Scary Science

[libby]

  Too bad, PH. I know you were looking forward to that trip; and too bad also for you,  Olias. 

I actually have a pretty good idea of what weightless sex might be like. Several years ago, I was doing some yoga exercises, and was down to the last one -- lying flat on my back on the floor with eyes closed, imagining I was floating on water. I was so deep into it that I could hear the gurgle of water and feel myself gently floating. Then, without any sense of change, I was floating in the sky. Not flying, but floating effortlessly. And I was face down, because I could see treetops, etc. It was a wonderful feeling. I remember thinking, wondering how it was happening and not wanting it to end. Then I had company, and  ....   

[Bo D]

This was perhaps inevitable ... but still a little scary ...

10 careers robots are taking from you

Should we fear the rise of robots? From pharmacists to fast food cooks, here's a look at 10 advancements in technology that could put you out of work.

http://www.computerworld.com/slideshow/detail/100405

[me]

This was perhaps inevitable ... but still a little scary ...

10 careers robots are taking from you

Should we fear the rise of robots? From pharmacists to fast food cooks, here's a look at 10 advancements in technology that could put you out of work.

http://www.computerworld.com/slideshow/detail/100405

A good friend of mine wrote a song about robots taking over jobs back in the late 70's or early 80's when some of her coworkers jobs were done away with in favor of robots.  I'll try to video it next time she does it when she does her solo thing.   

[Palehorse]

This was perhaps inevitable ... but still a little scary ...

10 careers robots are taking from you

Should we fear the rise of robots? From pharmacists to fast food cooks, here's a look at 10 advancements in technology that could put you out of work.

http://www.computerworld.com/slideshow/detail/100405

Yeah, ummm. I remember hearing that back in the early 70's too, and it has never come to pass. . . When they make a robot that mows my lawn and weed whacks it, I might get scared. . . 

[Henry Hawk]

When they make a robot that mows my lawn and weed whacks it, I might get scared. . . 

Yeah! I am anxiously awaiting THAT to happen!!!

[Bo D]

Yeah, ummm. I remember hearing that back in the early 70's too, and it has never come to pass. . . When they make a robot that mows my lawn and weed whacks it, I might get scared. . . 

Ask and ye shall receive ....

Husavarna Robotic Lawn Mowers http://www.husqvarna.com/us/products/robotic-mowers/husqvarna-robotic-mowers-for-homeowners/

[me]

Ask and ye shall receive ....

Husavarna Robotic Lawn Mowers http://www.husqvarna.com/us/products/robotic-mowers/husqvarna-robotic-mowers-for-homeowners/

http://www.youtube.com/v/HiD2CGkoNts

[libby]

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that human genes cannot be patented, but did not rule out genetic research.   

14 Jun 2013
The Washington Post
BY ROBERT BARNES AND BRADY DENNIS

Human genes can't be patented, justices rule

Decision is likely to have a broad impact on research, genetic testing

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that human genes cannot be patented, a decision that is likely to shape the future of medical and biotech research.

Those who challenged the notion that something that occurs naturally in the human body can be "owned" by a company said the decision could open a new era of expanded research and lower costs for genetic testing.

At the same time, the ruling held out hope for industry that certain research methods and the creation of synthetic DNA can be protected and thus worth the investment.

"Today, the court struck down a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation," said Sandra Park of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented doctors, researchers and cancer patients who brought the challenge.

"Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing, and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued."

The issue received national attention last month when actress Angelina Jolie revealed that she had a double mastectomy because genetic testing showed she carried a defective gene that greatly increased her chance for cancer.

The ruling was a split decision for Myriad Genetics Inc., which holds patents on genes that have been linked to breast and ovarian cancer and thus is the only company that offers the genetic tests, which can cost more than $3,000.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said that merely isolating those specific genes — BRCA1 and BRCA2 — was not worthy of a patent. The decision was a departure from decades of decisions to the contrary from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

"Myriad did not create anything," Thomas wrote. "To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention."

He added that "groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself " overcome the fact that "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are beyond the domain of patent protection.

On the other hand, Thomas wrote, when Myriad and others create a synthetic form of DNA — called cDNA and particularly useful in conducting experiments and tests, such as cancer screening — their work does deserve patent protection.

"The lab technician unquestionably creates something new when cDNA is made," he wrote.
Myriad focused on that part of the decision.

"We believe the Court appropriately upheld our claims on cDNA, and underscored the patent eligibility of our method claims, ensuring strong intellectual property protection for our BRACAnalysis test moving forward," Peter D. Meldrum, the company's president and chief executive, said in a statement. "More than 250,000 patients rely upon our BRACAnalysis test annually, and we remain focused on saving and improving peoples' lives and lowering overall healthcare costs."

The average American woman has a 12 to 13 percent chance of developing breast cancer, according to the court's opinion, but mutations in the two genes isolated by Myriad increase the risk to as much as 80 percent for breast cancer and 50 percent for ovarian cancer. Myriad developed tests useful in detecting those mutations.

The court's opinion required the nine justices to confront not only the mysteries of DNA — their struggle was apparent during the case's complicated oral arguments — but also the purpose of patents.

"As we have recognized before, patent protection strikes a delicate balance between creating incentives that lead to creation, invention, and discovery," Thomas wrote, "and "impeding the flow of information that might permit, indeed spur, invention."

Some experts in the field said the decision provides needed clarity.

"The biotechnology industry won today, because they have some certainty," said Kevin Noonan, a leading biotechnology and intellectual-property lawyer. "The synthetic DNA is patentable. ... This [particular issue] is off the table. It's not going to be challenged."

Matthew J. Dowd, a Washington lawyer who filed a brief opposing Myriad's position on human genes on behalf of James Watson, the scientist who co-discovered the structure of DNA, said the court's ruling on cDNA was especially important for companies.

"The cDNA has the same genetic information as our natural gene, but it's in a user-friendly form," Dowd said. "If you think of a human gene as gold still in a gold mine, then cDNA is the gold after it's been mined and polished."

But not all were happy. Jim Greenwood, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said the decision will put U.S. companies at a disadvantage.

"The United States is now the only developed country to take such a restrictive view of patent eligibility, signaling an unjustified indifference towards our global economic and scientific leadership in the life sciences," Greenwood said in a statement.

Those who challenged the patents said the ruling will spur research and competition. "The cost of genetic testing should come down considerably," said Harry Ostrer of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University in New York.

Ostrer noted that there were about 4,000 gene-related patents that can now be challenged, and he predicted that additional tests for heart conditions and neuromuscular diseases will become available.

Companies already are announcing plans to offer genetic screening similar to Myriad's test. But Ostrer and others said the company, which won the race to locate and isolate the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in the early 1990s, remains far ahead of the rest of the field.

Even though Noonan noted that Myriad's patent is scheduled to expire in 2015, he added: "Myriad has a 15-year head start on everybody. They started this. They have all the relationships with everybody. They are still going to be the gold standard."

The court's opinion does not settle all questions about the issue.

For instance, Timothy McCaffrey, director of the division of genomic medicine at George Washington University, said the emerging practice in his field is to patent a method or process of working with a gene, rather than trying to isolate and patent the gene itself.

Thomas's opinion held out that option.

"Had Myriad created an innovative method of manipulating genes while searching for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, it could possibly have sought a method patent," Thomas wrote. "But the processes used by Myriad to isolate DNA were well understood by geneticists at the time."

While the briefs and opinion in the case often offered theoretical arguments, reaction to the decision was more emotional.

Lisbeth Ceriani, one of the plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, said the decision means that a part of the human body is "not being held hostage by a private company anymore."

The ruling was also praised by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who underwent a double mastectomy and had her ovaries removed after Myriad's test showed she carried the gene mutation. Her treatment required seven surgeries, she said. "Because one company had a patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, I was unable to get a second opinion," Schultz said.

[Bo D]

Whoa!!! Here's a blow to vegetarians! PLANTS DO MATH!

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news/2013/06/plants-do-sums-get-through-night?et_cid=3332315&et_rid=41373174&location=top

And if they are that smart, then vegetarians may be eating sentient beings after all! 

[libby]

Huh. Maybe that's why I resist eating my daily quota of vegetables. 

Seriously, I think we can be pretty sure plants don't stay awake at night worrying about their starch reserves any more than we stay awake worrying about what our autonomic nervous systems are up to. 

On second thought, is that study being funded by Monsanto? 

On third thought, back to not seriously: if plants are sentient beings, I guess that would include trees.    (Back in my sci-fi reading days, I imagined being a tree in one of my lives.)

And finally, when I spend time in the morning writing something like the above, I know I need to get away for a while. I'm headin' for the mountains.  Goin' home for a few days.


 

[Bo D]

OK ... this is definitely scary ... remember Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Total Recall?"


MIT scientists implant a false memory into a mouse's brain

Sometime soon, a lab mouse could wake up thinking he had snuggled up to a girl mouse the night before. But he hadn't. The memory would be fake.

Scientists have successfully implanted a false memory into a mouse's brain

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/inception-mit-scientists-implant-a-false-memory-into-a-mouses-brain/2013/07/25/47bdee7a-f49a-11e2-a2f1-a7acf9bd5d3a_story.html

[Locutus]

I read that yesterday and started to post it.  As usual, I got distracted by something else and completely forgot about it.

[libby]

Same here. I saw it but didn't read it. My time has not been my own lately. And it IS scary. 

[libby]

OK ... this is definitely scary ... remember Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Total Recall?"


MIT scientists implant a false memory into a mouse's brain

Sometime soon, a lab mouse could wake up thinking he had snuggled up to a girl mouse the night before. But he hadn't. The memory would be fake.

Scientists have successfully implanted a false memory into a mouse's brain

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/inception-mit-scientists-implant-a-false-memory-into-a-mouses-brain/2013/07/25/47bdee7a-f49a-11e2-a2f1-a7acf9bd5d3a_story.html

Been thinking about it a little more. That belongs in the category of the mad scientists in science fiction. There are so many "what-ifs" that it is 

[Bo D]

'Nuff said....

Researcher Controls Colleague's Motions in First Human Brain-to-Brain Interface

Researchers have performed what they believe is the first noninvasive human-to-human brain interface, with one researcher able to send a brain signal via the Internet to control the hand motions of a fellow researcher. Using electrical brain recordings and a form of magnetic stimulation, Rajesh Rao sent a brain signal to Andrea Stocco on the other side of the University of Washington campus, causing Stocco's finger to move on a keyboard.

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news/2013/08/researcher-controls-colleague%E2%80%99s-motions-first-human-brain-brain-interface?et_cid=3450191&et_rid=41373174&location=top