TOP 100 SCIENCE SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Greenpeace wants Facebook center off coal fuel By ARTHUR MAX 2010-09-01T20:43:10ZAMSTERDAM (AP) -- Greenpeace said about 500,000 Facebook users have urged the world's largest online social network to abandon plans to buy electricity from a coal-based energy company for its new data center in the U.S.... hosted.ap.org |
Drug could double life of transplant organs A drug that mimics organs' own protective shield could be in use within five yearsDoctors are to begin a trial of a drug treatment that could double the time transplanted organs survive in the body.The 20-minute procedure effectively coats donor organs in a protective shield that stops them being rejected by the patient's immune system.The treatment is expected to prolong the time that organs remain healthy in patients' bodies and also increase their shelf-life, so they can be stored for longer or transported further before being used.If the treatment works, it could ease the burden on organ transplant services, which face an increasing gap between the supply and demand for donor organs.Last year, 8,000 people were on the waiting list for kidney transplants in Britain, but only 2,500 operations took place. In the past year, 448 patients have died while waiting for a donor organ.People who receive transplants must take drugs to suppress their immune systems, but the body still reacts enough to cause transplants to fail sooner than they should.A healthy transplanted kidney lasts on average only 10 years, around one third of the time it should last. Organs such as hearts and livers fail even sooner. The consequence is that patients who have had one donor organ often need another.The new treatment, developed by researchers at King's College London, is based on the defence mechanism healthy organs use to shield themselves from the immune system.Protein molecules that dot the surface of organs keep the immune system in check and prevent it from launching an attack. These proteins are lost when organs are removed from the body, handled and stored on ice.The King's team found a way to manufacture these proteins in the laboratory and produced a drug called mirococept, which can be fed into the organ with a drip.Studies suggest the procedure could extend the life of an implanted kidney by around seven years. "If the treatment goes to plan, it can be expected to almost double the life of a graft," said Steven Sacks, director of the MRC Centre for Transplantation.The scientists believe the treatment will also extend the shelf-life of donor organs, increasing the time they survive outside the body from no more than 24 hours to several days. This could reduce wastage and double the number of organs that work properly once they are transplanted, doctors said. In early tests, only a fifth of organs worked properly after being stored on ice for 16 hours, compared with 50% of those treated with mirococept.A recent pilot study of the treatment on 16 patients found it was safe to use. The group now plan to recruit more than 300 patients for a trial that will take place at transplant centres across the country.The trial is expected to begin next year and will investigate how much drug organs need to be treated with to protect them. If it is successful, doctors will need to do a final, much larger trial to study how much longer treated donor organs survive in patients. Professor Sacks said the treatment could be available in hospitals in five years.Patients who receive donated organs treated with mirococept will still need to take drugs to suppress their immune systems, but doctors said an aim of their research was to see if the use of current drugs, which can increase a patient's risk of cancer, can be reduced."Any treatment that can prolong the life of organs means there will be more organs available for people on waiting lists," said Martin Drage, a consultant transplant surgeon at Guys and St Thomas' hospital, London.Dr Drage said the treatment was likely to be particularly useful for kidney and pancreas transplants, but may also prolong the useful life of livers and other organs.ImmunologyMedical researchBiochemistry and molecular biologyOrgan donationHealthBritish Science Festival 2010British Science FestivalIan Sampleguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Breast cancer in young women linked to increased cancer risk in relatives Study suggests genetic link of disease between female patients under 35 and family members of both sexesMale and female relatives of young women with breast cancer are at greater risk of developing cancer themselves, according to research published today.Scientists studied parents and siblings of 504 women diagnosed with the disease before the age of 35 and found they were at a 1.5 to two-fold increased risk of prostate, lung, brain and urinary cancers.The risk was little changed among the relatives of women who did not carry known faulty genes that increase the chance of breast cancer. That suggested there may be other undiscovered gene disorders causing cancer in young women and their families, the researchers said, meaning further work could help identify more people who might be susceptible.Women who inherit one of the abnormal genes known as BRCA1 and BRCA2 have a 55% to 85% risk of developing breast cancer in their lifetime. But most women with the disease do not have the high-risk genes, which only account for between 2% and 5% of all breast cancers.Professor John Hopper, from the Centre for Molecular, Environmental, Genetic and Analytic Epidemiology at the University of Melbourne, who led the study published in the British Journal of Cancer (BJC), said: "These results are surprising and novel, and could be pointing to a new cancer genetic syndrome."Just as the link between male and female breast cancers in some families led UK researchers to find the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2, the results of this study could help scientists discover new cancer susceptibility genes." Dr Lesley Walker, the director of cancer information at Cancer Research UK, which owns the BJC, said: "These early results are interesting in pointing to some increased risks of other cancers in the relatives of very young breast cancer cases. This study is important in suggesting a strategy to help identify other genes which significantly increase a woman's breast cancer risk. More studies with larger numbers will help confirm these risks."It is already known that relatives of early onset breast cancer patients without mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carry up to a four-fold increased risk of the disease compared with those with no family link, but this study suggests close relatives also face higher chances of other cancers.It also backed up earlier research by finding that mothers and sisters of women with breast cancer had a substantially increased risk of the disease, even if the women did not have a BRCA mutation. The risk for sisters was greater than for mothers. Previous studies have suggested increased risks of other cancers for relatives of women with breast cancer, but the links have been weak and inconsistent.Of the 504 women in the study, 41 had a BRCA mutation. A total of 2,200 parents and siblings were involved.Breast cancerCancerHealthCancerMedical researchWomenRachel Williamsguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Military research should bear brunt of science cuts, say leading scientists Senior academics say science cuts should focus on military research projects, including finding a replacement for TridentMilitary research projects, including plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, must bear the brunt of science funding cuts if Britain is to stay at the forefront of scientific research, academics have told the prime minister.Thirty-six scientists and engineers, including seven Royal Society fellows and one Nobel laureate, have today written to David Cameron raising concerns over the future of British science if civilian research is cut while defence research is spared.The government spends £8bn on scientific research, of which more than £2bn is earmarked for Ministry of Defence projects at facilities such as the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston. The nuclear weapons lab will play a central role in developing a successor to Trident if ministers decide to go ahead with a replacement."Of particular concern is the fact that world class research into health and global environmental problems is under threat, while the government continues to fund the multi-billion pound research programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment," the authors write in the letter, which is published today in the Guardian."Our view is that current MoD funding is not only disproportionate, it also includes expenditure on programmes which are of minimal benefit or counterproductive to the UK's security," the letter adds. The authors call for Britain's nuclear warheads to be placed in secure storage and the successor to Trident scrapped to free up funds for civilian science research.The letter, signed by Professor Alastair Hay, an expert in chemical and biological weapons at Leeds University, Sir Harry Kroto, who won the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1996, and the mathematician Sir Michael Atiyah, continues: "We believe that any cuts to public science spending should predominantly come from cuts to the Ministry of Defence's research and development."The letter comes a week after the prime minister told the Conservative party conference in Birmingham that he would take "no risks with British security" and stressed his commitment to renewing the Trident nuclear missile system. In the letter, the scientists urge ministers to "shift their priorities so that science and technology can contribute to tackling the real threats to the UK's present and future security."The scientists concede a need for extra funding on some defence-related issues, including research into ways of monitoring arms control agreements, non-violent conflict resolution and strategies for "tackling the roots of conflict and insecurity".Sir Michael, a former president of the Royal Society, said: "This isn't scientists being self-interested and telling the government not to give money to someone else because they want it for themselves. We strongly believe that current use of government money, that is strongly backing military research, is misguided. This is not the right way to spend government money regardless of the economic situation."On Saturday, 2,000 scientists and their supporters demonstrated outside the Treasury against funding cuts that are expected to reach £1bn.Professor Hay said funding for military projects has benefited from the powerful defence lobby in Britain, but called on ministers to reconsider how public funds are spent on science."We're not calling for a slash in defence funding, but we do need to get the proportions right. There's been a disproportionate emphasis on military research and development and it is clear why with Britain's armaments industry," Hay told the Guardian. "I seriously question the need for Trident and the need for a nuclear deterrent generally. The question really is whether the country can afford it when a lot of people are going to be out of work."He added: "It takes a long time to train researchers and I fear that the cuts that are being mooted will so wreck our science base that it will take such a long time to recover. In Germany and the US they are investing hugely in science. They see research as the seed corn for future prosperity in every sense, whether it's combating global warming or developing new medicines."Stuart Parkinson at Scientists for Global Responsibility, a group that promotes ethical science, design and technology that was involved in organising the letter, said: "There are far better ways in which both the money and science skills can be used to reduce threats in terms of improving our energy and food security and tackling global issues such as poverty and environmental problems, which can drive instability and conflict."Science funding crisisScience policyWeapons technologyDavid CameronTridentMilitarySpending review 2010Tax and spendingDefence policyNuclear weaponsIan Sampleguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Green: An E-Waste Recycling Odyssey Safely disposing of a veritable graveyard of electronic equipment can be tough when you have no car and store policies for each gadget vary. feeds.nytimes.com |