When it was first published last week, a controversial New York Times column about the secrets of Jewish genius linked to a 2005 study from a researcher labeled an extremist, revered by white supremacists and discredited by scientists and who, for years, worked as a distinguished professor at the University of Utah.

Citing the late U. anthropologist Henry Harpending, expectedly, touched off criticism. Hours after it appeared online, The Times commentary was updated with an editors note saying it had been a mistake to mention the study, which has been widely questioned and long seen as an argument of racial superiority.

The note suggests that conservative columnist Bret Stephens did not know that Harpending promoted racist ideas. It also says Stephens was not endorsing the study or its authors views but acknowledges that his reference to the research, nevertheless, left an impression with many readers that Mr. Stephens was arguing that Jews are genetically superior. That was not his intent.

The paragraph Stephens wrote about Harpendings research has since been deleted online. And on Friday, the University of Utah deleted a complimentary memorial post from its Department of Anthropology that had said Harpendings scholarly and personal footprint will be long lasting in the field.

The U. also noted in response to the column that none of the three authors of the paper Harpending, Gregory Cochran or then-student Jason Hardy work at the school any longer. Harpending was there from 1997 until he died of a stroke in 2016.

Statements attributed to Henry Harpending that promote ideas in line with white nationalist ideology stand in direct opposition to the University of Utahs values of equity, diversity and inclusion ... " said Annalisa Purser, the universitys spokeswoman.

As such, we will meet these words with ours: Racist views and rhetoric that position one race as superior to another are inaccurate and harmful," she said. "The University of Utah is bolstered by its diversity, which allows individuals from different backgrounds and perspectives to come together to address challenges in new and creative ways.

Neither Cochran nor Hardy could not be reached by The Salt Lake Tribune for comment. Its unclear why none of the researchers faced censure while at the university for publishing the piece, though Purser added, Speech even when it is racist is protected by the U.S. Constitution and is necessary for the free exchange of ideas.

This has been a very painful time already for Jews in the United States, said Amy Spiro, a Jewish journalist whose work has been published in Variety, Jewish Insider and The Jerusalem Post. And then this column came out, she told The Tribune in a phone interview. Its just generated a lot of controversy. It doesnt seem like this is helpful in any way.

In their disputed study, the U. researchers focused on Ashkenazi Jews, or those who settled in central and Eastern Europe (as opposed to Spain or the Middle East). Among supremacists, the group is often seen as pure because many are white.

Harpending, Cochran and Hardy argue that Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs, on average, than the general public (including other non-Ashkenazi Jews). Their theory is that in medieval times, individuals in the faith group in Europe were pushed into finance jobs because of the Christian prohibition of usury, or lending money for interest. Over time, many became rich and had more surviving children than poorer families who worked on farms. They also married within the community and stayed fairly isolated.

The University of Utah has long been known as an expert in genetic research, but this paper Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence is typically seen as a low point in that expertise. The authors created their own algorithm for determining genetic makeup and cited several scientists also viewed as racist.

The researchers have been criticized on and off since the study came out in 2005 and was published in The Journal of Biosocial Science the next year; that publication was previously called The Eugenics Review up until the 1970s. Eugenics is the controversial pseudo-science popular among Nazis for improving the human race by forced sterilization of poor people.

The Times piece on the study was largely uncritical beyond that; it was written by reporter Nicholas Wade, who later wrote his own book on genetics that shares some ideas with Harpending and Cochran. (Cochran had previously written about incorrect claims that being gay was caused by an infectious disease.)

The head of New York Universitys human-genetics program said: Its bad science not because its provocative, but because its bad genetics and bad epidemiology.

In a 2007 press release about later research by Harpending, the school acknowledged his 2005 paper had created a stir and that critics had questioned the quality of the science.

Harpending continued to speak, though, including at white supremacist conferences, about his also inaccurate ideas that black people are genetically prone to be lazy. His profile on the Southern Poverty Law Centers page lists him as a white nationalist and an extremist who believed in eugenics.

In other words, as an anthropologist looking around the world, he said in 2009 at the Preserving Western Civilization conference, what I see is that men work and produce things when theyre forced into it, and when theyre not, they quit. And Im thinking about, you know tribes in central Africa, but you know its true in Baltimore too, right?

His obituary noted he came to Utah from Pennsylvania State University after earning his doctorate at Harvard.

Stephens, who is Jewish, ultimately argues in his column that theres a cultural not genetic explanation for Jewish genius, stemming from Judaisms religious tradition of encouraging believers to not only observe and obey but also discuss and disagree. He also believes group members became more innovative and creative by typically being in the minority wherever theyve lived.

His original mention of the study read: The common answer is that Jews are, or tend to be, smart. When it comes to Ashkenazi Jews, its true. Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average I.Q. of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data, noted one 2005 paper. During the 20th century, they made up about 3 percent of the U.S. population but won 27 percent of the U.S. Nobel science prizes and 25 percent of the ACM Turing awards. They account for more than half of world chess champions.

That data on awards is not technically wrong, though it broadly counts anyone as Jewish who has a grandparent with ancestry in the faith.

Stephens mentioned Albert Einstein and Franz Kafka and Karl Marx as prime examples of Jewish intelligence, before asking: How is it that a people who never amounted to even one-third of 1 percent of the worlds population contributed so seminally to so many of its most pathbreaking ideas and innovations?

His use of the paper is just stunning, Kennedy told The Tribune, saying the study was obviously a main tenet of Stephens argument, and not a minor point, like the editors note suggests. I think it should have been killed before it ever got published.

In the later edits, all references to Ashkenazi Jews (which also appeared in two other places in the column) were removed. Many have questioned why Stephens referred to Ashkenazi Jews at all if he didnt agree with the paper and was generally talking about Jewish culture, and not superiority.

What was even the point of the column? Spiro asked. Its confusing.

Stephens joined The Times in 2017, after winning a Pulitzer Prize for his work at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and serving as editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post. He has previously come under fire for bullying a professor who called him a bedbug.

Some have called for his resignation, particularly liberal readers who disagree with his more conservative pieces, but Kennedy believes the Jewish genius piece is a new low. The associate professor, who teaches ethics in journalism at Northeastern, said the commentary needed more than an editors note about the concerns raised.

Read the original here:
A New York Times column on 'Jewish genius' draws criticism for linking to a debunked University of Utah study - Salt Lake Tribune

Post Views: 417

Dating apps such as Tinder, Bumbleand Plenty of Fish (POF) are changing dating patterns and habits. Instead of traditional ways of courtship, individuals are meeting others online. Today, millions of users download such apps to connect with other singles. Matching on these apps rely on an algorithm, in which a score is assigned to each user. This score depends on the number of swipes or likes received. People with similar scores are matched together.

However, if that wasnt enough, imagine if a dating app was to determine matching based on each persons genetics. Harvard geneticist George Church announced that he has decided to partner with Barghavi Govindarajans digid8 to create a DNA-based dating app. The products end goal is to avoid the births of people who could inherit severe genetic diseases. Matches are determined by whether individuals are dominant or recessive carriers of certain genes. Incompatible or screened-out matches are those that, in the event of pregnancy between the two people, would result in severe illnesses that could lead to premature death and strenuous pain for the offspring. Approximately 5% of the matches would be ruled out, but according to Church, about 7,000 genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia and thalassemia would be eliminated by using digiD8. This would lead to huge savings in medical costs and expenses. It would also play a significant role in affecting health and longevity in the long run.

After Churchs 60 Minutes appearance, many are outraged about the potential harms of digiD8. Many liken his idea to eugenics, a set of beliefs that promotes the improvement of the genetic quality of the human population through means of forced sterilization, breeding and extermination. This ideology was ultimately promoted by the Nazis to create a pure Aryan race. Fordham ethics professor Elizabeth Yuko claims that by having a DNA-based app, humans would be classified into a group of acceptables and another that was classified as the others. A slippery slope would emerge as trans people, people of certain races, along with the disabled and chronically sick would be further socially stigmatized. They would be targeted for being different and diversity would be reduced. Standards of perfection would also be imposed, instead of accepting the beauty in human flaws and the uniqueness in individuals appearances.

Despite that, Church claims that the app had no intentions of trying to categorize certain individuals as inferior, and that unlike eugenics, which was forced on different human beings, the app will rely on its users consent.

Like other forms of tech, there are additional concerns regarding privacy and data security. Many are unsure if the company would misuse the results for their own economic gain. App developers could utilize genetic research about complex traits to program the app for their own purposes. The data could also be sold to biomedical companies and firms without informing users.

Another valid concern pertains to data protection, as many DNA testing companies such as MyHeritage Ancestry have faced scrutiny for data breaches. The usernames, passwords, emails and account information of over 92 million users were compromised. Thankfully, no actual genetic data was leaked. If information about peoples DNA and genes were leaked, hackers could profit illegally from selling and copying genetic code, as well as individuals health histories. In the FAQ for the app, Church has stated that the app would rely on encryption and blockchain to keep the data safe.

The app is still a work in progress. When digiD8 is finally released, it will be interesting to see how people respond to it. There are some who might be interested in finding love based on genetics. Others who are less interested about reproduction might overlook such an app. Pending research would have to be done to observe the correlation between love and DNA.

Besides that, its important to observe how law will respond to this technological catalyst. How will laws address issues that arise from the dating app?

Here is the original post:
Digid8 and the Emergence of DNA Matchmaking - Study Breaks

Treatment with ambroxol a medication used to treat respiratory conditions associated with excessive mucus reversed bone damage and decreased the excessive liver and spleen volume of a 5-year-old girl with Gaucher disease (GD) type 1, a case study shows.

Titled Ambroxol improves skeletal and hematological manifestations on a child with Gaucher disease, the case study was published in the Journal of Human Genetics.

Mutations in the GBA gene in people with Gaucher alter the formation of the beta-glucocerebrosidase enzyme, which in turn leads to the toxic buildup of a lipid (fat) called glucocerebroside in the spleen, liver, lung, bone, and brain cells.

Ambroxol, an available cough and cold medicine, is known to boost beta-glucocerebrosidase activity. It works as a chaperone therapy, a type of small molecule that binds to faulty enzymes and helps them fold properly. High-dose oral ambroxol also has shown promise in easing the neurological symptoms of patients with GD type 3.

Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) has been the mainstay treatment for people with GD type 1. It has led to significant improvements in complications such as the abnormal enlargement of abdominal organs, called hepatosplenomegaly, and blood disorders. However, it has shown limited efficacy to the progressive skeletal manifestations in GD, the researchers said.

A team from China now described the case of a 5-year-old girl with complaints of severe pain in both legs, which restrained her from walking independently. According to her parents, the child had intermittent GD-related bone crises over two years. These were worse in the winter and eased upon several days of rest.

Clinical examination revealed enlargement of the girls spleen and liver. Imaging showed that both femurs, or thighbones, had aseptic necrosis, meaning that the bone tissue had died due to lack of blood supply. Aseptic necrosis is a well-known skeletal complication in GD.

Results of abone marrow biopsy and a measurement of beta-glucocerebrosidase activity levels were consistent with a diagnosis of GD. Genetic testing showed the girl had two distinct mutations in the GBA gene.

Given her age and manifestations, ERT and substrate reduction therapy were both contraindicated. After obtaining parental consent, doctors enrolled the patient in a compassionate use clinical protocol for ambroxol.

The girl received up to 15 mg/kg of daily ambroxol for three years without any side effects. No further bone crisis was seen after treatment initiation. Importantly, ambroxol reduced liver and spleen volume, and slightly increased white and red blood cell counts after two years.

In addition, disease severity gradually decreased after almost three years, as measured by the blood activity of chitotriosidase, a GD biomarker.

Annual imaging also showed a reversal of damage in the top part of the girls femurs, allowing the near-normal growth of the femoral heads.

Cellular assays revealed increased activity of beta-glucocerebrosidase in the patients lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell. The scientists suggested that ambroxols small size might contribute to its efficient penetration into bone tissue as indicated by the observed skeletal improvements.

In conclusion, this is the first report describing the therapeutic effects of oral ABX [ambroxol] on the bone and hematological manifestations of a child with an established [GD1], the scientists said.

Randomized and controlled clinical trials are necessary to further assess and confirm these findings, they added.

With over three years of experience in the medical communications business, Catarina holds a BSc. in Biomedical Sciences and a MSc. in Neurosciences. Apart from writing, she has been involved in patient-oriented translational and clinical research.

Total Posts: 24

Jos is a science news writer with a PhD in Neuroscience from Universidade of Porto, in Portugal. He has also studied Biochemistry at Universidade do Porto and was a postdoctoral associate at Weill Cornell Medicine, in New York, and at The University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario, Canada. His work has ranged from the association of central cardiovascular and pain control to the neurobiological basis of hypertension, and the molecular pathways driving Alzheimers disease.

View original post here:
Ambroxol Reverses Bone Damage in Girl With GD Type 1, Case Study Shows - Gaucher Disease News

The study of ancient DNA has enriched our evolving tale of early human history. In the field, its resolved long-standing debates, raised new questions, and added nuance to our perpetual quest to answer what it means to be human.

A decade ago, a team of scientists announced that they had pieced together the full genome of a 38,000-year-old Neanderthal. Their findings ushered in a new decade of discovery and understanding. The sequence was not only a marvel of new technology; it shed light on a debate about how these archaic humans may have interacted with our direct ancestors.

The two had interbred. The idea had circulated in some circles, but had long been considered the musings of a lunatic fringe by many in the field. But now, there it was, etched in the DNA.Paleogeneticists are also digging into ancient genomes looking for biological answers to those questions.

But piecing together a fuller story will take a multidisciplinary approach.Im done with who questions, says archaeology professor John Shea. Ancient DNA is freeing archaeologists up to start looking at the really interesting questions. And the most interesting question is how.

Human origins research. The phrase probably evokes an image of dusty scientists hunched over in the sun, combing the ground for scraps left behind by people of millennia past. The field has long been the realm of stones and bones, with test tube-filled laboratories playing second fiddle.

But thats changing. Paleoanthropology has found a second home in the lab, as geneticists have joined the field, extracting DNA from fossils in search of new insights into early human history.

Its white coat science, says John Shea, a professor of archaeology at Stony Brook University. Its not bluejeans and khaki shirt science.

Over the past decade, the study of ancient DNA has enriched our evolving tale of early human history. In the field, its resolved long-standing debates, raised new questions, and added nuance to our perpetual quest to answer what it means to be human.

I cant tell you how many times Ive had to rewrite lectures because of new paleogenetics revelations, says Jennifer Raff, an anthropological geneticist at the University of Kansas. I cant wait to see what the next decade brings.

Ancient DNA, or aDNA, was just beginning to catch on when Dr. Raff finished her dual Ph.D. in anthropology and genetics in 2008. Fragments of ancient genomes were being sequenced, analyzed, and discussed. But Dr. Raff was unsure if science could ever recover full genomes from long back in time.

But then it happened. The following year, a team of scientists announced that they had pieced together the full genome of a 38,000-year-old Neanderthal. They published their findings in May 2010 in the journal Science, ushering in a new decade of discovery and understanding.

The sequence was not only a marvel of this new technology; it shed light on a long-standing debate about how these archaic humans may have interacted with our direct ancestors.

The two had interbred. The idea had circulated in some circles, but had long been considered the musings of a lunatic fringe by many in the field. But now, there it was, etched in the DNA.

For decades, scientists categorized hominins based on the differences in the shape of their bones. But DNA has brought a faster way to get more definitive answers about the identities of ancient peoples.

Im done with who questions, Dr. Shea says. Ancient DNA is freeing archaeologists up to start looking at the really interesting questions. And the most interesting question is how. How did a group of ancient people move across a forbidding landscape? How did they survive through frigid winters?

Those questions can help to animate our view of the past, and deepen our understanding of where we come from. Paleogeneticists are digging into ancient genomes looking for biological answers to those questions, too, but piecing together a fuller story will take a multidisciplinary approach, says Dr. Raff.

Theres a whole field of anthropology that talks about what makes us human, and thats not just our biology, she says. Its also culture and technology and behavior and ecology. Theres just so much that goes into understanding the past.

The revelation that Neanderthals interbred with early Homo sapiens has raised some fundamental questions about what it means to be human.

Traditionally, the line between species is defined by whether they can interbreed and produce viable offspring that can, in turn, produce viable offspring. But, due to similarities in the bones and now the genetic evidence, some anthropologists have labeled Neanderthals as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and anatomically modern humans as Homo sapiens sapiens.

One such researcher is Fred Smith, professor emeritus of anthropology and biology at Illinois State University. He argues it from a morphological point of view, too.

You would never mistake a Neanderthal for anything but a human, Dr. Smith says. It might not be a human that youd like to go on a blind date with, but if you saw one, you wouldnt think of it as not being human.

By that logic, many researchers refer to other members of the genus Homo as human, too. But some say it might be our understanding of speciation that needs revising, not the distinctions among species in the genus.

The pattern of evolutionary thinking is that you have a point in time where two lineages diverge, after which they do not cross again, says Rick Potts, director of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural Historys Human Origins Program.

But that branching model of evolution and speciation is proving to be too simplistic across biology, with hybridizing appearing among present-day creatures, too. Evolution and the formation of species are a process, not an event, he says.

Regardless of whether we can call Neanderthals one of us, the revelation of prehistoric trysts between the two peoples has changed our perception of those other humans.

Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox.

Before ancient DNA came on the scene, Neanderthal was often lobbed as an insult and sometimes still is. When archaeologists suggested that they had found Neanderthal art and musical instruments, they were dismissed quickly, as the logic went that only Homo sapiens could have the cognitive abilities for that level of creativity. But with the revelation that we are similar enough to them that we could interbreed, that kind of research has been entertained and discussed more frequently.

I think it gives a very important correction on those who would see the Neanderthal simply as incapable of thought, incapable of being clever, Dr. Potts says. And it also, I think, gives a bit of humility to ourselves for those who are willing to look at it.

Read this article:
Etched in DNA: Decoding the secrets of the past - Christian Science Monitor

Fertility expert Marcelle Cedars discusses the future of reproductive medicine.

By Ariel Bleicher UCSF Magazine

Advances in medicine and public health have dramatically extended the human lifespan. Our hearts, lungs, and other vital organs now last 79 years on average. For women, however, the ovaries which stop functioning at an average 51 years remain a stubborn exception. That may soon change, says fertility expert Marcelle Cedars, MD, during a conversation on the future of reproductive medicine.

There are two aspects. One is qualitative. As a woman ages, the quality of her eggs meaning their capacity to make a healthy baby declines. We understand very little about what causes this decline. If we understood that process better, we could dramatically impact fertility success rates.

The other aspect is quantitative. Women are born with a finite number of eggs, and they lose those eggs throughout their lifetime. In fact, that rapid decline in egg numbers starts even before birth. Theres a peak in utero of five to six million eggs. At birth, a woman has only about 1.5 million eggs; at the time of puberty, about 500,000. Through genetics research, were learning that the rate of this decline and the variability from woman to woman is largely driven by ones genes.

Exactly. But what if we could use your genetics and other biological data to understand your unique fertility risks and develop therapies specifically for you or for groups of women like you? This approach is called precision medicine. It has made a huge impact in the world of cancer in terms of improving survival rates. But in the field of reproductive health, precision medicine is still in its infancy.

Potentially. If we can pinpoint the mechanisms of ovarian aging, we could potentially develop a therapy that enables you to still have healthy eggs into your 50s, possibly your 60s. But just because we can do something doesnt always mean we should do it. We know that as women get older, pregnancies are more complicated. You have higher risk for things like high blood pressure, diabetes, and preterm labor. There are many downstream implications, both for the mothers health and the childs.

I dont think the goal should be to enable women to get pregnant into their 60s. Rather, we want women to have the best reproductive lifespan possible to be able to have children when they want to and to not have children when they don't want to and to have a society that supports women across that spectrum.

Were starting to believe that some of the same cellular mechanisms that underlie general aging might also control ovarian aging. This revelation makes the ovary even more interesting to study because its early demise could be a unique window into the bodys aging process. If we can identify cases of accelerated ovarian aging and understand the underlying causes, we might be able to improve not only reproductive function in individual women but also overall health and longevity for all women.

Samesex couples having genetically related children is probably on the horizon. Scientists are learning how to take skin cells or blood cells and turn them into stem cells, which can then be turned into eggs or sperm. Thats not science fiction; its already happening. We just need to figure out how to do it well and safely in humans.

Well probably also see germline engineering. Thats the process of editing genes in reproductive cells or embryos. It has the potential to cure disease before birth. This technology is here. But will society be ready to accept it? A lot of questions need to be answered before its put to use. In addition to technical hurdles, there are innumerable social issues. For instance, if we can eliminate a certain disease, will there be less focus on treatments for people who still have the disease? And what about access to care and social equity? Who would be able to afford these procedures? How will they be applied?

Restrictions are currently preventing the U.S. government from funding research that involves the manipulation of human embryos. As a result, funding for reproductive science is low, which has driven a lot of experts out of academia. If we want to see a revolution in reproductive health, like whats happening with precision cancer medicine, we need to invest in the development of scientific knowledge that will move this field forward.

Go here to read the rest:
The End of Infertility Is in Sight - UCSF News Services