#Doudna

[makapansgat]

Scientific Pebble

[teachersource]

Jennifer Doudna was born on February 19, 1964. An American biochemist who has done pioneering work in CRISPR gene editing, and made other fundamental contributions in biochemistry and genetics. She received the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, with Emmanuelle Charpentier, "for the development of a method for genome editing."

[valkyries-things]

JENNIFER DOUDNA // BIOCHEMIST

“She is an American biochemist who has done pioneering work in CRISPR gene editing, and made other fundamental contributions in biochemistry and genetics. Doudna was one of the first women to share a Nobel in the sciences. She received the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, with Emmanuelle Charpentier, "for the development of a method for genome editing." She is the Li Ka Shing Chancellor's Chair Professor in the department of chemistry and the department of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. She has been an investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute since 1997.”

[nanapath]

She (Rosalind Franklin) had been lured to King’s College with the understanding that she would lead a team studying DNA. Wilkins, who was four years older and already studying DNA, was under the impression that she was coming as a junior colleague who would help him with X-ray diffraction. This resulted in a combustible situation. Within months they were barely speaking to each other.

– The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race, by Walter Isaacson.

[artmagazine2914]

Doudna Fine Arts Centre: Celebrating Creativity and Artistic Excellence:- The Doudna Fine Arts Centre stands as a vibrant hub of artistic expression, creativity, and cultural enrichment. Located in Charleston, Illinois, this renowned centre has been instrumental in fostering a love for the arts, providing a platform for diverse artistic performances. To read more visit us:- https://www.artsoullifemagazine.com/doudna-fine-arts-centre-celebrating-creativity-and-artistic-excellence

[futuretechnologies1]

"Within 30 years, it will probably be possible to make essentially any kind of change to any kind of genome".

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Alex Byrne

Published: Mar 14, 2024

“Computing is not binary” would be a silly slogan—binary computer code underpins almost every aspect of modern life. But other kinds of binaries are decidedly out of fashion, particularly where sex is concerned. “Biology is not binary” declares the title of an essay in the March/April issue of American Scientist, a magazine published by Sigma Xi, the science and engineering honor society. Sigma Xi has a storied history, with numerous Nobel-prize-winning members, including the DNA-unravellers Francis Crick and James Watson, and more recently Jennifer Doudna, for her work on CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing. The essay is well-worth critical examination, not least because it efficiently packs so much confusion into such a short space.

Another reason for examining it is the pedigree of the authors—Kate Clancy, Agustín Fuentes, Caroline VanSickle, and Catherine Clune-Taylor. Clancy is a professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Fuentes is a professor of anthropology at Princeton, and Clune-Taylor is an assistant professor of gender and sexuality studies at that university; VanSickle is an associate professor of anatomy at Des Moines. Clancy’s Ph.D. is from Yale, Fuentes’ is from UC Berkeley, and VanSickles’ is from Michigan. Clune-Taylor is the sole humanist: she has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Alberta, with Judith Butler as her external examiner. In short, the authors are not ill-educated crackpots or dogmatic activists, but top-drawer scholars. Their opinions matter.

Let’s talk about sex, baby

Before wading into the essay’s arguments, let’s look at the context, as noted in the second paragraph. “Last fall,” the authors write, “the American Anthropological Association made headlines after removing a session on sex and gender from its November 2023 annual conference.” The session’s cancellation was covered by the New York Times as well as international newspapers, and it eventually took place under the auspices of Heterodox Academy. (You can watch the entire event here.) Scheduled for the Sunday afternoon “dead zone” of the five-day conference, when many attendees leave for the airport, the title was “Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology.” The lineup was all-female, and included the anthropologists Kathleen Lowrey and Elizabeth Weiss. According to the session description, “With research foci from hominin evolution to contemporary artificial intelligence, from the anthropology of education to the debates within contemporary feminism about surrogacy, panelists make the case that while not all anthropologists need to talk about sex, baby, some absolutely do.”

Nothing evidently objectionable here, so why was it cancelled? The official letter announcing that the session had been removed from the program, signed by the presidents of the AAA and CASCA (the Canadian Anthropology Society), explained:

The reason the session deserved further scrutiny was that the ideas were advanced in such a way as to cause harm to members represented by the Trans and LGBTQI of the anthropological community as well as the community at large.

Why “the Trans” were double-counted (the T in LGBTQI) was not clear. And although ideas can harm, a handful of academics speaking in the Toronto Convention Centre are unlikely to cause much. In any event, the authors of “Biology is not binary” seem to think that the panelists’ errors about sex warranted the cancellation, not the trauma their words would bring to vulnerable anthropologists. “We were glad,” they say, “to see the American Anthropological Association course-correct given the inaccuracy of the panelists’ arguments.”

Never mind that no-one had heard the panelists’ arguments—what were these “inaccuracies”? The panelists, Clancy and her co-authors report, had claimed that “sex is binary,” and that “male and female represent an inflexible and infallible pair of categories describing all humans.”

“Biology is not binary” is not off to a promising start. Only one of the cancelled panelists, Weiss, has said anything about sex being binary in her talk abstract, and even that was nuanced: “skeletons are binary; people may not be.” No one had claimed that the two sex categories were “inflexible” or “infallible,” which anyway doesn’t make sense. (This is one example of the essay’s frequent unclarity of expression.) Neither had anyone claimed that every single human falls into one sex category or the other.

Probably the real reason the proposed panel caused such a stir was that it was perceived (in Clancy et al.’s own words) as “part of an intentional gender-critical agenda.” And, to be fair, some of the talks were “gender-critical,” for instance Silvia Carrasco’s. (Carrasco’s views have made her a target of activists at her university in Barcelona.) Still, academics can’t credibly cancel a conference session simply because a speaker defends ideas that bother some people, hence the trumped-up charges of harm and scientific error.

Although Clancy et al. misleadingly characterize the content of the cancelled AAA session, their essay might yet get something important right. They argue for four main claims. First, “sex is not binary.” Second, “sex is culturally constructed.” Third, “defining sex is difficult.” And, fourth, there is no one all-purpose definition of sex—it depends “on what organism is being studied and what question is being asked.”

Let’s go through these in order.

“Sex is not binary”

When people say that sex is binary, they sometimes mean that there are exactly two sexes, male and female. Sometimes they mean something else: the male/female division cuts humanity into two non-overlapping groups. That is, every human is either male (and not female), or female (and not male). These two interpretations of “Sex is binary” are different. Perhaps there are exactly two sexes, but there are some humans who are neither male nor female, or who are both sexes simultaneously. In that scenario, sex is binary according to the first interpretation, but not binary according to the second. Which of the two interpretations do Clancy et al. have in mind?

At least the essay is clear on this point. The “Quick Take” box on the first page tells us that the (false) binary thesis is that “male and female [are] the only two possible sex categories.” And in the text the authors say that “plenty of evidence has emerged to reject” the hypothesis that “there are only two sexes.” (Here they mystifyingly add “…and that they are discrete and different.” Obviously if there are two sexes then they are different.)

If there are not exactly two sexes, then the number of sexes is either zero, one, or greater than two. Since Clancy et al. admit that “categories such as ‘male’ and ‘female’…can be useful,” they must go for the third option: there are more than two sexes. But how many? Three? 97? In a striking absence of curiosity, the authors never say.

In any case, what reason do Clancy et al. give for thinking that the number of sexes is at least three? The argument is in this passage:

[D]ifferent [“sex-defining”] traits also do not always line up in a person’s body. For example, a human can be born with XY chromosomes and a vagina, or have ovaries while producing lots of testosterone. These variations, collectively known as intersex, may be less common, but they remain a consistent and expected part of human biology. So the idea that there are only two sexes…[has] plenty of evidence [against it].

However, this reasoning is fallacious. The premise is that some (“intersex”) people do not have enough of the “sex-defining” traits to be either male or female. The conclusion is that there are more than two sexes. The conclusion only follows if we add an extra premise, that these intersex people are not just neither male nor female, but another sex. And Clancy et al. do nothing to show that intersex people are another sex.

What’s more, it is quite implausible that any of them are another sex. Whatever the sexes are, they are reproductive categories. People with the variations noted by Clancy et al. are either infertile, for example those with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) (“XY chromosomes and a vagina”), or else fertile in the usual manner, for example many with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) and XX chromosomes (“ovaries while producing lots of testosterone,” as Clancy et al. imprecisely put it). One study reported normal pregnancy rates among XX CAH individuals. Unsurprisingly, the medical literature classifies these people as female. Unlike those with CAIS and CAH, people who belonged to a genuine “third sex” would make their own special contribution to reproduction.

“Sex is culturally constructed”

“Biology is not binary” fails to establish that there are more than two sexes. Still, the news that sex is “culturally constructed” sounds pretty exciting. How do Clancy et al. argue for that?

There is a prior problem. Nowhere do Clancy et al. say what “Sex is culturally constructed” means. What’s more, the essay thoroughly conflates the issue of the number of sexes with the issue about cultural construction. Whatever “cultural construction” means, presumably culture could “construct” two sexes. (The Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan were literally constructed, and there were exactly two of them.) Conversely, the discovery of an extra sex would not show that sex was culturally constructed, any more than the discovery of an extra flavor of quark would show that fundamental particles are culturally constructed.

Clancy et al. drop a hint at the start of the section titled “Sex is Culturally Constructed.” “Definitions and signifiers of gender,” they say, “differ across cultures… but sex is often viewed as a static, universal truth.” (If you want to know what they mean by “gender,” you’re out of luck.) That suggests that the cultural construction of sex amounts to the “definitions and signifiers” of sex differing between times and places. This is confirmed by the following passage: “[T]here is another way we can see that sex is culturally constructed: The ways collections of traits are interpreted as sex can and have differed across time and cultures.” What’s more, in an article called “Is sex socially constructed?”, Clune-Taylor says that this (or something close to it) is one sense in which sex is socially constructed (i.e. culturally constructed).

The problem here is that “Sex is culturally constructed” (as Clancy et al. apparently understand “cultural construction”) is almost trivially true, and not denied by anyone. If “X is culturally constructed” means something like “Ideas of X and theories of X change between times and places,” then almost anything which has preoccupied humans will be culturally constructed. Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are culturally constructed: the ancients thought they revolved around the Earth and represented different gods. Dinosaurs are culturally constructed: our ideas of them are constantly changing, and are influenced by politics as well as new scientific discoveries. Likewise, sex is culturally constructed: Aristotle thought that in reproduction male semen produces a new embryo from female menstrual blood, as “a bed comes into being from the carpenter and the wood.” We now have a different theory.

Naturally one must distinguish the claim that dinosaurs are changing (they used to be covered only in scales, now they have feathers) from the claim that our ideas of dinosaurs are changing (we used to think that dinosaurs only have scales, now we think they have feathers). It would be fallacious to move from the premise that dinosaurs are culturally constructed (in Clancy et al.’s sense) to the conclusion that dinosaurs themselves have changed, or that there are no “static, universal truths” about dinosaurs. It would be equally fallacious to move from the premise that sex is culturally constructed to the claim that there are no “static, universal truths” about sex. (One such truth, for example, is that there are two sexes.) Nonetheless, Clancy et al. seem to commit exactly this fallacy, in denying (as they put it) that “sex is…a static, universal truth.”

To pile falsity on top of fallacy, when Clancy et al. give an example of how our ideas about sex have changed, their choice could hardly be more misleading. According to them:

The prevailing theory from classical times into the 19th century was that there is only one sex. According to this model, the only true sex is male, and females are inverted, imperfect distortions of males.

This historical account was famously defended in a 1990 book, Making Sex, by the UC Berkeley historian Thomas Laqueur. What Clancy et al. don’t tell us is that Laqueur’s history has come under heavy criticism; in particular, it is politely eviscerated at length in The One-Sex Body on Trial, by the classicist Helen King. It is apparent from Clune-Taylor’s other work that she knows of King’s book, which makes Clancy et al.’s unqualified assertion of Laqueur’s account even more puzzling.

“Defining sex is difficult”

Aristotle knew there were two sexes without having a satisfactory definition of what it is to be male or female. The question of how to define sex (equivalently, what sex is) should be separated from the question of whether sex is binary. So even if Clancy et al. are wrong about the number of sexes, they might yet be right that sex is difficult to define.

Why do they think it is difficult to define? Here’s their reason:

There are many factors that define sex, including chromosomes, hormones, gonads, genitalia, and gametes (reproductive cells). But with so many variables, and so much variation within each variable, it is difficult to pin down one definition of sex.

Readers of Reality’s Last Stand will be familiar with the fact that chromosomes and hormones (for example) do not define sex. The sex-changing Asian sheepshead wrasse does not change its chromosomes. Interestingly, the sex hormones (androgens and estrogens) are found in plants, although they do not appear to function as hormones. How could the over-educated authors have written that “there are many factors that define sex,” without a single one of them objecting?

That question is particularly salient because the textbook account of sex is in Clancy et al.’s very own bibliography. In the biologist Joan Roughgarden’s Evolution’s Rainbow there’s a section called “Male and Female Defined.” If you crack the book open, you can’t miss it.

Roughgarden writes:

To a biologist, “male” means making small gametes, and “female” means making large gametes. Period! By definition, the smaller of the two gametes is called a sperm, and the larger an egg. Beyond gamete size, biologists don’t recognize any other universal difference between male and female.

“Making” does not mean currently producing, but (something like) has the function to make. Surely one of Clancy et al. must have read Roughgarden’s book! (Again from her other work we know that Clune-Taylor has.) To avoid going round and round this depressing mulberry bush again, let’s leave it here.

“Sex is defined in a lot of ways in science”

Perhaps sex is not a single thing, and there are different definitions for the different kinds of sex. The standard gamete-definition of sex is useful for some purposes; other researchers will find one of the alternative definitions more productive. Clancy et al. might endorse this conciliatory position. They certainly think that a multiplicity of definitions is good scientific practice: “In science, how sex is defined for a particular study is based on what organism is being studied and what question is being asked.”

Leaving aside whether this fits actual practice, as a recommendation it is wrong-headed. Research needs to be readily compared and combined. A review paper on sexual selection might draw on studies of very different species, each asking different questions. If the definition of sex (male and female) changes between studies, then synthesizing the data would be fraught with complications and potential errors, because one study is about males/females-in-sense-1, another is about males/females-in-sense-2, and so on.

Indeed, “Biology is not binary” itself shows that the authors don’t really believe that “male” and “female” are used in science with multiple senses. They freely use “sex,” “male,” and “female” without pausing to disambiguate, or explain just which of the many alleged senses of these words they have in mind. If “sex is defined a lot of ways in science” then the reader should wonder what Clancy et al. are talking about.

In an especially odd passage, they write that the “criteria for defining sex will differ in studies of mushrooms, orangutans, and humans.” That is sort-of-true for mushrooms, which mate using mating types, not sperm and eggs. (Mating types are sometimes called “sexes,” but sometimes not.) However, it’s patently untrue for orangutans and humans, as the biologist Jerry Coyne points out.

Orangutans had featured earlier in the saga of the AAA cancellation, when Clancy and Fuentes had bizarrely suggested that the “three forms of the adult orangutan” present a challenge to the “sex binary,” seemingly forgetting that these three forms comprise females and two kinds of males. Kathleen Lowrey had some fun at their expense.

As if this tissue of confusion isn’t enough, Clancy et al. take one final plunge off the deep end. After mentioning osteoporosis in postmenopausal women, they write:

[P]eople experiencing similar sex-related conditions may not always fit in the same sex category. Consider polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), a common metabolic condition affecting about 8 to 13 percent of those with ovaries, which often causes them to produce more androgens than those without this condition. There are increasing numbers of people with PCOS who self-define as intersex, whereas others identify as female.

They seem to believe that two people with PCOS might not “fit in the same sex category.” That is, one person could be female while the other isn’t, with this alchemy accomplished by “self-definition.” PCOS, in case you were wondering, is a condition that only affects females or, in the approved lingo of the Cleveland Clinic, “people assigned female at birth.”

How could four accomplished and qualified professors produce such—not to mince words—unadulterated rubbish?

There are many social incentives these days for denouncing the sex binary, and academics—even those at the finest universities—are no more resistant to their pressure than anyone else. However, unlike those outside the ivory tower, academics have a powerful arsenal of carefully curated sources and learned jargon, as well as credentials and authority. They may deploy their weapons in the service of—as they see it—equity and inclusion for all.

It would be “bad science,” Clancy et al. write at the end, to “ignore and exclude” “individuals who are part of nature.” In this case, though, Clancy et al.’s firepower is directed at established facts, and the collateral damage may well include those people they most want to help.

--

About the Author

Alex Byrne is a Professor of Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. His main interests are philosophy of mind (especially perception), metaphysics (especially color) and epistemology (especially self-knowledge). A few years ago, Byrne started working on philosophical issues relating to sex and gender. His book on these topics, Trouble with Gender: Sex Facts, Gender Fictions, is now available in the US and UK.

==

The whole "social construction," "cultural construction" thing is idiotic.

Not only does it mean you would be a different sex in a different society/culture, but it becomes necessary that cross-cultural/cross-societal reproduction is fraught with complications.

[science-lover33]

Genetic engineering: CRISPR and beyond

In genetic engineering, we find ourselves amidst a scientific revolution with the advent of revolutionary technologies like CRISPR-Cas9. However, our journey into the intricate landscape of genetic manipulation is far from complete. This post delves into the nuanced world of genetic engineering, exploring cutting-edge technologies and their remarkable potential in shaping the future of medicine and biotechnology.

CRISPR-Cas9: Precision at the Molecular Level

CRISPR-Cas9, a revolutionary genome editing tool, stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats and CRISPR-associated protein 9. It utilizes a guide RNA (gRNA) to target specific DNA sequences, and the Cas9 protein acts as molecular scissors to cut the DNA at precisely defined locations. This break in the DNA prompts the cell's natural repair machinery to make changes, either through non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or homology-directed repair (HDR). CRISPR-Cas9's precision allows for gene knockout, modification, or insertion with remarkable accuracy.

Beyond CRISPR: Emerging Technologies

While CRISPR-Cas9 has dominated the field of genetic engineering, numerous promising technologies have emerged on the horizon. These include CRISPR-Cas variants like CRISPR-Cas12 and CRISPR-Cas13, which offer unique advantages such as smaller size, increased specificity, and targeting of RNA. Additionally, base editing techniques, such as adenine base editors (ABEs) and cytosine base editors (CBEs), enable the direct conversion of one DNA base into another without causing double-strand breaks, expanding the range of genetic modifications possible.

Applications in Medicine

The implications of these advancements are profound, particularly in medicine. Genetic engineering can potentially treat various genetic disorders, from cystic fibrosis to sickle cell anemia, by correcting disease-causing mutations at their source. Precision medicine, tailored to an individual's genetic makeup, is becoming increasingly feasible, allowing for personalized therapies with minimal side effects.

Ethical Considerations and Regulation

As we venture further into the genetic frontier, we must acknowledge the ethical considerations surrounding genetic engineering. The ability to modify the human germline, with implications for future generations, raises ethical dilemmas that necessitate rigorous oversight and regulation. The international community is developing guidelines to ensure responsible use of these powerful tools.

Future Directions and Challenges

While genetic engineering offers immense promise, it is not without its challenges. Off-target effects, unintended consequences, and the potential for creating designer babies are among the issues that demand careful consideration. Researchers and ethicists must work in tandem to navigate this uncharted territory.

References

Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2014). The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science, 346(6213), 1258096.

Anzalone, A. V., Randolph, P. B., Davis, J. R., Sousa, A. A., Koblan, L. W., Levy, J. M., … & Liu, D. R. (2019). Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature, 576(7785), 149-157.

Kime, E. (2021). CRISPR and the ethics of gene editing. Nature Reviews Genetics, 22(1), 3-4.

This post only scratches the surface of the profound transformations occurring in genetic engineering. The relentless pursuit of knowledge and ethical exploration will shape the future of this field as we continue to unlock the intricate secrets of our genetic code.

[pseud0knots]

also had a very embarrassing run in with nobel prize winning RNA biochemist jennifer doudna where she recognized me from the plane and asked where I was from and what I work on and I went on a two minute rant about how I’ve been interested in RNA since I was 17 and working on the origin of life and now I do gene editing research in industry but never stop thinking about molecular evolution and so it was really cool that in her talk there was a part of the story where she talked about directed evolution even though it was on a protein enzyme and not a ribozyme (RNA enzyme) and then the conference director guy was like “doctor doudna your car is here” and she left

[nacricissa]

9 people you want to know better

Huge thanks to @squarebracket-trick for tagging me with only small amounts of sarcasm per my request to be included in the fun!

Currently Reading: The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing and the Future of the Human Race, by Walter Isaacson. I think this is the same book I was reading the last time I was tagged in this game. I read nonfiction slowly.

Last song I listened to: Spotify seems to believe it was The Chain by Fleetwood Mac and I have no evidence to contradict that.

Currently Watching: I am on Season 8 of Smallville, which I have been thoroughly enjoying. It is very strange to watch TV from that era though, because the way computers are treated is truly hilariously wrong.

Current Fic I'm reading: I love that this implies I could stop reading in the middle of a fic. I woke up at 1:30 pm today because last night I finished reading Light As A Feather (Heavy As The Burden I Carry) by @havenoffandoms and @creativwit. It's heavy reading (ED TW), but masterfully done.

Current Obsession: I have made an infinite mana deck in standard (uh I play Magic: The Gathering, if you don't, apologies for the seemingly random set of words I'm about to spew). It's an Agatha's Soul Cauldron deck (Sleep-cursed faerie+ Kami of Whispered Hopes) though it's easier to assemble the win using Patchwork Crawler, even though it's more mana intensive because then you can search all the parts with Fauna Shaman. The win is with Triskadecaphile, either on board drawing to the alternate win con, or if you have an untappable Fauna Shaman, you can search for Ulvenwald Oddity with the first creature you draw, then transform it to give everything haste and win with combat damage on the spot. The interaction package is mostly creatures because Fauna Shaman, Malevolent Hermit, Tishana's Tidebinder and Colossal Skyturtle. Tishana's is especially useful when trying to win when an opponent has Sheoldred on board, you can Fauna Shaman it up if you draw a creature before you run out of life.

Favourite Colour: Lavender and Indigo. Really, the colour scheme of my pfp is my favourite colours, I had it comissioned for a reason.

Spicy, Sweet, Savory or Salty: Big fan of the savory.

Relationship Status: Not really looking for romance, in QPR with best friend.

Last thing I googled: Well now it's the fic I read last night cause I wanted to find the link, uh before that? I was trying to find this post, as if search is an effective way to locate things you're looking for on Tumblr.

Song stuck in my head: Well now it's Mr Blue Sky by Electric Light Orchestra because while looking for the post to link for the last question I saw a post that contained the lyrics... Before that probably John Williams is the Man.

Favourite Food: It's a one-pan thing with chicken, broccoli, red peppers, minute rice and a sauce made of brocoli cheese soup and chicken broth. It takes maybe fifteen minutes to cook after you've cut everything up, it's good hot or cold, it reheats well, truly a masterful thing and I only have to wash one pan when I'm done!

Dream Trip: I intend to tour Cascadia with my best friend. We might even go to visit the Quileute reserve (that beach looks great) give them the tourism bucks they deserve for having their legends taxidermized like that.

Tagging @magic-is-something-we-create, @lesorciercanadien, @neural-cactus-is-lonely, @bargainbincheese, @wonder-stuck, @chauceryfairytales, @a-had-matter, @threebooksoneplot and @mk-writes-stuff if you'd care to answer some or all of these questions about your fine selves.

[mitigatedchaos]

Lately a number of the twitter right accounts are trying to do a "#repealthe19th" bit, as in the 19th amendment to the US constitution, which grants women the right to vote.

I think this is at least somewhat sincere on their part (though obviously not entirely sincere because it's not going to happen), based on the composition of the voter coalitions in the US, but like.

Jennifer Doudna was one of the scientists behind CRISPR (and won a Nobel for it). Kati Kariko recently won a Nobel for her work with mRNA, used in the Covid-19 vaccine. These are both very important biotechnologies. Like, historical level.

Arcticdementor, if he were still around here, could roll up at this point and say that maybe voting rights aren't required to work in a lab, and that women have influence through relationships without voting, and that we're below replacement anyway, and so on.

And I can write against that. We could go 1,000, or 2,000, maybe even 3,000 words into that argument.

But honestly?

I think the twitter right, as in that set of guys, are losing their edge, with a few exceptions. Actually fighting the culture war made it into the mainstream. There's only so much juice you can squeeze from that lemon.

[thatdesklamp]

Hi! I saw your post around here where you mentioned Ali Hazelwood, and I've been devouring her stories lately. Since I trust your judgment more than my own (that A level in literature really shows), I was wondering if you could recommend other stories you might have enjoyed? They don't have to be in a STEM setting, nor necessarily romances (although those are very welcome). Thank you so much <3

Hello! Yes of course!!

For books that remind me of ‘One Day’ (and therefore encapsulate the vibe I was going for in this fic). Heavy on themes of intimate relationships between two people, nostalgia, time and growing up.

‘This Time Tomorrow’ by Emma Straub: gorgeous insight into getting older and a push for change, explores the relationship between a father and daughter beautifully

‘Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow’ by Gabrielle Zevin: masterful characters and structure. Two friends work as video game designers. The publisher’s tagline is brilliant: ‘It’s not a romance, but it is about love.’

‘Amy & Isabelle’ by Elizabeth Strout: one of those books I know I’ll appreciate even more when I get older. Mother and daughter relationship: if you resonated by Greta Gerwig’s ‘Ladybird’, you’ll love this one.

‘The Time Traveller’s Wife’ by Audrey Niffenegger: It’s famous for a reason. The most original love story I’ve ever read and with such genius and tender plotting that demands rereading.

‘Normal People’ by Sally Rooney: melancholic and bittersweet (aka it was the ‘One Day’ that I didn’t like quite as much as ‘One Day’ but also guys it’s a good book c’mon let’s be fr here)

Romances I’ve enjoyed (these are probably very popular but there are so many shite ones that I’ll vouch for these):

Ali Hazelwood books. I am so adamant that this woman is an absolute legend and her books only get better. Loved her most recent (‘Love, Theoretically’), it’s too fun.

‘Book Lovers’ by Emily Henry. Emily Henry loml.

‘Love and Other Words’ by Christina Lauren: ICONIC friends-to-lovers

For STEM-y books I enjoyed, I liked:

‘Lessons in Chemistry’ by Bonnie Garmus: the main character is absolutely brilliant and I’m the world’s most devout feminist so of course I devoured this book. (Although constantly calling table salt NaCl did annoy me juuust a little. Yes salt is primarily composed of sodium chloride but it’s not purified so calling it NaCl is just a bit silly)

‘The Code Breaker’ by Walter Isaacson: non-fiction (gasp!) but I find CRISPR so interesting. Biography about Jennifer Doudna, the Nobel Prize winner who essentially transformed the world of genetic engineering.

Miscellaneous books I’ve enjoyed:

‘Tender is the Flesh’ by Agustina Bazterrica: chilling dystopia, excellent narration from perspective character, so disgusting and gory

‘Fingersmith’ by Sarah Waters: not usually a fan of historical fiction but Sarah Waters is the loml, brilliant plotting, crime fiction

‘Vladimir’ by Julia May Jones: devoured it in a day. Dark and sensual, with such a sharply-characterised perspective character.

‘The Charioteer’ by Mary Renault: one of the first books to write an unapologetically positive portrayal of homosexuality. Essential reading for any lgbt+ person who likes reading, imo: stands on the same level as ‘Giovanni’s Room’ or… literally any Sarah Waters novel. I read it for background research on a far-off WW2 fic I want to write but ended up loving it. Really sweet.

Huzzah I hope this is up to scratch <3

[bpod-bpod]

Editing the Future

Jennifer Doudna – born on this day (19th February)– shared the 2020 Nobel Prize for Chemistry with Emmanuelle Charpentier for developing a genetic engineering technique called CRISPR-Cas9. Based on a naturally occurring defence system used by bacteria to expunge foreign DNA from their genome, CRISPR-Cas9 has revolutionised both biomedical and plant research readily revealing the impact of editing genes in living cells and model organisms, and is being applied in human genome editing to correct disease-causing gene faults and deliver gene therapies

Image by Christopher Michel, on Flickr

Image originally published with a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)

You can also follow BPoD on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook

[lazar-codes]

🎓📖🎙️ for the studyblr ask game? :)

Thank you for the ask!!! This was super fun to do!

🎓 a teacher/mentor figure that has had a huge impact on your studies?

I don't think I have a teacher/mentor figure in my current/official field (i.e. health science/programming), so I'm gonna go with one from my unofficial field (art). In elementary school I never did well in art class and always disliked it (I only liked it because it took 2 hours out of the day from other classes). Well, on the first day of grade 6 my teacher came up to me and said "I heard you don't like art", to which I replied "sorry, but no. I'm just not good at it". She then said that she'd make it her goal to make me like art by the end of the year, and I didn't believe her. However, she gave me my first A in art class, and even though it came from something as trivial as a grade, I ended up becoming more confident and believing that I can actually do art. Since then, even though I haven't taken any art classes after that year, I've been doing art for myself and have really enjoyed the process of doing art. Well, I tell myself that I do art for myself, but in truth I think I do it for that teacher, because she was the first person to actually like my art.

📖 a book/reading from your field you’d recommend/really enjoyed?

Ok, I really like reading non-fiction, so here are some books:

Science/biology:

The Icepick Surgeon: Murder, Fraud, Sabotage, Piracy, and Other Dastardly Deeds Perpetrated in the Name of Science - Sam Kean

The Tale of the Dueling Neurosurgeons: The History of the Human Brain as Revealed by True Stories of Trauma, Madness, and Recovery - Sam Kean

A Taste for Poison: Eleven Deadly Molecules and the Killers who Used Them - Neil Bradbury

The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race - Walter Isaacson

Patient Zero: A Curios History of the World's Worst Diseases - Lydia Kang, Nate Pedersen

Computer Science/Programming:

A Brief History of Artificial Intelligence: What It Is, Where We Are, and Where We Are Going - Michael Wooldridge

User Friendly: How the Hidden Rules of Design Are Changing the Way We Live, Work, and Play - Cliff Kuang, Robert Fabricant

Other:

Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men - Caroline Criado Pérez

🎙️ someone in your field, dead or alive, that you'd like to have a conversation with?

The only person that comes to mind is probably Rosalind Franklin and tell her that we've been taught who she is and that she hasn't been erased from history, though I fear I'd be too stupid to hold a conversation with her. Or Sam Kean, author of two books listed above, mostly so he can tell me cool science history.

[uncommon-nettle]

Stop Jonson & Jonson from extending their patent on lifesaving TB medication

This year, Jonson and Jonson was supposed to lose their patent on bedaquiline, a medication used to treat multidrug resistant tuberculosis. When they lost that patent, generic medication would increase access to the drug across the world. J&J is attempting to artificially extend the life of their patent. This move will cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. We don't have to accept this.

Contact J&J on social media

twitter: https://twitter.com/JNJNews and https://twitter.com/JNJGlobalHealth

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jnj/

instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jnj/?hl=en

contact the board of directors

(Chairman and CEO) Mr Joaquin Duato -  jduato@jnj.com 

Darius Adamczyk - darius.adamczyk@honeywell.com 

Dr, Mary C. Beckerle, PhD - Mary.Beckerle@hci.utah.edu 

Dr. Jennifer Doudna - doudna@berkeley.edu

Marillyn A. Hewson - marillyn.a.hewson@lmco.com

Dr. Paula Johnson - presidentsoffice@wellesley.edu (https://twitter.com/DrPaulaJohnson)

Hubert Joly https://www.hubertjoly.org/contact/

Dr. Mark McClellan - mark.mcclellan@duke.edu

Mark Weinberger - https://twitter.com/Mark_Weinberger LTG Nadja Y. West - https://twitter.com/NadjaYWest1

Contact Vanguard, their largest stockholder

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Vanguard_Group

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Vanguard

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/vanguardgroup

[sub-at-omicsteminist]

•Jennifer Doudna•