About two-thirds of Americans support the use of gene editing to treat diseases, according to a new survey. But opinions vary a lot based on people’s religious beliefs and how much they know about gene editing in general.
The research, published earlier this month in Science, shows that across the board, people want to be involved in a public discussion about editing the human genome. And that conversation with scientists and public officials needs to happen now, as the technology is still developing, says study co-author Dietram Scheufele, a science communication scholar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The results are based on a survey of 1,600 US adults conducted in December 2016 and January 2017.
A new study published by scientists at the Salk Institute recently shows how that changes in the nucleolus of progeria cells and normally aged cells share some characteristics that may allow them to be used as a biomarker for biological age[1].
What is Progeria?
Hutchinson-Gilford progeria is a rare genetic disease that causes people to suffer from aging-like symptoms on an accelerated timescale compared to regular aging. Whilst it shares similarities with regular aging it is not accelerated aging per se, but the outcome is much the same.
When Kristopher Boesen of Bakersfield regained consciousness after losing control of his car while driving in wet conditions, he was paralyzed from the neck down. The prognosis was grim: he was told that he might never regain control of his limbs again.
But he has. At least some of them. He has movement in his upper body and can use his arms and hands. He can feed himself, text friends and family and even hug them. To him, this means that he has his life back. How did this miracle come about?
Kris was offered the opportunity to participate in a human clinical trial at the University of Southern California and Asterias Biotherapeutics. He is one of five previously paralyzed patients who experienced increased mobility after the trial.
Kurzweil is one of the world’s leading minds on artificial intelligence, technology and futurism. He is the author of five national best-selling books, including “The Singularity is Near” and “How to Create a Mind.”
Raymond “Ray” Kurzweil is an American author, computer scientist, inventor and futurist. Aside from futurology, he is involved in fields such as optical character recognition (OCR), text-to-speech synthesis, speech recognition technology, and electronic keyboard instruments. He has written books on health, artificial intelligence (AI), transhumanism, the technological singularity, and futurism. Kurzweil is a public advocate for the futurist and transhumanist movements, and gives public talks to share his optimistic outlook on life extension technologies and the future of nanotechnology, robotics, and biotechnology.
Kurzweil admits that he cared little for his health until age 35, when he was found to suffer from a glucose intolerance, an early form of type II diabetes (a major risk factor for heart disease). Kurzweil then found a doctor (Terry Grossman, M.D.) who shares his non-conventional beliefs to develop an extreme regimen involving hundreds of pills, chemical intravenous treatments, red wine, and various other methods to attempt to live longer. Kurzweil was ingesting “250 supplements, eight to 10 glasses of alkaline water and 10 cups of green tea” every day and drinking several glasses of red wine a week in an effort to “reprogram” his biochemistry. Lately, he has cut down the number of supplement pills to 90.
Article out by Ron Bailey at Reason Magazine that discusses #transhumanism and #libertarianism:
Kai Weiss, a researcher at the Austrian Economics Center and Hayek Institute in Vienna, Austria, swiftly denounced the piece. “Transhumanism should be rejected by libertarians as an abomination of human evolution,” he wrote.
Clearly there is some disagreement.
Weiss is correct that Istvan doesn’t expend much intellectual effort linking transhumanism with libertarian thinking. Istvan largely assumes that people seeking to flourish should have the freedom to enhance their bodies and minds and those of their children without much government interference. So what abominable transhumanist technologies does Weiss denounce?
Weiss includes defeating death, robotic hearts, virtual reality sex, telepathy via mind-reading headsets, brain implants, ectogenesis, artificial intelligence, exoskeleton suits, designer babies, and gene editing tech. “At no point [does Istvan] wonder if we should even strive for these technologies,” Weiss thunders.
Announcement of CRISPR technology, which allows precise editing of the human genome, has been heralded as the future of individualized medicine, and a decried as a slippery slope to engineering individual human qualities. Of course, humans already know how to manipulate animal genomes through selective breeding, but there has been no appetite to try on humans what is the norm for dogs. That’s a good thing, says Dawkins. The results could well be dangerous. Does technology as a whole represent a threat to human welfare if it continues to evolve at its current rate? Not so fast, warns Dawkins. Comparing biological evolution to technological progress is an analogy at best. His newest book is Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist.
Transcript: I think it’s — I’m a believer in the precautionary principle as I’ve just said, and I think we have to worry about possible consequences of things that we do, and the ability to edit our own genomes is one thing we ought to worry about. I’m not sure it’s so much an ethical problem as a more practical problem. What would the consequences be? Would the consequences be bad? And they might be.
I think it’s worth noticing that long before CRISPR long before it became capable of editing our genomes in anyway we have been editing the genomes of domestic animals and plants by artificial selection, not artificial mutation, which is what we’re now talking about, but artificial selection. When you think that a Pekingese is a wolf, a modified wolf, a genetically modified wolf—modified not by directly manipulating genes but by choosing for breeding individuals who have certain characteristics, for example, a small stubbed nose, et cetera, and making a wolf turn into a Pekingese. And we’ve been doing that very successfully with domestic animals like dogs, cows, domestic plants like maize for a long time, we’ve never done that to humans or hardly at all.
Hitler tried it but it’s never really been properly done with humans I’m glad to say. So if we’ve never done that with humans with the easy way, which is artificial selection, it’s not obvious why we would suddenly start doing it the difficult way, which is by direct genetic manipulation. There doesn’t seem to be any great eagerness to do it over the last few centuries anyway.
A lot of people have problems with what they call designer babies. You could imagine a future scenario in which people go to a doctor and say, “Doctor, we want our baby to be a musical genius. Please edit the genes so that we have the same genes as the Bach family had or something like that to make them into a musical genius.” I mean that horrifies many people.
A Stanford team has launched a new challenge on the Eterna computer game. Players will design a CRISPR-controlling molecule, and with it open the possibility of new research and therapies.
A team of researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine has launched a new challenge for the online computer game Eterna in which players are being asked to design an RNA molecule capable of acting as an on/off switch for the gene-editing tool CRISPR/Cas9.
Molecular biologists will then build and test the actual molecules, based on the most promising designs provided by the players.
How do we make it in today’s crazy, alternative facts, almost alternative world–we get creative, we get INNOVATIVE. Here on ScIQ, we’re talking to two incredible innovators in medical sciences and human health.
Just in her 20s, Kathrine Jin was part of the team of Columbia University students who developed a low-cost, technology-driven solution to meet the urgent challenges posed by the Ebola crisis. She has been honored the United Nations in celebration of International Day of Women and Girls in Science for her part in the creation of Highlight, a patent-pending disinfectant solution. Learn more about Kinnos here: https://www.kinnos.us/about-us/
When he’s not working at MLB, Keith Comito works with his research group, LifeSpan I.O. in projects related to longevity or age related disease, and receive funds from contributors to fulfill their goals. Thanks to generous funding and awards towards life-changing research, Lifespan I.O. has currently completed 6 diverse projects, which you can find on Lifespan I.O’s website. Learn about Lifespan I.O here: https://www.lifespan.io/
This video is presented by Jayde Lovell, at Youtube Space NY. Written by Wandy Oritz, directed by Ingrid Nin, edited by Mashnoon Ibtesum at the YouTube Space NYC. Camera work by Alicia Weaver, Lisa McCullough, Genesis Moran and Mashnoon Ibtesum. Production Assistant: Jordan Yaqoob
SCIQ ON THE YOUNG TURKS Produced by Jayde Lovell and Wandy Ortiz. Executive Producer: Bec Susan Gill. ScIQ is a partner of the The Young Turks Network.
New Pneumonia In Chinese Hospitals Is Drug-Resistant, Deadly And Contagious : Goats and Soda When microbiologist Sheng Chen and his team sequenced the microbes found in the pneumonia infections, they were shocked at what they saw.
Nanomachines which can drill into cancer cells, killing them in just 60 seconds, have been developed by scientists.
The tiny spinning molecules are driven by light, and spin so quickly that they can burrow their way through cell linings when activated.
In one test conducted at Durham University the nanomachines took between one and three minutes to break through the outer membrane of prostate cancer cell, killing it instantly.
