Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The Center for Food Safety is the kind of organization that most progressive foodies can get behind: Its website features photos of graceful monarch butterflies and dairy cows with big, doleful eyes. Its recent campaign slogans implore supporters to tell EPA to stop this brain-damaging pesticide! and protect dolphins and birds from floating factory farms! It advocates for farmworker rights, humane treatment of animals, and protection of pollinators.

Oh, yes, and theres one more thing: The 24-person nonprofit, whose revenue in 2019 was about $5.2 million, wants the US government to stop supporting certain kinds of high-level virology research. Last month, the group sued the National Institutes of Health in an attempt to force the agency to reveal information about its funding for what is known as gain-of-function researchthe term refers to a category of lab work that seeks to understand how viruses create pandemics. Sometimes, but not always, the research involves manipulating viruses to make them more virulent and contagious to study how they evolve.

Virologists say this kind of research is vital and has led to many important medical discoveries, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. But Center for Food Safety argues that gain-of-function research is too dangerous to pursue. A pathogen released from a lab could result in catastrophic consequences to the human environment, CFS staff attorney Victoria Yundt warned in a recent press release about the NIH law suit. Andrew Kimbrell, a public interest attorney who founded the Center for Food Safety in 1997, was also quoted in the release saying, The NIHs refusal to make public the research it is funding to enhance the transmissibility, infectiousness, and lethality of potential pandemic viruses is grossly irresponsible.

Why would this lefty food and farms groupand they arent alonerail against high-level virology research? The key to the answer has to do with the Center for Food Safetys long opposition to the practice of genetic engineering. In a recent phone call, I spoke to CFSs Kimbrell, who explained what he sees as the connection. You genetically engineer bacteria and plants, then you genetically engineer animals, then you genetically engineer embryosall that has happened, with some promise, but also a tremendous amount of danger and threat, he said. Now, viruses are not technically an organism, but they are living biological elements. So, they fit certainly within that narrative: Just because we can do something doesnt mean we should do something.

Kimbrell said he absolutely thinks the pandemic was the result of an accidental lab release. Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, he believes, used gain-of-function to enhance a coronavirus. The virus then escaped out of the lab, spread uncontrollably, and caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, in effect, gain-of-function research caused the pandemic.

Kimbrell isnt the only genetic-engineering critic who has come out against gain-of-function research and in favor of the lab-leak theory. Over the past few months, many organizations that once busied themselves warning the public about pesticides in breakfast cereal and the evil deeds of Monsanto have pivoted to protesting gain-of-function work. Organic Consumers Association, a nonprofit that advocates against pesticides and genetic engineering of food, published a hall of shame series on virology researchers who use the technique. As we follow the evidenceand follow the moneywe come face to face with a cast of out-of-control Mad Scientists, militarists and biotech/bio-pharmaceutical entrepreneurs, one recent post reads.

US Right to Know, a nonprofit that advocates for transparency around genetically modified food, announced in May that it is expanding its investigative work into other urgent public health matters, including the origins of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease COVID-19. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.s anti-vaccination advocacy group Childrens Health Defense, which has also criticized genetic engineering, has taken up the campaign against gain-of-function and embraced the hypothesis that these experiments made COVID-19 more dangerousnot to mention that it then may have escaped from a lab. The website of the International Center for Technology Assessment, an anti-GMO group that Andrew Kimbrell founded alongside Center for Food Safety, now seems almost entirely devoted to criticizing gain-of-function and promoting the lab-leak hypothesis.

Over the last year, I have watched online anti-vaccine groups radicalize parents, starting with questions about shots and then moving them into pandemic-denying conspiracy theory adherents. Ive noticed that even in our politically polarized world, the political spectrum isnt always a straight line; sometimes its a circle where at a certain point in the back, the far left and the far right converge.

I am now watching the same dynamic play out in anti-GMO groups, as environmentalists who worry about pollinators get drawn into a dark narrative that vilifies vital research. With tens of thousands of followers on social media, anti-GMO groups have the potential to turn the tide of public opinion; hanging in the balance is science that could potentially help prevent the next pandemic.

Also at stake is the reputation of scientists themselves. When I asked Kimbrell why researchers would willingly undertake gain-of-function experiments if they really were both dangerous and unnecessary, he told me that he believes that the basic motivation could be found in the inflated egos of researchers. For some reason, theres always this altruistic halo around scientists, but you know, they created nuclear weapons, science has created all the chemicals that are polluting our air and our environment, he said. I think theres a huge amount of sort of just, Lets do it, because we can and its exciting. Like crossword puzzles.

Since the lab-leakhypothesis has dominated the news recently, let me back up. My suspicion is that no one will ever know for sure where the virus came from, though most scientists agree that the United States and China must conduct a thorough investigation into its origins. Scientists also agree about the paramount importance of lab safety; if youre interested in learning more about lab leaks, I urge you to read this piece by Rowan Jacobsen that Mother Jones published a year ago.

To be fair to the opponents of gain-of-function research, most experts agree that some extreme versions of this work are truly reckless. As Jacobsen wrote, lab leaks have occurred with some frequency over the past few decades. An early controversy over gain-of-functionresearchcame to a head in 2011, when University of Wisconsin researcher Yoshihiro Kawaoka announced that his lab had successfully modified the highly lethal H5N1 bird flu to make it airborne among ferrets. After much media criticism of this experiment, in 2014, the Obama administration placed a moratorium on most gain-of-function experiments the US funded throughout the world. The Trump administration mostly lifted the restriction in 2017, though at the onset of the pandemic, the former president decried the practice and claimed that the US funding of such work in China was a relic of the Obama administration. (That wasnt exactly true; after all it was his administration who did away with the moratorium.)

Last month, after more stories about the Wuhan lab appeared, the US Senate approved an amendment put forth by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that would permanently halt US funding of gain-of-function research in China. While many still deny funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, experts believe otherwise, Sen. Paul said in a press release. The passage of my amendment ensures that this never happens in the future.

Yet the virus researchers I spoke with emphasized that not all gain-of-function research is dangerousto the contrary, most of it is quite routine and has been crucial in advancing disease research and treatment. Gerald Keusch, an infectious disease specialist who is a co-director of Boston Universitys National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories, points out that the term gain-of-function is frustratingly broad and describes a large swath of virus work. Most scientists will say that gain-of-function is too crude a terminology, he told me. It encompasses things that are necessary and safe, to things that are necessary but somewhat risky, to things that are maybe not necessary and highly risky. And they all get wrapped under the same term. He points out that some landmark medical breakthroughs happened because of gain-of-function: For example, the technique led to University of North Carolina scientists discovery that the drug remdesivir could treat COVID-19. Indeed, work under the broad category of gain-of-function also may have contributed to the vaccine research on other coronaviruses that hastened the development of the COVID-19 vaccines, Keusch added.

The outcry over gain-of-function research has cast a pall of suspicion over other, completely unrelated kinds of pandemic research. Peter Daszak, thepresident of nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, has seen this play out firsthand. EcoHealth Alliance, which has an annual budget that ranges from $10 million to $17 million, a US-based staff of about 50, and some contractors abroad, came under scrutiny last April, when media reports revealed that the organization had earmarked about $600,000 of a $3.4 million NIH grant to fund preapproved research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In the wake of these reports, the Trump administration canceled the entire NIH grant for EcoHealth Allianceeven the parts that had nothing to do with the Wuhan lab.

This move struck Daszak as bizarre. We dont even have a lab, he told me. We do things like produce a book on how to live safely with wildlife or educate community leaders. Despite the actual nature of his work, over the past year, he and EcoHealth Alliance somehow have become the symbols of gain-of-function research. The GMO-transparency group US Right to Know recently filed 74 requests under the Freedom of Information Act that tied up EcoHealths board members and funding agencies for months. They know that a small organization like ours cannot keep up with that level of work, Daszak said. He finds irony in anti-GMO groups crusade against his work. Youve got these anti-GMO groups trying to shut us down when here we are trying to achieve the same goal, he said, which is a more balanced relationship with nature.

The overlap that Daszak describes reflects a complicated political dynamic. The anti-GMO movement used to reside comfortably on the left: A 2001 ABC News survey found that Democrats were far more likely than Republicans to believe that genetically modified foods were unsafe, and Democratic politicians have fought hard for the mandatory labeling of these foods. Science writers have called the movement against GMOs the lefts anti-science problem. But that may be changing: A 2016 Pew survey found that equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans believe that GMOs are worse for peoples health. That same year, when the Senate was divided over a controversial GMO-labeling bill, many Democrats argued it didnt go far enough in requiring companies to disclose genetically engineered ingredients. But others defended the measure. It will provide fair and objective information without stigmatizing foods that are completely safe, Indianas Democrat Sen. Joe Donnelly said. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) spoke of the scientific consensus that biotechnology is safe. (The bill passed 6330, and the law set to go into effect later this year.)

But now, this past year, anti-GMO groups gain-of-function criticism has drawn more attention from the right. Center for Food Safetys Kimbrell said that in the weeks since his group sued the NIH over gain-of-function transparency, he has been invited to speak on several right-wing talk shows. (He declined.) And until recently, the idea that COVID-19 could have come from a lab was considered mostly a right-wing theory, promoted with a few racist dog whistles by President Trump and his supporters. Anti-GMO groups dont typically endorse that kind of rhetoric, but with their embrace of the lab-escape theory, they couldnt help but attract it. I noted a xenophobic flavor to many of the comments on several of the groups social media posts referencing COVID. In response to a recent US Right to Know post, one commenter referred to COVID-19 as the China virus and President Biden as China Joe.

Peter Hotez, a vaccine scientist and misinformation expert with Baylor College of Medicine points out that the uproar over gain-of-function research plays right into the conservative narrative about greedy pharma companies and power-hungry scientists. Hotez notes that the right-leaning anti-vaccine groups that he tracks have begun to embrace anti-GMO rhetoric, insisting that mRNA vaccines genetically modify humans. (They dont.) In the past we said, this is far left and far right, but I am seeing more far-right dominance. Its becoming much more of a mainstream GOP dynamic.

Kimbrell doesnt see it this way. His group has always attracted a small contingent of libertarians, he said, accounting for perhaps 5 or 10 percent of the supporters. He noted that he has encouraged his staff to get vaccinated against COVID-19; he opted for the Johnson & Johnson shot because he was skeptical of the mRNA technique the Moderna and Pfizer used to develop their shots. Were bipartisan, were trying to have humans, as a species, live in a mutually enhancing world with the rest of nature, and thats generally viewed as progressive, he said. Im not quite sure why.

Progressives have a long history of advocating for diplomacy and cooperation over threats and hostile overtures. But these are strange times, with the far left and the far right bonding over vaccines, and conspiracy theories, and now, pandemic virology research. This dynamic can be dangerous not only to science, but also to the researchers who conduct this work.

In recent months, the paranoia about EcoHealth has spilled over into Daszaks personal life. He and his staff have received dozens of death threats. After someone sent an envelope of white powder to his home, he decided to hire security personnel to protect his family.

Baylors Hotez noted that threats to scientists have increased dramatically over the past year. He says that when prominent activists cast scientists as evil power brokers, it fosters an atmosphere of animosity toward researchers. Anti-science groups are trying to paint a picture of scientists as evildoers rather than the humanitarians that most of us are, he said. Most of us became scientists to help, to do something for humanity. Hotez himself has received many recent threats related to his vaccine advocacy, some of them anti-Semitic in nature.

Beyond his own personal safety, Daszak worries about the implications for infectious disease research: If the United States stops virology work in China its likelyscientists accessto a place where these viruses come fromwill be blocked. The tensions over the lab-leak theory may escalate to the point where scientific cooperation breaks down. And well certainly never get to conduct a thorough investigation into the origins of the pandemic, Boston Universitys Keuschsaid,noting, The best hope is that somehow in the back channels, we will figure out how to lower the heat, increase the light, convince the Chinese its in their interest to be transparent.

Will the diplomatic back channels prevail in time to prevent the next pandemic? Thats anybodys guess, because pathogens emerge, change, and spread all around us, all the time. Just last week, Chinese authorities reported the first human case of a rare bird flu. The idea that the United States wouldnt be able to monitor and study this pathogen alarms Daszak. If we dont do that work, its really damaging to future public health risk, he said. Well never know whats coming next.

Read the original post:
Inside the Anti-GMO Movement's Obsession With Virology Research and Lab Leaks Mother Jones - Mother Jones

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "Global Biohacking Market (2021-2026) by Product, Application, Type, End-User, Geography, Competitive Analysis and the Impact of Covid-19 with Ansoff Analysis" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

Key factors, such as the innovative trends of neuro-nutrition & growing biohacking in the health & wellness space, are likely to contribute to the growth of the market. Penetration of the Internet of Things in healthcare, fitness, and consumer electronics such as fitness bands also boosts the market growth. Rising demand for smart devices and effective drugs to meet the daily healthcare needs amongst the population and the prevalence of chronic disorders are factors driving the market growth. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge in market growth for the pharma industries engaged in biohacking.

However, strict government regulations governing the genetic engineering experiments, lack of funds required for research, and lack of expertise are likely to hinder the market growth. Cybersecurity practices are expected to pose a challenge for the biohacking market.

Market Segmentation

The Global Biohacking Market is segmented further based on Product, Application, Type, End-User, and Geography.

Why buy this report?

Market Dynamics

Drivers

Restraints

Opportunities

Challenges

Companies Mentioned

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/ked5i

Read more here:
Global Biohacking Market (2021 to 2026) - Lab Experiments with The Use of Medical, Nutritional, and Electronic Technique Present Opportunities -...

With the rising acreage of hybrid tolerant Bt cotton (HT Bt cotton) threatening to cut into the revenues of seed firms and yields for farmers, seed industry associations have appealed to the Union government to take measures to curb HT Bt cultivation.

The National Seed Association of India (NSAI) and the Federation of Seed Industry of India (FSII), have alleged that the sale of HT Bt cotton seeds has suddenly shot up this year, posing a serious threat to the environment, farmers, legitimate seed companies and government revenue. It cautioned that consequences of allowing the illegal technology could be disastrous.

Also read: Highest HTBT cotton sowing in coming kharif: Shetkari Sanghatana

The two associations have written a letter to the Union Ministry of Agriculture, the government of India and the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) to initiate steps to curb the sale of the illegal seeds and take action against the offenders.

Besides causing harm to the environment and losses to the industry, the HT Bt seeds could contaminate the production of legitimate seeds.

The sale of HT Bt cotton is illegal in the country as the GEAC has not given permission to the technology yet.

The HT Bt cotton, the third generation biotechnology in cotton, gives the plant an ability to survive specific herbicides. It works on the premise that when a specific herbicide is sprayed on the crop variety/hybrid modified to resist that herbicide survives and all others are killed. The genetically modified plant has strength to withstand the effect of weedicide.

Though the farmers in some States have been growing HT Bt cotton for the last few years, the extent was limited to some pockets.

The industry associations alleged that there is a sudden surge in the acreage. Quoting a Department of Biotechnology (DBT) survey, they said about 15 per cent of the cotton acreage in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Gujarat was under HT Bt cotton.

The area under cultivation of illegal HT cotton has been increasing over the years. However, this year there is a big jump in such illegal cultivation especially in the major cotton States, M Ramasami, Chairman of FSII, said.

From an estimated 35 lakh packets last year, the area is likely to go up to about 70 lakh packets this year, Ramasami, who is also the Chairman of the Rasi Seeds, said.

The fact that the total size of the cottonseed packets is five crore packets (of 450 gm each) shows how alarming the situation is.

He said that the illegal seed packets indicate the presence of several technologies in the seeds. This could pose a very serious challenges to the environment.

If it is not controlled immediately by the government, it will spell disaster for the industry and farmers, he said.

NSAI President Prabhakar Rao cautioned that the proliferation of illegal seeds could decimate small cotton seed companies, while posing a major threat to the entire legal cotton seed market in the country.

To make matters worse, the illegal seeds are sold using the brand name of prominent companies. While the illegal seeds are polluting the environment, the industry is losing legitimate seed sale. There is a dent in tax collections too, Prabhakara Rao, who is also the Managing Director of Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, said.

He lamented that the regulators were focusing only on licensed dealers and seed companies, while unscrupulous players continued to sell the HT seeds without any hindrance.

The focus must be shifted to catching them and taking exemplary and strong punitive action, he said.

Read the original:
Seed industry raises a flag on surge in HT Bt cotton acreage - BusinessLine

Pixabay // Qimono

Admit it at some point in our childhoods, weve all wondered if we had a long-lost twin or a celebrity relative. Perhaps weve gone so far as to perform a genetic test through a company such as 23AndMe, and learned more about our ancestry and distant relatives. Though we often pursue genetic testing for personal purposes, finding out individuals that share DNA could have grand implications for our understanding of the health and structure of human populations at large.

This process of examining genetic connections has been streamlined by the introduction of iLASH (IBD by LocAlity-Sensitive Hashing), an algorithm that efficiently identifies relevant genetic connections among large sets of people, which then inform important advancements in population genetics and personalized medicine, among other fields.

What is iLASH?

iLASH came to be when Ruhollah Shemirani, Ph.D. student at USC, teamed up with Jose-Luis Ambite, Research Team Leader at USCs Information Sciences Institute (ISI) and Associate Research Professor of Computer Science at USC Viterbi, to study how genetic connections among individuals can shed light on genetic causes of diseases and the genetic structure of populations. In addition, iLASH can also be used for other purposes such as finding distant relatives through services like 23AndMe. This project was made possible by collaborating with experts from the University of Colorado, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Establishing genetic connections can make the world feel smaller than you think. Ambites experience, among those of many others who have used similar services, serve as interesting examples.

According to 23andMe, I share 0.07% of my genome with Greg Ver Steeg, another researcher at ISI, mentioned Ambite. Greg is American (from Dutch descent, many generations ago). Im from Spain. Nonetheless, we share a bit of DNA from a common ancestor.

Essentially, iLASH is a method for IBD, or Identity-By-Descent, estimation. IBD estimation is the process of finding out where, and how much, each pair of individuals in a genetic dataset share their DNA due to shared ancestry, explained Shemirani.

IBD estimation is the first step of IBD Mapping, a novel process to identify the genetic basis of disease. This process is broken down into three steps, each to be published independently in a paper. The first step, published as a featured article in the Editors Highlights in Nature Communications on June 10th, involves estimating genetic segments that are shared between pairs of individuals using iLASH. Next, this genetic pairing information is used to create groups of distant families using network clustering methods. The last paper will focus on statistical methods to show whether these distant families reveal elevated rates of diseases or other traits.

A Pioneer in IBD Estimation

So what sets iLASH apart from other genetic algorithms? Scalability and accuracy.With the ability to perform IBD estimation on a large-scale, biobanks, or storages of biological samples for research, that were previously unfeasible can now be analyzed for genetic connections at an unprecedented speed.

Before iLASH, finding genetic connections in a dataset of 50,000 individuals would take more than a week (~6 days per chromosome), said Shemirani. The same dataset is analyzed by iLASH in an hour!

To achieve this, iLASH employs Locality Sensitive Hashing (LSH), which eliminates unrelated pairs of genetic samples, leaving remaining pairs that have a high probability of shared DNA. This complex algorithm has been facilitated by parallel computing, which allows multiple processes to be carried out simultaneously, creating an efficient approach to IBD estimation.

As a crucial step, Shemirani and Ambite collaborated with geneticists and researchers from various institutions to ensure iLASH is compatible with common formats used by bioinformaticians, who apply information generated from the algorithm to biological and medical research.

Without such feedback from real geneticists at the University of Colorado Medical Campus and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, we could not have achieved this, Shemirani said.

Revolutionizing Population Genetics

iLASH has significant real-world applications in both population genetics and personalized medicine.

In the population genetics field, iLASHs efficiency and accuracy as an IBD estimation method has been unprecedented by other types of analyses and has already been implemented by experts across the country.

We can use iLASH in very large datasets to extract patterns of migration and recent fine-scale ancestry structures for the first time, said Shemirani.

In fact, Dr. Gillian Belbin, an iLASH co-author and researcher at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, used iLASH to analyze the UK Biobank, a genetic dataset of 500,000 people in the UK. Among other findings, the study showed patterns of common ancestry with Nordic populations who inhabited areas that are historically contact points for Viking populations.

Incorporating Diversity into the Conversation

In the field of medicine, iLASH is not only an effective tool for studying the genetic origins of rare diseases, but also a promising way to better our understanding of diversity in genetics.

Helping with the discovery of these rare genetic origins for various diseases is just one of the utilities of such studies, Ambite noted. For example, they can also help geneticists with calibrating genetic disease risk calculations for diverse non-European populations.

By building upon previous analyses that were limited to white European populations, iLASH enables researchers to expand existing results to cover a broader range of population groups.

Including iLASH in genetic study pipelines, such as polygenic risk scores or disease mapping studies, will help to account for population structure and hidden relatedness in the datasets, explained Shemirani. This will help partially address the problems that arise from the imbalance, or lack of diversity, of the datasets and studies in terms of population demographics.

Another upside of iLASH is that its more cost-friendly when compared to many other alternatives in medicine, therefore making it a much more accessible option.

Going Forward

Though iLASH has proven to be highly promising in various applications, there is still work to be done. Shemirani named three particular improvements that they are currently working on.

The primary challenge is to create a distributed version of iLASH to meet increasing scalability demands. As datasets grow larger by the day, iLASH needs the resources required to cover a sizable amount of data accurately and efficiently.

In addition, Shemirani and Ambite are also looking to create a cloud service for iLASH, though ethical and security issues surrounding sensitive genetic data pose a problem for this goal.

Finally, adding an incremental analysis would allow iLASH to be adopted in commercial settings where new customers are constantly being added and need to be incorporated into the existing dataset.

Though not all of us are going to find a lost-long twin or celebrity relative, iLASH can help researchers extract crucial genetic information that will inform relevant research in the fields of population genetics and medicine, benefiting us all in the long term.

Here is the original post:
Find Your Genetic Relatives Quickly and Accurately with USC ISI's iLASH Algorithm - USC Viterbi | School of Engineering - USC Viterbi School of...

DUBLIN, June 14, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- The "Global Biohacking Market (2021-2026) by Product, Application, Type, End-User, Geography, Competitive Analysis and the Impact of Covid-19 with Ansoff Analysis" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

Key factors, such as the innovative trends of neuro-nutrition & growing biohacking in the health & wellness space, are likely to contribute to the growth of the market. Penetration of the Internet of Things in healthcare, fitness, and consumer electronics such as fitness bands also boosts the market growth. Rising demand for smart devices and effective drugs to meet the daily healthcare needs amongst the population and the prevalence of chronic disorders are factors driving the market growth. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge in market growth for the pharma industries engaged in biohacking.

However, strict government regulations governing the genetic engineering experiments, lack of funds required for research, and lack of expertise are likely to hinder the market growth. Cybersecurity practices are expected to pose a challenge for the biohacking market.

Market Segmentation

The Global Biohacking Market is segmented further based on Product, Application, Type, End-User, and Geography.

Recent Developments1. Fitbit Collaborates with Scripps Research and Stanford Medicine to Study the Role of Wearables to Detect, Track and Contain Infectious Diseases like COVID-19. - 4th April 20202. InteraXon announced a new product launch - Muse S, a Meditation Sleep Headband. - 9th January 2020

Company Profiles

Some of the companies covered in this report are Apple, THE ODIN, Thync Global, Fitbit, Synbiota, Moodmetric, HVMN, InteraXon Inc, etc.

Competitive Quadrant

The report includes a Competitive Quadrant, a proprietary tool to analyze and evaluate the position of companies based on their Industry Position score and Market Performance score. The tool uses various factors for categorizing the players into four categories. Some of these factors considered for analysis are financial performance over the last 3 years, growth strategies, innovation score, new product launches, investments, growth in market share, etc.

Why buy this report?

Report Highlights:

Key Topics Covered:

1 Report Description

2 Research Methodology

3 Executive Summary

4 Market Overview4.1 Introduction 4.2 Market Dynamics4.2.1 Drivers4.2.1.1 Innovative Trends of Neuro-Nutrition and Biohacking in The Wellness Space 4.2.1.2 Increase in The Use of Radiofrequency Identification (RFID) Technology in Medical Devices 4.2.1.3 Rising Demand for Smart Devices and Drugs 4.2.1.4 Penetration of Internet of Things (IoT) In Healthcare, Fitness, and Consumer Electronics 4.2.2 Restraints4.2.2.1 Stringent Government Regulations Governing the Genetic Engineering Experiments4.2.2.2 Lack of Funds Required for Research 4.2.2.3 Lack of Expertise 4.2.3 Opportunities4.2.3.1 Lab Experiments with The Use of Medical, Nutritional, and Electronic Technique 4.2.3.2 Advancement in Technologies4.2.3.3 The Sharp Rise in Chronic Diseases Coupled with The Growing Geriatric Population4.2.4 Challenges4.2.4.1 Cyber Security Concerns4.3 Trends

5 Market Analysis5.1 Porter's Five Forces Analysis5.2 Impact of COVID-195.3 Ansoff Matrix Analysis

6 Global Biohacking Market, By Product6.1 Introduction6.2 Smart Drugs6.3 Sensors6.4 Strains6.5 Others

7 Global Biohacking Market, By Application7.1 Introduction 7.2 Synthetic Biology7.3 Genetic Engineering7.4 Forensic Science7.5 Diagnosis & Treatment7.6 Drug Testing

8 Global Biohacking Market, By Type8.1 Introduction8.2 Inside8.3 Outside

9 Global Biohacking Market, By End User9.1 Introduction9.2 Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Companies9.3 Forensic Laboratories9.4 Others

10 Global Biohacking Market, By Geography10.1 Introduction10.2 North America10.2.1 US10.2.2 Canada10.2.3 Mexico10.3 South America10.3.1 Brazil10.3.2 Argentina10.4 Europe10.4.1 UK10.4.2 France10.4.3 Germany10.4.4 Italy10.4.5 Spain10.4.6 Rest of Europe10.5 Asia-Pacific10.5.1 China10.5.2 Japan10.5.3 India10.5.4 Indonesia10.5.5 Malaysia10.5.6 South Korea10.5.7 Australia10.5.8 Russia10.5.9 Rest of APAC10.6 Rest of the World10.6.1 Qatar10.6.2 Saudi Arabia10.6.3 South Africa10.6.4 United Arab Emirates10.6.5 Latin America

11 Competitive Landscape11.1 Competitive Quadrant11.2 Market Share Analysis11.3 Competitive Scenario11.3.1 Mergers & Acquisitions11.3.2 Agreement, Collaborations, & Partnerships11.3.3 New Product Launches & Enhancements11.3.4 Investments & funding

12 Company Profiles12.1 Apple12.2 THE ODIN 12.3 Thync Global 12.4 Fitbit 12.5 Synbiota 12.6 Moodmetric 12.7 HVMN 12.8 InteraXon 12.9 Modern AlkaMe12.10 Behavioral Tech

13 Appendix

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/25qr1p

Media Contact:

Research and Markets Laura Wood, Senior Manager [emailprotected]

For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470 For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

U.S. Fax: 646-607-1904 Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716

SOURCE Research and Markets

http://www.researchandmarkets.com

Continue reading here:
Worldwide Biohacking Industry to 2026 - Competitive Analysis and the Impact of COVID-19 - PRNewswire

In-vivo data in disease model further supports development of Eligo's CRISPR-Cas antimicrobial strategies and itsEligobiotics platform

Phase 1 trial for EB003 lead candidate expected to commence in Q2'22; Orphan Drug Designation granted by the EMA

PARIS, June 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Eligo Bioscience SA, a Paris, France-based microbiome engineering company, today announced that the Company presented preclinical data on its lead drug candidate, EB003, for the treatment of severe diarrhea induced by shiga-toxin (Stx) producing E. coli (STEC, leading to Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome), at the 14thAnnual CRISPR 2021 meeting held June 1-10, 2021. The data presented further supports development of CRISPR-Cas antimicrobial strategies against STEC and other microbiome bacterial targets utilizing Eligo's proprietary Eligobiotics platform. Eligo's proprietary technology is protected by over 20 patent families, including the 2013 foundational IP on CRISPR antimicrobials.EB003 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the EMA.

"The data presented virtually this year at the CRISPR meeting continues to support the potential of our lead candidate EB003 and the use of the Eligobioticsplatform to modulate bacterial populations of the microbiome with unprecedented precision," said Xavier Duportet, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of Eligo Bioscience. "EB003 demonstrated efficacy across multiple in vitro and in vivo models. Moreover, we observed significantly reduced STEC colonization and alleviated symptoms in 100% of treated animals in a disease model representative of the intended patient population.We are very excited about these findings, how they support progression of EB003, and the clear demonstration of effective application of our proprietary platform."

Dr. Duportet continued, "This is indeed the first time that symptom alleviation has been achieved via the delivery of exogenous nuclease in a gut infection model, building on the foundational invention of this technology. Even more exciting is the fact that bacterial killing is solely achieved by the nuclease activity as opposed to the lytic cycle of the phage, therefore enabling a true modulation at the strain level based on the sole presence of a deleterious gene in bacteria.We are looking forward to advancing EB003 into the clinic next year."

The virtual presentation describes efficacy data in in vitro collections of epidemiologically relevant STEC strains, and in two animal models. Efficiency was first demonstrated in vitro on a collection of epidemiology relevant STEC strains where EB003 was able to efficiently kill E. coli strains harboring Stx genes. The EB003 CRISPR-based killing mechanism also abolished Shiga-toxin production, compared to antibiotic treatment, which can on the contrary lead to Shiga-toxin overproduction. Additionally, EB003 was able to reduce STEC colonization by multiple orders of magnitude in both a mouse gut colonization model and an infant rabbit disease model. In the latter model that recapitulates STEC infection associated symptoms, treatment with EB003 demonstrated statistically significant symptom alleviation.

The results provide strong support for further development of the company's CRISPR-Cas antimicrobial strategy and Eligobioticsplatform. Eligo is planning to initiate its first clinical trial for EB003 for the treatment of STEC in the second quarter of 2022.

About EB003

EB003, Eligo's lead drug candidate, was developed using the Company's proprietary Sequence-Specific Anti-Microbials (SSAM) platform. SSAM relies on the delivery of a non-replicative DNA payload encoding an exogenous Cas nuclease,guided towards specific genomic sequences. This modality leads to targeted lethal DNA double strand-breaks only if such sequences are present in the bacterial genome. This strategy enables precise engineering of the microbiome by killing only the strains harboring genomic sequences targeted by the nuclease.EB003 is being developed for the treatment of severe diarrhea induced by shiga-toxin (Stx) producing E. coli (STEC, leading to Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome) and is expected to enter Phase 1 in the second quarter of 2022. EB003 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the EMA.

About Eligobiotics

Eligobioticsis a first in class microbiome gene therapy that can change the microbiome composition and function with unprecedented precision.Eligobioticscan be designed, built, and optimized to target the microbiome species of choice with the automated proprietary platform that leverages Eligo's unique expertise in synthetic biology, phage biology, genetic engineering, and bioinformatics. Eligobioticscan be used to precisely and selectively remove unwanted bacterial strains carrying deleterious genes while leaving beneficial bacterial strains intact through the targeted delivery of a payload encoding an RNA-guided CRISPR-Cas nuclease. Alternatively, Eligobioticscan deliver to target bacteria the necessary genetic instructions to produce, display or secrete therapeutic proteins of interest in close proximity to the host's cells.Eligo is utilizing its Eligobioticsplatform to build a pipeline of drug candidates in inflammation, autoimmunity, and oncology.

About EligoBioscience

Eligo Bioscience is the world leader in microbiome gene therapy to address microbiome-associated diseases. Eligo was founded by scientists from The Rockefeller University, where CRISPR-based antimicrobials were invented, and by scientists from MIT. Eligo was named a Technology Pioneer by the World Economic Forum in 2017. With venture capital funding from Khosla Ventures and Seventure Partners, and non-dilutive funding from the GlaxoSmithKline, European Commission, CARB-X, and Bpifrance, Eligo has built an extensive pipeline of drug candidates using its Eligobioticsplatform.

Through its novel technology platform and robust intellectual property positions, Eligo is poised to be a catalyst for the growth anticipated across the microbiome-associated diseases industry.

For more information about Eligo visithttps://www.eligo.bio/.

Follow us athttps://www.twitter.com/EligoBioandhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/eligo-bio.

Logo - https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/1533529/Eligo_Bioscience_SA_Logo.jpg

Eligo Contact:

Argot PartnersKevin Murphy / Troy Neubeckereligo@argotpartners.com+1-212-600-1902

SOURCE Eligo Bioscience SA

Read the original here:
Eligo Presents Preclinical Data Demonstrating for the First Time that Gut Microbiome Modulation via Delivery of CRISPR Nuclease Impacts Disease...

The growing application of genetic engineering across wide array of fields is driving the demand for DNA/RNA extraction kits. Botany is witnessing increasing use of genetic engineering for creating modified plant species. Researchers and agricultural companies are extracting desirable DNA from organisms which is then transplanted into the plants genome. Genetic engineering is also being used to create personalized medicines or precision medicine by analyzing an individuals genetic data. General Electric, in partnership with Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, launched a joint venture in 2016 to accelerate personalized therapies based on genetic engineering. DNA/RNA extraction is an integral part of the genetic engineering process for extraction and purification of DNA or RNA from the sample. Thus, the growing applications of genetic engineering is driving the growth of global DNA/RNA extraction kit market.

Request for Sample Copy of This Report@ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/request_sample.php?id=680

The recent outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic has hit multiple countries around the world with a total tally of 31.42 million reported cases. This growing number of COVID-19 patients has inflated the demand for RNA extraction kits to perform polymerise chain reaction (PCR) testing. For instance, the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh placed a demand for for 1.16 lakh RNA extraction kits in April 2020. This rise in demand has attracted new players to enter the market. For instance, Kilpest India Ltd. got approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration agency for its real-time PCR test kits in June 2020 and in the same month the company received an order of 500,000 for these kits from Government of India. Thus, the rapidly spreading COVID-19 infection and emergence of new companies is anticipated to propel the growth of global DNA/RNA extraction kit market.

In terms of revenue, global DNA/RNA extraction kit market was valued at US$ 586.56 Mn in 2018 and is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of 6.8% over the forecast period. The study analyses the market in terms of revenue across all the major regions, which have been bifurcated into countries.

Enquiry Before Buying @ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/enquiry_before_buying.php?id=680

The detailed research study provides qualitative and quantitative analysis of DNA/RNA extraction kit market. The market has been analyzed from demand as well as supply side. The demand side analysis covers market revenue across regions and further across all the major countries. The supply side analysis covers the major market players and their regional and global presence and strategies. The geographical analysis done emphasizes on each of the major countries across North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East & Africa and Latin America.

Key Findings of the Report:

Request for Customization@ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/request_for_customization.php?id=680

Global DNA/RNA Extraction Kit Market:

Get Full Information of this premium report@ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/reports/Global-DNARNA-Extraction-Kit-Market-2019-2027-680

About Us:

Absolute Markets Insights strives to be your main man in your business resolve by giving you insight into your products, market, marketing, competitors, and customers. Visit

Contact Us:

Email id: sales@absolutemarketsinsights.com

Contact Name: Shreyas Tanna

Phone: +91-740-024-2424

Read the original here:
Global DNA/RNA Extraction Kit Market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 6.8% over the Forecast Period, Owing to Rise in Demand from the field of Genetic...

Security personnel stand guard outside the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan as members of the ... [+] World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus make a visit to the institute in Wuhan in China's central Hubei province on February 3, 2021. (Photo by Hector RETAMAL / AFP) (Photo by HECTOR RETAMAL/AFP via Getty Images)

The lab leak hypothesis about the origin of Covid-19 has been getting a lot of attention lately, and deservedly so. This is the idea that the SARS-CoV-2 virus accidentally escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, that conducts research on coronaviruses. Just a few weeks ago, a group of highly respected virologists and epidemiologists published a letter in the journal Science calling for a more thorough investigation, stating that the lab leak hypothesis was not taken seriously enough in earlier investigations.

The coincidence of having a major virus research facility, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), just a short distance from the live animal food market that was originally believed to be the source of the outbreak is too great to ignore. Even more curious is that WIV was actively doing research on coronaviruses in bats, including the bats that carry a strain of SARS-CoV-2 that is the closest known relative to the Covid-19 virus itself.

From the beginning of the outbreak, attention was focused on WIV, and various conspiracy theorists suggested, without any evidence, that the Covid-19 virus was either intentionally engineered, intentionally released, or both. Let me just say right off the bat that I dont believe either of those claims.

However, I do think the lab leak hypothesis is credible, and its also possible that gain of function research (more about this below) might be responsible.

In arguing against (unsupported) claims that the Chinese released the virus on purpose, a group of virologists published a paper very early in the pandemic, in March 2020, which looked at the genome sequence of the virus and concluded that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus. Other studies since then have come to similar conclusions: the virus is very similar to naturally-occurring coronaviruses, and it is possible that it simply evolved naturally in the wild, probably in bats.

Even so, the lab leak hypothesis remains highly credible, regardless of whether or not the virus was genetically engineered. Heres why. First, we know that lab accidents can happen and viruses can escape, even if these accidents are rare. We also know that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had thousands of viruses, including coronaviruses, in its facility. And despite claims that viruses couldnt possibly have escaped accidentally, a 2017 Nature article describing the then-new Wuhan Institute reported, perhaps prophetically, that worries surround the [Wuhan Institute of Virology], too. The SARS virus has escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing multiple times.

The secrecy of the Chinese government, which has not yet allowed independent, outside scientists full access to WIV to investigate, hasnt helped matters. We need to know if any viruses in WIV are similar to the Covid-19 virus, and at this point we cant trust the Chinese governments assurances on this question. Of course, even if they allow outsiders to investigate now, we cannot know that they have preserved all the viruses that were present in the lab in the winter of 2019-2020.

Now lets talk about gain-of-function research. Gain of function, or GoF, refers to research that tries to make viruses or bacteria more harmful, by making them more infectious. This seems crazy, right? And yet its been going on for years, despite the efforts of many scientists to stop it. In the past, GoF research focused on the influenza virus, and in particular on a small number of scientists (highly irresponsible ones, in my view) who were trying to give avian influenzabird fluthe ability to jump from birds into humans. I wrote about this in 2013, and in 2017, and again in 2019, each time calling on the US government to stop funding this extremely dangerous work. The NIH did put a pause on gain-of-function research for a few years, but the work resumed in 2019.

Now, let me explain why GoF research does not require artificially engineering a virus. Viruses mutate very rapidly all by themselves, and RNA viruses like influenza and SARS-CoV-2 mutate even more rapidly than DNA viruses. So a GoF experiment doesnt need to engineer a virus to make it more infectious: instead, scientists can simply grow a few trillion viral particles, which is easy, and design experiments to select the ones that are more infectious. For example, some GoF research on bird flu simply sprays an aerosol mixture of viruses into a ferrets nose (influenza research often uses ferrets, since you cant ethically do this with people), and waits to see if the ferret comes down with the flu. If it does (and this has been done, successfully), the strain that succeeds now has a new function, because it can infect mammals. The viruses that are artificially selected (as opposed to natural selection) in these experiments will appear completely natural; no genetic engineering required.

We know that WIV was conducting gain-of-function experiments, and we know that its work included coronaviruses. Was the Wuhan Institute of Virology running GoF experiments on SARS-CoV-2 viruses from bats? Possibly. And if it was, these experiments could easily have produced a strain that infected humans. If a lab employee was accidentally infected with such a strain, that could have started the pandemic. And even if SARS-CoV-2 wasnt the subject of GoF experiments, a naturally-occurring strain being studied at WIV could still have infected one of their scientists and thereby leaked out into the population.

Im not saying that any of these events is likely. I am, however, agreeing with the scientists who, in their recent letter to Science, called for a deeper investigation into the cause of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Finally, let me echo a sentiment they expressed in their letter, which is best said by simply quoting them: in this time of unfortunate anti-Asian sentiment in some countries, we note that at the beginning of the pandemic, it was Chinese doctors, scientists, journalists, and citizens who shared with the world crucial information about the spread of the virusoften at great personal cost. Rather than seeking to cast blame, we need to uncover the origin of the Covid-19 pandemic, and any behaviors that led to it, as a means to help all societies prevent future pandemics.

Read the original post:
Lab Leaks And Covid-19: Why The Lab Leak Hypothesis Doesnt Mean The Virus Was Engineered - Forbes

A new project led by researchers at MUSC Hollings Cancer Centercould significantly decrease the side effects associated with CAR-T-cell therapy and make the treatment available to more patients who could benefit.

Led by Hollings hematologist and oncologist Brian Hess, M.D., and Shikhar Mehrotra, Ph.D., co-leader of Hollings Cancer Immunology Program, the project involves manufacturing a purified version of the CAR-T-cells that are currently used to treat patients with certain types of lymphoma and leukemia to reduce the side effects associated with treatment and potentially make the treatment more effective. The therapy will be given to patients as part of a clinical trial, including lymphoma and leukemia patients who dont currently have approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to receive CAR-T.

The project is supported in part by a new $50,000 grant from LOWVELO, Hollings annual community event that rallies everyone together to raise money for lifesaving cancer research. The CAR-T-cell program is one of the first programs to benefit from the fund.

The grant weve received from LOWVELO is a really great start to help us to get this project off the ground and to help us to treat our first patient, Hess said.

CAR-T-cell therapy works by collecting a patients T-cells, genetically modifying these cells to identify specific targets (CD19) on cancer cells and then infusing them back into patients to fight their disease.

CD19 directed CAR-T-cell therapy is currently approved for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) patients age 25 or younger and adult patients with specific subtypes of CD19 expressing non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The clinical trial at Hollings will be open to adult patients with B-ALL up to any age and certain patients with CD19 expressing non-Hodgkin lymphoma both who are and are not currently eligible to receive the FDA-approved products.

As part of this trial, researchers at Hollings are collaborating with Loyola University Chicago researchers to build on their existing technology by utilizing a specific cytokine (protein) IL-12 in the manufacturing process of the CAR-T-cell product. In September 2018, Loyola and Loyola Medicine received a $250,000 grant from the Leukemia Research Foundation to develop purer, less toxic CAR-T-cells to treat leukemia and lymphoma.

Mehrotra, who also is the scientific director of MUSCs FACT-accredited Clean Cell Therapy Unit, said the MUSC project for developing CD19 CAR-T was initiated through a collaboration with Michael Nishimura, Ph.D., at Loyola, who worked with the researchers to generate CD19 CAR-T-cells at MUSCs clean-cell facility.

Our clinical partnership with Brian will not only help to treat patients, but we are excited to gain more understanding of the complex biology of patient responses as we track these adoptively transferred CAR-engineered T-cells. This will be an important advance for Hollings, where we strive to bring cutting-edge treatment for cancer patients, Mehrotra said. As they say, It takes a village. The different basic science and clinical expertises that we have developed over many years at Hollings are all coming together to implement new strategies for cancer care. It is a great testimony to a big team effort and institutional leadership and vision.

Hess agreed and hopes the treatment will not only improve patients outcomes but their quality of life during treatment. This new approach will hopefully improve the toxicity profile related to CAR-T-cell infusion as well as make the CAR-T-cells more effective in fighting the lymphoma or leukemia, he said. We also hope that this trial improves the availability of this dynamic therapy to patients throughout South Carolina.

Patients often are referred for CAR-T-cell therapy when they have relapsed multiple times and have few or any standard therapy options left available to them. While there are associated risks, CAR-T-cell therapy provides hope to these patients.

CAR-T-cell therapy has been able to provide durable remissions and hopefully a cure to patients who otherwise have an extremely poor prognosis, said Hess. FDA-approved CAR-T-cell therapy, as well as this upcoming trial, helps in the hope of offering cures to patients who otherwise would have very poor outcomes.

Hollings first introduced CAR-T-cell therapy to South Carolina in 2019, and it is the only center in the state with both an adult and a pediatric CAR-T-cell program. In 2020, the therapy was used to treat 14 patients. In 2021, Hollings physicians expect to treat between 40 and 50 patients, with continued growth on the horizon, thanks to new approvals to use the therapy in additional cancer types.

Nationwide, CAR-T-cell therapy currently is being tested as a possible treatment for blood, brain, breast, gastrointestinal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic and skin cancers. On March 5, it was approved by the FDA for a common type of lymphoma called follicular lymphoma, and on March 27, it was approved for multiple myeloma.

Hess said Hollings is fortunate to have access to a clean-cell facility that is necessary to manufacture these cells and the benefit of a multidisciplinary team to oversee a program of this scope.

A patients journey from evaluation for CAR-T, to infusion of cells, to the post CAR-T therapy care requires multidisciplinary expertise throughout Hollings, including cellular therapy coordinators, apheresis/cryopreservation nurses, clinic nurses, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, quality coordinators, physicians, etc., all of whom specialize in cellular therapy. We also rely on the expertise of other departments outside of Hollings, such as a partnership with the emergency department and the medical intensive care unit, which help to manage side effects of CAR-T.

By doing this work at Hollings and taking advantage of the centers multidisciplinary team of researchers, Hess hopes to learn more about the science behind CAR-T-cell therapy to determine how to make it safer, more effective and applicable to additional cancer types, including solid tumors.

Just like we need physicians to see patients and administer CAR-T-cell therapy, we need researchers to be able to manufacture the best possible CAR-T-cell product. They are a vital partner in making this clinical trial available to patients, said Hess. Theyre also the team with whom we will collaborate to perform the science related to this study to advance the field and inform future studies.

Mehrotra sees this as the beginning of an array of promising trials. Generally, most patients T-cells are collected and sent off to commercial labs for genetic engineering. This new in-house approach involving the creation of purer CAR-T-cells could help patients to avoid serious side effects and lower the cost of treatment, making it available for more cancer patients.

These are exciting times for cellular therapies and engineering autologous T-cells with CARs to recognize tumor antigen puts us at the forefront of treating cancers, said Mehrotra. We are excited to partner with Brian and to be able to treat patients in the next six to eight months with the first in-house generated CAR-T therapy. I am sure that once we get off the ground, similar strategies can be used for targeting other cancers.

Learn how you can get involved with LOWVELO to support lifesaving research projects at Hollings by visiting the LOWVELO website. Registration is open for 2021.

Go here to see the original:
Research project aims to make CAR-T-cell therapy safer and more effective - Medical University of South Carolina

Dr V K Paul, Member (Health), NITI Aayog, has highlighted the need for due scientific process in arriving at such decisions

The UK government has reduced the gap between two doses of COVID-19 vaccines from 12 weeks to 8 weeks for the people who are in the top 9 priority groups who are yet to receive both doses. This latest development was announced on June 11, 2021 as a recent study by Public Health England (PHE) showed that two doses of the COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective against the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant.

It may be noted that the Delta variant, which was first detected in India, is spreading rapidly in the United Kingdom and has quickly become the dominant strain there, and causing surges of COVID-19 in some parts of England.

While India which is just taking control of the second wave of COVID-19 and preparing for the third wave, it is looking at what the UK government has taken to control spreading of the B.1.617.2 variant.

On June 12, 2021, India has reported 84,332 Daily New Cases in the last 24 hours. The country has recorded less than 1 lakh Daily New Cases for 5 continuous days now. Out of the people infected since the beginning of the pandemic, 2,79,11,384 people have already recovered from COVID-19 & 1,21,311 patients have recovered in the last 24 hours. This constitutes an overall recovery rate of 95.07 per cent, which is showing a sustained increasing trend.

However briefing media on June 11, Dr V K Paul, Member (Health), NITI Aayog has assured that there is no need for panic on the need for an immediate change in the dosage interval.

Dr Paul has highlighted the need for due scientific process in arriving at such decisions. He has appealed to the public to respect the decision taken by National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (NTAGI), where there are quite a few people who have been a part of World Health Organisation (WHO) panels and committees and are globally renowned and recognized for their eminence.

Let the decision regarding dose interval be examined by NTAGI, as per due process. The United Kingdom must have adopted due process and examined data scientifically, to revise their previous decision regarding the gap. The UK had earlier kept the gap at 12 weeks, but as per data available to us, we did not consider it safe at that point. So, let us entrust this to our scientific fora, they must be addressing it already. They will review it based on the pandemic situation in our country, depending on the extent of prevalence of the delta variant in our country and then take a comprehensive view. Whichever decision is taken by our scientific community, we will honour it.

It may be noted that India had extended the gap between two doses of COVISHIELD vaccine from 6-8 weeks to 12-16 weeks based on recommendation of COVID Working Group on May 12, 2021.

The COVID Working Group chaired by Dr N K Arora has recommended extension of the gap between the first and second doses of COVISHIELD vaccine to 12-16 weeks. Based on the available real-life evidences, particularly from UK, the COVID-19 Working Group agreed for increasing the dosing interval to 12-16 weeks between two doses of COVISHIELD vaccine. No change in interval of COVAXIN vaccine doses was recommended.

The COVID Working Group comprises of the following members: Dr N K Arora- Director, INCLEN Trust; Dr Rakesh Agarwal, Director and dean, JIPMER, Puducherry; Dr Gagandeep Kang, professor, Christian Medical College, Vellore; Dr J P Mulliyal, Retd professor, Christian Medical College, Vellore; Dr Naveen Khanna, Group Leader, International Centre For Genetic Engineering And Biotechnology (ICGEB), JNU, New Delhi; Dr Amulya Panda, Director, National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi; Dr V G Somani, Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), Government of India; The recommendation of the COVID Working Group was accepted by the National Expert Group on Vaccine Administration for Covid-19 (NEGVAC), headed by Dr Paul, Member (Health) Niti Aayog in its meeting on May 12, 2021.

On June 11, Dr Paul has pointed out that We must remember that when we increased the gap, we had to consider the risk posed by the virus to those who have received only one dose. But the counterpoint was that more people will then be able to get the first dose, thereby giving a reasonable degree of immunity to more people.

Dr Paul further added that We need to balance these concerns. So, please remember, that we need to necessarily have this debate and discourse in the public domain; however, the decision has to be taken by appropriate fora comprising eminent people who are knowledgeable about this.

Let the COVID Working Group take an appropriate and quick stand regarding the gap between two doses so that it will be a win-win situation for all.

Narayan Kulkarni

(narayan.kulkarni@mmactiv.com)

Excerpt from:
Can India re-visit UK's stand on gap between two COVID-19 jabs? - BSI bureau