text:
The search for Nephilim DNA
End Times and Current Events > Forum > General Category > False Religions > UFO/Watcher Theology > The search for Nephilim DNA
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Go Down
Author Topic: The search for Nephilim DNA (Read 12806 times)
Re: The search for Nephilim DNA
De-Extinction: Harvard Researchers Have Brought Back The Woolly Mammoth
In the film Jurassic Park scientists spliced the DNA of extinct dinosaurs with modern animals to bring them back to life. The idea that we could bring back an extinct species back to life is fantastical and normally reserved for Hollywood fiction, but a new experiment by researchers at Harvard University has reportedly succeeded in mimicking the process used in the blockbuster movie.
According to Popular Science, the DNA of the Woolly Mammoth, which went extinct over 4,000 years ago, has been spliced with that of the Asian elephant. "We now have functioning elephant cells with mammoth DNA in them," says Harvard genetics professor George Church.
Geneticist George Church's lab at Harvard University successfully copied genes from frozen woolly mammoths and pasted them into the genome of an Asian elephant.
Using a DNA editing tool called CRISPR, the scientists spliced genes for the mammoths' small ears, subcutaneous fat, and hair length and color into the DNA of elephant skin cells. The tissue cultures represent the first time woolly mammoth genes have been functional since the species went extinct around 4,000 years ago.
The work is part of an effort to bring extinct species back from the dead, a process called "de-extinction". The recent breakthrough shows that one proposed de-extinction method–which involves splicing genes from extinct animals into the genomes of their living relatives–just might work.
Scientists claim that one benefit of such genetic advancements is that elephants could be bred to survive in colder climates, helping them to avoid dangers posed by humans.
But analysis by notable researchers like Steve Quayle and Tom Horn suggest that such transhumanist technologies are being developed for an eventual forced evolution of the human genome.
In the introduction to his book Xenogenesis Quayle warns "monsterous creations are being developed with secret technology in labs around the world." While scientists maintain that they are helping humanity with the new research, the consequences according to Quayle will be unlike anything mankind has seen.
What is being developed in those secret research labs is "the production of an offspring entirely different from either of the parents, transformed though the addition of DNA from an alien or animal to the normal genetics of a human being," according to Quayle.
The Harvard Researchers claim that we are nowhere near having an actual Woolly Mammoth walking the earth again, but they are going to keep moving forward with the new technologies. "There is more work to do, but we plan to do so," says Harvard's George Church.
What do you think? Will the human race soon be spliced with DNA from creatures like sharks, birds or cheetahs that would then give us super hero like abilities to breath under water, fly or run at incredible speeds?
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/de-extinction-harvard-researchers-have-brought-back-the-woolly-mammoth_032015#sthash.kt9J8euL.dpuf
DNA Analysis of the Paracas Skulls Proves They Are Not Human
On the southern coast of Peru lies the desert peninsula of Paracas. This barren landscape is where Peruvian archaeologist Julio Tello made an astounding discovery in 1928. His efforts uncovered a massive and complex graveyard buried under the sand and rocks.
In these tombs Tello found some of the most controversial human(?) remains in history. The bodies had the largest elongated skulls in the world and have since been called the Paracas skulls. Tello found a total of more than 300 skulls and they have been dated at around 3,000 years old. A recent DNA analysis performed on some of those skulls has presented amazing results that could challenge the current perspective of the human evolutionary tree.
Several other cultures have practiced skull elongation or deformation but the techniques they used produced different results. Certain South American tribes used to bind infants' skulls in order to change their shape. Binding the head between pieces of wood modified the appearance of skulls by applying constant pressure over a long period of time. This type of cranial deformation changed the shape but it did not alter the size, weight or cranial volume; these are all standard characteristics of a regular human skull.
The Paracas skulls are different. Their craniums are 25% larger and 60% heavier than regular human skulls which led researchers to believe they couldn't have been modified through binding. They are also structurally different and only have one parietal plate as opposed to the two normally found in human skulls. These differences have deepened the decade-old mystery around the Paracas skulls and researchers haven't been able to explain their origins.
The director of the Paracas History Museum has sent samples from 5 skulls to undergo genetic testing. The samples consisted of hair, skin, teeth and fragments of skull bones. The genetic laboratory was not informed about the samples' origins in order to avoid biased or influenced results. The results were fascinating.
The mitochondrial DNA (inherited from the mother) presented mutations unknown to any man, primate or any other animal. The mutations suggested we are dealing with a completely new human-like being, very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals or Denisovans. The Paracas individuals were so biologically different from humans they wouldn't have been able to interbreed. "I am not sure it will even fit into the known evolutionary tree", one geneticist added.
The implications of this discovery are huge. Who were the mysterious Paracas people? Did they evolve here on Earth on a path so different from us that they ended up looking drastically different? If not, where did they come from? Are any of them left?
This breakthrough brings up more questions than it answers but counts as another piece of evidence suggesting that we are not alone.
http://beforeitsnews.com/paranormal/2015/02/dna-analysis-of-the-paracas-skulls-proves-they-are-not-human-2484728.html
DNA editing takes a serious step forward -- for better or worse
It's a scenario that has haunted biologists since the dawn of the DNA age: the evil scientist custom-crafting a human being with test tubes and Petri dishes.
So when a Chinese team revealed last month that it had used a new laboratory technique to alter a gene in human embryos, it set off an urgent debate over the ethics — and wisdom — of tinkering with the most basic building blocks of life.
The technology makes genetic manipulations that were theoretical in the past seem easy to achieve — and soon.
If scientists figure out how to do it in a way that's safe for patients, gene editing could produce tremendously beneficial medical treatments. The Chinese researchers, for instance, were trying to repair a defect that causes beta thalassemia, a potentially fatal blood disorder.
But a simple way to alter DNA could open the door to more frightening eugenic pursuits. That makes people nervous.
t's a scenario that has haunted biologists since the dawn of the DNA age: the evil scientist custom-crafting a human being with test tubes and Petri dishes.
CRISPR/Cas9 makes it possible for nearly any scientist to edit DNA in nearly any cell. In the last couple of years, scientists have used it to edit genes in adult human cells, including bone marrow cells that may be modified to make people resistant to HIV. Researchers have also used it on animal embryos, including an experiment that proved it was possible to create primates with customized versions of genes involved in immune function and metabolism.
With thousands of labs using the technology, it seemed inevitable that someone would try it on human embryos.
That's troubling to many scientists because, unlike edits to a bone marrow cell, alterations in a single-celled embryo would be copied into all the rest of the embryo's cells as it developed — and passed down via sperm or egg to the embryo's children, grandchildren and generations beyond.
Before the Chinese study appeared in the journal Protein & Cell, top scientists had already called for a high-level summit to hash out the ethical issues raised by this sort of research. The goal is to make sure gene editing in embryos isn't used prematurely in patients, or employed to create genetically enhanced humans. Some experts say use of CRISPR/Cas9 on human embryos should be put on hold until these hard questions can be addressed.
"We've got to take this seriously," said Caltech biologist David Baltimore, who won a Nobel Prize for his early work on the genetics of viruses that cause cancer.
The potential to make permanent changes to DNA that are passed from generation to generation has been recognized for decades. Although the risks were clear, the urgency was lacking.
"It was logistically so complex that there was no clear path forward, so we didn't worry about it a lot," Baltimore said. "Now it's here."
Scientists have made steady progress in their ability to edit DNA, but the CRISPR/Cas9 system marks a major advance in ease and flexibility of use.
The system occurs naturally in bacteria and helps them fight invading viruses. It uses strands of RNA called clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, or CRISPRs, to direct DNA-chopping enzymes from the Cas protein family to sever the viral genome.
About three years ago, microbiologists and bioengineers realized the system could be deployed to edit DNA in many organisms. If there was a specific spot in the genome they wanted to target, all they'd have to do is design the right CRISPR machinery to get to that location, a relatively straightforward task.
Once in place, a specially engineered Cas enzyme could latch on and cut the DNA strand, allowing scientists to correct the mistake. Some researchers have adapted the system to repress or activate genes; others, to make insertions.
The CRISPR/Cas9 method is much simpler — and cheaper — than earlier gene editing technologies in which scientists had to synthesize complex proteins to carry out the same work. Some experts predict that the scientists who figured out how to use CRISPR/Cas9 to edit genes will win a Nobel Prize for their discovery.
The Chinese researchers, from Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, were attempting to modify a mutant form of a gene called HBB. Certain mutations prevent people from producing enough hemoglobin to transport oxygen through the bloodstream, resulting in beta thalassemia. The team wanted to see whether they could delete the mutated portion of HBB and replace it with the correct DNA.
To make sure their experiments wouldn't result in genetically engineered babies, they used single-cell embryos rejected by fertility clinics that weren't viable because they had been fertilized by two sperm.
They are hardly the only ones attempting to edit genomes for the sake of human health. Uptake in labs has been so enthusiastic that CRISPR has become a verb, a la Google.
"People say, 'I'm going to CRISPR that,'" said UC Davis stem cell biologist Paul Knoepfler.
Some of the enthusiasm turns to concern, though, when it comes to making DNA changes that would be passed on to future generations.
A recent commentary in the journal Nature laid out a variety of potential problems. Mistakes might occur in the editing process that could result in severe birth defects. Successful edits could affect other parts of the genome that were meant to be left alone. It's impossible to get consent from future generations who might inherit an altered gene. People could use gene editing for "non-therapeutic genetic enhancement" — making designer babies with blue eyes and high IQs.
The authors, worried that problems with embryo editing could derail work on gene therapies in general, called on scientists to cease all experiments that would affect multiple generations until discussions about safety and ethics were complete.
Those concerns were echoed a few weeks later in an essay in the journal Science that said embryonic gene editing experiments should be off-limits in clinical settings, such as fertility clinics.
The Chinese study bore out many people's fears. Though the researchers were able to target the HBB gene, only rarely did the desired correction occur. Sometimes they made changes in the wrong places. Summing up their data, the team concluded that it was still too soon to use CRISPR/Cas9 to edit embryos in clinical settings.
"They ran into all sorts of problems," Baltimore said. "It drives home that we're not ready to do this."
Most think that will change before long. With no international rules governing this research, scientists are scrambling to get guidelines in place. Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, announced last week that his agency would not fund gene editing experimentation involving embryos, which "has been viewed almost universally as a line that should not be crossed," he said in a statement.
Baltimore, who is in favor of allowing the research, said gene editing could be put to great use for medical treatments — perhaps even in embryos, once it is proved safe and if there is no other way to circumvent disease.
"I'm not a believer that you should limit scientific capabilities," he said. "I'd rather scientists decide how they should use it."
Church predicted that worries about the technology would dissipate as people got more comfortable with gene editing.
He thought experiments using older DNA technologies — including recent work that sought to alter highly pathogenic H5N1 bird flu viruses to see whether they could become more contagious — were far scarier than what was likely to emerge from CRISPR.
Others aren't so sure.
Knoepfler, who has been writing about the embryo editing discussions on his blog, thinks CRISPR/Cas9 use is advancing so quickly that it could render all the careful, considered ethical debates moot.
Someone might alter an embryo and implant it in a woman for what seem like good reasons but with insufficient regard for the potential risks. Or perhaps for glory — or money — someone will create what amounts to a GMO uber baby.
"You can't disregard human ambition," he said.
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-gene-editing-embryo-20150503-story.html#page=2
Researchers may have discovered fountain of youth by reversing aging in human cells
Researchers in Japan have found that human aging may be able to be delayed or even reversed, at least at the most basic level of human cell lines. In the process, the scientists from the University of Tsukuba also found that regulation of two genes is related to how we age.
The new findings challenge one of the current popular theories of aging, that lays the blame for humans' inevitable downhill slide with mutations that accumulate in our mitochondrial DNA over time. Mitochondrion are sometimes likened to a cellular "furnace" that produces energy through cellular respiration. Damage to the mitochondrial DNA results in changes or mutations in the DNA sequence that build up and are associated with familiar signs of aging like hair loss, osteoporosis and, of course, reduced lifespan.
So goes the theory, at least. But the Tsukuba researchers suggest that something else may be going on within our cells. Their research indicates that the issue may not be that mitochondrial DNA become damaged, but rather that genes get turned "off" or "on" over time. Most intriguing, the team led by Professor Jun-Ichi Hayashi was able to flip the switches on a few genes back to their youthful position, effectively reversing the aging process.
The researchers came to this conclusion by comparing the function level of the mitochondria in fibroblast cell lines from children under 12 years of age to those of elderly people between 80 and 97. As expected, the older cells had reduced cellular respiration, but the older cells did not show more DNA damage than those from children. This discovery led the team to propose that the reduced cellular function is tied to epigenetic regulation, changes that alter the physical structure of DNA without affecting the DNA sequence itself, causing genes to be turned on or off. Unlike mutations that damage that sequence, as in the other, aforementioned theory of aging, epigenetic changes could possibly be reversed by genetically reprogramming cells to an embryonic stem cell-like state, effectively turning back the clock on aging.
For a broad comparison, imagine that a power surge hits your home's electrical system. If not properly wired, irreversible damage or even fire may result. However, imagine another home in which the same surge trips a switch in this home's circuit breaker box. Simply flipping that breaker back to the "on" position should make it operate as good as new. In essence, the Tsukuba team is proposing that our DNA may not become fried with age as previously thought, but rather simply requires someone to access its genetic breaker box to reverse aging.
To test the theory, the researchers found two genes associated with mitochondrial function and essentially experimented with turning them on or off. In doing so, they were able to create defects or restore cellular respiration. These two genes regulate glycine, an amino acid, production in mitochondria, and in one of the more promising findings, a 97-year-old cell line saw its cellular respiration restored after the addition of glycine for 10 days.
The researchers' findings were published this month in the journal Scientific Reports.
Whether or not this process could be a potential fountain of youth for humans and not just human fibroblast cell lines still remains to be seen, with much more testing required. However, if the theory holds, glycine supplements could one day become a powerful tool for life extension.
Similar research from the Salk Institute has also recently looked at other ways to slow down or stop aging at a cellular level, while yet another team is looking into a new class of drugs called senolytics that could help slow aging.
http://www.gizmag.com/reversal-of-aging-human-cell-lines/37721/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=e306dd5d2c-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-e306dd5d2c-91888189
I saw this video late last night - I will say that I'll admit Daniels made a lot of good points(although I side with the sons of God being the fallen angels).
However, I was disappointed b/c it wasn't so much what he said, but it was what he DIDN'T say. For example, he didn't explain who the giants were. One minute he said the word Nephilim is only in the perverted bible versions, but he turned right around the next minute and said the giants WERE the Nephilim.
As for the sons of Seth - if this was a godly line saved by the grace of God, then why did they get wiped out in the flood?
With that being said - I consider this is non-issue(and whatever side you choose, it won't bring any kind of confusion to scripture, like let's say believing in the gap theory does).
GM embryos 'essential', says report
It is "essential" that the genetic modification of human embryos is allowed, says a group of scientists, ethicists and policy experts.
A Hinxton Group report says editing the genetic code of early stage embryos is of "tremendous value" to research.
It adds although GM babies should not be allowed to be born at the moment, it may be "morally acceptable" under some circumstances in the future.
The US refuses to fund research involving the gene editing of embryos.
The global Hinxton Group met in response to the phenomenal advances taking place in the field of genetics.
A range of novel techniques combine a "molecular sat-nav" that travels to a precise location in our DNA with a pair of "molecular scissors" that cut it.
It has transformed research in a wide range of fields, but the progress means genetically modified babies are ceasing to be a prospect and fast becoming a possibility.
Earlier this year, a team at Sun Yat-sen University, in China, showed that errors in the DNA that led to a blood disorder could be corrected in early stage embryos.
In the future, the technologies could be used to prevent children being born with cystic fibrosis or genes that increase the risk of cancer.
Embryo engineering dominates debate around these novel gene-editing tools.
But while disease-free children or "designer babies" may be on the horizon, the more immediate uses are far less controversial.
It could restore the reputation of the field of gene therapy in adults and children.
It was nearly a success in children with no immune system (known as bubble-boy syndrome). Symptoms improved, but the technique led to cancer in some cases.
These more accurate tools may be able to tweak our genetic code without the side-effects.
There have even been successful trials to give HIV patients immunity to the virus.
And because these changes would not be passed on to the next generation, they are far less controversial.
There have been calls for a moratorium on such research, which has left many asking where to draw the line - should any embryo research be banned, should it be allowed but only for research, or should GM babies be permitted?
A meeting of the influential Hinxton Group, in Manchester, acknowledged that the rate of progress meant there was a "pressure to make decisions" and argued embryo editing should be allowed.
In a statement, it said: "We believe that while this technology has tremendous value to basic research and enormous potential... it is not sufficiently developed to consider human genome editing for clinical reproductive purposes at this time."
This is in stark contrast to the US National Institutes of Health, which has already refused to fund any gene editing of embryos.
Its director, Dr Francis Collins, who was also a key player in the Human Genome Project, said: "The concept of altering the human germline [inherited DNA] in embryos for clinical purposes has been debated over many years from many different perspectives, and has been viewed almost universally as a line that should not be crossed."
However, the Hinxton Group's full report acknowledges that "there may be morally acceptable uses of this technology in human reproduction, though further substantial discussion and debate will be required".
But even one of the principal figures in the discovery and development of Crispr (one of the easiest methods of editing DNA) has doubts.
Prof Emmanuelle Charpentier told BBC News: "Personally, I don't think it is acceptable to manipulate the human germline for the purpose of changing some genetic traits that will be transmitted over generations.
"I just have a problem right now with regard to the manipulation of the human germlines."
Dr Peter Mills, from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, added: "We have seen these uses coming over the horizon, but we need to decide whether we're going to invite them in when they reach our doorstep."
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34200029
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/multiplex-parenting-will-allow-two-gay-dads-to-give-their-dna-to-surrogate-child/
'MULTIPLEX PARENTING' WILL ALLOW TWO GAY DADS TO BOTH GIVE THEIR DNA TO SURROGATE CHILD
The science behind IVG relies on cells that can be made to develop into sperm or egg cells, known collectively as gametes. It means a woman could produce a sperm cell, or a man could produce an egg cell.
SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES WILL SOON ALLOW CHILDREN TO HAVE ANY NUMBER OF PARENTS, LEGAL EXPERTS WARN.
"But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book,even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." Daniel 12:4 (KJV)
EDITOR'S NOTE: IN THE BIBLE, IT SAYS THAT IN THE END TIMES, OUR TIME, THAT MAN'S KNOWLEDGE SHALL INCREASE TO A VERY HIGH LEVEL, AND THAT CERTAINLY HAS COME TRUE. MY GRANDMOTHER WAS BORN WHEN THE LIGHT BULB WAS A NOVELTY AND SHE LIVED TO SEE DESKTOP COMPUTERS AND SPACE TRAVEL. NOW BE PREPARED AS MASSIVE DNA TAMPERING IS PRODUCING CHILDREN WITH UP TO 32 PARENTS, AS WELL AS CHILDREN WITH ONLY A SINGLE PARENT! WILL IT REACH A POINT WHEN WE WILL BE FORCED TO CHANGE OUR DEFINITION OF WHAT A HUMAN BEING EVEN IS? CERTAINLY THIS IS NOT WHAT GOD INTENDED. THIS SOUNDS MORE LIKE GENESIS 6 COMING TO LIFE…
The arrival of 'multiplex parenting' is a 'mere matter of time' as the techniques have been shown to work on mice, according to a study. In theory, any number of parents from three upwards – of either sex – could contribute DNA to create a baby.
Sonia Suter, a law professor at George Washington University, has explored the issues raised by the technique, called in vitro gametogenesis (IVG). She suggests babies could be used to create 'clans' of large numbers of people, linked through their shared offspring.
"THERE WERE GIANTS IN THE EARTH IN THOSE DAYS; AND ALSO AFTER THAT, WHEN THE SONS OF GOD CAME IN UNTO THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN, AND THEY BARE CHILDREN TO THEM, THE SAME BECAME MIGHTY MEN WHICH WERE OF OLD, MEN OF RENOWN." GENESIS 6:4 (KJV)
The method would also enable the creation of 'solo' children from one parent – as well as hope for infertile adults who would not need a donor egg or sperm. Professor Suter said that while technical challenges remain, IVG 'potentially allows for methods of procreation that have never been possible before'.
THE TRUTH ABOUT NEPHILIM GIANTS – STEVEN QUAYLE
Just for fun kids, let's take a few minutes and learn about who the Nephilim were, and are. It's all there in Genesis 6.
'IVG could facilitate multiplex parenting, where groups of more than two individuals – whether all male, all female, or a combination – procreate together, producing children who are the genetic progeny of them all,' she said.
Writing in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences, the professor added: 'Procreation in this manner troubles many people because of its significant divergence from our understanding of reproduction as something that occurs between two people.'
She said multiplex parents could theoretically lead to a 'positive outcome' for a child as 'the more adults who feel responsible for the child's well being, the better off the child is likely to be'. But she said confusion and conflict might arise about the roles of the many parents.
The more biological parents there are, the smaller each one's genetic link to the child. A youngster with two parents, for instance, gets 50 per cent of its genetic material from each. So a child created by four people using IVG would get 25 per cent of its DNA from each person – equivalent to the genetic share of a conventional baby's grandparents.
PROFESSOR SUTER SAID: 'FOR EXAMPLE, IF 32 INDIVIDUALS ENGAGED IN MULTIPLEX PARENTING, IN GENETIC AND GENERATIONAL TERMS THEY WOULD BE LIKE GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS TO THE CHILD.' THIS IS BECAUSE A CHILD CONCEIVED CONVENTIONALLY HAS 32 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS.
She added: 'Thirty-two adults simply cannot all have the kind of intimate relationship that is central to social parenting … as the number of intended parents increases, the social connections inevitably thin and intimacy diminishes, making multiplex reproduction more like the creation of clans.'
With four parents, sperm and eggs made from stem cells would be taken from each pair of adults. From the resulting two embryos, further cells would be taken to create further sperm and egg cells for a third embryo. This final pairing would have a quarter of DNA from each parent.
IVG would allow same-sex couples 'to reproduce in a manner similar to fertile straight couples'. On 'solo' babies, the professor said: 'We might worry that only egoism and selfishness would motivate a single person to reproduce with just his or her gametes'. source
First GMO Corn, Then Frankenfish, And Now — Get Ready For Designer Babies
We knew it was coming to this. The GMO revolution wasn't going to stop at our dinner table. But did we think it would happen so soon?
The first week in December, delegates from the top three gene-editing countries—China, the UK and the US—met in Washington, DC for a symposium on the future of gene-editing. For those not familiar with the parlance, gene editing refers to the ability to alter the DNA of an embryo in a manner which affects the germline. The germline is defined as follows; "In biology and genetics, the germline in a multicellular organism is that population of its bodily cells that are so differentiated or segregated that in the usual processes of reproduction they may pass on their genetic material to the progeny."
In other words, what happens to the germline will affect the offspring and subsequent generations.
The possibilities inherent in such manipulation are staggering. Not only could genetic diseases be removed from the developing embryo, but new and better attributes could be factored in. Mankind could face the possibility that crippling genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs or Huntington's Disease could be forever banished, while a brave new crop of humans, with enhanced intellectual abilities or enhanced musculature, for example, could be harvested.
The symposium was convened with some urgency after the disclosure that researchers in China had reported this past April that they had launched the first attempt to edit the DNA of human embryos. The Chinese project was undertaken to correct a rare and often fatal blood disorder, called beta thalassemia. China's effort was followed by an application, made in September, by a British research group to edit human embryos for research purposes.
Behind all this gene editing lies a new technology, which works like the "find and replace" function on a word processor. The most popular in this new buffet of tools is the Crispr-Cas9, which was invented by Dr. Jennifer Doudna. Dr. Doudna is a Professor of Chemistry and of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley and has also been an investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute since 1997. The Crispr-Cas9 works in the following manner—first it locates the gene to be edited, then makes the desired alteration, either by deleting it or fixing it. Doudna has virtually revolutionized medicine with her invention, which is reportedly simple to use.
The symposium was expected to produce a call for a moratorium on this research, while the ethical implications could be sorted out. Surprisingly, that is not what eventuated. The final formal statement by the International Summit on Human Gene Editing Organizing Committee in fact left the door open.
The Committee, which is comprised of ten scientists and two bioethicists, called on the "Big Three" in gene editing to take charge:
We therefore call upon the national academies that co-hosted the summit – the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and U.S. National Academy of Medicine; the Royal Society; and the Chinese Academy of Sciences – to take the lead in creating an ongoing international forum to discuss potential clinical uses of gene editing; help inform decisions by national policymakers and others; formulate recommendations and guidelines; and promote coordination among nations.
In a non-binding recommendation, the Committee also called for the inhibition of gene editing on viable embryos, stating "if in the process of research, early human embryos or germline cells undergo gene editing, the modified cells should not be used to establish a pregnancy."
The three-day conference, which was attended by science heavyweights (as well as by some family members with sick children), resulted in an airing of some of the issues surrounding this new science.
Harvard's George Church made a presentation which propounded a viewpoint that mitigated concerns about the fall- out from gene editing.
Dr. Church, who is a Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School, has written articles supporting germline editing and diminishing the possible repercussions. In a recent article in Nature, he wrote,
Human-germline editing is not special with respect to permanence or consent. Replacing deleterious versions of genes with common ones is unlikely to lead to unforeseen effects and is probably reversible. Even if the editing was difficult to reverse, this would not be especially unsafe compared with other commonly inherited risks.
In 2005, Church launched a project called the Personal Genome Project. In this effort, which is billed as "the world's only open-access information on human genomic, environmental & trait data," individuals are recruited to have their own genome analyzed and recorded. Church is also involved in doing gene editing in pigs, for the purpose of removing problematic retroviruses which might stand to cause problems in using pig organs as replacement for failing human organs.
Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society disagrees with the notion that genetic editing is unlikely to result in unforeseen results. "The medical arguments are tenuous and the possible social consequences are grave," said Darnovsky.
In a subsequent article in the Guardian, Darnovsky wrote:
The recognition that scientists alone can't decide whether to deploy this society-altering technology is perhaps the summit's most positive outcome. Already, more and more non-scientists are becoming aware of what's at stake for all of us, and realizing that germline gene editing is a social and political matter, not just a scientific one.
John Harris could not disagree more heartily. Harris, a Professor of Bioethics at the University of Manchester, believes that this technology provides the possibility for human enhancement on a grand scale and should be employed as soon as the "wrinkles" are ironed out. Harris has stated; "We all have an inescapable moral duty: to continue with scientific investigation to the point at which we can make a rational choice."
The laws governing gene editing are in many locations inexplicit, to say the least. The UK permits licensed experiments on embryos up to 14 days, but not implantation in a woman. Some British scientists are agitating for a change in these laws. China's laws are considered to be "ambiguous," as are South Africa's, Chile's and Argentina's.
Scientifically Proven Method to Reverse Diabetes (Ad)
The US government has made it clear it will not fund any gene editing research which involves viable embryos. However, by adopting this policy without passing legislation banning the practice, the US has inadvertently (or otherwise) opened the door for private labs to accommodate rich people who want to have designer babies.
One wouldn't want to state this was the goal, after all. Would one? Designer babies for the wealthy, while the rest of us lump along with our genetic baggage? This begins to sound almost like the engineered societies that science fiction novels warned us about.
The (US) National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine have issued a press release announcing a "data gathering" meeting in February to study the ethical and social implications of gene editing.
http://www.naturalblaze.com/2015/12/first-gmo-corn-then-frankenfish-and-now-get-ready-for-designer-babies.html
'We Won't Make Frankensteins,' Cloning Giant Boyalife's CEO Says
The head of a Chinese firm that is building the world's biggest animal cloning factory has vowed not to use the technology on people — for now, at least.
Biotech company Boyalife Group's $30 million facility in the coastal city of Tianjin will produce embryos of cattle as well as racehorses and contraband-sniffing dogs when it becomes operational next year.
"No, we don't do human cloning, we won't make Frankensteins," said Dr. Xu Xiaochun, its chief executive. "The technology we have is very advanced ... [but if uncontrolled] technology can also do damage ... Every technology has to have a boundary."
As a 12-year-old, Xu became fascinated with plant cloning. Now aged 44, he is leading China's charge to become a world leader in cloning technology.
"Our primary focus is prime quality beef," Xu told NBC News in an exclusive interview, noting that China's cattle industry hasn't traditionally focused on meat production.
However, beef consumption is currently growing at double-digit rates in the country, with imports increasing due to the low quality of China's domestic beef.
The Tianjin plant will initially produce a 100,000 embryos of prime beef cattle per year. That figure is eventually expected to rise to 1 million embryos annually, which will make it the planet's largest animal-cloning operation.
The bomb-sniffing dogs have become "a major force in anti-terrorism campaigns," Xu said, with about 600 cloned dogs working globally.
"We will only select the really top dogs for cloning like selecting only those who could go to Harvard or Peking University," he added.
But Xu suggested society was not yet ready to embrace reproductive human cloning.
"Technology is moving very fast ... [and] social values can change," he said. "Maybe in 100 years, in 200 years, people will think differently. [They] may think this technology is going to benefit the human race as a whole ... Boyalife will move along with social values."
Xu added: "Different people have different characters ... We want to keep this diversity. We really don't want the entire society to become one billion Einsteins."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/we-won-t-make-frankensteins-cloning-giant-boyalife-s-ceo-n480891
Human-Animal Chimeras Are Gestating on U.S. Research Farms
A radical new approach to generating human organs is to grow them inside pigs or sheep.
Braving a funding ban put in place by America's top health agency, some U.S. research centers are moving ahead with attempts to grow human tissue inside pigs and sheep with the goal of creating hearts, livers, or other organs needed for transplants.
The effort to incubate organs in farm animals is ethically charged because it involves adding human cells to animal embryos in ways that could blur the line between species.
Last September, in a reversal of earlier policy, the National Institutes of Health announced it would not support studies involving such "human-animal chimeras" until it had reviewed the scientific and social implications more closely.
REST: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/545106/human-animal-chimeras-are-gestating-on-us-research-farms/
IVF: First genetically-modified human embryos 'could be created in Britain within weeks'
Scientists are about to learn whether their research proposal has been approved by the fertility watchdog
The first genetically-modified human embryos could be created in Britain within weeks according to the scientists who are about to learn whether their research proposal has been approved by the fertility watchdog.
Although it will be illegal to allow the embryos to live beyond 14 days, and be implanted into the womb, the researchers accepted that the research could one day lead to the birth of the first GM babies should the existing ban be lifted for medical reasons.
A licence application to edit the genes of "spare" IVF embryos for research purposes only is to be discussed on 14 January by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), with final approval likely to be given this month.
Scientists at the Francis Crick Institute in London said that if they are given the go-ahead they could begin work straight away, leading to the first transgenic human embryos created in Britain within the coming weeks or months.
The researchers emphasised that the research concerns the fundamental causes of infertility and involves editing of the genes of day-old IVF embryos that will not be allowed to develop beyond the seven-day "blastocyst" stage – it will be illegal to implant the modified embryos into the womb to create GM babies.
However, they accepted that if the research leads to a discovery of a genetic mutation that could improve the chances of successful pregnancies in women undergoing IVF treatment, it could lead to pressure to change the existing law to allow so-called "germ-line" editing of embryos and the birth of GM children.
rest: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ivf-first-genetically-modified-human-embryos-could-be-created-in-britain-within-weeks-a6810506.html
British scientists granted permission to genetically modify human embryos
The Francis Crick institute will genetically edit the leftover embryos from from IVF clinics
British scientists have been granted permission to genetically modify human embryos by the fertility regulator.
The Francis Crick Institute could begin the controversial experiments as early as March after the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) gave the green light this morning.
The scientists want to deactivate genes in leftover embryos from IVF clinics to see if it hinders development.
It will only be the second time in the world that such a procedure has been undertaken and the first time it has been directly approved by a regulator. A Chinese team carried out similar experiments last year to widespread outcry.
Currently around 50 per cent of fertilised eggs do not develop properly and experts believe that faulty genetic code could be responsible.
If scientists knew which genes were crucial for healthy cell division, then they could screen out embryos where their DNA was not working properly, potentially preventing miscarriages and aiding fertility.
The initial pilot, which will also have to pass an ethics evaluation, will involve up to 30 embryos and the team would like to work on a further three genes, which could bring the total of to 120.
Critics warn that allowing embryos to be edited opens the door to designer babies and genetically modified humans.
Anne Scanlan of the charity LIFE said: "The HFEA now has the reputation of being the first regulator in the world to approve this uncertain and dangerous technology. It has ignored the warnings of over a hundred scientists worldwide and given permission for a procedure which could have damaging far-reaching implications for human beings."
But lead scientist Dr Kathy Niakan said that the research could fundamentally change our understanding of human biology and give hope to prospective parents.
"We would really like to understand the genes that are needed for an embryo to develop into a healthy baby," she told a briefing in central London last month.
"Miscarriage and infertility are extremely common but they are not very well understood. We believe that this research could improve our understanding of the very earliest stages of human life.
rest: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12133410/British-scientists-granted-permission-to-genetically-modify-human-embryos.html
Award-winning biologist says Pope Francis gave his blessing to animal-human hybrids
In Greek mythology, the Chimera is a monstrous fire-breathing animal hybrid, usually depicted as a lion, with the head of a goat arising from its back, and a tail that ends with a snake's head.
Now, unscrupulous scientists are fashioning even worse than Chimeras — animal-human hybrids — by injecting human stem cells into animals, to grow human organs for eventual transplant.
In January 2016, it was reported that scientists in Japan successfully used human stem cells to grow a human ear on the back of a rat. (Discovery)
In September 2015, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it would not support research involving "human-animal chimeras" because of the hybrids may blue the line between species by ending up with human brain cells. But some U.S. research centers are defying the federal government with support from other funding sources, such as California's state stem-cell agency. They are growing human tissue inside pigs and sheep, with the goal of creating hearts, livers, or other organs for transplants. (See "Defiling God's creation: Scientists are creating animal-human hybrids")
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, is one such research center.
Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, 55, is a professor in the Gene Expression Laboratories at the Salk Institute. A native of Spain, he received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Pharmacology at the University of Bologna, Italy and the University of Valencia, Spain. In 2004, he helped establish the Center for Regenerative Medicine in Barcelona and was its Director for 10 years, from 2004 to 2014. He is the recipient of several awards and honors, including the William Clinton Presidential Award, the Pew Scholar Award, the Gold Medal of the Junta Castilla-La Mancha, and the Roger Guillemin Endowed Nobel Chair.
At the Salk Institute, Dr. Izpisua Belmonte heads a team of scientists who "discovered a new type of stem cell that allowed them to develop the first reliable method for integrating human stem cells into an animal embryo. This could help them overcome a major hurdle toward growing replacement organs for humans." If allowed to grow after birth, the chimeric embryo creature would be an animal-human hybrid or chimera.
In a phone interview with Christine Gorman, an editor of Scientific American magazine, published on January 25, 2016, Dr. Izpisua Belmonte said the following in answer to Gorman's question, "How far along have these human-animal chimeras developed?":
"We are entering into an ethical [area]. Because there are some people who think that we shouldn't mix human cells with other animals and there are others who don't care, so to speak. Here in California, we have gone through the different committees and they allow us to have a pig embryo develop for a month. Which is one third of their gestation. At that point you can see already all of the major organ primordia.
There are other countries. I'm from Spain and Spain has been quite open to this field of stem cell research. And they have allowed us to go until the animal is born. So in theory we could have a pig born with the human organ. It was not easy. Even though Spain is quite open to this stem cell research area, at the same time, Spain is a very Catholic country, so we had to go through the Pope. He very nicely said yes. This is to help people."
When Gorman expressed surprise and asked, "The current Pope?," Dr. Izpisua Belmonte confirmed that indeed he was referring to Pope Francis, i.e., Jorge Bergoglio:
"Yes. The current Pope. So the Vatican is behind this research and has no problem based on the idea is to help humankind. And in theory all that we will be doing is killing pigs.
Dr. Izpisua Belmonte acknowledges that animal-human hybrids could develop human brain cells:
"One problem and the major problem is that these cells could colonize the brain of the animal in which you put them. And obviously it would not be appropriate to have an animal with neurons from people. Or these cells could colonize the germline so that the sperm or the oocytes of that pig would be human. So to avoid that the government of Spain allowed us to have the pig be born and then immediately after to be sacrificed.
But I was not happy with that. People will think that still you will have an embryo maybe with some neuron contribution. And even though the pig is not born, there are people who believe that that should not be done. So we are devising genetic engineering technology so that if a cell becomes a neuron it is just destroyed in the embryo. Any cell that starts to be taught okay you are going to become a neuron at the moment of the first stages of neurogenesis, we are putting a toxin construct in it so that it will be destroyed by itself. So that will prevent any pig embryos from having human neurons so to speak.
I feel that this will still generate controversy. Many people will think one way and others will think differently, so it is impossible to have a consensus. My feeling is that we still need to better understand these issues of cell competence, of mixing cells in embryogenesis—the rules of development, so to speak. And I am a developmental biologist by background and that is my own interest. It will take a long time to have all these hopes and dreams come true."
According to a statement by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the Catholic Church supports ethically responsible stem cell research and "has long supported research using stem cells from adult tissue and umbilical cord blood, which poses no moral problem." Ethically irresponsible research is any research that "exploits or destroys human embryos," which would include "research as currently conducted" that employs embryonic stem cells. However, the Church "welcomes" proposed research that obtains "embryonic stem cells or their pluripotent equivalent without creating or harming embryos".
An even more relevant document is Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions, which was issued in 2008 under Pope Benedict XVI by the Vatican's Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith as the Church's doctrinal directives on embryonic ethical controversies. No. 33 of the Instruction clearly states the following on "attempts at hybridization":
From the ethical standpoint, such procedures represent an offense against the dignity of human beings on account of the admixture of human and animal genetic elements capable of disrupting the specific identity of man. The possible use of the stem cells, taken from these embryos, may also involve additional health risks, as yet unknown, due to the presence of animal genetic material in their cytoplasm. To consciously expose a human being to such risks is morally and ethically unacceptable.
Animal-human hybrids do exactly that by being "admixtures of human and animal genetic elements" which "disrupt the specific identity of man".
However, according to eminent biologist Dr. Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, Pope Francis approves of research that uses human stem cells to grow human organs in animal, which may lead to the animal developing HUMAN brain cells.
But that's okay with Jorge Bergoglio, so long as the animal-human hybrid is immediately killed after it's born. All in the name of the end justifying the means — "doing good" by "helping humankind".
And who's to say there aren't scientists, even in Spain, who disobey the rule by letting the chimera survive after birth?
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2016/02/06/award-winning-biologist-says-pope-francis-gave-his-blessing-to-animal-human-hybrids/
Barack Obama Pushes FDA to Allow Scientists to Create Three-Parent Embryos
Pro-abortion President Barack Obama made a move this week that brings to light his support for scientific research involving the destruction of human life to create three-parent embryos.
Pro-life U.S. Congressman Chris Smith's office told LifeNews that the president removed pro-life embryo-protection language from the proposed 2017 budget, which was released Tuesday.
The language, introduced by U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Alabama, is essential to protecting living human embryos from destruction, according to Smith's office.
They told LifeNews:
Chairman Aderholt included language in the FY16 Omnibus (Agriculture appropriations) that prevents the FDA from approving the genetic modification of human embryos, such as the creation of "three parent" embryos. This language is needed because the proposed techniques for genetic alteration of human embryos manipulate young human life, create new individuals as experiments, and destroy human embryos in the process of the experiments.
The scientific community in the US has made clear it would like to create genetically modified human embryos, recently releasing a report that advises the FDA to move forward with approving these controversial technologies. The only safeguard against FDA action in favor of genetically modifying human embryos is the Aderholt provision.
While Aderholt's provision in the federal budget protected young human life from genetic experimentation in 2016, the president's actions threaten lives in 2017. Obama's slashing of the pro-life provision comes just a week after a committee of scientists and ethicists recommended that the FDA approve three-parent embryo techniques for use in in vitro fertilization in the United States.
Rebecca Taylor explains more about the life-destroying research method:
The committee calls it mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT) because the goal is too "replace" defective mitochondria in woman with mitochondrial disease so they do not pass their genetic mutation onto their children.
We all have genetic material outside our nucleus in our mitochondria called mtDNA. We inherit our mtDNA solely from our mother. The mitochondria we inherit are in our mother's egg.
There are two MRT procedures that the committee endorsed. One takes a donor egg and removes its nucleus, replacing it with the nucleus of the egg of a woman with defective mtDNA. This creates a hybrid egg with the genetic material from two women. That genetically modified egg is then fertilized with sperm.
The second technique is a step further, manipulating not eggs but embryos after fertilization. It requires two embryos. One embryo with defective mitochondria and one "donor" embryo with healthy mitochondria. The nucleus of the healthy embryo is removed, and it is replaced with the nucleus of embryo with defective mtDNA. Two embryos are taken apart and destroyed to make a hybrid third embryo.
Both techniques are genetic engineering. Both techniques create embryos with genetic material from three people. Both are germ-line modifications, meaning they will be passed on to future generations by any female children made with these procedures.
The president's push for three-parent embryo research should come as no surprise. He also supports funding for life-destroying embryonic stem cell research and abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/10/barack-obama-pushes-fda-to-allow-scientists-to-create-three-parent-embryos/
Scientists claim they can create babies without men by injecting eggs with artificial sperm
The Chinese team says the new discovery could pave the way for exciting new treatments to boost male fertility
Scientists have claimed they have found a way for women to have babies without men by creating artificial sperm.
The team from China claim they have created healthy mouse babies by injecting laboratory-made sperm into eggs to produce mouse offspring.
The scientists claim their stem cell technique could pave the way for new treatments for male fertility.
But British experts have called for the results to be independently verified and pointed out that any practical application is likely to be a long way off.
The mouse cells produced were technically "spermatids" - undeveloped sperm that lack tails and cannot swim.
Yet when they were injected into mouse eggs, mimicking a common IVF technique called Icsi (intracytoplasmic sperm injection), they delivered viable embryos and healthy, fertile babies.
In the UK, using spermatids in the same way to produce a pregnancy would be illegal.
Dr Jiahao Sha, from Nanjing Medical University, who co-led the research, published the results in the peer-reviewed journal Cell Stem Cell.
He said: "If proven to be safe and effective in humans, our platform could potentially generate fully functional sperm for artificial insemination or in-vitro fertilisation techniques.
"Because currently available treatments do not work for many couples, we hope that our approach could substantially improve success rates for male infertility."
The scientists began with stem cells taken from mouse embryos which were exposed to a carefully mixed cocktail of chemicals.
This triggered their transformation into primordial germ cells, the first step on the developmental path to becoming sperm.
Next, the germ cells were exposed to testicular cells and testosterone in an attempt to mimic the natural environment of the testes.
Read more : Children born using IVF could face serious health problems later in life
When the resulting spermatids were injected into mouse eggs, they proved capable of producing embryos that developed normally.
Scientists have previously taken early steps in the process of creating artificial sperm and eggs in the laboratory.
In 2011 a Japanese team produced mouse germ cells from stem cells which eventually developed into healthy viable sperm, but only after they were injected into the testicles of male mice.
Infertility affects around 15% of couples and can be traced to the man in about a third of cases.
A major cause of male infertility is the failure of pre-cursor cells in the testes to undergo a special type of cell division called meiosis.
In 2014 a team of distinguished reproductive biologists writing in the journal Cell proposed a set of "gold standard" criteria to prove that all the essential steps of meiosis have taken place in artificially created eggs or sperm.
They included showing evidence of correct DNA content in the cell nucleus at specific meiotic stages, normal chromosome number and organisation, and the ability of the engineered cells to produce viable offspring.
The Chinese team claims to have passed all these tests.
Dr Sha said: "Our method fully complies with the gold standards recently proposed by a consensus panel of reproductive biologists, so we think that it holds tremendous promise for treating male infertility."
Scientists in the UK praised the "mammoth" achievement of their Chinese colleagues but said there were still many obstacles to be overcome before sperm-like cells grown in the laboratory could be of use to infertile men.
Professor Richard Sharpe, from the Medical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health at the University of Edinburgh, said safety was a major issue.
"Bear in mind that if germ cells do not format their DNA correctly, it may not only affect the resulting individual but might also affect the next generation," he pointed out.
Allan Pacey, Professor of Andrology at the University of Sheffield, said the study was an "interesting step forward".
But he added: "It's important to note that the sperm-like cells produced in the study were not fully mature sperm as we might know them. "
"In spite of these encouraging results, we are still some way from immediately applying this technique as a potential cure for human male infertility," he continued.
"It remains to be seen if this technique could be applied in humans to create sperm-like cells that might be usable in IVF."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/scientists-claim-can-create-babies-7441572
Scientists Seek To Bring Dead Brains Back To Life
A clinical trial will determine if stem cells can restore function to brain dead patients
No, it's not science fiction. Indian researchers are embarking on a study to try to literally revive the brain dead. A person is both medically and legally dead when the brain stops working, an irreversible condition known as brain death. Now, if one group of scientists have their way, the definition of death might get a bit more complicated—they are kicking off a clinical trial in which they will try to regenerate a portion of the brain in 20 people with brain death.
The experiment, called the Reanima project, will be conducted by researchers from two India-based biotech companies—Bioquark and Revita Life Sciences—on a new drug formula called BQ-A-001. The drug contains stem cells that researchers hope will grow into useful neurons, along with a number of different proteins and peptides that will break down damaged cells and create a microenvironment in which the stem cells can mature. The researchers plan to use this drug along with neurological interventions already used on brain dead patients, such as Transcranial Laser Therapy and Median Nerve Stimulation. Inspired by organisms like salamanders that can regrow severed or damaged tails, Bioquark researchers have been developing regenerative treatments for a host of uses, from cancer to spinal cord injuries.
In this first trial of the Reanima project, the researchers are simply looking to see if a drug can prompt the "dead" brain to regrow functional neurons that could help restore the brain function. The study will take place in India.
The 20 enrolled subjects have all been declared legally brain dead. None of the subjects have organs that can be harvested and donated, and their families have chosen to donate their bodies to this research study. The researchers plan to start enrolling patients immediately. Over the course of six weeks, the researchers will administer numerous doses of the drug to each patient's brainstem, an area which controls many of the body's basic functions. At the end of the trial, the researchers will take MRIs of the brainstem to see if there's been any promising growth in the brain—"Not just willy nilly nervous tissue, but actual structural growth," Ira Pastor, the CEO of Bioquark, told Vocativ.
The researchers are keeping their goals modest for this initial trial. "We don't believe people will be independently breathing after six weeks," Pastor says. Eventually, though, they would like to get to the point where brain dead patients can progress gradually through levels of increasing consciousness—through vegetative state, then coma, then minimally conscious state—until they can simply wake up.
"We think it's entirely feasible," Pastor says.
Since Bioquark received approval for its clinical trial last month, shockingly few people have voiced concern over the reserach, Pastor says. Most of the feedback from brain specialists working in intensive care units has been overwhelmingly positive. "You talk to these folks, you tell them what you're doing, and they'll tell you it's not that far-fetched—it's a hard program, and it will take a while, but they say it can happen," he adds. There also hasn't been any backlash from religious groups—"No one from the Vatican has called and chastised us for playing God. I don't see it like that," Pastor says.
The one community he has gotten pushback from, though, are people worried that Bioquark is going to create real-life zombies like those in "The Walking Dead." "I'm amazed at how people think will start the zombie apocalypse," he says, admitting that if he truly had the technology to raise the dead from the ground, it would be pretty cool, despite their hankering for human flesh.
If the trials go well and hint at a future in which brain dead people can be reanimated, the research will bring up a number of philosophical and ethical questions. For example: if a person is revived using stem cells to grow new neurons, is she still the same person she was before she was brain dead? Some neuroscientists and philosophers believe the answer will be no, that it's the wiring that makes us who we are, no more than the summation of links and connections between brain cells.
The definition of death, too, would have to change. As Wired pointed out in 2014, experts still debate exactly how to define death. To some, a person who is brain dead but with a beating heart seems to be alive. For example, life support machines have been keeping teenage Jahi McMath alive since she was declared brain dead in 2013. To others, declaration of brain death indicates a person should be taken off of their life support systems and allowed to physically die.
If Pastor's projections are correct, these issues will enter our national conversation sooner than later. This trial may just be the first step.
"It's not going to be decades," Pastor says. "With everything going right, this is something that could happen sooner than we think. But it's not going to happen in six weeks."
rest: http://www.vocativ.com/318112/brain-dead-reasearch/
Scientists Talk Privately About Creating a Synthetic Human Genome
Scientists are now contemplating the fabrication of a human genome, meaning they would use chemicals to manufacture all the DNA contained in human chromosomes.
The prospect is spurring both intrigue and concern in the life sciences community because it might be possible, such as through cloning, to use a synthetic genome to create human beings without biological parents.
While the project is still in the idea phase, and also involves efforts to improve DNA synthesis in general, it was discussed at a closed-door meeting on Tuesday at Harvard Medical School in Boston. The nearly 150 attendees were told not to contact the news media or to post on Twitter during the meeting.
Organizers said the project could have a big scientific payoff and would be a follow-up to the original Human Genome Project, which was aimed at reading the sequence of the three billion chemical letters in the DNA blueprint of human life. The new project, by contrast, would involve not reading, but rather writing the human genome — synthesizing all three billion units from chemicals.
But such an attempt would raise numerous ethical issues. Could scientists create humans with certain kinds of traits, perhaps people born and bred to be soldiers? Or might it be possible to make copies of specific people?
"Would it be O.K., for example, to sequence and then synthesize Einstein's genome?" Drew Endy, a bioengineer at Stanford, and Laurie Zoloth, a bioethicist at Northwestern University, wrote in an essay criticizing the proposed project. "If so how many Einstein genomes should be made and installed in cells, and who would get to make them?"
Dr. Endy, though invited, said he deliberately did not attend the meeting at Harvard because it was not being opened to enough people and was not giving enough thought to the ethical implications of the work.
rest of this n@zi scheme: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/science/synthetic-human-genome.html?_r=1
« Last Edit: May 14, 2016, 05:56:25 pm by Mark » Report Spam Logged
In Search For Cures, Scientists Create Embryos That Are Both Animal And Human
A handful of scientists around the United States are trying to do something that some people find disturbing: make embryos that are part human, part animal.
The researchers hope these embryos, known as chimeras, could eventually help save the lives of people with a wide range of diseases.
One way would be to use chimera embryos to create better animal models to study how human diseases happen and how they progress.
Perhaps the boldest hope is to create farm animals that have human organs that could be transplanted into terminally ill patients.
But some scientists and bioethicists worry the creation of these interspecies embryos crosses the line. "You're getting into unsettling ground that I think is damaging to our sense of humanity," says Stuart Newman, a professor of cell biology and anatomy at the New York Medical College.
The experiments are so sensitive that the National Institutes of Health has imposed a moratorium on funding them while officials explore the ethical issues they raise.
Nevertheless, a small number of researchers are pursuing the work with private funding. They hope the results will persuade the NIH to lift the moratorium.
"We're not trying to make a chimera just because we want to see some kind of monstrous creature," says Pablo Ross, a reproductive biologist at the University of California, Davis. "We're doing this for a biomedical purpose."
The NIH is expected to announce soon how it plans to handle requests for funding.
Recently, Ross agreed to let me visit his lab for an unusual look at his research. During the visit, Ross demonstrated how he is trying to create a pancreas that theoretically could be transplanted into a patient with diabetes.
The first step involves using new gene-editing techniques to remove the gene that pig embryos need to make a pancreas.
Working under an elaborate microscope, Ross makes a small hole in the embryo's outer membrane with a laser. Next, he injects a molecule synthesized in the laboratory to home in and delete the pancreas gene inside. (In separate experiments, he has done this to sheep embryos, too.)
After the embryos have had their DNA edited this way, Ross creates another hole in the membrane so he can inject human induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS for short, into the pig embryos.
Like human embryonic stem cells, iPS cells can turn into any kind of cell or tissue in the body. The researchers' hope is that the human stem cells will take advantage of the void in the embryo to start forming a human pancreas.
Because iPS cells can be made from any adult's skin cells, any organs they form would match the patient who needs the transplant, vastly reducing the risk that the body would reject the new organ.
But for the embryo to develop and produce an organ, Ross has to put the chimera embryos into the wombs of adult pigs. That involves a surgical procedure, which is performed in a large operating room across the street from Ross's lab.
Pablo Ross of the University of California, Davis inserts human stem cells into a pig embryo as part of experiments to create chimeric embryos. Rob Stein/NPR hide caption
toggle caption Rob Stein/NPR
Pablo Ross of the University of California, Davis inserts human stem cells into a pig embryo as part of experiments to create chimeric embryos.
Rob Stein/NPR
The day Ross opened his lab to me, a surgical team was anesthetizing an adult female pig so surgeons could make an incision to get access to its uterus.
Ross then rushed over with a special syringe filled with chimera embryos. He injected 25 embryos into each side of the animal's uterus. The procedure took about an hour. He repeated the process on a second pig.
Every time Ross does this, he then waits a few weeks to allow the embryos to develop to their 28th day — a time when primitive structures such as organs start to form.
Ross then retrieves the chimeric embryos to dissect them so he can see what the human stem cells are doing inside. He examines whether the human stem cells have started to form a pancreas, and whether they have begun making any other types of tissues.
The uncertainty is part of what makes the work so controversial. Ross and other scientists conducting these experiments can't know exactly where the human stem cells will go. Ross hopes they'll only grow a human pancreas. But they could go elsewhere, such as to the brain.
"If you have pigs with partly human brains you would have animals that might actually have consciousness like a human," Newman says. "It might have human-type needs. We don't really know."
That possibility raises new questions about the morality of using the animals for experimentation. Another concern is that the stem cells could form human sperm and human eggs in the chimeras.
"If a male chimeric pig mated with a female chimeric pig, the result could be a human fetus developing in the uterus of that female chimera," Newman says. Another possibility is the animals could give birth to some kind of part-human, part-pig creature.
"One of the concerns that a lot of people have is that there's something sacrosanct about what it means to be human expressed in our DNA," says Jason Robert, a bioethicist at Arizona State University. "And that by inserting that into other animals and giving those other animals potentially some of the capacities of humans that this could be a kind of violation — a kind of, maybe, even a playing God."
Ross defends what his work. "I don't consider that we're playing God or even close to that," Ross says. "We're just trying to use the technologies that we have developed to improve peoples' life."
Still, Ross acknowledges the concerns. So he's moving very carefully, he says. For example, he's only letting the chimera embryos develop for 28 days. At that point, he removes the embryos and dissects them.
If he discovers the stem cells are going to the wrong places in the embryos, he says he can take steps to stop that from happening. In addition, he'd make sure adult chimeras are never allowed to mate, he says.
"We're very aware and sensitive to the ethical concerns," he says. "One of the reasons we're doing this research the way we're doing it is because we want to provide scientific information to inform those concerns."
Ross is working with Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte from the Salk Intitute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., and Hiromitsu Nakauchi at Stanford University. Daniel Garry of the University of Minnesota and colleagues are conducting similar work.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/18/478212837/in-search-for-cures-scientists-create-embryos-that-are-both-animal-and-human
Chinese scientists to pioneer first human CRISPR trial
A team led by Lu You, an oncologist at Sichuan University's West China Hospital in Chengdu, plans to start testing such cells in people with lung cancer next month. The clinical trial received ethical approval from the hospital's review board on 6 July. "It's an exciting step forward," says Carl June, a clinical researcher in immunotherapy at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-to-pioneer-first-human-crispr-trial-1.20302?WT.ec_id=NEWSDAILY-20160722
Wanted: 'Adventurous woman' to give birth to Neanderthal man - Harvard professor seeks mother for cloned cave baby
Professor George Church of Harvard Medical School believes he can reconstruct Neanderthal DNA
His ambitious plan requires a human volunteer willing to allow the DNA to be put into stem cells, then a human embryo
Neanderthals have been extinct for 33,000 years, but George Church, a genetics professor at Harvard Medical School, believes he can bring them back with the help of a surrogate human mother.
They're usually thought of as a brutish, primitive species.
So what woman would want to give birth to a Neanderthal baby?
Yet this incredible scenario is the plan of one of the world's leading geneticists, who is seeking a volunteer to help bring man's long-extinct close relative back to life.
Professor George Church of Harvard Medical School believes he can reconstruct Neanderthal DNA and resurrect the species which became extinct 33,000 years ago.
His scheme is reminiscent of Jurassic Park but, while in the film dinosaurs were created in a laboratory, Professor Church's ambitious plan requires a human volunteer.
He said his analysis of Neanderthal genetic code using samples from bones is complete enough to reconstruct their DNA.
He said: 'Now I need an adventurous female human.
'It depends on a hell of a lot of things, but I think it can be done.'
Professor Church's plan would begin by artificially creating Neanderthal DNA based on genetic code found in fossil remains. He would put this DNA into stem cells.
These would be injected into cells from a human embryo in the early stages of life.
It is thought that the stem cells would steer the development of the hybrid embryo on Neanderthal lines, rather than human ones.
After growing in the lab for a few days, the 'neo-Neanderthal' embryo would be implanted in the womb of a surrogate mother – the volunteer. Professor Church, 58, is a pioneer in synthetic biology who helped initiate the Human Genome Project that mapped our DNA.
Big ideas: Contrary to belief, Neanderthals had a larger brain size and may have been more intelligent than humans
Bringing the past alive: A scene from the film Jurassic Park, which suggested dinosaurs could be recreated through DNA trapped in amber
He says Neanderthals were not the lumbering brutes of the stereotype, but highly intelligent. Their brains were roughly the same size as man's, and they made primitive tools.
Cloning the caveman: Geneticist Professor George Church
He believes his project could benefit mankind.
He told German magazine Der Spiegel: 'Neanderthals might think differently than we do. They could even be more intelligent than us.
'When the time comes to deal with an epidemic or getting off the planet, it's conceivable that their way of thinking could be beneficial.'
Scientists say that his plan is theoretically possible, although in Britain, like most countries, human reproductive cloning is a criminal offence.
But Professor Church's proposal is so cutting-edge that it may not be covered by existing laws.
However, experts worry that neo-Neanderthals might lack the immunity to modern diseases to survive, and some fear that the process might lead to deformity.
There is also uncertainty over how they would fit into today's world. Bioethicist Bernard Rollin of Colorado State University said: 'I don't think it's fair to put people... into a circumstance where they are going to be mocked and possibly feared.'
In a scathing reaction, Philippa Taylor of the Christian Medical Fellowship said: 'It is hard to know where to begin with the ethical and safety concerns.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265402/Adventurous-human-woman-wanted-birth-Neanderthal-man-Harvard-professor.html
NIH might start funding human-animal chimera studies
As you can guess, these experiments raise a lot of ethical concerns.
The NIH could start funding experiments that inject human stem cells in animal embryos to create hybrids called "chimeras." It issued a blanked ban on chimera research last year, but it looks like the organization changed its mind after examining the science behind it and talking to lead experts in the field. Carrie D. Wolinetz, NIH's Associate Director for Science Policy, wrote in a blog post that the "formation of these types of human-animal organism, referred to as "chimeras," holds tremendous potential for disease modeling, drug testing and perhaps eventual organ transplant."
While the NIH is now more open to the possibility of creating hybrids for disease research and organ transplants, that doesn't mean it's funding even studies that could lead to our sci-fi-esque apocalyptic end. To start with, it still wouldn't earmark money for experiments aiming to develop and breed animals with human sperm and egg cells.
It also plans to form a committee tasked with examining every study that falls into these two areas of research: first is the type that introduces stem cells into non-human vertebrate embryos. Scientists will be allowed to inject cells into embryos before the animals' organs start developing, so long as they're not experimenting on non-human primates like chimpanzees. Anybody working on monkeys or chimpanzees will have to wait until the embryos are further along.
The second area of research the committee will keep a close eye on is introducing stem cells into animals to grow organs for transplant. In at least one previous experiment, researchers were able to grow rat pancreas in a mouse that lacks the genes to grow them. Scientists are hoping to replicate that feat on pigs. If they could grow, say, human liver or kidneys in pigs whose genes were tweaked not to grow them, then the organs could eventually be transplanted into human patients.
As you can imagine, though, studies like these raise a lot of ethical concerns. What if the stem cells turn into part of the animal's brain and it ends up developing a consciousness comparable to ours? "What makes us human?," Jeffrey P. Kahn, the director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, asked The New York Times. "Is it having 51 percent human cells?" He explained people's concerns to the publication, one of which is the possibility of creating chimeras that are more human than not.
The NIH is now seeking public comments on its proposal. If you want the agency to hear your thoughts, you have until September 4th to send them in.
https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/05/nih-human-animal-hybrid-studies/
WELL, THAT WAS FAST
Human-Animal Chimera Studies Are Now Allowed In the U.S.
The NIH is poised to lift a ban that prevented researchers from creating human-animal chimeras with stem cells
Nearly a year ago, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) decided to stop funding research in a promising area of stem cell science. Scientists eager to find new ways to generate desperately needed human organs or tissues to replace damaged or diseased ones have been excited by the possibility of inserting a specific type of human stem cell, which has the potential to turn into any type of tissue, into animals, where they could develop and eventually be transplanted into humans. The process creates human-animal chimeras, similar to those highlighted in science fiction, where humans take on animal-like features and animals take on human characteristics. The NIH decided to stop funding such research over concerns about the unpredictable consequences and ethically unresolved questions that such chimeras raise.
But the agency now says that it will lift the ban and put in place a review process that would require two types of chimera studies to get further review. These include experiments in which human stem cells are added to very early embryos of other animals, and studies in which the human stem cells are injected into the brains of mammals other than rats and mice.
The decision could reinvigorate the next phase of stem cell research, which has always been plagued by controversy and ethical concerns over how such powerful cells, which can theoretically seed new human beings, are handled. The NIH will continue to ban studies in which chimeras are allowed to reproduce, or in which human stem cells are injected into early embryos of our closely related primates.
But for researchers like Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte at the Salk Institute, it represents an opportunity. Belmonte is studying ways to produce human tissues for transplant but has been working a collaborators in Spain since his studies are not permitted in the U.S. "The possibility of NIH supporting our current program of research will enhance and accelerate our goals toward function integration of patient derived cells into a developing embryo from a different species," he said to TIME in an email. Such studies will not only potentially provide new sources of human tissues for transplant but also help expose some of the still mysterious ways that diseases like cancer develop.
http://time.com/4440907/human-animal-chimera-stem-cells/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/3e834ccc-b3b4-33c8-a57b-18bfaeb349b6/ss_egyptian-mummy%26%2339%3Bs-face.html
Egyptian mummy's face recreated with 3D printing
An Egyptian mummy's head and face have been reconstructed with forensic science and 3D printing, offering scientists a tantalizing glimpse of the individual's life and death. The mummified head was discovered by accident in the collections of the University of Melbourne in Australia. A museum curator happened upon the remains during an audit and, concerned about the state of the specimen, sent it for a computed tomography (CT) scan. "Turns out, [the skull] is actually quite intact; it has got bandages and looks well on the inside," said Varsha Pilbrow, a biological anthropologist in the University of Melbourne's Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience.
Making babies without eggs may be possible, say scientists
Scientists say early experiments suggest it may one day be possible to make babies without using eggs. They have succeeded in creating healthy baby mice by tricking sperm into believing they were fertilising normal eggs. The findings...could, in the distant future, mean women can be removed from the baby-making process, say the researchers.
Science is One Step Closer to Cloning a Race of Super Humans
What they have done is recreate the DNA from scratch, though they haven't actually brought the bacteria to life, yet. What was once thought impossible is no longer. This is the first synthetic genome ever assembled, and is being hailed as the most complex feat of genetic engineering, thus far. With this technique, we could create any kind of life form we wanted,
http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/researchers-are-close-to-rewriting-our-dna-entirely-taking-us-ever-closer-toward-human-cloning
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/health/3-parent-baby/index.html
Controversial 3-parent baby technique produces a boy
CNN)Not everyone is rejoicing following the birth of a seemingly healthy three-parent baby earlier this year, which is detailed in study published in a scientific journal Tuesday. The baby boy was born on April 6 in Mexico, having been conceived using a technique called spindle nuclear transfer.
As reported in the journal Fertility and Sterility, the use of this reproductive technology was intended to prevent Leigh syndrome, a severe neurological condition that affects at least one in 40,000 newborns.
The mother previously had four pregnancy losses and had given birth to two children, one who survived less than a year, another who lived only 6 years due to the syndrome. For religious reasons, the mother wanted to use a technique that would not require the destruction of fertilized eggs, which an approved treatment in the United Kingdom would require.
Led by Dr. John Zhang, founder of the New Hope Fertility Center in New York City, her doctors left the US, where the technique has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and performed their work in Mexico, which is free of similar regulations.
Though billed by Zhang as a "first ever," a different version of this same technique had been used by fertility clinics in the past, explained Professor Hank Greely of Stanford University, who specializes in the ethical, legal and social implications of new biomedical technologies.
"About a dozen such babies were born in the US in the late 1990s/early 2000s before the FDA -- pushed, I think, by cloning concerns -- decided that this procedure needed FDA approval," said Greely, adding that the clinics who did this before have since stopped performing the procedure.
While in the past, the procedure was used to help women conceive and give birth to healthy babies in cases of infertility, the new version was created to tackle a specific problem: mitochondrial mutations.
christistruth
Giant Foot Print 200 Million Yrs Old - South Africa
Jesus is the answer for our moral ills. Conservative principals are the answer to our government corruption.
L.A. Marzulli and Richard Shaw: The Kandahar Giant
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Go Up