Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
proverbialwisdom
proverbialwisdom's Journal
proverbialwisdom's Journal
July 14, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/07/13/nba-superstars-issue-call-to-action-for-fellow-athletes-in-appearance-at-espys/
More.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/watch-lebron-james-carmelo-anthony-espys-black-lives-matter-910852https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/07/13/nba-superstars-issue-call-to-action-for-fellow-athletes-in-appearance-at-espys/
July 14, 2016
MOONSHOT SEGMENT (Andrew Hessel, distinguished research scientist at Autodesk, and Ethan Kurzweil, a Bessemer Venture Partners partner): http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-07-14/full-show-bloomberg-west-07-13
“Human Genome Project-Write” Unveiled
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46237/title/-Human-Genome-Project-Write--Unveiled/
Human Genome Project-Write Unveiled
A proposal to synthesize entire genomesthe subject of a controversial, invitation-only meeting at Harvard last monthis formally presented in Science.
By Jef Akst | June 2, 2016
A team led by New York Universitys Jef Boeke, Harvards George Church, and Andrew Hessel of the California-based commercial design studio Autodesk Research has published its proposal to synthesize entire genomes from scratch, including those of humans. Called the Human Genome Project-Write (the authors refer to the original HGP as Human Genome Project-Read), the initiative could take 10 years and a minimum of $100 million just to get started, the researchers wrote today (June 2) in Science.
Its essentially a call to action, Hessel told BuzzFeed News. We are suggesting its time to consider a new genome project standing on the foundations of the Human Genome Project.
An underlying goal of the proposed project is to develop technologies to more efficiently and more cheaply write DNA. Tangible products may be slow to follow at first, but writing DNA more cheaply and at large scale will make researchers more efficient and comprehensive in their work, leading to practically unlimited potential for indirect products, Danielle Tullman-Ercek, a biochemical engineer at the University of California, Berkeley, told Nature.
But the proposal was not universally praised. My first thought was so what, Martin Fussenegger, a synthetic biologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, told Nature. I personally think this will happen naturally. Its just a matter of price at the end.
Others are still upset about the discussion that took place at a closed-door meeting last month at Harvard. Synthetic biologist Drew Endy of Stanford University and religious scholar Laurie Zoloth of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, question the scientific value of the plan. Boeke et al.s current proposal should be broadly rejected and not now pursued, Endy told BuzzFeed News in an email.
Human Genome Project-Write Unveiled
A proposal to synthesize entire genomesthe subject of a controversial, invitation-only meeting at Harvard last monthis formally presented in Science.
By Jef Akst | June 2, 2016
A team led by New York Universitys Jef Boeke, Harvards George Church, and Andrew Hessel of the California-based commercial design studio Autodesk Research has published its proposal to synthesize entire genomes from scratch, including those of humans. Called the Human Genome Project-Write (the authors refer to the original HGP as Human Genome Project-Read), the initiative could take 10 years and a minimum of $100 million just to get started, the researchers wrote today (June 2) in Science.
Its essentially a call to action, Hessel told BuzzFeed News. We are suggesting its time to consider a new genome project standing on the foundations of the Human Genome Project.
An underlying goal of the proposed project is to develop technologies to more efficiently and more cheaply write DNA. Tangible products may be slow to follow at first, but writing DNA more cheaply and at large scale will make researchers more efficient and comprehensive in their work, leading to practically unlimited potential for indirect products, Danielle Tullman-Ercek, a biochemical engineer at the University of California, Berkeley, told Nature.
But the proposal was not universally praised. My first thought was so what, Martin Fussenegger, a synthetic biologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, told Nature. I personally think this will happen naturally. Its just a matter of price at the end.
Others are still upset about the discussion that took place at a closed-door meeting last month at Harvard. Synthetic biologist Drew Endy of Stanford University and religious scholar Laurie Zoloth of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, question the scientific value of the plan. Boeke et al.s current proposal should be broadly rejected and not now pursued, Endy told BuzzFeed News in an email.
MOONSHOT SEGMENT (Andrew Hessel, distinguished research scientist at Autodesk, and Ethan Kurzweil, a Bessemer Venture Partners partner): http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-07-14/full-show-bloomberg-west-07-13
https://mobile.twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/753355474058170368
Emily Chang
@emilychangtv
Our new Series A segment live now! Today's topic: Moonshots with @ethankurz @andrewhessel bloomberg.com/live
3:28 PM - 13 Jul 2016
Emily Chang
@emilychangtv
Our new Series A segment live now! Today's topic: Moonshots with @ethankurz @andrewhessel bloomberg.com/live
3:28 PM - 13 Jul 2016
July 11, 2016
Carl Sagan? Check out Jennifer Margulis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_SaganSAGAN'S 1ST SPOUSE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_MargulisThroughout her career, Margulis work could arouse intense objection (one grant application elicited the response, "Your research is crap, do not bother to apply again{4}), and her formative paper, "On the Origin of Mitosing Cells," appeared in 1967 after being rejected by about fifteen journals.
<>
In 1995, English evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins had this to say about Lynn Margulis and her work:"I greatly admire Lynn Margulis's sheer courage and stamina in sticking by the endosymbiosis theory, and carrying it through from being an unorthodoxy to an orthodoxy. I'm referring to the theory that the eukaryotic cell is a symbiotic union of primitive prokaryotic cells. This is one of the great achievements of twentieth-century evolutionary biology, and I greatly admire her for it."{24}
4. Sagan, Dorion, ed. (2012). Lynn Margulis: The Life and Legacy of a Scientific Rebel. White River Junction: Chelsea Green. ISBN 978-1-603-58446-3.
24. Margulis, Lynn, Gaia Is a Tough Bitch. Chapter 7 in The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution by John Brockman (Simon & Schuster, 1995)
DAUGHTER: http://jennifermargulis.net/http://jennifermargulis.net/about/
https://www.amazon.com/Vaccine-Friendly-Plan-Effective-Health-Pregnancy/dp/1101884231/178-0574487-0383232
July 6, 2016
BAM: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141506618#post4
Here's the NIH.GOV press release, also in post #4, but I did not see that first.
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/EHP358/#tab1
BRIEF COMMUNICATION
VOLUME 124|ISSUE 7|JULY 2016
Project TENDR: Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks. The TENDR Consensus Statement
BRIEF COMMUNICATION
VOLUME 124|ISSUE 7|JULY 2016
Project TENDR: Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks. The TENDR Consensus Statement
BAM: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141506618#post4
July 6, 2016
Welcome news!
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/30/fact-sheet-new-steps-toward-ensuring-openness-and-transparency
July 5, 2016
No MSM coverage I can find yet.
2011: EPA praised use of Toxics Release Inventory data by prominent autism reseacher, meanwhile...
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/tri_in_action_final_report_july_2013.pdf
EPA: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[CENTER]The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) in Action: Media, Government, Business, Community and Academic Uses of TRI Data[/CENTER]p.8
Zimmerman, J.P., Bakian A., et al. "Maternal Residential Proximity to Toxic Release Inventory Sites In Children with ASD and Other Developmental Disabilities." International Meeting for Autism Research. INSAR: International Society for Autism Research. Manchester Grand Hyatt, San Diego, CA. 12 May 2011. Lecture
EPA: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[CENTER]The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) in Action: Media, Government, Business, Community and Academic Uses of TRI Data[/CENTER]p.8
Zimmerman, J.P., Bakian A., et al. "Maternal Residential Proximity to Toxic Release Inventory Sites In Children with ASD and Other Developmental Disabilities." International Meeting for Autism Research. INSAR: International Society for Autism Research. Manchester Grand Hyatt, San Diego, CA. 12 May 2011. Lecture
http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/51759624-78/autism-utah-disorder-education.html.csp
http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/51759624-78/autism-utah-disorder-education.html.csp
Utah Autism Whistleblower Lawsuit Will Go to Trial After Federal Judge Denies a Majority of Defendants Motions to Dismiss
Mark Blaxill
July 5, 2016
...a Federal District Court Judge for the District of Utah issued a ruling Friday that effectively guarantees a Utah autism whistleblower her day in court. Judge Jill N. Parrish denied a majority of motions by Dr. William McMahon of the University of Utah to dismiss allegations by Dr. Judith Pinborough Zimmerman that McMahon and his colleagues acted improperly in retaliating against her for raising concerns over their research misconduct, violated university policies by terminating her contract without proper review, and impugned her reputation in the process.
<>
Dr. Zimmerman filed her lawsuit against Dr. McMahon nearly two years ago, in a complaint that describes a heated dispute between the two scientists over the proper handling of confidential health and education records as well as the accuracy of the data records used in measuring Utahs autism prevalence as part of the Center for Disease Controls (CDC) autism surveillance project, the Autism and Development Disabilities (ADDM) Network. Since 2002, Zimmerman had been the Director of Utahs ADDM Network site, the Utah Registry of Autism and Developmental Disabilities (URADD). She joined the University of Utah in 2005, bringing the URADD grant with her. She was removed from her URADD and university positions in 2013.
Zimmermans lawsuit alleges that McMahon and colleagues violated federal records privacy restrictions in efforts to carry out lucrative additional research projects; these were privacy restrictions that she had carefully negotiated with the Utah Departments of Health and Education in order to bring URADD into compliance with federal law and protect autism families from unwanted use of their personal and family information. When Zimmerman expressed her concerns over privacy and data quality issues to University authorities, McMahon summarily fired her, locked her out of her office and placed himself in charge of URADD. Since Zimmermans dismissal, McMahon has become the PI of the URADD and watches over Utahs contributions to the CDCs ADDM reports.
<>
Zimmermans conflict with McMahon may have deeper roots than the privacy and data integrity claims cited in Zimmermans lawsuit. McMahon has been an active contributor to genetic studies of autism causation and participated as a co-author in dozens of such publications. Zimmerman, by contrast, led a study investigating Maternal Residential Proximity to Toxic Release Inventory Sites in children with autism. After speaking to a reporter at the Salt Lake Tribune about the study, she was reprimanded by McMahon. CDC has long been reluctant to investigate environmental causes of autism and McMahons interest in genetic research may well have made it easier for him to replace Zimmerman as the CDCs Utah PI.
With a date as of yet undetermined, Zimmerman will have a chance to defend her career and reputation in front of a jury. Judge Parrishs decision directly denied McMahon and the Universitys request to dismiss Zimmermans allegations in 7 out of 12 causes of action in her complaint. McMahon and the University succeeded in dismissing 3 of the 12 causes; the remaining two were certified to the Utah Supreme Court, with Parrish asking for guidance in the absence of controlling Utah law.
Mark Blaxill
July 5, 2016
...a Federal District Court Judge for the District of Utah issued a ruling Friday that effectively guarantees a Utah autism whistleblower her day in court. Judge Jill N. Parrish denied a majority of motions by Dr. William McMahon of the University of Utah to dismiss allegations by Dr. Judith Pinborough Zimmerman that McMahon and his colleagues acted improperly in retaliating against her for raising concerns over their research misconduct, violated university policies by terminating her contract without proper review, and impugned her reputation in the process.
<>
Dr. Zimmerman filed her lawsuit against Dr. McMahon nearly two years ago, in a complaint that describes a heated dispute between the two scientists over the proper handling of confidential health and education records as well as the accuracy of the data records used in measuring Utahs autism prevalence as part of the Center for Disease Controls (CDC) autism surveillance project, the Autism and Development Disabilities (ADDM) Network. Since 2002, Zimmerman had been the Director of Utahs ADDM Network site, the Utah Registry of Autism and Developmental Disabilities (URADD). She joined the University of Utah in 2005, bringing the URADD grant with her. She was removed from her URADD and university positions in 2013.
Zimmermans lawsuit alleges that McMahon and colleagues violated federal records privacy restrictions in efforts to carry out lucrative additional research projects; these were privacy restrictions that she had carefully negotiated with the Utah Departments of Health and Education in order to bring URADD into compliance with federal law and protect autism families from unwanted use of their personal and family information. When Zimmerman expressed her concerns over privacy and data quality issues to University authorities, McMahon summarily fired her, locked her out of her office and placed himself in charge of URADD. Since Zimmermans dismissal, McMahon has become the PI of the URADD and watches over Utahs contributions to the CDCs ADDM reports.
<>
Zimmermans conflict with McMahon may have deeper roots than the privacy and data integrity claims cited in Zimmermans lawsuit. McMahon has been an active contributor to genetic studies of autism causation and participated as a co-author in dozens of such publications. Zimmerman, by contrast, led a study investigating Maternal Residential Proximity to Toxic Release Inventory Sites in children with autism. After speaking to a reporter at the Salt Lake Tribune about the study, she was reprimanded by McMahon. CDC has long been reluctant to investigate environmental causes of autism and McMahons interest in genetic research may well have made it easier for him to replace Zimmerman as the CDCs Utah PI.
With a date as of yet undetermined, Zimmerman will have a chance to defend her career and reputation in front of a jury. Judge Parrishs decision directly denied McMahon and the Universitys request to dismiss Zimmermans allegations in 7 out of 12 causes of action in her complaint. McMahon and the University succeeded in dismissing 3 of the 12 causes; the remaining two were certified to the Utah Supreme Court, with Parrish asking for guidance in the absence of controlling Utah law.
No MSM coverage I can find yet.
July 4, 2016
ASIDE: Incidentally, my training as a dentist occurred in an era when autism was considered 1:10,000 and during my post-doc training as a pediatric dentist when I was awarded the Fellowship for Special Needs Dentistry for Children, the focus then was on treatment of children with cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Hep B/HIV, special medical conditions (cancer, hereditary syndromes, other). Was autism even mentioned in my 2-year pediatric dentistry program? NO, it was not. Am I "being quite disgusting" to contribute on this topic with my background? NO, IMO, NOT AT ALL.
No, I am not "being quite disgusting." It is regrettable that you or anyone might feel that way.
And it totally misses the point, unless that's the point?ASIDE: Incidentally, my training as a dentist occurred in an era when autism was considered 1:10,000 and during my post-doc training as a pediatric dentist when I was awarded the Fellowship for Special Needs Dentistry for Children, the focus then was on treatment of children with cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Hep B/HIV, special medical conditions (cancer, hereditary syndromes, other). Was autism even mentioned in my 2-year pediatric dentistry program? NO, it was not. Am I "being quite disgusting" to contribute on this topic with my background? NO, IMO, NOT AT ALL.
July 4, 2016
OFF-TOPIC, incidentally.
Hardly, although you said that about me on a thread yesterday and on another the day before that.
I'm with THEM, basically, among many others I could name:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/03/17/peds.2015-4230
Pediatrics
March 2016, VOLUME 137 / ISSUE 3
Childhood Vaccine Exemption Policy: The Case for a Less Restrictive Alternative
Douglas J. Opel, Matthew P. Kronman, Douglas S. Diekema, Edgar K. Marcuse, Jeffrey S. Duchin, Eric Kodish
Abbreviations: MV measles vaccine, NME nonmedical exemption, VPD vaccine-preventable disease
Efforts to restrict parents ability to exempt children from receiving vaccinations required for school entry have recently reached a pinnacle. The American Medical Association voiced support for eliminating nonmedical exemptions (NMEs) from school vaccine requirements,1 and California enacted legislation doing so.2 Although laudable in their objective, policies eliminating NMEs from all vaccines are scientifically and ethically problematic. In the present article, we argue for an exemption policy that eliminates NMEs just for the measles vaccine (MV) and is pursued only after other less restrictive approaches have been implemented and deemed unsuccessful.
Published By American Academy of Pediatrics
Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
Author Information: Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPHa,b, Matthew P. Kronman, MD, MSCEb, Douglas S. Diekema, MD, MPHa,b,c, Edgar K. Marcuse, MD, MPHb, Jeffrey S. Duchin, MDd,e,f, and Eric Kodish, MDgaTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Childrens Research Institute, and
bDepartments of Pediatrics and
dMedicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington;
cDepartments of Health Services and
eEpidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington;
fCommunicable Disease Epidemiology and Immunization Section, Public HealthSeattle and King County, Seattle, Washington; and
gDepartment of Bioethics, Center for Ethics, Humanities and Spiritual Care, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Dr Opel conceptualized and designed the study and drafted the initial manuscript; and Drs Kronman, Diekema, Marcuse, Duchin, and Kodish reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
OFF-TOPIC, incidentally.
July 3, 2016
http://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1604037
Science Daily summary of new NEJM paper on Zika (June 15, 2016).
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160624150813.htmhttp://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1604037
July 3, 2016
http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Ethics/Refusal-of-Medically-Recommended-Treatment-During-Pregnancy
Link from: (not in the mood for the flak)
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Ethics, June 2016
OB/GYN Group Says Pregnant Women Have Right to Informed Consent and Refusal of Doctor Recommendations1. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Refusal of Medically Recommended Treatment During Pregnancy. ACOG.org No. 664, June 2016.
2. McClain L. New ACOG Statement Says Forcing Treatment on Pregnant Women is Unethical. Mothering June 10, 2016.
http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Ethics/Refusal-of-Medically-Recommended-Treatment-During-Pregnancy
Link from: (not in the mood for the flak)
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Feb 10, 2010, 01:12 PMNumber of posts: 4,959