« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »
digg it! 
del.icio.us
Always a source of entertaining contraversy, Geneticist J. Craig Venter will be reading from his new book A Life Decoded: My Genome, My Life at the Ethical Society of St. Louis (90001 Clayton, St. Louis, MO 63117) this Friday at 7:00 PM. The event is free to the public.
digg it! del.icio.us
Does anyone know when SLU's Doisy Research Center is actually set to open? The Post-Dispatch ran an article last month that had the official date set for this Wednesday, but there still seems to be a lot of construction-type activity buzzing around.
digg it! del.icio.us
Congrats to Monsanto for making Science Magazine's Top-10 list for employers in biotech and pharma. The annual list is assembled from a survey of life science employees asked to write in the names of companies they considered the best, worst, and most average employers. They then ranked their choices in 23 categories.
This is the first time that an agricultural company has broken into the Top-10, which is populated mostly with large biotechs. According to the survey, Monsanto ranked highly in "Innovative leader in the industry", "Does important, quality research", and "Loyal employees".
The complete Top-10 is:
The complete Science article may be read on the science careers website.
digg it! del.icio.us
Dr. Fauquet, born and educated along the Rhein, came to the U.S. in 1988 to continue his work with tropical agriculture with Dr. Robert Beachy at Washington University. He followed Beachy to the Scripps Institute in San Diego in 1991, then to the Danforth Center in 1999, where he works to develop a line of virus-resistant cassava.
Congrats to Dr. Fauquet. As an aside, does anyone else think that we need more knightings around here? This is a French city, after all. I'm thinking "Kights of the Order of Eastern Creve Couer", or "Chevaliers of Greater Belleville". How about "Distinguished Officers of the River Des Peres"? Maybe not...
digg it! del.icio.us
Bill McClellan, from this morning's Post-Dispatch, on stem cell research:
Fuzzy wording skews debate over research on stem cells
By Bill McClellan
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
10/12/2007
Although I normally leave politics to Archbishop Raymond Burke, I would like to say a few words this morning to Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan:
Reverse course, Robin. You're wrong.
Ever since voters narrowly passed Amendment 2 (stem cell initiative) last year, opponents of that amendment have argued that the voters were deceived by misinformation and cloudy language.
In particular, the opponents have argued that the summary for Amendment 2 was misleading when it stated that the amendment would ban human cloning. They argue that somatic cell nuclear transfer — the transplanting of DNA into an unfertilized egg to grow stem cells, a technique protected under the amendment — is the first step in human cloning. They ask, How can you say you're banning something when you're protecting it?
Proponents of the amendment answer that the amendment prohibits implanting the cloned cells in a womb, and therefore it really does ban human cloning.Well, who knows? That's like arguing how many angels can swim laps in a petri dish.
The opponents of Amendment 2 want to put the issue to the voters again. They want to amend the definition of human cloning so the new definition includes somatic cell nuclear transfer. In other words, they want to ban somatic cell nuclear transfer.
That seems clear. The definition of human cloning would be changed, or expanded, to include somatic cell nuclear transfer.
It is the job of the Secretary of State to summarize the issue in simple language. In this instance, the proposed summary states that the initiative would "repeal the current ban on human cloning" and "criminalize and impose civil penalties for some currently allowed research, therapies and cures."
Come on, Robin. Repeal the current ban? That's confusing. It would expand the ban. Criminalize and impose civil penalties for some currently allowed research, therapies and cures? That's loaded language. Just say it would prohibit research that is currently allowed under both state and federal law.
I should add that I favor embryonic stem cell research. I try to be respectful toward those who don't, but respect goes only so far. If somebody tells me that their religious beliefs are such that the potential life in the petri dish carries the same value as the life of a living, breathing child, I politely tell them that my beliefs are different. I give the living child more value than I give the clump of cells. If those who oppose embryonic stem cell research would agree to sign waivers that their children and their children's children will never avail themselves of any therapy or cures that come from that research, that would be fine with me. But I'm not signing that waiver, and I'm not authorizing anybody to sign it for me.
For that matter, I don't agree with former Sen. John Danforth, who has suggested we find common ground by keeping government out of this debate. That means no government money for research. Just because some people oppose it? I'm against that compromise. People don't want their money to go toward something that they find morally reprehensible? Tell that to all of us who oppose the war in Iraq and the "long-term relationship" the president now wants with that country.
Of course, we have the chance to change direction in the next election.
The folks who oppose embryonic stem cell research should have the same chance. If they can collect enough signatures, they can get the issue on the ballot again.
If they get it on the ballot, they have the right to clear language. Everybody should be able to understand what this is about. This is not an effort to repeal the current ban on human cloning. This is an effort to amend the definition of human cloning to include somatic cell nuclear transfer. This is not about stopping stem cell research. This is about stopping embryonic stem cell research.
If the language isn't clear, nothing will be resolved. Amendment 2 was supposed to ensure the legality of embryonic stem cell research and establish Missouri as a safe place to do cutting-edge research. That did not happen. Instead, we have legislators refusing to fund science buildings at the state's universities. Think about that. Who do you want in charge of science in this state — scientists or legislators?
The current mess is the result of fuzzy language, language that allowed the opponents of Amendment 2 to cry foul. Let's not repeat our mistakes. Win or lose next time, let's be done with it.
Well said.
digg it! del.icio.us
Last Friday, the University of Missouri Board of Curators denounced a recently proposed state constitutional amendment that would seek to limit stem cell research. This comes almost a month to the day after UM Interim President Gordon H. Lamb issued a similar statement.
The Board of Curators is a 9-member panel of businesspeople and lawyers, appointed by the governor, that administers all four campuses of the UM system. Despite hailing from across the state, the board still voted 6-1, with 2 abstentions, to oppose further restrictions, stating an "unwavering commitment to the principles of academic freedom and intellectual inquiry …"
The proposed amendment would seek to eliminate research using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), one method for generating stem cell lines in vivo. After its introduction in August, the measure received a storm of criticism for its inconsistent legal wording and anti-science bent.
digg it! del.icio.us
This may be old news to some of you, but I stumbled across an interesting tech transfer resource the other day put up by the Kauffman Foundation. Called the iBridge Network , it's a centralized, online database of licensable discoveries made at dozens of universities across the country.
From what I can gather, the site had a beta launch in late January, after a pilot program that lasted a few years. Currently, it contains over 900 discovery listings, from as many as 16 university systems. There's a lot here, everything from cell lines, to biomarkers, to IT systems.
Wash U shows up on the list (They've had a similar system up on their Office of Technology Management website since at least 2004). So does the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, run by former Wash U tech transfer head Michael Douglas. Those seem to be the only institutions with local connections, though. Mizzou? SLU? Time to get on the bandwagon.
digg it! del.icio.us
Friday's Post-Dispatch reported on rumors that SLU is actively discussing the possibility of transferring ownership of its School of Public Health over to Wash U. The school is one of only 38 in the nation, last year enrolling 366 postgraduate students in programs involving epidemiology, health administration and biosecurity.
The two schools maintain a close working relationship, this year collaborating on grant programs in children's health and translational medicine. However, the concept of an outright merger apparently caught many by surprise. Officially, the two institutions are playing coy, issuing a statement on Friday saying only that "[l]eaders of both institutions are discussing whether there are mutually beneficial ways to advance public health research and education".
digg it! del.icio.us
On Thursday, Monsanto and Stockholm-based Perten Instruments announced a collaboration to develop new analytical tools for bioethanol production. The new partnership will help Monsanto advance its efforts in optimizing several crops for ethanol production by allowing researchers and producers to precisely monitor the amount of moisture, starch, and other factors stored within a particular batch of grain. Since the final ethanol yield often depends on these factors, using a new technology to illuminate them early on in the production process promises to cut costs and speed development. Financial details were not disclosed.
digg it! del.icio.us
In the Oct 4th issue of the journal Neuron, researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine reported on their new findings in support of a controversial explanation for Alzheimer's Disease (AD). One of the more contentious debates among doctors recently has been on the connection between AD and statin use. In some cases, prescribing the cholesterol-lowering meds seems to ease the disease's symptoms, but in others they have no effect.
One reason for the debate is that most AD research focuses on the protein composition of the brain, especially a protein called beta-amyloid that is thought to clump together with its neighbors during AD progression, gumming up the molecular machinery of the nervous system. The Wash U report is significant because it instead examined a by-product of beta-amyloid formation and determined that it plays a key role in regulating - wait for it - cholesterol.
In a way, it should be no surprise that cholesterol metabolism plays a role in some neurodegenerative diseases. The brain makes up only 2% of our body weight, yet it holds around 20% of the body's cholesterol, where it help transfer electrical signals and reinforce neuronal cell walls.
The researchers, led by Professor Guojun Bu, Ph.D, hope that these new findings will help to open up a new direction in AD treatment and diagnosis.
digg it! del.icio.us
Paul Kedrosky made a fun appearance on the new PBS show WIRED Science last night to talk about his experiences funding early-stage science. If nothing else, it reminds me of how much I liked the von Liebig Center, and how much we could use the equivalent around here.
digg it! del.icio.us
About a week ago, I found an interesting report buried within the pages of the Skandalaris Center website. It looks to be at least a year-and-a-half old, but it's new to me, and I've found myself dipping back into it repeatedly in the past few days.
The report, entitled "Road Map for Collaboration-Describing St. Louis, MO's Federally Funded Research and Innovation Assets through RaDiUS", was prepared by a team at the University of California - San Diego (UCSD) and describes the distribution of federal R&D funding in the region. Besides the simple appeal of my 2 alma maters working together, the final document is worth reading for some of the unexpected conclusions it arrives at:
Anyhow, take a look at the full report on the Skandalaris Center's web site.
The opinions expressed herein are soley those of the author and do not represent the views of any other individual or group, unless expressely stated.
Copyright © 2006-2007, Brian Loyal. All rights reserved
