The DNA Network |
| GINA Becomes Law: Protection for Genetic Information [DNA Direct Talk] Posted: 21 May 2008 07:01 PM CDT Guest post from Ryan Phelan, DNA Direct’s CEO and founder: With President Bush signing the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) into law today, this marks the first civil rights legislation to pass in the 21st century! From the time I started DNA Direct, we have had people seek us out to order genetic testing because of their [...] |
| The Evils of Open-Access in the Developing World [evolgen] Posted: 21 May 2008 05:00 PM CDT I recently chastised Harold Varmus for equating open-access publishing with pay-to-publish. While open-access journals do tend to have higher author charges than pay-access journals, many journals make money from both author charges and subscriber charges. That is, they are pay to publish and pay to read. A letter to Nature this week challenges the idea that open-access publishing is good for the developing world by assuming the same fallacy as Varmus (doi:10.1038/453450c). Raghavendra Gadagkar, of the Indian Institute of Science, argues that the pay to publish model prevents underfunded researchers from publishing their work. This assumes that open-access publishers have a limited number of waivers for author fees. He would prefer journals publish articles free of charge and charge for access to the articles. In short, Gadagkar values authorship over readership. Gadagkar makes a valid point -- that a pay to publish model could severely limit the academic output from developing countries. However, it's unclear whether the open-access publishers have a limited number of fee waivers to offer. Will the open-access publishing model collapse if too many authors require fee waivers? Where is the tipping point? And will well funded researchers be willing to bear the burden of paying the author charges, indirectly, of poorly funded researchers? Read the comments on this post... |
| Posted: 21 May 2008 04:55 PM CDT So some very important things came to pass today. All of these things will have a major impact on the future of Genomic Medicine. First and foremost....I have a delivery system for Personalized... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]] |
| Bush Signs Genetic Nondiscrimination Bill Into Law [A Forum for Improving Drug Safety] Posted: 21 May 2008 04:49 PM CDT President George Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act into law this afternoon, making it illegal to discriminate on matters of employment and health insurance in the US based on genetic information. Many Americans cited concern about the misuse of their genetic information as the reason they did not order genetic tests that could improve and protect their long-term health. With these protections finally in place, we will hopefully see an acceleration in the adoption of genetic testing.         |
| Zinc Finger: Not A 70’s Rock Band [] Posted: 21 May 2008 04:14 PM CDT
… but a very cool scaffolding/molecular shortcut for protein folding. Complicated proteins just couldn’t flop together the right way without them. Nature’s pretty darned clever that way. Plus, we can’t stop saying it… Zinc finger. Zinc finger. Zinc finger. And if it’s not a band, it should be. “Dude, I was totally up on the stage with Zinc Finger…” |
| Evolution of a New Protein-Coding Gene [adaptivecomplexity's column] Posted: 21 May 2008 03:36 PM CDT How does a new protein-coding gene evolve? In most cases, new genes are essentially modified copies of older ones. An old gene produces a protein with a particular function; after one of many well known types of random events creates an extra copy of this gene, one copy may, through mutation, produce a protein with a different function. But how do protein coding genes arise in the first place? How do you get from a non-coding sequence to a coding one? |
| first-class healthcare for developing countries? it is possible [the skeptical alchemist] Posted: 21 May 2008 02:48 PM CDT Did you know that the heaviest burden for cardiovascular disease is carried by Africans and African countries? Did you know that cardiovascular disease is going to be the next medical emergency in Africa and other developing countries, following AIDS and malaria? And worst of all, did you know that bringing first-class health care to poor country (and poor citizens) is possible, and can even generate profit? All it takes is the will to change things, and a keen mind. Two things that Dr. Ernest Madu definitely has. If you think that realizing all of this is impossible and unrealistic, I will leave it to him to change your mind - with the facts. [You might not be able to see this video in your feed. If that is the case, please click here.] View blog reactions |
| Marfan Syndrome In The News [DNA Direct Talk] Posted: 21 May 2008 01:06 PM CDT Marfan syndrome has been in the news a bit recently ("Old Drug Offers New Hope for Marfan Syndrome"). Perhaps not coincidentally over at MedHelp's Genetics Forum, our senior Genetic Counselor Lisa Kessler has received a few questions about Marfan syndrome. Marfan syndrome is an inherited disorder that affects the connective tissues, which hold the body together and are involved in growth. Marfan syndrome can also affect the heart and blood vessels, bones, cartilege and ligaments, eyes, lungs, and skin. According to Janis Cortese, it's also "a big pain in the ass." |
| Today’s lecture: Neural networks [Mailund on the Internet] Posted: 21 May 2008 12:05 PM CDT Today’s lecture in my machine learning class was on artificial neural networks, slides below:
The approach to introduce them was to consider them just a way of automatically learning basis functions in a linear regression setup. While this isn’t really the full story, it is motivated by the project they have just handed in, where they needed to predict values based on trained linear regression models. Training linear models is rather straightforward, but guessing good feature functions (transformation of the predictor variables) is tricky, and for the data I gave them in the project, some of the models were downright evil. This should motivate having models where you don’t need to be able to guess the features — or at least where it isn’t as essential — and that is how I present neural networks. I think I’ll give my students another project now, that is just re-doing the first project but using neural networks instead of linear regression… |
| Retirement and Risk: Betting on Your Genes? [PredictER Blog] Posted: 21 May 2008 11:48 AM CDT Jane Sarasohn-Kahn of Health Populi points to an interesting report from the Society of Actuaries. In a survey of Americans age 45 to 80 both pre-retirees and current retirees are most concerned about the cost of health care in retirement. Pre-retirees worry about paying for "adequate care" and current retirees worry about paying for "long-term care". (These do not seem like mutually exclusive categories to me, but maybe I need to re-read the document: Understanding and Managing the Risks of Retirement: 2007 Risks and Process of Retirement Survey Report.) From a predictive health perspective, I wonder how personalized genetic information might change the risk perceptions and behaviors of those making retirement plans. Would, for example, a pre-retiring employee opt to work longer after acquiring a genetic test indicating an increased risk for a specific kind of cancer? If such a pre-retiree also learned that the peek incidence for almost all cancers is in late middle age and tapers off after about 70 years of age, they might work an extra decade just to be more certain that cancer wasn't "in the cards". On the other hand, would current retirees with genetic information that suggested a long (if not painless) lifespan purchase more aggressive insurance for long-term care? - J.O. |
| Google Health, Biomedical Mutual Organizations and Open Consent [The Seven Stones] Posted: 21 May 2008 10:09 AM CDT
In a provocative editorial (Bains, 2007, see also Nature Medicine News article), William Bains advocates that collectives of individuals, so-called 'Biomedical Mutual Organization', could organize themselves on a voluntary and self-funded basis to conduct clinical trials that would rely on extensive self-experimentation, data sharing and pooling of analytical resources. This proposal challenges the classical view that those who conduct a clinical trial should avoid conflicts of interest with respect to the outcome of the trial. On the other hand, Bains argues, this system would allow more innovative and radical trials to be performed, given that the subjects of the trial would have increased trust in the research process (being their own trial managers) and, hopefully, a more accurate perception of the risk/benefit balance involved. Another radical proposal is the concept of 'open-consent' as currently applied within George Church's Personal Genome Project (Church, 2005). Jeantine Lunshof, George Church and colleagues highlight in a recent review (Lunshof et al, 2008) the limitations of the current definitions of genetic privacy and confidentiality in view of the rapid advances in the fields of human genetics and personal genomics. In particular, the creation of large database interlinking individual genome-wide genotypes to extensive phenotypic profiles will make de-identification of such datasets increasingly difficult if not impossible (Lowrance and Collins, 2007). Under these conditions, it appears that the promise of absolute anonymity and confidentiality of private data is becoming unrealistic. Church and colleagues affirm that an 'open-consent' policy would avoid making such false promises and would therefore represent a more realistic way to formulate an adequately informed consent when accepting to participate to a human genomic research study. At last month's ESF Conference on Systems Biology, Hiroaki Kitano discussed the potential of multi-component, combinatorial therapies (see also Kitano, 2007). He introduced the tentative idea of an 'Open Pharma' strategy, which would attempt to exploit beneficial synergistic effects that may result from combined administration of cheap generic drugs. He envisions that this type of approach could ultimately lead the way to novel and hopefully more affordable therapeutic strategies, which would provide a potential alternative to the current single-target proprietary drug paradigm. Observing the launch of Google Health within the context of this series of rather revolutionary proposals, it is tempting to imagine for a moment what would result from large-scale self-experimentation with multi-component generic drug cocktails combined with web-enabled data sharing under some form of open-consent... Will 'Participative Open Pharma' be our future? |
| Finch 3: Defining the Experimental Information [FinchTalk] Posted: 21 May 2008 10:09 AM CDT In today's genetic analysis laboratory, multiple instruments are used to collect a variety of data ranging from DNA sequences to individual values that measure DNA (or RNA) hybridization, nucleotide... |
| I hadn’t noticed that… [Mailund on the Internet] Posted: 21 May 2008 07:20 AM CDT At Genomicron, Ryan Gregory refuses to participate in ResearchBlogging. Why? Because their slogan is Discussing and Creating Peer-reviewed Research. Discussing is fine, but we are not creating peer-reviewed research by blogging about it. I hadn’t noticed this slogan — it is only on the large icon and I only use the small icons when I use it in posts about published research — but it is not something I worry too much about. I like to read discussions about published papers in blogs, but I am not kidding myself that much research is being created there. I’ll still use the icon to highlight when I am discussing a paper — and not some more general issue. Another, older complaint, is that blogging on peer-reviewed research it can be confused for the actual peer-review process:
Again, I love reading about paper discussions — it feels like a global journal club — but I agree that the actual peer-review process has very little to do with blog discussions of papers! |
| Heavy Metal and Alzheimer’s [Sciencebase Science Blog] Posted: 21 May 2008 07:00 AM CDT
Forgetful quanta - Researchers have, for the first time, monitored oscillations in a vanadium-based molecular magnet. These so-called Rabi oscillations are characteristic of the disturbances that have so far prevented scientists developing a viable quantum bit, or qubit, for use in the next generation of probabilistic computers and encryption devices. According to one independent commentator, the research represents the passing of a milestone on the road to quantum computers. Now that scientists understand the cause of this problem they might be able to address it by swapping atoms with spin for isotopes with zero spin and so cut down on the noise. More spec news from DB and others on spectroscopynow.com A post from David Bradley Science Writer |
| "Discussing and creating peer-reviewed research" [T Ryan Gregory's column] Posted: 21 May 2008 06:04 AM CDT I have said in the past that I will not be participating in the "Bloggers for Peer-reviewed Research Reporting", which seems to have morphed into "Research Blogging". |
| Why Evolution is Wrong According to GodTube [Think Gene] Posted: 21 May 2008 04:06 AM CDT Note: A complete Introduction to Evolutionary Biology and Index to Common Evolution Rebuttals is at Talk Origins. As we here at Think Gene are Serious Internet Professionals (SIPs), it is my obligation rebuke this video in defense of Big Science. However, the fact is, although we are badass geniuses who run a website about biology, we too would trust the chubby-yet-dependable protagonist over the lean-and-nasty heckler for bio notes because we never attended class. This, plus the obvious effort it takes to do fancy CGI animation, does make the argument for “evilution” quite compelling. Sure, the fat guy probably owns box seat tickets to the Friend-Zone, but at least he chats up bubbly Christian girls at the Teen Bible Study. Biology science journals come pre-packaged with subscriptions to beat off to freaky hentai porn alone in your basement. Do you know how embarrassing it is when those annoying subscription cards fall out at the bookstore checkout? “Hey, I’m just a biology student! I’m not a godless anarchist sodomite loner, I swear!” [1] We do not have a fancy CGI animation team (just gedit), but we will try to be amusing. [2] Macroevolution and Microevolution are Just Academic Departments This movie’s core argument is that “macroevolution” is fundamentally different than “microevolution.” No, macro and micro evolution are the same phenomenon: evolution. The difference is how science about evolution is organized: macroevolution studies the mechanism of evolution over geological time scales, microevolution studies evolution over observable time scales. There are two types of evolution not because they study different natural phenomenon, but because of the pragmatic way academic departments operate. For example, theories for finding and dating fossils over millennia have little relation to the theories for studying bacteria cultures over weeks —even though both are “evolution.” So macroevolution and microevolution aren’t two theories about the natural world, they’re just two groups of scientists who rarely consider each other’s scientific papers relevant to their work. Yep. That’s the boring truth. Sorry. It is reasonable to believe microevolution yet disagree with theories in macroevolution. Many scientists do. However, a world view that exclusively believes microevolution and not macroevolution would be challenged to explain why the general mechanisms of evolution must only work for human-observable time scales and no longer. One such explanation is that the Earth is 6,000 years old. This theory meets the challenge… but is the Earth only 6,000 years old? [3] Species are Like Races: We Kinda Make Them Up The video claims that while members of a species do evolve, new species cannot evolve from existing species. However, The dirty little secret in biology is that we just make up what gets to be a species and what does not. And while some criteria for speciation exist like “can two members create viable offspring?”, there are exceptions. For example, wolves dogs can have viable offspring, yet we consider them different species. Breeds of dogs may have significantly different genotypes and phenotypes, yet we consider them the same species. The way we define species is similar to how we define race: “you know it when you see it” and “if it wasn’t decided in antiquity, it doesn’t count.” If tomorrow I claim to be a new race, you can’t refute me, but you don’t believe me, either. Yet, we know it happens, because different races exist now than they did in the past. Another example is continents: which big floating rocks are defined as continents, why, and how do we reclassify as land changes? What I’m trying to say is that if you don’t believe in speciation, you’re a racist and have sex with rocks. I hope that clears up any confusion. Making “New Information” Is Nonsense The video states that macroevolution “must take extra genetic information” and microevolution (adaptation) only “only works for information that’s already there… it can’t make anything new.” A quick refutation of this common confusion is that I can have an insertion mutation (extra letters in my DNA) and pass that mutation to my children. Many other refutations exist, but that’s obviously “making new information” at the micro level. “Conciliatory” Means “Critical of Both Sides,” Right? Fundamentally, a child taught in today’s schools has just as much justification to believe a scientific theory as any religious theory —both are believed because somebody was paid to read it to you out of a book and call you bad if you didn’t participate. Maybe that’s not true for Stanford [4], but I had to go to lame middle-class state schools and to church every Sunday. So while I have a huge chip on my shoulder, I do empathize. People are just people, and smart people are mostly just better at rationalizing whatever they prefer to believe. It’s our fault as educated people that both videos like this and lifesaving medicine are made in the same country. I blame those bio journal basement porn subscriptions. Footnotes [1] Except Josh, who is. That’s actually his pickup line. [2] We felt it would be irresponsible to file an NIH grant for CGI when clearly those funds are needed to swat sandniggerdly jihadis inconveniently living on what could be $4/gal gas that I’d have to buy. [3] No. [4] Though elite universities exist first to raise rich people’s children right, not necessarily to produce intellectual value, and certainly not as a reward for high school performace. |
| What does DNA mean to you? #6 [Eye on DNA] Posted: 21 May 2008 03:16 AM CDT
Thomas of Aminopop tells us: I’ve always been a technologist, a hacker. For me that inclination has played out mostly in the arena of computers and software, but the larger Hacker Ethos — of using existing technologies in new or unexpected ways, or of combining new and old technologies in surprising ways — keeps leading me towards DNA. And DNA seems like the most hackable substance on the planet at this point. For me, that insight started with an interest in Genetic Algorithms — a programming approach that leverages raw computing power, profligate mutation and fitness selection over traditional software design. Once I started to grok how GAs worked, I started getting this strange, gut feeling for the billion-year, mondo genetic algorithm derby that is Life On Earth. Here’s this linear data stream — the genome, or better yet, all the genomes — written in this foreign language, totally protean in expression, capable of transforming a planet… I mean, infotech is great, but it’s really nothing next to the power of sequenced protein. How can you not be just totally hypnotized by that awesome power? And once people harness it, I think it’s going to make the infotech boom look like a tea-party. And I’ve always been kind of a closet Life Sciences geek, so that suits me fine. So that’s it: to me, DNA represents the Next Great Hack — maybe the Last Great Hack; who knows what the world — what humanity — will look like on the other side of the biotech boom? As an investor, DNA means opportunity: huge leaps in efficiency, innovation, design and scale of drugs, foods, fuels, manufactured hard goods, even information technology. Hard to even imagine all of it. I don’t think people generally get it, yet. That’s why I’m doing my blog, Aminopop.com — as a regular discipline to try to get a handle on it all. I don’t even feel like I’m very good at it, yet, but not to try seems kind of insane, especially at this moment in history. So I just jump in. As a humanist, DNA suggests a moment of truth, historically speaking. Wresting our ongoing genetic definition from the mostly cruel forces of natural selection is going to be a profoundly defining moment. What is human? It’s what we say it is — and what we write that it is, when we master the glyphs, grammar and syntax of the genome. It’s the ultimate act of existentialism. (I know, I know; maybe I saw Blade Runner too many times…) |
| Scientists discover a molecular scaffold that guides connections between brain cells [Think Gene] Posted: 21 May 2008 12:49 AM CDT Brain cells known as neurons process information by joining into complex networks, transmitting signals to each other across junctions called synapses. But "neurons don't just connect to other neurons," emphasizes Z. Josh Huang, Ph.D., "in a lot of cases, they connect to very specific partners, at particular spots." Dr. Huang, a professor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), leads a team that has identified molecules guiding this highly specific neuronal targeting in the developing brains of mice. The researchers report in PLoS Biology that in some cases, these molecular guides — non-signaling brain cells known as glia — form a kind of scaffold. This scaffold, in turn, directs the growth of nerve fibers and their connections between specific types of neurons. As they learn through research like this how the brain develops its complex wiring, the scientists hope they can clarify what goes wrong in disorders like autism.
The Cerebellum's 'Organized Architecture'
Distinctive wiring patterns are unmistakable in the cerebellum, a brain region best known for controlling movement, in both mice and people. Compared to regions involved in more sophisticated functions like vision and thought, "the cerebellum is an easier place to start, because of its very organized architecture," Dr. Huang says, although he notes that other parts of the brain have their own specific wiring patterns. Central to the wiring architecture of the cerebellum are so-called Purkinje cells, a type of neuron that deploys a bushy array of fibers called dendrites that extend through layers of cerebellar territory. The dendrites gather signals from many other neurons in the cerebellum and send signals to other parts of the body. The complex wiring pattern emerges during the early growth of the brain, when individual neurons migrate from their places of origin in other brain regions and emit filaments called axons that connect to particular parts of other neurons, such as the dendrites. Dr. Huang likens this process to the address on a letter that brings it from another country directly to your door by specifying the country, state, city, street, and house number. He and other brain researchers have learned much about the higher levels of this addressing scheme, identifying, for instance, chemical signals that guide axons to the right section of the brain, and different signals that lead them to the appropriate layer within that section.
How Neurons Form Synapses
Only recently, however, have Dr. Huang and his colleagues traced the chemical signals leading neurons to form synapses with specific parts of other neurons. Such sub-cellular specificity is critical to ensure the precision and reliability of communication among neurons. Synapses are the tiny gaps across which nerve cells exchange signals, conveyed by chemicals called neurotransmitters. A few years ago, Dr. Huang's team established that a protein from the immunoglobulin family directs one group of cerebellar neurons to connect with a specific part of Purkinje cells. Immunoglobulin proteins are best known for acting as antibodies in the immune system, where they take on myriad forms to attack new invaders. Here, however, they are observed to be involved in the wiring of the brain. "The striking feature is that there is a lot of capacity for variety" in immunoglobulin molecules, Dr. Huang explains. In the nervous system, their versatility may help them guide cells to form synapses with specific partners. Intriguingly, Dr. Huang adds, immunoglobulins have been implicated in neural developmental disorders, such as autism. "There is good evidence that these disorders involve miswiring of the nervous system," Dr. Huang says, which may reflect a problem with immunoglobulin-guided synapse formation.
A Guiding Scaffold Made of Glial Cells
In the work reported in their newly published paper, Dr. Huang's team traced the sub-cellular targeting of a different set of cerebellar neurons called stellate cells, which make numerous connections to the dendritic "bush" emanating from clumps of Purkinje cells. Unlike the cells they had studied previously, however, these neurons need help to form synapses. The researchers developed sophisticated techniques to label different cell types with chemical markers, and found that non-signaling cells called glia act as a scaffold, guiding the growing axons of the stellate cells and determining where they form synapses to the Purkinje cells. In this role, the glia act something like "matchmakers" to bring the stellate and Purkinje cells together. But Dr. Huang notes that the scaffold of glia interspersed among the neurons allows each stellate cell to make contact to many different Purkinje cells. A direct attraction between stellate and Purkinje cells, he suggests, might lead two cells two pair up exclusively. Source: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory |
| Sleep-deprived brains alternate between normal activity and ‘power failure’ [Think Gene] Posted: 21 May 2008 12:47 AM CDT New imaging research shows that brain activity differs in sleep-deprived and well-rested people. The study, in the May 21 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience, shows that individuals who are sleep-deprived experience periods of near-normal brain function, but these periods are interspersed with severe drops in attention and visual processing. This study shows what happens in the sleep-deprived brain and may explain why sleep-deprived people fail to stay alert. "The main finding is that the brain of the sleep-deprived individual is working normally sometimes, but intermittently suffers from something akin to power failure," said Clifford Saper, MD, PhD, of Harvard University, an expert unaffiliated with the study. STL-B The research team, led by Michael Chee, MBBS, at the Duke–National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School in Singapore (Duke-NUS), used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain blood flow in people who were either kept awake all night or allowed a good night's sleep. Researchers tested the same participants in both conditions. During imaging, participants did a task that required visual attention. Researchers showed them large letters composed of many smaller letters. Participants were asked to identify either the large or small letters and to indicate their responses by pushing a button. Well-rested and sleep-deprived volunteers showed a range of reaction times. Those participants with the fastest responses, both in sleep-deprived and well-rested conditions, showed similar patterns of brain activity. However, well-rested and sleep-deprived participants with the slowest responses—also called attentional lapses—showed different patterns of brain activity. Previous research showed that attentional lapses normally induce activity in frontal and parietal regions of the brain, "command centers" that may compensate for lost focus by increasing attention. However, during attentional lapses, Chee and colleagues found reduced activity in these brain command centers in sleep-deprived compared to well-rested volunteers. This finding suggests that sleep deprivation reduces the brain's ability to compensate for lost focus. Sleep-deprived people also showed reduced activity in brain regions involved in visual processing during attentional lapses. Because the brain becomes less responsive to sensory stimuli during sleep, reduced activity in these regions suggests that, during attentional lapses, the sleep-deprived brain enters a sleep-like state. "To my knowledge, this is one of the first studies to look carefully at brain imaging during lapses of consciousness after sleep deprivation, the equivalent of 'blanking out,'" said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, at Stanford University, who was not involved in the study. Although attentional lapses result in the same behaviors, "lapses due to sleep deprivation are clearly different neurobiologically than lapses in well-rested people," Mignot said. Saper says the study highlights the importance of preventing sleep deprivation in people who are doing critical tasks, like night driving. Although sleep deprivation harms decision making and may increase on-the-job errors, sleep-deprived workers may not know they are impaired. "The periods of apparently normal functioning could give a false sense of competency and security when, in fact, the brain's inconsistency could have dire consequences," study author Chee said. Source: Society for Neuroscience |
| When biotech pork doesn't mean GFP spare ribs [Omics! Omics!] Posted: 20 May 2008 11:38 PM CDT Tuesday morning's Globe carries a front page item, with the headline above the fold, outlining the wayward course which Governor Patrick's biotech initiative has taken. Originally outlined as a broad sweep to nurture biotech growth in the Commonwealth with an emphasis on academia, the project has morphed in the Legislature into a set of earmarks. None of the earmarks are completely devoid of biotech relevance, but they certainly aren't going for broad strokes. $13M for an interchange (near where I live) to relieve commuter congestion around a big Wyeth biopharmaceutical production facility & $13M for a water treatment plant in Framingham which Genzyme needs to support an expanded production plant there. Both will help retain existing biotech facilities which are important employers, but neither of these is likely to drive any growth outside the specific plant targeted (should the Wyeth environs sprout a plethora of omics companies, I will happily figure out a way to eat crow during my exponentially shortened commute!). Other funds are targeting state university favorites of legislators. U Mass was always going to get a new stem cell repository (which it was pointed out originally was a clever hand to Harvard, which wouldn't mind getting a graceful exit from that business), but the tab is now up to $195M. Nearly $50M will go to build a life science center at a Western Mass school not known for life sciences education; indeed, it doesn't even have a graduate program in the field -- but does have a powerful pol as an alumnus. University professors & at least one biotech CEO (Genzyme's) are already crying foul, but this is unlikely to have much effect. Massachusetts is effectively a one party state with little involuntary turnover in the Legislature (or the U.S. Congress seats come to think of it). The pols already have retreated to "It's the public money & we have the perogative to spend it!" -- true, but not exactly a justification for how they're spending it. Who is to blame for the mess? Governor Patrick need look no farther than his mirror. First he made insane estimates of the job creation it would drive -- something in excess of 4X the current employment in the entire existing life sciences sector. Then he burned all his political capital trying to get casino gambling legalized in the state, and then at the moment of the key vote was off to New York signing a book deal rather than corraling a few last votes. With no real leverage, he's at the mercy of the Legislature. The quote in the article suggests that he's ready to sign whatever comes his way, a hollow victory preferable to an honorable defeat. One thing Patrick clearly underestimated, perhaps because he really is even newer to the state than I am (not quite to the 2 decade mark) is that there is an enormous geographical divide (not that I anticipated it when I initially reacted to it just over a year ago either!). The conditions that favor biotech tend to be in Boston, Cambridge and some surrounding areas -- with Worcester (about 1 hour away) the one other large outpost. Everyone feels that anyone closer to Boston is getting a better deal than they are. So a biotech bill likely to favor the apparently favored was going to have a hard time without a bit of bacon fat to grease the skids -- but once you wave some pancetta before the pols, it's hard to get them to stop. |
| When biotech pork doesn' [Omics! Omics!] Posted: 20 May 2008 11:15 PM CDT |
| Thanks To All [The Gene Sherpa: Personalized Medicine and You] Posted: 20 May 2008 06:09 PM CDT Once again, I would like to thank everyone who has surrounded me and helped me launch this new webcast service. Including the wonderful DNA Network! We are committed to doing monthly series for both... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]] |
| You are subscribed to email updates from The DNA Network To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner |
Inbox too full?  Subscribe to the feed version of The DNA Network in a feed reader. | |
| If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: The DNA Network, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment