Helix

Yeah, I heard about that too. Also, the difference in race is a fragment of a gene -- not even a whole one. Race really doesn't matter, it's a minor aspect of a person. Not sure how the KKK will take the news.....(not sure they read either).

Yep I've heard of this sounds really promissing' date=' but I caution you this is very preliminary work. It will be a while till they get this right for many organs. The first thing you'll probably see this applicable with is bone.

 

Basically it uses something like an ink jet printer to spray thousands of layers of cells and matrix on top of each other to creat a 3d organ. This works like other 3d printers.

 

The idea is that the cells with grown and replace the matrix eventually giving a proper organ.

 

There are so many hurdles to overcome though I wont even get into it.

[/quote']

 

Your right, the work is preliminary but I'm still in awe it can even be done in theory. But I disagree with you about bone being the first thing primarily because bone is pretty complicated. B-cell producing sites and the various blood tissues would make bone a challenge. I think arteries will be the first because they are pretty simple.

 

Also, I read in another article that the way it prints makes tubes pretty easy to make (it prints in spirals). So blood vessels and arteries will probably be the first.

 

Skin might also be easier because it is relatively thin and wouldn't use so much scaffolding. But the neurons and glands would be tricky...

 

This technology is promising, with it you can print out pretty much anything 3D (even chairs and tables....new way of manufacturing) but it has many obstacles in its way.

That's really great; I didn't know similar technology existed. I heard, a while back in some HHMI article, that some scientist had figured out a way to make cellular scaffolding by injecting the materials into the body and then turning them on by shining a light on them. So, you could "turn on" the scaffolding from outside the body.

Very nice, thanks for the advice.

Just because we haven't found any link between specific genes and intelligence doesn't mean none exists.

 

In fact' date=' I can easily prove that intelligence has at least some genetic factor to it, in only two steps:

1) the brain is a mass of cells formed and molded during embryonic development under biological control which can be chemically disrupted (think fetal alcohol syndrome).

2) Different species have vastly different intelligences and mental capabilities.[/quote']

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I thought there was no link. Of course there is, I meant none had been found.

 

To dichotomize it as "nature *or* nurture" is overly simplistic; a more accuate view is "nature *and* nurture"' date=' with both contributing and interacting.

[/quote']

 

Right, but as you said, nature alone doesn't rule all. The proponents of this think that genes play a huge role, while I think the brain gives us the raw material that our environment shapes. Genes do shape the brain, by virture that the brain is made of cells, but it does not totally determine intelligence. It's similar to the idea that your brain (and therefore your genes) influence temperment but your experiences and environment influence how angry/happy you'll be on a daily basis. That's probably a controversial view, but it's what I belive. Nurture through Nature: The resources given by Nature are refined and shaped more finely by Nurture.

I just was reading that book earlier.

And to respond to the question: Nurture (your environment) controls who you are as well so it is useless to let Nature (genes) run everything. nature vs. nurture. I agree with Brad89, personality can't be understood from genes alone, and I doubt it ever will be.

And as an aside I think I am mentally disabled....I just realized Gattaca, on purpose, uses the base letters of DNA. I knew the film's plot and, obviously, ATCG but had never but 2 and 2 together. Learn something everyday.

You can tell about birth defects or physical traits. Brain size might be able to be gleaned. But like

That's what I thought. So, would a camera and a buffer work, or is it more involved? I saw an article in an old Amatuer Biologist column that used a camcorder and a biffer to take video, so a camera and a buffer should work for pictures.

I happened along this article, and I don't know whether to be shocked or amazed:

http://www.avionnewspaper.com/media/paper798/news/2005/11/15/ScienceTech/BioPaper.Breakthrough.Enables.Printable.Organs-1058600.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.avionnewspaper.com

A new breakthrough in "bio-paper" called hydrogel could make this dream a reality. At the University of Utah, Professor of Medicinal Chemistry Glenn D. Prestwich has developed a revolutionary paper out of two sugar chains and reactive filler, a substance already being used to eliminate wrinkles in the face and to provide extra cushion in the knee.

 

The process of organ printing includes the use of Prestwich's hydrogel as the structure upon which to build the organs. Bio-ink will be mixed with a patient's own healthy cells in some type of print cartridge and then deposited in layers onto the hydrogel. The newly deposited layers will then be covered with hydrogel and the process will continue until the organ is created.

 

The breakthrough behind this is that the hydrogel acts as a structure and a network for the living cells to grow and expand upon. The hydrogel now makes it possible to create living tissue out of singly separated cells. The hope is to implement this technique in real time, possibly allowing doctors and surgeons to literally repair damaged organs with live tissue from the owner, eliminating the problem of organ rejection.

This seems to be quite an achievement for both biology and engineering, but will it work? Can organs be structured using cellular/bio-paper scaffolding? Would the "paper" provide sufficient support for the organ? And what about the various cells within an organ, how will the protocol know where to place each cell?

I believe that simple organs, such as skin, can be manufactured. Skin is complex, sure, but less than a brain. It is thin enough, also, to be printed without using thousands of the sheets of bio-paper scaffolding. Maybe hearts and livers can be printed out in the future. The idea of Xenotransplantation, putting animal organs into people, can be outright forgotten if this works.

This sounds like something out of a sci-fi book, but it seems to be true. My question is: will it work?

Arthur C. Clarke was right:

"If we have learned one thing from the history of invention and discovery, it is that, in the long run - and often in the short one - the most daring prophecies seem laughably conservative."

I went to the Nikon Small World exhibit at a local lab where I happened to work this summer, and I found it to be amazing. Especially since some of the pictures are done with low magnifications, easily do-able by amateurs (read: me).

So, I did some preliminary research and most techniques sounded fairly involved, which is obviously to be expected. But one said that placing any ol' disposable to the eyepeice and taking a picture would produce a decent picture...obviously I'm skeptical. At least there should be a buffer tube over the lens and the eyepeice to eliminate excess light, right?

So if anyone knows if that would work (I highly doubt it) or what woul work, I would appreciate knowing.

I have a microscope with a top magnification of 400x (I haven't bothered to get a stronger one because my current research project is focused on extracting and amplifying DNA) and I could see blood cells decently well.

900x should be great, and if it's a bargain; go for it. Good luck with your interests; microbiology/genetics are my focus too and I think they're amazing.

I think it is ridiculous to assume that intelligence is 1) governed by an arbitrary test devised about a century and a half ago and 2) that intelligence is controlled, in a biochemical sense, by genes.

These researchers fail to realize that there are more factors than just genes that control our body. This debate, Nature vs. Nurture, is still waging on and blindly accepting Nature is bad science.

This whole idea of IQ being controlled by genes was first brought up in the late 1970's when three scientists, Sinet, Lejeune and Jerome found that there was a considerable correlation, reported on one site as .58, between IQ and erythrocyte glutathione peroxidase activity (GSHPx). However, in 1996 the polymorphisms of gene with peroxidase traits were studied and no correlation was found. I believe that the first results in 1979 and the ones recently, are over-exaggerated or just wrong. The researchers had good intentions, I'm sure, but in my view the facts aren't there. One study isn't enough, and shouldn't be enough, to convince the whole of the scientific community that intelligence and genes are interlocked with a nameable gene (as opposed to them being linked in theory.)

Successfully showing a link, however, would have wide-spread consequences as it would be the first time intangible mental qualities, such as the conscience and rational thought, were linked directly to a specific gene. Connections were forged before but in a general sense, not as specific as an actual gene.

So, there's my opinion on the matter. In any case, it's a fascinating topic. If more duplicable results arise, matching these, then I might rethink my stance. You never know.

OK thanks, I'll look into that. And yeah, AzurePhoenix, it's a real hassle to live with (so she has said).

To ecoli: Sorry, I didnt give details about what I'm trying to do (my inner noob escaping). I'm going to try to observe inheritance; how physical traits are passed on and how they are expressed in the litter. General observational stuff about inheritance.

To Primarygun: Yes, it analyzes sequences pretty well and if you look at the Public records there are quite a few professional labs using the site. I think it's pretty cool, but it is a little tricky to upload and save sequences.

The project I'm working on now, on evolutionary divergence, is in a slow patch so I am going to try my hand at some Mendelian genetics while I wait.

I've looked around at some articles and websites and I think I might know how to go about all of this, but I am still wondering if anyone has any tips for this. I can imagine this sort of thing is trial-and-error so I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed.

Also, thought this website was cool for amateur genetics: http://www.bioservers.org/bioserver/

It's a cool website that let's you upload sequences and then analyze them for various things. Pretty nifty.

My close friend suffers from migraines and occasionally she will lose control of her senses as a result(i.e. hearing things that aren't there) and will have her blood vessels explode and constrict, causing pain.

She gets the more mild type of migrains too, but this subtype really has me baffled mainly because I've never heard of it before. Her doctor said it's "rare but not unheard of", so maybe someone around here knows about it? Thanks.

I thought AIDs mutated so quickly that natural immunities, especially ones 500 years old, would be useless after a few generations. Isn't that the main trouble with AIDS, it's super-rate of evolution? I would definitely think that the surface receptor aspect, the cause for partial European immunity, would quickly become obsolete as AIDS mutated.

No I said they're illegal in the US to own as pets. In the UK it's illegal to realease them, but they're fine as pets.

Oh, okay. I didn't know what country you're in. Still, they sound like cool pets illegally or legally.

 

The answer to your question is 1. 1 Virus inside the body can give you a cold given the right oppertunity.

If that one virus gets to a cell and then injects its RNA that call will then start to produce more viruses and then it will burst spreading the viruses and this goes on and on untill your immune system finally kills them.

 

That makes logical sense but for some reason, it takes a few more than 1 to do the job (thankfully for us). Because only one viron isnt going to be much of a threat to the immune system and it's a lot harder for one viron to trick our immune system than, say, 30 or more. So, I think the minimun is around 7-20 depending on the virus' lethality (Ebola takes 7, obviously because it's one hardcore motherf***er).

About your immunity, and your daughter's, I would think that either you are extremely lucky or maybe your immune system is a notch above normal and your wife's is a notch below. Because if this is a regular thing, than luck can only go so far. I think, and I'm no immunologist, that maybe you've had some of these viruses before and your immune system is a tad better than everyone elses. Same for your daughter, which makes sense. If yours is better than so is your offspring's, that's the premise of natural selection; that good attributes can be carried genetically resulting in a species changing.

So, did your daughter and you go anywhere alone for an extended period of time? A vacation? That could have allowed for you both to catch minor versions of generic viruses and be able to fight them.

I really don't know though; this is just me thinking aloud. Whatever the case, your lucky you dont have do deal with all the viruses everyone else does.

I would go with the killing jar if I had to kill them; it's more euthanasia than murder.

As an aside, how did you get them? Like you said, they're illegal, that's what stopped me from getting a pair.

I saw a special on avian flu on the Science Channel. It seemed pretty pessimistic; Tamiflu is in short supply and doesn't work well anyway, we would never be able to control the outbreak, health officials would be overwhelmed etc.

I think that's a bit extreme, we would be hit but we'd survive. I believe they are catering to people's desire to be scared. But this is a real threat and needs to be taken seriously. Bush has been paying lip service by ordering a few vaccines but I haven't seen any real actions taken towards pandemic planning. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems as if only a few members of the CDC and the WHO actually care. he rest feign interest or are trying to capitalize on the fear people have of viral outbreaks.

Ahh, well...are we all going to die?

With smoking, ED is the least of your problems. Lung cancer is a huge risk and isn't all hype; you really do get it.

So, yeah, quit smoking. You can get erections and not have to die at the hands of your own malfunctioning genes...

It means brother, yes. Interestingly, if you drop the last i, it means 'goblin'

Well, if your brother is younger then the two are fairly related:-p

Thats when the disorder was found or invented (whichever your opinion is). If it has only been around 25 years then is this enough time to see the long term affects?

I like how you phrased that. ADD and ADHD are odd dieseases, in my view, because they seem to be a "blanket". Any child (or adult) who has trouble learning is invaribly stuck with the diagnosis of having either ADD or ADHD. It seems to the conspiricy-theorist in me that this was half invented by doctors to handle kids who weren't that smart. Sure, the disease acutally exists and is a terrible problem, but it is used so often I doubt how many cases are real and how many are just the "misc. learning problems" category. Just my 3 cents.

There's a software that supposedly capitalizes on the fact that there can be mental excersises to increase reading speed. It's called EyeQ and through optical stimulation (following moving images, practice reading etc) it is supposed to up your reading speed.

Also there are speed reading courses which are pretty well-known, probably because President Kennedy was famed to have taken one.

I am suspicious about both of these as I haven't seen actual evidence that reading speed can be controlled, but who knows? There may be some things venture capitalism has found out that genetics hasn't.

I would think not; what's the stimuli for the mutation? I doubt stress could change genes but if it could, we'd evolve a lot faster in our society (stupid joke, sorry). Still, I don't think stress can alter genes, but it sure can alter the brain (PTSD for example).