General Science

Yet another stem cell bill that eases restrictions on stem cell research has passed in both the House and Senate. Will it get vetoed?

This is a very interesting article for anyone who likes sports. Some scientists have been studying how athletes get a "field sense". They are beginning to understand what the "field sense" is and are finding way to teach it.

Three independent labs are reporting this week that they have confirmed last year's finding that inserting 4 genes into mouse skin cells is sufficient to convert them into embryonic stem cells. This is a huge advance, especially now that it has been confirmed by so many indepenent labs. Irving Weissman is quoted as saying, “From the point of view of moving biomedicine and regenerative medicine faster, this is about as big a deal as you could imagine." I'll follow up with more links, etc. as I find them.

Now that is a long distance relationship worth pursuing. Beam me up! And for those a little rusty on their quantum theory, the cliff notes: http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2611757.ece#2007-06-04T00:00:25-00:00

Unlocking the genetic code was one of the most insightful scientific discoveries in the history of man. It is amazing to think that, in contrast, sequencing every base pair of one who unlocked the genetic code provides almost no insights at all. When you cast aside all of the hype, the sobering truth is that genome sequencing may for years to come provide nothing more than a lot of purines and pyrmidines. It is my belief that trying to extract insights into the genetic basis of human disease from the primary sequence will be a challenge for generations to come.

I just wanted to let everyone know that I am going to start blogging frequently on JeffsBench. The motivation behind this is to discuss the future of biomedical research with an emphasis on how technology can be used to improve the research enterprise. The theme will be Science 2.0.
I will also happily take contributions from anyone who has an idea they want to share or discuss. Please check out my first post, Science 2.0.

Imagine your worst nightmare ... drinking a glass contaminated with the urine of Oliver Cromwell might not come to mind, but that would be a nightmare indeed. Of course, the sad part is that is no nightmare at all, rather a probabilistic postulate of the quantum mechanical underpinnings of our strange existence.

The Gotham Prize is breaking the mold for funding. It's $1 million of private money for the best idea grant about cancer research. The best part is that the grants will be posted online for prior to the award. The goal is to have other scientists and the authors discuss the ideas before the award is given out. What a great new idea for peer-review! This is one way to embrace web 2.0 for the sciences.

The link between BRCA1 & 2 and familial breast cancer is well known, now for the first time a group describes mutations that are associated with "common" breast cancer. They identifiy FGFR2 mutations in up to 60% of women--a stunning number. I've attached the news link in this week's Nature since this content is free. The article is in the same issue.

Collaborative web documents, instant messaging, open source models of publishing, web 2.0... Current technologies are making it easier to share information real-time and encouraging collaboration amongst scientists. It is only natural to assume that ideas formed in this way will be, by definition, collective. A whole generation of young scientists, fluent in these technologies, are emerging and their collective voice is beginning to be heard. No wonder it feels awkward when they hit graduate school and are told they have to "independent" to succeed. It is as unnatural to ask a young scientist to stop collaborating as it is to tell them to turn off their wireless.