Page 1,461«..1020..1,4601,4611,4621,463..1,4701,480..»

FDA Cracks Down On Stem-Cell Clinics Selling Unapproved Treatments – NPR

Posted: September 4, 2017 at 9:44 am

Adult stem cells can be extracted from human fat. Patrick T. Fallon /The Washington Post/Getty Images hide caption

Adult stem cells can be extracted from human fat.

The Food and Drug Administration is cracking down on "unscrupulous" clinics selling unproven and potentially dangerous treatments involving stem cells.

Hundreds of clinics around the country have started selling stem cell therapies that supposedly use stem cells but have not been approved as safe and effective by the FDA, according to the agency.

"There are a small number of unscrupulous actors who have seized on the clinical promise of regenerative medicine, while exploiting the uncertainty, in order to make deceptive, and sometimes corrupt assurances to patients based on unproven and, in some cases, dangerously dubious products," FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said in a statement Monday.

The FDA has taken action against clinics in California and Florida.

The agency sent a warning letter to the US Stem Cell Clinic of Sunrise, Fla., and its chief scientific officer, Kristin Comella, for "marketing stem cell products without FDA approval and significant deviations from current good manufacturing practice requirements."

The clinic is one of many around the country that claim to use stem cells derived from a person's own fat to treat a variety of conditions, including Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and lung and heart diseases, the FDA says.

The Florida clinic had been previously linked to several cases of blindness caused by attempts to use fat stem cells to treat macular degeneration.

The FDA also said it has taken "decisive action" to "prevent the use of a potentially dangerous and unproven treatment" offered by StemImmune Inc. of San Diego, Calif., and administered to patients at California Stem Cell Treatment Centers in Rancho Mirage and Beverly Hills, Calif.

As part of that action, the U.S. Marshals Service seized five vials of live vaccinia virus vaccine that is supposed to be reserved for people at high risk for smallpox but was being used as part of a stem-cell treatment for cancer, according to the FDA. "The unproven and potentially dangerous treatment was being injected intravenously and directly into patients' tumors," according to an FDA statement.

Smallpox essentially has been eradicated from the planet, but samples are kept in reserve in the U.S. and Russia, and vaccines are kept on hand as a result.

But Elliot Lander, medical director of the California Stem Cell Treatment Centers, denounced the FDA's actions in an interview with Shots.

"I think it's egregious," Lander says. "I think they made a mistake. I'm really baffled by this."

While his clinics do charge some patients for treatments that use stem cells derived from fat, Lander says, none of the cancer patients were charged and the treatments were administered as part of a carefully designed research study.

"Nobody was charged a single penny," Lander says. "We're just trying to move the field forward."

In a written statement, U.S. Stem Cell also defended its activities.

"The safety and health of our patients are our number one priority and the strict standards that we have in place follow the laws of the Food and Drug Administration," according to the statement.

"We have helped thousands of patients harness their own healing potential," the statement says. "It would be a mistake to limit these therapies from patients who need them when we are adhering to top industry standards."

But stem-cell researchers praised the FDA's actions.

"This is spectacular," says George Daley, dean of the Harvard Medical School and a leading stem-cell researcher. "This is the right thing to do."

Daley praised the FDA's promise to provide clear guidance soon for vetting legitimate stem-cell therapies while cracking down on "snake-oil salesmen" marketing unproven treatments.

Stem-cell research is "a major revolution in medicine. It's bound to ultimately deliver cures," Daley says. "But it's so early in the field," he adds. "Unfortunately, there are unscrupulous practitioners and clinics that are marketing therapies to patients, often at great expense, that haven't been proven to work and may be unsafe."

Others agreed.

"I see this is a major, positive step by the FDA," says Paul Knoepfler, a professor of cell biology at the University of of California, Davis, who has documented the proliferation of stem-cell clinics.

"I'm hoping that this signals a historic shift by the FDA to tackle the big problem of stem-cell clinics selling unapproved and sometimes dangerous stem cell "treatments" that may not be real treatments," Knoepfler says.

Read this article:
FDA Cracks Down On Stem-Cell Clinics Selling Unapproved Treatments - NPR

Posted in Stem Cell Treatments | Comments Off on FDA Cracks Down On Stem-Cell Clinics Selling Unapproved Treatments – NPR

How Stem Cell Therapy Can Help Repair and … – Mercola.com

Posted: September 4, 2017 at 9:43 am

By Dr. Mercola

Kristin Comella,1 named No. 1 on the Academy of Regenerative Practices list of Top 10 stem cell innovators, has been a stem cell researcher for nearly two decades. In this interview, she discusses the enormous regenerative potential of stem cell therapy.

Comella, who holds degrees in chemical and biomedical engineering, began working with stem cells in graduate school, using a technique called magnetic cell sorting, which involves tagging nanoparticle magnets onto cells and then separating the cells based on the proteins they express.

"What we've learned over the years is that stem cells express different proteins than other kinds of cells in your body," she explains. "That began my career in the field of stem cells."

Over the years, she's worked for several different companies. At a start-up in Maryland, she used stem cells from bone marrow (culture-expanded mesenchymal stem cells) for meniscus regeneration. By placing these cells directly into the knee joint, you can repair or even grow back a damaged meniscus.

For a time, she also headed up the Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) facility at Tulane University, which is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) facility located at the Tulane Center for Gene Therapy. There, her work revolved around using bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells for spinal cord regeneration.

For the past 13 years, she's worked for U.S. Stem Cell, a company founded in 1999. The company began bringing stem cells for cardiac care to the public. Muscle-derived stem cells can be used to repair heart damage associated with heart attacks. "Our company treated our first patient in 2001. Since that time, we've treated over 7,000 patients. We began looking at other indications about a decade ago. We also began looking at stem cells from a variety of different sources," she says.

The primary purpose of stem cells is to maintain, heal and regenerate tissues wherever they reside in your body. This is a continuous process that occurs inside your body throughout your life. If you didn't have stem cells, your lifespan would be about an hour, because there would be nothing to replace exhausted cells or damaged tissue. In addition, any time your body is exposed to any sort of toxin, the inflammatory process causes stem cells to swarm the area to repair the damage.

"As an example, you might have gone to the gym this morning [and] done some squats. As a result of that, you would get tiny tears inside the muscle. The stem cells that reside beneath the muscle would come out and repair all those tears.

The reason that, if you continuously go to the gym, you would start to build new muscle, is because those stem cells, hard at work underneath your muscle, are helping to repair and build that new muscle. This would apply to all of the tissues inside your body," Comella explains.

While it's easy to think of stem cell therapy as a magic bullet, it would be wise to implement strategies that nourish and thereby help optimize the stem cells you already have in your body. As noted by Comella:

"You have to create an appropriate environment for these cells to function in. If you are putting garbage into your body and you're constantly burdening your body with toxins, your stem cells are getting too distracted trying to fight off those toxins. By creating an appropriate environment, optimizing your diet and reducing exposure to toxins, that will allow the stem cells that we're putting in to really home in and focus on the true issue that we're trying to treat.

The other thing we've discovered over the years is that [stem cell therapy] is not the type of thing where you take one dose and you're cured forever. Your tissues are constantly getting damaged You're going to have to repeat-dose and use those stem cells to your advantage.

When you think about a lizard that loses its tail, it takes two years to grow back the tail. Why would we put unrealistic expectations on the stem cells that we're trying to apply to repair or replace damaged tissue? This is a very slow process. This is something that will occur over months and may require repeat dosing."

Historically, stem cells were isolated from bone marrow, and have been used for bone marrow transplants for cancer patients since the 1930s. However, you can get stem cells from just about any tissue in your body, as every tissue contains stem cells.

Your bone marrow actually has very low amounts of mesenchymal stem cells, which are now believed to be the most important, from a therapeutic perspective. Mesenchymal stem cells help trigger an immunomodulatory response or a paracrine effect, which means they send signals out to the rest of your body, calling cells to the area to help promote healing.

"What we've discovered in more recent years is that a more plentiful source of stem cells is actually your fat tissue. [Body] fat can contain up to 500 times more cells than your bone marrow, as far as these mesenchymal type stem cells go.

One thing that's also critically important when you're talking about isolating the cells is the number of other cells that are going to be part of that population. When you're isolating a bone marrow sample, this actually is very high in white blood cells, which are pro-inflammatory."

White blood cells are part of your immune response. When an injury occurs, or a foreign body enters your system, white blood cells will attack. Unfortunately, white blood cells do not discriminate, and can create quite a bit of damage as they clean the area out.

Stem cells, in particular your mesenchymal cells, quiet down the white blood cells and then start the regeneration phase, which leads to new tissue. Bone marrow tends to be very high in white blood cells and low in the mesenchymal cells. Isolating stem cells from fat tissue is preferred not only because it's easier on the patient, but fat also contains a higher population of mesenchymal cells and fewer white blood cells.

"The benefit also of isolating [stem cells from] fat is that it's a relatively simple procedure. There's typically no shortage of fat tissue, especially in Americans," Comella says. "[Also], as you age, your bone marrow declines with regards to the number of cells in it, whereas the fat tissue maintains a pretty high number of stem cells, even in older individuals.

We can successfully harvest fat off of just about anyone, regardless of their age or how thin they are. The procedure is done under local [anesthesia], meaning that the patient stays awake. They don't have to go under general anesthesia. We can harvest as few as 15 cubic centimeters of fat, which is a very small amount of fat, and still get a very high number of stem cells."

A stem cell procedure can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000, depending on what you're having done, and rarely if ever will insurance cover it. Still, when you compare it to the cost of long-term medications or the out-of-pocket cost of getting a knee replacement, stem cell therapy may still be a less expensive alternative. Also, a single extraction will typically yield enough stem cells for 20 to 25 future treatments, should you decide to store your stem cells for future need.

"I think it's accessible for patients," Comella says. "It's an out-patient procedure. You plan to be in clinic for about two hours; no real limitations afterwards, just no submerging in water, no alcohol, no smoking for a week. But other than that, patients can resume their normal activities and go about their regular daily lives."

Interestingly, Comella notes that patients who eat a very healthy diet, focusing on organic and grass fed foods, have body fat that is very hearty and almost sticky, yielding high amounts of very healthy stem cells.

"We can grow much better and faster stem cells from that fat than [the fat from] somebody who eats a grain-based diet or is exposed to a lot of toxins in their diet," she says. "Their fat tends to be very fluffy, buttery yellow. The cells that come out of that are not necessarily as good a quality. It's just been very interesting. And of note, patients that are cigarette smokers, their fat is actually gray-tinged in color. The stem cells do not grow well at all."

What's been described above is what's called an autologous donation, meaning you're getting the stem cells from yourself. A number of companies provide non-autologous donations using cells harvested from other people, typically women, like amniotic or embryonic mesenchymal cells. This is an important distinction.

"There are now just a couple of studies that have been published comparing an autologous source, meaning cells from you own body, to an allogeneic source, meaning cells from someone else.

So far, what has been discovered is that the autologous cells, meaning your own cells, will outperform somebody else's cells inside your body. Now, this is not fully understood at this point. It may be that the environment that your cells function in, they're used to that environment. They recognize it. It's the same DNA and they can function well.

However, once you culture expand and get a pure population of these mesenchymal cells not necessarily the sample that's coming right off of the liposuction, but a sample that has been taken to the lab and grown those cells will not elicit an immune response if you use them in someone else. You could scientifically and medically use those in an unmatched person. However, there are some regulatory aspects of that with regards to the FDA."

In the U.S., there are a variety of new stem cell products available, referred to as amniotic, cord blood products or placenta products, which are prepared at a tissue bank. Such facilities must be registered with the FDA, and the products must undergo additional processing.

For example, they must be morselized, or snap frozen or blended in some way. Such processing typically breaks the membrane, releasing growth factors, and the resulting products are called acellular, meaning there are no living cells remaining in the sample.

The amniotic products available in the U.S. are not so much stem cell products as they are growth factor products. According to Comella, they can be useful in creating an immunomodulatory response, which can help to promote healing, but that still differs from the living stem cell procedures that can be done by either isolating cells from your fat or bone marrow. As a general rule, you don't achieve the clinical benefits when using an amniotic product, primarily because they don't contain living stem cells.

"I want to contrast that to what are called embryonic stem cells," Comella adds. "The products obtained from cord blood, from women who are having babies, are not embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are when you are first bringing the egg and sperm together. Three days after that, you can isolate what is called an inner cell mass. This inner cell mass can be used to then grow cells in culture, or that inner cell mass could eventually lead to the formation of a baby.

Those are embryonic stem cells, and those are pluripotential, meaning that they have the ability to form an entire being, versus adult stem cells or stem cells that are present in amniotic tissue, [which] are multipotential, which only have the ability to form subsets of tissue.

When you're dealing with different diseases or damaged tissue or inflammation, mostly you want to repair tissue. If somebody has damage in their knee, they don't necessarily need embryonic cells because they don't need a baby in their knee. They need new cartilage in their knee."

A common question is whether stem cells can cause overgrowth, leading to cancer or tumor formation. As noted by Comella, this is a problem associated with embryonic stem cells, which tend to grow very rapidly and can form a teratoma because of the rapid cell growth. Adult stem cells the cells obtained from your own body have growth inhibitions and will not form teratomas.

"The theoretical concern that has been addressed in animal models or in petri dishes is that if you take cancer cells that are growing in a dish and apply stem cells, it may make those cancer cells grow more rapidly. But this does not translate in-vivo to humans.

If there was truly an issue with applying stem cells to a patient who has cancer, we would know about it by now, because we've been dosing cancer patients with stem cells since the '30s. The safety profile is strong and there are tens of thousands of patients documented with these treatments," Comella says.

Another useful therapy is platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Your peripheral blood contains platelets, which act as first responders when there's an injury. They come in and start the clotting mechanism, thereby preventing you from bleeding to death. They also give marching orders to other cells. For example, platelets can command stem cells to multiply and grow, or to differentiate and form new tissue.

These platelets also have many different growth factors associated with them, which can help to promote healing and stop inflammation. PRP involves taking a blood sample and then spinning the blood in a centrifuge to isolate the platelets. The platelet-rich plasma is then injected back into the area that is inflamed.

"One of the most common uses of platelet-rich plasma or PRP is in a joint. Now, platelets are going to be most successful in something that is rich in stem cells [such as] an acute or a very recent injury.

If you just hurt your knee, the first thing you should do is get PRP, because it's going to help promote healing, and those platelets will attach to the surface receptors of the stem cells that are already going to the area to promote healing. It would be like putting fertilizer on your seed, which are the stem cells.

If you have something more chronic, this tends to be a stem cell-poor environment. In other words, you have osteoarthritis or you've got knee pain that's 5 years old and it's been there for a long time; just putting PRP in it would be like putting fertilizer on dirt without planting a seed first."

The beauty of stem cell therapy is that it mimics a process that is ongoing in your body all the time. Your stem cells are continuously promoting healing, and they do not have to be manipulated in any way. The stem cells naturally know how to home in on areas of inflammation and how to repair damaged tissue.

"All we're doing is harnessing the cells from one location where they're sitting dormant and relocating them to exactly where we want them and we need them to work," Comella says. "Basically, anything inside your body that is inflamed, that is damaged in some way, that is lacking blood supply, the [stem] cells can successfully treat.

That means orthopedics, knee injections, shoulder injections, osteoarthritis, acute injuries, anterior cruciate ligament tears in your back back pain associated with degenerative disc disease or damaged tendons or ligaments, herniated and bulging discs. You can also use it in systemic issues, everything from diabetes, to cardiac, to lungs any tissue organ inside your body that's been damaged.

Autoimmune diseases [can also be treated]. The stem cells are naturally immunosuppressant, meaning they can help quiet down an over reactive immune system and help the immune system function in a more normal way. Neurological diseases, traumatic brain injury, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson's. All of these have to do with tissue that's not functioning properly. The cells can be used to address that."

It's quite impressive, the list of different diseases that could benefit from this intervention. That said, I want to reemphasize that this is not a magic bullet. However, you can dramatically improve the benefits of this intervention by combining it with other healthy lifestyle factors that optimize mitochondrial function, such as eating a healthy whole food diet, exercising, sleeping well, avoiding toxins and detoxifying from toxic influences.

Stem cells can also be used as part of an antiaging program. Comella has used stem cells on herself for several years, and report feeling better now than she did a decade ago.

"The ability to reduce inflammation inside your body is basically making yourself live longer. Inflammation is what kills us all. It's what makes our telomeres shrink. It's what causes us pain and discomfort. It's what makes the tissues start to die. The ability to dose yourself with stem cells and bring down your inflammation, which is most likely caused by any sort of toxin that you've been exposed to breathing air is exposure to toxins this is going to lengthen your lifespan.

I typically will do a dose every six to 12 months, regardless of what's going on. If I have anything that's bothering me, if I tweak my knee at the gym, then I absolutely will come in and do an injection in my knee. I want to keep my tissue healthy for as long as possible.

I want to stay strong. I don't want to wait until something is wrong with me. I think that this is the future of medicine. This is what we're going to start to see. People will begin to get their regular doses of [their own] stem cells and it'll just be common practice."

Keep in mind there's a gradual and progressive decline in the quality and the number of stem cells as you age, so if you're considering this approach, it would be to your advantage to extract and bank your stem cells as early on as possible. U.S. Stem Cell provides a stem cell bank service, so you can store them until a later date when you might need them.

"Your stem cells are never as young as they are right now. Every minute that you live, your telomeres are shrinking. The ability to lock in the youth of your cells today can be very beneficial for you going forward, and for your health going forward. God forbid something happens. What if you have a heart attack? You're not going to get clearance to get a mini-lipo aspirate procedure.

If you have your cells waiting in the bank, ready for you, it becomes very easy to pull a dose and do an IV delivery of cells. It's almost criminal that we're not doing this for every single one of our cardiac patients. This should be standard practice. We should be having every single patient bank their stem cells at a young age and have them waiting, ready and available. The technology is there. We have it. I'm not sure why this technology is not being made available to everyone," she says.

"I think stem cell therapy is very different than traditional medicine. Stem cell therapy may actually make it so that you don't have to be dependent on pharmaceutical medications. You can actually repair the tissue and that's it. This is a very different way of viewing medicine."

If you're interested in having this procedure done, contact the U.S. Stem Cell Clinic on USStemCellClinic.com. You could either have the procedure done at their facility, or if there's a physician in your area providing the service, you can go there. U.S. Stem Cell can help you locate a qualified doctor.

Oftentimes, practitioners will specialize in specific procedures, such as spinal procedures, or knee procedures. There's also a veterinary division, called Vet Biologics, which offers treatment to small pets like cats and dogs, as well as horses.

"One of the things that we've been treating recently is traumatic brain injuries," Comella says. "We had a woman who fell two stories and hit her head. She spent months in a coma and was not able to talk or walk or do any activities. By the time she came to us, it was two years after her injury. The best hospitals in the world told her this was her life 'You're never going to be able to talk or walk or take care of your young children again.' That was just not good enough.

She came to us and we began applying stem cells in a way to allow the cells to cross the blood-brain barrier and to get to her brain. After her first treatment, when she walked into the clinic on her own and began telling me, in full sentences, about the day she had the head injury, tears came down my face. This is the kind of thing that traditional medicine would say is impossible.

We've had patients who were wheelchair-bound, whether it's from multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's, up and out of their chair, literally jogging around cones. This is life-changing Patients who were told they weren't going to return to sports for years are back on the field and playing. There's just many ways that you can heal your tissue to change the course of an injury or a disease."

Visit link:
How Stem Cell Therapy Can Help Repair and ... - Mercola.com

Posted in Maryland Stem Cells | Comments Off on How Stem Cell Therapy Can Help Repair and … – Mercola.com

Global Epigenetics Market – Top Trends, Drivers, and Forecasts by Technavio – Business Wire (press release)

Posted: September 3, 2017 at 3:44 pm

LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Technavios latest market research report on the global epigenetics market provides an analysis of the most important trends expected to impact the market outlook from 2017-2021. Technavio defines an emerging trend as a factor that has the potential to significantly impact the market and contribute to its growth or decline.

According to Amber Chourasia, a lead analyst at Technavio for lab equipment research, The global epigenetics market is expected to grow at a CAGR of over 13% through 2021, owing to factors such as the increasing importance of life science. It has claimed a prominent position in the research of developmental and disease processes. There has been a surge in the use of epigenetic changes in cancer research to study tumor biology and to produce therapeutic drugs.

This report is available at a USD 1,000 discount for a limited time only: View market snapshot before purchasing

Buy 1 Technavio report and get the second for 50% off. Buy 2 Technavio reports and get the third for free.

The top three emerging market trends driving the global epigenetics market according to Technavio research analysts are:

Looking for more information on this market? Request a free sample report

Technavios sample reports are free of charge and contain multiple sections of the report including the market size and forecast, drivers, challenges, trends, and more.

Increasing use of epigenetics as a tool to understand development and disease

Novel epigenetic techniques allow researchers to directly analyze the patterns of epigenetic modifications and relate them with the occurrence of phenotype. It allows comparison of epigenetic changes between normal and diseased samples. This can aid in the evaluation of public health as epigenetic changes are directly influenced by environment and internal biological system.

Many new methods are being employed in the field of epigenetics such as ChIP and next-generation sequencing (NGS). ChIP allows the interaction of DNA and protein, and NGS allows to understand the gene sequence, which is altered due to epigenetic changes. Hence, increasing application of epigenetics for diagnosis and cancer prevention with the help of technologies such as DNA methylation and epigenetics therapy respectively will contribute to cancer control.

Increasing demand for personalized medicine

The demand for personalized medicine is increasing and is expected to grow in future with a CAGR of more than 10%. The development of whole genome technology, companion diagnostics, and the growing number of retail clinics are some reasons for its growth. This will, in turn, increase the demand for diagnostics such as epigenetic analysis to diagnose diseases of individuals and chart out customized treatment plans according to an individual's diagnostic response. Personalized medicine results in the better treatment of patients as epigenetic analysis allow understanding which medicine will have better effects and which will not because every biological system has different genomes, which react differently to a particular medicine.

The epigenetics market is contingent on the demand for personalized medicine, which is increasing with the growing healthcare expenditure, the increasing need for effective diagnostic procedures for cancer, and the increasing use of biomarkers for diagnostics, says Amber.

Rise in investment in R&D

The global expenditure on R&D has shown consistent growth in the last 10 years. It rose from USD 522 billion in 1996 to approximately USD 1.3 trillion in 2009. With the economies of developing countries growing faster than that of developed countries, several institutes and research facilities are being set up in the developing countries. The rise in the number of testing and research facilities, particularly in the field of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, will lead to a rise in demand for epigenetic analysis for diagnosis of diseases and development of therapeutic drugs.

The increase in R&D translates to an expansion of facilities in fields like clinical research and pharmaceutical research, which are all primary users of epigenetics as they require epigenetic equipment for diagnosing epigenetic alterations and providing drugs against it. Thus, the growth in these areas will lead to a rise in demand for epigenetic equipment during the forecast period.

Browse Related Reports:

About Technavio

Technavio is a leading global technology research and advisory company. Their research and analysis focuses on emerging market trends and provides actionable insights to help businesses identify market opportunities and develop effective strategies to optimize their market positions.

With over 500 specialized analysts, Technavios report library consists of more than 10,000 reports and counting, covering 800 technologies, spanning across 50 countries. Their client base consists of enterprises of all sizes, including more than 100 Fortune 500 companies. This growing client base relies on Technavios comprehensive coverage, extensive research, and actionable market insights to identify opportunities in existing and potential markets and assess their competitive positions within changing market scenarios.

If you are interested in more information, please contact our media team at media@technavio.com.

Excerpt from:
Global Epigenetics Market - Top Trends, Drivers, and Forecasts by Technavio - Business Wire (press release)

Posted in Epigenetics | Comments Off on Global Epigenetics Market – Top Trends, Drivers, and Forecasts by Technavio – Business Wire (press release)

Transhumanism | Future | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Posted: September 3, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Transhumanism (sometimes abbreviated >H or H+) is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human cognitive and physical abilities and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as disease, aging, and death. Transhumanist thinkers study the possibilities and consequences of developing and using human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies for these purposes. Possible dangers, as well as benefits, of powerful new technologies that might radically change the conditions of human life are also of concern to the transhumanist movement.

Although the first known use of the term "transhumanism" dates from 1957, the contemporary meaning is a product of the 1980s, when a group of scientists, artists, and futurists based in the United States began to organize what has since grown into the transhumanist movement. Transhumanist thinkers postulate that human beings will eventually be transformed into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label "posthuman".

The transhumanist vision of a profoundly transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters as well as critics from a wide range of perspectives. Transhumanism has been described by a proponent as the "movement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity," while according to a prominent critic, it is the world's most dangerous idea.

In his 2005 article A History of Transhumanist Thought, philosopher Nick Bostrom locates transhumanism's roots in Renaissance humanism and the Enlightenment. The Marquis de Condorcet, an eighteenth century French philosopher, is the first thinker whom he identifies as speculating about the use of medical science to extend the human life span. In the twentieth century, a direct and influential precursor to transhumanist concepts was J.B.S. Haldane's 1923 essay Daedalus: Science and the Future, which predicted that great benefits would come from applications of genetics and other advanced sciences to human biology.

Biologist Julian Huxley, brother of author Aldous Huxley (a childhood friend of Haldane's), appears to have been the first to use the actual word "transhumanism". Writing in 1957, he defined transhumanism as "man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature". This definition differs substantially from the one commonly in use since the 1980s.

The coalescence of an identifiable transhumanist movement began in the last decades of the twentieth century. In 1966, FM-2030 (formerly F.M. Esfandiary), a futurist who taught "new concepts of the Human" at The New School for Social Research in New York City, began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and world views transitional to "posthumanity" as "transhuman" (short for "transitory human"). In 1972, Robert Ettinger contributed to the popularization of the concept of "transhumanity" in his book Man into Superman. FM-2030 published the Upwingers Manifesto in 1973 to stimulate transhumanly conscious activism.

The first self-described transhumanists met formally in the early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles, which became the main center of transhumanist thought. Here, FM-2030 lectured on his "third way" futurist ideology. At the EZTV Media venue frequented by transhumanists and other futurists, Natasha Vita-More presented Breaking Away, her 1980 experimental film with the theme of humans breaking away from their biological limitations and the earth's gravity as they head into space. FM-2030 and Vita-More soon began holding gatherings for transhumanists in Los Angeles, which included students from FM-2030's courses and audiences from Vita-More's artistic productions. In 1982, Vita-More authored the Transhumanist Arts Statement, and, six years later, produced the cable TV show TransCentury Update on transhumanity, a program which reached over 100,000 viewers.

In 1988, philosopher Max More founded the Extropy Institute and was the main contributor to a formal transhumanist doctrine, which took the form of the Principles of Extropy in 1990.[ In 1990, he laid the foundation of modern transhumanism by giving it a new definition:

"Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. [] Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies []." In 1998, philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pearce founded the World Transhumanist Association (WTA), an organization with a liberal democratic perspective. In 1999, the WTA drafted and adopted The Transhumanist Declaration. The Transhumanist FAQ, prepared by the WTA, gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:

The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies. A number of similar definitions have been collected by Anders Sandberg, an academic with a high profile in the transhumanist movement.

In 2006, the board of directors of the Extropy Institute made a decision to cease operations of the organization, stating that its mission was "essentially completed". This left the World Transhumanist Association as the leading international transhumanist organization.

For a list of notable individuals who have identified themselves, or been identified by others, as advocates of transhumanism, see the list of transhumanists.

While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability and malnutrition around the globe, transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of all life, while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers.

Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists an ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a post-Darwinian phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change. To this end, transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations. They draw on futures studies and various fields or subfields of science, philosophy, economics, history, and sociology. Unlike philosophers, social critics and activists who place a moral value on preservation of natural systems, transhumanists see the very concept of the "natural" as an obstacle to progress. In keeping with this, many prominent transhumanist advocates refer to transhumanism's critics on the political right and left jointly as "bioconservatives" or "bioluddites", the latter term alluding to the nineteenth century anti-industrialisation social movement that opposed the replacement of manual labor by machines.

Converging Technologies, a 2002 report exploring the potential for synergy among nano-, bio-, informational and cognitive technologies (NBIC) for enhancing human performance.While some transhumanists take a relatively abstract and theoretical approach to the perceived benefits of emerging technologies, others have offered specific proposals for modifications to the human body, including inheritable ones. Transhumanists are often concerned with methods of enhancing the human nervous system. Though some propose modification of the peripheral nervous system, the brain is considered the common denominator of personhood and is thus a primary focus of transhumanist ambitions. More generally, transhumanists support the convergence of emerging technologies such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC), and hypothetical future technologies such as simulated reality, artificial intelligence, mind uploading, and cryonics. Transhumanists believe that humans can and should use these technologies to become more than human. Transhumanists therefore support the recognition or protection of cognitive liberty, morphological freedom and procreative liberty as civil liberties, so as to guarantee individuals the choice of enhancing themselves and progressively become posthuman, which they see as the next significant evolutionary steps for the human species. Some speculate that human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies may facilitate such a transformation by the midpoint of the twenty first century.

A 2002 report, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, commissioned by the U.S. National Science Foundation and Department of Commerce, contains descriptions and commentaries on the state of NBIC science and technology by major contributors to these fields. The report discusses potential uses of these technologies in implementing transhumanist goals of enhanced performance and health, and ongoing work on planned applications of human enhancement technologies in the military and in the rationalization of the human-machine interface in industry.

Some theorists, such as Raymond Kurzweil, believe that the pace of technological evolution is accelerating and that the next fifty years may yield not only radical technological advances but possibly a technological singularity, which may fundamentally change the nature of human beings. Transhumanists who foresee this massive technological change generally maintain that it is desirable. However, they also explore the possible dangers of extremely rapid technological change, and frequently propose options for ensuring that advanced technology is used responsibly. For example, Bostrom has written extensively on existential risks to humanity's future welfare, including risks that could be created by emerging technologies.

On a more practical level, as proponents of personal development and body modification, transhumanists tend to use existing technologies and techniques that supposedly improve cognitive and physical performance, while engaging in routines and lifestyles designed to improve health and longevity. Depending on their age, some transhumanists express concern that they will not live to reap the benefits of future technologies. However, many have a great interest in life extension practices, and funding research in cryonics in order to make the latter a viable option of last resort rather than remaining an unproven method. Regional and global transhumanist networks and communities with a range of objectives exist to provide support and forums for discussion and collaborative projects.

There is a variety of opinion within transhumanist thought. Many of the leading transhumanist thinkers hold complex and subtle views that are under constant revision and development. Some distinctive currents of transhumanism are identified and listed here in alphabetical order:

Although some transhumanists report a very strong sense of spirituality, they are for the most part secular. In fact, many transhumanists are either agnostics or atheists. A minority, however, follow liberal forms of Eastern philosophical traditions or, as with Mormon transhumanists, have merged their beliefs with established religions.

Despite the prevailing secular attitude, some transhumanists pursue hopes traditionally espoused by religions, such as immortality albeit a physical one. Several belief systems, termed new religious movements, originating in the late twentieth century, share with transhumanism the goals of transcending the human condition by applying technology to the alteration of the body (Ralism) and mind (Scientology). While most thinkers associated with the transhumanist movement focus on the practical goals of using technology to help achieve longer and healthier lives, some speculate that future understanding of neurotheology will enable humans to achieve control of altered states of consciousness and thus "spiritual" experiences. A continuing dialogue between transhumanism and faith was the focus of an academic seminar held at the University of Toronto in 2004.

The majority of transhumanists are materialists who do not believe in a transcendent human soul. Transhumanist personhood theory also argues against the unique identification of moral actors and subjects with biological humans, judging as speciesist the exclusion of nonhuman and part-human animals, and sophisticated machines, from ethical consideration. Many believe in the compatibility of human minds with computer hardware, with the theoretical implication that human consciousness may someday be transferred to alternative media.

One extreme formulation of this idea is Frank Tipler's proposal of the Omega Point. Drawing upon ideas in physics, computer science and physical cosmology, Tipler advanced the notion that the collapse of the Universe billions of years hence could create the conditions for the perpetuation of humanity as a simulation within a megacomputer. Cosmologist George Ellis has called Tipler's book "a masterpiece of pseudoscience", and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating perceived flaws in Tipler's thesis.

For more details on this topic, see Transhumanism in fiction. Transhumanist themes have become increasingly prominent in various literary forms during the period in which the movement itself has emerged. Contemporary science fiction often contains positive renditions of technologically enhanced human life, set in utopian (especially techno-utopian) societies. However, science fiction's depictions of technologically enhanced humans or other posthuman beings frequently come with a cautionary twist. The more pessimistic scenarios include many horrific or dystopian tales of human bioengineering gone wrong.

The cyberpunk genre, exemplified by William Gibson's Neuromancer (1984) and Bruce Sterling's Schismatrix (1985), has particularly been concerned with the modification of human bodies. Other novels dealing with transhumanist themes that have stimulated broad discussion of these issues include Blood Music (1985) by Greg Bear, The Xenogenesis Trilogy (19871989) by Octavia Butler; the "Culture" novels (19872000) of Iain Banks; The Beggar's Trilogy (199094) by Nancy Kress; much of Greg Egan's work since the early 1990s, such as Permutation City (1994) and Diaspora (1997); The Bohr Maker (1995) by Linda Nagata; Extensa (2002) and Perfekcyjna niedoskonao (2003) by Jacek Dukaj; Oryx and Crake (2003) by Margaret Atwood; Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan (2002); and The Possibility of an Island (Eng. trans. 2006) by Michel Houellebecq.

Fictional transhumanist scenarios have also become popular in other media during the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries. Such treatments are found in films (Star Trek: The Motion Picture, 1979; Blade Runner, 1982; Gattaca, 1997), television series (the Ancients of Stargate SG-1, the Borg of Star Trek, the Nietzscheans of Andromeda), manga and anime (Ghost in the Shell), role-playing games (Transhuman Space) and computer games (Deus Ex, Half-Life 2, Command & Conquer). The fictional universe of the table top war game Warhammer 40,000 also makes use of genetic and cybernetic augmentation. Human characters of the Imperium often employ cybernetic devices, while the Space Marines are indeed posthuman. Many of these works are considered part of the cyberpunk genre or its postcyberpunk offshoot.

In addition to the work of Natasha Vita-More, mentioned above, transhumanism has been represented in the visual and performing arts by Carnal Art, a form of sculpture originated by the French artist Orlan that uses the body as its medium and plastic surgery as its method. The American performer Michael Jackson used technologies such as plastic surgery, skin-lightening drugs and hyperbaric oxygen treatment over the course of his career, with the effect of transforming his artistic persona so as to blur identifiers of gender, race and age. The work of the Australian artist Stelarc centers on the alteration of his body by robotic prostheses and tissue engineering. Other artists whose work coincided with the emergence and flourishing of transhumanism and who explored themes related to the transformation of the body are the Yugoslavian performance artist Marina Abramovic and the American media artist Matthew Barney. A 2005 show, Becoming Animal, at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, presented exhibits by twelve artists whose work concerns the effects of technology in erasing boundaries between the human and non-human.

Read more:
Transhumanism | Future | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Posted in Transhumanism | Comments Off on Transhumanism | Future | FANDOM powered by Wikia

What is transhumanism? | Christian Apologetics & Research …

Posted: September 3, 2017 at 3:42 pm

by Matt Slick

Transhumanism is the idea that human beings, as a whole, can be drastically improved in physical and mental areas with technologies, such as cloning, genetic modification, bionics, nanotechnology, drugs, etc. The great majority of transhumanists believe that the "human species" has evolved and that science can provide a kind of artificial, directed evolution. Transhumanists look to the future and believe the human condition will see improvement in physical ability, lifespan, and mental acuity, and health. In addition, the world condition can also be improved by reducing starvation and poverty. Such technological advancements, some have said, would even redefine what it means to be human.

Some of the areas the trans-humanists propose can be assisted and or improved by technology are as follows:

Some trans-humanists have even proposed the idea of transferring human consciousness into the machine in order to vastly extend lifespans.

Philosophers and ethicists have been delving into the theological and moral issues related to the advancement of technology as a relates to altering human capabilities, mental states, duration of life, etc. Many questions have arisen that don't, as yet, have answers.

View post:
What is transhumanism? | Christian Apologetics & Research ...

Posted in Transhumanism | Comments Off on What is transhumanism? | Christian Apologetics & Research …

Transhumanism – Catholicism.org

Posted: September 3, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Having fouled Earth with the works of their modern substitute for religion, science and technology, liberals imagine they can build a perfect world in outer space by means of science and technology that are now more advanced than they were in the past, or so it is boasted. It is what NASA has been about since the agencys inception. The effort has been joined in recent years by billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos with space projects of their own financed by them. However, there is a fly in the liberals ointment.

It is that their planned perfect world would be inhabited by imperfect human beings, men and women who are often irrational, some to the degree that they persist in holding to the preposterous notion that a Palestinian peasant two thousand years ago was God, and all of them subject to emotions which can be unruly and lead to messy situations. This, despite liberalism with its belief in the perfectibility of man, having long ago replaced religion as the core around which the life of society is lived.

Some very rich and powerful men, not to speak of scientists and technologists of like mind, think there is now a solution to the problem (as they see it) of human imperfection. It is called transhumanism. Perhaps you have heard of it. The literature of transhumanism is quite extensive. Heavily funded foundations promote it. References to it show up regularly in mass media. Persons under forty are apt to talk about it at social gatherings when they want to appear to have intellectual interests.

Like Christianity ever since the so-called Reformation shattered the unity of the Faith, sectarian differences exist within transhumanism, but all its adherents believe in, work toward, or otherwise support an undertaking of the kind that could only be conceived in a post-Christian age like ours: melding human beings and computers. The idea is to upload artificial intelligence (A.I.) into men so they will become, transhumanists say, more than human. Christians would say it will make them, if successful, less so, but were not going to get into that here.

Not all Christians would say it anyway. Although most transhumanists are atheists, they recognize the Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin as a precursor. To anyone looking for clarity of thought and expression the woolly verbiage of Teilhards writings make them difficult to read, but it is possible to get his drift. It appeals to the kind of Catholics who strive to reconcile truths taught by the Church with science and technology in order to rationalize their dependence on machines to transport them, cool them, make things for them, entertain them, keep them alive in some circumstances, do more and more of their thinking for them.

Being a paleontologist, Teilhard was a great believer in evolution. What he envisioned, decades before the development of the internet and worldwide web, was all machines linked in a network by which, and in which, human minds would merge, all consciousness becoming unified so that it would eventually break through the material framework of Time and Space and arrive at what he called Omega Point the Divine, Christ. Of course at that point human beings would not be as we know them and as they have always existed.

Julian Huxley, the famed British eugenicist, was a close friend of Teilhard, but a non-believer. In a 1951 lecture he presented a secularized version of Teilhard: Such a broad philosophy might perhaps be called, not Humanism, because that has certain unsatisfactory connotations, but Transhumanism. It is the idea of humanity attempting to overcome its limitations and to arrive at fuller fruition

Oh, those irksome limitations! (i.e., irrational beliefs and emotions.)

Many transhumanists see Christian belief in particular as positively threatening. Simon Young, one of their leading thinkers, has written: The greatest threat to humanitys continued evolution is theistic opposition to Superbiology in the name of a belief system based on blind faith in the absence of evidence.

Perhaps the most influential transhumanist thinker is Ray Kurzwell, a director of engineering at Google. A book he wrote in 1999, The Age of Spiritual Machines, is a kind of bible of the movement. The twenty-first century will be different, he said therein. The human species, along with the computerized technology it created, will be able to solve age-old problemsand will be in a position to change the nature of mortality in a postbiological future.

Change the nature of mortality? He means his spiritual machines will live forever, their bodies incorruptible, immune to disease and decay. To acquire knowledge, all theyll have to do is upload it effortlessly to their brains.

Kurzwell calls the point in evolution where this happens Singularity. It is analogous to Teilhards Omega Point.

Some transhumanists, including Kurzwell, talk about resurrecting the dead. Theyll do it, they think, using the DNA we all leave behind. This is where space travel comes back into the picture, though in a way unforeseen by the men who launched NASA: What with the dead being brought back to life and everybody living forever (as spiritual machines), it wont take long before Earth really is overpopulated. Migration to other planets will be necessary.

The billionaire Elon Musk identifies as a transhumanist. Besides developing the Tesla electric automobile, he is best known for Space X, a project for developing reusable rockets with a view to their eventually transporting men and material to Mars for human colonization of the Red Planet. (Since there is no oxygen on Mars, vehicles on the planet will have to be powered by electricity. Hence the Tesla.)

Peter Thiel is another billionaire transhumanist and financial angel to enterprises like Future of Humanity Institute and Singularity University. Although he was given a speakers slot at last years Republican National Convention, he is less well known to the public than Elon Musk. Born in Germany and now a citizen of New Zealand, he was a co-founder of PayPal and early investor in Facebook, is openly gay, a huge fan of Tolkein (he says he has read Lord of the Rings more than ten times), was a member of the Libertarian Party until 2016, and seems to have an unerring instinct for placing himself where power and influence can be had. His membership on the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group shows that. So did his being named to the executive committee of Donald Trumps transition team after Trump won last Novembers election (he had contributed $1.25 million to the Trump presidential campaign). It is known that he is a partner of Jared Kushner in one of the latters investment operations. Oh, he also describes himself as a Christian but acknowledges that his beliefs are not orthodox. His financial contributions to transhumanism are weighted toward life-extension and age-reversal projects. (At one point, pre-PayPal, Thiel was a speech-writer for William Bennett when the former drug czar and U.S. Secretary of Education was marketing himself as a morality guru with books like The Book of Virtues and The Childrens Book of Virtues, but grew tired of the job and quit before the public learned that Bennett was a compulsive gambler who had blown millions of dollars at Las Vegas casinos.)

The defense of civilization requires vigilance, but guarding against treachery from within is hard. Western Christian civilization has been undone by leaders who were really Judases, beginning with the priests, bishops and princes who led millions out of the Church at the time of the Protestant revolt commonly called the Reformation. They were followed by the Revolution which first overthrew Christian government in France in 1789 and has continued to unroll so that it does not now exist anywhere. More recently there were the culture wars, which Christians could never have won, not with the weight of modernity against them.

Why? The Judas factor again. Christianity demands sanctification for entrance into Heaven; and self-denial, self-abnegation, self-discipline are requisite to it. Too many modern Christians, faith and belief run out of them, including belief in Heaven except maybe as a place where everybody will go anyway, have preferred self-aggrandizement instead. What they want is all that will make things easier for self or, better yet, enhance it. What could do that to a greater degree than the promise of immortality, especially immortality without pesky emotions and irrational beliefs to mar its perfection?

The trouble is that only a computer could see such a state of things as perfect.

Footnote: Transhumanists argue among themselves as to whether the right of anyone to stay human, especially for religious reasons, should be respected and protected. If these people ever exercise more power and influence than they already do, the argument will probably prove pointless. When most remaining Christians arent Christian enough to face life without the benefits of modernitys existing appurtenances smartphones, processed foods, automobiles, television, air-conditioning, etc., etc. how many will choose Heaven in whose existence they can believe only by faith over the scientific certainty of life in the here and now forever and ever?

Related

Originally posted here:
Transhumanism - Catholicism.org

Posted in Transhumanism | Comments Off on Transhumanism – Catholicism.org

Transhumanism and Libertarianism Are Entirely Compatible – Reason (blog)

Posted: September 3, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Luis Manuel Tapia Bolivar/DreamstimeA fight over whether or not transhumanism can be libertarian broke out over at The American Conservative. The contretemps began with an article by Zoltan Istvan, author of The Transhumanist Wager. Istvan is also seeking to become the Libertarian Party candidate for governor of California.

In "The Growing World of Libertarian Transhumanism," Istvan optimistically asserts that "freedom from the government will allow radical science to go on undisturbed."

Zoltan defines transhumanism as "the international movement of using science and technology to radically change the human being and human experience. Its primary goal is to deliver and embrace a utopian techno-optimistic world." Due to rapid technological progress "the world is shifting under our feetand libertarian transhumanism is a sure way to navigate the chaos to make sure we arrive at the best future possible."

Kai Weiss, a researcher at the Austrian Economics Center and Hayek Institute in Vienna, Austria, swiftly denounced the piece. "Transhumanism should be rejected by libertarians as an abomination of human evolution," he wrote.

Clearly there is some disagreement.

Weiss is correct that Istvan doesn't expend much intellectual effort linking transhumanism with libertarian thinking. Istvan largely assumes that people seeking to flourish should have the freedom to enhance their bodies and minds and those of their children without much government interference. So what abominable transhumanist technologies does Weiss denounce?

Weiss includes defeating death, robotic hearts, virtual reality sex, telepathy via mind-reading headsets, brain implants, ectogenesis, artificial intelligence, exoskeleton suits, designer babies, and gene editing tech. "At no point [does Istvan] wonder if we should even strive for these technologies," Weiss thunders.

While Istvan may not wonder, Weiss fails to make a single argument against these technological developments: It is apparently self-evident to him that they are evil.

As with all new technologies, unintended consequences are inevitable and people can and will surely misuse them. Libertarians know all too well that vigilance against government abuse of modern technologies is vital. These worries do not, however, constitute preemptive arguments for preventing people from voluntarily seeking to use the fruits of innovation to work out how to live the best lives that they can.

Oddly, as a riposte against libertarian transhumanism, Weiss cites Christian conservative Rod Dreher's assertion that "choice matters more than what is chosen. The Technological Man is not concerned with what he should desire; rather, he is preoccupied with how he can acquire or accomplish what he desires." This is a non-sequitur. Of course, libertarians (and one hopes most other folks) are concerned about what it is that we should desire. The central question is who, if anyone, has the right to stop us from pursuing our private and non-aggressive desires once we've applied our intellects and moral imaginations to figuring out what it is that we want?

Progressives and conservatives believe government has extensive authority to tell citizens how to live their lives. Libertarians do not. On that count, Weiss is entirely correct to call out Istvan for succumbing to authoritarianism when he advocates for licensing reproduction as a way to prevent overpopulation.

As someone who evidently thinks he is committed to enlarging human liberty, Weiss would do well to ponder this observation from economics Nobelist Friedrich Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty:

Nowhere is freedom more important than where our ignorance is greatestat the boundaries of knowledge, in other words, where nobody can predict what lies a step ahead.the ultimate aim of freedom is the enlargement of those capacities in which man surpasses his ancestors and to which each generation must endeavor to add its shareits share in the growth of knowledge and the gradual advance of moral and aesthetic beliefs, where no superior must be allowed to enforce one set of views of what is right or good and where only further experience can decide what should prevail. It is wherever man reaches beyond his present self, where the new emerges and assessment lies in the future, that liberty ultimately shows its value.

Hayek's point is that human beings are terrible at foresight. Engaging in a robust process of trial, error, and correction is how nearly all moral and technological progress has ever been made.

As I have earlier argued:

The highest expression of human nature and dignity is to strive to overcome the limitations imposed on us by our genes, our evolution and our environment. Future generations will look back at the beginning of the 21st century and be astonished that some well-meaning and intelligent people actually wanted to stop bio-nano-infotech research and deployment just to protect their cramped and limited vision of human nature. If transhumanism is allowed to progress, I predict that our descendants will look back and thank us for making their world of longer, healthier and abler lives possible.

While Weiss asserts "it is time for libertarians to argue against the notion of extreme transhumanism," he ultimately concedes "the state shouldn't prohibit it." So long as he leaves government power out it, Weiss is, of course, free to argue as much as he likes that transhumanism is an abomination contrary to libertarian thinking. But I suspect that few people, especially folks committed to liberty and the development of technologies that enable them and their progeny to have better chances to lead flourishing lives, will heed his Luddite counsel.

For those interested in libertarian arguments in favor of transhumanism, you may be interested in my essay, "The Case for Enhancing People" and my book, Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution.

Disclosure: I was on a panel with Istvan at FreedomFest in Las Vegas a month ago discussing the much dreaded prospect of designer babies. I am generally in favor of allowing parents to use modern biotechnologies with the goal of improving the prospects that their children will enjoy flourishing lives.

Excerpt from:
Transhumanism and Libertarianism Are Entirely Compatible - Reason (blog)

Posted in Transhumanism | Comments Off on Transhumanism and Libertarianism Are Entirely Compatible – Reason (blog)

The Impossible Burger wouldn’t be possible without genetic engineering – Salon

Posted: September 3, 2017 at 3:42 pm

This article originally appeared on Grist

The Impossible Burger has had a charmed honeymoon period. Crowds offoodies surged into fancy eateriesto try it.Environmentalistsandanimal rights activistsswooned. So did investors: Impossible Foodsbrought in $75 millionduring its latest investment round.

Now the backlash is here. The activist organizationsFriends of the Earthand theETC Groupdug up documents which they claim show that Impossible Foods ignored FDA warnings about safety and they handed them over to the New York Times.

Theensuing storydepicted Impossible Foods as a culinary version of Uber disrupting so rapidly that its running headlong into government regulators. In reality, Impossible Foods has behaved like a pedestrian food company, working hand in hand with the FDA and following a well-worn path to comply with an arcane set of rules.

So why isnt this story a nothingburger?

In a word: GMOs. You see, soy leghemoglobin, or SLH, the key ingredient that makes the Impossible Burger uniquely meaty, is churned out by genetically modified yeast. This is a protein produced with genetic engineering; its a new food ingredient, Dana Perls, senior food and technology campaigner at Friends of the Earth, told me when I asked why theyd singled out Impossible Foods.

The company has never exactly hidden the fact that they used genetic engineering, but they havent put it front and center either. You have to dig into theirfrequently asked questionsto catch that detail and thats a recent edit, according to Perls. When I first looked at the Impossible Foods website, maybe back in March, there was no mention of genetic engineering, she said.(An Impossible Foods spokesperson disputed Perlss claim, saying the FAQ has included references to genetic engineering for at least a year, since before the burgers launch in restaurants. But areview of cached webpagessuggests the references were added in June.*)

By tiptoeing around this issue, Impossible Foods set themselves up for a takedown by anti-GMO campaigners. These groups monitor new applications of genetic engineering, watch for potentially incriminating evidence, then work with journalists to publicize it. In 2014, Ecover, a green cleaning company,announced it was using oils made by algae as part of its pledge to remove palm oil a major driver of deforestation from its products. When Friends of the Earth and the ETC Groupfigured out the algae was genetically engineered, they pingedthe same Times writer. Ecover quickly went back to palm oil.

WhenI asked Impossible Foods founder Pat Brownabout the GMO question, he said he didnt think that battle was theirs to fight. After all, the SLH may be produced by transgenic yeast, but it isnt a GMO itself. He also pointed out that this isnt unusual:nearly all cheese contains a GMO-produced enzyme.

But now, Friends of the Earth and the ETC Group have brought their battle to Impossible Foods doorstep. (In ablisteringseriesofresponsesto the New York Times article, the company charged it was chock full of factual errors and misrepresentations and was instigated by an extremist anti-science group.)The FDA documents handed over to the Timesinclude worrying sentences like this one: FDA stated that the current arguments at hand, individually and collectively, were not enough to establish the safety of SLH for consumption.

If FDA officials say your company hasnt done enough to convince them that a new ingredient is safe, arent you supposed to stop selling it?

Not according toa risk expert at Arizona State Universitywho reviewed the documents released by activists. There are no indications that they should have pulled this off the market, Andrew Maynard told me.

Thats just not how the food safety review process works, said Gary Yingling, a former FDA official now helping Impossible Foods navigate the bureaucracy. In the United States, its up to the companies themselves to determine if an ingredient is safe. (Not everyone likes that systemorthinks the FDA is doing enoughto protect public safety, but it is the law.)

Impossible worked with a group of experts at universities who decided in 2014 that their burger was safe. SLH, it turns out, grows naturally in the roots of soy plants, and the proteins in the burger look a lot like animal proteins a good indicator of safety.

Impossible could have stopped there: Companies, however, can ask the government to weigh in on their research. Sometimes, the FDA asks for more information, which is what happened with Impossible Foods. Its not unusual for the FDA to determine it cant establish the safety of a new ingredient its happened more than 100 times, with substances like Ginkgo biloba, gum arabic, and Spirulina. The FDA has called for more information in about one in every seven of the ingredients companies have asked it to review.

In the case of SLH, the FDA suggested more tests, including rat-feeding trials. Impossible Foods has finished these tests, and academics who have studied the new data confirmed that its generally recognized as safe. Next, Impossible Foods will bring the new evidence back to the FDA, Yingling said.

The criticism raised in this case is really criticism of a system that allows companies to decide for themselves if a new ingredient is OK to add to our food.

If a company decides something is safe, they can go ahead and do it, said Maynard, the risk expert. So thats a weakness in the system. On the other hand, you can argue that once you start this process with the FDA, they have smart scientists who ask tough questions. You can see in those documents that the level of due diligence that a company has to go through is really pretty deep. You really want to make sure that you have a system that doesnt inhibit innovation, but captures as much potentially harmful things as possible.

Each new innovation creates the potential for new hazards. We can block some of those hazards by taking precautions. But how high should we put the precautionary bar?

Impossible Burger could indeed pose some unknown hazard. We just have to weigh that against the known hazards of the present foodborne diseases in meat, greenhouse gases from animal production, the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria in farms, and animal suffering. These are problems which Impossible Foods is trying to solve.

There are other companies trying to solve these problems. (Friends of the Earthnotesthat the success of non-animal burgers, like the non-GMO Beyond Burger, demonstrates that plant-based animal substitutes can succeed without resorting to genetic engineering.) But its not yet clear that any of these companies including Impossible Foods will be successful in just generating a profit, let alone in replacing the global meat industry. No one knows which startups will pan out. And well probably need to try and discard lots of new things as we shift to a sustainable path.

Trying new things can be risky. Not trying new things and staying on our current trajectory is even more risky.

*This story has been updated to include a response from Impossible Foods about when references to genetic engineering first appeared in its FAQ, and to add information about the FDAs food safety review process.

More here:
The Impossible Burger wouldn't be possible without genetic engineering - Salon

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on The Impossible Burger wouldn’t be possible without genetic engineering – Salon

Climate change will cause food shortages. We should use genetic engineering to prevent them – Salon

Posted: September 3, 2017 at 3:42 pm

This article originally appeared on Massive.

Even small changes in temperature can have massive impacts on crop productivity. In the United States, a single degree of warming is expected to decrease corn yield by 10 percent. Worldwide, one degree of warming is expected to decrease crop productivity by 3-7 percent. Making matters worse, at the same time as crop yields are expected to decrease, the global population will continue to rise. If we do nothing to slow the effects of climate change, we risk a global food shortage that will affect us all.

Deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions could do a lot to stave off disaster. But many researchers predict that even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow, wed still experience some degree of future warming due to past emissions. So, even if we prevent additional damage, well still have to adapt to the changes in climate that are already underway.

If we want to feed our growing population, well have to tackle the problem of adapting agriculture to climate change head-on. Right now, one of our best hopes for adapting to a warming climate is a controversial one: genetically engineering our crops to survive better in higher temperatures.

Genetic engineering, the process of directly modifying an organisms DNA, strikes many people as an arrogant, unsafe intrusion on the natural world. The debate over GMOs (genetically modified organisms) has raged for decades, with opponents arguing that our capacity to tinker with nature has outpaced our understanding of the risks.

Concerns about the safety and ethics of genetic engineering are absolutely valid, but we should also realize that, in some cases, our ethical intuition may lead us astray. If you have ever grown a tomato plant, and you live somewhere other than the Andean region of South America, you have selected a plant with mutations that allow it grow somewhere it wouldnt naturally do so. When we domesticated the tomato plant, we picked out mutant plants that were able to thrive in different areas of the globe. The difference between that process and genetic engineering is that scientists dont have to search for a rare mutant; they can create it themselves.

Speedier adaptation

CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing tools have made modifying DNA much easier. Using CRISPR/Cas9, scientists can create a DNA break in a specific place in the genome. They provide a strand of DNA that has a new sequence and the cell copies from that strand when it repairs the break, creating a genetic change.

Crops made using this technique are not, strictly speaking, GMOs, because they contain no foreign DNA. A wild tomato plant that was modified using CRISPR/Cas9 to be able to grow further north would be indistinguishable from the mutant plants that arose naturally, right down to the molecular level. And yet if engineers use genome editing to make that same change, it strikes many people as dangerous, even though the plants are completely identical.

Our food sources have already benefited from past forays into genetic engineering. Researchers past efforts were focused on creating crops that are resistant to pests and disease. This is an important part of feeding the world we could feed 8.5 percent of all the people on Earth with the crops lost to fungal pathogens alone. Climate change is making this problem worse: as warmer temperatures have spread toward the poles, so has disease.

But disease isnt the sole consequence of climate change: the overall yield of food will likely drop because the areas where crops grow will no longer have the right weather for them to thrive.

Expanding crop-growing regions

One solution to this problem is to move heat-sensitive crops closer to the poles. But its not that simple: the seasonal cue that tells many plants when to flower is day length, and day length depends on latitude. That means you cant take a plant that requires short days, move it further north, and expect it to produce fruit, even if its at the right temperature.

Recently, researchers discovered the gene that represses flowering in tomato plants in response to long days. Its thanks to the variation in this gene that were able to grow tomatoes further from the equator. These researchers used CRISPR to show that disrupting this gene results in plants that flower rapidly, regardless of day length. That means that if we want crops to grow at different latitudes, we wont have to find a rare mutant. By zeroing in on the genes that control day-length-sensitive flowering, we can create those crops within months.

Increasing yields

And when it comes to boosting crop productivity, one option is to create plants that convert sunlight into food more efficiently. Thats the goal of the RIPE(Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency) project, an international group working to increase crop yield by improving photosynthesis through genetic engineering.

Surprisingly, photosynthesis isnt as efficient as it could be. Plants dont adapt as quickly as they could to transitions between sunlight and shade. When theres too much sunlight, plants protect themselves by releasing excess light as heat. But if a cloud passes in front of the sun, the protective mechanism lingers, which means less photosynthesis and lower yield. By speeding up the process of adaptation, RIPE scientists have shown that they can increase crop yield by 15 percent.

Although producing enough food to feed the world is crucial, genetic engineering isnt a cure-all. As long as we fail to confront the problems of war and unequal distribution of wealth, people will starve no matter how much food we produce. But adapting agriculture to climate change is unquestionably part of the equation, and genetic modification allows us to produce those changes quickly, easily, and safely.

Critiques of genetic engineering often focus on the most ethically questionable and unsettling research, but many scientists are doing work that could save the lives of millions. Keeping a closed mind risks demonizing a technology that may help us to survive.

Go here to see the original:
Climate change will cause food shortages. We should use genetic engineering to prevent them - Salon

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Climate change will cause food shortages. We should use genetic engineering to prevent them – Salon

CryoPort (CYRX) Reaches $6.92 After 8.00% Up Move; 3 Analysts Are Bullish Energy Fuels (USA) (NYSEMKT:UUUU … – HuronReport

Posted: September 3, 2017 at 3:41 pm

August 30, 2017 - By Marguerite Chambers

The stock of CryoPort Inc (NASDAQ:CYRX) is a huge mover today! About 67,734 shares traded. CryoPort Inc (NASDAQ:CYRX) has risen 71.00% since August 30, 2016 and is uptrending. It has outperformed by 54.30% the S&P500.The move comes after 5 months positive chart setup for the $170.75M company. It was reported on Aug, 30 by Barchart.com. We have $7.47 PT which if reached, will make NASDAQ:CYRX worth $13.66 million more.

Among 3 analysts covering Clean Energy Fuels (NYSEMKT:UUUU), 3 have Buy rating, 0 Sell and 0 Hold. Therefore 100% are positive. Clean Energy Fuels had 5 analyst reports since August 19, 2015 according to SRatingsIntel. The rating was maintained by Roth Capital with Buy on Thursday, October 1. Rodman & Renshaw maintained the shares of UUUU in report on Thursday, September 22 with Buy rating. The stock of Energy Fuels Inc (USA) (NYSEMKT:UUUU) has Buy rating given on Thursday, October 1 by TH Capital. Roth Capital maintained the stock with Buy rating in Monday, November 23 report. See Energy Fuels Inc (USA) (NYSEMKT:UUUU) latest ratings:

Energy Fuels Inc. is engaged in conventional and in situ (ISR) uranium extraction and recovery, along with the exploration, permitting and evaluation of uranium properties in the United States. The company has market cap of $130.67 million. The Firm operates through two divisions: ISR Uranium and Conventional Uranium. It currently has negative earnings. It conducts its ISR activities through its Nichols Ranch Project, located in northeast Wyoming.

About 56,842 shares traded. Energy Fuels Inc (USA) (NYSEMKT:UUUU) has declined 22.22% since August 30, 2016 and is downtrending. It has underperformed by 38.92% the S&P500.

Cryoport, Inc. is a provider of cryogenic logistics solutions to the life sciences industry through its purpose-built packaging, information technology and specialized cold chain logistics expertise. The company has market cap of $170.75 million. The Firm provides logistics solutions for biologic materials, such as immunotherapies, stem cells, chimeric antigen receptors (CAR)-T cells, and reproductive cells for clients. It currently has negative earnings. The Companys Cryoport Express Solution includes a cloud logistics operating platform, which is branded as the Cryoportal.

Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.

Read the original here:
CryoPort (CYRX) Reaches $6.92 After 8.00% Up Move; 3 Analysts Are Bullish Energy Fuels (USA) (NYSEMKT:UUUU ... - HuronReport

Posted in Wyoming Stem Cells | Comments Off on CryoPort (CYRX) Reaches $6.92 After 8.00% Up Move; 3 Analysts Are Bullish Energy Fuels (USA) (NYSEMKT:UUUU … – HuronReport

Page 1,461«..1020..1,4601,4611,4621,463..1,4701,480..»