Search

With a century-old history of fundamental discoveries, the fruit fly has long been a favored experimental organism for a wide range of scientific inquiries. But Drosophila is not a "legacy" model organism; technical and intellectual innovations continue to revitalize fly research and drive advances in our understanding of conserved mechanisms of animal biology. Here, we provide an overview of this "ecosystem" and discuss how to address emerging challenges to ensure its continued productivity. Drosophila researchers are fortunate to have a sophisticated and ever-growing toolkit for the analysis of gene function. Access to these tools depends upon continued support for both physical and informational resources. Uncertainty regarding stable support for bioinformatic databases is a particular concern, at a time when there is the need to make the vast knowledge of functional biology provided by this model animal accessible to scientists studying other organisms. Communication and advocacy efforts will promote appreciation of the value of the fly in delivering biomedically important insights. Well-tended traditions of large-scale tool development, open sharing of reagents, and community engagement provide a strong basis for coordinated and proactive initiatives to improve the fly research ecosystem. Overall, there has never been a better time to be a fly pusher., (Copyright © 2017 Bilder and Irvine.)

Zinc finger nuclease, transcription activator-like effector nuclease, and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/Cas9 nuclease are important targeted genome editing technologies. They have great significance in scientific research and applications on aspects of functional genomics research, species improvement, disease prevention and gene therapy. There are past or ongoing disputes over ownership of the intellectual property behind every technology. In this review, we summarize the patents on these three targeted genome editing technologies in order to provide some reference for developing genome editing technologies with self-owned intellectual property rights and some implications for current innovation and entrepreneurship education in universities.

Scientific progress runs on the intellect, curiosity, and passion of its practitioners fueled by the research dollars of its sponsors. The concern over research funding in biology in general and genetics in particular led us to survey the membership of the Genetics Society of America for information about the federal support of genetics at the level of individual principal investigators. The results paint a mosaic of circumstances-some good, others not so good-that describes some of our present challenges with sufficient detail to suggest useful steps that could address the challenges., (Copyright © 2015 by the Genetics Society of America.)

The sequencing of the human genome and the advent of low-cost genome-wide assays that generate millions of observations of individual genomes in a matter of hours constitute a disruptive innovation for social science. Many public use social science datasets have or will soon add genome-wide genetic data. With these new data come technical challenges, but also new possibilities. Among these, the lowest-hanging fruit and the most potentially disruptive to existing research programs is the ability to measure previously invisible contours of health and disease risk within populations. In this article, we outline why now is the time for social scientists to bring genetics into their research programs. We discuss how to select genetic variants to study. We explain how the polygenic architecture of complex traits and the low penetrance of individual genetic loci pose challenges to research integrating genetics and social science. We introduce genetic risk scores as a method of addressing these challenges and provide guidance on how genetic risk scores can be constructed. We conclude by outlining research questions that are ripe for social science inquiry.

In January 2007 the American Medical Association added a new Current Procedural Terminology(R) (CPT) code, 96040, for "Medical Genetics and Genetic Counseling Services." In order to identify the impact of having this new code and to identify issues with implementation of the code, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) CPT(R) Working Group surveyed NSGC members using an internet-based survey tool. The majority of respondents (94%) reported being aware of the new code and over half of the respondents (69%) said they were billing for genetic counseling. Approximately 24% of those billing reported using 96040. Many facilities are not using this code and the reported success of billing using 96040 is highly varied. Continued education may be beneficial to encourage reimbursement for 96040 and follow up is needed to assess the ongoing implementation and impact of the new CPT(R) code.

We advocate here a 1001 Genomes project for Arabidopsis thaliana, the workhorse of plant genetics, which will provide an enormous boost for plant research with a modest financial investment.

The criteria that distinguish human genetic research from clinical molecular diagnosis are frequently practical rather than theoretical. They are driven by the availability and costs of the relevant technologies and the systemic level of scientific fluency in interpreting laboratory results. The guiding principle in the practice of medicine is the primacy of patient care. In the service of this overarching goal the defining characteristic of clinical diagnosis is the definition of the disease entity, even when no immediate treatment is possible. For heritable disorders caused by single-gene defects, identifying the putative causal variant is the goal of molecular diagnostics. Current technologies, costs, and standards of institutional infrastructure have not typically permitted novel gene discovery to be performed within the realm of the clinical laboratory. Discovery is usually funded by self-defined research organizations and carried out by self-defined research personnel with the primary intent of publishing findings in research journals. However, exponential improvements in technological capabilities and the concurrent decline in associated costs seem poised to recast this landscape, bringing to clinical medicine some activities now considered research. Even whole genome resequencing of individual patient DNA is within clinical reach in the foreseeable future.

There is increasing concern that overlapping patents in the field of genetics will create a costly and legally complex situation known as a patent thicket, which, along with the associated issues of accumulating royalty payments, can act as a disincentive for innovation. One potential means of preventing this is for the patent holders to enter into a so-called patent pool, such as those established in the electronics and telecommunications industries. Precedents for these also exist in the field of genetics, notably with the patents pertaining to the SARS genome. In this review, we initially address the patent pool concept in general and its application in genetics. Following this, we will explore patent pools in the diagnostic field in more detail, and examine some existing and novel examples of patent pools in genetics.

The large number of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers available in the public databases makes studies of association and fine mapping of disease loci very practical. To provide information for researchers who do not follow SNP genotyping technologies but need to use them for their research, we review here recent developments in the fields. We start with a general description of SNP typing protocols and follow this with a summary of current methods for each step of the protocol and point out the unique features and weaknesses of these techniques as well as comparing the cost and throughput structures of the technologies. Finally, we describe some popular techniques and the applications that are suitable for these techniques.

By investigating the practices and beliefs of Gilded Age trotting horse breeders, this article demonstrates the relationship between industrial economic development and the growth of genetic reasoning in the United States. As most historians of biology already know, E. H. Harriman, Leland Stanford, and John D. Rockefeller not only transformed American business practice, they donated heavily to institutions that promoted eugenic research programs. What is not widely known, however, is that these same industrialists were accomplished trotting horse breeders with well-developed theories of inheritance. The article that follows uses these theories to place the rise of eugenic and genetic research into the context of the rapid development of industry in post Civil War America. Specifically, the study identifies how functional utility as defined through the narrow concerns of industrial practices were privileged over form and pedigree in American horse breeding. Even more importantly, this article suggests that the continuity established between the practices of the industrial philanthropists and the scientific research institutions that they established occurred at two levels: through the values privileged by the development of the dynamics of a mass society and through the tools used to process the large amounts of information necessary to understand breeding patterns in slow breeding organisms.

Aims: To examine the volume and potential impact of gastroenterology research outputs from 1985 to 1998 from 14 developed countries; the overlap with research in cancer, infectious diseases, and genetics; and the funding sources for this research. To determine if countries' research outputs correlated with their burden of corresponding diseases and inputs to their research., Methods: Selective retrieval of papers from the Science Citation Index and manual look up of a sample to determine funding sources. Classification of journals by four categories of research level (clinical/basic) and potential impact (low/high)., Results: Gastroenterology represents about 8% of world biomedical research but over 11% in Italy, Japan, and Spain. Its potential impact is highest (but declining) for the USA. It has increased noticeably in most European countries, particularly in Finland. Gastroenterology research has become more clinical in Japan, Spain, Australia, and the Netherlands but more basic in Canada, Germany, Finland, Israel, and South Africa. Funding comes primarily from national governments, followed by national private non-profit sources and industry but little industrial funding occurs in some countries. There is a strong and positive correlation between reported deaths from gastrointestinal neoplasms and countries' outputs of research in gastrointestinal oncology., Conclusions: Bibliometric analysis can reveal differences between countries in their research in a subject when a common methodology is applied to an international database. Variations in research methods in different countries can plausibly explain some of the variation in the potential impact of the work.

Canada has recently seen significant commercial growth in biotechnology; at the same time we have witnessed a considerable reduction in public funding for research. One result is the development of partnerships between academic institutions and industry, which has had important effects on the relationships between researchers, companies, research subjects and society, particularly in the field of genetics. Commercialization of research creates obstacles to the diffusion of research results which is fundamental to the advancement of science. Several recent studies and cases, which are briefly reviewed here, have highlighted these problems. In this paper, the author examines clauses in research contracts in order to analyze and categorize the types of provisions these contracts may contain regarding publication and disclosure of research results. She then discusses the relationships between various actors in genetic research and the issues and conflicts that may arise. Finally, an examination of some recently developed policies in this area reveals the complex network of norms to which a researcher must adhere. The normative framework must take into account the interests of all the various actors, should apply to the broadest possible population, and its various parts must be consistent. Researchers must then be vigilant that they do not enter into contracts which conflict with their rights and obligations regarding publication and dissemination of results.

Academic-industry research relationships (AIRRS) have become widely accepted and increasingly common in the life sciences. Using nationwide surveys from the United States, we found significant differences between the AIRRs of genetics firms and faculty and those of other firms and faculty. Significantly more genetics than non-genetics firms funded AIRRs, and genetics firms' AIRRs were larger and longer. Genetics faculty with AIRRs were significantly more likely than non-genetics faculty to report that patents, licenses, new companies and trade secrets had resulted from their university research; and that they had refused to share research results of biomaterials with colleagues.