Podcast appearances and mentions of austin burt

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Gene drives: why the wait?, published by Metacelsus on September 19, 2022 on LessWrong. (Crossposted from my Substack) If you've been following biology news over the last few years, you might have heard of an interesting concept called a “gene drive”. The overall idea is to engineer a genetic allele that transmits itself to all offspring of a sexually reproducing organism, instead of being inherited by 50% as usual. This allele can also perform some other biological function (a relevant example is causing female sterility). A gene drive spreads through a population. From Esvelt et al. 2014 (CC-BY) In multiple trials, modern CRISPR-based gene drives have shown high efficacy in spreading through populations of caged Anopheles mosquitoes and completely suppressing their reproduction. Since Anopheles mosquitoes are the only ones that transmit malaria, causing their extinction would directly save hundreds of thousands of lives per year. Similar gene drives targeted to other types of mosquitoes (Aedes, Culex, etc.) could also eliminate diseases such as dengue fever, Zika virus, and West Nile virus. However, in spite of promising laboratory trials, gene drives have not yet been deployed in the wild. But why not? History of gene drives Although the technology to build effective gene drives did not exist until recently, the idea has been around for a while. In fact, gene drives occur naturally. Some well-known examples are transposons in flies, homing endonucleases in algae, and segregation distorters in mice. The idea of engineering a site-specific nuclease as a gene drive was developed as early as 2003, and in the decade that followed there were several efforts to develop these, with the labs of Austin Burt and Andrea Crisanti taking a lead role. These early systems showed some biased inheritance, but were not stable for more than a few generations. The advent of CRISPR as a gene editing system opened up a new opportunity. A paper in 2014 by Kevin Esvelt and co-workers proposed Cas9 as a nuclease for a gene drive, with several properties making it ideal for the task. It lacks repetitive sequences that caused problems with earlier gene drives using zinc-finger nucleases or TALENs. It has a very high efficiency of cutting. It is easy to target a new site by simply changing the guide RNA. Several nearby sites could be targeted at once, using different guide RNAs. From Esvelt et al. 2014 (CC-BY) CRISPR-based gene drives quickly gained popularity in the field, and by 2018 the Crisanti lab had demonstrated a working gene drive that could efficiently suppress populations of Anopheles gambiae by targeting an exon of the doublesex gene required for female development. At the time this was announced, I was studying at the University of Cambridge, and attended a public lecture by Prof. Crisanti about his lab's work. The overall mood in the room was almost euphoric: here was a technology that could save millions of lives, the best thing since Borlaug's wheat! Since that lecture, about 2 million people, mostly children in Africa, have died of malaria. Gene drive research has not stood still: the Crisanti lab tested their doublesex drive in larger cages of mosquitoes, and it again completely eliminated the populations. But given the millions of lives at stake, what's taking so long for this gene drive to be released? See also: the battle against malaria in Africa has stalled Why the wait? There are two good arguments against the immediate release of gene drives to eliminate mosquitoes. First, nuclease gene drives have the possibility of generating resistant alleles, making future gene drives not work against the same target. Therefore, it's important to get it right the first time, otherwise the potential of gene drives could be wasted. The goal of the large cage trials I mentioned earli...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Gene drives: why the wait?, published by Metacelsus on September 19, 2022 on LessWrong. (Crossposted from my Substack) If you've been following biology news over the last few years, you might have heard of an interesting concept called a “gene drive”. The overall idea is to engineer a genetic allele that transmits itself to all offspring of a sexually reproducing organism, instead of being inherited by 50% as usual. This allele can also perform some other biological function (a relevant example is causing female sterility). A gene drive spreads through a population. From Esvelt et al. 2014 (CC-BY) In multiple trials, modern CRISPR-based gene drives have shown high efficacy in spreading through populations of caged Anopheles mosquitoes and completely suppressing their reproduction. Since Anopheles mosquitoes are the only ones that transmit malaria, causing their extinction would directly save hundreds of thousands of lives per year. Similar gene drives targeted to other types of mosquitoes (Aedes, Culex, etc.) could also eliminate diseases such as dengue fever, Zika virus, and West Nile virus. However, in spite of promising laboratory trials, gene drives have not yet been deployed in the wild. But why not? History of gene drives Although the technology to build effective gene drives did not exist until recently, the idea has been around for a while. In fact, gene drives occur naturally. Some well-known examples are transposons in flies, homing endonucleases in algae, and segregation distorters in mice. The idea of engineering a site-specific nuclease as a gene drive was developed as early as 2003, and in the decade that followed there were several efforts to develop these, with the labs of Austin Burt and Andrea Crisanti taking a lead role. These early systems showed some biased inheritance, but were not stable for more than a few generations. The advent of CRISPR as a gene editing system opened up a new opportunity. A paper in 2014 by Kevin Esvelt and co-workers proposed Cas9 as a nuclease for a gene drive, with several properties making it ideal for the task. It lacks repetitive sequences that caused problems with earlier gene drives using zinc-finger nucleases or TALENs. It has a very high efficiency of cutting. It is easy to target a new site by simply changing the guide RNA. Several nearby sites could be targeted at once, using different guide RNAs. From Esvelt et al. 2014 (CC-BY) CRISPR-based gene drives quickly gained popularity in the field, and by 2018 the Crisanti lab had demonstrated a working gene drive that could efficiently suppress populations of Anopheles gambiae by targeting an exon of the doublesex gene required for female development. At the time this was announced, I was studying at the University of Cambridge, and attended a public lecture by Prof. Crisanti about his lab's work. The overall mood in the room was almost euphoric: here was a technology that could save millions of lives, the best thing since Borlaug's wheat! Since that lecture, about 2 million people, mostly children in Africa, have died of malaria. Gene drive research has not stood still: the Crisanti lab tested their doublesex drive in larger cages of mosquitoes, and it again completely eliminated the populations. But given the millions of lives at stake, what's taking so long for this gene drive to be released? See also: the battle against malaria in Africa has stalled Why the wait? There are two good arguments against the immediate release of gene drives to eliminate mosquitoes. First, nuclease gene drives have the possibility of generating resistant alleles, making future gene drives not work against the same target. Therefore, it's important to get it right the first time, otherwise the potential of gene drives could be wasted. The goal of the large cage trials I mentioned earli...

The malaria parasite kills nearly half a million every year - most of them children under the age of five. Bed nets, insecticides, and a new vaccines have all shown some potential to curb the disease, but what if it could be virtually wiped out altogether? Some early research using gene editing suggests that this might be a real possibility. Andrew Jack discusses the findings with Clive Cookson, FT science editor, and Austin Burt, professor of evolutionary genetics at Imperial College and a pioneer in the field.Contributors: John Murray Brown, production editor, Andrew Jack, global education editor, Clive Cookson, science editor, and Austin Burt, professor of evolutionary genetics at London's Imperial College. Producer: Fiona Symon See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In 2003, scientists at London's Imperial College hatched a somewhat out-there idea. They wanted to deal with the increasingly pesticide-resistant mosquitoes that were killing half a million people a year by spreading malaria in sub-Saharan Africa. What biologists Austin Burt and Andrea Crisanti proposed was nothing short of hacking the laws of heredity.

Michael and guest host Austin Burt discuss the Jimmy Butler rumors and what that could mean for the 2018-19 NBA season and offseason. They then talk about the Steelers continuing to struggle, Patrick Mahomes' rise as the Chiefs moved to 2-0. They breakdown the Eagles loss to the Buccaneers and what Carson Wentz's return means for their season. Then, they talk about the Jaguars dominant performance against the Patriots and if the Pats should be worried. They then preview some of the biggest games in Week 3 including Saints vs. Falcons and Chargers vs. Rams. 

A live recording of our educational podcast The Grammar of Science and Technology with Dr. Robert Trivers. Moderated by Dr. Terence Burnham. Robert Trivers is an evolutionary biologist who concentrates on social theory based on natural selection, and on evolutionary genetics—the twin backbones of biology. Early work concentrated on reciprocal altruism, the evolution of sex differences, the sex ratio at birth, parent-offspring conflict, kinship and sex ratio in social insects and the theory that self-deception evolves in the service of deceit. Later he showed that systems of female choice naturally evolve with a bias toward daughters. He then devoted fifteen years of his life (with Austin Burt) to reviewing the vast topic of selfish genetic elements in all species (except bacteria and viruses). These are genes that do not benefit the individual with the genes but spread because they reproduce faster within the individual. He recently published in 2011 Deceit and Self-deception—Fooling Yourself the Better to Fool Others (UK); The Folly of Fools (US). It is now translated into eleven languages, including Korean, Chinese and Taiwanese and is regarded as the definitive treatment of the subject. In 2015 he published a personal memoir—Wild Life: Adventures of an Evolutionary Biologist—translated into Spanish and soon Polish. Trivers currently lectures to the general public on all aspects of deceit and self-deception—including personal, business and societal. He lectures on the evolutionary biology of homosexuality and trans-sexuality and on explaining the genetic logic of “honor” killing, this according to a theory on the socio-genetic effects of frequent first cousin marriages. The program was moderated by Dr. Terence Burnham. Terry Burnham is an economist who studies the biological and evolutionary basis of human behavior. He has a Ph.D. in Business Economics from Harvard University, a Masters from the MIT Sloan School with a concentration in finance. HIs undergraduate degree is in biophysics from the University of Michigan. Prior to Chapman, Terry was a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, the University of Michigan, and the Harvard Business School. His non-academic experiences include working briefly for Goldman, Sachs & Co., being the chief financial officer for Progenics Pharmaceuticals , a start-up biotechnology company, and being the director of portfolio management for Acadian Asset Management, a quantitative equity manager.     The Grammar of Science and Technology In 1902, Albert Einstein gifted a book, Karl Pearson’s The Grammar of Science, to his colleagues to start a conversation about the universe. Expanding on that conversation, we invite a variety of experts to share the stories behind landmark advancements and discoveries in the fields of science and technology. Recorded in front of a live audience at the 1888 Center, this educational program is designed as a series of brief explorations into our natural world and the human ability to manipulate it. In partnership with Chapman University and Ingram Micro. 1888 Center programs are recorded and archived as a free educational resource on our website or with your favorite podcast app including Apple and Spotify. Each episode is designed to provide a unique platform for industry innovators to share stories about art, literature, music, history, science, or technology. Produced in partnership with Brew Sessions. Producer: Jon-Barrett Ingels and Kevin Staniec Moderator: Dr. Terence Burnham Manager: Sarah Becker Guest: Dr. Robert Trivers Audio: Brew Sessions Live

Professor Trivers graduated from Harvard in 1965 with a degree in history and earned a doctorate in biology from Harvard in 1972. He quickly gained an international reputation for applying Darwin's theories in dramatic new ways and is now one of the most influential evolutionary theorists alive today. His books include Genes in Conflict: The Biology of Selfish Genetic Elements (with Austin Burt), Natural Selection and Social Theory: Selected Papers of Robert Trivers, and Social Evolution. Trivers’s theories have inspired innovative research in animal behavior, genetics, anthropology, psychology, and other fields. “I consider Trivers one of the great thinkers in the history of Western thought,” says acclaimed language theorist Steven Pinker. “It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that he has provided a scientific explanation for the human condition: the intricately complicated and endlessly fascinating relationships that bind us to one another.” In 2007, the Royal Swedish Academy awarded Robert Trivers the Crawford Prize in Biosciences for "his fundamental analysis of social evolution, conflict and cooperation.” Professor Trivers discusses his book The Folly of Fools (Basic Books, 2011) as part of the ICLS Rethinking the Human Sciences workshop series, which is being sponsored by the Heyman Center for the Humanities. About The Folly of Fools: From viruses mimicking host behavior to humans misremembering (sometimes intentionally) the details of a quarrel, science has proven that the deceptive one can always outwit the masses. But to undertake this deception risks peril. Trivers has written an ambitious investigation into the evolutionary logic of lying and the costs of leaving it unchecked.