The gene expression in fat, liver, muscle and brain for 334 male and female mice shows that more than half of the 23,574 genes expression are different[1]. So, is it proven that man and woman are different? 
[1]Xia Yang, Eric E. Schadt, Susanna Wang, Hui Wang, Arthur P. Arnold, Leslie Ingram-Drake, Thomas A. Drake and Aldons J. Lusis, “Tissue-specific expression and regulation of sexually dimorphic genes in mice”, Genome Research, Vol 16, PP995-1004, 2006.
The paper[1] reported that gene activity in tissues of different ages in humans and rats varied as we age. So, perhaps the regulation of gene expression weakens as we get older?
[1]M. Somel, P. Khaitovich, S. Bahn, S. Pääbo, M. Lachmann, “Gene expression becomes heterogeneous with age”, Current Biology, Volume 16, Issue 10, Pages R359-R360, 2006.
Headline from Channel NewsAsia… “US to introduce 10-fingerprint system for visitors”. What the abcedfg.
It is such an intrusion of privacy. Not to mention, the safety of the prints will be in question. Think about all the bank accounts that are verified based on fingerprints.
Obtaining such biometric data, means that the verification base on the “science” of fingerprint for especially criminal cases might well be open for abuse. Imagine, with the biometric data, a sophiscated CAD/CAM software with the “right” equipment (no pun intended ) can re-create the silicon (or any other material based) artificial fingers.
Bring your imagination a bit further, what about having someone using the artificial fingers and create some prints at the crime scene? It may sound far-fetch, but with the right technology, $$$, secrecy (creating the artificial fingers without letting the cat out of the bag) and the biometric data, who will ever be safe?
Nice try, 10-fingerprint system, for the so-called “security”. Who’s “security”?
By the way, the 11 airports are Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Miami, New York City, Orlando, Fla., Philadelphia and San Francisco. Do give them a miss, that is if you don’t miss them.
Dichloroacetate (DCA) has been reported in the media, and had been hyped as the possible elixir for cancer patients. To the layman, especially the desperately ill cancer patients, this seems to be their only ray of hope. However, is it right for the media to hype such news?
The DCA is a chemical compound that has been available for a number of years to treat rare metabolic disorders. However, it has not undergo careful scrutiny nor large-scale clinical testing as a cancer drug. Thus, the drug’s effect on human is not throughly understood. So, is one responsible to offer hope that is not proven?
On the other note, it has been implied by some that commercial pharmaceutical company will not research on it, as it can no longer be patent as a drug. At such, is the news being hyped to gather more research funds, or is it just the usual media news marketing tactic?
It is reported in 30 May 2007 New Scientist magazine that in a study back in 1930s, a biologist John Bittner observed that in a strain of mice in which breast cancer ran in the family, pups that were taken away from their mothers at birth and fostered by other females did not develop breast cancer. In this study, the cause is directed to a virus called the mouse mammary tumour virus (MMTV).
So, what is the current research on the possible link of virus causing certain cancer?
Reading the 26 June 2007 NewScientist article, titled “Genes won’t work round the clock“, the immediate reaction is “Of course!”. However, how many researchers that analyse gene(s)-related studies ever ponder about the effects of clock timing and their results?
Moreover, clock timing is not the only variable! A gene(s) analysis of a lung tumor that is graft onto the rump of the mouse, will surely give different expression, since the rump consists of different tissue from the lung.
In addition, the barren crowded “standard” cage that the experimental mouse dwell in within a usual working animal housing which is typical far too noisy for small animals stress the mouse into the equivalent of burnt-out near heart attack patient. So, how do the researchers ever get a reliable reading? Perhaps, giving the mouse some “welfare” might help.