http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram
I work in a biophysics lab at the moment, and one of the projects I am working on indirectly involves novel methods for DNA sequencing. Needless to day, I am learning about DNA as I do this, and I have to say, it's pretty much the coolest thing there is. Here's just one little tidbit of unlikely stuff you can do with it.
also: slow motion photography of light
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoHeWgLvlXI&feature=related
Yes, I agree DNA is pretty much the coolest thing ever. A simple sugar-phosphate backbone, with only 4 different nitrogenous bases codes for everything that makes YOU. Making DNA do data storage is pretty cool as well.
Also, that TED talk was duck cool.
QuoteLooking forward, they foresee a world where biological storage would allow us to record anything and everything without reservation. Today, we wouldn't dream of blanketing every square meter of Earth with cameras, and recording every moment for all eternity/human posterity — we simply don't have the storage capacity.
This made me laugh. It's like moments that are not noteworthy and the concept of living in the moment don't exist to the writer, lol.
This is neat though I guess. Another superfluous advancement that doesn't solve a single issue important to humanity, but oh well, they can't all be antiseptics. Reminds me of those physicists who came up with a formula to predict at what angle a ponytail would hang... like... good job but you recycling or not leaving the water on the entire time you brush your teeth would be a bigger benefit to mankind.
Edittt; http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/131574-living-organ-on-a-chip-could-soon-replace-animal-testing
Now THAT is some cool science.
QuoteNow THAT is some cool science.
Also very cool, and yeah that writer is pretty stupid. LOL.
...arthritis meds bots? for real? lmao
QuoteThis is neat though I guess. Another superfluous advancement that doesn't solve a single issue important to humanity, but oh well, they can't all be antiseptics. Reminds me of those physicists who came up with a formula to predict at what angle a ponytail would hang... like... good job but you recycling or not leaving the water on the entire time you brush your teeth would be a bigger benefit to mankind.
Heh. Just because some aspect of a discovery isn't directly useful at the moment doesn't mean it won't be, or that it won't be a stepping stone toward one that is. Which is pretty much the point of basic science - poke things and see what happens, and maybe it will be useful someday. A truly amazing number of discoveries are just old ones re-purposed from their original frivolous ones.
This is very true. And I mean, it's not like it's hurting anyone anyways.
if u make a camera dat can record around corners u can film gurls on tha toilet but nobody kno!!1
Quote from: Death on August 18, 2012, 05:08:37 PM
if u make a camera dat can record around corners u can film gurls on tha toilet but nobody kno!!1
Hot:
(http://i.imgur.com/eOIf6.png)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16972761 This is pretty cool science. Would you eat lab meat or would it be too freaky? Personally I'd be all over a lab-grown steak.
I always hesitate before putting science in my mouth. Maybe 10 years after it hits the major markets and everyone has been my guinea pig for a while.
Given how much it costs now and the slow progress made on it I think we might not have teeth by then. Always going to miss out on some cool poo, someone needs to freeze me.
That's the downside to not believing in afterlife/extra lives. You don't get to see what cool stuff/gruesome death for itself that humanity cooks up.
Unless that one dude is right, and we'll soon all be immortal.
Anyway, I'd eat lab grown meat.
progress toward spontaneous synthesis of DNA from inorganic materials (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/08/did-dna-exist-before-life-began-on-earth-new-study-suggests-yes.html)
I really hate science, but that's duck awesome.
How does one hate science?
Quote from: Shores of Tripoli on August 27, 2012, 02:45:29 PM
I really hate science, but that's [wash my mouth out!!!] awesome.
Not understand. Please to be clarifying.
Quote from: Shadow on August 27, 2012, 03:07:30 PM
Quote from: Shores of Tripoli on August 27, 2012, 02:45:29 PM
I really hate science, but that's [wash my mouth out!!!] awesome.
Not understand. Please to be clarifying.
Sorry, I cussed and the auto replace made my statement incoherent. It is quite funny though, I like that.
I meant that I hate learning and participating in science, it obviously plays a vital role in the development of civilization.
So what you meant to say is that you hate science class. Which makes sense, for many students, science and math are their least favorite subjects, because they are hard.
Also, Shadow, that is very cool.
wat, how are they hard? You just like.. read the information and vomit it back out on demand, it's all just right or wrong.
Quote from: Gen. Volkov on August 27, 2012, 11:22:32 PM
So what you meant to say is that you hate science class. Which makes sense, for many students, science and math are their least favorite subjects, because they are hard.
Also, Shadow, that is very cool.
Yea, I suppose so, but I'm generally not interested in other means of scientific education. I suppose it was pretty dumb to simply say that I hate science. Kind of silly, but I really mean that I hate to pretend that I have an interest in it during situations that demand my scientific attention. So yea, I hate science class. That however, is pretty cool.
Eh, not everyone finds it easy or fun to memorise endless streams of information. I guess it depends on the way it's taught. I'm referring to science here - maths is a totally alien world to me :P
Quote from: Ashyra Nightwing on August 28, 2012, 02:51:54 PM
Eh, not everyone finds it easy or fun to memorise endless streams of information. I guess it depends on the way it's taught. I'm referring to science here - maths is a totally alien world to me :P
I'm a pretty big history nerd. Just don't tell my girl friend, she only dates me because I'm cool.
Science class isn't science by any stretch of the imagination. Science class is basically a scientific history class which involves learning techniques, but you aren't actually doing science. I didn't much care for science class either, but it's not the same thing.
Quote from: Shadow on August 28, 2012, 03:12:46 PM
Science class isn't science by any stretch of the imagination. Science class is basically a scientific history class which involves learning techniques, but you aren't actually doing science. I didn't much care for science class either, but it's not the same thing.
Yea, I spoke prematurely, that was rather rude.
Quote[What The Ferret], how are they hard? You just like.. read the information and vomit it back out on demand, it's all just right or wrong.
Not everyone finds that easy Death. Also, not all of science class is rote memorization and recall.
Quote
Yea, I suppose so, but I'm generally not interested in other means of scientific education. I suppose it was pretty dumb to simply say that I hate science. Kind of silly, but I really mean that I hate to pretend that I have an interest in it during situations that demand my scientific attention. So yea, I hate science class. That however, is pretty cool.
OK, fair enough I guess.
A single dose cure for malaria with successful animal trials (http://lifestyle.iafrica.com/wellness/813618.html)
Quote from: Gen. Volkov on August 29, 2012, 12:42:10 AM
Quote[What The Ferret], how are they hard? You just like.. read the information and vomit it back out on demand, it's all just right or wrong.
Not everyone finds that easy Death. Also, not all of science class is rote memorization and recall.
Really? All mine were remembering the answers to questions and remembering the steps to go through in order to like, do the activity things. Would make a lot of sense if the school I was in then just sucked though. It was so boring I would just do Mortal Kombat (random answers that could correlate to MK moves) on tests so as far as the state is concerned I'm on a 4th grade level in science LOL.
btw how are babies made?
It is a sad reality that the teaching system we have now allows success by memorizing formulas instead of understanding the general principle behind it. This gives higher test scores, but results in people who are both basically illiterate in whatever subject you choose to argue about, and also people who dislike it because they think it is tedious. Once you get past the memorization to an understanding of the principles behind the method, it all seems much more worthwhile.
Understanding the principle behind something (in sciences at least) to me is just memorizing the why of it, lol. EVERYTHING IS MEMORIZATION.
If you understand it, you don't need to memorize it. But I suppose that's splitting hairs.
Quote from: Shadow on August 29, 2012, 12:45:03 AM
A single dose cure for malaria with successful animal trials (http://lifestyle.iafrica.com/wellness/813618.html)
duck yea, Marines are always getting malaria- Vietnam, The Pacific, Africa. WE NEED THIS!!! Oorah science.
holy duck I missed that, awesome. Now hopefully African thugs won't smoke it trying to get high like they do with antiretroviral drugs.
I'm going to start modding if you guys keep testing the filters for no reason. Marines/truckers are a bad excuse.
Also apparently my link died and the one on reddit I copied it from also died.
It was there a minute ago, I swear (I'm allowed to swear).
It's a little too futile for me to keep in mind at all when I post. I can't even try to try don't hit me.
Quote from: Shadow on August 29, 2012, 01:04:01 AM
I'm going to start modding if you guys keep testing the filters for no reason. Marines/truckers are a bad excuse.
Also apparently my link died and the one on reddit I copied it from also died.
It was there a minute ago, I swear (I'm allowed to swear).
Isn't that what the filters are for? to filter?
I don't think they're for anything, this place is just all 1930s in terms of language censorship.
That's retarded.
I hate how all these articles about breakthrough treatments never say what kind of drug it is.
Quote from: DeathReally? All mine were remembering the answers to questions and remembering the steps to go through in order to like, do the activity things. Would make a lot of sense if the school I was in then just sucked though. It was so boring I would just do Mortal Kombat (random answers that could correlate to MK moves) on tests so as far as the state is concerned I'm on a 4th grade level in science LOL.
Maybe the school you went too did just suck, cause we always did experiments and stuff. There was always a graded lab component to our science classes.
Quote
btw how are babies made?
What, seriously? You want the long or short answer?
Also while that's very cool about the malaria drug, I'm with Lucy, I wish they would have said what kind of drug it was.
I know it's something about the stork bumping uglies with my mom and leaving her a zygote.
Quote from: Death on August 29, 2012, 01:35:28 AM
I don't think they're for anything, this place is just all 1930s in terms of language censorship.
The filters are like guys who pick trash up off the sidewalk. They are necessary to keep things clean, but they ideally shouldn't have jobs.
But anyone reading can easily know what word is being filtered. I mean they already know the words, seeing someone else use them is like, nothing. If they get offended from seeing a word they have wayyy bigger problems. But at the same time I understand that for a long time this was the norm on forums and one like this (welcoming to the small ones) is never going to change it.
Yea, I've never known why we bother with the replace and don't just delete the words entirely. Might be a good idea actually.
But yea, the theme attracts a younger demographic so we try to keep things cleaner. Of course, they have all seen the ~internet~ at this point and I doubt it's ever actually made a difference.
Fixing the malaria cure link (http://gizmodo.com/5939213/did-scientists-just-find-a-cure-for-malaria?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_twitter&utm_source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow)
Building blocks of life found around newborn star (http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=38338/)
Evolution at work (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2011/09/02/the-black-death-is-dead-thanks-to-evolution/)
Hampsters in a centrifuge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VuMdLm0ccU&feature=youtu.be)
First two: Cool stuff. Last one: Hilarious.
On the topic of cool things that will probably never be used directly for practical purposes:
Water droplets used for computing (http://www.aalto.fi/en/current//news/view/2012-09-06-003/)
Why make robots when you can mind control cockroaches? (http://news.discovery.com/tech/remote-controlled-cockroach-120907.html#mkcpgn=fbsci1)
Modern human evolution (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/human-change-we-can-believe-in-by-denis-r-ale)
This is interesting, as I would have been one of the ones to say that evolution is having little effect on contemporary humans, what with medical science being so good at keeping most people healthy long enough to have babies.
Actually, I suppose I would have said that evolution still has an effect, but a degenerative one, given that there is a negative correlation between education/intelligence and reproduction rates in developed populations. Which is sort of the point they make at the end:
QuoteThis discovery challenges another fundamental myth: evolutionary change necessarily benefits the species. In fact, evolution simply increases the average individual's reproductive success – with potentially damaging demographic consequences. So, while contemporary evolution is occurring, adaptation may not always lead to a better life.
The cockroach thing is old, I've seen an article about it before. Still cool though.
With regards to the human evolution thing:
"In a recent study, research psychologist Markus Jokela and his colleagues took this link further, connecting LRS to personality."
That right there should give you a hint that something is bogus.
I'm not buying the argument that meaningful evolutionary change is occurring in the human population at large. Genetic drift or other evolutionary forces may be acting in the short term, at the local level, but in the timescales required for changes large enough to create even a subspecies of human, all the minor changes are getting zero'd out. The overall human population is too large, too mobile, and too insulated from nature for any of the micro-evolutionary forces to have an effect. The last major genetic change in humans occurred about 10,000 years ago, right at the dawn of agriculture. That was the allele for the hair color gene that gives blond hair and blue eyes.
You don't think that keeping literally everyone alive to reproduce is going to have a negative effect on humanity at large? It won't give rise to any sub species because it is not really directed, but on a micro scale, it will mean proliferation of all sorts of genetic disorders that would otherwise die out on their own, as a start.
Not to say that I advocate for anything like euthanasia, but I don't think we can say that removing ourselves from the influences of natural selection is going to stop all evolution.
No, not really shadow. Genetic disorders and the like are pretty rare, they are going to be swamped under the vast numbers of humans without genetic disorders. When everyone lives, evolution has nothing to act on. About the only thing I can see that might be an opportunity for evolution to act would be human mate-selection patterns. Humans are pretty choosy about who they reproduce with, and while the folks with genetic disorders may live, most of them will probably never reproduce. So the genetic disorders might still die out, because the carriers didn't reproduce. Then again, there are a lot of really ugly people with really low standards.
Anyway, I'm not saying humans will never evolve again, but certainly for right now, and probably for a goodly chunk of the last 10,000 years, humans have stopped evolving.
This is why stem cell research is a necessity (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19570024)
Very cool stuff.
Best headline ever (http://grist.org/list/scientists-create-digital-watch-powered-by-cyborg-lobsters/). (Alternatively titled "How would you ever get funding for this?").
Funding proposal: "Alternative energy sources including biolelectric energy for use in small electronics", instead of "Using cyborg lobsters to power a digital watch"
QuoteIn light of these new results about evolution, I can't help pointing out that, finally, that evolution has been in the news recently for another reason. Several U.S. politicians, some campaigning for President, have been attacking evolution, saying that it has "got some gaps in it" and even supporting the teaching of creationism. Scientific facts aren't affected by political statements, of course, but the future of the U.S. is. Politicians who attack evolution, whether from ignorance or from some political or religious agenda, only hurt our future potential as a technology leader. I can only hope that the public won't support these anti-science positions.
Totally unbiased
Who what huh?
http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken.html
Chickenosaurus!
Wow... Jack got old. I remember watching dino shows when I was a kid, and he was on them all the time.
Also... I want one.
Tractor Beams! (http://www.geekosystem.com/working-tractor-beam/)
No way. That is beyond cool.
Yay science, you are so cool
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/10/29/0241252/designing-dna-specific-bio-weapons
Bio-warfare is scary stuff
"A few years" is a very optimistic estimate given the current state of sequencing tech. While it may be that we beat the NIH goal of $1000/24h genome in the next decade or so (Oxford Nanopore (http://www.nanoporetech.com/technology/the-gridion-system/the-gridion-system) claims to have beaten it but biological nanopore methods are severely limited by shelf-life and their press-release is likely ridiculously over-optimistic), that level of engineering is still in the power-point stage.
I would measure time to that capability in decades if I were being optimistic.
Not that that makes it much less scary. But in all honesty, single-target weapons are a lot less scary than bioWMDs, which in all likelihood exist already.
Quote"A few years" is a very optimistic estimate given the current state of sequencing tech. While it may be that we beat the NIH goal of $1000/24h genome in the next decade or so (Oxford Nanopore claims to have beaten it but biological nanopore methods are severely limited by shelf-life and their press-release is likely ridiculously over-optimistic), that level of engineering is still in the power-point stage.
How is it ridiculously over-optimistic? They have the machines built already, they sequence a virus genome in seconds, and the human genome in hours.
They have a very high error rate, relative to other methods (~4%, last talk I attended), and biological pores have a useful lifetime of a few hours and a shelf life of days if you are lucky. It's a lovely platform, but it will be obsolete the moment someone manages to build a similar device with a solid state pore, which will very likely be in the next decade.
They also aren't clear on the cost of their re-usable cartridges - if the bulk of that $900 cost is the cartridge, then over time the cost won't be that much lower than conventional instruments which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars upfront but can be used repeatedly after that, especially if the error rate is such that you need to use multiple cartridges per genome to reduce it. Where they win big is the prep time (low labour costs), but again, that has nothing to do with their sequencing platform, it's just some onboard standard microfluidics which could be used equivalently in any other pore-based platform.
Now, if someone could incorporate that lovely little enzyme they used to unzip their DNA into a solid state pore along with an appropriate read-head (in principle there's no reason they can't, it's mostly a matter of making the pores cheaply and consistently that it getting in the way) then I'd say they nailed it.
Don't get me wrong, I am ridiculously impressed at the device they've created. It proves conclusively that nanopore based sequencing approaches are heading in the right direction, and their microfluidic lab-on-a-chip system is nothing short of art (running untreated blood through a microfluidic system and extracting purified genomic DNA in-situ, holy crap). I just know that we can do a hell of a lot better with solid state pores, and it won't be long before we do, so I doubt that those devices will be widely used for very long.
QuoteThey have a very high error rate, relative to other methods (~4%, last talk I attended), and biological pores have a useful lifetime of a few hours and a shelf life of days if you are lucky. It's a lovely platform, but it will be obsolete the moment someone manages to build a similar device with a solid state pore, which will very likely be in the next decade.
Don't get me wrong, I am ridiculously impressed at the device they've created. It proves conclusively that nanopore based sequencing approaches are heading in the right direction, and their microfluidic lab-on-a-chip system is nothing short of art (running untreated blood through a microfluidic system and extracting purified genomic DNA in-situ, holy crap). I just know that we can do a hell of a lot better with solid state pores, and it won't be long before we do, so I doubt that those devices will be widely used for very long.
Well yeah, obviously its a transitional device, but what they have created has impressed the hell out of me as well, and it does make fast sequencing of the human genome a viable thing. The side where targeted bioweapons fail isn't the sequencing side, it's the targeting side. Viruses and bacteria mutate, if you create an infectious organism that is going to be effective, then you have to deal with mutation. There is no way to predict what will happen once you release that weapon. It may kill the person you want to assassinate, or it may kill
everyone beyond the initial hosts, because the restrictor mechanism got lost in a mutation. If you can obtain a person's DNA, you can now sequence it quickly and with the right equipment and enough expertise, you could probably make a virus that does what it says in the article, at least in the lab. But like I said, the issue is, if you make a bug that is super-deadly to one person, there is a good chance that it will mutate and become super-deadly to everyone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=mcAq9bmCeR0
This is quite frankly the most interesting video that currently exists on youtube. Genetic algorithms are the coolest thing out there.
Indeed, cool video Shadow.
Also very cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_467006&feature=iv&src_vid=mcAq9bmCeR0&v=SeTssvexa9s
They should just make that a really huge .png that you can scroll down at your own pace rather than bother making a video at all.
Hmm, yeah, that's a good idea.
Apparently we can now turn pee into stem cells (http://www.nature.com/nprot/journal/v7/n12/abs/nprot.2012.115.html?WT.ec_id=NPROT-201212)
Well there you go.
That might stop some of the arguments against stem cell research
I think most of the controversy was over embryonic stem cell research
There's likely a bit of residual knee-jerk against stem cell research because of it, but using other cells or your urine shouldn't be an issue.
There have been ways of getting stem cells for years now that don't involve embryos (google induced pluripotent stem cells), but some people hear "stem cell" and freak out. There will always be irrational opposition to important research because some people are just that.
http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/2569
Neat stuff. Explains the process of making a Raspberry Pi ($35 ARM computer)
More engineering than science, but hey
...
Correct me if I'm wrong Shadow, but didn't the bulk of stem cell research focus on embryonic stem cells initially?
If anything, the screaming from the "life begins at conception" crowd was just consistent and not really irrational (based on the aforementioned belief). Now its been past the need for embryonic cells for a little while now, but it started with such bad press its not really surprising people still view it as wrong.
I'm not sure what the field was like in the beginning - though you are probably right that it started with embryonic cells. However, that has not been the case for a long time, and it's still an issue in government because politicians.
Quoteand it's still an issue in government because politicians.
Quotebecause politicians
This is now the ultimate reason for everything bad. Thanks, Shadow.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3300121&cid=42212869
The Pioneer program itself is remarkable, with useful data still coming back 40 years later.
Amazing that such a precise reading can be taken on the time and length scales being worked with.
Revival!
Turns out it's now possible to turn skin cells into via eggs and sperm and create live animals from them:
http://www.nature.com/news/stem-cells-egg-engineers-1.13582
I'd be hesitant about accepting that one at face value. That's a pretty impressive achievement, and the last guy who claimed he had done something like that turned out to be lying. So probably a good idea to wait and see if anyone can replicate it.
Direct evidence that abiogenesis is possible?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html
That is some very cool stuff indeed.
^
Somebody needs to hurry up and find a way to create a device that directs the energy of a nuclear explosion in a single direction. A nuclear shaped charge, if you will.
That would be incredible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_propulsion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pumped_laser