Link to Prof. George Church’s website.
Prof. Chuch’s Bio
George Church is Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Director of Personal Genome Project, the world’s only open-access information on human Genomic, Environmental & Trait data (GET). Prof. Chruch recieved his PhD in 1984 at Harvard University, his PhD thesis included the first methods for direct genome sequencing, molecular multiplexing & barcoding.
The rapid development of so-called NBIC technologies – nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science – are giving rise to possibilities that have long been the domain of science fiction. Disease, ageing and even death are all human realities that these technologies seek to end.
They may enable us to enjoy greater “morphological freedom” – we could take on new forms through prosthetics or genetic engineering. Or advance our cognitive capacities. We could use brain-computer interfaces to link us to advanced artificial intelligence (AI).
Nanobots could roam our bloodstream to monitor our health and enhance our emotional propensities for joy, love or other emotions. Advances in one area often raise new possibilities in others, and this “convergence” may bring about radical changes to our world in the near-future.
DNA testing is not new to consumers, but it’s a one-shot deal. You send in your sample, then you get to see ancestry and health data provided by the company you chose to use for testing. Some new insights might be added over time, but there’s not much else you can do with that genetic data. A startup called Helix is counting on people being curious enough to drop cash in its DNA app store on a regular basis. The initial testing costs $80, and after that you can buy the applications you want.
Helix uses a type of genetic testing called DNA sequencing. Other companies like 23andme are using the far simpler genotyping; Helix is actually finding the pattern of nucleic acids (using flow cells like the one above) in your DNA for around 20,000 different genes, known as the exome. A genotyping test only tells you which variant you have of specific genes, so a full sequence generates about 100 times as much data. Helix is taking this approach because the company is not deciding what sort of data to show users. Instead, that’s all up to third-parties that decide to sell DNA apps to people in the Helix store, and the full sequence includes more precision.
Imagine a scientist experimenting on her own genes from her kitchen, rather than going to a physician, because she wants to cure a medical ailment. Another “do-it-yourself” scientist across the country extracts DNA samples from plants to figure out how they affect its growth.
DIY biohacking is a relatively new phenomenon in which scientists (typically those with an interest in genetic engineering) want to take biology experimentation outside of the lab or classroom. Currently, it’s mostly used for medical purposes, but the future of DIY biohacking could look a lot different. So we asked four experts a simple question: By the year 2040, what will be the gene most edited via DIY biohacking?
Researchers in Portland, Oregon have, for the first time, edited a human embryo in the US.
This work adds to the promise of CRISPR, and it stands as an important step toward the birth of the first genetically modified humans.
By now, most of us know what CRISPR gene editing is. At the very least, we have heard of this revolutionary technology that allows us to alter DNA — the source code of life itself.
But if there is some kind of unifying computational principle governing our grey matter, what is it? Dr. Tsien has studied this for over a decade, and he believes he’s found the answer in something called the Theory of Connectivity.
“Many people have long speculated that there has to be a basic design principle from which intelligence originates and the brain evolves, like how the double helix of DNA and genetic codes are universal for every organism,” Tsien said. “We present evidence that the brain may operate on an amazingly simple mathematical logic.”
The Theory of Connectivity holds that a simple algorithm, called a power-of-two-based permutation taking the form of n=2i-1 can be used to explain the circuitry of the brain. To unpack the formula, let’s define a few key concepts from the theory of connectivity, specifically the idea of a neuronal clique. A neuronal clique is a group of neurons which “fire together” and cluster into functional connectivity motifs, or FCMs, which the brain uses to recognize specific patterns or ideas. One can liken it to branches on a tree, with the neuronal clique being the smallest unit of connectivity, a mere twig, which when combined with other cliques, link up to form an FCM. The more complex the idea being represented in the brain, the more convoluted the FCM. The n in n=2i-1 specifies the number of neuronal cliques that will fire in response to a given input, i.
It is a command that led the leading atheist Richard Dawkins to claim that the God of the Old Testament was “a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser … a genocidal … megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”.
For God had ordered the Israelites to slaughter the apparently sinful Canaanites, saying: “You shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them.” And, according to the Bible, they did just that.
However, a new genetic study has found that the Canaanites actually managed to survive this purge of their traditional homeland, passing on their DNA over the centuries to their numerous descendants in modern-day Lebanon.
Gene editing aims to make precise changes to the target DNA whilst avoiding altering other parts of the DNA. The objective of this is to remove undesirable genetic traits and introduce desirable changes in both plants and animals. For example, it could be used to make crops more drought resistant, prevent or cure inherited genetic disorders or even treat age-related diseases.
As some of you may recall, back in May a study was published which claimed that the groundbreaking gene editing technique CRISPR caused thousands of off target and potentially dangerous mutations[1]. The authors of the paper called for regulators to investigate the safety of the technique, a move that could potentially set back research years if not decades.
This publication has been widely blasted by the research community due to serious questions about the study design being raised. One of the problems with this original paper was that it involved only three mice, this is an extremely poor number to make the kind of conclusions the paper did. There have been calls for the paper to be withdrawn and critical responses to the study.
Customized cancer vaccines that match the unique genetic makeup of individual tumors have just passed phase 1 trials.
Cancer is predominantly a disease of aging caused by genomic instability. Finding effective ways to prevent and treat cancer is therefore of great interest to those working in the field of aging research as well as those working in oncology.
Therapies that target combinations of neoantigens, distinctive markers on the surface of cancer cells that the immune system learns to identify, is one potential approach to treating cancer. These neoantigen combinations vary between one patient and another and this is the focus of a new study which we will talk about today[1].
Immunotherapy is an approach to cancer treatment that seeks to make the immune system better at detecting and destroying cancer. This has the advantage over traditional drugs in that there should be fewer side-effects from using the body’s own defences to fight cancer.