The high pollution in the oceans is a big problem on the planet. According to recent research, it is likely that in the year 2050 we will find more plastic than fish in the waters of the seas, and for this reason there are many people working to generate solutions to this problem, some very imaginative to reverse this situation.
Currently the novelty is a bacterium , developed by students Jeanny Yao and Miranda Wang , who have been developing this project since their school years and today reap the fruits of it. They already have patents and have obtained a financing of 400 thousand dollars to start developing the product. All this with only 20 years old.
They have already won 5 prizes thanks to this project, they became popular as they were the youngest to win the Perlman science prize. All thanks to its tiny bacteria capable of transforming plastic into CO2 and water. The technology is used in two ways: To clean the beaches and also to produce raw materials for clothing.
"It is practically impossible to make people stop using plastic, we need technology to break the material, and everything becomes biodegradable, " says Miranda Wang.
The development of this technology is divided into two parts: First the plastic is dissolved and the enzymes as catalyze whereby the plastic becomes highly malleable fractions. These components are placed in a biodigester station , where they behave as if they were leftovers of food. The project runs in just 24 hours, to move from plastic to water, really promising.
COMMENT: The question is, is gene editing safe? Human's are notoriously known to make mistakes, and gene editing has the potential to become dangerous because genes mutate and we may not be aware of what has happened for generations. If you think GMO foods are a bad idea, this is even worst.
SUMMARY: Imagine you could edit a mouse's genes to be resistant to Lyme Disease. The mouse would breed and evolution would take its course, leading to the extinction of the disease. That's the vision for scientists developing CRISPR, technology that allows scientists to rewrite the code of life. William Brangham talks to Michael Specter who wrote about CRISPR for The New Yorker.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM (NewsHour):CRISPR is a technique that allows scientists to go into the DNA of a plant or an animal or even a human being, and remove or replace a small part of that organism's genetic code.
This technique, which can be used to improve crops, eliminate genetic diseases, or specifically target the viruses and pathogens that have killed billion, could be a revolutionary advancement.
The potential for CRISPR is described in the recent issue of The New Yorker. The story is called “Rewriting the Code of Life.”
And I'm joined now by its author, New Yorker staff writer Michael Specter. He joins me from California.
Michael Specter, welcome.
In your story, you profile a young scientist named Kevin Esvelt. And I want to quote a line from your story. You say that Esvelt directs the — quote — “sculpting evolution group at MIT, where he and his colleagues are attempting to design molecular tools capable of fundamentally altering the natural world.”
I mean, that's a pretty extraordinary set of ambitions. What are they trying to do?
MICHAEL SPECTER, The New Yorker: You know, they're trying to look out the problems we have in health, in crops in a variety of ways, and rewrite DNA, which is the basic code of life, so that it can make us healthier, safer, protect crops, protect trees, protect endangered species.
It's a tremendously energetic and ambitious idea. And it has — like all wonderfully ambitious ideas, it has great risks, too.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You report on a particular experiment they're running up in Nantucket trying to target Lyme disease.
Can you explain what they're hoping to do there?
MICHAEL SPECTER: Mostly, people think about Lyme disease in deer. And there is a relationship.
But the real reservoir for Lyme is the white-footed mouse. At Kevin Esvelt at MIT said, gee, let's rewrite the DNA of the mouse so that it is resistant to the Lyme tick, so when a Lyme tick bites it, it doesn't matter.
And when you do that, you sort of break this chain of transmission between mice and deer and humans. And if you did that enough, and if you really rewrote the DNA — mice are not that rapid, but they're relatively rapid at reproducing — and you can quite easily see a way in which you would get rid of that disease.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, as you describe it in this piece, CRISPR is really putting us in the driver's seat for evolution, and not only to control, in some ways, evolution, but to accelerate evolution.
Am I understanding that this just seems to be a tremendously — tremendous potential for this?
MICHAEL SPECTER: I think the particularly revolutionary thing here is the combination of CRISPR, which is an editing program — it's like editing something on your computer so that you can cut and paste words — combining that with this phenomenon called gene drive.
In most areas I am pro-science, but when it comes to genetic engineering I have major concerns. They have to do with "do we really know what we are doing?" Consequences could be disastrous. This judge has very pertinent concerns.
A federal judge on Thursday barred the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa nationwide, ruling that the government didn't adequately study the biotechnology crop's potential to mix with organic and conventional varieties.
U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer made permanent a temporary ban he ordered in March on alfalfa with genetic material from bacteria that makes the crop resistant to a popular weed killer.
Breyer said the U.S. Department of Agriculture must conduct a detailed scientific study of the crop's effect on the environment and other alfalfa varieties before deciding whether to approve it.
USDA spokeswoman Rachel Iadicicco said the agency would conduct such a study.
I am Retired U.S. Navy (22yrs) and a Vietnam Veteran. After my Navy retirement I was in the computer related industry, now retired. In 2000 I was a registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Six months of having Bush in the Whitehouse forced me to re-evaluate my political stance. I had always thought of myself as a Moderate Republican, but was a Republican by "default" NOT because of close examination of the GOP. Due to what has happened in America since 2000, I now consider myself a progressive, and registered as a Non-Affiliated voter.
*Anti-First Amendment policies that attempt to turn America into a theocracy by enshrining ANY religious belief as law.
* Any attempt to suppress human or Constitutional rights.
* Any law or policy that supports discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race/color, gender, sexual orientation, or any law that does NOT support Equal Treatment under the law.
*Any law or policy that attempts to suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.
LINK DISCLAIMER:
There is no guarantee that any link provided in this blog will always work, especially for older links. The validity of any link is governed by the source-site policies. Some sites will archive articles and require subscription to access. Very small sites, such as a local town newspaper, may not archive at all.
