HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » proverbialwisdom » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Feb 10, 2010, 01:12 PM
Number of posts: 4,959

Journal Archives

Actually, here are the primary sources. Newspaper reports are secondary sources, are they not?

The meeting minutes are fascinating.


http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/ (Whats New)

Posted by proverbialwisdom | Sun Nov 29, 2015, 01:55 PM (0 replies)

NYT Op-Ed: The Risks of Assisting Evolution

The Risks of Assisting Evolution

NOV. 10, 2015

THERE are four locked doors guarding a specialized lab at the Harvard School of Public Health. The doors are meant to prevent insects inside the lab from venturing out — which is essential, because researchers behind those doors are re-engineering mosquitoes by cutting and pasting bits of DNA with tools unimaginable a decade ago.

If researchers can figure out the right combination of genes, they’ll manufacture a mosquito resistant to malaria, which could save hundreds of thousands of lives every year. But geneticists, bioethicists and others who understand the implications of this new technology are apprehensive. To an astonishing degree, these new tools, which include a technique called Crispr-Cas9, allow us to bend evolution to our will. But will we harness these new technologies to help our planet? Or spark an ecological catastrophe?


Just about everyone agrees that regulation is urgently needed, but no one has much of an idea what it should look like. A National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report on the nonhuman impact of gene drive is expected next spring. In the meantime, two actions could vastly improve prospects for successful and balanced regulation.

First, we need to clarify who has jurisdiction over gene-editing projects. Our current system is inadequate and confusing. A transgenic mosquito release in Florida by the company Oxitec is being evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration; a similar proposal for a moth release in New York is being overseen by the Department of Agriculture. Agencies vary widely in their review processes, and the current uncertainty about who’s in charge means that some ventures can fall through the cracks. The White House needs to issue clear guidelines.

Second, we need to pay for studies that explore the potential impacts of these technologies on the environment. Right now, there’s little incentive to explore the risks. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine and other groups evaluating those risks have virtually no data to work with. A recent report by the Wilson Center notes that from 2008 to 2014, less than 1 percent of synthetic biology funding went toward risk research in the United States, lower than in other emerging technologies. Foundations that are investing mightily in gene-editing technologies should commit to footing some of the bill for research on the environmental risks.

And finally, we need to encourage a public conversation about these technologies. At the end of the day, the escape of a few Harvard mosquitoes will not be the most pressing problem our ecosystems will face. But to confront the big challenges, we’ll need an informed and educated public, sophisticated oversight and a broad conversation about what kinds of advances and risks we want to embrace. We need protections that are stronger than multiple doors.

Elizabeth Alter is an assistant professor of biology at City University of New York, York College.
Posted by proverbialwisdom | Tue Nov 10, 2015, 06:43 PM (2 replies)

In NJ "80 to 85 percent of the children in the (CDC) study had the most severe form of autism."

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101697149 post #6
Posted by proverbialwisdom | Fri Nov 6, 2015, 04:16 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1