Archives de la catégorie science blogs
The guy who is « Helping idiots who desperately need [his] assistance by calling them fucking morons since 2004« , is blogging in a new place. Seems that almost all of those I followed at Sb decided to move elsewhere ::shrug::
Yes!!! It finally happened! The shiny new Scientific American blog network is now live! We are excited to announce that 39 new blogs joined the network […]
I’ll add here to the post accepted by PZ Myers. The comments will stay off, trackbacks open, the discussion belongs to Pharyngula.
Entre la technique originale de production des iPS par Yamanaka et ce jour, il y a eu des progrès quant aux techniques utilisées, notamment pour éviter la modification permanente du génome qui est source de complications – majeures les complications.
Au moins deux grandes tendances ont déjà été publiées, utilisant :
Groundbreaking work demonstrated that ectopic expression of four transcription factors, Oct4, Klf4, Sox2, and c-Myc, could reprogram murine somatic cells to induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) (Takahashi and Yamanaka, 2006), and human iPSCs were subsequently generated using similar genetic manipulation (Takahashi et al., 2007; Yu et al., 2007). To address the safety issues arose from harboring integrated exogenous sequences in the target cell genome, a number of modified genetic methods have been developed and produced iPSCs with potentially reduced risks (for discussion, see Yamanaka, 2009, and references therein). However, all of the methods developed to date still involve the use of genetic materials and thus the potential for unexpected genetic modiﬁcations by the exogenous sequences in the target cells. Here we report generation of protein-induced pluripotent stem cells (piPSCs) from murine embryonic fibroblasts using recombinant cell-penetrating reprogramming proteins. We demonstrated that such piPSCs can long-term self-renew and are pluripotent in vitro and in vivo
Clinical application of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) is limited by the low efficiency of iPSC derivation and the fact that most protocols modify the genome to effect cellular reprogramming. Moreover, safe and effective means of directing the fate of patient-specific iPSCs toward clinically useful cell types are lacking. Here we describe a simple, non integrating strategy for reprogramming cell fate based on administration of synthetic mRNA modified to overcome innate antiviral responses. We show that this approach can reprogram multiple human cell types to pluripotency with efficiencies that greatly surpass established protocols. We further show that the same technology can be used to efficiently direct the differentiation of RNA-induced pluripotent stem cells (RiPSCs) into terminally differentiated myogenic cells. This technology represents a safe, efficient strategy for somatic cell reprogramming and directing cell fate that has broad applicability for basic research, disease modeling, and regenerative medicine.
Tom Roud n’aura pas à attendre longtemps pour voir sa prédiction réalisée 😉 Emmett Brown est passé par là…
« blogia non sunt multiplicanda praete necessitatem »
And they have a forum !
What Happens When You Die? Evidence Suggests Time Simply Reboots, by Robert Lanza, M.D., Scientist, Theoretician, triggered more reactions than other posts of Robert Lanza, such as « Is There a God or Is There Nothingness? New Scientific Paradigm » or « Why You’re Alive and Can Never Die: The Larger Scientific Picture ». Or Robert Lanza‘s « Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe » book, where Robert Lanza lays out his theory of everything.
I wonder why?
Anyway, Lanza is not happy with it and he wrote to demand to take down posts critic to his stance, addressing Seed Media. That’s a stupid thing to do, as much stupid as writing letters to vice chancellors of academic affairs to ask them to interfere with free speech of one of their colleagues.
This post is part of a Google bomb, illustrating the Streisand effect: When trying to block information backfires.
I wonder if I shouldn’t have a « quantum flapdoodle » category/page to list the various instantiations of… quantum flapdoodle.
Working during summer time in France is like being in a slow motion video with big chunks missing (on vacations). The interesting part is that you get easier access to some facilities, as long as the services are correctly organized.
Sometimes I get the same sensation as Neo must had in a slow down Matrix.
The funny thing is that it affects me directly and many of my extra-professional activities are affected as well. And blogging is part of them, with less posts and less serious stuff posted. I’m more in a planning than acting mood.
A few months ago I considered changing my blogging for several reasons.
A few weeks ago I started a cleaning session for my blogroll and RSS feeds aggregator. Just before Pepsigate. I had to slow it down, trying to catch with the people changing home and the bouquet was yesterday with the announcement of Scientopia. During this period I took out of my drawer an old project of a RSS feed aggregator which I proposed to a few people. Just two responded, the first one showing some interest and promising to think about it and the second one kindly declined my offer, engaged in another environment. With so much support I’m certain I must drop the idea and do things differently.
The announcement of Scientopia gave me a few hours of hope that there may be a science blogs network I would like to join. Those I had considered before presenting some feature that I didn’t liked. Blogging in a network can bring great benefits but also carries responsibilities I wouldn’t like to consider for my free time activities. I read Scientopia’s code and I like it… But I wouldn’t like to have to comply. PZ Myers nailed the main problem. Too much respect over there. And I’m not prone to respect people just because we are at the same side of an argument. I already had issues with science and skeptic bloggers with too much accommodationist stances or not enough rigorous approaches of some subjects. I may respect the guys but certainly not some of their ideas and I prefer to be on my own to speak without the burden of any collective’s code. So, as much I like Scientopia and I wish them well, as much I wouldn’t consider joining (not that anybody asked me to).
For various reasons this blog has being essentially written in French. Not very good reasons, as I evaluate them today, and thus this will change (changed already). Most of the interesting (for me) stuff of the sci-blogosphere is discussed in english. I’ll join the discussion with at least one notable exception: my local French têtes de turcs, as Tom Roud named them, the matter not being interesting for people outside the frontiers (and when necessary the discussion will be in english anyway).
Spiritual Intrusions in Science will be probably one of the main subjects (SIiS is a nice acronym for a new category). They piss me off, and this not just to protect the Ivory Tower but much about science related and based politics. One can fear decisions made on the basis of nonsensical beliefs, ignorance (sometime willful) and irrational stances. This is a large subject and I expect the Templeton Foundation to do their best to provide matter for discussion in their efforts to promote scienligion. Biologos is already full of stuff, and then there is the HuffPost.
Cool Science Stuff, where cool is whatever help me chill out will be the main subject. Obviously(?) this will be biology-centered, but biology is to be taken to the largest possible sense. Thus including zombies, whether you consider them still alive or leftovers of a living form. Coyne is right, being a biologist is one of the best things I ever done (even physicists are jealous).
Beauties! There are so much beautiful things around us that I spend a large part of my day being amazed by and I sometimes dream of them. Coffee time is quite appropriate for beauty and not limited to females of my species.
The Answer to Life, the Universe(s) and Everything Else, that is 42. Why? Philosophical musings (and this is in italics people, I’m not much of a philosopher except from some cultural imprinting, being greek). Consider this to be some kind of alternative humor section. Where I will keep searching for L2/R2 😉
Maybe reset is not the most appropriate title for this post, but this is how I feel actually.
A new science blogging network announced by MarkCC, who moved « Good Math, Bad Math » over there: Scientopia.
- Adventures in Ethics and Science
- Attack Polymerase
- Book of Trogool
- Candid Engineer in Academia
- Chemical BiLOLogy
- Child’s Play
- Christina’s LIS Rant
- Galactic Interactions
- Good Math/Bad Math
- Neurotic Physiology
- Professor in Training
- Prof-Like Substance
- Sanitized for Your Protection
- Skulls in the Stars
- The Brain Confounds Everything
- The Questionable Authority
- The Urban Ethnographer
- This Scientific Life
- Thus Spake Zuska
- Voltage Gate
- White Coat Underground
Les commentaires chez S. Huet sont fermés ! Je les active donc ici.
Je signalais il y a quelques jours un billet de Sylvestre Huet mettant en avant le texte de mise en garde contre les tests génétiques et surtout leur interprétation, signé par une dizaine de sociétés savantes, dont l’objet est relatif à la génétique.
Il y a eu une amorce de discussion dans les commentaires, dont l’un des intervenants, JLS, est un des signataires du texte en question; il indique 400 signataires, d’où mon titre. Il est heureux de voir que des scientifiques prennent le temps d’attirer l’attention du public sur les problèmes que peuvent receler certains produits commerciaux. On ne peut qu’espérer que cette attitude inspirera à d’autres sociétés savantes le besoin de prendre le temps nécessaire pour attirer l’attention sur d’autres types de produits et services qui sont disponibles sur le marché et qui pourraient présenter des risques bien plus importants que ce que les généticiens dénoncent ici.
Revenons au texte présenté par SFGH, FFGH, ACLF, ANPGM, AFGCCG, AFCG, SOFFOET, CPEGM, SFG, ADELF : QUELLE VALEUR ACCORDER AUX PREDICTIONS DE RISQUES POUR LES MALADIES MULTIFACTORIELLES ?
C’est con que Jean-Michel n’a pas suivi le conseil de Jean-Pierre concernant les documents préparés par Robert Finkelstein, « Overview of Military Memetics » et « Memetics Compendium ». Les critiques de la mémétique et des méméticiens ne manquent pas dans l’introduction du second document. Bien sûr, si on ne le lit pas on ne peut pas savoir. Ainsi Jean-Michel opte pour la position de l’ignorant, qui souhaite quand même avoir une opinion personnelle, et qui se permet de donner une interprétation de la situation :
C’est bien entendu une manière rhétorique de protéger sa théorie des critiques. Plutôt que de discuter des arguments de fonds, on met en doute l’expertise du critique.