Categories
- Global News Feed
- Uncategorized
- Alabama Stem Cells
- Alaska Stem Cells
- Arkansas Stem Cells
- Arizona Stem Cells
- California Stem Cells
- Colorado Stem Cells
- Connecticut Stem Cells
- Delaware Stem Cells
- Florida Stem Cells
- Georgia Stem Cells
- Hawaii Stem Cells
- Idaho Stem Cells
- Illinois Stem Cells
- Indiana Stem Cells
- Iowa Stem Cells
- Kansas Stem Cells
- Kentucky Stem Cells
- Louisiana Stem Cells
- Maine Stem Cells
- Maryland Stem Cells
- Massachusetts Stem Cells
- Michigan Stem Cells
- Minnesota Stem Cells
- Mississippi Stem Cells
- Missouri Stem Cells
- Montana Stem Cells
- Nebraska Stem Cells
- New Hampshire Stem Cells
- New Jersey Stem Cells
- New Mexico Stem Cells
- New York Stem Cells
- Nevada Stem Cells
- North Carolina Stem Cells
- North Dakota Stem Cells
- Oklahoma Stem Cells
- Ohio Stem Cells
- Oregon Stem Cells
- Pennsylvania Stem Cells
- Rhode Island Stem Cells
- South Carolina Stem Cells
- South Dakota Stem Cells
- Tennessee Stem Cells
- Texas Stem Cells
- Utah Stem Cells
- Vermont Stem Cells
- Virginia Stem Cells
- Washington Stem Cells
- West Virginia Stem Cells
- Wisconsin Stem Cells
- Wyoming Stem Cells
- Biotechnology
- Cell Medicine
- Cell Therapy
- Diabetes
- Epigenetics
- Gene therapy
- Genetics
- Genetic Engineering
- Genetic medicine
- HCG Diet
- Hormone Replacement Therapy
- Human Genetics
- Integrative Medicine
- Molecular Genetics
- Molecular Medicine
- Nano medicine
- Preventative Medicine
- Regenerative Medicine
- Stem Cells
- Stell Cell Genetics
- Stem Cell Research
- Stem Cell Treatments
- Stem Cell Therapy
- Stem Cell Videos
- Testosterone Replacement Therapy
- Testosterone Shots
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
Archives
Recommended Sites
Monthly Archives: July 2017
FreshTracks Capital invests in Ogee – vtdigger.org
Posted: July 12, 2017 at 1:47 pm
News Release FreshTracks Capital July 12, 2017
Media Contacts: Holly Killary [emailprotected] 802.923.1500
Taylor Osumi [emailprotected] 323-462-6600 FreshTracks Capital Invests in Luxury Organic Skincare Company, Ogee
Burlington, VT (July 11, 2017) FreshTracks Capital announces its investment in Ogee, a Vermont-based company that makes luxury organic skincare and beauty products. This is the fifth company investment from FreshTracks Capitals newly launched investment fund, FreshTracks IV, which opened in December 2016. FreshTracks led the $1 million round of financing for Ogee to provide growth capital and help the company expand its business.
Ogee was founded by Mark Rice, Abbott Stark and Alex Stark, who started Ogee together in 2014, and in 2016 won LaunchVTs business pitch contest. The companys founders spent years in the beauty and fashion industries, building some of the worlds leading brands and products, and decided to focus on developing products that represent their own values, with proven ingredients and effective natural formulations.
FreshTracks Capitals Managing Director, T.J. Whalen, said of the deal, Were thrilled to invest in Ogees growth. Weve worked with the team informally for a couple of years, and we know they have what it takes to be successful in the $120 billion global skincare market. With the Ogee teams proven track record and experience in skincare and fashion, they are well positioned to capitalize on industry trends towards well-differentiated, luxury organic skincare products.
Ogees certified organic skincare products feature innovative and effective ingredients like Organic Jojoba Oil and Edelweiss Flower Plant Stem Cells to reduce wrinkles, instantly moisturize and restore healthy, smooth, and glowing skin. Full of essential oils and antioxidants, Ogees products replenish and hydrate to dramatically improve complexion. Ogees unique formulations are catching the eye of many in the industry, and have been featured in Vogue, Vanity Fair, InStyle, Allure and many other beauty and fashion publications. The brand has also received excellent reception from retailers, and is currently carried by Free People, and in prestige beauty boutiques across the U.S., with many strategic expansion initiatives on the horizon. Learn more at http://www.Ogee.com.
The rest is here:
FreshTracks Capital invests in Ogee - vtdigger.org
Posted in Vermont Stem Cells
Comments Off on FreshTracks Capital invests in Ogee – vtdigger.org
Testosterone Replacement Therapy – Hormone Therapy
Posted: July 11, 2017 at 12:42 pm
Testosterone:is used to increase and optimize hormone levels.
HCG is used to prevent testicular shrinkage and maintain natural production of male hormone within the testes.
Estrogen Blockeris used to control the levels ofestrogen within a mans body.
Our doctors have designed a safe and proven program for our patients to maximize many benefits which include but are not limited to:
Increased muscle mass
Increased libido
Reduced fat
Improved sexual performance
Helps with cholesterol
Strengthens bones
Helps with diabetes
Sharpens mind
Improves mood
Improves skin tone and elasticity
increases energy and stamina
These benefits are seen when low hormone levels are treated in hypogonadal and andropausal men.
Following the Dr.s protocol is critical in achieving maximum results.
*Patients using Testosterone should seek medical attention immediately if symptoms of a heart attack or stroke are present, such as:
Read more:
Testosterone Replacement Therapy - Hormone Therapy
Posted in Testosterone Replacement Therapy
Comments Off on Testosterone Replacement Therapy – Hormone Therapy
IT’S ALL ABOUT THE GENES: High school students participate in genetics camp – Stanly News & Press
Posted: July 11, 2017 at 12:40 pm
For one week this summer, students from local high schools came together to study genetics in Project GENES, and even take a look at their own genes.
The project, supported by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, involves students from Gray Stone Day School, Independence High School and Phillip O. Berry Academy of Technology in hands-on activities, labs and field trips involving DNA.
These students recently met for a residential camp at Pfeiffer University, where biology professors Dane Fisher and Laura Reichenberg guided them through genetics investigations.
Our goal is to do STEM [science, technology, engineering, and math] outreach to high school students, with a focus on students underrepresented in science, Reichenberg said. We collaborate with their high school science teachers and the teachers recruit students each year.
The students recruited take part in Project GENES for one year. Fisher and Reichenberg visit their high schools for DNA modules that increase in complexity, then the students come together for the summer camp, where they put in practice what they have learned.
Theyre basically isolating their own DNA. They get to amplify one of their own genes, Reichenberg said.
Students run tests on their PTC gene, a gene that determines a persons ability or inability to taste a specific flavor. Students then get the chance to try to taste the flavor, comparing those results with their lab work.
This year, students attending the camp took a field trip to the North Carolina Research Campus in Kannapolis, where they looked at samples under microscopes and tested them for antimicrobial properties.
According to Reichenberg, several students who attended the Project GENES camps in previous years have since graduated and gone on to STEM careers.
The former Oakboro Elementary is scheduled to open in August as Oakboro Choice STEMSchool for kindergarten through eighth grade.
Marina Shankle is a freelance contributor for The Stanly News &Press.
Read more:
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE GENES: High school students participate in genetics camp - Stanly News & Press
Posted in Genetics
Comments Off on IT’S ALL ABOUT THE GENES: High school students participate in genetics camp – Stanly News & Press
Why Myriad Genetics Stock Rocketed 26.3% Higher in June — The … – Motley Fool
Posted: July 11, 2017 at 12:40 pm
What happened
Shares of Myriad Genetics (NASDAQ:MYGN), a company focused on genetic testing, rose more than 26% in June, according to data fromS&P Global Market Intelligence.
Investors can credit the gains to a trio of positive announcements.
First, Myriad announced results from a 2,000-patient study using its myRisk Hereditary cancertest. Data from the study showed that 50% of breast cancer mutationsare missed with current testing guidelines and that 34% of these mutations were notpredicted by family history. This data helped to demonstrate the clinical advantages of the using company's test and could help to spur demand.
Image source: Getty Images.
Second, Myriad said that 17 health insurance plans have decided to cover the company's EndoPredict breast cancer test. Those 17 plans represent more than 35 million lives and bring the company's private pay coverage total up to109 million lives.
Finally, the company reported clinical results from its phase 3 OlympiAD trial with partner AstraZeneca. Data from the trial showed that Myriad's BRACAnalysis CDx companion test helped to identify patients with BRCA-mutated HER2-metastatic breast cancer. Physicians then used that identification to treat patients with either AstraZeneca's drug olaparib or standard chemotherapy. The data showed that using olaparib led to a meaningfulgain in progression-freesurvival. Myriad plans on using the data to seek FDA approval for this new test, which, if approved, could triple its addressable market.
Myriad's stock continues to climb back from the drubbing that it took last year. That beating was caused by falling profits due to pricing pressure in the company's corehereditary cancer testing business. Given the declines, it is easy to understand why the company is putting an emphasis on its other fast-growing testing products.
In spite of the advances, Wall Street doesn't have a lot of hope for this company's long-term profit growth potential. In fact, current estimates call for Myriad's profits to decline by more than 7% annually over the next five years. For that reason, I think that investors would probably be best served by looking elsewhere for investment opportunities.
Brian Feroldi has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Read the original:
Why Myriad Genetics Stock Rocketed 26.3% Higher in June -- The ... - Motley Fool
Posted in Genetics
Comments Off on Why Myriad Genetics Stock Rocketed 26.3% Higher in June — The … – Motley Fool
Is There a Genetic Limit to Milk Production? – Dairy Herd Management
Posted: July 11, 2017 at 12:40 pm
With herd averages approaching 40,000 lb of milk per cow and the single lactation record nearly double that, it begs the question: Are we approaching the genetic limits of milk production.
In a word: No, say Kent Weigel, a geneticist with the University of Wisconsin and Chad Dechow, a geneticist with Pennsylvania State University.
We really arent, says Weigel. The same question was asked 40 years ago when Beecher Arlinda Ellen produced 55,561 lb of milk in a 365-day lactation. That record wasnt broken for 19 years. But then, the record toppledagain and again and again. Last year, Ever-Green-View My Gold-ET, set a new single lactation milk production record with 77,480 lb in 365 days. In percentage terms, My Gold out-did Ellen by nearly 40%!
I think we have a little way to go before we reach the limit, says Dechow. If you look at the Predicted Transmitting Ability for milk on these record cows, theyre just slightly above average.
The other way to look at, says Weigel, is to consider feed intake as a multiple of the maintenance requirement. In the 1980 and 1990s, top cows were producing maybe five times their body maintenance levels. We didnt have any cows at 6 or 7X maintenance; now we do, he says.
So theres no evidence were hitting a limit, but at some time, we might simply reach the physical capacity of the udder, I guess.
To me, it more a question of cost, says Weigel. Is the extra pound of milk worth the cost of producing it, and is it my best strategy for profitability? If I have to spend 99 to get $1 back, is it worth it? Is increasing production per cow the lowest hanging fruit on my farm?
Selecting for larger cows, with bigger frames and more rumen capacity, is not the answer, say both Weigel and Dechow. Larger is not more efficient; larger is actually less efficient, says Dechow. We actually need smaller cows to be more efficient at current levels of milk production.
Look at Jerseys. Some Jerseys are making 40,000 lb of milk, and they dont have nearly the size and scale of Holsteins.
Health traits are becoming a larger proportion of selection indexes, which is a good thing. Unhealthy cows simply burn through calories to power their immune system. Healthy cows produce more, says Weigel
A bigger issue might be that farmers are placing less urgency on reproduction than they were a decade ago, says Dechow. Many herds are now reliant on reproductive hormone protocols to get cows bred. But if those tools are ever lost, it could become a problem.
Inbreeding is also a concern, and it continues to increase. Bull studs are doing a good job of weeding out detrimental genetic recessives. The real issue, says Dechow, is that the industry is likely weeding out just the worst recessive genes with obvious problems. The ones that we dont see as major recessives may be causing more subtle problems, he says.
Still, both Weigel and Dechow say industry selection indexes do a pretty good job of balancing production, health traits and conformation. While every herd doesnt need a customized index, the geneticists say each dairy owner should think about what he or she is trying to accomplish with the genetics they buy. If there are a diversity of goals, there will be diversity of selection and inbreeding wont be as big of a concern, says Weigel.
Genetics isnt really the issue limiting production and efficiency, he says. The limiting factors in most herds are cow comfort and herd management.
Most herds are doing 70% to 80% of things right, and are getting good production. But if they can get 99% right, wow! Thats when you see production jump.
Note: This story appears in the July 2017 issue of Dairy Herd Management.
Read the original:
Is There a Genetic Limit to Milk Production? - Dairy Herd Management
Posted in Genetics
Comments Off on Is There a Genetic Limit to Milk Production? – Dairy Herd Management
Research on Stem Cell Therapy | Liveyon Regenerative Medicine
Posted: July 10, 2017 at 6:48 am
Liveyon LLC is the exclusive worldwide distributor of a regenerative medicine product that is derived from umbilical cord. This product contains cells, stem cells and growth factors which may serve as a therapy for various degenerative diseases/disorders.
Stem cells and cell based therapies have shown tremendous promise; yet controlled studies are still needed in order to confirm its efficacy. Professional judgment and expertise is needed in using these therapies for any therapeutic use, and we urge anyone embarking on the use of stem cell therapies or any regenerative medicine product to consult the national health data bases to evaluate current information from clinical trials. The FDA websites on human tissue should also be consulted to get its current evaluation of any regenerative therapy.
Stem cells, like other medical products that are intended to treat, cure or prevent disease, generally require FDA approval before they can be marketed. FDA has not approved any stem cell-based or regenerative medicine products for use, other than cord blood-derived hematopoietic progenitor cells (blood forming stem cells) for certain indications.
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/ Basics/ucm194655.htm
844-548-3966 support@liveyon.com
Excerpt from:
Research on Stem Cell Therapy | Liveyon Regenerative Medicine
Posted in Cell Medicine
Comments Off on Research on Stem Cell Therapy | Liveyon Regenerative Medicine
‘Stem-cell tourism’ needs tighter controls, say medical experts – The … – Washington Post
Posted: July 10, 2017 at 6:48 am
By Reuters By Reuters July 8
Stem cell tourism in which patients travel to developing countries for unproven and potentially risky therapies should be more tightly regulated, according to a group of international health experts.
With hundreds of medical centers around the world claiming to be able to repair tissue damaged by conditions such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinsons disease, tackling unscrupulous advertising of such procedures is crucial.
These therapies are advertised directly to patients with the promise of a cure, but there is often little or no evidence to show they will help or that they will not cause harm, the 15 experts wrote in the journal Science Translational Medicine.
Some types of stem cell transplant mainly using blood and skin stem cells have been approved by regulators after full clinical trials found they could treat certain types of cancer and grow skin grafts for burn patients.
But many other potential therapies are only in the earliest stages of development and have not been approved by regulators.
Stem cell therapies hold a lot of promise, but we need rigorous clinical trials and regulatory processes to determine whether a proposed treatment is safe, effective and better than existing treatments, said one of the 15, Sarah Chan of Britains University of Edinburgh.
The experts called for global action, led by the World Health Organization, to introduce controls on advertising and to agree on international standards for the manufacture and testing of cell- and tissue-based therapies.
The globalization of health markets and the specific tensions surrounding stem cell research and its applications have made this a difficult challenge, they wrote. However, the stakes are too high not to take a united stance.
Read the original here:
'Stem-cell tourism' needs tighter controls, say medical experts - The ... - Washington Post
Posted in Cell Medicine
Comments Off on ‘Stem-cell tourism’ needs tighter controls, say medical experts – The … – Washington Post
Chemotherapy before breast cancer surgery might fuel metastasis – STAT
Posted: July 10, 2017 at 6:48 am
W
hen breast cancer patients get chemotherapy before surgery to remove their tumor, it can make remaining malignant cells spread to distant sites, resulting in incurable metastatic cancer, scientists reportedlast week.
The main goal of pre-operative (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy for breast cancer is to shrink tumors so women can have a lumpectomy rather than a more invasive mastectomy. It was therefore initially used only on large tumors after being introduced about 25 years ago. But as fewer and fewer women were diagnosed with large breast tumors, pre-op chemo began to be used in patients with smaller cancers, too, in the hope that it would extend survival.
But pre-op chemo can, instead, promote metastasis, scientists concluded from experiments in lab mice and human tissue, published in Science Translational Medicine.
advertisement
The reason is that standard pre-op chemotherapies for breast cancer paclitaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide affect the bodys on-ramps to the highways of metastasis, said biologist John Condeelis of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, senior author of the new study.
Called tumor microenvironments of metastasis, these on-ramps are sites on blood vessels that special immune cells flock to. If the immune cells hook up with a tumor cell, they usher it into a blood vessel like a Lyft picking up a passenger. Since blood vessels are the highways to distant organs, the result is metastasis, or the spread of cancer to far-flung sites.
Depending on characteristics such as how many tumor cells, blood vessel cells, and immune cells are touching each other, the tumor microenvironment can nearly triple the chance that a common type of breast cancer (estrogen-receptor positive/HER2 negative) that has reached the lymph nodes will also metastasize, Condeelis and colleagues showed in a 2014 studyof 3,760 patients. The discovery of how the tumor microenvironment can fuel metastasis by whisking cancer cells into blood vessels so impressed Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, that he featured it in his blog.
The new study took the next logical step: can the tumor microenvironment be altered so that it promotes or thwarts metastasis?
To find out, Einsteins George Karagiannis spent nearly three years experimenting with lab mice whose genetic mutations make them spontaneously develop breast cancer, as well as mice given human breast tumors. In both cases, paclitaxel changed the tumor microenvironments in three ways, all more conducive to metastasis: the microenvironment had more of the immune cells that carry cancer cells into blood vessels, it developed blood vessels that were more permeable to cancer cells, and the tumor cells became more mobile, practically bounding into those molecular Lyfts.
As a result, the mice had twice as many cancer cells zipping through their bloodstream and in their lungs compared with mice not treated with paclitaxel. Two other neoadjuvants, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide, also promoted metastasis by altering the tumor microenvironment. This showed that the tumor microenvironment is the doorway to metastasis, Condeelis said.
The scientists also analyzed tissue from 20 breast cancer patients who had undergone pre-op chemo (12 weeks of paclitaxel and four of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide). Compared to before the chemo, the tumor microenvironment after treatment was more conducive to metastasis in most patients. In five, it got more than five times worse. No patients microenvironment got less friendly to metastasis.
Pre-op chemo may have unwanted long-term consequences in some breast cancer patients, the Einstein researchers wrote.
That finding is fascinating, powerful, and very important, said Julio Aguirre-Ghiso of Mount Sinai School of Medicine, an expert in metastasis who was not involved in the study. It raises awareness that we might have to be smarter about how we use chemotherapy.
Dr. Julie Gralow, a medical oncologist at the University of Washington, said that if pre-op chemo promoted metastasis, that should have shown up in studies that compared it to post-op chemo, but for the most part it hasnt. However, that could be because only tumor cells containing certain proteins that make them especially mobile are affected in this way. This is an interesting study, to say the least, Gralow said. I am willing to keep my mind open to the possibility that there are some breast cancer patients in whom things get worse with pre-op chemo.
One reason to question the findings, however, is that if pre-op chemo promotes metastasis in some patients, that might be expected to have shown up in studies of the therapy. Overall, in fact, those studies showthat neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not seem to improve overall survival, as the authors of an editorial in the Journal of Clinical Oncology wrote.
Thats not as bad as decreasing survival, of course. But Einsteins Dr. Maja Oktay, a co-author of the new research, cautioned that the typical length of the studies six or so years is too short to assess the risk of metastasis, which can take more than 20 years to appear, she said. Such patients might never be flagged as having metastatic cancer, let alone having it linked to pre-op chemo decades earlier, said Aguirre-Ghiso.
On a brighter note, not all breast cancer patients have the kind of tumor microenvironment in which pre-op chemo can promote metastasis. Whether they do or not can be determined by a simple lab test, but one that is not routinely done, Condeelis said.
Serendipitously, an experimental compound called rebastinib, being developed by Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, seems to be able to block the on-ramp to the metastasis highway. In a study currently recruiting patient volunteers, the Einstein scientists (who have no financial relationship with Deciphera) are studying whether rebastinib can improve outcomes in metastatic breast cancer.
Sharon Begley can be reached at sharon.begley@statnews.com Follow Sharon on Twitter @sxbegle
Trending
He wants to sell you a $300 fasting diet
He wants to sell you a $300 fasting diet to prolong your life. It might not
A feature, not a bug: George Church ascribes his
A feature, not a bug: George Church ascribes his visionary ideas to narcolepsy
Strict limits on opioid prescribing risk the inhumane treatment
Strict limits on opioid prescribing risk the inhumane treatment of pain patients
Recommended
Four health wearables trying to break through hospital walls
Four health wearables trying to break through hospital walls
More female leadership: a different kind of health care
More female leadership: a different kind of health care reform
Drive to help nursing home patients live independently could
Drive to help nursing home patients live independently could face deep cuts under GOP health plans
Go here to read the rest:
Chemotherapy before breast cancer surgery might fuel metastasis - STAT
Posted in Cell Medicine
Comments Off on Chemotherapy before breast cancer surgery might fuel metastasis – STAT
genetic engineering | Definition, Process, & Uses …
Posted: July 10, 2017 at 6:46 am
Genetic engineering, the artificial manipulation, modification, and recombination of DNA or other nucleic acid molecules in order to modify an organism or population of organisms.
The term genetic engineering initially referred to various techniques used for the modification or manipulation of organisms through the processes of heredity and reproduction. As such, the term embraced both artificial selection and all the interventions of biomedical techniques, among them artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (e.g., test-tube babies), cloning, and gene manipulation. In the latter part of the 20th century, however, the term came to refer more specifically to methods of recombinant DNA technology (or gene cloning), in which DNA molecules from two or more sources are combined either within cells or in vitro and are then inserted into host organisms in which they are able to propagate.
The possibility for recombinant DNA technology emerged with the discovery of restriction enzymes in 1968 by Swiss microbiologist Werner Arber. The following year American microbiologist Hamilton O. Smith purified so-called type II restriction enzymes, which were found to be essential to genetic engineering for their ability to cleave a specific site within the DNA (as opposed to type I restriction enzymes, which cleave DNA at random sites). Drawing on Smiths work, American molecular biologist Daniel Nathans helped advance the technique of DNA recombination in 197071 and demonstrated that type II enzymes could be useful in genetic studies. Genetic engineering based on recombination was pioneered in 1973 by American biochemists Stanley N. Cohen and Herbert W. Boyer, who were among the first to cut DNA into fragments, rejoin different fragments, and insert the new genes into E. coli bacteria, which then reproduced.
Most recombinant DNA technology involves the insertion of foreign genes into the plasmids of common laboratory strains of bacteria. Plasmids are small rings of DNA; they are not part of the bacteriums chromosome (the main repository of the organisms genetic information). Nonetheless, they are capable of directing protein synthesis, and, like chromosomal DNA, they are reproduced and passed on to the bacteriums progeny. Thus, by incorporating foreign DNA (for example, a mammalian gene) into a bacterium, researchers can obtain an almost limitless number of copies of the inserted gene. Furthermore, if the inserted gene is operative (i.e., if it directs protein synthesis), the modified bacterium will produce the protein specified by the foreign DNA.
A subsequent generation of genetic engineering techniques that emerged in the early 21st century centred on gene editing. Gene editing, based on a technology known as CRISPR-Cas9, allows researchers to customize a living organisms genetic sequence by making very specific changes to its DNA. Gene editing has a wide array of applications, being used for the genetic modification of crop plants and livestock and of laboratory model organisms (e.g., mice). The correction of genetic errors associated with disease in animals suggests that gene editing has potential applications in gene therapy for humans.
Genetic engineering has advanced the understanding of many theoretical and practical aspects of gene function and organization. Through recombinant DNA techniques, bacteria have been created that are capable of synthesizing human insulin, human growth hormone, alpha interferon, a hepatitis B vaccine, and other medically useful substances. Plants may be genetically adjusted to enable them to fix nitrogen, and genetic diseases can possibly be corrected by replacing dysfunctional genes with normally functioning genes. Nevertheless, special concern has been focused on such achievements for fear that they might result in the introduction of unfavourable and possibly dangerous traits into microorganisms that were previously free of theme.g., resistance to antibiotics, production of toxins, or a tendency to cause disease. Likewise, the application of gene editing in humans has raised ethical concerns, particularly regarding its potential use to alter traits such as intelligence and beauty.
In 1980 the new microorganisms created by recombinant DNA research were deemed patentable, and in 1986 the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the sale of the first living genetically altered organisma virus, used as a pseudorabies vaccine, from which a single gene had been cut. Since then several hundred patents have been awarded for genetically altered bacteria and plants. Patents on genetically engineered and genetically modified organisms, particularly crops and other foods, however, were a contentious issue, and they remained so into the first part of the 21st century.
ethics: Bioethics
Read This Article
origins of agriculture: Genetic engineering
Read This Article
history of science: The 20th-century revolution
Read This Article
in genetics
ReadThisArticle
in DNA sequencing
ReadThisArticle
in recombinant DNA technology
ReadThisArticle
in George Ledyard Stebbins, Jr.
ReadThisArticle
in Sir Ian Wilmut
ReadThisArticle
in genetically modified organism (GMO)
ReadThisArticle
See the original post:
genetic engineering | Definition, Process, & Uses ...
Posted in Genetic Engineering
Comments Off on genetic engineering | Definition, Process, & Uses …
Stanford’s Final Exams Pose Question About the Ethics of Genetic Engineering – Futurism
Posted: July 10, 2017 at 6:46 am
In BriefThe age of gene editing and creation will be upon us in thenext few decades, with the first lifeform having already beenprinted. Stanford University questions the ethics of prospectivestudents by asking a question we should all be thinking about. Stanfords Moral Pickle
When bioengineering students sit down to take their final exams for Stanford University,they are faced with a moral dilemma, as well as a series of grueling technical questions that are designed to sort the intellectual wheat from the less competent chaff:
If you and your future partner are planning to have kids, would you start saving money for college tuition, or for printing the genome of your offspring?
The question is a follow up to At what point will the cost of printing DNA to create a human equal the cost of teaching a student in Stanford? Both questions refer to the very real possibility that it may soon be in the realm of affordability to print off whatever stretch of DNA you so desire, using genetic sequencing and a machine capable of synthesizing the four building blocks of DNA A, C, G, and T into whatever order you desire.
The answer to the time question, by the way, is 19 years, given that the cost of tuition at Stanford remains at $50,000 and the price of genetic printing continues the 200-fold decrease that has occurred over the last 14 years. Precursory work has already been performed; a team lead by Craig Venter created the simplest life form ever known last year.
Stanfords moral question, though, is a little trickier. The question is part of a larger conundrum concerning humans interfering with their own biology; since the technology is developing so quickly, the issue is no longer whether we can or cant,but whether we should or shouldnt. The debate has two prongs: gene editing and life printing.
With the explosion of CRISPR technology many studies are due to start this year the ability to edit our genetic makeup will arrive soon. But how much should we manipulate our own genes? Should the technology be a reparative one, reserved for making sick humans healthy again, or should it be used to augment our current physical restrictions, making us bigger, faster, stronger, and smarter?
The question of printing life is similar in some respects; rather than altering organisms to have the desired genetic characteristics, we could print and culture them instead billions have already been invested. However, there is theadditional issue of playing God by sidestepping the methods of our reproduction that have existed since the beginning of life. Even if the ethical issue of creation was answered adequately, there are the further questions ofwho has the right to design life, what the regulations would be, and the potential restrictions on the technology based on cost; if its too pricey, gene editing could be reserved only for the rich.
It is vital to discuss the ethics of gene editing in order to ensure that the technology is not abused in the future. Stanfords question is praiseworthy because it makes todays students, who will most likely be spearheading the technologys developments, think about the consequences of their work.
Read more:
Stanford's Final Exams Pose Question About the Ethics of Genetic Engineering - Futurism
Posted in Genetic Engineering
Comments Off on Stanford’s Final Exams Pose Question About the Ethics of Genetic Engineering – Futurism