Papers by David Cyranoski
Nature, 2000
Anyone who wants to know what is wrong-and right-with research at the Genomic Sciences Center (GS... more Anyone who wants to know what is wrong-and right-with research at the Genomic Sciences Center (GSC) of the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (RIKEN) can turn to RIKEN's website. There they will find a detailed report containing both praise and criticism of the centre. Japan opens access to mouse cDNA data… …and to report on strengths and weaknesses of genomics centre Wada: hopes openness will appease the public and aid collaboration. Embracing change: Hayashizaki, left, and his RIKEN colleague, Yasushi Okazaki.
Nature, 2001
Rapid response: Yusuke Nakamura says the sealed-card technology will speed up analysis. Good news... more Rapid response: Yusuke Nakamura says the sealed-card technology will speed up analysis. Good news: AIDS activists celebrate in court as the drug companies drop their lawsuit.
Nature, 2001
Profitable tool of the trade: a mastication robot developed by researchers at Waseda University.
Nature, 2001
CORBIS news feature Rich pickings: the relatively isolated subpopulations in China offer research... more CORBIS news feature Rich pickings: the relatively isolated subpopulations in China offer researchers a unique, homogeneous resource for investigating the genes underlying disease.
Nature, Jan 19, 2015
R esearch that uses powerful gene-editing techniques on human embryos needs to be restricted, sci... more R esearch that uses powerful gene-editing techniques on human embryos needs to be restricted, scientists agree-but they are split over why. Some say that if safety fears can be allayed, such applications could have a bright future, and could help to eradicate devastating diseases. Others say that modifying the DNA of embryos, which means that the changes could be passed on to future generations, is an ethical line that should not be crossed. The concerns are laid out in an article 1 published in Nature on 12 March and in one expected to appear in Science, amid suspicions that scientists have already edited the genes of human embryos. Gene-editing techniques use enzymes called nucleases to snip DNA at specific points and then delete or rewrite the genetic information at those locations. Most recently, excitement has focused on a technique called CRISPR/Cas9, which is particularly easy to use. Current applications of the technology are in non-reproductive, or somatic, cells: for example, Sangamo BioSciences of Richmond, California, has used zinc-finger nucleases, an older gene-editing technology, to remove a gene from white-blood cells that encodes the receptor to which HIV binds to enter the cells. But concerns focus on the use of gene editing to modify the genomes of eggs and fertilized eggs-a process known as germline modification. Edward Lanphier, president of Sangamo and chairman of the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine in Washington DC, together with colleagues from both organizations, wrote the Comment article 1 in Nature calling on scientists not to modify human embryos, even in research. The authors warn that such work could be exploited for "non-therapeutic modifications"-to change a child's eye colour, for example-and that a public outcry about such an "ethical breach" could hinder the use of gene editing in somatic cells. They also have more basic objections. "We are humans, not transgenic rats," says Lanphier. "We believe there is a fundamental ethical issue in crossing the boundary to GENETICS Embryo editing divides scientists Researchers disagree over whether making heritable changes to genes crosses an ethical line.
Nature Medicine, 2004
Researchers in Europe are benefiting from the European Patent Office's (EPO) decision to prune se... more Researchers in Europe are benefiting from the European Patent Office's (EPO) decision to prune several high-profile patents, a result of key differences between US and European policy. The EPO's rulings broaden avenues of research that would otherwise be choked off by licensing fees, but some scientists and citizen groups say the decisions are still not enough. On 6 July, the EPO restricted a patent on the OncoMouse model for cancer research from including all rodents to just mice. In May, the agency revoked one of three patents Salt Lake City-based Myriad Genetics has on the breast cancer gene BRCA1. Months earlier, the EPO had granted a patent similar to Myriad's on another breast cancer gene, BRCA2, to Cancer Research UK. The charity announced in August that it would allow free access to academic researchers, undermining Myriad's position. Unlike the US, Europe forbids patents that threaten ''ordre public' or morality.' The EPO invoked this clause against the OncoMouse patent and, in July 2002, the Edinburgh patent on stem cells. The agency is also less flexible in allowing corrections to patents, says Siobhan Yeats, EPO's director of Examination and Opposition in Biotechnology. Corrections to Myriad's initial BRCA1 patent, which was found to have Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Nature Medicine, 2005
When the US National Institutes if Health (NIH) announced the winners of the first annual NIH Dir... more When the US National Institutes if Health (NIH) announced the winners of the first annual NIH Director's Pioneer Award last year, one fact stood out: all nine awardees were men. This year, thanks to a flurry of protests from scientists, the winners are likely to be a more diverse bunch. Shortly after the announcement of last year's winners in September 2004, individual scientists and groups such as the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) and the Association for Women in Science complained about the "striking lack of diversity." "The selection of such a homogeneous group of award winners sends an unavoidable message to women that they are not worthy of recognition as 'pioneers' and indeed may be considered less valued than men by the highest levels of the NIH," wrote ASCB's then-president Harvey Lodish and Women in Cell Biology chair Ursula Goodenough. In response, the NIH transferred responsibility for the awards from the director's office-which had little experience with grants-to the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. The agency also named Jeremy Berg, the institute's directorand one of several NIH researchers who complained-to redesign the program. Together with Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and NIH researcher Judith Greenberg, Berg redesigned the award scheme to include more women and minorities as both applicants and judges. "I was impressed with the changes they made, this should be a model for other grant application processes," says Stanford University neuroscientist Ben Barres (see page 916), who has served as a judge both years. The changes are significant: up to 40% of this year's referees are women or minorities, and applicants can nominate themselves. Last year, by contrast, 60 of the 64 judges were men and "unconscious bias" probably affected the outcome, notes Barres. "Applicants had to be nominated-people tend to nominate men for Hard sell: Nearly 200 products in Malaysia are made with the tongkat ali root, thought to have aphrodisiac properties.
Nature, 2009
, which fund most of Britain's basic research, towards "key areas of economic potential". These a... more , which fund most of Britain's basic research, towards "key areas of economic potential". These areas make up roughly 15% of the councils' £3-billion annual budget and are defined by five cross-cutting programmes with titles such as "living with environmental change" and "digital economy" (see Nature 453, 1150-1151; 2008). Chloë Somers, a spokeswoman for the councils, says that most of the £106 million will come from reprioritizing the 'blue-skies'
Nature, 2004
hen Pope John Paul II addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1992, he tackled yet again ... more hen Pope John Paul II addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1992, he tackled yet again Galileo's famous battles with the Church four centuries ago. In his talk, entitled "Faith can never conflict with reason", the Pope was doing his best to mend fences. Although science and religion form "two realms of knowledge", he said, "the two realms are not altogether foreign to each other, they have points of contact". Despite the Pope's optimistic words, the tension between faith and science never fully subsides. And as these realms regularly come into contact,over everything from Darwin to Dolly the cloned sheep, they sometimes collide with explosive force. Today, with scientists manipulating the machinery of life as never before,the debate is in full swing.Nanotechnology,artificial intelligence, cloning, creationism and genetic modification (see 'A recipe for disaster?' , opposite) all test the strained relationship between faith and advancing technology. Today's frontline controversy-stemcell research-has prompted a wide range of reactions from religious leaders, much of it negative. But the fundamental, religionbased belief in the sanctity of human life, even at the stage of an embryo, clashes in this field with another fundamental human desire: to alleviate suffering and cure disease. The debate does not leave room for simple answers,for individuals or society as a whole. Francis Collins, head of the US National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, and a devout Christian, has described himself as being "intensely Studies of faith Ethical balance: Christianity's defence of the unborn child informs its position on stem-cell research.
Nature, 2010
cience, it is often said, is an international language. But how international are attitudes towar... more cience, it is often said, is an international language. But how international are attitudes towards science and scientists? Nature and our affiliated publication Scientific American set out to learn how the views of the scientifically literate public vary around the world. Our web-based survey of more than 21,000 readers of Scientific American and its translated editions in 18 countries revealed that although these science enthusiasts read the same publication and share many attitudes in their perception of science, they seem to diverge on some of the hottest-button issues. The differences are most striking between east Asia and the rest of the world. For example, a startling 35% of the Japanese and 49% of the Chinese respondents agreed that there is "reason for doubt" about evolutionary theory's ability to explain the variety of species on Earth. In contrast, the numbers for the rest of the world fluctuated around 10%. Japanese and Chinese respondents were also less likely than others to say that they trust scientific explanations of the origins of the Universe. And almost one-third of scientifically literate Chinese people say that scientists should not get involved in politics, compared with around 10% of respondents in most of the rest of the world. The results are not conclusive. Far from being rigorous, the survey sampled countries unevenly, with thousands of respondents in the United States and several European countries, 1,195 in Japan and just 269 in China. The respondents were self-selected, so some subsets
Uploads
Papers by David Cyranoski