View the original article here: How genetics shape political beliefs
View the original article here: “GMO free” labeling may be cancelled in Ukraine – ForUm
The Valley’s edible crops are grown without genetic engineering, but farmers here still fear a ballot initiative aimed at labeling food that has been genetically modified, saying it could make it harder to sell their products.
Farmers are battling Proposition 37 because they say it hurts business and exposes them to possible lawsuits.
Supporters of the November California ballot measure argue that consumers have a right to know whether the food they are buying has been altered using genetic technology. Many crops grown nationwide, including corn, soybeans and canola, have been tinkered with to resist chemicals, bugs or drought.
View the original article here: Valley farmers fear ‘modified’ wording in Prop. 37 – Fresno Bee
On Nov. 6, 2012, California voters will decide the fate of Proposition 37, the Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling Initiative. If the initiative passes, genetically engineered foods sold in California will have to be conspicuously labeled with the words “Genetically Engineered” or, in the case of processed foods, with the words “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.” It would be the first law in the United States to require any sort of labeling of genetically modified foods.
View the original article here: Food industry braces for Prop 37 – Western Farm Press
UCLA researchers are using a gene therapy to restore the immune systems of children with so-called “Bubble Boy” disease. The Ainslie family has been dealing with a rare disease since their son was born. Mom Jessica Ainslie says, “He started getting really bad cough, vomiting, and throwing up.”
Colton, 5, has severe combined immunodeficiency or SCID, also known as “Bubble Boy Disease. He’s missing a gene needed for his immune system to develop. Kids with the condition are extremely vulnerable to viruses and bacteria and can die within one to two years if not treated it’s a fatal disease.
View the original article here: Gene therapy used to combat immunodeficiency – Today’s THV
The Natural Products Association supports the right of consumers to know what ingredients go into their food products. However, NPA must announce its opposition to California’s Proposition 37, which would require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food, due to concerns about the enforcement provision as well as the way the proposition defines natural foods. NPA believes these aspects of the proposition will negatively affect the ability of suppliers and retailers to provide food products to California consumers.
View the original article here: Natural Products Association opposes California GMO labelling …
A new study describes the mechanism behind impaired muscle repair during aging and a strategy that may help rejuvenate aging tissue by manipulating the environment in which muscle stem cells reside.
View the original article here: Stem cells need recovery time, too | Harvard Gazette
Researchers at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine have developed the first animal model that duplicates the human response in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), an important step that may enable scientists to discover better medicines to treat the disease.
View the original article here: ‘Humanized’ mice advance study of rheumatoid arthritis
The European Food Safety Authority said Thursday it cannot accept an “inadequate” report by a French scientist on a link between cancer and genetically modified corn when evaluating the risk.
The EFSA said that after an initial review, it found the “design, reporting and analysis of the study … are inadequate,” meaning it could not “regard the authors conclusions as scientifically sound.”
Given these shortcomings, the EFSA called on the author of the study, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, to provide additional information before a second, final review is completed by the end of this month.
View the original article here: EU rejects French scientist report linking GM corn to cancer – Expatica France
The European Food Safety Authority has weighed in with its assessment of the maize studyby Gilles-Eric Séralini and his research team at France’s University of the Caen, which purportedly showed that rodents fed a strain of genetically modified corn with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready developed tumors, and many died.
Scientists have been almost uniformly critical of the design of the study and the framing of its results, and except for a few activist journalists-apologists, the science press has been in an uproar at the clear attempt by the Seralini research team to manipulate the media coverage when the study was released.
The EFSA is respected for its independence and has no apparent institutionalized bias for or against GM foods. It has encountered Seralini before, however. In 2007, it sharply criticized the quality of Seralini’s research on GM soy, as did Europe’s independent Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI).
The EFSA noted that the “study has unclear objectives and is inadequately reported in the publication, with many key details of the design, conduct and analysis being omitted.” The EFSA requested access to the raw data—scientists commonly share data so conclusions can be either reaffirmed or discarded as anomalous. “Without such details,” the EFSA wrote, “it is impossible to give weight to the results.” Seralini has refused, claiming he would not release his raw findings until Monsanto is compelled to release its patent-protected research on the NK603 maize strain—a bizarre stance for a scientist. Other scientists have welcomed critical reviews of their GM studies.
The EFSA observed that the Séralini team reached its conclusions based on only 10 rats per treatment, which independent scientists and the agency say is far too few to demonstrate that anything more than chance caused the tumors. In a conclusion in line with almost every mainstream geneticist, the food regulatory oversight agency concluded: “Considering that the study as reported in the Séralini et al. (2012) publication is of inadequate design, analysis and reporting, EFSA finds that it is of insufficient scientific quality for safety assessment.” The EFSA decided not to repen its safety assessment of the GM maize.
Another independent body, the European Federation of Biotechnology, endorsed the EFSA conclusion, which it says are “largely consistent with the observations of a wide number of scientists who reviewed the paper’s findings, soon after its publication.” The group also raised questions about the peer review process that led to the paper’s publication. “This paper represents a dangerous case of failure of the peer-review system, which threatens the credibility not just of the Journal but of the Scientific method overall,” wrote Professor Marc Van Montagu, the president of the EFB.
Predictably, Séralini dismissed the findings, claiming a conflict of interest on the part of EFSA—but also reiterated his refusal to release the raw data for review by any other agency or independent oversight group.
Genetics is scary. That’s the popular and entirely regrettable meme that dominates the narrative pushed by “progressive” and hard right critics of rather straightforward genetic research.
One of the biggest perpetrators of that simplistic framing is the Center for Genetics and Society, a US-based precautionary-obsessed NGO that is always quick to invoke “ethical concerns” when it discusses a development in genetics that it reflexively doesn’t approve of, such as many types of gene therapy (which it simplistically labels “eugenics”), synthetic biology, the application of population genetics to medicine or even educational gene screening programs for college students.
CGS loads almost every discussion of genetic breakthroughs with references to “perils” and unattributed concerns about “radical new” genetic techiques. So much for balanced, contextualized discussions about science.
Its latest sly slam is directed at a new IVF technique being debated in Britain that uses three genetic parents to create an embryo. This procedure could help avoid possible mitochondrial disease and could benefit tens of thousands of people who would othersie pass on this debilitating disorder to their children through the maternal line.
CGS’s arcy Darnovsky takes UK regulators to task for—OMG—asking for public input on a new technology. Since when is asking for a reasoned public consultation on an issue bad?
Darnovsky has her skirt in a bunch because eliminating the diseased line would require adding less than 1 per cent of DNA from a healthy donor. About 10 to 20 couples are year are thought likely to be suitable for the treatment.
Is this controversial? Sure. That’s the exact reason why public discussion is a perfectly reasonable proposal. Any technology that involves modifying life is worth a health debate. This occurred, for example, before doctors began transplanting organs from one person to another, or used animal organs in humans, or created artificial tissues and organs. In open societies, open debate is good—which is exactly what the Britain’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) is trying to foster.
Appealing for the widest possible response to the consultation, Professor Lisa Jardine, chair of the HFEA, said: “This is very promising for solving the awful problems of mitochondrial disease. But if it is allowed it will affect future generations in perpetuity. It will affect the nature of society to all eternity. Everyone in Britain should have a view on this.”
That’s hardly wild-eyed moralizing. Let’s discuss this publicly. Instead we get rants designed not to foster dialogue, but to kill this nascent technology in its infancy. The CGS is using its bully pulpit not to educate but to intimidate.
Alas, that’s part of a disturbing trend in covering human genetics. We are currently being treated to similar examples of this in coverage of a spate of dramatic recent developments in whole genome sequencing, including new DNA tests for newborns. One can discuss the issue objectively, as Gina Kolata invariably does for the New York Times. Or a journalist can pump controversy, framing new develoments as “dangerous” or “prickly”—as NPR did recently in a piece on genetic sequencing. (However, as Razib Khan notes in his Gene Expression blog, “in defense of NPR they seem like Physical Review Letters in comparison to other media, such as the BBC.”
Rob Stein’s piece rolls out tired clichés, analogizing incremental developments in DNA as Gattaca. And then, without any evidence, he whines and ruminates about public fears about the “power of DNA” and the “alarm bells” it is purportedly setting off—although almost no one is fearful of DNA sequencing, except perhaps hyped-starved journalists.
Thankfully, well-respected science bloggers and journalists are pushing back. Joining Razib is Holly Dunsworth, co-author of the well-received book The Mermaid’s Tale, who discusses the distressing spread of “scare” genetics stories in her blog. They follow a predictable script, she writes: “(1) Start with a headline that demonstrates controversy. (2) Present a story about science-related news (whichdoes not require controversy to be news). (3) End it ever-so-briefly and vaguely with dissent, doubt, outcry or warning.”
It’s the style of advocacy-disguised-as-reporting perfected by CGS and on display in this brief NPR article as well. There are consequences to such anti-science narratives beyond merely purveying superficial journalism, notes Dunsworth, an anthropologist at the University of Rhode Island. “… [T]he same fear that I’m trying to mitigate through education is the same fear that some journalists and ethicists seem to be perpetuating if not creating,” she writes.
Fifteen years ago, scientists in Edinburgh announced to the world an incredible breakthrough: the creation of the first cloned animal–a sheep who originated from a cell taken from an adult mammal. Dolly’s birth sparked a vigorous debate about the controversial technique and its potential application to humans. The research into stem cells ignited by the Dolly experiment, which could be used to treat conditions such as Motor Neuron Disease and Parkinson’s, is still developing and with remarkable breakthroughs and unending controversy. BBC’s Reunion radio program gathered some of the original scientists together to recall Dolly’s creation and discuss what the future of cloning might bring.
The Center for Genetics and Society, which opposes gene modification on ideological grounds, is portraying as unethical a fertility treatment technique that could alter a baby’s DNA to ensure that it lives a healthy life. In the guise of an article, blogger Marcy Darnovsky summarizes the policy debate now unfolding in the UK in charged, political terms, using such phrases as “unethical manipulation”, “risky and unproven techniques” and “biologically radical experiment.” In case the reader misses her point, Darnovsky invokes scare images of “designer babies.” It’s simplistic and biased science coverage, but worth a read on how not to report objectively about prickly and complicated genetics issues.View the original article here: Anti-genetics NGO slams slams technique to eliminate heredetary diseases as unethical manipulation
Animal models contribute significantly to our understanding of molecular mechanisms underlying disease pathologies. However, few models predictably translate preclinical findings into what will happen in humans.
Investigational drugs are able to cure mice from many diseases, but continue to fail in clinical trials. This fact is largely attributed to poor model designs that do not sufficiently reflect the pathophysiology of disease in humans. In addition, tremendous diversity of human genetic background, co-medications, dosing, timing of treatment, and many other factors greatly influence the treatment outcome.
The new generation of animal models, described in this article, takes into consideration previous shortcomings. These models aim to reflect the human condition as closely as possible and to close the gap between translational research and the bedside.
View the original article here: Animal models get closer to mimicking humans: Could help with treatment of diseases
StemCells Inc. (STEM) said it transplanted neural stem cells into its first patient with dry age-related macular degeneration, pushing forward its Phase I/II clinical trial.
View the original article here: StemCells Transplants Stem Cells into 1st Macular-Degeneration Patient – Wall Street Journal
The European Food Safety Authority has dismissed as flawed the controversial maize study by Gilles-Eric Séralini and his research team at France’s University of the Caen, which purportedly showed that rodents fed a strain of genetically modified corn with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready developed tumors and died.
View the original article here: European food safety agency dismisses anti-GM maize study as flawed
A salmon with designer DNA has been in regulatory limbo since the Food and Drug Administration concluded that the fish appeared to be safe and without environmental risk two years ago. The process for getting government approval to sell food derived from genetically engineered animals faces what appears to be a hopeless, politicized logjam.
For those that want to complain about restricting technologies, the truth is that we do it all the time. According to a GM critic, the controversy swirling around the questionable Seralini maize study may obscure the fact that GM foods present genuine challenges, including genetic dispersal, herbicide resistance and patent issues.
View the original article here: GM foods present serious challenges
Keith Floor, who thoroughly deconstructed the uncritical reporting that accompanied the release of the now widely discredited Seralini GM maize study, is now tackling another case of uncritical reporting on GM technology. Over at Collide-a-Scape, he blogs on the coverage of a widely propagated Reuters article headlined, “Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires” that purports to debunk biotech supporters who claim that GM technology can reduce pesticide use. Many other news outlets blew it. As Deborah Blum pointed out at MIT’s Knight Science Journalism Tracker, it’s part of a disturbing pattern of sloppy, anti-GMO journalism.
View the original article here: Sloppy anti-GMO journalism goes viral
