3 things you probably didn’t know about humans’ ancient relationship with dogs – Salon

Posted on by

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

Dogs were the first animal to cohabit with humans, and modern research increasingly reveals the many ways in which humans and dogs have grown in tandem for thousands of years. New research out this week reveals that has likely been the case since the Early Neolithic period in ancient Europe, which dates the canine-human relationship back much further than previously theorized. New DNA research published this week in the journal Nature Communications shows modern dogs likely came from a single pack of wolves between 20,000 40,000 years ago in Eurasia.

While previous studies suggested there may have been two separate instances of wolf domestication, the new study notes that most dogs of today can be traced back to a single Ancient European dog genome. While the study narrows the origins of dogs down to a 20 thousand year period, the exact location and timing remains a mystery.

Science has shown that the relationsihp between dogs and humans has always been a mutual one, and our ancient ties likely began because of a few hungry and particularly friendly wolves.

Here are three key scientifictheories about dog-human co-evolution:

1. A genetic mutation made some wolves (and dogs) want to cuddle with us and be our friends

Dogs like to stay closer to humans and gaze at us longer than wolves do, a new study of canine genetics at Princeton University observed. And, the likelihood of an animal doing this correlates with that animals given DNA.

As an article in the LA Times about the new study notes, similar genetic mutations in humans are linked with a rare developmental disorder called Williams-Beuren Syndrome (WBS).

People with WBS are typically hyper-social, meaning they form bonds quickly and show great interest in other people, including strangers, the Times piece notes.

In the study, researchers found that the more social dogs and wolves had similar mutations in three genes called GTF2I, GTF2IRD1 and WBSCR17. Those same genes have been observed in other studies to cause increased social behavior in mice and are thought to do the same thing in humans.

2. Dogs probably domesticated us, not the other way around

Some scientists theorize that friendly wolves sought out humans. They probably made the first move in our thousands-of-years-old relationship, as a 2013 National Geographic feature details.

The article explains that the theory that humans used dogs to hunt doesnt hold much water because humans were already successful hunters without wolves, and didnt tend to be friendly towards other carnivorous species. It theorizes that friendly wolves likely made the first move, and sought out human relationships:

The wolves that were bold but aggressive would have been killed by humans, and so only the ones that were bold and friendly would have been tolerated.

Over time the physicality of those friendlier wolves changed.

Domestication gave them splotchy coats, floppy ears, wagging tails. In only several generations, these friendly wolves would have become very distinctive from their more aggressive relatives.

3. Dogs and humans ate together as we evolved, so our digestion has developed similarly

As researchers on a 2013 study of dog genetics explain, there are a number of corresponding genes in dogs and humans particularly when it comes to processing food.

In both of our species, the genes responsible for metabolism and digestion, such as the genetic code for cholesterol, changed similarly. Researchers theorized those changes could be due to dramatic changes in the proportion of plants vs meats dogs and humans were consuming around the same time.

Read the original here:

3 things you probably didn't know about humans' ancient relationship with dogs - Salon

Trump Supporters Furious That They Still Have Health Care – The New Yorker (satire)

Posted on by

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report )With a fury that could spell political trouble for Republicans in the midterm elections, Trump voters across the country on Friday expressed their outrage and anger that they still have health coverage.

I went to bed Thursday night and slept like a baby, assuming that when I woke up I would have zero health insurance, Carol Foyler, a Trump voter, said. Instead, this nightmare.

Harland Dorrinson, who voted for Trump because he promised that he would take my health care away from me on Day 1, said that he was very upset that he will still receive that benefit.

I woke up this morning, and my family and I could still see a doctor, he said. This is a betrayal.

Many Trump supporters said that congressional Republicans gave up too soon in their efforts to deprive ordinary Americans like them of their health care.

They should not take August off, Calvin Denoit, a Trump supporter, said. They should stay in Washington and keep working until I totally lose my coverage.

For Trump voters like Benoit, the abject disappointment of continuing to have health care raises fears about which other campaign promises might soon be broken.

Now I dont know what to believe, he said. Are we still going to get to pay billions of dollars in taxes for that wall?

Go here to see the original:

Trump Supporters Furious That They Still Have Health Care - The New Yorker (satire)

Murkowski not swayed by intense pressure from Trump administration on health care – Washington Post

Posted on by

(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

To a smattering of gasps and applause from his rapt colleagues, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) cast the clinching vote to kill his partys seven-year bid to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Directly behind the spot where he cast that vote, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) had watched McCain enter the chamber. Moments earlier, she, too, had cast a no vote, but to much less fanfare.

But the senior senator from Alaska endured more intense pressure from the Trump administration in getting to that vote than McCain, who, at 80, is likely serving his last term in Congress. And Murkowski has far more to lose for her stand in her resource-rich state.

Leading up to the series of health-care votes this week, Murkowski was the target of an aggressive persuasion campaign from members of the Trump administration and the president himself.

Trump tweeted on Wednesday morning: Senator @lisamurkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday. Too bad! The president had called the day before to try to persuade Murkowski to support starting debate on health care, said Murkowskis office. The senator told E & E News that it was not a very pleasant call but that she wasnt swayed.

So on Wednesday, Trump dispatched Ryan Zinke, who as secretary of the Department of the Interior runs agencies that collectively control more than 55percent of Alaskas land, to make separate phone calls to Murkowski and the states other Senate Republican, Dan Sullivan. Zinke, the Alaska Dispatch News reported, implied that the interests of their state were at risk because of Murkowskis health-care stance.

What the secretary shared with me was that the president was not pleased, Murkowski told reporters Thursday, according to The Hill. I think its very clear, based on my conversation with the secretary, that he was just sharing the concern that the president had expressed to him to pass on to me.

Despite the high-profile contacts, Murkowski not only opposed opening debate but also was one of three Republicans who voted against a bare-bones package Friday morning, dealing a final blow to the GOP health-care push.

I pledged early on that I would work with the President to help advance Alaskas interests, she said in a statement Friday. I will continue to do that.

But she seemed as if she had little patience for Trumps governing style, likening him to the kind of teacher at which her children chafed.

I tell my kids that you do not get to pick the boss of your choice, she said during stops between town halls earlier this month in Homer, Alaska. Ive got to figure out how I can work with President Trump and this new administration.

The choice of messenger relayed just as much the message itself.

For decades, the Murkowski family Frank Murkowski represented Alaska for more than two decades in the Senate before his daughter took over his seat in 2002 has sought, often unsuccessfully, to free up more federal land in Alaska for hunting and energy development.

For that, she needs the cooperation of Trumps Interior Department.

When you talk about energy dominance, Sullivan told reporters, using a Trump administration buzzword for more oil, gas and coal development, Alaska has to be a key part of that.

He continued: So from my perspective, the sooner we can get back to that kind of cooperation between the administration and the chairman of the ENR Committee, the better for Alaska and the better for the country.

But Zinke may need Murkowski more than she needs him. As chair of both the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Interior Appropriations subcommittee, Murkowski has oversight over not only the departments activities but also its budget.

On Thursday, Murkowski postponed a vote on six Trump administration nominees, including three to Interior. Murkowski spokeswoman Nicole Daigle said the meeting was delayed due to uncertainty of the Senate schedule.

So far, the Trump administration, along with GOP lawmakers, has obliged in addressing the provincial concerns of the Alaska congressional delegation.

Congress has lifted a ban on aerial shooting and other hunting practices on Alaskas wildlife refuges. Zinke signed a secretarial order beginning an oil and gas leasing plan for the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR-A, and an assessment of reserves under both NPR-A and part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Last week, the House sent the Senate a bill to approve construction of a 20-mile road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, which would connect the small village of King Cove to the larger town of Cold Bay. King Cove has no road out, so it relies on air and marine transport. Murkowski has introduced the Senate version.

And Murkowski and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) want to pass a comprehensive bipartisan energy bill updating a host of oil and gas leasing, electric grid and other policies.

Before the recent confrontation, Murkowski had advocated on Zinkes behalf within the White House, arguing to the president and his aides that they needed to name more political appointees to Interior. Murkowski got to know Zinke when the two traveled to Alaskas North Slope over Memorial Day.

Legal experts say an administration can choose its priorities, though House Democrats have asked Interiors Office of Inspector General to investigate Zinkes calls.

I am unable to identify any ethical rule or legal obligation requiring a cabinet member to make a senators priorities the same as the administrations priorities, said Jan W. Baran, an ethics and lobbying expert at Wiley Rein.

But David J. Hayes, a former Interior Department deputy secretary under Presidents Obama and Clinton, said Zinkes words deserve careful scrutiny even if cabinet officials have some leeway to lobby Congress.

It appears that Zinke was lobbying for a health-care bill, not on an Alaska-related issue within Interiors area of responsibility, Hayes said. Even more troubling he reportedly put the discharge of his statutory responsibilities in Alaska in play.

Elise Viebeck and Kyle Hopkins contributed to this report.

See the original post:

Murkowski not swayed by intense pressure from Trump administration on health care - Washington Post

Why Health Care Policy Is So Hard – New York Times

Posted on by

Externalities abound. In most markets, the main interested parties are the buyers and sellers. But in health care markets, decisions often affect unwitting bystanders, a phenomenon that economists call an externality.

Take vaccines, for instance. If a person vaccinates herself against a disease, she is less likely to catch it, become a carrier and infect others. Because people may ignore the positive spillovers when weighing the costs and benefits, too few people will get vaccinated, unless the government somehow promotes vaccination.

Another positive spillover concerns medical research. When a physician figures out a new treatment, that information enters societys pool of medical knowledge. Without government intervention, such as research subsidies or an effective patent system, too few resources will be devoted to research.

Consumers often dont know what they need. In most markets, consumers can judge whether they are happy with the products they buy. But when people get sick, they often do not know what they need and sometimes are not in a position to make good decisions. They rely on a physicians advice, which even with hindsight is hard to evaluate.

The inability of health care consumers to monitor product quality leads to regulation, such as the licensing of physicians, dentists and nurses. For much the same reason, the Food and Drug Administration oversees the safety and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals.

Health care spending can be unexpected and expensive. Spending on most things people buy housing, food, transportation is easy to predict and budget for. But health care expenses can come randomly and take a big toll on a persons finances.

Health insurance solves this problem by pooling risks among the population. But it also means that consumers no longer pay for most of their health care out of pocket. The large role of third-party payers reduces financial uncertainty but creates another problem.

Insured consumers tend to overconsume. When insurance is picking up the tab, people have less incentive to be cost-conscious. For example, if patients dont have to pay for each doctor visit, they may go too quickly when they experience minor symptoms. Physicians may be more likely to order tests of dubious value when an insurance company is footing the bill.

To mitigate this problem, insurers have co-pays, deductibles and rules limiting access to services. But co-pays and deductibles reduce the ability of insurance to pool risk, and access rules can create conflicts between insurers and their customers.

Insurance markets suffer from adverse selection. Another problem that arises is called adverse selection: If customers differ in relevant ways (such as when they have a chronic disease) and those differences are known to them but not to insurers, the mix of people who buy insurance may be especially expensive.

Adverse selection can lead to a phenomenon called the death spiral. Suppose that insurance companies must charge everyone the same price. It might seem to make sense to base the price of insurance on the health characteristics of the average person. But if it does so, the healthiest people may decide that insurance is not worth the cost and drop out of the insured pool. With sicker customers, the company has higher costs and must raise the price of insurance. The higher price now induces the next healthiest group of people to drop insurance, driving up the cost and price again. As this process continues, more people drop their coverage, the insured pool is less healthy and the price keeps rising. In the end, the insurance market may disappear.

The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) tried to reduce adverse selection by requiring all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. This policy is controversial and has been a mixed success. More people now have health insurance, but about 12 percent of adults aged 18 to 64 remain uninsured. One thing, however, is certain: The existence of a federal law mandating that people buy something shows how unusual the market for health care is.

The best way to navigate the problems of the health care marketplace is hotly debated. The political left wants a stronger government role, and the political right wants regulation to be less heavy-handed. But policy wonks of all stripes can agree that health policy is, and will always be, complicated.

N. Gregory Mankiw is the Robert M. Beren professor of economics at Harvard University.

The Upshot provides news, analysis and graphics about politics, policy and everyday life. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Sign up for our newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on July 30, 2017, on Page BU3 of the New York edition with the headline: Why Health Care Policy Is So Hard.

More here:

Why Health Care Policy Is So Hard - New York Times

Senate Voted Against Health Care Repeal on Anniversary of Approving Medicare – TIME

Posted on by

(L-R) Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson, Lady Bird Johnson, Harry S. Truman, and Bess Truman at signing of Medicare bill on July 30, 1965, at the Harry S. Truman Library & Museum in Independence, Missouri.Francis Miller/The LIFE Picture CollectionGetty Images

This Thursday and Friday have scored a place in the health-care history books, thanks to the U.S. Senate's middle-of-the-night vote rejecting a bill that would have repealed part of a landmark achievement of the Obama presidency, the Affordable Care Act. Had the repeal passed, even in its " skinny " form, it could have led to changes to Medicaid and Medicare.

But the dates in which the so-called "vote-a-rama" happened July 27 and July 28 are already in the history books for another reason. Those were the days in 1965 on which the House and Senate, respectively, approved an amendment to the Social Security Act that would create those two very programs.

Former Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) was one of several members of Congress who pointed out the anniversary of this milestone in the history of health care in American history.

The House and Senate approved a version of the program that had come out of a conference committee, convened when differences between bills passed by the two chambers needed to be reconciled. As the Senate Historical Office describes, the final bill "offered a 'three layer cake' of coverage: hospital insurance for the aged, physicians insurance for the elderly, and expanded federal assistance to supplement state medical payments for the poor."

And while the 2017 vote was notable for the three Republicans who voted with Democrats Maine's Susan Collins, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski and Arizona's John McCain the 1965 moment boasted more support from members on both sides of the aisle. As Politifact points out , the bill had relatively bipartisan support, passing by 307-116 in the House and 70-24 in the Senate (including 70 and 13 Republican votes in each house, respectively). The now-retired Senate historian Donald Ritchie explained to the fact-checking website that votes back then tended to have more bipartisan support in general, because at the time each of the parties had its own groups of conservative and liberal members, and "the conservatives in the two parties voted against the liberals in each party."

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter

But the date wasn't the only link between this week's vote and that of 52 years ago.

Some of the most striking moments in the Senate's 2017 "vote-a-rama" the impassioned plea from Democrat Mazie Hirono, who has kidney cancer, and the vote cast by McCain, who was recently diagnosed with brain cancer are arguably reminiscent of the actions of the Senator some call the "father of Medicare," New Mexico's Clinton P. Anderson.

The personal health circumstances of those two Senators have been impossible to ignore as they made decisions that would affect the nation's health care, and Anderson's own frequent ill health was likewise a factor in the development of Medicare. In fact, President Kennedy had asked him to take on the cause of Medicare specifically because he thought that, Perhaps a man who has spent much of his life fighting off the effects of illness acquires . . . an understanding of the importance of professional health care to all people. At one point in the mid-1960s, Anderson had even negotiated parts of a Senate bill from his hospital bed at Walter Reed, according to the Senate Historical Office .

When LBJ signed the bill in Independence, Mo., on July 30, 1965, he specifically requested the attendance of Anderson as one of the bill's principal sponsors.

See the original post here:

Senate Voted Against Health Care Repeal on Anniversary of Approving Medicare - TIME

Health Care in Rwanda – New York Times

Posted on by

Photo An American pediatric specialist during a radiology teaching session with pediatric residents in Kigali, Rwanda. In the past 15 years, Rwanda has worked to build a near-universal health care system. Credit Martina Bacigalupo for The New York Times

To the Editor:

Re Rwandas Lessons (Really) on Health Care, by Eduardo Porter (Economic Scene column, July 19):

My colleagues and I recently returned from Banda, a village in rural Rwanda that our organization, Kageno, has worked in for a decade. There, we witnessed firsthand the progress in health care mentioned in this article, as well as the challenges that remain.

We believe that improving the health of the villagers requires a multifaceted approach. This is why our organization supports local projects related to health care, the environment, education and sustainable commercial ventures.

We found that these types of projects contributed to the overall well-being of Banda and the surrounding area. They required perseverance, cooperation among the people and their institutions, and because lasting improvements sometimes evolve slowly, patience.

By the time our trip ended, we were deeply moved by the strength and determination of the villagers in Banda, who constantly sought a healthier, more prosperous future for their children. Perhaps we in the United States could learn from Bandas villagers by using a little more cooperation, perseverance and patience in our own health care system.

NICK DEFABRIZIO, AUGUSTA, N.J.

The writer is on the advisory board of Kageno, which supports villages in rural Rwanda and Kenya.

Read the original:

Health Care in Rwanda - New York Times

With Obamacare repeal dead, bipartisan group of senators seek path on health care reform – USA TODAY

Posted on by

Ledyard King and Deirdre Shesgreen, USA TODAY Published 2:40 p.m. ET July 28, 2017 | Updated 6:15 p.m. ET July 28, 2017

Sens. Susan Collins and Bill Nelson walk through the Senate subway on Capitol Hill on July 27, 2017.(Photo: Drew Angerer, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON A chance encounter between two senators on an airplane last month in Maine may be the catalyst for a breakthrough on health care reform.

Since that Sunday afternoon meeting at the Bangor Airport, Florida Democrat Bill Nelson and Maine Republican Susan Collins have been talking to each other about ways of finding a solution on an issue that has deeply divided Congress along party lines.

There's no grand bargain in sight, but a low-key dinner the two organized for a bipartisan clutch of senators at a Washington restaurant Wednesday night suggests at least a few lawmakers are trying to find a way out of the partisan gridlock.

That effort took on added significance following the stunning defeat early Friday morning of a Republican bill to do away with some parts of the Affordable Care Act, also known asObamacare, leaving lawmakers scrambling to decide the best way to move forward on health care reform.

The deciding vote was cast by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain. He had implored colleagues to reach a bipartisan solution during a stirringfloor speech he delivered Tuesday, justdays after a brain cancer diagnosis.

The following night, Nelson and Collins hosted the dinner at NoPa Kitchen, an American brasserie steps from the International Spy Museum.

The attendees included key Senate moderates such as Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mike Rounds of South Dakota, and Democrats Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mark Warner of Virginia and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Collins and Murkowski joined McCain as the only threeRepublicansto vote against the bill, which died 51-49.

"It was a good first start and everyone (at the dinner) pretty well knows that the path that we're on is not going to be the ultimate solution," Nelson said Thursday before the bill was killed.

Collins sounded a similar theme following Friday's vote.

"We need to reconsider our approach," she said in a statement posted on her Twitter account. "The ACA is flawed and in portions of the country is near collapse. Rather than engaging in partisan exercises, Republicans and Democrats should work together to address these very serious problems."

Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer said he spoke with GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin on Friday about working together.

Theres a thirst to do it, Schumer said. I just hope the magic moment of John McCain last night has lasting effect and makes us work together in a better way and both sides are to blame for the past.

Read more:

Senate Republicans failed to pass Obamacare repeal. Now what?

Senate narrowly defeats 'skinny repeal' of Obamacare, as McCain votes 'no'

Takeaways on the Senate Obamacare repeal collapse: Dysfunction makes lousy legislation but great TV

Obamacare repeal is dead for now. What could that mean for you?

Collins and Nelson, both former insurance commissioners in their states, traded some ideas on the plane ride to Washington during that June flight. Notably, Nelson said, they liked the idea of creating afederalreinsurance fund that would protect the health insurance companies against catastrophe.

Nelson has already introduced a bill to that effect after a Congressional Budget Office analysis concluded it would lower health care premiums 13% in Florida alone.

The more they talked, the more they realized they could work on other aspects of health care reform given the political stalemate between party leaders.

"We said let's do this together," Nelson said. "That led to Susan taking the initiative and inviting everybody that was there to get their ideas."

A reinsurance fund was one ideas that was discussed over dinner, he said. So were ways to address cost-sharingreductions that go to help low-income Americans on the individual health care market pay for coverage. The goal was finding ways to stabilize the health insurance markets, he said.

Manchintouted the reinsurance proposal on the Senate floor Thursday. AndMcCaskill said lawmakers need to act now to ensure people have someplace they can buy insurance next year.

"We are trying to get the ball moving in a bipartisan way," she said. "So were trying to start with a bipartisan group and see if we cant come up with some ways to stabilize the markets."

TheMissouri Democrat said she's hoping to team up with Republicans and"startsmall and then see if we can grow our number."

When they left the dinner, there was no commitment to meet again as aformal working group. But Nelson said he expects the senatorswill keep talking.

In his closing comments, Nelson told the group that their roles as moderates who can lead a bipartisan effort wouldgrowifthe repeal bill failed,

"There's going to be a vacuum created in which we ought to offer some of these ideas," he said.

USA TODAY reporter Nicole Gaudiano of USA TODAY contributed to this story

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2w72st3

See the article here:

With Obamacare repeal dead, bipartisan group of senators seek path on health care reform - USA TODAY

The winners of our health care haiku contest are – PBS NewsHour

Posted on by

Health care in 17 syllables. Created and designed by CactuSoup and Getty Images.

Its not easy to channel the concerns of millions of Americans in 17 syllables. Still, we received an outpouring of poetic expression in response to our callout for health care haiku. Choosing a single winner was too difficult. Thus we are proud to congratulate our two winners: Ronnie Dugger and Dorothy Workman!

Here are the winning haiku. They won for their combination of cleverness, poignancy and expression of the general disquiet which we saw in nearly all entries:

Cant pay the M.D., no money for surgery, but I can die free! Ronnie Dugger

The Health Care Debate A final insanity Which no one can win. Dorothy Workman

THANK YOU to everyone who responded. As we have said before, we have the most talented readers and viewers in the business.

See original here:

The winners of our health care haiku contest are - PBS NewsHour

Stanford Center for Definitive and Curative Medicine to tackle genetic diseases – Scope (blog)

Posted on by

Good news for people suffering from genetic diseases and for those who could be helped with stem cell therapies. This week, Stanford announced the creation of the Center for Definitive and Curative Medicine, a new center that aims to bring life-changing advances to millions of patients.

The Center for Definitive and Curative Medicine is going to be a major force in theprecision healthrevolution, saidLloyd Minor, MD, dean of the School of Medicine, in a press release. Our hope is that stem cell and gene-based therapeutics will enable Stanford Medicine to not just manage illness but cure it decisively and keep people healthy over a lifetime.

The center plans to tap the rich vein of stem cell and gene therapy research underway at Stanford. These techniques pinpoint problems causing disease and introduce functional copies of genes or cells to replace malfunctioning ones. Its exciting work with the potential to make real changes in patient lives and Stanford with its deep strengths in research and clinical care is poised to lead.

The release explains:

Housed within theDepartment of Pediatrics, the new center will be directed by renowned clinician and scientistMaria Grazia Roncarolo, MD, the George D. Smith Professor in Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, and professor of pediatrics and of medicine.

It is a privilege to lead the center and to leverage my previous experience to build Stanfords preeminence in stem cell and gene therapies, said Roncarolo, who is also chief of pediatric stem cell transplantation and regenerative medicine, co-director of theBass Center for Childhood Cancer and Blood Diseasesand co-director of theStanford Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. Stanford Medicines unique environment brings together scientific discovery, translational medicine and clinical treatment. We will accelerate Stanfords fundamental discoveries toward novel stem cell and gene therapies to transform the field and to bring cures to hundreds of diseases affecting millions of children worldwide.

Previously: Stanford scientists describe stem-cell and gene-therapy advances in scientific symposium Photo of Maria Grazia Roncarolo by Norbert von der Groeben

More here:

Stanford Center for Definitive and Curative Medicine to tackle genetic diseases - Scope (blog)

Sorry, it’s all in your genes – Daily Trust

Posted on by

Enough of blaming your environment every time you come down with an illness. Heres a new possibility: it could all be in your genes.

And proponents of genetic medicine are pushing the practice a notch higher in Nigeria.

The premise is that specific genes are responsible for specific conditions, and finding the right gene is the silver bullet.

Genetic disorder in medicine is not very well recognised, says Hyung Goo Kim, associate professor in neuroscience and regenerative medicine department at Augusta University, USA.

Hes part of a team expanding the scope of regenerative medicine through lectures at the National Hospital, Abuja.

Many people suffer disease but the [cause] is not recognised. The point is to find the disease gene for diagnosis and in the long run cure and treatment.

If we can identify the gene causing the disorder then we can understand the biology of the disorder more than before. That way we can intervene to try to cure and treat.

Regenerative medicine works by allowing body tissues to reprogramme themselves to act in different ways depending on what they are required to do or where they are placed.

For this, researchers use pluripotent cells, capable of becoming just about anything, and abundant in bone marrow.

Every disease in your body system can actually be tackled if we engineer the production of stem cells to fight that disease, says Prosper Igboeli, a professor at University of Nigeria and Augusta University.

The science of regeneration makes it possible to induce pluripotent stem cells.

Igboeli cautiously explains it is like taking skin and reorganising it to make any cell, even sperm.

I dont like to say things that are not correct. But we are having this new feeling that we can take your skin and make sperm out of it.

The bone marrow is a reserve of cells that can be re-engineered and configured through passage, injected into organs and organs respond to that particular disease state and revert back to normal.

The payoff is in having your body produce what you need for a cure instead of popping pills.

The range is anything from infertility and diabetes to spinal cord injuries and cancer.

Some endeavours have reached clinical stage, including experimental treatment for premature ovarian failure and polycystic ovarian syndrome.

National Hospital is building up its interest in stem cell research and looking at bone marrow transplantation as a possibility.

Health care research provides answers to questions lingering in the minds of health care providers in terms of diseases they are trying to manage, says Dr Jafar Momoh, chief medical director of the hospital.

The first world spends a lot of money on research and National Hospital is trying to collaborate with various [nongovernmental organisations] to deliver on the mandate for research.

We are looking at bone marrow transplantation. This is something the country needs for various diseases.

Research here will bring in funding from donor agencies interested in new research areas. Hence we need a robust research program. We have published papers but we want to take it to another level: molecular genetics, stem cell medicine and bone marrow transplantation, said Momoh.

Genetic medicine research is big in Egypt and Tunisia.

The effort now is to build a network of experts and a network to accumulate a database to help identify disease genes.

Read more from the original source:

Sorry, it's all in your genes - Daily Trust

Big Data Shows Big Promise in Medicine – Bloomberg

Posted on by

A tumor is a trove of data.

In handling some kinds of life-or-death medical judgments, computers have already have surpassed the abilities of doctors. Were looking at something like promise of self-driving cars, according to Zak Kohane, a doctor and researcher at Harvard Medical School. On the roads, replacing drivers with computers could save thousands of lives that would otherwise be lost to human error. In medicine, replacing intuition with machine intelligence might save patients from deadly drug side effects or otherwise incurable cancers.

Consider precision medicine, which involvestailoring drugs to individual patients. And to understand its promise, look toShirley Pepke, a physicist by training who migratedinto computational biology. When she developed a deadly cancer, she responded like a scientist and fought it using big data. And she is winning. She shared her story at a recent conference organized by Kohane.

In 2013, Pepke was diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer. She was 46, andher kids were 9 and 3. It was just two months after her annual gynecological exam. She had symptoms, which the doctors brushed off, until her bloating got so bad she insisted on an ultrasound. She was carrying six liters of fluid caused by the cancer, which had metastasized. Her doctor, she remembers, said, I guess you werent making this up.

She did what most people do in her position. She agreed to a course of chemotherapy that doctors thought would extend her life and offered a very slim chance of curing her. It was a harsh mixture pumped directly into her abdomen.

She also did something most people wouldnt know how to do -- she started looking for useful data. After all, tumors are full of data. They carry DNA with various abnormalities, some of which make them malignant or resistant to certain drugs. Armed with that information, doctors design more effective, individualized treatments. Already, breast cancers are treated differently depending on whether they have a mutation in a gene called HER2. So far, scientists have found no such genetic divisions for ovarian cancers.

But there was some data. Years earlier, scientistshad started a data bank called the Cancer Genome Atlas. There were genetic sequences on about 400 ovarian tumors. To help her extract useful information from the data, she turned to Greg ver Steeg, a professor at the University of Southern California, who was working on an automated pattern-recognition technique called correlation explanation, or CorEx. It had not been used to evaluate cancer, but she and ver Steeg thought it might work.She also got genetic sequencing done on her tumor.

In the meantime, she found out she was not one of the lucky patients cured by chemotherapy. The cancer came back after a short remission. A doctor told her that she would only feel worse every day for the short remainder of her life.

But CorEx had turned up a clue. Her tumor had something on common with those of the luckier women who responded to the chemotherapy -- an off-the-charts signal for an immune system product called cytokines. She reasoned that in those luckier patients, the immune system was helping kill the cancer, but in her case, there was something blocking it.

Eventually she concluded that her one shot at survival would be to take a drug called a checkpoint inhibitor, which is geared to break down cancer cells defenses against the immune system.

Checkpoint inhibitors are only approved so far for melanoma. Doctors can still prescribe such drugs for other uses, though insurance companies wont necessarily cover them. She ended up paying thousands of dollars out of pocket. At the same time, she went in for another round of chemotherapy. The checkpoint inhibitor destroyed her thyroid gland, she said, and the chemotherapy was damaging her kidneys. She stopped, not knowing whether her cancer was still there or not. To the surprise of her doctors, she started to get better. Her cancer became undetectable. Still healthy today, she works on ways to allow other cancer patients to benefit from big data the way she did.

Kohane, the Harvard Medical School researcher, said similar data-driven efforts might help find side effects of approved drugs. Clinical trials are often not big enough or long-running enough to pick up even deadly side effects that show up when a drug is released to millions of people. Thousands died from heart attacks associated with the painkiller Vioxx before it was taken off the market.

Last month, an analysis by another health site suggested a connection between the rheumatoid arthritis drug Actemra and heart attack deaths, though the drug had been sold to doctors and their patients without warning of any added risk of death. Kohane suspects there could be many other unnecessary deaths from drugs whose side effects didnt show up in testing.

So whats holding this technology back? Others are putting big money into big data with the aim of selling us things and influencing our votes. Why not use it to save lives?

First theres the barrier of tradition, said Kohane, whose academic specialty is bioinformatics, a combination of math, medicine and computer science. Medicine does not understand itself as an information-processing discipline, he said. It still sees itself as a combination of intuitive leaps and hard science. And doctors arent collecting the right kinds of data. Were investing in information technology thats not optimized to do anything medically interesting, he said. Its there to maximize income but not to make us better doctors.

Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more.

Share the View

Physicians arent likely to be replaced by algorithms, at least not right away, but their skill sets might have to change. Already, machines have proven themselves better than humans in the ability to read scans and evaluate skin lesions. Pepke ended her talk by saying that in the future, doctors may have to think less statistically and more scientifically. Her doctors made decisions based on rote statistical information about what would benefit the average patient -- but Shirley Pepke was not the average patient. The status quo is an advance over guessing or tradition, but medicine has the potential to do so much better.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Faye Flam at fflam1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Tracy Walsh at twalsh67@bloomberg.net

View post:

Big Data Shows Big Promise in Medicine - Bloomberg

Should genetic engineering be used as a tool for conservation? – chinadialogue

Posted on by

Illustration by Luisa Rivere/Yale E360

The worldwide effort to return islands to their original wildlife, by eradicating rats, pigs, and other invasive species, has been one of the great environmental success stories of our time.Rewilding has succeeded on hundreds of islands, with beleaguered species surging back from imminent extinction, and dwindling bird colonies suddenly blossoming across old nesting grounds.

But these restoration campaigns are often massively expensive and emotionally fraught, with conservationists fearful of accidentally poisoning native wildlife, and animal rights activists having at times fiercely opposed the whole idea. So what if it were possible to rid islands of invasive species without killing a single animal? And at a fraction of the cost of current methods?

Thats the tantalising but also worrisome promise of synthetic biology, aBrave New Worldsort of technology that applies engineering principles to species and to biological systems. Its genetic engineering, but made easier and more precise by the new gene editing technology called CRISPR, which ecologists could use to splice in a DNA sequence designed to handicap an invasive species, or to help a native species adapt to a changing climate. Gene drive, another new tool, could then spread an introduced trait through a population far more rapidly than conventional Mendelian genetics would predict.

Want more stories like this in your inbox? Subscribe tochinadialogue's weekly newsletter to get our latest articles.

Synthetic biology, also called synbio, is already a multi-billion dollar market, for manufacturing processes in pharmaceuticals, chemicals, biofuels, and agriculture. But many conservationists consider the prospect of using synbio methods as a tool for protecting the natural world deeply alarming. Jane Goodall, David Suzuki, and others havesigned a letterwarning that use of gene drives gives technicians the ability to intervene in evolution, to engineer the fate of an entire species, to dramatically modify ecosystems, and to unleash large-scale environmental changes, in ways never thought possible before.The signers of the letter argue that such a powerful and potentially dangerous technology should not be promoted as a conservation tool.

Environmentalists and synthetic biology engineers need to overcome what now amounts to mutual ignorance, a conservationist says.

On the other hand, a team of conservationbiologists writing early this yearin the journalTrends in Ecology and Evolutionran off a list of promising applications for synbio in the natural world, in addition to island rewilding:

Transplanting genes for resistance to white nose syndrome into bats, and for chytrid fungus into frogs and other amphibians.

Giving corals that are vulnerable to bleaching carefully selected genes from nearby corals that are more tolerant of heat and acidity.

Using artificial microbiomes to restore soils damaged by mining or pollution.

Eliminating populations of feral cats and dogs without euthanasia or surgical neutering, by producing generations that are genetically programmed to be sterile, or skewed to be overwhelmingly male.

And eradicating mosquitoes without pesticides, particularly in Hawaii, where they are highly destructive newcomers.

Kent Redford, a conservation consultant and co-author of that article, argues that conservationists and synbio engineers alike need to overcome what now amounts to mutual ignorance. Conservationists tend to have limited and often outdated knowledge of genetics and molecular biology, he says.Ina 2014 articleinOryx, he quoted one conservationist flatly declaring, Those were the courses we flunked. Stanford Universitys Drew Endy, one of the founders of synbio, volunteers in turn that 18 months ago he had never heard of the IUCN the International Union for Conservation of Nature or its Red List of endangered species.In engineering school, the ignorance gap is terrific, he adds.But its symmetric ignorance.

At a major synbio conference he organised last month in Singapore, Endy invited Redford and eight other conservationists to lead a session on biodiversity, with the aim, he says, of getting engineers building the bioeconomy to think about the natural world ahead of time My hope is that people are no longer merely nave in terms of their industrial disposition.

Likewise, Redford and the co-authors of the article inTrends in Ecology and Evolution, assert that it would be a disservice to the goal of protecting biodiversity if conservationists do not participate in applying the best science and thinkers to these issues. They argue that it is necessary to adapt the culture of conservation biologists to a rapidly-changing reality including the effects of climate change and emerging diseases.Twenty-first century conservation philosophy, the co-authors conclude, should embrace concepts of synthetic biology, and both seek and guide appropriate synthetic solutions to aid biodiversity.

Through gene drive technology, mice, rats or other invasive species can theoretically be eliminated from an island without killing anything.

The debate over synthetic biodiversity conservation, as theTrends in Ecology and Evolutionauthors term it, had its origins in a2003 paperby Austin Burt, an evolutionary geneticist at Imperial College London.He proposed a dramatically new tool for genetic engineering, based on certain naturally occurring selfish genetic elements, which manage to propagate themselves in as much as 99 percent of the next generation, rather than the usual 50 percent. Burt thought that it might be possible to use these super-Mendelian genes as a Trojan horse, to rapidly distribute altered DNA, and thus to genetically engineer natural populations. It was impractical at the time.Butdevelopmentof CRISPR technology soon brought the idea close to reality, and researchers have since demonstrated the effectiveness of gene drive, as the technique became known, in laboratory experiments on malaria mosquitoes, fruit flies, yeast, and human embryos.

Burt proposed one particularly ominous-sounding application for this new technology: It might be possible under certain conditions, he thought, that a genetic load sufficient to eradicate a population can be imposed in fewer than 20 generations. And this is, in fact, likely to be the first practical application of synthetic biodiversity conservation in the field. Eradicating invasive populationsis of coursethe inevitable first step in island rewilding projects.

The proposed eradication technique is to use the gene drive to deliver DNA that determines the gender of offspring.Because the gene drive propagates itself so thoroughly through subsequent generations, it can quickly cause a population to become almost all male and soon collapse.The result, at least in theory, is the elimination of mice, rats, or other invasive species from an island without anyone having killed anything.

Research to test the practicality of the method including moral, ethical, and legal considerations is already under way through a research consortium ofnonprofitgroups, universities, and government agencies in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.At North Carolina State University, for instance, researchers have begun working with a laboratory population of invasive mice taken from a coastal island.They need to determine how well a wild population will accept mice that have been altered in the laboratory.

The success of this idea depends heavily,according togene drive researcher Megan Serr, on the genetically modified male mice being studs with the island lady mice Will she want a hybrid male that is part wild, part lab? Beyond that, the research programme needs to figure out how many modified mice to introduce to eradicate an invasive population in a habitat of a particular size. Other significant practical challenges will also undoubtedly arise.For instance,a study early this yearin the journalGeneticsconcluded that resistance to CRISPR-modified gene drives should evolve almost inevitably in most natural populations.

Political and environmental resistance is also likely to develop.In an email, MIT evolutionary biologist Kevin Esvelt asserted that CRISPR-based gene drives are not suited for conservation due to the very high risk of spreading beyond the target species orenvironment. Even a gene drive systemintroduced toquickly eradicate an introduced population from an island, he added, still is likely to have over a year to escape or be deliberately transported off-island. If it is capable of spreading elsewhere, that is a major problem.

Even a highly contained field trial on a remote island is probably a decade or so away, said Heath Packard, of Island Conservation, a nonprofit that has been involved in numerous island rewilding projects and is now part of the research consortium.We are committed to a precautionary step-wise approach, with plenty of off-ramps, if it turns out to be too risky or not ethical.But his group notes that 80% of known extinctions over the past 500 or so years have occurred on islands, whicharealso home to 40% of species now considered at risk of extinction. That makes it important at least to begin to study the potential of synthetic biodiversity conservation.

Even if conservationists ultimately balk at these new technologies, business interests are already bringing synbio into the field for commercial purposes.For instance, a Pennsylvania State University researcher recently figured out how to use CRISPR gene editing to turn off genes that cause supermarket mushrooms to turn brown.The USDepartment of Agriculturelast year ruledthat these mushrooms would not be subject to regulation as a genetically modified organism because they contain no genes introduced from other species.

With those kinds of changes taking place all around them, conservationists absolutely must engage with the synthetic biology community, says Redford, and if we dont do so it will be at our peril. Synbio, he says, presents conservationists with a huge range of questions that no one is paying attention to yet.

This article originally appeared on Yale Environment 360 and is republished here with permission.

Read the original post:

Should genetic engineering be used as a tool for conservation? - chinadialogue

Scientists Give a Chrysanthemum the Blues – New York Times

Posted on by

Plant species blooming blue flowers are relatively rare, Naonobu Noda, a plant biologist at the National Agriculture and Food Research Organization in Japan who led the research, noted in an email.

It took Dr. Noda and his colleagues years to create their blue chrysanthemum. They got close in 2013, engineering a bluer-colored one by splicing in a gene from Canterbury bells, which naturally make blue flowers. The resulting blooms were violet. This time, they added a gene from another naturally blue flower called the butterfly pea.

Both of these plants produce pigments for orange, red and purple called delphinidin-based anthocyanins. (Theyre present in cranberries, grapes and pomegranates, too.) Under a few different conditions, these pigments, which are sensitive to changes in pH, can start a chemical transformation within a flower, rendering it blue.

The additional gene did the trick. It added a sugar molecule to the pigment, shifting the plants pH and altering the chrysanthemums color. The researchers confirmed the color as blue by testing its wavelengths in the lab.

What they did was already being done in nature: No blue flowers actually have blue pigment. Neither do blue eyes or blue birds. They all get help from a few clever design hacks.

Blue flowers tend to result from the modification of red pigments shifting their acidity levels, switching up their molecules and ions, or mixing them with other molecules and ions.

Some petunias, for example, have a genetic mutation that breaks pumps inside their cells, altering their pH and turning them blue. Some morning glories shift from blue upon opening to pink upon closing, as acidity levels in the plant fluctuate. Many hydrangeas turn blue if the soil is acidified, as many gardeners know.

In vertebrates, blue coloring often is more about structure. Blue eyes exist because, lacking pigments to absorb color, they reflect blue light. Blue feathers, like those of the kingfisher, would be brown or gray without a special structural coating that reflects blue.

Reflection is also the reason for the most intense color in the world, the shiny blue of the marble-esque Pollia fruit in Africa.

Despite widespread blue-philia, the new chrysanthemums may meet a cool reception. A permit is required to sell genetically modified organisms in the United States, and there isnt one for these transgenic flowers.

Officials are wary of transgenic plants that might take root in the environment, because of their possible impacts on other plants and insects. Dr. Noda and his colleagues are working on blue chrysanthemums that cant reproduce, but its unlikely youll see them in the flower shop anytime soon.

Continued here:

Scientists Give a Chrysanthemum the Blues - New York Times

Microdystrophin Gene Therapy Shows Promise in Dogs with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, Study Shows – Muscular Dystrophy News

Posted on by

Injectinga smaller but functional form of the dystrophin gene, called microdystrophin, intodogs naturally affected by Duchenne muscular dystrophyallowed them to recover muscle strength and stabilized their overall disease symptoms, a new study shows.

This preclinical study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of microdystrophin, and makes it possible to consider developing a clinical trial in patients, Caroline Le Guiner, first author of the study, said in a news release.

Indeed, this is the first time that it has been possible to treat the whole body of a large-sized animal with this protein. Moreover, this innovative approach allows treatment of all patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, regardless of the genetic mutation responsible, Le Guiner added.

The study, titled Long-term microdystrophin gene therapy is effective in a canine model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, was featured in the journalNature Communications.Researchers used a delivery system based on a viral vector, a strategy commonly used in gene therapy, to inject the engineered microdystrophin in 12 Golden Retrievers naturally affected by DMD.

DMD is a rare inherited disorder caused by mutations in the gene that encodes the protein dystrophin, which is essential for normal muscle function. It is one of the longest human genes, which makes therapeutic usein its natural form technically impossible. To overcome this limitation, researchers created the new variant called microdystrophinthat is shorter, but retains the function of the protein.

The results demonstrated microdystrophins potential as a gene therapy for people with DMD. The treatment increased levels of dystrophin protein in the dogs and significantly restored muscle function. Clinical symptoms of DMD in the dogs were stabilized for more than two years following treatment. No significant adverse side effects associated with the treatment were observed, demonstrating that it can be a safe treatment strategy.

This is tremendously exciting progress towards a gene therapy for DMD, said George Dickson, senior author of the study and researcher at Royal Holloway, University of London. The studies in [Golden Retrievers naturally affected by DMD) have been spectacular and exceeded our expectations.

The study also provided important data to support the therapeutic potential of this new gene therapy for DMD in children.

This new evidence of the efficacy of gene therapy in Duchenne muscular dystrophy strengthens the therapeutic arsenal developed (exon skipping, CRISPR Cas-9, pharmacogenetics, etc.), and the first results are there. We need to forge ahead to complete the final phase and transform these scientific advances into drugs for children, said Serge Braun, scientific director of AFM-Telethon.

The study resulted from the collaborative work between researchers from Genethon, the AFM-Telethon laboratory, Inserm (Nantes), and the University of London (Royal Holloway), and was supported by donations from the French Telethon.

My team has worked for many years to optimize a gene therapy medicine for DMD, and now the quite outstanding work of colleagues in France, in Genethon, in Nantes, and in Paris has taken us close to clinical trials in DMD patients, Dickson said. I pay thanks also to the amazing and steadfast support of this research by AFM-Telethon and MDUK (Muscular Dystrophy UK) which has been essential to this achievement.

See the rest here:

Microdystrophin Gene Therapy Shows Promise in Dogs with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, Study Shows - Muscular Dystrophy News

Geek of the Week: Futurist author Richard Yonck helps us better prepare for a rapidly changing world – GeekWire

Posted on by

Author Richard Yonck at SXSW in Austin, Texas, to promote his new book Heart of the Machine: Our Future in a World of Artificial Emotional Intelligence.

Daydreaming about the future is one thing. Actually being an authority on whats to come or at least how to be better prepared for it is quite another.

Richard Yonck is afuturist, author and speaker with Intelligent Future Consulting. Hes also GeekWires latest Geek of the Week.

I help businesses, readers and audiences become better prepared for a rapidly changing world, Yonck said. With a focus on emerging technologies and the increasingly intelligent ecologies these generate, my perspective is informed by 25 plus years as a futures, computing and media technologist.

Yonck is a widely published author who haswritten extensively about computing and information, artificial intelligence, robotics, 3D printing, the Internet of Things, biotechnology, nanotechnology, transhumanism and science literacy.

His new book, Heart of the Machine: Our Future in a World of Artificial Emotional Intelligence, explores the rapidly developing technologies that interact with human emotions and how this will soon transform our relationships with technology and with each other.A best-seller in two Amazon categories, the book was well-received in the New York Times Book Review (by Ray Kurzweil) and elsewhere.

Yonck is also taking part in the 15th gathering of theAssociation of Professional Futurists in Seattle this week. The event runs through Saturdayand includes speakers from the Gates Foundation, Boeing, the University of Washington, the Living Future Institute, Planetary Resources and more.

Learn more about this weeks Geek of the Week, Richard Yonck:

What do you do, and why do you do it?As a futurist I love helping organizations, readers and audiences identify tomorrows challenges and opportunities so we can work together to bring about their preferred future. This can take many forms, such as working with clients, writing books and articles about a range of emerging technologies or presenting tomorrows world to audiences large and small.

Whats the single most important thing people should know about your field?There are two major, almost contradicting misconceptions about futures work. The first is that the future is unknowable which is far from true. Different things happen with different degrees of reliability. The orbit of the earth and the motion of the tides are very reliable while other events and developments have lesser probabilities of occurring. Taking such variables into account, strategies can be developed to prepare for one or more eventualities without overextending resources.

The other misconception is that there is one fixed future out there, as if we were traveling along some preordained timeline, but this isnt the case. Most futurists speak in terms of futures plural the possible, probable and preferable futures that could potentially occur depending on different choices that are made and paths that are taken in the present. With this in mind, its then possible not only to plan for a range of eventualities but to also be proactive in taking the actions that promote ones preferred future, ideally beginning sooner than later. A basic example of this is the 20-something who recognizes theyll one day retire and so begins saving early on instead of waiting till their 50s. The earlier a desired future is identified and acted upon, the greater the likelihood of realizing it.

Where do you find your inspiration?Life and the world around us. We live in such an incredibly rich, vastly complex universe, I cant help be continually fascinated thinking about how it functions, how it came about, and where its going.

Whats the one piece of technology you couldnt live without, and why?Language. The written word.

Whats your workspace like, and why does it work for you?Increasingly my workspace is wherever I am, especially if I can connect my mind with that massive exocortex called the internet. Whether compiling data at my office, researching at a library, doing an interview at a research facility, speaking at a think tank, addressing an audience on stage, or doing a reading at a bookstore, thats effectively my workspace.

Your best tip or trick for managing everyday work and life. (Help us out, we need it.)Change is inevitable. When it does, often the best thing to do is see it as an opportunity. A static world view is very limiting and is likely to get you steamrollered.

Mac, Windows or Linux?I try to be OS agnostic, but Im most familiar with Windows.

Kirk, Picard, or Janeway?Kirks acting style and fighting methods are unequaled in this or any other quadrant of the galaxy.

Transporter, Time Machine or Cloak of Invisibility?A Time Machine. If I could travel into the future, I could pretty much collect all three, couldnt I?

If someone gave me $1 million to launch a startup, I would I would explore the terrain of emerging technologies looking out over the next 10 years, identify key opportunities as supporting technologies and infrastructures were forecast to come online, consider what I could remain passionate about for several years, factor legal and regulatory considerations and then decide. At that point, Id bring in the necessary talent and continue from there.

I once waited in line for The opportunity to speak with and get a book signed by Harlan Ellison.

Your role models:Beyond members of my family for obvious reasons when I was a young kid, I dont think I have specific role models. More accurately, Ive looked to luminaries from science and science fiction as general role models, amalgamating them into some quintessential figure seeking truth in the universe.

Greatest game in history:Hesses Glass Bead Game.

Best gadget ever:Sonic screwdriver.

First computer:My first computing experience was with a DEC PDP-11 when I was 12.

Current phone:iPhone 6, waiting for the iPhone 8.

Favorite app:Hootsuite.

Favorite cause:Eradicating ignorance.

Most important technology of 2016:Artificial Intelligence Deep learning neural nets.

Most important technology of 2018:CRISPR and immunotherapy.

Final words of advice for your fellow geeks:The apps, services, and technologies were building are not simply the tools of today. They will form the foundations and infrastructures of tomorrows world, the world of our children and grandchildren. With this in mind, we should continually ask ourselves: Are we contributing to a better world for the generations to come?

Website: Intelligent Future

Twitter: @ryonck

LinkedIn: Richard Yonck

See original here:

Geek of the Week: Futurist author Richard Yonck helps us better prepare for a rapidly changing world - GeekWire

Marty Sklar, Disney Legend and Futurist, Dies at 83 – Gizmodo

Posted on by

Marty Sklar in front of Sleeping Beautys Castle at Disneyland on July 11, 2005 (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Marty Sklar, arguably one of the most influential people to work at the Disney Company aside from Walt Disney himself, died yesterday. He was 83.

Sklar started at Disney just a month before Disneyland opened in 1955 and would work his way up to becoming one of the most tireless and dedicated storytellers at the company. Sometimes described as Walts right hand man, Sklar started by writing speeches for Disney and eventually became President of Imagineering, the creative wing of the multifaceted entertainment company.

Along with Walt, Sklar helped produce the ambitious 1966 film that was shown to investors and government officials to get them interested in EPCOT, the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow. The original vision of EPCOT as a living laboratory would be neutered, but the theme park is still a point of inspiration for futurists and retro-futurists alike.

Walt Disney had one foot in the past, because he loved nostalgia, and one foot in the future, because he loved new technology, Sklar told Esquire in 2015.

The original EPCOT film can be viewed on YouTube.

Sklar helped oversee the development of virtually every modern Disney park from the construction of Tokyo Disneyland and Disneyland Paris to expansion parks in the United States like Disney-MGM Studios and Disneys Animal Kingdom in Florida, as well as Disneys California Adventure park in Anaheim.

Marty was the ultimate Disney Imagineer and Cast Member. From his days working as an intern with Walt to just two weeks ago engaging with fans at D23 Expo, Marty left an indelible mark on Disney Parks around the globe and on all of the guests who make memories every day with us, Bob Chapek, chairman of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, said in a statement.

He was one of the few people that was fortunate to attend the opening of every single Disney park in the world, from Anaheim in 1955 to Shanghai just last year, Chapek said. We will dearly miss Martys passion, skill and imaginative spark that inspired generations of Cast, Crew and Imagineers.

From the Disney Parks blog:

Born in New Brunswick, N.J., on February 6, 1934, Marty was a student at UCLA and editor of its Daily Bruin newspaper when he was recruited to create The Disneyland News for Walts new theme park in 1955. After graduating in 1956, he joined Disney full-time, and would go on to serve as Walts right-hand manscripting speeches, marketing materials, and a film showcasing Walts vision for Walt Disney World and Epcot. During this period, he also joined WED Enterprises, the forerunner of Walt Disney Imagineering, and he would later become the creative leader of Imagineering, leading the development of Disney theme parks and attractions for the next three decades. He retired as Executive Vice President and Imagineering Ambassador on July 17, 2009, Disneylands 54th birthday. Disney marked the occasion by paying tribute to Marty with the highest Parks and Resorts recognition, dedicating a window in his name on Disneylands City Hall.

Disney obviously wouldnt be the same without Sklar and we here at Paleofuture are pouring out a Mickey Mouse sippy cup on the curb for the Disney legend. RIP Marty Sklar. Thanks for your optimistic visions of tomorrow, something that seems harder and harder to conjure in the upside down world of 2017.

Continue reading here:

Marty Sklar, Disney Legend and Futurist, Dies at 83 - Gizmodo

A futurist tells us what life will probably look like in 2040 – New York Post

Posted on by

This week, UKs government set out plans to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2040 so what else will we see in 23 years time?

Here, with the help of Europes top futurist Ray Hammond, we create a picture of how the world might look in the post-petrol age.

We will all wear a huge range of sensors that will constantly monitor things such as blood pressure, blood sugar and blood oxygen level.

Longevity will rise, with many living well beyond 100.

Children born in 2040 will have a more or less indefinite life. With gene therapy, stem cell and nano-scale medicine, barring an accident or fatal disease, we may live for ever and look much younger. With exoskeletons artificial, externally-worn support structures the elderly will stay mobile for longer. Now they are bulky and rigid but they will be soft and comfy.

People will fall in love with robot partners, which will impact relationships.

As it is we have a habit of seeing human characteristics in inanimate objects and with robots growing more advanced, it is inevitable that some people will couple up with them.

Weddings will become rarer and promiscuity will go off the scale as social attitudes get more relaxed.

On average, women today have nine sexual partners in their lifetime and men have 11 expect that to rise to 100 for women and 200 for men.

Most cars will be driving themselves, with motorways and roads having self-driving lanes.

Driverless traffic could travel in convoys, forming road trains and allowing vehicles to drive much closer together, freeing up motorway space.

The only place where you could experience being in control of a car yourself would be a licensed race track.

Ahead of the ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars in 2040, we can expect scrappage schemes during the 2030s which will phase them out. Our roads will look and sound very different.

As for air travel, there will not be huge changes. The dawn of electric and self-flying planes is possible but they will still be a small minority.

We will see hyper-loops transport tubes through which passenger pods can travel at up to 700 mph.

As the worlds population booms from the present seven billion to more than nine billion, we will not be able to farm meat as we have done up to now.

There wont be enough space for all the animals we would need plus their methane emissions could cause unsustainable environmental damage.

Instead, we will see artificial tissue meat grown in factories, without the need for a living animal.

Burgers have already been produced and eaten in a lab and by 2040 up to 40 percent of meat will be artificial or from substitutes such as plants. It will be engineered to look, taste and smell like the real thing.

Insects will also be a staple in products resembling their meat versions, such as sausages or burgers. They are protein-rich, cheaper and greener.

And with most people living in cities, crops may be grown on vertical farms up the sides of skyscrapers.

Our smartphones will have more or less disappeared, replaced by control centers which we will wear in a series of devices around our body.

For example, we will wear smart contact lenses, with texts floating in front of our eyes and earrings that send messages from a virtual assistant into our ears.

We wont look as if we are wearing anything extra but it will be as if we are looking through a smartphone at the real world, albeit one more powerful than anything we know today.

Our social networks will also become integral to the real world. We may see a stranger in the street and, using facial recognition software linked to our control centers, will instantly know their name and be able to access their profile.

As a result, privacy will be a hot topic.

We will have to face the question of whether machines will be our slaves or our masters.

Computers will be as good at problem-solving as humans, with the prospect of soon surpassing us.

Then the question will be whether we let them take control or try to regulate and modify artificial intelligence. Or genetically modify humans so we can compete with machines.

Our decisions could have profound effects on world order. If the West chooses to regulate its machines, it could be at a disadvantage compared to countries that allow computers to develop unchecked.

Today people are glued to phones and iPads but to imagine life in 2040, magnify that by 100.

We will spend most of our time in virtual worlds, whether at work or at leisure. Instead of looking at a device, we will experience this as if it were real. It wont even seem artificial. The novelty will be leaving the virtual world to meet humans in real life, an activity that will become rarer.

Read more:

A futurist tells us what life will probably look like in 2040 - New York Post

Scientists Just Successfully Edited the First Human Embryo Ever in The US – Futurism

Posted on by

A New Age in Human Evolution

By now, most of usknow what CRISPR gene editing is. At the very least, we have heard of this revolutionary technology that allows us to alter DNAthe source code of life itself. One day, CRISPR could allow us to delete genes in order to eradicate genetic diseases, add in new genes in order to vastly improve various biological functions, or even genetically modify human embryos in order to create an entirely new class of humansof super humans.

But first, we have a lot of research to do.

And that brings us to today.Reports from MIT were just released which assert that the very first attempt at creating genetically modified human embryos in the United States has been carried out by a team of researchers in Portland, Oregon.

So far as I know this will be the first study reported in the U.S., Jun Wu, who played a role in the project and is a collaborator at the Salk Institute, said to MIT.

According to MIT, the work was led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov, who comes from the Oregon Health and Science University. Although details are scarce at this point, sources familiar with the work assert that the research involved changing the DNA of one-cell embryos using CRISPR gene-editing. Further,Mitalipov is believed to have broken records in two notable ways:

This is notable because, despite the fact that it has been around for several years now, CRISPR is still an incredibly new toolone that could have unintended consequences. As previous work published in the journal Nature Methods revealed, CRISPR-Cas9 could lead to unintended mutations in a genome. However, the work was laterreviewed by researchers at another institutionand the findings were brought into question. It remains to be seen whether the original study will be corrected or retracted, but this development highlights the importance of peer review in science.

In this regard, Mitalipovs work brings us further down the path to understanding exactly how CRISPR works in humans, and reveals that is it possible to avoid both mosaicism (changes that are taken up not by only some of the cells of an embryo, as opposed to all of them) and off-target effects.

It is important to note that none of the embryos were allowed to develop for more than a few days, and that the team never had any intention of implanting them into a womb. However, it seems that this is largelydue to ongoing regulatory issues, as opposed to issues with the technology itself.

In the United States, allefforts to turn edited embryos into a babyto bring the embryo to full termhave been blocked by Congress, which added language to the Department of Health and Human Services funding bill that forbids it from approving any such clinical trials.

Yet, the potential of the CRISPR-Cas9 system as a gene editing technology is undeniable. As previously mentioned, it has seen success in developing possible cancer treatments, in making animals disease-resistant, and ithas even shown promise in replacing antibiotics altogether.

This new work adds to the promise of CRISPR, and stands as an important step toward the birth of the first genetically modified humans.

Excerpt from:

Scientists Just Successfully Edited the First Human Embryo Ever in The US - Futurism

An Airline Just Started Using an Ethereum Blockchain to Issue Tickets – Futurism

Posted on by

In Brief On Monday, Russian airline S7 began using a blockchain platform for their ticket sales. The move is evidence of both Russia's interest in the technology and a worldwide shift toward a future supported by blockchain.

Russian magazine Kommersanthas reported that the airlineS7began selling tickets using an Ethereum blockchainon Monday. The countrys largest private financial institution,Alfa-Bank, is supporting the move, which was made to simplifypayments and decrease settlement times between airlines and agents a process that usually takes two weeks.

The decision may have been made to get ahead of another Russian airline, Aeroflot, which recently released a request for proposals on how to incorporate cryptocurrencies into their own services.

S7s decision to utilize Ethereum represents two wider trends in the world of blockchain. First, Russias interest in the technology. This is reflected by the central banktesting an Ethereum-based blockchain systemand Vladimir Putin optimistically announcing that blockchain is essentially the foundation for creating brand new business models at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum.

Second, the move shows a worldwide increase in the integration of blockchain into everyday transactions. The system has been adopted by shipping companies such as Maerskand retailers like Walmart to keep track of shipments, and if S7s integration is successful, citizens outside of Russia could soon find themselves booking their own travel on the blockchain.

Disclosure: Several members of the Futurism team, including the editors of this piece, are personal investors in a number of cryptocurrency markets. Their personal investment perspectives have no impact on editorial content.

Continued here:

An Airline Just Started Using an Ethereum Blockchain to Issue Tickets - Futurism

A Team of Scientists Just Made Food From Electricity and it Could … – Futurism

Posted on by

In BriefA Finnish research team has taken a step towards the future offood by developing a method for producing food from electricity. Ifscaling it up proves to be successful, it could be a tool in thefight against world hunger and climate change. The Electric Bioreactor Farm

Finnish researchers have created a batch of single-cell protein that is nutritious enough to servefor dinner using a system powered by renewable energy. The entire process requires only electricity, water, carbon dioxide, and microbes. The synthetic food was created as part of the Food From Electricity project, which is a collaboration between Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) and the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.

After exposing the raw materials to electrolysis in a bioreactor, the process forms a powder that consists of more than 50 percent protein and 25 percent carbohydrates the texture can also be changed by altering the microbes used in the production.

The next stage, according to Juha-Pekka Pitknen, principal scientist at VTT, is to optimize the system because, currently, a bioreactor the size of a coffee cup takes around two weeks to produce one gram of the protein. Pitknen said in a LUT press release,We are currently focusing on developing the technology: reactor concepts, technology, improving efficiency, and controlling the process.

He predicted that it would take about a decade before a more efficient incarnation of the system would be widely available Maybe 10years is a realistic timeframe for reaching commercial capacity, in terms of the necessary legislation and process technology.

The potential impact of food produced using electricity and otherwidely available raw materials is enormous. Currently, there are two main ways that it could be used.

First, as a means of feeding starving people and providing a source of food in areas that are not suited to agricultural production. Pitknen said that, in the future, the technology can be transported to, for instance, deserts and other areas facing famine, providing a source of cheap and nutritious food to those who need it most.

The machine also works independently of environmental factors, meaning that it could feed people consistently Jero Ahola, a Professor at LUT, said in the press release that it does not require a location with the conditions for agriculture, such as the right temperature, humidity or a certain soil type.

Second, as a means of decreasing global emissions by reducing the demand for food livestock and the crops necessary to feed them. Currently, the meat industry accounts for between 14 and 18 percent of global emissionsof greenhouse gases, as well as taking up swarths of land that could be applied for other ends.

The food from electricity project could decrease the amount of unsustainable farming needed to fill our bellies as it provides us with a smaller, cheaper, and renewable method of getting our nutrients. Other solutions to this problem include lab-grown meat or turning to insect farming, whichproduces less waste and requires less energy.

See the article here:

A Team of Scientists Just Made Food From Electricity and it Could ... - Futurism