Bio-Rad has sponsored the development of
this site to advance the productivity of the American Biotechnology sector and the fine people who
work in it across the country. We invite readers to contribute content:
posters, tools, research and presentations, articles white papers, multimedia, music
downloads and entertainment, conference announcements, videos. Please contact email@example.com more information.
Download the Protein Blotting Guide
Download the Stem Cell Guide for Life Science Researchers
:: Posted by American Biotechnologist on 02-29-2012
Did anyone really take this seriously?
A 2008 study by James H. Fowler and Christopher T. Dawes of the University of California, San Diego claimed that two genes predict voter turnout. These results, however, were recently called into question by Evan Charney, of Duke University in an American Political Science Review paper published earlier this month called “Candidate Genes and Political Behavior.” In her paper, Charney demonstrates that when certain errors in the original study are corrected — errors common to many gene association studies — there is no longer any association between these genes and voter turnout.
Did we really need another paper to prove that the first study was wrong? Would any reasonable person, let alone a biologist, actually have believed data that shows a connection between genetics and voting behavior? I guess if the data was presented by a good politician anything is believable!
:: Posted by American Biotechnologist on 09-07-2011
In a joint study, scientists from the California and Florida campuses of The Scripps Research Institute have shown that changes in a protein’s structure can change its signaling function and they have pinpointed the precise regions where those changes take place.
The new findings could help provide a much clearer picture of potential drugs that would be both effective and highly specific in their biological actions.
:: Posted by American Biotechnologist on 08-03-2011
Yesterday, we told you about a study that found that family physicians are ill-prepared when it comes to diagnosing and treating patients based on their genomic data. As a follow up to that story, I’d like to bring your attention to a recent post by W. Gregory Feero, MD, PhD on KevinMD which talks about the overwhelming growth of genomic data and how the pace of discovery is far exceeding the capacity of the health care system’s IT infrastructure.
According to Dr. Feero, medical record keeping in the United States is a far cry away from being able to house the hundreds of petabytes of genomic data that will eventually need to be stored in their systems. Furthermore, upgrading to compatible systems are bound to be prohibitively expensive. He also postulates that the falling cost of genome sequencing might make it cheaper to sequence individual data on an as-needed basis as opposed to storing the data en-masse.
:: Posted by American Biotechnologist on 07-27-2011
Rarely do scientists get an opportunity to influence the funding direction of the largest granting agency in the United States, the National Institute of Health. Yet that is exactly what we are being asked to do in the NIH’s latest request for information.
The NIH is requesting that the scientific community send in its ideas on how best to support or accelerate neuroscience research. Responses should address:
areas of neuroscience research that could be accelerated by the development of specific research resources or tools
major opportunities for, and impediments to, advancing neuroscience research
the 2-3 highest priority tools or resources needed to capitalize on the scientific opportunities and overcome obstacles to progress in neuroscience research
how NIH Blueprint might best facilitate the development of these tools/resources
Your answers could influence where neuroscience funding is directed over the next couple of years so be sure to checkout the NIH website to add your two cents!