecosystem player profiles and strategies. The report also presents forecasts for Global Red Biotechnology investments from 2020 till 2025.

Industry Overview-

The Red Biotechnology Market is expected to register a CAGR of 5.7% during the forecast period. Red biotechnology is a process that utilizes organisms to improve health and helps the body to fight against diseases. Red biotechnology has become a very important part of the field of diagnostics, gene therapy, and clinical research and trials. Genetic engineering and the development and production of various new medicinal products to treat life-threatening diseases are also part of the benefits of red biotechnology. Severe Combined Immune Deficiency (SCID) and Adenosine deaminase (ADA) deficiency are genetic disorders that were successfully treated with gene therapy. Several promising gene therapies are under development for the treatment of cancer and genetic disorders. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 6,000 to 8,000 rare diseases found and out of them, nearly 80% are genetic disorders. Rising incidence and prevalence of chronic and rare diseases and increased funding in the healthcare industry are the key driving factors in the red biotechnology market.

Click the link to get a free Sample Copy of the Report:

https://www.marketinsightsreports.com/reports/01091744865/red-biotechnology-market-growth-trends-and-forecast-2020-2025/inquiry?Mode=21

Top Leading Manufactures-

Pfizer Inc, AstraZeneca PLC, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Celgene Corporation, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Biogen Inc, Amgen Inc, Gilead Sciences Inc, Merck KGaA, CSL Limited

Biopharmaceutical Industry Segment is Expected to Hold a Major Market Share in the Red biotechnology Market

- Biopharmaceuticals are medical drugs that are produced by using biotechnology. Biopharmaceuticals are proteins, antibodies, DNA, RNA or antisense oligonucleotides used for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes, and these products are produced by means other than direct extraction from a native (non-engineered) biological source.- The first biopharmaceutical product approved for therapeutic use was recombinant human insulin (Humulin), which was developed by Genentech and marketed by Eli Lily in the year 1982 and in the year 2019, Novartis received FDA approval for gene therapy product in the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) condition. Using an AAV9 viral vector, called Zolgensma, which delivers SMN protein into the motor neurons of afflicted patients.- According to the World Health Organization (WHO), globally Cancer is the second leading cause of death and an estimated 9.6 million deaths in the year 2018.- Increasing incidence and prevalence of chronic and rare diseases and rapid expansion of the biopharmaceutical industries are the key driving factors in the biopharmaceutical industry segment.

North America is Expected to Hold a Significant Share in the Market and Expected to do Same in the Forecast Period

North America expected to hold a major market share in the global red biotechnology market due to the rising prevalence of chronic and rare diseases, increased expenditure in the healthcare industry in this region. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in the year 2019, approximately 1.8 million people will be diagnosed with cancer in the United States and estimated 268,600 women and 2,670 men will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, the rise in the adoption of advanced technologies in gene therapy and increasing investments in research and development is fueling the growth of the overall regional market to a large extent.

Inquire for Discount:

https://www.marketinsightsreports.com/reports/01091744865/red-biotechnology-market-growth-trends-and-forecast-2020-2025/discount?Mode=21

Key Strategic Developments : The study also includes the key strategic developments of the market, comprising R & D, new product launch, M & A, agreements, collaborations, partnerships, joint ventures, and regional growth of the leading competitors operating in the market on a Global and regional scale.

Key Market Features: The report evaluated key market features, including revenue, price, capacity, capacity utilization rate, gross, production, production rate, consumption, import/export, supply/demand, cost, market share, CAGR, and gross margin. In addition, the study offers a comprehensive study of the key market dynamics and their latest trends, along with pertinent market segments and sub-segments.

Analytical Tools: Global Red Biotechnology Market report includes the accurately studied and assessed data of the key industry players and their scope in the market by means of a number of analytical tools. The analytical tools such as Porter's five forces analysis, feasibility study, and investment return analysis have been used to analyzed the growth of the key players operating in the market.

The research includes historic data from 2014 to 2020 and forecasts until 2025 which makes the reports an invaluable resource for industry executives, marketing, sales and product managers, consultants, analysts, and other people looking for key industry data in readily accessible documents with clearly presented tables and graphs.

Media Contact Us:

Irfan Tamboli (Head of Sales) Market Insights Reports

Phone: + 1704 266 3234 | +91-750-707-8687

|

MENAFN18012020007010643ID1099570077

Read more:

Red Biotechnology Market Size, Status and Recent Advancements, Forecast 2020 to 2025 - MENAFN.COM

How food and beverage marketing claims can affect the production process – Food Engineering Magazine

How food and beverage marketing claims can affect the production process | 2020-01-17 | Food Engineering This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more. This Website Uses CookiesBy closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.

Read the rest here:

How food and beverage marketing claims can affect the production process - Food Engineering Magazine

Gone Fishing? No Fish but Plenty of Pesticides and a Public Health Crisis – CounterPunch

There ismounting evidencethat a healthy soil microbiome protects plants from pests and diseases.One of the greatest natural assets that humankind has is soil. But when you drench it with proprietary synthetic chemicals or continuously monocrop as part of a corporate-controlled industrial farming system, you can kill essential microbes, upset soil balance and end up feeding soil a limiteddoughnut dietof unhealthy inputs.

Armed with their synthetic biocides, this is what the transnational agritech conglommerates do. These companies attempt to get various regulatory and policy-making bodies to bow before the altar of corporate science. But, in reality, they have limited insight into the long-term impacts their actions have on soil and itscomplex networksof microbes and microbiological processes. Soil microbiologists are themselves still trying to comprehend it all.

That much is clearwhen Linda Kinkelof the University of Minnesotas Department of Plant Pathology said back in 2014: We understand only a fraction of what microbes do to aid in plant growth.

And its the same where human soil is concerned.

People have a deep microbiological connection to soils and traditional processing and fermentation processes, which all affect the gut microbiome the up to six pounds of bacteria, viruses and microbes akin to human soil. And as with actual soil, the microbiome can become degraded according to what we ingest (or fail to ingest). Many nerve endings from major organs are located in the gut and the microbiome effectively nourishes them. There is ongoing research taking place into how the microbiome is disrupted by the modern globalised food production/processing system and the chemical bombardment it is subjected to.

The human microbiome is of vital importance to human health yet it is under chemical attack from agri-food giants and theiragrochemicals and food additives. As soon as we stopped eating locally-grown, traditionally-processed food, cultivated in healthy soils and began eating food subjected to chemical-laden cultivation and processing activities, we began to change ourselves. Along with cultural traditions surrounding food production and the seasons, we also lost our deep-rooted microbiological connection with our localities. It was traded in for corporate chemicals and seeds and global food chains dominated by the likes of Monsanto (now Bayer), Nestle and Cargill.

Environmentalist Dr Rosemary Mason says that glyphosate disrupts the shikimate pathway within these gut bacteria and is a strong chelator of essential minerals, such as cobalt, zinc, manganese, calcium, molybdenum and sulphate. In addition, it kills off beneficial gut bacteria and allows toxic bacteria to flourish. She adds that we are therefore facing a global metabolic health crisis linked to glyphosate.

Many key neurotransmitters are located in the gut. Aside from affecting the functioning of major organs, these transmitters affect our moods and thinking. There is strong evidence that gut bacteria can have a direct physical impact on the brain. Alterations in the composition of the gut microbiome have been implicated in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including autism, chronic pain, depression and Parkinsons Disease.

Recently published research indicates that glyphosate and Roundup are proven to disrupt gut microbiome by inhibiting the shikimate pathway.Dr Michael Antoniou of Kings College Londonhas found thatRoundup herbicide and its active ingredient glyphosate cause a dramatic increase in the levels of two substances, shikimic acid and 3-dehydroshikimic acid, in the gut, which are a direct indication that the EPSPS enzyme of the shikimic acid pathway has been severely inhibited. The researchers found that Roundup and glyphosate affected the microbiome at all dose levels tested, causing shifts in bacterial populations.

This confirms what Mason has been highlighting for some time. However, she has also been pointing out the environmental degradation resulting from the spiralling use of glyphosate-based herbicides and has just written an open letter tothe Principal Fisheries Officer of Natural Resources Wales (NRW), Peter Gough (NRW is the environment agency for Wales).

The letter runs to 20 pages and focuses on glyphosate and neonicotinoid insecticides. She asks who would re-authorise a pesticide that istoxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects and is causing serious eye damage along with various forms of cancers and a wide range of other health conditions?

She answers her question by saying the European Glyphosate Task Force and Jean-Claude Juncker President of the EC along with various regulators in Europe who have basically capitulated to an industry agenda. Mason argues that the European Glyphosate Task Force (who actually did the re-assessment of glyphosate) omitted all the studies from South America where they had been growing GM Roundup Ready crops since 1996. She discusses the suppression of key research which indicated the harmful effects of glyphosate.

The Principal Fisheries Scientist Wales sent Mason two NRW Reports two years ago. In it, Mason discovered that giant hogweed on the River Usk bank had been treated with a glyphosate-based herbicide. NRW had also admitted to not studying the effects of neonicotinoids, which had been introduced in 1994. Mason pointed out to NRW that run-off from farms of clothianidin in seeds would be enough to kill off aquatic invertebrates.

In early January, NRW attempted to explain the absence of salmon and trout in the River Usk on climate change (warming of the river), rather than poisoning of the river, which is what Mason had warned the agency about two years ago.

In Britain, information on emerging water contaminants has been suppressed, according to Mason, and there is no monitoring of either neonics or glyphosate in surface or ground water. In the US, though, measurements of these chemicals have been carried out on farmland and their correlation with massive declines in invertebrates byseparate agenciesand universities in the US and Canada.

Mason notes there has been 70 years of poisoning the land with pesticides. Although the National Farmers Union and the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs in the UK say fewer pesticides are now being applied, the Soil Association indicates massive increases of increasing numbers of pesticides at decreasing intervals (official statistics obtained via a Freedom of Information request).

Readers should consult the full text of Masons open letter on theacamedia.edusite to gain wider insight into the issues outlined above and many more, such as government collusion with major agrochemical corporations, the shaping of official narratives on illness and disease to obscure the role of pesticides and Monsantos poisoning of Wales.

What Mason outlines is not specific to Wales or the UK; the increasing use of damaging agrochemicals and government collusion with the industry transcends national borders. Nation states are becoming increasingly obsolete and powerless in the face of globalised capitalist interests that seek to capture and exploit markets, especially in the Global South.

What follows is the e-mail that Mason sent to Peter Gough by way of introducing her letter to him.

Dear Peter,

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) classified glyphosate as a substance that is toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects

Your colleague Dave Charlesworth declared on BBC 1 Breakfast last week that the declines in salmon and trout were due to climate change and warming of the rivers. I told you just over 2 years ago that it was due to pesticides and showed you the proof from assorted NRW documents you sent me.

Why are NRW, the government, top UK doctors, farmers, the corporations, the media and global pesticides regulators protecting the agrochemical industry? All of you could suffer from the effects of pesticides in food, in water, in the air and in rain. Why dont you inform the people?

Monsanto claims that Roundup doesnt affect humans, but their sealed secret studies that scientist Anthony Samsel obtained from the US EPA, shows evidence of cancers and that bioaccumulation of14C labelled glyphosate occurred in every organ of the body (page 9).

The NFU and Defra deny they are responsible for 70 years of poisoning the land and the subsequent insect apocalypse; they should read their own document Healthy Harvest.The National Farmers Union (NFU), the Crop Protection Association (CPA) and the Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) combined to lobby the EU not to restrict the 320+ pesticides available to them. The publication is called:HEALTHY HARVEST.[1](Pages 6-9)

The Department of Health and the Chief Medical Officer for England claim that parents are responsible for obesity in primary school children. However, Pesticides Action Network (PAN) analysed the Department of Healths Schools Fruit and Vegetable Scheme and found that there were residues of 123 pesticides in it,some of which are linked to serious health problems such as cancer and disruption of the hormone system.

When PAN informed them, they said that pesticides were not the concern of the DOH. (Page 14, 13-16).

Dr Don Huber, Emeritus Professor of Plant Pathology, Purdue University, US, speaking about GMO crops and glyphosate, said: Future historians may well look back upon our time and write, not about how many pounds of pesticide we did or didnt apply, but by how willing we are to sacrifice our children and future generations for this massive genetic engineering experiment that is based on flawed science and failed promises just to benefit the bottom line of a commercial enterprise. (Page 18)

Kind regards,

Rosemary

Go here to read the rest:

Gone Fishing? No Fish but Plenty of Pesticides and a Public Health Crisis - CounterPunch

Economists explore the consequences of steering technological progress – The Economist

Jan 16th 2020

SINCE THE ancient Greeks, at least, people have recognised that civilisational progress tends to create havoc as well as opportunity. Economists have had little time for such concerns. To them, technological progress is the wellspring of long-run growth, and the only interesting question is how best to coax more innovation out of the system. But in the face of looming social challenges, from climate change to inequality, some are now asking whether, when it comes to innovation, what sort is as relevant as how much.

Early models of growth did not explain technological progress at all, treating it rather like manna from heaven. In the 1980s some economists worked to build endogenous-growth models that said where innovation came from. They explained it as the consequence of investment in research and development, increases in the stock of human capital, or the (temporary) extra profits that can be reaped by firms with new technologies. Other economists have focused more on data than on theory. Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation, a paper published in 2018 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, identifies factors that seem to encourage young people to become innovators. Children who grow up where innovation rates are high, for instance, are more likely to become inventors themselves.

Research has also made clear, however, that technological discovery is not linear, but veers about depending on economic conditions. Some economic historians reckon that early industrialisation was motivated by a desire to replace scarce resources, such as skilled labour, with abundant ones, such as unskilled labour and coal. Early inventors were not simply discovering natures truths one by one, in other words, but trying to solve specific problems. Work on such technological bias blossomed in the 1990s as economists sought to explain why the wage premium earned by college graduates kept rising even as the supply of graduates increased. The answer, some reckoned, was that technological change in the 20th century was skill-biased, boosting the productivity of workers with degrees, but not of others.

In a paper published in 2001, Daron Acemoglu of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology collected these strands in a model of directed technical change. Technological progress, he suggested, is influenced by the relative scarcity of factors such as labour and capital; by how easily one factor can be substituted for another; and by the path of past innovation. Research on a particular technology may reduce the cost of developing complementary innovations in future. Directed technical change is fascinating to contemplate because it allows for alternative technological futures: worlds in which firms wring every efficiency from Zeppelins and pneumatic tubes, rather than from internal-combustion engines and Twitter. If the direction of progress is not set in stone, policy choices could lead an economy down one technological path rather than another. That raises an immediate question: if innovation can be steered, should it be, and if so, how?

Since 2000, published work on directed technical change has focused largely on environmental challenges. Path dependence means that research on fossil-fuel technologies can often be more fertile than research on cleaner alternatives. There are more experts in the relevant disciplines, better-funded research labs and an established complementary economic infrastructure. Efficient decarbonisation might thus require subsidies for clean-energy research, as well as a carbon price. Indeed, efforts to slow global warming represent a massive attempt to realise one technological futurea zero-carbon versionrather than another.

Why stop there? Some futurists, and a few economists, worry that rapid progress in artificial intelligence could lead to mass displacement of labour and social crisis. But in a recent paper Anton Korinek of the University of Virginia notes that not all uses of AI are alike. Clever machines could indeed replace human workersor might instead be engineered to assist human labour: to help people navigate complicated processes or take difficult decisions. Private firms, focused on their bottom lines rather than the potential knock-on effects of their investment decisions, might be indifferent between the two approaches in the absence of a government nudge, just as polluting firms tend not to worry about the social costs of environmental harm unless made to do so by governments. In a working paper co-written with Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, Mr Korinek concludes that directing technical change to favour labour-assisting rather than labour-displacing forms of AI could be a second-best way to manage progress, if governments cannot sufficiently redistribute the gains from automation from winners to losers. This may sound far-fetched, but policy proposals such as Bill Gatess suggestion that robots should be taxed to slow the pace of automation represent steps toward a more micromanaged technological future.

Environmental policies aside, such steps seem premature. A more sophisticated view of technological progress is to be welcomed. But economics lacks the tools, at least for now, to judge which technological path is preferable. The world is too complex to allow economists to compare hypothetical technological futures: to know whether a Zeppelin-based society would operate more efficiently overall than a car-based one. Economists cannot know what surprises lie down one innovation path rather than another.

And questions of technology are not solely, or even mostly, about efficiency. Many are ethical. Innovations with overwhelming productivity advantages could prove devastating to social trust or equity. In the face of radical technological changein AI, robotics and genetic engineeringsocieties will inevitably argue over which technological paths should be explored. Economists views belong in these conversationsprovided they are crafted with humility and care.

This article appeared in the Finance and economics section of the print edition under the headline "Economists explore the consequences of steering technological progress"

Go here to see the original:

Economists explore the consequences of steering technological progress - The Economist

Gene editing could revolutionize the food industry, but it’ll have to fight the PR war GMO foods lost – CBC.ca

In his greenhouse at the Cold SpringHarbor Laboratory in Long Island, N.Y., plant geneticist Zach Lippman is growing cherry tomatoes.

But they don't look like the ones that most people grow in their gardens and greenhouses.

Lippman's tomatoes have shorter stemsand the fruit is more tightly clustered, looking more like grapes.

"With gene editing, we now have the ability to fine-tune at will," he said. "So instead of having black or white, small fruit [or] big fruit, you can have everything in between."

Lippman used CRISPR arevolutionarygene-editing tool that can quickly and precisely edit DNA to tweak three of the plant's genes, and make them suitable for large-scale urban agriculture for the first time.

With CRISPR, researchers can precisely target and cut any kind of genetic material. Don't want your mushrooms to turn brown after a few days? Remove the gene that causes thatand problem solved.

There's a lot of excitement about the introduction of gene-edited products into the Canadian food system over the next few years, but a lot of trepidation as well.

The food industry's last foray into genetic engineering genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the 1990s was a financial success. But the practice is an ongoing public relations nightmare, as many Canadians remain wary of products critics have labelled "Frankenfoods."

Currently, the only gene-edited product commercially available is a soybean oil being used by a restaurant chain in the American Midwest for cooking and salad dressings. It has a longer shelf life than other cooking oils and produces less saturated fat and no trans fat.

Ian Affleck, vice-president of plant biotechnology at CropLife Canada, a trade association that represents Canadian manufacturers of pesticides and plant-breeding products, estimates the soybean oil might be in Canada in a year or two, followed by some altered fruits and vegetables.

Even then, he said, supplies will likely be limited while farmers and food companies determine if consumers will embrace genetically edited food.

All the major health organizations in the world, including Health Canada, have concluded that eating GMO foods does not pose eithershort or long-term health risks.

According to the World Health Organization, GMO goods currently approved for the market "have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health."

But Canadians remain stubbornly unconvinced even though about 90 per cent of the corn, soybeansand canola grown in Canada is genetically modified, as is almost all of the processed food we consume.

A 2018 pollby market research company Statista found only 37 per cent of people surveyed strongly or somewhat strongly agreed that GMOs were safe to eat, while 34 per cent strongly or somewhat strongly disagreed.

Industry representatives now say they spent too much time marketing their GMOproducts to farmersand not enough time communicating the benefitsto consumers.

"We spoke to two per cent of the population, who are those who farm," said Affleck. "And those who opposed the technology spoke to the other 98 per cent of the population."

"We thought it was just another transition in plant breeding," recalled Stuart Smyth, who holds the University of Saskatchewan's industry-funded research chair in agri-food innovation. "Nobody expected the environmental groups to develop into a political opposition."

With gene-edited foods, Smyth believes the industry needs to focus on public education to counteract what he calls the "propaganda" that will be coming from the other side.

Gene-edited foods will differ from GMOs in one important respect.

When foods are genetically modified, foreign genes are often added to an existing genome. If you want a vegetable to grow better in cold weather, you could add a gene from a fish that lives in icy water.That's what earned GMO products the "Frankenfoods" moniker.

With gene-editing tools like CRISPR, genes can be cut out, or "turned off," but nothing new is added to the genome.

Lucy Sharratt, co-ordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, isn't convinced there's a significant difference.

"The new techniques of gene editing are clearly techniques of genetic engineering," she said. "They are all invasive methods of changing a genome directly at the molecular level.

"While we can produce organisms with new traits, that doesn't mean we know exactly all of what we've done to that organism. There can be many unintended effects," Sharratt further argued.

Unlike GMOs, which require extensive regulatory approval before going to market, gene-edited foods will likely appear without undergoing a risk assessment by Canadian regulators.

Health Canada doesn't require safety testing for new products if it determines those products aren't introducing "novel traits" into the food system. Since it considers gene editing to be an extension of traditional plant breeding, no stamp of approval will be necessary.

That concerns Jennifer Kuzma, co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, whothinks gene-edited products should be tracked and monitored "for those low-level health effects that some products might be contributing to."

Sharratt is also skeptical that gene editing will produce the benefits its supporters claim, pointing to "a biotech industry that has oversold technology and made all kinds of broad promises for the use of genetic engineering that didn't come to pass." Things like reduced pesticide use and greater drought resistance, for example.

Kuzma agrees that GMO researchers have sometimes been guilty of "perhaps overstating the promise of the technology and understating potential risk."But she believes those involved in developing gene-editing techniques want to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

"They have a really sincere desire to be more open and transparent in the ways that they communicate and in the sharing of information," she said. "They do realize that the first generation of genetic engineering did not go so well from a public confidence perspective."

The GMO food industry has fiercely opposed one of the most obvious methods to boost public confidence: mandatory labelling, even as a 2018 survey from Dalhousie University showed an overwhelming majority of Canadians support it.

Sixty-four countries require mandatory labelling for GMO products. Canada is not one of them.

There are no plans to require mandatory labelling of gene-edited foods, either.

Jonathan Latham, executive director of the Bioscience Resource Project, a New York-based non-profit organization that researches genetic engineering, thinks that's a mistake.

"If you want people to make informed decisions and you want them to make that in a democratic fashion, then the more information you give them, the better," he said. "And so to deny people information about the content of their food is to violate a very basic democratic right."

Lathamalso believes that not labelling genetically engineered productsincreases consumer skepticism.

"[Consumers] don't really understand why, if a company wants to produce a product and advertise it and tell everybody how good it is, why they shouldn't also want to label it," he said.

Sharratt would like to see Canada adopt the approach taken by the European Court of Justice, which ruled in 2018 that gene-edited foods must undergo the same testing as GMOs before being allowed on grocery store shelves.

Lippman doesn't believe that will happen. In fact, he thinks the potential of gene-edited foods is so great that the public will demand even greater access to suchproducts.

"People will start to be educated and see that there's nothing harmful about it. It's completely fine. And then the only issue sticking out there will be whether we're over-promising.That'll be it."

Click 'listen' above to hear Ira Basen's documentary, The Splice of Life.

Visit link:

Gene editing could revolutionize the food industry, but it'll have to fight the PR war GMO foods lost - CBC.ca

The Top Biotech Trends We’ll Be Watching in 2020 – Singularity Hub

Last year left us with this piece of bombshell news: He Jiankui, the mastermind behind the CRISPR babies scandal, has been sentenced to three years in prison for violating Chinese laws on scientific research and medical management. Two of his colleagues also face prison for genetically engineering human embryos that eventually became the worlds first CRISPRd babies.

The story isnt over: at least one other scientist is eagerly following Hes footsteps in creating gene-edited humans, although he stresses that he wont implant any engineered embryos until receiving regulatory approval.

Biotech stories are rarely this dramatic. But as gene editing tools and assisted reproductive technologies increase in safety and precision, were bound to see ever more mind-bending headlines. Add in a dose of deep learning for drug discovery and synthetic biology, and its fair to say were getting closer to reshaping biology from the ground upboth ourselves and other living creatures around us.

Here are two stories in biotech were keeping our eyes on. Although successes likely wont come to fruition this year (sorry), these futuristic projects may be closer to reality than you think.

The idea of human-animal chimeras immediately triggers ethical aversion, but the dream of engineering replacement human organs in other animals is gaining momentum.

There are two main ways to do this. The slightly less ethically-fraught idea is to grow a fleet of pigs with heavily CRISPRd organs to make them more human-like. It sounds crazy, but scientists have already successfully transplanted pig hearts into baboonsa stand-in for people with heart failurewith some recipients living up to 180 days before they were euthanized. Despite having foreign hearts, the baboons were healthy and acted like their normal buoyant selves post-op.

But for cross-species transplantation, or xenotransplants to work in humans, we need to deal with PERVsa group of nasty pig genes scattered across the porcine genome, remnants of ancient viral infections that can tag along and potentially infect unsuspecting human recipients.

Theres plenty of progress here too: back in 2017 scientists at eGenesis, a startup spun off from Dr. George Churchs lab, used CRISPR to make PERV-free pig cells that eventually became PERV-free piglets after cloning. Then last month, eGenesis reported the birth of Pig3.0, the worlds most CRISPRd animal to further increase organ compatibility. These PERV-free genetic wonders had three pig genes that stimulate immunorejection removed, and nine brand new human genes to make themin theorymore compatible with human physiology. When raised to adulthood, pig3.0 could reproduce and pass on their genetic edits.

Although only a first clinical propotype that needs further validation and refinement, eGenesis is hopeful. According to one (perhaps overzealous) estimate, the first pig-to-human xenotranplant clinical trial could come in just two years.

The more ethically-challenged idea is to grow human organs directly inside other animalsin other words, engineer human-animal hybrid embryos and bring them to term. This approach marries two ethically uncomfortable technologies, germline editing and hybrids, into one solution that has many wondering if these engineered animals may somehow receive a dose of humanness by accident during development. What if, for example, human donor cells end up migrating to the hybrid animals brain?

Nevertheless, this year scientists at the University of Tokyo are planning to grow human tissue in rodent and pig embryos and transplant those hybrids into surrogates for further development. For now, bringing the embryos to term is completely out of the question. But the line between humans and other animals will only be further blurred in 2020, and scientists have begun debating a new label, substantially human, for living organisms that are mainly human in characteristicsbut not completely so.

With over 800 gene therapy trials in the running and several in mature stages, well likely see a leap in new gene medicine approvals and growth in CAR-T spheres. For now, although transformative, the three approved gene therapies have had lackluster market results, spurring some to ponder whether companies may cut down on investment.

The research community, however, is going strong, with a curious bifurcating trend emerging. Let me explain.

Genetic medicine, a grab-bag term for treatments that directly change genes or their expression, is usually an off-the-shelf solution. Cell therapies, such as the blood cancer breakthrough CAR-T, are extremely personalized in that a patients own immune cells are genetically enhanced. But the true power of genetic medicine lies in its potential for hyper-personalization, especially when it comes to rare genetic disorders. In contrast, CAR-Ts broader success may eventually rely on its ability to become one-size-fits-all.

One example of hyper-tailored gene medicine success is the harrowing story of Mila, a six-year-old with Batten disease, a neurodegenerative genetic disorder that is always fatal and was previously untreatable. Thanks to remarkable efforts from multiple teams, however, in just over a year scientists developed a new experimental therapy tailored to her unique genetic mutation. Since receiving the drug, Milas condition improved significantly.

Milas case is a proof-of-concept of the power of N=1 genetic medicine. Its unclear whether other children also carry her particular mutationBatten has more than a dozen different variants, each stemming from different genetic miscodingor if anyone else would ever benefit from the treatment.

For now, monumental costs and other necessary resources make it impossible to pull off similar feats for a broader population. This is a shame, because inherited diseases rarely have a single genetic cause. But costs for genome mapping and DNA synthesis are rapidly declining. Were starting to better understand how mutations lead to varied disorders. And with multiple gene medicines, such as antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) finally making a comeback after 40 years, its not hard to envision a new era of hyper-personalized genetic treatments, especially for rare diseases.

In contrast, the path forward for CAR-T is to strip its personalization. Both FDA-approved CAR-T therapies require doctors to collect a patients own immune T cells, preserved and shipped to a manufacturer, genetically engineered to boost their cancer-hunting abilities, and infused back into patients. Each cycle is a race against the cancer clock, requiring about three to four weeks to manufacture. Shipping and labor costs further drive up the treatments price tag to hundreds of thousands of dollars per treatment.

These considerable problems have pushed scientists to actively research off-the-shelf CAR-T therapies, which can be made from healthy donor cells in giant batches and cryopreserved. The main stumbling block is immunorejection: engineered cells from donors can cause life-threatening immune problems, or be completely eliminated by the cancer patients immune system and lose efficacy.

The good news? Promising results are coming soon. One idea is to use T cells from umbilical cord blood, which are less likely to generate an immune response. Another is to engineer T cells from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC)mature cells returned back to a young, stem-like state. A patients skin cells, for example, could be made into iPSCs that constantly renew themselves, and only pushed to develop into cancer-fighting T cells when needed.

Yet another idea is to use gene editing to delete proteins on T cells that can trigger an immune responsethe first clinical trials with this approach are already underway. With at least nine different off-the-shelf CAR-T in early human trials, well likely see movement in industrialized CAR-T this year.

Theres lots of other stories in biotech we here at Singularity Hub are watching. For example, the use of AI in drug discovery, after years of hype, may finally meet its reckoning. That is, can the technology actually speed up the arduous process of finding new drug targets or the design of new drugs?

Another potentially game-changing story is that of Biogens Alzheimers drug candidate, which reported contradicting results last year but was still submitted to the FDA. If approved, itll be the first drug to slow cognitive decline in a decade. And of course, theres always the potential for another mind-breaking technological leap (or stumble?) thats hard to predict.

In other words: we cant wait to bring you new stories from biotechs cutting edge in 2020.

Image Credit: Image by Konstantin Kolosov from Pixabay

Read the rest here:

The Top Biotech Trends We'll Be Watching in 2020 - Singularity Hub

This Week’s Awesome Tech Stories From Around the Web (Through January 11) – Singularity Hub

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Can an AI Be an Inventor? Not Yet.Angela Chen | MIT Technology Review[Ryan Abbott] believes there will be more and more cases where AI should be considered a genuine inventor and that the law needs to be ready. At stake in this discussion is the future of innovation, he says. Not allowing AI be recognized as an inventor is not only morally problematic, he says, but will lead to unintended consequences.

The Superpowers of Super-Thin MaterialsAmos Zeeberg | The New York TimesAs researchers like [Toms Palacios] see it, two-dimensional materials will be the linchpin of the internet of everything. They will be painted on bridges and form the sensors to watch for strain and cracks. They will cover windows with transparent layers that become visible only when information is displayed. Increasingly, the future looks flat.

Panasonics VR Glasses Support HDR and Look Pretty SteampunkSam Byford | The VergeThe problem with VR headsets is that they still all look like VR headsetsglorified ski goggles that shut you off from the world. my main takeaway from the demo was that hey, turns out its possible to make VR glasses that are both better qualityand with a better form factor.

Why the Quantum Internet Should Be Built in SpaceEmerging Technology From the arXiv | MIT Technology Review[Sumeet Khatri and colleagues have] studied the various ways a quantum internet could be built and say the most cost-effective approach is to create a constellation of quantum-enabled satellites capable of continuously broadcasting entangled photons to the ground. In other words, the quantum internet should be space-based.

The Gene Drive Dilemma: We Can Alter Entire Species, but Should We?Jennifer Kahn | The New York Times MagazineA new genetic engineering technology could help eliminate malaria and stave off extinctionsif humanity decides to unleash it.

Bots Are Destroying Political Discourse as We Know ItBruce Schneier | The AtlanticSoon, AI-driven personas will be able to write personalized letters to newspapers and elected officials, submit individual comments to public rule-making processes, and intelligently debate political issues on social media. They will be replicated in the millions and engage on the issues around the clock, sending billions of messages, long and short. Putting all this together, theyll be able to drown out any actual debate on the internet.

Image Credit: Karlis Reimanis /Unsplash

Read the original:

This Week's Awesome Tech Stories From Around the Web (Through January 11) - Singularity Hub

Bayer and Azitra partner to harness the human skin microbiome as a source for new natural skin care products for sensitive and eczema-prone skin |…

DetailsCategory: More NewsPublished on Sunday, 12 January 2020 11:23Hits: 327

LEVERKUSEN, Germany & FARMINGTON, CT, USA I January 10, 2020 I Bayer and Azitra Inc., a clinical-stage medical dermatology biotech company, today announced a joint development agreement to collaborate in the identification and characterization of skin microbiome bacteria. The partnership will leverage Azitras proprietary panel of Staphylococcus epidermidis strains to identify potential candidates for the treatment of adverse skin conditions and diseases. Based on the results of the research partnership, Bayer plans to develop selected Staphylococcus epidermidis strains into new natural skin care products under a future License Agreement. Prospective areas of application include medicated skin care products for sensitive, eczema-prone skin as well as therapeutic products for skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis.

Recent scientific publications suggest that microorganisms such as bacteria and especially skin-friendly bacteria, commonly referred to as skin microbiome, can significantly contribute to the protection of the skin from hostile invasions. Additional positive effects include supporting the recovery from skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis, acne, and rosacea, and may also accelerate wound healing.

The skin microbiome offers a promising platform for the development and commercialization of natural skin care products more and more people are looking for. As Bayer is committed to the development of science-based consumer health products through our own research as well as external partnerships, were delighted to collaborate with Azitra. The company has already demonstrated tolerability of a selected Staphylococcus epidermidis strain in healthy volunteers and is now planning to start the clinical demonstration of efficacy, Heiko Schipper, Member of the Board of Management of Bayer AG and President of Bayer Consumer Health, comments on the new partnership.

Bayer, a global leader in innovative and trusted skincare solutions, will actively contribute to the research collaboration by providing suitable topical formulations that are able to maintain Staphylococcus epidermidis viability while showing excellent skin compatibility and sensorial performance.

"We are strongly committed to the potential of the microbiome to provide significant benefits for improved skin health and appearance and by working together with Bayer I am confident we can deliver on the promise of this technology," states Richard Andrews, President and CEO of Azitra.

Azitras versatile platform technology offers further screening options for beneficial strains appropriate for the treatment of dermatological diseases such as atopic dermatitis, acne or psoriasis. In addition, Bayer will review the use of Azitras genetically modified bacteria in Dermatology and other Consumer Health areas such as Nutritionals and Digestive Health.

About Azitra

Azitra, Inc. is a clinical-stage medical dermatology company that combines the power of the microbiome with cutting-edge genetic engineering to treat skin disease. The company was founded in 2014 by scientists from Yale University and works with world-leading scientists in dermatology, microbiology, and genetic engineering to advance its pharmaceutical programs to treat cancer therapy associated skin rashes, targeted orphan indications and atopic dermatitis. Learn more at http://www.azitrainc.com

About Bayer

Bayer is a global enterprise with core competencies in the life science fields of health care and nutrition. Its products and services are designed to benefit people by supporting efforts to overcome the major challenges presented by a growing and aging global population. At the same time, the Group aims to increase its earning power and create value through innovation and growth. Bayer is committed to the principles of sustainable development, and the Bayer brand stands for trust, reliability and quality throughout the world. In fiscal 2018, the Group employed around 117,000 people and had sales of 39.6 billion euros. Capital expenditures amounted to 2.6 billion euros, R&D expenses to 5.2 billion euros. For more information, go to http://www.bayer.com.

SOURCE: Bayer

Originally posted here:

Bayer and Azitra partner to harness the human skin microbiome as a source for new natural skin care products for sensitive and eczema-prone skin |...

Bayer and Azitra Partner to Harness the Human Skin Microbiome as a Source for New Natural Skin Care Products for Sensitive and Eczema-Prone Skin -…

LEVERKUSEN, Germany & FARMINGTON, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Bayer and Azitra Inc., a clinical-stage medical dermatology biotech company, today announced a joint development agreement to collaborate in the identification and characterization of skin microbiome bacteria. The partnership will leverage Azitras proprietary panel of Staphylococcus epidermidis strains to identify potential candidates for the treatment of adverse skin conditions and diseases. Based on the results of the research partnership, Bayer plans to develop selected Staphylococcus epidermidis strains into new natural skin care products under a future License Agreement. Prospective areas of application include medicated skin care products for sensitive, eczema-prone skin as well as therapeutic products for skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis.

Recent scientific publications suggest that microorganisms such as bacteria and especially skin-friendly bacteria, commonly referred to as skin microbiome, can significantly contribute to the protection of the skin from hostile invasions. Additional positive effects include supporting the recovery from skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis, acne, and rosacea, and may also accelerate wound healing.

The skin microbiome offers a promising platform for the development and commercialization of natural skin care products more and more people are looking for. As Bayer is committed to the development of science-based consumer health products through our own research as well as external partnerships, were delighted to collaborate with Azitra. The company has already demonstrated tolerability of a selected Staphylococcus epidermidis strain in healthy volunteers and is now planning to start the clinical demonstration of efficacy, Heiko Schipper, Member of the Board of Management of Bayer AG and President of Bayer Consumer Health, comments on the new partnership.

Bayer, a global leader in innovative and trusted skincare solutions, will actively contribute to the research collaboration by providing suitable topical formulations that are able to maintain Staphylococcus epidermidis viability while showing excellent skin compatibility and sensorial performance.

"We are strongly committed to the potential of the microbiome to provide significant benefits for improved skin health and appearance and by working together with Bayer I am confident we can deliver on the promise of this technology," states Richard Andrews, President and CEO of Azitra.

Azitras versatile platform technology offers further screening options for beneficial strains appropriate for the treatment of dermatological diseases such as atopic dermatitis, acne or psoriasis. In addition, Bayer will review the use of Azitras genetically modified bacteria in Dermatology and other Consumer Health areas such as Nutritionals and Digestive Health.

About Azitra

Azitra, Inc. is a clinical-stage medical dermatology company that combines the power of the microbiome with cutting-edge genetic engineering to treat skin disease. The company was founded in 2014 by scientists from Yale University and works with world-leading scientists in dermatology, microbiology, and genetic engineering to advance its pharmaceutical programs to treat cancer therapy associated skin rashes, targeted orphan indications and atopic dermatitis.Learn more at http://www.azitrainc.com

About Bayer

Bayer is a global enterprise with core competencies in the life science fields of health care and nutrition. Its products and services are designed to benefit people by supporting efforts to overcome the major challenges presented by a growing and aging global population. At the same time, the Group aims to increase its earning power and create value through innovation and growth. Bayer is committed to the principles of sustainable development, and the Bayer brand stands for trust, reliability and quality throughout the world. In fiscal 2018, the Group employed around 117,000 people and had sales of 39.6 billion euros. Capital expenditures amounted to 2.6 billion euros, R&D expenses to 5.2 billion euros. For more information, go to http://www.bayer.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

This release may contain forward-looking statements based on current assumptions and forecasts made by Bayer management. Various known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors could lead to material differences between the actual future results, financial situation, development or performance of the company and the estimates given here. These factors include those discussed in Bayers public reports which are available on the Bayer website at http://www.bayer.com. The company assumes no liability whatsoever to update these forward-looking statements or to conform them to future events or developments.

Read the original here:

Bayer and Azitra Partner to Harness the Human Skin Microbiome as a Source for New Natural Skin Care Products for Sensitive and Eczema-Prone Skin -...

Genetically engineered poplar trees slash air pollution in 3-year field trial – Genetic Literacy Project

Field trials in the Northwest and Southwest show that poplar trees can be genetically modified to reduce negative impacts on air quality while leaving their growth potential virtually unchanged, says an Oregon State University researcher who collaborated on the study.

The findings, published . in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, are important because poplar plantations cover 9.4 million hectares globally more than double the land used 15 years ago. Poplars are fast-growing trees that are a source of biofuel and other products including paper, pallets, plywood and furniture frames.

A drawback of poplar plantations is that the trees are also a major producer of isoprene, the key component of natural rubber and a pre-pollutant.

Increases in isoprene negatively affect regional air quality and also unbalance the global energy budget by leading to higher levels of atmospheric aerosol production, more ozone in the air and longer methane life. Ozone and methane are greenhouse gases, and ozone is also a respiratory irritant.

Poplar and other trees including oak, eucalyptus and conifers produce isoprene in their leaves in response to climate stress such as high temperatures.

A research collaboration led by scientists at the University of Arizona, the Institute of Biochemical Plant Pathology in Germany, Portland State University and OSU genetically modified poplars not to produce isoprene, then tested them in three-year trials at plantations in Oregon and Arizona.

They found that trees whose isoprene production was genetically suppressed did not suffer any ill effects in terms of photosynthesis or biomass production they were able to make fuel and grow as well as trees that were producing isoprene.

Steve Strauss, distinguished professor of forest biotechnology in the OSU College of Forestry, said there are a couple of possible explanations for the findings.

One is that, without the ability to produce isoprene, the modified poplars appear to be making compensatory protective compounds.

Another is that most of the trees growth takes place during cooler times of the year, so heat stress, which triggers isoprene production, likely has little effect on photosynthesis at that time.

Our findings suggest that isoprene emissions can be diminished without affecting biomass production in temperate forest plantations, Strauss said. Thats what we wanted to examine can you turn down isoprene production, and does it matter to biomass productivity and general plant health? It looks like it doesnt impair either significantly. In Arizona, where its super hot, if isoprene mattered to productivity, it would show up in a striking way, but it did not. Plants are smart theyll compensate and do something different if they need to.

In this study, scientists used a genetic engineering tool known as RNA interference. RNA, ribonucleic acid, transmits protein coding instructions from each cells DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, which holds the organisms genetic code.

RNA interference is like a vaccination it triggers a natural and highly specific mechanism whereby specific targets are suppressed, be they the RNA of viruses or endogenous genes, Strauss said. You can also do this with CRISPR at the DNA level, and it usually works even better.

CRISPR, short for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, targets specific stretches of genetic code for DNA editing at exact locations.

You could also do the same thing through conventional breeding, Strauss said. It would be a lot less efficient and precise, and it might be a nightmare for breeders who may need to reassess all of their germplasm and possibly exclude their most productive cultivars as a result, but it could be done.

Corresponding author Russ Monson of the University of Arizona said the study lays the groundwork for future isoprene research, including in different growing environments.

The fact that cultivars of poplar can be produced in a way that ameliorates atmospheric impacts without significantly reducing biomass production gives us a lot of optimism, Monson said. Were striving toward greater environmental sustainability while developing plantation scale biomass sources that can serve as fossil fuel alternatives. We also need to keep working toward solutions to the current regulatory and market roadblocks that make large-scale research and commercial uses for genetically engineered trees difficult.

Sustainable forest management systems and their certifying bodies operate under the assumption that genetically modified equates to dangerous, Strauss said.

If something is GMO, its guilty until proven safe in the minds of many and in our regulations today, he said. These technologies are new tools that require scientific research to evaluate and refine them on a case-by-case basis. We have a huge need for expanded production of sustainable and renewable forest products and ecological services, and biotechnologies can help meet that need.

Original article: Poplars genetically modified not to harm air quality grow as well as non-modified trees

Go here to read the rest:

Genetically engineered poplar trees slash air pollution in 3-year field trial - Genetic Literacy Project

Rural broadband and regenerative ag make waves in subcommittee hearing | 2020-01-09 – Agri-Pulse

Agricultural practices have the potential to address climate change by sequestering carbon,witnesses told a Housesubcommittee Thursday at a hearing focused on regenerative agriculture and ag technology.

David Potere, head of GeoInnovation at Indigo Agriculture,outlinedhow his company is creating a new market for a different type of crop: carbon. The company, which was founded in 2014, has begun an initiative to sequester 1 trillion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide in farmland around the world, and through Indigo Carbon is offering farmers the opportunity to get paid for increasing the carbon content of their soil.

Bringing farmers into the solution can be a definitive part of the solution for climate change because of the potential of ag soils to absorb carbon, Potere told members of the House Innovation and Workforce Development Subcommittee.

Potere pointed totheEnergy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, which contains a provision allowing oil companies to receive a tax incentive for carbon sequestration when they pull oil out of the ground. The way the act is currently written, farmers don't get the same incentive.

If there is broad bipartisan support for federal policy that incentivizes corporate, industrial and energy producers to sequester carbon, why cant the same support be there when farmers try and do the same?Potere said.

When asked about other ways growers can employ ag technology to make their farms more sustainable, witnesses offered a variety of suggestions.

Roberto Meza, co-founder of Emerald Gardens Microgreens in Bennett, Colo., touted the importance of channeling funding into regenerative agriculture practices to help develop innovative models for producing food.

Interested in more climate changecoverage and insights? Receive a free month of Agri-Pulse or Agri-Pulse West by clickinghere.

Kevin France, president and CEO of SWIIM Systems in Denver,said instead of asking the government to create somethingnew, it should make programssuch as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program more accessible to farmers.

Douglas Jackson-Smith, professor and assistant director of the school of environment and natural resources at Ohio State University, brought up the missed opportunity and regulatory hurdles surroundinggenetic engineering. He said there are many technologies that could benefit farmers and consumers but havent hadthe opportunity to enter the marketplace because of the current regulatory process set in place on genetic engineering.

Witnesses and members of Congress also used the occasion to call for improved rural connectivity. Subcommittee chairman Jason Crow, D-Colo., called connectivitythe backbone of ag tech," noting the ability ofbroadband to makeit possible for farmers to aggregate and analyze data in real time. He emphasized the need forgreater deployment of high-speed internet in rural communities to help ag technology thrive.

Potere commented on the impact rural broadband access has had on his company, sayingIndigo has had tobuildmobile technology that is resilient to the lack of internet connectivity. Creating this technology for farmers has required Indigo to increase itsdevelopment cost, something Potere said puts unnecessary financialpressure on the company, especiallywhen a simple solution such as rural broadband already exists.Farmers, he said, just lack access to it.

For more news, go to http://www.Agri-Pulse.com.

Excerpt from:

Rural broadband and regenerative ag make waves in subcommittee hearing | 2020-01-09 - Agri-Pulse

Acepodia Announces FDA Clearance of IND for its NK Cell Therapy Drug Candidate ACE1702 to Treat Patients with HER2-expressing Solid Tumors |…

DetailsCategory: AntibodiesPublished on Thursday, 09 January 2020 19:01Hits: 759

ACE1702 is a potential off-the-shelf cell therapy developed using Acepodias Antibody-Cell Conjugation technology

SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA and TAIPEI, Taiwan I January 09, 2020 I Acepodia, a biotechnology company developing cancer immunotherapy based on its novel ACC (Antibody Cell-Conjugation) technology platform, today announced it has received clearance of its Investigational New Drug (IND) application from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to initiate a Phase 1 clinical study of its natural killer (NK) cell therapy and lead drug candidate ACE1702 in patients with HER2-expressing solid tumors.

The FDAs clearance of our IND for ACE1702 is a major milestone for Acepodia that represents an important initial validation of our ACC platform, which can link any antibody, including those that have already proven effective in targeting tumors, to proprietary off-the-shelf natural killer cell line (oNK cells) without the need for genetic engineering, said Sonny Hsiao, Ph.D., chief executive officer of Acepodia, and the inventor of ACC while at University of California, Berkeley. This novel approach allows us to circumvent the complexity and the limitations associated with CAR-T and traditional NK based cell therapies. ACC significantly improves manufacturing costs and has the potential to generate a cost-effective cancer treatment that can deliver increased benefit to patients. We look forward to advancing ACE1702 into its first clinical trial.

About ACE1702ACE1702 is Acepodias lead clinical product candidate developed from the Companys proprietary ACC platform. It targets human HER2-expressing solidtumors using anti-HER2 antibody conjugated oNK cells. ACE1702 has demonstrated enhanced tumor cellkilling activities both in vitro and in vivo, while maintaining a favorable safety profile in GLPtoxicology studies. In preclinical studies, ACE1702 has shown enhanced tumor-killing activities against HER2 IHC 1+, 2+ and 3+ human cancer cells.

About Acepodia Acepodia is a privately held US-Taiwan biotechnology company committed to developing safe, effective, and affordable immunotherapeutic medicines targeting diseases with significant unmet medical needs, with a primary focus on oncology. Acepodias proprietary ACC (Antibody Cell-Conjugation) technology platform links tumor targeting antibodies to the surface of a novel and proprietary human NK cell line that have been specifically selected for their potent antitumor activity. The ACC technology can be seamlessly combined with currently available antibodies allowing for the rapid development of new targeted therapies in multiple indications, without the need for genetic engineering.

SOURCE: Acepodia

Read the original:

Acepodia Announces FDA Clearance of IND for its NK Cell Therapy Drug Candidate ACE1702 to Treat Patients with HER2-expressing Solid Tumors |...

With $110M to add to the bankroll, Generation Bio sets its sights on engineering a revolution in the gene therapy field – Endpoints News

Whoever comes out on top of the current race to gain pioneering approvals for new AAV-delivered gene therapies will have to look over their shoulders to watch the next tech wave forming on the horizon for gene therapy 2.0.

One of those next-gen players, Generation Bio, just brought in $110 million of venture cash to cover the cost of the rest of their preclinical journey toward something completely new in the field. The latest round brings the biotech which now has about 80 staffers up to $235 million in total since its inception about 3 years ago. That will fuel the rest of its preclinical stage of development as it looks to break into human studies in the back half of 2021.

That kind of 4-plus year timeline before the first human dosing could test the endurance level of a venture player. But Generation CEO Geoff McDonough looks over the past 2 years advancing a new lipid nanoparticle delivery system for their closed-end DNA therapies working to the day when gene therapies can be produced and sold for far less than the $2 million-or-so price tag today and sees lots of fast-paced advances.

I think the reality is we didnt have an expectation at the outset (on timelines), McDonough tells me. Recognizing the novel work needed to build the platform, the investors knew it would take time and money to bring them up to a GMP level.

I would say for a 40-year problem, adds the CEO, 2 years seems pretty good.

The founding tech at Generation was designed to do what AAV treatments do in the nucleus, offering enduring expression, while allowing manufacturing at a biologic scale with a more economical, capsid-free production method. Taking a page from the tech handbooks at companies like Alnylam and Moderna, theyre building a gene therapy that they believe can do much better than the fragile, one-time-only pioneers. And without the $1 million production cost that keeps wholesale prices in the low 7-figure range.

Theyre looking for much greater economy, eventually taking these therapies to much broader ailments and out of the realm of rare diseases with a new approach that they believe can be infinitely redosable on an as-needed basis.

Thats the big picture.

Generations team is working on 2 lead programs for hemophilia A and phenylketonuria (PKU) to go into IND-enabling studies. Theyve now identified Wilson disease and Gaucher disease as likely starting points for the next steps as they move past the liver to skeletal muscle and the retina and then other tissues. And McDonough the former CEO at Sobi is looking down the road 12 to 18 months when hed like to turn to the public markets with an IPO to fund the first clinical-stage work.

In the meantime, hed like to concentrate on opening another new chapter of the company on the dealmaking side.

It felt very important not to partner initially, says McDonough. The investors wanted to retain ownership of platform. We just had tremendous good fortune we didnt need to do that for finance reasons. But now that they have a better grasp of the technology and what needs to be done, its time to partner probably later in the year.

T. Rowe Price funds and accounts led the round, with Farallon and Wellington Management Company jumping in alongside. Existing investors Atlas Venture, Fidelity, Invus, Casdin, Deerfield, Foresite Capital and an entity associated with SVB Leerink came back to stay in the syndicate. Cowen served as exclusive placement agent for the offering.

Read the original post:

With $110M to add to the bankroll, Generation Bio sets its sights on engineering a revolution in the gene therapy field - Endpoints News