Monthly Archives: October 2019

Welcome to Final Frontier Friday! Were doing something a little different this week and reviewing a new episode. The newest episode, in fact. Im referring of course, to The Trouble With Edward, the latest installment of the second season (or whatever were calling these production blocks) of Short Treks.

Penned by Graham Wagner, The Trouble With Edward functions as a prequel of sorts to the original series episode to which its title so clearly alludes. If theres one thing that should be apparent after the first two seasons of Discovery, its that this can be sticky territory. Discovery, after all, is often at its best when it embraces the spirit of the original Star Trek without trying to shoehorn itself into that shows continuity. That being said, when those continuity ties have worked, theyve actually tended to work quite well (case in point: any time Anson Mount is on screen as Captain Pike). But when it doesnt work? It gets a bit rough. The first season, in particular, is replete with examples of the latter. So which category does The Trouble With Edward fall into?

Lynne Lucero, a newly-minted captain, bids Captain Pike a fond farewell as she prepares to transfer to the Cabot to begin her first command. Once aboard the Cabot, Lucero meets with her staff in preparation for their mission providing famine relief to the inhabitants of Pragine 63, a planet near the Klingon border. The meeting is fairly by the numbers until its time for protein specialist Edward Larkin to bring everyone up to speed on his own pet project: tribbles. Specifically, tribbles as a food source. The only problem, he says, is that they breed too slowly, but thats nothing a little genetic engineering cant fix. His colleagues are taken aback and Lucero asks if tribbles are intelligent. Not immediately realizing that its an ethical question, Larkin reassures her that theyre easy prey before adding that he can engineer some brain damage into their genome. Lucero orders the tribble project suspended and reassigns Larkin to climatology.

The Cabots crew scrambles to respond to a lab breech Larkins augmented tribbles have gotten loose and begun breeding out of control. Its instantly clear to everyone what Larkin was doing, though he merely points out that it worked. Despite their best efforts, the crew is unable to clear the tribble infestation which eventually begins to threaten their oxygen supply. Lucero eventually has no choice but to order her crew to abandon ship. True to form, however, Larkin continues to argue with her. Rather than board an escape pod, he insists that his own intelligence and the success of his work be acknowledged.

Instead, he is overcome by what can only be described as a tribble tsunami as the pods are jettisoned. Sometime later, Lucero stands before a board of inquiry. Admiral Quinn is stunned at how disastrous Luceros first command was: In the space of two weeks, she lost not only a member of her crew but her entire ship in a debacle that resulted in a genetically modified invasive species being released on Pragine 63, all of which she has laid at Larkins feet. When asked how she can blame all of this on one man, she simply states, He was an idiot.

See the rest here:
Final Frontier Friday: 'The Trouble With Edward' - Science Fiction

(Credit: Odua Images/Shutterstock)

Scan the aisles of any grocery store, and youll find a plethora of infant formula options, all designed to meet the nutrient needs of growing infants, who nearly triple their body weight in the first year of life. And yet researchers and companies are busy testing new formulations all the time.

Thats in part because much has changed in our understanding of breast milks complexities over the decades from early knowledge of its nutrient composition to modern revelations that its a living, bioactive substance that evolved not just to nourish babies, but also protect them from pathogens, train their immune systems and send signals between mother and baby.

Formula may never be able to replicate all this complexity, but science could guide development of better products, says Tony Ryan, a neonatologist and emeritus professor at University College Cork in Ireland, who coauthored an overview of baby formula R&D in the 2019 Annual Review of Food Science and Technology. Though breastfeeding is optimal, not every baby can be breastfed, and so we do need safe and effective formulas and with the maximum possible benefit, Ryan says.

But its also a fact that companies are apt to hype the benefits of added ingredients. The brain-nourishing promises made for supplementing formula with the omega-3 fatty acid DHA, starting in the early 2000s, are a case in point. DHA increased the cost of formula, and its now ubiquitous across brands, but whether its necessary is controversial; a 2017 review of the scientific literature, published by the international research network Cochrane, found no clear evidence that it benefits babies brain development.

As the understanding and the knowledge become more and more sophisticated, and we learn about new molecules and new things that are in breast milk, the goal would be to mimic that, says Susan Baker, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences. But, she adds, ingredients should be added only if theres evidence theyre beneficial, not just to sell more formula or increase its price.

So how to separate the marketing from the science? Heres a look at some formula ingredients under study, many of them already on store shelves.

Throughout time, alternatives to breastfeeding have always had their place, for example when mothers had to work, didnt produce enough milk or died in childbirth. Until around 1900, wealthy families could hire a wet nurse, an arrangement that often compromised the health of the nurses own infant. Orphanages kept herds of lactating donkeys or goats, and babies would feed directly from their teats (which may have been safer than gambling with bacterial contamination of unpasteurized, unrefrigerated milk and hard-to-clean feeding vessels with nipples made from fabric or leather).

The emergence of formula, along with an understanding of germ theory, made feeding such infants simpler and safer. The earliest known patented formula was Justus von Liebigs soup for infants, introduced in Germany in 1865 and made from cows milk, potassium bicarbonate and wheat and malt flour. Similar products followed, but most people used homemade recipes with affordable ingredients such as canned milk and Karo syrup, and supplemented babies diets with orange juice and cod-liver oil to prevent scurvy and rickets.

By the mid-1900s, as nutrition science advanced, formula companies were making better, more complex products, tweaking the types of protein and fat to better match human milk and supplementing with required vitamins and minerals. Today, parents who cant or choose not to breastfeed can be assured that commercial formulas, governed by the nutrition and food safety requirements of the US Food and Drug Administration, are safe and meet a babys nutrient needs.

But there are detectable differences: Formula-fed babies are more likely to have gastrointestinal, respiratory and ear infections in early life, for example. Researchers and formula companies are still probing the suite of human milk molecules for new formula ingredients that might benefit babies health.

The third-most abundant component in human milk, after lactose and fat, is a large family of as many as 200 different sugar molecules called human milk oligosaccharides. Despite their prominence, they arent digestible by infants but instead serve as a food source for species of beneficial Bifidobacteria that dominate the gut microbiomes of breastfed babies, thus serving as prebiotics. The oligosaccharides also appear to act as decoys that can bind microbial pathogens and may prevent them from infecting the infant, and other antimicrobial and immune-modulating functions are being investigated by researchers.

As studies uncovered the importance of human milk oligosaccharides, so began attempts to mimic them in infant formula. But cows milk contains only a fraction of the oligosaccharides in human milk, and until recently the technology to synthesize large amounts didnt exist. And so formula manufacturers instead added different, easier-to-make indigestible carbohydrates such as galacto-oligosaccharides and fructo-oligosaccharides, which also act as prebiotics for Bifidobacteria species.

But these molecules are structurally very different from human milk oligosaccharides and are unlikely to recapitulate their diverse functions, says Lars Bode, a nutrition scientist at the University of California, San Diego. Im always a bit skeptical when something is added to infant formula that is not inherently in human milk, he says, because you never know what these things do, really. Bode points to rare reports of severe allergic reactions in children and adults from galacto-oligosaccharides and the fact that, overall, theres little evidence that these prebiotics are beneficial. A 2018 review of 41 randomized controlled trials of prebiotic-supplemented formula concluded that while the products seemed safe, they didnt lead to tangible health benefits.

Several human milk oligosaccharides are now commercially available, their synthesis in bulk made possible by genetic engineering of yeast and bacteria. In a Nestl-funded trial of a formula containing two of these, 2-fucosyllactose and lacto-N-neotetraose, babies receiving the substances had a lower rate of bronchitis than babies receiving unsupplemented formula (10 percent vs. 28 percent), as well as lower rates of lower respiratory tract infections (19 percent vs. 35 percent) and antibiotic use (42 percent vs. 61 percent) in the first year of life, although the authors say these potential benefits need to be confirmed in larger studies.

Bode says this is a step in the right direction but that formula makers need to look beyond one or two oligosaccharides and also consider the importance of balance. If you only give one oligosaccharide and if you start doing that in higher doses, you might get some effects that would otherwise be kept in check by adding other oligosaccharides as well, he says.

In 2018, for example, he and colleagues reported that higher levels of 2-fucosyllactose, lacto-N-tetraose and a third oligosaccharide in breast milk of mothers in India were associated with a greater incidence of symptomatic rotavirus infections in their babies, and that in cell culture experiments, the oligosaccharides increased the infectivity of a virus strain that causes severe gastrointestinal infections in infants.

Other studies suggest that specific oligosaccharides or mixtures of them in breast milk correlate with excessive weight gain and risk of allergies in breastfeeding infants. There could be potential in designing mixtures of five or 10 oligosaccharides that would benefit infant health, but more research is needed to identify which molecules to pick, and in what ratios.

Studies also have investigated adding different strains of bacteria, or probiotics, directly to formula. And here, too, results have been mixed, with some strains appearing to lower rates of diarrhea, and others leading to softer stools, but most showing no measurable benefit. Were on a very exciting pathway, Ryan says but with much more work still to do.

Lactoferrin is a protein found in high concentrations in human milk. It fights pathogens by binding to the iron they need to grow, and punches holes in the membranes of some bacteria. Lactoferrin concentrations are much higher in human milk than cows milk, and appear to rise in mothers milk when the baby gets sick.

A couple of studies find benefits of adding lactoferrin to formula: One in China reported a decrease in the incidence of respiratory and diarrhea-related illnesses by 32 percent and 35 percent, respectively, and a small US study reported 70 percent fewer lower-respiratory tract infections. But the largest published study, conducted by Enfamil and enrolling 480 US infants, found that while lactoferrin-supplemented formula was safe and well-tolerated, it didnt decrease infections or allergy symptoms. Even so, Enfamil now includes lactoferrin as an immune-supporting protein in one of its most expensive products.

When milk fat is secreted from the mammary gland, its packaged in a triple-layer membrane made of phospholipids, cholesterol and a multitude of proteins (including lactoferrin). Synthesis of these milk fat globule membranes is orchestrated by one of the most well-conserved parts of the mammalian lactation genome, says food scientist Bruce German of the University of California, Davis. Yet the membranes are discarded during manufacture of infant formula, which is based on nonfat milk powder with vegetable oils added as a fat source. Evolution thought it was real important, German says of the milk fat globule material. Then we just threw it away.

Researchers are now experimenting with adding the bovine version of milk fat globule membranes often made from byproducts of dairy processing, such as butter- or cheese-making to infant formula. This is probably a good idea, German says, but chronic underfunding of basic lactation research means theres very little known about the role of the membranes in human milk, so its hard to know how to measure the effects of this addition. Embarrassingly, we dont even know the composition, much less the mechanistic function, he says.

Trials of formula supplemented with bovine milk fat globule membranes have shown confusing results. One study, conducted in France and Italy and funded by Nestl, found that babies grew normally and tolerated the ingredient, but they were no less likely to get sick. And there was a concerning outcome: Babies consuming one of the two experimental formulas were four times more likely to have eczema (13.9 percent vs. 3.5 percent in the standard formula group) inflamed, itchy skin that often precedes the development of food allergies, hay fever and asthma.

But a Swedish study testing the same ingredient in a different formula recipe found no such effect. Funded in part by Swedish formula manufacturer Semper, it found that babies consuming the formula had fewer ear infections (1 percent vs. 9 percent in the standard formula group) in the first 6 months of life. And at 12 months, babies getting the supplement tested 4 points higher on a cognitive scale than those receiving standard formula, and the same as a breastfed group. Formula with milk fat globule membranes is now marketed in the US with the claim that it supports cognitive development similar to breast milk.

Steven Abrams, a neonatologist at Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin and chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition, cautions against getting excited about these results. The cognitive scale used in the Swedish study, called the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, wasnt designed to measure small differences among a group of normally developing infants, he says, and you cant determine from a tiny difference on a Bayley at 12 months whether or not that child will actually be more likely to make it in to MIT.

Despite the potential for advances in infant formula and the claims of benefits made for these new formula ingredients, a skeptical eye is in order, researchers and clinicians say. Abrams, for his part, is not convinced that these new ingredients have been adequately studied, especially over the long term. Most studies in this area are funded by the formula industry, he adds, raising concerns of bias and making the case for more federal funding of infant nutrition research.

In 2015, Abrams published a commentary in the Journal of Pediatrics suggesting a moratorium on new formula ingredients until more research could be conducted. He notes that the Food and Drug Administration requires little clinical data on effectiveness or long-term safety before allowing addition of new ingredients. Since then, the issue has gotten bigger, not smaller, he says with more new ingredients accompanied by vague, structure/function claims, such as immune-supporting and brain-building, based on minimal evidence. The FDA drafted guidance in 2016 that would require companies to show more meaningful clinical outcomes before making such claims, but the new guidelines havent yet been finalized and an agency spokesperson was unable to provide an estimate for completion.

Helen Hughes, a pediatrician at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, says she doesnt usually recommend any formula product over another, including those touting ingredients that mimic bioactive molecules in breast milk. A coauthor of a 2017 commentary in JAMA Pediatricsurging a higher bar for evidence for claims on formula labels, she worries that the claims may persuade parents to unnecessarily switch formulas or choose more expensive products premium formulas with the newest ingredients can cost more than 50 percent more than standard products from the same companies.

I, as a physician, would love to see more evidence about what they do before theyre added into formula, Hughes says. Its hard as a parent, she adds, to say Im going to buy the formula thats not for brain health.

10.1146/knowable-101519-1

Alice Callahan is a nutrition scientist-turned-science-writer in Eugene, Oregon, and the author of The Science of Mom: A Research-Based Guide to Your Babys First Year. Twitter: @ScienceofMom.

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews.

The rest is here:
Why It's So Hard to Make a Better Baby Formula - The Crux - Discover Magazine

The European Union has the chance to shape the digital market for the better for the next generation. As digital citizens, its our responsibility to keep track of the issues that matter writes Nayef Al-Rodhan.

When the newly appointed European Commissioners officially take up their posts on 1stNovember, some very important technology policy questions will once again come into view. These are decisions that could fundamentally reshape the business models of Big Tech firms, redraw the landscape of competition and affirm Europe as the dominant global rule maker when it comes powerful tech companies and the effects they have on our politics and culture.

It indispensable that we keep checks on technological progress. Human innovation is advancing at breakneck speeds. Things we never dreamed of are becoming reality, such as synthetic biology, bioinformatics, cognitive enhancement, genetic engineering, 3D and 4D printing, Artificial intelligence, automated weapon systems, invisibility cloaks, quantum computing and even neuromorphic computing. Along with their obvious massive potential, these advancements also pose significant risks to social stability, equality, human dignity, free will, national and global security, and even to the very survival of our species.

How can we make sure that these constantly evolving technological innovations dont destroy humanity or exacerbate inequalities and privacy intrusions? Emerging technologies offer states more instruments and means for control and surveillance, often infringing on civil liberties. The balance between States need to know in the name of security and the respect for privacy must be pursued more fervently. Also non-state actors like large multi-national corporate entities that collect massive amounts of personal data, need to be better regulated.

We must balance the dizzying potentials of technological advancements with security and ethical concerns, and move from risks to regulations. This must also include mechanisms for overseeing the overseers or regulating the regulators, so it is equally important that we are aware of the powers that be when it comesto regulating the global landscape.

Their ambition must be to promote my previously published governance-based9 dignity needs which include: reason, security, human rights, accountability, transparency, justice, opportunity, innovation, and inclusiveness, and balance them with the 3 human nature attributes :emotionality, amorality and egoism without stifling innovation.

In the race to regulate Big Tech, it has in recent years become overwhelmingly clear that the first mover becomes the primary global rule maker. The group of policymakers first able to put forward a vision of regulation at global level has an evident advantage enabling them to pressure other regulatory bodies into embracing their rules, even when contrary to their domestic agendas.

With a large market of 500 million citizens, the majority of whom are comparatively wealthy on a global scale, and equipped with the ability to coordinate action on controversial issues such as privacy, competition, and digital tax, the EU has established itself as the worlds regulatory pacesetter.

In these spheres, the EU has projected itself onto the global stage with particular force in the last year and a half, by advancing its regulatory prerogatives within the agendas of international forums such as the G7 and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Crucially, Brussels is emerging as the most important formulator of antitrust regulation. Earlier this year, European officials published a report which pushed for regulators to more heavily scrutinize proposed takeovers based on how companies used data.

Margrethe Vestager, the EUs highly interventionist competition commissioner, who has launched several high profile cases against Google, Amazon and Apple, has been reappointed to her role for an unprecedented second term. So the trend that has been set in motion on these issues is looking likely to continue, if not grow stronger. She has already recently warned Silicon Valley that she will move beyond fines during her second term and look at other measures to ensure a fair playing field.

Ursula von der Leyen, the incoming head of the EUs executive arm, has hinted at new laws on artificial intelligence and the use of big data within 100 days of taking office next month. She and her team are also reportedly considering creating a dedicated multibillion-euro fund to support and promote the European technology sector.

As digital consumers around the globe continue to pay closer attention to their relationships with companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple whose users number in the billions worldwide it seems inevitable that one region needs to begin taking the lead in debating and implementing appropriate forms of regulation.

Effective decision-making by the next Commission, undertaken with the aim of defending basic rights while energising digital markets through the principles of fairness and competition could have the potential to revolutionise the digital economy bringing about a world in which there are many more winners, rather than a small number of companies whose established advantages skew the market in favour of monopolies. What remains to be seen is whether these difficult but necessary questions will be tackled head on, or conveniently avoided.

Facebook comments

Tags: digital market, eu, europe, European Commission, European Union, featured, full-image, Nayef Al-Rodhan

Category: A Frontpage, Data, Data protection, Digital economy, Digital Single Market, Digital Society, Digital technology

See original here:
Governing the Global Commons - EU Reporter - EU Reporter

A made-in-Canada medical breakthrough that disappeared from the market because it wasn't profitable is being revived by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC).

It's the latest chapter in the saga of Glybera, the world's first approved gene therapy, which also became the world's most expensive drug after it was licensed toa Dutch company and priced at $1 million for a one-time dose.

Glybera treats arare and potentially deadly genetic disorder called lipoprotein lipase deficiency, or LPLD.Canada has the world's largest population of LPLD patients clustered in the Saguenay region of Quebec, where an ancestor with the genetic mutation settled several hundred years ago.

People with LPLD lack a critical enzyme that helps their bodies process the fat from food. There is currently no available treatment and no cure. Those with LPLDmust avoid most dietary fat to try to prevent painful and dangerous attacks of pancreatitis.

The decision to re-develop a Canadian version of Glybera is the result of a serendipitous series of events, beginning when the NRC'sdirector of research and development for translational bioscience happened to be watching CBC'sThe Nationallast November.

Dr. Danica Stanimirovic was in the process of selecting the first project for a new federally funded program aimed at bringing rare gene and cell therapies to Canadians at an affordable price. Thenshe sawCBC's feature report telling the story ofhow Glybera was pulled from the Europeanmarket after only one commercial sale. The drug was never offered for sale in Canada or the U.S.

"That really sparked some thinking," she said."We really have the abilityto advance that."

So she picked up the phone and called Dr. Michael Hayden in Vancouver.He's thescientist at the University of British Columbiaand the BC Children's Hospital whose team developed Glybera.Hayden said he was happy to get the call.

"I was thrilled because this represented a unique response to solve a big Canadian problem, particularly for families in Quebec.And I was just thrilled that we could do something as a national effort to achieve this."

The Glybera story started at UBC in the early 1990s, when Hayden and his teamdiscovered the first genetic mutations that caused LPLD. The researchers then developed a method to fix the malfunctioning gene and allow patients to live a nearly normal life.

After doing the preliminaryresearch, the Canadian discovery was licensed to a Dutch companycalled uniQure, which took Glybera through the rigorousclinical trialandapproval process.

When the treatment was approved by the European Medicines Agency in 2012, it made headlines as the world's firstgene therapy the first treatment that could repair a faulty gene.

When it went on sale in Europe in 2015,Glybera quickly made headlines again, this time as the "world's most expensive drug,"priced at $1 millionfor the one-time dose.

Dr. Sander van Deventer,uniQure's chief scientific officer, told CBC News last year that the price was a business calculation based on the price of other drugs that treat rare diseases. Many of those drugs cost more than $300,000 per patient per year.Because Glybera is a one-time treatment thatkeeps working for years, the $1-million price seemed reasonable, he said.

Less than twoyears later, the drug was pulled from the market after only one commercial sale. uniQure has no plans to revive the therapy.

Although Hayden discovered the gene mutation and developed the early phase of the treatment, he had no role in the commercialization of his discovery. And that meant he also had no control over the price.

"You don't determine the outcome, you don't determine its costs," he said."I'd say what went wrong is that it was very hard to be able to make sure that this got to patients at a reasonable cost."

Stanimirovic said the fact that Canada has such a large population of LPLD patients was an important factor in deciding to give Glybera a second chance.

"This gene mutation is very prevalent in Canada compared to other places in the world," she said. "For us, it was almost calling us to do something on the manufacturing side for this particular gene therapy."

LPLD is rare, affecting one or two out of every million people around the world. But inthe Saguenay region of Quebec, where the gene mutationhas been passed down through generations,the numbers are 30 times higher.Up to one in 50 people in some communities are carrying the gene mutation. Both parents must have the mutation for a child to inherit the disease.

The ultimate goal of gene therapy is to fix a genetic problem by giving the patient a new gene. Specially engineered viruses are used to deliver therepair gene to the patient's cells. The cost of manufacturing those virusesis often cited as one reason for the high price of therapies. The need to generate pharmaceutical shareholder profits is another factor.

"[Gene therapies] areusually targeted to very smallpatient populations," Stanimirovicsaid. "It's hard to make them in a typical pharma-driven model because it drives theprice of these therapies to astronomical levels."

At its facility in Montreal, theNRChas already developed expertise in producing viral vectors thatact as the delivery system for gene therapy. Because the scientistswill be re-engineeringGlyberausing new viral vectors,and improving the therapy, any remainingpatentswill not be an obstacle,Stanimirovicsaid.

The ultimate plan is to developpublic sector manufacturing capacity to create not just an affordable version of Glybera but other gene and cell therapies as well. The total federal funding for six projects including Glyberais estimated at about $80 million over seven years.

"Our goal is to create new partnership models that will create therapies that are more accessible and more affordable," said Stanimirovic. "We hope we can do that through public partnership or public/private partnerships. So the end goal is to really, through this project, develop Canadian capacity to take on subsequent gene therapies."

Hayden called the plan a "beautiful Canadian story."

"Now we have to translate this into something that will truly be effective forpatients in a limited time frame and I'm so excited to do this."

For patients suffering from LPLD, the wait is frustrating.

Felix Lapointe, a 10-year-old from Repentigny, Que.,was fiveweeks old when his mother learned the terrible news that her son had thepotentially deadly genetic disease.

Because there is no treatment available right now, he'smanaging the disease through a strict diet to reduce the risk of dangerous pancreatic attacks. He will have to wait another five years for the first clinical trials of the re-inventedGlybera.

"We'd like it to happen tomorrow morning," said Brenda Potter, Felix's mother. "Still, we're a little used to this. We'vebeen fighting for 10 years with doors closed. The possibility that something is comingis encouraging, but yes, it's long."

See more here:
Canadian breakthrough that became the world's most expensive drug, then vanished, gets second chance - CBC.ca

Companies that reject shareholder primacythat prioritize the needs of society, community, consumers, and employees above shareholder valueand those that fully understand the social and environmental impacts of their entire supply chain, irrespective of product or industry, will be the ones to thrive.

Companies that reject shareholder primacythat prioritize the needs of society, community, consumers, and employees above shareholder valueand those that fully understand the social and environmental impacts of their entire supply chain, irrespective of product or industry, will be the ones to thrive.

To define the characteristics of those companies: They will demonstrate emotional intelligence, flexibility, and the ability to adapt to complex, quickly-shifting conditions, work forces, and social movements. The companies that develop innovative products and services designed to protect people from climate impacts (sea-level rise, extreme heat, disaster) will prosper as well. Examples are companies that make cooling vests for outdoor workers, police officers, and firefighters; flood-response companies; design firms that build resilient structures capable of floating or adapting to rising waters; even private extraction companies like those being used by oil and gas entities to extract personnel from harmful situations like political conflicts, violence, or natural disasters.Further, companies with a majority of women on their boards and executive teams will outperform competitors and lead in their industry. In fact, I would venture that the numbers of men will flip to a women-led majority in most everything in the next 50 years.

Finally, given the increase in both the types of risk and the size of risk exposures such as hurricane, drought, extreme heat, and floods, property and casualty industry will finally transform. Along with reinsurance companies, they will offer individual policies that pay quickly based on a metric such as wind speed or sustained temperature.

Read the original:
What will the world look like in 50 years? - Quartz

Nelson-based trial resultsshowing hatchery musselscan grow up to twice as fast as those caught in the wildis expected to be worth about $200 million a year to the wider New Zealand economy.

Greenshell mussel companySPATnzreleased theresults of its multi-year breeding programme on Friday, developed in partnership with Sanford, the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Cawthron Institute.

SPATnzprogramme manager Rodney Roberts saidhis teamand all who were involvedwerethrilled with the results.

"The final results from this seven-year Primary Growth Partnership programme have exceeded all our expectations."

READ MORE:* Algal blooms in Marlborough Sounds could be an annual issue for mussel farmers * Nelson hatchery showing their mussel in spat-growing technology* Nelson mussel hatchery research bears fruit with first harvest

Growth rates for mussel spat from the hatchery were compared withthose collected in the wild from Golden Bay and Kaitaia.

Roberts said trials showed the SPATnz mussels reached market sizeat a significantly faster rate taking an average of 16.7 months to grow from seed to harvest size of around 55 grams.

In comparison,wild-caughtvarieties took28.3 months to reach weighted averages nearly a year longer.

The biggest contrast was with Kaitaia mussels, which were the main seed source for the industry. The quickest of three hatchery strains halved the growing time of Kaitaia mussels in Marlborough, which Roberts said was"a pretty incredible result".

TheSPATnzhatchery opened in 2015 at the Cawthron Aquaculture Park in Nelson New Zealand and employs 23 people.

SPATnzhas developed hatchery facilities and methods capable of producing spat for around 30,000 tonnes a year of adult mussels. Last year the industry produced a total of 90,000 tonnes of Greenshell mussels.

SPATnz

SPATnz Programme Manager Rodney Roberts, centre, with some of his Nelson-based team studying swimming Greenshell mussel larvae through a microscope.

Cawthron's MBIE-funded Cultured Shellfish programme developed the fundamentals of the selective breeding programme in anticipation of hatchery spat production.

Commercialisation of the selective breeding was then jointly funded by Sanford Ltd and MPI through the Primary Growth Partnership.MPIdirector of investment programmes StevePennosaidthe results weregreat news for the mussel sector.

The breeding programme relies on conventional selective breeding, similar to the way terrestrial farmers breed more productive sheep and cows.

Thereis nogenetic engineering involved in the selective breeding. The scientists pick the cream of the crop as parents for selective breeding so their offspring are among the best that nature provides.

The programme wasnot aiming to produce a single "super mussel" but maintaineda wide range of high performing lines to choose from.

Hatchery spat are currently growing on mussel farms in Pelorus Sound in Marlborough.

MPIdirector of investment programmes StevePennosaidthe results weregreat news for the mussel sector.

"Faster growing mussels means more of this great product will be available to consumers both in New Zealand and around the world.

"MPI is investing inSPATnzas it has the potential to be a real game-changer for New Zealand's Greenshell mussel industry, delivering benefits for mussel farmers, our economy and the environment."

Sanford chief executiveVolkerKuntzschsaidthe success ofSPATnzwasan excellent example of the benefits of innovation and collaboration.

He said wider utilisation of thespat wouldsee a potential increase in sales for the New Zealand mussel sector of $229m a year by 2026,which meant a thriving mussel industry, more regional jobs and stronger regional economies.

"With an ambitious and exciting goal from the New Zealand Government for the aquaculture sector to be worth $3 billion in annual sales by 2035, this is a great stepping stone towards that target."

SPATnz

SPATNZ operations manager Dan McCall caring for Greenshell mussel spat at the SPATnz hatchery in Nelson.

Both Kuntzschand Roberts agreedthe mussel breeding programme could helpmitigate the impact of climate change ontheaquaculture sector.

"What we have done is selectively breed by choosing some of the best mussels that nature has to offer as the parents to produce our mussel families," Roberts said.

"Careful selective breeding can help future-proof the New Zealand mussel industry against threats like ocean acidification, global warming and disease."

Roberts saidshellfish generally were"an extremely sustainable food" and that wastrue of Greenshell mussels.

"Compared to other forms of animal protein, they have an extremely light touch on the environment," he said.

As well as faster growth,SPATnzand Cawthron werefocusing on other characteristics that selective breeding couldpromote, such as better mussel condition, as well as looking at enhancing theanti-inflammatory qualities of Greenshell mussels.

Kuntzschsaidwith mussel powderand oil highly sought after on global markets, Sanford was already exploring the incredible opportunities in thenutraceuticalsmarket.

See the original post here:
$200 million payoff expected from SPATnz Greenshell mussel breeding trial results - Stuff.co.nz

People who have had their legs amputated often use prosthetics to improve mobility and independence. But 75% of those wearing such prosthetics encounter problems such as skin tears, ulceration, and blisters.

The problem is that the prosthetics rub against skin (called stump skin) unequipped to deal with rubbing or supporting too much weight. Stump skin breaks down, causing blistering and ulcers, which can lead to infection and a lot of pain. This means that many patients wearing lower prosthetic legs often find more relief from taking off their prosthetics than they do from wearing them.

To sidestep this issue, engineers from Imperial University, UK, want to re-engineer the skin where the prosthetic contacts the patient. They hope to make it more resistant to friction and rubbing by making it thickerand thus, better at bearing weight and mechanical force. The researchers want to model the new skin after the thick, tough skin from the sole of the foot as a template for sturdier stump skin.

The bottom of the foot is covered with plantar skin; this skin is unique to the soles of our feet. It is particularly thick and padded, which lets it stay intact despite having to bear so much weight and rub against shoes or the ground. Plantar skin is genetic; it does not develop as an adaptation to pressure, a la callouses.

The researchers modeled the plantar skin and found it behaves differently than regular skin under pressure. The outermost layer of sole skin, the stratum corneum, plays the largest role in protecting the skin from tears and blisters. This layer is much thicker in sole skin than other skin types.

But the thicker skin did not protect itself from ulcers. The major factor in that role was the way strong structural proteins, called keratin and collagen, are arranged. The epidermis on the sole, which is the layer beneath the stratum corneum, contains far more keratinas well as different types of keratinthan other skin, which helps the skin resist breaks and tears. And the collagen is arranged in much thicker bundles, and the collagen fibers are also thicker.

These factors make plantar skin tougher and more resistant to injury. The researchers knew their goal was to engineer skin that had thicker collagen fibers, thicker bundles of collagen, and different types of keratin.

One method of doing this might be to incorporate genetic material into the patients stump skin so it becomes thicker and changes its make-up. This might be done using sole skin-grafts.

Another method would be to alter and manipulate the genetic material in the patients stump skin to morph it into the desired characteristics. This approach relies on the physiology of skin that gives it the potential to grow in different ways. For example, doctors could inject fibroblasts, cells which trigger collagen production. This could alter the type of keratin produced, leading to thicker skin layers over time.

The third approach has researchers taking plantar skin cells into the lab and growing thick layers of them. These layers would then be grafted onto the patients stump.

This is a different approach to biomedical engineering in that most researchers try to improve the prosthetics rather than improving the interface between patient and technology.

See more here:
Toughening Skin to Withstand the Pressure of Prosthetics - Machine Design

Haven is pleased to present its fifth DIRECTORS HAVEN, the company's ever-growing initiative annually showcasing the talents of three rising directors. This season, Lauren Katz directs Caryl Churchill's ambitious surrealist work THIS IS A CHAIR; Aaron Mays helms Sonia Sanchez's lyrical drama 2 x 2; and AJ Schwartz directs Dan Giles' tender yet challenging one-act HOW YOU KISS ME IS NOT HOW I LIKE TO BE KISSED.

The three productions, which will have the support of a full production team, will run back-to-back in one program. DIRECTOR'S HAVEN 2019 will play October 14 - 30, 2019 at Haven's resident home, The Den Theatre (2A), 1331 N. Milwaukee Ave. in Chicago's Wicker Park neighborhood. Tickets ($10 suggested donation) are currently available at havenchi.org.

Comments Artistic Director Ian Damont Martin, "This cohort of directors is more than ready to bring their work to the Chicago community, and Haven couldn't be more excited to facilitate and support them in this fifth year of our Directors Haven program. Each of these early-career directors have interests and visions that are specific, intelligent and downright exciting. The pieces they have individually selected are glimpses of the kind of work we need to be seeing and making right now - work that asks us the difficult questions - work that makes space for the marginal and the marginalized. This is met with an articulated interest and commitment in intentional processes, which is becoming increasingly important at Haven. We are very much looking forward to bringing you this necessary work from the next generation of artists helping to find and define the future of our practice."

DIRECTORS HAVEN 2019 includes:

By Caryl Churchill

Directed by Lauren KatzMentor: Devon de Mayo

Featuring Catherine Dvorak, Tamsen Glaser, Lakecia Harris, Isaac Snyder, Julian "Joolz" Stroop and Diego Zozaya

This is a Chair is composed of a series of individual vignettes, each including a headline that is meant to be clearly displayed or stated. Each title refers to a contemporary world issue, including "The War in Bosnia," "Genetic Engineering," and "Pornography and Censorship" - titles that seemingly share no connection to the scene at hand. Caryl Churchill invites us to dig deep into our personal lives and relationships, exploring the depths of how we interact with the world around us.

By Sonia Sanchez

Directed by Aaron Mays

Mentor: Pemon Rami

Featuring Dionne Addai, Sheree Bynum, Simon Gebremedhin, Merrina Millsapp and Juwon Perry

Beverly Smith is watching her family fall apart. Her grandchildren are in need of her care while her daughter Ramona, once a fierce activist, struggles with addiction. When Beverly goes to take the kids home with her, she learns about Ramona's past passion for activism and what led to her decline. This lyrical drama set in North Philadelphia explores social activism, generational differences and the hardships facing urban black communities through the lens of a mother-daughter relationship.

By Dan Giles

Directed by AJ Schwartz

Mentor: Monty Cole

Featuring Morgan Lavenstein and Rolando Serrano

It's a love story that transcends labels. Two people meet, they fall in love, they U-Haul, life happens. A couple just like any other - well, almost. How You Kiss Me Is Not How I Like To Be Kissed innovatively addresses the urgent contemporary issue of straight representation in the arts. This groundbreaking and oh-so-needed play brings important visibility to the sorrows and joys - and even the inherent flaws - of the heterosexual lifestyle.

The production team for DIRECTORS HAVEN 2019 includes Will Tople (scenic design), Angela Mix (costume design), Sim Carpenter (lighting design), Jonesy Jones (sound design) and Emily Boyd (resident props).

The Den Theatre (2A), 1331 N. Milwaukee Ave., Chicago. Previews: Monday, October 14 at 7:30 pm and Tuesday, October 15 at 7:30 pm. Regular Run: Wednesday, October 16 - Wednesday, October 30, 2018. Curtain Times: Sundays at 3 pm; Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 7:30 pm. Tickets: $10 suggested donation. Tickets are currently available at havenchi.org.

About the Directors

Lauren Katz (This is a Chair) is a freelance director, dramaturg, and teaching artist. She served as the 2016-17 Artistic Apprentice at Steppenwolf Theatre Company, and as a fellow in the 2018-19 Directors Inclusion Initiative at Victory Gardens. Recent directing projects include: Subjective is Beauty (Prop Thtr), Toni and Marcus: From Village Life to Urban Stress (Illinois Holocaust Museum) and Salena's Story (iO Theater). As an assistant director and dramaturg in Chicago, Lauren has worked with various companies including About Face Theatre, Firebrand Theatre, Theater Wit, Steppenwolf Theatre Company, Writers Theatre and Windy City Playhouse. As a teaching artist, Lauren works with Lookingglass Theatre and Mudlark Theatre.

Aaron Mays (2 x 2) is an emerging director and playwright in Chicago with a passion for stories of the African diaspora and the narratives of marginalized voices. Aaron's most recent directing credits include Waiting for Godot (Tympanic Theatre) with an all-Latinx cast and Tug of War (CIRCA Pintig), a series of short plays on war, trauma and immigration. In addition, he has worked with Chicago's top directors, serving as the assistant director for such productions as Sweat (Goodman Theatre), Mosque Alert (Silk Road Rising), Two Trains Running (Goodman Theatre) and Seven Guitars (Court Theatre).

AJ Schwartz (How You Kissed Me is Not How I Like to be Kissed) is a director living and making art in Chicago since 2013. As a theatremaker, they aim to use performance to explore the world through a radical, iconoclastic and undeniably queer lens. Their recent credits include Mike Pence Sex Dream, Refrigerator (assistant director, First Floor Theater), This Bitter Earth (dramaturg), Time Is on Our Side (assistant director, About Face Theatre), Zurich (assistant director, Steep Theatre Co.), and The Henry V Project (director, Loyola University Chicago).

Photo Credit: Austin D. Oie

Merrina Millsapp and Sheree Bynum

Simon Gebremedhin, Dionne Addai and Juwon Perry

Merrina Millsapp

Sheree Bynum

Merrina Millsapp and Sheree Bynum

Catherine Dvorak and Isaac Snyder

LaKecia Harris, Isaac Snyder and Catherine Dvorak

LaKecia Harris and Julian "Joolz" Stroop

Isaac Snyder and Julian "Joolz" Stroop

LaKecia Harris, Tamsen Glaser and Julian "Joolz" Stroop

Rolando Serrano and Morgan Lavenstein

Morgan Lavenstein and Rolando Serrano

Morgan Lavenstein and Rolando Serrano

Rolando Serrano and Morgan Lavenstein

Morgan Lavenstein and Rolando Serrano

More here:
Photo Flash: Haven Presents DIRECTORS HAVEN 2019 At The Den Theatre - Broadway World