Monthly Archives: July 2017

In Brief NASA admitted today that under the current budget they cannot afford to get humans to Mars. NASA's next steps will depend on its funding, but now more than ever, the future of Mars colonization rests in the hands of commercial space companies. Budget Bummer

NASA has been talking about getting humans to Mars for years, and continues to provide updatedplans for getting there. Unfortunately, though, NASAs chief of human spaceflight, William H. Gerstenmaier, just announced that the agency cant achieve the Mars goal on its current budget.

I cant put a date on humans on Mars, and the reason really is the other piece is, at the budget levels we described, this roughly 2 percent increase, we dont have the surface systems available for Mars, Gerstenmaier said during a propulsion meeting of the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics on Wednesday. And that entry, descent, and landing is a huge challenge for us for Mars.

Essentially, the SLS rocket and Orion craft have cost the agency a lot. As a result, NASA hasnt even been able to begin designing vehicles to land on Mars or ascend from the surface.

NASAs next moves will depend on funding. Gerstenmaier indicated the agency might be interested in a Moon exploration mission one that is more extensive than the current plan to build the Deep Space Gateway in the Moons orbit. Beyond just being a launching pad for further space exploration, the gateway could support an extensive moon surface program, says Gerstenmaier.

Fortunately for our Red Planet dreams, it isnt just up to NASA. Getting humans to Mars is a team effort. Agencies like NASA are really at the mercy of political moods and budgetary restraints, so they need to do as much as they can with what resources are there. One way they can maximize impact is to partner with private companies.

This month Elon Musk announcedwe might be getting an update about the SpaceX Mars mission in September at the International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in Australia. For now, though, SpaceX has set a deadline of 2018 for an unmanned Mars mission and 2025 for a manned mission. Both Boeing and Blue Origin are also planning to put humans on Mars. It may turn out that the we in Vice President Pences remarks about putting American boots on Mars is the larger American we, and not the government or NASA.

View post:
NASA Just Announced They Can't Afford to Get Humans to Mars - Futurism

In Brief Microsoft has launched its Rural Airband Initiative, which aims to bring internet access to remotel areas in 12 U.S. states. The TV White Spaces project will provide 2 million rural Americans with internet that is a fifth of the cost of fiber cable-based internet and half the cost of 4G networks. Going the Extra Mile

At the historic Willard Hotel where a little over 100 years ago Alexander Graham Bell demoed the coast-to-coast telephone call, Microsoft announced on Monday its latest effort to bring internet access to American rural areas. The project makes use ofunused television broadcast channels which are called white spaces.

Back in 2010, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted rules that opened up TV white spaces for broadband use. Microsoft itself has considerable experience with this spectrum, having deployed 20 TV white spaces projects in 17 countries that have served 185,000 users, Brad Smith, the companys president, wrote in a press release.

Now, through Microsofts Rural Airband Initiative, the tech giant aims to open up broadband access to 2 million people in rural areas in America by 2022. Microsoft has 12 partners working in 12 states including Arizona, Kansas, New York, and Virginia for its TV White Spaces projects, which will be up and running inthe next 12 months.

This project will provide rural Americans with internet that is a fifth of the cost of fiber cable-based internet and about half the cost of 4G networks.

After the United Nations declared internet access as a basic human right, a number of tech industry heavyweights have stepped up to the task of bringing internet connectivity to the worlds remote areas. There are several othersimilar initiatives to bring internet access to all of North America, including a couple in New York and Canada.

Social media giant Facebook has been working on its Aquila project for the past two years. The idea is to beam internet to far flung areas using Facebooks solar-powered Aquila drones, which recently completeda second successful test flight.

Elon Musks SpaceX is approaching the problem with a different strategy. The plan is to improve internet access around the world by launching 4,000 satellites in orbit. SpaceX completed its applications to the FCC for this global internet network back in November 2016. This plan seems to have inspired satellite internet startup OneWebbacked by Virgin Groups Richard Branson, Qualcomm, and Airbus which would launch 720 satellites to build a global wireless internet network.

It seems unthinkable that in such a day and age, where internet is available even through your smartphones and wearable gadgets, there are still 4 billion people wholack such access. Hopefully, efforts likeMicrosofts will soon bridge this information divide.

Read more here:
Microsoft Is Bringing Affordable Broadband Internet to Rural America - Futurism

FDA Panel Recommends Approval

Today a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel unanimously recommended that the agency approve atreatment that genetically alters a patients own cells to fight leukemia. If the agency does make the approval, the first-ever such treatment will be the start of the living drug era of human medicine, in which we harness technology to boost our natural immune system and improve its ability to master formerly unbeatable diseases.

While this gene therapy treatment for leukemia, known as CTL019, will be the first to reach the market, there are more on the way. Treatments for an aggressive type of brain tumor, as well as myeloma and other varieties of leukemia, are also in development.

This technique is a true example of personalized medicine: a unique version of the treatment must be created for every patient from their own cells. After the cells are removed by medical personnel, they are frozen, shipped to Novartis (the therapys maker), processed, refrozen, and shipped back to the medical center.

Assuming this treatment is approved, it will be a first for the FDA. Though the approval wouldnt necessarily be surprising in light of theresults of the trials, which were stunning: patients facing death after all other treatments failed who receivedjust a single dose of the gene therapy experiencedlong remissions that could, intime, prove curative. The FDA panel therefore recommended approval for treatment of relapsed or treatment-resistant B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children and young adults ages 3 to 25.

One attendee of the panels meeting was thefirst patient from the trials, Emily Whitehead, age 12. She almost died as a result of leukemia, which was considered fatal until she was treated at age 6. Since that time she has been cancer free. We believe that when this treatment is approved it will save thousands of childrens lives around the world, Tom Whitehead, Emilys father, told the panel, according to The New York Times. I hope that someday all of you on the advisory committee can tell your families for generations that you were part of the process that ended the use of toxic treatments like chemotherapy and radiation as standard treatment, and turned blood cancers into a treatable disease that even after relapse most people survive.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania developed the treatment, which is now licensed to Novartis. The disease its meant to treat, however, is rare affecting only about 5,000 people annually. Around 60 percent of them are young adults and children. Standard treatments can cure most children, but approximately 15 percent of patients, like Emily, do not respond to treatment or experience relapses.

Novartis will limit the use of CTL019 initially because the treatment process is complex and managing side effects demands expert care. Therefore, only about 30 or 35 medical centers will have access to the treatment upon its release. Furthermore, staffat thosecenters will receive special training and approval to administer it, according to The New York Times. Although analysts predict that the cost of these unique treatments may exceed $300,000, a Novartis spokesman declined to specify a price whenNYTinquired.

See the original post:
An FDA Panel Just Approved A Treatment That Genetically Alters Your Own Cells - Futurism

In BriefA study published earlier this year warned scientists ofpotential complications with CRISPR/Cas9, but after review byresearchers at another institution, the findings of that study arebeing brought into question. It remains to be seen whether theoriginal study will be corrected or retracted, but this developmenthighlights the importance of peer review in science. Wrongfully Accused?

A study published earlier this year warned scientists of potential complications in their work with CRISPR/Cas9, but after review by researchers at another institution, the findings of that study are being brought into question. The original paper was publishedby a team at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) in May of this year in the journal Nature Methods.

In the studys original press release, co-author Stephen Tsang said: We feel its critical that the scientific community consider the potential hazards of all off-target mutations caused by CRISPR, including single nucleotide mutations and mutations in non-coding regions of the genome. The researchers had sequenced the genomes of mice whose genes had previously been editing using CRISPR in an attempt to cure their blindness. The genomes revealed there were 1,500 single-nucleotide mutations and over 100 larger deletions,= and/or insertions in two of the mice which had been modified using the gene-editing technique.

In their study, the researchers attributed these genetic anomalies to the use of CRISPR but a team of researchers from Harvard University and MIT have reviewed the paper and are challenging that attribution. In a paper published in bioRxiv a pre-print server for biology research which is not a peer reviewed journal the researchers pointed out the CUMC study had several serious problems. The most glaring of which, the Harvard and MIT researchers argue, is that the mutations found in the mice that were attributed to CRISPR were more likely than not already present in those mice before they were exposed to the gene-editing technique.

The third mouse whose genome had been edited with CRISPR did not demonstrate the mutations, and was also not as genetically similar as the two mice who did. The Harvard and MIT research team argue that this supports the theory that the mutations in the pair of mice were not caused by CRISPR. It should be noted that this criticism comes from a small study that was not peer reviewed.

The teams goal in refuting the research is to make sure the rest of the scientific community is reminded of the lasting impact claims that are not well supported by data can have. Given these substantial issues, we urge the authors to revise or re-state the original conclusions of their published work so as to avoid leaving misleading and unsupported statements to persist in the literature, the team explained in their paper.

The peer review process is essential to scientific disciplines other than biology and genetics, of course. Whether researchers are making claims about climate change, artificial intelligence, or medical treatments, rigorous review of their methods, data, and analysis by other scientists who are doing similar work is essential. This process ensures that the research and the way it is presented is accurate, of high quality, and will be useful not only to the scientific community, but to the general public.

For teams who have spent months if not years heavily focused on a single study, trial, or data set, it can be very easy to lose sight of the bigger picture. Peer review offers research teams the chance to address inconsistencies, data that doesnt add up, and conclusions that make assumptions or inferences that arent supported by the data.

While there have certainly been instances where teams have intentionally fabricated data in order to mislead their peers and the public, most members of the scientific community do not mislead intentionally. But thats why the peer review process is so important. It remains to be seen if the team at CUMC plans to revisit, or possible retract, their paper in light of the response.

Read more here:
Researchers Refute Study That Claims CRISPR Causes Unexpected Mutations - Futurism