Tuesday, 20 April 2010

Biotechnology : Threat to bio-diversity?

Biotechnology is a "important tool" to ensure food security, but should ensure that there were no adverse effects on human health and animal biodiversity, parliament was informed Monday.

"There is general agreement within the relevant ministries that biotechnology is an important tool for increasing productivity of agriculture and ensuring food security," said Minister of Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh during question hour in Rajya Sabha.

"At the same time, ensure that there were no adverse effects on human and animal health and biodiversity," he said.

He said that the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) calls attention to resolving all issues related to Bt eggplant scientific "address.

Answering a question on whether the two members and a special guest to the GEAC was in disagreement with the approval given for the commercial production of Bt eggplant in the country.

Ramesh admitted it was true.

In this regard, noted that "the concern that the Bt eggplant could contaminate conventional crops and reduce crop genetic diversity of eggplant, because of gene flow.

However, Ramesh said, environmental safety studies conducted have not shown adverse effects of Bt eggplant

At the same time said that based on the opinions of various stakeholders during the public consultations organized by the Ministry established a moratorium on the commercialization of Bt eggplant by independent scientific studies on the safety of the product to determine from Given the point of their long-term effects on human health and the environment, including the genetic wealth of the rich eggplant that exist in our country. "

Norwegian Biotechnology Research Initiative

Challenges for society, the international focus, quality and cooperation at the national level are important considerations for the Council for Research and R & D community in planning a new initiative of biotechnology research in Norway.

Research groups are preparing for the next step in biotechnological research activities as the National Programme for Research in Functional Genomics in Norway (Fugue) reaches its end in 2011. In recent months the Research Council has sought the support of universities, institutes and industry to identify future research priorities.

Addressing the major challenges of society

"The main focus of the flight program on the technological aspects of research. In the next phase which will focus to a greater extent in how technology can meet the challenges facing society," says Seth Berg Steinar Hoc Advisory Council Research in Norway. He cites the climate and environment, health, food and nutrition, and population aging as examples of areas for research in this initiative. Mr. Seth Berg also emphasizes that the Norwegian biotechnology research, social problems from a global perspective.

Øystein RØNNINGEN, Special Adviser to the Council biofabricación Research Department, International Cooperation and Marketing, emphasized that research must fit into the current international approach. In his opinion, the EU Declaration of Lund in 2009 and the position of Biotechnology of the OECD as a major force behind the transition to an economy based on bio-economy here in 2030 to provide good guidance to further improve Norway's initiative in biotechnology.

High quality is essential for the international impact

Norway has high aspirations for participation in international research activities in biotechnology.

"The quality is critical if you want to succeed in international competition for research funding," said Ole-Jan Iversen, chairman of the board Fuge program.

Many points in the right direction: eight of the 21 Centers of Excellence • Excel Norway (SFF) research related to biotechnology, making the area around one of the strongest areas of research in terms of quality.

Biotechnology and life sciences?

If the drain followed by a program initiative that focuses more generally, what is known in international forums such as life sciences? This is a central theme in the current debate on biotechnology research in Norway.

A large number of actors of R & D agreement that this is a good direction to follow and I think that would help change the focus of the technology as the search for solutions to the challenges and reap the benefits of social resources already invested Norwegian biotechnology research. Moreover, there is a general consensus in the research community that Norway needs a special program for this type of research that have not been included in the existing thematic programs such as Food Program and of Aquaculture Program (Havbruk).

National strategy launched

Efforts to develop a national biotechnology strategy will be launched shortly under the auspices of the Ministry of Education and Research. Admission Council for Research on the development of new biotechnology initiative is part of the basis of a strategy.

Friday, 9 April 2010

Mesothelioma Cancer Prognosis

Generally, the most important variable in determining the prognosis and life expectancy of a patient mesothelioma cancer stage at diagnosis. Unfortunately, mesothelioma is more difficult to "stage" than other cancers. This is true for two reasons:

1) because its quite rare, and
2) because its initial symptoms are subtle, it is often advanced when diagnosed, it is difficult to stage.

Peritoneal mesothelioma in particular can be difficult to stage because, while pleural mesothelioma has multiple classification systems, pathologists have not yet developed a system of staging for peritoneal mesothelioma. Both pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma are very serious conditions and are not good prospects.

Since mesothelioma is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage, the statistics of five-year survival for early stage mesothelioma are generally unreliable. He also can not say with certainty which of the two types is a bad diagnostic peritoneal mesothelioma or pleural mesothelioma. Numerous studies show that peritoneal is more deadly and rapidly spreading mesothelioma pleural mesothelioma, but these studies are often contradicted by scholars who argue pleural mesothelioma is the most dangerous and difficult to deal with both. Usually, patients diagnosed with mesothelioma is peritoneal or pleural said they may have less than a year to live. However, according to researchers at major research centers around the world this is not necessarily the case. More recent studies indicate that patients with mesothelioma may, in some cases, have a better appearance than previously thought.

These studies suggest that about 10% of all mesothelioma patients will be alive 3 years later and about 5% will be alive 5 years later. However, if mesothelioma is detected early and treated, 50% survive 2 years and 20% of people survive 5 years.

In a clinical trial involving 120 patients with different types of pleural mesothelioma, all patients underwent pleural pneumonectomy (removal of the lung and pleura), followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy. 45% were alive two years later and 20% were still alive five years later.

In the same study, patients with sarcomatoid and mixed mesothelioma was not as well. Only 20% of these patients were alive two years later, and none of them have survived five years.

However, patients who had no cancer in the lymph nodes and tumors of epithelioid type is much better. Nearly 75% survived more than two years and nearly 40% were alive after five years.

Another larger study conducted in Italy examined the records of 4.5 million people diagnosed with mesothelioma. The survival rates were as follows: 24% of people with pleural mesothelioma and 34% diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma were still alive one year after diagnosis. Two other important studies, in addition to examination of comparable populations, also revealed similar results.

Another variable that is extremely important for a patient is seeing his general health at the time of diagnosis. In general, the health of a patient, the better he or she will react to treatments against cancer, and the chances of longer survival. Doctor's have a method of classifying patients' health and to give each patient a score at diagnosis. This method of classification is called a patient's condition "performance" (PS). The best score is 0 and indicates a patient can normally take care of himself or with the help of. A performance index of 1 indicates that the patient can do things, but may need assistance. The more deteriorated health of the patient, the higher the number.

The patient must always keep in mind that statistics such as those mentioned here are by no means definitive. Survival has much to do with a number of different factors, including health, the type of mesothelioma, the choice of treatment, and even a moral patient. The statistics listed here are too general for patients to get an accurate idea of their own look.

Patients should consider taking part in clinical trials. Although nobody can say exactly why patients who are treated in clinical trials do better on average than those treated conventionally. Maybe with all the testing and monitoring that is done, patients become more confident that everything that can possibly be done is done.