Category Archives: Biotechnology

kineticvideo.com - Biotech 21st ethics-of-biotechnology-12540-4
Genetically modified?! Stem cell medical breakthrough!? More people living longer? More (healthy?) food from cloned animals and altered crops? Where is BIOTE...

By: Kineticstreaming

See the original post:
kineticvideo.com - Biotech 21st ethics-of-biotechnology-12540-4 - Video

biotechnology,the use of biology to solve problems and make useful products. The most prominent area of biotechnology is the production of therapeutic proteins and other drugs through genetic engineering.

People have been harnessing biological processes to improve their quality of life for some 10,000 years, beginning with the first agricultural communities. Approximately 6,000 years ago, humans began to tap the biological processes of microorganisms in order to make bread, alcoholic beverages, and cheese and to preserve dairy products. But such processes are not what is meant today by biotechnology, a term first widely applied to the molecular and cellular technologies that began to emerge in the 1960s and 70s. A fledgling biotech industry began to coalesce in the mid- to late 1970s, led by Genentech, a pharmaceutical company established in 1976 by Robert A. Swanson and Herbert W. Boyer to commercialize the recombinant DNA technology pioneered by Boyer and Stanley N. Cohen. Early companies such as Genentech, Amgen, Biogen, Cetus, and Genex began by manufacturing genetically engineered substances primarily for medical and environmental uses.

For more than a decade, the biotechnology industry was dominated by recombinant DNA technology, or genetic engineering. This technique consists of splicing the gene for a useful protein (often a human protein) into production cellssuch as yeast, bacteria, or mammalian cells in culturewhich then begin to produce the protein in volume. In the process of splicing a gene into a production cell, a new organism is created. At first, biotechnology investors and researchers were uncertain about whether the courts would permit them to acquire patents on organisms; after all, patents were not allowed on new organisms that happened to be discovered and identified in nature. But, in 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty, resolved the matter by ruling that a live human-made microorganism is patentable subject matter. This decision spawned a wave of new biotechnology firms and the infant industrys first investment boom. In 1982 recombinant insulin became the first product made through genetic engineering to secure approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Since then, dozens of genetically engineered protein medications have been commercialized around the world, including recombinant versions of growth hormone, clotting factors, proteins for stimulating the production of red and white blood cells, interferons, and clot-dissolving agents.

In the early years, the main achievement of biotechnology was the ability to produce naturally occurring therapeutic molecules in larger quantities than could be derived from conventional sources such as plasma, animal organs, and human cadavers. Recombinant proteins are also less likely to be contaminated with pathogens or to provoke allergic reactions. Today, biotechnology researchers seek to discover the root molecular causes of disease and to intervene precisely at that level. Sometimes this means producing therapeutic proteins that augment the bodys own supplies or that make up for genetic deficiencies, as in the first generation of biotech medications. (Gene therapyinsertion of genes encoding a needed protein into a patients body or cellsis a related approach.) But the biotechnology industry has also expanded its research into the development of traditional pharmaceuticals and monoclonal antibodies that stop the progress of a disease. Such steps are uncovered through painstaking study of genes (genomics), the proteins that they encode (proteomics), and the larger biological pathways in which they act.

In addition to the tools mentioned above, biotechnology also involves merging biological information with computer technology (bioinformatics), exploring the use of microscopic equipment that can enter the human body (nanotechnology), and possibly applying techniques of stem cell research and cloning to replace dead or defective cells and tissues (regenerative medicine). Companies and academic laboratories integrate these disparate technologies in an effort to analyze downward into molecules and also to synthesize upward from molecular biology toward chemical pathways, tissues, and organs.

In addition to being used in health care, biotechnology has proved helpful in refining industrial processes through the discovery and production of biological enzymes that spark chemical reactions (catalysts); for environmental cleanup, with enzymes that digest contaminants into harmless chemicals and then die after consuming the available food supply; and in agricultural production through genetic engineering.

Agricultural applications of biotechnology have proved the most controversial. Some activists and consumer groups have called for bans on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or for labeling laws to inform consumers of the growing presence of GMOs in the food supply. In the United States, the introduction of GMOs into agriculture began in 1993, when the FDA approved bovine somatotropin (BST), a growth hormone that boosts milk production in dairy cows. The next year, the FDA approved the first genetically modified whole food, a tomato engineered for a longer shelf life. Since then, regulatory approval in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere has been won by dozens of agricultural GMOs, including crops that produce their own pesticides and crops that survive the application of specific herbicides used to kill weeds. Studies by the United Nations, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the European Union, the American Medical Association, U.S. regulatory agencies, and other organizations have found GMO foods to be safe, but skeptics contend that it is still too early to judge the long-term health and ecological effects of such crops. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the land area planted in genetically modified crops increased dramatically, from 1.7 million hectares (4.2 million acres) in 1996 to 160 million hectares (395 million acres) by 2011.

Overall, the revenues of U.S. and European biotechnology industries roughly doubled over the five-year period from 1996 through 2000. Rapid growth continued into the 21st century, fueled by the introduction of new products, particularly in health care.

Read more:
biotechnology -- Encyclopedia Britannica

The citys biotechnology cluster will be scaled up to international quality, says the Union Budget 2014-15.

This effort will include global partnerships in accessing model-organism resources for disease biology, stem cell biology and high-end electron microscopy, it adds.

The cluster will give small and medium enterprises the opportunity to set up labs for innovative solutions to problems in agriculture, health, energy and environment, said Tanusree Deb Barma, Director, Information Technology and Biotechnology directorate.

It is being developed near Electronics City, in collaboration with the Karnataka Vision Group on Biotechnology, Department of Biotechnology, the industry and academia, she said. It will complement the existing biotech cluster of north Bangalore.

The cluster will also provide opportunities for translational research and collaboration, and in the future for business marketing. Developed in a public-private partnership mode, the campus may be able to explore bio-manufacturing capabilities, Ms. Deb Barma said.

A biotech cluster in Faridabad will similarly be scaled up, according to the budget. Chair of Karnatakas Vision Group on Biotechnology and CMD Biocon, Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw said scaling up these biotech clusters will give a boost to the Indian biotech sector which has the potential to position India as the global biotech hub.

Link:
Shot in the arm for research on disease biology

San Diego Hosts World #39;s Largest Biotechnology Convention
The world #39;s largest biotechnology convention is in San Diego this week. 15000 people from 65 countries are here to talk about issues like stem cell researc...

By: Katie Schoolov

Read more here:
San Diego Hosts World's Largest Biotechnology Convention - Video

PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:

11-Jun-2014

Contact: Susan Lampert Smith ssmith5@uwhealth.org 608-890-5643 University of Wisconsin-Madison

MADISON, Wis. Scientists at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center (UWCCC) report that a new class of tumor-targeting agents can seek out and find dozens of solid tumors, even illuminating brain cancer stem cells that resist current treatments.

What's more, years of animal studies and early human clinical trials show that this tumor-targeting, alkylphosphocholine (APC) molecule can deliver two types of "payloads" directly to cancer cells: a radioactive or fluorescent imaging label, or a radioactive medicine that binds and kills cancer cells.

The results are reported in today's issue of the journal Science Translational Medicine, and featured in the journal's cover illustration and podcast.

The APC targeting platform is a synthetic molecule that exploits a weakness common to cancers as diverse as breast, lung, brain and melanoma. These cancer cells lack the enzymes to metabolize phospholipid ethers, a cell membrane component that is easily cleared by normal cells. When given in an intravenous solution, APC goes throughout the body even across the blood-brain barrier and sticks to the membrane of cancer cells. The cancer cells take up the APC and the imaging or treatment medication riding on the molecular platform, and retain it for days to weeks, resulting in direct cancer cell imaging or treatment.

The APC analogs were able to tag 55 of 57 different cancers. This large study had multiple stages, including testing in cancer cell lines, in rodents and rodents infected with human and rodent cancers, and in human patients with different cancers such as breast, lung, colorectal and glioblastoma (brain cancer).

"I was a skeptic; it's almost too good to be true,'' says co-lead author Dr. John S. Kuo, associate professor of neurosurgery and director of the comprehensive brain tumor program at the UW School of Medicine and Public Health. "It is a very broad cancer-targeting agent in terms of the many different cancers that tested positive. The APC analogs even sometimes revealed other sites of cancer in patients that were small, asymptomatic and previously undetected by physicians."

Kuo specializes in the treatment of brain tumors, and also leads the UWCCC CNS Tumors group running many clinical trials for glioma, a brain cancer that is incurable because current treatments leave behind cancer stem cells that can seed and regrow the cancer. He says it was encouraging that the APC analogs also picked up cancer stem cells and will also likely target them for further treatment.

See original here:
New tumor-targeting agent images and treats wide variety of cancers

Biotechnology scientists must be aware of the broad patent landscape and push for new patent and licensing guidelines, according to a new paper from Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy.

Published in the current issue of the journal Regenerative Medicine, the paper is based on the June 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) v. Myriad Genetics that naturally occurring genes are unpatentable. The court case and rulings garnered discussion in the public about patenting biological materials.

"The AMP v. Myriad Genetics case raises questions about the patent system," said Kirstin Matthews, the Baker Institute fellow in science and technology policy and an expert on ethical and policy issues related to biomedical research and development. She co-authored the paper with Maude Rowland Cuchiara, the Baker Institute scholar for science and technology policy. The paper has timely significance in light of President Barack Obama's recent announcements on reforming the nation's patent process, including an initiative announced in February to "crowdsource" the review of patents.

"There are not many opportunities to challenge patents once they have been granted, and the options that are available are costly and mostly limited to lawsuits," Matthews said. Judges typically do not have the scientific knowledge to understand some of the technical arguments that are made in their courts, she said. "It may be better, as President Obama has proposed, to revise patenting guidelines at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office based on feedback from scientists, engineers, ethicists and policy scholars as opposed to leaving it up to the courts."

Until the Supreme Court's decision, Myriad Genetics was the only company in the U.S. that could legally conduct diagnostic testing for BRCA 1 and 2, genes that are linked to familial breast and ovarian cancer. The company was granted the patents in 1998 and 2000, respectively. Myriad chose not to license the patents and harshly pursued anyone who infringed on them.

"The patenting of the BRCA genes launched a raucous debate about the ability to patent life: How do we distinguish between what is simply discovered and what is truly 'made by man'?" the authors asked.

Biotechnological inventions have been patented for several decades, though the criteria for patent eligibility have been refined through numerous court decisions, according to the authors. One of the most influential was Diamond v. Chakrabarty, which determined that "anything under the sun made by man" could be patented, leading to the diverse biotechnology patent landscape seen today, the authors said. However, biotechnological patents must meet the same requirements as all other patents, and they cannot be laws of nature, physical phenomena or abstract ideas.

The authors said the ruling could affect the patentability of other biotechnologies, like stem cells, depending on how the ruling is interpreted. Stem cells, like genes, are also isolated from the body although they do require some manipulation after isolation. But it is likely that if stem cell patents include detailed procedures for the manipulations beyond isolation, they will be upheld. "However these types of patents could also be challenged for failing to meet other patenting requirements like non-obviousness -- meaning that they were not really unique or original after all," the authors said.

Overall, it remains to be seen what impact the ruling in the AMP v. Myriad Genetics case will have on the biotech industry or if any patenting requirements will be changed in response to this or other court rulings, the authors said. So far, the patentability of biotechnological inventions appears to remain unaffected. "However, as more and more biotechnological inventions are patented, the line between what is and is not a 'product of nature' becomes blurred and will most likely continue to be decided in a courtroom," the authors said.

The authors suggest initial steps to address the current situation, including an outside review of patents before they are granted, reforming the rules of patent licensing to minimize restrictive practices and requiring detailed patent descriptions to prevent expensive and disruptive lawsuits.

View post:
New patenting guidelines needed for biotechnology, experts argue

Photo credit: Steve Sweitzer

Meet Malibu, a white shepherd, who was picture-perfect at six weeks of age when she was adopted by her family. Energetic, with a zest for chasing after and jumping for her toy ball, Boo thrived on being active.

Fast forward nine years. Its 2008 and age has taken its toll. Boo has great difficulty standing up and struggles to walk to her dog bed. She limps painfully and her back arches, bracing from the pain of severe arthritis in her hips.

Boo wasnt responding significantly to traditional anti-inflammatory treatment for her arthritis. Her owners, Steve and Sheila Sweitzer, were worried about her quality of life. But, they discovered there was a new option for Boo: Stem cell regenerative treatment surgery.

This revolutionary treatment for dogs can helpbut pet owners should be financially prepared. The average cost for stem cell treatment for a dog costs approximately $2,500.

Stem cells hold immense promise for medical treatment because they can take on the traits of all kinds of cells and then replicate many times over. But theyre also the subject of fierce controversy because the most versatile cells can only be derived from embryos.

But what if you can utilize stem cells found in your own body? Not only is it possible, its also proven to be effective in animals.

Vet-Stem Regenerative Veterinary Medicine in San Diego, Calif., has spent the past 20 years developing a successful stem cell treatment for animals.

Vet-Stem CEO and founder Robert Harmon says that during their development phase Vet-Stems treated nearly 3,000 horses, many with joint problems. One of those, a race horse named Be A Bono had bone chips and fluid buildup in his knees that threatened to end his prize-winning careerand his life.

After receiving stem cell treatment, Be A Bono returned to the race track and has since earned more than $1.25 million in prize money.

Read the original:
Stem Cell Treatment for Dogs - pet insurance

As Dr. Alfredo Valentin and Dr. Cara Erwin-Oliver begin begin the anesthesia for the surgery that will remove fat for the stem cell therapy process on 4-year-old Star at the Belleview Veterinary Hospital in Belleview, Fl on Wednesday March 19, 2014. The Caviler King Charles has degenerative joint disease in one knee and back. The stem cells on are extracted from fat that is removed surgically.

By Carlos E. Medina Correspondent

Jenny Conley's English golden retriever, Moses, was her constant walking companion, but about a year ago she noticed a limp, which eventually got so bad the dog couldn't put weight on his leg.

An X-ray showed Moses had severe osteoarthritis in his left knee and his right knee was also compromised. At only 6 years old, Moses faced years of taking medication to alleviate the pain.

"He was just too young," Conley said.

But Dr. Cara Erwin-Oliver of Belleview Animal Hospital gave her another option: stem cell therapy.

"I didn't know what to think about it at first, but then (they) explained it all to me and showed me a video of a dog that underwent the procedure," Conley said. "My husband and I thought it was a little costly, but we thought we needed to give it a shot."

Despite the $1,500 price tag and no guarantee, Moses underwent the procedure in November. Today, he's back to walking with Conley and much more.

"He's walking. He's running. He chases squirrels, and he doesn't limp anymore. It's like he never had anything wrong with him," she said.

The treatment, which has been commonly used on horses, is relatively new for small animals like dogs and cats. Belleview Animal Hospital is one of the first to bring the therapy to the area and is the first to process the stem cells in house.

Link:
Crippled canines get new leash on life

Exciting business ideas in biotechnology and healthcare
Biotechnology is a developing market place. Some report regions are regularly reported, for example Stem Cells, Toxicology studies, Cancer diagnostics, bio s...

By: RI ResearchImpact

Read this article:
Exciting business ideas in biotechnology and healthcare - Video

Biotechnology is the application of scientific and engineering principles to the processing of materials by biological agents to provide goods and services.[1] From its inception, biotechnology has maintained a close relationship with society. Although now most often associated with the development of drugs, historically biotechnology has been principally associated with food, addressing such issues as malnutrition and famine. The history of biotechnology begins with zymotechnology, which commenced with a focus on brewing techniques for beer. By World War I, however, zymotechnology would expand to tackle larger industrial issues, and the potential of industrial fermentation gave rise to biotechnology.However, both the single-cell protein and gasohol projects failed to progress due to varying issues including public resistance, a changing economic scene, and shifts in political power.

Yet the formation of a new field, genetic engineering, would soon bring biotechnology to the forefront of science in society, and the intimate relationship between the scientific community, the public, and the government would ensue. These debates gained exposure in 1975 at the Asilomar Conference, where Joshua Lederberg was the most outspoken supporter for this emerging field in biotechnology. By as early as 1978, with the synthesis of synthetic human insulin, Lederberg's claims would prove valid, and the biotechnology industry grew rapidly. Each new scientific advance became a media event designed to capture public support, and by the 1980s, biotechnology grew into a promising real industry. In 1988, only five proteins from genetically engineered cells had been approved as drugs by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but this number would skyrocket to over 125 by the end of the 1990s.

The field of genetic engineering remains a heated topic of discussion in today's society with the advent of gene therapy, stem cell research, cloning, and genetically modified food. While it seems only natural nowadays to link pharmaceutical drugs as solutions to health and societal problems, this relationship of biotechnology serving social needs began centuries ago.

Biotechnology arose from the field of zymotechnology, which began as a search for a better understanding of industrial fermentation, particularly beer. Beer was an important industrial, and not just social, commodity. In late 19th century Germany, brewing contributed as much to the gross national product as steel, and taxes on alcohol proved to be significant sources of revenue to the government.[2] In the 1860s, institutes and remunerative consultancies were dedicated to the technology of brewing. The most famous was the private Carlsberg Institute, founded in 1875, which employed Emil Christian Hansen, who pioneered the pure yeast process for the reliable production of consistent beer. Less well known were private consultancies that advised the brewing industry. One of these, the Zymotechnic Institute, was established in Chicago by the German-born chemist John Ewald Siebel.

The heyday and expansion of zymotechnology came in World War I in response to industrial needs to support the war. Max Delbrck grew yeast on an immense scale during the war to meet 60 percent of Germany's animal feed needs.[3] Compounds of another fermentation product, lactic acid, made up for a lack of hydraulic fluid, glycerol. On the Allied side the Russian chemist Chaim Weizmann used starch to eliminate Britain's shortage of acetone, a key raw material in explosives, by fermenting maize to acetone. The industrial potential of fermentation was outgrowing its traditional home in brewing, and "zymotechnology" soon gave way to "biotechnology."

With food shortages spreading and resources fading, some dreamed of a new industrial solution. The Hungarian Kroly Ereky coined the word "biotechnology" in Hungary during 1919 to describe a technology based on converting raw materials into a more useful product. He built a slaughterhouse for a thousand pigs and also a fattening farm with space for 50,000 pigs, raising over 100,000 pigs a year. The enterprise was enormous, becoming one of the largest and most profitable meat and fat operations in the world. In a book entitled Biotechnologie, Ereky further developed a theme that would be reiterated through the 20th century: biotechnology could provide solutions to societal crises, such as food and energy shortages. For Ereky, the term "biotechnologie" indicated the process by which raw materials could be biologically upgraded into socially useful products.[4]

This catchword spread quickly after the First World War, as "biotechnology" entered German dictionaries and was taken up abroad by business-hungry private consultancies as far away as the United States. In Chicago, for example, the coming of prohibition at the end of World War I encouraged biological industries to create opportunities for new fermentation products, in particular a market for nonalcoholic drinks. Emil Siebel, the son of the founder of the Zymotechnic Institute, broke away from his father's company to establish his own called the "Bureau of Biotechnology," which specifically offered expertise in fermented nonalcoholic drinks.[5]

The belief that the needs of an industrial society could be met by fermenting agricultural waste was an important ingredient of the "chemurgic movement."[6] Fermentation-based processes generated products of ever-growing utility. In the 1940s, penicillin was the most dramatic. While it was discovered in England, it was produced industrially in the U.S. using a deep fermentation process originally developed in Peoria, Illinois. The enormous profits and the public expectations penicillin engendered caused a radical shift in the standing of the pharmaceutical industry. Doctors used the phrase "miracle drug", and the historian of its wartime use, David Adams, has suggested that to the public penicillin represented the perfect health that went together with the car and the dream house of wartime American advertising.[7] In the 1950s, steroids were synthesized using fermentation technology. In particular, cortisone promised the same revolutionary ability to change medicine as penicillin had.

Even greater expectations of biotechnology were raised during the 1960s by a process that grew single-cell protein. When the so-called protein gap threatened world hunger, producing food locally by growing it from waste seemed to offer a solution. It was the possibilities of growing microorganisms on oil that captured the imagination of scientists, policy makers, and commerce.[8] Major companies such as British Petroleum (BP) staked their futures on it. In 1962, BP built a pilot plant at Cap de Lavera in Southern France to publicize its product, Toprina.[9] Initial research work at Lavera was done by Alfred Champagnat,[10] In 1963, construction started on BP's second pilot plant at Grangemouth Oil Refinery in Britain.[10]

As there was no well-accepted term to describe the new foods, in 1966 the term "single-cell protein" (SCP) was coined at MIT to provide an acceptable and exciting new title, avoiding the unpleasant connotations of microbial or bacterial.[9]

View original post here:
History of biotechnology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia