Biomalls Notes

조작된 비디오 보여주면 현장목격자는?

2009-09-21T13:11:00.000+09:00

조작된 비디오 보여주면 현장목격자는?
코메디닷컴 | 기사입력 2009-09-20 17:20 | 최종수정 2009-09-20 18:45
사람들은 직접 눈으로 본 사실과 그 현장을 찍었다는 비디오의 내용이 다를 때 자신의 눈을 믿을까, 아니면 비디오를 믿을까?

영국 워윅대학 심리학과의 킴벌리 웨이드 교수 팀의 연구결과 사람들은 조작된 비디오를 보게 되면 방금 전 자신이 직접 본 사실도 부정할 수 있는 것으로 드러났다. 연구진은 60명에게 컴퓨터 퀴즈 게임을 시켰다. 게임은 2인1조로 앉아 컴퓨터에 나오는 문제를 교대로 맞히는 것이었다. 답이 맞으면 자신이 건 돈 만큼을 따고 틀리면 건 돈을 두 사람 사이에 설정된 ‘은행계좌’로 넣어야 했다. 나란히 앉아 게임을 했기 때문에 옆 사람이 맞는지 틀렸는지, 그리고 건 돈을 은행에 넣었는지 안 넣었는지 다 볼 수 있었다.

게임이 끝난 뒤 이들 60명은 세 그룹으로 나뉘어 각기 다른 설명을 들었다. 첫 그룹은 “아까 게임을 할 때 당신 옆 사람이 속임수를 쓴 것 같다”는 얘기를 들었고 두 번째 그룹은 “옆 사람이 속임수를 쓰는 걸 촬영했다”는 소리를 들었으며 마지막 그룹은 ‘속임수의 현장’을 찍은 비디오라는 동영상을 실제로 봤다. 이 비디오는 연구진이 가짜로 만든 것이었다.

“속임수를 쓴 사람을 경찰에 고발해야 하니 ‘속임수를 쓰는 것을 봤다’는 진술서에 서명해 달라”는 연구진의 요구에 첫 그룹에선 단 5%만이 서명을 했다. 상대방이 속임수를 안 썼다는 것을 똑똑히 봤기 때문이었다. “속임수 장면을 촬영했다”는 소리를 들은 두 번째 그룹에서도 서명한 사람은 10%에 불과했다. 그러나 ‘속임수 현장을 찍은 비디오’를 본 세 번째 그룹 사람들은 무려 40%가 서명했다. 자신의 눈으로 그렇지 않은 것을 봤으면서도 단지 가짜 비디오를 봤다는 이유만으로 죄 없는 옆 사람을 처벌해 달라고 증언한 것이었다. 연구진이 서명하지 않은 사람에게 “중요한 문제니 한 번 더 생각해 달라”고 부탁하자 10%가 추가로 서명해 서명자는 50%로 늘어났다.

이 연구에 대해 웨이드 박사는 “목격자의 진술이 얼마나 잘못될 수 있는지를 보여 주는 실험결과”라며 “디지털 기술이 발달해 비디오 조작이 얼마든지 가능한데도 사람들은 ‘현장을 찍은 비디오’라는 걸 보여 주면 자신의 목격 사실을 뒤엎고 비디오를 믿는 경우가 절반이나 된다”고 말했다.

이 연구결과는 ‘응용 인지심리학(Applied Cognitive Psychology)’ 최신호에 실렸으며 미국 과학논문 소개사이트 유레칼러트, 영국 일간지 텔레그래프 등이 18일 보도했다.

김혜민 기자 (haemin@kormedi.com)

저작권ⓒ '건강을 위한 정직한 지식' 코메디닷컴 / 무단전재-재배포 금지

이 기사 주소http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LPOD&mid=etc&oid=296&aid=0000003919

What do managers do?

2009-09-08T18:29:00.002+09:00

Leadership - Harvard Business Review

What do managers do? Henry Mintzberg

Three roles;
Interpersonal roles - figurehead;
spent time on ceremonial duties, hiring and training staff, motivate and encourge employees, reconciling individual needs with the goals of the organization.liaison role - subordinates; clients, business associates, and suppliers; and peers, government and trade organization officials, fellow directors on outside boards

Informational roles;
Decisional roles;

Plan, organize, coordinate, and control

Required skills;
Developing peer relationships
Carrying out negotiations
Motivating subordinates
Resoving conflicts
Establishing information networks
Disseminating information
Making decisions with little or ambiguous information
allocating resources

Today's gossip may be tomorrow's fact.

Credibility is the foundation of leadership

2009-09-08T17:02:00.002+09:00

Credibility is the foundation of leadership

"Leadership is in the eyes of other people; it is they who proclaim you as a leader." Carrie Gilstrap, Hewlett-Packard.

Common phrases people use to describe how they know credibility when they see it.

They practice what they preach.
They walk the talk.
Their actions are consistent with their words.
They put their money where their mouth is.
They follow through on their promises.
They do what they say they will do.

Challenge the process.

2009-09-08T16:50:00.001+09:00

Challenge the process.

Whatever the challenge, all the cases involved a change from the status guo.
It's critical for leders to always be looking for ways to improve their team, taking interests outside of their job or organization, finding ways to stay current of what the competition is doning, networking, and taking initiative to try new things." They search for opportunities to innovate, grow, and improve. Innovation comes more from listening than from telling.

"Mediocrity and status quo will never lead a company to success in the marketplce.Taking risks and believing that taking them is worthwhile and are only way companies can 'jump' rather than simply climb the improvement ladder," Mike Pepe, O3 Entertainment

"Leadership is learning by doing, adapting to actual conditions. Leaders are constantly learning from their errors and failures." Claude Meyer, Red Cross.
Life is the leader's laboratory, and exemplary leaders use it to conduct as many experiments as possible. Try, fail, learn. Try, fail, learn. That's the leader's mantra. Leaders are learners. They lean from their failures as well as their success, and they make it possible for others to do the same.

Leaders inspire a shared vision.

2009-09-08T16:29:00.000+09:00

Leaders inspire a shared vision.

"What made the difference was the vision of how things could be and clearly painting this picture for all to see and comprehend." Mark D'Arcagelo, Hitachi Semiconductor.

Leaders have to

envision exciting and ennobling possibilities.
enlist others in a common vision.

The five practices of exemplary leadership

2009-09-08T14:55:00.006+09:00

The five practices of exemplary leadership

"Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something extraordinary happen" Alan Keith, Genentech

Everybody want to win, Everybody wants to be successful. Everybody comes to work trying to make a difference."If you keep your eyes open and periodically actually shut your mouth, and you have the courage to turn the mirror around on yourself, it's amazing what you can learn and how you can change things." Dick Nettell, Bank of America.

Write down five adjectives that described the company at the moment
Write down five adjectives that described how they thought their peers would describe the company and what they thought the associates would say.

Describe how they would like the company to look in three to five years.

Our vision of the future...
We will be seen as a ~
We will be acknowledged across ~ as a model to follow
We will be viewed.

Our mission is...
To provide ~

"I'm here at ~ because I want to be here" "You've lost the right to suffer in silence, if you have an issue, open your mouth. I want you to talk to your managers, talk to me. Give me ideas and proposals that I have the authority to approve" Dick Nettell, Bank of America.

"I hate the predictable. I hate doing things the way everyone else does. Whatevere I do I like to do something difference. I never wanted to be a me-too company from day one." Claire Owen, SG Group Stopgaps

Clear set of values. The only reason I'm sitting here is because I like these values.
" I wanted to run a business that had a phenomenal reputation" " I wanted to open and transparent business that people could trust. We operate by the principle of total transparency. She wanted a company that people wanted to do business with"

Held a meeting once a month for an hour and everybody comes. Share the company's finance, what the business turned over, the profit made or loss taken, where the business has come from, any marketing that's going on,a lot of people things - who's joining, who's leaving, who's got an anniversary this month, and anything else that affects staff.
Weekly meeting. It's a book back at the week, a sharing of good things and bad things that went on during the week.

Biweekly forum to share in depth the issues they're having. Notice summary to find a solution to them.

Biweekly staff newsletter - for more personal needs, like someone wanting details of a great Mexican restaurant, a good plumber, or a flatmate.

Every month - Informal recognitions and celebrations - toast personal successes, anniversaries, and birth of babies.nominate people who have gone the extra mile. - every winner gets a special envelop thanking for going the extra mile and presenting 50,000 worth of coupon.

Flexible benefits scheme - staff customize the plan to fit their needs - gym membership, health insurance,personal coaching.
What else can we do to stay ahead? " We don't have employees. We don't have staff. We have people, and people have emotions, and people have needs."

Leaders' deeds are far more important than their words when one wants to determine how serious leaders really are about what they say. Words and deeds must be consistent. Exemplary leaders go first by setting the example through daily actions.

People follow first the person, then the plan.

The leadership challenge

2009-09-08T14:23:00.002+09:00

The leadership challenge
By James M. Kouzes, Bary Z. Posner

Getting extraordinary things done in organization

The leadership challenge is about how leaders mobilize others to get extraordinary things done in organization. It's about the practices leaders use to transform values into actions, visions into realities, obstacles into innovations, separateness into solidarity, and risks into rewards.
It's about leadership that creates the climate in which people turn challenging opportunities into remarkable successes.

There are countless opportunities for each of us to make a difference. For instance, there are opportunities to

* Provide direction and support to out teams during uncertain times.
* More fully utilize the talents of our colleagues.
* Set a positive example of what honesty and ethics mean in daily life
* Find a better balance in our always-on, 24/7/365 lives
* Apply knowledge to products and services, creating extraordinary value for the customer
* Put the innocence and wisdom of different generations into our workplace and into our products and services
* Use the tools of technology to weave a web of human connection
* Tap the wealth of scientific knowledge to create a safer and more sustainable world.
* Rebuild a sens of community and increase understanding among diverse peoples.
* Turn information into knowledge and improve the collective standard of living
* Bring peace to a world tired of war
* Restore hope and create a deeper sense of meaning in our lives.

It's about those who seize these opportunities to lead us to greatness. It's about how traditional systems of rewards and punishments, control and scrutiny give way to innovation, individual character,and the courage of convictions. Leadership is not the private reserve of a few charismatic men and women. It is a process ordinary peole use when they bringing forth the best from themselves and others.When the leader in everyone is liberated extraordinary things happen.

In the end, we realize that leadership is self-development. Meeting the leadership challenge is a personal -and a daily - challenge for all of us. We know that if you have the will and the way to lead, you can. You have to supply the will. We'll do our best to supply the way.

Designer Babies - three documentaries « BioethicsBytes

2009-03-11T23:47:00.001+09:00

Designer Babies - three documentaries

The term ‘designer babies’ is one frequently used in the media, though scientists find it ‘slippery’; geneticist Steve Jones says “the phrase ‘designer babies’ just fills me with despair; it promises so much, but delivers nothing”. Instead, scientists such as Jones would generally prefer to consider individually the variety of technologies that are embraced by the term, notably pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), gene therapy and genetic enhancement. Other entries on the BioethicsBytes site have reviewed resources about these developments (see, for example, the post on the A Child Against All Odds series and Bioethics Bytes Guide to Streamed Media for discussion of PGD, and Horizon: Trial and Error on gene therapy).

Having said that, this entry is headed Designer Babies because the phrase has been used directly in the title of a number of documentaries, including the three programmes discussed here. These are: Life and Death in the 21st Century: Designer Babies (Horizon); Who’s Afraid of Designer Babies? (also Horizon); and Designer Babies (National Geographic). Each episode will be considered in turn, and some comparisons and recommendations are drawn together at the end.

Life and Death in the 21st Century: Designer Babies
The BBC Horizon series marked the millennium with a series of three programmes examining the potential impact of science on human life in the near future. The final episode, Designer Babies (6th January 2000; TRILT identifier: TVI16522) had actually been broadcast previously under the title Babies of the millennium: designer babies (7th April 1999; TRILT identifier: TVI4440). A transcript of the programme can be found on the BBC website.

We will only discuss this episode briefly, since the 2005 Horizon Whose Afraid of Designer Babies? is, to a large extent, an updated version. This programme considers many ethical issues, focused around two core questions: Can scientists create designer babies and, if they can, should they do so? The episode opens with a number of prominent scientists and ethicists giving their views, and this could serve as a handy scene-setter for a classroom discussion. Indeed, the main value of this particular programme is the barrage of quotable quotes (the transcript, linked above, is very helpful in this regard). Not least Princeton Geneticist Lee Silver’s closing comment “In a society based on market principles I don’t think there’s any way to stop the use of this technlogy by those who have money”.

Initially, the episode focusses on the Abshire family. Maigon Abshire, the first daughter of Renee and David Abshire, died aged three from TaySachs, a disease of the central nervous system. Desperate to avoid their next child having the same fate, the Abshires were the first in the USA to use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).

Later, there is discussion about the production of Dolly the Sheep, and more particularly Polly, who was the first evidence that the cloning process can be tweaked to include the addition of new genetic information into an embryo and, hence, into all the cells of the resultant organism. In the case of Polly, the human gene for Factor 9, a protein involved in blood clotting, was introduced into an egg at the start of the cloning process. The resultant sheep produced large amounts of Factor 9 in her milk.

Finally, there is discussion of how much of our adult form, both our physique and our character, is down to our genes (a rehearsal of the nature v nurture debate), and consideration of the expense of the processes, with the concern that the benefits of the technology will only be available to the rich.

Who’s afraid of Designer Babies?

In many ways, Who’s Afraid of Designer Babies? (48 minutes; 24th February 2005; TRILT identifier: 00513446) is a conscious updating of the earlier Horizon episode and manages to bring both the science and the ethics into rather sharper focus. The programme helpfully disentangles the various technologies that are often lumped together in discussions about designer babies and deals in turn with PGD, gene therapy and cloning. Depending upon available time, this three-section structure may make the episode particularly useful for teaching; each section might form the basis of three linked lessons. Both a summary of the programme and a full transcript are available from the BBC website.

Who’s Afraid… begins with consideration of PGD. We are introduced to Philippa Handyside who carries a chromosomal abnormality and turns to PGD following several attempts to establish a pregnancy by natural means. In this section we are not only presented with a clear explanation of the PGD technique (00:05:00 – 00:08:45) but also a demonstration of the emotional and physical cost of the procedure (00:14:11 – 00:18:36). Philippa describes the fertility treatment needed for PGD as “horrendous…just absolutely horrific” (00:15:27) and the devastation she felt when told the treatment had not resulted in an error-free embryo. After further rounds of fertility drugs she eventually gave birth to a healthy son.

This, of course is controversial enough in its own right, embryos that are not selected do not get implanted and do not get the opportunity to develop into a child. The programme hints at future controversies in this area. Using a quote from Princeton geneticist Lee Silver (00:12:40) and an old clip from another BBC science series Tomorrow’s World, we are presented with a brief discussion of the potential to move from screening for particular diseases to the potential to select between different embryos on the basis of anticipated intelligence or musical ability. There are two limitations here. The first is technological – you can only screen any one cell at any one time for one or two genes, not a whole battery of tests. Secondly, and most importantly, the characteristics can only be chosen from amongst the alleles carried by the parents, if a trait is not represented in their genomes it is not available. As Joyce Harper from University College London puts it “We’re not designing any babies. We’re not doing any genetic manipulation of the embryo. We can only select the embryo that the couples produce. So, if they’re not going to produce an embryo that’s very intelligent, we can’t select for it” (00:22:00).

It is at this point (00:22:35) that the episode moves on to think about gene therapy as a means to actually altering an individual’s genetic profile. The ground here has been covered previously in the Horizon episode Trial and Error (in fact some of the footage is exactly the same). The focus is on the work of Dr French Anderson, including his 1990 success in using gene therapy to treat Ashanti De Silva who had been suffering with a severe immune system deficiency caused by a genetic mutation. The episode also touches on the devastating blow the field received in 1999 when teenager Jesse Gelsinger died during a gene therapy trial in Pennsylvania. The section from 00:27:00 to 00:33:48 raises the ethical questions most clearly; in particular, the risks of an introduced gene getting into the germ line cells and being passed on to subsequent generations.

In the final section of the programme, the focus shift to cloning technologies. As with the earlier Life and Death…, both the cloning of Dolly the Sheep (00:34:56 – 00:35:38) and the subsequent production of Polly (00:35:40 – 00:37:30) are discussed. Polly, you will recall, is a genuine designer offspring; she has been genetically modified by the insertion of the human gene for blood-clotting protein Factor 9 into her genome.

Despite this apparent success of cloning mammals, a number of practical limitations and ethical qualms are identified. Cloning remains an imprecise science with substantial attempts leading to abnormality and loss of life. Added to this, even the viable products of some experiments have turned out to be rather different from the expected outcome; the programme illustrates this with reference to a genetically modified ‘supermouse’ with big muscles but an unexpectedly placid personality.

The programme concludes with a visit to the Life Centre in Newcastle, to discuss the relevance of their work on “therapeutic cloning”. The emphasis, in fact, is that work on manipulating embryonic stem cells, which is the basis of therapeutic cloning, is only looking for ways to treat diseases (though the impression given that no-one here is interested in adapting this work to make designer babies demonstrates a wilful avoidance of the fact that mavericks elsewhere may be very keen to exploit the lessons learnt through their research). This section certainly contains a nice synopsis of the goals of therapeutic cloning (00:41:35 – 00:45:48).

Overall, the programme gives helpful insights into a range of current developments in biomedicine whilst emphasising that ‘designing’ babies remains some way off.

National Geographic: Designer Babies

Designer Babies, from the National Geographic channel (60 minutes, TRILT identifier: 00564089), echoes many of the ethical and practical points raised in the two Horizon documentaries. However, it has an extended section on PGD and therefore may be the particularly useful if you are looking for a detailed consideration of this topic.

An Australian boy with Hyper IGM syndrome, an X-linked genetic disease, is the focus for much of the episode. His family seek to use PGD to produce another child selected to be both free of Hyper IGM and also a tissue-match for the older boy so that stem cells harvested from the umbilical cord can be used to treat the older sibling (there are echoes here of UK case involving the Hashmi and the Whitaker families). The story unfolds to show how the parent overcome the emotional and financial cost to have a new child who will provide the life saving stem cells their first son needs.

Unlike the Horizon documentaries, the issue here is one of “saviour siblings”, the production of a “spare parts baby” (00:02:30) and this raises additional ethical questions. For example, the family are concerned about the emotional burden on the new child when it grows up knowing that they were conceived to save their sibling. How would the child feel if, despite all of these efforts, the treatment fails? These are just some of questions raised in the programme. On the one hand you have parents desperate to do everything they can for their child “Until you’ve got a child, who is in a certain situation, I don’t think you can predict what decision you will make” (Mother; 00:01:31) and on the other you have people worried about the consequences for the new born “We need to do research into how our children are going to be affected by this” (Ethicist Dr Jeffrey Nisker; 00:12:55).

The programme also picks up on the use of PGD to select the gender of a child for non-medical reasons, e.g. a mother of four sons desperate to have a girl, and examines some of the ethical issues raised by this application of the technology. (Again, there are echoes here of UK cases, such as the Mastertons and the Chenerys).

In light of these worries, the programme examines the strengths and weaknesses of regulation and ethics committees regarding the uses of PGD. Views expressed range from Nisker, who fears that “in ten years the commercial companies that have been distributing this agenda will have altered us as human beings” (00:25:38) to one mother who states that she “didn’t know why she had to sit in front of an ethics committee to explain why she wanted a child” (00:27:10). Dr Greg Stock, a bioethicist and prominent commentator in this arena, agrees. He believes that the best people to make such a decision are the parents and the individual, since they are the ones directly affected. Some children, it is reported, have died while waiting for a decision by the regulatory authorities.

This debate moves on to a discussion regarding who has the right to decide who should, and who should not, have children. Lessons from the Nazi use of eugenics (00:33:49) are used to reinforce the view that central government is not the best place for such decisions to be made. What about parents’ rights to deliberately select a child that is deaf, and thus in the eyes of many people, “disabled”? The particular focus is on a couple that have both been deaf since birth but naturally conceived a hearing child. They see deafness, not as a disability, but as a part of their identity (00:36:02).

Designer Babies is an excellent resource to raise some of the ethical issues being raised by the more recent advances in PGD. It also features descriptions of what is involved in PGD (00:04:02 – 00:06:02), the history of PGD (00:07:07 – 00:08:40) and the genetic screening that takes place in PGD (00:20:27 and 00:40:00).

Which episode is the ‘best’ for teaching?
All three documentaries contain short sections that would prove very useful for raising discussion on the science and/or ethics involved in ‘designer babies’. Life and Death in the 21st Century certainly does not cover a number of significant developments which have occurred since it was made. If you have a copy languishing on the video shelf, it is certainly worth a watch; many of the ethical arguments are still valid. If, however, you’ve got access to Whose Afraid of Designer Babies? or National Geographic Designer Babies these are probably better. Either would be highly suitable for showing to a class; the preference may boil down to availability. At the time of writing (July 2007), the National Geographic programme has not been repeated in the UK since early 2006, whereas Whose Afraid… has been showing regularly on UK Documentary. For this reason, we plan to use the latter as the focus of some additional teaching resources – details to follow.

David Willis and Chris Willmott

『다큐 10+ 특선』 불임치료, 그 현장에 가다 - 맞춤아기

2009-03-11T23:32:00.000+09:00

http://home.ebs.co.kr/docu10/index.html
제 목 『다큐 10+ 특선』 불임치료, 그 현장에 가다 - 맞춤아기
방 송 일 2009년03월11일 23:10:00
방 송 정 보 녹음연출 : 글로벌팀 조성희 PD
최근 아이의 눈색깔, 머리 색깔등 외모까지를 구체적으로 선택하여 낳게 해준다는 맞춤아기를 두고 윤리적인 문제가 대두되었다. 실제로 맞춤아기를 시도하는 한 부부의 구체적인 케이스를 통해 이 문제를 함께 고민해보자.

맞춤아기란 착상 전 유전자 진단(PGD)을 통해 인공수정을 거친 배아의 유전자를 검사해 원하는 배아를 자궁에 착상시키는 방법이다. 유전질환을 앓지 않을 아이를 골라 낳는 데 주로 이용되는 방법이지만, 최근엔 태아 성감별 등에도 이용하려는 이들이 많아 종교계 등에서는 PGD 자체에 반대하고 있다.
여기 PGD를 통해 원하는 아이를 낳으려는 부부 3쌍이 있다. ‘질’과 ‘이안’ 카터 부부는 고셰병으로 어린 딸을 잃은 경험이 있다. 맏이인 ‘캐머런’은 고셰병 유전자를 가지고 있지만 병이 나타나지는 않은 상태이고, 부부는 건강한 아이를 낳기 위해 PGD를 이용하고 싶어한다. ‘글렌’과 ‘앤드리아’ 애스퀴스 부부는 아들만 4형제를 뒀다. 딸을 낳는 게 소원인 부부는 PGD를 이용하고 싶지만, 영국에서는 PGD를 이용한 성감별이 불법이다. 부부는 딸을 낳겠다는 희망을 안고 키프로스로 날아간다. ‘새라’와 ‘피터’ 트레빗 부부는 중증장애아 ‘메이지’의 엄마아빠다. 피터가 ‘염색제전좌’ 유전자를 가지고 있기 때문에 부부가 낳는 아이는 메이지처럼 중증장애를 앓을 가능성이 높다. 이들 역시 PGD를 이용해 건강한 배아를 골라낸 뒤 자궁에 착상시키고 싶어하며, 1년간 PGD를 시도해온 부부는 결과에 상관없이 이번을 마지막이라고 생각하고 있다.
글렌과 앤드리아 부부는 채취된 난자가 3개밖에 되지 않아, 처음부터 마음 고생을 한다. 생성된 배아는 하나뿐이었고, 다행히 여자로 밝혀졌지만 배아는 착상에 성공하지 못한다. 새라와 피터 부부도 건강한 배아 하나를 얻었지만 역시 착상에 실패한다. 질과 이안 부부의 배아는 모두 고셰병 유전자를 가지고 있었지만, 그 중 셋은 병을 앓지 않을 것이라는 검사결과가 나왔다. 배아 중 하나는 착상에 성공했고, 부부는 제왕절개로 아들을 얻는다.

Aptamer-facilitated biomarker discovery (AptaBiD). [J Am Chem Soc. 2008] - PubMed Result

2009-01-19T13:52:00.000+09:00

Aptamer-facilitated biomarker discovery (AptaBiD). [J Am Chem Soc. 2008] - PubMed Result: "J Am Chem Soc. 2008 Jul 16;130(28):9137-43. Epub 2008 Jun 18.Click here to read Links
Aptamer-facilitated biomarker discovery (AptaBiD).
Berezovski MV, Lechmann M, Musheev MU, Mak TW, Krylov SN.

Department of Chemistry, York University, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada.

Here we introduce a technology for biomarker discovery in which (i) DNA aptamers to biomarkers differentially expressed on the surfaces of cells being in different states are selected; (ii) aptamers are used to isolate biomarkers from the cells; and (iii) the isolated biomarkers are identified by means of mass spectrometry. The technology is termed aptamer-facilitated biomarker discovery (AptaBiD). AptaBiD was used to discover surface biomarkers that distinguish live mature and immature dendritic cells. We selected in vitro two DNA aptamer pools that specifically bind to mature and immature dendritic cells with a difference in strength of approximately 100 times. The aptamer pools were proven to be highly efficient in flow- and magnetic-bead-assisted separation of mature cells from immature cells. The two aptamer pools were then used to isolate biomarkers from the cells. The subsequent mass spectrometry analysis of the isolated proteins revealed unknown biomarkers of immature and mature dendritic cells.

PMID: 18558676 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

How to Survive a Plane Crash

2009-01-16T11:23:00.001+09:00

How to Survive a Plane Crash: "ABC News
Staying Alive During a Plane Crash
An Expert Explains What Steps You Can Take
By NICK WATT

Jan. 17, 2007—

This report originally aired on November 3, 2006.

There were 309 people onboard an Air France jet that overshot the runway upon landing and burst into flames at Toronto's Pearson Airport one night in August 2005. Somehow, everybody survived and the incident became known as the Toronto miracle.

A clearly shaken survivor told reporters after the crash, "When I was inside the plane, I think I will be die." He thought he would perish because his only experiences of air disasters were what he'd seen in the movies. And in the movies, people die. But between 1983 and 2000, more than 95 percent of people involved in U.S. plane crashes survived.

So what can you do to avoid being part of the 5 percent fatalities?

An accident on the tarmac of an English airport in 1985 set one man on the path to find out what it takes to survive a plane crash. He is Ed Galea, an Australian professor.

"Why did 55 people die?" he asked himself as he studied the fire that engulfed the fuselage. "Why could 55 people not escape?"

Since 1985, Galea has pored over interviews with 2,000 survivors of 105 plane crashes, analyzing their behavior, searching for the keys to survival.

Traveling With Your Family

"People started panicking. We, everyone jumped out of their seats," said Lauren Langille, one of the survivors of the crash in Toronto. Lauren, like 50 percent of airline passengers, was traveling in a group.

Galea's first piece of advice for fliers: "If you are traveling in a family group, you should insist that the airline does not separate you throughout the aircraft. Why? It's only natural that if you're involved in that sort of situation that you're going to want to reunite the group before you evacuate. If you do that it's going to cause havoc."

Take, for example, a family of four -- two children and two parents. That family should sit together but be prepared to split apart in a smoke-filled cabin.

"Perhaps you have one adult who is responsible for a particular child and the other adult who is responsible for the other child," says Galea. "So now you have essentially two groups of two people. The groups should be prepared to evacuate through different exits if necessary."

It sounds a bit frightening for children, but they should be made aware of the escape strategy before takeoff. "Each child should know which parent is going to be looking after them in that situation."

The Seat Belt

This might sound ridiculous, but it's very serious: Remember how to undo your seat belt. Galea's research has shown that in the heat of the moment, even airline employees have been known to get this wrong.

"Your mind goes almost into autopilot. So when you go to release the seat belt you're not really thinking about that," he says. "And what's your most common experience in undoing a seat belt? Its in your car. And how do you undo your seat belt in your car? You press a button." In a plane, you lift a latch. If you can't undo your seat belt then, you can't evacuate and your chances of survival plummet.

Does It Matter Where You Sit?

Sadly, there is no magic seat on an aircraft. There is, of course, an element of luck. If you sit in the back and there's a fire in the back, then you're in trouble. If you sit in the front and there's a fire in the front, same result. But in evaluating where 2,000 survivors were sitting, Galea has some general rules of thumb.

"What we've found is that the average distance a survivor will travel in an evacuation is seven seat rows," he says. So sit within seven rows of an exit and count exactly how many rows you are from the nearest two exits. Count so that you can find an exit in the dark. And why two exits? Because the nearest exit to you might not be "viable." That's airplane speak for unobstructed.

And should you ask for a window or an aisle seat? "What we've found with our data is that there is a marginal benefit of sitting in the aisle seat as opposed to the window seat, or, in fact, any other seat," says Galea. A marginal benefit because its easier to get into the aisle and on your way to an exit if you're sitting in the aisle seat. If you're in the window with two people between you and the aisle, it will take longer to reach the aisle. Time is of the essence.

Facing Backward

We would all be safer if airline seats faced backward. But, as Galea explains, "the difficulty with this is that the majority of the traveling public doesn't like traveling with their back facing the direction of travel."

That's the way they do it on military aircraft, but not for us civilians. Why? Because, says Galea, "You'd have to redesign the structure of the seat completely. You'd have to redesign the floor structure that the seats are bolted into."

On a train you can sit with your back to the direction of travel. And yes, you guessed it, that's Galea's favorite seat. "I will always travel with my back facing the direction of travel and I'll try to sit somewhere where there isn't someone sitting opposite me as well," he says. Why? "Because in the event of an impact the person in front of me is going to be thrown onto me and could cause me injury."

Fire

I mentioned time is of the essence. And that's because if you survive the impact, then smoke and flames are what you have to worry about.

"Smoke contains toxic gases, narcotic gases. It contains irritant gases. If you inhale enough of them you will die," explains Galea. That's what did it for the 55 people in the plane fire that got Galea interested in this topic in the first place.

He carries a smoke hood but warns that if you're going to follow his example you must learn how to use it. Otherwise you'll waste time trying to put it on -- time that could be used for making an exit.

Final Thought

Listen to the preflight briefing by the flight attendants and read the safety card. Don't do the crossword or flip through the in flight magazine. Be prepared. And if you're about to crash, do adopt the brace position -- head down, ankles behind knees.

"The brace position is one of the most important things a passenger should take on board when they fly," says Galea. "It's designed to reduce your chances of being knocked unconscious during a heavy impact, and you must be conscious, obviously, to evacuate."

So the myth isn't true: The brace position isn't designed to kiss your behind goodbye.

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

I read once that a woman's purse contains enough air to breath for several seconds plus it may keep you from inhaling toxic fumes. A few seconds might just help get you off the plane. I am assuming that we are talking leather purse.

A "smoke hood" is what we call a "PBE," or Protective Breathing Equipment. On aircraft, for every fire extinguisher on board, there must be a PBE in close proximity for the flight crew to use while fighting a fire. This is a hood that fits over the head and inflates with O2 for approximately 15 minutes. My thoughts: If passengers were to carry these, it would take precious seconds to find/don the PBE rather than escape. PBEs -- like other emergency equipment -- need to be checked frequently to insure they're operable. PBEs are just one of the many pieces of emergency equipment that are safety-checked by every airline crew each time they work on a new plane, which may be many times per day, depending on how many crew changes occur on that aircraft. The point is to prevent fires on aircraft.I was very impressed by this report; wish that all flight attendants would be required to watch it, and it would be great if all passengers would see it as well. This confirmed some of my own theories on crash survivability, and I hope that the flying public will take heed. Specifically -- always take note of exactly where you're sitting, and how many seats in front or behind to the closest exit. Touch each seatback to remember if you need to. You will be virtually blind if the cabin fills with smoke, and you can get out if you remember exactly where to go. Look around you... does the emergency exit handle pull up or down? Familiarize yourself with the seatbelt mechanism. Listen to the safety briefing even if you think you already know what you're going to be told. Stay alert on takeoff and landing. Situational awareness: know your surroundings, where things are, and what's going on.-- posted by a flight attendant.

생로병사의 비밀-맛과 향의 비밀, 향신료

2009-01-15T22:45:00.001+09:00

생로병사의 비밀: "269회 자연이 내려준 맛과 향의 비밀, 향신료
방송일: 20081225
예고편 : 동영상 :

생/로/병/사/의 비밀

자연이 내려준

맛과 향의 비밀,

향신료

■ 방송 일시 : 2008년 12월 25일 (목) KBS 1TV 22:00~22:50

■ 담당 프로듀서 : 유성문 PD

■ 작가 : 한수연, 유예진

인류는 음식의 맛과 향을 좋게 하고

부패를 방지하기 위해 향신료를 사용하기 시작했다.

하지만 향신료에는 우리가 모르는

놀라운 효능들이 숨어있다는데…

항산화와 항염, 항암작용까지!

새롭게 밝혀지고 있는 향신료의 숨겨진 비밀을

<생로병사의 비밀>에서 알아본다.

▶ 향신료 - 香과 辛으로 이루어진 마법의 식품

음식에 맛과 향을 더해주며 식욕을 촉진시키는 식물성 물질. 향신료.

보통, 향신료라고 하면 이국적인 것들을 떠올리게 된다.

그러나 우리나라에도 수많은 향신료들이 있다는 사실!

한국의 전통 허브와 향신료에는 어떤 것들이 있을까?

향신료에는 건강을 지켜주는 성분들이 많이 들어있다.

항상 우리 곁에 있으면서 알게 모르게 우리의 건강을 지켜온 한국의 향신료!

그것들은 무엇이며 또 어떤 효능들을 갖고 있을까?

집안 가득 허브를 키우는 허브마니아, 왕혜금 씨(45).

몸이 약해 잔병치레가 많았던 그녀가 5~6년 전부터는 감기 한 번 걸린 적 없다고 한다.왕혜금씨는 자신이 건강한 체질로 바뀐 이유가 바로, 허브 때문이라고 믿고 있다.

과연, 허브가 정말 왕혜금씨의 건강을 지켜주었을까?

생명과학연구원 박사팀과 함께 허브의 효능에 대한 실험을 진행해보았다.

그 결과는?

오래 전부터 우리와 함께해온 한국의 향신료!

선조들의 지혜가 숨어있는 향신료들의 효능을 <생/로/병/사/의 비밀>에서 풀어본다!

▶ 암을 이기는 향신료의 힘! 커큐민!

거의 모든 음식에 허브를 넣어 먹는 이탈리아 사람들.

허브가 빠진 음식은 상상조차 할 수 없다는데…

음식 맛을 좋게 하는 것 이외에 또 다른 효능이 있을까?

최근 한 연구 결과에 따르면 고기를 구울 때 발생하는 강력한 발암물질인

헤테로사이클린아민을 억제하는데 허브가 큰 도움이 된다고 한다.

발암물질을 억제하는데 도움이 되는 허브, 과연 어떻게 먹는 것이 좋을까?

전립선암 발병률- 미국 168명 : 인도 3명

유방암 발병률- 미국 143명 : 인도 16명

<출처: 세계보건기구 Globocan 2002, 인구10만명 기준>

이처럼 인도는 세계적으로도 암 발생률이 낮은 국가이다. 과연 그 비결은 무엇일까?

향신료의 나라, 인도.

인도 사람들이 즐겨 먹는 카레에는 다양한 향신료들이 들어있다.

특히 과학자들은 카레의 주성분, 강황에 많이 들어있는 커큐민을 주목하고 있다.

카레의 노란 색소를 내는 강황의 성분, 커큐민.

최근 활발한 연구가 진행되면서

커큐민의 놀라운 효능들이 하나둘 밝혀지고 있는데...

암을 이겨내는 놀라운 힘을 가진 향신료에 대해 알아본다!

▶ 다양하게 즐기면 효과도 다양해진다,

혼합향신료!

미국 위스콘신주에 사는 달시 제인(57)씨는 모든 음식에 여러 가지 향신료를 섞어 먹는다.

20년 동안 앓아온 심한 관절염으로 손의 신경까지 손상되었던 달시 제인.

그러나 향신료를 먹기 시작하면서 그녀의 몸에는 놀라운 변화가 찾아왔는데...

지난 10월 미국 조지아 대학에서 24종의 향신료들이 당뇨병의 합병증을 예방한다는 연구 결과를 발표했다. 정향, 계피, 로즈마리, 생강과 같은 향신료들이 당과 단백질의 결합을 방해해 염증이나 조직 손상을 예방한다는 것이다.

한국의 1인당 하루 소금섭취량은 평균 11.7g.

세계보건기구가 선정한 하루 권장섭취량 5g의 두 배가 넘는다.

고혈압, 당뇨 환자들에게 치명적인 소금!

그런데 이런 소금을 줄이는 대안 중 하나가 바로 향신료라는 사실!

향신료로 음식의 간을 맞추고 건강도 챙기는

일석이조의 방법을 <생/로/병/사/의 비밀>에서 소개한다.

음식을 맛있고 향기롭게 해주며 건강도 함께 지켜주는 향신료.

함께하면 효과도 다양해진다!

생로병사의 비밀-제1부 인생을 바꾸는 맛의 비밀, 슬로푸드(Slow Food)

2009-01-15T22:43:00.001+09:00

생로병사의 비밀: "270회 제 1부 - 인생을 바꾸는 맛의 비밀, 슬로푸드
방송일: 20090108
예고편 : 동영상 :

생/로/병/사/의 비밀

신년특집 2부작

제1부 인생을 바꾸는 맛의 비밀,

슬로푸드(Slow Food)

■ 방송 일시 : 2009년 1월 8일 (목) KBS 1TV 22:00~22:50

■ 담당 프로듀서 : 김성종 PD

■ 작가 : 김연정, 장유리

21세기의 또 하나의 키워드, 느림!

시간에 쫓기듯 바쁘게 살아온 현대인들에게

‘느림’은 바로 ‘삶의 질(質)’에 대한 화두다.

느긋함이 곧 게으름이 되어버리는 나라, 한국!

그 속에서 ‘빨리빨리’를 외치며 속도에 휩쓸리듯 살아가는 현대인들,

2009년, 속도바이러스에 걸린 현대인들의 건강과 행복을 위한 처방!

신년특집 <생/로/병/사/의 비밀>에서 ‘느림의 건강학’을 제시한다.

■ 8일의 기적, 12인의 슬로푸드 캠프 도전기!

오염되지 않은 우리 땅에서 난 신선한 제철식품을 천천히 숙성시키거나 조리해 맛을 낸 음식인

‘슬로푸드’. 과연 ‘슬로푸드’는 우리 건강에 어떤 변화를 가져올까?

우리 선조들이 즐겨먹던 음식은 김치나 된장과 같이 오랜 시간을 두고 발효한 음식이 대부분이었다. 그러나 불과 몇 십 년 사이 우리의 밥상은 180도 달라졌다. 가공식품과 패스트푸드가 넘치는 세상, 식습관이 서구화 ? 현대인들의 건강에 심각한 적신호가 켜졌다.

이에 제작팀은 평소 잘못된 식습관으로 개선이 필요한 성인 5명, 아동 7명을 대상으로 슬로푸드 식단을 제공한 ‘슬로푸드 캠프’를 진행했다. 개인별 처방과 미션을 들고 굳은 각오로 캠프에 입소한 12인의 참가자들. 하지만 패스트푸드와 가공식품에 길들여진 오랜 식습관과 입맛을 단시간 내에 바꾸기란 좀처럼 쉬운 일이 아니었다.

8일 동안 진행된 슬로푸드 캠프, 과연 그들에게는 어떤 변화가 일어났을까?

건강을 지키기 위한 참가자들의 눈물겨운 노력과 그 결과를 공개한다.

■ 미션 1. 슬로푸드 친해지기

“슬로푸드가 아무리 건강에 좋다고 해도 맛있다고 느끼지 않으면 찾지 않게 된다. 슬로푸드를 맛있다고 느끼고 자기 맛으로 받아들이는 것은 어릴 때부터 그 음식에 길들여지지 않으면 어렵기 때문이다.“

- 호서대 식품영양학과 정혜경 교수 -

패스트푸드와 인스턴트 음식의 가장 큰 피해자는 아이들이다.

특히 80년대 이후 태어난 아이들의 입맛은 특히 더 그렇다.

양파를 먹지 못 하는 중학교 2학년 민선이, 먹으면 눈물이 날만큼 김치가 싫다는 초등학교 6학년 윤상이와 군것질쟁이 윤경이. 혼자서도 피자 1판은 거뜬히 먹어치우는 ‘빨리 많이 먹기의 1인자’ 초등학교 3학년 상민이. 고기 마니아 초등학교 2학년 쌍둥이 리안·리사, 달고 짠 음식을 좋아하는 초등학교 2학년 태헌이. 캠프기간 중 아이들은 슬로푸드를 잘 먹었을까?

그리고 이들은 7박8일의 캠프기간동안 슬로푸드와 얼마나 친해졌을까?

▶ 세살버릇 여든까지, 일본 맛교육 현장을 가다!

일본 후쿠시마 소학교의 점심시간, 한 달에 1번, 이 학교엔 특별한 손님들이 찾아온다.

아 이들의 급식에 사용된 재료를 직접 농사지은 지역 주민들이 바로 그 주인공. 이웃집 아저씨와 아주머니가 진행하는 먹을거리 교육을 통해 아이들은 자신이 먹는 음식이 어떻게 길러졌는지, 키우는 법은 물론 먹는 법을 배우게 된다. 그러면서 자연스럽게 그 지역 농산물에 대한 자부심과 친근감을 기른다.

▶ 슬로푸드, 아이들의 건강을 바꾼다!

지리산 자락에 위치한 경남 함양 금반초등학교. 지난해 폐교 1순위로 꼽혔던 이곳이 1년 사이 학생이 늘어나 폐교위기에서 벗어났다. 도시에서 9명의 학생이 전학을 온 것이다. 아이들이 시골학교까지 전학을 온 이유는 무엇일까?

가공식품과 패스트푸드에 길들여져 편식을 하고, 아토피가 있었던 도시아이들. 텃밭에서 직접 채소를 키우고 전통식으로 바꾸자 아이들의 입맛과 건강에는 큰 변화가 일어났다. 변화의 중심에 서있는 경남 함양의 작은 시골학교로 찾아가본다.

아이들의 건강을 위해 ‘슬로푸드’ 와 친해지는 방법을 찾아본다!

■ 미션 2. 미각을 지키는 힘, 슬로푸드

"일본 미각장애 환자 수, 1990년 14만 명 VS 2003년 24만 명 ⇒ 약 1.8배 증가"

(2003 일본구강인두과학회)

전 세계 곳곳으로 퍼져나간 패스트푸드 체인점들. 언제 어느 곳에서든 동일한 맛을 내기위해 빵 재료에서부터 감자튀김 온도에 이르기까지 생산 공정 전반에 걸쳐 철저한 표준화 작업을 시행하고 있다. 그 결과 세계인의 입맛이 획일화 되고, 자극적인 식품첨가물로 인해 맛을 느끼지 못하는 미각장애 환자도 계속 증가하고 있다.

먹는 즐거움뿐 아니라, 건강을 위해 미각을 지키는 방법은 없는 것일까?

음식을 다뤄야 하기에 혀를 민감하게 유지해야 하는 요리사들.

절대 미각이라 불리는 경력 22년 주방장의 미각 상태는 일반인과 어떤 차이가 있을까?

▶ 잃어버린 미각을 찾아서...

유독 단맛을 좋아해 음식이 달지 않으면 맛이 없다는 캠프 참가자 김순덕 씨(55)

커피에도 밥 수저로 설탕을 3스푼은 넣어야 달콤하고 맛있다고 말한다.

토스트의 계란프라이 위에도 설탕과 소스를 듬뿍 넣어 먹는 그녀.

과연 그녀의 미각은 정상일까?

미각역치 검사 결과, 김순덕 씨는 정상인보다 2000배 정도의 농도에서 단맛을 느끼는 상태.

잃어버린 미각을 찾기위해 그녀는 캠프에서 가장 힘든 시간을 보냈다. 슬로푸드 처방 후 그녀의 미각은 돌아올 수 있을까?

미각을 지키는 놀라운 힘을 가진 ‘슬로푸드’의 효과에 대해 알아본다!

■ 미션 3. 느린 음식, 천천히 즐겨라

21세기를 살고 있는 바쁜 현대인들, 그들이 식사 속도는 얼마나 될까?

조사결과 직장인의 72%가 한 끼 식사하는데 걸리는 시간은 약 15분. 그리고 그들에게 사랑받은것 또한 빠르고 간편한 패스트푸드와 인스턴트 음식이다. 최근, 경제 한파로 인해 그 인기가 더 높아지고 있다. 빠르게 조리되고 빨리 먹는 음식들로 채워진 우리의 식탁. 과연 이대로 괜찮을까?

▶ 식사시간 5분 vs 30분, 그 비밀을 밝힌다.

"음식을 천천히 씹는 경우, 췌장에서 인슐린분비가 평소보다 훨씬 많이 된 것이 보고됐다. 많이 씹음으로 해서 분비된 침 안에 아밀라아제 등의 여러 가지 성분들이 췌장 기능에도 긍정적인 도움을 줄 수 있다"

- 분당 서울대병원 내분비내과 이동호 교수

캠프참가자 문종권 씨(38). 그는 친구들 사이에서도 밥을 빨리 먹기로 유명하다.

밥 한 공기를 먹는 데 걸리는 시간은 불과 3분, 뜨거운 국밥도 5분이면 비운다.

그런데 8년 전, 30세의 젊은 나이에 찾아온 당뇨와 고혈압. 체중 감량과 빨리 먹는 식습관을 고치기 위한 노력도 많이 했지만 결과는 매번 실패였다. 캠프에서 그에게 주어진 미션은 30분간 천천히 먹기! 평소보다 6배 이상 느리게 먹어야 하는 슬로푸드 식단은 그의 건강에 어떤 결과를 가져왔을까?

천천히 조리하거나 오래 숙성시켜 느리게 먹는 음식, 생활습관병을 다스리는 슬로푸드의 숨겨진 효과를 밝힌다!

■ 식탁의 시계를 거꾸로 돌려라

1970년대 당뇨병 유병율 2% 미만 ⇒ 2005년 8.1% <2005 국민영양조사>

1970년대 국내 소아 비만율 4% 미만 ⇒ 2005년 10.2% <대한소아과학회>

1970년대의 우리의 밥상을 기억하십니까?

김치, 된장, 고추장 등 오랜시간 발효와 숙성을 거친 식품이 대부분이었다.

이러한 우리 고유의 슬로푸드를 천천히 즐기고 그 맛을 음미할 때 진정한 건강이 보인다.

건강한 삶을 위한 ‘슬로푸드’

급하지 않게, 조금씩, 천천히 슬로푸드와 친해져 보는 것은 어떨까?

생로병사의 비밀-제 2부 - 건강한 삶을 위한 쉼표, 슬로라이프

2009-01-15T22:38:00.002+09:00

생로병사의 비밀: "271회 제 2부 - 건강한 삶을 위한 쉼표, 슬로라이프
방송일: 20090115 예고동영상:

생/로/병/사/의 비밀

신년특집 2부작

제2부 건강한 삶을 위한 쉼표,

슬로라이프(Slow Life)

■ 방송 일시 : 2009년 1월 15일 (목) KBS 1TV 22:00~22:50

■ 담당 프로듀서 : 김성종 PD

■ 작가 : 김경애, 장유리

21세기의 또 하나의 키워드, 느림!

시간에 쫓기듯 바쁘게 살아온 현대인들에게

‘느림’은 바로 ‘삶의 질(質)’에 대한 화두다.

느긋함이 곧 게으름이 되어버리는 나라, 한국!

그 속에서 ‘빨리빨리’를 외치며 속도에 휩쓸리듯 살아가는 현대인들,

2009년, 속도바이러스에 걸린 현대인들의 건강과 행복을 위한 처방!

신년특집 <생/로/병/사/의 비밀>에서 ‘느림의 건강학’을 제시한다.

■ 당신의 삶의 속도는 얼마입니까?

‘빨리, 더 빨리!’

속도와 효율이 덕목인 21세기. 그 속에서 하루하루를 쫓기듯 살고 있는 현대인들.

이들에겐 자신의 삶과 주변을 돌아볼 여유조차 없다.

그런데 이런 삶에 대한 반성으로 '느림'을 선택하는 사람들이 늘고 있다.

건강을 위해 도시를 벗어나 자연과 조화된 삶을 선택한 사람들,

도시 전체가 속도에서 벗어나기 위해 노력하는 슬로시티(Slow city),

현재 삶을 유지하면서 느림의 삶을 추구하는 방법을 찾는 슬로라이프 실천가들,

잃어버린 관계의 회복을 위해 ‘쉼표’를 찾는 사람들.

곳곳에서 삶의 여유를 찾는 ‘느린 바람’이 불고 있다.

신년특집 <생로병사의 비밀>에서

잃어버린 삶의 가치와 진정한 행복을 찾기 위해 ‘삶의 쉼표’를 찾은 사람들을 만나본다.

■ 삶의 쉼표를 찾아라!

“몸에 있는 생리적인 시계에 맞지 않고 빨리 가고 있는 것을 원래대로 회복하는 것이 슬로라이프입니다. 왜 해야 되느냐가 아니라 하지 않으면 결국 내 몸이 고장 날 수밖에 없습니다.”

- 신경정신과 채정호 교수 -

▶ 흙집 짓기 8년, 고제순 씨의 행복 찾기

강원도 원주시 매지리 마을, 이곳엔 8년째 흙집을 짓고있는 한 사람이 있다.

그 주인공은 바로 고제순 씨(50). 그런데 8년을 지어온 그의 집은 아직도 미완성 상태다.

흙벽돌을 직접 찍어내고 나무를 나르며 손수 집을 짓는 과정 자체를 즐기는 고제순 씨. 사실 그는 오스트리아에서 철학 박사 학위를 받은 전직 대학교수다. 편리한 아파트 생활과 대학 강단 대신 천천히 흙집을 짓고 나를 되찾기 위해 슬로라이프를 선택한 그. 그의 삶과 건강에는 어떤 변화가 찾아왔을까? 지금의 삶이 ‘즐겁다’고 말하는 그의 행복비결은 무엇일까?

▶ '쉼표' 가 준 선물

경상북도 경주에 사는 최해경 씨(48). 서울에서 남들이 부러워하는 직장에 다녔지만 그는 행복하지 않았다. 잦은 야근과 술자리, 스트레스로 인한 협심증으로 119에 실려 가길 여러 번. 건강악화로 삶을 위협받던 그가 선택한 건 고향 경주로의 귀향이었다. 삶의 터전이 바뀌면서 시작된 ‘느림’의 변화. 식생활에서부터 심장수술을 받은 딸의 건강, 그리고 그에게도 많은 변화가 일어났다. 불편하지만 느린 삶을 선택한 최해경씨 가족이 찾은 건강과 삶의 여유를 들여다본다.

많은 것을 바꾸고 가진 것을 포기하면서 선택한 삶의 쉼표, 그들이 얻은 것은 무엇일까?

<생로병사의 비밀>에서 느리고 소박한 삶의 안내서를 제시한다.

■ 도시(City)여, 느림을 실천하라!

2008년 국내 편의점 총 점포수 - 1만2450여개

2008년 국내 대형마트 총 점포수- 375개

2007년 까지 국내 보급된 자판기 수 - 139만8천383대

과연 이 숫자는 무엇을 뜻하는 것일까? 우리 삶 속에 깊숙이 파고들어온 빠름의 문화를 보여주는 것들이다. 빠르게 살수록 더 빨리 살게 되는 속도 바이러스! 지금 세계 곳곳에서 속도 바이러스 백신으로 ‘느림’을 이야기하는 나라들이 늘어나고 있다.

▶ 3가지가 없는 도시, 독일 첫 슬로시티 '헤르스브루크'

독일 남부의 작은 도시, 헤르스브루크(Hersbruck).

다른 도시에서는 쉽게 볼 수 있는 대형마트, 패스트푸드점, 자판기를 이곳에서는 볼 수 없다.

일 주일에 두 번 열리는 헤르스브루크 장터, 이곳의 모든 육류와 채소류는 일체 화학물이 첨가되지 않은 유기농 지역생산물이다. 생산·제조과정에서도 친환경방식을 선택해 슬로푸드를 만드는 유기농 식당들이 도시 안에 가득하다. 또한 이곳 아이들에게 최고 인기는 바로 ‘미니 주방’이라 불리는 특별한 ‘슬로푸드 수업’이다.

먹을거리에서 시작된 ‘느림’의 실천은 그들의 삶의 방식으로까지 이어졌다.

친환경적 난방과 온천, 그리고 건강한 삶을 위한 노르딕워킹까지. '카인스바허 뮐레' 호텔은 바로 느린 삶을 가장 잘 보여주는 곳이다. 도시 곳곳에 물든 슬로라이프 물결. 이것은 헤르스브루크를 더 건강하고 행복하게 만들고 있다.

"슬로라이프는 시민들이 제대로 살 수 있도록 하기 위해 정신없는 일상에 제동을 겁니다. 돈을 버는 것도 중요하지만, 지나쳐서는 안 됩니다. 열심히 일하는 것처럼 편안함, 휴식도 삶의 일부입니다"

- 독일, 헤르스부르크 시장

문명의 편리함 대신 자연과 인간이 공존하는 느린 삶을 선택한 도시, 헤르스브루크.

<생로병사의 비밀>에서는 독일 작은 마을의 삶의 방식을 통해

‘빨리빨리’에 중독된 한국의 자화상을 되짚어본다.

■ 와쿠와쿠 공동체, 그들이 행복한 이유

“슬로(slow)라는 단어 속에서 풍요로움을 찾는다고 할까요. 단순히 유유자적하게 살아가는 것이 아니라 참된 풍요로움을 찾을 때 점차 시간이 천천히 흐르게 됩니다.”

- 오에 마사노리 씨

일본 후지산자락에 위치한 한 마을. 직업도, 삶의 이력도 모두 다르지만 여유롭고 행복한 삶을 위해 도시를 떠나 이곳에 정착한 사람들. 이들이 이런 삶을 선택한 이유는 무엇일까?

수동식 탈곡기를 이용하며 친환경농법으로 농사를 짓는 작가 오에씨 부부, 이들의 식탁에는 직접 재배한 100% 유기농 채소로 가득하다. 천천히 맛을 음미하며 최소한 50회 이상 음식을 씹는 것이 이 부부의 원칙. 오에 씨는 느린 삶을 통해 진정한 자신을 찾았다고 말한다.

이웃에는 어떤 사람들이 살고 있을가? 10일간의 오토바이 사막횡단으로 유명해진 모험가이자 번역가 세키 씨 부부. 땔감으로 난방을 하고 수도시설도 안된 집에 살고 있다. 전국을 돌며 연주를 하는 음악가 미호 씨 부부. 이들은 음악과 자연이 늘 함께하는 삶을 살며 행복을 노래한다.

노동을 서로 교환하며 가족처럼 함께 나누는 삶을 살고 있는 사람들. 다양한 이력을 가진 이들이 느린 삶을 선택한 이유는 단 한 가지, 바로 행복이다.

도대체 이들에게 슬로라이프란 무엇일까?

<생로병사의 비밀>에서 뺄셈의 삶에서 찾는 진정한 행복을 이야기한다.

■ 일상에 쉼표(,)를 찍다!

“삶의 목표는 내일이 아니고 지금, 여기 현재라는 것. 그래서 현재 어떻게 하면 우리가 편안할 것인가, 여유로울 것인가, 화목할 것인가... 이런 화두를 중심에 놓고 삶의 문제를 다뤄야 한다” - 도법스님

▶ 마음을 잇는 길, 행복을 발견하다

12월의 마지막 주말, 지리산 길을 찾은 채기한 씨 가족.

부부와 초등학교 4학년 정훈이, 1학년 민경이, 이렇게 네 명이 함께 지리산 길에 오른 건 이번이 처음이다. 이들이 추운 날씨에도 불구하고 지리산 길을 찾아온 이유는 무엇일까?

부부가 각자 학원을 운영하는 채기한 씨 부부. 한 집에 살면서도 다 같이 모여 저녁 한 끼 먹기도 힘들었다는 가족들. 그것은 가족 간의 대화단절로 이어졌다.

지리산 곳곳에 끊어진 옛길, 숲길, 마을길 등을 이어 만든 지리산 둘레길,

구불구불 이어진 길을 걸으며 가족들의 마음의 길도 조금씩 이어지는데...

채기한씨 가족이 이 길의 끝에서 찾은 것은 무엇일까?

바쁘게 사는 한 가족의 특별한 1박2일 ‘지리산 길’ 도보 여행.

목적지에 도착하기 위함이 아닌 걷기, 그 자체를 즐기는 것.

천천히 지리산 길을 걷듯 삶에 대해 이야기한다.

■ 지금, 당신은 행복하십니까?

우리나라 행복지수 - 세계 178개국 중 103위

우리나라 자살률 10만 명 당 24.8명 - OECD 국가 중 1위

문명과 과학기술의 발달을 등에 업고 물질의 풍요와 생활의 편리를 이룩한 대한민국

그러나 행복의 질은 오히려 퇴보하고 있는 것은 아닐까?.

바쁘지는 않지만 부지런하게, 게으르진 않지만 여유있게...

몸과 마음의 여유를 되찾는 삶을 지향하는 슬로라이프(Slow Life).

그러나 삶의 여유는 주어지는 것이 아니라 스스로 만드는 것이다.

타인의 잣대에 맞춰진 삶을 살고 있는 것은 아닌지, 무엇이 진정 자신이 원하는 삶인지,

나를 돌아보고 주변을 살펴볼 수 있는 시간, 삶의 쉼표가 필요하다.

그것이 바로 슬로라이프를 실천하는 첫번째 단계다.

2009년, 건강과 행복을 위한 나만의 슬로라이프를 실천해보자.

GM babies - 08 May 2001 - New Scientist

2008-12-09T13:43:00.001+09:00

GM babies - 08 May 2001 - New Scientist: "GM babies

* 12:00 08 May 2001 by Andy Coghlan and Joanna Marchant

Babies have been born with DNA from three parents instead of two. They have been described as the first genetically engineered humans, as the added DNA they carry could be passed on down the generations.

New Scientist reported last year that a certain fertility treatment would spawn babies with DNA from more than two parents (2 December 2000, p 16). Now cells from two one-year-old babies born as a result of this treatment have indeed turned out to have a little extra DNA from a donor mother, as well as that from their own parents.

In the mid-1990s, Jacques Cohen and Jason Barritt at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of Saint Barnabas in New Jersey wondered whether some women could not have babies because of defects in the cytoplasm of their eggs - the fluid surrounding the nucleus. So they decided to try adding 'healthy' cytoplasm from a donor egg.

While the vast majority of our genes are housed in the nucleus, the cytoplasm contains tiny energy-producing structures called mitochondria, which have their own set of 13 genes. Injecting donor cytoplasm into an egg involves transferring mitochondria and their genes as well.

The researchers examined 12 of the 30 babies born with the help of the technique and found that two of them carry donor mitochondria.

"This report is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children," say Barritt and his colleagues in the journal Human Reproduction. These mitochondria could be passed on to future generations. "We won't know till they reach reproductive age," he told New Scientist.

Barritt stresses that the 13 genes in mitochondrial DNA do nothing except provide proteins to produce energy. "Genes in the nucleus control the mitochondria, not the other way around," he says. Mitochondrial DNA "doesn't influence any nuclear genes in any way, shape or form."

However, no one knows if the added mitochondria were the reason why the fertility treatment worked in these two cases. Other, non-genetic components of the cytoplasm might have done the trick. "We think every patient is different, and some might need mitochondria for extra energy, and some might need messenger RNA or proteins," says Barritt.

Some researchers want to go further. James Grifo of New York University has been given approval to try to treat infertile women by removing the nucleus from their egg and injecting it into a donor egg whose nucleus has been removed. In this case, all the mitochondria of any baby born would come from the donor.

This technique could also help prevent women who have mutations in mitochondrial DNA passing the problem on to their children. Such mitochondrial diseases cause various problems, and can be fatal.

Meanwhile, scientists are still fighting about whether terms such as "genetic modification" apply to this treatment. Despite what Barritt wrote in Human Reproduction, he maintains it is not germline therapy. "To be true genetic or germline therapy, you must modify genes in nuclear DNA."

But Norman Nevin, chairman of the UK's Gene Therapy Advisory Committee, says: "My gut feeling is that you're adding mitochondrial DNA, so that is gene therapy."

The UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority says it has not had any requests for licences to perform similar cytoplasm injection procedures in the UK. A subcomittee of the HFEA looked at the technique last year, when details of the first live births resulting from the new technique were published.

"At the time, we decided that there was no evidence to show a significantly improved success rate, and there were also concerns about any carry over of DNA," says a spokeswoman.

More at: Human Reproduction (vol 16, p 513)

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

Back to article

Genetically modified humans: Here and more coming soon - health - 04 June 2008 - New Scientist

2008-12-09T13:34:00.001+09:00

Genetically modified humans: Here and more coming soon - health - 04 June 2008 - New Scientist: "Genetically modified humans: Here and more coming soon

* 04 June 2008 by Nick Lane
* Magazine issue 2659. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
* For similar stories, visit the Genetics Topic Guide

1 more image

CHILDREN with three parents might sound like monstrous chimeras, but they are among us already. In the late 1990s, an American team created the first genetically engineered humans by adding part of the egg of one woman to the egg of another, to treat infertility. When the US Food and Drug Administration got wind of the technique it was promptly banned, though related methods have been used in other countries.

Now a research team in the UK is experimenting with creating three-parent embryos. This time, the goal is to prevent children inheriting a rare group of serious diseases caused by faulty mitochondria, the powerhouses in our cells. Mitochondrial diseases affect at least 1 in 8000 people, probably more, and there are no treatments.

Mitochondria are always inherited from the mother, so for women in whom they are faulty, replacing the mitochondria in their eggs with healthy ones from a donor would help ensure their children are healthy. What makes the idea controversial is that mitochondria contain DNA of their own, meaning babies created this way will have genes from a "second mother".

Supporters of this approach point out that mitochondria contain a mere 37 of the 20,000 or so human genes. Changing them is akin to changing a battery, they argue. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that the influence of mitochondrial genes extends far further: different variants can affect our energy, athleticism, health, ageing, fertility, perhaps even our intelligence, all of which help make us who we are as individuals.

The prospect of trying to prevent mitochondrial diseases by creating babies with two mothers raises a host of issues. On the one hand, if the Food and Drug Administration felt that three-parent embryos were unsafe, what's changed? On the other hand, if this approach really is safe, wouldn't it make sense to equip our children to live longer, healthier and more active lives by giving them the best possible mitochondria? The answers to these questions offer insights into some of the most intriguing aspects of sex, health, disease and longevity - and even into the origin of species.
Mixed up

Male mitochondria are an evolutionary dead end. While there are 100 or so in the tail of every sperm, powering its motility, they are destroyed when the winning sperm gets inside the egg, which is stocked with 100,000 or more mitochondria of its own. As a result, mitochondrial DNA almost always passes from egg to egg, mother to daughter.

This is the deepest distinction between the sexes. Forget the Y chromosome, which is a genetic johnny-come-lately, restricted to mammals: reptiles, insects and plants all have different systems of sex determination. Even many simple algae and fungi have two sexes, but the only thing their sexes have in common with ours is the passage of mitochondria down the "maternal" line.

How this came about is still hotly debated. The leading hypothesis, proposed in 1992, is that if mitochondria from the father and mother had to compete with each other for survival, "selfish" mitochondria would evolve to the detriment of the entire organism: the mitochondria that are best at proliferating are not necessarily best at providing a cell with the right amount of energy. Whatever the reason, all the mitochondria in our cells are normally identical.

In the 1990s, however, the fertility technique pioneered by Jacques Cohen at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in Livingston, New Jersey, resulted in children with cells containing a mixture of mitochondria from different individuals - something that almost never happens naturally. The technique, known as ooplasmic transfer, involves transferring tiny extracts of healthy donor eggs into the eggs of infertile women, with the vague aim of "pepping them up" a little. It boiled down to injecting a bit of good egg into a bad egg, and hoping for the best. Surprisingly, it seemed to help, although no controlled trials were done to show this for sure.
Unanticipated consequences

The group suspected it was transferring mitochondria, but didn't anticipate the consequences. Despite injecting less than 5 per cent of the egg-cell volume, when blood cells were taken from two of the 30 babies born this way, about a third of the mitochondria were found to come from the donor egg.

While there is no evidence that these children will suffer from diseases as a result of their cells having a mixture of mitochondria from two different women, there is no guarantee that they won't, either. This is why most researchers think the FDA was right to ban ooplasmic transfer until its effects are understood. However, Jonathan Van Blerkom, a developmental biologist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, who sat on that FDA committee, sees the work now taking place in the UK in a different light. The approach holds enormous promise, he says, and it would be "criminal" to ban it.

The research is led by Patrick Chinnery and Douglas Turnbull of Newcastle University in the UK, who see people with some of the most dreadful congenital diseases known. Leigh syndrome, for instance, occasionally affects adults but usually strikes children under 2 years old. Sufferers have difficulty moving, swallowing and breathing. The symptoms come and go but inevitably worsen, leading to mental impairment, seizures and death within months or years. Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy causes blindness, usually in young men. Another syndrome, called MELAS, can involve anything from digestive problems and mild deafness to diabetes, seizures and stroke-like episodes.

"In mice it is possible to prevent the transmission of often disabling and sometimes fatal disease," Turnbull says. "The only focus of our laboratory is to try and determine if this is a valid treatment for our patients." Chinnery and Turnbull are experimenting with a method originally proposed in the 1980s by the guru of mitochondriacs, Doug Wallace, who is now at the University of California, Irvine. The trick, he suggested, is not to transplant any mitochondria, just the cell nucleus - the repository of the main genome.
Peculiar inheritance

Soon after an egg with faulty mitochondria is fertilised, its nucleus is taken out and injected into a donor egg cell whose nucleus has been removed. The outcome is an embryo with nuclear genes from the prospective parents and mitochondrial DNA from the second mother. In principle, all the mutant mitochondria should be left behind; in practice, however, a few may stick to the transplanted nucleus. Even though their numbers start off small, as the embryo grows the proportion of mutant mitochondria could be ramped up in some cells, as happened after ooplasmic transfers.

Typically the proportion of mutant mitochondria per cell has to exceed a certain threshold before problems begin. This means people with the same mitochondrial mutation can have quite different symptoms, or none at all, depending on the fraction of mutant mitochondria in cells in different parts of their bodies. Chinnery and Turnbull are now investigating whether the transfer of a handful of mutant mitochondria along with the nucleus could result in some cells having a dangerously high proportion of mutant mitochondria. The early results suggest not, but they are in the middle of more systematic studies and don't want to speak too soon.

Even if children conceived by this means are healthy and stay that way, Van Blerkom points out that a disease might reappear generations later. The problem is the random segregation of mitochondria into developing egg cells, and their subsequent multiplication from as few as 10 to the 100,000 in a mature egg cell. If even a handful of faulty mitochondria get into the germline, they could be amplified to a level high enough to cause a recurrence of disease in descendants of the female line.
Dangerous mutations

This might seem to be a serious argument against three-parent embryos, until you consider the alternative. At the moment, women who discover that their mitochondria bear dangerous mutations face a terrible dilemma when it comes to having children. The peculiar nature of mitochondrial diseases means that even when all a woman's mitochondria are mutant, a child could be anything from perfectly healthy to suffering from a far more severe form of the disease than the mother. In some cases doctors can give more precise odds, but often they can't.
Would-be mothers face a terrible dilemma, as their children could be anything from healthy to suffering from severe disease

Prenatal testing, or IVF with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), are not much help either. Such screening methods can detect some common mitochondrial mutations but cannot reliably reveal what percentage of mitochondria in cells bear these mutations. Neither method can help women whose mitochondria are all mutant. The bottom line is that the creation of two-mother embryos could provide would-be parents with by far the best chance of having healthy children - and healthy grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

So let's suppose that all the outstanding issues are solved in the next few years, and that the creation of two-mother babies to prevent mitochondrial diseases becomes routine in the next few decades. Will this be the first step on a slippery slope towards creating designer babies?
Designer babies

The idea is not beyond the pale, as we are learning that the role of mitochondrial DNA goes deeper than anyone thought. Perhaps the biggest surprise over the past decade is that mitochondria are responsible not merely for energy production in cells, but also for orchestrating programmed cell death. The state of mitochondria is the decisive factor determining whether cells live or die, with obvious implications for health and disease, from cancer to degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's.

The most striking example comes from Japan. Here, there is a common variant in mitochondrial DNA, a change in a single DNA "letter". A decade ago Masashi Tanaka, now at the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology, and his colleagues reported that this tiny change almost halved the risk of being hospitalised for any age-related disease at all, while doubling the chance of living to 100. Most Japanese centenarians have the variant, but unfortunately for the rest of us it's very rare outside Japan.

Since the late 1990s, other variants in mitochondrial DNA have turned out to be implicated in all kinds of traits. Several are linked with longevity, albeit less robustly than the Japanese type. Another common variation is associated with diabetes, while others increase the risk of neuro-degenerative conditions such as Parkinson's disease. Male fertility depends partly on sperm motility, which is also influenced by mitochondrial variants. Even IQ, Tanaka has found, is linked to mitochondrial variations, at least in Japan, though the differences are small.

So could we boost intelligence and lifespan, and prevent many diseases by creating "designer" three-parent embryos? The answer is probably not, at least in the foreseeable future. There are two main reasons. The first, Tanaka notes, is that old biological chestnut, trade-off: nothing comes without a cost. In Japan, the mitochondrial group with the highest IQ is most likely to get heart disease, for example.
Tradeoffs

Wallace, meanwhile, thinks that our mitochondria evolve to match our climate by regulating internal heat generation. Mitochondria may produce less heat in the tropics, but at the cost of leaking more free radicals, which predisposes individuals to diseases like diabetes. Conversely, people adapted to northern climates generate more heat internally and are less likely to get diabetes, but at the cost of more male infertility. So you choose a trait and pay the penalty. Would you opt for a mitochondrial variant that boosted your child's athleticism, for example, if you knew it would lead to poor health later in life?

Then there is an even more fundamental problem. Of the 1500 or so mitochondrial proteins, just 13 are encoded by mitochondrial genes and produced locally. The rest are encoded in nuclear DNA, made elsewhere in the cell and exported to mitochondria. These two sets of proteins, encoded by different genomes, have to work together intimately, yet mitochondrial DNA mutates around 20 times as fast as nuclear DNA. If such mutations mean the two genomes don't function well together, then an individual is more likely to suffer from a range of diseases. At worst, the embryo could die.

Ronald Burton, a marine biologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, has even suggested that such incompatibilities might be behind the origin of species, or at least some of them. He works with tiny marine copepods, shrimp-like crustaceans that live along the Pacific coast close to Scripps. Their populations don't interbreed much, and so steadily accumulate differences in their mitochondrial DNA. When Burton and his colleagues experimented with interbreeding between local populations, they discovered that mitochondrial incompatibilities undermined the health of offspring. The animals lacked energy, developed slowly, were less fertile and were also more likely to die early. It is only a matter of time before these incompatibilities reach a level that rules out successful interbreeding altogether - the very definition of a species. What's more, because mitochondrial genes evolve so quickly, they might even play the dominant role in natural speciation.

Wallace and others have found that these evolutionary patterns apply not only to crustaceans, but also to mammals - and notably to primates. Our genes show all the cardinal signs of selection for compatibility with mitochondria (Gene, vol 378, p 11), and mitochondrial incompatibilities might play a huge role in human health and happiness.
Inhumane

For example, around 40 per cent of all pregnancies end in early miscarriage for unknown reasons. Many could be caused by mitochondrial incompatibilities. Not only that, but Tanaka suspects the high incidence of diabetes among Californian Hispanics is related to incompatibilities between mitochondrial and nuclear genes due to the mixing of long-separated populations. If he's right, there could be many other examples.

The issue of compatibility means there is an inherent danger in any attempts to boost health, longevity, fertility, athleticism or IQ by transplanting mitochondria: putting the wrong mitochondria and nucleus together could harm children rather than improving them. Leaving aside the ethics, the risks appear to outweigh the benefits.

For those who risk passing on mutant mitochondria, however, the odds are very different. The Newcastle team plans to minimise incompatibilities by picking donors with a broadly similar mitochondrial genome, or haplotype. The risk cannot be completely eliminated, but it is far lower than that of inheriting a mitochondrial disease. "It's inhumane not to treat such conditions if we can," says Van Blerkom. "There's no other reason to go into medicine at all."
Mitochondria - the basics

#

Each of our cells contains anything from one to thousands of mitochondria
#

Mitochondria "burn" food to produce the fuel that powers cellular processes
#

Their size and shape varies from cell to cell
#

Each contains up to 10 copies of a piece of circular DNA encoding 13 proteins
#

These proteins are produced within the mitochondria
#

The vast majority of the 1500 or so mitochondrial proteins are encoded in nuclear DNA and exported to mitochondria

Nick Lane is an honorary reader at University College London and author of Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the meaning of life (Oxford University Press, 2005)
Issue 2659 of New Scientist magazine

* From issue 2659 of New Scientist magazine, page 38-41. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
* Browse past issues of New Scientist magazine

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

Back to article

IVF Advance: Are 'Designer Babies' Next?

2008-12-09T13:10:00.001+09:00

IVF Advance: Are 'Designer Babies' Next?: "ABC News
How Much Can We Decide About Baby's Genes?
Doctors Mull the Meaning of Next Step in Genetic Screening
By JOSEPH BROWNSTEIN
ABC News Medical Unit

July 1, 2008—

A British couple has used in vitro fertilization to keep their child free of a gene that promotes breast cancer -- an advancement supported by ethicists who worry, at the same time, where it will lead.

The Assisted Conception Unit at University College London Hospital announced this weekend that it had produced the first baby in the United Kingdom guaranteed not to have the breast cancer gene, which is thought to raise the risk of the disease to between 40 and 85 percent.

The father of the unborn child had a family history of breast cancer, with his sister, mother, grandmother and cousin all suffering from it at some point. Doctors scanned 11 fertilized embryos and implanted two of them that were found to be free of the breast cancer gene in the mother, who is now 14 weeks pregnant.

Doctors are quick to caution that this does not come close to eliminating the breast cancer risk entirely.

"Even if the baby doesn't have the breast cancer gene abnormality, that doesn't mean she won't get breast cancer," said Dr. Marisa Weiss, president and founder of breastcancer.org, and author of the upcoming breast cancer book "Taking Care of Your 'Girls'."

The screening represents a new phase in genetic testing on embryos, because it looks at a gene that poses a risk, rather than a disease itself, said Dr. Sherman Silber, director of the Infertility Center of St. Louis at St. Luke's Hospital.

He said that the idea of prescreening fertilized embryos has been around since 1990, when it was first used to avoid having children with cystic fibrosis.

A similar phenomenon has taken place, Silber noted, in families that have had autistic children and would like to avoid having another.

"For autism already in couples that have children, they're requesting [pre-implantation diagnosis] with sex selection, because, obviously, it's so much more common in boys than in girls," Silber said. "There are couples that have had several children with autism ... that have been requesting sex selection just to have only females."

Dodging Disease ... Before Birth

But, in this case, how much will gene screening help the baby when it reaches the age when breast cancer risks become a reality?

Weiss noted that in the vast majority of cases, breast cancer is related to a change in the genes later in life, and not something inherited.

"Nine out of 10 times, the breast cancer is due to an acquired genetic abnormality," Weiss said.

While ethical experts call this issue a slippery slope, Weiss sees it as a highly beneficial treatment in this circumstance.

"In that family, that gene was a curse," she said. "For whatever reason, every woman seemed to have it."

While the breast cancer gene typically sorts itself out 50-50, Weiss noted that not only did most women in the father's family seem to have the gene, but those who had it inevitably seemed to develop a highly aggressive form of breast cancer.

"It's good to have this option available for families who are profoundly affected by this disease, who want this option," said Weiss. "This story speaks to the importance of genetic counseling, where this decision can be made with best advice, the best information, guidance, respect, and sensitivity -- free of self-righteous judgment."

While the child would still eventually have a risk without the gene, "12 percent is a hell of a lot lower than 40 to 85 percent, the risk that would go along with a genetic abnormality," Weiss said.

A Slippery Slope?

But, while there are not many objectors to screening for a deadly breast cancer gene, the concern is where this will lead.

This case is part of a shift from genes known to cause diseases to genes which simply raise their risk. It may very well move on to conditions that many do not consider diseases, said Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania.

Caplan sees the real ethical questions beginning when testing moves to diseases like Alzheimer's.

"It's bad, but it won't affect you until ... later in life," he said, adding,"Sixty years from now, we might cure it."

Finally, Caplan said, testing may move to conditions like shyness, obesity and homosexuality, which some may find undesirable. But many people, if not most, would find it repugnant to treat those as diseases.

"People will say, 'those aren't diseases, those are just differences,'" he said.

Caplan also thinks more genetic testing will shift peoples' views on in vitro fertilization.

"I think we're on the brink of a shift in how we treat IVF," he said. "I think, in the future, it's going to be used to create healthy babies in fertile people."

Given the ability to prevent children from having certain diseases, Caplan sees a rising demand, and that demand changing how in vitro fertilization is covered by insurance companies (it's typically not covered now) and how affordable the expensive treatment becomes.

"More people than just the infertile are going to want a chance to do this testing," he said.

But Silber said that such concerns are unfounded, given the current state of gene testing and in vitro fertilization.

And while he believes insurance companies should cover in vitro fertilization, "I don't see that happening," he said.

"Insurance companies have been rather stupid about that, because they only care about how much they save this year. There's no question, in the long haul, they would save a lot of money."

But, Silber doesn't see "designer babies" as a concern in the near future, if ever.

The reason, Silber said, is that tests can only pick out problems that stem from a single gene. Personality traits, like shyness, are complex, and can't be traced to the work of a single gene.

"I don't see that being possible or conceivable," he said. "You could worry about it if you really didn't understand the genetics of it. ... [Pre-implantation diagnosis] will be restricted to certain defects or diseases, because that's all we have."

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

Christina Applegate's Double Mastectomy: FAQ

2008-12-09T10:25:00.001+09:00

Christina Applegate's Double Mastectomy: FAQ: "Article Link: http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20080820/christina-applegates-mastectomy-faq

Christina Applegate's Mastectomy: FAQ
Breast Cancer Survivor Christina Applegate Opts for Preventive Double Mastectomy and Breast Reconstructive Surgery
By Miranda Hitti
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

Aug. 20, 2008 -- Actress Christina Applegate recently had both breasts removed in an effort to prevent her breast cancer from returning and said that she will get breast reconstruction.

Applegate, 36, star of the ABC comedy Samantha Who?, announced her breast cancer diagnosis earlier this month. Yesterday, she told ABC's Good Morning America that she is now "absolutely, 100% clean and clear" of cancer.

Before getting her preventive (prophylactic) double mastectomy three and half weeks ago, Applegate had two lumpectomies -- and only had cancer in one breast, according to Good Morning America -- and took a gene test that showed that she had the BRCA1 gene mutation, which makes breast cancer and ovarian cancer more likely.

Applegate called her mastectomy decision "tough" but the "most logical" possibility for her. She said she based her choice on her family history -- her mother has had breast cancer and cervical cancer -- and her BRCA1 gene.

Is Applegate's approach to breast cancer one that would work for other breast cancer patients? And what will the reconstruction process -- for Applegate and for other women -- be like?

WebMD talked with four doctors -- and with a breast cancer survivor who made some of the same choices that Applegate did -- about preventive mastectomy and breast reconstructive surgery. None of the doctors who talked to WebMD are treating Applegate.

Did Applegate make a good choice?

"I think she did the absolute right thing, and she did it the right way," says Jay Brooks, MD, FACP, chief of hematology/oncology and chief of staff at the Ochsner Health System in Baton Rouge, La.

"She underwent lumpectomy and then, when she got the information back from the genetic testing, she was able to have a little time to discern what this all meant and then she went forward to have the prophylactic mastectomies, which are clearly the best treatment to reduce her risk of ever developing breast cancer [again] by at least 90%," says Brooks.

"I think that's a very reasonable approach," says Brooks. "It may not be right for every patient, but I think especially if you have this genetic mutation -- it's such a highly active mutation in terms of increasing the risk of breast cancer -- that it's certainly something that I would recommend to one of my family members or to my patients, and I do," says Brooks, noting that only about 5% to 7% of breast cancer patients have cases similar to Applegate's.

"Because her risk of an additional breast cancer is extremely high, in the range of one in two, why take a chance?" asks Eli Avisar, MD, breast cancer surgeon at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

Gisella Alvarez, RNC, is a nurse at Mercy Medical Center. Two years ago, at age 44, Alvarez learned she had stage I breast cancer in one breast. She decided to have both breasts removed and get breast reconstruction. Her case wasn't exactly like Applegate's -- Alvarez had an elderly aunt who had had breast cancer but she hadn't had the BRCA gene test -- but she took a similar approach.

Alvarez says Applegate's decision was "brave" and "smart because life is too short. It's not worth living your life worrying every six months when you have to go back for tests and more tests -- and hoping that it's not going to come back. With this way, you really increase your chances of not having to worry about it again and live your life."

Does double mastectomy totally eliminate her risk?

Almost, but not quite; there's an estimated 5% chance of breast cancer after such a procedure, notes Neil Friedman, MD, FACS, medical director of the Hoffberger Breast Center at Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore.

He explains that there's no clear line where breast tissue ends.

"When you're in the operating room, it's not like you can look and say, 'All that yellow tissue is breast tissue and all that white tissue is fat.' So you try and take all the tissue out that you can, but you can leave isolated breast cells underneath the skin. Everybody does; there's not a surgeon in the world that can do that and remove all of the cells. That's why there is a small risk of having a breast cancer develop in one of those cells -- pretty uncommon, but it can happen," says Friedman.

Friedman says that immediate reconstruction -- starting the process at the time of the mastectomy -- "is something that should be offered to all patients."

"I offer it to all of my patients and if I think there's a reason why they shouldn't get it from a medical perspective, then I [explain why] I think it's advisable to delay the reconstruction. But they should at least have that conversation with their surgeons," says Friedman, adding that breast reconstruction is not an insurance issue, because it "must be paid for by federal law," regardless of the patient's age.

What about the emotional aspect of the decision?

"It is a difficult decision and an emotional decision, and it is not that simple to decide to lose your breast," says Avisar.

Alvarez says she took her time before choosing preventive double mastectomy. For her, breasts were "such a part of being a woman, so there [were] a lot of emotional factors" to consider.

"Little by little, I just went through the options," she says. One by one, she ruled out her other choices and felt that after mastectomy, she would "be able to live my life peacefully and life goes on."

Alvarez also said it helped that she works on a floor of Mercy Medical Center where women recover from mastectomy and breast reconstruction, so she knew what to expect. She also had seen women be upset by their appearance immediately after mastectomy.

"They just don't want to look at themselves ... it's an extremely difficult experience," says Alvarez. "I never really had a problem with that only because I knew what that was going to be like."

What's involved in breast reconstruction?

The first step is creating the breast or breasts, which can be done in two ways:

Option No. 1: Transplant your own fat [autologous tissue] from the belly or elsewhere in the body and implant it where the breasts were.
Option No. 2: Get saline or silicone implants.

What's involved in breast reconstruction? continued...

Which option to pick? "Oftentimes, it comes down to a woman's preference," says Brendan Collins, MD, plastic and reconstructive surgeon at Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore.

Each approach has pros and cons.

With autologous tissue, you "don't have to worry about potential problems related to the implant," such as eventually needing to replace it, says Collins. But it's a longer surgery and recovery process, since two parts of your body -- your breast area and the place where the fat came from -- need to heal. And very lean women may not have enough fat to transplant as breasts.

Getting artificial implants for breast reconstruction doesn't happen right away. First, surgeons typically insert tissue expanders at the time of mastectomy. The tissue expanders "are like a salt water balloon that's put underneath the muscle," says Friedman.

Doctors inflate those tissue expanders gradually to stretch the skin and make room for a permanent salt water or silicone implant. Doing that is an in-office procedure in which doctors use a syringe to inject more fluid into the tissue expander, Avisar explains.

That goes on for several months, until the breast reaches the desired size, and then surgery is done to replace the expanders with permanent implants.

After that, surgeons can create an artificial nipple by raising some of the new breast's tissue, and then tattoo on coloring to simulate the areola (the dark area around the nipple). The new breast may also need some cosmetic adjustments.

How long does breast reconstruction take?

"Give it about a year," says Collins.

For Alvarez, her process took a year and three months. "You have to be so patient," she says. With all reconstructions, "it takes a long time until you finally have your final result."

She kept a photographic journal of her progress and shared it with her colleagues. "I just made it like an educational opportunity. ... We never know what the patients go through when they leave."

Does it hurt?

Alvarez says she had pain after the mastectomy, but "the other processes were not as uncomfortable."

After the mastectomy, Alvarez says she was "uncomfortable for about a week and a half" and did occupational therapy exercises to get her range of motion back.

What kind of reconstruction is Applegate getting?

She hasn't said. But Good Morning America reports that her reconstruction will take eight months.

"The majority of patients ... don't go the whole 9 yards," says Avisar. "Most of them do the first step. Many of them never come back to have the nipple and areola reconstructed. They are just tired and they have had enough."

Applegate may be different. "She is an actress and may be more aware of her body," says Avisar.

Are patients satisfied with the reconstructed breast?

It depends on their expectations and the cosmetic results.

"If a patient is expecting to be happy because she's alive, she's going to be happier than the patient who puts, as the most important thing, her appearance -- and may be disappointed because what she sees is not what she pictured," says Avisar.

Reconstruction is an alternative to wearing a prosthetic breast, but it is totally different" from getting breast implants for cosmetic reasons because it's not a real breast.

After reconstruction, "we do expect you to be able, with clothing on, to look normal without having to have prostheses," says Avisar. "But if the expectation is for the breast to feel normal and to look absolutely normal in front of the mirror without any cover on it, this is probably not going to be the case."

Alvarez says she is "very happy with the results" and shares her story with patients, since she works on a floor of Mercy Medical Center where mastectomy and breast reconstruction patients recover.

Her advice: Talk to your surgeons. "I was very concerned about my cleavage. I talked to my surgeons and made sure that I kept it." She says she wound up with "fabulous cleavage" and a "great set of new, fake breasts."

View Article Sources

Designer Babies -- Printout -- TIME

2008-12-09T10:14:00.001+09:00

Designer Babies -- Printout -- TIME: "Monday, Jan. 11, 1999
Designer Babies
By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK

Until just a few years ago, making a baby boy or a baby girl was pretty much a hit-or-miss affair. Not anymore. Parents who have access to the latest genetic testing techniques can now predetermine their baby's sex with great accuracy--as Monique and Scott Collins learned to their delight two years ago, when their long-wished-for daughter Jessica was born after genetic prescreening at a fertility clinic in Fairfax, Va.

And baby Jessica is just the beginning. Within a decade or two, it may be possible to screen kids almost before conception for an enormous range of attributes, such as how tall they're likely to be, what body type they will have, their hair and eye color, what sorts of illnesses they will be naturally resistant to, and even, conceivably, their IQ and personality type.

In fact, if gene therapy lives up to its promise, parents may someday be able to go beyond weeding out undesirable traits and start actually inserting the genes they want--perhaps even genes that have been crafted in a lab. Before the new millennium is many years old, parents may be going to fertility clinics and picking from a list of options the way car buyers order air conditioning and chrome-alloy wheels. "It's the ultimate shopping experience: designing your baby," says biotechnology critic Jeremy Rifkin, who is appalled by the prospect. "In a society used to cosmetic surgery and psychopharmacology, this is not a big step."

The prospect of designer babies, like many of the ethical conundrums posed by the genetic revolution, is confronting the world so rapidly that doctors, ethicists, religious leaders and politicians are just starting to grapple with the implications--and trying to decide how they feel about it all.

They still have a bit of time. Aside from gender, the only traits that can now be identified at the earliest stages of development are about a dozen of the most serious genetic diseases. Gene therapy in embryos is at least a few years away. And the gene or combination of genes responsible for most of our physical and mental attributes hasn't even been identified yet, making moot the idea of engineering genes in or out of a fetus. Besides, say clinicians, even if the techniques for making designer babies are perfected within the next decade, they should be applied in the service of disease prevention, not improving on nature.

But what doctors intend is not necessarily what's going to happen. Indeed, the technology that permitted the Collinses family to pick the sex of their child was first used to select for health, not gender per se. Adapting a technique used on livestock, researchers at the Genetics & IVF Institute in Fairfax took advantage of a simple rule of biology: girls have two X chromosomes, while boys have one X and one Y. The mother has only Xs to offer, so the balance of power lies with the father--specifically with his sperm, which brings either an X or a Y to the fertilization party.

As it happens, Y chromosomes have slightly less DNA than Xs. So by staining the sperm's DNA with a nontoxic light-sensitive dye, the Virginia scientists were able to sort sperm by gender--with a high rate of success--before using them in artificial insemination. The first couple to use the technique was looking to escape a deadly disease known as X-linked hydrocephalus, or water on the brain, which almost always affects boys.

But while the technique is ideal for weeding out this and other X-linked disorders, including hemophilia, Duchenne muscular dystrophy and Fragile X syndrome, most patients treated at Genetics & IVF want to even out their families--a life-style rather than a medical decision. The Fairfax clinic has been willing to help, but such a trend doesn't sit well with some other practitioners. "Our view at the moment," says Dr. Zev Rosenwaks, director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility at Cornell Medical Center in New York City, "is that these techniques should be used for medical indications, not family balancing."

But now that parents know that the technology is available, and that at least some clinics will let them choose a child's gender for nonmedical reasons, it may be too late to go back. In a relatively short time, suggests Princeton University biologist Lee Silver, whose book Remaking Eden addresses precisely these sorts of issues, sex selection may cease to be much of an issue. His model is in vitro fertilization, the technique used to make "test-tube" babies. "When the world first learned about IVF two decades ago," he says, "it was horrifying to most people, and most said that they wouldn't use it even if they were infertile. But growing demand makes it socially acceptable, and now anybody who's infertile demands IVF."

That's not to say in vitro fertilization hasn't created its own set of ethical problems, including custody battles over fertilized embryos that were frozen but never used, questions about what to do with the embryos left over after a successful pregnancy, and the increased health risks posed by multiple births. Yet no one is suggesting the practice be stopped. Infertile couples would never stand for it.

Sex selection will undoubtedly raise knotty issues as well. Societies that value boys more highly than girls, including China and India, are already out of balance; this could tip the scales even further. Such an outcome is unlikely in the U.S., where surveys show that equal numbers of parents want girls as boys. But the same polls report that Americans believe an ideal family has a boy as the oldest child. Boys often end up being more assertive and more dominant than girls, as do firstborn children; skewing the population toward doubly dominant firstborns could make it even harder to rid society of gender-role stereotypes.

The ethical issues raised by techniques emerging from the genetics labs are likely to be even more complex. What if parents can use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to avoid having kids with attention-deficit disorder, say, or those predestined to be short or dullwitted or predisposed to homosexuality? Will they feel pressure from friends and relations to do so? And will kids who are allowed to be born with these characteristics be made to feel even more like second-class citizens than they do now?

Even thornier is the question of what kinds of genetic tinkering parents might be willing to elect to enhance already healthy children. What about using gene therapy to add genes for HIV resistance or longevity or a high IQ? What about enhancements that simply stave off psychological pain--giving a child an attractive face or a pleasing personality? No one is certain when these techniques will be available--and many professionals protest that they're not interested in perfecting them. "Yes, theoretically you could do such things," says Baylor University human-reproduction specialist Larry Lipshultz. "It's doable, but I don't know of anyone doing it."

Sooner or later, however, someone will do it. In countries with national health services, such as Canada and Britain, it tends to be easier to dictate what sorts of genetic enhancement will be permitted and what will be forbidden. But in the U.S., despite the growth of managed care, there will always be people with enough money--or a high enough limit on their credit cards--to pay for what they want. "Typically," says Princeton's Silver, "medical researchers are moved by a desire to cure disease more effectively. Reprogenetics [a term Silver coined] is going to be driven by parents, or prospective parents, who want something for their children. It's the sort of demand that could explode."

Silver even contemplates a scenario in which society splits into two camps, the "gen-rich" and the "gen-poor," those with and those without a designer genome. The prospect is disturbing, but trying to stop it might entail even more disturbing choices. "There may be problems," admits James Watson, whose co-discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 made all this possible. "But I don't believe we can let the government start dictating the decisions people make about what sorts of families they'll have."

--Reported by David Bjerklie and Alice Park/New York and Dick Thompson/Washington

With reporting by David Bjerklie and Alice Park/New York and Dick Thompson/Washington

Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html

23andMe - Health and Traits - List of Conditions

2008-12-09T09:29:00.001+09:00

23andMe - Health and Traits - List of Conditions: "complete list

Your 23andMe scan includes genetic analysis on all of the following diseases, traits, and conditions. This list grows every month as new research is published.

Clinical Reports (23)

Clinical Reports give you information about conditions and traits for which there are genetic associations supported by multiple, large, peer-reviewed studies. Those associations must also have a substantial influence on a person's chances of developing the disease or having the trait. Because these associations are widely regarded as reliable, we use them to develop quantitative estimates and definitive explanations of what they mean for you.

Research Reports (72)

Research Reports give you information from research that has not yet gained enough scientific consensus to be included in our Clinical Reports. This research is generally based on high-quality but limited scientific evidence. Because these results have not yet been demonstrated through large, replicated studies, we do not perform complete quantitative analyses of their effects. We do, however, explain how they may–if confirmed–affect your odds of having or developing a trait, condition or disease.

Research Reports also includes scientifically accepted, established research that does not have a dramatic influence on a person's risk for a disease.

How accurate is the genetic data you provide?

23andMe analyzes your DNA using a genotyping chip. The chip we use is an Illumina HumanHap550+ Genotyping BeadChip. 23andMe has also added a customized set of SNPs to the chip.

The accuracy of the chip can be measured in two ways:

First, the HumanHap 550 chip has, on average, a 99% call rate. That means that we receive usable data for, on average, 99% of the SNPs on the HumanHap 550 chip. The remaining 1% of SNPs that do not meet our confidence-based performance standards are labeled "No Call." Unfortunately, it is not possible to guarantee data for every SNP without making the chip many times more expensive.

Second, the reproducibility of the chip is over 99.9%. This means that if we ran the same DNA a second time on a new chip, more than 99.9% of the data would be the same compared to data from the first run.

These performance measures are guaranteed by Illumina for the off-the-shelf HumanHap550 Genotyping BeadChip. Based on previous experience, we expect to exceed this performance. More technical information on the performance of the chip can be found on the manufacturer's website.

Based on internal data, the custom chip has a reproducibility of ~99.6% and a call rate of ~99.9% for the SNPs reported in Health and Traits.

The difference between a text box and a frame - Word - Microsoft Office Online

2008-12-08T12:54:00.001+09:00

The difference between a text box and a frame - Word - Microsoft Office Online: "The difference between a text box and a frame
Applies to: Microsoft Office Word 2003

Text boxes and frames are both containers for text that can be positioned on a page and sized.

If you are familiar with earlier versions of Microsoft Word, you used frames when you wanted to wrap text around a graphic. Now, you wrap text around a graphic of any size or shape without first inserting it in a text box or frame.

However, you must use a frame instead of a text box when you want to position text or graphics that contain certain items.

Use a text box when you want to do any of the following:

Make text flow from one part of a document to another part by linking the text boxes.
Format the text container by using the options on the Drawing toolbar (toolbar: A bar with buttons and options that you use to carry out commands. To display a toolbar, press ALT and then SHIFT+F10.). You can apply 3-D effects, shadows, border styles and colors, fills, and backgrounds.
Rotate and flip text boxes.
Change the orientation of text in a text box by using the Text Direction command (Format menu).
Group your text containers and change the alignment or distribution of them as a group.

Use frames when your text or graphics contain the following:

Comments (comment: A note or annotation that an author or reviewer adds to a document. Microsoft Word displays the comment in a balloon in the margin of the document or in the Reviewing Pane.), as indicated by comment marks (comment mark: Each time you add a comment to a document, Microsoft Word inserts a comment mark in the document. Comment marks appear when you click Markup on the View menu.).
Footnotes or endnotes, as indicated by note reference marks (note reference mark: A number, character, or combination of characters that indicates that additional information is contained in a footnote or endnote.).
Certain fields (field: A set of codes that instructs Microsoft Word to insert text, graphics, page numbers, and other material into a document automatically. For example, the DATE field inserts the current date.), including AUTONUM, AUTONUMLGL, AUTONUMOUT — used for numbering lists and paragraphs in legal documents and outlines — TC (Table of Contents Entry), TOC (Table of Contents), RD (Referenced Document), XE (Index Entry), TA (Table of Authorities Entry), and TOA (Table of Authority) fields.

When you open a document that contains frames from a previous version of Word, Word keeps the frames. When you select a frame, the Frame command appears on the Format menu.

Koreans Complete Human Genome Map

2008-12-07T23:35:00.001+09:00

Koreans Complete Human Genome Map: "Koreans Complete Human Genome Map

Dr. Kim Seong-jin
Gachon University of
Medicine & Science
By Kim Tong-hyung
Staff Reporter

Korean scientists sequencing the human genome said they have finished the job after just seven months, an achievement that may eventually reveal new opportunities for the treatment of genetic diseases.

The subject of the latest genome sequencing was Kim Seong-jin, a cancer specialist from Gachon University of Medicine and Science, who became just the fourth individual ever, and the first Korean, to have his DNA blueprint decoded.

The individual genome sequence of American biologist Craig Venter was published in 2007, followed by those of DNA pioneer James Watson in April. Chinese scientist Yang Huanming became the first Asian last month to have his genome sequenced.

The first Reference Sequence of the human genome was announced in 2003, a result of collaborative efforts of 16 laboratories in the United States, Britain, Germany, France, Japan and China.

``Dr. Watson, who won a Nobel prize for his discovery of the double-helix structure of the DNA, revealed his DNA sequence to advance studies in personalized medical treatment,'' said Kim, who led a team of researchers from Gachon University and the Korean Bioinformation Center (KOBIC) for the project.

``I threw myself into the project after being inspired by Dr. Watson's book, and I am honored to reveal my DNA sequence for the development of medical research,'' he said.

Genome sequencing is considered crucial in assessing the risks of genetic diseases, with the analysis of genetic makeup allowing doctors to predict which diseases individuals are susceptible to.

Scientists have already identified specific genetic sequences that could be linked to certain conditions such as cancer, leukemia, diabetes, depression and alcoholism.

The completion of Kim's personal genome sequence is claimed as a breakthrough in efforts to establish a reference genome for Koreans, which would introduce advancements in medical genetics and ``customized'' treatment for patients.

Currently, Korean researchers are relying on the reference genome provided by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to identify DNA sequence variations such as SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism), which explain differences in human traits and disease susceptibility.

The research was also in line with the goal of making genome sequencing more commercially viable to patients.

The seven months of research to complete the genome sequence cost about 1.05 billion won ($716,000) including 800 million won for the computer system used for the decoding. In comparison, Venter's genome sequencing took four years and about 100 billion won ― Watson's project took about four months and 1.5 billion won, Kim said.

Scientists believe that the cost could drop to around $1,000 in two to three years, which would allow the market to ``explode.''

``There are only four people now who have had their genome sequence revealed, but that number could reach the thousands in the near future,'' said Yonsei University researcher Paik Young-ki, who participated in the project.

``The latest achievement will open the era of personalized medical treatment and also help research into disease-related protein and drug development,'' he said.

Kim's team finished the mapping of 20.7 billion DNA base pairs, compared to the 2.9 billion base pairs revealed in the reference genome project.

His genome sequence reveals that genetic variations between humans could be greater than previously thought. Kim's genome map revealed a total of 3.23 million SNPs, including 1.58 million SNPs that weren't found in the genome sequences of Venter, Watson and Yang.

thkim@koreatimes.co.kr

Korean Genome Map

2008-12-07T23:33:00.001+09:00

Korean Genome Map: "12-05-2008 17:18

Nation Takes One Step Closer to Bioengineering Frontier

Good news is increasingly hard to find, but Korean scientists' successful sequencing of the human genome apparently belongs to it.

It is not just because the subject of the latest genome sequencing, Kim Seong-jin, is only the fifth such person in the world, following two Americans, one Chinese and one Nigerian, but because the nation has long been smarting from the shock of disgraced cloning expert, Hwang Woo-suk, and is ready to start again.

Laymen cannot know all the details and significance of a specific achievement in the up-to-the-second science of genetic engineering, but experts say some countries or corporations will be able to supply the entire genetic map of individuals in USB memories in as early as 2013 and for as little as $1,000. Welcome to the era of preventive or ``tailor-made'' medical services.

These advances are not without their critics and adverse side effects of course. Foreign media carried reports recently about an actress who had her breasts removed as she possessed the gene that made her susceptible to that form of cancer. Some Korean women were immediately beginning to ask for similar operations, embarrassing medical doctors. Genes are not the only determinant for the occurrence of the disease, which takes place for various other reasons, including environmental and individual differences.

Another side effect is possible discrimination in employment, marriage and most probably in insurance coverage against people with problematic genes.

Based on new research suggesting that scientists may be able to recreate an extinct woolly mammoth from its long-frozen DNA, some are hastily predicting the film ``Jurassic Park'' turning into reality. Others go further: By citing the production of an artificial genome of bacteria by U.S. scientists last year, they even are talking as if the ``Brave New World'' of Aldous L. Huxley could be just around the corner.

All this is still idle talk, as some local scientists are rather cautious in acknowledging the accomplishment of Kim and his team _ consisting of Gachon University and the Korean Bioinformation Center (KOBIC) researchers _ questioning whether they have undergone sufficient sequencing analysis to back it up.

Caution may do no harm, but most Koreans must be hoping the latest feat will serve as an occasion for the nation's bioengineering sector to accelerate its research to catch up with the United States and other front-runners in what some economic experts say could emerge as the ``second semiconductor industry.''

The IT industry was crucial in Korea's overcoming the first financial crisis of 11 years ago. It would not be too much if Koreans hope _ albeit somewhat prematurely _ the bio industry would prove to be equally helpful in tiding over the current crisis

ABC News: No to 'Deaf' Embryos

2008-12-07T22:38:00.001+09:00

ABC News: No to 'Deaf' Embryos: "No to 'Deaf' Embryos
New Fertility Bill Would Make It Illegal for Deaf Britons to Choose 'Deaf' Embryos
By MALAIKA BOVA
LONDON, March 17, 2008

Tomato Lichy and his partner, Paula Garfield, are deaf and have a 3-year-old deaf daughter. Now they want to have another child using in vitro fertilization, hoping the newborn will be deaf, too.

(AP/ABC News)

But fertility legislation under debate in the U.K. Parliament could make it illegal for such couples to use embryos that have a known genetic flaw when healthy embryos are available.

The human embryology and fertilization bill would allow parents to decide whether to have their embryos screened before implantation into the womb.

If they don't, Lichy and Garfield could take their chances in the hopes that a deaf one is chosen. If they do, they will have to opt for the "normal" embryos over the others.

In response to what they believe is a discriminatory bill, Lichy and Garfield are determined to challenge the traditional concept of disability. Rather than seeing deafness as an impairment, they perceive it as the key to a different world with its own language, its own culture and its own history.

They consider themselves part of a minority group, like any other that might have perceived flaws or disabilities. Yet, as Lichy puts it in an interview with ABC News, "that doesn't mean we must kill off anyone who is not a straight white male Christian."

Lichy and Garfield, Londoners who communicated with ABC News via e-mail and text messaging, said they lead a perfectly normal life.

She runs a theater company that regularly produces plays in sign language, and he is a governor at their daughter's school, as well as a lecturer at the Tate Modern museum. They go to see Shakespeare and Pixar films at the local cinema, with subtitles. They pick up their daughter at school and get stuck in traffic jams, just like everyone else. "I can't see where our life is stunted," Lichy said.

They claim that the bill doesn't acknowledge their normality, believing it implicitly states that deaf people are not equal to people who hear.

This is a concept they also refuse to accept for the sake of their daughter, Molly.

She is a child growing up in the belief that deaf is good and normal, Lichy and Garfield said. She is perfectly at ease with sign language and is learning how to speak. Her parents say it would be hard to explain to her that she can't have a deaf sister or a brother because the law says that deaf embryos shouldn't be knowingly accepted.

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon

2008-12-07T22:21:00.001+09:00

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon: "Who's Afraid of Designer Babies?

Without genetic technology Ruiaridh would not have been born, but does that make him a 'designer baby'?

Designer babies Q&As
Programme transcript

Every parent wants their child to have the best in life. But would this extend to picking the best genes for them? To date, genetic technology has only been used to treat serious disease in children. But as ways are developed to manipulate our DNA, there are those who think that parents will inevitably want to choose their children's genes, and create 'designer babies'.

A designer baby today
Philippa Handyside's son Ruiaridh is a genetically selected baby. Some might call him a designer baby. But Philippa wasn't aiming to create a perfect child and there is nothing unusual about her child's genes. Genetic technology seemed the only way she could have a baby at all.

Philippa had a problem with her DNA. It didn't affect her health, but it meant that most of her eggs didn't carry all the genes needed for a baby to grow healthily. The result was that each time she became pregnant, she miscarried.

Doctors suggested that Philippa try a technique called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Using PGD scientists can screen embryos outside the womb, long before they develop into babies. They can select just those embryos that carry healthy genes. This ensures the baby is free from genetic abnormalities.

Ruiaridh might have grown from a specially selected embryo, but he's not really a designer baby at all. The embryo was created from one of Philippa's eggs and her husband's sperm, just as in IVF. His genes have not been altered, or enhanced in any way. The doctors simply chose an embryo that didn't carry Philippa's genetic disorder.

It would actually be very difficult to make a true designer baby using PGD. Today, it can only be used to look at one or two genes at a time. On the other hand, most character traits we might want to choose – anything from height to intelligence – are influenced by a whole range of genes.

What's more, there is no way of altering the genes inside an embryo using PGD. If you don't carry the genes to be intelligent, sporty or good-looking, then there's no way any of your embryos will either. To have a real designer baby, we'd need to be able to choose any genes we wanted and insert them into our children.

Inserting new genes
In 1998 Dr French Anderson put forward a radical proposal. He thought he would soon be able to insert new genes into babies in the womb. The idea was to treat genetic diseases caused by a single damaged gene by inserting a new, healthy gene into a foetus's cells.

French Anderson had already used this technique – called gene therapy – in children with faulty white blood cells, with some success. But the cells with healthy genes would eventually die, so the patients would have to have the procedure all over again.

French Anderson wanted to try gene therapy in the womb because then he could get the healthy genes into special blood cells called stem cells. These cells grow all the blood cells in the body. If the healthy gene could be injected into the stem cells, then the patient's body would produce new white blood cells with healthy genes on its own. In short, they would be cured.

But for all Anderson's plans, this technique has never been used on human babies in the womb. There turned out to be problems with gene therapy. In 1999 an 18-year-old died during a gene therapy trial, and there have been cases of children developing leukaemia after gene therapy treatment. For now, using it on babies in the womb is far too risky.

A human clone: the ultimate designer baby
There is however potentially another way to insert genes into an embryo long before birth – cloning.

No scientific discovery has created as much hysteria as the cloning of Dolly the sheep. She was the first mammal cloned from the DNA of an adult cell. It was a process that brought human cloning one step closer. Shortly after Dolly, Polly was born. She wasn't just a clone. A human gene had been added early on in the cloning process. She was a true, genetically modified, "designer sheep".

Since Polly, there has been a flurry of claims that humans have been, or soon will be, cloned. But no one has yet produced evidence that a human clone has been created.

Most serious scientists won't even consider the idea of cloning a human. The procedure is not very effective. Less than 10 per cent of non-human cloning attempts are successful. And many of the pregnancies result in miscarriage or deformities. It is a procedure that is simply too dangerous to use to produce a human baby.

But cloning technology is being used on human eggs. Scientists from Newcastle University and the Newcastle Fertility Centre are using cloning to create stem cells. The research has only just begun, but the ultimate aim is to create cloned stem cells from the DNA of a patient with a degenerative disease. These cells could then be turned into whatever types of cells are needed to treat their damaged organs. It could one day lead to cures for diabetes, Alzheimer's or heart disease.

There will always be a risk that genetic technology will be hijacked to create designer children. But for now, the technical difficulties make it unlikely anyone will be able to create a true designer baby in the near future.

Discovery News : Discovery Channel

2008-12-07T22:19:00.001+09:00

Discovery News : Discovery Channel: "Altered Human Embryo Decried as 'Designer Baby'
Malcolm Ritter, Associated Press

May 13, 2008 -- News that scientists have for the first time genetically altered a human embryo is drawing fire from some watchdog groups that say it's a step toward creating "designer babies."

But an author of the study says the work was focused on stem cells. He notes that the researchers used an abnormal embryo that could never have developed into a baby anyway.

"None of us wants to make designer babies," said Dr. Zev Rosenwaks, director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center.

The idea of designer babies is that someday, scientists may insert particular genes into embryos to produce babies with desired traits like intelligence or athletic ability. Some people find that notion repugnant, saying it turns children into designed objects, and would create an unequal society where some people are genetically enriched while others would be considered inferior.

The study appears to be the first report of genetically modifying a human embryo. It was presented last fall at a meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, but didn't draw widespread public attention then. The result was reported over the weekend by The Sunday Times of London, which said British authorities highlighted the work in a recent report.

Rosenwaks and colleagues did the work with an embryo that had extra chromosomes, making it nonviable. Following a standard procedure used in animals, they inserted a gene that acts as a marker that can be easily followed over time. The embryo cells took up the gene, he said.

Five "designer babies" created for stem cells - 05 May 2004 - New Scientist

2008-12-07T22:11:00.001+09:00

Five "designer babies" created for stem cells - 05 May 2004 - New Scientist: "Five 'designer babies' created for stem cells

* 17:36 05 May 2004 by Shaoni Bhattacharya

Five healthy babies have been born to provide stem cells for siblings with serious non-heritable conditions. This is the first time 'saviour siblings' have been created to treat children whose condition is not genetic, says the medical team.

The five babies were born after a technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was used to test embryos for a tissue type match to the ailing siblings, reports the team, led by Anver Kuliev at the Reproductive Genetics Institute in Chicago, US.

The aim in these cases was to provide stem cells for transplantation to children who are suffering from leukaemia and a rare condition called Diamond-Blackfan anaemia (DBA).

'It's a big step, because it gives people another option,' says Mohammed Taranissi, at the Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre, London, UK, one of the team. 'Before that the only option was to look in the siblings and immediate family to see if you had a match or alternatively to just keep trying [to have a baby which matches].'

He told New Scientist that people trying to conceive a child naturally as a tissue match for a sick sibling had only a one in five chance. This method can also lead to terminations where the foetus is not a tissue match for the sibling.

"If you do it this way, the chance of finding a match is 98 per cent."

'Unlawful and unethical'

However, the use of this technology to provide a "designer baby" to treat an ill sibling is highly controversial.

A UK couple involved in this study travelled to the US for treatment after the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) ruled that they could not create a tissue-matched sibling as a stem cell donor to their son.

In-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and tissue-typing was used in the US to give the Whitakers a perfectly matched baby boy to help their son Charlie, who suffers from DBA. The Whitakers were banned from the procedure in the UK because DBA could not be identified genetically in any embryos created. The HFEA deemed the procedure would be "unlawful and unethical" as although Charlie might benefit, the embryo would not and might even be at slight risk.

The technique has been allowed in the UK where the embryo itself has been at risk of a genetic disorder.

Some experts believe that the process of tissue-typing an embryo could itself carry risks. In the US study, a single cell was taken from each three-day old embryo, which consists of a ball of just eight cells. The DNA was then analysed to find the tissue-type.

Umbilical cord

Kuliev and colleagues report that they treated nine couples with children needing bone marrow transplants between 2002 and 2003. Using IVF, 199 embryos were created, of which nearly a quarter - 45 embryos - were selected as being HLA-matched. HLA or Human Leukocyte Antigen determines the compatibility between the tissues of a donor and a recipient.

A total of 28 embryos were transferred to the women in IVF cycles, resulting in five pregnancies and births.

"The advantages of doing it this way, is that it is not an invasive procedure for the child whose cells are used," says Taranissi. This is because stem cells from the child's umbilical cord are used. If an existing sibling were a tissue-match, they would have to have cells taken from their bone marrow.

Journal reference: Journal of the American Medical Association (vol 291, p 2079)

Five "designer babies" created for stem cells - 05 May 2004 - New Scientist

2008-12-07T22:09:00.000+09:00

Five "designer babies" created for stem cells - 05 May 2004 - New Scientist: "Five 'designer babies' created for stem cells

* 17:36 05 May 2004 by Shaoni Bhattacharya

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Bring your partner, grab a seat, pick up your baby catalog and start choosing.

Would you be comfortable selecting what cosmetic features you want your baby to have?

Will you go for the brown hair or blond? Would you prefer tall or short? Funny or clever? Girl or boy? And do you want them to be a muscle-bound sports hero? Or a slender and intelligent book worm?

When you're done selecting, head to the counter and it's time to start creating your new child.

Does this sound like a scary thought?

With rapid advances in scientific knowledge of the human genome and our increasing ability to modify and change genes, this scenario of "designing" your baby could well be possible in the near future.

Techniques of genetic screening are already being used -- whereby embryos can be selected by sex and checked for certain disease-bearing genes. This can lead to either the termination of a pregnancy, or if analyzed at a pre-implantation stage when using In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), can enable the pregnancy to be created using only non-disease bearing genes.

British scientists last week developed a "genetic MoT" test, which offers a universal method of screening embryos for diseases using a new technique of karyomapping, which is more efficient than previous processes.

The test would be taken on a two-day-old IVF embryo and is yet to be validated, but it could mark a significant change; allowing doctors to screen for gene combinations that create higher risks of diabetes, heart disease or cancer.

Experts estimate the test, if licensed by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, could be available for around $3000.

In the future we may also be able to "cure" genetic diseases in embryos by replacing faulty sections of DNA with healthy DNA, in a process called germ line therapy. This has been performed on animal embryos but is currently illegal for humans.

Furthermore, the developing technologies of genetic alteration open up a whole new set of possibilities -- which could result in so-called "designer babies."

The technique -- known as inheritable genetic modification -- modifies genes in eggs, sperm or early embryos and results in the altered genes being passed on to future generations. Should parents be allowed to create their babies?

This could potentially irreversibly alter the human species. So, the obvious question arises: should we be doing this?

Some countries have made genetic screening or alteration illegal by law, and the ethical questions surrounding the uses of the technology are vast -- creating a palpable tension over the subject.

Don't Miss

In September, Internet giants Google and Microsoft withdrew adverts for sex selection products and other services considered illegal in India when they were threatened with legal action.

The Center for Genetics and Society is trying to encourage debate on the topic -- as soon as possible.

Executive director of the organization, Richard Hayes, told CNN that the general public of most countries was missing out on taking part in the debate.

"The debate has taken place amongst scientists and science journalists, but average people feel overwhelmed with the technical detail. They feel disempowered."

Hayes said his organization supported the use of embryo screening to help prevent the passing on of serious diseases and disorders like Cystic Fibrosis, but is wary of other technologies and how genetic screening and alteration can be misused.

"We support the use of that to allow couples at risk to have healthy children. But for non-medical, cosmetic purposes, we believe this would undermine humanity and create a techno-eugenic rat race," Hayes said.

He said there were immense amounts of resources being poured into developing gene altering techniques and no laws in many countries to stop them from starting clinics that could offer selected cosmetic traits.

"As technology advances it is possible that any number of human characteristics in part influenced by genes could come under human control. Right now there is an enormous amount of research being conducted to correlate specific genes with specific characteristics."

One of the organizations researching genetic alteration is the University of California Irvine's Sue and Bill Gross Stem Cell Research Center.

Professor of biological chemistry and developmental and cell biology, and co-director of the Center, Peter Donovan, feels the research could have massive benefits.

After his team discovered a greatly improved method for genetically manipulating human embryonic stem cells earlier this year, Donovan said:

"The ability to generate large quantities of cells with altered genes opens the door to new research into many devastating disorders.

"Not only will it allow us to study diseases more in-depth, it also could be a key step in the successful development of future stem cell therapies," Donovan

But according to Hayes the potential for misuse of this technology could have dire consequences for the human race.

"This runs many risks. It's used in many countries to avoid the birth of female children.

"The technologies are going to be accessible to affluent couples and would be used in ways that could increase inequality. The last thing we need now is a genetic elite.

"This designing aspect would also lead to an objectification of children as commodities."

Hayes said it was important that people began debating the issues now so the correct "rules, regulations and regulatory oversights" could be established before the technology was complete and accessible.

Designer babies: Creating the perfect child - CNN.com

2008-12-07T21:59:00.002+09:00

Designer babies: Creating the perfect child - CNN.com: "Designer babies: Creating the perfect child

* Story Highlights
* Technology may soon allow the skin and hair color of a baby to be chosen
* The technology can help eliminate heredity diseases and disorders
* Experts fear the technology could be misused and create a genetic elite
* Next Article in Technology »

By Mike Steere
For CNN
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font