It has been known for many years that the individual bases that code the genetic information contained in DNA show a high degree of photostability, as the energy that they take up from UV radiation is immediately released again. Surprisingly, however, it is found that in DNA, which consists of many bases, those mechanisms are ineffective or only partially effective. It seems that the deactivation of UV-excited DNA molecules must instead occur by some completely different mechanisms specific to DNA, which are not yet understood. Through measurements by a variety of methods on DNA molecules with different base sequences, the research group led by Professor Friedrich Temps at the Institute of Physical Chemistry of Kiel University has now been able to confirm and clarify that assumption.

According to Professor Temps, "DNA achieves its high degree of photostability through its complex double-helix structure. The interactions between bases that are stacked one above another within a DNA strand, and the hydrogen bonds between the base pairs of the two complementary single strands in the double-helix play key roles. Through the different interactions that we have observed the DNA acts to some extent as its own sun-protection".

Nina Schwalb investigated many different base combinations in synthetically-produced DNA molecules. Using a femtosecond pulsed laser spectroscope, she measured the characteristic energy release for each combination. She was able to measure the time for which the molecules continued to fluoresce, and thus how long they stored the light energy. She found that for some base combinations these fluorescence 'lifetimes' were only about 100 femtoseconds, whereas for others they were up to a thousand times longer. A femtosecond is one millionth of a billionth of a second.

Commenting on the conclusions from her research, Nina Schwalb says: "We have investigated the photophysical properties and have found that different base combinations have widely different fluorescence lifetimes. This could lead to the development of a new diagnostic method whereby laser light could be used to directly recognise certain genetic sequences without, for example, having to mark the DNA with dyes as in the method used at present".

One might also envisage linking the photophysical properties to genetic characteristics. When these mechanisms are better understood, it might in the long term become possible to repair gene mutations using laser radiation.

"In the field of nano-electronics it has already been shown that synthetically produced DNA can be used as 'nano-wires'. On the basis of the different reaction times of the molecules it might one day become possible to use laser pulses to 'switch' specific molecules. It might even be possible under some circumstances to make transistors from DNA that would work through the hydrogen bonds," explains Professor Temps.

Source: Kiel University

...In ancient times half our children would have died by the age of twenty. Now, in the Western world, 98% of them are surviving to the age of 21. Our life expectancy is now so good that eliminating all accidents and infectious diseases would only raise it by a further two years. Natural selection no longer has death as a handy tool...

Hmmm, human evolution is slowing down because we're not dying off so young anymore. Okay, maybe that's true. But the Prof doesn't stop there:

...Small populations which are isolated can change - evolve - at random as genes are accidentally lost. Worldwide, all populations are becoming connected and the opportunity for random change is dwindling. History is made in bed, but nowadays the beds are getting closer together. Almost everywhere, inbreeding is becoming less common. In Britain, one marriage in fifty or so is between members of a different ethnic group, and the country is one of the most sexually open in the world. We are mixing into a global mass, and the future is brown."

He added: "So, if you are worried about what utopia is going to be like, don't; at least in the developed world, and at least for the time being, you are living in it now."

"We are mixing into a global mass, and the future is brown." Uh, sure. Tell us something we don't already know.

It's no-brainer that Caucasian people in the United States will be a minority by 2050. Not a big deal in my view.

Then again I'm not a KKKer, neo-nazi or a Dominionist Fundie either. But I digress and the point of Jones' argument is that as the worlds' population becomes more homogenous, evolution slows down or stops.

I really doubt that hypothesis, and not only because he claims that we're in an evolutionary "utopia" now.

Puh-leez.

If this is utopia, what's this guys' definition of Purgatory?

Anyways, an article by Johnjoe McFadden in the guardian.co.uk makes the claim that selective genetic engineering will bring a flowering of human variety, free of death and disease:

Modifying heritable genes is presently considered to be unacceptable, at least in humans, because we would be tinkering with our genetic inheritance. But is that such a bad thing? Our genes are the products of billions of years of evolution – chance mutations – that were selected because they provided an advantage to one or more of our ancestors. But sometimes, random mutations can damage our genes. If that damage is in a skin or muscle cell then it won't be a problem (at least not to our children). But if the damaged gene is in an egg or sperm cell that our children will inherit the damaged gene and may suffer a genetic disease. If they have children (perhaps before knowing they are carrying a genetic defect) then their children may also be afflicted. Given enough evolutionary time, it is likely that unchecked natural selection would eventually remove damaged genes from the population; but should we wait that long? Thousands of children are born each year with defects, such as heart problems, that we have no hesitation in correcting. If we have the technology to correct defects in their genes then isn't it in the interests of the common good to do so?

Gene therapy of human genetic diseases in affected embryos is almost certainly within reach. The team that gave us Dolly the sheep also generated Polly the sheep, the world's first transgenic animal, in 1997. Polly's DNA was engineered, while she was still an embryo, to contain a copy of a human gene. It is likely that similar approaches could be used to correct gene defects in human embryos.

But why should we stop with deadly diseases? Wouldn't you want your children to also have a longer life with lower risk of cancer or heart disease? With more genes linked to common diseases turning up every day, it won't be too long before gene therapy is available to screen out even common ailments. If the technology was available to ensure that your children lived their lives free of cancer, wouldn't you take it?

Well, I'd be first in line for gene tailored meds to cure the chronic crap illnesses I have, McFadden would get no argument from me!

But would specialized genetic engineering spur new evolution in human beings?

I believe it could, if humans expanded out into the Solar System and interstellar space.

Mars? Why bother with space suits. Engineer humans to breath thin carbon dioxide air, grow thick skin to combat solar radiation and sprout solar "wings" to collect sunlight for food!

Micro-gravity a problem? Engineer an extra two-chamber heart in the groin area to pump blood more evenly, activate genes to make more bone calcium and muscle mass and engineer antibodies to resist cosmic radiation!

You get my point.

Yeah, I know, more space geek shit. But hey, this could help herald a new 'Cambrian Explosion!'

Why not?

Dipping into our gene pool

________________________________

Maybe these IEDC people haven't heard, but tree-planters are no longer welcome in our city! Chainsaw Shirley will save our hearts and minds from this nefarious arborist proletariat.

1. Do some research about what “eugenics” is, how eugenic ideas are used in different areas such as science and politics, and what moral and ethical debates these ideas have caused. Then examine and discuss what ethical and moral issues “Gattaca” might encourage its viewers to think about.
2. The film starts with the following two quotes:“Consider God’s handiwork, who can strengthen what he hath made crooked?” Ecclesiastes /“I not only think that we will tamper with Nature, I think Mother Nature wants us to.” Willard Gaylin... What is the significance of these quotes for the film and the audience?
3. What do the “hypermagnified shots of bodily fragments” (Jackie Stacey’s Masculinity, Masquerade, and Genetic Impersonation: Gattaca’s Queer Vision, 2005, p. 1851) in the credit sequence tell you about the concept of identity discussed in the film?
4. What is the significance of the name “Gattaca”?
5. Examine the mise-en-scène used in the space agency Gattaca: the building, the offices, the gymnasium, the uniforms. How do they all contribute to our understanding of the issues the film is dealing with?
6. What is the significance of having no windows in the gymnasium or in the work stations?
7. What is the significance of the glass window in Gattaca that Vincent is supposed to clean?
8. What is the significance of the spiral staircase in Jerome’s apartment?
9. How is class represented in the film? Comment on the hierarchy in the society.
10. What do you think about the representation of disabled people in the film? Is it offensive?
11. What is the significance of the 12-fingered pianist’s name?
12. In what way(s) can Jerome’s burning himself be regarded as a symbolic act?
13. Identify the conventions of science fiction and suspense movies in “Gattaca”.
14. In what ways can Gattaca be regarded as social criticism?
15. How does the film envisage the future? Positive or negative? Justify your perspective.
16. Comment on the following quotes from the film: “You wanna know how I did it, Anton? I never saved anything for the swim back.” / “You could go anywhere with this guy’s helix tucked under your arm.” / “They don’t care where you were born. Just how.” /“My real resume was in my cells.” / “Blood has no nationality.”

© Ali Nihat Eken, Istanbul, October 2008

The enzyme that allows a cow to digest grasses and other plant fibers can be used to turn other plant fibers into simple sugars. These simple sugars can be used to produce ethanol to power cars and trucks.

MSU scientists have discovered a way to grow corn plants that contain this enzyme. They have inserted a gene from a bacterium that lives in a cow’s stomach into a corn plant. Now, the sugars locked up in the plant’s leaves and stalk can be converted into usable sugar without expensive synthetic chemicals.

So would that make it a holy cow?

Here, some of the project partners tell us why this event is so important to them. It is a big debate, with many issues, many questions and very few real answers.

“There is a breath-taking naivety about the belief that GM can be a silver bullet to solve all the problems agriculture is currently facing. All the energy the Government and the proponents of GM are currently investing in a renaissance of the debate about the benefits of GM is a distraction from the real issues.”
"There is no evidence that GM crops increase yields, reduce pesticide use or bring any public benefits to society. And there is a growing body of evidence there could be health risks. There is also the genie out of the bottle argument that once these organisms are released you cannot recall them and the choice issue because the fact remains that the vast majority of consumers in Europe do not want to purchase GM foods if they can help it."
Patrick Holden, The Soil Association

"GM crops have failed to deliver the long-promised benefits of the biotech industry. Instead, increased pesticide use caused by these crops threatens the environment and communities around the world."
"The biotech industry tells Africans that we need GM crops to tackle the food needs of our population. But the majority of GM crops are used to feed animals in rich countries, to produce damaging agrofuels, and don't even yield more than conventional crops."
Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth International GMO coordinator in Nigeria

"It is now clearer than ever that Europe is right to take a precautionary approach to GM crops. They are not the solution to the urgent environmental and economic challenges facing farmers both in Europe and in developing countries. More and more evidence is showing that around the world green farming methods are providing real solutions whilst boosting local economies and creating jobs."
Clare Oxborrow, Friends of the Earth's GM Campaigner

“Quite simply, the GM route reinforces an outdated model of industrial, energy reliant agriculture, wholly unsuitable for adapting to and dealing with the conditions that climate change and expensive, scarce oil bring for global food security.”
“Most importantly we have to ask if undue research and commercial focus on GM foods and crops is diverting our attention from the development of truly reliable alternatives of sustainable (organic) agriculture which are capable of feeding a hungry world today and tomorrow.”
Richard Sanders, The Organic Research Centre

“World hunger and food shortage are complex issues largely social and economic in nature. There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone, it’s just that the economic system put in place by politicians has failed to ensure that that food reaches the people who need it most whilst other sectors of the population are becoming obese. The IAASTD process concluded that ‘business as usual is not the answer’ to world hunger...”
“The Government should stop listening to industry propaganda that is shamelessly trying to exploit the current food price rises – there is no evidence that GM crops have increased average yields. The reasons we have no GM crops in the UK are either that the Labour Government did not approve them or the industry withdrew approved crops on a voluntary basis.”
Pete Riley, GM Freeze.

BOOK YOUR PLACE

Join the debate at Westminster on 12th Nov (Map). Places now available at a *supported rate of £65.00
Download a booking form, call 01488 658279 or email the Organic Research Centre

California Ports Clean Up Polluting Trucks

California Passes Strong Anti-GE Law (take that Monsanto)

Cali. Governor signs laws on sprawl and water supplies but vetoes smog-fighting port cargo fee

California Passes Nation's First "Green Chemistry" Law (!!!)

I haven't looked too deeply into any of these, but so far they all seem like amazingly great steps in the right direction. If anyone knows any more about them, please comment.

In the meantime, enjoy this link to an article on GMO and Organic farming from PLoS.

Also, a recent article published by M. Schwartz on "The Importance of Stupidity in Scientific Research" which I found to be surprisingly hopeful.

Think there's no way this sad version of a chicken could end up as your next meal? Think again. This past week the FDA opened the way for genetically engineered chickens, salmon, cows, and other fish and animals to move from the laboratory to your dinner table, unveiling an approval process that would classify the modified creatures as drugs. No labels will be required.

"There is no special labeling requirement simply because the animal itself was engineered," says Randall Lutter, a deputy commissioner for policy.

FDA regulates GE animals under the “new animal drug” provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FDA’s regulations for new animal drugs. Companies are not required to alert consumers when antibiotics, hormones, or other drugs are used in raising the animals.

The decision does not affect cloned animals or their offspring, which earlier this year were declared safe as a food source by the FDA.

Many experts fear that the proposed regulations do not go far enough to protect and reassure the public. In particular, they argue that the approval process would be highly secretive to protect the commercial interests of the companies involved and that the new rules do not place sufficient weight on the environmental impact of what many consider to be Frankenstein animals.

In an effort to answer questions the FDA has put forth the following Q&A:

Q:What is genetic engineering? A: Genetic engineering is a process in which recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology is used to introduce new characteristics or traits into organisms.  When scientists splice together pieces of DNA and introduce a spliced DNA segment into an organism to give the organism new properties, it’s called rDNA technology. The spliced piece of DNA is called the rDNA construct. Genetic engineering has been widely used in agriculture to make crops resistant to certain pests or herbicides, in medicine to develop microbes that can produce pharmaceuticals for human or animal use, and in food to produce microorganisms that aid in baking, brewing, and cheese-making.

Q: What is a genetically engineered animal? A: A genetically engineered (GE) animal is one that contains an rDNA construct that’s intended to give the animal a new trait or characteristic. Examples of the kind of GE animals that are being developed are provided below.

Q: What kinds of GE animals are being developed? A: Many kinds of GE animals are in development, although none have yet been approved for commercial use.  

• Biopharm animals are those that have undergone genetic engineering to produce particular substances, such as human insulin, for pharmaceutical use. 
• Research animals may be engineered to make them more susceptible to particular diseases, such as cancer, in order to gain a better basic understanding of the disease for the development of new therapies or in order to evaluate new medical therapies.
• Xenotransplant animals are being engineered so they can be used as sources for cells, tissues or organs that can be used for transplantation into humans.
• Companion animals that are modified to enrich or enhance their interaction with humans (i.e., hypoallergenic pets). 
• Disease resistant animals may be used either for food use or biopharm applications. These animals have received modifications that make them resistant to common diseases, such as mastitis (a very painful infection of the udder) in dairy cows, or particularly deadly diseases, such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).
• Food use animals have been engineered to provide healthier meat, such as pigs that contain healthy omega-3 fatty acids at levels comparable to those in fish.

Q: How are GE animals regulated? A: FDA regulates GE animals under the “new animal drug”¹  provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FDA’s regulations for new animal drugs. This draft guidance is intended to help industry understand the requirements that are established by statute and regulations as they apply to these animals, including those of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and to inform the public about the process FDA is using to regulate GE animals. The draft guidance does not create any new obligations. It clarifies how the regulations apply to GE animals.

Q: What’s the difference between animal clones and GE animals?  A: The animal clones that were the subject of FDA’s risk assessment on animal cloning (released in January of 2008) are “just clones”—that is, they are copies of individual conventionally-bred animals, and do not contain any rDNA constructs. What can be confusing is that an animal clone can be genetically engineered (i.e., have an rDNA construct introduced into it), and a GE animal can be reproduced by cloning. Our draft guidance covers GE animals, irrespective of whether they were reproduced by cloning. It does not cover animal clones that do not contain an rDNA construct (“just clones”).

Q: Why is FDA regulating GE animals differently from animal clones?  A: Clones are really just genetic copies of the animals from which they are produced. The purpose of the FDA risk assessment was to determine whether cloning posed any new risks to the health of animals and whether animal clones posed new food safety risks. The conclusion of that risk assessment was that there are no new risks associated with those animals, that food from cattle, swine, and goat clones, and the progeny of the clone of any species traditionally consumed as food was as safe to eat as that from conventionally bred animals, and that no new regulatory requirements are required beyond those that apply to other, conventionally-bred animals.  By contrast, GE animals have changes to their genetic material that may potentially affect the health of the GE animal or the safety of food from the GE animal. Therefore, there are risk-based reasons for FDA to require their approval.

Q: Will GE animals be regulated the same if they’re used for food or if they’re intended to produce pharmaceuticals for people? A: GE animals are subject to premarket oversight whether they are intended to be used for food or to produce pharmaceuticals or other useful products. There may be some differences in what the actual oversight process entails depending on the kinds of risk(s) the GE animals may pose, and the kinds of uses for which they are intended. In addition, the pharmaceuticals produced from GE animals must be approved through the same process as applies to other pharmaceuticals. The Agency may also issue other guidances focused on particular kinds or uses of GE animals, such as biopharm animals (animals intended to produce pharmaceuticals for use in humans or other animals). In general, we do not anticipate that biopharm animals will be used for food.

Q: What kind of post-market surveillance will there be? A: Post-market surveillance will vary depending on the GE animal. However, as with conventional new animal drugs, the guidance tells sponsors (individuals or companies submitting GE animal applications to FDA for review) that in their application they should demonstrate that the rDNA construct is stable in the animal over time, and that the GE animal retains the new characteristics over time. As with conventional drugs, if additional information shows that there are safety concerns, or if the GE animal no longer has the characteristics claimed for it, FDA can take steps to have the GE animal removed from the market.

Q: Will FDA be looking at effects on the health of animals?  A: Before FDA can approve a new animal drug, it must determine that the drug is safe for the animal receiving it. Therefore, before we can approve a GE animal, we must determine that the rDNA construct is safe for the animal containing it. To do that, we look at the health of the animal. In the Draft Guidance, we provide recommendations on how developers can assess the health of their animals.

Q: Will food from GE animals be in the food supply? A: FDA has so far not approved or authorized any GE animals for use in food. However, we are reviewing applications requesting approval of GE animals intended for food use. We can not predict when we will complete those reviews, but we will not approve any GE animal for food use unless we find that the food from those GE animals is safe. It would be illegal to introduce food from an unapproved GE animal into the food supply without FDA permission. We work closely with GE animal producers to make sure that they keep good records of their animals and that none enter the food supply without FDA approval.

Q: Will food from GE animals be labeled? A: FDA does not require that food from GE animals be labeled to indicate that it comes from GE animals, just as it does not require that food from GE plants be labeled to indicate that it comes from GE plants. However, if food from a GE animal is different from its non-engineered counterpart (for example, if it has a different nutritional profile), the difference could be material information that would have to be indicated in the labeling. Marketers may voluntarily label their foods as coming from GE or non-GE animals, as long as the labeling is truthful and not misleading. FDA has oversight of labeling of fish and seafood, of milk and other dairy products, and of whole eggs in their shells. The U. S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) ensure that the proper labels are used for meat, poultry, and other egg products.

Q: Will GE animals be labeled?  A: Developers of GE animals will need to have labeling accompanying the animals. The guidance recommends that the labeling describe the GE animal (e.g., common name/breed/line, genus, species, GE animal line, rDNA construct), and its intended use. Where the labeling for a GE animal contains animal care or safety information (e.g., husbandry or containment), we recommend that the labeling accompany the animal throughout all stages of its lifecycle.

Q: What other agencies are involved in the regulation of these animals? A: Depending on the species and use of the animal in question, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), FSIS, the Environmental Protection Agency, and others may play a role in the regulation of GE animals.  FDA is currently working very closely with these agencies and Departments to coordinate the regulation of these animals.

Q: What about environmental effects? A: Environmental evaluation that meets the requirements of NEPA is required prior to any approval. We expect that the environmental risks that may be posed by GE animals will differ on a case-by-case basis. For example, the concerns raised by a GE cow that is resistant to mastitis will be very different from the concerns raised by a GE fresh-water fish that is engineered to grow more rapidly. We will work closely with individual GE animal producers to make sure that their environmental assessments address all of the potential risks these animals may pose.

Q: Can food from biopharm animals be eaten? A: In general, biopharm animals are not intended to be eaten: they are engineered to produce a therapeutic substance, and their value is in that product and not the meat or milk from the animal.  Given the relatively small numbers of any particular line of biopharm animal, the large amount of food safety data that is required to be provided to FDA for each GE animal line intended to enter the food supply, and the kind of food safety issues that pharmaceutical chemicals present in such animals would generally pose, it would be very unusual for developers of biopharm animals to want to enter their animals into the food supply. Without FDA approval for food use, it would be illegal for a company to direct any of its GE animals into the food supply. It is much more likely that these animals will be disposed of in a way that does not involve human food use when they have reached the end of their lives.

However, if a developer provided sufficient evidence of safety and FDA approved the biopharm animal for food use, then the decision on whether to enter it into the food supply would be a marketing issue for the food producer and the developer and not a food safety issue for the public.  

Q: What are the potential benefits of GE animals for consumers? A: Many GE animals in development are intended to have direct benefits to consumers. For instance, biopharm animals are being developed to produce various pharmaceuticals for humans or other animals such as clotting factors, growth factors and inhibitors used in cancer therapy, some of which cannot now be produced in sufficient quantities to meet medical needs. Some GE animals are under development to produce healthier food. And other animals are under development to have indirect benefits to consumers, such as decreased environmental impact by excreting lower levels of pollutants in their wastes.

Q: Are there any GE animals on the market now? A: In 2003, FDA chose to exercise enforcement discretion for a GE aquarium fish that glows in the dark. FDA made this decision in part because the fish (Zebra danio) is not a species used for food, and in part because the agency was able to determine that it did not pose any additional environmental risks compared with conventional Zebra danios. (Zebra danios are unable to survive outside the very warm waters of the tropics, which effectively limits the ability of an escaped or released fish to affect the U.S. environment.) To read FDA’s statement on GloFish, click here: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00994.html 

Additionally, there are many different kinds of GE rats and mice used in laboratory research throughout the world.

Q: How long have GE animals existed? Why is FDA stepping in now? A: The first GE animal, a mouse, was produced in the 1980s. Since that time, the field has grown enormously. FDA has been monitoring and evaluating the development of GE animals   and believes that it is important now to provide the growing industry with a clear and transparent regulatory path. We also think it’s important to let other stakeholders, including the public, know our policies and requirements on this issue. Because we are a science-based public health agency, we are using a rigorous regulatory approach to ensure the public health, while providing GE animal developers a science-based path by which they can bring innovative products to the market. In addition, the Codex Alimentarius, an international food safety standards organization sponsored by the United Nations, recently adopted a guideline on assessing the safety of food from GE animals. We therefore realized this was a good time to ensure that developers, both in the U.S. and around the world, understood what FDA’s regulatory requirements are regarding GE animals and food from such animals.

Q: Why do we need GE animals? Isn’t there enough food available already? A: Although GE animals are not currently being developed to address world food shortages, it is possible they could play such a role at some time in the future. At this time, the largest group of GE animals under development is for biopharm purposes. The GE animals that are intended for food are intended to fill particular needs, some of which might ultimately have a role in helping to ease food shortages such as the ability to resist certain diseases, grow well in warmer conditions, or have a smaller environmental impact.

Q: Do GE animals look different from other animals?  A: Despite some of the doctored photographs that you may have seen circulating on the internet, adding a new gene to an animal does not result in outlandish physical combinations, such as a bird with the head of a rabbit. Genetic engineering simply doesn’t work that way.

Almost all GE animals will look the same as their conventional counterparts, although there are some products in which the point of the GE process is to make the animal look slightly different (such as the GloFish).

Q: Is the offspring of a GE animal also considered GE? A: In general, most GE animals that are being developed at this time are intended to pass their new GE traits on to their offspring. Such traits are called heritable. The initial GE animal and all of its descendants that have inherited the GE trait are called GE animals. Other GE animals have “non-heritable” traits, meaning that none of the offspring will have the trait. The draft guidance being released deals only with GE animals bearing heritable traits.

Q: Is it possible that GE animals could displace or replace the conventional species? A: Over time, it is at least theoretically possible that certain GE traits might be widely adopted. For example, were ducks and chickens developed that could not carry or transmit avian influenza, it is possible that many producers of such animals, particularly in vulnerable parts of the world, would want to introduce that trait throughout their flocks. Such a trend would be no different than what already has occurred with the popular conventional livestock breeds currently used in agriculture. Such widespread adoption of any particular GE trait would likely be quite unusual.  It also would be extremely unlikely for any GE animal to accidentally displace conventional animals. Most developers of the GE animals will likely control their breeding opportunities to further their business interests. For example, GE animals producing pharmaceutical products will likely be carefully confined in controlled conditions, such as limited access barns, to ensure that diseases or other contaminants do not make their way into the final pharmaceutical products.

Q: Is there a chance that this technology could be used on humans? A: Gene therapy has been used to attempt to treat various human diseases since 1990, and is subject to strict FDA oversight by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) under a process different from that described in this draft guidance. Human gene therapy is currently limited to non-heritable therapies; that is, people who receive the new genes as part of the gene therapy can’t pass them on to their children.

Q: What exactly does the review process of a GE animal entail? A: The guidance recommends a review process that includes seven categories:

• Product definition: a broad statement characterizing the GE animal and the claim being made for the GE animal;
• Molecular characterization of the construct: a description of the rDNA construct and how it was made; 
• Molecular characterization of the GE animal lineage: a description of the rDNA construct that was introduced into the animal, and whether it is passed to the offspring in a predictable way; 
• Phenotypic characterization of the GE animal: information describing the GE animal, including comprehensive data on the health of the animal; 
• Durability plan: demonstrates that the offspring (over multiple generations) continue to inherit the rDNA construct and that they continue to express the new trait;
• Environmental and food/feed safety: the assessment of any environmental impacts, and for GE animals intended for food, that food from those GE animals is safe to eat for humans and/or animals;
• Claim validation: a demonstration that the GE animal has the characteristics that the developer says it has.

Q: When will the first approvals be granted? A: No GE animals will be approved until FDA determines that the rDNA construct in the animals is safe for the animals and is effective, i.e., that the GE animals do indeed possess the traits that they were intended to express, and that, if the animals are intended to be used as food, the food is safe to eat.  All approvals will be handled on a case-by-case basis, and as with any approval, it is difficult to estimate how long it will take to produce the data for the agency to evaluate, and when any one of those reviews will be completed.

Q: Will any approvals be granted before this draft guidance is published in final form? A: This guidance explains how the existing laws and regulatory requirements apply to GE animals. The guidance does not itself impose any requirements, but instead provides recommendations for how sponsors can meet legal and regulatory requirements. We cannot predict when any approvals will be completed, but the timing of such approvals is unrelated to the issuance of the final guidance. 

Q: How will the public know when FDA has granted an approval? A: As for any new animal drug approval, the agency will post approvals of GE animals on FDA’s website and will publish the approval in its official listing of approved applications in the Code of Federal Regulations. It is likely that for the first GE animal approval(s), we will convene a public advisory committee meeting prior to the completion of the approval.

Q: What about the ethics of genetically engineering animals? A: The issue of ethics is an extremely complicated one. On the one hand, the standard for approval does not explicitly include ethics—FDA must regulate on the basis of safety and effectiveness. However, many people would consider animal health and safety to be a subcategory of the broader term “ethics.” To that end, the regulatory approach proposed in the Draft Guidance closely examines animal health and requires a finding of safety to animals, and so we believe that we are addressing those particular concerns. 

We do, however, recognize that genetically engineering animals may raise non-scientific questions that are important to some members of the public. Therefore, we have participated in, and will continue to participate in, discussions on ethical issues to ensure that interested parties have the correct facts in order to make informed decisions about these animals.

Q: Where can I get more information about genetic engineering and the GE draft Guidance for Industry? A: The draft Guidance for Industry is available at | html | pdf |

Q: How can I voice my opinion about the draft Guidance for Industry? A: The public can comment on the draft Guidance for Industry by going to http://www.regulations.gov/, and entering docket number FDA-2008-D-0394. Comments will be accepted until November 18, 2008.

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/GEconsumersQA.htm

Popeye's Burger-loving mooch of a friend? Famous for saying:

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for hamburger today."

As I was trying to think of how to designate a regular day when readers can share a non-meat recipe, I kept thinking, "not wimpy."

Wimpy loved burgers (as I do)! Wimpy was a mooch, who promised to show on Tuesday but probably never did. So maybe we call it: Non-Wimpy Tuesday.

Tuesdays, instead of burger day or payment for them day, can become the day we share meat-free recipes. (cue the horns of heraldry!)

And anyone who knows how to superimpose a red circle with the line through it over wimpy here, please raise your hand.

Or maybe we find another logo for it?

Why NWT or go meat-free?

More and more of us are m-o-o-o-ving away from meat, regularly, if not completely. I'm not talking about becoming a vegan (no meat, no dairy, no animal products, though curiously often cigarettes, leather and other substances are okay). Nor do I intend to become vegetarian (no meat) or "pescatarian" (no meat but fish).

No, don't worry. I'm not talking about any of that. It's all okay, it's just not where I'm coming from.

I'm talking about expanding our options. Think about adding new recipes to your menu rotation, as opposed to subtracting meat. Think about good food that is satisfying and happens to be veg.

Why are people seeking meat-free recipes?

I've had friends and readers whom I've not met, ask for ideas to help them eat healthy gourmet food, here are some of the additional requests or concerns I've heard:

• sustainability - so important to many of us;
• cost - people want help stretching food dollars;
• local - increasingly, people desire more information about, connection to their food producers;
  
• organics - competing, often silly or misleading information grows daily about what this means and its value;
• food ethics - ethical eating is rising on the charts!

Some bundle these all together and call it S/O/L/E - a sort of catchall term for these issues. Perhaps we should have S/O/L/E food day. Kinda like that one...(she changes the title, already unwieldy...someone stop her...please. Now.)

As we look at the environmental impacts of our food choices (see the Low Carbon Diet, in Mooove over South Beach) we see that those burgers have a lot more impact on our greenhouse gas emissions than you might realize. Even meat free burgers can be onerous in emissions from packaging and trucking.

Others have asked me for help thinking outside the meat-centered box for health reasons or in light of increasing unease with animal welfare issues.

Here we go!

• Tuesdays I'll highlight a meat-free recipe, either mine or submitted by a reader. I invite everyone to send one in on any day. I'll pick one to share on an upcoming Tuesday. If you have a food blog or website, be sure to include it.

• Tell us about your thoughts on going meat-free just one day. Is it cost-driven? Food safety concerns? Sustainability issues? Health goals? Curiosity? Culinary interest? Is this hard for you? Easy?

• I'll also share resources and create an on-going list which I'll set up somewhere so there's an evergreen list. I've got a growing list of fellow food bloggers, chefs, and a couple of dieticians who will inspire us, I'm sure. I can't wait.

• Snap a photo of what you made, tell us how you liked it.

Food for thought to get you going:

- Millions of people eat meat-free every day. Look to cuisines of other cultures. Mediterranean, Asian, Indian, especially.

- Here's a beautiful website, 101 Cookbooks that is delicious, informative and gorgeously photographed. That's just one, lots more up my sleeve!

- Summer is such a good time for produce around here. Go to the farmers market and pick up what's fresh - build the meal around that.

Years ago, Appleton Wisconsin high school students conducted an experiment with three mice. They fed one group of mice junk food while the second group was fed nutritious whole foods. The results? The mice fed the nutritious whole foods acted like mice, playing with each other and sleeping during the day, while the junk food mice fought, tore up their "house" and eventually cannibalized one of their own. After three months, the students were able to rehabilitate the remaining two mice with a diet of whole foods. It took three weeks.

Seven years ago Appleton Wisconsin high school replaced their cafeteria's processed foods with wholesome, nutritious food. Prior to the change the school had weapons violations, student disruptions, and a full-time cop. After the change in school meals, the students were calm, focused, and orderly. 

Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every year in her second grade class in Cudahy, Wisconsin but for only four days. Still, the students note that the mice's behavior changes drastically, even on the first day.  

This is the same experiment perpetrated on millions of men, women and children daily. The key here is that Genetically Modified ingredients are in most of the processed (or junk) foods on the market.

GM foods have not been researched enough to determine their safety for human consumption. In fact, animals, when given a choice, avoid eating GM foods. They get the difference. Why don't we? There have been no rigorous long-term studies before GM foods are approved by the FDA. Most testing is conducted by the company who is touting the GM food, like Monsanto. They are hardly likely to find problems with a product they're trying to get approved.

GM Crops in the U.S. (estimated percent genetically modified):

• Soy (89%)
• Cotton (83%)
• Canola (75%)
• Corn (61%)
• Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%)
• Sugar beets (unknown, commercially grown starting in 2008)
• Alfalfa, zucchini and yellow squash (small amount)

Get the rest of the list: Genetically Modified Ingredients Overview

A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another in an attempt to obtain a desired trait or characteristic. This process is called either Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification (GM); they are one and the same." 

Just remember that the bottom line is about money, not about safety or health. Once genes from one species are introduced into another, how likely is it that scientists or companies can control what happens from there on out? What unforeseen changes occur? Why do we not hear about the intestinal damage, allergies, liver, pancreas and sterility, the animal and human deaths from eating GM food?

Current field trials include:

• Corn engineered with human genes (Dow)
• Sugarcane engineered with human genes (Hawaii Agriculture Research Center)
• Corn engineered with jellyfish genes (Stanford University)
• Tobacco engineered with lettuce genes (University of Hawaii)
• Rice engineered with human genes (Applied Phytologics)
• Corn engineered with hepatitis virus genes (Prodigene)

This is not the same as a donkey and a horse mating and producing a sterile mule. It's like mating a fly with a human, as in the horror movie, The Fly. Okay, maybe we won't end up with BrundleFly, but still, does this sound smart or safe to you? I'm all for technological advances but I don't want to be a guinea pig either.

There is an epidemic of obesity and diabetes. Children are being diagnosed as ADD or ADHD in prodigious numbers. What's that old adage? You are what you eat. Time to wake up.

Resources:

• Institute for Responsible Technology: GM-Free Schools Campaign
• Organic Consumers Association: Why Schools Should Remove Gene-Altered Foods from Their Cafeterias
• Seeds of Deception - The Health Risks of GM Foods: Summary and Debate

Related Posts:

• Food Additives Cause Hyperactive Behavior
• High Fructose Corn Syrup is Natural
• Monsanto’s “Creative Chemistry”

Enjoy this post? Get more like it. Subscribe in a reader or by Email.

[1] 350 BC Aristotle on mayfly

John Wilkins at Evolving thoughts decides to read a bit of Aristotle and evaluate his writings, with specific reference to mayfly:

At any rate, the more I read Aristotle, and the more I understand both where things stood at his time and what he actually said, I find him to be an amazing natural historian, a good observer, and generally not a bad theoretician. Sure, his theories are wrong, and his overall philosophy of teleology in biological cases (not, I hasten to add, in his physics) is unnecessary now we have teleosemantic explanations (i.e., natural selection), but he is not the moron of popular history of biology; far from it.

Funnily enough, the EMBOR author of the canard, Katrin Weigmann, is trying to make the case that science is not infallible, while ignoring the very real actual achievements of the people she denigrates. Nobody thought science was infallible anyway, but trying to make out that errors were made where they weren't doesn't give one much confidence in any subsequent argument. And of course this is another case of scientists doing bad history for [scientific] political reasons.

[2] 1817 Defining Parkison's disease

Scicurious at Neurotopia writes about a classic monograph by Parkinson on shaking  palsy:

I definitely recommend Parkinson's monograph, partially because it's always interesting to read the old lit, and also because his case descriptions are incredibly vivid and empathetic. Although his methods of treatment probably brought little real cure, he was a compassionate physician and a brilliant man of his time, who put together all the dots to define what we now call Parkinson's Disease.

[3] 1958/59 Modelling spinodal decomposition

I write about a series of papers that laid the foundation for the Cahn-Hilliard equation for the study of microstructural evolution:

In a series of papers published in The Journal of Chemical Physics, Cahn and Hilliard (and Cahn, by himself) provide the context as well as formulation of the CH equation; the first of these papers, published by Cahn and Hilliard in 1958 [1] discusses the formulation of the free energy which takes into account the interfacial energies that result from composition gradients; the second, published by Cahn in 1959 [2] discusses the thermodynamic basis behind the free eenergy formulation; the third, published by Cahn and Hilliard in 1959 [3], the formulated free energy is used to study phase separation in immiscible liquid mixtures. In a paper published in Acta Metallurgica in 1961 [4], Cahn discusses the study of spinodal decomposition in solids (including the elastic stress effects due to the lattice parameter differences between the two phases). These four papers (sometimes along with another by Cahn and Allen [5] — which is a classic by itself and deserves a separate post for one of the future Giants’ shoulders carnival) forms the theoretical basis for almost all the diffuse interface studies on microstructural evolution in the metallurgical and materials science literature.

[4] 1963 Interference between different photons

Skullsinthestars writes about a clever and simple experiment that proved one of the most famous statements concerning the quantum mechanics of photons wrong:

One of the most famous statements concerning quantum mechanics, as it relates to the light particles known as photons, was made by the brilliant scientist Paul Dirac in his Quantum Mechanics book:

“each photon then interferes only with itself.  Interference between different photons never occurs.”

This statement is bold and unambiguous: in Dirac’s view, a photon only creates interference patterns by virtue of its own wave function, and wave functions of different photons do not interact.

The statement is bold, unambiguous, often quoted — and wrong!  In 1963, Leonard Mandel and G. Magyar of Imperial College disproved this statement with a clever and simple experiment and a two-page paper in Nature.

[5] 1973 Beginnings of Genetic Engineering

Evilutionary biologist writes about a classic which started the field of genetic engineering:

Cohen had previously determined how to make E. coli take in foreign DNA (a citation classic worthy feat in itself) when he transformed E. coli with a plasmid known as pSC101, that conferred resistance to the antibiotic tetracycline.

Boyer on the other hand had discovered EcoRI, a restriction enzyme that could snip open pSC101 while leaving "sticky ends".

Like chocolate and peanut butter, the combination was unbeatable. Cohen and Boyer realized they could combine their techniques to create a new plasmid containing foreign DNA.

[6] 1977 Categorizing fundamental types of living beings

Epicanis at the Big room (and the little things in it) writes about a paper that forms the basis of the modern classification of fundamental types of living beings -- the three groups in the phylogenetic tree of life:

The “plant” and “animal” distinction is pretty classic - until comparatively recently, bacteria were assumed to be “plants”, just as fungi (”plants” that lacked chlorophyll) were. Non-photosynthetic bacteria were referred to as “schizomycetes” (literally “fission” [splitting in two] fungi, because they reproduce by splitting from one cell into two rather than forming spores), while bacteria with chlorophyll (cyanobacteria or “blue-green” algae, and possibly the “green sulfur bacteria”) were designated “schizophyta” (”fission plants”).

Within the last fifty years or so, though, it’s become obvious that bacteria were a different type of life from fungi, chlorophyll-containing plants, or animals. The latter critters have cells that in turn contain “organelles”, which are more or less very specialized “mini-cells” within themselves. The nucleus, for example, is a compartment within the cell where the cell’s DNA is kept and processed. Bacteria, it turned out, don’t have any of these organelles (in fact there’s good evidence that at least some if not all organelles used to be bacteria, but this post’s long enough already so I won’t go into that), and life was re-organized into the bacterial “prokaryotes” (”before nucleus”) and the “eukaryotes” (having a “true nucleus” - i.e. everything that isn’t bacteria).

...

From this paper we get the the modern fundamental three groups we still use today: Eukaryotes, Eubacteria ["True" bacteria], and the Archaea (or “Archaebacteria” as this paper names it). The name comes from the idea that the environment in which methanogens thrives resembles what has often been assumed to be the atmosphere of the very early Earth.

Happy reading!

We're off to see the biotech equivalent of the Wizard of Oz...

 1. Many pro-GM commentators hail the technology as the solution to the current food crisis because of its ability to reduce fertilizer use and help farmers cope with problems like drought, salinity or flooding. After 20 years of GM research, how many GM drought tolerant, or salt tolerant, or flood tolerant, or fertilizer-reducing crops are there on the market worldwide? ANSWER: None.

2. There have been tens of thousands of articles in the world's media about 'miracle' crops genetically engineered for enhanced appearance, flavour, nutrition, or to be allergen-free, or to combat problems like obesity or to contain edible vaccines that protect against major diseases like cancer. How many of these GM crops are there on the market worldwide? ANSWER: None.

3. When published in April 2008, which appraisal of global agriculture, sponsored by the World Bank and the U.N., and undertaken on a scale comparable to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, concluded that GM crops have at best variable impacts on yields and would not play a substantial role in addressing climate change, loss of biodiversity, hunger or poverty? ANSWER: IAASTD - International Assessment of Agricultural knowledge, Science and Technology for Development

4. More than 50% of the GM crops grown worldwide are farmed in the United States, and by far the most widely grown crop is herbicide-tolerant soyabeans. Based on U.S. Department of Agriculture trend data and numerous field studies, by roughly how much has GM soya increased yield for U.S. farmers compared to conventional (non-GM) varieties? ANSWER: Zero - it may even have decreased yields compared to non-GM varieties.

5. Who said the following about GM crops when promoting them as a solution to the food crisis? "We've been using them for 10 years in the United States and they have a proven effectiveness in increasing yields, in lowering the use of fertilizer, in providing better water and soil management and also increasing taste and appearance. So, you know, those are all good things." ANSWER: U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer.

6. What word did Prof. Dennis Murphy - the head of biotechnology at the University of Glamorgan, recently use to describe claims about GM crops solving the problem of drought or feeding the world? ANSWER: "Bullshit".

7. Monsanto and its supporters claim that GM crops have been widely adopted in countries like the United States because of their economic benefits for farmers. Which organization in its review of GM crop cultivation in the U.S. commented, "Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of [GM] crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative"? ANSWER: USDA - United States department for Agriculture (USDA/ERS)

8. The Director of Corporate Affairs for Monsanto India says the increase in GM cotton acres there "bear testimony to the success of this technology and the benefit that farmers derive from it." According to Washington University researcher Glenn Stone's multi-year study of the behaviour of cotton farmers in a key cotton growing area of India, what underlay the rapid spread of GM cotton there? ANSWER: Seed fads.

9. The wife of which South African farmer who has been flown around the world by Monsanto to preach the benefits of GM cotton and detail how it has transformed his family's life, admitted on camera that they made no profit from the crop? ANSWER: TJ Buthelezi

10. What was surprising about the posters that appeared in many places in Madhya Pradesh, India, featuring a man who said he'd gained great benefits from growing GM cotton and urging others to do the same?ANSWER: He was not a farmer.

11. Why was Gary Rinehart surprised to be publicly harassed over violating Monsanto's patent on GM soybeans, and subsequently to have the company file a federal lawsuit against him? ANSWER: He was not a farmer.

12. What is the annual budget that Monsanto devotes to harassing, intimidating, suing - and in some cases bankrupting - American farmers over alleged improper use of its patented seeds? ANSWER: 10 million dollars.

GM Watch Quiz 1: Who's Designing Your Food
See also: 50 Harmful effects of genetically modified food

http://www.gmwatch.eu/archives/26-10-YEARS-OF-GM-WATCH-QUIZTIME!.html

Szostak's protocells are built from fatty molecules that can trap bits of nucleic acids that contain the source code for replication. Combined with a process that harnesses external energy from the sun or chemical reactions, they could form a self-replicating, evolving system that satisfies the conditions of life, but isn't anything like life on earth now, but might represent life as it began or could exist elsewhere in the universe.

The initiative is expected to be rolled out later this month. Exact details have yet to be worked out, but the State Council, China's cabinet, approved the research initiative in July, after Premier Wen Jiabao told senior scientists that the country needs "big science and technology measures" like GM to solve its food problem.

China has already widely planted insect-resistant GM cotton, which occupies 70 per cent of the area devoted to growing the crop in China. Chinese scientists have also successfully developed several types of GM rice, whose field trials have shown higher yields and less pesticide uses. But the government has delayed commercialisation of GM rice due to biosafety concerns.

The new initiative will also include a public education initiative to try to ease public safety concerns over GM. Chinese scientists say that legitimate concerns over GM crops' biosafety should not be used to mislead the public in the name of environmental protection.

http://www.scidev.net/en/news/china-pushes-us-3-5-billion-gm-project.html

In the July 25 issue of Molecular Cell, researchers including Voytas describe an efficient method to induce specific genomic modifications in many types of cells – including plants and humans. This is the first time the method will be publicly available and free to researchers.

"This method is going to be a turning point in the way we manipulate genomes," Voytas said. "It will allow any researcher to make a change to genetic material."

More specifically, the article shows researchers how to engineer customized zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs), which can be used to induce specific genomic modifications in many types of cells.

"Recent work has shown that ZFNs can alter genes with high efficiency in cells from plants or model organisms like fruit flies, roundworms, and zebra fish, and in human cells," said J. Keith Joung, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Molecular Pathology Unit at MGH, principal investigator of the study. "Our method will enable academic researchers to rapidly create high quality ZFNs for genes of interest and will stimulate use of this technology in biological research and potentially gene therapy."

Currently available methods for generating ZFNs are either inefficient or exceed the capabilities of all but a handful of laboratories in the world.

Morgan L. Maeder of the Joung lab led an effort by researchers from six institutions that demonstrated how this new method (termed OPEN, for Oligomerized Pool ENgineering) can rapidly generate ZFNs that induce alterations at sites in three biologically important human genes and a plant gene. ZFNs made by the new OPEN method – which utilizes a new archive of reagents that will be made publicly available by the Zinc Finger Consortium – were so efficient that they could modify as many as four copies of a gene in human cells and two copies in plant cells.

"Our study provides the first evidence that ZFNs can make specific changes in plant genes with high efficiency and opens a new avenue for plant genetic modification," Voytas said. At the University of Minnesota, Voytas and his team are interested in modifying plant genes for crop improvement.

"With the development of OPEN, many more academic labs will be able to construct, test and use ZFNs in their biological research projects," Joung said. "OPEN should also stimulate additional research into the potential application of ZFNs for gene therapy of single-gene disorders, such as sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis."

Source: University of Minnesota

Link: http://www.zincfingers.org

Of course there was Project Bluebook ( 1952 - 1970 ) which determined the phenomenon wasn't a danger to national security, but that never satisfied the people who take the position the US government has a partnership with aliens and that the government will do anything to keep that secret.

Enter one of the most enduring myths(?) of Ufology; the MIB, or Men In Black. The MIBs job is to discredit UFO witnesses and do other "unsavory" operations for the US government. Or for the aliens themselves.

The MIB myth/legend/meme has been around as long as the Roswell Incident, or earlier possibly. The main feature of the MIB of course is they dress in black. If the purpose is to remain stealthy, well, I think they haven't been very good at that. But maybe that's part of the deal, to spread a meme of "warning".

Anyway, Paul Dale Roberts of The Alien Seeker News recently did an interview with a supposed Man In Black in which no new relevations were revealed, just some stuff the meme-stream of Ufology has had for years:

Paul: Good afternoon. May I use your real name in this interview?

Mr. Q: No.

Paul: Can I call you Mr. Q or a name of your choosing?

Mr. Q: (Chuckles). Yeah, Mr. Q sounds good.

Paul: Why did you select me for this interview?

Mr. Q:You are the most accessible paranormal investigator on the web. You have your cell number right out there for the world to see. When I call, you answer. Plus, you are not just a ghosthunter, but you investigate all things of a paranormal nature. I like the fact that when I call, I get a real person. How many times have you heard that?

Paul:Why are you disclosing your status as a former MIB? (Men in Black).

Mr. Q: I am tired of the lies of our government. It's time for disclosure. We are not alone.

Paul: Did you get fired or did you quit?

Mr. Q:Yes, you can say I got fired. I fell in love. The aliens that control American Intelligence MIBs have a way to manipulate our emotions. One of those emotions is love. Somehow I overcame this obstacle and actually fell in love. I was rejected from the MIB program.

Paul: Who did you fall in love with?

Mr. Q: Move onto the next question.

I guess Mr. MIB doesn't like personal questions about his love-life, but who does? Other than the folks who go on the Jerry Springer Show anyway.

But further on in the interview, Roberts notices that Mr. MIB is of South Pacific origin, which segues nicely into this little post from Greg Bishop of UFOMystic:

William B. Gill, an Anglican priest with a mission in Bosinai, Papas New Guinea, observed craft-like UFOs — one with Humanoid figures on top — on two consecutive evenings, June 26-27, 1959. About twenty-five natives, including teachers and medical technicians, also observed the phenomena. They “signaled” the humanoids and received an apparent response. This was one of sixty UFO sightings within a few weeks in the New Guinea area...

What many may not know is that this event took place about 1200 miles from the United States military installation in the Kwajalein atoll, located in the Marshall Islands, which has been a semi-secret missile and rocket test facility since, coincidentally enough, 1959. Now, 1200 miles may seem like a long way, but in the geography of the immense South Pacific, as well as the distances covered by high speed aircraft and of course rockets, it’s a stone’s throw. New Guinea is also the nearest land that isn’t a micro-island in that area of the South Pacific (with the possible exception of Guam) which suggests that the object and apparent “crew” may have picked it in case they ran into any serious trouble with their equipment.

If you lend any credence to stories of unconventional aircraft (of the anti- or electro-gravitic type) and rumors about captured technology just after WWII, Gill and his fellow witnesses may have seen some sort of test flight stopover. Why the crew bothered to hover right over a beach in New Guinea in front of scores of witnesses is a question that remains unanswered.

Gill’s own account stresses the almost mundane nature of the encounter. There were no high-G or other strange movements made by the object. It apparently hovered over the small church complex and then slowly disappeared into the clouds. (There were two sightings on subsequent evenings.) During the second event, Gill went inside before the craft had left. While some investigators have expressed surprise that anyone would leave in the middle of such an extraordinary sight, Gill and his companions had been looking at the UFO for over four hours just the night before. After returning hand gestures and moving the object in answer to a flashlight, the “crew” had apparently lost interest in the witnesses as well, and repeated attempts to make it land were unsuccessful.

The key link here is the base at Kwajalein Atoll, which the MIB mentions in the Roberts interview and why he is of South Pacific origin.

The post in UFOMystic leaves the impression that the UFO is of human origin, which is very plausible. But the MIB interview keeps the ETI angle in play. Convenient, eh?

Just enough to keep things nice and muddy.

The meme must go on!

Interview with Mr. Q. Former MIB (Men In Black)

Was The “Father Gill” Sighting A Classified Aircraft?

____________________________________________________

I hear "disease management" and figure the researchers and doctors no longer want to find an actual cause that would lead them to really helping/curing you; but instead want the easy way out..........just "manage" the disease so you have the least discomfort to deal with. OH, and by the way, this management will require regular visits to your doctor complete with tests more than once a year I'm sure.

Well, I read today that "disease management" has a NEW name. Population Health Management. I don't know about you, but THAT scares me. THAT tells me this not about helping any individuals deal with and manage their illnesses; but is indeed about getting (as in making/forcing/bullying/etc) everyone to do exactly as they are told to do, whether they like it or not.

A telling name change

It was a quiet little press release that received very little notice, but told a much larger story. The Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. media company which publishes 60 journals for various health-related groups — from obesity management to genetic engineering — announced last week that Disease Management, the publication of the Disease Management Association of America: The Care Continuum Alliance, was being changed to Population Health Management.

~snip~

“Although disease management will continue to be a critical component of population health improvement,” said Liebert media spokesperson Vicki Cohn, other things are required to address health care quality, access and outcomes on a population level. Those include “resource management, clinical guidelines, compliance strategies, information technology, and health economics.” Future issues will focus on reengineering clinical processes, provider incentives, quality and return on investments, she said.

© 2008 Sandy Szwarc

You really MUST read the FULL STORY here.

Some key words and phrases stuck out for me in all this, and they should make you at least stop and think a bit:

compliance strategies

increasing awareness of health risks associated with certain personal behaviors and lifestyles

health management and education focused on prevention and behavioral modification; and

Unfortunately, there are control freaks in this world who are just miserable because they can't function without someone micromanaging them, so they want to do the same to everyone else.

If I could find a way to survive OFF the grid................I would in a heartbeat!

THIS is just the beginning and it's happening right here in a nation that was founded as a Republic and is rapidly looking more and more like a totalitarian/socialist nation!

Although the suit was brought against USDA; Forage Genetics and Monsanto Company entered into the suit as Defendant-Intervenors. In her opinion, Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder held that Monsanto and Forage Genetics contend that the District Court disregarded their financial losses, but the district court considered those economic losses and simply concluded that the harm to growers and consumers who wanted non-genetically engineered alfalfa outweighed the financial hardships to Monsanto and Forage Genetics and their growers.

This ruling affirms a major victory for consumers, ranchers, organic farmers, and most conventional farmers across the country, said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. Roundup Ready Alfalfa represents a very real threat to farmers livelihoods and the environment; the judge rightly dismissed Monsanto claims that their bottom line should come before the rights of the public and Americaís farmers. This ruling is a turning point in the regulation of biotech crops in this country.

Todays decision upholds District Court Judge Charles Breyerís earlier ruling of May 2007, in which he found that the USDA failed to address concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa. Judge Schroeders decision affirms that USDA violated national environmental laws by approving GE alfalfa without a full Environmental Impact Statement. It also affirms that USDA failed to address the problem of Roundup-resistant ìsuperweedsî that could follow commercial planting of GE alfalfa.

The Center for Food Safety represented itself and the following co-plaintiffs in the suit: Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Beyond Pesticides, Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, Trask Family Seeds, and Geertson Seed Farms.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/AlfalfaPR9_2_08.cfm, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=court-just-says-no--again----to-gen-2008-09-02&print=true

          Once upon a time, mosquito control was limited to searching for and destroying the insect pest to halt the spread of the disease.  Researchers have nevertheless been seeking ways to improve upon this labour intensive and costly method of combating Dengue Fever, which accounts for 50 million infections each and every year.  Between 1% and 5% of those who become afflicted by the Dengue virus perish.

The overall body of knowledge that scientists are amassing is geared towards a more profound understanding of how the Dengue viruses attack the human body.  This goes way beyond the basics of how the viruses are transmitted to humans by the mosquito and the signs and symptoms that are manifest when a person succumbs to the illness.

In recent years, significant gains have been made in the formulation of safe and effective vaccines.  Clinical trials are currently being undertaken by various research teams around the world.  Yet still, it will be several more years (probably no less than five in the best case scenario) before any drugs are approved for widespread use and are put on the open market.

With the advent of genetic engineering, scientists are attempting to modify the genetic structure of the pests in order to render them infertile in which case the species would self-destruct.  This though would require unleashing impotent mosquitoes into the natural environment.  Sceptics have been alarmed by this approach, fearing that there may be unforeseen consequences when these unnatural creatures are introduced into the environment.

For all the dangers that are inherent in genetic engineering, this discipline has taken centre stage in the work of some scientists at the Universities of Michigan and Iowa in the United States who, in the August issue of the Nature Medicine, claim to have gained fresh insights into how Dengue viruses actually circumvent the defence mechanisms of the human body, at the cellular level.

To put this in context, a person is sickened by the Dengue virus when it successfully attaches itself to and infects perfectly healthy human cells.  The goal of the study, therefore, was to discover a bit more about how the viruses did that and to devise a way of blocking them.

They had already found out that the Dengue virus has a specific type of protein called the 'envelope protein," which targets vulnerable cells and binds with them.  The question then was what about those target cells that would make that possible?

Their latest work taught them that the skin of human cells possesses a sugar molecule called 'heparan sulfate.'  It is that molecule that the envelope protein uses to take over the cell and thereby degrade the human body.

Coming back to the topic of vaccines, the next challenge the university researchers faced was how to effectively block the envelope protein.  They tried a drug called Suramin in the lab because it mimics the sugar molecule on the surface of the human cell and in so doing they inhibited the envelope protein of the Dengue virus from binding.

Suramin is not a Dengue vaccine though and is not approved as a dedicated treatment for Dengue.  It is still to be proved whether this pharmaceutical can be as effective in human trials as it was in the lab.  So we wait...