All posts by medical

When our favourite TV couples first met – NEWS.com.au

Meredith confesses her love for Derek asking him to love and choose her over Addison. Courtesy: Grey's Anatomy/abc

Jennifer Aniston with David Schwimmer in a scene from Friends.

AS the saying goes: every great love story has a beginning.

But how did our favourite TV couples, such as Ross and Rachel or Seth and Summer, first meet? Prepare for a trip down memory lane as Decider takes a look back at the first encounters of nine classic TV couples.

FYI To clarify, these are the first encounters we watched these characters have on their shows. We know Ross and Rachel knew each other in high school, but were focusing on their initial interaction on the series.

ROSS AND RACHEL (FRIENDS)

Whats the situation? So no one told Ross and Rachel that life was going to be this wayyyyy. As were introduced to the Central Perk 6, Ross is getting divorced and Rachel just pulled a Runaway Bride on her wedding day. While the two knew each other in high school, this scene is the future couples first encounter on the series.

First encounter:

Monica: You remember my brother Ross?

Rachel: Sure. Hi ... ah!

*An awkward Ross opens an umbrella into Rachel*

Is this scene predictive of future adorableness? Considering all the future shenanigans these two would go through, Ross opening an umbrella on Rachel is quite indicative of future calamity.

Jennifer Aniston as Rachel Green and David Schwimmer as Ross Geller.Source:Getty Images

SETH AND SUMMER (THE O.C.)

Whats the situation? Long before Seth and Summer were declaring their undying love for one another on various coffee carts, the two had an icy connection that can best be described as, well, non-existent. Moments before the now infamous Welcome to the O.C., bitch! quip, Summer was trying to hook up with Ryan, which in hindsight, ew, because that just seems all types of wrong. A heartbroken Seth, who has harboured a longtime crush on Ms. Roberts, catches her in the act.

First encounter:

Seth (to Ryan): What are you doing? I named my boat after her.

Summer: What? Eww. Who are you?

Is this scene predictive of future adorableness? No, but Adam Brody and Rachel Bilsons chemistry was undeniable as their relationship would be a pillar of the classic Fox series.

Seth and Summer from The O.C.Source:Supplied

BUFFY AND ANGEL (BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER)

Whats the situation? Sensing shes being followed, Buffy acrobatically swings down from a bar and kicks Angel in the back, which is kinda foreplay for these two.

First encounter:

Angel: Is there a problem, maam?

Buffy: Yeah, theres a problem. Why are you following me?

Angel: I know what youre thinking, but dont worry. I dont bite. Truth is I thought youd be taller. Or bigger muscles and all that. Youre pretty spry though.

Buffy: What do you want?

Angel: The same thing you do.

Buffy: Okay, what do I want?

Angel: To kill them. To kill them all.

Is this scene predictive of future adorableness? Definitely. Violence, flirting, banter? Its Buffy and Angel in a nutshell.

Angel and Buffy, what a couple.Source:News Corp Australia

MITCH AND CAM (MODERN FAMILY)

Whats the situation? Mitch and Cam are on a flight and theyre bringing Lilly home for the very first time.

First encounter:

Lady: Honey, honey, look at those babies with those cream puffs.

Mitchell: Okay, excuse me. (stands up to give speech) Excuse me, but this baby wouldve grown up in a crowded orphanage if it wasnt for us cream puffs. And you know what? No, to all of you who judge. Hear this: Love knows no race, creed, or gender. And shame on you, you small-minded, ignorant few ...

Cameron: Mitchell!

Mitchell: What?!

Cameron: (motions to cream puffs in Lilys hands) Shes got the cream puffs.

Mitchell: Oh.

Cameron: We would like to pay for everyones headsets.

Is this scene predictive of future adorableness? I cant possibly think of a better way to introduce this couple.

Mitch and Cam from Modern Family.Source:Supplied

JOSH AND DONNA (WEST WING)

Whats the situation? Fearing that Josh might be fired, Donna brings him coffee, which would be normal if it wasnt the first time shes done so in two and a half years.

First encounter:

Donna: You shouldnt have worn that tie on television. It bleeds.

Josh: I dont think the tie was what got me in trouble.

Donna: Yeah, but Ive told you a zillion times.

Josh: Whats that?

Donna: Its coffee.

Josh: I thought so.

Is this scene predictive of future adorableness? Yep! Rapid fire banter and hidden depth wrapped up in conversational gymnastics is a Sorkin staple.

Bradley Whitford as Josh Lyman and Janel Maloney as Donna Moss.Source:Getty Images

MEREDITH AND DEREK (GREYS ANATOMY)

Whats the situation? Meredith attempts to kick Derek out after a one-night stand.

First encounter:

Derek: This is, um.

Meredith: Humiliating on so many levels. You have to go.

Derek: Why dont you just come back down here and well pick up where we left off?

Meredith: No, seriously. You have to go. Im late, which isnt what you want to be on your first day of work.

Is this scene predictive of future adorableness? Adorableness? No. The couples sexual escapades? Definitely.

Derek and Meredith from Greys Anatomy.Source:News Corp Australia

LUKE AND LORELAI (GILMORE GIRLS)

Whats the situation? Lorelai. Luke. Coffee. Enough said.

First encounter:

Lorelai: Please, Luke. Please, please, please.

Luke: How many cups have you had this morning?

Lorelai: None. Five, but yours is better.

Luke: You have a problem.

Lorelai: Yes, I do.

Is this scene predictive of future adorableness? Banter and copious amounts of coffee within the first minute of the series? The answer is obvious.

Lorelai and Luke from Gilmore Girls.Source:Supplied

JOEY AND PACEY (DAWSONS CREEK)

Whats the situation? Steven Spielberg fanatic Dawson Leery is shooting a horror film that stars his two best friends, Joey Potter and Pacey Witter. Despite the scorching snap, crackle, and pop banter between Joshua Jackson and Katie Holmes, the will they/wont they tension emanating from this particular creek is initially between Dawson and Joey. But the chemistry between Pacey and Joey couldnt be denied and one of the most memorable love triangles of the WB era was formed. In their first encounter, Pacey, dressed as a sea monster, attacks Joey and pulls her into the water.

First encounter:

Joey: He did it again. He grabbed my ass.

Pacey: Like you even have one.

Is this scene predictive of future adorableness? Kind of. The sizzling repartee between the two is a Dawsons Creek staple. These two had that ineffable it-factor from the get-go.

Joey was played by Joshua Jackson and Pacey was played by Katie Holmes.Source:News Corp Australia

MONICA AND CHANDLER (FRIENDS)

Whats the situation? The series begins with Monica and the gang (minus Ross and Rachel) debating if an upcoming hangout is actually a date, which goes to show you that 1994 and 2017 may not be as dissimilar as we think. Chandlers first words to Monica are So does he have a hump? A hump and a hairpiece? but their first encounter is below.

First encounter:

Monica: Okay, everybody relax. This is not a date. Its two people going out to dinner and not having sex.

Chandler: Sounds like a date to me.

Is this scene predictive of future adorableness? I mean, could that be any more of a Chandler Bing kinda thing to say?

Monica was played by Courteney Cox Arquette and Chandler was played by Matthew Perry.Source:News Corp Australia

This article was originally published on the Decider

See original here:
When our favourite TV couples first met - NEWS.com.au

Surrogacy Bill Should Be Broadened, Include Compensation, Says Parliamentary Panel – The Wire

Calling the draft surrogacy Bill narrow, the parliamentary committee has recommended allowing live-in couples, divorced women and widows to use surrogates, adding that a surrogate should not have to belong to the parents family.

The committee has said that purely altruistic surrogacy will infringe on the surrogates rights. Credit: Reuters

New Delhi:Criticising the Centres draft Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016 for having a narrow understanding of Indian society and playing into patriarchal assumptions, the parliamentary panel that was set up to look into the Bills provisions and speak to experts in the field has recommended broadening the Bills purview and a more liberal surrogacy framework in an 88-page report.

No such thing as purely altruistic surrogacy

The original Bill wanted to do away with commercial surrogacy and instead base it on altruism. The surrogate has to be a close relative of the married couple in question (who must be infertile, of Indian origin, married for at least five years and between 23-50 for women and 26-55 for men years of age). A woman can act as a surrogate only once, the Bill said, while she is between 25 and 35 years of age.

This definition of altruistic surrogacy, the 31-member has said in its report, cannot work in a patriarchal structure. The surrogate is likely to be coerced and will get nothing out of this arrangement, while everyone else will benefit, reinforcing the idea that a womans body is not her own.

Pregnancy is not a one minute job but a labour of nine months with far reaching implications regarding her health, her time and her family. In the altruistic arrangement, the commissioning couple gets a child; and doctors, lawyers and hospitals get paid. However, the surrogate mothers are expected to practice altruism without a single penny.

The Committee, therefore, finds merit in the argument that the proposed altruistic surrogacy is far removed from the ground realities. The Committee is, therefore, of the view that expecting a woman, that too, a close relative to be altruistic enough to become a surrogate and endure all hardships of the surrogacy procedure in the pregnancy period and post partum period is tantamount to a another form of exploitation.

The Bill limits the circle of choosing a surrogate mother from within close relatives. Given the patriarchal familial structure and power equations within families, not every member of a family has the ability to resist a demand that she be a surrogate for another family member. A close relative of the intending couple may be forced to become a surrogate which might become even more exploitative than commercial surrogacy. The Committee, therefore, firmly believes that altruistic surrogacy only by close relatives will always be because of compulsion and coercion and not because of altruism.

The committee hailed the fact that regulation was need in the surrogacy sector, given the economic and social power imbalance that exists between the actors in most cases, but said the regulations should be of a different kind than what is suggested in the Bill, like authorities fixing the compensation amount to be paid to a surrogate and making sure that payments begin the moment the process is started. The panel agrees that no women should be a surrogate more than once surrogacy cannot be a way out for women opting for surrogacy due to poverty and should not be allowed as a profession.

Shouldnt be limited to married couples

The provision that only Indian couples who have been married for at least five years can avail of a surrogate overlooks a large section of society, the panel has argued.

The Department of Health Research by imposing prohibition on widows and divorced women seems to have closed its eyes to the ground reality. Besides, the decision to keep live-in partners out of the purview of the Bill is indicative of the fact that the Bill is not in consonance with the present day modern social milieu that we live in and is too narrow in its understanding. Even the Supreme Court has given a legal sanctity to live-in relationships. Surrogacy is one of the least used options by childless Indians. If all these categories are to be banned then why have surrogacy at all. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Department should broadbase the eligibility criteria in this regard and widen the ambit of persons who can avail surrogacy services by including live-in couples, divorced women/ widows.

The report also recommends doing away with the five-year waiting period meant for couples to avail all assisted reproductive techniques to have a child of their own, saying it does not make sense as the couples involved may already be in their 30s and 40s. This waiting period is also inconsistent with the WHOs definition of infertility, the committee has argued, which defines infertility as the inability to conceive after at least one year of unprotected coitus.

The committee stood by the provision that surrogacy be limited to Indian citizens, saying foreigners only come to India to find surrogates because it is much cheaper here.

One of the other criticisms of the Bill was that it left out homosexual couples. But the report does not say anything about that.

Surrogates should not be limited to close family members

The Bills provision that a surrogate must a 25-35-year-old woman who is a close relative of the couple and has one child of her has been criticised by the committee on various grounds. For one, they have said the woman may be coerced into doing it by her family against her wishes. Two, the child and surrogate mother will be living in close proximity given the nature of Indian families, and this could have a detrimental impact on both their mental heath. Three, most nuclear families may find it hard to find someone in their family who fits all the criteria. Four, couples who want to keep the surrogacy private wont have that option and will be forced to tell their families, despite the social taboos involved. Given all of this,

The Committee is convinced that limiting the practice of surrogacy to close relatives is not only non pragmatic and unworkable but also has no connect with the object to stop exploitation of surrogates envisaged in the proposed legislation. The Committee, therefore, recommends that this clause of close relative should be removed to widen the scope of getting surrogate mothers from outside the close confines of the family of intending couple. In fact, both related and unrelated women should be permitted to become a surrogate.

Surrogacy is not regulated in India yet. Credit: Reuters

Finding non-existent doctors

One of the committees other recommendations is based on the Bills definition of a human embryologist. According to the Bill, human embryologist means a person who possesses any post-graduate medical qualification in the field of human embryology recognized under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or who possesses a post-graduate degree in human embryology from a recognized university with not less than two years of clinical experience. However, the committee has noted in its report, no such post-graduate degree in human embryology is offered at an Indian university, so this definition mustbe rephrased so people know what sort of specialty doctors they should be consulting. As it stands now,

The Committee fails to understand how the Department would utilize the services of such specialty doctors in every corner of the country when these doctors do not exist.

Keeping track of cases

In order to make sure that regulations around surrogacy are followed, the committee has recommended the creation of a national database where surrogacy cases are tracked from start to finish.

Having a centralized database at the National level would be a step in right direction so as to monitor the surrogates, surrogacy clinics and the commissioning parents. All State Surrogacy Boards should be required to submit to the National Surrogacy Board, data on the surrogacy services and arrangements. Therefore, the Committee is in unison with the suggestion of keeping a registry at the national level having details of the registration and conduct of every surrogacy clinic, surrogacy arrangements, including its stakeholders, taking place across the country. Such a registry will also help in tracking the surrogate mothers who will act as surrogate only once in their lifetime

What to read next:

See original here:
Surrogacy Bill Should Be Broadened, Include Compensation, Says Parliamentary Panel - The Wire

Saving Haeckel: Why Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny Isn’t so Wrong – Patheos (blog)

Ernst Haeckel was an influential German scientist who supported Charles Darwins theory of evolution. He published his influential theory of embryology, distilled as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny in 1866, seven years after Darwins On the Origin of Species. Haeckels theory fell out of favor and hasnt been part of evolutionary theory for many decades, but its still cited today as a cause of mischief by modern Creationists.

Haeckels theory

The similarities between embryos of different animal species were noted decades before Darwin: while adults of different species are easy to tell apart, their embryos are not. Haeckel took this further and is most known for his 1874 drawing (above) of the development of various animal embryosfish, chicken, human, and so onto illustrate his point.

Ontogeny is the development of an embryo, and phylogeny is an organisms evolutionary history. So by ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, Haeckel was saying that you can watch through an organisms development as an embryo a replay of its development through hundreds of million years of evolution. For example, a human embryo first looks like a fish (notice the gill-like structure), then like a reptile (four limbs and a tail), and finally like a mammal, which is the evolutionary path that humans took.

But it doesnt work like that.

What embryology actually tells us

Lets put Haeckel aside for now and look for clues to evolution within embryology. Whats fascinating is how embryonic structures that developed in animals that preceded humans, like fish and reptiles, have been repurposed by evolution for humans.

Pharyngeal arches or folds (often improperly called gill slits) are the double-chin-like folds under the head in the early embryo stage. This striking visual commonality is found in all vertebrate embryos.

The arches that develop into gills in fish become various cartilages, glands, muscles, and other tissue in the human neck and face.

These arches explain the strange path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Pharyngeal arches four, five, and six (arch one is closest to the head) fuse early in the development of mammal embryos. The recurrent laryngeal nerve comes from the fourth arch, and after the fusion, it is near an artery from the sixth arch. This creates a straightforward layout in fish, but in mammals the neck takes the brain and larynx (connected by this nerve) away from the heart. The problem is that the nerve is hooked around that artery. That means that in all mammalsyes, even the long-necked giraffethe nerve goes from the brain, down around this artery, and back up to the larynx. No perfect designer would create this, but it is nicely explained by evolution.

Another example of repurposing (technically, exaptation) is the mammalian ear. Structures that develop into a multi-bone jaw in reptiles have been repurposed to become ear bones in mammals. In fact, it was embryology, not fossils, that provided the first clues of this evolution.

The Creationists

Creationists respond that the perfect designer was making variations on a theme. If youve got a great design, why design everything from scratch? Why not simply tweak it for various environments? This designer is like a car company that makes small cars (shrews, mice) and big ones (elephants, whales), cars that are beautiful (peacock, gazelle) and cars for tough environments (camel, yak).

In the first place, the supernatural assumption adds nothing when we have a natural theory that explains evolution just fine. God is a solution looking for a problem, and we dont have a problem here.

And second, if land animals are like cars, why do they begin life looking like submarines? (h/t Troy Britain)

See also: Argument from Design BUSTED!

Another obvious similarity across early embryos is the tail. Human embryonic tails are absorbed later in development. The hind limbs of cetaceans like whales also appear in embryos and are likewise absorbed.

If you saw the movie Avatar, did you catch the evolution mistake it makes? The land animals had six limbs and breathed through a second mouth on their shoulders. The winged creatures also had six limbsfour legs and two wings. But the Navi people had four limbs and no shoulder mouths. If they had a common ancestor with the other animals of their world, like people on earth, you would see these fundamental characteristics shared.

Ah, wellHollywood.

Creationisms failure

Why do adult animals differ in appearance but look similar as embryos? Why should the same basic embryonic components become gills in fish but faces in mammals? Why do human embryos have a tail that is later reabsorbed? The common beginning as early embryos and later divergence to satisfy different body plans points to common ancestry, not design. Evolution explains all this nicely, while Creationism has no explanation.

The Creationist play book is to attack evolution, usually by asking questions that are important but already answered. Biologists have a ready answer, but these questions stump the average person, which is the target audience.

Even if Creationisms questions were new and insightful (they never are), Creationism doesnt become the dominant scientific paradigm by showing flaws in evolution; it could only do that by explaining the evidence better. But since Creationists are only pretending to be scientific, playing by sciences rules is never the goal. Creationists dont participate in the domain of regular biology, which includes conferences, journals, and laboratories. Theyve already lost there, and thats been true for a century. So they peddle their message exclusively to the public, another admission that they arent doing science.

Yes, Haeckel was wrong, and his error, like any popular wrong turn, delayed progress. But evolution was never built with this as part of its foundation. Turn back humans evolutionary clock and we see the tail grows back (as in other mammals), the ear bones become jaws (as in reptiles), and the throat becomes gills (as in fish). Haeckel got a lot wrong, but he was right that embryology holds clues to where we came from.

(h/t commenter MR for links to articles)

Acknowledgements: these excellent articles were helpful in writing this post.

Somebodys gotta stand up to experts. Don McLeroy, Texas board of education,speaking against evolution in public schools

Image credit: Wikimedia

Read more from the original source:
Saving Haeckel: Why Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny Isn't so Wrong - Patheos (blog)

Cancer’s Newest Miracle Combines Genetics and Immune System … – TIME

With the usual mix of anticipation and apprehension, Kaitlyn Johnson is getting ready to go to her first summer camp. She's looking forward to meeting new friends and being able to ride horses, swim and host tea parties. She's also a little nervous and a little scared, like any 7-year-old facing her first sleepaway camp.

But the wonder is that Kaitlyn is leaving the house for anything but a medical facility. Diagnosed with leukemia when she was 18 months old, her life has been consumed with cancer treatments, doctors' visits and hospital stays.

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia is the most common cancer among young children, accounting for a quarter of all cancer cases in kids, and it has no cure. For about 85% to 90% of children, the leukemia can, however, be effectively treated through chemotherapy.

If it is not eliminated and comes back, it is, more often than not, fatal. Rounds of chemotherapy can buy patients time, but as the disease progresses, the periods of remission get shorter and shorter. "The options for these patients are not very good at all," says Dr. Theodore Laetsch, a pediatrician at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

When Kaitlyn's cancer wasn't controlled after three years and round after round of chemotherapy drugs, her doctors had little else to offer. "They said, 'This did nothing, it didn't touch it,'" says Kaitlyn's mother Mandy, a dental assistant from Royce City, Texas. "My stomach just dropped." Kaitlyn could receive a bone-marrow transplant, but only about half of those procedures are successful, and there was a good chance that she would reject the donor cells. If that happened, her chances of surviving were very small.

In a calculated gamble, her doctors suggested a radical new option: becoming a test subject in a trial of an experimental therapy that would, for the first time, use gene therapy to train a patient's immune system to recognize and destroy their cancer in the same way it dispatches bacteria and viruses. The strategy is the latest development in immunotherapy, a revolutionary approach to cancer treatment that uses a series of precision strikes to disintegrate cancer from within the body itself. Joining the trial was risky, since other attempts to activate the immune system hadn't really worked in the past. Mandy, her husband James and Kaitlyn traveled from their home in Texas to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), where they stayed in a hotel for eight weeks while Kaitlyn received the therapy and recovered. "The thought crossed my mind that Kaitlyn might not come home again," says Mandy. "I couldn't tell you how many times I would be in the bathroom at the hospital, spending an hour in the shower just crying, thinking, What are we going to do if this doesn't help her?"

But it did. After receiving the therapy in 2015, the cancer cells in Kaitlyn's body melted away. Test after test, including one that picks up one cancer cell in a million, still can't detect any malignant cells lurking in Kaitlyn's blood. What saved Kaitlyn was an infusion of her own immune cells that were genetically modified to destroy her leukemia. "You take someone who essentially has no possibility for a cure--almost every single one of these patients dies--and with [this] therapy, 90% go into remission," says Dr. David Porter, director of blood and bone-marrow transplantation at the University of Pennsylvania. Such radical immune-based approaches were launched in 2011 with the success of intravenous drugs that loosen the brakes on the immune system so it can see cancer cells and destroy them with the same vigor with which they attack bacteria and viruses. Now, with the genetically engineered immune cells known as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells that were used in Kaitlyn's study, doctors are crippling cancer in more precise and targeted ways than surgery, chemotherapy and radiation ever could. While the first cancer immunotherapies were broadly aimed at any cancer, experts are now repurposing the immune system into a personalized precision treatment that can not only recognize but also eliminate the cancer cells unique to each individual patient.

What makes immune-based therapies like CAR T cell therapy so promising--and so powerful--is that they are a living drug churned out by the patients themselves. The treatment isn't a pill or a liquid that has to be taken regularly, but a one-hit wonder that, when given a single time, trains the body to keep on treating, ideally for a lifetime.

"This therapy is utterly transformative for this kind of leukemia and also lymphoma," says Stephan Grupp, director of the cancer immunotherapy program at CHOP and one of the lead doctors treating patients in the study in which Kaitlyn participated.

Eager to bring this groundbreaking option to more patients, including those with other types of cancers, an advisory panel for the Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously in July to move the therapy beyond the testing phase, during which several hundred people have been able to take advantage of it, to become a standard therapy for children with certain leukemias if all other treatments have failed. While the FDA isn't obligated to follow the panel's advice, it often does, and it is expected to announce its decision in a matter of weeks.

Across the country, doctors are racing to enroll people with other cancers--breast, prostate, pancreatic, ovarian, sarcoma and brain, including the kind diagnosed in Senator John McCain--in hundreds of trials to see if they, too, will benefit from this novel approach. They are even cautiously allowing themselves to entertain the idea that this living drug may even lead to a cure for some of these patients. Curing cancers, rather than treating them, would result in a significant drop in the more than $120 billion currently spent each year on cancer care in the U.S., as well as untold suffering.

This revolutionary therapy, however, almost didn't happen. While the idea of using the body's immune cells against cancer has been around for a long time, the practical reality had proved daunting. Unlike infection-causing bacteria and viruses that are distinctly foreign to the body, cancer cells start out as healthy cells that mutate and grow out of control, and the immune system is loath to target its own cells.

"Only a handful of people were doing the research," says Dr. Carl June, director of the Center for Cellular Immunotherapy at the University of Pennsylvania's Abramson Cancer Center and the scientist who pioneered the therapy. A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, June is all too familiar with the devastating effects of cancer, having lost his first wife to ovarian cancer and battled skin cancer himself. Trial after trial failed as reinfusions of immune cells turned out to be more of a hit-or-miss endeavor than a reliable road to remission.

After spending nearly three decades on the problem, June zeroed in on a malignant fingerprint that could be exploited to stack the deck of a cancer patient's immune system with the right destructive cells to destroy the cancer.

In the case of leukemias, that marker turned out to be CD19, a protein that all cancerous blood cells sprout on their surface. June repurposed immune cells to carry a protein that would stick to CD19, along with another marker that would activate the immune cells to start attacking the cancer more aggressively once they found their malignant marks. Using a design initially developed by researchers at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital for such a combination, June and his colleague Bruce Levine perfected a way to genetically modify and grow these cancer-fighting cells in abundance in the lab and to test them in animals with leukemia. The resulting immune platoon of CAR T cells is uniquely equipped to ferret out and destroy cancer cells. But getting them into patients is a complex process. Doctors first remove a patient's immune cells from the blood, genetically tweak them in the lab to carry June's cancer-targeting combination and then infuse the modified cells back into the patient using an IV.

Because these repurposed immune cells continue to survive and divide, the therapy continues to work for months, years and, doctors hope, perhaps a lifetime. Similar to the way vaccines prompt the body to produce immune cells that can provide lifelong protection against viruses and bacteria, CAR T cell therapy could be a way to immunize against cancer. "The word vaccination would not be inappropriate," says Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society.

June's therapy worked surprisingly well in mice, shrinking tumors and, in some cases, eliminating them altogether. He applied for a grant at the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health to study the therapy in people from 2010 to 2011. But the idea was still so new that many scientists believed that testing it in people was too risky. In 1999, a teenager died days after receiving an experimental dose of genes to correct an inherited disorder, and anything involving gene therapy was viewed suspiciously. While such deaths aren't entirely unusual in experimental studies, there were ethical questions about whether the teenager and his family were adequately informed of the risks and concerns that the doctor in charge of the study had a financial conflict of interest in seeing the therapy develop. Officials in charge of the program acknowledged that important questions were raised by the trial and said they took the questions and concerns very seriously. But the entire gene-therapy program was shut down. All of that occurred at the University of Pennsylvania--where June was. His grant application was rejected.

It would take two more years before private funders--the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and an alumnus of the university who was eager to support new cancer treatments--donated $5 million to give June the chance to bring his therapy to the first human patients.

The date July 31 has always been a milestone for Bill Ludwig, a retired corrections officer in New Jersey. It's the day that he joined the Marines as an 18-year-old, and the day, 30 years later, that he married his wife Darla.

It was also the day he went to the hospital to become the first person ever to receive the combination gene and CAR T cell therapy, in 2010. For Ludwig, the experimental therapy was his only remaining option. Like many people with leukemia, Ludwig had been living on borrowed time for a decade, counting the days between the chemotherapy treatments that would hold the cancer in his blood cells at bay for a time. Inevitably, like weeds in an untended garden, the leukemia cells would grow and take over his blood system again.

But the periods of reprieve were getting dangerously short. "I was running out of treatments," says Ludwig. So when his doctor mentioned the trial conducted by June and Porter at the University of Pennsylvania, he didn't hesitate. "I never thought that the clinical trial was going to cure me," he says. "I just wanted to live and to continue to fight. If there was something that would put me into the next month, still breathing, then that's what I was looking for."

When Ludwig signed the consent form for the treatment, he wasn't even told what to expect in terms of side effects or adverse reactions. The scientists had no way of predicting what would happen. "They explained that I was the first and that they obviously had no case law, so to speak," he says. So when he was hit with a severe fever, had difficulty breathing, showed signs of kidney failure and was admitted to the intensive care unit, he assumed that the treatment wasn't working.

His condition deteriorated so quickly and so intensely that doctors told him to call his family to his bedside, just four days after he received the modified cells. "I told my family I loved them and that I knew why they were there," he says. "I had already gone and had a cemetery plot, and already paid for my funeral."

Rather than signaling the end, Ludwig's severe illness turned out to be evidence that the immune cells he received were furiously at work, eliminating and sweeping away the huge burden of cancer cells choking up his bloodstream. But his doctors did not realize it at the time.

It wasn't until the second patient, Doug Olson, who received his CAR T cells about six weeks after Ludwig, that Porter had a eureka moment. When he received the call that Olson was also running a high fever, having trouble breathing and showing abnormal lab results, Porter realized that these were signs that the treatment was working. "It happens when you kill huge amounts of cancer cells all at the same time," Porter says. What threw him off initially is that it's rare for anything to wipe out that much cancer in people with Ludwig's and Olson's disease. June and Porter have since calculated that the T cells obliterated anywhere from 2.5 lb. to 7 lb. of cancer in Ludwig's and Olson's bodies. "I couldn't fathom that this is why they both were so sick," says Porter. "But I realized this is the cells: they were working, and working rapidly. It was not something we see with chemotherapy or anything else we have to treat this cancer."

Ludwig has now been in remission for seven years, and his success led to the larger study of CAR T cell therapy in children like Kaitlyn, who no longer respond to existing treatments for their cancer. The only side effect Ludwig has is a weakened immune system; because the treatment wipes out a category of his immune cells--the ones that turned cancerous--he returns to the University of Pennsylvania every seven weeks for an infusion of immunoglobulins to protect him from pneumonia and colds. Olson, too, is still cancer-free.

While the number of people who have received CAR T cell therapy is still small, the majority are in remission. That's especially encouraging for children, whose lives are permanently disrupted by the repeated cycles of treatments that currently are their only option. "It's a chance for these kids to have a normal life and a normal childhood that doesn't involve constant infusions, transfusions, infections and being away from their home, family and school," says Dr. Gwen Nichols, chief medical officer of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

The hope is that while CAR T cell therapy will at first be reserved for people who have failed to respond to all standard treatments, eventually they won't have to wait that long. As doctors learn from pioneers like Kaitlyn, Ludwig and Olson, they will have more confidence in pushing the therapy earlier, when patients are stronger and the cancer is less advanced--perhaps as a replacement for or in combination with other treatments.

The severe immune reaction triggered by the therapy remains a big concern. While it can be monitored in the hospital and managed with steroids or antibodies that fight inflammation, there have been deaths in other trials involving CAR T cells. One drug company put one of its studies on hold due to the toxic side effects. "I am excited by CAR T therapy, but I'm also worried that some people might get too excited," says the American Cancer Society's Brawley. "It's important that we proceed slowly and do this meticulously so that we develop this in the right way."

For now, CAR T cells are expensive--some analysts estimate that each patient's batch of cells would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars--because they require a bespoke production process. If approved, Novartis, which licensed the technology from the University of Pennsylvania, will provide the therapy in about 35 cancer centers in the U.S. by the end of the year. Other companies are already working toward universal T cells that could be created for off-the-shelf use in any patient with cancer. "This is just the beginning," says June.

Since Ludwig's cancer has been in remission, he and his wife have packed their RV and taken the vacations they missed while he was a slave to his cancer and chemotherapy schedule. This year, they're visiting Mount Rushmore, Grand Teton National Park and Yellowstone National Park before taking their granddaughter to Disney World in the fall. "When they told me I was cancer-free, it was just like someone said, 'You won the lottery,'" he says. "If somebody else with this disease has the chance to walk in my shoes and live past it, that would be the greatest gift for me."

Visit link:
Cancer's Newest Miracle Combines Genetics and Immune System ... - TIME

Dairies’ Fix for Souring Milk Sales: Genetics and Bananas – WSJ – Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Dairy makers are hoping pured fruit and genetically screened cows can help win back consumers who have soured on milk.

U.S. milk sales are down 11% by volume since 2000, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data. Plant-based milk substitutes have taken some of the remaining market share. And a turn away from packaged foods has sapped...

Read more:
Dairies' Fix for Souring Milk Sales: Genetics and Bananas - WSJ - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Career Opportunity Explosion in Genetics – PA home page

FORTY FORT, LUZERNE COUNTY (WBRE/WYOU) -- In a time when many wonder about career opportunities of the future, there is one that's showing signs of significant growth. It has to do with helping patients understand and address personal health risk factors.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports nearly 40,000 jobs were created last month in the health sector. Of that sector, one particular field is showing tremendous employment opportunity more than any other job.

What you're witnessing is the future of medicine: unlocking genetic code secrets to personalize treatment and even prevention of certain illnesses and conditions. Both in and out of these DNA labs are genetic counselors who gather and analyze family history and inheritance patterns to help identify individuals and families who may be at risk. "It's so such on the cutting edge of science and technology that it's continuously changing and there are always new things to really keep on top of and excite me," said Geisinger Genomic Medicine Institute Genetic Counselor Marci Schwartz.

Ms. Schwartz works in both cardiovascular and cancer genetics. By the end of 2024, the demand for genetic counselors like her is expected to grow by nearly 30 percent which is greater than any other job sector in the nation. So what's driving that demand? "We are now getting to the point where genetic information is really becoming relevant to clinical care," said Geisinger Genomic Medicine Institute Director Marc Williams, MD.

That care also includes targeted medicine in neurology, pediatrics, and prenatal genetics. Home to the 11 years and counting genome project "MyCode", Geisinger anticipates needing hundreds of genetic counselors in the next few years. "We have a huge opportunity but also this deficit in terms of training personnel," said Dr. Williams. Part of the genetic field job explosion is a recently created position by Geisinger called a genetic counseling assistant.

Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine in Scranton will soon offer a masters program in genomics but exploring career possibilities in this field can begin much sooner. "Some of the shadowing and volunteer experience can certainly be started in high school," said Ms. Schwartz.

You don't need to be a doctor to become a genetic counselor but you do need a masters degree. The starting salary for this growing profession is roughly $65,000 a year. You can learn more about career opportunities in genetic counseling by clicking here.

More:
Career Opportunity Explosion in Genetics - PA home page

Dr. Gregory Sonnenberg Wins Inaugural Award from the Society for Mucosal Immunology – Cornell Chronicle

Dr. Gregory Sonnenberg, an assistant professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine, has received the newly established Young Investigator Award from the Society for Mucosal Immunology.

The award honors investigators within 15 years of their postdoctoral training who have made significant contributions to the field of mucosal immunology, which is the study of immune responses that occur in the intestines, lungs and urogenital tract.

Dr. Sonnenberg accepted his award at the 18th International Congress of Mucosal of Immunology on July 19 in Washington, D.C. The award carries a cash prize and additional funds to support Dr. Sonnenbergs laboratory.

Dr. Greg Sonnenberg accepts his award from society President Dr. Allan Mowat. Photo credit: Society for Mucosal Immunology

It is an enormous honor to receive this award from the Society for Mucosal Immunology in acknowledgement of my laboratorys research contributions, said Dr. Sonnenberg, who is also a member of the Jill Roberts Institute for Research in Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Weill Cornell Medicine. It is truly a testament to the outstanding advisors, past and present lab members, and collaborators I had the pleasure of working with throughout my career.

Dr. Sonnenbergs research centers on better understanding the processes that maintain a healthy state in the human gastrointestinal tract. Specifically, he and his team are focused on the relationship between beneficial or commensal bacteria which live in the intestine and are important for digestion and the maturation of the immune system and their mammalian hosts.

While the relationship between commensal bacteria and their hosts is normally beneficial, the immune system attacks these good bacteria and causes chronic inflammation associated with numerous human diseases, such as inflammatory bowel disease, HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, cardiovascular disease, obesity, asthma, diabetes and cancer. His team is investigating why the immune system changes course and disrupts the normally beneficial relationship. Their aim is to determine how to restore this relationship to its positive state.

Recent studies at Dr. Sonnenbergs lab have focused on an emerging family of immune cells, which play a role in regulating interactions between the commensal bacteria and the immune system, called intestinal-resident innate lymphoid cells (ILCs). Some of the research from Dr. Sonnenbergs laboratory has highlighted the ILCs ability to tell the immune system not to attack commensal bacteria.

The ILCs could hold an important key to restoring beneficial interactions between microbes in the gut and the immune system to limit chronic inflammation associated with many different diseases, Dr. Sonnenberg said.

Ongoing research will look at ILC responses and interactions with commensal bacteria in healthy and diseased tissue samples. The lab plans to translate their findings from mouse models into clinically relevant information that will help develop therapies to treat chronic diseases.

Read the original post:
Dr. Gregory Sonnenberg Wins Inaugural Award from the Society for Mucosal Immunology - Cornell Chronicle

GSK to end neuroscience R&D in China – Chemical & Engineering News

It wasnt long ago that GlaxoSmithKlines Shanghai lab led the firms research efforts in neurological diseases including Parkinsons, multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimers. Now, after years of setbacks in China, the company is ending neuroscience R&D in Shanghai.

Following a portfolio review and prioritization, we have decided to close our neuroscience R&D center in Shanghai and move key programs to our global R&D hub in Upper Providence [Pa.] in the U.S., where they will benefit from colocation with other pipeline R&D programs, GSK says.

GSK announced plans to invest in Shanghai in 2007, saying it would build Chinas largest R&D center operated by a multinational drug firm. To focus on neurological disorders, the center was to be staffed by hundreds of scientists under the guidance of Jingwu Zang, a leading multiple sclerosis researcher.

In 2013, however, GSK fired Zang after a paper he coauthored and published in Nature Medicine was found to contain mislabeled data. At the time, Zang vehemently denied research fraud and claimed that he and coauthors had made an inadvertent error. After the firing, GSK was soon embroiled in a much greater controversy.

After a long saga that included the discovery of video cameras in the bedroom of the companys China head, GSK apologized in September 2014 and paid a fine of $500 million to the Chinese government for bribing doctors to prescribe the companys drugs. The following year GSK laid off 110 of its China staffers for alleged ethical violations.

Last year, Min Li, who replaced Zang as head of neuroscience in Shanghai, publicly stated that GSK remained committed to its China neuroscience research. By setting up our R&D structure in this way, we are committed not only to patients in China but also to talent in China, the newspaper China Daily quoted him as saying.

Despite the retreat from neuroscience, drug R&D will go on in China, GSK insists. The China R&D development organization will continue to be based in Shanghai and is set to expand over the next two years to accelerate the development of new medicines, the firm says. We remain committed to China and will focus our R&D efforts in China on the needs of China, at both our Shanghai site and our Institute for Infectious Diseases & Public Health in Beijing.

Visit link:
GSK to end neuroscience R&D in China - Chemical & Engineering News

Neuroscience Studies About Happiness | POPSUGAR Smart Living – POPSUGAR

There's a ton of "helpful" advice floating around the internet, but when the tips come from a neuroscientist, it might be time to actually listen up. Ladders, a job platform site, put together some insights from neuroscientist Alex Korb's book The Upward Spiral on how you can be happier based on brain research.

If you're feeling a negative emotion like sadness or anger, label that emotion. It may seem simple, but your brain responds when you put your feelings into words. One fMRI study cited in the book noted that when a participant was shown images of people expressing emotions on their faces, their amygdala activated to the emotions they were seeing. When they were told to name the emotion, "the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex activated and reduced the emotional amygdala reactivity." This essentially means that when participants consciously recognized the emotions they were seeing, it reduced the impact of those emotions in their brains.

Reddit user letstablethisfornow noted the effect labeling their emotions has had on their own happiness, calling it a "a game changer" for them.

"It's so simple and yet has such a profound effect that I'm amazed this isn't taught in schools. The effect is subtle since you are not actually removing the emotion, you just take one step away from it intellectually. You find that from experiencing long drawn-out swings in emotion you tend to have short peaks and valleys with a nice equilibrium most of the time.

You also realize that for the most part our day-to-day emotions are not really connected to anything specific. It could be caused by anything. That outburst at your wife, coworker, or boss could be the end result of waking up with a headache, indigestion, or forgetting you keys on your way to work. We tend to construct stories in our minds as to what our emotions mean after the fact when in reality we have no clue. When you label, you become more aware of your emotions, don't get carried away with them, and will be less likely to fall into this trap."

In The Upwared Spiral, Korb says that the benefits of gratitude "start with the dopamine system, because feeling grateful activates the brain stem region that produces dopamine. Additionally, gratitude toward others increases activity in social dopamine circuits, which makes social interactions more enjoyable." Gratitude can also boost the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is what many antidepressants do. And as The Ladder points out, even if you don't have an answer to the question "what am I grateful for?", that's OK. "It's not finding gratitude that matters most; it's remembering to look in the first place," the book says. "Remembering to be grateful is a form of emotional intelligence." The studies showed that as emotional intelligence increases, the neurons in these areas become more efficient. So even if you have trouble finding something to be grateful for, merely asking yourself the question means you're on the right path to happiness.

"Address the possibility of a blind spot in your mind where you aren't able to instantly know what you take for granted. Spend time simply observing the things you don't have to overcome, all the conveniences and luxuries," says Reddit user Privatdozent. "This 'positive feedback loop' has to loop around many times to have a solid effect. The common criticism of this idea is that 'No one else's struggles diminish your own.' Well, yeah, they don't. But what if you take seriously much more of the struggles than the things deserving of your gratitude? Basically, try to give equal weight to the good things that happen as to the bad."

There's nothing more anxiety-inducing than feeling like you've got unfinished business. Simply making a decision about something can reduce anxiety rather than allowing yourself to spend more time hesitating over all of the scenarios and outcomes that the decision will result in. "Making decisions includes creating intentions and setting goals all three are part of the same neural circuitry and engage the prefrontal cortex in a positive way, reducing worry and anxiety," says Korb. Making decisions also allows people to feel more in control feeling "out of control" can also cause feelings of worry. And when you do make a decision and the outcome of that decision happens to be a positive one, then even better!

"There's a book that's really helped me, called Getting Things Done," says Reddit user Kabitu. "It explains how indecision is a major source of mental stress. When you don't want to make a decision now, and leave the decision to be made later, that builds up a big cloud of annoying mental work you don't want to do, and it can sustain a subconscious reluctance to work."

Social interactions have been proven to increase a person's feelings of acceptance and therefore happiness, but The Upward Spiral takes it a bit further. "One of the primary ways to release oxytocin is through touching," the book says. Oxytocin is a hormone that acts as a neurotransmitter to the brain. Psycholology Today says that it's known as the "love hormone" because it "regulates social interaction and sexual reproduction, playing a role in behaviors from maternal-infant bonding and milk release to empathy, generosity, and orgasm." So when people touch, hug, or kiss others, oxytocin levels actually increase. "Oxytocin is the hormone that underlies trust. It is also an antidote to depressive feelings," says the site. According to Korb, holding hands with someone during a painful experience can comfort you and your brain and help reduce the reaction to pain. So, more hugs!

Read the original:
Neuroscience Studies About Happiness | POPSUGAR Smart Living - POPSUGAR

Sexual neuroscience PhD: The engineer who wrote the ‘Google memo’ is right – The College Fix

James Damore got fired from Google because the highly educated engineer(with a PhD in systems biology from Harvard) said biology appears to play some role in the career pursuits of men and women, including at Google.

He has the right enemies, and the right allies.

Human sexuality science writer Debra Soh, who has a PhD in sexual neuroscience from York University, writes in The Globe and Mail that Damores internal memo was fair and factually accurate.

She points to studies that show higher levels of prenatal testosterone (typical in boys) are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood, including in girls with a certain genetic condition:

When they are born, these girls prefer male-typical, wheeled toys, such as trucks, even if their parents offer morepositive feedbackwhen they play with female-typical toys, such as dolls. Similarly, men who are interested in female-typical activities were likely exposed to lower levels of testosterone.

As well, newresearchfrom the field of genetics shows that testosterone alters the programming of neural stem cells, leading to sex differences in the brain even before its finished developing in utero.

One of the most cited studies that found male and female brains cant be differentiated by sex has been refuted byfour yes,fouracademicstudiessince, Soh writes.

She echoes Damores point that group traits dont dictate preferences for any given individual, but its ignorant to claim group traits simply dont exist:

In fact, research has shown that cultures with greater gender equity have larger sex differences when it comes to job preferences, because in these societies, people are free to choose their occupations based on what they enjoy.

Contrary to what detractors would have you believe, women are, on average, higher in neuroticism and agreeableness, and lower instress tolerance.

She scolds the witch hunt leaders who went after Damore for denying biological reality and being content to spend a weekend doxxing a man so that he would lose his job.

Read the op-ed.

LikeThe College Fixon Facebook/Follow us on Twitter

Read the rest here:
Sexual neuroscience PhD: The engineer who wrote the 'Google memo' is right - The College Fix