Latest news with #MedicalResearchCouncil
Times
2 days ago
- Health
- Times
Controversial project sets out to create synthetic human DNA
Scientists have begun an attempt to create human genetic code from raw chemicals, as a once-taboo area of research gains fresh momentum. Backed by £10 million from the Wellcome Trust, the five-year SynHG project will work on creating tools to aid synthetic genomics — in which instead of editing existing DNA, researchers aim to write the genetic code from scratch. Every cell in the body contains DNA (except mature red blood cells and platelets), which provides the instructions for producing the proteins that form the building blocks of life. Flaws or mutations in this code are the cause of a wide range of diseases. • NHS to offer whole genome sequencing to every newborn baby Supporters of synthetic genomics argue that learning how to assemble DNA will help unlock its secrets, transforming our understanding of human biology and allowing the creation of novel treatments for diseases that currently have no cure. However, the idea of creating human genetic material in the lab has long raised ethical concerns, from the spectre of synthetic 'designer babies' to unforeseen effects on future generations. The new project, led by Professor Jason Chin of the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, will bring together teams from the Universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Manchester and Kent and Imperial College London. The aim is not to build an entire synthetic human genome — a complete set of genetic instructions, written in DNA — but to lay the technical groundwork, starting with the construction of a single human chromosome. Alongside the technical work, a group led by Professor Joy Zhang of the University of Kent will scrutinise the moral, legal and social implications of genome synthesis. Wellcome, the world's largest medical research charity, believes the potential benefits of the project outweigh the risks. So far, scientists have successfully developed synthetic genomes for microbes such as E. coli, a type of bacteria. The field has accelerated in recent years, however, fuelled by advances in machine learning, data science and AI. Even so, today's technology is not able to produce large, more complex sections of genetic material, such as those that give rise to crops, animals and humans. Michael Dunn, director of discovery research at Wellcome, said: 'Our DNA determines who we are and how our bodies work and with recent technological advances, the SynHG project is at the forefront of one of the most exciting areas of scientific research. 'Through creating the necessary tools and methods to synthesise a human genome we will answer questions about our health and disease that we cannot even anticipate yet, in turn transforming our understanding of life and wellbeing.'
Daily Record
2 days ago
- Health
- Daily Record
Eating this one thing for breakfast can reduce risk of developing diabetes
A nutritional expert has revealed that this common 'superfood' can help prevent fat absorption while also stopping any risk of diabetes due to its numerous health benefits According to a nutritional expert, eating a humble breakfast staple can significantly reduce your risk of developing type 2 diabetes and help with weight loss. The key ingredient is plain yoghurt, which is packed with numerous health benefits. Plain yoghurt is rich in "good" bacteria, which is excellent for gut health, while also providing protein and calcium for strong bones and muscles. A Medical Research Council study at the University of Cambridge found that regularly eating plain yoghurt lowered the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 28% compared to those who never or rarely consumed it. Additionally, an expert revealed that plain yoghurt can even stop the body from absorbing fat from food, which can aid in weight loss. Another study of 5,000 people found that eating just 40g of yoghurt daily reduced the risk of liver cancer by 5.4%. Nutrition therapist Ian Marber said: "Plain yoghurt has lots of health benefits and is often cheaper than trendy alternatives." While a 25-year study of over 80,000 people by researchers at the University of Washington found that eating at least two servings of yoghurt a week can reduce the risk of pre-cancerous growths, or adenomas, by a fifth. These growths can sprout in glandular organs such as the prostate. The research, published in the journal Gut, discovered that among all participants - who had undergone a lower-bowel endoscopy to inspect their gut - those who consumed yoghurt had 19 per cent fewer growths and 26 per cent fewer of the highest risk variety. Yoghurt health benefits Vitamin A Vitamin B12 Calcium Potassium Iodine Phosphorus Magnesium Meanwhile, researchers at the Medical Research Council epidemiology unit at the University of Cambridge found that regular yoghurt consumers had a 28 per cent lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to those who never consumed it. Some of the most significant benefits have been observed in studies examining the anti-inflammatory effects of yoghurt. Typically, inflammatory markers in the body increase after eating, particularly when the meal is high in fat and sugar. High levels of inflammation are linked to conditions such as heart disease, arthritis and asthma. Yoghurt is a rich source of iodine, vitamins D, B2 and B12, and zinc. According to Mr Marber, it's also an excellent source of protein and, like milk, contains the "most widely available and easily absorbed form of calcium". Dr Caroline Childs, a nutritional sciences authority from the University of Southampton, extolled the virtues of yoghurt consumption: "Broadly speaking, yoghurt is a very good thing. It's a useful way to get probiotics or friendly bacteria and it tastes good. There are some studies that have suggested consuming calcium-rich foods like yoghurt make it harder for the body to absorb fat from food. But it needs to be plain milk yoghurt, with nothing else added to it, to have these effects."
Yahoo
21-06-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
David Hopkinson obituary
My friend and former colleague David Hopkinson, who has died aged 89, was director of the Medical Research Council's human biochemical genetics unit at University College London from 1976 until its closure in 2000. Hoppy, as he was universally known, had joined the unit at its inception in 1962 because in an earlier, more junior, position he had been one of the first medical scientists to describe molecular differences in human enzymes, long before DNA sequence differences were known about. The unit was established to research the extent and significance of genetic variation to human health. As its head, Hoppy expanded its focus to gene mapping and disease genetics while also moving into the new science of gene cloning and DNA sequencing. Born in Chesterfield, Derbyshire, to Albert Hopkinson, an iron and steelworks foreman, and Lilian (nee Siddal), a dressmaker, he went to Chesterfield grammar school, which fostered his early interest in organic chemistry. After completing a natural sciences degree at Cambridge University he qualified in medicine at the London hospital in 1959, working there until he joined the human biochemical genetics unit three years later. Hoppy was recruited by its inaugural head, Prof Harry Harris, becoming his right-hand man responsible for many of the unit's innovative experimental approaches, including developing novel methods of enzyme detection and electrophoresis. The unit moved in 1965 from its initial base at King's College to UCL, where I joined the unit three years later to study for a PhD under Harris. Hoppy remained there for the rest of his career. He published widely, and played an important part in teaching and supervision, being made full professor of London University in 1990. Twenty five years after his retirement, his role as mentor is remembered with great warmth by his former staff and students. Hoppy read widely and appreciated drama and music. A practical man who took pleasure in manual labour, he was an accomplished gardener and delighted in propagating plants and growing vegetables. He also enjoyed summers hiking in the Swiss Alps, and was a keen birdwatcher. In retirement, he studied architecture and German, and gained a first-class degree in geology at the Open University. He also spent many years as a volunteer at Chilterns' Citizens Advice in Chesham, Buckinghamshire. He is survived by his second wife, Prof Yvonne Edwards, and by three children, Paul, Susan and Ian, from his first marriage, to Josephine (nee Manze), which ended in divorce, and four grandchildren.
IOL News
19-06-2025
- Health
- IOL News
When it comes to Freedom of Expression, the WHO Pandemic Agreement says nothing
The writer says that the next time a pandemic strikes—and there will be a next time—we cannot look to Geneva for guidance on how to preserve open debate and protect democratic norms. Image: File THE World Health Organization's long-awaited Pandemic Agreement has finally been adopted. At over 30 pages, it is comprehensive in ambition - addressing everything from vaccine access to supply chain resilience. But when it comes to one of the most critical ingredients for effective public health in a democracy - freedom of expression - the Agreement has remarkably little to say. In fact, it says almost nothing. Take, for instance, this key provision: 'Each Party shall, as appropriate, conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions, authorities and agencies.' This sounds constructive. But read it again. 'As appropriate'? According to whom? And what policies, exactly? The Agreement doesn't say. It offers no guidance on whether open public debate - complete with disagreement, critique, and messy facts - is essential to building trust in science and public institutions. Nor does it warn against the dangers of censorship during public health crises. It simply leaves it to each country to decide for itself what 'appropriate' means. In other words, it takes no position. And this is precisely the problem. In the name of trust, governments during the COVID-19 pandemic did not always build it - they sometimes undermined it. South Africa offers two powerful examples. First, Dr Glenda Gray, one of the country's most respected scientists and then-president of the Medical Research Council, publicly criticised aspects of the government's lockdown measures. The reaction from the Department of Health was swift: the Director-General requested that her employer, the Medical Research Council, investigate her. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ This wasn't scientific debate. It was an attempt to silence a dissenting voice. It was only after public uproar that the matter was dropped. Second, consider the ivermectin litigation saga. In December 2020, South Africa's medicines regulator, SAHPRA, triggered a controversy by incorrectly stating in a press release that ivermectin was 'not indicated … for use in humans', despite the fact that the drug had long been registered for certain human indications in South Africa. Some might label SAHPRA's statement as misinformation or even disinformation, but more plausibly, it was simply a careless - though consequential - error by a public authority. Yet the same press release went further, threatening with criminal enforcement against members of the public seeking to import ivermectin - an unnecessarily heavy-handed stance that swiftly provoked litigation. These are not stories from some distant autocracy. They happened here, in South Africa. And they highlight an uncomfortable truth: even well-meaning public institutions can slip into authoritarian habits under the pressure of a public health crisis. The antidote to authoritarian drift - and to official error - is freedom of expression. In Democratic Alliance v African National Congress, the Constitutional Court affirmed that freedom of expression is valuable not only for its intrinsic worth but also for its instrumental role in a democratic society. It informs citizens, fosters public debate, and enables the exposure of folly and misgovernance. It is also vital in the pursuit of truth—both personal and collective. If society suppresses views it deems unacceptable, those views may never be tested, challenged, or proven wrong. Open debate enhances truth-finding and allows us to scrutinise political claims and reflect on social values. This is why the South African Constitution enshrines freedom of expression - not as a luxury for peacetime, but as a safeguard for moments of crisis. Our Constitution was written with the memory of repression in mind. And it is precisely when fear and uncertainty tempt governments to silence dissent that its protections matter most. One might have expected an international agreement on pandemic response to affirm these same values. Yet the WHO Pandemic Agreement retreats into vagueness. It speaks of 'trust' and 'solidarity,' and warns against 'misinformation and disinformation,' but avoids the real issue: how should a democratic society respond when public health policies are contested? How do we protect space for critical voices? Instead of offering a principled stand, the Agreement offers a shrug. Countries are told to act 'as appropriate.' That could mean encouraging open dialogue—or it could mean criminalising dissent. The WHO doesn't say. And that silence speaks volumes. Professor Donrich Thaldar Image: University of KwaZulu-Natal
Powys County Times
19-06-2025
- Health
- Powys County Times
Staying positive ‘can cut the risk of memory loss in middle-age'
Staying positive can cut the risk of memory loss in middle age, a 16-year study suggests. Researchers tracked more than 10,000 people aged over 50 and found those with higher levels of wellbeing were more likely to have better scores on memory tests. They also reported a greater sense of control, independence and freedom to make choices than other people. While the link was small, researchers suggested it was significant. Co-author Joshua Stott, professor of ageing and clinical psychology at University College London, said: 'This study represents an important step toward understanding the interplay between wellbeing and memory over time. 'It offers new insights into how self-rated wellbeing is associated with memory and vice versa. 'While our findings are preliminary, they highlight the importance of considering psychosocial influences on brain health such as memory.' The study tracked 10,760 men and women over 50 who took part in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. They were assessed on wellbeing and memory every two years – a total of nine times during the 16-year study period, starting in 2002. Researchers checked people's ability to learn and recall 10 words immediately and after a delay. Wellbeing was also assessed using a quality-of-life questionnaire, looking at areas such as pleasure, control and autonomy. Questions people were asked included the phrases: 'I can do the things that I want to do', and 'I feel that life is full of opportunities'. The study found a small but significant association between higher wellbeing and better memory, which still existed even after any depression was taken into account. The researchers suggested reasons why wellbeing may have a positive impact on memory, such as people may be more likely to exercise, which improves health. Age, gender, other lifestyle factors and socioeconomic status may also have a negative or positive impact on wellbeing and memory, they added. The authors found no evidence that it was poor memory causing low wellbeing in some people, but they stressed this could not be ruled out. The research was funded by Alzheimer's Research UK and others, including the Medical Research Council. Emma Taylor, information services manager at Alzheimer's Research UK, said: 'Loving your heart, staying sharp and keeping connected are key to protecting our brain health as we age. 'There are 14 established health and lifestyle risk factors for dementia, including lack of physical exercise, social isolation, and depression, which are linked to wellbeing. 'This study found that people over 50 who reported they felt happier and more fulfilled in life had a better memory over time. 'However, this research is observational – and more work is needed to understand how a positive wellbeing and memory are connected and whether this has a knock-on effect on dementia risk. 'Looking after our mental wellbeing plays an important part in our overall health. 'And it's never too late to start taking steps to keep our brains healthy throughout our lives and lessen the devastating impact of dementia.' Study co-author Dr Emily Willroth, assistant professor of psychological and brain sciences at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, said: 'Going forwards it would be fantastic if this research can build on the foundations of ongoing memory research to potentially inform strategies supporting cognitive health in ageing populations – that is the aim.'
