>For his PhD thesis, he proved that a working hot fusion reactor would either consume more energy than it generates or spew as much radiation as existing nuclear power plants—a finding that did not endear him to many physicists and cut off some career options.
The science field doesn't really work like this, does it? You'd think if he definitively proved a particular thing there wouldn't be any animosity about it toward HIM. I can understand being pissed your funding gets cut off and irritated a thing you've been pursuing for years turns out to be a wild goose chase. But are the punitive measures alluded to in that last paragraph normal?
edit: Also wouldn't a "kill switch" be counterproductive with flu and other environmentally persistant diseases? Isn't the point of vaccinations that we train our body to fight the disease? I suppose in emergency situations you'd want to kill the virus outright, but I don't think being able to kill an arbitrary viral outbreak excludes the need for vaccinations and other public health programs.
Oh, you mean the sentence about how the eccentric scientist has been persecuted by the establishment for his contrarian work?
To me, that sounds so much like the output of a journalist's nearest-cliche algorithm that it's impossible to say whether there's any truth in it, or how much.
Thank you. Sometimes I wish journalists writing about scientists were subject to the same peer-review process that scientists are. E.g.,
"One binds to viral double-stranded ribonucleic acid, a type of molecule found in all viruses."
Goddamnit, no it isn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Baltimore_classification). Some viruses contain DNA, not RNA, in the capsid. The proposed treatment acts on dsRNA made after the virus has entered the cell, and the only hope of it working on DNA viruses is if sufficient dsRNA is produced during transcription of the viral genome (I'm not convinced—the citations for this in Rider's paper are weak).
Umm, the advantage if fusion is how much radiation is being produced from the waste products over time not how much radiation is being produces while it's running. All nuclear reactions be they fission or fusion release their energy as radiation either high energy photons or chunks of matter being blown from the nucleus at high energy levels. So, I really don't think the details of what was actually said are being summarized vary well.
EX: D+T fusion = 2 protons + 3 neutrons one of which does not get to stick around and 17.59 MeV worth of energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deuterium-tritium_fusion.s... (The diffrence in energy comes from the conservation of momentum. ~1/4th the mass needs to go ~4x as fast to have the same momentum which takes ~4x the energy {e=v^2 x m=(4)^2 x (1/4)=4}.)
"By splicing jellyfish genes into white blood cells—nature’s front line against viral invaders—he created a biological sensor that glows in the presence of disease."
The "jellyfish genes" in question are probably GFP[1] (Green fluorescent protein), which has been spliced into many organisms. You can even buy fish with the gene[2].
For his PhD thesis, he proved that a working hot fusion reactor would either consume more energy than it generates or spew as much radiation as existing nuclear power plants—a finding that did not endear him to many physicists and cut off some career options.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I admire anyone willing to follow through on what the facts tell them rather than switch gears in order to ensure better career mobility.
Forget the virus kill switch, what I found fascinating from the article were his accomplishments. Usually a lot of great things come out of the intersection of deep knowledge from two different fields (say, medicine and software). If you combine EE, CS, Physics and Biology, well, it is pretty awesome.
We don't know of any viruses that are directly beneficial to the human body, as we know of beneficial bacteria; so it's an amazing idea.
On the other hand, Nathan Wolfe http://www.gvfi.org/wolfe/ , virus expert, believes that if all viruses were wiped out, humanity would not last long at all. If this drug were excreted or discarded into water supplies, we may begin destroying our viral population, with unintended effect.
Still, leads one to wonder what more highly targeted applications could be created. Parasites, specific bacteria, etc. Exciting times.
Something that is not explicitly stated in the article, other than "virus kills the host cells, anyway", is that the drug works by finding host cells containing viral (specific) RNA, and then killing the host cells (I assume apoptosis means rupturing lysosomes - digestive enzyme packets).
The article mentions the two active "tags" and what they do, but not the context and effect: kill infected cells to stop further infection.
This could be pretty important work to make gene therapy much safer.
A single dose of dimerizing drug, given
to four patients in whom GVHD developed,
eliminated more than 90% of the modified
T cells within 30 minutes after
administration and ended the GVHD
without recurrence.
I invoke the law of unintended consequences. A fine example would be "so sorry it killed test subject 1337, apparently that particular genetic mutation in his DNA looked like a disease."
Yes, I truly hope that these proteins do work as intended, but a part of me thinks "what about obscure virus X, which is capable of easily infecting most cells in a body but doesn't exhibit any negative effects on health?" If such a virus existed then these proteins, administered in significant enough amounts, would kill a person infected with virus X.
Nah you would be given a dosage large enough just to kill the invading virus. It could hurt the person, but killing them is unlikely. Actually wrote a paper on a something similar I came up with back in undergrad using HIV.
I don't follow that logic. Sure, it stands to reason that if the drug can only kill infected cells, and the human hasn't already lost enough cells to kill them, then the drug won't kill the human.
But let's suppose that you can't measure in advance the number of cells that are infected, nor can the drug actually tell the difference between infected and not-infected cells (due to the aforementioned genetic abnormality.) What happens when the drug kills too many normal cells? The human dies.
My point was that there are so many more healthy cells vs infected cells except on rare instances that even it kills healthy cells too they are far larger in number. Just like what happens during radiation treatments or any number of other treatments.
Still it would likely be a staged treatment that wouldn't kill the entirety of infected cells in a single dosage. The benefit is that you could see if there were adverse reacts before continuing.
Now that I think about it, it's much more like chemotherapy. Which does cause terrible side effects by affecting the entire body and not just cancer cells.
Radiation is targeted and not administered 'generally' like a drug would be. If you could aim drugs, chemotherapy would likely change drastically.
The ability to eradicate numerous diseases may be one of the greatest achievements of mankind. I do not think this story is one to be overlooked if his achievements are applicable to humans.
The science field doesn't really work like this, does it? You'd think if he definitively proved a particular thing there wouldn't be any animosity about it toward HIM. I can understand being pissed your funding gets cut off and irritated a thing you've been pursuing for years turns out to be a wild goose chase. But are the punitive measures alluded to in that last paragraph normal?
edit: Also wouldn't a "kill switch" be counterproductive with flu and other environmentally persistant diseases? Isn't the point of vaccinations that we train our body to fight the disease? I suppose in emergency situations you'd want to kill the virus outright, but I don't think being able to kill an arbitrary viral outbreak excludes the need for vaccinations and other public health programs.