header logo image


Page 751«..1020..750751752753..760770..»

Is Menlo Therapeutics Inc (MNLO) Stock a Good Buy in Biotechnology – InvestorsObserver

January 18th, 2020 8:45 pm

Menlo Therapeutics Inc (MNLO) is near the top in its industry group according to InvestorsObserver. MNLO gets an overall rating of 58. That means it scores higher than 58 percent of stocks. Menlo Therapeutics Inc gets a 72 rank in the Biotechnology industry. Biotechnology is number 60 out of 148 industries.

Click Here to get the full Stock Score Report on Menlo Therapeutics Inc (MNLO) Stock.

Finding the best stocks can be tricky. It isnt easy to compare companies across industries. Even companies that have relatively similar businesses can be tricky to compare sometimes. InvestorsObservers tools allow a top-down approach that lets you pick a metric, find the top sector and industry and then find the top stocks in that sector.

These scores are not only easy to understand, but it is easy to compare stocks to each other. You can find the best stock in an industry, or look for the sector that has the highest average score. The overall score is a combination of technical and fundamental factors that serves as a good starting point when analyzing a stock. Traders and investors with different goals may have different goals and will want to consider other factors than just the headline number before making any investment decisions.

Menlo Therapeutics Inc (MNLO) stock is trading at $6.10 as of 12:18 PM on Tuesday, Jan 14, a rise of $0.50, or 8.93% from the previous closing price of $5.60. The stock has traded between $5.50 and $6.44 so far today. Volume today is light. So far 132,809 shares have traded compared to average volume of 181,677 shares.

To see InvestorsObserver's Sentiment Score for Menlo Therapeutics Inc click here.

Excerpt from:
Is Menlo Therapeutics Inc (MNLO) Stock a Good Buy in Biotechnology - InvestorsObserver

Read More...

Astellas and Adaptimmune team up in CAR-T development – European Biotechnology

January 18th, 2020 8:45 pm

Adaptimmune Therapeutics plc and Japanese Astellas Pharma, Inc. have signed a discovery partnership to develop off-the-shelf allogeneic T cell-based cancer therapies from stem cells.

At J.P. Morgan conference, the British company announced that Astellas has agreed to co-develop and co-commercialize stem-cell derived allogeneic CAR-T and TCR T-cell therapies against up to three targets. In contrast to current autologous T cell therapies, allogenic T cell therapies might be manufactured in a central facility reducing production cost significantly compared to autologous cell production and logistics.

Under the agreement, Adaptimmune will identify and validate new targets for generating target-specific T-cell receptors (TCRs), chimeric antigen receptors (CARs), and HLA-independent TCRs that recognize surface epitopes independently from the HLA profile of the tumour cell. Astellas subsidiary Universal Cells, Inc will provide its Universal Donor Cell and Gene Editing Platform, which makes use of a stem cell-tropic rAAV vector for engineering humanpluripotent stem cells to contain deletions, insertions, or point mutations at any genomic position.

Adaptimmune has been collaborating with Universal Cells since 2015 on development of gene-edited induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) lines that generate proprietary T-cell products without the use of feeder layers.

Under the agreement, Astellas will fund research up until completion of a Phase I trial for each candidate with US$7.5m per year. Subsequently, Astellas and Adaptimmune may opt for co-development and co-commercialization of the candidate, or independent development through a milestone and royalty bearing licence. Under the agreement, Astellas will also have the right to select two targets and develop allogeneic cell therapy candidates on its own.

In case of Astellas would develop the candidates on its own, Adaptimmune may receive up to$897.5m in payments. If Adaptimmune would do so, Astellas may receive up to US$552.5m. If the companies opt for co-commercialisation any T-cell therapy, costs and profits will be shared equally.

Read the original:
Astellas and Adaptimmune team up in CAR-T development - European Biotechnology

Read More...

Chromatography in Biotechnology Market Growth 2020-2026 with Competitive Landscape and Top Regions – Weekly Wall

January 18th, 2020 8:45 pm

Global Chromatography in Biotechnology market 2020 in depth research by industry competitive landscape, size, growth rate, strategy, trends and forecast 2026.

The global Chromatography in Biotechnology market has been garnering remarkable momentum in the recent years. The steadily escalating demand due to improving purchasing power is projected to bode well for the global market. QY Researchs latest publication, titled global Chromatography in Biotechnology market, offers an insightful take on the drivers and restraints present in the market. It assesses the historical data pertaining to the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market and compares it to the current market trends to give the readers a detailed analysis of the trajectory of the market. A team subject-matter experts have provided the readers a qualitative and quantitative data about the market and the various elements associated with it.

Get the Sample of this Report@https://www.qyresearch.com/sample-form/form/1456217/global-chromatography-in-biotechnology-market

The research report is broken down into chapters, which are introduced by the executive summary. Its the introductory part of the chapter, which includes details about global market figures, both historical and estimates. The executive summary also provides a brief about the segments and the reasons for the progress or decline during the forecast period. The insightful research report on the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market includes Porters five forces analysis and SWOT analysis to understand the factors impacting consumer and supplier behavior.

Market Segments Covered:

The following players are covered in this report:Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc.Danaher Corp.MilliporeSigmaQiagenScion InstrumentsThermo Fisher Scientific Inc.PerkinelmerGe Healthcare Life SciencesAntec ScientificAsynt Ltd.Chromatography in Biotechnology Breakdown Data by TypeGas ChromatographyThin Layer ChromatographySupercritical Fluid ChromatographyLiquid ChromatographyHPLC/UHPLCAffinity ChromatographyChromatography in Biotechnology Breakdown Data by ApplicationCancer Research CentersCancer HospitalPharmaceuticalPathological SectorsCompanies and Academic InstitutionsOthers

Regions Covered in the Global Chromatography in Biotechnology Market:

The Middle East and Africa (GCC Countries and Egypt) North America (the United States, Mexico, and Canada) South America (Brazil etc.) Europe (Turkey, Germany, Russia UK, Italy, France, etc.) Asia-Pacific (Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Japan, Philippines, Korea, Thailand, India, Indonesia, and Australia)

Highlights of the Report Accurate market size and CAGR forecasts for the period 2019-2025 Identification and in-depth assessment of growth opportunities in key segments and regions Detailed company profiling of top players of the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market Exhaustive research on innovation and other trends of the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market Reliable industry value chain and supply chain analysis Comprehensive analysis of important growth drivers, restraints, challenges, and growth prospects

The scope of the Report:

The report segments the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market on the basis of application, type, service, technology, and region. Each chapter under this segmentation allows readers to grasp the nitty-gritties of the market. A magnified look at the segment-based analysis is aimed at giving the readers a closer look at the opportunities and threats in the market. It also address political scenarios that are expected to impact the market in both small and big ways.The report on the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market examines changing regulatory scenario to make accurate projections about potential investments. It also evaluates the risk for new entrants and the intensity of the competitive rivalry.

Get Customized Report in your Inbox within 24 hours @https://www.qyresearch.com/customize-request/form/1456217/global-chromatography-in-biotechnology-market

Strategic Points Covered in TOC:

Chapter 1: Introduction, market driving force product scope, market risk, market overview, and market opportunities of the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market

Chapter 2: Evaluating the leading manufacturers of the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market which consists of its revenue, sales, and price of the products

Chapter 3: Displaying the competitive nature among key manufacturers, with market share, revenue, and sales

Chapter 4: Presenting global Chromatography in Biotechnology market by regions, market share and with revenue and sales for the projected period

Chapter 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 : To evaluate the market by segments, by countries and by manufacturers with revenue share and sales by key countries in these various regions

About Us:QYResearch always pursuits high product quality with the belief that quality is the soul of business. Through years of effort and supports from huge number of customer supports, QYResearch consulting group has accumulated creative design methods on many high-quality markets investigation and research team with rich experience. Today, QYResearch has become the brand of quality assurance in consulting industry.

View original post here:
Chromatography in Biotechnology Market Growth 2020-2026 with Competitive Landscape and Top Regions - Weekly Wall

Read More...

Growing tiny brains for research: Should we ‘frantically panic’ that something might go awry? – Genetic Literacy Project

January 18th, 2020 8:44 pm

The cutting-edge method of growing clusters of cells that organize themselves into mini versions of human brains in the lab is gathering more and more attention. These brain organoids, made from stem cells, offer unparalleled insights into the human brain, which is notoriously difficult to study.

But some researchersare worriedthat a form of consciousness might arise in such mini-brains, which are sometimes transplanted into animals. They could at least be sentient to the extent of experiencing pain and suffering from being trapped. If this is true and before we consider how likely it is it is absolutely clear in my mind that we must exert a supreme level of caution when considering this issue.

Brain organoids are currently very simple compared to human brains and cant be conscious in the same way. Due to a lack of blood supply, they do not reach sizes larger than around five or six millimetres. That said, they have been found toproduce brain wavesthat are similar to those in premature babies. A study has showed they can also grow neural networksthat respond to light.

There are also signs that such organoids canlink up with other organsand receptors in animals. That means that they not only have a prospect of becoming sentient, they also have the potential to communicate with the external world, by collecting sensory information. Perhaps they can one day actually respond through sound devices or digital output.

As a cognitive neuroscientist, I am happy to conceive that an organoid maintained alive for a long time, with a constant supply of life-essential nutrients, could eventually become sentient and maybe even fully conscious.

This isnt the first time biological science has thrown up ethical questions. Gender reassignment shocked many in the past, but, whatever your beliefs and moral convictions, sex change narrowly concerns the individual undergoing the procedure, with limited or no biological impact on their entourage and descendants.

Genetic manipulation of embryos, in contrast, raised alert levels to hot red, given the very high likelihood of genetic modifications being heritable and potentially changing the genetic make up of the population down the line. This is why successful operations of this kind conducted by Chinese scientist He Jiankui raised very strong objectionsworldwide.

But creating mini brains inside animals, or even worse, within an artificial biological environment, should send us all frantically panicking. In my opinion, the ethical implications go well beyond determining whether we may be creating a suffering individual. If we are creating a brain however small we are creating a system with a capacity to process information and, down the line, given enough time and input, potentially the ability to think.

Some form of consciousness is ubiquitous in the animal world, and we, as humans, are obviously on top of the scale of complexity. While we dont know exactly what consciousness is, we still worry that human-designed AI maydevelop some form of it. But thoughtand emotions are likely to be emergent properties of our neurons organized into networks through development, and it is much more likely it could arise in an organoid than in a robot. This may be a primitive form of consciousness or even a full blown version of it, provided it receives input from the external world and finds ways to interact with it.

In theory, mini-brains could be grown forever in a laboratory whether it is legal or not increasing in complexity and power for as long as their life-support system can provide them with oxygen and vital nutrients. This is the case for thecancer cells of a woman called Henrietta Lacks, which are alive more than 60 years after her death and multiplying today in hundreds of thousands of labs throughout the world.

But if brains are cultivated in the laboratory in such conditions, without time limit, could they ever develop a form of consciousness that surpasses human capacity? As I see it, why not?

And if they did, would we be able to tell? What if such a new form of mind decided to keep us, humans, in the dark about their existence be it only to secure enough time to take control of their life-support system and ensure that they are safe?

When I was an adolescent, I often had scary dreams of the world being taken over by a giant computer network. I still have that worry today, and it has partly become true. But the scare of a biological super-brain taking over is now much greater in my mind. Keep in mind that such new organism would not have to worry about their body becoming old and dying, because they would not have a body.

This may sound like the first lines of a bad science fiction plot, but I dont see reasons to dismiss these ideas as forever unrealistic.

The point is that we have to remain vigilant, especially given that this could all happen without us noticing. You just have to consider how difficult it is to assess whether someone is lying when testifying in court to realize that we will not have an easy task trying to work out the hidden thoughts of a lab grown mini-brain.

Slowing the research down by controlling organoid size and life span, or widely agreeing a moratorium before we reach a point of no return, would make good sense. But unfortunately, the growing ubiquity of biological labs and equipment will make enforcement incredibly difficult as weve seen withgenetic embryo editing.

It would be an understatement to say that I share the worries of some of my colleagues working in the field of cellular medicine. The toughest question that we can ask regarding these mesmerizing possibilities, and which also applies to genetic manipulations of embryos, is: can we even stop this?

Guillaume Thierry is a professor of cognitive neuroscience at Bangor University

A version of this article was originally published on the Conversations website as Lab-grown mini brains: we cant dismiss the possibility that they could one day outsmart us and has been republished here with permission.

Read more:
Growing tiny brains for research: Should we 'frantically panic' that something might go awry? - Genetic Literacy Project

Read More...

Mighty Mice In Space May Help Disabled People On Earth : Shots – Health News – NPR

January 18th, 2020 8:43 pm

The SpaceX Dragon cargo spacecraft that ferried musclebound mice to the International Space Station and back can be seen at the top of this picture taken from the station on Dec. 20, 2019. NASA hide caption

The SpaceX Dragon cargo spacecraft that ferried musclebound mice to the International Space Station and back can be seen at the top of this picture taken from the station on Dec. 20, 2019.

In early December at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, two anxious scientists were about to send 20 years of research into orbit.

"I feel like our heart and soul is going up in that thing," Dr. Emily Germain-Lee told her husband, Dr. Se-Jin Lee, as they waited arm-in-arm for a SpaceX rocket to launch.

A few seconds later the spacecraft took off, transporting some very unusual mice to the International Space Station, where they would spend more than a month in near zero gravity.

Ordinarily, that would cause the animals' bones to weaken and their muscles to atrophy. But Lee and Germain-Lee, a power couple in the research world, were hoping that wouldn't happen with these mice.

"It was worth waiting 20 years for," Lee said as the Falcon 9 rocket headed toward space. "And someday it may really help people," Germain-Lee added.

The couple hope that what they learn from these mice will lead to new treatments for millions of people with conditions that weaken muscles and bones. Among those who might eventually benefit: children with muscular dystrophy or brittle bone disease, cancer patients with muscle wasting, bedridden patients recovering from hip fractures, older people whose bones and muscles have become dangerously weak, and astronauts on long space voyages.

Dr. Emily Germain-Lee and Dr. Se-Jin Lee waited eagerly at Kennedy Space Center for a SpaceX rocket to launch their experimental mice into space in December. Courtesy of Jennifer Read hide caption

Dr. Emily Germain-Lee and Dr. Se-Jin Lee waited eagerly at Kennedy Space Center for a SpaceX rocket to launch their experimental mice into space in December.

For Lee and Germain-Lee, both professors at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, the launch represented a high point in a partnership that began in the late 1970s.

"We met when I was 18 and we were biochem majors in college together," Germain-Lee said.

The Harvard undergraduates clicked. And in those early years, Emily had a teenager's big dreams about what she and Se-Jin might accomplish.

"Wouldn't that be amazing if one day we worked on some project together that had incredible meaning and helped people," she recalled thinking. "All that stuff."

The couple went to medical school together at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

She went on to become a pediatric endocrinologist who treated children with rare bone disorders. He added a Ph.D. to his M.D. and started a lab that studied muscle growth.

Along the way, they got married and had a son. And in the late 1990s, Se-Jin Lee got kind of famous for helping to create some bulked-up rodents known as "mighty mice."

The mouse on the right has been engineered to have four times the muscle mass of a normal lab mouse.

Lee showed me one when I visited his lab in 2006. It had been genetically engineered to have about four times the muscle mass of a normal mouse.

Lee had altered the animal's genes so it wouldn't produce a protein called myostatin. Ordinarily, myostatin limits the growth of muscles. Without it, you get the mouse version of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"If you open up the mouse and actually look at the muscles it is really unbelievable," he told me. "These animals are almost getting to the point where they don't really look like mice." Lee thought his discovery might help people with diseases that weaken muscles. So he began looking for a drug that could block myostatin and duplicate the effects of genetic engineering.

Meanwhile, as Germain-Lee treated more and more children with bone diseases, she noticed that weak bones could lead to weak muscles.

"My bone patients don't escape muscle loss because they have long periods of time where they can't move or their whole lifetime where they're wheelchair bound," she said.

And because she also sees patients with diseases like muscular dystrophy, she realized it could work the other way. "Any muscle disease leads to weakness and any weakness leads to bone fragility eventually," Germain-Lee said.

At home, the couple spent many evenings discussing muscle, bone, her patients and his work on myostatin.

"Probably most people would think we're really odd," Germain-Lee said. "But it's given great meaning to our life."

Over the years, they realized that what many patients really needed was a way to simultaneously strengthen muscle and bone. And remarkably, they eventually identified a drug with the potential to do that.

It's a substance that affects not only myostatin, but also a protein called activin, which is involved in the growth of both muscle and bone. And it would bring together the parallel lines of research each scientist had been following for decades.

Germain-Lee wanted to test the drug on mice in her lab that developed a version of osteogenesis imperfecta, also known as brittle bone disease. "I said, oh my gosh I really have to try this, and Se-Jin said sure," she said. "And those were the first set of experiments we did together."

The experiments, published in 2015, were successful. The mice developed both stronger bones and bigger muscles. And the results helped inspire Lee to revive an idea he'd been pursuing for two decades. It involved astronauts.

"Astronauts in space have lots of health things that they need to be thinking about," he said, "but certainly at the top of that list would be muscle loss and bone loss.

Without gravity, astronauts can lose up to 20 percent of their muscle mass in less than two weeks, according to research by NASA. And as muscles atrophy, bones begin to weaken too.

So starting in the late 1990s, Lee had approached NASA about funding an experiment to see whether his mighty mice maintained their muscles in space. But his efforts to interest the agency in the project "failed miserably," he said.

That changed after the couple had moved to Hartford, where, in addition to their faculty posts at the University of Connecticut, Germain Lee holds an appointment at Connecticut Children's Medical Center and Lee works at The Jackson Laboratory.

And it was through The Jackson Laboratory that Lee got a chance to send his mighty mice to the International Space Station.

In late 2018, the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space, which manages the International Space Station, contacted The Jackson Laboratory about potential science projects. And Lee's new employer suggested the mighty mice.

Lee and Germain-Lee quickly assembled an experiment that included not only the bulked up rodents, but normal mice that would receive the drug that (on earth) builds both muscle and bone.

The mice, which had gone into orbit in December, were brought back to earth in early January. And since then, Lee and Germain-Lee have been hard at work analyzing what happened to the animals' muscles and bones.

It will take months to know for sure whether any of the mice were able to defy the usual effects of weightlessness. Also scientists rarely discuss experiments before they're published.

But the couple says preliminary results look promising.

Read more here:
Mighty Mice In Space May Help Disabled People On Earth : Shots - Health News - NPR

Read More...

At the Crossroads of Art and Biotech, a Warning: Be Careful What You Wish For. – INDY Week

January 18th, 2020 8:43 pm

ARTS WORK IN THE AGE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY: SHAPING OUR GENETIC FUTURES

Through Sunday, March 15

The Gregg Museum of Art & Design, Raleigh

Where do we draw the lines dividing art from science, natural from unnatural, and boldness from hubris?

An exhibit at N.C. States Gregg Museum of Art & Design doesnt answer these questions. Instead, it offers head-spinning new ways to ask them at the nexus of art and biotechnology, sharpening our insight into the fields future and expanding our understanding of it into the past.

These hard-to-classify collaborations between artists and scientistsseethe with hot-button issues related to ethics, privacy, human nature, and more. But if they have one message in common, its to be careful what you wish for.

Arts Work in the Age of Biotechnology: Shaping Our Genetic Futures is the result of more than two years of planning led by Molly Renda, the exhibit program librarian at N.C. State University Libraries, and the universitys Genetic Engineering and Society Center. Guest-curated by Hannah Star Rogers, who studies the intersection of art and science, the main exhibit at the Gregg has annexes in Hill and Hunt libraries.

On a recent tour of the exhibit, Renda and Fred Gould, the co-director of the GESC, said that they wanted to bring artists into the welter of science-and-design innovation taking place at the university because their differing perspectives on fundamental human issues create balance, tension, and discovery.

In the course of this, Ive found that artists tend to be more dystopian and designers are more utopian, Renda says.

There are different ways of knowing things, Gould adds. Thats why Molly came up with the name: not artwork, but arts work. What is an artist supposed to do?

Some pieces take on the dangers of day-after-tomorrow DNA testing and engineering technology. Heather Dewey-Hagborg is best known for Probably Chelsea, a piece in which she collected DNA samples from Chelsea Manning and generated thirty-two possible portraits of the soldier and activist.

When we worry about biotechnology, we usually worry that our food is going to be dangerous. But sometimes you wish for something thats rare: What happens when biotechnology makes it available to you?

The Gregg is showing a similar piece in which Dewey-Hagborg harvested DNA from cigarette butts and gum she found on the street and created probablebut not definitereplicas of the litterers faces, which hang on the walls above the specimens. Dewey-Hagborg demonstrates not only the unnerving extent of whats currently possible with DNA testing, but also the limits, which create misidentification risks.

Other pieces probe how biotechnology might reshape life as we know it. In a film and a sculpture representing an ancient Greek rite for women, Charlotte Jarvis raises the possibility of creating female sperm, based on the idea that, because stem cells are undifferentiated, you could theoretically teach womens stem cells to develop into sperm.

Still other pieces pointedly poke holes in the boundary between science and art. Adam Zaretskys Errorarium (entitled "Bipolar Flowers")looks like a cross between an arcade cabinet and a terrarium. It houses a few genetically modified Arabidopsis specimens, which Gould calls the white mice of research plants. When you turn the knobs, it changes the sonic parameters of a synthesizer, notionally testing the effects of the sound on the mutant plants.

It doesnt really do anythingor does it? Zaretskys experiment with no hypothesis is a playful tweak on science with something a little dangerous in the background.

Joe Davis, a bio-art pioneer, touches on something similar in his piece, which consists of documentation of an experiment where mice roll dice to determine if luck can be bred. Renda says that Davis couldnt get permission to run the test (universities are wary of drawing attention for ridiculous-seeming experiments), so he did it as conceptual art at N.C. State, instead.

Its notable that two artists home in on luck, one of many human concepts that genetic engineering, which will allow us to take control of our bodies and environment in untested ways, will transform. In We Make Our Own Luck Here, Ciara Redmond has bred four-leaf clovers (without genetic modification), which ruins themtheyrelucks evidence, not its cause. This whimsical iteration of unconsidered consequences raises a serious question: What else are we not thinking of?

When we worry about biotechnology, we usually worry that our food is going to be dangerous, Gould says. But sometimes you wish for something thats rare: What happens when biotechnology makes it available to you?

The exhibit takes an expansive view of biotechnology. Maria McKinney uses semen-extraction straws to sculpt proteins from double-muscled breeding bulls, underscoring that weve been tampering with life since long before CRISPR. Biotech feels radically new, but its revealed as part of a centuries-long process.

Another part of the exhibit, which closed at the end of October but can still be experienced through virtual reality at the Gregg, was From Teosinte to Tomorrow, Rendas land-art project at the North Carolina Museum of Art. In what was essentially a walk back through agricultural history, a bed of teosinte, which is thought to be the ancestor of modern maize, waited at the center of a corn maze.

That teosinte was in some sense genetically enhanced by subsistence farmers in Mexico since the time of the Aztecs, Gould says. Now were doing it in the laboratory with the same genesso whats the difference? Arts work is to make us think and question.

Contact arts and culture editor Brian Howe at bhowe@indyweek.com

Support independent local journalism.Join the INDY Press Clubto help us keep fearless watchdog reporting and essential arts and culture coverage viable in the Triangle.

Original post:
At the Crossroads of Art and Biotech, a Warning: Be Careful What You Wish For. - INDY Week

Read More...

Cloning Scientist Sentenced to 12 Years in Prison – The Scientist

January 18th, 2020 8:43 pm

Although China Agricultural Universitys Li Ning denies embezzling millions of yuan in research funds, a Chinese court ruled last week (January 3) that he is guilty, levying a sentence of 12 years in prison and a fine of 3 million yuan, Naturereports. Lis former assistant, Zhang Lei, aided in the criminal activity, the court found. Zhang, who admitted to the charges, was sentenced to more than 5 years in prison and fined 200,000 yuan.

Between July 2008 and February 2012, Li, famous for his work in animal cloning and genetic modification, took 34.1 million yuan ($4.9 million) in grant money and invested it in companies that he and Zhang had set up to receive the funds, the court found. Li testified that he intended to use the money to support his labs research through a funding gap the resulted from the governments requirement to return unused grant money at the end of the year before applying for new grants in January.

Yuan Chenghui, Lis lawyer, tells the South China Morning Post that Li may appeal.

The conviction and sentencing come after a hearing in late December, five years after Li was arrested in the fall of 2014. In December 2018, more than a dozen members of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and the Chinese Academy of Sciences petitioned the president of the Supreme Peoples Court of China to rule on Lis case. They praised Lis research and appealed for clemency.

Several other researchers in the country also claimed that the requirement to return unused funds at the end of the year posed a cash-flow problem as they reapplied for new grants each year, and some took a similar tack as Li and Zhang by trying to squirrel some of the money away, according to the South China Morning Post. Indeed, Li and Zhang were not the only Chinese researchers arrested in 2014 for misusing research funds. This requirement of returning unused money has since been relaxed, Naturereports.

Wei Qi, a retired researcher with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, tells the South China Morning Post that the sentence was too severe for a researcher who had made major scientific contributionscontributions that Li claimed at trial had contributed tens of billions of yuan economic benefits to the nation. An anonymous scientist who also spoke with the newspaperlamented that [t]welve years is effectively a death penalty for his academic life.

Last month (December 30, the same day as Lis hearing), He Jiankui, who drew widespread criticism from the global scientific community after creating the worlds first gene-edited babies, received a three-year prison sentence and a 3 million yuan fine.

Jef Akst is managing editor ofThe Scientist. Email her atjakst@the-scientist.com.

See the original post here:
Cloning Scientist Sentenced to 12 Years in Prison - The Scientist

Read More...

Cuba’s revolutionary cancer vaccine builds bridges between the island and the United States – AL DIA News

January 18th, 2020 8:43 pm

Despite the fact that Donald Trump's government is determined to continue sanctioning Cuba - the charter flights from the U.S. to nine Cuban airports were suspended last week because of the country's support for Maduro's regime, according to statements by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo - the collaboration between the United States and the island continues, at least on scientific matters. And this should not surprise us, taking into account the great medical advances made by Cuban professionals in the treatment of various types of cancer.

This is what we'll be able to witness in "Cuba's Cancer Hope," a documentary by Llew Smith that will be released next April by PBS and that sheds light on CimaVax, a revolutionary treatment against lung cancer that prolongs the life of patients in very advanced stages and that the Center of Molecular Immunology (CIM) in Habana has taken more than twenty years to develop.

In fact, the results are so encouraging that the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in New York soon joined the project and will be the first U.S. institution to conduct a clinical trial of the drug produced on the island.

"The future of our country must necessarily be a future of men of science and thought, because that is precisely what we are sowing most," Fidel Castro, 1960.

Llew Smith himself was one of the volunteers to test this pioneering treatment, according to Prensa Latina, and his results, which were made known two years ago, will be part of the documentary.

"The wonderful thing about working with our Cuban colleagues is that they really believe, in their heart of hearts, that medical care is a human right," said Dr. Kevin Lee, director of the Roswell Park immunology department, in a dialogue with the press, praising the medical advances being made in Cuba and its "great potential to treat and prevent cancer of various kinds."

Cuba a pioneer in science

Biotechnology is one of the most developed branches of Cuban science, which began to be promoted in 1980, when Fidel Castro's government created a group dedicated to the production of interphenon, a possible cancer drug, in addition to promoting scientific parks.

This is a commitment to progress that the current president of Cuba, Miguel Daz-Canel Bermdez, acknowledged to Castro on the occasion of the documentary, and which the late revolutionary leader already advocated in a speech made in 1960when he said:

"The future of our country must necessarily be a future of men of science and thoughtbecause that is precisely what we are sowing most."

But the CimaVax is not the only discovery of Cuban scientists, whose achievements can be traced in the history of the island:

In 1881, the scientist Carlos Juan Finlay was the discoverer of the agent that transmits yellow fever, the Aedes aegypti mosquito, which made it possible to clean up the areas invaded by this infectious agent and which, in the end, has prevented millions of deaths.

"The wonderful thing about working with our Cuban colleagues is that they truly believe, deep in their hearts, that medical care is a human right," Dr. Kevin Lee from Roswell Park.

Also at Cuba's Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB), Heberprot-P was developed, a unique drug that prevents the amputation of diabetic feet by healing ulcers.

In addition, Cuba was recognized by WHO as the first country in the world to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

The documentary "Cuba's Cancer Hope" also includes other therapies being experimented with on the island, specifically for the treatment of different types of cancer, which once again confirms thatscientific advances are breaking down the walls that apparently separate us.

See the original post:
Cuba's revolutionary cancer vaccine builds bridges between the island and the United States - AL DIA News

Read More...

Red Biotechnology Market Size, Status and Recent Advancements, Forecast 2020 to 2025 – MENAFN.COM

January 18th, 2020 8:43 pm

(MENAFN - Ameliorate Solutions)

The report presents an in-depth assessment of the Global Red Biotechnology including enabling technologies, key trends, market drivers, challenges, standardization, regulatory landscape, deployment models, operator case studies, opportunities, future roadmap, value chain, ecosystem player profiles and strategies. The report also presents forecasts for Global Red Biotechnology investments from 2020 till 2025.

Industry Overview-

The Red Biotechnology Market is expected to register a CAGR of 5.7% during the forecast period. Red biotechnology is a process that utilizes organisms to improve health and helps the body to fight against diseases. Red biotechnology has become a very important part of the field of diagnostics, gene therapy, and clinical research and trials. Genetic engineering and the development and production of various new medicinal products to treat life-threatening diseases are also part of the benefits of red biotechnology. Severe Combined Immune Deficiency (SCID) and Adenosine deaminase (ADA) deficiency are genetic disorders that were successfully treated with gene therapy. Several promising gene therapies are under development for the treatment of cancer and genetic disorders. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 6,000 to 8,000 rare diseases found and out of them, nearly 80% are genetic disorders. Rising incidence and prevalence of chronic and rare diseases and increased funding in the healthcare industry are the key driving factors in the red biotechnology market.

Click the link to get a free Sample Copy of the Report:

https://www.marketinsightsreports.com/reports/01091744865/red-biotechnology-market-growth-trends-and-forecast-2020-2025/inquiry?Mode=21

Top Leading Manufactures-

Pfizer Inc, AstraZeneca PLC, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Celgene Corporation, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Biogen Inc, Amgen Inc, Gilead Sciences Inc, Merck KGaA, CSL Limited

Biopharmaceutical Industry Segment is Expected to Hold a Major Market Share in the Red biotechnology Market

- Biopharmaceuticals are medical drugs that are produced by using biotechnology. Biopharmaceuticals are proteins, antibodies, DNA, RNA or antisense oligonucleotides used for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes, and these products are produced by means other than direct extraction from a native (non-engineered) biological source.- The first biopharmaceutical product approved for therapeutic use was recombinant human insulin (Humulin), which was developed by Genentech and marketed by Eli Lily in the year 1982 and in the year 2019, Novartis received FDA approval for gene therapy product in the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) condition. Using an AAV9 viral vector, called Zolgensma, which delivers SMN protein into the motor neurons of afflicted patients.- According to the World Health Organization (WHO), globally Cancer is the second leading cause of death and an estimated 9.6 million deaths in the year 2018.- Increasing incidence and prevalence of chronic and rare diseases and rapid expansion of the biopharmaceutical industries are the key driving factors in the biopharmaceutical industry segment.

North America is Expected to Hold a Significant Share in the Market and Expected to do Same in the Forecast Period

North America expected to hold a major market share in the global red biotechnology market due to the rising prevalence of chronic and rare diseases, increased expenditure in the healthcare industry in this region. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in the year 2019, approximately 1.8 million people will be diagnosed with cancer in the United States and estimated 268,600 women and 2,670 men will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, the rise in the adoption of advanced technologies in gene therapy and increasing investments in research and development is fueling the growth of the overall regional market to a large extent.

Inquire for Discount:

https://www.marketinsightsreports.com/reports/01091744865/red-biotechnology-market-growth-trends-and-forecast-2020-2025/discount?Mode=21

Key Strategic Developments : The study also includes the key strategic developments of the market, comprising R & D, new product launch, M & A, agreements, collaborations, partnerships, joint ventures, and regional growth of the leading competitors operating in the market on a Global and regional scale.

Key Market Features: The report evaluated key market features, including revenue, price, capacity, capacity utilization rate, gross, production, production rate, consumption, import/export, supply/demand, cost, market share, CAGR, and gross margin. In addition, the study offers a comprehensive study of the key market dynamics and their latest trends, along with pertinent market segments and sub-segments.

Analytical Tools: Global Red Biotechnology Market report includes the accurately studied and assessed data of the key industry players and their scope in the market by means of a number of analytical tools. The analytical tools such as Porter's five forces analysis, feasibility study, and investment return analysis have been used to analyzed the growth of the key players operating in the market.

The research includes historic data from 2014 to 2020 and forecasts until 2025 which makes the reports an invaluable resource for industry executives, marketing, sales and product managers, consultants, analysts, and other people looking for key industry data in readily accessible documents with clearly presented tables and graphs.

Media Contact Us:

Irfan Tamboli (Head of Sales) Market Insights Reports

Phone: + 1704 266 3234 | +91-750-707-8687

|

MENAFN18012020007010643ID1099570077

Excerpt from:
Red Biotechnology Market Size, Status and Recent Advancements, Forecast 2020 to 2025 - MENAFN.COM

Read More...

Scientists write to US universities for inviting anti-science activist Vandana Shiva – ThePrint

January 18th, 2020 8:43 pm

Text Size:A- A+

Bengaluru: Scientists and biotechnology experts from around the world have written two open letters to the Stanford University and the University of California-Santa Cruz (UC-SC) protesting invitations extended to Indian anti-biotechnology activist Vandana Shiva to speak on equitable and sustainable farming methods.

The letters raise concern about Shivas constant use of anti-scientific rhetoric to support unethical positions. They also lay out some of her earlier positions on farming and comments which the experts believe are factually incorrect.

Shiva is a prominent proponent of land redistribution and farmers rights, besides Ayurveda and organic foods. She has been accused of being funded by organic food companies to speak out against conventional agriculture practices.

Known as one of the staunchest critics of genetically modified organisms (GMO), she claims them to be toxic for human consumption a stance that has attractedstrong criticism from the scientific community.

GMOs are widely considered safe and endorsed by most scientific and medical bodies across the world.

Shiva has also been profiled by The New Yorker in an article titled Seeds of Doubt by Michael Specter. The piece is an attempt too debunk her claims.

She has also spoken out against the company Monsanto, which has been accused of engaging in predatory practices while funding genetic and cancer research as well as protecting its seed patents.

ThePrint tried to get in touch with Shiva and both the universities via emails. This report will be updated if and when replies are received.

Also read: A post-chemical world is building as agribusinesses go green

Calling Shivas philosophy unscientific and anti-social, the letter addressed to Stanford cites some ironies associated with Shiva being invited by the institution.

The first concerns Shivas invitation having come from Students for a Sustainable Stanford, because her views are demonstrably, unequivocally anti-sustainable. Her ideas on farming would relegate it to a primitive, low-yielding, wasteful activity.

It goes on to read: Second, the co-discoverer in 1973 of recombinant DNA technology, the prototypic, iconic molecular technique for genetic engineering, was Stanford biochemist Dr. Stanley N. Cohen, who is still a professor of genetics and medicine at the university. Shivas appearance at Stanford is an affront to Professor Cohen and all of the universitys other scientists.

The letter also accuses Shiva of taking large honoraria for dispensing her mendacious and antisocial opinion.

The one addressed to UC-SC similarly expresses surprise that a science-based and ethically inspired institution has extended an invitation to her.

Read the full text of the letter to UC-SC below:

Dear Organizers and Professors,

We are scholars of life sciences and social sciences who have published many scholarly papers and articles about agriculture, food and related biotechnologies.

Perhaps you are unaware of Dr. Vandana Shivas constant use of anti-scientific rhetoric to support unethical positions. We are very surprised that any science-based and ethically inspired institution would invite her to speak.

Here are some (only some) examples of her prejudicial, anti-science, anti-social stances:

Her astonishing tendency to nonsense. See the absurd statement regarding the supposed functioning of the Genetic Use Restriction technology (GURT), from her book Stolen Harvest (p. 82-83):

Molecular biologists are examining the risk of the Terminator function escaping the genome of the crops into which it has been intentionally incorporated, and moving into surrounding open-pollinated crops or wild, related plants in fields nearby.Given Natures incredible adaptability and the fact that the technology has never been tested on a large scale, the possibility that the Terminator may spread to surrounding food crops or to the natural environment MUST be taken seriously. The gradual spread of sterility in seeding plants would result in a global catastrophe that could eventually wipe out higher life forms, including humans, from the planet.

One may need to read these statements twice, because they are too bewildering to be understood at first sight. In fact, she claims that sterile seeds which of course cannot germinate can spread sterility. A middle school student expressing such views would fail the biology exam.

Her stunning ignorance: Most #GMOs are #Bt toxin or #HT herbicide tolerant crops. Toxins are poisons. GMOs=Poison Producing Plants. Poisons have no place in food.

Somebody should explain to her that Bt proteins are toxic to some clearly identified classes of insects (plant pests), but not to fish, birds, mammals. See also the scientific papers quoted in response to her delusional post, in particular, a classic study which clarifies that plants naturally produce substances to defend themselves from pests and 99.99% of pesticidal substances in food are natural and harmless to humans.

Her proclivity to offend: Saying farmers should be free to grow GMOs which can contaminate organic farms is like saying rapists should have freedom to rape. She is comparing farmers, who grow crops which are scientifically and legally recognized as safe, to rapists! Its a grotesque insult to millions of honest workers who use modern technologies to farm sustainably and efficiently. Understandably, her outrageous abuse raised many angry reactions (see the replies to the same post).

Her rejection of technologies which help farmers (mostly women and children) to alleviate the painful, back-breaking labor of hand-weeding: Indian women selectively do weeding by hand, hereby preserving our biodiversity (Photo and caption at p. 21.) This is a preposterous statement; any act of weeding is exactly aimed at eliminating detrimental plant biodiversity which, in a field, stifles crops.

As a final treat, a ridiculous statement: Fertilizer should never have been allowed in agriculture, she said in a 2011 speech. I think its time to ban it. Its a weapon of mass destruction. Its use is like war, because it came from war. Let us ask her if she is going to ban metallurgy, since it has been used to forge cannons.

We are confident that our reasoned remarks will be seen by the addressees of this letter, by their colleagues and by students at UCSC as constructive criticism. We are afraid that none of us will be able to attend the event to challenge Dr. Shiva in person. We would appreciate if you can make our letter available to the participants.

Also read: Whats the fuss over the new variety of GM cotton that farmers are batting for

ThePrint is now on Telegram. For the best reports & opinion on politics, governance and more, subscribe to ThePrint on Telegram.

View post:
Scientists write to US universities for inviting anti-science activist Vandana Shiva - ThePrint

Read More...

How food and beverage marketing claims can affect the production process – Food Engineering Magazine

January 18th, 2020 8:43 pm

How food and beverage marketing claims can affect the production process | 2020-01-17 | Food Engineering This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more. This Website Uses CookiesBy closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.

Excerpt from:
How food and beverage marketing claims can affect the production process - Food Engineering Magazine

Read More...

Gone Fishing? No Fish but Plenty of Pesticides and a Public Health Crisis – CounterPunch

January 18th, 2020 8:43 pm

There ismounting evidencethat a healthy soil microbiome protects plants from pests and diseases.One of the greatest natural assets that humankind has is soil. But when you drench it with proprietary synthetic chemicals or continuously monocrop as part of a corporate-controlled industrial farming system, you can kill essential microbes, upset soil balance and end up feeding soil a limiteddoughnut dietof unhealthy inputs.

Armed with their synthetic biocides, this is what the transnational agritech conglommerates do. These companies attempt to get various regulatory and policy-making bodies to bow before the altar of corporate science. But, in reality, they have limited insight into the long-term impacts their actions have on soil and itscomplex networksof microbes and microbiological processes. Soil microbiologists are themselves still trying to comprehend it all.

That much is clearwhen Linda Kinkelof the University of Minnesotas Department of Plant Pathology said back in 2014: We understand only a fraction of what microbes do to aid in plant growth.

And its the same where human soil is concerned.

People have a deep microbiological connection to soils and traditional processing and fermentation processes, which all affect the gut microbiome the up to six pounds of bacteria, viruses and microbes akin to human soil. And as with actual soil, the microbiome can become degraded according to what we ingest (or fail to ingest). Many nerve endings from major organs are located in the gut and the microbiome effectively nourishes them. There is ongoing research taking place into how the microbiome is disrupted by the modern globalised food production/processing system and the chemical bombardment it is subjected to.

The human microbiome is of vital importance to human health yet it is under chemical attack from agri-food giants and theiragrochemicals and food additives. As soon as we stopped eating locally-grown, traditionally-processed food, cultivated in healthy soils and began eating food subjected to chemical-laden cultivation and processing activities, we began to change ourselves. Along with cultural traditions surrounding food production and the seasons, we also lost our deep-rooted microbiological connection with our localities. It was traded in for corporate chemicals and seeds and global food chains dominated by the likes of Monsanto (now Bayer), Nestle and Cargill.

Environmentalist Dr Rosemary Mason says that glyphosate disrupts the shikimate pathway within these gut bacteria and is a strong chelator of essential minerals, such as cobalt, zinc, manganese, calcium, molybdenum and sulphate. In addition, it kills off beneficial gut bacteria and allows toxic bacteria to flourish. She adds that we are therefore facing a global metabolic health crisis linked to glyphosate.

Many key neurotransmitters are located in the gut. Aside from affecting the functioning of major organs, these transmitters affect our moods and thinking. There is strong evidence that gut bacteria can have a direct physical impact on the brain. Alterations in the composition of the gut microbiome have been implicated in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including autism, chronic pain, depression and Parkinsons Disease.

Recently published research indicates that glyphosate and Roundup are proven to disrupt gut microbiome by inhibiting the shikimate pathway.Dr Michael Antoniou of Kings College Londonhas found thatRoundup herbicide and its active ingredient glyphosate cause a dramatic increase in the levels of two substances, shikimic acid and 3-dehydroshikimic acid, in the gut, which are a direct indication that the EPSPS enzyme of the shikimic acid pathway has been severely inhibited. The researchers found that Roundup and glyphosate affected the microbiome at all dose levels tested, causing shifts in bacterial populations.

This confirms what Mason has been highlighting for some time. However, she has also been pointing out the environmental degradation resulting from the spiralling use of glyphosate-based herbicides and has just written an open letter tothe Principal Fisheries Officer of Natural Resources Wales (NRW), Peter Gough (NRW is the environment agency for Wales).

The letter runs to 20 pages and focuses on glyphosate and neonicotinoid insecticides. She asks who would re-authorise a pesticide that istoxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects and is causing serious eye damage along with various forms of cancers and a wide range of other health conditions?

She answers her question by saying the European Glyphosate Task Force and Jean-Claude Juncker President of the EC along with various regulators in Europe who have basically capitulated to an industry agenda. Mason argues that the European Glyphosate Task Force (who actually did the re-assessment of glyphosate) omitted all the studies from South America where they had been growing GM Roundup Ready crops since 1996. She discusses the suppression of key research which indicated the harmful effects of glyphosate.

The Principal Fisheries Scientist Wales sent Mason two NRW Reports two years ago. In it, Mason discovered that giant hogweed on the River Usk bank had been treated with a glyphosate-based herbicide. NRW had also admitted to not studying the effects of neonicotinoids, which had been introduced in 1994. Mason pointed out to NRW that run-off from farms of clothianidin in seeds would be enough to kill off aquatic invertebrates.

In early January, NRW attempted to explain the absence of salmon and trout in the River Usk on climate change (warming of the river), rather than poisoning of the river, which is what Mason had warned the agency about two years ago.

In Britain, information on emerging water contaminants has been suppressed, according to Mason, and there is no monitoring of either neonics or glyphosate in surface or ground water. In the US, though, measurements of these chemicals have been carried out on farmland and their correlation with massive declines in invertebrates byseparate agenciesand universities in the US and Canada.

Mason notes there has been 70 years of poisoning the land with pesticides. Although the National Farmers Union and the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs in the UK say fewer pesticides are now being applied, the Soil Association indicates massive increases of increasing numbers of pesticides at decreasing intervals (official statistics obtained via a Freedom of Information request).

Readers should consult the full text of Masons open letter on theacamedia.edusite to gain wider insight into the issues outlined above and many more, such as government collusion with major agrochemical corporations, the shaping of official narratives on illness and disease to obscure the role of pesticides and Monsantos poisoning of Wales.

What Mason outlines is not specific to Wales or the UK; the increasing use of damaging agrochemicals and government collusion with the industry transcends national borders. Nation states are becoming increasingly obsolete and powerless in the face of globalised capitalist interests that seek to capture and exploit markets, especially in the Global South.

What follows is the e-mail that Mason sent to Peter Gough by way of introducing her letter to him.

Dear Peter,

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) classified glyphosate as a substance that is toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects

Your colleague Dave Charlesworth declared on BBC 1 Breakfast last week that the declines in salmon and trout were due to climate change and warming of the rivers. I told you just over 2 years ago that it was due to pesticides and showed you the proof from assorted NRW documents you sent me.

Why are NRW, the government, top UK doctors, farmers, the corporations, the media and global pesticides regulators protecting the agrochemical industry? All of you could suffer from the effects of pesticides in food, in water, in the air and in rain. Why dont you inform the people?

Monsanto claims that Roundup doesnt affect humans, but their sealed secret studies that scientist Anthony Samsel obtained from the US EPA, shows evidence of cancers and that bioaccumulation of14C labelled glyphosate occurred in every organ of the body (page 9).

The NFU and Defra deny they are responsible for 70 years of poisoning the land and the subsequent insect apocalypse; they should read their own document Healthy Harvest.The National Farmers Union (NFU), the Crop Protection Association (CPA) and the Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) combined to lobby the EU not to restrict the 320+ pesticides available to them. The publication is called:HEALTHY HARVEST.[1](Pages 6-9)

The Department of Health and the Chief Medical Officer for England claim that parents are responsible for obesity in primary school children. However, Pesticides Action Network (PAN) analysed the Department of Healths Schools Fruit and Vegetable Scheme and found that there were residues of 123 pesticides in it,some of which are linked to serious health problems such as cancer and disruption of the hormone system.

When PAN informed them, they said that pesticides were not the concern of the DOH. (Page 14, 13-16).

Dr Don Huber, Emeritus Professor of Plant Pathology, Purdue University, US, speaking about GMO crops and glyphosate, said: Future historians may well look back upon our time and write, not about how many pounds of pesticide we did or didnt apply, but by how willing we are to sacrifice our children and future generations for this massive genetic engineering experiment that is based on flawed science and failed promises just to benefit the bottom line of a commercial enterprise. (Page 18)

Kind regards,

Rosemary

Read more:
Gone Fishing? No Fish but Plenty of Pesticides and a Public Health Crisis - CounterPunch

Read More...

Economists explore the consequences of steering technological progress – The Economist

January 18th, 2020 8:43 pm

Jan 16th 2020

SINCE THE ancient Greeks, at least, people have recognised that civilisational progress tends to create havoc as well as opportunity. Economists have had little time for such concerns. To them, technological progress is the wellspring of long-run growth, and the only interesting question is how best to coax more innovation out of the system. But in the face of looming social challenges, from climate change to inequality, some are now asking whether, when it comes to innovation, what sort is as relevant as how much.

Early models of growth did not explain technological progress at all, treating it rather like manna from heaven. In the 1980s some economists worked to build endogenous-growth models that said where innovation came from. They explained it as the consequence of investment in research and development, increases in the stock of human capital, or the (temporary) extra profits that can be reaped by firms with new technologies. Other economists have focused more on data than on theory. Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation, a paper published in 2018 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, identifies factors that seem to encourage young people to become innovators. Children who grow up where innovation rates are high, for instance, are more likely to become inventors themselves.

Research has also made clear, however, that technological discovery is not linear, but veers about depending on economic conditions. Some economic historians reckon that early industrialisation was motivated by a desire to replace scarce resources, such as skilled labour, with abundant ones, such as unskilled labour and coal. Early inventors were not simply discovering natures truths one by one, in other words, but trying to solve specific problems. Work on such technological bias blossomed in the 1990s as economists sought to explain why the wage premium earned by college graduates kept rising even as the supply of graduates increased. The answer, some reckoned, was that technological change in the 20th century was skill-biased, boosting the productivity of workers with degrees, but not of others.

In a paper published in 2001, Daron Acemoglu of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology collected these strands in a model of directed technical change. Technological progress, he suggested, is influenced by the relative scarcity of factors such as labour and capital; by how easily one factor can be substituted for another; and by the path of past innovation. Research on a particular technology may reduce the cost of developing complementary innovations in future. Directed technical change is fascinating to contemplate because it allows for alternative technological futures: worlds in which firms wring every efficiency from Zeppelins and pneumatic tubes, rather than from internal-combustion engines and Twitter. If the direction of progress is not set in stone, policy choices could lead an economy down one technological path rather than another. That raises an immediate question: if innovation can be steered, should it be, and if so, how?

Since 2000, published work on directed technical change has focused largely on environmental challenges. Path dependence means that research on fossil-fuel technologies can often be more fertile than research on cleaner alternatives. There are more experts in the relevant disciplines, better-funded research labs and an established complementary economic infrastructure. Efficient decarbonisation might thus require subsidies for clean-energy research, as well as a carbon price. Indeed, efforts to slow global warming represent a massive attempt to realise one technological futurea zero-carbon versionrather than another.

Why stop there? Some futurists, and a few economists, worry that rapid progress in artificial intelligence could lead to mass displacement of labour and social crisis. But in a recent paper Anton Korinek of the University of Virginia notes that not all uses of AI are alike. Clever machines could indeed replace human workersor might instead be engineered to assist human labour: to help people navigate complicated processes or take difficult decisions. Private firms, focused on their bottom lines rather than the potential knock-on effects of their investment decisions, might be indifferent between the two approaches in the absence of a government nudge, just as polluting firms tend not to worry about the social costs of environmental harm unless made to do so by governments. In a working paper co-written with Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, Mr Korinek concludes that directing technical change to favour labour-assisting rather than labour-displacing forms of AI could be a second-best way to manage progress, if governments cannot sufficiently redistribute the gains from automation from winners to losers. This may sound far-fetched, but policy proposals such as Bill Gatess suggestion that robots should be taxed to slow the pace of automation represent steps toward a more micromanaged technological future.

Environmental policies aside, such steps seem premature. A more sophisticated view of technological progress is to be welcomed. But economics lacks the tools, at least for now, to judge which technological path is preferable. The world is too complex to allow economists to compare hypothetical technological futures: to know whether a Zeppelin-based society would operate more efficiently overall than a car-based one. Economists cannot know what surprises lie down one innovation path rather than another.

And questions of technology are not solely, or even mostly, about efficiency. Many are ethical. Innovations with overwhelming productivity advantages could prove devastating to social trust or equity. In the face of radical technological changein AI, robotics and genetic engineeringsocieties will inevitably argue over which technological paths should be explored. Economists views belong in these conversationsprovided they are crafted with humility and care.

This article appeared in the Finance and economics section of the print edition under the headline "Economists explore the consequences of steering technological progress"

Read this article:
Economists explore the consequences of steering technological progress - The Economist

Read More...

Editorial: Area youth fortunate to have coaches with longevity – State-Journal.com

January 18th, 2020 8:41 pm

On Monday, the superintendents of both local school districts asked the Frankfort City Commission for $1.5 million to upgrade the athletic fields at the three area high schools to synthetic turf. While the debate over whether to finance the project played out on the front page, we couldnt help noticing what quietly made headlines on the sports page this week.

On Tuesday, Franklin County High School girls basketball coach Joey Thacker notched his 400th career win. That's quite a feat, but perhaps more noteworthy is his longevity. Thacker, whose Lady Flyers competed in three straight state tournaments from 2015-17 and finished as runners-up in 2016 and 2017, has been pacing the hardwood for more than 20 years.

Frankfort youth are fortunate in that he is not the only local coach with tenure something that is both rare and admirable these days.

FCHS softball coach Tracy Spickard, the schools athletic director and a 2002 inductee in the Kentucky Prep Softball Hall of Fame, will start her 23rd season at the helm this spring with more than 500 wins under her belt. Decidedly absent in the dugout this season will be longtime assistant coach Butch Turner, who recently announced his retirement after more than two dozen years.

To have that longevity with your assistant coaches is almost unheard of today, and I firmly believe it has made an impact with us maintaining the rich tradition of Lady Flyer softball, Spickard told The State Journal.

Across town, Western Hills volleyball coach Kristi Buffenmyer, who was tapped to lead the team straight out of college, concluded a 25-year stint last fall with close to 400 victories, four district championships and seven district runner-up finishes. Her 2001 team advanced to the state tournament as a regional runner-up.

Thank you to these and all local coaches who have dedicated time and energy into what at times can be an underappreciated job. The countless lessons they teach Franklin County youth extend well beyond the playing fields and into life.

See original here:
Editorial: Area youth fortunate to have coaches with longevity - State-Journal.com

Read More...

HPD gets 7 percent hike and new longevity incentive – The Daily World

January 18th, 2020 8:41 pm

Mondays Hoquiam City Council meeting saw the approval of a three-year contract for the police department that includes an incentive to stay with the force, a timber sale that could bring more than $100,000 to the city, and acceptance of a grant that will allow for much needed maintenance at the city cemetery.

Police contract

The contract includes a 7% raise to the base salary in the first year starting Jan. 1, 2020, along with a 3% cost of living increase, a total 10% raise. There will be cost of living increases of 3% Jan. 1 2021 and Jan. 1 2022.

The bargaining agreement includes a new provision for longevity/retention pay, which rewards police personnel for staying with the department.

The longevity/retention pay is based on the number of years worked: $75 a month after five full years, $100 a month after 10 years, $150 a month after 15 years, and $200 a month after 20 years, on top of existing salaries. The longevity/retention pay began Jan. 1.

Under the contract, in the first year, a patrol officer with a year or less with the department would make just under $63,800 annually, a sergeant just over $85,600. Officers also qualify for step increases, based on the number of years they have served with the department. In the first year of the new contract, an officer with more than five years on the force would earn just over $81,400 annually, plus whatever longevity pay they qualify for.

Hoquiam was one of the last cities that didnt have longevity pay in its police contract, said city Finance Director Corri Schmid. City Administrator Brian Shay said, In doing comparisons with other union contracts, most cities do offer what is called longevity pay to their employees.

Timber sale

The city saw an opportunity when it was notified the Dorothea Parker Family Trust was going to log timber on its property between Endresen Road and the College Hill water reservoir to log harvestable timber on adjacent city-owned property at the same time.

Current estimates are the city could take in $100,000 to $180,000 in revenue, which would be nice for the general fund, said Shay. There are trails that could come from that, and maybe even a few home sites created. To me that is a really exciting opportunity.

The sale could remove danger trees near the cemetery and protect the water reservoir as well.

Estes Timber LLC was tapped by the Dorothea Parker Family Trust to log its property, and the city Monday approved Estes Timber to prepare its own timber sale with a cost estimate not to exceed $4,000, according to the approved report.

Cemetery

A $40,600 Historic Cemetery Preservation Grant will allow the city to perform repairs to the mausoleum roofs, ADA ramps, restrooms, gate and lighting at Sunset Memorial Park, the city cemetery. These funds dont require a city match and come from the state Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.

Mayor Ben Winkelman, presiding over his first council meeting, said Community Service Coordinator Tracy Wood was instrumental in securing the grant.

Brian (Shay) said he asked Tracy to get all the information for the grant application and next thing you know this thing is ready to go, signed, sealed and delivered, said Winkelman.

Shay said estimates for the total amount of work to be done at the cemetery came to around $60,000, but the grant will cover most of that, with the potential to use some city money if needed to complete the maintenance.

Ward 1 Councilman Dave Wilson noted how difficult its been to maintain the cemetery with the lack of funds available. This is a significant site, historically obviously, and needs to be taken care of, he said.

DAN HAMMOCK | GRAYS HARBOR NEWS GROUP Ben Winkelman was sworn in as Mayor of Hoquiam prior to the City Council meeting Monday. Finance Director Corri Schmid performed the swearing in.

DAN HAMMOCK | GRAYS HARBOR NEWS GROUP Re-elected and newly-elected Hoquiam City Council members were sworn in prior to Mondays council meeting. From left: Steven Puvogel, Ward 2; new Ward 4 Councilman Al Dick; Dave Hinchen, Ward 6; Shannon Patterson, Ward 3; Brenda Carlstrom, Ward 5; Elizabeth Reid, Ward 6; and Dave Wilson, Ward 1.

Read this article:
HPD gets 7 percent hike and new longevity incentive - The Daily World

Read More...

It’s Betty White’s 98th Birthday: Here Are 3 Secrets To Her Longevity – mindbodygreen.com

January 18th, 2020 8:41 pm

Betty White is celebrating another year of life, but if you ask her about her age, she's quick to remind you of one important fact: It doesn't really matter. The sitcom star turns 98 today, and she's still got an active career.

"You don't fall off the planet once you pass a given age," she said in a 1991 interview, "You don't lose any of your zest for life, or your lust for life, if you will."

Now nearly 30 years later, and in the face of continued sidelining of older women in film and television, White has continued to have a successful careerand it's part of her secret to longevity, even if she says she didn't have one.

"I don't have a secret," she said in a 2018 interview with Parade. In the same breath, however, she said she plans to "never" retire. In another interview with the publication, she said, "I just love to work, so I'll keep working until they stop asking."

While she may believe she has no secrets, we think there are a few things White's done in her life that may be to thank for her longevity:

Visit link:
It's Betty White's 98th Birthday: Here Are 3 Secrets To Her Longevity - mindbodygreen.com

Read More...

Rich People Dont Just Live Longer. They Also Get More Healthy Years. – The New York Times

January 18th, 2020 8:41 pm

Yes, indeed, its good to be rich in old age. According to a new study, wealthy men and women dont only live longer, they also get eight to nine more healthy years after 50 than the poorest individuals in the United States and in England.

It was surprising to find that the inequalities are exactly the same, said Paola Zaninotto, a professor of epidemiology and public health at University College London and a lead author of the study.

The findings, published on Wednesday in The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, emerged from two primary questions: What role do socioeconomic factors play in how long people live healthy lives? Do older adults in England stay disability-free longer than those in the United States?

To answer these questions, researchers from University College London, Harvard University and institutions in three other countries turned to two existing data sets containing more than 25,000 people over 50. They then analyzed how well various factors including education, social class and wealth predicted how long a person would live free of conditions that might impair them from activities such as getting out of bed or cooking for themselves the studys definition of disability-free and healthy.

Everything paled in comparison with wealth. In both countries, wealthy women tended to live 33 disability-free years after age 50 eight to nine more than poor women, the study found. Wealthy men tended to live 31 disability-free years after 50 eight to nine more than poor men.

There are many ways to define wealth. In this study, researchers considered physical possessions such as a home, jewels and artworks, as well as other financial assets such as savings and investments that had been accumulated over a persons lifetime, minus debts. For Americans, the average wealth not to be confused with income was $29,000 for the poorest group, $180,000 for the middle group and $980,000 for the richest group, Dr. Zaninotto said.

Though education level and social class had some effect, neither was found to be nearly as significant as wealth. The researchers did not evaluate race as a factor in England, restricting that countrys data set, which was almost entirely white to begin with, to white Britons. When parsing the more racially diverse American data set by race, the conclusions stayed the same, Dr. Zaninotto said.

Additional study is required to understand why wealth in particular is such a strong indicator of how long someone lives unimpaired, she said, but it was most likely a function of having access to funds when you have ill health.

Corinna Loeckenhoff, director of the Healthy Aging Laboratory at Cornell University, complimented the methodology and made a similar observation.

More wealth means its easier to get to your appointments and access additional services that would not be available to people with less, said Dr. Loeckenhoff, who was not involved in the study. Additionally, poverty has been linked to higher stress levels, which has implications for health, she added.

Beyond that, she said she was curious about the potential role of lifestyle and personality traits. People who were more inclined to save money, for example, might also be more likely to also engage in healthy activity, she said.

But what about all of those people on remote, beautiful islands who seem to live forever? The secret to their enviably long, healthy, lives has little to do with riches, no?

Yes, of course, longevity is also affected by other factors, Dr. Loeckenhoff said. The biggest recommendation is to exercise and eat a healthy diet, she added, noting that the ability to do either might also be affected by wealth.

As far as whether older adults in England or the United States stayed disability-free longer, the study ultimately found that peoples ability to get around in their final years was nearly identical in both countries. The researchers were intrigued by the result, Dr. Zaninotto said, as they had previously found that older Americans tended to be less healthy than older Britons, largely because of obesity.

Read the original here:
Rich People Dont Just Live Longer. They Also Get More Healthy Years. - The New York Times

Read More...

Nutrition for Longevity Launches Vegan and Pescatarian Farm-to-Table Meal Kits Nationally – Business Wire

January 18th, 2020 8:41 pm

RANDOLPH, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nutrition for Longevity, a farm-to-table meal delivery service company focused on supplying delicious, farm-fresh, and high-quality foods based on The Longevity Diet, has announced the national launch of its vegan and pescatarian meal kits. The kits, available as part of Nutrition for Longevitys meal service, can be ordered from the company via nutritionforlongevity.com and will be shipped directly to homes across the continental United States.

Nutrition for Longevitys healthy and affordable meal delivery service provides three full days of meals per week so the food is always fresh and provides customers freedom through the rest of the week. Both the Vegan and Pescatarian meal plans are specially curated by a team of chefs and registered dieticians and are available in either 1600 or 2000 calorie options.

Were very excited to be able to bring the cleanest, healthiest food possible to peoples plates all over the country, said Jennifer Maynard, Nutrition for Longevitys CEO and Co-Founder. We also own and manage the farm where our produce is grown, so this is truly a labor of love. We focus on quality, nutrient-dense food thats non-GMO, and grown with no synthetic chemicals, using the highest-quality seeds that can be traced all the way back to their source. What we are offering is chef-curated meals, from clean, fresh, and seasonally harvested produce delivered straight to our customers doors.

Inspired by the science and principles behind The Longevity Diet, Nutrition for Longevitys meals draw upon lessons learned from geographical hotspots known for inhabitants that live the longest and healthiest lives on record.

Each meal kit includes a breakfast smoothie and either ancient grain oats or a gluten free vegan muffin to get customers going in the morning, fully-prepared lunch salads and an afternoon snack (like rich dark chocolate) to provide fuel for the midday, and a delicious plant-forward or fish-based dinner that can be easily prepared in 30 minutes or less for a fresh, home-made meal packed with flavor and nutrition.

Nutrition for Longevity was founded on the passionate belief that a long, healthy life begins with whats on your plate. To address the nutritional deficiencies in todays commercially-grown produce, Co-Founder and CEO Jennifer Maynard and her team set out to create a farm-to-table meal delivery service that goes beyond organic, restoring food to its natural state so you can support your health according to principals outlined in The Longevity Diet. Learn more at http://www.nutritionforlongevity.com.

Note to Media: To arrange an interview with Nutrition for Longevity co-founder and CEO Jennifer Maynard, obtain samples or images, or to learn more, contact Paul Williams at paul@medialinecommunications.com or 310/569-0023.

See the original post here:
Nutrition for Longevity Launches Vegan and Pescatarian Farm-to-Table Meal Kits Nationally - Business Wire

Read More...

What your finances say about your health and longevity – Telegraph.co.uk

January 18th, 2020 8:41 pm

There are a great number of reasons for hoarding wealth security, stability, a dragon-like desire to sit on a huge treasure trove but thanks to a new study you can now justifiably say that topping up your bank balance is a health choice.

The study by researchers at UCL found that having a net household worth of 488,000by the age of 50 adds nine years to your life, compared to those with just 28,000 of assets. The study also found that those extra nine years will be lived in good health because more affluent people are more likely to remain fit, active, and independent in their later years

There's clearlogic behind theidea that being wealthy makes you healthier. With more money comes more stability, access to better healthcare, and improved lifestyle options (a homecooked meal of vegetables is more expensive than a supermarket pizza; and gym memberships can easily set you back 100 a month). According to ONS reports the healthy life expectancy gap between the richest and most deprived parts of the UK is 19 years.

And make no mistake, having a net worth of 488k makes you wealthy. According to a report from the BBC in 2019 based on figures from the Resolution Foundation, the average 51-60 year-old has a total net worth of around 275,000, far short of that nine year life bonus.

Read more:
What your finances say about your health and longevity - Telegraph.co.uk

Read More...

Amidst coaching carousel, how have Lightning’s Jon Cooper and Jets’ Paul Maurice found longevity? – The Athletic

January 18th, 2020 8:41 pm

The type of coaching carnage that has gone on in the NHL the past few years is borderline historic.

There have been 27 coaching changes since the 2018 offseason, with 20 of the 31 teams making at least one move. Two teams have fired two coaches (Kings and Flames). Future Hall of Famers such as Joel Quenneville, with three Cups to his name, have been kicked to the curb, as has Cup-winner and gold-medal-winning coach Mike Babcock.

Then you have the Lightnings Jon Cooper and the Jets Paul Maurice, the standard-bearers for the lost art of longevity behind the bench. As the leagues two longest-tenured coaches went head to head Friday in Winnipeg (Cooper two months shy of seven years with Tampa Bay, Maurice just hitting the six-year mark), it begs the question:

How did they do it?

Cooper seems uncomfortable talking about all the coaching changes. These men are his friends, his peers. The old saying youre hired to get...

See the rest here:
Amidst coaching carousel, how have Lightning's Jon Cooper and Jets' Paul Maurice found longevity? - The Athletic

Read More...

Page 751«..1020..750751752753..760770..»


2025 © StemCell Therapy is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS) | Violinesth by Patrick