Blog


39andRufus: Genetic Testing for Pets

Author: 
The Editors

Inside Edition reported this week on the availability of genetic testing for dogs.  But the tests mostly serve the purpose of upsetting owners who find out that their man's best friend isn’t the pure bred man's best friend they thought it was.    We did some research and found some genetic testing for dogs and other animals that had pet owners much more enthusiastic.

Dogs

A company called 39andRufus recently announced that since the Food and Drug Administration for Animals (FDAA) had relaxed their stance on genetic testing, they would begin offering the following:

-The FIDO gene reveals the likeliness of a dog to be faithful to its owner.  Most dogs have the dominant gene here, and the company suggests that owners of dogs with the recessive type will no longer hound themselves about their hounds being promiscuous with other owners.

-The C-APOE gene is the canine version of the human APOE gene, a strong indicator for Alzheimer’s.  Dog owners already know well that when their pets age, the likeliness of running for the ball in the game of Fetch and then, forgetting about the game, running away and peeing on a tree or chasing a child happens all too often.  “Be prepared,” runs the company slogan for the test.  

-The Wisdom Panel.  “Dogs can’t talk, but their DNA can,” says the packaging of this test for an entire panel of genes.  Testing includes the CGIQ gene or the Canine Genetic Intelligence Quotient and the 1v2, or the one versus two ears up.  How wise is your dog?  Swab his or her cheek and find out.

Cats

Does your cat really hate you, or just hate you?  Felinity.com is now offering a genetic test for cats based on the HISS gene.  HISS1 is the wild type allele and is still dominant in many house cats.  But the company blog says that more and more cats are testing with the mutation, HISS2.  This second allele indicates that your cat will really hate your bloody guts.  The wild type--apparently the most sought after by pet owners who are willing to dump cats they don’t want-- indicates that your pet “feigns indifference.”   Felinity.com quotes a cat genetics expert who explains, “just because your cat tests positive for the wild type doesn’t mean that it doesn’t tolerate you or have some very mild form of affection.”

One customer who recently used the test said, “I just like knowing.  Now I know for sure that my cat can’t stand me.  Doesn’t mean I don’t love her.  In fact, that makes me love her more.”

The test can also be used for pairing cats up in the case an owner wants more than one.  Just like with the British dating app, Hater, cats who really hate their owner may do best together.

Birds

Have your parrot tested today for a gene common to many talking birds.  If your pet bird tests positive for TTP or Tell Truth to Power genotype,  you may have to put your bird in the back room when company comes over.  Parrots with the TTP gene have been known to reveal their owners' age and and weight without any warning.

Bees

Bees usually aren’t pets.   But beekeepers have been tracking the genetics of the honey bee for decades.  The latest test out:  SB or Showy Behavior.  Order the SB test to find out why some bees hover over your food and then disappear and why others hover over your food, do a little dance in your face, and then disappear.  The amazing modern world we live in!

Gerbils

Everyone loves themselves a cute little gerbil.  Because the lovable rodents are so easy to get rid of if you don’t want them anymore, genetic testing has boomed for gerbils.  Adorable Genetics has partnered up with some pet supply shops who will even sell you the pet with its genetic profile worked out in advance.     There are the endurance versus sprint runners. (Surely it was the endurance type who got Richard Gere into trouble.)  There are gerbil genotpyes who eat from left to right, and those who go right to left, and those who do the zizag left to right and back to left, and those who do the left to right then left to right again, and then those who go up and down, and then those who go . . .  there's basically 180 types for eating.  There are the flippers who do backward somersaults.  And the sleepers who don’t have to be kept in a cage at all--just throw a piece of lettuce or other wet garbage on the bed or to the floor.

“It’s a wonderful use of modern technology,” said Stanford pet geneticist, Mike Wonderbee.  “Pets are awesome test subjects.  People were just too complicated for me--not their genetics.  That was easy.  It's the afterwards part.    Because you can’t get rid of your dad if he tests positive for the APOE gene.”

Other Pets

There are more, but we can’t stop watching gerbil videos....

What Would You Do for Darwin Day?

Author: 
The Editors

This month a lone member of the House of Representatives from Connecticut, Jim Hines, proposed a bill to make February 12th Darwin Day.  It was totally symbolic, having as much a chance of survival as the dinosaurs after the meteorite.  For one thing, we live in America and Darwin is, of course, British.    

We think it's a great idea and to support Mr. Hines we reached out to some audience members to see how they might celebrate a Darwin Day:

 

“Bird hunting.  Ducks, not finches.”

-Rob from Minnetonka, Minnesota

 

“Drop out of medical school.”

-Jun Park from Providence, Rhode Island

 

“Darwin Day?  That’s easy.  I’d go buy a Beagle.”

-Mrs. Montromain from New York City, NY

 

"Probably stay home and watch old episodes of Survivor.”

Jenna from Orlando, FL

 

“Go to the zoo.  Maybe this time memorize the latin names of my ancestors.”

Jim from San Diego, CA

 

“Would listening to the Beatles count?”  

 Gita from Portland, OR

 

“I’d mend my socks.”

“Huh?”

“I’d mend my socks.  Did you say Darnin’ Day?”

“No. Darwin Day.”

“Oh, excuse me, dear.   Um . . . . I’d still mend my socks.”

-Donna from Rochester, NY

 

“Work on bringing back an extinct species.  Just to screw with his head.”

Richard from Cambridge, MA

A Republican Staffer on the Gottlieb Hearing

Author: 
The Editors

This week at a Senate hearing Scott Gottlieb defended his nomination to be FDA commisioner.  Last night at happy hour we caught up with a Republican staffer who was willing to be candid in exchange for remaining unnamed.

 

Staffer:  Oh, yeah, the Gottlieb nomination.  Sweet little thing.  The nomination, I mean.  Seems like the hearing was weeks ago with this whole “nuclear” warfare going on in the Senate over Gorsuch.  

Mendelspod:  The Republicans looked pretty pleased with Gottlieb, as did some of the Democrats.

Staffer:  It was a HUGE relief for Republicans! I mean we were trying to be prepared for anything, for the name of a coal miner!

Mendelspod:  Haha.  Yeah, it looks like. . .

Staffer:  When Gottlieb’s name came in, we wondered if something went wrong at the White House, you know.  Did Trump have some bad caviar, or something?  It’s like the first time a nominee’s career actually matched his post. 

Mendelspod:  Yes!

Staffer: Gottlieb hasn’t even been talking to any Russians.  This was a cinch for us.  Actually it’s the staffers on the other side who had to do some digging this time.  Which was super great to see.

Mendelspod:  Industry leaders seemed pretty relieved too.   We caught a tweet from the CEO at Innovative Drug Company that went something like, 

“Glad to see Gottlieb’s got this in the bag.   Even though he just had to say that he had heard of drugs before.”  

Was that a fair tweet?

Staffer:  Well, Gottlieb did admit there's no science connecting vaccines and autism.  And I’m sure . . .

Mendelspod:  But isn’t that a pretty low bar?  I mean, it’s like someone getting named CEO of Google because they’ve . . . searched on Google.  

Staffer:  At least. . .

Mendelspod:  It’s not a coal miner running the FDA, yahoo!!

Staffer:  Right.  At least Republicans got to show off that they know something about science.  

Mendelspod:  Yes.  Trump seems to bring out the nerd in Republican Senators.  

Staffer:  You mean like Senator Enzi showing off his knowledge that an "adaptive trial" wasn’t just the name of an episode of The Good Wife?  

Mendelspod:  Haha.  Yes.

Staffer:  Or the name of North Carolina's new bathroom bill?  

Mendelspod:  Chairman Alexander sounded pretty pissed off at Trump for wanting to cut resources and funding at the FDA and the NIH.

Staffer: Well yeah, the Chairman worked on the 21st Century Cures bill since . . . since . . .

Mendelspod:  Since Jesus invented opioids.

Staffer: Exactly.

Mendelspod: Did you catch that article in the Washington Pissed that called Gottlieb another con artist like Trump, just with better hair?

Staffer: I know that journalist personally.  We all do.  He’s been a raging alcoholic since a month after the election.   He's used that line with most of the nominees.  He’s assigned to cover these hearings, but he doesn’t even bother showing up anymore. It's really sad.

Mendelspod: There may be something to it.  Trump’s nominees tend to be good looking.  To Gottlieb’s credit, he did seem prepared for all the questions but one, even if he didn’t get to answer any of them.  

Staffer:  Oh, which one?

Mendelspod:  That if he solves the opioid crisis in America, who will be left to vote for Trump in 2020?

Staffer:  Right.  I think I’ll bow out on that one.

Democracy and Science Have Tea at the White House

Author: 
The Editors

The wheels on his navy blue Toyota Prius could be heard squeeling as Science wound down the parking structure in Bethesda.  Yes, it's true, Science's parking spot involved two stories and some undwinding to get out on the open road.  Today Mr. Science was headed to the White House for tea with Ms. Democracy.

As it happens, on this particular day, our Mr. Science is a religious man.  One doesn't know how it happened.  It just happened.

“Lord, I need some help on this one.  Everyone said Doomsday was coming, but I still held out hope.   We’ve had such momentum since sequencing the genome.  How do we cut back now?”  

Science was getting nostalgic and sentimental.  If he was English, he’d go for a whiskey.   But he was American, so instead he was having a “Come to Jesus” chat . . .  with Jesus. 

“What can I say to her?  That we are ever so close on Alzheimer’s?  That we’re on the brink of the first ever treatment?  And cancer!  We’re on the brink of the brink!”  

Pulling into the parking lot from which he’d be shuttled to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Science carefully and efficiently put his sun glasses in the compartment at the roof of the car.  Security.  He took off his belt and put it with his iPhone into the grey container.

Democracy was already present when Science walked into the Yellow Oval Room. 

“Welcome, Science.”

She brought the tea service to the table herself.  He noticed her pride in the tea set.

“That’s a beautiful teapot,” he complimented.   I sound like an idiot, he said to himself.

“It’s very special to me,” replied Democracy. 

Now what to do about yesterday’s announcement about billions of dollars in budget cuts?   Science sat down waiting for his confidence to join him.  He felt naked without his slides and clicker.

“I’m very glad to meet you.  Can I pour you some tea?”

Democracy leaned forward in a black dress that came an inch above the knees.  Her hair hung free like a country girl on a swing.

“Thank you,” he said gathering his thoughts and fortitude.  He was used to the anger that comes from having to leave the lab and fight for his work with polite conversation over tea.

“First of all, I want to say what a great job you’ve done for America.  The President is a big admirer.  And he said to tell you he takes lots of vitamins every morning.”

The next thing she says will say everything, he thought.

“He says 'lots and lots,' and I guess he’s telling the truth.  He eats his breakfast at strange hours.”  She sipped from a rose and teal painted cup.  Her smile automatic.

“Madame Democracy, I hope . . .”

“I talked with the President last night.  And he wanted me to tell you that he’s a really big supporter.”

Science was familiar with her accent from television.  The scent she wore danced around him like Salome, making a play thing of his nose and turning his stomach.  Being distracted by the stirrings of arousal made him again angry.  "I hate her, and I hate that I hate her," he exclaimed to himself.  Still, he was curious why it is that his own biology would sabatage the future of biology.

“The President feels that his supporters in the red states aren't really benefiting that much from what you do. They’re more afraid of terrorism than they are of dying.  I mean like from disease or global warming or stuff like that.   And also,” she went on, “when drugs come out they are the much too expensive.  And besdies that, they are addictive."

Democracy pulled her skirt forward though it didn’t move at all.  She glanced hard at a blemish on one of her nails.  

"Oh Jesus, is this really happening?" Science asked himself.   "Has it come to this?  The future of the human race, the future of millions of patients with Alzheimer's, with rare diseases that can be solved!  Of all days, and this is the one where I nick myself shaving!  And my mustache needs a trim."  

The hard earned wave of confidence he had trained to come at times like this, along with the thought “I’m Science--I don’t have to look good,” didn’t come.  

“Excuse me, Madame Democracy, I must interject.”  She took her first sip of tea.  “Does cystic fibrosis choose between red and blue states?  Perhaps you don’t know, I discovered the gene for cystic fibrosis.  Shortly after that we had a treatment.  The first ever for the disease.  We are so close on Alzheimer's . . .“

"Alzheimer's is a terrible disease.  My uncle has it.  I see him now, and I can't believe I ever had crush on him."

"The future of  . . ." She cut him off.

"Maybe you should be more in the present, Science, and less in the future."

His mind was all over the place.  A recent grant to the Albert Einstein College of Medicine for a new center for diabetes research.  A new instrument for single cell sequencing.   Kathleen Sibelius standing to make another great announcement.  He was tired.  He should have let go in the Obama years.  Now he’d have to cut, the first major setback in years.   Which disease would he ignore?  Which world renowned scientists would he turn down?  He heard the next guest being prepped in the hallway.  Democracy was clearing her throat.

“It will be tough, but you’ll find a way.  There was one year where we--not 2005 as I’m sure you’ve seen--there was one year--there were years--where we had to cut back.  The President--he wasn't the President then of course-- said we had lost tons and tons of money.  I didn’t know how to do it at first.  I had to change the brand of coffee we drank in the morning.  It was terrible.  Science, can I share a recommendation to you?"

"Of course, you're Democracy."

"What if you were to just focus on one thing?  Cancer, for instance.  Just focus on cancer.  Put all the money there.  Make everything about cancer.  The media will really help you out.  It’s the best advice I ever received.  From my agent.  He said, Sweetheart, when you go for the man who has money, don’t mess with other men.  Sink it into one.  If he's a winner, you come up big.  If not, what do you have to lose?”

Science threw back the rest of his tea.

“Also, and the President would never say this, but here’s what I think."  She stood up.  He stood up. "You mention many breakthrough therapies.  But you’ve never come up with some real hair replacement treatment.  That's what people want.   If only you come up with something for hair.”  

She turned and leaning over with grace and ease, she set her cup down.

“And then there is the small of the President's hands.  Many times scientists say they come up with something for that department.  But it never happen."

“What about Viagra?” Science asked.

“Yes, true.  You have a point.”  She looked at the door.  “And I will talk to the President.  I'm afraid he's so focused on this Wall.  You see, it's his strategy too--sink all he has into one thing.  He doesn't care about me, if I live or die. His whole Presidency hangs on the Wall.  Now, I'm sorry, we have to be ending our chat.  It's been a pleasure to meet you.”  They walk toward the door.  “I hear you’re a religious person.  At first I chuckle.  I'm very religious.  And that you play the guitar?  That's amazing.  You have to come back to White House soon.”

“Thank you Madame Democracy.”

Science wondered, would they clear his teacup before the next guest was seated?  As a staff secretary walked him to the door,  he noticed that a member of the security team had a limp.  The secretary said, "polio when he was young."  

"That's one we got," Science mumbled to himself.

Homo Sapiens (D)Evolves into Homo Medicus

Author: 
The Editors

A well known science and medical author, Wades Tudeep, has proposed an upgrade to a famous Shakespeare quote from Hamlet:

“What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable!  In action how like an Angel!  In apprehension how like a god! . . . [proposed addition] . . . In DNA, what an  encyclopedia of disease!"

At a recent conference of medical futurists obsessed with human DNA, Wades Tudeep said, “with the sequencing of the human genome and all of you scientists’ fabulous efforts, we now know for sure there are three types of mankind:  (a) the sick, or those with disease,  (b) survivors, or those who lived through a disease, and (c) previvors, or those who are about to get a disease.”

Scientist superstar Kneels N. Thegrass was delighted with the discovery.  

“This is big.  This is so big.  We finally now have a name free of any romance or mystery for humans who are not sick.  The announcement today that most of us are “previvors” will be remembered for decades to come.  I’m so glad Tudeep’s new book, “The Ultimate Book on the Gene,” is being made into a documentary so that every previvor will know who he or she is and no longer continue with all this folderol. It's another giant step forward for science.”

Yale literary professor, Old Hare Bloomedalready was customarily nonplussed.  

"Darwin may have told us where we came from, but did that take the mystery out of it?  Go ahead;  call humans--who Shakespeare compared to gods and angels--ticking genetic time bombs.  I prefer the lingo from a former scientific time, that of homo sapiens, or wise man.    Yes, we’re ticking time bombs, but at least we’re wise ticking time bombs."

Wades Tudeep was quoted at the conference in a tweet by @LoveToTweetScience as saying that the “most important thing is to keep the human being in the center of the work.”

“Tudeep is confused,” tweeted back Dr. Bloomedalready.  “He doesn’t know whether he wants to be a scientist or a writer."

Update:  Since this article was published, a San Francisco artist has just announced her new show, Previvors.  The exhibition, a collection of framed printouts of human genetic code, is planned to tour the country and has heralded great acclaim.  

“This is big,” wrote New York Times art critic, Rob Art Withasmile, "this is so big.  It builds on every great work of art mankind has ever made about himself.  To show man as his--and her--genetically naked, vulnerable self always on the brink of destruction--it’s just awe inspiring.  With regard to the issue of content, the disjunctive perturbation of the spatial genetic relationships brings within the realm of artistic discourse a distinctive and quite formal juxtaposition. Who would have thought of it?” 

Why the Revolution Will Start in Biomedical Research or How I Learned to Love Antibodies

Author: 
Mike Simson

“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.”

This portion of a famous speech given by President Kennedy frames the problems we are facing not only in our government, but in biomedical research. These problems are caused by the lack of transparency and traceability under which the biomedical research industry operates, exemplified by research use antibodies.

Tim Bernard, head of the biotechnology consultancy Pivotal Scientific in Upper Heyford, UK says that the 2 million antibodies on the market probably represent 250,000–500,000 unique ‘core’ antibodies. If what Tim Bernard stated in this Nature article is true, then every antibody manufactured will be relabeled an average of 4 to 8 times. This means that the average antibody is available on at least 4 to 8 different vendors' catalogs, which appears to researchers as unique products offered by each vendor. In some cases, the same antibody can be offered in a dozen or more catalogs under different brand names. In the case of the first example presented above, the researcher buys all available products on the market to find out that only a few are unique.

This would not necessarily be an issue if there was not an all-time low public confidence in the findings published in scientific journals. A report released in 2012 stated as little as 11% of the most important published biomedical research could be reproduced by the industry's top scientists at the biotech giant, Amgen, which caused great alarm in the scientific community. A year prior to the Amgen report being released, a team at Bayer HealthCare in Germany supported the claim of low reproducibility with their conclusion that only about 25% of published preclinical studies could be validated to the point at which projects could continue.

It is the relabeling of scientific products which eliminates traceability for the future reproduction of scientific work, and is a business practice consistently used by most vendors. Even though this business practice is at the heart of the dilemma, it is rarely mentioned as a factor by many of the industry's key opinion leaders. Dr. Jan Voskuil, the former CSO of Everest Biotech and founder of Aeonian Biotech, makes it clear that manufacturers are under a "gag order" to not identify themselves as the makers of the products they sell to the vendors.

Because there is not traceability there is also no real accountability.

The vendors keep up the appearance that they themselves are the primary source of all their antibodies. This enables them to keep QC data on the product sheet that were generated many years ago, thus keeping the sales going, while the actual antibody that generated these data may have sold out and has been replaced by successive other batches (from different animals) and the current batch on sale may no longer be able to generate such data at all. Vendors accrue data from their own customers or from their own QC department, thus making the OEM product look unique. Even monoclonal antibodies that are theoretical genetic clones and therefore identical throughout time, suffer from batch-to-batch variations, but not to such severe extent as some types of polyclonal antibodies where the genetic variation is greater. Nonetheless, certain hybridoma clone numbers are still being used for decades while, just like with all cell lines, hybridomas cannot be the same after so many passages.

All the mess is amplified due to the vast network of vendors obtaining each other’s catalogue items. Consequently, the same antibody starts to occur several times in one catalogue. We can now understand how the practices of an industry undermine scientific pursuits.

Ordum Ab Chao

The reaction to these reports discovering the low levels of reproducibility in preclinical research has been rightful concern and alarm at the highest levels of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which issued new criteria for grant reviews aimed at bolstering the reproducibility of NIH-funded research. Another direct result of this “Reproducibility Crisis” was the establishment of the Global Biological Standards Institute (GBSI) which released a study in the journal PLOS "The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research" which states $28 billion is spent in the United States each year on biomedical research that can’t be reproduced by other researchers. GBSI has now assembled committees to mandate new guidelines that all companies selling antibodies must follow.

Interestingly, members on these committees are comprised of the industry’s top companies which also practice the relabeling of other manufacturers' products. Some believe this may create a barrier to competition with those setting the guidelines eliminating smaller companies from the marketplace. One could draw a correlation with the ushering in of the “Patriot Act” after the terrorist attacks on “9/11”. It was passed into law under the guise for addressing holes in our national security, but has since been discovered to have turned over individual rights to the State. Is the GBSI promoting an enormous problem only to quickly manufacture a solution that will only serve to reinforce the powers that be?

The solution is quite simple, but extremely difficult to implement. It is like meditation where the act only requires you to stop thinking and only be aware of your bodily sensation--simple in theory, but very challenging in practice. Here, in preclinical research we need a platform that identifies original manufacturers and makes their products, i.e. antibodies, available in affordable sample amounts for parallel testing. The platform would also allow for feedback from researchers regarding their experiments and product performance to be submitted in the form of a review. These reviews would be interactive allowing manufacturers to offer guidance and optimization of protocols used. If we can create an egalitarian system in preclinical research, then maybe it will spread to other industries and the rest of the world. That’s how big this really could be if we get it right.

Click here to see a fuller version of this article.

Five Reasons Why Scientists Should Not March . . . And Five Reasons Why They Might Just Should

Author: 
Editors

Gene and Tonic

1.  There’s no good and elegant way for a scientist to march.  For one thing, there are no slide projectors.  In fact, there are really no tools for marching, except the bull horn.  And that takes someone who wants to talk loudly.   Duh!  Scientists don’t actually do things.  They get tools to do them.  

2.  Scientists marching in America would look too French.  Guillotines are for frogs and mice, not people.  

3.  Marches are boring.  It wouldn’t be two minutes before scientists at a march would be checking the microbiome of nearby fire hydrants, recording local temperatures, or objectively and systematically observing bystanders’ reactions to . . . a science march. How can you observe the mice when you are yourselves the mice, they'll ask.

4.  Science is not political, and scientists shouldn’t act like they are people.  Everyone knows that scientists must remain anonymous and never surrender to modern celebrity culture.  Watch out,  you might get elected to something.   Isn’t one of the steps of the scientific method to make sure you never piss off anyone in power?

5.  It’s a waste of time.  Scientists are too busy doing science to worry about whether they have the right to do science.  Besides, if they leave their labs, who would work on the next generation of nuclear toys for Donald to show off to Vladmir when he comes over for playtime at the White House?  

 

Still not convinced?  Neither are we.  Scientists must march because:  

1.  This is not your mom's lab anymore.  Science lost in the election.   Some have argued that a march would upset Trump's voters.  Oh, yes, because Trump voters are the epitome of restraint.   Republicans ran on an anti-science platform . . . and won.  Deal with it.

2.  It worked for Canada.   Ask Stephen Harper what happens when you muzzle scientists.

3.  OK, if not a march then a giant COLLECTION.  How about scientists walk across the country and collect all the life saving medications, the iPhones, the bridges, the pasteurized milk, and those cute glow-in-the dark fish.  

  Attention Americans: please have all products of science out on the street corner in bins ready for collection by Earthday.  And don’t forget your microwave and all those dildos!

4.  Go ahead! You know you want to. Show off that newly inscribed lab coat.   You think Trump's supporters are frightened of the way you think?  Wait ‘til they see you in uniform.

5.  And finally . . . because Laura Hercher said to.

Labcoats of the world, unite!

Predictions in Genomics for 2017

Author: 
The Editors

It's Friday the 13th.  Time for some Gene and Tonic.

 

January 20th (Inauguration Day) - It is revealed that Obama has had a secret biology lab just down the hall from the oval office.  

Genomics bloggers are in a flurry to find out which sequencer the former president was using.  Mick Watson is sure that it was a MinIon.  Matthew Herper reaches out to the Russians.

 

January 21st - Congress repeals and replaces Obamacare, a 20,000 page law, in four and a half minutes. 

A Harvard political historian writes in an OpEd,  "Future generations will look back on this as one of the great feats in all of American history.  Actually, for all human history.  It's on par with the Great Pyramids.   And Republicans did it without slaves.   And on a Saturday."

 

February 16 - Oxford Nanopore announces the free genome. 

"The technology is totally there," says a spokesperson for the company.  "We're still working out the details of the business model, but we know we'll make it up in volume."

 

March 14th  - Vice President Mike Pence announces his own Cancer Moonshot. 

"We're proposing to ship everyone with cancer to the moon to prevent its further spread," he says.

 

April 6th - The FDA puts forth a new policy:  Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

 

May 20th to Nov 15th - Alt right groups found a billion dollar institute to study genetic ancestry.   After six months, researchers at the institute realize we are all from Africa.  The institute is shut down immediately.

"Let's face the truth.  The Left has their gods too!  Can anyone say, Journalism and CRISPR?" asks white supremacist leader, Jimmy Duh, at a national conference to thunderous applause.   "And we're all for both Journalism and CRISPR.  Don't get me wrong.  We just think they should ONLY be used for religious purposes."

 

June 2nd - Illumina announces the launch of another customer.

 

September 20th - Texas and North Carolina ban prenatal testing.

"Are we pro life or not?" asks a Texas Assemblyman.

 

November 8th - After President Trump signs an executive order forbidding the use of any federal funds for CRISPR in human trials, California voters overwhelmingly pass an initiative approving $3 billion to pursue CRISPR in human trials.  The popular initative also makes CRISPR the state emblem, replacing the bear on the state flag.

 

December 28th -  Science Magazine reports on the most common line spoken by American pet parrots for the year. 

"Drug prices must come down.  Drug prices must come down.  Pretty bird.  Drug prices must come down."

10 Healthcare Questions for Watson

Author: 
Editors

This week Charlie Rose interviewed the robot Sophia for CBS.  We've come up with the following questions for the famous computer, Watson.  

1.  What is health?  For years, the medical philosophers have said it's the absence of disease.  But is health a negative quality, a lack? The World Health Organization has a positive definition:  “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”  But this doesn’t work for those of us with a chronic disease who have learned to have some happiness.  Machteld Huber from the Institute for Positive Health says health is the “ability to adapt and self manage in the face of social, physical, and emotional challenges.”  Health is an ability?  So can babies be healthy?  Please help us Watson!  We won't be good at healthcare if we can't even agree on what health is in the first place.

2.  Are you healthy, Watson?  

3.  Why do drugs cost so much?  This question continues to elude the best minds of our generation.  Perhaps with all your processing power you can come up with a complex answer.  For certainly, the obvious answer can't be right.

4.  Why does the $1,000 genome cost $2,000?  

5.  If a diagnosis is 50% of solving a health issue, then why don’t we pay 50% of healthcare dollars for the diagnostic testing?

6.  Are there enough government funds going into the war on death?

7.  Who would you say was better at health:  Christopher Hitchens, who died at sixty-two but went out swinging, or Mbah Gotho from Java who is 145 and desperate to die because he has outlived all 10 of his siblings, four wives, and also all of his children?  

8.  Is medicine just a good excuse to do more fun biology?  Or is biology, and the naming every letter of our genome, just a distraction from health?  In other words (and we mean no offense by this) is science really the blackbox of health?

9.  If we can prevent disease through gene editing or mitochondrial transfer, should we?  Why wait til our kids are 6 years old and sick with a rare disease to lobby the FDA for drugs?  Why not get a mitochondrial transfer of healthy genes before birth?

10.  Doctors are calling him a textbook narcissist, a sociopath, a psychopath.  Please, Watson, give us the definitive diagnosis for Donald Trump!!!

Editorial: Four Ways to Improve Your Academic Career (And Avoid the Call of Industry)

Author: 
The Editors

A career path in academia should not be seen as one of compromise. 

Several recent articles, such as this editorial from Nature, suggest that defecting from academia to industry isn't all that bad.  We feel quite the opposite:  the soiled life of business should be avoided at all costs.   We must continue to fight against the stigma that has long been associated with the academic career.   Staying on in the school room for one's whole life is a noble calling.   

Surely the biggest reason for this awful stigma comes from the fearful and debilitating condition known as being "granted tenure."    But tenure doesn’t have to be dreaded.  Yes, there are some frightful times leading up to full professorship, i.e, those years spent as a slave, excuse me, postdoc, or writing that first of several books that no one will ever read.  We encourage our readers to remember there were some good reasons you decided to don those silly looking robes and avoid any exploration of the business world.   Here are some suggestions for transcending the academic stigma and turning your career around:

1.  Think of tenure as a good thing.  It doesn’t have to be all doom and gloom.  It doesn’t have to strip you of all your values.  Just because you got called before the regents and vice regents and assistant vice regents and the assistants to the assistants of the vice regents one day and awarded tenure, does not mean your life is over.  Plenty of people have found reasons to live after they no longer had to really work anymore.  Look at all those people who retire from industry and find a life in golf.    Campuses are often beautiful places.  They have museums and elegant fountains.  Consider tenure another kind of retirement.  A good self help book on this subject:  Life after Tenure by W. E. Prozac.

2.  Allow that title after your name to lead to a positive self image.  Just because everyone rolls their eyes whenever you say you have a PhD, doesn’t mean you have to let it get you down.  Embrace this archaic tradition.  Meditation can be a great help here.       Next time you’re alone in your office, imagine yourself in a special bubble, the PhD bubble.  Imagine this bubble is full of light that no one can darken with their smiles.  After you have mastered this alone in your office, give it a try out in the hallway.   Soon you’ll be able to feel good about that title when you’re standing in front of all those young people with their whole lives ahead of them.  It even works when you’re off campus and out in the "wild"-- for example, in the line at the grocery store.  Just because you don’t have to work hard for money anymore, doesn’t mean you can’t work hard at that self image.

3.  Embrace Twitter.  It’s a great place to feel like your mind is active without the danger of accomplishing something.  You shouldn’t have to accomplish anymore.  You have tenure.  Let go of that protestant work ethic your parents worked so hard to install in your operating system.  The academic life was meant to be one of purity--unsoiled by sweat and struggle.  Let go of work and embrace Twitter.  It’s helping so many others in your shoes.

4.  Stop competing.  Competition is for losers.  And winners.  But you are better than both.  It’s a hard concept to grasp, but you no longer need to win or lose: you’ve already won and are now beyond winning and losing.  You already know everything.  It’s time to spread your great wisdom to the rest of the world as you see fit.  Book some conference talks.  Tweet a lot.  Whenever you are with someone, do all the talking.  This is your time, your day.  You’re the gold medalist.  The rest of the world has been put there to fight amongst each other and praise you.  And whatever you do, always keep in mind:  that Nobel is on it’s way.

It’s time to normalize life in the academy.  For too long academics have dealt with a low self image, have been marginalized by those in industry.   Which is no doubt why there are so many defections.   You may be an academic because you never dared try anything else.  But try to be more active in your passivity.  It will do your career wonders.

 

 



New to Mendelspod?

We advance life science research, connecting people and ideas.
Register here to receive our newsletter.

or skip signup