Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog – Page 12404

According to ScienceDaily:

The British-American biotech company Acambis reports the successful conclusion of Phase I trials of the universal flu vaccine in humans. The universal influenza vaccine has been pioneered by researchers from VIB and Ghent University. This vaccine is intended to provide protection against all ‘A’ strains of the virus that causes human influenza, including pandemic strains. Therefore, this vaccine will not need to be renewed annually.

InfluenzaWhat would make this new vaccine different from the ones already available is that it would target M2e, a conserved region of influenza “A” strains. Since that part doesn’t constantly mutate and about 2/3 of seasonal epidemics and all pandemics are due to type “A” strains, it could be a very efficient weapon against repeats of the “Spanish Flu” (1918−1919) that killed at least 50 million people worldwide. Only the future will tell if phase II and III trials are successful.

You can learn more about the Lifeboat Foundation BioShield program here.

Reposted from Next Big Future which was advancednano.

A 582,970 base pair sequence of DNA has been synthesized.

It’s the first time a genome the size of a bacterium has chemically been synthesized that’s about 20 times longer than [any DNA molecule] synthesized before.

This is a huge increase in capability. It has broad implications for DNA nanotechnology and synthetic biology.

It is particularly relevant for the lifeboat foundation bioshield project

This means that the Venter Institute is on the brink of sythesizing a new bacterial life.

The process to synthesize and assemble the synthetic version of the M. genitalium chromosome

began first by resequencing the native M. genitalium genome to ensure that the team was starting with an error free sequence. After obtaining this correct version of the native genome, the team specially designed fragments of chemically synthesized DNA to build 101 “cassettes” of 5,000 to 7,000 base pairs of genetic code. As a measure to differentiate the synthetic genome versus the native genome, the team created “watermarks” in the synthetic genome. These are short inserted or substituted sequences that encode information not typically found in nature. Other changes the team made to the synthetic genome included disrupting a gene to block infectivity. To obtain the cassettes the JCVI team worked primarily with the DNA synthesis company Blue Heron Technology, as well as DNA 2.0 and GENEART.

From here, the team devised a five stage assembly process where the cassettes were joined together in subassemblies to make larger and larger pieces that would eventually be combined to build the whole synthetic M. genitalium genome. In the first step, sets of four cassettes were joined to create 25 subassemblies, each about 24,000 base pairs (24kb). These 24kb fragments were cloned into the bacterium Escherichia coli to produce sufficient DNA for the next steps, and for DNA sequence validation.

The next step involved combining three 24kb fragments together to create 8 assembled blocks, each about 72,000 base pairs. These 1/8th fragments of the whole genome were again cloned into E. coli for DNA production and DNA sequencing. Step three involved combining two 1/8th fragments together to produce large fragments approximately 144,000 base pairs or 1/4th of the whole genome.

At this stage the team could not obtain half genome clones in E. coli, so the team experimented with yeast and found that it tolerated the large foreign DNA molecules well, and that they were able to assemble the fragments together by homologous recombination. This process was used to assemble the last cassettes, from 1/4 genome fragments to the final genome of more than 580,000 base pairs. The final chromosome was again sequenced in order to validate the complete accurate chemical structure.

The synthetic M. genitalium has a molecular weight of 360,110 kilodaltons (kDa). Printed in 10 point font, the letters of the M. genitalium JCVI-1.0 genome span 147 pages.

On January 29th, 2008, Near Earth Object 2007 TU24 will intersect Earth’s orbit at the startling proximity of only 0.0038AU — or 1.4 lunar distances from our planet. According to the resources I reviewed, this NEO represents the closest known approach to Earth until 2027, assuming no more surprises like the 2007 TU24, which was discovered on October 11th, 2007.

That an asteroid won’t strike is an assumption we can’t afford to make. 2007 TU24 will not impact the planet but may pass through a portion of Earth’s magnetosphere. We can’t predict the repercussions of this transit with any certainty at this time. However, the possibilities range from no effect to potentially catastrophic changes to weather, tectonic plate movement, the oceans, and more.

Some might say that we do not need to be concerned — that this kind of near miss (and let’s be frank here — in the vastness of even our solar system, 1.4 lunar distances from Earth is a near miss) is a freak occurrence. Don’t be so sure. One day later — that’s right, on January 30th, it was thought possible — one might even say reasonably likely — that another asteroid would strike our second nearest celestial neighbor, Mars.

Recent updates based upon more detailed information about the path of asteroid 2007 WD5 have concluded that the odds of an impact occurring have now dropped to one in ten thousand, making an impact exceptionally unlikely. However, our ability to identify objects less than 100 meters across is insufficient to provide us with enough time to do anything aside from evacuating the regions likely to be impacted by a collision with an incoming NEO.

More than one expert has stated that NEOs represent one of the most pressing potential mega-disasters threatening human — or even all — life on Earth. Yet, solving this problem is within the capabilities of our technology. Between better early detection and developing a meaningful defensive strategy, protecting humanity from this threat is possible. All we need is the funding and the mandate from the people to secure the required resources.

PhysOrg.com is reporting that researchers at Purdue University are working to develop a system that would use a network of cell phones to track radiation in an effort to prevent terrorist attacks with dirty bombs or nuclear weapons. Tiny solid-state radiation sensors are already commercially available and the additional circuitry would not add significant bulk to portable electronic products.

The researchers tested the system and demonstrated that it is capable of detecting a weak radiation source 15 feet from the sensors. A fully developed system could cover a nation with millions of cell phones equipped with radiation sensors able to detect even light residues of radioactive material. Because cell phones already contain global positioning locators, the network of phones would serve as a large scale tracking system that would require no intervention from individual users.

In his most recent paper “Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction,” SAB member Jason G. Matheny approached the topic of human extinction from what is unfortunately a somewhat unusual angle. Jason examined the cost effectiveness of preventing humanity’s extinction due to a catastrophic asteroid impact.

Even with some rather pessimistic assumptions, his calculations showed a pretty convincing return on investment. For only about US$ 2.50 per life year saved, Matheny predicts that we could mitigate the risk of humanity being killed off by a large asteroid. Maybe it’s just me, but it sounds pretty compelling.

Matheny also made a very good point that we all should ponder when we consider how our charitable giving and taxes gets spent. “We take extraordinary measures to protect some endangered species from extinction. It might be reasonable to take extraordinary measures to protect humanity from the same.”

For more coverage on this important paper please see the October 2007 issue of Risk Analysis and a recent edition of Nature News.

Newsweek is reporting the results of a scientific study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon who used MRI technology to scan the brains of human subjects. The subjects were shown a series of images of various tools (hammer, drill, pliers, etc). The subjects were then asked to think about the properties of the tools and the computer was tasked with determining which item the subject was thinking about. To make the computer task even more challenging, the researchers excluded information from the brain’s visual cortex which would have made the problem a simpler pattern recognition exercise in which decoding techniques are already known. Instead, they focused the scanning on higher level cognitive areas.

The computer was able to determine with 78 percent accuracy when a subject was thinking about a hammer, say, instead of a pair of pliers. With one particular subject, the accuracy reached 94 percent.

How would you allocate a hypothetical $100 million budget for a Lifeboat Foundation study of the top 10 existential risks… risks that are both global and terminal?

$?? Biological viruses…
$?? Environmental global warming…
$?? Extraterrestrial invasion…
 $?? Governments abusive power…
$?? Nanotechnology gray goo…
$?? Nuclear holocaust…
$?? Simulation Shut Down if we live in one…
$?? Space Threats asteroids…
$?? Superintelligent AI un-friendly…
$?? Other
$100 million total

To vote, please reply below.

Results after 80 votes updated: Jan 13, 2008 11 AM EST

$23.9 Biological viruses…
 $17.9 Space Threats asteroids…
$13.9 Governments abusive power…
 $10.2 Nuclear holocaust…
$8.8 Nanotechnology gray goo…
 $8.6 Other
$8.5 Superintelligent AI un-friendly…
$7.2 Environmental global warming…
$0.7 Extraterrestrial invasion…
$0.4 Simulation Shut Down if we live in one…
$100 million total


The BBC reports that Sir Edmund Hillary, the New Zealand native who, along with Sherpa Tenzing Norgay of Nepal was the first man to successfully summit Mount Everest, had died at 88 years of age. Hillary was apparently injured this past April when he fell while visiting Nepal and the reports state that this injury contributed to a decline in his health that ultimately culminated in his passing.

While his fame was first and foremost as a result of his triumphant effort on Everest in 1953, he was revered in Nepal for his efforts to help the Nepalese Sherpas improve their access to medicine, education and other modern conveniences and his legacy will continue in the form of those edifices in Nepal that exist as a result of his work.

Sir Ed, as he preferred to be called, was also something of an environmentalist. Upon a recent visit to the base of Everest he was so dismayed by the condition of the mountain (as a result of the decades of equipment including things such as spent oxygen bottles and massive amounts of inorganic and thus non-biodegradable gear) that he called for a fifty year moratorium on permits being issued to attempt ascents on the peak. He called upon the climbing community to make an effort to repair the damage to the fabled crag by packing out the detritus that was scarring his beloved mountain.

While the passing of this great man has relatively little to do with the mission of the Lifeboat Foundation, it seemed appropriate to report on his passing simply because he demonstrated that with sufficient will even things that are seemingly impossible are well within the grasp of those for whom failure is not an option.

At the Lifeboat Foundation we recognize this fact. We cannot and will not fail in our efforts to identify and defend against any and all threats to humanity. While it may sadden us to learn of the passing of a great adventurer like Sir Edmund Hillary, his accomplishments should serve as a source of motivation for each of us as we pursue our own personal Everests.

Following is a link to a wonderful video of the successful effort to summit the world’s highest peak. Consider for a moment how primitive this equipment is compared with what is used today. It is a great reminder of just how far we’ve come in a little over half a century and should prove to be a source of inspiration to us all. Video Link

I was engaged in a conversation the other day with someone about my new association with the Lifeboat Foundation and the opportunity that was presented to me to sit on one of the scientific advisory boards. Let me first point out that the person I was talking with is extremely intelligent, but has a lay person’s knowledge of scientific topics, and is generally unfamiliar with Singularity related concepts in particular.

I immediately realized the opportunity in associating with the organization, but still did some reasonable due diligence research before joining it. During the course of the conversation, I explained the goals of the Lifeboat Foundation. I also showed some of the current work that it is doing, and some of the people associated with it by randomly showing some of their biographies. However, when I presented leading biomedical gerontologist Dr. Aubrey de Grey’s biography, I was confronted with what was essentially an ad hominem argument regarding his trademark beard. I refer to this as an ad hominem argument because this person believed, without having previously seen or met Dr. de Grey, that his long beard was the sign of a large ego and that he was doing his cause a disservice by conveying a negative image to the public.

I do not personally know Dr. de Grey, nor do I know the reasons why he chooses to have a long beard. To me, the issue of his beard length has no bearing on the value of his work, and although I do not choose to wear a beard at the present time, I thrive on living in a world of diversity where one can do so. What I have gathered about Dr. de Grey is that he is a highly respected member of this community who has many important things to say. The situation was ironic because Dr. de Grey does research that relates to a medical condition affecting a member of this person’s family.

I know the point that the person I was speaking with was honestly felt, and that she believed Dr. de Grey could better serve his cause by changing his appearance. But unconscious bias is something that affects all of us to some degree, and it is a subtle, but insidious error in reasoning. Fifty years ago, in the United States, with a different person, this discussion might have been about the color of someone’s skin. Twenty-five years ago, it could have been about someone’s sexual orientation. It’s easy to see the errors in rational thinking of others looking in retrospect, but it’s much harder to find our own biases. I long to know what errors in thinking style and biases that I myself harbor now, and which will only be evident with a clearer perspective in the future. As such, I will continue to follow the Overcoming Bias web site to help me in my journey.

I believe that Dr. de Grey reaches an even larger audience by making them take a second look at him. If he had a more common appearance, my debate partner would not have noticed him, and would not have engaged me in a lengthy conversation about his work. If this helps get our message out, then I implore Dr. de Grey to grow his beard even longer!

I eventually resorted to an appeal to authority to plead my case regarding the Lifeboat Foundation by creating a list of some of the more prominent people associated with the Foundation, their professions, and academic credentials. At first I regretted doing this. I am a student of Bayesian reasoning (thanks to Eliezer Yudkowsky) who would like to master the art and I know perfectly well that a person’s title or degree can’t prove their ideas. Ideas must be judged on their own merit. However, in this particular discussion, it made sense to use the appeal. It wasn’t about an appeal to authority being a valid debating technique or not. It was about using the right tool to persuade one person to open their mind to a new idea.

I, for one, am no longer ashamed to have this tool in my bag of tricks, and will use it whenever I need to get one more person to consider a new idea, even for a brief moment.

The New York Times is reporting today that the continued acceleration of the rate at which the Greenland ice sheets are melting has scientists scrambling for answers. In particular, a combination of changes has the glaciologists particularly concerned. They say the accumulation of meltwater on the surface of the ice in the form of ponds and streams absorbs as much as four times more heat than the lighter-colored ice, thereby accelerating the surface’s rate of melting.

Additionally, this meltwater eventually finds its way to bedrock, where it appears to slightly lubricate the surface between ice and rock, facilitating more rapid ice shifting towards the ocean. A third factor in the trifecta is the breakup of substantial semi-submerged clots of ice that typically block narrow fjords. As these blockages break up, the flow of the frozen glacial rivers accelerates.

While there is still a tremendous amount about this cycle that remains undiscovered, what is clear is that the best estimates to date have fallen far short in terms of the speed at which these rare environments are changing. Although questions remain about how much of these changes are cyclical and how much is due precisely to man-originated global warming, we must gain a more complete understanding of these events so that we can take whatever steps we must to ameliorate any damage we’ve caused before the situation becomes so critical that massive changes come about as a result of our negligent handling of our environment.