World’s Biggest Animal Cloning Center Set for ’16 in a Skeptical China

Two companies in Asia plan to build an animal cloning facility in China next year that would be the biggest of its kind. The people behind this compare the cloning of animals to the process that is used to grow genetically modified strawberries. Many people are concerned with the safety of cloned meat. The owners of the company say that their beef will be the best tasting and will solve China’s problem of importing cows. The lab won’t just produce cows they will also make embryos of sniffer dogs, and racehorses. The companies claim that their goal is to start a social movement and get other people to start cloning animals as well. The people of China and around the world have a lot of doubt about the lab and there is little support for it.

If this cloning center does what it is setting out to accomplish it will have a tremendous effect on agriculture. We will have more animals than we need and not enough food for them. I do not know how they are going to sell their embryos because a farmer would need a female animal to carry the clone and it makes more sense to have your cows naturally reproduce. In Europe they banned cloning of animals so I do not see a trend of livestock cloning spreading to new locations. No one seems to be backing the lab and I do not think that they will be successful. This situation raises a lot of ethical questions about the agricultural business.

I thought that overall the article was well written and informative. I would have liked to know what the Chinese, or any other, government had to say about the plans, or if anyone is supporting the lab. I enjoyed reading the article and found that both sides of the argument were discussed. I liked how the author connected this example to what is happening around the world with regards to cloning. The use of online reaction provided a nice viewpoint from the ordinary people of China where most articles would only interview experts.

Guo, Owen. "World’s Biggest Animal Cloning Center Set for ’16 in a Skeptical China." The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Nov. 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/world/asia/china-animal-cloning.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience>.

Mosquitoes Engineered to Zap Ability to Carry Malaria

Scientist have recently engineered a way to have Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes spread malaria resistance instead of disease.  Anopheles stephensi are a type of mosquito that makes up twelve percent of the population in India. The scientist have created a “genetic vaccine” using a gene-editing tool known as CRISPR/Cas9. CRISPR/Cas9 comes in two parts: a DNA-cutting enzyme called Cas9, and a strand of RNA that guides the enzyme to the location in the genome to be cut. This gene editing tool will continually inject itself into the mosquitos’ DNA. This vaccine, a gene drive, would allow the mutation to spread to every mosquito in the population in just a few years. Gene drives are engineered pieces of DNA that copy and paste themselves into precise locations in an organism’s genome.“This work suggests that we're a hop, skip and jump away from actual gene drive candidates for eventual release,” says Kevin Esvelt, a synthetic biologist at Harvard University. When testing they found in the first generation that only two of 25,712 larvae screened had the glowing red eyes that indicated they carried the gene drive. However in the third generation 98.9%of the progeny of male mosquitoes descended from the original two males carried the gene drive. So this technique is very efficient except for the females. In most of the offspring descended from daughters of the original male mosquitoes, eye color indicated that Cas9 cut the target DNA but it didn’t actually carry the gene.

The scientists are now working on a new drive that would only activate in males now. Gene drives alone won’t eliminate malaria, but it could help clear the disease and keep it from coming back. Malaria is a serious disease there are an estimated 207 million cases of malaria each year. So finding a way to stop this would be great! It is very important discovery.

I thought that this article was definitely very detailed. It gave me a good understanding of the discovery and how it is done. Even though it was clear and detailed it was dull. I found myself spacing out and rereading over paragraphs. It is a informative article so that it makes sense that the article was not that interesting. But overall it was an cool topic to read about. And it was very informative.      

"Mosquitoes Engineered to Zap Ability to Carry Malaria." Science News. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2015.

Agriculture Linked to DNA Changes in Ancient Europe

Zimmer, Carl. "Agriculture Linked to DNA Changes in Ancient Europe." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/science/agriculture-linked-to-dna-changes-in-ancient-europe.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0>.

The article “Agriculture Linked to DNA changes in Ancient Europe” by Carl Zimmer explained the study of human genomes in Europe that helped trace changes to the human genome that occurred around the time of the agricultural revolution. The agricultural revolution brought changes in height, digestion, immune system and skin color that help create many of the varying traits we see today. Rasmus Nielsen, a geneticist at university of California Berkeley describes this study as a “time machine,” allowing us to gain a much vaster amount of evidence than the previous method of bone examination. These studies lacked information on when these changes occurred and whether these changes were due to natural selection or migration of people into Europe. In looking at DNA, scientists have discovered that Europe was full of hunter gatherers and that agriculture started with the emergence of a DNA resembling that from the Near East, leading scientists to conclude that people from the Near East migrated to Europe bringing farming with them. Dr. Reich, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School, analyzed 230 different human genomes from people living between 8,500  and 2,300 years ago. One important discovery was LCT, a gene aiding milk digestion which was made more common through natural selection after farming emerged. Another important discovery was a gene SLC22A4 which codes a protein to draw in the amino acid ergothioneine. This was essential to farmers who ate lots of wheat and other crops lacking ergothioneine, which this gene helped to better absorb. However, scientists have seen that variations in this gene can cause digestive disorders such as IBS, irritable bowel syndrome. Although many advances have been made, scientists are still looking for answers. This study was inconclusive about natural selection in height; there is an observed difference between the much taller people in the north of Europe compared to the shorter people in southern Europe.

This article is very important because it not only explains many parts of the past that were misunderstood, but it also gives us insight into variations today. In studying the DNA, we can see how the human genome has changed throughout time. This is important because we can see that what we are exposed to and what we eat changes the genome through natural selection. It is important to see that when agriculture was adopted, although genes were able to provide better absorption of nutrients, there were negative effects causing digestive problems. So although agriculture was an advancement in society and we were able to adapt, there are variations causing health problems. This was the first time that DNA was analyzed about how farming was brought to Europe and if scientists continue to do research on the changes to the human genome, we can track historic changes to the genome across the globe.

This article connected studies done on the genome and compared them to our prior knowledge. The article was very clear about the study performed by Dr. Reich and gave lots of information on genes that were discovered and how they furthered our knowledge of the human genome. However, I felt that the article could have been organized better. For example, the author put information about critiques of the study before the study. He also talked about other studies but didn’t give information on who performed them or even what was done to gain the information. However, the author was able to use the information gained from Dr. Reich’s study and compare it to our genome today. He made very good connections showing how natural selection has benefits in promoting genes that aid us, but can also cause harmful variations. Overall, it was a very interesting topic that although focuses on genomes from thousands of years ago, is still relevant today.

Engineering Mosquitoes’ Genes to Resist Malaria

          For my current event review, I read the article “Engineering Mosquitoes’ Genes to Resist Malaria” by Nicholas Wade. Two teams of biologists, both working out of the Irvine campus of the University of California, have collaborated to create a revolutionary species of mosquito designed to eliminate (or at least limit) the effects of malaria and other diseases carried by mosquitos throughout the world. This species of mosquito has been engineered to have two specialized genes, one of which “spew[s] out antibodies to the malarial parasite harbored by the mosquito… render[ing] resistant to the parasite and so cannot spread malaria.” The other change causes a mechanism known as a “gene drive” to take place, which allows the malaria-resistance genes to thrive within a mosquito population, nearly assuring themselves spots in the genes of future generations of mosquitos. As a result, nearly all of the offspring carry the antibodies. Kevin Esvelt, a gene drive expert at Harvard, is thrilled with the outcome of the collaboration, stating, “We have a wonderful chance of knocking down malaria and dengue fever and other diseases…” Interestingly, this is a case of how published, reputable journals allow scientists to come together and solve practical problems with their findings. Dr. Gantz and Dr. Bier, two men who almost single-handedly revolutionized the gene drive technique through a series of experiments not depicted in the article itself, published their results in the journal Science. When Dr. James, the man who, along with his team, had produced the antibody gene, saw this entry, he immediately called Dr. Gantz and Dr. Bier, seeing an imminent opportunity to spread this malaria-ridding gene through countless wild populations of mosquitoes.

The findings in these experiments and the consequent collaboration that took place can and likely will have profound influence on the world and specifically, human beings. Nearly 600,000 people die from malaria every year, and if these species of mosquito can be incorporated into wild mosquito populations in malaria-prominent areas, the risk the malaria poses to human populations can be quickly reduced. It is important to note, however, that humans are generally skeptical when it comes to genetically manipulated organisms (as they should be). An enormous risk associated with these mosquitoes is that the artificially introduced mosquito population could interfere with the natural cycle of organisms in the area, drastically altering the wildlife. Only time will tell what practical, and hopefully profound, effects these mosquitoes may entail.

Overall, this article was extremely well-written and clear. While gene-drive and genetic altering techniques are things that I have touched on as a student in biology class, I did not know nearly enough to understand all the terms in the article beforehand. However, the author did a tremendous job providing essential background information and explaining certain mechanisms in layman’s terms such that they were easy for me to understand. Specifically, the author’s mentioning of the history behind the discoveries and experiments allowed me to paint a picture in my mind of the events as they were taking place. While these are qualities that one would expect from a author writing for a reputable paper like The New York Times, the article also flowed well, as one clear idea led to the next throughout. As a result, I am glad I chose this article to read and review; I learned a lot.

World’s Biggest Animal Cloning Center Set for ’16 in a Skeptical China

Reviewed By Trevor Pettit

Northwest China’s port city of Tianjin is set to become host to the world’s biggest animal cloning center this upcoming year. China’s Boyalife Group and South Korea’s Sooam Biotech have set foot in a venture to create the world’s largest factory farming project. The compounds, consisting of a laboratory, gene-bank, and museum,  will “eventually churn out up to a million beef cattle embryos a year, as well as sniffer dogs, racehorses and other animals” (Owen Guo, New York Times). This enormous project is attached to a projected cost of $500 million.

The Chinese public has so far been anxious regarding the booming factory farming industry. Many Chinese citizens have posted their concerns with Boyalife Group and Sooam Biotech’s collaborative project across social media; however, factory farming is already playing a large role in China’s produce, and it could serve to help quell public food safety concerns. For example, many strawberries and bananas sold across China are products of cloning technology. Furthermore, Xu Xiaochun, and executive of this Tianjin Project, sees cloned beef as a solution to the overwhelmingly large population of low quality beef in China. Xu said, “One reason we have so much low-quality beef is because we haven’t applied clone technology...this is the only way to allow Chinese and many other people in the world to enjoy high-quality beef in an efficient manner” (Owen Guo, New York Times). Public food safety has become a large concern following exposures of scandals like melamine-tainted baby formula and recycled industrial “gutter oil.” Executive Xu concluded that the cloning process would be just like “pouring a glass of orange juice into another empty glass” (Owen Guo, New York Times).

Several analysts from China’s financial sector have questioned the profitability of this project however. They proposed that cloning may be a fiscally reasonable solution for combatting endangered species, but that farming via cloning would not produce reasonably priced meat. Boyalife Group and Sooam Biotech await approval from the Chinese Government as they continuing building their facility.

This article is extremely relevant because it proposes a solution to China’s many public safety issues -- cloning would ensure that meat comes from a viable source. However, with what would likely be a high pricetag, cloning may not be the ultimate answer, as legitimate meat would still be inaccessible to China’s explosively large working class. This article also illuminates much of the stigma attached to cloning. The Chinese people feel as though cloned product would be filthy and disgusting, even though it would, likely, be of much higher quality than what they currently have access to. The origins to this stigma seem to elude the author of this piece as well as Boyalife Group and Sooam Biotech.

I felt that this piece was written very objectively. The author did not seem to have any bias, but rather he just provided the entire context of this development and the opinions of the public and the company. This made the article very easy to read, and also gave the reader space to formulate their own opinion. This really made the article very intriguing to me, as I ultimately decided that I conditionally supported this venture depending on the price tag. As expected from a reputable source like the New York Times, I encountered no grammatical errors or spelling errors. In conclusion, I really enjoyed reading this piece for its objectiveness, for the relevance and depth of the topic, and for the great amount of information given in this piece. I would strongly recommend it.

Source:

Guo, Owen. "World’s Biggest Animal Cloning Center Set for ’16 in a Skeptical China." The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Nov. 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/world/asia/china-animal-cloning.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0>.

Paging Dr. Pigeon; You’re Needed in Radiology

Many view pigeons and other birds as animals that have no intellectual capabilities that could be beneficial to humans. However, pigeons have fantastic vision and can be trained to identify malignant and benign breast tumors like a radiologist or pathologist would. At the University of Iowa, researchers experiments with 16 pigeons who had been in studies before. Therefore, they knew the drill: pick correctly, receive food and receive nothing when they pick wrong. The researchers would place the pigeons in little boxes with touch sensitive monitors that showed the slides of breast tissue. Scientists then trained the birds to peck a blue rectangle when they saw benign tissue and to peck a yellow rectangle when they saw malignant tissue. However, experimenters wanted to test more. In one experiment, the birds were given slides in color and in black-and-white with varying degrees of magnification. In another, the pigeons were tested to see if they could detect calcifications which are difficult for radiologists to find. In a third test, the pigeons were shown mammograms to see if they could differentiate between a benign mass from a malignant mass. The results from these tests were encouraging: for the first test, where the pigeons were separating benign from malignant breast tissue, they averaged at 87 percent correct scores on already trained slides and 85 percent correct scores on slides they had never seen before. In the second test, the pigeons did just as well scoring with 85 percent accuracy on identifying calcifications. The third test did not go as well with the masses on the mammograms with 80 percent correctness on already tested slides  and only 60 percent accuracy on random new slides.

These experiments with the pigeons present possibly future medical tests that are faster and easier for doctors. The authors of the experiments wrote: “They may be useful as surrogates for human subjects in medical image perception studies because they can be used in repetitive ways that few people could tolerate.” These studies do no harm to the birds and result in positive testing results. In the future, who knows what other animals can do to help further the medical testing process related to cancer.

I was initially drawn to this article because it seemed different and interesting. I never thought that pigeons could be used medically. The author did a great job at summarizing the experiment. I liked how he included the exact percentages of the accuracies because it clearly demonstrated how successful the experiment is and how it can improve in the future. However, he definitely could have improved in some areas. I would have liked to understand how the researchers domesticated these wild pigeons to understand the difference between malignant and benign and how they trained these wild birds to peck the correct color. I also would have liked more information on why it was only breast cancer they were testing and not other types of cancer because the pigeons probably would have been able to notice the difference between malignant and benign. Overall, this was a very intriguing article to read and I am looking forward to see what other animals can affect the field of medicine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/science/pigeons-detect-breast-cancer-tumors.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront

Bakalar, Nicholas. "Paging Dr. Pigeon; You’re Needed in Radiology." The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Nov. 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2015.

In a Tooth, DNA From Some Very Old Cousins, the Denisovans

This article discussed how a tooth fossil was found in a siberian cave and that has yielded DNA from a separate part of the tree of human evolution, these “mysterious cousins” are classified as Denisovans. This species, as shown by the analysis of scientists, has evidence pushing back to 60,000 years ago, thus showing that they had the ability to live in harsh climates, considering their geographical location as well. These results also show that these Denisovans could have potentially breeded with other ancient hominins, “relatives of modern humans whom science has yet to discover.” The cave in which the traces of the Denisovans have been found is checked every summer. The cave is in the Altai Mountains in Siberia. Previous to this recent discovery regarding the Denisovans, they were known only from DNA in another tooth and a finger bone found in the cave in 2008. Analysis had shown them to be at least 50,000 years old, and with more study and analysis, they have arrived where they are today regarding this topic. Since there are virtually no bones to study, it is extraordinarily difficult to figure out what these Denisovans were like, but they do know that their closest relatives were the neanderthals. Scientists estimate that Neanderthals and Denisovans diverged on the human family tree 400,000 years ago. This “new” batch of analysis comes from a tooth discovered in 2010 in the cave in Siberia, and it, called Denisova 8, yielded only a modest amount of DNA. Although there wasn't much DNA, the scientists were still able to draw some important conclusions. This tooth is much older than the other discovered remains, approximately 110,000 years old.

This article has a profound effect on our society because it sheds much more light on possible relatives of humans and we can examine these Denisovans to draw some conclusions about things such as evolution. This article also adds to increasing evidence that our species kept company with many near relatives over the past million years. Also, by examining the diverse DNA of the Denisovans, we can draw comparisons between these and the Neanderthals, touching on how the Denisovans were much more complex, and much more similar genetically to the people in Europe right now. The DNA in the tooth can also lead to conclusions about the possibility of inbreeding of species. Although most of the genetic material in the tooth has a close relationship with the genetic material Neanderthals, some of it seems only distantly related to Neanderthal or human DNA.

One thing that I think this article succeeding in doing was in how the author (Carl Zimmer) included so much on how this recently discovered tooth is relevant and important, discussing the way we can examine the DNA of these Denisovans and compare it to that of Humans today. One thing I did not like about this article was in how Zimmer didn’t go into much detail about the other fossils found at all. This would be helpful because then the reader could see how the other discoveries compare to the tooth, and what this means for the human tree. One thing that could be improved would be if Carl Zimmer included more information about the other fossils found for the Denisovans, shedding much more light on the topic and the Denisovans themselves.

Zimmer, Carl. "In a Tooth, DNA From Some Very Old Cousins, the Denisovans." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Nov. 2015. Web. 17 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/science/in-a-tooth-dna-from-some-very-old-cousins-the-denisovans.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront>.