New Zealand’s GM cattle under fire
Scientists in New Zealand whose work with genetically modified (GM) animals had been threatened by a High Court ruling have been given a reprieve.
Nature News: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100327/full/news.2010.155.html
Academics launch web site to investigate anti-GM foods claims
Two food science and biology academics, including the University of Melbourne’s Dr. David Tribe have launched the web site, Academics Review, to examine claims made by Jeffrey Smith against GM foods.
They have authored a point-by-point scientific analysis of Smith’s claims, which is posted on the site
They also subtly give Jeffrey Smith’s personal credentials a thorough critique.
Researchers, teachers, and other credentialed professionals in a range of scientific fields are welcome to apply to join Academics Review as participating members.
They have a facebook page as well, though with only limited info on it at this stage. You can become a fan
Jason
TechNyou
Stem cell immortality mystery solved
Researchers have found a gene that is a key to embryonic stem cells’ ability to remain immortal.
Eurekalert: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/nioa-nrf032210.php
Reference
Research done at the US National Institute on Aging (NIA), part of the National Institutes of Health and the research was published in Nature.
Zalzman et al. Zscan4 regulates telomere elongation and genomic stability in ES cells. Nature, 2010; DOI: 10.1038/nature08882
Nano robots kill cancer…what the?
Media reports have scientists creating nano robots that destroy cancer. Reality is a long way from this and it is the type of hype that does such research no favours.
There has been a story doing the rounds of some splendidly clever science that involves nanoparticles containing short segments of RNA that can silence the activity of some cancer-causing genes in human cells.
The problem is that the media and a bunch of blogs that have simply regurgitated the story without any thought have called these nanoparticles robots. If this were true it would be fascinating, and possibly scary. It is actually more the language used that causes the distortion of truth, but it is once again an example of media hype that misleads and in the long run makes for a misinformed dialogue, if history is anything to go on anyway.
Reuters are the first media I found to print the story
The Tech Jackal is one of a few blogs that repeated the story
I not Robot
Now it may be just me, but when I think of a robot – nano or otherwise – it is a machine with a degree of autonomy that comes from being programmed by some sort of software. It can make decisions based on environmental cues.
These nanoparticles are far from that. They are passive nano lumps of material that have no programming and no ability to make a decision. They have extremely clever design, but they are far from being a robot.
Sci Fi for now
The nano-bots are still science fiction and it is still an issue if they can ever exist as there are some basic laws of physics they need to overcome first. For a start movement in a liquid for anything at the nanoscale would be like trying to swim in thick treacle. And second there is this thing called Brownian motion that is the random zipping around of atoms and molecules – zipping that causes the constant buffeting of a nanoparticle making whatever movement difficult, especially if it is trying to go in a specific direction. It would be like trying to walk against a cyclonic wind while having trees smash into you from all directions.
Passive and dumb
These cancer-killing particles get to where they are going by being transported passively in the blood stream. They don’t decide where to go. Although it isn’t described in the CalTech release, the particles in similar research attach themselves to cancer cells because the researchers have placed a protein or peptide that is specific to a receptor found only on cancer cells – or certain types of cancer cells. Once attached or the particle has entered the cell, it can release its drug.
The clever part of this research done at the California Institute of Technology is that this crew is the first to get these short segments of RNA into a human cell, which then shuts down the function of a specific gene. It has been done for years in plants. In fact Australian scientists from CSIRO were the first to do this where it has been important technology to help breed, among many things, virus-resistance into crop species.
How CalTech said it
Here is the original media release from CalTech – no mention of robots here
So, I challenge anyone to suggest that this fabulous little nanoparticle is in any way a robot. And I seriously wish people would not embellish science stories this way as it does not help the dialogue on what is often a controversial topic. The research is brilliant and fascinating and worthy of media attention all by itself.
Jason
TechNyou
Corporate influence affects public trust and effective dialogue
Do financial interests result in positive results in scientific research? Maybe, according to a new study, but regardless it breeds public mistrust in science and is a roadblock to effective dialogue.
Lack of trust is a key barrier to many technologies being accepted by the community. That distrust, it seems, is often targeted at the pharmaceutical industry and the multinationals involved in the creation of genetically modified crops.
So it doesn’t help science anywhere when a study finds that nearly all (94%) of authors that had favourable views on the safety of an anti-diabetic drug that led to an increased risk of heart attacks were more likely to have a financial conflict of interest with a pharmaceutical company than were authors who had unfavourable views.
Although it certainly raises suspicion, favourable views do not necessarily mean that the research is tainted or not scientifically robust, but this study done by the Mayo clinic also found there was a significant lack of disclosure about any conflict of interest.
Perception is reality
This lack of transparency is another key community concern, at least among the people I talk to. It has come up twice in the last 10 days: first at a workshop for rural women on agricultural biotechnology and this week at a meeting with various representatives from government, research and anti-GM groups to discuss the content of a public attitude survey. In both events the concern came up about the lack of trust of multi-nationals and a lack of transparency about what they or any one else does. Even public-funded research at universities was considered tainted because they thought there was a lack of disclosure about the source of their funding for any research that involved GM crops.
Getting honest dialogue
We all say we want an open and honest discussion this stuff. Will this distrust, justified or not, and an often real lack of transparency form a serious roadblock to any progress toward a functional dialogue on controversial technologies? I suggest it will.
Scientists in the public sphere need to declare openly where there funding comes from, what research they are doing and what the results are. Doing this doesn’t mean they have to give away intellectual property secrets. You can reveal the what, why and potential applications of research easily without coughing up the secrets to commercial success.
In fact, it is our taxes that pay for a lot of this research, so there should be some obligation to let the community know exactly what is happening with their money. We probably should be told regardless of any issue of public distrust, but that is another debate.
As for the Monsanto-types and drug companies, they have an even harder road ahead.
Jason
TechNyou
Low-powered lasers heat and ignite nanoparticles
A low-power laser can ignite certain nanoparticles, which can be used to explode cancer cells and set off blasting caps used in demolition and mining.
University of Florida: http://news.ufl.edu/2010/03/18/nano/
Reference
Published in advanced online publication of Nature Nanotechnology
Published online: 14 March 2010
Scientists put computer chips inside living cells
Scientists have successfully integrated nano-electronic components and living cells, taking the first step toward functioning mini computers inside cells.
Nanowerk: http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=15292.php
The future
A typical human cell is the size of about 10 square micrometers which means that hundreds of today’s smallest transistors could fit inside a single cell. If the rate of miniaturization continues, by 2020 about 2,500 transistors – equivalent to microprocessors of the first generation of personal computers – will fit into a living cell.
Reference
Instituto de Microelectrónica de Barcelona
published in Small,
Vol 6, (4) pp 499-502
‘Mother’ of all skin cells found
Scientists believe they have found the stem cell that is the ‘mother’, which could lead to better treatments for victims of serious wounds and burns.
Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62A4KQ20100311
Reference
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Center for Biosciences and Department of Biosciences and Nutrition, Sweden.
Hugo J. Snippert, et al. Science 12 March 2010: 1385-1389.
New way to help crops fight disease
Scientists have managed to transfer disease resistance from one plant family to another, offering broader protection from potentially costly and destructive pests.
See following links for story
The research appeared in Nature Biotechnology – 15 March 2010
The team from the Sainsbury Laboratory, UK, is already extending its work to several crop plants, including potato, apple, cassava and banana — all of which suffer from damaging bacterial diseases, particularly in the developing world.
This is a broad spectrum disease-resistance that will be difficult from pathogens to develop resistance to, but it is still a transgenic technique. The crop is considered a GMO.
What is natural?
From experience, people have less concern about a GM crop if the foreign gene is from a plant. They still have concerns, but for a variety of reasons (scientific, social, ethical) the risks become more acceptable. For the most part, the acceptability aspect appears to be driven by degrees of ‘naturalness’. That is, a foreign gene from a plant is more natural than one from a bacterium, which is more natural or has a higher degree of acceptability than a gene from an animal going into a plant.
Rational or not, the concept of unnaturalness is always one of the key points of discussion in chats with members of the public about GM crops.
Any GM crop using the above technology will most likely be a number of years away from commercialization, assuming it makes it through all the technical and regulatory hoops. And no technology is going to be the sole answer to an agronomic or agricultural problem and this is not really disputed among any scientist working in the plant breeding field. It will always be one tool among many to help solve a particular problem for a particular region, or regions.
Is it acceptable?
This technology is no different, but I am curious to know, if it lives up to its promise, whether it will be acceptable or not?
Under what circumstances would such a technology become acceptable, if ever?
Jason
TechNyou
The latest scam: patents on genes
The biggest scam in history is happening under our noses:a genetic goldrush that threatens our human heritage.
Julian Cribb voices his concerns in a new article about a genetic goldrush that is threatening to strip us of our human heritage.
One of his opening paragraphs:
“Something that belongs to the entire human race is being quietly filched from beneath our noses with the aim of selling it back to us at much inflated prices at some future point. It’s the biggest real estate scam in history.”
Gene theft?
What is being filched, according to Julian, are our genes and those of anything else that is living on this planet. There be gold in them thar organisms, and the gold is in the form of a patent.
Julian has two key concerns. The first that it defies basic human morality that we allow people to wander the planet patenting things that occur in nature claiming they are ‘inventions’ because they been removed from their natural environments. The second is that the majority of the gene prospecting and patenting is being done by a handful of wealthy corporates, mainly in the US and Europe.
I tend to agree with Julian Cribb on this. I am unable to fathom how a gene that is produced by nature can be patented. Even, as the case is in Australia, that the gene first has to be isolated and reproduced and have a function ascribed to it to be patentable. See previous TechNyou blog
But as I mention in that blog, it is a complicated issue that seems to me to be bogged down in legal semantics. It is this discrepancy over legal terminology that is allowing companies and research institutions to exploit this patenting of life. So, in effect they are doing what we are allowing them to according to the law – if you interpret the law they way they do anyway
Public opinion
It is certainly a key issue when people talk about GM crops. For many the debate has moved beyond whether the crops will kill me, though it still gets attention. Nearly all people I speak to, including all seven women at a rural women’s forum we held in Shepparton, Victoria, two days ago, now raise the issue of corporate ownership of the technology or genes that are then used to create our food.
There is an Australian Government Senate committee looking into this issue of gene patents and should be due to report on it soon.
Not the last word…
If nothing else, Julian’s unwillingness to pull punches make it an interesting read and I can guarantee this won’t be his last word on the issue.