BABSOC MicroJournalism

  • Home
  • BABSOC
  • Contact Us
    • SUBMIT
    • Social Media
      • LinkedIn
      • Facebook
      • Instagram
      • Youtube
    • *
    • *
Imagine for a moment that you’re a plant. Each day your leaves harvest energy from sunlight to make sugars. What do you chose to do with this precious energy? You could grow more leaves to catch more sunlight. Or grow more roots to access deeper water and more nutrients. Or store it up to use later. Or make as many seeds as you can so you can to produce more children. These are all things that plants do with their energy, but another option, which you probably didn’t think of, is to release it into the soil.
Up to 5-21% of the carbon a plant fixes by photosynthesis is secreted into the soil by its roots. It’s the plant’s way of contributing back the the community that it lives in. These secretions are called exudates, and can be composed of amino acids, organic acids, sugars, proteins, and other organic compounds. Exudates make the soil surrounding the roots (known as the rhizosphere) more beneficial for the plant in several ways: they can repel pathogens, modify the physical and chemical properties of the soil, and feed bacteria and fungi that form symbiotic relationships with the plant. Exudates can even be used as signalling compounds so that plants and microbes to communicate.

Two well known examples of these beneficial microbes are nitrogen fixing bacteria, which make nitrogen from the atmosphere available to plants, and mycorrhizal fungi, which can extract nutrients from the soil to provide to plants, protect plants from parasites, and even transfer nutrients from one plant to another. As well as these two examples, roots take part in a complex interaction between many different bacteria, fungi, protozoa, micro-arthropods, and nematodes, which works to cycle nutrients and provide a hospitable environment for the plant. In a healthy soil, all of a plant’s nutritional needs can be met with the help of these microbes. Why then, do we need to use fertilisers to grow our food?
 A big factor is the decline of the microbial communities in our soils. Western agricultural practices like repetitive ploughing kills microbes by exposing them to the air and UV radiation from the sun, as well as decreasing soil carbon content, which is important for sustaining soil life. Bactericides and fungicides used against pathogens can also kill beneficial microbes. When inorganic fertilisers are used, populations of many beneficial microbes are further reduced, increasing the dependance on the fertilisers.
Without the strong community of microbes in the rhizosphere, it’s harder to balance the nutritional needs of a crop perfectly, so nutritional deficiencies and decreased resistance to pests and diseases are almost unavoidable. In response to this, many backyard gardeners and some farmers are adopting methods that actively encourage the microbial population to flourish. Use of compost, compost teas, no-dig gardens, crop rotation, companion planting, and high density rotational grazing are all ways that people use to build up the soil microbiology.
Thinking back to the exudates, if plants spend so much of their precious energy to improve the soil, it must be really important for them. If we want to help plants flourish, it might be better to work with them, not against them, to help improve the soil community they live in. Do we underestimate soil?

Written by Ben Connor
0
Share
Antarctica; the coldest continent on Earth. During summer the land is bathed in hours of sunlight, in winter you’d be lucky to see the sun for a few hours each day. Of the five hundred or so people that travel to the Australian Antarctic base each summer, only about 80 people stay through the winter. The harsh conditions, with temperatures regularly dropping to -40°C and wind speeds up to 300km/h make it very difficult to do anything outside during the darkness of Antarctic winter. It’s no surprise that most of the scientific sampling and data collection occurs in summer, leaving a serious gap in our knowledge about what happens over the winter months.
One thing which had remained a mystery for years is whether CO2 fixation occurs during winter. CO2fixation is the process of converting inorganic carbon from the atmosphere into a form which can be used by living organisms. This process is usually done by plants and algae using photosynthesis wherein atmospheric CO2 is converted to glucose. Photosynthesis can only occur in the presence of light; the energy of the photons is what drives the process. An ecosystem can survive without carbon fixation overnight, however when the dark lasts months as it does in Antarctica, the lack of carbon fixing can become an issue.
One of the most abundant organisms at the surface of the Antarctic ocean in summer is algae; carbon fixers during the summer months when there is near constant sunlight. Finding these organisms in the water was expected, it confirms that photosynthesis occurs in the summer months. However, the mystery still remained: what happened in the dark? Did carbon fixation stop altogether? Did something else grow which fixed the carbon instead?
It wasn’t until a few years ago that scientists stayed over winter to sample the surface of the ocean in the dark months. What they found was surprising; almost a third of the proteins detected in the seawater belonged to Crenarchaeota, an archaea normally found in the deep ocean and not present at all in the summer surface water samples. Crenarchaota is ubiquitous in the ocean, making up around 40% of the prokaryotic biomass in the dark ocean however it is rarely found near the surface of the ocean where sunlight normally penetrates. From the metaproteomic analysis – a method of analysing and identifying proteins present in a sample –  several proteins involved in uptake and oxidation of ammonia were identified, which provided hints into what Crenarchaota was doing in the dark. Whilst most carbon-fixing organisms use photosynthesis as the energy source to drive the reaction, there are other ways to get the energy needed to fix carbon. One such method involves oxidising ammonia, using the chemical process to create energy rather than relying on photons. With Crenarchaota using ammonia-oxidation, it would explain how carbon fixation continues to occur through the winter months in the darkness.

What other things lurk in the dark? What new and novel processes are yet to be discovered? This chemical driven carbon-fixation was an unexpected finding and a demonstration of the many things still unknown in extreme environments and how much discovery is still left for new generations of microbiologists.
Written by Emma Harding
0
Share

“It’s not a phase, mum!” She screamed in agony, throwing her plush ceratosaurus to the ground with a Tyrannosaurus-level groan of anguish. She folded her arms across her Jurassic Park t-shirt and stomped on the ground in her Velociraptor-foot fluffy slippers. Her mother gazed about the bedroom – “Do not feed the dinosaurs” poster on the wall, stegosaurs on the duvet, at least twelve guides to palaeontology on the bookshelf.
“It’s the real me!”
I’ll be frank with you – that’s a tad exaggerated. But believe me, if I had access to Velociraptor slippers, a plush ceratosaurus and a decent collection of dinosaur-emblazoned clothing and my mother was less cool with my obsession with dinosaurs, it would have been quite accurate.
But funny as it is, I’m not here to tell a funny narrative about a girl who acts like she’s in a goth phases except it’s a dinosaur phrase; I’m here to talk about that phrase; “dinosaur phase”.
How often is it that when you see a young boy – about 2 to 6 years of age – carrying a toy dinosaur or wearing a dinosaur shirt? Quite often. How often do said boy’s parents say he’s “into the dinosaur phase”? How often are dinosaurs marketed towards girls? How often are dinosaurs seen as a decent area of interest for someone above the age of 10?
All this marketing towards kids pushes the message that dinosaurs – whilst being a perfectly reasonable pursuit in the field of palaeoscience – are something you grow out of.
And there is a significant gap between kiddie dinosaurs and highly specialised university-level textbooks on dinosaurology as an aspect of palaeoscience.
This has reached a point where now there’s a fine line between being the kid who tells the “Do-you-think-he-saurus” joke and the kid who, at age 14, completes a university-level course in dinosaur palaeobiology. If you want to continue with the “phase”, you have to be dead serious about it. But not everyone who likes dinosaurs past the age of 10 has to be ridiculously set on becoming a palaeontologist.
Often I have pondered if it would have been different for me were there not such a huge gap. Would I have become so hell-bent on palaeontology? Did I force myself into studying it just to prove a point? Am I a walking cliché? At which point, I become overwhelmed and resort to sitting under my stegosaur duvet to watch Australia: The Time Traveller’s Guide for the hundredth time on my laptop.
I also hate the vibes I keep getting that in order to love dinosaurs (as a girl), you need to be a tomboy who dresses like Indiana Jones at a hoedown. Often, people tell me they don’t expect a vintage-wearing writer undertaking film-related extracurricular activities to be obsessed with dinosaurs. Sometimes, they’ll say that it’s weird – I’m weird. And I’ll tell them that they’re so funny. Hilarious.
There are moments when I doubt myself – but then I take a step back, see the dinosaur dress, dinosaur boxer shorts, ten dinosaur shirts, dinosaur brooch, dinosaur bag I made for myself, dinosaur duvet, dinosaur books and decide that yes, I am in fact quite obsessed.
I might as well discuss own experiences as someone who stayed far too long in the “dinosaur phase” for many a “normal” person’s liking. But first, I might as well explain how exactly I got into that phase and not something else like, say, makeup or (shudders in pain) ponies. My parents visited Egypt before I was born, and they brought back a decent collection of scarab models, papyrus images, and various other interesting objects. Naturally (as an unusual kid), I was fascinated with these and before I knew it, was writing in hieroglyphs, reading books on Ancient Egypt and nagging my parents to take me to museums whenever we went somewhere. I remember on one of the first days of school, we went around the group and the teacher asked each girl what she wanted to be when she grew up.
“Vet.”
“Vet.”
“Vet.”
“Vet.”
“Vet.”
“Archaeologist.”
I once had a school performance where the other kindergartens and I dressed up as Egyptian ladies and I was telling everyone off for tying their belts in a manner that was historically inaccurate. I was six.
When I was about 9, I moved from archaeology to palaeontology. Partially because, duh, dinosaurs are awesome, but also because I simply lost interest in archaeology. Why? I ran out of things to research.
And so, I moved on to palaeontology, and with palaeontology I have stayed for the past ten years. Am I going to run out of things to study? Hell no. Archaeology covers a few thousand years – palaeo covers billions.
The next few years are a bit vague – I watched documentaries, read books – expanded my knowledge wherever I could and tried so hard to ignore the constant sense that I was “weird”. Today, I know to own my weirdness – but when you’re a kid, you’re always so desperate to fit in and be accepted. I still remember the anxiety I experienced going into a shop and seeing the people in it looking at me funny for walking around the boys’ section – after all, I saw no dinosaur pencil cases on the girls’ side.
I was picked on in high school; people never seeming to realise that I was dead serious about studying dinosaurs – I’m in my first year of a Bachelor of Advanced Science and still hell-bent on palaeo so not much has changed there…
I travelled to Melbourne, Victoria and Winton, Queensland (a decent journey for a Southern Highlander) just to complete work experience with palaeontologists in two museums – one in the city, the other in the outback.
When I was twelve years old, I watched Jurassic Park for the first time and absolutely loved it. I was so happy to have a female character to look up to who wasn’t overly sexualised (looking at you, Lara Croft) and a male character with whom I could identify. I really looked up to Ellie Sattler and Alan Grant and aspired to be like them someday – but not be nearly eaten repeatedly by oversized velociraptors without feathers who made turtle mating noises.
I grew so sick of people telling me dinosaurs were “for boys”. The only difference between people like those and mosquitoes are that one group consists of blood-sucking parasites and the other, of insects. Even if those words weren’t said explicitly, I saw them hovering behind every advertisement, every t-shirt, everything I saw.
I got so sick of seeing crowds of little boys clogging up the walkways in museums gawking at the reconstructed remains of an albertosaur and saying “look, T-rex!”. When I went to the Walking With Dinosaurs Arena Spectacular I was fuming because I couldn’t hear anything over the wailing of small children whose parents dragged them along to a too-bright, too-loud show just because the fact that they had a Y-chromosome and were under ten meant they had to be forced into liking a highly clichéd depiction of an utterly fascinating and ridiculously diverse group of animals that many people spend their entire lives studying.
Prehistoric creatures cannot be gendered. It’s like only selling lions to boys and ponies to girls… oh wait…
I can hardly believe that there are still people who think only little boys like dinosaurs – big boys like instruments of war that murder countless people; little girls like ponies – big girls like makeup and conforming to unfair societal standards that undermine their social value and self-confidence.

But, tempting as it is to return to a black-and-white view of the world; if I agreed with someone like that, we’d both be wrong.

So what do I propose? A radical change in the marketing of dinosaur toys to become “revolutionary” and try to sell more plastic crap to more kids and be praised for including someone with not one but two X-chromosomes in their advertisements? (How forward-thinking of them!)
Nope.
I like “revolutionary” advertisements like that the same way I like my coffee…
I hate coffee.
We need to fill in the gap – that horrible stretch of no-dinosaur’s-land that spans from children aged 10 to 18. We need dinosaur books for teens. We need to keep them in the “phase” and stop seeing it as a “phase” but instead see it as a fascinating and remarkable topic they could happily spend the rest of their lives madly researching.
We need to stop discouraging them from keeping that interest.
We need to spread the word – we need to get people – young and old – to hold their plastic Microraptors above their heads with pride and say, “It’s not a phase!”.
Because if you feel a scale of one to ten would be too small to measure your passion for dinosaurs, you are not alone and there is nothing wrong with you.
I have a five-year-old cousin who is absolutely in love with dinosaurs. And all I can do (other than cringe when he watches Dinosaur Train) is sit and silently hope he never “grows out of it”. But still, I have a heavy heart because I know that no matter what I do, he’ll get the message that dinosaurs are just for little kids. All I can hope is that he’s stubborn enough to ignore it.
And it doesn’t have to be just dinosaurs – you have billions of years to choose from. Maybe investigate megafauna or human evolution, the giant bugs of the Carboniferous; the first mammals – but whatever you end up loving, stick to it. Don’t let some peasant tell you that you ought to grow out of your “phase” and never forget to inform them that they can grow out of their stupid phase now.
Written by Kate A. J. Swan
0
Share
At the end of the movie Incredibles, baby Jack-Jack (while thought to have been a normal baby with no powers) with the right motivation is suddenly able to set himself on fire, levitate, teleport and turn himself into a strange mini-devil. He is much like a pluripotent stem cell, which is a precursor of normal cells, that can further differentiate into a specific type. Depending on which genes are turned on and off, they can produce any type of cell in the body, from skin to lung cells. They can also be edited to produce a perfect genetic match to patients needing transplants, eliminating the worry of rejection or having to be on immunosuppressant drugs for years.

These pluripotent stem cells can be made by taking a normal body cell and, using a virus, introduce transcription factors to activate specific genes and ‘turn it’ into a pluripotent cell.
They are now being investigated in a large number of ways, mainly to be transplanted into recipients with diseases like cancer or spinal cord injuries.
Multiple sclerosis is an autoimmune disease where the body’s own immune cells attack the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. This affects more than two million people worldwide and is incurable. A recent international drug trial performed in four different countries, uses chemotherapy to wipe out and ‘reset’ the patients’ immune system after their own haematopoietic stem cells (stem cells from the bone marrow or blood) are taken out. The stem cells are then infused back in and after one year, only one patient had relapsed compared to the thirty-nine in the conventional drug group.
When there is damage to the heart, due to heart failure for example, there is no way to recover the loss of cardiomyocytes (heart cells) caused by the lack of oxygen. However, stem cell therapy has been found as a way to regenerate these cells. Doctors at the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in the US, extracted the bone marrow of patients with end-stage heart failure, processed and replicated these cells and then injected it into the donor’s own heart muscle. This was found to decrease the likelihood of death and the likelihood of future cardiac problems in these patients.
Further research into stem cells, especially in the field of ‘regenerative medicine’, to restore function of an organ or tissue, will undoubtedly improve the prognosis of many, currently debilitating, diseases. As the stem cell market set to reach $15.63 billion by 2025, even more money is being invested in many avenues of medicine, not just health. Could we possibly find ourselves in an age where our own stem cells are taken and harvested at birth, stored until we need it?
Written by Mollie Boyd
0
Share
Long before the Pharaohs of Egypt, the farmers of the Far East have cultivated rice, a crop which can produce nearly double the calories of wheat, the main growth in Europe at the time. As a matter of fact, archaeologists today can map exactly where and when ancient societies in India and South East Asia had an expansion in rice cultivation that led to a rapid rise in population.

Rice held back one thing from the ancients though; it could not tolerate saltwater and therefore detested the salty marshes that dotted the Orient’s river deltas. Across East Asia today, this is more than 1,000,000 square kilometres of natural quagmires.
Last year, researchers in the city of Qingdao announced to the world that they had developed a strain of rice which could tolerate saline water at 20% of seawater concentration. The rice, “Yuan Mi” (You and Me?), is named after the leader of the research project Yuan Longping.
Of more than 200 samples of salt-resistant crops initially planted at the research centre, four different rice crops had managed to grow beyond expectations to 6.5 tonnes (~38,000 bowls of rice) per hectare, which would put its production on par with common Asian rice. “The test results greatly exceeded our expectations,” declared Liu Shiping, professor of agriculture at Yangzhou University.
This has been the significant breakthrough in this field given that previous strains could not break commercially viable harvest biomass. “If a farmer tries to grow some types of saline-tolerant rice now, they most likely will get 1,500 kilograms per hectare. That is just not profitable and not even worth the effort,” Yuan said. “Farmers will have an incentive to grow the rice if we can double the yield.”
Speculation is abuzz elsewhere in the world too. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) scientists have in recent years identified a major part of the rice genome which is responsible for rice tolerance to salinity. Researchers there achieved a small miracle with their green thumbs; out of 34,000 cross-breeds made between a salt-tolerant wild species and the common Asian rice, a single plant germinated from an embryo. “We treated this single plant survivor like a baby,” said Dr Kshirod Jena, one of the lead researchers of this project.
This seedling was then crossed with Asian rice again to isolate the trait of salt tolerance. To date, the IRRI says it is helping farmers across South Asia with more than 100 salinity-tolerant varieties of rice being developed by them. “Unlike regular rice, the new rice line can expel salt it takes from the soil into the air through salt glands it has on its leaves”, explained Dr Jena.
For the pioneers of Yuan Mi and those at the IRRI, they stand in the fog with many problems in their futures to take apart. The Yuan Mi researchers planted their crops in coastal areas under supervised conditions, whereas further up the mouth of the Yangtze River soil environments greatly differ in composition. It may therefore have problems dealing with heavier salinity & alkalinity and changes such as the presence of sulphates not found commonly on the coast. Salinity problems within marshes are expected to become exacerbated with rising global sea levels. It is apparent that the wetlands this rice can grow in will need to be drained and destroyed in the process too.
On a personal note, this has been the story that inspired me to stay with science for second year. Deciphering the genetic code to making drought/salt/flood etc. resilient crops will shield many future generations from famine. Biotechnologists are making civilisation more resilient to biological disasters whether they be ecological, agricultural, aquatic or pathogenic. We are besieging problems one at a time until they yield to the might of peer reviewed science.
I think that is what drives much of science; hoping to make the world a better place. The world has come very far and standing of the shoulders of its giants gone by, I hope to continue to lift it up.
Written by Vincent Guan
0
Share
[1]
Some of the most extraordinary innovations in recent years have been advances in personalised medicine. Every individual is unique in the way they develop a disease and respond to treatment. Hence, the growing paradigm of personalised medicine is to design medications and interventions that allow for a customised treatment plan best suited to that individual. This gives patients more control over their medical decisions and could lead to improved outcomes when tackling illness. Examples of these wonderful innovations include the adoption of wearable health monitoring technologies, bespoke diets, and healthcare apps for cancer and diabetes patients. Personalised medicine has the potential to fundamentally change how we view healthcare; the end goal is to develop medicine responsive to an individual’s own physiology, rather than therapy based on data from whole populations.
One area of medicine in which an individual focus is paramount is in gene therapy, an emerging field in which brilliant breakthroughs are made every year. Gene therapy is used to correct genetic defects that have occurred in the individual’s genome. Some of the most successful clinical examples include using viruses to tackle both acute lymphoblastic leukaemia[2] (CAR T-Cell Therapy) and sickle cell disease[3]. However, there are still barriers to accessing gene therapy, as the technology used to develop the biological molecules and treatment plans is expensive. Furthermore, the time period taken for this type of therapy to progress from invention to implementation can be several years. This high cost is also worrying to insurance companies, leading to more out-of-pocket charges for patients.
If we take the example of lactose intolerance, which is caused by a genetic mutation, close to a million people (and growing) in Australia[4], and approximately 12.5% of the population of the United States, are affected, with no cheap and efficient medical care available[5]. One bio-hacker in the United States (who I’m going to refer to ‘K’), has been suffering from lactose intolerance for over 18 years. K decided to bypass doctors and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), and take matters into his own hands to create a cure for his lactose intolerant body!
A bio-hacker is a ‘do-it-yourself’ biologist or biotechnologist who chooses to experiment in the interface of technology and the human body, in order to enhance their biology. As K was lactose intolerant, his body could not produce the enzyme, lactase, which would normally break down lactose, a sugar found in milk. This meant that he could not eat or drink the majority of dairy products, leaving his midnight pizza cravings unsatisfied. However, after coming across a research paper describing the use of viruses to treat lactose intolerance in lab rats, he found a way to potentially change his life.
The research paper involved two groups of lactose intolerant rats. The first group was injected with a virus (non-harmful form) that had the gene for lactase production, sourced from E.coli bacteria, inserted into its own genome. The second control group was not injected with the virus. After several weeks of feeding the rats a lactose-rich diet, it was seen that only the first group was producing the lactase enzyme and breaking down lactose for use as energy. This result would only be possible if the lactase-producing gene was incorporated into the rat’s genome. Hence, this paper showed that it is possible to use a virus as a “vector” (a transporter used to carry and insert genetic material) to insert the lactase enzyme gene into another organism’s genetic code[6].
After analysing the results of the research paper, K decided to repeat the experiment on himself! He had the requisite knowledge from a degree in genetics, as well as access to the necessary resources at a friend’s personal biology lab. Furthermore, as long as he was only experimenting on himself for medical purposes, what he was doing was not a clear criminal offence. Hence, with no cost, medical, or legal barriers, K attempted to cure his own lactose intolerance.
The Experiment

Kneeded to have the lactase enzyme produced by the cells in his small intestine. To do so, an Adeno-Associated Virus (AAV) was assembled inside the nucleus of another mammalian cell (he chose  to use ovarian cells from a Chinese Hamster). He then ensured that during the assembly of the virus, the lactase enzyme gene was packaged within the viral DNA. The construction of the virus, and the insertion of the lactase enzyme gene, was achieved through the use of circular pieces of DNA called plasmids.  Plasmids can be likened to flash drives that contain genetic information. If inserted into the nucleus of a cell, that nucleus will translate the genetic information on the plasmid, which was used to assemble the virus and include the lactase gene within its genetic code.
Plasmid 1
Plasmid 2
Plasmid 3
  
Three plasmids were used by the bio-hacker. Plasmids 1 and 2 contained all the genetic sequences needed to make the proteins for the replication and shell of the Adeno-Associated Virus.  Plasmid 3 contained the lactase enzyme gene (LacZ) that was packaged within the virus. Although it appears complex, the diagram demonstrates one particularly elegant part of the technique –  The LacZ gene sits on the plasmid between two ‘ITR’ (Inverted Terminal Repeat) sequences (shown in orange), which function as a signal, instructing the virus to package the LacZ gene inside of itself, as if it were its own DNA.
Once the plasmids have been successful in assembling and replicating the virus and LacZ gene inside the chosen mammalian cell nucleus, the virus was harvested and isolated from the host cells. . Once that was done, the virus was added to a solution containing phosphate buffered saline (a salty solution that helps maintain pH levels) and mixed with microcrystalline cellulose (refined wood pulp that is used in drug tablets). The resulting semi-solid solution was packaged into a gelatine capsule and was prepared for consumption. Bottoms up!In January 2018, the bio-hacker took the pills and up until now (March, 2018), he is happily satisfying his pizza cravings. This suggests, amazingly, that his experiment did work and his body is producing the lactase enzyme. However, gene therapy using viral vectors is known to only provide temporary cures. Furthermore, this experiment is at a very early stage of development. It would take a significant amount of further research, as well as years of testing and refining the protocols, before it can be prescribed as an FDA- or TGA-approved drug for use in humans.
Experimenting with medicinal drugs in a personal science lab certainly sounds very sketchy, dangerous, and possibly even unethical. After K made his experiment public, there were multiple concerns from the wider scientific community, as well as from the public.
A major concern is how personal heath will be affected, as the side effects of this kind of gene therapy are currently unknown. The immune system may respond with hostility to the inserted gene, as it is a foreign body. This may initiate a potentially dangerous inflammatory response over an unknown time period. Furthermore, the working copy of the gene may overproduce the enzyme, causing other health issues, with one possibility being cancer.
The growing possibilities offered by gene therapy also raise a number of ethical questions. For instance, there is no clear answer on the extent to which human beings should be permitted to manipulate their own “nature”, or the biology of other living things. The social and legal controls that should be placed on this type of research are, therefore, hotly debated. Furthermore, even though this technology is expected to decrease in price, private companies may acquire patents and limit access to this therapy to a privileged few, in a sadly similar way to how some current medical therapies are inaccessible to the world’s underprivileged.
Despite these safety and ethical issues, K did achieve a successful result, which had a positive effect on his ability to digest diary products. What the long-term effects may be are unknown, but he hopes to continue to monitor himself and make his findings available to the public. He also strongly suggests that no one (else) should try this at home.
For now, the bio-hacker is enjoying his pizza-heavy diet.

Biotechnology and its use of viruses is a growing area of science and may herald the beginning of a new era in medicine. It could lead to a real version of what is seen in science-fiction movies, in which members of society have embedded microchips able to monitor vital signs, genetic diseases are a thing of the past, and almost any disease is curable. It may also lead to humans becoming susceptible to computer viruses, with the prospect of everyone having to update their chips with the latest version of Norton Anti-Virus every few months (and hopefully we can all afford the monthly membership fees!). While progress happens in small steps, like in temporarily curing lactose intolerance, the future may require humans to rethink what it physically means to be human. These ideas all filter back to our shared curiosity, sense of adventure, and the drive to enhance the reality around us. Only time will tell if these ideas can go viral. 
References:
[1] Image credit to Jean-Jacques of UNSW Metal Society
[2] Hartmann, J., et al., Clinical development of CAR T cells-challenges and opportunities in translating innovative treatment concepts. EMBO Mol Med, 2017. 9(9): p. 1183-1197.
[3] Ribeil J, Hacein-Bey-Abina S, Payen E, et al. Gene therapy in a patient with sickle disease. The New England Journal of Medicine 2017; 376: 848-855
[4] Abs.gov.au. (2018). 4364.0.55.007 – Australian Health Survey: Nutrition First Results – Foods and Nutrients, 2011-12.
[5] Statistic Brain. (2018). Lactose Intolerance Statistics – Statistic Brain.
[6] During MJ, e. (2018). Peroral gene therapy of lactose intolerance using an adeno-associated virus vector. – PubMed – NCBI
Written by Ahmad Zeeshan Siddiqui.

0
Share
Image may contain: text

BABSOC is hosting a science journalism competition!
This is your chance to write about your passion in Science, whether it’s something you’re currently studying or even sci-fi !
All submissions will be published on BABSOC’s micro-journalism platform, and the winning entry will be receiving a $50 gift card, a cute microbe plushie and be features in the E26 lab display cabinets! There will also be prizes for 2nd and 3rd place!
Send your entries to: babsocunsw@gmail.com
Examples can be found at babsoc.com/category/micro-journalism
Max writing 500 words +- 10%
Prize: plushie, gift card, runner up can get free shirts and mugs.
Let’s get typing!
0
Share
Older Posts Home

About BABSOC

Categories

fiction micro

Facebook Page

Blog Archive

Copyright © 2015 BABSOC MicroJournalism

Created By ThemeXpose