Tag Archives: biotechnology

evil empires

1 Reply

Part of my light, uplifting summer reading program. The 80s were my grade school years. I certainly remember the Cold War being a big deal. But knowing that by 1989 it was pretty much over, and knowing about what went down in the 60s, I just always assumed that things were winding down by the 80s. This book has changed that perspective. By the 80s, the arsenals were  at an all time high, and communication was at an all-time low. What is really chilling is the picture painted about the Soviet paranoia in the early 80s – the leaders really were terrified that a U.S. nuclear first strike could come at any moment. The book describes how Reagan gradually came to realize this, that the Soviets could actually see the U.S. as the bad guys, and at that point he dropped the “evil empire” rhetoric and started talking with them. So although you can argue that he was recklessly belligerent early on, you have to give him some credit for at least partially defusing the situation. Then when Gorbachev comes along, he gets the rest of the credit. Another interesting sub-story here is how the KGB just completely got the best of the U.S. intelligence. And ultimately, that played a role in the U.S. being in the dark and misreading Soviet intentions throughout much of the period.

Even if there are no clear good or bad guys in this story, the Soviets are certainly not the good guys when it comes to biological weapons. They pursued them secretly, vigorously, and cynically for decades. It is truly chilling to think some of these weapons are still out there. Luckily, genetic engineering technology hadn’t really come into its own yet, so all they had to play around with was garden variety germs like smallpox and plague. Today of course, the technology is here and much more accessible to the average Joe Dictator or madman than back then. Even if there are no “evil empires” out there.

18-year-old sperm

Leave a reply

A scientist says all men should freeze their sperm at age 18. The argument is that because the risk of autism and certain diseases is slightly higher later in life, doing this would provide some benefits if done consistently across an entire population. The risk to any individual is still small, and the technology is still pretty expensive and imperfect.

Unnatural Selection

Leave a reply

Amazon description:

Gonorrhea. Bed bugs. Weeds. Salamanders. People. All are evolving, some surprisingly rapidly, in response to our chemical age. In Unnatural Selection, Emily Monosson shows how our drugs, pesticides, and pollution are exerting intense selection pressure on all manner of species. And we humans might not like the result.

Monosson reveals that the very code of life is more fluid than once imagined. When our powerful chemicals put the pressure on to evolve or die, beneficial traits can sweep rapidly through a population. Species with explosive population growth—the bugs, bacteria, and weeds—tend to thrive, while bigger, slower-to-reproduce creatures, like ourselves, are more likely to succumb.

Monosson explores contemporary evolution in all its guises. She examines the species that we are actively trying to beat back, from agricultural pests to life-threatening bacteria, and those that are collateral damage—creatures struggling to adapt to a polluted world. Monosson also presents cutting-edge science on gene expression, showing how environmental stressors are leaving their mark on plants, animals, and possibly humans for generations to come.

vaccines without needles

Leave a reply

New technology may deliver vaccines without needles. Actually, there are needles but they are so small and short you can’t feel them.

But with if a vaccine could be delivered by simply applying a patch? That’s Mark Prausnitz’s goal: creating a nickel-sized bandage-like device covered with 100 microscopic needles that would puncture the skin, then dissolve to get the vaccine into the body.

Maybe that sounds scary — 100 needles instead of one. But Prausnitz says you can’t really feel the needles. “It wouldn’t be like sandpaper or scratching,” he says. “You would have a hard time feeling a difference between the needles being there or not being there.”

April 2015 in Review

1 Reply

Negative stories:

Positive stories:

  • Mr. Money Mustache brought us a nice post on home energy efficiency projects. This was a very popular post.
  • Biotechnology may soon bring us the tools to seriously monkey with photosynthesis. (This is one of those stories where I struggle between the positive and negative columns, but clearly there is a potential upside when we will have so many mouths to feed.)
  • Donald Shoup, author of The High Cost of Free Parking, is retiring. That might sound bad, but his ground-breaking ideas are continuing on and actually seem to be going mainstream.
  • Lee Kuan Yew, who took Singapore “from third world to first” in one generation, passed away (in March, but I wrote about it in April. Let me be clear – I am an admirer and it is his life I am putting in the positive column, not his death.)
  • Donella Meadows explained how your bathtub is a dynamic system.
  • Robert Gordon offers a clear policy prescription for the U.S. to support continued economic growth.
  • I explain how a cap-and-trade program for stormwater and pollution producing pavement could work.
  • Joel Mokyr talks about advances in information technology, materials science and biotechnology.
  • Some U.S. cities are fairly serious about planting trees.
  • Edmonton has set a target of zero solid waste.
  • Saving water also saves energy. It’s highly logical, but if you are the skeptical type then here are some numbers. Also, urban agriculture reduces carbon emissions.
  • Peter Thiel thinks we can live forever. (positive, but do see my earlier comment about mouths to feed…)
  • A paper in Ecological Economics tries to unify the ecological footprint and planetary boundary concepts.
  • Philadelphia finally has bike share.

U.S. Innovation Deficit

1 Reply

MIT is warning that U.S. investment in R&D has dropped enormously. I find this idea very disturbing, that in an age of accelerating science and technology, which corporations and governments should have every incentive to take advantage of, they are failing to do so.

Declining U.S. federal government research investment — from just under 10 percent in 1968 to less than 4 percent in 2015 — in critical fields such as cybersecurity, infectious disease, plant biology, and Alzheimer’s are threatening an “innovation deficit,” according to a new MIT report to be released Monday, April 27.

U.S. competitors are increasing their investment in basic research. The European Space Agency successfully landed the first spacecraft on a comet. China developed the world’s fastest supercomputer and has done research in plant biology uncovering new ways to meet global food demand and address malnutrition. Meanwhile, U.S. investment in basic plant-related research and development is far below that of many other scientific disciplines, despite the fact that the agricultural sector is responsible for more than 2 million U.S. jobs and is a major source of export earnings.

The report, entitled “The Future Postponed: Why Declining Investment in Basic Research Threatens a U.S. Innovation Deficit,” highlights opportunities in basic research that could help shape and maintain U.S. economic power and benefit society.

 

Peter Thiel and immortality

Leave a reply

Logic and history suggest that getting your hopes up about immortality is a path to disappointment. Nonetheless, here is a fun Washington Post article about Peter Thiel and friends who believe otherwise.

“If you think you can only do very little and be very incremental, then you’ll work only on very incremental things. It’s self-fulfilling,” Thiel, who is 47 and estimated to be worth $2.2 billion, said in an interview. “It’s those who have an optimism about what can be done that will shape the future.”

He and the tech titans who founded Google, Facebook, eBay, Napster and Netscape are using their billions to rewrite the nation’s science agenda and transform biomedical research. Their objective is to use the tools of technology — the chips, software programs, algorithms and big data they used in creating an information revolution — to understand and upgrade what they consider to be the most complicated piece of machinery in existence: the human body.

The entrepreneurs are driven by a certitude that rebuilding, regenerating and reprogramming patients’ organs, limbs, cells and DNA will enable people to live longer and better. The work they are funding includes hunting for the secrets of living organisms with insanely long lives, engineering microscopic nanobots that can fix your body from the inside out, figuring out how to reprogram the DNA you were born with, and exploring ways to digitize your brain based on the theory that your mind could live long after your body expires.

March 2015 in Review

Leave a reply

Better late than never – here’s my month in review post.

Negative stories:

  • The drought in California and the U.S. Southwest is the worst ever, including one that wiped out an earlier civilization in the same spot. At least it is being taken seriously and some policies are being put in place. Meanwhile Sao Paulo, Brazil is emerging as a cautionary tale of what happens when the political and professional leadership in a major urban area fail to take drought seriously. Some people are predicting that water shortages could spark serious social unrest in developing countries.
  • More evidence is emerging that published science skeptical of the mainstream climate consensus may have been influenced by fossil fuel industry propaganda, reminiscent of tobacco industry propaganda of the past. (By the way, tobacco industry propaganda is not a thing of the past – the industry is still up to its old tricks in developing countries that don’t stop it.)
  • El Nino has returned. Some are suggesting this is one mechanism whereby heat that has been absorbed by the ocean in recent decades could be re-released to the atmosphere. I don’t know enough to say whether this is a mainstream opinion or not.
  • Homework appears to be useless.
  • A Wall Street Journal op-ed predicts the imminent collapse of the Chinese government.
  • Farm animals, particularly pigs, are being given huge doses of antibiotics in developing countries. Beyond the risk of antibiotic resistance, it is a sign of the increasing intensification and industrialization of agriculture that is necessary as demand continues to rise.

Positive stories:

  • The concept of critical natural capital bridges the gap between strong and weak sustainability.
  • If we want to design ecosystems or just do some wildlife-friendly gardening, there is plenty of information on plants, butterflies, and pollinators out there. There is also an emerging literature on spatial habitat fragmentation and how it can be purposely designed and controlled for maximum benefit.
  • Innovation in synthetic drugs is quickly outpacing the ability of regulatory agencies to adapt. (I struggled whether to put this in the negative or positive column. Drugs certainly cause suffering and social problems. But that is true of legal tobacco and alcohol, and prescription drugs, as well as illegal drugs. The policy frameworks countries have used to deal with illegal drugs in the past half century or so, most conspicuously the U.S. “war” on drugs, have led to more harm than good, and it is a good thing that governments are starting to acknowledge this and consider new policies for the changing times.)
  • Deutsche Bank has joined the chorus predicting the coming dominance of solar power over fossil fuels.
  • There are more Uber cars than traditional taxis operating in New York City.
  • Global maternal mortality is down 40% since 1995.
  • “Germ-line engineering is much further along than anyone imagined.” This means basically editing the DNA of egg and sperm cells at will. I put this in the positive column because it can mean huge health advances. Obviously there are risks and ethical concerns too.
  • Somebody has invented an automated indoor compost bin that finicky urbanites might actually consider using.

Joel Mokyr

Leave a reply

I’m still reading about secular stagnation. Joel Mokyr from Northwestern University is one of the few optimistic voices in the book:

…digitalisation has penetrated every aspect of science. It has led to the re-invention of invention. It is not just ‘IT’ or ‘communications’. Huge searchable databanks, quantum chemistry simulation, and highly complex statistical analysis are only some of the tools that the digital age places at science’s disposal. Digital technology is everywhere, from molecular genetics to nanoscience to research in medieval poetry. Quantum computers, still quite experimental, promise to increase this power by orders of magnitude. In much recent writings, the importance of ICT on output and productivity has been stressed, and it is clearly of great importance. What needs to be kept in mind, however, is that the indirect effects of science on productivity through the tools it provides scientific research may, in the long run, dwarf the direct effects. A striking example is the growing use of high-powered computers and radically new software in material science.

Materials are the core of our production. The terms Bronze Ages and Iron Age signify their importance; the great era of technological progress between 1870 and 1914 was wholly dependent on cheap and ever-better steel. In many ways, core-materials can be viewed as general-purpose technologies made famous by Bresnahan’s and Trajtenberg’s (1995) seminal paper on the topic. But what is happening to materials now is nothing short of a sea change, with new resins, ceramics, and entirely new solids designed in silico, being developed at the nano-technological level. These promise the development of materials nature never dreamed of and that deliver custom-ordered properties in terms of hardness, resilience, elasticity, and so on. Graphene, the new super-thin wonder material, is another substance that promises to revolutionise production in many lines. The new research tools in material science have revolutionised research. Historically, progress in material science had been always the result of tedious and inefficient ‘trial and error’ or highly uncertain serendipity. The classic example is William Perkin’s discovery of aniline purple in 1856 and Henry Bessemer’s invention of the eponymous steel-making process the same year. Compare those with the situation today: researchers can now can simulate in silico the quantum equations that define the properties of materials, using high-throughput super-computers, and experiment with materials having pre-specified properties.

But not all research tools depend wholly on computational capacity. Of perhaps even more revolutionary importance is the powerful technology developed by Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer in the early 1970s, in which they succeeded in creating transgenic organisms through the use of micro-organisms. Genetic selection is an old technology; nature never intended to create poodles. But genetic engineering is to artificial selection what a laser-driven fine-tuned surgical instrument is to a meat axe. The potential economic significance of genetic engineering is simply staggering, as it completely changes the relationship between humans and all other species on the planet. Ever since the emergence of agriculture and husbandry, people have ‘played God’ and changed their biological and topographicalenvironment, creating new phenotypes in plants and animals. Genetic engineering means we are just far better at it.

photosynthesis

Leave a reply

From the journal Cell, here is a long, technical but interesting open source article on photosynthesis. First, it concludes that the current rate of increase in grain yields will not be sufficient to keep up with population and demand growth through 2050. Then they go through a range of biotechnology research avenues that hold promise to boost photosynthetic efficiency by up to 60%. They argue that the pipeline from beginning the research to seeing it pay off could be 20-30 years. With a lag this long, we can’t just wait until scarcity develops and drives up food prices enough to make the investments obviously profitable. Instead, the research needs to start now.

Two questions come to mind. First, is it the right approach to rely on biotechnology to increase yields so that demand can keep growing forever? Or should we be finding smarter ways to reduce waste, modify lifestyles and make do with what we are producing now? If we remove sunlight as a limiting factor, something else may become the limiting factor, such as water or phosphorus.

Second, if we create super-efficient crops is there a chance they will escape into native ecosystems and choke out all our native plants? Maybe the kinds of modifications that help annual crops produce more edible biomass under industrial field conditions won’t help them compete in the wild at all – you don’t hear about genetically modified corn or wheat straying far afield now. But it still seems like the ethics need to be considered.