The Nobel Prize Committee announced today that it is awarding the Prize in Medicine to Jimmy Duncan, a senior at Horace Greeley High School in Chappaqua, New York, for getting a 97 on his bio-chem final.
“The Committee felt that Master Duncan has shown great promise with his outstanding grades,” said Dr. Leif Quisling, chairperson of the Nobel Prize Committee. “It is our fervent hope that this award encourages him to do great things in the future, such as find a cure for cancer.”
The committee was first alerted to Jimmy Duncan when they came across a YouTube clip of Duncan’s class presentation on his career goals.
“We were particularly struck by his unbridled optimism,” said Dr. Quisling. “Duncan closed his passionate talk with these inspiring words: ’And we can end cancer in our lifetimes if we all work together really, really hard!’ It is exactly those kind of empty platitudes that impress this committee. Far more so than anything so gauche as actual achievement.”
Mr. Duncan was somewhat blase’ about the news. “I was lying in bed playing a little X-Box before heading off to school when my mom yelled, ‘Jimmy, you’ve got a phone call from Stockholm!’ It was pretty cool, yeah.”
Dr. Quisling acknowledged that the committee was inspired to award prizes prematurely after giving President Barack Obama a Nobel Peace Prize the year before, despite the fact that nominations had been closed only 11 days after he entered office.
“In Barack Obama’s case, we figured that if the American people were willing to hand over the U.S. presidency to someone who hasn’t accomplished much, why not give him the Nobel Peace Prize before he’s done anything, either?” Dr. Quisling said.
As for Jimmy Duncan, 17, he says he’s “psyched” about the Nobel Prize. “I should be a shoo-in now to get into Harvard,” he said.
“By the way, I’m not going pre-med anymore,” Duncan volunteered. ”Now that I’ve got the Nobel in Medicine, why bother? I’ll just invest my prize money in a diversified fund and I never have to work another day in my life. In fact, I may just skip Harvard and go to a party school. Arizona State, here I come!”
We contacted Dr. Quisling’s office for a comment on Duncan’s change in plans. Nobody returned our calls by press time.
Showing posts with label Science new. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science new. Show all posts
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
IBM using nanotech to read DNA
Scientists at IBM are using a combination of nanotechnology and microchips to map out personal genetic code -- a development that could significantly improve the process of diagnosing and treating diseases.
Merging biology with computer technology, researchers at IBM are working on a project that aims to make it easier to decode human DNA, and thus help scientists discover and test new medicines and medical techniques. And, IBM says, a faster and less expensive way to obtain genetic information would help doctors better understand their patients' predisposition to diseases.
The ultimate goal of IBM's project is to create process that could read, or sequence, a person's genome at a cost of $100 to $1,000. In comparison, the first sequencing ever done by the Human Genome Project cost $3 billion, according to IBM.
"The technologies that make reading DNA fast, cheap and widely available have the potential to revolutionize bio-medical research and herald an era of personalized medicine," said IBM research scientist Gustavo Stolovitzky, in a statement today. "Ultimately, it could improve the quality of medical care by identifying patients who will gain the greatest benefit from a particular medicine and those who are most at risk of adverse reaction."
IBM reported today that its researchers have drilled nano-sized holes, or nanopores, into microchips. When DNA strands are passed through the holes, the chips can sequence the genes.
Researchers said one of their challenges has been to figure out how to control the speed of the DNA strand's movement through the tiny nanopore. It needs to move slowly through the hole in order for sensors in the chip to be able to read the sequencing.
IBM reported that its scientists used a multi-layer nanostructure to surround the nanopore. The structure creates an electrical field inside the nanopore, which traps the DNA strand and should allow scientists to have minute control over the speed at which the strand moves through the hole.
Combining DNA with nanotechnology is an idea that's been getting some traction.
Just two months ago, IBM announced that it was using a combination of DNA molecules and nanotechnology to create tiny circuits that could form the basis of smaller, more powerful and energy-efficient computer chips that also are easier and cheaper to manufacture.
The DNA molecules would serve as scaffolding on which carbon nanotubes could assemble themselves into precise patterns. IBM said the process could help chip manufacturers move from 45-nanometer processor technology to 22nm or smaller.
And last winter, researchers at MIT found a way to use a combination of nanotechnology and DNA to fight cancerous tumors. The university announced that a group of scientists there had developed sensors made out of carbon nanotubes that were wrapped in DNA. The sensors then were placed inside living cells to determine whether chemotherapy drugs were reaching their targets or attacking healthy cells.
Merging biology with computer technology, researchers at IBM are working on a project that aims to make it easier to decode human DNA, and thus help scientists discover and test new medicines and medical techniques. And, IBM says, a faster and less expensive way to obtain genetic information would help doctors better understand their patients' predisposition to diseases.
The ultimate goal of IBM's project is to create process that could read, or sequence, a person's genome at a cost of $100 to $1,000. In comparison, the first sequencing ever done by the Human Genome Project cost $3 billion, according to IBM.
"The technologies that make reading DNA fast, cheap and widely available have the potential to revolutionize bio-medical research and herald an era of personalized medicine," said IBM research scientist Gustavo Stolovitzky, in a statement today. "Ultimately, it could improve the quality of medical care by identifying patients who will gain the greatest benefit from a particular medicine and those who are most at risk of adverse reaction."
IBM reported today that its researchers have drilled nano-sized holes, or nanopores, into microchips. When DNA strands are passed through the holes, the chips can sequence the genes.
Researchers said one of their challenges has been to figure out how to control the speed of the DNA strand's movement through the tiny nanopore. It needs to move slowly through the hole in order for sensors in the chip to be able to read the sequencing.
IBM reported that its scientists used a multi-layer nanostructure to surround the nanopore. The structure creates an electrical field inside the nanopore, which traps the DNA strand and should allow scientists to have minute control over the speed at which the strand moves through the hole.
Combining DNA with nanotechnology is an idea that's been getting some traction.
Just two months ago, IBM announced that it was using a combination of DNA molecules and nanotechnology to create tiny circuits that could form the basis of smaller, more powerful and energy-efficient computer chips that also are easier and cheaper to manufacture.
The DNA molecules would serve as scaffolding on which carbon nanotubes could assemble themselves into precise patterns. IBM said the process could help chip manufacturers move from 45-nanometer processor technology to 22nm or smaller.
And last winter, researchers at MIT found a way to use a combination of nanotechnology and DNA to fight cancerous tumors. The university announced that a group of scientists there had developed sensors made out of carbon nanotubes that were wrapped in DNA. The sensors then were placed inside living cells to determine whether chemotherapy drugs were reaching their targets or attacking healthy cells.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Who really profits from digital medical records?
An unprecedented effort to computerize the nation's hospitals and physician offices could be the key to reducing crippling health care costs – or a giveaway to technology vendors whose sales will be subsidized by taxpayers.
Computerizing the paper-based world of medicine was a significant component of this year's $787 billion stimulus package, which reserved $45 billion for hospitals and physicians to adopt electronic health records.
The Obama administration argues that electronic records will allow doctors to coordinate care for the sickest patients, eliminate errors such as adverse drug reactions and avoid duplicate lab and imaging tests. Medical errors alone cost the country $37.6 billion each year, according to the Institute of Medicine.
Despite years of technology development, most hospitals and physician offices, including those in North Texas, can't electronically share information or even record patient data.
Data sharing confronts age-old assumptions that providers, not patients, own health records, which are valuable assets that can be used to obtain grants and market hospitals. It requires the government to decide what kinds of systems will improve care and how providers should use the systems to achieve that.
Computerizing the paper-based world of medicine was a significant component of this year's $787 billion stimulus package, which reserved $45 billion for hospitals and physicians to adopt electronic health records.
The Obama administration argues that electronic records will allow doctors to coordinate care for the sickest patients, eliminate errors such as adverse drug reactions and avoid duplicate lab and imaging tests. Medical errors alone cost the country $37.6 billion each year, according to the Institute of Medicine.
Despite years of technology development, most hospitals and physician offices, including those in North Texas, can't electronically share information or even record patient data.
Data sharing confronts age-old assumptions that providers, not patients, own health records, which are valuable assets that can be used to obtain grants and market hospitals. It requires the government to decide what kinds of systems will improve care and how providers should use the systems to achieve that.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Breakthroughs in DNA medicine to revolutionise doctors’ training
Doctors are to be given more specialised training in genetics to prepare the NHS for a revolution in DNA-based medicine, The Times has learnt.
A review of medical education in genetics is to examine what doctors need to know about the influence of DNA on common diseases and patients’ response to drugs, so they can exploit science’s growing understanding of the human genome in clinical practice.
In an interview with The Times, Professor Peter Farndon, director of the National Genetics Education and Development Centre, said recent advances in genetic science made it essential for doctors to have more access to information.
Though the last genetics syllabus for medical students and junior doctors was introduced in 2006, so much has changed since then that the centre was already working to update it, he said. It was also developing guidelines for professional education in the field.
Over the past three years, costs of reading DNA have fallen so sharply that many scientists predict that it will be possible to sequence any individual’s entire genetic code for less than £1,000 within a year or two. Research has also revealed hundreds of genetic variations that affect an individual’s risk of disease or response to medicines.
Companies such as 23andMe and deCODEme have started to sell genome scans directly to consumers, assessing their genetic risks of developing a range of diseases for between £300 and £600.
Last week a report from the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee said that these developments required urgent reforms to medical training and NHS infrastructure so they could be translated into benefits for patients. The importance of genetic tests was “placing strain on the expertise of doctors, nurses and healthcare scientists, who at present are poorly equipped to use genomic tests effectively and to interpret them accurately, indicating the urgent need for much wider education of healthcare professionals and the public in genomic medicine”, the report said.
While doctors learn about genetics in undergraduate and postgraduate training, the focus is on rare disorders caused by mutations in single genes, such as Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis.
More recent genetic research has identified hundreds of DNA variants with more complex and subtle effects on a wide range of much more common conditions, such as heart disease, cancer and rheumatoid arthritis. Each raises or lowers a patient’s predisposition to disease only slightly, but can combine to create a significantly raised risk, and their influence can be difficult to interpret.
Family doctors, in particular, need an understanding of this area so that they can give appropriate advice to patients, Professor Farndon said.
Scientists have also started to discover genetic variants that affect whether drugs are likely to be effective, or the safe dose that a patient can take. This practice, known as pharmacogenomics, is forecast to become increasingly important to more personalised medicine, but currently it is not highlighted as an important teaching subject.
“It definitely needs to go into the main syllabus now, absolutely,” Professor Farndon said. “Suppose there’s a set of eight DNA variants that predispose a woman to a high risk of breast cancer. Even though she has no family history, you might target her for screening much sooner than the current recommended age.”
A review of medical education in genetics is to examine what doctors need to know about the influence of DNA on common diseases and patients’ response to drugs, so they can exploit science’s growing understanding of the human genome in clinical practice.
In an interview with The Times, Professor Peter Farndon, director of the National Genetics Education and Development Centre, said recent advances in genetic science made it essential for doctors to have more access to information.
Though the last genetics syllabus for medical students and junior doctors was introduced in 2006, so much has changed since then that the centre was already working to update it, he said. It was also developing guidelines for professional education in the field.
Over the past three years, costs of reading DNA have fallen so sharply that many scientists predict that it will be possible to sequence any individual’s entire genetic code for less than £1,000 within a year or two. Research has also revealed hundreds of genetic variations that affect an individual’s risk of disease or response to medicines.
Companies such as 23andMe and deCODEme have started to sell genome scans directly to consumers, assessing their genetic risks of developing a range of diseases for between £300 and £600.
Last week a report from the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee said that these developments required urgent reforms to medical training and NHS infrastructure so they could be translated into benefits for patients. The importance of genetic tests was “placing strain on the expertise of doctors, nurses and healthcare scientists, who at present are poorly equipped to use genomic tests effectively and to interpret them accurately, indicating the urgent need for much wider education of healthcare professionals and the public in genomic medicine”, the report said.
While doctors learn about genetics in undergraduate and postgraduate training, the focus is on rare disorders caused by mutations in single genes, such as Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis.
More recent genetic research has identified hundreds of DNA variants with more complex and subtle effects on a wide range of much more common conditions, such as heart disease, cancer and rheumatoid arthritis. Each raises or lowers a patient’s predisposition to disease only slightly, but can combine to create a significantly raised risk, and their influence can be difficult to interpret.
Family doctors, in particular, need an understanding of this area so that they can give appropriate advice to patients, Professor Farndon said.
Scientists have also started to discover genetic variants that affect whether drugs are likely to be effective, or the safe dose that a patient can take. This practice, known as pharmacogenomics, is forecast to become increasingly important to more personalised medicine, but currently it is not highlighted as an important teaching subject.
“It definitely needs to go into the main syllabus now, absolutely,” Professor Farndon said. “Suppose there’s a set of eight DNA variants that predispose a woman to a high risk of breast cancer. Even though she has no family history, you might target her for screening much sooner than the current recommended age.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)