Recently in Science (general) Category

Agence France-Presse

WASHINGTON--Stem cell researchers have found a way to turn a person's skin into blood, a process that could be used to treat cancer and other ailments, according to a Canadian study published Sunday.

The method uses cells from a patch of a person's skin and transforms it into blood that is a genetic match, without using human embryonic stem cells, said the study in the journal Nature.

By avoiding the controversial and more complicated processes involved with using human embryonic stem cells to create blood, this approach simplifies the process, researchers said.

"What we believe we can do in the future is generate blood in a much more efficient manner," said study author Mick Bhatia of the McMaster's Stem Cell and Cancer Research Institute in the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine.

With the ability to create blood for transfusion from a person's own skin, the advance means someday patients needing blood for surgery or to treat anemia could bypass the blood bank and derive the necessary supply from themselves.

The breakthrough could also see future uses such as allowing patients undergoing chemotherapy to endure a longer regime of treatment without the breaks currently needed to rejuvenate the body.

Researchers have been able to perform the skin-to-blood transformation in the past, but while using human pluripotent stem cells, widely known as embryonic stem cells.

Stem cells that are derived from human embryos hold significant promise for medical breakthroughs but also carry risks, such as the potential to create tumors.

But researchers say their new method can create enough blood for a transfusion from a four by three centimeter (1.6 by 1.2 inch) patch of adult human skin, and can avoid those potential hurdles.

"So we don't need to take skin cells and put it into a pluripotent stem cell. That is inefficient in terms of time," Bhatia told AFP.

"There are also concerns that they might form a tumor, and the fact that we bypass that makes it more feasible for transplants."

Those needing bone marrow transplants could be particularly aided by the breakthrough, according to John Kelton, dean of health sciences for McMaster University.

"For all physicians, but especially for the patients and their families, the illness became more frustrating when we were prevented from giving a bone marrow transplant because we could not find a perfect donor match in the family or the community," Kelton said.

"Dr. Bhatia's discovery could permit us to help this important group of patients."

Clinical trials could start as soon as 2012, the study said.

Cynthia Dunbar, head of the molecular hematopoiesis section of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health in the United States, said she was eager to try out the Canadian team's approach.

"I think there are exciting aspects in terms of this potentially being a much safer approach than going back through embryonic stem cells," said Dunbar, who estimated it would be five to 10 years before the technique reaches the general public.

"I work for the US federal government, and whether or not we can work with embryonic stem cells is up in the air," she added. "I'm very excited to try this."

Bhatia said researchers would next begin experiments to see what other kinds of human cells can be derived from adult skin.

The research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, the Stem Cell Network and the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation.

By Alexander Villafania INQUIRER.NET MANILA, Philippines – “Keep your interests alive.” This was the message of Balik-Scientist awardee Dr. Baldomero Olivera at the start of the 2009 National Science and Technology Week at the Manila Hotel. Olivera, a distinguished professor of biology at the University of Utah, first gained fame for his discovery of painkilling properties in the highly toxic, ocean-going cone snails that are abundant in Philippine waters. Olivera’s discovery led to the development of a commercial painkiller called Ziconotide (Prialt), which is administered to patients suffering from extreme pain. Unlike traditional painkiller morphine, Ziconotide is not known to cause painkiller addiction and lasts much longer in the system. Olivera graduated from the University of the Philippines and moved to the US to take up his graduate degree in chemistry at the California Institute of Technology. His interests in cone shells started long before he started college; in fact, he started out at a tennis court collecting shells. “Seashells were used to compact the surface of tennis courts. They were dredged from Manila Bay and were dumped near the tennis courts. While waiting for my dad, I used to sift through the heap of shells and identified what were interesting.” It was this interest that made him go back to cone snails for possible research. It also won him “Scientist of the Year” in 2007 by the Harvard Foundation. At his keynote speech during the NSTW opening ceremonies, Olivera said he hopes more Filipino scientists to continue their research endeavors and to give back to the country. He said many researches can provide economic gains to both the scientific community as well as to the country. Department of Science and Technology Secretary Estrella Alabastro said this year’s NSTW aims to spur Filipino scientists and researchers to find ways in resolving global issues. One goal is to alleviate global climate change, which is causing destruction in many industries in the Philippines, particularly agriculture. Numerous programs will be conducted in different locations nationwide for the entire week of the NSTW. There are seminars of nanotechnology, robotics, awareness programs on waste management, business ventures based on scientific output, research presentations on health, genetics, food development, among others. The NSTW was first created under Presidential Proclamation 2214 in 1982 and was later amended in 1993 through Republic Act 169. This declared celebrations for the NSTW on the third week of July every year.

By Dennis Posadas Contributor THE scenario is all too familiar. A young Filipino, after having completed his masters or PhD in engineering or the sciences, decides to leave for abroad to seek greener pastures. Or even, a returnee Filipino with an advanced degree from abroad, returning with hope in his eyes, only to leave again, disillusioned by what he can work on and what he will earn. Or even the fact that many of our small- and medium-sized Philippine companies cannot afford to do R&D to improve their products to make them world class. But if they had a world-class R&D Institute that can help them, but for a fraction of the cost, wouldn't that be great? One of the Congressional Commission on Science & Technology and Engineering (COMSTE)’s main recommendations is to setup a local version of Taiwan’s R&D jewel, the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI). In the 70’s, when the GDP of Taiwan was still based on agriculture and low cost manufacturing, their leaders decided that they wanted to copy Silicon Valley. To do this, they setup the ITRI, in the city of Hsinchu. The ITRI ever since has become Taiwan’s top source of innovation and technology spin offs. Every day, many patents are made at ITRI, and a lot of Taiwanese companies do business with it. In fact ITRI has spun off many tech companies like the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (TSMC), United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) as well as others. In fact, even musical instrument and bicycle companies in Taiwan work with ITRI to improve their products through R&D. ITRI is in the business of innovation. The main difference between ITRI and the R&D institutes we have now, that are either government owned (like DoST’s ASTI) and those in the private sector (like what some companies have), is that ITRI is a semi-government, semi-private entity. In other words, it is a public-private partnership. Have you ever noticed any of our technologies developed locally that have been commercialized, particularly from government laboratories? Very few. This is because government is not really setup to commercialize things, although hopefully with the passage of the Technology Transfer Act (patterned after the US Bayh-Dole Act) that will change. But still, one of the things we do not really see much of locally is what we call academe-industry interaction at the highest level. By that I mean that although we do see activities like cadet engineering internships, we do not see the type of research where a company outsources its research to an outside R&D entity. There are, but not a lot. So how does this involve the poor scientist and how does this hopefully convince him to stay here? By offering the young scientists a venue to work on real problems with industry. The ITRI Philippines will be a shared venue for Philippine companies that do not have money to do R&D. But if they share the expenses of running ITRI, we will have a place where young brilliant Filipino scientists can work on problems that will be used by our local companies, and potentially create opportunities for technology startups to sprout. ITRI Philippines should ideally be run like a private venture, but with a government stake. It should try to go after R&D contracts with Philippine companies. By being competitive, by operating in this manner, the researchers can share in the fruits of the success of this institute. The details of ITRI Philippines are still being worked out. But if you are interested in giving inputs, feel free to checkout the COMSTE website at http://www.comste.gov.ph. Dennis Posadas is the Deputy Executive Director of the Philippine Congressional Commission on Science & Technology and Engineering. His new book Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable, will be published by Pearson Education Asia this Summer 2009.

By Izah Morales INQUIRER.net MANILA, Philippines--Colored tags attached to tuna species like the “tangi” or “tambakul” can earn fishermen or consumers money rewards, an official of the Department of Agriculture said Monday. “This tuna tagging project carries a $10 reward for yellow tag, $50 for green tag and $250 for orange tag. The latter two have accompanying devices inserted in the body cavity of the fish (near the abdomen). The tag on the former is attached on the back of the fish near the second dorsal fin,” said Malcolm Sarmiento, director Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources in DA’s press statement. “We are calling on our fishermen and the consuming public to surrender to BFAR or the LGUs, any tag found in fishes particularly big-eye, skipjack, or yellowfin tuna and other marine fishes, as these are part of scientific studies,” Sarmiento said. Sarmiento told INQUIRER.net that people can return the tags at the nearest BFAR office to get their reward. The official said the National Fisheries Research and Development Institute under BFAR would give the corresponding reward. The Philippines is part of a Tuna tagging project spearheaded by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) based in New Caledonia, according to Sarmiento. “The tagging is done to aid the management measures and to validate the changes in migratory patterns of large pelagic species like tuna, which might be brought about by climate change,” added Sarmiento in a phone interview with INQUIRER.net. In a statement issued by OFP, the tagging project would provide information on fishery exploitation rates and population sizes in the Western and Central Pacific.

Agence France-Presse SAN FRANCISCO--TED on Monday began hunting for heroes in hard-pressed lands. The Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) group famous for attracting outstanding entrepreneurs, scientists, and celebrities is opening its arms to embrace promising visionaries with life-changing dreams but meager budgets. The door to apply, or nominate people, to be TEDGlobal fellows was opened on Monday and will close on April 3. Those chosen for fellowships will take part in this year's TED conference in Britain at the expense of organizers. Fellowship application information is available online. "You can be from a small village in China or two hours outside of Dakar; if you are doing something amazing we want you to apply," TED community director Tom Rielly said while announcing the fellowships in February. "The alchemy of TED is the inter-connectness of all disciplines. It's that mix of bringing unbelievably cool people, regardless of ability to pay, from different parts of the world that will be remarkably fertile." The fellowship program is focused especially on attracting "remarkable thinkers and doers" from Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and the Caribbean. TED Fellows attend annual conferences in either California or Britain. Some will go on to senior fellowships that last three years. TED will also provide 100 one-time fellowship opportunities in India at a conference in November in Bangalore.

By Dennis Posadas* Contributor THE Philippines held a National R&D Conference at the University of the Philippines last December 2008 to try to synergize its research and development (R&D) efforts in science and technology, particularly in the government. The conference involved most of the government departments and state colleges and universities that have R&D programs. At present, like in most countries, R&D budgets are scattered across many government R&D units and agencies. Getting these agencies and their staff to work together can sometimes be a gargantuan undertaking. In a December 2008 article in the Washington D.C. based journal Science, the Philippines was reported to have spent $81million in R&D in 2007, and this spending has remained basically the same throughout the last decade. This amount represents roughly 0.14% of GDP, a far cry from that of developed countries which often reaches 2%, and is also less than its regional neighbors like Thailand (0.26%) and Malaysia (0.69%). Worse, this amount is not a homogenous figure but is actually the sum total of government R&D spending scattered across many departments and agencies. In a country colonized by Spain and the United States, where the saying goes that it went through “three hundred years of the Church and fifty years of Hollywood,” the normal mode of operation is to take the allocation from the national budget, and in a laizzez faire manner, do whatever one institution or department pleases in R&D. Now this approach may work in countries that have a lot of money to bet on whatever one fancies. Silicon Valley for example in the United States has never adopted any national roadmap for R&D. Instead, its legions of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists pursue their own ideas and let the market decide which ones will be the winners and which ones will eat the dust. But that should not be the case for developing countries like the Philippines. While $81 million is a lot of money for S&T in this country, nevertheless it is chump change compared to other countries. Notwithstanding the fact that labor is cheaper here, even to hire MS and PhD science and engineering graduates, the fact is that scattering this money in a random manner will not yield useful economic results. Take for example the fact that many state colleges and universities are duplicating R&D efforts, instead of trying to find a way to divide up the work and specialize in particular fields. This tends to weaken further the already small amount devoted by this archipelagic country to R&D. A Keynesian (named after economist John Maynard Keynes) national R&D approach should be adopted by the Philippines, where the national S&T roadmap is set by scientists and technologists from the ground up. The Department of Science and Technology (DoST) has picked some fields that the Philippines should specialize in. Since it wields the funding carrot, it has some ability to direct the areas of research. But it has not totally been successful in this effort, judging from the outcome of the National R&D Conference. In order to drive a nail into a piece of wood, you need a strong strike in a concentrated place, and not a lot of small taps in many places. Obviously if you only have $81 million to bet (although this will probably see some increase), you need to pick certain winners and drop certain fields. A small amount of random research, picked from the grassroots by universities themselves can be allowed, but the bulk of the money should be put in certain areas where it can produce results ranging from published papers, to patents, to commercialized technologies, particularly since the need of the times calls for the creation of new jobs and industries from R&D. Take for example the recently passed Renewable Energy Act of the Philippines. This new law creates a mandate for electric utilities to purchase renewable energy in increasing amounts over the next few years, and gives a lot of fiscal incentives and tax breaks to entrepreneurs and investors who go into this area. Obviously this mandate creates a market for clean energy technologies, many of which can be supplied by clean technology companies spun off from R&D. In fact, a renewable energy R&D center, funded by fossil fuel levies, will hopefully create the technologies that can form the basis for new companies and jobs in this sector. But that will only happen, just like in the hammer and nail analogy, if the R&D is in synch with the investor community, with the needs of the market, with the legal and financial framework, and with the culture of the researchers and entrepreneurs. A laizzez faire mentality works in the U.S. but here, it looks like a Keynesian big hammer approach where everyone coordinates their efforts is the only way to achieve this, especially since the amount of money is, by world standards, quite small. The problem is complex, and involves financial, legal and cultural constraints. But there are certain issues that can be resolved that will lead to a realignment of R&D money in the Philippines. First, the percentage of R&D spending to GDP ratio is too simplistic. If one compares the percentage GDP of R&D in the Philippines to Thailand and Malaysia, obviously it is too small. But this ratio does not say anything about how you use this money effectively. One country can have a slightly smaller percentage GDP ratio, but if it spends that money more efficiently than another country that has a greater percentage GDP ratio, then that difference may not be of much consequence. A proper metric, aside from percentage GDP, should include a measure of how well the country is able to publish papers, is able to issue patents, and is able to commercialize technology, from a unit of currency spent on R&D. Otherwise, the focus is on the total amount spent on R&D, which may not be enough to solve the problem. Second, while the capability of scientists to innovate is important, it is also important that they be willing to work in synch with other scientists and with other scientific institutions, in order to complement each other and not have redundant efforts. One issue that complicates things is a difficulty in getting agreement on what technology directions to pursue. The anthropologic and cultural cause of this issue is beyond the scope of this article, but that is what we see in the Congressional Commission on Science & Technology and Engineering (COMSTE). National directions in S&T might be set and arrived at from the top, but this does not always trickle down to the bottom. Perhaps the answer lies in using technology to get everyone’s inputs, and then show where the scientific and technical community consensus lies. Third, the politician should marry the scientist. To some extent, the politicians who run COMSTE have been trying to do this, but the impact on the public imagination still needs some work. The ideal is of course, a JFK exhorting Americans to go to the moon, or a Barack Obama pledging to cut dependence on Middle East oil in ten years. Those national statements, coming from American politicians, have been based on the advice of noted scientific groups in the U.S. But in the Philippines, a general distrust of politicians coupled with a lack of real mainstream media interest in science, and a lack of clear communication between politicians and scientists, seems to have made what can be bang into a whimper. Lastly, the traditionally rigid government bureaucracy (of which I am a part) needs to allow for some flexibility. Take for instance auditing and purchasing. Best practices in procuring scientific and technical materials and equipment need to be benchmarked with fast moving countries, without sacrificing proper purchasing and procurement regulations. There is of course a reason why these rules were installed in the first place, but they also need to take into account the speed of technology change, in order for the Philippines to remain competitive in S&T. Surely countries like the Philippines need to increase their R&D spending beyond the current levels. But to simply equate progress in R&D with an increase in spending will not be enough. How the money is spent to yield published papers, patents and marketable technologies is the more important problem that needs to be faced. More importantly, it is not just about the money, but it is about getting a national consensus of the politicians and the public to back those R&D programs solidly, from private sector support, to investor support, to legal and non-government organization support, to even the public support. Until this synergy happens, the promise of R&D in science and technology will never be fulfilled. Like in roulette, sometimes the answer is to put your chips in as many places as you want to ensure some small wins. But in these gloomy economic times, it looks like as Keynes would argue, it is time for everyone to agree that government needs to make the best big bets in certain areas and skip other areas, in order to create new industries and jobs. Dennis Posadas is the Deputy Executive Director of the Philippine Congressional Commission on Science, Technology and Engineering (COMSTE). He is also the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable to be published by Pearson Prentice Hall this April 2009.

MANILA, Philippines—A US scientist admonished Pangasinan Representative Mark Cojuangco for “dangerously misrepresenting” a scientific study in a bid to make the lawmaker’s proposal to reopen the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) “look good.” Dr. Kelvin Rodolfo, professor emeritus of the University of Illinois Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, said he was dismayed Cojuangco misused the 2005 study the American and two fellow scientists made. "I am dismayed that our paper was cited by Cojuangco in his exploratory note. He is being ignorant of scientific data," said Rodolfo. Cojuangco authored a House bill seeking to revive the $2.3-billion BNPP mothballed over two decades ago. A visibly angry Rodolfo, during a Friday conference on nuclear power at the University of the Philippines National Institute of Geological Sciences (UP-NIGS), accused Cojuangco of "dangerously misrepresenting" the scientific study, which covered the geology of Subic Bay. Rodolfo, also an adjunct professor at UP-NIGS and a staunch critic of nuclear energy, argued that the paper did not certify the safety of the area where the BNPP is located. A heated exchange ensued during the open forum when Cojuangco tried to rebut Rodolfo's accusations, saying that the rest of his proposed measure was based on solid scientific data. Cojuangco also said that the bill was meant to ensure long-term availability of power in the country and reduce the effects of global warming. But Rodolfo rebuked Cojuangco saying that the lawmaker should have understood the purpose of their paper, which studied geologic faults in Subic Bay and not Natib where the BNPP stands. Rodolfo said his team even found by accident some geologic faults previously undetected. These could in fact cause some danger to surrounding areas of Subic, which includes Natib, some 10 kilometers away, he said. "What you're doing is cherry-picking arguments that would make your proposal look good," Rodolfo said. Trying to calm down, Cojuangco finally apologized to Rodolfo and said he would amend his bill. "I'm going to try to put amendments in my explanatory note that you are anti-nuclear." Rodolfo also posted online a statement about the alleged misuse of the study.