[quaist]

I just think it's not unlikely that in, I don't know, ten years time Google Glasses will be very common, maybe like today's smartphones.

And Matt, don't be worried too much, wearing glasses isn't that much of a handicap. Plus, you can always get yourself contact lenses.

[sunnykerr]

Honestly, most people will wind up wearing glasses when they get older because of presbyopia.

[GardenSirens]

I can't do contact lenses. I have two things on my body that can't be messed with. My eyes and my mouth (i have the worst gag reflex).

[quaist]

Have you tried contact lenses before? Because I always thought that my eyes would be too sensitive for them as well. But you really get used to it.

This one sounds a bit like science fiction, too, in my opinion:

Biological computer created at Stanford In the foreseeable future, humans might carry microscopic natural computers inside their cells that could guard against disease and warn of toxic threats based on a Stanford research achievement. A team of engineers there has invented genetic transistors, completing a simple computer within a living cell, a major step forward in the emerging field of synthetic biology. The startling achievement, to be unveiled in Friday's issue of the journal Science, presages the day when "living computers' inside the human body could screen for cancer, detect toxic chemicals or even turn cell reproduction on and off. "We're going to be able to put computers inside any living cell you want,' said lead researcher Drew Endy of Stanford's School of Engineering. The computers could deliver true-false answers to virtually any biological question that might be posed within a cell. For instance: Is toxic mercury present? It could detect it. Also: They can count. This would be a useful tool when treating diseases like cancer, where cells divide uncontrollably. Suppose a liver cell carries a counter that records how many times it divides. Once the counter hits 500, for instance, the cell could be programmed to die. Endy's work "clearly demonstrates the power of synthetic biology and could revolutionize how we compute in the future,' said UC Berkeley biochemical engineer Jay Keasling. He is director of the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center that helped support research at Stanford. These cell-based computers will be a different kind of computer, Endy said. "We're not going to replace the silicon computers. We're not going to replace your phone or your laptop. But we're going to get computing working in places where silicon would never work. "Any place you want a little bit of logic, a little bit of computation, a little bit of memory -- we're going to be able to do that,' said Endy. Conceptually, it's like electronics, where a transistor controls the flow of electrons along a circuit. But biology is the basis for what the team calls a "transcriptor,' which controls the flow of an important protein as it travels along a strand of DNA. Transcriptors are a biological version of electrical engineers' "logic gates' -- the building blocks of digital circuits that send and receive signals. The gates could derive true-false answers to virtually any biological question that might be posed within a cell. For instance: Is toxic mercury present? It could detect it. Also: They can count. This would be a useful tool when treating diseases like cancer, where cells divide uncontrollably. Suppose a liver cell carries a counter that records how many times it divides. Once the counter hits 500, for instance, the cell could be programmed to die. Endy's work "clearly demonstrates the power of synthetic biology and could revolutionize how we compute in the future,' said UC Berkeley biochemical engineer Jay Keasling. He is director of the Synthetic Biology EngineeringResearch Center that helped support research at Stanford. Endy, recruited to Stanford from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is a builder -- a civil engineer who started with boyhood Erector Sets and Legos, later working on bridge repair projects for Amtrak. Now he's building with the stuff of life to use it as a technology platform. "Biology is not just a science of discovery, but also a technology for making things,' he said. He cofounded the BioBricks Foundation supporting free-to-use standards and technologies for engineering biology. The team's transcriptor-based gates are the third and final component in a 10-year drive to the biological computer. Last year, the team delivered the other two core components of a computer. The first was a type of rewritable digital data storage within DNA. Information can be stored inside cells by flipping DNA sequences back and forth between two possible orientations to represent and store "0'' and "1'' that represent one "bit' of computer data. The other was a mechanism for transmitting genetic data from cell to cell, a biological Internet. The creation of "logic gates' means that everything can be connected, and signals can work. Researchers who learned of the work ahead of publication are already using the gates to reprogram metabolism, according to Endy. Getting the computer's data to output might involve engineering cells to change noticeably. The "simplest way is to have the cells change their smell or color,' Endy said. Students at Cambridge University and the Royal College of Art developed a "scat-o-log' by engineering E. coli bacteria to produce a full spectrum of pigments (like a box of crayola crayons), he said. These new biological computers will be slow, Endy cautioned. "But they'll work in places where we don't have computing now,' he said.

[GardenSirens]

Yes, as a teenager I wore some to change the color of my eyes to be "cool" lol.

[quaist]

I really doubt that those fashionable contacts have the same quality as medical ones do, though.

[sunnykerr]

Oh, wow, that biological computer thing sounds like it could be complete revolution in the treatment of cancer... in rich people anyway.

Mind you, we probably have to wait and see what side effects come with carrying something like that inside your body.

But it sounds like a great development.

[quaist]

It really does sound like something that might eventually come close to a cancer cure.

But -- like you said -- it will probably be affordable only for the rich.

[sunnykerr]

At least, at first, I think it would be only affordable for the rich.

Who knows?

A lot of technologies become more affordable as they get wider use.

[quaist]

Yeah, I guess by the time they had developed the first personal computers, they didn't imagine that in the near future, practically every household would have one either.

[sunnykerr]

Essentially.

So, who knows, there might be hope for everyone down the line.

Not to mention that, as horrible as it is to think. during the experimental phase, they might "test" on poorer subjects.

Not because it doesn't matter when poor people die, but because you have to have volunteers when you test new medical devices, and poor people are just as likely to volunteer as richer ones.

That's all.

[quaist]

Well, I assume in some cases in the past, they did test on poor people because causing them physical harm didn't 'matter' that much. Because they couldn't afford a proper lawyer in case something went wrong or were more likely to sign a contract -- in exchange for money -- that discharged the pharmaceutical company from any liability whatsoever.

[sunnykerr]

Oh, I'm sure some of that is part of the story as well.

Isn't it always part of the story, after all?

But I'm also thinking poor people are just as capable of taking advantage of this sort of system as rich ones.

They may not be as likely to sue when things go wrong, but they are very capable of measuring the risks and deciding to go for it when they think it'll be to their advantage.

[sunnykerr]

Human genome: US Supreme Court hears patents case The US Supreme Court has heard arguments questioning whether the human genome can be claimed as intellectual property. The case relates to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2009, and centres on whether companies should be able to patent genes. US authorities have been awarding patents on genes to universities and medical companies for almost 30 years. The case may have far-reaching repercussions for future gene research. Currently, researchers and private companies work to isolate genes in order to use them in tests for gene-related illnesses, and in emerging gene therapies. According to researchers at Weill Cornell Medical College in the US, patents now cover some 40% of the human genome. The ACLU lawsuit, filed in conjunction with the Public Patent Foundation, relates to seven patents on two human genes held by US firm Myriad Genetics. 'Products of ingenuity' The genes are linked to breast and ovarian cancer, and Myriad has developed a test to look for mutations in these genes that may increase the risk of developing cancer. The company argues that the genes patented were "isolated" by them, making them products of human ingenuity and therefore patentable. The ACLU rejects this argument, saying that genes are products of nature, and therefore can't be patented under US laws. Speaking immediately after the hearing, the ACLU's lawyer, Christopher Hansen, said: "Myriad did not invent the human genes at issue in this case, and they should not be allowed to patent them. "The patent system was designed to encourage innovation, not stifle scientific research and the free exchange of ideas, which is what these patents do." His co-counsel on the case, Daniel Ravicher, said granting patents on genes was "morally offensive". "Genes are the foundation of life, they are created by nature, not by man," he said. In 2010 a New York federal court ruled in favour of the ACLU, but an appeals court has on two separate occasions sided with Myriad. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal court's conclusions, and is now reconsidering the case. A ruling from the court is expected in June. The outcome may have significant repercussions for the multi-billion-dollar US pharmaceuticals industry. Companies like Myriad argue that without patents, the development of genetic tests and therapies will stall as researchers will not be able to recoup the huge levels of investment needed. "Countless companies and investors have risked billions of dollars to research and develop scientific advances under the promise of strong patent protection," said Peter Meldrum, the president and chief executive of Myriad. In statements submitted to the Supreme Court, Myriad said the materials and methods protected by the patents took years to develop. "This was the product of creative, human ingenuity, resulting in significant new applications for human health that were previously unavailable," it said.

Source

So this is one of those cases where I can actually see both sides of the coin. I tend to favour one of those sides, but I can understand why companies would have ways of ensuring that all their capital investment doesn't go out the window because a competitor gets there first.

And, if we get cures and medications out of it, so much the better, right?

On the other hand, and this is the side I tend to fall on, patenting is very specific in terms of its requirements. You have to have actually invented something or improved on a pre-existing invention in a way that is real and non-obvious.

No one can invent genes. We're born with them. As for improving upon them... this is not what this research is about.

So... It seems a bit rich to patent something one has not created merely to retain financial privelges.

And yet I kinda get it.

[posterity]

There is something called positional cloning, where if a diesase is inherited and we have the known genes involved in this disorder, researchers can use the information to replace the faulty genetic code with new and improved code that would match the recipients genetics. I think that is what the potential power of the human genome project.

Based on this knowledge, I can definately see why Myriad would want to patent the genes they believe they isolated because of the potential therapeutic benefits it might have for breast and ovarian cancer research. If these potential cancer causing genes that they found are then used to advance any knowledge they have about these types of cancers it becomes a chicken versus the egg argument. What came first?

However, I have to wonder what the intent of their patent is. Is it so that they can use these genes for discovery of their own? Is it so they can profit from any potential discoveries found from the genes they believe they isolated? Then there is the fact that genes are naturally occuring in nature and not only found in each human being, but any living thing.

Given my background in the sciences, I would say I side slightly with Myriad just because I can see the potential benefits of these genes and while it is not human made, it was discovered by them. I ask myself this, if these potential cancer causing genes were not discovered, would this debate be even occurring?