StemCell Therapy

Rick And Morty has always sold Rick as being the smartest man in existence, and while he can be a genius, sometimes he really is a doofus Rick.

Anyone who has sat through all four seasons ofRick and Mortyought to know by now that Rick Sanchez is an alcoholic cesspool of unresolved issues-- he's nowhere near as perfect as he narcissistically wants to appear. In that regard, he has made plenty of conscious mistakes all throughout the show.

RELATED:Rick And Morty: 10 Ways That Evil Morty Could Get His Revenge

At the same time, Rick's also an undeniable genius especially when it comes to his inventions and a general understanding of the parallel universes. Itdoes seem that it can be tiring to be a genius all the time and sometimes Rick unleashes brain farts more obscene than his actualgas. Here are five of those strokes of genius and five of those Doofus Rick moments to prove Rick is only human.

Turning himself in during the episode "Rickshank Redemption"was a shocking moment considering that Rick has always been selfish. It was rather too good to be true-- and it was. Turns out it was Rick's plan all along to hit four birds with one stone.

The first goal was to trash the Galactic Federation, the second was to rope the Citadel into fighting the Federation, the third was to make Beth divorce Jerry, and the fourth was... to get his fix of the Mulan Szechuan McNugget sauce. All four plans were achieved in one fell swoop, it was Rick at his strategic peak.

Speaking of highs, Rick's intellect also has its lows. By far one of the worst blunders he made was making a love potion for Morty which turned into flu that mutated everyone into failedAnimorphscharacters.

RELATED:Rick And Morty: 5 Reasons The Show Could Dip In Quality With So Many Episodes (& 5 It Wont)

Apparently, Rick was not that well-versed or good enough in biochemistry or genetic engineering and merely made wild guesses for his potion. The result was ruining dimension C-137 and scarring Morty permanently.

One of the biggest problems of humanity at the moment is finite resources, specificallyfor power/electricity. Rick knew this well enough and was able to circumvent the problem by making an infinite power source in the form of a mini-universe trapped inside his car battery.

It wasn't foolproof though but one has to give him credit for solving mankind's million-year-old problem. Funny thing is, Rick could have used it to advance humanity into its next technological stages but chose to be selfish and use it only for his car battery.

One of the latest displays of Rick's dwindling mojo is during the "Vat of Acid" episode where his plan consisted of faking death against gangsters using a vat of acid. Of course, it's for comedic value and the plot as to why he chose to follow through with that plan.

RELATED:Rick and Morty: 10 Worst Things Evil Morty Has Done

Still, Rick's vat of acid trick was not only boring but it also didn't make sense. Turns out Rick could have easily dealt with the alien gangsters without any consequences. Even Morty thought it was unimaginative and even called Rick "senile" for coming up with it.

Rick and Mortyhas its own version of the Avengers in the form of the rather dysfunctional and rag-tag Vindicators. They're no slouch, however, and some of them are powerhouses in their own right, capable of destroying planets even.

That didn't matter much for Rick as he was able to lay out an elaborate plan to kill them all or make them fight one another. The impressive part was that he did all of this while he's drunk

If Jerry had a dollar for every time Rick brings Earth closer to an apocalypse, he'd wouldn't be so worried about being unemployed. It just so happens that Rick does that casually, most notably in the episode "Total Rickall."

RELATED:Rick and Morty Characters Sorted Into Their Hogwarts Houses

It's where Rick casually brought home some parasites from space that implant fake memories telepathically and take over whole worlds. It's been proven that Rick did it by Justin Roiland(co-creator and Rick voice actor) himself. It led to Beth shooting Mr. Poopybutthole, that's bad enough.

Found finally met his match and one of the most competent adversaries he has in the form of Zeep Xanflorp who lives in the car battery's mini-universe. Turns out he was as smart as Rick and was even younger.

When the two of them got trapped in a jungle with nothing but twigs and rocks, Rick was able to build weapons and even mechs out of raw resources with no laboratory. It goes to show that Rick doesn't need his inventions to thrive.

When it comes to facing his own psychological or mental issues, Rick turns from a bright and calculating scientist to a scared toddler. He even goes as far as to create his own problems just to avoid going into therapy.

RELATED:Rick And Morty: The 15 Best Episodes So Far (According To IMDb)

That goes to show just how low Rick's emotional intelligence but he turned himself into an initiallyhelpless pickle in order to avoid a mere hours-long counseling session. It was fun to watch but one just has to wonder what was going on in Rick's "rational" mind.

Whether the Rickest Rick inRick and Mortyinvented the portal gun or not, he surely knows how to maximize it. Not only does he shoot his way into other dimensions for more knowledge or better resources than the Earth could offer but also sometimes weaponizes the Portal Gun in clever ways.

Rick also knows how to recharge the Portal Gun so it's more than likely that he did invent it, much like other Ricks in other dimensions as well. It's arguably Rick's greatest invention and even his greatest weapon, apart from his brain.

Turning himself into a pickle or concocting a lame vat of acid idea weren't the most questionable Rick decisions ever. That award goes to what he did with the "real" Beth and the clone Beth in the finale of Season 4.

Rick, like the awesome dad he is, made his computer shuffle the two Beths; now neither he nor anyone else can know which is the real one. Oddly enough, there was no need for him to do that since he erased it from his memory anyway.

NEXT:Rick And Morty: 10 Un-Rickest Versions Of Rick In The Series

Next Friends: 5 Times Monica Was An Overrated Character (& 5 She Was Underrated)

Sid Natividad likes movies so much as to choose the risk of urinary tract infection than miss a few minutes of post-credit Easter eggs, that shows the extent of his dedication. He is well-versed in multiple fandoms that gravitate toward the edgy and nihilistic spectrum of the internet culture. Outside of being a writer for Screen Rant, he also works as a journalist and has risked his life for mere warzone photos.

Continue reading here:
Rick And Morty: 5 Times Rick Was A Genius In The Show (& 5 Times He Was A Doofus Rick) - Screen Rant

Products already on the market containing Epogeeinclude enrobed caramel clusters and a fast-growing low-calorie ice cream brand delivering asuper-premium creamy mouthfeel,Epogee chief commercial officer Jayme Caruso told reporters in a briefing on Wednesday.

We have a customer about to launch a peanut spread and a chocolate hazelnut spread with EPG and we expect to see many more products hitting the market with EPG in the coming months.

EPG (esterified propoxylated glycerol) which be listed on food labels as EPG (modified plant-based oil) - can be used to replace up to 85% of the fat in scores of applications from confectionery to baking mixes, said Caruso, who said the FDA had just confirmed it had no objections to extending a GRAS determination for EPG to include potato chips, corn-based savory snacks, chicken nuggets, plant-based protein products, dairy analogs, and beverages/beverage bases.

To make EPG, the company splits rapeseed oil (although other vegetable oils can also be used) into glycerin and fatty acid, inserts a food-grade link, and reconnects them (see box below for details).

The modified fat (EPG) has a high melting point of 102F, which means that it doesnt liquify when it passes through the body (which typically has a temperature of around 98.6F) and has the consistency of soft candlewax, Caruso told FoodNavigator-USA.

It largely resists digestion because digestive enzymes are prevented from breaking it down, so hardly any of its calories are released, added Caruso, who is talking to potential partners from leading CPG brands to disruptive startups.

To put this into perspective, 1g of fat contains 9 calories, while 1g of Epogee contains 0.7 calories.

Unlike Olestra (which had a lower melting point and messy side effects) or fat replacers made from sugars, gums, starches or fibers (which provide bulking, humectancy and mouthfeel but many firms dont want to include on the ingredients list), EPG functions like fat in food products and in the human body because its made from fat, said Caruso.

In a nutshell, he said, EPG is unique in the food formulation space because its analternative fat, not a fat substitute EPG looks feels, tastes, and functions like fat because its made from fat, it just doesnt deliver the calories.

While fat reduction and replacement might have been all the rage in the 80s and 90s, consumers today some of whom are actively embracing high fat keto diets are more worried about sugar, acknowledged Caruso.

But theyre also worried about their weight, and they are still paying attention to calories, and given that fat contains a lot more calories per gram (9) than carbs or protein (4), it is the easiest target to drive calories out of products, he said.

The low-fat ship sailed 25 years ago, but this is not about low fat, its about caloric reduction.

And if food culture has undoubtedly changed since the technology behind EPGs was first developed three decades ago, most Americans are still consuming more calories than they are burning off, and many of them come from fat, added Caruso.

There is currently nothing like this is on the market. We have two products, a confectionery EPG with a very sharp melting curve designed to mimic cocoa butter or fractionated palm kernel oil, and our workhorse spreadable EPG, which works in all of the other applications.

As to whether EPG would be considered clean label, theres no simple answer as this is not a legally defined term, said Caruso, although he conceded that some natural and organic brands might not be interested.

However, brands that are trying to appeal to calorie-conscious consumers are particularly excited by Epogee's potential to cut calories but also eliminate ingredients such as gums, starches and binders, preservatives and flavor enhancers that are often used in low calorie or low fat foods, he said.

The road to commercialization has been lengthy for EPGs, which were first developed in the 1980s by ARCO Chemical Company, which teamed up with Bestfoods to explore their potential as fat replacers in foods.

However, Bestfoods withdrew from the joint venture shortly thereafter, and work did not resume until late 2003 when the technology was assigned to a non-profit affiliated with Kansas State University. A new partner, Choco Finesse, LLC, was later granted development rights and changed its name to Epogee.

'Not another Olestra'

Epogee is not anotherOlestra(a hybrid molecule of sucrose esterified with eight fatty acids from Procter & Gamble that attracted a wave of negative PR over its messy side effects... notably anal leakage), says founder and CTO David Rowe.

"We got to learn from their experiences and essentially avoid some things that they did but we also have better chemistry. Our product is safer in terms of things like vitamin depletion[Epogee does not inhibit the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins], but another key thing is that Epogee is made from fat and tastes like fat.

Olestra had kind of a weird mouthfeel and for people old enough to remember the potato chips, they didnt quite taste like potato chips, but French fries or donuts made with Epogee will actually beat regular French fries or donuts[on taste/mouthfeel].

What are EPGs?

EPGs are a family of fat- and oil-like substances that resemble triglycerides in structure and appearance, but have been modified to prevent or limit their digestion when consumed in food.

How is Epogee made?

*According to aGRAS noticesubmitted to the FDA in 2015, esterified propoxylated glycerol (EPG) is produced by a three-step process: First, fats and oils are split into glycerol and fatty acids. Next, glycerol is reacted with propylene oxideto produce glycerol with propyleneglycol units (PGUs) inserted on its hydroxyl groups. Finally, the propylene glycol-substituted glycerol is reacted with fatty acids to produce EPG, which largely resists digestion because the PGUs prevent the digestive enzyme lipase from breaking down the fat.

Is it safe?

The FDA has no questions regarding the GRAS status of EPG for multiple food applications including confectionery products; frying; baked goods and baking mixes; frozen desserts and mixes; nut products (including peanut butter); grain products; pasta; granola and snack bars; sauces and gravies; soft candy; snack foods (potato chips, corn-based savory snacks, chicken nuggets); plant-based protein products; dairy product analogs; beverages/beverage bases; coffee, and tea.

EPGs have been evaluated for safety at levels as high as 150 grams per day.

How is it labeled?

Epogee - the brand name for EPG (esterified propoxylated glycerol) can be listed on food labels as EPG (modified plant-based oil).

While the word modified might conjure up images of genetic engineering (which isnotinvolved in its production), Epogee has not experienced any pushback from manufacturers or consumers on the name, claimed Caruso, who noted that modified starch is a common term on food labels.

See original here:
Fat alternative Epogee gains traction: 'The low-fat ship sailed 25 years ago, this is not about low fat, it's about caloric reduction' -...

The long-awaited updates from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to its genetically engineered (GE) organism regulation have been issued. This final rule completed a more than 10-year process started back in 2008 to revise regulations promulgated in 1987. This article discusses these new regulations and some of their potential impacts. Overall, the rule ignores concerns raised by some industry, consumer and environmental groups that the new regulations, including an option for developers to self-determine whether their products are regulated, and could lead to adverse environmental and/or agricultural impacts, potential food safety risks, trade disruptions and a lack of consumer acceptance of new food technologies.USDA oversight from 1987 to the present

To understand the USDAs new regulation of GE plants, it is important to know how the agency has regulated GE plants since 1987. USDA regulates the import, interstate movement, and environmental release of GE plants under its legal authority to manage plant pests under the Plant Protection Act. A plant pest is any organism that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plants or plant product. Under USDA regulations, a GE plant has been considered a potential plant pest if any of its newly introduced DNA came from an organism on USDAs list of plant pests, or if the method of introducing DNA into the plants genome involved an organism on USDAs list of plant pests. For example, if a GE plant was developed using the plant pest Agrobacterium to introduce new DNA, as many are, it was regulated. However, if the same DNA were introduced using the gene-gun method of transformation, USDA would not regulate the GE plant.

Under those regulations (found at 7 CFR part 340), developers were required to submit their GE plant products to one of three oversight processes before environmental release.

The first process, known as notification, is used to regulate field trials of low-risk GE plants. The applicant provides the USDA with information detailing its trial and the agency has 30 days to decide whether to permit the trial to proceed. As many as 1,000 field trials are authorized yearly using this procedure.

The second process is permitting, which requires a more detailed application for any outdoor planting (e.g., field trial) of higher-risk GE plants. After reviewing the application, USDA may issue a permit authorizing the release. The USDA has issued hundreds of permits since 1987.

The third process involves a petition for non-regulated status, where a developer requests the USDA to determinebased on evidence from field trialsthat the GE plant presents no plant pest risk and no longer requires regulation. The petition process is the primary path to commercialization and more than 140 plants have been deregulated.

For each regulatory process, the USDA is ensuring that the GE plant is not going to become a plant pest and cause harm to agricultural interests.

Up until 2011, every GE plant tested outdoors either submitted a notification or received a permit, and all commercialized plants satisfactorily completed the petition process. Then, in 2011, the USDA established a process whereby GE seed developers could ask the agency whether the GE plants they were developing required regulation, or whether they were exempt because they did not involve any plant pest components. The USDA responded to these Am I regulated? inquiries stating whether the GE plant was not regulated and could be planted without oversight. By the end of 2019, USDA determined that more than 85 plants did not fall within its regulatory authority and are exempt from oversight. So, over the last eight years, we have seen a decrease in how many GE plants USDA regulates.[1]

The new rule (called the Sustainable, Ecological, Consistent, Uniform, Responsible, Efficient, (SECURE) Rule), which will be implemented over the next 18 months, applies to organisms produced through genetic engineering, which is defined to include techniques that use recombinant, synthesized, or amplified nucleic acids to modify or create a genome. This broad definition includes classical genetic engineering, which add one or more new genes to organism (transgenics, or what consumers consider GMOs), and newer gene editing techniques such as CRISPR, which can make edits within an organisms existing genome.

While the definition captures all GE plants, the USDA exempts many of them from any oversight. First, it exempts products with a single sequence deletion, substitution, or addition (if the addition is from the plants gene pool). Second, it exempts any GE plant that has the same plant-trait-mechanism of action as any GE plant previous regulated by the USDA. This means that if the USDA previously regulated a GE plant, such as an glyphosate-tolerant variety of corn, a new GE glyphosate-tolerant corn is exempt if it employs the same mechanism of action (meaning it biologically operates the same way to provide tolerance). Developers can self-determine whether they qualify for these exemptions; confirmation of their self-determination from the USDA is not required and the agency need not be informed.

If a GE plant is not exempt, the developer can either: (1) apply for a permit if the GE plant has potential plant pest risks; or (2) seek a Regulatory Status Review (RSR). The RSR starts with an initial 180-day process where the USDA determines if the GE plant has any plausible plant pest risks. That initial RSR step is a closer look at the GE plant than the current am I regulated? process, but less detailed than the process used for petitions for non-regulated status. The USDA stated that the initial review does not require any plant-specific laboratory or field-test data. If the USDA decides there are no plausible risks, it sends a letter to the developer stating the plant is not regulated and publishes the letter on its website. If the USDA cannot conclude that there are no plausible risks, then the developer can either: (1) request that the USDA conduct the second part of the RSR, which is detailed evaluation of potential plant pest risks that can take up to 15 month); or (2) apply for a permit. The more lengthy and detailed RSR evaluation is comparable to the current petition for non-regulated status process and ends in the USDA determining either that the GE plant is not regulated or that it needs a permit. If a developer receives a permit from the USDA, any outdoor planting (e.g. a field trial or a commercial planting) is subject to restrictions to prevent inadvertent release into the environment and any adverse plant pest impacts. These are the same restrictions that virtually all GE plants were subject to prior to 2012 under the notification and permitting processes. Only GE plants that receive permits have any continued USDA oversight.

The exemptions are one worrisome aspect of the new SECURE rule. First, they are not supported by scientific evidence showing that these categories of GE plants do not pose risks. Instead, the USDA states that since a single deletion, substitution or addition produces a plant that could be achieved by conventional breeding methods, and because conventionally bred plants have not raised plant pest risks, gene-edited plants that are the same as products that could be achieved through conventional breeding will not pose plant pest risks. The problem with this argument is that a science-based regulatory system should base its oversight on whether the plant possesses traits that make it a potential plant risks, not the plants method of production. One reason the USDA revised its rules was to focus on the properties of a product, not how it was developed, yet that is the very approach these exemptions enshrine. While many, if not most, plants with a single deletion may not present any plant pest risks, if one does, shouldnt USDA regulate it?

The second concern is that the developer self-determines if its product qualifies for an exemption. This sets up an inherent conflict of interest because developers have financial incentives to determine themselves exempt. While some developers will diligently determine the regulatory status of a GE plant, others may not. In addition, when a developer self-determines its product is exempt, neither the USDA nor the public know that the GE plant is being released into the environment and entering the food supply because there is no requirement to notify the agency of ones self-determination. If the USDA does not know which GE plants are self-determined as exempt, how can it confirm that the determination is correct?

One positive of the new rule is the agencys decision to limit the exemptions to single edits. The USDA reasons that while a single edit mimics a product that can be produced through conventional breeding methods, the same is not true for products with multiple edits. Therefore, if a developer makes two or more edits, the developer must apply for a permit or ask for an RSR. The first gene edited commercial product in the USCalyxts high oleic soybean, which the USDA exempted under the am I regulated? processwould not be exempt under the new rules because it has two edited genes. If most gene-edited products end up having two or more edits, the exemptions may have limited applicability.

While multi-edited products are not automatically exempt, the USDA is likely to find in the initial step of the RSR process that many do not pose any plausible plant pest risk. So the result may be the samethese products are not regulated. However, at least the initial RSR determination (instead of a developer self-determination), is made public, so stakeholders will know which multi-edited products are entering the market.

The USDA states that one goal of its revisions is to provide regulatory relief, and the final rule clearly achieves that. Many GE plants that historically required containment for field trials through either the notification or permitting process will no longer be subject to any substantive regulation. They either will be exempt or deemed to have no plausible plant pest risks through the initial step of the RSR process. What this means in practice is that GE plant developers (both private developers and academic scientists) can conduct field trials without any confinement conditions that ensure the GE plants do not persist in the environment after the trial is completed. The USDA stated in its proposed rule that it hopes developers voluntarily continue confinement measures, but that may or may not happen. GE plants have escaped from field trials with USDA oversight in the past and the likelihood of that happening will only increase without USDA oversight. That could mean new proteins inadvertently entering our food supply before they are deemed safe for human consumption. Experimental GE plants persisting in the environment after a field trial is concluded could also harm non-target organisms. Finally, if an unregulated GE plant escapes from a field trial and enters the export market, it could result in rejection of the US commodity because the experimental plant has not been approved in the importing country.

The final rule also fails to provide needed transparency on GE plants that will be commercialized. The USDA, food industry and consumers will be at the mercy of developers to make public information about products that they have deemed exempt. How will the food industry know which foods contain GE plants to ensure they are complying with export market legal requirements? How will food manufacturers and retailers answer questions from consumers asking whether their products contain ingredients from GE or gene-edited plants? If consumers are unable to access information about which GE plants are commercialized, will they become skeptical about those products and their safety? The lack of transparency inherent in the rule could result in international trade problems and misinformed consumers.

GE plants have provided benefits to farmers, the environment and consumers and are likely to continue to do so in the future. However, the USDA rule could impact the food industrys acceptance of those products and fuel consumer suspicions about biotech crops and foods.

[1] While the USDA is the primary agency regulating GE plants, the FDA and EPA regulate subsets of GE plants. If a GE plant is used for food or feed, the FDA regulates it under a voluntary consultation process set up under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. If a GE plant produces a pesticide, the EPA regulates it as a plant-incorporated protectant under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

Original post:
USDA revised regulations of GMO and gene edited plants. Here's what it means. - Genetic Literacy Project

By integrating real world issues into the classroom, Sadler said students can see how the material theyre learning can translate to bigger picture issues and inform important decisions in their lives, which he hopes is achieved through the instructional materials his research team and partner teachers designed.

While Sadler said his team is still working this summer to develop and refine more lessons to form a coherent instructional unit that teachers can use over the course of a week or two in their classrooms, some early versions of activities have already been tested in a few classrooms.

Sadler said one of the activities that has been created shows how social distancing can impact viral spread through a modeled simulation that allows students to manipulate variables to see likely outcomes. Another activity is intended to help students develop a set of skills that can be used to analyze their information sources.

Sadler said all activities will be developed with enough flexibility to be suitable for both in-person or online instruction, due to the uncertainty of returning to the traditional classroom setting in the fall.

As the materials are used in classrooms, the research team will collect data through questionnaires and surveys to gauge students understandings of COVID-19, their interests and their use of information sources.

Based on his initial findings, Sadler said in general, there was greater student interest in learning about the international health crisis than the business as usual curriculum.

Patty Berge, a career technical education biomedical teacher at East Chapel Hill High School, said she felt it was important to address COVID-19 in the classroom since the virus was impacting students lives so dramatically.

Berge said she saw her students knowledge of the pandemic and its impact on their lives improve as a result of tying her curriculum to COVID-19. In collaboration with fellow biomedical teachers at her school, she said she created a few activities for students to delve into facts about COVID-19, the news surrounding it and ways to prevent outbreaks.

There's so much misinformation and disinformation out there about COVID, that it really is our responsibility to make sure that we're teaching the kids to go to the right resources and find the correct information and get the evidence to support what they're saying versus just repeating what they heard somebody else say, which has been a big issue, Berge said.

Margaret Burns, a science teacher at Jordan High School in Durham, said her students showed interest in learning about COVID-19 and found that a lot of them were doing their own research on the virus.

Like Berge, Burns said she thought it was important to remind students where accurate information can be found. Burns said she showed students the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website and discussed how to understand its guidance and apply their knowledge.

Its definitely going to be something that we talk about in classes for a really long time, Burns said. It is something that's a shared experience by everyone at this point.

As teachers develop lesson plans this summer, Kimberly Manning, a science teacher at East Chapel Hill High School, said COVID-19 will be a part of her instruction and many others in the fall. While science is perhaps the easiest subject to connect to the pandemic, she said history teachers at her school also addressed it from a historical and social justice perspective.

We will always walk hand in hand with diseases, but we as a people, collectively, we have to be able to deal with it, learn about it, decode it and institute practices that are going to allow us to still live and coexist, Manning said. So, as teachers, as educators, we have to make it a part of what we do.

university@dailytarheel.com

Read more from the original source:
UNC professor leading project to develop high school science lessons on COVID-19 - The Daily Tar Heel

MUTANT mosquitoes created in a lab to stop the spread of deadly diseases like malaria will be unleashed across the US this summer.

The gene-hacked bugs, crafted by UK biotech company Oxitec, are designed tokill off or reduce local populations of mosquitoes by mating with them.

3

Mosquitoes carry diseases like dengue, Zika and malaria which are then passed to anyone bitten by the creepy crawlies.

While the technology has shown promise in lab experiments, experts warn the scheme could go horribly wrong out in the wild.

"These strategies hold considerable potential benefits for the hundreds of millions of people impacted bymosquito-borne diseaseseach year," a group of scientists and ethicists wrote in The Conversation.

"However, we are concerned that current government oversight and scientific evaluation of genetically-modified mosquitoes do not ensure their responsible deployment."

3

Oxitec's controversial scheme was in May approved for "experimental use" in Florida and Texas by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Starting this summer, millions of genetically-modified (GM) male mosquitoes will be released every week over the next two years.

When the lab-bred bugs are released and mate with wild females, their female offspring die.

Only female mosquitoes bite, meaning Oxitec's male-only insects won't spread diseases to people.

What is gene editing?

Here's what you need to know

Over time, repeated, large-scale releases of the modified insects should drive the temporary collapse of wild populations.

This should halt the spread of nasty diseases carried by mosquitoes, potentially saving thousands of lives.

Mosquito-borne illnesses like malaria are on the rise in the southern United States as climate change pushes bug populations up from South America.

Scientists are concerned about the lack of oversight for Oxitec projects in Florida and Texas.

For its part, Oxitec said in a statement that the article is The Conversation contained "a number of false or baseless claims".

3

The company has run into trouble before.

In Brazil, an Oxitec project spectacularly backfired after millions of the GM bugs were released into neighbourhoods in Jacobina.

Some scientists believe the project accidentally created a super-resistant mosquito species that's tougher to kill than before.

Oxitec's work has been heavily criticised by Friends of the Earth, a charity dedicated to protecting the environment.

Back in 2012, Friends of the Earth's Eric Hoffman said: "Trials of its mosquitos must not move forward in the absence of comprehensive and impartial reviews of the environmental, human health and ethical risks."

In a statement at the time, Friends of the Earth said: "The GM mosquitoes are intended to reduce the wild population by mating with naturally occurring mosquitoes and producing progeny which dont survive, thus reducing the population and therefore the transmission of the tropical disease dengue fever.

"The company has been widely criticised for putting its commercial interests ahead of public and environmental safety.

"Its first releases of GM mosquitoes took place controversially in the Cayman Islands, where there is no biosafety law or regulation.

"Oxitec staff have been closely involved in developing risk assessment guidelines for GM insects worldwide, leading to concerns about lack of independent scrutiny and conflict of interest."

LOST AND FOUNDLost Roman city revealed using radar uncovering temple, streets and sewers

AIR FAIR?Samsung invents Apple AirPods rivals that look like tiny BEANS in your ears

PLAN IT!How to see planets Jupiter, Saturn AND Mars rising in sky tonight with naked eye

SPACE STORMSaturn has a mystery 'mega storm' shaped like a perfect hexagon

Exclusive

PLAY TIMEPS5 design revealed? Stunning 'first look' images show leaked Sony sketches in 3D

OUT OF JUICEDelete THESE 22 dodgy apps to save your phone's battery life

In other news, Nasa could create "GM astronauts" designed to be super-strong and feel no pain.

Scientists are trying to make grey squirrels extinct in Britain through genetic engineering.

And, breeding "super-cows" that fart less is the latest bonkers plot to halt climate change.

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online Tech & Science team? Email us at tech@the-sun.co.uk

Read more:
Swarm of MILLIONS of gene-hacked mosquitoes will be unleashed across USA to wipe out malaria with death sex - The Sun

Zhong Nanshan, China's top respiratory expert who discovered the SARS 2003, now plays a key role in the national COVID-19 policy. He said that it is impossible for any nation to reach herd immunity as it will cost millions of lives.

Nanshan estimates that 60% to 70% of the country's populationto be infected by the virus, which can cause a 30 to 40 million death toll.

That means the only way to defeat COVID-19 is to vaccinate all people. He said that vaccines for use in emergencies would be available as early as this autumn, but it could take at least two years for large-scale use.

It is similar to what Anthony Fauci, head of US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that 100 million doses of the vaccine might be ready before the year ends and the clinical trials.

Last month, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention's head, Gao Fu, said that they are already drafting guidelines to determine the individual eligible to receive the vaccine when to take them, and what qualifies an emergency use.

Presently, there are five vaccines under clinical testing in China. One of them is developed by the Beijing Institute of Biological Products, published in its preclinical data on the journal Celllast Saturday.

According to South China Morning Post, its data indicates that the vaccine administered in the macaques, which uses an inactivated pathogen, induced high levels of antibodies that protect the body and provided high-level protection against the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

The researchers administered the vaccine twice a day on day zero and day 14 of the experiment, while a placebo group was only given saline. By the end of day 24, all of the macaques are now exposed to COVID-19.

Throughout the seven-day evaluation period after immunization, they found that the placebo group maintained a high viral load. Meanwhile, swabs are taken from the vaccinated macaques, which showed a peak on viral load by the fifth day and significantly waned by the seventh day.

All animals exposed to the coronavirus were euthanized on the seventh day for pathological examination. Those macaques in the low-dose and high-dose have not shown any detectable viral load, unlike those in the placebo group.

The researchers said that the results of their study demonstrated that "both low-dose and high-dose vaccines are highly efficient in defending against SARS-CoV-2 in macaques without observed antibody-dependent enhancement of infection."

Read Also: Sinovac 99% Confident that 'CoronaVac' Will Work Effectively Against Coronavirus

Aside from the vaccine being developed under the Beijing Institute of Biological Products, its parent company, the China National Biotec Group, said that it was focusing on developing an inactivated vaccine. The company was experienced in that field, and because this type of vaccine can be safely produced, said chairman Yang Xiaoming who told the news portal Thepaper.cn.

Moreover, another subsidiary of the company, the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products, is now on its human trials on using another inactivated vaccine. They have built biosafety production facilities to produce 200 million vaccines each year.

Additionally, they are also developing vaccines that include a recombinant protein vaccine that uses genetic engineering. However, this is not the main priority for the group.

With all these vaccines underway, Shanghai vaccine expert Tao Lina warns that these vaccines could have advantages and disadvantages, and it is still early to say which type will be ready to use first.

Read More: Chinese Doctors Claim they Found New COVID-19 Cure that Can Stop Coronavirus from Spreading Even Without Vaccines

Read the rest here:
China Could Have Coronavirus Vaccine for Emergency Use As Early As This Autumn, Expert Says - Science Times

GAITHERSBURG, Md., June 08, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Novavax, Inc. (NVAX), a late-stage biotechnology company developing next-generation vaccines for serious infectious diseases, today announced that Gregory M. Glenn, M.D., President of Research and Development, will join other vaccine industry leaders for a panel discussion at 2020 BIO Digital. Taking place on Tuesday, June 9 at 11:30 a.m. EDT, the panel will discuss COVID-19 vaccines. The conversation will consider the complex path from lab to clinical trials, the impact of the evolving science on candidate development and consider how collaboration will bring life-saving vaccines to the world.

Details for the panel are as follows:

About Novavax

Novavax, Inc. (NVAX) is a late-stage biotechnology company that promotes improved health globally through the discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative vaccines to prevent serious infectious diseases. Novavax recently initiated development of NVX-CoV2373, its vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, with Phase 1 clinical trial results expected in July of 2020. NanoFlu, its quadrivalent influenza nanoparticle vaccine, met all primary objectives in its pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial in older adults. Both vaccine candidates incorporate Novavax proprietary saponin-based Matrix-M adjuvant in order to enhance the immune response and stimulate high levels of neutralizing antibodies. Novavax is a leading innovator of recombinant vaccines; its proprietary recombinant technology platform combines the power and speed of genetic engineering to efficiently produce highly immunogenic nanoparticles in order to address urgent global health needs.

For more information, visit http://www.novavax.com and connect with us on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Contacts:

InvestorsNovavax, Inc. Erika Trahanir@novavax.com240-268-2022

WestwickeJohn Woolfordjohn.woolford@westwicke.com443-213-0506

MediaBrandzone/KOGS CommunicationEdna Kaplankaplan@kogspr.com617-974-8659

See the original post:
Novavax President of R&D Dr. Gregory Glenn to Discuss the Development of COVID-19 Vaccines on Panel at 2020 BIO Digital - Yahoo Finance

KEY POINTS

Chinas top respiratory expert said Tuesday a vaccine for the coronavirus could be ready as early as autumn for emergency use, months earlier than the timeline envisioned by U.S. experts. The comments came amid a Harvard University study that found the virus began circulating in China much earlier than previously suspected.

Zhong Nanshan, former president of the Chinese Medical Association and current the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Thoracic Disease, said guidelines are being drafted to determine who will get the vaccine first and when, along with what would constitute emergency use.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, has said 100 million doses of a vaccine could be ready by the end of the year even before trials on safety and efficacy are completed.

China has spent a reported $703 million on the development of a vaccine, with five currently undergoing testing. Several others developed elsewhere in the world also are undergoing trials, setting up a global competition akin to the space race.

The journal Cell on Saturday published a preliminary study of a vaccine developed by the Bejing Institute of Biological Products that effectively blocked infection in rhesus monkeys. Development of an effective vaccine by China likely would help deflect criticism of the countrys early handling of the outbreak.

Another vaccine developed by the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products is in the midst of human trials. Both vaccines use inactivated viruses. Research also is focused on other techniques including genetic engineering.

Zhong said without a vaccine, death tolls will continue to mount. By midmorning Tuesday, more than 407,000 people had died worldwide from COVID-19 -- more than a quarter in the United States alone.

Natural immunity needs 60- to 70% of a countrys population to be infected by the novel coronavirus, which could cause a death toll of 30 [million] to 40 million, Zhong told the South China Morning Post. The [only] solution is still mass vaccination.

He added: Large-scale vaccination will take one to two years. The new vaccine can be used in an emergency as early as this autumn or the end of the year.

China rejected findings by Harvard University that coronavirus began circulating in Wuhan as early as August by examining satellite images of hospital parking lots. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hua Chunying called the conclusions preposterous, but the researchers said the findings line up with the recent recognition that gastrointestinal symptoms are a unique feature of COVID-19 disease and may be the chief complaint of a significant proportion of presenting patients.

China has maintained the infection emerged in November but has been sharply criticized for suppressing information in the initial stages of the pandemic.

Follow this link:
Does China Have A Coronavirus Vaccine? Expert Says One Could Be Available Within Months - International Business Times

Optogenetic Market research added by the insight partners, offers a comprehensive analysis of growth trends prevailing in the global business domain. This report also provides definitive data concerning market, size, commercialization aspects and revenue forecast of the Optogenetic industry. In addition, the study explicitly highlights the competitive status of key players within the projection timeline while focusing on their portfolio and regional expansion endeavours.

This report on Optogenetic Market delivers an in-depth analysis that also comprises an elaborate assessment of this business. Also, segments of the Optogenetic Market have been evidently elucidated in this study, in addition to a basic overview pertaining to the markets current status as well as size, with respect to the profit and volume parameters. The study is ubiquitous of the major insights related to the regional spectrum of this vertical as well as the companies that have effectively gained a commendable status in the Optogenetic Market.

Get the inside scope of the Sample report @https://www.theinsightpartners.com/sample/TIPRE00004718/

MARKET INTRODUCTIONOptogenetic is the biological technique in which light is used to control the cell in living tissue, it is emerging technique. The optogenetics helps to understand the normal and abnormal functioning of brain and used to treat the neurological disorder. In Optogenetics light and genetic engineering is used to control the cell activity and neurons activity. Optogenetics is used to treat the retinal disease, hearing loss, memory disorder.

Key Competitors In Optogenetic Market areCoherent, Inc., Thorlabs, Inc., Cobalt International Energy, Inc., Scientifica, Laserglow Technologies, Gensight Biologics, Jackson Laboratories, Regenxbio Inc., Circuit Therapeutics, Inc., Bruker and Others

MARKET SCOPE

The Global Optogenetics Market Analysis to 2027 is a specialized and in-depth study with a special focus on the global medical device market trend analysis. The report aims to provide an overview of optogenetics market with detailed market segmentation by product type, application, and geography. The global optogenetics market is expected to witness high growth during the forecast period. The report provides key statistics on the market status of the leading Optogenetics market players and offers key trends and opportunities in the market.

Market segmentation:

By Product Type (Actuators, Sensors, Light Instruments);

By Application (Retinal Disease Treatment, Neuroscience, Cardiovascular Ailments, Pacing, Hearing Problem Treatment)

By Geography North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific (APAC), Middle East and Africa (MEA) and South & Central America. And 13 countries globally along with current trend and opportunities prevailing in the region.

Key Questions Answered

How big will the market for Optogenetic be in 2027? What is the current CAGR of the Optogenetic Market? Which product is expected to have the highest market growth? Which application should be used to win a large part of the market for Optogenetic ? Which region is likely to offer the most opportunities on the Optogenetic Market? Will the market competition change in the forecast period? Who are the main players currently active in the global Optogenetic Market? How will the market situation change within the coming years? What are the usual commercial tactics for players? What is the growth perspective of the global Optogenetic Market?

Answering these types of questions can be very useful for gamers to clear up their doubts as they implement their strategies to grow in the global Optogenetic Market. The report provides a transparent picture of the actual situation in the global Optogenetic Market so that companies can work more effectively. It can be tailored to the needs of readers to better understand the global market for Optogenetic.

Click here to buy full report with all description:-https://www.theinsightpartners.com/buy/TIPRE00004718/

About Us:

The Insight Partnersis a one stop industry research provider of actionable intelligence. We help our clients in getting solutions to their research requirements through our syndicated and consulting research services. We are committed to provide highest quality research and consulting services to our customers. We help our clients understand the key market trends, identify opportunities, and make informed decisions with our market research offerings at an affordable cost.

We understand syndicated reports may not meet precise research requirements of all our clients. We offer our clients multiple ways to customize research as per their specific needs and budget

Contact Us:

The Insight Partners,

Phone: +1-646-491-9876

Email:[emailprotected]

More here:
Optogenetic market 2020: Future Analysis and know what to expect from this Industry along with analysis Global Trends, Industry Growth, Top Company...

A recent gift of $1 million from the Manning family, strong supporters of the University of Virginia, established The Manning Fund for COVID-19 Research, designed to support the Universitys practically oriented research on COVID-19-related topics that can be acted upon quickly and have commercial potential.

More than 50 proposals were received from UVA faculty for projects related to developing COVID-19-related solutions.

The offices of the Provost and the Vice President for Research, which co-manage the fund, havefunded eight proposals that support improved antibody testing, vaccine development and improving patient outcomes.

These researchers showed they had both great ideas for conquering COVID-19, and a solid plan for how to accomplish their goals, said Melur Ram Ramasubramanian, vice president for research. We couldnt be more pleased with the projects proposed and their potential impact.

Many of our researchers have set current and pressing projects aside to redirect their energies to COVID-19, said Liz Magill, the Universitys provost. Were grateful that the Manning Fund has enabled this critical research that takes advantage of the cross-disciplinary networks UVA has nurtured over the past few years.

I want to thank the entire research team and administrationfor their acute sense of urgency and entrepreneurship to come up with these helpful solutions to the COVID crisis. They set short term goals and achieved them, said local businessman and investor Paul Manning. I am very grateful.

A rundown of the selected projects:

IgG to SARS-CoV-2 With ImmunoCAPJeffrey Wilson, School of Medicine, Asthma, Allergy & Immunology

Jeffrey Wilson and his team plan to develop a novel assay to measure antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, taking advantage of the lmmunoCAP platform and producing a quantitative readout of how much IgG is present instead of just a yes or a no, as is common in current commercial systems. This has implications in developing an understanding of the likely attachment sites of the virus and accelerating the development of effective vaccines.

A COVID-19 Killed Whole Cell Genome Reduced E. coli Fusion Peptide Subunit VaccineSteven Zeichner, School of Medicine, Pediatrics

A vaccine for COVID-19 is urgently needed to control the pandemic. Steven Zeichner and his team aim to develop a vaccine that helps the body develop antibodies directed against a specific fusion peptide found on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 virus as a component of its spike protein. The novelty of this project is the use a modified E. coli bacterial surface to display this peptide and help the body develop specific antibodies against it. When the real virus enters the body due to infection, the body can recognize this fusion peptide and neutralize the virus.

We expect the results from this project can be quickly translated into a safe, inexpensive, scalable, and effective vaccine appropriate for pandemic response globally, enabling an end to the COVID-19 pandemic not only in developed countries, but around the world, said Steven Zeichner.

Targeted Antibodies From Convalescent Plasma to Protect Against COVID-19Peter Kasson, School of Medicine, Molecular Physiology & Biomedical Engineering

Individuals vary substantially in their antibody response to COVID-19, both in amount and type of antibodies produced. Peter Kassons team aims to purify the serum from recovered patients and identify specific antibodies that are most potent against SARS-CoV-2 and to produce concentrated amounts of these target specific antibodies for the treatment of patients with increased potency.

Novel Reagents to Improve Testing for COVID-19 AntibodiesJames Zimring, School of Medicine, Pathology

The goal of James Zimring and his team is to develop novel testing reagents to eliminate the problem of cross-reactivity with common coronaviruses and develop a neutralization reagent that can be added to any serological assay and any analytic platform for antibody testing, which will eliminate signal from other non-COVID-19 antibodies and improve the accuracy of the test significantly.

Adenosine A2A Receptor Agonists in the Prevention of COVID-19-Related Lung Injury and Systemic Inflammatory ResponsesKenneth Brayman, School of Medicine, Surgery & Molecular Physiology, Infectious Diseases

The main cause of death in COVID-19 is acute respiratory distress syndrome, which is a type of respiratory failure characterized by rapid onset of widespread inflammation in the lungs. Kenneth Brayman and his team aim to test the use of Adenosine A2AR agonists to reduce the mortality associated with COVID-19. This immunotherapy is expected to be used preemptively, in the asymptomatic phase to prevent onset of COVID-19 or in the symptomatic phase, to reverse progression.

Isolation and Identification of Novel T-cell Receptors Responsive to SARS-CoV-2 for the Genetic Engineering of Third-Party T-cells for Off-the-Shelf Therapeutic UseDaniel Lee, School of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, Pediatric

Daniel Lee and his team plan to study the T-cell-based immune response from patients who have been infected SARS-CoV-2 to identify viral specific T-cell receptors with the future goal of genetically engineering third-party, allogeneic T-cells with the responsive T-cell receptor, thereby producing an off-the-shelf cellular therapeutic bank for the treatment of subsequent infected patients experiencing severe symptoms. This cell therapy would be especially beneficial for immunocompromised patients infected with COVID-19.

Mass Cytometry to Identify Biomarkers for COVID-19 Severity and Response to JAK InhibitionHema Kothari, School of Medicine, Medicine & Cardiovascular Medicine

Cytokine storm in patients has been linked to COVID-19 disease severity. Hema Kotharis team aims to develop a customized diagnostic biomarker assay for early identification of those at risk of a cytokine storm and improve patient outcomes by taking timely action to block cytokines.

COVID-19: Big Data and Analytics for Early Detection of Cardiorespiratory DeteriorationRandall Moorman, School of Medicine, Medicine, Biomedical Engineering and Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics

Randall Moormans team at UVA Center for Advanced Medical Analytics plans to apply artificial intelligence and big data techniques to the problem of acute and unsuspected clinical deterioration of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, with the goal to provide continuous risk estimation of imminent deterioration using mathematical analysis of readily available clinical and monitoring data.

Originally posted here:
Eight Research Projects Receive Funding from Manning Fund for COVID-19 Research - University of Virginia

China could have a Covid-19 vaccine for use in emergencies as early as this autumn, according to the countrys top respiratory expert, Zhong Nanshan.

Zhongs estimate echoed last months comments by Gao Fu, head of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, that it was drafting guidelines to determine who would be eligible to receive the vaccine, when to take them, and what would constitute emergency use.

The head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Antony Fauci, has made similar comments, saying 100 million doses might be ready by the end of the year even before the end of clinical trials.

Zhong said herd immunity without intervention could not be achieved without a high death toll, making inoculation the only feasible means of gaining herd immunity.

Natural immunity needs 60 to 70 per cent of a countrys population to be infected by the novel coronavirus, which could cause a death toll of 30 to 40 million, Zhong told a live event hosted by tech giant Baidu. The [only] solution is still mass vaccination.

[Herd immunity] still depends on the development of vaccines. Large-scale vaccination will take one to two years. The new vaccine can be used in an emergency as early as this autumn or the end of the year.

Five vaccines developed by Chinese scientists are undergoing human trials, according to a government white paper published on Sunday.

One of the candidate vaccines, developed by the Beijing Institute of Biological Products, published its preclinical data on the journal Cell on Saturday.

The data shows that in macaques the vaccine, which uses an inactivated pathogen, induced high levels of antibodies that defend the body and provided a highly efficient protection against Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19.

The macaques were immunised twice on day zero and day 14, while a placebo group was given saline.

On day 24, all the macaques were exposed to Sars-CoV-2.

The placebo group maintained a high viral load throughout the seven-day evaluation period after the exposure, but swabs taken from the vaccinated macaques showed that their viral load peaked on the fifth day and was significantly lower by day seven.

On the seventh day after exposure to the virus, all animals were euthanised for pathological examination.

Five Chinese vaccines are undergoing human trials. Photo: AFP

No macaques in the low-dose and high-dose groups had a detectable viral load in the lung lobes, unlike the placebo group.

Taken together, all these results demonstrated that both low-dose and high-dose [vaccines] conferred highly efficient protection against Sars-CoV-2 in macaques without observed antibody-dependent enhancement of infection, the researchers wrote.

Yang Xiaoming, chairman of China National Biotec Group, the parent company of the Beijing Institute of Biological Products, told news portal Thepaper.cn last month that the group was focusing on developing an inactivated vaccine because it was experienced in this field and they could be produced safely.

Another subsidiary, the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products, is conducting human trials on another inactivated vaccine. The group has built high biosafety production facilities that can produce 200 million vaccines a year.

The group is also developing vaccines that use other techniques including a recombinant protein vaccine that uses genetic engineering but these are a lower priority.

Shanghai vaccine expert Tao Lina said different vaccine technologies had their advantages and disadvantages and it was still early to tell which type of vaccine would be ready to use first.

Inactivated ones usually need two or three doses while other technologies might need only one dose. Vaccines using DNA or RNA technology are likely to enter trials later than inactivated vaccines, but it is easier to expand production capacity for these, Tao said.

Story continues

Read the original:
Coronavirus vaccine could be ready for emergency use within months, says Chinese expert Zhong Nanshan - Yahoo Singapore News

Benedetto Marelli and his teammates at MIT have discovered a method to naturally prolong the shelf life of foods. In the method, it was discovered that coating food with silk had a serious effect.

Benedetto Marelli, who worked as an assistant professor at the environmental engineering department at MIT, came across a book about the use of silk one day by chance while doing his post-doctoral study at Tufts University. When asked for each set to contain silk in the cooking contest for the universitys laboratory, Marelli accidentally forgot some strawberries wrapped in silk on her counter.

Realizing that the strawberries that were interacting with silk were still edible when she returned almost a week later, Marelli observed that the other strawberries were already spoiled. This situation had a shock effect on the researcher who had previously studied the biomedical applications of silk. Marelli realized that she could find a solution to the problem of food waste with this situation that she discovered by chance and started to work.

Benedetto Marelli, who is an associate professor at MIT, has decided to seek help from different scientists in this regard. Cambridge Crops, which includes these scientists, wanted to test and expand Marellis discovery.

The company aimed to develop products that would extend the shelf life for all easily perishable foods. Thanks to this discovery of the company, it is expected that the shelf life of the food will be prolonged and a solution to the problem of waste, which is of great importance. As a result, it will be possible to reach fresh food more easily.

As you know, while 10% of the worlds population is struggling with hunger, one third of the global food stock is unconsciously wasted every year. Food waste; It is a fact that it has a social and economic impact in developed and developing countries. Although many different technologies that we come across offer us solutions that will prolong the life of fresh foods, most of these solutions contain risks such as playing genetics with foods, and packaging materials and environmental hazards. We can say that this is often accompanied by high costs.

Marelli considers this situation as follows: To date, the vast majority of solutions developed on agricultural technologies and food have been based on genetic engineering, mechanical engineering, artificial intelligence, or computer science. However, nano materials and bio materials can be preferred instead.

According to Marelli, the use of silk can be an excellent opportunity for many problems faced by the food industry, and it can increase the shelf life of the foods without the need to change their essence. Marelli also stated that the food will not change in any way thanks to the coating of silk with flavors, smells and tissues. Allegedly, this practice can naturally increase the shelf life of foods by up to 200%.

Read more:
MIT Engineers Developed an Interesting Method to Extend the Shelf Life of Foods - Somag News

This summer, for the first time, genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in the U.S.

On May 1, 2020, the company Oxitec received an experimental use permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to release millions of GM mosquitoes (labeled by Oxitec as OX5034) every week over the next two years in Florida and Texas. Females of this mosquito species, Aedes aegypti, transmit dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever and Zika viruses. When these lab-bred GM males are released and mate with wild females, their female offspring die. Continual, large-scale releases of these OX5034 GM males should eventually cause the temporary collapse of a wild population.

However, as vector biologists, geneticists, policy experts and bioethicists, we are concerned that current government oversight and scientific evaluation of GM mosquitoes do not ensure their responsible deployment.

Coral reefs that can withstand rising sea temperatures, American chestnut trees that can survive blight and mosquitoes that cant spread disease are examples of how genetic engineering may transform the natural world.

Genetic engineering offers an unprecedented opportunity for humans to reshape the fundamental structure of the biological world. Yet, as new advances in genetic decoding and gene editing emerge with speed and enthusiasm, the ecological systems they could alter remain enormously complex and understudied.

Recently, no group of organisms has received more attention for genetic modification than mosquitoes to yield inviable offspring or make them unsuitable for disease transmission. These strategies hold considerable potential benefits for the hundreds of millions of people impacted by mosquito-borne diseases each year.

Although the EPA approved the permit for Oxitec, state approval is still required. A previously planned release in the Florida Keys of an earlier version of Oxitecs GM mosquito (OX513) was withdrawn in 2018 after a referendum in 2016 indicated significant opposition from local residents. Oxitec has field-trialed their GM mosquitoes in Brazil, the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Panama.

The public forum on Oxitecs recent permit application garnered 31,174 comments opposing release and 56 in support. The EPA considered these during their review process.

However, it is difficult to assess how EPA regulators weighed and considered public comments and how much of the evidence used in final risk determinations was provided solely by the technology developers.

The closed nature of this risk assessment process is concerning to us.

There is a potential bias and conflict of interest when experimental trials and assessments of ecological risk lack political accountability and are performed by, or in close collaboration with, the technology developers.

This scenario becomes more troubling with a for-profit technology company when cost- and risk-benefit analyses comparing GM mosquitoes to other approaches arent being conducted.

Another concern is that risk assessments tend to focus on only a narrow set of biological parameters such as the potential for the GM mosquito to transmit disease or the potential of the mosquitoes new proteins to trigger an allergic response in people and neglect other important biological, ethical and social considerations.

To address these shortcomings, the Institute for Sustainability, Energy and Environment at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign convened a Critical Conversation on GM mosquitoes. The discussion involved 35 participants from academic, government and nonprofit organizations from around the world with expertise in mosquito biology, community engagement and risk assessment.

A primary takeaway from this conversation was an urgent need to make regulatory procedures more transparent, comprehensive and protected from biases and conflicts of interest. In short, we believe it is time to reassess risk assessment for GM mosquitoes. Here are some of the key elements we recommend.

First, an official, government-funded registry for GM organisms specifically designed to reproduce in the wild and intended for release in the U.S. would make risk assessments more transparent and accountable. Similar to the U.S. database that lists all human clinical trials, this field trial registry would require all technology developers to disclose intentions to release, information on their GM strategy, scale and location of release and intentions for data collection.

This registry could be presented in a way that protects intellectual property rights, just as therapies entering clinical trials are patent-protected in their registry. The GM organism registry would be updated in real time and made fully available to the public.

Second, a broader set of risks needs to be assessed and an evidence base needs to be generated by third-party researchers. Because each GM mosquito is released into a unique environment, risk assessments and experiments prior to and during trial releases should address local effects on the ecosystem and food webs. They should also probe the disease transmission potential of the mosquitos wild counterparts and ecological competitors, examine evolutionary pressures on disease agents in the mosquito community and track the gene flow between GM and wild mosquitoes.

To identify and assess risks, a commitment of funding is necessary. The U.S. EPAs recent announcement that it would improve general risk assessment analysis for biotechnology products is a good start. But regulatory and funding support for an external advisory committee to review assessments for GM organisms released in the wild is also needed; diverse expertise and local community representation would secure a more fair and comprehensive assessment.

Furthermore, independent researchers and advisers could help guide what data are collected during trials to reduce uncertainty and inform future large-scale releases and risk assessments.

The objective to reduce or even eliminate mosquito-borne disease is laudable. GM mosquitoes could prove to be an important tool in alleviating global health burdens. However, to ensure their success, we believe that regulatory frameworks for open, comprehensive and participatory decision-making are urgently needed.

This article was updated to correct the date that Oxitec withdrew its OX513 trial application to 2018.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

See the original post:
Genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in Florida and Texas beginning this summer silver bullet or jumping the gun? - The Conversation US

We grew up in an era when the mainstream media reported the news straightforwardly, but now much of it is bought and paid for. In other words, it is propaganda defined as information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

The British Guardian newspaper is Exhibit A, or maybe, as members of the scientific community, we should say Public Enemy No. 1. The paper sought and received a grant$886,600from an advocacy group, the Open Philanthropy Project (OPP), to publish a series titled Animals farmed. The grant spurred a succession of articles that paint animal husbandry variously as inhumane, unhealthy, or dangerous to the environment:

To put it bluntly, the transactional arrangement between The Guardian and OPP has yielded propaganda, not news.

The Guardians hypocrisy is prominently on display in view of its stated commitments: We will inform our readers about threats to the environment based on scientific facts, not driven by commercial or political interests, and The Guardians editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Our journalism is free from commercial and political influence.

We can cite 886,600 rebuttals to those hollow promises.

What motivates the Open Philanthropy Project? It supports animal welfare, as do we, but the group has a conflict of interest from a financial interest in a competitor of animal husbandry. That is revealedhereby University of California Davis Professor of animal science Frank Mitloehner:

The Guardian was a likely candidate for such a shady arrangement, in any case. For decades, it has been a predictable source of disinformation and fear-mongering about molecular genetic engineering in agriculture, including asympathetic descriptionof Greenpeaces rationale for the wanton destruction of genetically engineered crop research, and stories supportingcritics of genetic engineering. The Guardian even had the audacity to run astoryclaiming that Father of the Green Revolution Dr. Norman Borlaug, killed millions, when in fact his research arguablysaveda billion people from starvation.

The reality is that four decades of research and development on genetically engineered food crops has confirmed what theory predicted from the outset, and what data have reinforced repeatedly that the use of the technology confers no incremental risk and is essentially an extension, or refinement, of earlier, less precise techniques for genetic improvement, and that it could yield monumental commercial and humanitarian successes.

The Guardian frequently propagates the myth that the terms genetic modification and the common shorthand GMO (for genetically modified organism) represent a meaningful grouping of things that is, a genuine category. In fact, organisms improved with the newest molecular genetic engineering techniques and the foods derived from them do not in any way constitute meaningful groupings, which makes any choice of what to include in them wholly arbitrary and misleading. Nor have they been shown to be lesssafeor, given the pedigree of the foods in our diet, in any way less natural than thousands of other common foods.

Genetic modification by means of selection and hybridization to say nothing of the natural movement of genes, as part of Darwinian natural selection has been with us for millennia, and the techniques employed along the way, including the newest ones, are part of a seamless continuum. For more than a century, plant breeders routinely have used radiation or chemical mutagens on seeds to scramble a plants DNA to generate new traits.

Since the 1930s, wide cross hybridizations, which involve the movement of genes from one species or one genus to another, have given rise to plants thatdo not exist in nature; they include the varieties of corn, oats, pumpkin, wheat, rice, tomatoes and potatoes we buy and consume routinely. (Yes, even heirloom varieties and the overpriced, often inferiororganicstuff at Whole Foods.) With the exception of wild berries, wild game, wild mushrooms and fish and shellfish, virtually everything in North American and European diets has been genetically improved in some way.

The erroneous assumption that genetic modification is a meaningful category has led to various kinds of mischief, including the vandalization of field trials and the destruction of laboratories; local bans or restrictions; and a spate of spurious lawsuits of various kinds.

The Guardian has published a few accurate news articles about genetic engineering, such asoneabout Nobel Laureatesstatingthere are no unique health risks from GE crops, andanotherthat reported positive attributes about GE crops. The paper also ran anarticleby a British farmer that paints an accurate picture of animal agriculture.

But fear sells far better and can be more persuasive than facts and it gets more prominent presentation; recall the old adage about media, If it bleeds, it leads. In any case, those few do not undo the litany of misrepresentation and bias. Responsible journalism is not served by a false equivalence between inaccurate, scurrilous, hit-pieces whether paid for or not and accurate news or opinion articles, especially when the former have predominated for decades. The Guardians fear-mongering is part of a calculated information cascade that has stigmatized andstymiedthe adoption of this safe effective technology in many parts of the world.

In democracies, freedom of the press includes the right to be biased and dishonest. The Guardian invokes that right repeatedly and, thereby, lets down its readers.

Rob Wager is a researcher in the department of biology at Vancouver Island University. Follow him on Twitter @RobertWager1. Henry Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. He was the founding director of the U.S. FDAs Office of Biotechnology. Follow him on Twitter @henryimiller

This article was originally published at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and has been republished here with permission. Follow ACSH on Twitter @ACSHorg

Read more here:
Viewpoint: News or propaganda? UK newspaper the Guardian paid over $800k to publish anti-farming 'investigation' - Genetic Literacy Project

This article originally appeared on The Conversation.

This summer, for the first time, genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in the U.S.

On May 1, 2020, the company Oxitec received an experimental use permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to release millions of GM mosquitoes (labeled by Oxitec as OX5034) every week over the next two years in Florida and Texas. Females of this mosquito species, Aedes aegypti, transmit dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever and Zika viruses. When these lab-bred GM males are released and mate with wild females, their female offspring die. Continual, large-scale releases of these OX5034 GM males should eventually cause the temporary collapse of a wild population.

However, as vector biologists, geneticists, policy experts and bioethicists, we are concerned that current government oversight and scientific evaluation of GM mosquitoes do not ensure their responsible deployment.

Coral reefs that can withstand rising sea temperatures, American chestnut trees that can survive blight and mosquitoes that cant spread disease are examples of how genetic engineering may transform the natural world.

Genetic engineering offers an unprecedented opportunity for humans to reshape the fundamental structure of the biological world. Yet, as new advances in genetic decoding and gene editing emerge with speed and enthusiasm, the ecological systems they could alter remain enormously complex and understudied.

Recently, no group of organisms has received more attention for genetic modification than mosquitoesto yield inviable offspring or make them unsuitable for disease transmission. These strategies hold considerable potential benefits for the hundreds of millions of people impacted by mosquito-borne diseases each year.

Although the EPA approved the permit for Oxitec, state approval is still required. A previously planned release in the Florida Keys of an earlier version of Oxitecs GM mosquito (OX513) was withdrawn in 2016 after a referendum indicated significant opposition from local residents. Oxitec has field-trialed their GM mosquitoes in Brazil, the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Panama.

The public forum on Oxitecs recent permit application garnered 31,174 comments opposing release and 56 in support. The EPA considered these during their review process.

However, it is difficult to assess how EPA regulators weighed and considered public comments and how much of the evidence used in final risk determinations was provided solely by the technology developers.

The closed nature of this risk assessment process is concerning to us.

There is a potential bias and conflict of interest when experimental trials and assessments of ecological risk lack political accountability and are performed by, or in close collaboration with, the technology developers.

This scenario becomes more troubling with a for-profit technology company when cost- and risk-benefit analyses comparing GM mosquitoes to other approaches arent being conducted.

Another concern is that risk assessments tend to focus on only a narrow set of biological parameterssuch as the potential for the GM mosquito to transmit disease or the potential of the mosquitoes new proteins to trigger an allergic response in peopleand neglect other important biological, ethical and social considerations.

To address these shortcomings, the Institute for Sustainability, Energy and Environment at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign convened a Critical Conversation on GM mosquitoes. The discussion involved 35 participants from academic, government and nonprofit organizations from around the world with expertise in mosquito biology, community engagement and risk assessment.

A primary takeaway from this conversation was an urgent need to make regulatory procedures more transparent, comprehensive and protected from biases and conflicts of interest. In short, we believe it is time to reassess risk assessment for GM mosquitoes. Here are some of the key elements we recommend.

First, an official, government-funded registry for GM organisms specifically designed to reproduce in the wild and intended for release in the U.S. would make risk assessments more transparent and accountable. Similar to the U.S. database that lists all human clinical trials, this field trial registry would require all technology developers to disclose intentions to release, information on their GM strategy, scale and location of release and intentions for data collection.

This registry could be presented in a way that protects intellectual property rights, just as therapies entering clinical trials are patent-protected in their registry. The GM organism registry would be updated in real time and made fully available to the public.

Second, a broader set of risks needs to be assessed and an evidence base needs to be generated by third-party researchers. Because each GM mosquito is released into a unique environment, risk assessments and experiments prior to and during trial releases should address local effects on the ecosystem and food webs. They should also probe the disease transmission potential of the mosquitos wild counterparts and ecological competitors, examine evolutionary pressures on disease agents in the mosquito community and track the gene flow between GM and wild mosquitoes.

To identify and assess risks, a commitment of funding is necessary. The U.S. EPAs recent announcement that it would improve general risk assessment analysis for biotechnology products is a good start. But regulatory and funding support for an external advisory committee to review assessments for GM organisms released in the wild is also needed; diverse expertise and local community representation would secure a more fair and comprehensive assessment.

Furthermore, independent researchers and advisers could help guide what data are collected during trials to reduce uncertainty and inform future large-scale releases and risk assessments.

The objective to reduce or even eliminate mosquito-borne disease is laudable. GM mosquitoes could prove to be an important tool in alleviating global health burdens. However, to ensure their success, we believe that regulatory frameworks for open, comprehensive and participatory decision-making are urgently needed.

Written by Brian Allan, Associate Professor of Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Chris Stone, Medical Entomologist, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Holly Tuten, Vector Ecologist, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Jennifer Kuzma, Goodnight-NCGSK Distinguished Professor, North Carolina State University; Natalie Kofler, Levenick Resident Scholar in Sustainability, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

See the original post here:
Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Could be Released in Florida and Texas This Summer - The Daily Beast

In May, federal regulators finalized a new biotechnology policy that will bring sweeping changes to the U.S. food system. Dubbed SECURE, the rule revises U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations over genetically engineered plants, automatically exempting many gene-edited crops from government oversight. Companies and labs will be allowed to self-determine whether or not a crop should undergo regulatory review or environmental risk assessment.

Initial responses to this new policy have followed familiar fault lines in the food community. Seed industry trade groups and biotech firms hailed the rule as important to support continuing innovation. Environmental and small farmer NGOs called the USDAs decision shameful and less attentive to public well-being than to agribusinesss bottom line.

But the gene-editing tool CRISPR was supposed to break the impasse in old GM wars by making biotechnology more widely affordable, accessible and thus democratic.

In my research, I study how biotechnology affects transitions to sustainable food systems. Its clear that since 2012 the swelling R&D pipeline of gene-edited grains, fruits and vegetables, fish and livestock has forced U.S. agencies to respond to the so-called CRISPR revolution.

Yet this rule change has a number of people in the food and scientific communities concerned. To me, it reflects the lack of accountability and trust between the public and government agencies setting policies.

The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, serves as the dominant U.S. regulator for plant health. Since the mid-1990s, genetically modified crops have typically fallen under APHIS oversight because Agrobacterium, a plant pest, is commonly used as a tool to engineer GM products. Using a plant pest did not prevent many GM crops from being approved. But it did mean that if APHIS suspected a plant pest or noxious weed had been created through genetic engineering, the agency would regulate the biotech product, including its release into the environment, and its import, handling, and interstate movement.

Changes to APHIS regulations began during the Obama administration. In January 2017, the agency released new draft rules. However, the Trump administration withdrew these nine months later after pushback from industry and biotech developers which argued that the rules would stifle innovation.

Last summer, USDA released a revised rule for public comment, which it finalized on May 18, 2020. Most changes go into effect in April 2021.

Hints to how USDA intended to treat gene-edited crops came early on, when Penn States nonbrowning mushrooms and DuPonts waxy corn were approved by APHIS in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

Then in March 2018, USDA Secretary Perdue clarified the agencys stance. USDA does not currently regulate, or have any plans to regulate, plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques as long as they are developed without the use of a plant pest as the donor or vector and they are not themselves plant pests.

The new SECURE rule establishes several ways for developers to qualify for deregulated status. Included are CRISPR modifications like deletions of sections of the genetic code, tiny substitutions, and introductions of DNA from related species. So, for example, a CRISPRd cauliflower would not be regulated if a chunk of DNA was deleted. But it would still be regulated if CRISPR introduced foreign DNA into cauliflower in a way that USDA believes could turn the product into a plant pest.

Another significant change is that companies and scientists will get to decide for themselves if a new product qualifies for exemption from oversight. APHIS says that developers may consult regulators if at any point they arent sure if a new crop is exempt. However, the agency has already expressed confidence that only about 1% of plants might not qualify for an exemption or for deregulation after an initial review.

Ironically, this policy has begun aligning communities typically at loggerheads in the polarized GM conversation. For example, the UC-based Innovative Genomics Institute, founded by CRISPR co-inventor Jennifer Doudna, wrote in its public comments to APHIS: While we recognize the agencys rationale behind self-determination and desire to provide regulatory relief in order to spur innovation, we are concerned that rather than stimulating innovation, such an undisclosed step may have the effect of dampening trust through the loss of transparency in the development and oversight process.

Meanwhile, GM-watchdog organizations including the National Family Farmers Coalition, Pesticide Action Network and Friends of the Earth issued a joint press statement criticizing a rule that allows industry to self-determine its regulatory status. The new framework, they said, has dealt a devastating blow to the security of farmers livelihoods, the health of their farms and communities, and their ability to build the biodiverse, climate-resilient, and economically robust farming systems that we so urgently need.

My research on democratizing biotechnology has helped me unpack the problematic ways in which democracy is being hitched to technological innovation. When it comes to CRISPR, the public has been told that being cheap, easy to use and free from regulation is a powerful cocktail that makes gene editing intrinsically more democratic.

Like many convenient narratives, there are certain truths to this story. But just as clearly, cheapness is not equivalent to democratic. According to USDA, some 6,150 comments were received on the draft rule during the three-month public feedback period, a window designed to give citizens a say in government policy.

The agency admitted that most letters expressed general opposition to GE products. Of the comments that specifically addressed provisions of the rule, approximately 25 expressed some support for the rule. This means a vast majority of the comments did not. Yet, the USDA disregarded this feedback. Such a lack of civic input can lead to environmental and health concerns being sidelined.

Thoughtful scientists, social movements and governments are now asking if there is an alternative way to regulate engineered food. For example, the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board has set out an ethics-based regulatory framework aimed at advancing genetic technology, while protecting community and environmental health and promoting societal welfare.

In the academic sphere, colleagues in Europe have proposed a framework for responsible innovation. I have developed a set of principles and practices for governing CRISPR based on dialogue with front-line communities who are most affected by the technologies others usher in. Communities dont just have to adopt or refuse technology they can co-create it.

One way to move forward in the U.S. is to take advantage of common ground between sustainable agriculture movements and CRISPR scientists. The struggle over USDA rules suggests that few outside of industry believe self-regulation is fair, wise or scientific.

At present, companies dont even have to notify the USDA of biotech crops they will commercialize. The result, as Greg Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest told Science, is that government regulators and the public will have no idea what products will enter the market. Farmers and everyone else will pay the price,said Jim Goodman, dairy farmer and board president of the National Family Farm Coalition.

Reclaiming a baseline of accountability, then, is the first step in building public confidence in regulatory systems that work for people as well as science that the public believes in.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

Read this article:
How a new biotech rule will foster distrust with the public and impede progress in science - The Conversation US

By Melissa Healy

Los Angeles Times

To capture the speed and audacity of its plan to field a coronavirus vaccine, the Trump administration reached into science fictions vault for an inspiring moniker: Operation Warp Speed.

The vaccine initiatives name challenges a mantra penned by an actual science fiction writer, Arthur C. Clarke: Science demands patience.

Patience is essential for those who ply the science of vaccines. But in that field, challenging economic conditions and a forbidding regulatory system converge with the immune systems complexity and the resilience of microscopic pathogens. Add in drug companies preference for big profits and the result is a trash heap of failed and abandoned efforts.

In the last 25 years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved new vaccines for only seven diseases. A vaccine to protect against the Ebola virus won approval just last year, three years after the epidemic in West Africa ended.

But in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that has killed more than 100,000 Americans and cratered the U.S. economy, Trump has shown little tolerance for sciences deliberate pace. And scientists, with fingers crossed, are falling in line.

The president declared that he wants 300 million doses enough to protect as many as 90% of Americans developed, manufactured and delivered by January 2021. He has ordered academics, government officials, private companies and the U.S. military to work together to make it so.

That means big and it means fast, Trump said. A massive scientific, industrial and logistical endeavor unlike anything our country has seen since the Manhattan Project.

The new effort will demand the support, development, testing and assessment of several promising vaccine candidates by scientists at the National Institutes of Health, the FDA and companies and academic institutions across the world.

It will require the manufacture, procurement and storage of complex biologic medicines, as well as the vials, needles, syringes and storage equipment needed to deliver them. All will be needed on a massive scale.

And all that materiel will need to be transported, distributed and possibly administered by an army of logistics specialists.

Wherever possible, Operation Warp Speed envisions that many steps that have always followed each other in strict sequence clinical trials and production, for instance, or government approval and supply-chain development be done in parallel.

The program has awarded a total of $2.16 billion so far to five companies with vaccine candidates at different stages of development.

To lead the effort, Trump tapped immunologist Moncef Slaoui, a pharmaceutical venture capitalist and former chairman of vaccines at the drug giant GlaxoSmithKline. The U.S. Armys most senior logistics and procurement specialist, Gen. Gustave Perna, will be the operations chief operating officer. Both expressed confidence in the operations success.

Pena called the project herculean. Slaoui, who has been criticized for holding a major stake in at least one of the vaccine makers that stands to benefit from Operation Warp Speed, told Trump we will do the best we can.

The time is short and the stakes are high. Just over four months after the coronavirus announced its presence inside the United States, President Trump is determined to send the country back to work.

With no effective treatment in sight, and no indication that the coronavirus would magically disappear, as Trump has frequently predicted, a vaccine will be the ultimate game changer in the pandemic, according Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nations leading expert on the outbreak.

Theres never a guarantee of success, Fauci said. But he added that he was cautiously optimistic that by winter, at least one of nearly a dozen promising vaccine candidates would have shown itself to be safe and effective in inducing immunity in humans.

Vaccine scientists are similarly cautious, especially of a testing schedule that will compress both the size and duration of safety and effectiveness trials and even overlap them in a bid to save time.

Its fine for politicians to say were going to have a vaccine next month, said Mayo Clinic immunologist Dr. Gregory Poland. But the literature is littered with false starts and unanticipated safety effects in vaccines.

Poland noted that a vaccines rarer side effects are often not recognized until its put into broad use. To ferret out an adverse outcome that only occurs in one person in 100,000, for instance, a company would need to test it in 384,250 people from broad backgrounds and with a variety of medical conditions, he said.

Such large trials are unlikely in the rush to field a vaccine, Poland said, and he fears the result could be a dangerous erosion of public trust. The yearly flu shot carries a risk of less than 1 in 1 million cases of the neurological complication Guillain-Barre syndrome, he said. And even with that low a risk, close to half of Americans refuse to get it.

You have a whole spectrum of people out there who wont be reassured by any amount of information, Poland said. If we dont pay strict attention to safety, this is going to backfire.

Money may help. Congress approved $8.3 billion in early March to fund federal agencies pandemic response. And scientists across the world have been scrambling to design vaccines to protect a population with no immunity to the deadly new pathogen.

Scientists in China, Kazakhstan, India, Russia, Germany, Sweden and the United States have brought 10 potential COVID-19 vaccines to the point where they are being evaluated in humans in some form. Another 115 are considered by the World Health Organization to be in the preclinical stage of development.

In some cases, these preclinical vaccine candidates are scarcely off the drawing board. In others, they are still being tweaked or tested in cells. Some are being tried in lab animals.

The prospective vaccines range widely in their design and novelty. There are those that challenge a persons immune system with a killed or attenuated virus, the traditional approach used by the polio vaccine and other immunizations. Others are products of genetic engineering and have never been tried in a vaccine before.

The vaccine candidates also vary in their ease of manufacture, the number of doses a patient needs to gain lasting immunity, and the way they are administered.

FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn has said his agency evaluated about 10 vaccine candidates in early studies. By late May, it had narrowed its focus to five candidates that will begin a rapid and sometimes overlapping progression through human studies of safety and effectiveness.

Meanwhile, the groundwork for large-scale production is already being laid. Trump has said that the U.S. military may aid in the manufacture, and companies with the capability to produce vaccines will be recruited to do so.

Given the pressing urgency of the administrations deadline, vaccine candidates that can be produced fastest, transported most easily and administered to patients most efficiently will likely win the most and earliest support, experts said.

The redundancy built into Operation Warp Speed may also prove a vital safeguard against failure.

If the coronavirus shows signs that it is mutating in ways that could make one vaccine candidate ineffective, the scientific judges could swiftly shift their preferences toward a competitor that can be adapted more readily to changes in the virus. If rare but untoward effects show up with broader use, back-up vaccines could be brought on line. Some vaccines will be found to work better or worse in specific populations, and can be used accordingly.

The result will be an evolving panoply of vaccine choices, not only because some will be ready earlier than others, but because some will be more effective than others in certain populations.

There will be of necessity multiple types of vaccines, Poland said.

Go here to see the original:
Can Operation Warp Speed deliver a COVID-19 vaccine by the end of the year? - The Daily World

Help us keep OnCuba alive here

Perhaps it is difficult to find a moment in the history of humanity in which, in such a short time, such an enormous volume of information (and disinformation) has been generated about a problem that affects the entire human species, as what has happened with the COVID-19 pandemic. Nor has humanity faced such an uncertain near future.

In addition to the global health emergency, which has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and more than 2 million infected people worldwide, this pandemic has put on the political table the unsustainability of the capitalist system worldwide, the paradigm of unlimited growth and the culture of growing consumer.

On Earth Day Coronavirus, a pollution hiccup?

Suddenly, the reality that we live on a limited planet, with increasingly scarce resources, and that in the biosphere all existence is interconnected, has unquestionably emerged. The zoonotic nature of the COVID-19 itself tells us of the direct transmission of the virus to humans, most likely due to the contact or consumption of wild species and even due to the natural boundaries being displaced and the loss of biodiversity. The fact that it expands globally also alerts us to the profound environmental changes caused by human action and its techno-industrial culture developed on the basis of fossil energy. We have to think about what can happen when, as a result of climate change, the thaws continue and the paleo viruses frozen thousands of years ago are released, in a period too fast for existing species, and especially humans, to adapt to that change. If we add to the above the unsustainability of production systems and value chains (think of stabled livestock, large extensions of monocultures, the application to these systems of agrochemicals, hormones, antivirals and genetic manipulation), we will have an approximate picture of the world that will emerge after the pandemic

This will be a challenge not only for science, which will have to rethink a series of paradigms, but also for world politics that has taken too long to have global agreements to slow down or minimize these processes; hence, one of the elements that should emerge from this experience at the global level is a more direct relationship between science and political decision-making at the country level.

After this pandemic, there will be no new normal, another world will have to be built and that construction will be carried out by all, with greater solidarity and conscious citizen participation, or it will be exercised through increasingly more authoritarian mechanisms of power; we can already see these trends in some governments.

The world as we have known it was structured from obtaining cheap fossil energy, which allowed a techno-industrial culture to develop in the last 200 years that led to the emergence of large human concentrations in megacities. The United Nations has predicted that the urban population will increase to 6.7 billion; that is, 68% of humanity by 2050. In that decade, if the current rhythm continues, there will be 43 megacities with more than 10 million inhabitants each, really something unsustainable for the planet. Current and future generations will be forced to rethink their lifestyles or be willing to live in a dystopian world of isolation, in which relationships must be mediated by technology.

The advances in technoscience in the last 20 years already present us with a new ethics, in which each human being is aware of their limits of all kinds.

Genetic engineering, with all its potential, implies the application of the precautionary principle for the introduction of each technological advance. We are still unaware of the many effects of new technologies on our health and the global environment, yet we continue to use them too frequently.

Over the past few months we have often seen on social media claims about the short-term recovery of natural spaces and wildlife activity in urban areas, dolphins swimming placidly in Venices canals, goats visiting Scottish historical sites, wild boars rummaging through the garbage in Paris and Barcelona. We have been glad that our brothers of other species recover their ancestral spaces even when it was our presence that expelled them; but this is all a fallacy. The processes of environmental deterioration at the planetary level continue, and their resilience, if they can start being reversed, will take years, but we have to start. Just think about these figures: in 2018, the burning of fossil fuels pumped 37.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If we add to this the net carbon emissions caused by soil oxidation and the most vigorous forest fires, we can see why atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide reached an all-time high of 415 parts per million in early 2019.

Cubas challenges

Cuba has a different but contradictory panorama. A poor country, blocked for 60 years by the worlds greatest power and with a frankly deteriorating open economy (it is estimated that its GDP will decrease between 4 and 7% in 2020), with a large debt, without external financing, with a high rate of illiquidity, with a country risk like never before, perhaps it is the deepest point of the systemic crisis of its economy. This really places it in a very critical situation, above all due to the enormous supply crisis that threatens to become a food crisis as acute as that of the early 1990s. From the economic point of view, the only alternative is unblocking the mechanisms and to rapidly start applying the agreements contained in the Guidelines discussed massively 10 years ago and which inexplicably have not been applied.

I think that all Cubans could agree on the urgency of doing away with obstacles to agricultural production, the inefficiency of this sector and the dreadful methods of administration and management, which contrast with the statistics that show that most of the national food production is generated by small producers, then the assessment still has blank questions. Advancing towards an agriculture with low energy inputs, sustainable management of the soil and crops, rational use of water, that is, organic agriculture will benefit everyone, there are examples and very successful at that.

Cuba has potentialities that must be taken into account from an environmental point of view and that have been gradually implemented. Its energy dependence constitutes an Achilles heel for its economy and attempts are being made, with a very successful intensive policy, to decrease it with an accelerated increase in clean energy; the Cuban aquifer stock is limited, but the country has a very intelligent and well-structured water policy.

The development of the Cuban health policy with the pandemic has been successful so far and there is no indication that wont continue like this; the Cuban experience in the detection and control of epidemics has made it possible to establish mechanisms of local control and primary care that other countries have not been able to implement, just remember that Cuban doctors have participated in the control and treatment of epidemics such as Ebola in Africa and cholera in Haiti, in addition to the epidemics that for decades have been introduced in Cuba by foreign aggressions (swine fever, dengue, etc.). It is possible to think, unlike other countries, that the island will emerge from the pandemic in a relatively short period of time and with minimal impact on its population. For this reason, the greatest complexity will not be precisely the epidemic, but rather the food supply, and in this direction all the nations efforts must be applied; I say the nation, and not only the state. For its part, the government must open the floodgates to diverse productive forces, the effort is everyones.

On June 2, in commemoration of World Environment Day, the director general of the Environment Agency of the Cuban Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (CITMA) expressed in a television appearance in Holgun a principle that will have to be present in the next designs of Cuban domestic policies, the interconnection of the natural world with society, or what is the same as the eco-social relationship of all the elements that make up and determine our environment. The relationship of science and politics must recognize that the Cuban territory is limited and all relationship we establish on it has a finite character and has a load capacity that cannot be exceeded. The celebration of June 5 this year is curious, because as always, it is a date in which the environmental work carried out for twelve months by each province and municipality is recognized, but now, in 2020 it will have to be done almost virtually due to the epidemic.

Thinking of Pinar del Ro, a province that this year was the best in its environmental work (the parameters established for the evaluation cover all the activities in the province of the different sectors that tend towards environmental sustainability), brings to mind the need to transfer the financing dedicated to the expansion of tourism to the reactivation and development of agriculture. Tourism is recognized in the world as the smokeless industry, but it is still an industry, it requires the import of all kinds of inputs, as well as being an eminently extractive activity. Today Cuba has a capacity per rooms that is far from the market demand for the island, the existing statistics do not exceed more than 30% of linear occupancy in the various destinations of the archipelago. If we add to this the globalized nature of tourism (it arises precisely with the development of capitalism in its last phase) and the physical interconnections that are established with visitors, even immunologically, we approach a portrait of an activity that is very profitable but that creates links of dependency on a specific and very fragile world market.

According to the activitys development plans in the near future, if the developmentalist vision continues to be applied in the tourism sector, Pinar del Ro will have a huge megaproject called Punta Colorada, which will cost billions of dollars and will have an impact, undoubtedly, on the marine-coastal ecosystems of the northwest of the province and in the Guanahacabibes and Viales biosphere reserves.

The COVID-19 epidemic in the world has put the neoliberal capitalist system in check. It will remain to be seen if it is able to resist this onslaught.

For Cuba it means the need and the urgency to consolidate what exists and works well and transform the inefficient, because for Cuba once again the possibility of creating an eco-socialist alternative with citizen participation is opening.

Help us keep OnCuba alive here

Original post:
The pandemic, the environment and Cuba - OnCubaNews

The UK grains sector faces enormous change after almost five decades operating under the European Unions Common Agricultural Policy. It also faces enormous potential disruption following the UK exit from the EU on Jan. 31, unless a new trade deal with the EU can be made by the end of the year. At the same time, the sector is coping with the problems caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, with supply chains disrupted and new challenges from the need to feed a population in lockdown.

The International Grains Council (IGC) projects the UKs 2020-21 grains production at a total of 19.7 million tonnes, down from 25.7 million the year before. The countrys wheat production is put at 10 million tonnes, down from 16.3 million in 2019-20. Barley production is forecast to rise to 8.4 million tonnes, up from 8.2 million.

The UKs rapeseed crop is forecast at 1.3 million tonnes in 2020-21, compared with 1.8 million in 2019-20.

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) on Feb. 27 published a forecast putting 2019-20 wheat imports at 1.050 million tonnes, down 808,000 on the year before because of greater supply.

It is worth noting that the fall in imported demand is expected to be driven by the animal feed and bioethanol sectors, the AHDB commented. Imported wheat usage by flour millers is expected to be marginally higher year on year.

The AHDB forecast barley imports at 52,000 tonnes, down 18,000 on larger domestic supply. Maize imports in 2019-20 are put at 2.3 million tonnes. While the pace of maize imports is expected to slow somewhat over the next few months, imports may begin to increase again at the end of this season and into the 2020-21 season, due to its relative price compared with domestic grains.

Trade sources put likely imports of wheat at 2.6 million tonnes in 2020-21, with barley imports at 60,000 tonnes. Imports of rapeseed are forecast at 600,000 tonnes.

According to the National Association of British and Irish Millers (nabim), there are 32 companies, with a total of 51 milling sites in the countrys flour milling sector. Thirty-one are members of nabim, with 50 sites between them accounting for 99% of UK flour production. The association puts the industrys annual consumption of wheat to produce flour at 5 million tonnes, with some 1.3 million to 1.5 million tonnes used by starch and bioethanol producers.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown that has accompanied it has forced the industry to change. Following representations from nabim, the government decided to relax working time rules to help ensure deliveries. It also recognized food industry workers as key, giving them access to childcare and education support, the association said in an April 3 statement. British schools are closed but remain open to care for children of key workers.

An early warning system also has been set up by nabim to give notice of problems before they become critical.

The grain supply and delivery sector, including nabim members, has agreed small changes in working practice that will help the flow of goods and accompanying documentation while respecting social distancing and the difficulty of distributing documentation while so many administrative staff are working from home, nabim said. The government has allowed extra time for some tests to be undertaken and, wherever possible, auditing is being conducted remotely.

One feature of the lockdown has been increased demand from consumers for bagged flour for home baking. A website has been set up by nabim to let consumers know where they can buy the size of bags normally only sold to catering outlets, which are now closed.

The UK left the EU on Jan.31. The country is currently in a transition phase, in which trade continues under the same terms as before, while a future relationship between the two is negotiated. The advent of the COVID-19 crisis means that the transition period, due to last until the end of 2020, is widely expected to be extended, although the British government, which would have to ask for an extension, is still, at the time of writing, insisting that it will stick to the planned timetable.

One aspect of the future that is causing particular concern for the milling industry is the arrangements for trade between the islands of Britain and Ireland. Although the northern part of Ireland is part of the UK, under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which brought piece to Northern Ireland after many years of turmoil, there must be no hard border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland on the island of Ireland. That means that a customs barrier is planned, within the UK. The government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson is pretending that the problem does not exist, and no checks will be necessary, ignoring an explicit reference in the UKs Withdrawal Agreement with the EU. The high level of integration between the food sectors in the two countries, particularly in milling, means controls, with a potential need for sanitary and phytosanitary checks, could be highly onerous.

Leaving the EU takes British agriculture out of the EUs Common Agricultural Policy, with its system of direct payments to support farming. Instead, in a bill introduced to parliament on Jan. 16, the government plans to create a system under which farmers are rewarded for providing public goods such as improved air and water quality, higher animal welfare standards, improved access to the countryside or measures to reduce flooding.

In England, direct payments will be phased out over a seven-year period, starting in 2021.

BIOFUELS and GMOs

The UK is currently using E5 gasoline, but the government has announced a move to E10, beginning in 2021. The country has two large ethanol plants, Ensus and Vivergo, both in the northeast. Only Ensus is currently operating, using wheat and maize.

In an April 9 report, the USDA attach in London explained how the British government appears to want to expand the use of GM crops in the country, but the continuing close trading relationship between the UK and the remaining EU countries makes a big change unlikely.

The report cites the July 2019 inaugural speech of Prime Minister Johnson who said: Lets liberate the UKs extraordinary bioscience sector from anti-genetic modification rules.

Under any scenario, the UKs departure from the EU will not change policy or trade in genetically engineered plants or animals in the short to medium term, the attach commented. The EU is the UKs largest trading partner and the UK will retain much EU food law for many years to come.

For most of the British public, genetic engineering in food is irrelevant. There are very few mainstream grocery products that contain GE as an outright ingredient and, with this invisibility, UK consumers consider the GM problem to have gone away.

Follow our breaking news coverage of the coronavirus/COVID-19 situation.

Continue reading here:
Focus on the United Kingdom | 2020-06-01 - World Grain

Mish brings extensive global executive leadership experience in the development, manufacturing and commercialization of active pharmaceutical ingredients, including cannabinoids, and related consumer products

Franzino brings extensive strategic financial leadership experience in tobacco and alcoholic beverage industries

WILLIAMSVILLE, N.Y., June 03, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- 22nd Century Group, Inc. (NYSE American: XXII) (22nd Century or the Company), a leading plant biotechnology company primarily focused on reduced nicotine tobacco and also hemp/cannabis plant genetics research and development, announced today that James A. Mish has been appointed Chief Executive Officer, effective June 22, 2020. The Company also announced that John Franzino has been appointed Chief Financial Officer, effective immediately.

Mish brings extensive global executive leadership experience in science-driven organizations with a recent focus on the development, manufacturing and commercialization of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), including cannabinoids, and related consumer products. He has an outstanding track record of delivering profitable growth at both privately held and publicly traded companies. Prior to joining 22nd Century, Mish served as Chief Executive Officer of Noramco, a global leader in the production of controlled substances for the pharmaceutical industry, and Purisys, a synthetic cannabinoid API, ingredients and solutions provider to pharmaceutical and consumer products companies. Mish led the creation and spinoff of Purisys from Noramco during his tenure.

We are very pleased to welcome Jim as our new Chief Executive Officer at this critical juncture in our Companys history, said Nora B. Sullivan, Chairperson of the Board of Directors of 22nd Century. Jims extensive and proven executive leadership capabilities, substantial science-based industry background and deep experience with pharmaceutical and consumer products make him an outstanding candidate to successfully execute on the Companys initiatives and strategic plan going forward. We are confident that under Jims demonstrated leadership capabilities, 22nd Century will continue to build its portfolio of assets and create value for the benefit of our shareholders. We expect that with Jims direction and guidance, 22nd Century will achieve meaningful growth as the Company looks towards the anticipated authorization of our MRTP application for our proprietary, reduced nicotine cigarettes, and as we work to develop new hemp/cannabis intellectual property and proprietary plants with valuable cannabinoid profiles.

I am delighted to join 22nd Century Group at this pivotal time in the Companys growth as it looks to deliver on its primary mission to reduce smoking-related harm and also bring new and valuable hemp-derived cannabinoid products to market, said Mish. 22nd Century is an innovative, plant-based biotech company with an extensive and growing intellectual property portfolio that is poised to disrupt both the tobacco and hemp/cannabis industries. I look forward to partnering with 22nd Centurys Board and management team to drive the business forward to deliver value to our customers and shareholders.

Sullivan continued, We are also pleased to welcome John Franzino into the role of Chief Financial Officer. John is an accomplished strategic financial executive with a track record of successful leadership in high-growth, highly regulated, consumer-facing industries including tobacco and alcoholic beverages. We are excited to have a CFO of his caliber on the executive management team to help lead the Company through the next chapter of its growth.

Prior to joining 22nd Century Group, Franzino served as Chief Financial Officer of the West Point Association of Graduates. Additionally, he has extensive strategic financial leadership experience serving as Vice President of Finance and Controller at Bard College; as Chief Financial Officer of Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, a subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc.; and as Chief Financial Officer of Labatt USA. Franzino is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and holds a Master of Business Administration degree from Farleigh Dickinson University.

Also, on behalf of the Companys Board of Directors, I would like to thank Andrea Jentsch, who has resigned as Chief Financial Officer due to personal reasons, for her service and significant contributions to the Company. Despite the challenges presented by COVID-19, Andrea has built a very strong team critical to advancing the Companys accounting, finance, information technology and human resources activities, and she has made a number of significant improvements to the Companys processes, internal reporting and IT resources that will be important enablers for the commercialization of the Companys proprietary plants and products. We wish Andrea the best in her future endeavors, Sullivan added.

About 22nd Century Group, Inc.22nd Century Group, Inc. (NYSE American: XXII) is a leading plant biotechnology company focused on technologies that alter the level of nicotine in tobacco plants and the level of cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering, gene-editing and modern plant breeding. The Companys primary mission in tobacco is to reduce the harm caused by smoking by bringing its proprietary reduced nicotine content tobacco cigarettes containing 95% less nicotine than conventional cigarettes to adult smokers in the U.S. and international markets. The Companys primary mission in hemp/cannabis is to develop proprietary hemp/cannabis plants with valuable cannabinoid profiles and agronomic traits and to commercialize those plants through a synergistic portfolio of strategic partnerships in the hemp/cannabis industry.

Learn more atxxiicentury.com, on Twitter@_xxiicenturyand onLinkedIn.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward Looking StatementsThis press release contains forward-looking statements concerning our business, operations and financial performance and condition as well as our plans, objectives and expectations for our business operations and financial performance and condition that are subject to risks and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this press release are forward-looking statements. You can identify these statements by words such as aim, anticipate, assume, believe, could, due, estimate, expect, goal, intend, may, objective, plan, potential, positioned, predict, should, target, will, would and other similar expressions that are predictions of or indicate future events and future trends. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections about our business and the industry in which we operate and our management's beliefs and assumptions. These statements are not guarantees of future performance or development and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that are in some cases beyond our control. All forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties and others that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in our forward-looking statements. Please refer to the Risk Factors in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 11, 2020 and in our subsequently filed Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as otherwise required by law.

Contacts:Mei Kuo22nd Century Group, Inc.(716) 300-1221mkuo@xxiicentury.com

Cory ZiskindICR(646) 277-1232cory.ziskind@icrinc.com

See the article here:
22nd Century Group Appoints James A. Mish as Chief Executive Officer and John Franzino as Chief Financial Officer - GlobeNewswire