Jurassic World: Dominion is hyperbolic Hollywood entertainment at its best, with an action-packed storyline that refuses to let reality get in the way of a good story. Yet just like its predecessors, it offers an underlying cautionary tale of technological hubris thats very real.

As I discuss in my book Films from the Future,Stephen Spielbergs 1993 Jurassic Park, based on Michael Crichtons 1990 novel, didnt shy away from grappling with the dangers of unfettered entrepreneurship and irresponsible innovation. Scientists at the time were getting closer to being able to manipulate DNA in the real world, and both book and movie captured emerging concerns that playing God with natures genetic code could lead to devastating consequences. This was famously captured by one of the movies protagonists, Dr. Ian Malcolm, played by Jeff Goldblum, as he declared, Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didnt stop to think if they should.

In the latest iteration of the Jurassic Park franchise, society is coming to terms with the consequences of innovations that were, at best, ill-conceived. A litany of coulds over shoulds has led to a future in which resurrected and redesigned dinosaurs roam free, and humanitys dominance as a species is under threat.

At the heart of these films are questions that are more relevant than ever: Have researchers learned the lesson of Jurassic Park and sufficiently closed the gap between could and should? Or will the science and technology of DNA manipulation continue to outpace any consensus on how to use them ethically and responsibly?

The first draft of the human genome was published to great fanfare in 2001, setting the stage for scientists to read, redesign and even rewrite complex genetic sequences.

However, existing technologies were time-consuming and expensive, placing genetic manipulation out of reach for many researchers. The first draft of the human genome cost an estimated US$300 million, and subsequent whole-genome sequences just under $100 million a prohibitive amount for all but the most well-funded research groups. As existing technologies were refined and new ones came online, however, smaller labs and even students and DIY bio hobbyists could experiment more freely with reading and writing genetic code.

In 2005, bioengineer Drew Endy proposed that it should be possible to work with DNA the same way that engineers work with electronic components. Much as electronics designers are less concerned with the physics of semiconductors than they are with the components that rely on them, Endy argued that it should be possible to create standardized DNA-based parts called biobricks that scientists could use without needing to be experts in their underlying biology.

Endys and others work was foundational to the emerging field of synthetic biology, which applies engineering and design principles to genetic manipulation.

Scientists, engineers and even artists began to approach DNA as a biological code that could be digitized, manipulated and redesigned in cyberspace in much the same way as digital photos or videos are. This in turn opened the door to reprogramming plants, microorganisms and fungi to produce pharmaceutical drugs and other useful substances. Modified yeast, for example, produces the meaty taste of vegetarian Impossible Burgers.

Despite increasing interest in gene editing, the biggest barrier to the imagination and vision of the early pioneers of synthetic biology was still the speed and cost of editing technologies.

Then CRISPR changed everything.

In 2020, scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emanuelle Charpentier won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their work on a revolutionary new gene-editing technology that allows researchers to precisely snip out and replace DNA sequences within genes: CRISPR.

CRISPR was quick, cheap and relatively easy to use. And it unleashed the imagination of DNA coders.

More than any previous advance in genetic engineering, CRISPR enabled techniques from digital coding and systems engineering to be applied to biology. This cross-fertilization of ideas and methods led to breakthroughs ranging from using DNA to store computer data to creating 3D DNA origami structures.

CRISPR also opened the way for scientists to explore redesigning entire species including bringing back animals from extinction.

Gene drives use CRISPR to directly insert a piece of genetic code into an organisms genome and ensure that specific traits are inherited by all subsequent generations. Scientists are currently experimenting with this technology to control disease-carrying mosquitoes.

Despite the potential benefits of the technology, gene drives raise serious ethical questions. Even when applied to clear public health threats like mosquitoes, these questions are not easy to navigate. They get even more complex when considering hypothetical applications in people, such as increasing athletic performance in future generations.

Advances in gene editing have also made it easier to genetically alter the behavior of individual cells. This is at the heart of biomanufacturing technologies that reengineer simple organisms to produce useful substances ranging from aviation fuel to food additives.

Its also at the center of controversies surrounding genetically engineered viruses.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, there have been rumors that the virus that causes COVID-19 resulted from genetic experiments gone wrong. While these rumors remain unsubstantiated, theyve renewed debate around the ethics of gain-of-function research.

Gain-of-function research uses DNA editing techniques to alter how organisms function, including increasing the ability of viruses to cause disease. Scientists do this to predict and prepare for potential mutations of existing viruses that increase their ability to cause harm. However, such research also raises the possibility of a dangerously enhanced viruss being released outside the lab, either accidentally or intentionally.

At the same time, scientists increasing mastery over biological source code is what has allowed them to rapidly develop the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines to combat COVID-19. By precisely engineering the genetic code that instructs cells to produce harmless versions of viral proteins, vaccines are able to prime the immune system to respond when it encounters the actual virus.

Prescient as Michael Crichton was, its unlikely that he could have envisioned just how far scientists abilities to engineer biology have advanced over the past three decades. Bringing back extinct species, while an active area of research, remains fiendishly difficult. However, in many ways, our technologies are substantially further along than those in Jurassic Park and the subsequent films.

But how have we done on the responsibility front?

Fortunately, consideration of the social and ethical side of gene editing has gone hand in hand with the sciences development. In 1975, scientists agreed on approaches to ensure that emerging recombinant DNA research would be carried out safely. From the get-go, the ethical, legal and social dimensions of the science were hard-wired into the Human Genome Project. DIY bio communities have been at the forefront of safe and responsible gene-editing research. And social responsibility is integral to synthetic biology competitions.

Yet as gene editing becomes increasingly powerful and accessible, a community of well-meaning scientists and engineers is unlikely to be sufficient. While the Jurassic Park movies take dramatic license in their portrayal of the future, they do get one thing right: Even with good intentions, bad things happen when you mix powerful technologies with scientists who havent been trained to think through the consequences of their actions and havent thought to ask experts who have.

Maybe this is the abiding message of Jurassic World: Dominion that despite incredible advances in genetic design and engineering, things can and will go wrong if we dont embrace the development and use of the technology in socially responsible ways.

The good news is that we still have time to close the gap between could and should in how scientists redesign and reengineer genetic code. But as Jurassic World: Dominion reminds moviegoers, the future is often closer than it might appear.

Read the rest here:
'Jurassic World' scientists still haven't learned that just because you can doesn't mean you should real-world genetic engineers can learn from the...

The US Food and Drug Administration has been considering whether to approve a Covid-19 vaccine produced by Novavax, an American biotechnology company.

This vaccine was given approval by the European Medicines Agency in December and has already been widely used across Europe.

It was also approved by the UKs Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, in February.

Here we consider how the Novavax vaccine works, how it compares to other vaccines and how significant it might be in the fight against Covid-19.

The Novavax vaccine is a recombinant protein-based vaccine, which means that it involves genetic engineering technology and uses cells to produce the coronavirus spike protein.

In the case of the Novavax shot, an insect virus called a baculovirus is genetically engineered with a gene for the spike protein.

This baculovirus, Novavax explains in an online briefing document, are used to infect a type of moth cells called Sf9 cells.

The baculovirus multiplies inside the moth cells and the gene for the spike protein produces a type of genetic material called mRNA.

This mRNA causes the moth cells to produce large amounts of the coronavirus spike protein.

The proteins are purified and arranged around a tiny nanoparticle, which the company says helps your immune system recognise the target spike.

Novavax mixes these with an adjuvant, a substance that stimulates the immune system, which in this case comes from tree bark.

Once a person is injected with the vaccine, the immune system reacts against the spike proteins, resulting in a response that is protective in the event that the person is infected with the coronavirus.

The longest-established form of vaccine consists of the virus in a weakened form that is usually unable to cause disease.

In rare instances, particularly in people with compromised immune systems, such vaccines have led to illness.

Valneva, a French company, has developed a Covid-19 vaccine based on the inactivated coronavirus, although this has faced regulatory hurdles.

A later development was to use dead forms of the pathogen. While the risk of causing disease is eliminated, some such vaccines have not stimulated enough of an immune response.

The virus has to be grown in culture, which is easier for some than others, said Ian Jones, professor of virology at the University of Reading, so this can act as a technical hurdle for production.

People ride a New Jersey bus after the US government announced it would no longer enforce a mask mandate on public transport. Reuters

A third type of vaccine involves genetic engineering and results in the production of proteins from the pathogen. They include the Novavax shot and are quite widespread, Prof Jones said.

There are some for influenza. The vaccine for shingles, thats a single recombinant protein. They have a very good safety record, he said.

The technology behind recombinant protein vaccines is longer established than that used in the mRNA Covid-19 injections (such as Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna), and the viral vector vaccines (such as Oxford-AstraZeneca and Janssen or Johnson & Johnson shots).

While mRNA and viral vector vaccines use newer technology, these vaccines have been extensively tested and found to be safe, with only rare serious side effects.

With billions of doses of different types of Covid-19 vaccine already administered around the world, it raises the question of whether we need any more vaccines.

The commonsense thing is that the more options available, the better. I know the vaccine has proved safe and effective in Europe, said David Taylor, professor emeritus of pharmaceutical and public health policy at University College London.

Prof Taylor said that, theoretically, being able to identify very specific proteins that produce an immune response, as is the approach with recombinant protein vaccines, was the ideal approach, although in practice that was not always the case.

Prof Jones said the coronavirus was still circulating and continued to cause serious illness in some people, so vaccines were still needed.

He said the Novavax vaccine might be more appealing to people who had concerns about receiving some of the existing Covid-19 injections, for example because they were based on newer technology.

They may feel reassured that this version is using a technology that has been established for many other things," Prof Jones said. "There will be a class of individuals who feel happier with this form of vaccine."

Updated: June 07, 2022, 9:36 PM

Read the original here:
What is the Novavax Covid-19 vaccine? - The National

CALGARY, AB and MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., June 6, 2022 /CNW/ - Willow Biosciences Inc. ("Willow" or the "Company") (TSX:WLLW) (OTCQB: CANSF), a leading biotechnology company focused on revolutionizing industrial manufacturing of pure, consistent and sustainable ingredients along with Inscripta, a global leader in automated, CRISPR-based gene editing technology, announced today that Willow has incorporated the Onyx Genome Engineering Platform into its strain engineering workflows.

Willow Biosciences Inc. Logo (CNW Group/Willow Biosciences Inc.)

Having previously been a part of Inscripta's early access program, Willow has a deep appreciation for the value that automated, parallel genome editing capability brings, especially to a lean biotech company. The integrated and intuitive interface of the benchtop Onyx instrument uses best-in-class gene editing technology, enabling scientists to rapidly perform multiplexed, whole genome CRISPR edits at the push of a button.

The Onyx platform will further accelerate Willow's genetic editing capabilities and throughput and positively impact timelines for the commercial development of its FutureGrownmolecules and subsequent reduction in time to market. Incorporation of the Onyx platform into Willow's proven workflow will enable its team to engineer strains more rapidly, giving researchers back invaluable time to focus on intelligent library design and data analysis.

"Technology advancements such as next generation sequencing have enabled researchers to read genetic information at incredible speed and depth. Inscripta's technology now enables researchers to write genetic information with the same speed and with unparalleled precision, a combination that promises endless possibilities. Willow is thrilled to seamlessly integrate Inscripta's automated, high-throughput gene editing platform to shorten our development cycles and empower our scientists to effectively harness the tremendous potential of the entire genome" said Dr. Trish Choudhary, Vice President of Research & Development at Willow Biosciences.

Story continues

"The future of the synthetic biology economy is dependent on both large and small companies innovating under increasing pressure to deliver better products, faster, and often with less resources. Willow is a great example of how a lean, yet highly innovative organization can rapidly integrate and utilize the Onyx platform," said Dr. Nandini Krishnamurthy, Vice President of Microbial Business Unit at Inscripta. "We are looking forward to working with the team at Willow to further increase their strain performance while shortening development timelines."

About Willow Biosciences Inc.

Willow develops and produces high-purity ingredients for the personal care, food and beverage, and pharmaceutical markets. Willow's FutureGrownbiotechnology platform allows large-scale production with sustainability at its core. Willow's R&D team has a proven track record of developing and commercializing bio-based manufacturing processes and products to benefit our B2B partners and their customers.

For further information, please visit http://www.willowbio.com.

About Inscripta

Inscripta is a life science technology company enabling scientists to solve some of today's most pressing challenges with the first benchtop system for genome editing. The company's automated Onyx platform, consisting of an instrument, consumables, assays, and software, makes CRISPR-based genome engineering accessible to any research lab. Inscripta supports its customers around the world from facilities in Boulder, Colorado; San Diego and Pleasanton, California; and Copenhagen, Denmark.

To learn more, visit Inscripta.com and follow @InscriptaInc. Or contact

Michael B. GonzalesVice President, Marketingmichael.gonzales@inscripta.com415.308.6467

Forward-Looking Statements

This news release may include forward-looking statements including opinions, assumptions, estimates and the Company's assessment of future plans and operations, and, more particularly, statements concerning: Willow's ability to expand genetic editing capabilities and throughput and positively impact timelines for the commercial development of its FutureGrownmolecules; and the business plan of the Company. When used in this news release, the words "will," "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "expect," "intent," "may," "project," "should," and similar expressions are intended to be among the statements that identify forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements are founded on the basis of expectations and assumptions made by the Company which include, but are not limited to: the success of Willow's strategic partnerships, including the development of future strategic partnerships; the financial strength of the Company; the ability of the Company to fund its business plan using cash on hand and existing resources; the market for Willow's products; the ability of the Company to obtain and retain applicable licences; the ability of the Company to obtain suitable manufacturing partners and other strategic relationships; and the successful implementation of Willow's commercialization and production strategy, generally. Forward-looking statements are subject to a wide range of risks and uncertainties, and although the Company believes that the expectations represented by such forward-looking statements are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such expectations will be realized. Any number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements including, but not limited to, risks associated with: the biotechnology industry in general; the success of the Company's research and development strategies; infringement on intellectual property; failure to benefit from partnerships or successfully integrate acquisitions; actions and initiatives of federal and provincial governments and changes to government policies and the execution and impact of these actions, initiatives and policies; competition from other industry participants; adverse U.S., Canadian and global economic conditions; adverse global events and public-health crises, including the current COVID-19 outbreak; failure to comply with certain regulations; departure of key management personnel or inability to attract and retain talent; and other factors more fully described from time to time in the reports and filings made by the Company with securities regulatory authorities. Please refer to the Company's most recent annual information form and management's discussion and analysis for additional risk factors relating to Willow, which can be accessed either on Willow's website at http://www.willowbio.com or under the Company's profile on http://www.sedar.com.

Any financial outlook and future-oriented financial information contained in this document regarding prospective financial performance, financial position, cash balances or revenue is based on assumptions about future events, including economic conditions and proposed courses of action based on management's assessment of the relevant information that is currently available. Projected operational information contains forward-looking information and is based on a number of material assumptions and factors, as are set out above. These projections may also be considered to contain future-oriented financial information or a financial outlook. The actual results of the Company's operations for any period will likely vary from the amounts set forth in these projections and such variations may be material. Actual results will vary from projected results. Readers are cautioned that any such financial outlook and future-oriented financial information contained herein should not be used for purposes other than those for which it is disclosed herein.

The forward-looking statements contained in this news release are made as of the date hereof and the Company does not undertake any obligation to update publicly or to revise any of the included forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable law. The forward-looking statements contained herein are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

Cision

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/willow-biosciences-incorporates-inscriptas-onyx-platform-to-expand-strain-engineering-capabilities-and-throughput-301561340.html

SOURCE Willow Biosciences Inc.

Cision

View original content to download multimedia: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2022/06/c8955.html

Read more from the original source:
WILLOW BIOSCIENCES INCORPORATES INSCRIPTA'S ONYX PLATFORM TO EXPAND STRAIN ENGINEERING CAPABILITIES AND THROUGHPUT - Yahoo Finance

Thus far, researchers have not identified ancestral viruses that could have plausibly given rise to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19so says a new report from the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins (SAGO) of Novel Pathogens set up by the World Health Organization (WHO).

The report, however, notes that "the current available data on the closest related SARS-like viruses and susceptibility of many animal species to SARS-CoV-2 suggest a zoonotic source." Assuming a natural outbreak, horseshoe bats are a likely reservoir of the virus in the wild, although it could also have passed through an unknown intermediate species before infecting humans.

An alternative hypothesis is that the COVID-19 virus somehow escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, whose researchers were known to be experimenting with coronaviruses. Although three of the 27 members of the SAGO objected to consideration of the "lab leak" theory for the possible origin of the COVID-19 virus, the report states that "it remains important to consider all reasonable scientific data that is available either through published or other official sources to evaluate the possibility of the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into the human population through a laboratory incident."

Interestingly, a Chinese team reported the results of testing 1380 samples taken from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, where the outbreak was first identified. None of the samples from 188 live animals sold as meat detected the presence of the COVID-19 virus, but the researchers did find it in 73 samples from the ground, sewer wells, and various containers. "Skeptics of the natural origin theory maintain the market cluster could merely be a superspreader event touched off when a person infected with a lab-escaped coronavirus visited it," noted Science back in February.

Further investigation into the lab leak hypothesis would require that the Chinese government provide "access to and review the evidence of all laboratory (both in vitro and in vivo studies) with coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2-related viruses or close ancestors." Going forward, the SAGO would like to obtain more information about "the nature of the studies performed before the first reported COVID-19 cases in Wuhan and whether they involved reverse engineering or gain-of-function, genetic manipulation or animal studies with strains of SARS-like CoV."

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus sent two letters in February to Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and National Health Commission head Ma Xiaowei asking for any updates with respect to ongoing studies focused on the origins of the COVID-19 virus. However, the SAGO report notes that the Chinese government and researchers have "not provided any information related to studies conducted evaluating the laboratory hypotheses as a possible introduction into the human population."

The SAGO reports that it will remain open to "any and all scientific evidence that becomes available in the future to allow for comprehensive testing of all reasonable hypotheses," including the lab leak hypothesis.

The Chinese government's continued stonewalling of independent investigations of the origin of the COVID-19 virus strongly suggests that it has something to hide.

Link:
COVID-19 'Lab Leak' Origin Theory Merits Further Investigation, Says New WHO Report - Reason

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a common and potentially dangerous virus for which no vaccine currently exists despite decades of effort from the scientific community. Associate Professor of Biomolecular Engineering at the Baskin School of Engineering Rebecca DuBois has set out to address this pressing need. To fund her innovative approach to the development of an RSV vaccine, DuBois has been awarded the prestigious and highly competitive National Institutes of Health Research Project Grant (RO1).

RSV causes contagious cold-like symptoms that can develop into serious lung problems and lead to hospitalizations, especially in young children and older populations each year, 3 million children under five years old are hospitalized from RSV and 64 million total people are affected worldwide.The five-year, $3.8 million grant will be shared with DuBoiss collaborator Ralph Tripp at the University of Georgia and will build on both researchers' years of work studying RSV. Their overall aim is to validate their RSV vaccine in pre-clinical trials.

Theres a huge need this is a really important gap in our vaccine schedule to protect children, said DuBois, whose experience with her childs severe RSV fueled her to take on this research. I think the NIH study section reviewers liked that it's a totally different strategy than what everyone else is taking.

DuBoiss lab focuses on bioengineering the commonly overlooked RSV G protein, used by the virus to attach to host cells, to expose its vulnerable points so the hosts body can fight back.

In previous work, they have found that a region, called the central conserved domain and just 40 amino acids long, can be engineered to evoke an protective immunogenic response from the host. Additionally, a recent paper from the DuBois lab determined that this altered protein is still recognized by the bodys immune system and therefore could be effective in a vaccine.

I think since RSV has been such a difficult virus to create a vaccine for, we're innovative in that we are using structural biology to learn more about this protein and make changes to it using protein engineering to improve its immunogenicity, said Maria Juarez, a third-year Ph.D. student in the DuBois lab. Thats something that our lab has really spearheaded.

Targeting this specific region of the G protein, which remains unchanged as the virus mutates, is a cutting-edge technique in vaccine development that may allow a vaccine to continue its effectiveness as the virus mutates.

By whittling down our vaccine to this important and conserved part, and designing it so [the antigen] is exposed to our immune system in a better way, we can refocus the antibody response it wont get distracted by all the parts that arent conserved, DuBois said. Its a more strategic way to do vaccine design, instead of just targeting the whole protein and choosing one strain to target.

Juarez and the others in the DuBois lab will continue to experiment with ways to ensure that the surface of their engineered protein is structured in a way to provoke the strongest immune response. Juarez also noted that the techniques she is using to engineer the protein are cheaper and less time intensive than other methods, making future production of the vaccine scalable so it can eventually be used commercially around the world.

Once DuBoiss group has developed their vaccine, they will send it to Tripps lab to test if it creates a strong antibody response in pre-clinical models. The group expects the first vaccines to be tested in pre-clinical models by the end of 2022.

This project differs from other RSV vaccine efforts, some of which are in phase III clinical trials, in the method it uses to evoke a protective immune response. The large majority of other researchers focus on the RSV F protein, which fuses the virus and host cell membranes together to get the viruss genetic information into cells.

Eventually, the researchers anticipate that their vaccine could be combined with one that uses the F protein in order to create an even more robust immune response.

See the rest here:
Prestigious $3.8M NIH grant awarded to biomolecular engineering professor to develop an RSV vaccine - University of California, Santa Cruz