|
Post by Kahlessa on Oct 9, 2007 8:46:05 GMT -5
3 Win Nobel in Medicine for Gene TechnologyBy LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, NY Times, October 9, 2007 Two Americans and a Briton won the 2007 Nobel Prize in medicine yesterday for developing the immensely powerful “knockout” technology, which allows scientists to create animal models of human disease in mice.
The winners, who will share the $1.54 million prize, are Mario R. Capecchi, 70, of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City; Oliver Smithies, 82, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill; and Sir Martin J. Evans, 66, of Cardiff University in Wales.
Other scientists are applying their technology, also known as gene targeting, in a variety of ways, from basic research to the development of new therapies, said the Nobel Committee from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm that selected the winners.
The knockout technique provided researchers with a superb new tool for finding out what any given gene does. It allows them to genetically engineer a strain of mice with the gene missing, or knocked out, then watch to see what the mice can no longer do.www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09nobel.html
|
|
|
Post by Kahlessa on Oct 9, 2007 8:57:38 GMT -5
Here are three articles by Lori Andrews: The Patent Office as Thought PoliceBy LORI B. ANDREWS The boundaries of academic freedom may be vastly circumscribed by the U.S. Supreme Court this term in a case that is not even on most universities' radar. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories Inc. is not a traditional case of academic freedom involving professors as parties and raising First Amendment concerns. In fact, nobody from a university is a party in this commercial dispute, a patent case between two for-profit laboratories. But at the heart of the case is the essence of campus life: the freedom to think and publish.www.patientsnotpatents.org/documents/chronicles.pdf“Gene Patents and Bioethics”- Andrews contribution to UNESCO's Extraordinary Session of the International Bioethics Committee, Paris, April 27-29, 2004 (with Jordan Paradise) (The link gives the entire document for the proceedings) unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001344/134423m.pdf "Genes and Patent Policy: Rethinking Intellectual Property Rights"
|
|
|
Post by Kickup on Oct 10, 2007 21:30:29 GMT -5
Hey Space!
I don't know about you guys, but... someone tell me why we need artificial chromosomes and artificial life? What's the purpose? Oh, I can guess, but come on, really. How perfect do we need to be? And according to whose dictates? What defines perfection? I think we had this discussion before... P.S. Sounds like a God complex to me. And if we're talking about AI, that reminds me of the movie Blade Runner. Don't think it was such a cheery concept!
|
|
|
Post by Kickup on Oct 10, 2007 21:44:02 GMT -5
Hi Luce,
Thanks for your sad but entertaining post on Alex. I miss knowing he's there learning and interacting with the humans. Can you refresh our memories about how the learning of birds relates to human learning? The tie-in in all the articles seemed to pass by the purpose of Dr. Pepperburg's study of watching how birds learn. If she determines how they learn, how do we relate to that in human terms? Can the two cross the human/animal barrier? And how do we use that information?
|
|
|
Post by Kahlessa on Oct 11, 2007 8:56:02 GMT -5
Hey Space! I don't know about you guys, but... someone tell me why we need artificial chromosomes and artificial life? What's the purpose? Oh, I can guess, but come on, really. How perfect do we need to be? And according to whose dictates? What defines perfection? I think we had this discussion before... P.S. Sounds like a God complex to me. And if we're talking about AI, that reminds me of the movie Blade Runner. Don't think it was such a cheery concept! Yes we have, over on the MC board. I’ll find what I posted and put it here as well. I know two questions I brought up were: 1. Is it possible to achieve perfection? How do you define perfection? 2. Even if it is possible to achieve perfection, is it desirable?
|
|
|
Post by Kahlessa on Oct 11, 2007 8:57:19 GMT -5
Here’s a recent article by Lori Andrews in Parade Magazine: Secrets of the GraveEarlier this year, Italian researchers announced the results of an unusual homicide investigation. They had collected evidence in a unique place—a chapel—and the victims (Francesco I de’ Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, and his second wife, Bianca Cappello) had been dead for more than 400 years. Modern forensic science showed they’d been poisoned by arsenic and had not died of malaria, as reported at the time.
Across the globe, scientists are using he latest medical and forensic techniques to investigate the behavior, diseases, causes of death and lineage of historic figures. Beethoven’s hair has been analyzed to locate genes related to musical ability and to see if lead poisoning caused his eccentricities. Einstein’s brain was tested for a genetic predisposition to aneurysm. And DNA analysis indicated that Thomas Jefferson fathered a child with his slave Sally Hemings.
|
|
|
Post by Lucidity on Oct 11, 2007 23:07:30 GMT -5
Hi Luce, Thanks for your sad but entertaining post on Alex. I miss knowing he's there learning and interacting with the humans. Can you refresh our memories about how the learning of birds relates to human learning? The tie-in in all the articles seemed to pass by the purpose of Dr. Pepperburg's study of watching how birds learn. If she determines how they learn, how do we relate to that in human terms? Can the two cross the human/animal barrier? And how do we use that information? Kickup, I don't know how to answer your questions, I'm afraid. Except that I believe that there was an obviously direct communication between Alex and Dr. Pepperberg and his trainers. I was hoping that the exchange I posted would demonstrate that. Some comments I've read from so-called experts seemed to me to be mind-numbingly obtuse. Their opinion of whether or not Alex's behavior, which I assume included his speech, was imitative or not, was "inconclusive". I don't know how on earth that dear bird's apology -- completely appropriate in context and vocabulary -- could be considered "inconclusive". Ditto, his instruction to a trainer, "You go away, now." Dr. Pepperberg's technique in training Alex was to model for him, to show him behavior and then repeat their that behavior to him and see if he "got it". He got it! The modeling for him was effective, and it is currently being used, very effectively for other birds. She has a fascinating website, with comments on Alex's passing, that you can visit here -- www.alexfoundation.org/index.htmMore insight on the ability of even WILD birds to interact and communicate with humans is in the book, The Human Nature of Birds. (Amazon has it in hardback, new for $3.73+) Even more amazing because there was no teaching or modeling, but communication definitely occurred, though it required effort and "intuiting" on the part of all involved. My own personal opinion, just off the top of my head, is a speculative one. That is, that Dr. Pepperberg's techniques might work for autistic children. And I'd be very interested in your thoughts -- yours, Kickup, and others on the board.
|
|
|
Post by Kickup on Oct 14, 2007 0:16:39 GMT -5
Well, one thing I remember, Luce, was that Dr. Pepperburg was trying to figure out how children learn. But in my dim understanding of all this (or is it my dim mind? lol) there seems to be something missing in what I've read as to how she connects human children with birds, or why any results would be helpful... because it's a big leap from fowl to human. So I'm having trouble with the idea that the results can benefit man/womankind. Not that the research will not... that's not what I'm saying. I'm just asking how because I can't seem to put it all together. I loved Alex, too, and I'm sad he's gone now. I hope there is a bird heaven.
|
|
|
Post by Kahlessa on Oct 17, 2007 17:54:51 GMT -5
Here’s something for fans in the UK: To celebrate the release of Michael Crichton’s new novel Next, Harper Collins are giving one lucky winner a Sony Digital Camera and a copy of the book. Plus two runners up also get a copy of the book. Competition expires: Midnight 30 November 2007Next was recently released in the UK (though nothing in the rules say you have to live in the UK to enter the contest.) www.scienceworlds.co.uk/competitions/MichaelCrichton.cfm
|
|
|
Post by Lucidity on Oct 20, 2007 17:12:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kickup on Oct 23, 2007 23:24:17 GMT -5
Wow, Luce. Nice photos and she and her husband sound like real nice people!
|
|
|
Post by Kahlessa on Dec 7, 2007 21:48:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lukaran on Dec 11, 2007 10:53:15 GMT -5
I missed it but the link now says his speech will air again on Monday, December 24, at 6:00 AM. I think that's eastern time.
|
|
|
Post by Kahlessa on Feb 9, 2008 8:48:02 GMT -5
The Race to Read Genomes on a Shoestring, Relatively SpeakingBy ANDREW POLLACK, New York Times, February 9, 2008 A person wanting to know his or her complete genetic blueprint can already have it done — for $350,000.
But whether a personal genome readout becomes affordable to the rest of us could depend on efforts like the one taking place secretly in a nondescript Silicon Valley industrial park. There, Pacific Biosciences has been developing a DNA sequencing machine that within a few years might be able to unravel an individual’s entire genome in minutes, for less than $1,000. The company plans to make its first public presentation about the technology on Saturday....www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/business/09genome.html
|
|
|
Post by Lukaran on Feb 12, 2008 17:20:40 GMT -5
The Race to Read Genomes on a Shoestring, Relatively SpeakingBy ANDREW POLLACK, New York Times, February 9, 2008 A person wanting to know his or her complete genetic blueprint can already have it done — for $350,000.
But whether a personal genome readout becomes affordable to the rest of us could depend on efforts like the one taking place secretly in a nondescript Silicon Valley industrial park. There, Pacific Biosciences has been developing a DNA sequencing machine that within a few years might be able to unravel an individual’s entire genome in minutes, for less than $1,000. The company plans to make its first public presentation about the technology on Saturday....www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/business/09genome.html I think the question remains as to why you would want your genetic blueprints done. What do you want to do with the information?
|
|