Team Science

TAG of the Week:      The Solo Act vs. Team Science

Highly collaborative teams produce results. Science is a diverse and highly dynamic field that requires the interaction of different scientists. Think back on the pair-bonding paper, which fields of science can you identify? Team building is now occurring across institutions. Why do you think that this is effective? What are ways do you think that it might slow down the work flow? From the graph with the nodes, do you think that certain groups are "cliquey" in their research? Does this enhance or detract from scientific research?  

Click on article link: 

 http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-team-science-productive-collaborative-nature.html

The Cost for Life

TAG of the Week: The Cost for Life

If you are a policymaker and you've read that screening for Lynch Syndrome can save lives and money in the long-run, what pieces of evidence would you like the article from BioTech Now to present to you in order for you to assess whether a program can use this information in the near future? Now as an engineer in a biotech company looking into cancer-related genetic markers, what do you think will support and enhance future research goals? Do you agree or disagree with the court ruling as an engineer? What ways can both financially support the interests of venture capitalists and biotech companies while keeping these tests accessible to those who need it? Do you think a change in health policy planning must be involved in regulating costs?

http://www.biotech-now.org/section/health/2010/12/22/cost-effective-genetic-testing-proves-advantageous-identifying-cancer-risk
(some background) - http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/8/989

Good Bugs

TAG of the Week: Good Bugs

The human body is its own ecosystem comprised of various pH levels and flora (the bacteria that colonize on our skin, live in our gut, and coat our teeth). We co-exist with these bacteria as they help us digest food and these bacteria co-exist with each other. When there's an imbalance whether its our hormone levels or a competition between the bacteria, inflammation can occur and cause diseases and conditions like peptic ulcers, eczema, and psoriasis. From the article, what can you suggest will be the next implication(s) in the interaction of humans and bacteria in the context of disease? Do you think we will be treating the bacteria or the human symptoms or temper with both? Being presented with the interplay of humans and bacteria, has this article changed your overall perception of bacteria as being "bad for you"?

Click on the article link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7949651/Human-Microbiome-Project-a-map-of-every-bacterium-in-the-body.html

Sleepless in Genomics

TAG of the Week:  "Why People Can Run on Little Sleep"

"My long-term goal is to someday learn enough so we can manipulate the sleep pathways without damaging our health," says human geneticist Ying-Hui Fu at the University of California-San Francisco. "Everybody can use more waking hours, even if you just watch movies."

Do you think that by taking a gene variant and exploiting it to manipulate our body so we can accomplish more things in the day  is a good idea or a harmful one? Do you think that with more waking hours people would be more productive or wasting more time? How important do you think it is to have sleep and to allow your body to rest? And how important is it to be able to accomplish more things in the day? Aside from workaholics and college students, do you think that this research could potentially benefit certain other people?   

Read News Clip:

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/112502/why-people-can-run-on-little-sleep-wsj

Stem Cells

TAG of the Week:  Stem Cells

Moving around the embryo debate, researchers have managed to avoid killing embryonic stem cells in stem cell research. Do you think we avoid controversy by using this method? While it is still in its nascent stages, many mutations can still occur. Should we continue on in this path to perfect this procedure so we avoid the ethical debate of destroying an embryo? What potential ethical issues are there?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/13/ips-reprogrammed-stem-cells


The UK and Sweden have relatively more liberal rules with stem cell research and researchers in these countries have made many valuable contributions to the scientific and medical community, while other countries in the EU have placed more rigid rules on stem cell research. President Obama also overturned the ban that former President Bush placed on using federal spending on stem cell research. By allowing more research to be focused on stem cells, are we actually helping or potentially harming future generations? Do you think we have been promised too many cures from using stem cells with little results in recent years? If you think that we should press on with stem cell research, can you provide examples where stem cells have proved to be quite successful in treatment and therapies?
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110316/full/471280a.html

Say Yes to Drugs !

TAG of the Week: 

With new technology comes the high cost of using it. If you were a physician treating an HIV positive patient, would you use it and what are your reasons? What factors would hinder you from using the new technology? Dr. Barlow mentions that new physicians seem to be hesitant about using this new technology but in Taiwan (http://www.genomeweb.com/making-case-cost-effectiveness-pharmacogenetic-testing-taiwan) there seems to be a cost-effective reason to implement and incorporate pharmacogenomic testing for HIV patients. Can you suggest possible barriers in the US health care system or other factors that can be involved with the hesitance?

http://formularyjournal.modernmedicine.com/formulary/Pharmacoeconomics/Gene-testing-stakes-a-claim-in-the-health-benefits/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/679086

Genes & Diet

TAG of the Week:


Using genetics to tailor your diet to prevent disease seems to be a good way to address lifestyle changes, for example for those who have a genetic predisposition to diabetes.  Do you think that with new technology, people are now approaching health from a genetic perspective solely and not from an empirical or observational perspective? In other words, are we now becoming too reliant on genetics to dictate to us what we should eat on a daily basis? If our bodies need a multitude of nutritional supplements, wouldn't it seem obvious that maybe we should diversify our food? For many Americans, this can be difficult. What factors contribute to the lack of diversity of food in meals in the US? And how about in other countries? According to the causal mechanism model, several component causes work in combination to cause disease. In the article, Farooq Ahmed says, "Teasing out the relationship between food and disease is a tricky task, one that involves tens of thousands of people and encompasses hundreds of nutritional and genetic factors." How do you assess the strength of the role of genetics and nutrition on disease? 


click on the news link: 
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327_supp/pdf/468S10a.pdf

Recreational Genomics

TAG of the Week:  Recreational Genomics

With genetic testing for disease risk and athletic ability available to consumers online, genetic testing can only tell so much about their inherited genes. Clearly not everyone develops characteristics they are at genetic risk for. So should be concerning ourselves with such tests? Do we concern ourselves with treating diseases and conditions we don't have now?   We see that Dr. Kathiresan does not often recommend genetic testing to patients and can give clinical recommendations without these tests. When do we draw the line of benefiting from this technology and using it for unneeded purposes?
 

Current Event:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342604575222082732063418.html

Patent Mother Nature

TAG of the Week:     "Patent Mother Nature"

Advancement in science and medicine is often driven by the excitement of new knowledge, the ability to search for a cure, and the possibility of improving population health ... in some cases, the opportunity for fame, fortune, and "commercial interest" ... Patenting medical devices, intellectual property, and genes have been vehicles to promote innovation, competition, and better goods for all.  On the other hand, could one really patent something Mother Nature has programmed in everyone of us?   

Our discussion ties back to a previous post asking about who owns genetic property. In this case, does a company have a rights to a gene?  Make a case for how you would support the case for Myriad to keep their gene patents? Would allowing Myriad to keep the gene patents encourage research or stifle competition? Or is the central issue about who gets a bigger cut of the money and profits?

Current Event:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/health/02gene.html