This 14-year-old has developed a robotic tool prototype that aids in kinetic movements of fingers, hands, arms – YourStory

The numbers speak for themselves. We definitely need more women in STEM fields. According to the United Nations, women constitute merely 14 percent of the total 280,000 scientists, engineers, and technologists in research development institutions in India.

Its 2020 and still, there is an under-representation of women in STEM. Its therefore, heartening to hear of young people in India trying to make a mark in this field.

One such youngster who is taking her love for robotics and hoping to turn it into a profitable business enterprise is Lavanya Iyer, a 14-year-old student of Dhirubhai Ambani International School, Mumbai.

As a robotics enthusiast, Lavanya regularly participates in global competitions on robotics and also mentors young students in the field.

The idea of a business, however, came from one of her sessions at the Young Entrepreneurs Academy (YEA!)

The young entrepreneur clearly remembers her second session at YEA!, where they discussed at length about the problems around them and brainstormed on how to find solutions.

Thats when I thought about my aunt, who had to undergo a surgery when she was young, and had to take the long road to recovery through physiotherapy. It was a painful memory and made me realise that there must be a large segment of patients who face similar issues. It was then that I thought of a way to make this process easier for both patients and physiotherapists, and the idea of Kynaid was born.

Kynaid, as the name suggests, is a robotic tool that aids in the kinetic movement of fingers, hand, and arm. It assists in the speedy recovery of patients and provides efficient physiotherapy management.

Lavanya emphasises that the product, which evolved with inputs from doctors, physiotherapists, and patients, is simple, easy to use, and inexpensive.

She says, the prototype is ready, and she is in the process of filing for a patent.

Initially, Lavanya plans to introduce Kynaid to physiotherapists to garner their support and then reach out to consumers, as it will help them in their job and help patients to do the exercises at home.

She plans a business model comprising customer segments - patients and physiotherapists.

Kynaid will offer a basic and fully functional model, and also a range of models with additional features. While the basic model could be priced at around Rs 10,000 to make it affordable, the ones with additional features could go up to Rs 25,000.

Lavanya attributes moving forward with her idea to her mentorship and training sessions at YEA!

YEA has helped me get in touch with various industry leaders who have helped me with improving upon various aspects of my business. I won the second prize at the investor panel and got the opportunity to attend the YEA! Global competition in the US. I also attended two YEA! trade shows and through all these avenues, I received brilliant feedback on my product and guidance on ways to improve it and make it more patient-friendly. All this exposure through YEA! really boosted my self-confidence and the feedback helped me tweak my business plan, she says.

Lavanya also got the opportunity to pitch at a healthtech conference organised by IIM-Ahmedabad, where the judges were so impressed by her product that they announced an impromptu seed funding for her venture.

She is also looking to raise seed funding from private investors to scale up the business to its real potential.

I am hoping to extend Kynaid into other physiotherapy practices such as acupressure. This is just the beginning. I do hope I can continue using my creative skills in designing technological innovations in the field of healthcare. Nothing will give me more happy than to break stereotypes for women in STEM by making an impact in this space through my healthtech innovations, says Lavanya.

How has the coronavirus outbreak disrupted your life? And how are you dealing with it? Write to us or send us a video with subject line 'Coronavirus Disruption' to editorial@yourstory.com

Visit link:

This 14-year-old has developed a robotic tool prototype that aids in kinetic movements of fingers, hands, arms - YourStory

Profitable Report on Rehabilitation Robotics Market With Top Companies like AlterG, Bionik Inc.Statistics Analysis, Market Size, Share, Growth,…

Global Research Report called Rehabilitation Robotics Market was recently published by Market Research Inc. to provide guidance for the business.The report also focuses on global major leading industry players of GlobalRehabilitation Roboticsproviding information such as company profiles, product picture and specification, price, capacity, cost, production, revenue and contact information.

GlobalRehabilitation RoboticsMarketis expected to develop at a substantial CAGR in the coming years. The most significant factor driving the growth of this market is rising investments inmarket. Investments in theRehabilitation Robotics Markethave witnessed huge growth over the past few years.This report also states import and export consumption, supply and demand Figures, cost, price, revenue and gross margins.

Market Research Inc. announced the addition of new informative data titled Rehabilitation Robotics Market to its extensive repository. The goal of this report is to help readers improve their industrys performance by focusing on important aspects of their business, such as recent developments, technology platforms, and various standard operating procedures and tools. Primary and secondary research techniques were used to effectively examine the desired data. Analysts in this research report can quickly expand their business by focusing on various business and market strategies.

Top Key Players:AlterGBionik Inc.Bioxtreme Robotics RehabilitationCorindus, Inc.CYBERDYNE

Get Sample Copy of this [emailprotected]:https://www.marketresearchinc.com/request-sample.php?id=37716

In addition to corporate strategy, Rehabilitation Robotics the market throws light on different properties to curb the progress of fuel or industry. The focus is more on applicable sales strategies to increase the companys productivity to achieve higher economic performance. It also covers research and development activities, online and offline activities, the latest product launches, and some of the competitive expansion adopted by major global companies. Research reports use effective graphical presentation techniques such as tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and info graphics. Major competitors around the world have been stressed to understand the level of competition. Several factors, such as productivity, manufacturing base, and product type, were considered to investigate various global regions, such as North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and India. In order to clearly understand the current scope of the existing industry, the competitive environment has been refined.This report also states import and export consumption, supply and demand Figures, cost, price, revenue and gross margins.

Get Maximum Discount Now @:https://www.marketresearchinc.com/ask-for-discount.php?id=37716

Reasons for Buying this Report :

Table of Content:

Finally, all aspects of the Rehabilitation Robotics Market are quantitatively as well qualitatively assessed to study the Global as well as regional market comparatively. This market study presents critical information and factual data about the market providing an overall statistical study of this market on the basis of market drivers, limitations and its future prospects. The report supplies the international economic competition with the assistance of Porters Five Forces Analysis and SWOT Analysis.

For More Information:https://www.marketresearchinc.com/enquiry-before-buying.php?id=37716

About Us:Market Research Inc is farsighted in its view and covers massive ground in global research. Local or global, we keep a close check on both markets. Trends and concurrent assessments sometimes overlap and influence the other. When we say market intelligence, we mean a deep and well-informed insight into your products, market, marketing, competitors, and customers. Market research companies are leading the way in nurturing global thought leadership. We help your product/service become the best they can with our informed approach.

Contact Us:AuthorKevinUS Address:51 Yerba Buena Lane, Ground Suite,Inner Sunset San Francisco, CA 94103, USACall Us: +1 (628) 225 1818Email:[emailprotected]

See more here:

Profitable Report on Rehabilitation Robotics Market With Top Companies like AlterG, Bionik Inc.Statistics Analysis, Market Size, Share, Growth,...

Robotics in Nursing Market (Covid-19 Updated) Ongoing Trends and Recent Developments by 2020 With Top Vendors: Fortis Memorial Research Institute,…

Robotics in Nursing Market research report growth rate, prices, market size, trading, and key vendors of the industrys information with forecast from 2020 to 2027. This research report also combines industry-wide statistically relevant quantitative data and relevant and insightful qualitative analysis. This report has published stating that the global Robotics in Nursing Market is anticipated to expand significantly at Million US$ in 2020 and is projected to reach Million US$ by 2027, at a CAGR of during the forecast period.

This is a latest report, covering the current COVID-19 impact on the market. The pandemic of Coronavirus (COVID-19) has affected every aspect of life globally. This has brought along several changes in market conditions. This study also provides an in-depth analysis of the global market with future estimates to identify current trends and investment trends for the forecast year 2020-2027.

Request Sample Copy of this Report @: https://www.qyreports.com/request-sample/?report-id=223560

Some of the key players operated in this report are:

Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, and Palomar Medical Center among others.

Key questions answered in this report:

Factors that drive global opportunities have been surveyed in this research report to understand the current and prospective growth of the businesses. This study also offers an in-depth analysis of the global market with future estimates to identify current trends and investment trends for the forecast year 2020-2027.

Get Up To 40% Discount on this Premium Report @: https://www.qyreports.com/ask-for-discount/?report-id=223560

Regional Analysis:

Finally, all aspects of the global Robotics in Nursing Market are quantitatively as well qualitatively assessed to study the global as well as regional market comparatively. This market study presents critical information and factual data about the market providing an overall statistical study of this market on the basis of market drivers, limitations and its future prospects.

Major TOC points:

For More Information: https://www.qyreports.com/enquiry-before-buying/?report-id=223560

*If you need anything more than these then let us know and we will prepare the report according to your requirement.

About Us Qyreports:

We at, Qyreports, a leading market research report published accommodate more than 4,000 celebrated clients worldwide putting them at advantage in todays competitive world with our understanding of research. Our list of customers includes prestigious Chinese companies, multinational companies, SMEs and private equity firms whom we have helped grow and sustain with our fact-based research. Our business study covers a market size of over 30 industries offering unfailing insights into the analysis to reimagine your business. We specialize in forecasts needed for investing in a new project, to revolutionize your business, to become more customer centric and improve the quality of output.

Contact:

QYReports

Jones John

(Sales Manager)

204, Professional Centre,

7950 NW 53rd Street, Miami, Florida 33166

+1-510-560-6005

[emailprotected]

http://www.qyreports.com

Excerpt from:

Robotics in Nursing Market (Covid-19 Updated) Ongoing Trends and Recent Developments by 2020 With Top Vendors: Fortis Memorial Research Institute,...

Commentary: COVID-19 will usher in the industrial robots – CNA

TOKYO: As factory shutdowns darken the outlook for the industrial robots market, one of its biggest players sees little reason for despair.

Hiroshi Ogasawara, the president of Yaskawa Electric, argues that in a post-coronavirus world in which workers have to keep their distance from each other, the trend towards automation will only accelerate.

Coming from the head of Japans second-biggest maker of factory robots, the projection is clearly self-serving. And in the short term it may also prove misplaced.

Research group Omdia expects the US$16.5 billion global industrial automation equipment market to shrink 11 per cent this year as companies hoard cash and axe capital spending to survive the global recession.

But over the longer term, automation is certain to have an enhanced role given companies will remain under pressure to protect the health of their staff as the global economy eventually recovers.

Even Toyota, which has stressed the risk of skills becoming lost with rapid automation, concedes that the shift to robotics in factories is likely to quicken because of the pandemic.

SAFETY OF FACTORY EMPLOYEES

In Japan, where companies still communicate via fax machines and documents are signed using carved hanko seals, much of the focus during the pandemic has been on expanding teleworking to meet a government target of reducing face-to-face interactions by 80 per cent.

However, the struggle for manufacturers has been to safeguard the safety of factory employees including engineers and maintenance staff who do not have the option of working from home.

The conglomerate Toshiba, for example, managed to only shift 40 per cent of its 76,000 employees in Japan (a total that includes those in manufacturing operations) to teleworking as the nation appeared to be heading for a rise in infections last month.

At that point those staff who could not work from home were starting to voice their frustration and anxiety, according to Takamasa Mihara, the general manager of Toshibas human resources division.

To double that tally, Toshiba brought forward the paid leave it had set aside for the now postponed Tokyo Summer Olympics. The move allowed the company to shut its domestic factories from April 20 through early May in an extended Golden Week holiday.

With operations now resumed, Toshiba may adopt a four-day week for workers at its plants, alongside existing safety measures such as face masks, social distancing and the adjustment of work shifts and lunch hours to avoid gatherings of people.

Daikin, one of the worlds biggest makers of air conditioners, has asked employees to come to factories wearing their work clothes to avoid contact in locker rooms.

But despite this raft of measures there is no revolutionary safety measure or technology that can eliminate the risk of infection for factory workers.

That is true for Elon Musk, who has restarted production at Teslas electric vehicle plant in California in defiance of local county orders.

The long list of safety guidelines in the US carmakers 38-page return to work playbook include rigorous cleaning, hand sanitisers, reduced shuttles running to and from the factory and temperature checks.

BETTING ON AUTOMATION

The fact that factories cannot completely shield their workers is why Japanese manufacturers from Yaskawa to Omron, which produce more than half of the worlds supply of industrial robots, are placing their bets that companies will turn to automation.

Tadashi Yanai, founder and chief executive of Fast Retailing, has confirmed he would push ahead with an effort to replace almost all of its workers with robots at its warehouses a shift the Uniqlo operator had already begun to address an acute labour shortage.

Others may opt for collaborative robots, or co-bots, which can work side-by-side with humans in proximity and are suitable for helping to keep a safe distance between workers.

Either way, the paradox is that deploying more robots to safeguard human health creates another major anxiety: Unemployment.

According to a survey of 5,000 people in the UK, US, Germany, Japan and Sweden, conducted by Kekst CNC, more than a third of Japanese workers are already expecting to lose their jobs because of the economic destruction wrought by the virus.

Automation also accelerated in the years following the 2008 global financial crisis. But if the main driver then was to cut costs, Kota Ezawa, analyst at Citigroup, says new norms could emerge from the coronavirus crisis that place a bigger emphasis on employee well-being.

For such a structural shift to occur though, companies will first need to survive this crisis and arm themselves with fresh capital to make technology investments.

Download our appor subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates on the COVID-19 outbreak: https://cna.asia/telegram

Excerpt from:

Commentary: COVID-19 will usher in the industrial robots - CNA

The Very Real Problem of Both Trump and Pence Getting COVID-19 at the Same Time – The Atlantic

But if the vice president is also incapacitated, there is no way to use Sections 3 or 4. When Congress drafted the Twenty-Fifth Amendment in 1965, members acknowledged this gap but consciously decided not to fill it. The amendment was already extraordinarily wordy, and the risk of double incapacity seemed minimal. Fifty-five years later, though, that risk is easier to imagine.

So what would happen if Trump and Pence were so sick that neither could function? Article II of the Constitution lets Congress provide for the Case of Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed. In other words, Congress can pass line-of-succession statutes. And it has, most recently in 1947. That law still stands, and it puts the speaker of the House next in line, followed by the president pro tempore of the Senate, followed by members of the Cabinet.

Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr.: States are using the pandemic to roll back Americans rights

However, Article II provides no procedures for determining inability. Imagine that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, believing that Trump and Pence are too ill to function, cites Article II and declares herself acting president. If Trump or Pence replied that no inability existed, control of the White House would be thrown into doubt. Courts could settle the matter in due time, but just a few hours of uncertainty could be perilous.

But even if Trump and Pence were undeniably incapacitated, the country could still face a meltdown. As a matter of both policy and law, it is highly problematic that the speaker and president pro tempore are in the line of succession.

The biggest policy problem is that these congressional leaders are often members of the party opposed to the president. A line of succession statute would ideally provide continuity, because a sudden transfer of presidential power from one party to the other would be jarring. The new acting president would struggle for legitimacy (imagine power suddenly shifting from Trump to Pelosior, if that doesnt trouble you, from President Barack Obama to Speaker Paul Ryan). Avoiding such a transfer would produce perverse incentives for White House staff and other members of the presidents political party to cover up or sugarcoat the presidents and vice presidents medical conditions.

During Watergate, after Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned and before Gerald Ford was confirmed to replace him, no one held the office for eight weeks. Democratic Speaker Carl Albert promised that if something happened to President Richard Nixon and Albert became acting president, he would appoint a Republican vice president, then resign. From the standpoint of todays poisonous politics, such nonpartisan sacrifice seems inconceivable.

Read the rest here:

The Very Real Problem of Both Trump and Pence Getting COVID-19 at the Same Time - The Atlantic

Not Just a Hole in One, Court Finds Holes in All the Arguments – Patently-O

Agarwal v. Topgolf Intl (Fed. Cir. 2020)

Writing about golf in the midst of a national health crisis it a bit misguided, but the invention at issue is still interesting. Amit Agarwal is a former patent litigator and current assignee of U.S. Patent No. 5,370,389 (1994 patent expired).

As Agarwal explained in his patent infringement complaint, the invention revolutionized the boring, slow sport of golf by infusing the golf driving range experience with technology. The technology here is to individually track the balls hit and award points for distance and alignment. The infringement lawsuit was filed in 2016. TopGolf responded with a petition for inter partes review (IPR), which resulted in the claims being cancelled as obvious. On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed effectively tagging Agarwal with a double bogie.

Agarwals likely best argument that the invention wasnt obvious was hampered by the substantial deference given to the PTAB factual determinations that underlie an obviousness conclusion. The court explained:

The simple fact that some contradictory evidence exists in the record does not demonstrate that the Boards findings are unsupported by substantial evidence.

Slip Op.; citingElbit Sys. of Am., LLC v.Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Agarwal also raises the issue of unconstitutional takings, which the Federal Circuit again rejected:

Agarwal argues that a finding of unpatentability of a patent filed before November 29, 1999 in inter partes review is an unconstitutional taking. This court has already held that the retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment because patent owners had the expectation that the PTO could reconsider the validity of issued patents in inter partes reexaminations and ex parte reexaminations. Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 136263 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

Note that Celgenes petition is on this issue is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court with the following question presented:

Petitioners Question: Whether retroactive application of inter partes review to patents issued before passage of the America Invents Act violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment

US Govt Restatement of Question:Whether the cancellation, following inter partes review, of petitioners pre-AIA patent violates the Just Compensation Clause.

Petition.

Here is the original post:

Not Just a Hole in One, Court Finds Holes in All the Arguments - Patently-O

Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Heres the Truth. – The New York Times

The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.

That report, commonly referred to as a 302, is an interesting read. It vividly describes disagreements between leadership of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. about how to handle the information we had learned about Mr. Flynns calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, more specifically, Mr. Flynns apparent lies about those calls to incoming Vice President Mike Pence.

But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barrs dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.s interview of Mr. Flynn which led to the false-statements charge was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynns false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Departments assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, would not serve the interests of justice.

I can explain why, relying entirely on documents the government has filed in court or released publicly.

Notably, Mr. Barrs motion to dismiss does not argue that the F.B.I. violated the Constitution or statutory law when agents interviewed Mr. Flynn about his calls with Mr. Kislyak. It doesnt claim that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by coercively questioning him when he wasnt free to leave. Nor does the motion claim that the interview was the fruit of a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Any of these might have justified moving to dismiss the case. But by the governments own account, the interview with Mr. Flynn was voluntary, arranged in advance and took place in Mr. Flynns own office.

Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynns false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not material to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods arent material, theres no crime.

The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time.

Discounting the broader investigation and the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn, the departments motion myopically homes in on the calls alone, and because it views those calls as entirely appropriate, it concludes the investigation should not have been extended and the interview should not have taken place.

The account of my interview in 2017 doesnt help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administrations sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews.

Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pences and others denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pences denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.

The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election might have leverage over him.

This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Departments preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasnt ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation. Although several of us at Justice thought the likelihood of a criminal prosecution under the Logan Act was quite low (the act prohibits unauthorized communications with foreign governments to influence their conduct in relation to disputes with the United States), we certainly agreed that there was a counterintelligence threat.

Thats exactly why we wanted to alert the incoming administration. Ultimately, after our dispute over such notification continued through the inauguration and into the start of the Trump administration, the F.B.I. without consulting the Justice Department arranged to interview Mr. Flynn. By the time Justice Department leadership found out, agents were en route to the interview in Mr. Flynns office.

The account of my July 2017 interview describes my departments frustration with the F.B.I.s conduct, sometimes using colorful adjectives like flabbergasted to describe our reactions. We werent necessarily opposed to an interview our focus had been on notification but any such interview should have been coordinated with the Justice Department. There were protocols for engaging with White House officials and protocols for interviews, and this was, of course, a sensitive situation. We objected to the rogueness of the decision by the F.B.I. director, Jim Comey, made without notice or opportunity to weigh in.

The Barr-Shea motion to dismiss refers to my descriptions of the F.B.I.s justification for not wanting to notify the new administration about the potential Flynn compromise as vacillating from the potential compromise of a counterintelligence investigation to the protection of a purported criminal investigation. But that vacillation has no bearing on whether the F.B.I. was justified in engaging in a voluntary interview with Mr. Flynn. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynns lies to the F.B.I. were material to its investigation into any links or coordination between Mr. Trumps presidential campaign and Russias efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.

And perhaps more significant, it has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynns lies to the F.B.I. were material to the clear counterintelligence threat posed by the susceptible position Mr. Flynn put himself in when he told Mr. Pence and others in the new administration that he had not discussed the sanctions with Mr. Kislyak. The materiality is obvious.

In short, the report of my interview does not anywhere suggest that the F.B.I.s interview of Mr. Flynn was unconstitutional, unlawful or not tethered to any legitimate counterintelligence purpose.

Mary B. McCord, the former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Department of Justice, is legal director for Georgetown Laws Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and a visiting law professor.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Read the original here:

Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Heres the Truth. - The New York Times

The Good Fight Recap: Win/Loss – Vulture

The Good Fight

The Gang Goes to War

Season 4 Episode 5

Editors Rating 4 stars ****

Photo: Patrick Harbron/CBS

It feels good to win for a change, Liz says at the end of this episode of The Good Fight, and boy is she right. This season of the show has been about the near-impossibility of winning in a system where the rule of law applies unequally to different factions of society if it even applies at all. Add to that the fact that Lizs case is in military court, a venue thats generally unkind to both defendants and civilian counsel, and the expectation of victory seems even more remote, especially after President Trump puts his thumb on the scale. When the panel returns with a favorable verdict, its a legitimate shocker. Justice is an unfamiliar sight these days, in our world and in the world of The Good Fight.

And yet, is it really that much of a win?

With only a few superficial tweaks, the episode makes reference to the controversy surrounding Eddie Gallagher, a former Navy SEAL who was brought up on war crimes charges after his final deployment to Iraq. Among the allegations against him: stabbing an injured Islamic State captive with a hunting knife and posing with the body; shooting at civilians with his sniper rifle, including children and the elderly; and randomly shooting into buildings and across neighborhoods where there was no enemy threat. His fellow SEALs were so horrified by his actions that they deliberately rigged the sight on his sniper rifle and insisted on reporting him, which broke the chain of command and risked their own reputations and careers in the military. Trump intervened in both the trial phase, where Gallagher was moved from confinement to house arrest, and after sentencing, when he stopped a demotion from happening. (Gallagher was only convicted on the charge of posing for the photograph.)

The guilt of Sgt. Meyers, the sniveling Gallagher stand-in of the episode, isnt really at issue. The pro bono case Liz and Caleb take on is about defending one of Meyerss Army subordinates, DeMarcus Laney, after he admits to sabotaging Meyerss sniper rifle, which was subsequently used in the accidental killing of an Afghan translator. And so a not guilty verdict, the best scenario for their client, still does nothing to bring Meyers to justice. In fact, Trump pardoning Meyers becomes the ironic break Liz and Caleb need to win: Because hes been pardoned, Meyers can no longer assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and they can bring him back up onto the stand and align the facts in Laneys favor. Victory may feel sweet, but theyre really just keeping their heads above water here.

The staging of this modern-day A Few Good Men is the most central and compelling story line in the episode, but most of the hour coheres elegantly around the possibility of justice. Theres optimism in Liz and Calebs win, and theres optimism, too, in Juliuss decision to rebel against the Memo 618 cabal thats infected his decision-making from the bench. Julius is still talking to his noble surrogate from the stage play last week, and he opts to be the fair, principled judge he always imagined himself to be, even if it upsets the elite. It may seem like a fantastical notion for a conservative judge to render a verdict against a big-business defendant, but Julius bristles from the disrespect of those taking cover under the Memo 618 umbrella. He will run his courtroom however he pleases, personal advancement be damned. Thats another win on the episode and perhaps another loss disguised as a win, too.

For Dianes part, shes shifted from fighting the new normal to coping with it. Shes introduced in this episode just looking blankly out the window: That bird has been staring at me, she tells Liz. Its been there for ten minutes. When Diane discovers that one of STR Lauries lawyers has been filling notebook after notebook with dot configurations, rather than meeting notes, its a kind of revelation. When such scrupulous note-taking (and note-taking of the note-taking) doesnt even figure into a meaningful result, then whats the point of taking notes at all? Drawing dot configurations during depositions and meetings and court proceedings becomes an eccentric mode of self-care, equivalent to the micro-dosing that Diane was doing last season. Once a warrior for justice, Diane clearly still hasnt found her bearings in the current state of things.

Its hard to know what Luccas doing, but thats more the fault of the show, which struggled for three seasons to find Rose Leslie something to do and is now struggling with Cush Jumbo. Theres precious little legal work for Lucca to do for Bianca Skye, a client who really just wants to rent a friend for $850 an hour; the only twist this episode is that Bianca is interested in buying the Saint Lucia resort where theyre lounging. When Bianca stakes Lucca in a high-stakes poker game and she scoops $1.5 million in winnings, shes left puzzling over the ethics of taking her cut of the loot. But the whole subplot is as meaningful as dots on a page. Lucca didnt become a lawyer to doodle and the show should probably stop making her soon.

Last week, I failed to identify the play-within-the-show and the talk-back session, in particular as a reference to Jeremy O. Harriss Slave Play. Our own Chris Murphy did a rundown of Harriss livetweet through the episode, which includes the infamous Talkback Tammy moment he says the show captured word for word. As a non-New Yorker, I apologize for whiffing on the whole thing. When you dont have access to New York theater, you tend not to follow news about it.

I havent said anything about Hugh Dancys performance as Caleb, the STR Laurie in-house spy whos flirting with Marissa and sleeping with Liz. This was his first episode where hes front and center, and hes turned Caleb into an intriguing character attractive, conscientious, possibly underhanded.

A strong double reflection on the line Justice delayed is justice denied. In the case before Julius, the endless granting of continuances to monied defendants does exactly that starves the plaintiffs until they can no longer pursue justice. But in the military trial, the judges refusal to allow for a continuance puts the defendant in a bad spot, because his new lawyers arent prepared for the finer points of presenting a case in that forum.

Good on the show for scoffing along with Diane at a Saturday Night Livestyle parody of Donald Trump that winds up featuring an appearance by the man himself. Satire is dead at least on a show that allowed Trump to guest-host.

Keep up with all the drama of your favorite shows!

Go here to see the original:

The Good Fight Recap: Win/Loss - Vulture

Why dismiss the Flynn case? Because the FBI can’t prove it | TheHill – The Hill

The guiding tenet of the criminal justice system is that the government bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. All of the systems rules are rooted in this principle. These include the prosecutors ethical obligation to dismiss a charge in the absence of a good-faith belief that a rational jury could convict the accused based on the governments evidence.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) last week dismissed the prosecution of Michael Flynn, who fleetingly served as President TrumpDonald John TrumpSusan Rice says she would 'certainly say yes' to be Biden's VP Jim Jordan requests documents from Pompeo regarding Hunter Biden, Burisma Graham rebuffs Trump over Obama testimony: 'It would be a bad precedent' MOREs first national security adviser. In all the heated commentary over this decision, scant attention has been paid to the most compelling reason for vacating Flynns 2017 guilty plea to one count of making false statements to FBI agents: The government wouldnt have a prayer of convicting Flynn at trial.

Allowing the conviction to stand would have been a travesty. This basic fact, this utter lack of sufficient evidence, is obscured by the DOJs heavy reliance on a legal rationale for dropping the case. In its 20-page memorandum in support of dismissal, the DOJ contends that any false statements by Flynn could not have been material because there was no legitimate basis to investigate or interview him. Federal law makes materiality an essential element of a false-statements charge.

The FBI opened a counterintelligence probe of Flynn in August 2016 on the absurd ground that he might be a clandestine Russian agent. (Flynn is a retired three-star Army general and decorated combat commander, who had then recently written a book identifying Russia as a committed global adversary of the United States.) This suspicion was frivolously supported.

The FBIs then-director, James ComeyJames Brien ComeyTucker Carlson: Flynn case was domestic spying operation 'hidden under the pretext of national security' GOP senators hit the gas on Obama-era probes Paul claims Biden 'caught red-handed' eavesdropping on Flynn MORE, authorized closing the investigation in December 2016, and the paperwork to do so was completed on Jan. 4, 2017 20 days before the Flynn interview.

Then the FBI learned that Flynn, as an official in the Trump transition who was designated to become the presidents national security adviser, had had communications in December with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The government was monitoring Kislyak, and recordings showed that Flynn did nothing inappropriate; there was no ground to reopen or continue the counterintelligence investigation or to begin a criminal investigation.

Likewise, DOJ never would have charged Flynn criminally with violating the Logan Act a moribund, unconstitutional prohibition against freelance diplomacy. In the DOJs 150-year history, the Logan Act has never been charged. No one has ever been convicted for violating it; there has been no case since 1852. To say it would be a preposterous basis for indicting a president-elects top security adviser puts it mildly.

DOJ now theorizes that if the Flynn interview was not connected to a properly based investigation, any alleged false statements he made could not have been material. Both Flynn and the investigators, moreover, knew the Kislyak discussions were recorded. Flynn stressed that the agents could listen to the conversation if they wanted to know what was discussed. Any misstatements during the interview could not have affected the FBIs understanding.

A more indisputable rationale for dropping the Flynn case would have focused, not on a legal flaw, but on the factual inadequacy of the prosecutions evidence. Simply stated, there is no way prosecutors could have proved Flynns guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

First, Flynns statements to investigators were equivocal. That creates significant questions about whether inaccuracies in his description of the Kislyak discussions were honest failures of recollection, not lies. The interview happened about a month after the Kislyak communications. In the interim, Flynn had hundreds of conversations with foreign counterparts. It would have been a challenge for anyone to remember the words of a conversation under those circumstances; and, in their legerdemain, the FBI strategically refused to refresh Flynns recollection by playing recordings or showing a transcript.

Second, the FBI and prosecutors took inconsistent positions on whether Flynn intentionally misled them. The interviewing agents believed he was truthful, if forgetful. Director Comey reportedly said the question of whether Flynn lied was a close call. Assuming this is so, a close call is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Third, the agents went out of their way to deceive Flynn about the purpose of the interview, at which they hoped to trip him up. It is rote for FBI 302 reports used to summarize witness interviews to start by recounting that interviewing agents advised the subject of the nature of the interview. But they did not do that with Flynn. He was discouraged from consulting counsel and from reporting the FBIs request to speak with him to his White House chain-of-command. He was not given the customary advice of rights the FBI, after officials acknowledged among themselves that they owed it to Flynn to advise him that a false statement could be grounds for prosecution, willfully withheld this admonition from him.

Lets put aside that Flynn now disputes whether he lied. In criminal proceedings, due process is not optional. If the FBI were interviewing a hardened criminal who had been arrested so many times he could recite Miranda warnings by heart, agents still would give the bureaus standard advice of rights; they would make certain to tell him that a false statement could be grounds for prosecution. With Flynn, though, they did not go by the book. They did the thing that the book is supposed to prevent: Eliciting statements by deceiving a person about his legal rights.

Fourth, the two government witnesses in the case have monumental credibility problems. Under federal law, Flynns statements confessing guilt during his plea proceedings would not be admissible against him at trial if the plea were vacated. And Flynn would claim, in any event, that his plea statements were induced by coercion and fraud a threat to prosecute his son if he did not plead guilty, and the prosecutors commitment not to prosecute his son, which was illegally withheld from the court.

Consequently, the governments entire case boils down to the testimony of two FBI agents: Peter Strzok, who was terminated for misconduct, and Joe Pientka, who appears to have been the case-agent on the Trump-Russia investigation and to have played a significant role in serial misrepresentations made to obtain surveillance warrants against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

The FBI does not electronically record most interviews. There is no tape or transcript of Flynns actual words. The governments entire case would consist of Strzoks and Pientkas testimony about what Flynn said. (The Fifth Amendment would bar prosecutors from calling Flynn as a witness against himself.) Not only do the two FBI witnesses have immense credibility problems in general; their specific performance in Flynns case is jaw-dropping.

Strzok and Pientka were key participants in the FBIs decision to flout standard procedures for interviewing a member of the presidents staff, which require alerting the DOJ and the White House counsel. Knowing that if they asked, they would be denied permission to interview Flynn, FBI officials mendaciously circumvented protocol. It was, in essence, an ambush interview.

But that barely scratches the surface.

In order to promote the accuracy of FBI 302s, those reports are supposed to be completed within five days of the interview. Usually, one agent is the main interrogator, another takes notes; one of the two is responsible for drafting the 302, which the two agents then finalize, making sure between their memories and any notes taken that the 302 accurately reflects the interviewees statements.

The Flynn 302 went through multiple drafts, and the FBI has not produced the earliest iterations. If agents are just faithfully rendering a witnesss account, that should never call for heavy editing. Yet, the Flynn 302 was still being edited on Feb. 10, 17 days after the interview. And, we know from text messages, it was being edited by Lisa Page, then an FBI lawyer working as counsel to then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabeAndrew George McCabeWhy dismiss the Flynn case? Because the FBI can't prove it McCabe: Conservative media 'obsessed with finding some indication of a set-up' of Flynn 'Do as I say, not as I do': Virus exposes two standards of justice MORE. Page was neither an agent nor present at the Flynn interview; she had no business editing what Flynn said. In the contemporaneous texts, Page lambasts Strzok for so shoddy a rendition; Strzok says Page should have seen how bad was the version Pientka gave him, which Strzok labored mightily to fix before passing it along to Page. Strzok also planned to make final edits after Page was done. The 302, which apparently also was reviewed by even higher-ranking officials, was not finalized until Feb. 15.

In weirdness that signaled trouble, the FBI refused to disclose the 302 to Flynns defense. When pressed by the court, the FBI eventually produced a 302, not of Flynns interview, but of Strzoks exit interview when he was being terminated which purported to summarize Flynns interview. This raised more questions. Finally, the FBI produced not one but two Flynn 302s: the first labeled a deliberative document (clearly, because Flynns statements were extensively edited); the second generated later, when the FBI realized it had mistakenly left the deliberative label on the first. (The two 302s are the same, except for the label.)

Again, the texts elucidate that there must be earlier versions Pientkas first draft, Strzoks alterations of it, Pages alterations of Strzoks draft, etc. These versions have never been disclosed, and who knows whether they still exist?

As if that were not bad enough, there are problems with the agents handwritten notes. There are two sets of notes, one from each agent. Only a few weeks ago, prosecutors finally conceded that theyd misrepresented to the court and the defense which agent was the author of which set. There is, in addition, reason to suspect Strzok was not being forthright when, in his exit interview, he described Pientka as primarily responsible for writing the 302.

Under these circumstances, it makes sense that the Justice Department prefers to rely on a legal flaw in the false-statements charge as its main reason for dropping the case. If the problem is that Flynns statements could not have been material, then there is no need to get into these other unseemly facts.

Nevertheless, if this case had gone to trial, the whole sordid story would have come out. No rational jury would have convicted Flynn of making false statements based on the testimony of Strzok and Pientka. The bureaus irregular tactics, its dissembling, the equivocal nature of Flynns statements and the FBIs sense that he was not trying to be deceptive, would have made proof beyond a reasonable doubt an insuperable hurdle.

In Flynns case, the government could not conceivably have met its burden of proof. In dismissing the case on a legal rationale, the Justice Department avoided the potential of an ugly trial that would have damaged the FBI and DOJ.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, a contributing editor at National Review, and a Fox News contributor. His latest book is Ball of Collusion. Follow him on Twitter @AndrewCMcCarthy.

Here is the original post:

Why dismiss the Flynn case? Because the FBI can't prove it | TheHill - The Hill

Premiership clubs have a simple choice: end their secretive masonic ways or lose all credibility – Telegraph.co.uk

This is a line-in-the-sand moment for the Premiership clubs. Either they agree to endorse every single one of Lord Myners 52 recommendations or their gentlemans club reverts to being an incestuous, back-biting and back-stabbing little gathering with zero credibility.

The choice is that stark, the challenge laid down to owners and stakeholders that all-consuming, for as Myners states this is not a menu (of recommendations) to pick certain morsels that please the appetite and ignore others.

It is all or nothing. The former government minister was hired to produce a comprehensive review of salary-cap regulations. He has done just that. No white-washing, no shilly-shallying, no attempt to pull the rug from beneath due process, as happened in 2015 when Saracens were allowed to reach private settlement with the other clubs after previous transgressions were uncovered.

Transparency should be a key principle going forward with any breaches made public. Secretive masonic ways should be a thing of the past.

Myners, who admits to a great love for the sport and wishes to see it expand its horizons, has been fair-minded in outlook, comprehensive in appraisal and as brutal and unforgiving in his judgement as if he were an old-school French forward looking to inflict a spot of well-merited retribution on an uppity opponent.

No-one is spared not the clubs, not players or directors of rugby who should be more accountable themselves and not look to plead the Fifth Amendment every time an eyebrow is raised about their possible remuneration, not the agents, either, who were not among the 450 people who took part in a consultation survey.

Club officials are within the orbit of possible future sanction, while Myners also suggests that players tax returns, should be available on a random basis.

The intent is clear to clean up Premier Rugbys act with regard to salary-cap dealings. If the clubs do as they should do and back Myners impressive body of work then there will never again be a Saracens-type scandal. This report is exhaustive, forensic and laced with common sense.

As with all good codes of behaviour, it is part stick, part carrot in tone. In future, miscreants could be stripped of titles (as did not happen to Saracens, who retained their two Premiership crowns albeit they were fined 5.4million, docked 105 points and relegated) and even face a lifetime ban from the competition if therewere to be repeated breaches or acts of non-compliance.

Originally posted here:

Premiership clubs have a simple choice: end their secretive masonic ways or lose all credibility - Telegraph.co.uk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the rest here:

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

A Deep Look Into the Guts Hormones – Technology Networks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link:

A Deep Look Into the Guts Hormones - Technology Networks

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

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

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

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

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

Wusheng Liu/NC State University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: NC State University

See the article here:

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

Animal Genetics Market Latest Trends and Future Growth of Industry Analysis Report to 2028 – BioSpace

The global animal genetics market is likely to rise at a healthy growth rate over the assessment timeframe. Augmented consumption of protein extracted from animals is prophesized to favor the growth of the global animal genetics market in the forthcoming years. In addition, increasing populations generates massive demand for animal-based protein, which further benefits the market.

The global animal genetics market has been segmented on the basis of region and product and services. The sole objective of providing such an all-inclusive report is to offer a deep insight into the market.

Global Animal Genetics Market: Notable Developments

The global animal genetics market has gone through a few developments in the last few years. These market developments make a manifestation of how and what is influencing the growth of the global animal genetics market. One such development is mentioned below:

Get Brochure of the Report @ https://www.tmrresearch.com/sample/sample?flag=B&rep_id=6133

Some of the key market players of the global animal genetics market are

Global Animal Genetics Market: Growth Drivers

High Demand for Animal Protein Places the Market on a High Growth Trajectory

The global animal genetics market is estimated to experience considerable growth over the review period. Such stellar growth of the market is attributed to the augmented adoption of genetic technologies and strict implementation of animal welfare regulations.

Likewise, livestock population has witnessed a substantial rise together with awareness related to the existence of animal genetic disorders. Besides, the need to cater to the unmet demands of animal protein is likely to add fillip to the global animal genetics market over the forecast timeframe.

Buy this Premium Report @ https://www.tmrresearch.com/checkout?rep_id=6133&ltype=S

With an objective to produce better milk and food products, there has been an escalation in the research and development activities by several scientists. Genetic modifications are likely to emerge as another factor supporting the expansion of the global animal genetics market in forthcoming years.

The market is also prophesized to be fuelled by rapid expansion of urbanization and rise in population, which place massive demand for animal protein. Increased adoption of various advanced genetic practices like embryo transfer, artificial insemination (AI) for production of modified breed on a large scale is estimated to favor the market in the years to come.

On the other hand, the dearth of properly skilled technicians and professional with expertise in genetic services is estimate to impede the growth of the global animal genetics market in years to come. Furthermore, strict regulations related to genetic engineering of animals together with high cost of animal testing is likely to obstruct the growth of the market.

Global Animal Genetics Market: Regional Outlook

Asia Pacific, the Middle East and Africa, South America, Europe, and North America comprise the major regions of the global animal genetics market.

Considering geographies, North America is likely to play a dominant role in the global animal genetics market over the assessment timeframe. Such regional supremacy is ascribed to the presence of a large number of well-known companies of the global animal genetics market. In addition, the presence of a well-established livestock industry is likely to propel the North America animal genetics market to prominence in the near future.

Check Table of Contents of this Report @ https://www.tmrresearch.com/sample/sample?flag=T&rep_id=6133

The global animal genetics market is segmented as:

Products and Services

About TMR Research

TMR Research is a premier provider of customized market research and consulting services to business entities keen on succeeding in todays supercharged economic climate. Armed with an experienced, dedicated, and dynamic team of analysts, we are redefining the way our clients conduct business by providing them with authoritative and trusted research studies in tune with the latest methodologies and market trends.

Contact:

TMR Research,

3739 Balboa St # 1097,

San Francisco, CA 94121

United States

Tel: +1-415-520-1050

Visit Site: https://www.tmrresearch.com/

See the rest here:

Animal Genetics Market Latest Trends and Future Growth of Industry Analysis Report to 2028 - BioSpace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More here:

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

The Cell Therapy Industry to 2028: Global Market & Technology Analysis, Company Profiles of 309 Players (170 Involved in Stem Cells) -…

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "Cell Therapy - Technologies, Markets and Companies" report from Jain PharmaBiotech has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The cell-based markets was analyzed for 2018, and projected to 2028. The markets are analyzed according to therapeutic categories, technologies and geographical areas. The largest expansion will be in diseases of the central nervous system, cancer and cardiovascular disorders. Skin and soft tissue repair as well as diabetes mellitus will be other major markets.

The number of companies involved in cell therapy has increased remarkably during the past few years. More than 500 companies have been identified to be involved in cell therapy and 309 of these are profiled in part II of the report along with tabulation of 302 alliances. Of these companies, 170 are involved in stem cells.

Profiles of 72 academic institutions in the US involved in cell therapy are also included in part II along with their commercial collaborations. The text is supplemented with 67 Tables and 25 Figures. The bibliography contains 1,200 selected references, which are cited in the text.

This report contains information on the following:

The report describes and evaluates cell therapy technologies and methods, which have already started to play an important role in the practice of medicine. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is replacing the old fashioned bone marrow transplants. Role of cells in drug discovery is also described. Cell therapy is bound to become a part of medical practice.

Stem cells are discussed in detail in one chapter. Some light is thrown on the current controversy of embryonic sources of stem cells and comparison with adult sources. Other sources of stem cells such as the placenta, cord blood and fat removed by liposuction are also discussed. Stem cells can also be genetically modified prior to transplantation.

Cell therapy technologies overlap with those of gene therapy, cancer vaccines, drug delivery, tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Pharmaceutical applications of stem cells including those in drug discovery are also described. Various types of cells used, methods of preparation and culture, encapsulation and genetic engineering of cells are discussed. Sources of cells, both human and animal (xenotransplantation) are discussed. Methods of delivery of cell therapy range from injections to surgical implantation using special devices.

Cell therapy has applications in a large number of disorders. The most important are diseases of the nervous system and cancer which are the topics for separate chapters. Other applications include cardiac disorders (myocardial infarction and heart failure), diabetes mellitus, diseases of bones and joints, genetic disorders, and wounds of the skin and soft tissues.

Regulatory and ethical issues involving cell therapy are important and are discussed. Current political debate on the use of stem cells from embryonic sources (hESCs) is also presented. Safety is an essential consideration of any new therapy and regulations for cell therapy are those for biological preparations.

Key Topics Covered

Part I: Technologies, Ethics & Regulations

Executive Summary

1. Introduction to Cell Therapy

2. Cell Therapy Technologies

3. Stem Cells

4. Clinical Applications of Cell Therapy

5. Cell Therapy for Cardiovascular Disorders

6. Cell Therapy for Cancer

7. Cell Therapy for Neurological Disorders

8. Ethical, Legal and Political Aspects of Cell therapy

9. Safety and Regulatory Aspects of Cell Therapy

Part II: Markets, Companies & Academic Institutions

10. Markets and Future Prospects for Cell Therapy

11. Companies Involved in Cell Therapy

12. Academic Institutions

13. References

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/7h12ne

View post:

The Cell Therapy Industry to 2028: Global Market & Technology Analysis, Company Profiles of 309 Players (170 Involved in Stem Cells) -...

European Patent Office gives green light to prohibit patents on plants and animals – EUbusiness

14 May 2020by eub2-- last modified 14 May 2020

Patents on plants and animals derived from conventional breeding can be fully prohibited in Europe. This is the result of a verdict published today by the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the highest legal body of the European Patent Office (EPO).

Advertisement

The Board concluded that plants and animals obtained by 'essentially biological processes' are not patentable, with the exception of patent applications filed before July 2017. This verdict is in line with the interpretation of European patent law as decided by the 38 member states of the EPO in 2017. No Patents on Seeds! welcomes the verdict but is also demanding further political decisions to close still existing loopholes. Access to biological diversity needed for further breeding must not be controlled, hampered or blocked by any patents.

"For more than ten years we have been fighting against patents such as those on broccoli, tomatoes, peppers, melons and cereals. Therefore, we welcome this verdict in the name of the European public, gardeners, farmers and consumers. Knowledge of methods of breeding plants and animals continues to evolve as a common good from the activities of farmers and breeders over centuries, it is not invented by industry. In future, conventionally bred plants and animals have to be kept available for further breeding," Martha Mertens says for Friends of the Earth Germany.

"We hope the new verdict will help to put an end to a decade of complete legal absurdity and chaotic decision-making at the EPO. However, there is still a huge risk that big corporations, such as Bayer (previously Monsanto) will try to abuse patent law to take control of our daily food," says Katherine Dolan for ARCHE NOAH. "The problem is not yet solved. Further political decisions still have to be taken to close the existing loopholes."

Indeed, there are still reasons for concern. As a recent report from No Patents on Seeds! shows, clear definitions are needed to distinguish patentable technical inventions from the random processes used in conventional breeding in order for existing prohibitions to be effective. Unless there are adequate definitions, 'technical toppings' such as those describing random mutations, can still be used to claim plants and animals as 'inventions'. There are several examples showing how companies easily escape the current prohibitions, e.g. European patents on barley and beer, melons or lettuce.

"Processes of genetic engineering are fundamentally different from those used in conventional breeding," explains Christoph Then for No Patents on Seeds! "The differences need to be spelled out in clear rules and decision making at the EPO."

As patent research shows, hundreds of patents on conventional breeding are pending. Just recently around 100 new patent applications were identified, claiming basil, pepper, manioc and barley as well as cattle, sheep and pigs. If conventionally bred plants and animals are patented as 'inventions', they cannot be used for further breeding without the permission of the patent holder. However, access to biological diversity is crucial for breeding, as also shown in statements made by breeding companies and quoted in the No Patents on Seeds! report.

No Patents on Seeds! will now extend its European network to encourage politicians to take further decisions before end of the year. The European coalition, comprising around a dozen civil society organisations, demands that, as long as final decisions are not taken, all respective pending patent applications are halted as decided by the President of the EPO in 2019.

The member organisations of NO PATENTS ON SEEDS! are concerned about the increasing number of patents on plants, seeds and farm animals and their impact on farmers, breeders, innovation and biodiversity.

See the rest here:

European Patent Office gives green light to prohibit patents on plants and animals - EUbusiness

GAO report Highlights Barriers in Getting Cell Based Meat to Market – vegconomist – the vegan business magazine

tilialucida - stock.adobe.com

A new report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has given insight into how the cell based meat industry is stuck in its R&D phase. The report demonstrates that there is still plenty of mystery in the fledgling industry, as food tech competes to premier and dominate the market from the onset.

The GAO states: Specific information about the technology being used, eventual commercial production methods, and composition of the final products are not yet known. It has found that the technology and methods are still in development and said FDA and USDA do not have clarity about whats going on with the secretive R&D projects.

The report cites the following issues, which we have summarized, as needing further clarity:

Many questions of course remain to be answered at this stage and vegconomist will keep you informed of developments. Although it is still debatable as to how vegan cultured meat really is, it clearly has the potential to drastically reduce the devastating impact of traditional animal farming, and remove animals from the food system.

Related

Read the original post:

GAO report Highlights Barriers in Getting Cell Based Meat to Market - vegconomist - the vegan business magazine

How CRISPR can help us win the fight against the pandemic – MedCity News

Covid-19 has changed life as we know it. It has also accelerated already rapid trends in innovation and collaboration across the scientific community.

As the pandemic spreads across the globe, researchers are racing to develop diagnostics, vaccines and treatments. In the pursuit of new solutions to tackle SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes Covid-19, researchers have been turning to machine learning, AI and high-throughput experimental automation that aid in development. Another powerful tool they are using to accelerate the process is CRISPR. This gene-targeting and gene-editing technology, based on the mechanism that bacteria naturally use to fight viruses, is already proving useful in our joint fight against this new virus.

CRISPR Advances Covid-19 TestingWe know early detection of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to isolating infected patients and managing appropriate healthcare responses. Recently, researchers at MIT published a rapid CRISPR-Cas13-based COVID-19 detection assay protocol.Since CRISPR can be modified to target nearly any genetic sequence, it can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a patient sample. This assay utilizes an RNA-targeting CRISPR nuclease to help scientists detect the SARS-CoV-2 RNA from patient samples within 60 minutes. More recently, an improved assay was developed by researchers at MIT that was shown to provide faster and more robust results.

Utilizing another CRISPR nuclease that is thermostable, they developed a test that in one step copies the viral RNA in a patient sample, such as saliva, into the more stable DNA and then specifically identifies a SARS-CoV-2 gene sequence. Performing this point-of-care assay requires minimal lab equipment and resources, as it only needs a few reagents and a heat source, delivering results in as little as 40 minutes. Supplementing existing tests with new CRISPR-based approaches can broaden accessibility to Covid-19 testing, a key strategy for stopping the spread through track and trace efforts, as outlined by the World Health Organization.

CRISPR Helps Engineer Future TreatmentsPreviously, the genome-engineering power of CRISPR has been directed at fighting genetic diseases. But more recently, its also being harnessed to fight infectious diseases, now including the new coronavirus.

Understanding how a pathogenic disease operates at the host-pathogen interface is critical to developing new treatments. CRISPR-based genome engineering enables researchers to study how SARS-CoV-2 interacts with human cells and generate the appropriate cell models that could lead to faster discovery of a potential new treatment or an existing drug combination that may provide a treatment solution. Once a potential treatment is identified, CRISPR makes the next step drug target screening more efficient, advancing us more quickly to a viable treatment option.

As an example of this approach in action, researchers are exploring if CRISPR can be used to verify the functional relevance of human genes recently identified to interact with SARS-CoV-2 proteins. The investigation of the molecular mechanisms of the novel virus can ultimately help identify drug combinations that have the best potential to treat those infected.

Current Fight for the Future of Human HealthGenome engineering has been rapidly harnessed by academic and non-profit institutions, the biopharma industry, and scientific pioneers to develop Covid-19 testing and treatment solutions. CRISPR-based genome engineering enables researchers to study how SARS-CoV-2 interacts with human cells and generate the appropriate cell models that could lead to faster discovery of a potential new treatment or an existing drug combination that may provide a treatment solution.

Beyond this, the unprecedented innovation taking place in response to the Covid-19 pandemic will provide a foundation for improving human health in the future. Additionally, as technologies and understanding mature, new approaches, such as engineered cell therapies, will become part of the toolkit in future responses to global health challenges.

The current scientific response is representative of the future of life sciences a future where we integrate multiple technologies and disciplines including high throughput experimental automation, machine learning and agile, programmable tools such as CRISPR to fundamentally change our approach to research and development. We are seeing a new bar being set on the speed of science as the research community comes together, leveraging these technologies to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic at unprecedented velocity. Once the public health crisis subsides and the research halted by the pandemic resumes, the need for these transformative tools, technologies and approaches to life science research and development will be greater than ever.

Photo: wildpixel, Getty Images

See the article here:

How CRISPR can help us win the fight against the pandemic - MedCity News

Here`s what China`s scientists have to say about the origin of COVID-19 – WION

During a March 15, 2020 interview, beginning at the 27:40 time point, Dr Ralph Baric, noted coronavirus scientist at the University of North Carolina, said the following when asked about the animal origin of the human COVID-19 pandemic:

As far as I know they [the Chinese] have not identified the actual reservoir species. There were reports about pangolins [scaly anteaters] as being potentially being the intermediate host, but pangolins viruses are 88-90% identical to SARS-2 [COVID-19] in comparison civet and racoon dog strains of SARS coronavirus were 99.8 identical to SARS coronavirus from 2003. In other words, you are talking about a handful of mutations between civet strains, racoon dog strains and human strains in 2003. Pangolins have over 3,000 nucleotide changes - no way they are the reservoir species [for COVID-19], absolutely no chance.

Here is what Dr Baric was saying.

It was logical to conclude that the coronavirus from the human 2003 SARS outbreak could have originated in animals because the coronavirus circulating in the civet and racoon dog populations was 99.8 per cent the same as the coronavirus eventually found in humans. That would, therefore, require only a relative handful of naturally-occurring mutations to jump to humans.

In contrast, pangolin coronaviruses are only 88-90 per cent the same as COVID-19. The huge number of naturally-occurring mutations required for pangolins to act as a reservoir species and intermediate host for COVID-19 would make it practically impossible.

Despite that, an article published by scientists from Guangzhou, China on May 7, 2020 in the prestigious journal Nature directly contradicts the comments made by Dr Baric, concluding:

The isolation of a coronavirus that is highly related to SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19] in pangolins suggests that they have the potential to act as the intermediate hosts for SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19].

The Guangzhou scientists concede that the bat coronavirus RaTG13, which is actually BtCoV/4991, has about a 96 per centsequence identity to SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19] at the whole-genome level and it is reasonable to assume that bats are the native host of SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19].

Agreeing with Dr Baric, the authors admit that, although genetically similar, it is unlikely that coronaviruses usually found in pangolins are directly linked to the outbreak because of their overall substantial sequence differences from COVID-19.

The Guangzhou group states, however, that the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of a pangolin coronavirus is nearly identical to the same structure in COVID-19, having only a single amino acid difference.

The Chinese scientists claim that a pangolin coronavirus appears to have donated the RBD to COVID-19, presumably through some type of recombinant event occurring between a bat coronavirus and a pangolin coronavirus inside a pangolin host.

The close identity of COVID-19s RBD to that of pangolins has been widely reported, but the recombinant scenario suggested by the Guangzhou research team is purely speculatively for which they provide no supporting data.

Chinas own scientists may have inadvertently stumbled upon the truth. A far more likely explanation is that the pangolin RBD was inserted into a bat coronavirus by genetic engineering.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

See original here:

Here`s what China`s scientists have to say about the origin of COVID-19 - WION