Podcast appearances and mentions of Frances Arnold

How do a guy from the streets in Bronx end up at MIT? "Well, it's a complicated story and It's filled with failure" John Parmentola   John Parmentola has built a highly distinguished career over four decades as an entrepreneur, inventor, innovator, a pioneer in the founding of new fields of research, and leader of complex research and development organizations with broad experience in the private sector, academia and high-level positions within the federal government and defense community.   In this episode we also talk about: What the Ice age data shows about the climate Parmentola invented a revolutionary new airship The importance of more scientific research And much more   Born in the Bronx, New York, Dr. Parmentola earned a bachelor's of  science in physics cum laude from Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, and  his doctorate in physics from MIT. Dr. Parmentola received the 2007 Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Executive from President George W. Bush for his service to the Department of the Army.  He was also an Air Force Intelligence Agency nominee for the 1996 R. V. Jones Award of the Central Intelligence Agency for his work in arms control verification, and a recipient of the Outstanding Civilian Service Award and the Superior Civilian Service Award for his many contributions to the U.S. Army.  He is an Honorary Member of the U.S. Army STs, a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a recipient of the U.S. Army 10 Greatest Inventions Award,  the Alfred Raymond Prize and the Sigma XI Research Award. He has  presented and published more than 500 speeches, papers, and articles in  science and technology policy and is the author of an authoritative book on space defense.   Currently, he is a consultant to one of the world's leading think tanks, The RAND Corporation,  where he works on defense, energy, and science and technology  assessment, strategy, and planning issues for government agencies, both  domestic and foreign.  He also does work on a volunteer basis for the National Academy of Sciences.   As Senior Vice President at General Atomics,  he led the California-based technology company's Energy and Advanced  Concepts Group, focusing on energy, defense, advanced computing, and  management of DIII-D National  Fusion Facility, the largest such facility in the United States (U.S.).  The Group's innovations include a revolutionary waste-burning compact advanced reactor (EM2), meltdown proof nuclear fuel, setting a new land-speed record with magnetic-levitation systems, and building the world's most powerful superconducting electromagnet for the largest fusion experimental facility in the world, ITER.   While at GA, Dr. Parmentola invented a revolutionary new airship that could provide wireless communications for 1.4 billion people worldwide currently without this capability. As a distinguished Senior Executive in the Pentagon, Dr. Parmentola served as Director for Research and Laboratory Management for  the U.S. Army, directing lab management policy for 12,000 employees,  infrastructure and security for all 21 Army laboratories and research,  development and engineering centers, and led Base Realignment and  Closure efforts for the Army. He also had responsibility for a  $1-billion combined budget for basic and applied research, manufacturing  technologies, small business innovative research, and high-performance  computing. During his tenure with the Army, Dr. Parmentola led the creation and development of several remarkable research centers.  One of them, the Institute of Creative Technologies at the University  of Southern California, won an Oscar for its technical contributions to  cinematography.  This is the work of Academy Awardee, Paul Debevec. Another, the Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies at the University of California Santa Barbara, supported the work of Frances Arnold, who won the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, the 5th woman in history to receive the prize.  Tasked by General Eric Shinseki, he led the creation of a new “Science Fair for the Nation,” eCybermission.   For the past 17 years, this competition has inspired middle and high  school students nationwide (including U.S. territories and possessions)  in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education.  Also,  while serving in the Pentagon, Dr. Parmentola conceived and led the  development of the world's first robotic dog that  could see and sniff explosives.  This remarkable robotic system saved  the lives of soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan and is one of the  Army's Ten Greatest Inventions.   As Chief Scientist, Dr. Parmentola served as the science and technology advisor to the Chief Financial Officer of the U.S. Department of Energy  (DOE), where he provided technical, budgetary, and programmatic advice  to DOE leaders for more than $7B in science and technology investments. He also co-founded the Advanced Systems and Concepts Office of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to address significant national challenges concerning the threat of weapons of mass destruction.  Based upon a request from Ambassador James Goodby, he led two major studies on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for President Clinton.  He received official confirmation from General John Shalikashvili that these studies contributed to the security of the nation He has been on the faculty of M.I.T., West Virginia University, a  Fellow of the John F. Kennedy School of Government and a Principal  Scientist for Strategic Command, Control, and Communications at the  MITRE Corporation.  While working for these organizations, he made contributions  to fundamental science in high-energy physics and nuclear physics,  strategic nuclear operations, and led the creation and development of  the world's most sensitive mobile gravity gradiometer for arms control verification applications. This device is used today for the exploration of oil and minerals and the discovery of diamond deposits. His work in the private sector includes the co-founding of Travel Media Corp. (TMC)  with his wife, Jane Langridge, serving as TMC's chief financial  officer, and chief technology officer for over 30 years. TMC specialized  in the production and distribution of in-room magazines for leading  hotels and resorts, including Marriott, Renaissance, Hyatt, Hilton,  Radisson and Westin throughout the Caribbean, Latin America and Hawaii.  TMC also created and published Expressions for American Express in  Spanish and Portuguese for their Latin and South American markets. Other  TMC clients included Air Aruba Airlines and Copa Airlines of Panama.   Born in the Bronx, New York, Dr. Parmentola earned a bachelor's of  science in physics cum laude from Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, and  his doctorate in physics from MIT. Dr. Parmentola received the 2007 Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Executive from President George W. Bush for his service to the Department of the Army.  He was also an Air Force Intelligence Agency nominee for the 1996 R. V. Jones Award of the Central Intelligence Agency for his work in arms control verification, and a recipient of the Outstanding Civilian Service Award and the Superior Civilian Service Award for his many contributions to the U.S. Army.  He is an Honorary Member of the U.S. Army STs, a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a recipient of the U.S. Army 10 Greatest Inventions Award,  the Alfred Raymond Prize and the Sigma XI Research Award. He has  presented and published more than 500 speeches, papers, and articles in  science and technology policy and is the author of an authoritative book on space defense.

In episode 92 of The Gradient Podcast, Daniel Bashir speaks to Kevin K. Yang.Kevin is a senior researcher at Microsoft Research (MSR) who works on problems at the intersection of machine learning and biology, with an emphasis on protein engineering. He completed his PhD at Caltech with Frances Arnold on applying machine learning to protein engineering. Before joining MSR, he was a machine learning scientist at Generate Biomedicines, where he used machine learning to optimize proteins.Have suggestions for future podcast guests (or other feedback)? Let us know here or reach us at editor@thegradient.pubSubscribe to The Gradient Podcast:  Apple Podcasts  | Spotify | Pocket Casts | RSSFollow The Gradient on TwitterOutline:* (00:00) Intro* (02:40) Kevin's background* (06:00) Protein engineering early in Kevin's career* (12:10) From research to real-world proteins: the process* (17:40) Generative models + pretraining for proteins* (22:47) Folding diffusion for protein structure generation* (30:45) Protein evolutionary dynamics and generative models of protein sequences* (40:03) Analogies and disanalogies between protein modeling and language models* (41:45) In representation learning* (45:50) Convolutions vs. transformers and inductive biases* (49:25) Pretraining tasks for protein structure* (51:45) More on representation learning for protein structure* (54:06) Kevin's thoughts on interpretability in deep learning for protein engineering* (56:50) Multimodality in protein engineering and future directions* (59:14) OutroLinks:* Kevin's Twitter and homepage* Research* Generative models + pre-training for proteins and chemistry* Broad intro to techniques in the space* Protein structure generation via folding diffusion* Protein sequence design with deep generative models (review)* Evolutionary velocity with protein language models predicts evolutionary dynamics of diverse proteins* Protein generation with evolutionary diffusion: sequence is all you need* ML for protein engineering* ML-guided directed evolution for protein engineering (review)* Learned protein embeddings for ML* Adaptive machine learning for protein engineering (review)* Multimodal deep learning for protein engineering Get full access to The Gradient at thegradientpub.substack.com/subscribe

An intimate collection of portraits of internationally renowned scientists and Nobel Prize winners, paired with interviews and personal stories. What makes a brilliant scientist? Who are the people behind the greatest discoveries of our time? Connecting art and science, photographer Herlinde Koelbl seeks the answers in this English translation of the German book Fascination of Science: 60 Encounters with Pioneering Researchers of Our Time (MIT Press, 2023), an indelible collection of portraits of and interviews with sixty pioneering scientists of the twenty-first century. Koelbl's approach is intimate and accessible, and her highly personal interviews with her subjects reveal the forces (as well as the personal quirks) that motivate the scientists' work; for example, one wakes up at 3 am because her mind is calm then, another says his best ideas come to him in the shower. These glimpses into the scientists' lives and thinking add untold texture in this up-to-the-minute survey of the activities and progress that are currently taking place in the broad field of the natural sciences. Koelbl's interview subjects include Nobel Prize winners Dan Shechtman, Frances Arnold, Carolyn Bertozzi, and cover scientific fields from astronomy, biochemistry, and quantum physics to stem-cell research and AI. Beautifully bringing together art, science, and the written word, Fascination of Science is an inspiring read that shows how creativity, obsession, persistence, and passion drive the pioneering researchers of our time. Herlinde Koelbl is a German photographic artist, author, and documentary filmmaker. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An intimate collection of portraits of internationally renowned scientists and Nobel Prize winners, paired with interviews and personal stories. What makes a brilliant scientist? Who are the people behind the greatest discoveries of our time? Connecting art and science, photographer Herlinde Koelbl seeks the answers in this English translation of the German book Fascination of Science: 60 Encounters with Pioneering Researchers of Our Time (MIT Press, 2023), an indelible collection of portraits of and interviews with sixty pioneering scientists of the twenty-first century. Koelbl's approach is intimate and accessible, and her highly personal interviews with her subjects reveal the forces (as well as the personal quirks) that motivate the scientists' work; for example, one wakes up at 3 am because her mind is calm then, another says his best ideas come to him in the shower. These glimpses into the scientists' lives and thinking add untold texture in this up-to-the-minute survey of the activities and progress that are currently taking place in the broad field of the natural sciences. Koelbl's interview subjects include Nobel Prize winners Dan Shechtman, Frances Arnold, Carolyn Bertozzi, and cover scientific fields from astronomy, biochemistry, and quantum physics to stem-cell research and AI. Beautifully bringing together art, science, and the written word, Fascination of Science is an inspiring read that shows how creativity, obsession, persistence, and passion drive the pioneering researchers of our time. Herlinde Koelbl is a German photographic artist, author, and documentary filmmaker. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An intimate collection of portraits of internationally renowned scientists and Nobel Prize winners, paired with interviews and personal stories. What makes a brilliant scientist? Who are the people behind the greatest discoveries of our time? Connecting art and science, photographer Herlinde Koelbl seeks the answers in this English translation of the German book Fascination of Science: 60 Encounters with Pioneering Researchers of Our Time (MIT Press, 2023), an indelible collection of portraits of and interviews with sixty pioneering scientists of the twenty-first century. Koelbl's approach is intimate and accessible, and her highly personal interviews with her subjects reveal the forces (as well as the personal quirks) that motivate the scientists' work; for example, one wakes up at 3 am because her mind is calm then, another says his best ideas come to him in the shower. These glimpses into the scientists' lives and thinking add untold texture in this up-to-the-minute survey of the activities and progress that are currently taking place in the broad field of the natural sciences. Koelbl's interview subjects include Nobel Prize winners Dan Shechtman, Frances Arnold, Carolyn Bertozzi, and cover scientific fields from astronomy, biochemistry, and quantum physics to stem-cell research and AI. Beautifully bringing together art, science, and the written word, Fascination of Science is an inspiring read that shows how creativity, obsession, persistence, and passion drive the pioneering researchers of our time. Herlinde Koelbl is a German photographic artist, author, and documentary filmmaker. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An intimate collection of portraits of internationally renowned scientists and Nobel Prize winners, paired with interviews and personal stories. What makes a brilliant scientist? Who are the people behind the greatest discoveries of our time? Connecting art and science, photographer Herlinde Koelbl seeks the answers in this English translation of the German book Fascination of Science: 60 Encounters with Pioneering Researchers of Our Time (MIT Press, 2023), an indelible collection of portraits of and interviews with sixty pioneering scientists of the twenty-first century. Koelbl's approach is intimate and accessible, and her highly personal interviews with her subjects reveal the forces (as well as the personal quirks) that motivate the scientists' work; for example, one wakes up at 3 am because her mind is calm then, another says his best ideas come to him in the shower. These glimpses into the scientists' lives and thinking add untold texture in this up-to-the-minute survey of the activities and progress that are currently taking place in the broad field of the natural sciences. Koelbl's interview subjects include Nobel Prize winners Dan Shechtman, Frances Arnold, Carolyn Bertozzi, and cover scientific fields from astronomy, biochemistry, and quantum physics to stem-cell research and AI. Beautifully bringing together art, science, and the written word, Fascination of Science is an inspiring read that shows how creativity, obsession, persistence, and passion drive the pioneering researchers of our time. Herlinde Koelbl is a German photographic artist, author, and documentary filmmaker. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

An intimate collection of portraits of internationally renowned scientists and Nobel Prize winners, paired with interviews and personal stories. What makes a brilliant scientist? Who are the people behind the greatest discoveries of our time? Connecting art and science, photographer Herlinde Koelbl seeks the answers in this English translation of the German book Fascination of Science: 60 Encounters with Pioneering Researchers of Our Time (MIT Press, 2023), an indelible collection of portraits of and interviews with sixty pioneering scientists of the twenty-first century. Koelbl's approach is intimate and accessible, and her highly personal interviews with her subjects reveal the forces (as well as the personal quirks) that motivate the scientists' work; for example, one wakes up at 3 am because her mind is calm then, another says his best ideas come to him in the shower. These glimpses into the scientists' lives and thinking add untold texture in this up-to-the-minute survey of the activities and progress that are currently taking place in the broad field of the natural sciences. Koelbl's interview subjects include Nobel Prize winners Dan Shechtman, Frances Arnold, Carolyn Bertozzi, and cover scientific fields from astronomy, biochemistry, and quantum physics to stem-cell research and AI. Beautifully bringing together art, science, and the written word, Fascination of Science is an inspiring read that shows how creativity, obsession, persistence, and passion drive the pioneering researchers of our time. Herlinde Koelbl is a German photographic artist, author, and documentary filmmaker. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

An intimate collection of portraits of internationally renowned scientists and Nobel Prize winners, paired with interviews and personal stories. What makes a brilliant scientist? Who are the people behind the greatest discoveries of our time? Connecting art and science, photographer Herlinde Koelbl seeks the answers in this English translation of the German book Fascination of Science: 60 Encounters with Pioneering Researchers of Our Time (MIT Press, 2023), an indelible collection of portraits of and interviews with sixty pioneering scientists of the twenty-first century. Koelbl's approach is intimate and accessible, and her highly personal interviews with her subjects reveal the forces (as well as the personal quirks) that motivate the scientists' work; for example, one wakes up at 3 am because her mind is calm then, another says his best ideas come to him in the shower. These glimpses into the scientists' lives and thinking add untold texture in this up-to-the-minute survey of the activities and progress that are currently taking place in the broad field of the natural sciences. Koelbl's interview subjects include Nobel Prize winners Dan Shechtman, Frances Arnold, Carolyn Bertozzi, and cover scientific fields from astronomy, biochemistry, and quantum physics to stem-cell research and AI. Beautifully bringing together art, science, and the written word, Fascination of Science is an inspiring read that shows how creativity, obsession, persistence, and passion drive the pioneering researchers of our time. Herlinde Koelbl is a German photographic artist, author, and documentary filmmaker. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Stereo Chemistry's longtime host Kerri Jansen is stepping down from her role as executive producer of the podcast. Jansen has been with Stereo Chemistry since it began in 2018, and has played an integral role in the production of C&EN's flagship podcast. In this bonus episode, Jansen talks with C&EN's interim coeditors for audio & video, Ariana Remmel and Gina Vitale, about some of her favorite episodes from the Stereo Chemistry archives. Subscribe to Stereo Chemistry now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. A transcript of this episode is now available at https://cenm.ag/jansen-podcast. Listen to some of Kerri's favorite Stereo Chemistry episodes: How helium shortages have changed science Lithium mining's water use sparks bitter conflicts and novel chemistry Nobel laureates Frances Arnold and Jennifer Doudna on prizes, pandemics, and Jimmy Page A world without Rosalind Franklin Why chemists are excited by exascale computing There's more to James Harris's story Credits Producers/hosts: Ariana Remmel, Gina Vitale; Audio editor: Ariana Remmel, Mark Feuer DiTusa; Story editor: Michael McCoy, Krystal Vasquez; Copyeditor: Brianna Barbu; Logo design: William A. Ludwig; Episode artwork: Shutterstock/C&EN Staff; Music (in order of appearance): “Deer Dance” by Ian Post, “Hot Chocolate” by Aves, and “Sunbeam” by EFGR. Contact Stereo Chemistry: Tweet at us @cenmag or email cenfeedback@acs.org.

Nobel Prize recipient Frances Arnold joins Tim to talk about winning a Nobel Prize honor for her pioneering work in “directed evolution,” which harnesses the power of evolution to enhance products throughout society – from biofuels and pharmaceuticals, to agriculture, chemicals, paper products and more. Directed evolution was in the news this week tied to Covid jab research. We talk with Frances about her journey and her work that is changing the world for the better. This episode was originally released November 5, 2018. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Encore_-_Frances_Arnold_Nobel_Recipient_Pioneered_Directed_Evolution.mp3 Since the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was first awarded in 1901, 117 years ago, only four women had won the honor, and in October, American Frances Arnold became the fifth. The professor of chemical engineering, bioengineering and biochemistry at the California Institute of Technology, received the honor for her pioneering work in “directed evolution.” Frances's work centers on the directed evolution of enzymes, proteins that serve as catalysts for chemical reactions that take place in living organisms, animals and people. In its most simple form, the process focuses on harnessing the power of natural evolution to solve problems for society. Frances is the Linus Pauling Professor of Chemical Engineering, Bioengineering and Biochemistry at Caltech. Today, directed evolution is used in research laboratories around the world to create things from laundry detergents to biofuels to pharmaceuticals. Enzymes created with through this process have been able to replace some toxic chemicals traditionally used in industry. Frances shares the prize with George Smith of the University of Missouri, who created a “phage display” process for protein evolution, and Gregory Winter of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in the United Kingdom, who used phage display for antibody evolution. Arnold was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Her undergraduate degree in mechanical and aerospace engineering is from Princeton University. Her graduate degree in chemical engineering is from UC Berkeley. She has been at Caltech since 1986, first as a visiting associate, then as an assistant professor, and progressing to professor in 1996. In 2017, she became the Linus Pauling Professor. She became the director of the Donna and Benjamin M. Rosen Bioengineering Center at Caltech in 2013. Frances is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society, and is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Royal Academy of Engineering. How Directed Evolution Works Directed evolution is similar to how animal breeders mate cats or dogs to create hybrids or new breeds of animal. To conduct directed evolution mutations are induced to DNA, or a gene, which “encodes” a particular enzyme. That mutated enzyme, along with other thousands, are produced and tested to what Frances calls a desired trait. The preferred enzymes are selected, and the process continues until the enzymes are working to achieve a desired outcome or solution. “I copy nature's design process. There is tremendous beauty and complexity of the biological world, but it all comes about through this one, simple, beautiful design algorithm.” – Frances Arnold Links Frances Arnold Wins 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Caltech Frances H. Arnold Group Caltech scientist is among 3 awarded Nobel Prize in chemistry for sparking ‘a revolution in evolution', LA Times The Latest: Nobel chemistry winner credits team at Caltech, Washington Post Nobel winner overcame personal loss, cancer, and being a woman, NBC News

Förändring är svårt. Särskilt om det man vill förändra är komplexa molekyler. Men det finns en process i naturen som förändrar komplexa molekyler hela tiden – evolutionen. Nobelpristagaren Frances Arnold berättar här om hur man kan använda det naturliga urvalet som ett verktyg för att skapa nya ämnen - och om hur nyckeln till både lyckad evolution och lyckad forskning är mångfald. . Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nobel Prize winning chemist Frances Arnold left home at 15 and went to school ‘only when she felt like it'. She disagreed with her parents about the Vietnam war and drove big yellow taxis in Pittsburgh to pay the rent. Decades later, after several changes of direction (from aerospace engineer to bio-tech pioneer), she invented a radical new approach to engineering enzymes. Rather than try to design industrial enzymes from scratch (which she considered to be an impossible task), Frances decided to let Nature do the work. ‘I breed enzymes like other people breed cats and dogs' she says. While some colleagues accused her of intellectual laziness, industry jumped on her ideas and used them in the manufacture of everything from laundry detergents to pharmaceuticals. She talks to Jim Al-Khalili about her journey from taxi driver to Nobel Prize, personal tragedy mid-life and why advising the White House is much harder than doing scientific research.

Nobel Prize-winning chemist Frances Arnold left home at 15 and went to school ‘only when she felt like it'. She disagreed with her parents about the Vietnam War and drove big yellow taxis in Pittsburgh to pay the rent. Decades later, after several changes of direction (from aerospace engineer to biotech pioneer), she invented a radical new approach to engineering enzymes. Rather than try to design industrial enzymes from scratch (which she considered to be an impossible task), Frances decided to let Nature do the work. ‘I breed enzymes like other people breed cats and dogs' she says. While some colleagues accused her of intellectual laziness, industry jumped on her ideas and used them in the manufacture of everything from laundry detergents to pharmaceuticals. She talks to Jim Al-Khalili about her journey from taxi driver to Nobel Prize, personal tragedy in midlife and why advising the White House is much harder than doing scientific research. Producer: Anna Buckley

We discuss Bruce's career from being pre-med and getting into research while at Washington University in St. Louis to working at Intrexon and going to grad school at Caltech afterwards. While at Intrexon, he saw the need for better tools to scale biology and decided to go to Caltech to pursue his ideas. At Caltech, he was advised by Prof. Frances Arnold, who pioneered the protein engineering technique "directed evolution" that eventually led to her winning the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2018. While a member of the Arnold Lab, Bruce was part of a group bringing machine learning to protein engineering and directed evolution; over the course of 5 years, Bruce did some incredible work in grad school. A key paper was published in Cell around machine learning-assisted directed protein evolution: https://www.cell.com/cell-systems/fulltext/S2405-4712(21)00286-6 You can also read his graduate dissertation here: https://thesis.library.caltech.edu/14631/ Beyond his research and numerous papers, we also discuss the broader field of protein engineering and ML and his perspective on new opportunities in comp bio and protein design. On top of all of this great work, Bruce along with several people from the Arnold Lab maintain one of the best documented GitHub repos in bio: https://github.com/fhalab/MLDE. A favorite quote of mine after speaking with Bruce is around his goal to build tools that "are accessible to as many people as possible."

Context is king: whether in language, ecology, culture, history, economics, or chemistry. One of the core teachings of complexity science is that nothing exists in isolation — especially when it comes to systems in which learning, memory, or emergent behaviors play a part. Even though this (paradoxically) limits the universality of scientific claims, it also lets us draw analogies between the context-dependency of one phenomenon and others: how protein folding shapes HIV evolution is meaningfully like the way that growing up in a specific neighborhood shapes educational and economic opportunity; the paths through a space of all possible four-letter words are constrained in ways very similar to how interactions between microbes impact gut health; how we make sense both depends on how we've learned and places bounds on what we're capable of seeing.Welcome to COMPLEXITY, the official podcast of the Santa Fe Institute. I'm your host, Michael Garfield, and every other week we'll bring you with us for far-ranging conversations with our worldwide network of rigorous researchers developing new frameworks to explain the deepest mysteries of the universe.This week on Complexity, we talk to Yale evolutionary biologist C. Brandon Ogbunu (Twitter, Google Scholar, GitHub) about the importance of environment to the activity and outcomes of complex systems — the value of surprise, the constraints of history, the virtue and challenge of great communication, and much more. Our conversation touches on everything from using word games to teach core concepts in evolutionary theory, to the ways that protein quality control co-determines the ability of pathogens to evade eradication, to the relationship between human artists, algorithms, and regulation in the 21st Century. Brandon works not just in multiple scientific domains but as the author of a number of high-profile blogs exploring the intersection of science and culture — and his boundaryless fluency shines through in a discussion that will not be contained, about some of the biggest questions and discoveries of our time.If you value our research and communication efforts, please subscribe to Complexity Podcast wherever you prefer to listen, rate and review us at Apple Podcasts, and/or consider making a donation at santafe.edu/give. You'll find plenty of other ways to engage with us at santafe.edu/engage.Thank you for listening!Join our Facebook discussion group to meet like minds and talk about each episode.Podcast theme music by Mitch Mignano.Follow us on social media:Twitter • YouTube • Facebook • Instagram • LinkedInDiscussed in this episode:“I do my science biographically…I find a personal connection to the essence of the question.”– C. Brandon Ogbunugafor on RadioLab"Environment x everything interactions: From evolution to epidemics and beyond"Brandon's February 2022 SFI Seminar (YouTube Video + Live Twitter Coverage)“A Reflection on 50 Years of John Maynard Smith's ‘Protein Space'”C. Brandon Ogbunugafor in GENETICS“Collective Computing: Learning from Nature”David Krakauer presenting at the Foresight Institute in 2021 (with reference to Rubik's Cube research)“Optimal Policies Tend to Seek Power”Alexander Matt Turner, Logan Smith, Rohin Shah, Andrew Critch, Prasad Tadepalli in arXiv“A New Take on John Maynard Smith's Concept of Protein Space for Understanding Molecular Evolution”C. Brandon Ogbunugafor, Daniel Hartl in PLOS Computational Biology“The 300 Most Common Words”by Bruce Sterling“The Host Cell's Endoplasmic Reticulum Proteostasis Network Profoundly Shapes the Protein Sequence Space Accessible to HIV Envelope”Jimin Yoon, Emmanuel E. Nekongo, Jessica E. Patrick, Angela M. Phillips, Anna I. Ponomarenko, Samuel J. Hendel, Vincent L. Butty, C. Brandon Ogbunugafor, Yu-Shan Lin, Matthew D. Shoulders in bioRxiv“Competition along trajectories governs adaptation rates towards antimicrobial resistance”C. Brandon Ogbunugafor, Margaret J. Eppstein in Nature Ecology & Evolution“Scientists Need to Admit What They Got Wrong About COVID”C. Brandon Ogbunugafor in WIRED“Deconstructing higher-order interactions in the microbiota: A theoretical examination”Yitbarek Senay, Guittar John, Sarah A. Knutie, C. Brandon Ogbunugafor in bioRxiv“What Makes an Artist in the Age of Algorithms?”C. Brandon Ogbunugafor in WIREDNot mentioned in this episode but still worth exploring:“Part of what I was getting after with Blackness had to do with authoring ideas that are edgy or potentially threatening. That as a scientist, you can generate ideas in the name of research, in the name of breaking new ground, that may stigmatize you. That may kick you out of the club, so to speak, because you're not necessarily following the herd.”– Physicist Stephon Alexander in an interview with Brandon at Andscape“How Afrofuturism Can Help The World Mend”C. Brandon Ogbunugafor in WIRED“The COVID-19 pandemic amplified long-standing racial disparities in the United States criminal justice system”Brennan Klein, C. Brandon Ogbunugafor, Benjamin J. Schafer, Zarana Bhadricha, Preeti Kori, Jim Sheldon, Nitish Kaza, Emily A. Wang, Tina Eliassi-Rad, Samuel V. Scarpino, Elizabeth Hinton in medRxivAlso mentioned:Simon Conway Morris, Geoffrey West, Samuel Scarpino, Rick & Morty, Stuart Kauffman, Frank Salisbury, Stephen Jay Gould, Frances Arnold, John Vervaeke, Andreas Wagner, Jennifer Dunne, James Evans, Carl Bergstrom, Jevin West, Henry Gee, Eugene Shakhnovich, Rafael Guerrero, Gregory Bateson, Simon DeDeo, James Clerk Maxwell, Melanie Moses, Kathy Powers, Sara Walker, Michael Lachmann, and many others...

So much to talk about this week! All the relevant stories are linked in the description below! Non-COVID-19 Stories: CAN DOCTORS PRACTICE WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES? VIRAL PHOTO REVEALS A CONTENTIOUS DEBATE In a 2016 study, researchers found that in places where that question was asked as part of the licensing process, physicians were also least likely to seek treatment for their mental health. Some 40 percent of doctors said they would avoid getting mental-health care due to potential “repercussions,” the study authors write. Billionaire Mark Cuban Opens Online Pharmacy To Provide Affordable Generic Drugs The online pharmacy's prices for generics factor in a 15% margin on top of actual manufacturer prices and a $3 pharmacist fee, the statement said. The markup on generics average “at least” 100%, the MCCPDC said, while the Wall Street Journal reports in some cases it exceeds 1,000%. $3 billion, Hal Barron and other biotech veterans launch a disease ‘reversal' company "A who's who of top researchers will also be associated with the company...including Nobel laureates Frances Arnold, Jennifer Doudna, and Shinya Yamanaka." For doctors drowning in emails, one health system's new strategy: pay for replies Since November, doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and a handful of other UCSF clinicians have been able to bill payers for patient emails that require medical evaluation or more than a few minutes to respond, said Byron, also UCSF's associate chief medical information officer. UCSF recently expanded the system to all specialties after piloting it for dermatologists. The Top Use Cases for VR in Healthcare 2022 COVID-19 Stories: Literally EVERYTHING You Need to Know about Omicron Via Dr. Toppol. The kids are not alright: Data suggests 10% of children with COVID-19 become "long-haulers" Estimates vary, but research that has been done on earlier variants — prior to the arrival of Omicron — suggests between 10 and 30 per cent of people who get COVID-19 may have symptoms that persist beyond four weeks. If that holds true with the Omicron variant, Australia could see hundreds of thousands of people experiencing persistent symptoms and long COVID. Biden plan to ship 500 million coronavirus test kits transforms Postal Service into relief agency

Natália Teruel é Doutoranda no Departamento de Farmacologia e Fisiologia da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Montréal e Diretora de Pesquisa no Instituto Tekoá https://www.instagram.com/institutotekoa/. O vídeo desta entrevista está em https://youtu.be/C5dZlmtKXbk. Natália é primeira autora de “Modelling conformational state dynamics and its role on infection for SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein variants” https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009286. Seu perfil no Google Scholar é https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=GA57GpIAAAAJ&hl=pt-BR. Mulheres que inspiraram Natália: Frances Arnold - Nobel de Química https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Arnold ; Merari de Fátima Ramires Ferrari https://www.ib.usp.br/genetica-e-biologia-evolutiva/info/corpo-docente/137-merari-de-fatima-ramires-ferrari.html Indicações da Natália: livro A Insustentável Leveza do Ser, Milan Kundera, livros de Gabriel Garcia Marques, Machado de Assis Série O Gambito da Rainha Podcast Física Popular Brasileira https://spoti.fi/3kEzqM3 Adolfo relembrou da indicação Radioactive https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6017756/ Os entrevistadores deste episódio foram Adolfo Neto e Maria Claudia Emer. A abertura do episódio foi feita por Kathleen Danielly Souza Lins. Kathleen foi também a Podcaster por um Dia deste episódio. O Emílias Podcast é um projeto de extensão da UTFPR Curitiba. Descubra tudo sobre o programa Emílias - Armação em Bits em https://linktr.ee/Emilias.

This week Harry speaks with Richard Fox, a computational biologist whose work at two life sciences startups, Inscripta and Infinome, is helping to automate and vastly scale up the process of engineering an organism's genome to evoke new functions or uncover important genetic pathways.With the discovery of the genetic scissors known as CRISPR-Cas9 in 2012, biologists gained the ability to make precise cuts in the genes of almost any organism. For genetic engineers, what used to be a slow, labor-intensive, manual process was suddenly easy. It was like jumping from a medieval monastery where all the monks write their manuscripts longhand into a world where everyone has a word processor on their desktop. But the first generation of CRISPR technology was still pretty limited. To continue with the word processing metaphor: you could use CRISPR to change individual letters in a text, but you couldn’t use it to modify entire words, sentences, or paragraphs.At Inscripta, Fox helped to turn CRISPR into a fully featured editing program. The company sells an automated device that can take bacteria or yeast cells and make thousands of programmed edits to different parts of their genomes in parallel. For researchers, a tool like that can vastly speed up the process of figuring out the relationship between an organism’s genotype and its phenotype. And that can help bioengineers create useful new strains of microorganisms—or uncover the genetic pathways that lead to disease in higher organisms like plants and humans.And now Fox has left Inscripta to start a new synthetic biology company called Infinome. It’s a service provider that works with customers to design new types of organisms through directed evolution. The idea is to take Inscripta’s technology and add the power of data science and machine learning to speed up what Fox calls the “design, built, test, learn” cycle to create better custom organisms faster. The implications are mind-boggling—but in this episode Fox walks through the ideas step by step. Please rate and review MoneyBall Medicine on Apple Podcasts! Here's how to do that from an iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch:• Launch the “Podcasts” app on your device. If you can’t find this app, swipe all the way to the left on your home screen until you’re on the Search page. Tap the search field at the top and type in “Podcasts.” Apple’s Podcasts app should show up in the search results.• Tap the Podcasts app icon, and after it opens, tap the Search field at the top, or the little magnifying glass icon in the lower right corner.• Type MoneyBall Medicine into the search field and press the Search button.• In the search results, click on the MoneyBall Medicine logo.• On the next page, scroll down until you see the Ratings & Reviews section. Below that, you’ll see five purple stars.• Tap the stars to rate the show.• Scroll down a little farther. You’ll see a purple link saying “Write a Review.”• On the next screen, you’ll see the stars again. You can tap them to leave a rating if you haven’t already.• In the Title field, type a summary for your review.• In the Review field, type your review.• When you’re finished, click Send.• That’s it, you’re done. Thanks!TRANSCRIPTWith the discovery of the genetic scissors known as CRISPR-Cas9 in 2012, biologists gained the ability to make precise cuts in the genes of almost any organism. For genetic engineers, what used to be a slow, labor-intensive, manual process was suddenly easy. It was like jumping from a medieval monastery where all the monks write their manuscripts longhand into a world where everyone has a word processor on their desktop.  But the first generation of CRISPR technology was still pretty limited. To continue with the word processing metaphor: you could use CRISPR to change individual letters in a text, but you couldn’t use it to modify entire words, sentences, or paragraphs.My guest this week is the computational biologist Richard Fox, and he spent years working at a company called Inscripta that’s working to turn CRISPR into a fully featured editing program. Inscripta sells an automated device that can take bacteria or yeast cells and make thousands of programmed edits to different parts of their genomes in parallel. For researchers, a tool like that can vastly speed up the process of figuring out the relationship between an organism’s genotype and its phenotype. And that can help bioengineers create useful new strains of microorganisms…—or uncover the genetic pathways that lead to disease in higher organisms like plants and humans.And now Fox has left Inscripta to start a new synthetic biology company called Infinome. It’s a service provider that works with customers to design new types of organisms through directed evolution. The idea is to take Inscripta’s technology and add the power of data science and machine learning to speed up what Fox calls the “design, built, test, learn” cycle to create better custom organisms faster. The implications are enormous, I’d even say mind-boggling. But in our recent conversation Richard took the time to walk me through the idea step by step. So let’s get straight to it. Harry Glorikian: Richard, welcome to the show. Richard Fox: Thanks Harry. It's great to be here. Harry Glorikian: Richard, I was putting together my notes, like on all the different things you've done and I'm like, Oh my God. I feel like I haven't done anything with my life relative to what you've like accomplished. I mean, you started out as a nuclear engineer, but then you make this complete  turn into biological world. I'm making that assumption. I think you said somewhere, you read a book I can't remember which book it was, that totally like flipped you into that direction. And then it was bioinformatics protein engineering. And then now gene editing. How, what, tell me a little bit about that.Richard Fox: How did I get there? Yeah, no, that's that's right. It was a meandering path, especially early on, but then the last I'd say couple of decades has been pretty consistently in the field of biotechnology, especially protein engineering. And now metabolic construct engineering. We'll talk a good bit,  I'm sure today. Yeah, I guess, sort of to rewind, you're right. I did study nuclear engineering in college and I was working for the US Navy actually as an analyst, civilian. And I was on a ship actually out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. And I had just been sort of spending my time reading a book called The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. And it completely transformed the way I thought about the world, my place in the world, how evolution worked, and I was completely smitten with the concept of evolution and what it could do. The complexity that it could craft, that nature has done over billions of years. And from that moment on, I had a deep interest in evolutionary biology and the principles of that really elegant algorithm to optimize exceedingly complex systems.So it wasn't long after that, that I found myself ultimately, working for a biotechnology company. To be able to practice some of the principles  of evolution, although at a much smaller scale, at least. Harry Glorikian: Yeah. It's funny when you said the elegant algorithm and I'm like, wow. I wonder if there's gotta be a lot of them, right, if you think about evolutionary biology. But I think the company you're talking about is Codexis, was the one that you went to.Richard Fox: Yup. That's right. Harry Glorikian: You worked on protein engineering, drug design, but relying on bioinformatics, statistical analysis, machine learning, evolutionary programming, sort of packing all those things together. Like, how did you bootstrap yourself into a position where you understood like all of these different components? Richard Fox: That's a great question. I think it's like a lot of folks who take a keen interest in something. My career has pretty much been dominated by being interested in things and being passionate and being curious. And so those led to all of the experiences that I've had really that's, that's the short answer. It, it was driven by this interest in biology, but because I had in my studies in nuclear engineering that we talked about earlier, I had pretty much always worked on the computational side of things.I was not good in the lab. I've never been good in the lab. I'm always amazed at what the scientists who can actually generate the data that I get to play with can do it's stunning. But I get to sit and I get to play with that data. And I, for many, many years written software and algorithms to process that kind of data. And so that sort of was a natural, natural fit for me. Harry Glorikian: So, just so people can sort of get an evolution of where you were, because we're eventually going to get to where you are now, but, but so sort of what was the main focus of Codexis or the special sauce? Richard Fox: Yeah. Great question. So actually Codexis was a spin-out from a company called Maxygen and Maxygen started if I remember correctly in the mid-90s with the invention of the technology a gentleman by the name of Ken Stemmer. He was really one of the pioneers in the field called directed evolution which ultimately went on to receive a Nobel prize that Frances Arnold won in 2018 for that field. Ken Stemmer was one of the great luminaries in the field early on. And he had developed this technology that would allow you to do evolution in vitro in the lab. Primarily around small or sequences evolving genes, proteins enzymes. And so that core technology was called DNA shuffling and it was very much all the main principles of evolution. So mutation, recombination, selection, all was being carried out in vitro. Very high throughput, very fast to evolve proteins and enzymes for different properties.And so Maxygen, the founding company in the mid-90s got started and then in the early 2000s took that core technology and licensed it out to different subsidiaries. And the one that I was associated with, I started with Maxygen, but then I went with the Codexis  subsidiary, and they use that DNA shuffling technology to work with enzymes, primarily for pharmaceutical manufacturing processes.Harry Glorikian: But, I mean, you invented, I think it was called proSAR while you were there, it was sort of to sort through protein mutation faster.  Should we have seen that as  foreshadowing to where you've sort of progressed to and where you are today?Richard Fox: Yeah, I think so, actually it's interesting before I had even joined Maxygen, so it turns out my wife was a scientist at Maxygen. When we first started dating, she told me about this really interesting company that she worked for and she described, it was evolution in the lab. And I was, of course already keenly interested in evolution as we talked about earlier.And I think to this day, my wife wonders if I married her for directed evolution! Of course she's a wonderful person, but I very clearly remember, or before I even came to Maxygen given the background I had in software and algorithms. I understood what they were doing in the lab. At least as much as my wife would describe it. And like most people with a background that I had, statistics and optimization, it's sort of a natural, it’s sort of an obvious thing that you would want to do is given, given genotype and phenotype data. How can you search through that space more efficiently by trying to model the system?This is something that statisticians have done, for decades. And it was just sort of being in the right place at the right time. So when I, when I then went to Maxygen I, and others, were very interested in applying these, these principles to the searching and seeking space.Harry Glorikian: Yeah. And if you think about, computational capabilities, that whole space has changed, dramatically compared to what we could do in the ‘90s. But, and then you went on to, if I've got my history correctly, Inscripta. And tell the world a little bit about Inscripta, because I'm not sure how well it's understood or how well the company is known. Richard Fox: Yeah. So Inscripta is a life science tools company. So the easiest way to think about is they want to do for writing what Illumina has done for reading. So they want to be able to, at scale, intervene in the genome. Initially they're working in microbes. Eventually they will be having a mammalian capabilities as well. But they want to be able to interrogate the genome at scale. They want to offer tools, benchtop tools, and reagents and software to be able to essentially automate and scale up as much as possible the editing process so that researchers can focus on their research goals and questions. Which is, if I intervene here and there and everywhere, as the case may be with these capabilities, and then being able to test a phenotype, what is the result of those interventions?It's hard to overstate how transformational that is, right? I mean, genome biology for years has more or less been dominated as an observational science with this ability to go and intervene at scale. You really, for the first time ever are turning it into an interventional science where you can really get at causality by making the changes in the genome rather than just reading them passively.Harry Glorikian: I mean, if, if you can make the changes you want on human, the industrial application is unbelievable. I mean, the things that you could, right, design and then have that produce something that is for some particular downstream use, would be incredible now. But you guys weren't using, I think you guys said you decided not to use the CAS9 approach. You use something called I think it was MAD7. So how, how did, what was, what was the motivation behind? Richard Fox: Yeah, so it's still straight up CRISPR. It's just it's with a different nuclease.  So early on Inscripta was looking at how to enable this high throughput, massively parallel editing capability. The inventor of the technology, his name is Andrew Garst, who was a co-founder of Incripta, and now he's actually a co-founder of new company that that I started with him and two other gentlemen, and that core technology to be able to do high throughput CRISPR is based on the standard editing technology that centrally involves a nuclease. And Inscripta early on, was looking at the landscape around licensing and enabling researchers and because of some of the issues around licensing of the nucleases that were  out there, Inscripta made a concerted effort to go in and discover and develop a different nuclease. So it could still do the basic process of finding DNA and cutting it in the right place. But the advantage of using this other enzyme is this, that Inscripta offers it basically free to the world to use. So that they're not encumbered by some of the more onerous licensing terms that are out there. Harry Glorikian: So just so everybody kind of understands Inscripta, like, what was the process let's say before Inscripta. And then now if you utilize something like the Inscripta platform.Richard Fox: ah, great question. So CRISPR works. It's amazing. And it well-deserved the Nobel prize in 2020. It is truly stunning its precision and its efficiency. But it's still fairly low throughput. So if you want to go in and you want to make a change to a genome, you have to design your sequences so that they are targeted to the right location. Then the nuclease performs the cut and then there's some repair process to usually insert the sequence that you want. And that can be done. by hand manually that design process can be scaled up obviously with computational tools, but you'd still be limited physically to doing only a small number of changes.Just the molecular biology associated with bringing all the right reagents together is sort of can be a laborious process. If you're making one or five or 10 changes, that's not too bad. But if you want to make hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, that's a different proposition.Harry Glorikian: Yeah. I was just thinking like, I'm just thinking, like even doing one or 10, like, and doing them. Right. And then now you're talking about hundreds or thousands and doing them, it’s a completely different order. So if that's what Inscripta does, then I almost, answered my own question of like…your data scientist group to plan out what you're going to do has got to be, very good. I mean, your analytics capability. Is that what you spend the majority of your time working on and thinking about? Richard Fox: For sure. When I was at Inscripta, that was the majority of what the team and I did, was to think about planning the experiments. And then ultimately when the data come back, you have, when you look at all the data coming back, you basically have millions of data points. When you multiply all of the sequencing data that comes back by the number of conditions and the number of edits that you have all across the system, you're processing large sets of data to understand what each of these edits do.Harry Glorikian: So,  if I, if I had to ask you like, so you've seen a lot, you've sort of made this evolution, and I want to get to Infinome in a moment here, but if you had to summarize sort of the impact of the computational methods that you've worked on on the biopharmaceutical industry, how would you sort of put that into context?Richard Fox: It's yeah, I mean, it's hard to overstate the importance of computational tools. I mean, this, you couldn't do much of this work without that, certainly on the informatics side of things, just managing the data. It's not that sexy, but it's of course critical. And then once you have all that data, actually turning it into meaningful insights. It's profound. The algorithms for evolution do work though. And so one of the interesting things of the DNA shuffling technology that we talked about earlier worked without really a lot of informatics, you would basically apply, survival of the fittest to molecules and it would work and actually quite well, but it was ultimately a blind process at the end of the day.And so to accelerate the fitness gain, you want to try and make use of that data to drive towards higher levels of performance in your system. And that really you can only do when you start interrogating what we call the genotype-phenotype map or relationship. And that's allowed us to accelerate the process of evolution more than, than ever before.Harry Glorikian: So that makes me ask the question of, is that what you sort of learned at Inscripta that guided you to start Infinome? Or was there other pieces of the puzzle that sort of the light bulb went on and you're like, I need to go and start this next entity. Richard Fox: Yeah, that's a great question. So actually all of that sort of statistical modeling people call it machine learning now is, was done quite a while ago when I was back at Codexis. And to really understand the history, what happened was that we had developed a lot of these capabilities, but at the gene level engineering enzymes rapidly. So using statistical modeling, high throughput automation, software and information systems, and also a suite of sort of concepts about how to generate the data, plan, your experiments and best move quickly through the cycle, the design, build, test, learn cycle. All of that was very very well-developed. While I, and my colleagues we're at Maxygen and Codexis  going back a decade or more. And so it was really around 2010, 2011, where that technology for doing gene based rapid evolution had evolved quite a bit. It still had room to grow and, and Codexis is is now arguably the state-of-the-art protein engineering company in the world. But what we were experiencing was a desire to move up to larger sequence spaces. So moving beyond just a single gene, we wanted to move to pathways and genomes because we believe the bio economy is in many kind of cases going to evolve, engineering, whole genomes.Harry Glorikian: Right. Richard Fox: And we were very excited at the prospects of being able to do this. And we had a strategy. We had a playbook, because we had developed it, to do single gene evolution or maybe a couple of genes at a time. Well, what we were missing, Harry, and this is where kind of to complete the circle with Inscripta comes in, is what we were missing for many years was the tools to be able to go in and make those changes.Across the genome, as it happens, working with genes is fairly straightforward and has been for about 20 years. You can go in and diversify a gene very easily, very cost-effective. You can make all the single nucleotide or amino acid variants that you care to make. And then evaluate those though high throughput systems. You needed something like that, that ability to make those sequence changes, but at the pathway and genome level, and that's what was missing for almost a decade.We were waiting to apply this strategy, but we didn't have the tool. And so that's where Inscripta really came in was about three-ish years ago, I was very fortunate enough to get hooked up with the folks at the early stage Inscripta who were looking around at what to do with this massively parallel editing technology. And it was music to my ears and some of my colleagues is like, Oh, now finally, we can go after the whole genome, the way we've gone after genes. Harry Glorikian: It's sort of interesting that you can dial it up and then have these changes happen. I mean, if you, if I think back from where I started, like that was I don't even know if it was a dream, it wasn't even a concept when you think about it. And it it's profound and scary sort of all at the same time, if, depending on who's playing with it. But so now that brings me to Infinome right? So you went from, this protein engineering company that's top in its field to Inscripta that seems like and correct me if I'm wrong, that's working more on industrial applications of making changes to a bacterial genome or yeast or something like that. And now you're at Infinome and okay. For everybody listening, including myself, what is, what is Infinome what's it going to do? And how's it going to change the world? Richard Fox: Yeah. So Inscripta is amazing. The technology that they built and will be offering to the world is just transformative. Simply can't overstate how powerful it is. And it's more than just industrial applications, though. Plenty of biotechs, large and smaller, very excited about the technology. It also has a lot of application, basic science, antibiotic resistance, and all kinds of things that the academic community can dream up using this technology.There's lots of applications. So all that's fantastic. What's particularly a challenge on industrial side of the equation is, is that as amazing as the Inscripta platform is, it’s like any other technology stack. It's one piece of the puzzle. It's very important. It's critical in many ways, but it's not sufficient to do rapid genome engineering all by itself.What you find, and it was, it's also true, going back to the days at Maxygen and Codexis is that the core, DNA shuffling technology and then proSAR later and so forth, all really important pieces of the technology stack, what we found, because we were part of developing the whole ecosystem is that you needed everything else to work together almost seamlessly, to be able to run very quickly through the whole process. And so what Infinome is doing is it's certainly going to use the Inscripta technology as a core part of its it stack. But then we bring together a host of other capabilities and experience or expertise to be able to run this in the synthetic biology world, the famous design build test learn cycle very efficiently, very cost-effectively.Harry Glorikian: So is this a service? Cause Inscripta is a product per se, right, that might be sold to someone, but is, is Infinome more of a service of doing it because of all the different pieces that need to come together? Or can I buy this in a box? Richard Fox: Yeah, no, it's more of a it's more than a service. I would say it's a group of individuals with capabilities wet lab expertise, informatics expertise the know how to pull it all together. It's definitely an execution team and a suite of capabilities. It's not an off the shelf offering not by any means. Harry Glorikian: So what do you say as like, assuming all of this comes together the right way? What, if you had to describe it to someone, what could you do? What would it be? Richard Fox: Yeah, so it turns out there's all kinds of opportunities in the bio economy that are just waiting for folks to go after, but they don't have the capabilities to be able to execute on them. So the Inscripta technology is important, statistical analysis, high throughput, automation, all these things are important, but very few organizations have been able to pull them all together in a way that allows you to run very fast, very cost-effectively. And when you can bring that execution sort of an activation energy barrier, if you think about it, that way you bring that down. Now, a whole suite of bio-economy type applications are now on the table.So certainly producing bioproducts, proteins, and small molecules that are high value or are commodity for that matter. They're now all things that can, you can go after, because it doesn't take, 20, 30 the people and 10 years anymore, like the way it used to, to engineer microbes. Very typical over the last 10 or 20 years for large engineering efforts that took many, many man years, potentially hundreds of man years and many tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars to generate these biological solutions. Now we're able to do at a fraction of that sort of time and costs with the capabilities that, that Infinome will have. Harry Glorikian: I mean, it sounds like though, I mean I always go through this debate of doing it for someone else versus doing it myself, sort of thing of you almost should do all the work yourself and produce the product yourself. That seems like it's where it's going to garner the largest value. Richard Fox: Yeah. And actually that gets to Infinome's business model, which is, we are indeed going down that road. So we are technologists. We love our technology, but at the end of the day, we, and I, I should have given you the background here. If it wasn't already obvious, Inscripta was amazing. Great, fun, wonderful people. Some of the best colleagues I've ever had in my career. And yet where, what we found is that at the end of the day, we wanted to take this technology and apply it to actual applications. That's what ultimately led to the formation of Infinome.And so we ultimately had the idea that we wanted to build this technology stack to be able to apply to real applications. And as we looked around at how we wanted to build out Infinome it's definitely a core part of our business. It's sort of our reason for existence at one level, but we're actually going to pursue some mix of both internal applications and working with partners, depending on how new, the opportunities that come into play.Harry Glorikian: You know, I try to always in the show is get to like, that intersection of the biology and the data, right? The Inscripta platform sounds like it helps you efficiently apply the biology and know where to apply the biology based on the data that the informatics platforms that feed it. The question is now, in Infinome how are you looking at balancing those two pieces? Right. The data analytics at different points and, and getting the product you want in the end. Is it stringing together the right pieces of the puzzle to create something from end to end? I'm trying to wrap my head around these two concepts.Richard Fox: Yeah. The data analytics, so that's a really important question and piece to the, to the ecosystem. So as we've talked about before the ability to diversify sequences, whether it's at the gene or the pathway of the genome is sort of step one. And especially in contexts where you're making multiple changes, this is when the informatics becomes really important is when you have sequence variants where you're making multiple changes, then there's a deconvolution process to say, Oh, well, which interventions or combinations of the interventions are leading to the phenotype of interest. Right. And that's where the statistical modeling machine learning really starts to be powerful. And so Infinome is in the process of generating lots of data, not with just single interventions, but multiple interventions.And that deconvolution process will be, will be critical to sort of unmasking the genotype-phenotype relationship around the particular trait or phenotype of interest. This is definitely something that's been done for many years at the gene level. It hasn't really been done at the genome level, because again, we lacked the tools to make these things, these kinds of libraries, but now we have it.And so now we're off to the races again. So individual projects where you're looking at, these relationships between genotype and phenotype certainly are amenable to this kind of statistical analysis. I think what's really interesting is to think about down the road, how much of that landscape, that genotype-phenotype relationship, how generalizable is that? What are sort of the rules of thumb or guiding principles that you can apply across many projects? Maybe some of them are related. Maybe some are very different. What are kind of the patterns that over time with enough data, can you start to give yourself an advantage? When the next opportunity comes in, is there something that you've already learned from the data that you generated and the models that you've created, that you can apply to the future? This is the classic data network effect that we think biology has long promised to have. But I think because we haven't had the tools to go in and actively intervene, we don't really know yet what the boundaries of that, that possibility are.Harry Glorikian: Yeah. I mean, it always seems like when we get to enough that there is a finite number of options that present themselves, depending on the model that you're looking at. And I, of course, I mean maybe across different models, there may be that rule set may be different, but I think finding one and basing something on, which is why everybody seems to find one and then never move off of it because they spent so much time figuring it out. So, where's the company right now in its process. ‘Cause I feel like it's in, I want, I keep wanting to say stealth mode, but where are you in the growth phase or the gestational phase. Yeah. Richard Fox: So we're still early days. We we're a few months into this. And so we were talking to lots of potential partners and investors, and we're just about wrapping up our first round of funding. And we do have some partner projects that are spinning up as well as getting to work on our internal projects. So we're going to be getting going here. We've been going in earnest, but we'll be a little bit more public here very shortly about it. Harry Glorikian: And if you had to like describe a perfect project, I'm sure that when everybody came together, they're like, if we could do this, that would be right. As opposed to some, amorphous description of what it was. If you had to put it into brass tacks for people listening, what would you describe to someone as an ideal project from start to finish. Richard Fox: Yeah, that's a great question. I mean, it would involve at a high level, there's the scientific, and then there's also the business. And I can sort of speak to both aspects. So within business it's not controversial, right? You want to go after high value products, right. Things where the economics around scaling the process. Are not so burdensome that,there's already say commodity solutions out there. You'd like to go after things that maybe are at a smaller scale and sell at a higher, unit costs. Not to say that commodity solutions aren't also our opportunities, aren't also on the table. But that just comes down to techno-economic modeling and what, where are the opportunities where you can get into the market? And produce something better, faster, cheaper than something that's already out there. So those are kind of typical sort of business considerations.On the scientific side of things, there's a lot of opportunities now with this technology that we're developing that are putting things on the table that heretofore haven't really been a possibility. So in particular, the whole space of natural products is a really exciting one. So it turns out that a lot of people produce natural products in sort of exotic organisms, because that's where they're initially discovered. And there's large bias that there's large gene clusters in these organisms and they just work.And it's for lots of folks, the perception is, is that, well, you do what you can do with what you have. That's what you were given, what's the old saying, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. And yeah. Part of it is, was based in some practical consideration around like, well, you spend all this time and effort to culture, these exotic organisms to do a lot of fermentation, process development and it's working. But it's not working well, but it's enough to be economical. With today's technology to be able to move large DNA sequences around recode them and optimize them for different organisms, and now with the ability to, once you have a microbe with say a heterologous pathway, maybe even really large ones from these other organisms, maybe 10, 20, 30 genes in them, now you can, with these high throughput, massively parallel gene editing capabilities and a suite of supporting pieces of the technology stack, now you can move through these pathways in genome sequence spaces much more rapidly than you ever could before. So the barrier that was sort of there before, which is, well, even if I could move the pathway over, it's still taking 10 years to get the bug to perform at the level that's commercially viable right now, you can see a path where if I can move these pathways over in working much more engineerable systems, then I can get to that my commercial end point much, much faster than ever before. And this is not something that was possible before Inscripta and the Infinome technology platforms.Harry Glorikian: Yeah. I can tell you, like, I mean, I remember we'd be working on a particular pathway and then, okay, we think we got it working, but let's see how it goes. And then you'd have to wait weeks to get some sort of result. And then it's not as efficient as we wanted. Let's go back to the drawing board. And it would take forever for that loop to keep going back and forth until you, and I still say, hopefully, get to the result you wanted to, because there was no guarantee that you were going to tweak it to get it to do what you wanted it to do. Very painful process. Yeah. Yeah, it is. Because every time you feel like you've., every scientist will tell you I got it. I figured it out. I think we got it. I think we got it to do what we want it to do. So if you took sort of… just so people listening can get sort of the timeframes because I'm, I'm big on this. The difference between evolution and revolution is time. If you wait long enough the change will happen, but right now, what I see is technology accelerating things and, and the timescales are being collapsed  at much tighter timelines. If you had to talk about where we were sort of in genome editing and then put that into a timescale and talk about where we are now, how would you. Richard Fox: Yeah, it's a great question. So the core editing technology that Inscripta has developed is orders of magnitude more efficient. I mean, there's, there's things you can do with the Inscripta platform that you, you just would never consider doing by hand, to make 10,000 edits or more across the genome, which try to do that by hand, it would just be, it wouldn't be feasible economically or manpower wise.So that ability to do massively parallel editing is sort of without a comparison. You just simply would try fewer things. And it would probably take you even more people with existing molecular biology techniques. So that's already one, like, several order of magnitude level of efficiency. And then as we talked about earlier, as amazing as that is, even that's not sufficient, right? Because now you have all these variants Harry Glorikian: Right.Richard Fox: Now you have to be very efficient in testing them. And it turns out that that's also a bottleneck. And so even with some of the best folks out there today practicing genome engineering, you still find that the teams are fairly large and relatively slow when it comes to processing these variants.So, and this one's interesting because it's not that the technologies and the strategies don't exist to do it. It's just very rare to find the, sort of the folks who can bring it all together with the right information systems. Lean smart automation. So to give you some numbers, for example, and I'll actually, I'll go back to sort of enzyme engineering back, 15, 20 years ago, teams would be 10, 15 people. You would do one round of evolution, maybe every couple months, and after a couple of years or more, you get to your end point. Now state-of-the-art enzyme engineering teams are much smaller, two to four people, one round every two weeks, maybe a month in the slower projects. And so you're already seeing multiple factors of speed-up in the enzyme world.It's that same sort of step up that we're looking to do with pathways and genomes, so much smaller teams, maybe a quarter of the size or smaller. with much more diversity going into the pipeline, thousands, tens of thousands of things that you're testing. So when you multiply that out on a number of things, tested per unit person, it's maybe three orders of magnitude more efficient.Harry Glorikian: And so if, if you said, so now I need a quarter of the people or a third of the people let's say. I'm able to do more. What is driving that? Is it, is it the data science side of it? I mean, I feel like a lot of the biology has been there already, but is it in the industrialization of the biology plus the data science? Richard Fox: It's both. I mean, it's definitely, as we talk, you couldn't do this before, these high-throughput, before this massively parallel editing technology was developed, you just simply couldn't. So that was a key piece that sort of opened up the floodgates. But now it's, a lot of it is managing what you create both physically and the downstream tests, software and information systems to manage all the data and quickly and intelligently getting to the next round of prescribed experiments that you want to do without all those pieces. You simply would be sort of hobbled in the overall sort of cycle time and how much functional gain or leaps in fitness you can affect at each, each round. Harry Glorikian: Okay. And then it's tweaking at every single one of those stages to make each one better or more efficient.Richard Fox: Yes, exactly. Yup. And sort of a key thing, it's sort of an obvious point, Harry, but it's, it's interesting after all these years that it's not widely appreciated is the following, which is in every step of design build, test, learn, there's—to steal the term from electrical engineering—there's an impedance mismatch, right?So between build and test, for example, historically, there can be widely divergent throughputs for build or test. Sometimes you can only build a few things. And you've got a really high-throughput test. Or vice versa. And so what we've seen, what we personally experienced and been involved in innovating around is to minimize as much as possible that impedance mismatch between every step of design, build,, test learn. You can make orders of magnitude improvement if you pay attention to those mismatches. Harry Glorikian: Yes. And I always think about it as whack-a-mole. I fixed, I, I make one part of it better, the bottleneck just moves, right. It just moves where it is. And I don't know if I ever get to the whole thing is just moving at the pace I want it to, because ultimately there's only so many things you can pay attention to at the same time.So, so you're telling me that basically what might take me three or four years to do by historical or old methods now might take me. Six months to a year. Richard Fox: Yes, that's right. With, at a fraction of the resources as well. So it's not just how long it takes. It's integrating that resource burn over that period of time. Possibly, a factor of three to five, perhaps even more integrated over a longer period of time. We're looking at much smaller teams, much more efficient use of resources. Getting to the end point much more quickly. Harry Glorikian: So who is this disruptive to assuming we can do all of this, right? Who is this disruptive to out there?Richard Fox: There are many sources of disruption. I guess one would be, depending on what you're going after, for products that are based on saythe petroleum industry. If you could move those into bioproduction processes and replace those other sort of conventional sources of production, then it would be, those sort of old style of petroleum-based producers.So they would be potentially disrupted by this. The way I like to think about it is, is that, it's a big world and sometimes people ask, well, what is Infinome’s long-term plan to do. And while we definitely want to create products and be successful, our view is that it's a big world out there and that there's so many opportunities to go after.We're excited, just sort of as scientists and, members of the human race on planet earth. We are very excited that long-term, these kinds of approaches will find wider adoption now that the tools are coming online. And if we can help be a part of sort of blazing the trail there's a part of us that would be very fulfilled and satisfied if we can see this technology getting used in other, other areas as well.Long-term, if we can help be a part of that process, either actively or passively, it's up for debate and it's one of the business models we're considering, which is, as we get better and better at this and execute on multiple projects, both internal and external, eventually, if we can help the rest of the world in some way as a template, possibly, licensing technology expertise and so forth.Because as I say, there's no way that Infinome, even if we became, a huge company like Cargill or DSM or ADM in large manufacturing. Even for them, the world's a big place, right? So we're very interested in pushing the envelope, being successful on what we go after and then ultimately hoping that and being a part of, creating the ecosystem that the rest of the world can also use to go after the countless bio products that are going to be developed over the next 20, 30 years. Harry Glorikian: And it sounds like over time as you're accumulating the data and understanding, I make this change in these, these are the implications and this is what happens downstream. I mean, at some point it becomes much, much more data science than just, what chemistry, at some point, if you're focused in a couple of very discrete areas. Richard Fox: Yeah. I think that's right, Harry. And that gets to this really interesting unknown at this point of how much can you generalize the process and the information that the models that you're learning? How generalizable are those to other parts of the genome. So I've already mentioned this sort of sequence-function landscape several times. It's a concept that's been around for almost a hundred years now. If you think of you genotype as latitude and longitude, and elevation as phenotype, if you think of nature, having developed lots of mountains and hills across this, very high dimensional sequence function landscape. A really interesting question is, if I'm climbing up this mountain for product A, if I go after product A' and it's similar to A, arguably I can use some of the information or a lot of the information that I've developed already around product A to extrapolate to A'. I think what we don't know yet is, if you go for product B and it's near A, but it's somewhat distant, how much can you extrapolate from what you learned about A and A' over B? And this gets to, is it really in the cards that you can create a global sequence-function landscape for all possible traits and phenotypes? That is a very tall order. I don't imagine that's going to happen in my lifetime.Harry Glorikian: I agree with that Richard Fox: The models for navigating these spaces, I think definitely are generalizable, but then it gets down to how close do the landscapes need to be similar to each other for you to leverage what you've already sort of learned about them.Harry Glorikian: But at some point, right, you get to know A well enough that there is, there's an informatics approach to it. And that it's going to work because you've worked with it so much. And then you get to know A'. Right? I, I understand the generalizable, which would be awesome. But even as you're moving down, some of these product areas, somebody comes to you and say, can you make that tweak for me? Richard Fox: Yes.Harry Glorikian: It becomes a lot easier to make the tweak than where, when you first started trying to understand A well enough. Richard Fox: That's right. That's spot on, Harry. That's exactly right. And so if you're working in related product classes then there's definitely huge value built up over, proprietary, data sets and models generated. You can definitely leverage that move much faster. than if you were starting from scratch, for sure. Yeah. Harry Glorikian: Yeah. I mean, it's funny, right? I always used to say to them, I ran a consulting firm for a while, strategy consulting, and I'd be like, the first customer that comes by then, we're going to do our best, right? The fifth customer, man, they got such a good, insight, an answer, because there were five that we learned from, and we knew exactly what was going to happen. But, and I look at this the same way, but, but with more solidified data pathways, understanding what changes cause what downstream. And now someone says, well, can you make this slight tweak for me? It's not starting from scratch. There's an informatics backend that sort of, you can dial up and get what you want. And so the timescale of being able to do it would also be less. It will also shrink. Richard Fox: Yeah, that's right. That's right. Harry Glorikian: Well, all this sounds super exciting and super scary all at the same time. Right? Cause I can think of all the great stuff that can be done, but then I can also think of like, the easier and easier this technology gets, the more you worry about who's doing that work. Richard Fox: Yeah, I, that's a good question. And that one, so just so Inscripta takes that [seriously] along with a lot of people who work in this business. The gene synthesis providers have faced this for many years and they have taken that very seriously. So they, they screen for nefarious sequences or uses that could potentially be problematic. Inscripta is the same way. You can't just order up whatever you want and create new pathogens. There are pretty strong restrictions against doing that. So it'll be interesting to see, going forward, how companies like Inscripta and others will continue to stay ahead of this. I think it's very important for them to take an active role in this and not because the alternative is, is that the government would step in and legislate and create a lot of bureaucracy and slow down the science.And so I think the industry behooves them, all these tool providers and users, it behooves everyone to try to do the right thing here. And so far, everything that we're seeing from Inscripta and in other companies is that they are, and they are taking this seriously. And they're putting methods in place to prevent uses that could be dangerous.Harry Glorikian: Yeah, no, that's good. But it's interesting because this, this whole area that you and I are talking about, the implications are profound and I'm not sure everybody fully, I'm not sure that most people appreciate how quickly things have moved compared to where they were, I don't know, I want to say 10 years ago. I mean, 10 years ago, it feels like a lifetime, when you look at the level of change that's happened, across the board. Richard Fox: Yeah. It really is stunning. I mean, I, the first I remember being in Inscripta and seeing the first real large-scale experiments, that I was involved with at least. And seeing that come out and seeing that we were literally editing, five, ten thousand different genomes with things that we precisely designed and wanted to have integrated into the genome.I couldn't believe that I was really looking at the data that was really corresponding to reality out there and that we had created. 10,000 new organisms. I mean, in a precise way, people have been doing random mutagenesis, but like in a directed, precise conscious way having that power. I'll never to be able to describe it. It was, yeah, it was something as a computer guy I have long wanted, because I can sit and write out sequences, and I'd always wanted this ability to do this for genes and pathfways and genomes. And so to actually finally hold it. It was it was really special.Harry Glorikian: it's funny because I've always said over the years, like biology always, you can come up with a great thing. You can map it out, you can do all the work you want. It doesn't mean that biology is going to participate willingly. Right. And now what you're saying is, is we're getting a whole lot better at figuring out how to get the, the software of biology to do what we want it to, or, or manipulate the hardware within biology. However you want to look at it, but to get it to do what we want it to do when we want it to do it. Richard Fox: Yeah. I think that's right. And actually, we didn't really linger on this, I had talked a lot about my interest in evolution, but just to be very explicit about it, because it's important: The reason why this technology is so important is because we don't know the rules of biology.If you knew the 10 or 20 changes that you needed to make, and you just went in and made them, and from first principles could design these biological systems, it would be wonderful. And there was a lot of interest in synthetic biology when it first started gaining currency as a term 10 or 15 years ago, that was the aspiration.And that was certainly laudable, but it's met with very limited success in the way that a mechanical and electrical engineer would think about engineering a system. This is just not in the cards for biology anytime soon. So being able to try lots of different things is critical to being able to get to your desired influence faster. This is something we've known from proteins for many years, and it's always been true, of course, at the larger sequences of pathways and genomes as well. Harry Glorikian: Yeah, I see it across, multiple areas,  materials, chemistry, there's all sorts of areas where people now are applying, machine learning and AI. The properties that they've got from the chemicals that they're working with and being able to just go through a giant sort of figure eight and just keep testing out until they figure out what gets this thing to get to where they want it to be and then being able to make it reproducibly.Richard Fox: Yup. That's right. Yeah. I mean, there's a reason Frances Arnold won the Nobel prize in directed evolution and not a computational protein engineer. As amazing as the work they've done, it's just, you can't design a protein from first principles to get a 4,000-fold improvement for some property of interest. It's just, it's not possible. So you have to try many things and let nature tell you what works and what doesn't. And it's absolutely the same for pathways and genomes as well. Harry Glorikian: Yeah, I guess just to summarize it here, though, what we're saying is we're going to start telling nature. What we want it to do and it's going to do it for us.Richard Fox: Yes, exactly. Maybe over time, as we've talked about, some of these patterns will become emergent, especially around A or A’. But, the full, the full truth behind nature will be, I think, hidden for the foreseeable future. So we're going to have to rely on empiricism, Harry Glorikian: I think to, yeah, I'm happy to take it one, one at a time, one step at a time is fine. You can still make a big difference in people's lives in the environment and that's what we're in this business for. So, well, it was great to catch up with you. I do want to talk to you once things are up and running and hear how the dream is becoming, the fulfilled reality. But maybe we can stay in touch and, and, and touch base at that point. Richard Fox: Yeah. Yeah, o, this has been great. I'd be really excited to share with you some of our early successes. Once, once we get going and you start to talk more about it. Harry Glorikian: Excellent. Great talking to you. Richard Fox: Great. Thanks, Harry.Harry Glorikian:That’s it for this week’s show. We’ve made more than 50 episodes of MoneyBall Medicine, and you can find all of them at glorikian.com under the tab “Podcast.” You can follow me on Twitter at hglorikian. If you like the show, please do us a favor and leave a rating and review at Apple Podcasts. Thanks, and we’ll be back soon with our next interview.

Genetic Engineering and Society Center GES Colloquium - Tuesdays 12-1PM (via Zoom) NC State University | http://go.ncsu.edu/ges-colloquium GES Mediasite - See videos, full abstracts, speaker bios, and slides https://go.ncsu.edu/ges-mediasite Twitter - https://twitter.com/GESCenterNCSU Organized by the AgBioFEWS Cohorts For the first time ever, a genetic engineer, Eric Lander, is in a seat on the president’s cabinet—with social scientist Alondra Nelson as his deputy. The “evolutionary ringmaster” and Nobel prizewinner Frances Arnold chairs the council of science advisors—with NASA planetary explorer Maria Zuber as her co-chair. The Biden administration has proposed giving the NSF an additional $50 billion (over an annual budget of $8.5 billion), while it joins a bipartisan group of legislators in pressing scientific agencies for more emphasis on technology and jobs. What does it all mean for the future of research, biotech regulation, and their place in society? How will these people acting as individuals shape science policy? Link Jennifer Kuzma PowerPoint slides on OSPT and biotechnology policy Panelists Robert Cook-Deegan, PhD, Professor School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University Jennifer Kuzma, PhD, Goodnight-NC GSK Foundation Distinguished Professor in the Social Sciences and Co-Director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center Dave Levitan, MA, Science Journalist and author of Not A Scientist: How politicians mistake, misrepresent, and utterly mangle science GES Center - Integrating scientific knowledge & diverse public values in shaping the futures of biotechnology. Find out more at https://ges-center-lectures-ncsu.pinecast.co

If I asked you to name a genius, there’s a good chance you’d say: Albert Einstein, or Galileo, or Mozart, or some other famous man from history. But what about Clara Peeters? Lise Meitner? Frances Arnold? Fei-Fei Li? Likely not. The way we have defined genius throughout history, famous men from male-dominated power structures, has kept women geniuses in the shadows for too long. This is according to writer Janice Kaplan, the New York Times bestselling author of The Gratitude Diaries , and in her latest book The Genuis of Women: From Overlooked to Changing the World , she shines a light on the too often forgotten achievements of women and tells us how to open up pathways for women geniuses of the future to receive the recognition and resources they need and deserve.

Where do you take your career after you’ve won all of science’s biggest prizes? In this episode of Stereo Chemistry, C&EN executive editor Lisa Jarvis sits down with Nobel laureates Frances Arnold and Jennifer Doudna to hear about whether their career goals changed after they got that early-morning phone call in October and how the pandemic has shifted the way they approach their work. A script of this episode is available at bit.ly/3u7jCW7. Sign up for C&EN's newsletter at cenm.ag/chemnewsletter. Catch up on last year's package of trailblazing women chemists, edited by Jennifer Doudna, at cenm.ag/2020trailblazers. Image credit: Caltech (Arnold)/Laura Morton Photography (Doudna)

On January 16, 2021, President-Elect Joe Biden introduced his picks for the science advisors in the next White House. Meet Drs. Eric Lander, Alondra Nelson, Frances Arnold and Maria Zuber. For the first time, there will be a scientist as a Presidential Cabinet member. Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris finishes the show. The full press conference can be viewed here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?508044-1/president-elect-biden-introduces-white-house-science-team Bench Talk is a weekly program that airs on WFMP Louisville FORward Radio 106.5 FM (forwardradio.org) every Monday at 7:30 pm, Tuesday at 11:30 am, and Wednesday at 7:30 am. Visit our Facebook page for links to the articles discussed in this episode: https://www.facebook.com/pg/BenchTalkRadio/posts/?ref=page_internal

On January 16, 2021, President Joe Biden introduced his picks for science advisors to the White House. Meet Drs. Eric Lander, Alondra Nelson, Frances Arnold and Maria Zuber. For the first time, there will be a scientist on the President's Cabinet! Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris finishes the show. The full press conference can be viewed here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?508044-1/president-elect-biden-introduces-white-house-science-team Bench Talk is a weekly program that airs on WFMP Louisville FORward Radio 106.5 FM (forwardradio.org) every Monday at 7:30 pm, Tuesday at 11:30 am, and Wednesday at 7:30 am. Visit our Facebook page for links to the articles discussed in this episode: https://www.facebook.com/BenchTalkRadio/ Bench Talk | Meet the Biden Science Team | Jan 18 2021 by Forward Radio is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

In 2018 Dr Frances Arnold was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Then she gave it back. Why At the turn of the 20th Century Australia went through a bit of a fortune telling craze. The practise was illegal and the police tried to prosecute where they could but the women survived and in some cases thrived. Alphabets are disappearing. There are between 6,000 to 7,000 languages in the world. Yet 96% are spoken by just 3% of the global population and 85% are endangered. What do barcodes and trains have in common? Without one we wouldn't have the other.

Lorenz und Jasmin sind zwei Wochen in einer kleinen Sommerpause, weshalb diese und die nächste Folge nur kurz sind. Am 26.08.2020 geht es wieder mit einer normalen Folge in gewohnter Länge weiter! Dieses Mal erzählt Lorenz von der US-amerikanischen Wissenschaftlerin Frances Arnold, die für ihre Forschung 2018 den Nobelpreis für Chemie zugesprochen bekam. Er berichtet, was er an dieser Wissenschaftlerin bewundert, wieso er sie für außergewöhnlich integer hält und natürlich auch, woran sie eigentlich forscht. ------- Material • “She roars”-Podcast-Episode über und mit Frances Arnold: https://sheroarspodcast.princeton.edu/podcast/frances-arnold-on-her-nobel-prize-in-chemistry-and-how-chemical-and-bioengineering-can-save-the-planet/ • Geschichten zu Frances Arnold auf der Internetseite des Nobel-Preises: https://www.nobelprize.org/womenwhochangedscience/stories/frances-arnold • Nobel-Preis-Vorlesung von Frances Arnold: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/anie.201907729

One trait genius women share is a postive approach to life. They face obstacles and remain upbeat. Dr. Frances Arnold recently won a Nobel Prize--and part of her success comes from her ability to stay grateful. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

This episode, we talk about the first American woman to win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Frances Arnold. She received the Nobel Prize for utilizing directed evolution to engineer enzymes to work in unnatural environments. She is currently a professor at Caltech. We cover her trajectory in science, life and dive into the project that won her the prize.

It was a banner week if your name was Francis.  I've almost made it back from the dead or "The Flu" as they call it down here. The Nobel Prize winner in science, Frances Arnold, could not replicate her conclusions and retracted her paper, Pope Francis 1st smacked an old lady, and Francis Moore was finally honored for his role in the actual Tea Party some 250 years ago. So it appears only the dead guy named Francis had a decent week. That's a lot of F*&kin Francis' in one podcast.  Go slow, breathe deep, and we'll talk you through it. But first, as always, you gotta click. UF/UF 275: Lighten Up Francis

_Content warning before you dive into this episode: we may end up spoiling Santa Claus if your little ones are in attendance._ Flo tosses in her digression card early on in the show, while Andy steers us back on track with why it's so hard to commit to one app in this day and age. After the first break, the two discuss the Department of Justice's probe into Google's FitBit acquisition and why it seems to be a bigger deal than everything else involving digital data. We'll profile biologist Frances Arnold, who recently joined Alphabet's Board of Directors, and we'll run down the new features of the latest Pixel Feature Drop. We'll also update you on a few new features coming to the Google Assistant.

The ladies are back with a living legend and a high flying heroine! With a bottle of strong Substance cabernet sauvignon, Kelley tells the ongoing story of Dr. Frances Arnold who has essentially proved that science is magic by developing directed evolution to help create bio fuel and save the world! Then, in honor of Veterans Day, Emily shares the story of Captain Elsie Ott who, during WWII, took care for 16 patients in the first intercontinental medevac! Get prepared to be dazzled by God tier science and rage against pants, because we're taking wining to a new level! ** Mornings with u by Barradeen | https://soundcloud.com/barradeenMusic promoted by https://www.free-stock-music.comCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unportedhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en_US Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/winingaboutherstory/overview)

Truett Foster McKeehan, son of TobyMac, has died, latest in Vatican finance scandal involves €50-million, record-breaking marathon running makes the sign of the cross, baseball chaplain calls his team his parish, Colorado releases abuse numbers, China shutting more churches down, Nobel-winner named to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, new scam impersonates bishops.

Frances Arnold, ganadora del premio Nobel de química en el 2018, la quinta mujer en la historia, tiene una visión aguda y diferente para enfrentar la realidad: “Quítese de la cabeza la idea de que lo controla todo. No, usted no lo hace. Lo mejor que puede hacer es adaptarse, anticiparse, ser flexible, sentir el entorno y responder a él”. Tal vez por eso, ha construido una carrera brillante, cediéndole el comando de su laboratorio a una fuerza mucho más grande y poderosa que cualquier ejército o cabeza de estado, la evolución. En lugar de buscar diseñar nuevas proteínas de la manera tradicional, pieza a pieza y de una forma racional y calculada y en la que muchos químicos han fallado, su método consiste en usar recetas de la evolución para que ella las fabrique y las mejore.

Nobel laureate Frances Arnold talks to Anjana Ahuja about her pioneering a work harnessing the power of nature to engineer enzymes, her long career and the challenges faced by women in science. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Frances Arnold explains how she harnesses the power of evolution to create proteins and organisms with applications in medicine and in alternative energy.

Frances Arnold, the Caltech scientist who shared the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, says evolution can show us how to solve problems of sustainability.

Frances Arnold, the Caltech scientist who shared the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, says evolution can show us how to solve problems of sustainability.

Two female scientists won Nobel Prizes in 2018, which was unprecedented in a single year. They join Kim Chakanetsa to discuss the whirlwind that followed their wins, their ground-breaking research, and how they believe more women can be recognised for their work. At a glittering ceremony in Stockholm in December 2018, Canadian Donna Strickland became the first woman for 55 years to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics. One of the world's leading laser physicists, based at the University of Waterloo, she was recognised for her co-invention of Chirped Pulse Amplification, a technique that has since been used as part of laser eye surgery and in the creation of smartphone screens. Donna is honoured to become one of just three women to ever win this award, but says she can't speak for all women. At the same ceremony, Frances Arnold became the fifth woman, and the first American woman, to win the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. From her lab at Caltech, Frances pioneered the directed evolution of enzymes, which has led to a wide range of more cleanly and cheaply made products, from laundry detergents to biofuels and medicines. She says that change for women in science cannot come fast enough, and she hopes that these two wins are 'the beginning of a steady stream' of recognition for female scientists. L-Image: Donna Strickland Credit: University of Waterloo R-Image: Frances Arnold Credit: Caltech

Thirty years ago, Dr. Arnold had an idea: to breed molecules in the laboratory the way we breed animals - to bring out the traits we want in them. The molecules she was particularly interested in were enzymes, which are essential to life, and which she knew could be used to make environmentally friendly materials, including bio-fuels, cleaning products, and pharmaceuticals. Her idea worked right away. It’s now called “directed evolution,” and it has had huge implications for industry. In 2018, it earned her a Nobel Prize in Chemistry (only the fifth ever awarded to a woman). She talks here about the science, but also about the bumps in her life that helped her become an original thinker.

Botemedel mot cancer, lösningen på världens energikris och mat åt alla hungriga. Allt det här går att hitta i naturens enorma variation av proteiner menar Frances Arnold, Nobelpristagare i kemi. Frances Arnold har fått en del av 2018 års Nobelpris i kemi för att ha utvecklat metoden riktad evolution av enzymer. Den använder hon för att få proteiner som hör till gruppen enzymer att utföra nya kemiska reaktioner. Det kan i sin tur ge oss bättre sätt att framställa till exempel biobränslen och läkemedel. Och det bästa sättet att utveckla den enorma outnyttjade potentialen för problemlösning som finns i naturen är att ta vara på många olika människors kreativitet och idéer, menar hon. I programmet hörs: Frances Arnold, professor vid California Institute of Technology och Nobelpristagare i kemi 2018, Nat Goldberg, doktorand i Frances Arnolds forskargrupp. Programmet är en repris från 26 november 2018. Sara Sällström sara.sallstrom@sverigesradio.se

In this episode of the Shaping Opinion Podcast, we’re doing something different. This is our Year in Review episode. 2018: Moments to Remember. We’ll go back and highlight some of the great moments we’ve had so far in our first year. https://traffic.libsyn.com/shapingopinion/2018_Shaping_Opinion_-_Year_in_Review_auphonic.mp3   2018 was a great year for the Shaping Opinion podcast. We were new. We knew what we wanted to do, but we didn’t know what to expect. We started out with the tagline, we talk about people, events and things that have shaped the way we think. And that’s exactly what we did. We’ve produced 45 episodes, including this one. We’ve captured first-person stories of history. Fun stories, interesting stories, and we learned a lot along the way. This podcast is nothing without its guests. So, we would like to thank each and every one of them who graced us with their time, their thoughts and their stories. Here’s what we discussed. We’ve broken this hour into three chapters. We’ve decided to call the First Chapter Memorable Moments. The Second Chapter is called Things You May Not Have Known. And the Third Chapter is all about You and Me. Chapter One. Memorable Moments. Fallingwater Lynda Waggoner In every episode we strive to capture a moment the was so immersive, that you feel like you were there. You can’t expect it to happen every time, but if you want an idea of one of those moments, listen to Fallingwater’s former director give us a closed-eyes tour of Frank Lloyd Wright’s masterpiece home. Sheila Tate on the Day Ronald Reagan was Shot While some moments can be mesmerizing, others can be sobering. Sheila Tate was press secretary for First Lady Nancy Reagan on the day President Reagan was shot.   Flight 93 We had a similar reminder of how precious life is when we talked to Bill Crowley. He was the FBI agent who served as lead crisis communicator on site in Somerset after Flight 93 crashed in a field on September 11th, 20011. We asked Bill where he was when he first heard of the terrorist attacks on the United States. Regis McKenna, Apple's First Marketing Visionary Regis McKenna We’ve talked to people who had a front row seat to history. We also talked to people who helped make history. Regis McKenna is the marketing man Steve Jobs turned to to help let the world know of Apple Computer when Apple was still based in his parents’ garage. Regis tells the story of when he met Jobs and how he knew the company would be successful from the earliest stages. Frances Arnold: The Nobel Prize Another history-maker in California was Frances Arnold. Just this year, the Nobel Prize committee honored Frances with the Nobel Prize for Chemistry because she figured out a way to harness the power of evolution to help solve some of society’s biggest problems. What it took nature to do in millions of years, Frances found a way to accomplish in weeks. She told us her story and more. Andy Masich Sings Some of our best moments have been when guests surprise us. The head of the John Heinz History Center in Pittsburg talked to us about the Battle of Little Bighorn. That’s a topic he knows well. He’s written books about the American West. And when he talked to us, he allowed his childhood exuberance to re-emerge. Chapter Two. Things You May Not Have Known. Scott Fahlman The Man Who Created the Emoticon Did you ever use an emoticon in one of your emails? :-)  Millions of people do this every day, and most have no idea of where it came from. We had the chance to talk to its inventor, Scott Fahlman. He’s a researcher and professor at Carnegie Mellon who focuses on artificial intelligence. Decades ago, in a moment of joking around, he came up with the emoticon, and his little creation started its journey around the world to where it is today. We asked Scott to tell us just how he came up with the Emoticon in the early days of the Internet when only a few college prof...

Jennifer Kan, postdoctoral researcher at the Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology, provides an overview of the exciting new possibilities that could arise as researchers utilize bacteria to create silicon-carbon bonds. Kan's research and interest lies at the intersection of science and engineering. Kan is excited about her work as a postdoctoral scholar in the laboratory of Frances Arnold, the first woman to be awarded the $1.1 million Millennium Technology Prize, for her groundbreaking work on directed evolution. Directed evolution is a process that allows for the creation of desired traits within enzymes. According to scientific findings, silicon and carbon are quite similar in regard to their chemistry, with both maintaining the capability to produce extended chains of molecules, such as DNA and proteins.  Kan talks about the lab's work and mission: to engineer proteins to do incredible things that have not been seen in nature. Via directed evolution, researchers have used a bacterium to create a silicon-carbon bond in a natural manner, which previously had only been accomplished synthetically. She states that while silicon is the second most abundant element on our planet, for some reason living organisms have never integrated silicon into their native biochemistry. But in the lab, Kan says it is possible for proteins to activate this chemistry. Interestingly, this groundbreaking discovery may have cleared a path toward integrating computer chips with the human body, though Kan stresses that potential possibility is a long way off in the future, so for now we'll still have to experience this in Hollywood movies only.  The researcher and biochemistry expert states that silicon is extremely prevalent in our lives and products and that it is truly the core element that makes modern life possible. Kan discusses the benefits of binding silicon to carbon, and how that bond is crucial for the manufacturing of materials that are necessary in our world. She explains the incredible significance of this new development in science—utilizing biology to make these bonds—and how it can open the door to programming life. Kan states that scientists must ask the right questions, in regard to biological systems, in order to analyze and discover their potential with respect to chemistry. The lab's work could create a seismic shift in how medicine and materials are manufactured and produced. Kan feels that there will be a number of valuable applications for this work, for many reasons, two of which are cost reduction, and the newer process is better for the environment compared to the old way of making silicon bonds. Kan explains how their work involves creating metabolic pathways, convincing bacteria to use the silicon-containing building blocks to create things that are potentially useful for biology. She discusses the many possible uses for this scientific achievement, notably—the use of bacteria to create silicon-containing drugs. She talks about the incredible environmental benefits and how this process can diminish the need for the use of toxic chemicals.  The chemistry expert talks about some of the other innovative uses of their silicon bonding work. She outlines the possible molecules that could be experimented with in her lab, and how the introduction of new elements can literally change functionality. Kan details some of the complexities of the chemical processes and elements, and what her lab's team hopes to find as they dig deeper into the bonding experimentation. Additionally, Kan lays out their schedule and timeline for this new, exciting work, and talks about their latest publishing and interesting findings. Now that they can actually see what is happening within the proteins, Kan hopes that soon they will be able to complete the story so to speak, and more fully understand how silicon bonds can be made in proteins. 

We sat down for a conversation with Dr. Frances Arnold, 2018 Nobel laureate in chemistry for the directed evolution of enzymes. We asked how one rises to such eminent heights, and got answers spanning topics from the price of gas during the Carter administration to whether to pursue a career in diplomacy. Don't miss this one -- Dr. Arnold is the most fascinating person we've ever met.

Amerikkalainen Frances Arnold pokkasi maanantaina 10. joulukuuta kemian Nobelin entsyymien suunnatun evoluution kehittäjänä. Arnold työskentelee professorina California Institute of Technologyssä eli Caltechissa. Peruskoulutukseltaan hän on insinööri, joka lähti aivan uudella tavalla etsimään keinoja löytää tehokkaita entsyymejä teollisuuden käyttöön. Arnoldin menetelmällä kehitettyjä entsyymejä käytetään runsaasti jo teollisuuden prosesseissa. Arnoldin menetelmässä tehdään satunnaisia mutaatioita eli pieniä muutoksia entsyymiä vastaavan geenin DNA:han. Tämän jälkeen geenit siirretään bakteereihin jotka alkavat tuottaa kyseisiä entsyymiproteiineja. Näistä seulotaan parhaat ja mikäli riittävän hyviä ei vielä löydy, tehdään satunnaisia mutaatioita uudestaan parhaimpia entsyymejä vastaaviin geeneihin ja edetään uudestaan kierros eteenpäin. Lopulta tuloksena on tehokas entsyymi haluttuun sovellukseen. Frances Arnold palkittiin vuonna 2016 Suomessa Millennium-teknologiapalkinnolla. Hän on viides kemian naisnobelisti. Tiedeykkösessä Arnoldin työstä kertoo VTT:n tutkimusprofessori Merja Penttilä, joka työskentelee myös osa-aikaisena professorina Aalto-yliopistossa. Toimittajana on Sisko Loikkanen. Kuva Sisko Loikkanen

Botemedel mot cancer, lösningen på världens energikris och mat åt alla hungriga. Allt det här går att hitta i naturens enorma variation av proteiner menar Frances Arnold, Nobelpristagare i kemi. Frances Arnold har fått en del av 2018 års Nobelpris i kemi för att ha utvecklat metoden riktad evolution av enzymer. Den använder hon för att få proteiner som hör till gruppen enzymer att utföra nya kemiska reaktioner. Det kan i sin tur ge oss bättre sätt att framställa till exempel biobränslen och läkemedel. Och det bästa sättet att utveckla den enorma outnyttjade potentialen för problemlösning som finns i naturen är att ta vara på många olika människors kreativitet och idéer, menar hon. Programledare: Sara Sällström sara.sallstrom@sverigesradio.se Producent: Peter Normark peter.normark@sverigesradio.se

Partons à la découverte des prix Nobel et de leurs histoires à travers la dernière lauréate du prix Nobel de Chimie: Frances Arnold.

Frances Arnold, Class of 1979, knew a good thing when she saw it in her laboratory some 25 years ago – and the results were game changing. Defying the prevailing wisdom, Frances innovated a completely new way to engineer enzymes that is now pushing the boundaries of green chemistry, biofuel production and more sustainable industrial … Continue reading "Frances Arnold: On her Nobel Prize in chemistry and how chemical and bioengineering can save the planet"

Nobel Prize recipient Frances Arnold joins Tim to talk about winning a Nobel Prize honor for her pioneering work in “directed evolution,” which harnesses the power of evolution to enhance products throughout society - from biofuels and pharmaceuticals, to agriculture, chemicals, paper products and more. We talk with Frances about her journey and her work that is changing the world for the better. https://traffic.libsyn.com/shapingopinion/The_Nobel_Prize_-_Directed_Evolution_auphonic.mp3 Since the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was first awarded in 1901, 117 years ago, only four women had won the honor, and in October, American Frances Arnold became the fifth. The professor of chemical engineering, bioengineering and biochemistry at the California Institute of Technology, received the honor for her pioneering work in “directed evolution.” Frances’s work centers on the directed evolution of enzymes, proteins that serve as catalysts for chemical reactions that take place in living organisms, animals and people. In its most simple form, the process focuses on harnessing the power of natural evolution to solve problems for society. Frances is the Linus Pauling Professor of Chemical Engineering, Bioengineering and Biochemistry at Caltech. Today, directed evolution is used in research laboratories around the world to create things from laundry detergents to biofuels to pharmaceuticals. Enzymes created with through this process have been able to replace some toxic chemicals traditionally used in industry. Frances shares the prize with George Smith of the University of Missouri, who created a "phage display" process for protein evolution, and Gregory Winter of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in the United Kingdom, who used phage display for antibody evolution. Arnold was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Her undergraduate degree in mechanical and aerospace engineering is from Princeton University. Her graduate degree in chemical engineering is from UC Berkeley. She has been at Caltech since 1986, first as a visiting associate, then as an assistant professor, and progressing to professor in 1996. In 2017, she became the Linus Pauling Professor. She became the director of the Donna and Benjamin M. Rosen Bioengineering Center at Caltech in 2013. Frances is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society, and is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Royal Academy of Engineering. How Directed Evolution Works Directed evolution is similar to how animal breeders mate cats or dogs to create hybrids or new breeds of animal. To conduct directed evolution mutations are induced to DNA, or a gene, which “encodes” a particular enzyme. That mutated enzyme, along with other thousands, are produced and tested to what Frances calls a desired trait. The preferred enzymes are selected, and the process continues until the enzymes are working to achieve a desired outcome or solution. “I copy nature’s design process. There is tremendous beauty and complexity of the biological world, but it all comes about through this one, simple, beautiful design algorithm.” - Frances Arnold Links Frances Arnold Wins 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Caltech Frances H. Arnold Group Caltech scientist is among 3 awarded Nobel Prize in chemistry for sparking ‘a revolution in evolution’, LA Times The Latest: Nobel chemistry winner credits team at Caltech, Washington Post Nobel winner overcame personal loss, cancer, and being a woman, NBC News

Miguel Alcalde (ICP-CSIC) debulla a evolución dirixida de enzimas e achéganos a nova premio Nobel de Química Frances Arnold.

Miguel Alcalde (ICP-CSIC) debulla a evolución dirixida de enzimas e achéganos a nova premio Nobel de Química Frances Arnold.

Emlyn tells Emma about the OG ecologist and professionally-trained artist, Maria Sibylla Merian, who described the life cycle and plant host use of ~200 insect species, and Emma tells Emlyn about the research of Nobel Prize winners Dr. Strickland and Dr. Arnold! PLEASE FILL OUT THE SURVEY: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScwuYfCujp_voMx1I37E4MB1Tk_UbncK6z8Khn4DC683fV-3A/viewform?usp=sf_link   Sources Main Story - Maria Sibylla Merian Wikipedia Article on Maria Sibylla Merian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Sibylla_Merian Nature Ecology and Evolution article by Luíseach Nic Eoin: https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/users/18000-luiseach-nic-eoin/posts/14366-maria-sibylla-merian-1647-1717 New York Times Article by JoAnna Klein: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/science/maria-sibylla-merian-metamorphosis-insectorum-surinamensium.html   The Atlantic article by Andrea Wulf: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/01/the-woman-who-made-science-beautiful/424620/ Essay by Kay Etheridge, entitled: “Maria Sibylla Merian: The First Ecologist?” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256297016_Maria_Sibylla_Merian_The_first_ecologist    Further reading: Chrysalis: Maria Sibylla Merian and the Secrets of Metamorphosis by Kim Todd   Women who werk Two women won 2018 Nobel Prizes in the Sciences!!!! Dr. Donna Strickland won a prize in Physics for her work on Chirped Pulse Amplification: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/nobel-prize-physics-donna-strickland-gerard-mourou-arthur-ashkin/571909/ Dr. Frances Arnold won a prize in Chemistry for her work on direct evolution of enzymes:http://www.caltech.edu/news/frances-arnold-wins-2018-nobel-prize-chemistry-83926  and https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/nobel-winner-overcame-personal-loss-cancer-being-woman-n916391   Music “Work” by Rihanna “Mary Anning” by Artichoke   Cover art Wikipedia

Los seres vivos evolucionan, pero también lo hacen las sustancias químicas que éstos utilizan para relacionarse con el entorno. Una enzima puede necesitar "aprender" a funcionar en unas condiciones más frías, o un anticuerpo puede necesitar reconocer a un virus que ha cambiado ligeramente. El premio de Química de este año ha sido otorgado a Frances Arnold, George Smith y Gregory Winter por desarrollar técnicas que nos han permitido hacer evolucionar a algunas de estas sustancias en el laboratorio, para conseguir variantes más eficientes y adaptadas a nuestras necesidades. Si queréis aprender sobre algunas sustancias químicas "ingenierizadas" para ser más eficientes escuchad los episodios s06e04, s03e34, s07e36 y s07e39. Si os interesa la idea de "evolución artificial" buscad los episodios s03e30 y s02e06, en que contamos un par de ejemplos aplicados a biología. Este programa se emitió originalmente el 3 de octubre de 2018. Podéis escuchar el resto de audios de La Brújula en su canal de iVoox y en la web de Onda Cero, ondacero.es

Årets Nobelpristagare i kemi har använt genetiska förändringar och selektion för att utveckla proteiner som kan ge oss hållbara bränslen, miljövänliga kemikalier och nya läkemedel. Frances Arnold genomförde den första riktade evolutionen av enzymer. Idag nyttjas de bland annat för en mer miljövänlig tillverkning av kemiska substanser och för att framställa förnybara bränslen. George Smith och Sir Gregory Winter utvecklade en metod som kallas för fagdisplay, där virus som infekterar bakterier kan utnyttjas för att ta fram nya proteiner. I programmet hörs Gunnar von Heine, professor i biokemi. Lena Nordlund & Ulrika Björkstén vet@sverigesradio.se

Het klinkt wat vreemd. Enzymen planten zich niet voort en leven ook niet. En toch zijn enzymen (indirect) onderworpen aan evolutie. Enzymen zijn complexe moleculen die levende wezens aanmaken zodat ze chemische processen op gang brengen. Talloze processen in ons lichaam, waaronder bijvoorbeeld het verteren van voedsel, vinden plaats dankzij enzymen. Aanpassingen in het genetisch materiaal van levende wezens kunnen daarom ook voor aangepaste enzymen zorgen. De Amerikaanse ingenieurs Frances Arnold en de Nederlander Pim Stemmer hebben het met bacteriën voor elkaar gekregen om die aanpassing van enzymen (normaal gesproken een proces van maanden tot eeuwen) te herleiden naar een proces dat een aantal dagen duurt. Het toepassingsgebied van die nieuwe en aangepaste enzymen is enorm. In de geneeskunde (nieuwe medicijnen), in de sector van de hernieuwbare energie (biobrandstof uit afval, waterzuivering), de voedingsindustrie. Al deze domeinen gebruiken gretig deze nieuwe en meer efficiënte enzymen. Pim Stemmer is in 2013 overleden (en heeft in Nederland weinig bekendheid genoten). Maar Arnold is vanaf vandaag de vijfde vrouw die ooit een Nobelprijs in de Chemie wint. Dat doet ze, samen met de Brit Gregory Winter en de Amerikaan George Smith, die medische producten uit bacteriofagen (virussen die bacteriën aanvallen) wisten te herleiden. Het Nobelprijs-comité vermeldt Stemmer uitdrukkelijk meerdere malen in de argumentatie. We zetten de verwezenlijking van Arnold en Stemmer in de schijnwerpers met Bert Weckhuysen, hoogleraar anorganische Chemie en Katalyse aan de Universiteit Utrecht.

Deze week worden de Nobelprijzen uitgereikt. Onbehaarde Apen doen verslag. De Nobelprijs voor de Scheikunde is gewonnen door Frances Arnold, Gregory Winter en George Smith, voor hun onderzoek naar de evolutie van eiwitten en enzymen. Sander Voormolen vertelt wat je kunt doen met de evolutie in een reageerbuis.Iets anders: we vinden het heel leuk dat je weer luistert! En vooral zijn we erg benieuwd naar jou. En naar je mening over Onbehaarde Apen. Dus als je ergens in de komende dagen vijf minuten tijd hebt, zouden we het enorm waarderen als je een korte enquete invult over onze podcasts. Dat kan op nrc.nl/podcastonderzoek. Dank!Presentatie: Lucas Brouwers en Gemma VenhuizenProductie: Mirjam van Zuidam@lucasbrouwers // @GemmaJV // @SanderVoormolen

Frances Arnold, George Smith and Gregory Winter shared the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for using evolutionary principles to create highly efficient enzymes and antibodies, with numerous practical applications.

Bacterial Builders. Frances Arnold is directing bacteria to build molecules never before assembled in nature. By Emily Velasco.

Bacterial Builders. Frances Arnold is directing bacteria to build molecules never before assembled in nature. By Emily Velasco.

The AIChE Foundation’s 2017 Doing a World of Good podcast series kicks off by featuring Frances Arnold, distinguished professor of chemical engineering, bioengineering, and biochemistry at Caltech. Dr. Arnold has expanded the expectations of what chemical engineering can achieve, taking her engineering expertise in systems and processes and applying it directly to the world of biochemistry. In the podcast, Frances talks about her career journey, which ultimately lead to her work in directed evolution, a technology that promises to use biological systems to create more effective and environmentally responsible products for everyday use.

Registered Dietitian NutritionistIntegrative Functional NutritionistExperienced Registered Yoga TeacherThere’s a sense of betrayal many of Frances's clients feel about their bodies. By the time they enter her office for the first time, they’re considerably confused about nutrition.Not to mention worn out, frustrated, and overwhelmed.They're usually eating foods that don’t work with their physiology, and their bodies are failing to cope.There are mountains of conflicting nutrition advice and endless health philosophies out there and trying to process them all is exhausting.And heartbreaking when they don't yield results.Frances Arnold knows how that feels - her own journey began when she spiraled into chronic illness, despite a wholesome diet, regular exercise, daily meditation, and two degrees in nutrition.Her recovery was long, expensive, and challenging.But it taught her the tools she now uses to restore her clients to wellness in less time than it took her and with less cost.

The Red Thread is back in English again with Kee-kay Bertell and Mirka Kettunen, and this time there's a whole lotta science going on. This thread starts with the American bioengineer Frances Arnold and ends in Russia, with a peculiar mathematician called Grigori Perelman. There are a few bits of music in this episode, among them the classic Russian tune "Kalinka", "The Finland song" by Monty Python, The National theme of the USSR, and also two tracks from Bensounds.com called "Badass" and "Better days". Enjoy!

Jailbreak 9.3.3, Facebook Live, CyanogenMod 13 para S7 EDGE, OnePlus 3, Proveedores OLED, Frances Arnold, Iphone demasiado caro, Ofertas Google Play, Samsung y Tizen, Nuevos Mackbook, Adonit Pixel Stylus, Nuevos Pebble, Xperia E5.

FRANCES Arnold, is the founder at NamasteNutritionist.com, whose mission is to help make nutrition sane, intuitive, and deeply satisfying. She provides custom-designed seminars and workshops in these exciting areas of Weight management, Healthy living in the real world, Food sensitivities, Celiac Disease and gluten sensitivities, and improving your professional performance with food. Her philosophy? “Your health is your wealth.” See her beautiful infographic show notes, plus her top tips and advice for entrepreneurs and aspiring entrepreneurs at www.TodaysLeadingWomen.com or by clicking here!

Frances Arnold is a registered dietitian, cookbook author, and yoga teacher, who believes optimum health leads to optimum living – people with well-nourished cells give their best to the world, share their talents, and experience better moods, sharper memories, and a more agile brain. In her words, “Being well-nourished sets the stage for you to live up to your full potential.”Arnold’s own health journey lasted 16 long, painful, and expensive years. Like so many out there, problems with weight, sore joints, poor digestion, anemia, malnutrition, acne, crippling menstruation, chronic pain, fatigue, brain fog, mouth sores (just to name a few) cropped up at different stages. But, rather than throw pills at the symptoms, Arnold went deep; she found health with food. As a result of her struggles, Frances relates strongly to the overwhelm associated with changing habits and works to support clients with the emotional side of their own health journey.Specializing in weight transformation, food allergies/sensitivities, stress, migraines, and repairing damaged digestion, Arnold leads clients to reach what seems, at first, unachievable goals. Clients experience:Weight loss that stops at a healthy, comfortable size.Alleviation from battles with depression.Formerly compromised immune systems become robust.Beautiful complexions.Healthy digestion.Freedom from migraine headaches.Sharpened mental activity.And (this is the best one) an ability to once again enjoy certain “problem” foods.Frances is a strong believer that anyone can learn to “love the foods that love them back.” She is co-founder of Dieticians for Professional Integrity (DFPI) and belongs to organization such as the Center for Mindful Eating, Dietitians for Integrative and Functional Medicine, LEAP Dietitians, Weight Management Dietetic Practice Group, and The Yoga Alliance. Receive a free copy of her cookbook through her website.http://namastenutritionist.com/

Frances Arnold explains how she harnesses the power of evolution to create proteins and organisms with applications in medicine and in alternative energy.

Dr. Frances Arnold is a professor of Chemical Engineering and Biochemistry at the California Institute of Technology (most of us know it as Caltech).  Dr. Arnold’s research focuses on evolutionary design of biological systems, an approach she is currently applying to engineer cellulases and cellulolytic enzymes for manufacturing biofuels.  This country’s energy security can look pretty bleak when you think about it: the need to address global warming, strife in oil-rich nations, and depletion of fossil fuels combine to paint an uncertain future, and although ethanol has a lot of friends in Iowa and D.C., ethanol isn’t going to end our energy woes.  In the future, our energy supply will probably be cobbled together from a number of different fuels and sources.  Dr. Arnold is interested in engineering microbes that can grant us a biofuel that packs more of a caloric punch than ethanol.  She likes isobutanol, which can be converted into a fuel that’s more like the hydrocarbons we currently put into our fuel tanks.  To develop proteins that make the comounds she wants the way she wants, Arnold and her team take a gene that needs tweaking to do the job, introduce directed mutations into it, and select the mutant proteins that do the job best.  In this interview, I talked with Dr. Arnold about how she got into alternative energy during the Carter administration (and got out again during the Reagan administration), what she sees in the P450 enzyme, and how she explains her work to people outside her field.