Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Cambridge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cambridge. Show all posts

Monday, May 1, 2017

Will Your "OdorPrint" Enable Doctors To Diagnose Diseases In The Future?

Photo
CreditViktor Koen
Blindfolded, would you know the smell of your mom, a lover or a co-worker? Not the smells of their colognes or perfumes, not of the laundry detergents they use — the smells of them?
Each of us has a unique “odorprint” made up of thousands of organic compounds. These molecules offer a whiff of who we are, revealing age, genetics, lifestyle, hometown — even metabolic processes that underlie our health.
Ancient Greek and Chinese medical practitioners used a patient’s scent to make diagnoses. Modern medical research, too, confirms that the smell of someone’s skin, breath and bodily fluids can be suggestive of illness. The breath of diabetics sometimes smells of rotten apples, experts report; the skin of typhoid patients, like baking bread.
But not every physician’s nose is a precision instrument, and dogs, while adept at sniffing out cancer, get distracted. So researchers have been trying for decades to figure out how to build an inexpensive odor sensor for quick, reliable and noninvasive diagnoses.sto
The field finally seems on the cusp of succeeding.
“You’re seeing a convergence of technology now, so we can actually run large-scale clinical studies to get the data to prove odor analysis has real utility,” said Billy Boyle, co-founder and president of operations at Owlstone, a manufacturer of chemical sensors in Cambridge, England.
Mr. Boyle, an electronics engineer, formed the company with two friends in 2004 to develop sensors to detect chemical weapons and explosives for customers, including the United States government. But when Mr. Boyle’s girlfriend and eventual wife, Kate Gross, was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2012, his focus shifted to medical sensors, with an emphasis on cancer detection.
Ms. Gross died at the end of 2014. That she might still be alive if her cancer had been detected earlier, Mr. Boyle said, continues to be a “big motivator.”
Owlstone has raised $23.5 million to put its odor analysis technology into the hands of clinicians. Moreover, Britain’s National Health Service is funding a 3,000-subject clinical trial to test Owlstone’s sensor to diagnose lung cancer.
The sensor is a silicon chip stacked with various metal layers and tiny gold electrodes. While it looks like your mobile phone’s SIM card, it works like a chemical filter.
The molecules in an odor sample are first ionized — given a charge — and then an electric current is used to move only chemicals of diagnostic interest through the channels etched in the chip, where they can be detected.
“You can program what you want to sniff out just by changing the software,” Mr. Boyle said. “We can use the device for our own trials on colorectal cancer, but it can also be used by our partners to look for other things, like irritable bowel disease.”
The company also is conducting a 1,400-subject trial, in collaboration with the University of Warwick, to detect colon cancer from urine samples, and is exploring whether its chips can help determine the best drugs for asthma patients by sorting through molecules in their breath.
A similar diagnostic technology is being developed by an Israeli chemical engineer, Hossam Haick, who was also touched by cancer.
“My college roommate had leukemia, and it made me want to see whether a sensor could be used for treatment,” said Mr. Haick, a professor at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. “But then I realized early diagnosis could be as important as treatment itself.”
His smelling machine uses an array of sensors composed of gold nanoparticles or carbon nanotubes. They are coated with ligands, molecular receptors that have a high affinity for certain biomarkers of disease found in exhaled breath.
Once these biomarkers latch onto the ligands, the nanoparticles and nanotubes swell or shrink, changing how long it takes for an electrical charge to pass between them. This gain or loss in conductivity is translated into a diagnosis.
“We send all the signals to a computer, and it will translate the odor into a signature that connects it to the disease we exposed to it,” Mr. Haick said.
With artificial intelligence, he said, the machine becomes better at diagnosing with each exposure. Rather than detecting specific molecules that suggest disease, however, Mr. Haick’s machine sniffs out the overall chemical stew that makes up an odor.
It’s analogous to smelling an orange: Your brain doesn’t distinguish among the chemicals that make up that odor. Instead, you smell the totality, and your brain recognizes all of it as an orange.
Mr. Haick and his colleagues published a paper in ACS Nano last December showing that his artificially intelligent nanoarray could distinguish among 17 different diseases with up to 86 percent accuracy.
There were a total of 1,404 participants in the trial, but the sample sizes for each disease were quite small. And the machine was better at distinguishing among some diseases than others.
In the United States, a team of researchers from the Monell Chemical Senses Center and the University of Pennsylvania received an $815,000 grant in February from the Kleburg Foundation to advance work on a prototype odor sensor that detects ovarian cancer in samples of blood plasma.
The team chose plasma because it is somewhat less likely than breath or urine to be corrupted by confounding factors like diet or environmental chemicals, including cleaning products or pollution.
Instead of ligands, their sensors rely on snippets of single-strand DNA to do the work of latching onto odor particles.
“We are trying to make the device work the way we understand mammalian olfaction works,” said Charlie Johnson, director of the Nano/Bio Interface Center at the University of Pennsylvania, who is leading the fabrication effort. “DNA gives unique characteristics for this process.”
In addition to these groups, teams in Austria, Switzerland and Japan also are developing odor sensors to diagnose disease.
“I think the fact that you’re seeing so much activity both in commercial and academic settings shows that we’re getting a lot closer,” said Cristina Davis, a biomedical engineer and professor at the University of California, Davis, who also is helping to develop an odor sensor to diagnose disease.
“My estimate is it’s a three- to five-year time frame” before such tools are available to clinicians, she added.
The researchers may be competing intensely, but all see possibilities for saving lives.
“There’s a lot of good work going on out there,” Mr. Johnson said. “It will be interesting to see who comes out on top.”
Correction: May 1, 2017 
An earlier version of this article misstated when Kate Gross died. It was Dec. 25, 2014, not last year.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

When Free Speech Is No Longer Free, All Freedoms Disappear! Universities Lead The Way!

The universities were ranked using a traffic-light system: red for universities that ban and actively censor certain ideas on campus; amber for universities that chill free speech, and green for universities that have a hands-off approach to free speech.
The results of the Free Speech University Rankings were staggering. Forty-seven universities were marked red, including Oxford and the London School of Economics; 45 were marked amber, including Cambridge, and a mere 25 were marked green. Results indicate that 80% of British universities censor free speech.
Stifling free speech on campus is no longer restricted to Britain; it can be seen all over the world, including in the U.S.
"Campus censorship is something which can no longer be laughed off. Free thought itself is under attack." — Tom Slater, assistant editor at Spiked Online, Daily Telegraph.
"Supporting Israel is now labeled an act of 'racism' by some professors and certain campus organizations." — Daniel Mael, Senior, Brandeis University, U.S.
Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental values of our Judeo-Christian civilization. The day we give away free speech -- or Israel, which embodies it -- is the day we cease to exist.
At Manchester University in April of 2010, Israel's deputy ambassador to the UK, Talya Lador-Fresher, was violently attacked. Demonstrators climbed the hood of her car and attempted to smash the windscreen before the police were able to escort her to safety.
Again, in February of 2013, this time at the University of Essex in Colchester, Britain, during a debate on the situation in the Middle East, authorities ordered the evacuation from campus of her successor, Israel's deputy ambassador to the UK, Alon Roth-Snir. A group of hostile students disrupted the debate; university authorities said they could not protect his safety.
The British website Spiked Online, known for its staunch defense of freedom of speech, recently published its first "Free Speech University Rankings" (FSUR). Spiked surveyed 115 British universities and examined the policies, regarding freedom of speech, of both the university administrations and the students' unions. The universities were then ranked using a traffic-light system. The color red was given to universities that ban and actively censor certain ideas on campus; amber was given to universities that chill free speech through intervention; and green for universities with a hands-off approach to free speech.

Image source: Spiked Online

Spiked did not negatively assess university policies or actions aimed at restricting unlawful speech. America has a First Amendment, but Europe does not. There are countless restrictions on speech under UK law, including harassment, incitement to violence or discrimination. However, if a university or students' union expands legal definitions of speech offenses in order to limit legitimate, lawful speech, this was taken into account.
The results of the FSUR were staggering. Forty-seven universities were marked red, including renowned institutions such as Oxford University and the London School of Economics; 45 universities were marked amber, including Cambridge University; and a mere 23 universities were marked green. The results indicate that 80% of British universities censor speech.
Essex University, from where Israeli diplomat Roth-Snir was evacuated, was marked red, both for its official policies and for those of its students' union. The university guidelines state that it is forbidden to "cause needless offence, concern or annoyance to others." Essex Professor Thomas Scotto complained to the media that he asked the university to re-invite an Israeli spokesman, but he was told to "let it go."
The University of Manchester was marked amber. The university itself received a green ranking, because it places no limits on speech and expression. However, the Manchesterstudent's union forbids what it calls the "promotion of extremist causes." Defending the policies of Israel seems to be one of these "extremist causes."
Spiked's FSUR shows that censoring pro-Israeli views belongs to the five most popular bans at British universities. "Campus censorship is something which no longer can be laughed off. Free thought itself is under attack," Tom Slater, assistant editor at Spiked, wrote in the Daily Telegraph. "Pro-life groups have been banned at four universities. Pro-Israel students are lucky if they can even get events approved."
Last month, students and staff at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London voted toboycott Israel and sever all links with Israeli academic institutions. 75% of the students, 60% of the academic staff and 90% of the non-teaching staff, such as cleaners, favored the Israeli boycott.
The spectacle of stifling free speech on campus is not restricted to Britain; it can be seen all over the world, including in the U.S.
In America, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has published a guide-to-free-speech-on-campus, which rates colleges and universities in a similar fashion as Spiked. The case of Daniel Mael springs to mind, a 22-year old student who is being lambasted at Brandeis University for expressing pro-Israeli views. "Supporting Israel is now labeled an act of 'racism' by some professors and certain campus organizations," Mael writes.
It is no coincidence that the fight to preserve freedom of speech coincides with the right to defend Israel. Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental values of our Judeo-Christian civilization. The day we give away free speech -- or Israel, which embodies it -- is the day we cease to exist.

Friday, September 26, 2014

We Have Not Had Artificial Sweeteners For Years. We Knew They Were Bad For You.

Israeli Study Shows Artificial Sweeteners Not So Good for You After All

“It is not good to eat much honey; so for men to search out their own glory is not glory.” (Proverbs 25:27)
A new study by the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel calls into question the alleged safety of artificial sweeteners.  In fact, says one researcher, they may even do the very thing users are trying to prevent.
“In our studies we found that artificial sweeteners may drive, or contribute to…an exaggerated elevation in blood glucose levels – the very same condition that we often aim to prevent by consuming them,” said Dr. Eran Elinav of the Immunology Department.  He led the study, along with Prof. Eran Segal from the Computer Science and Applied Mathematics Department.
The results of the experiments conducted were published in the journal Nature on Wednesday.  Although the extent of the research was not enough for the scientists to make recommendations, they are suggesting further investigation is warranted.
The research team conducted a variety of experiments to test their theory that artificial sweeteners alter the body’s microbiome, or collection of bacteria present in the digestive system.  Altering the microbiome can lead to elevated glucose levels which remain high for longer periods after eating. This glucose intolerance is a precursor to diabetes.
In the first experiment, the scientists fed groups of mice different compounds – plain water, sugar water, or artificially sweetened water.  After one week, all three groups were given a dose of sugar, and the effects were monitored.  The first two groups showed no difference in blood sugar levels, but the mice fed the artificially sweetened water showed a marked glucose intolerance. The same was true whether the artificial sweetener used was saccharin (used in Sweet ‘N Low); sucralose (Splenda), or aspartame (Equal).
Another experiment, involving injecting intestinal bacteria from saccharin-fed mice into healthy mice, demonstrated that the recipient mice developed the same glucose intolerance, and the that the microbiomes of the mice who had consumed the saccharin were indeed different.
To test the effect on humans, the researchers surveyed 381 non-diabetic participants and discovered a correlation between reported sweetener use and glucose intolerance.  The sweetener users also had altered intestinal bacteria.
A final experiment saw seven healthy adults who do not normally use artificial sweeteners consume the FDA maximum recommended daily intake for six days.  Four of the seven showed signs of glucose intolerance following the experiment.  Additionally, the three participants who did not show a change in blood-glucose levels also had different intestinal bacteria than those who did.  This seems to suggest probiotics may be useful in treating glucose intolerance.
The results of Elinav and Segal’s research are compelling, but not conclusive.  “This research raises caution that artificial sweeteners may not represent the ‘innocent magic bullet’ they were intended to be to help with the obesity and diabetes epidemics, but it does not yet provide sufficient evidence to alter public health and clinical practice,” said Nita Forouhi, program leader at the Medical Research Council’s epidemiology unit at Cambridge University.
Meanwhile, the FDA issued a statement reminding the public that artificial sweeteners “have been thoroughly studied and have a reasonable certainty of no harm to consumers.”
Still, the study provides some ‘food for thought’, so to speak.  Even its author has been moved by what he has seen.
“I’ve consumed very large amounts of coffee, and extensively used sweeteners, thinking like many other people that they are at least not harmful to me and perhaps even beneficial,” Elinav said. “Given the surprising results that we got in our study, I made a personal preference to stop using them.
“We don’t think the body of evidence that we present in humans is sufficient to change the current recommendations,” he continued. “But I would hope it would provoke a healthy discussion.”

Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/21908/israeli-study-shows-artificial-sweeteners-good/#dWwvJb0yCphxJmtO.99

Friday, April 25, 2014

Digital Freedom Growing On Colleges

EFF: Campus Activism Against NSA Spying is Growing Fast

April 25, 2014 by  
 10 4
 
 0 22

This piece, written by Electronic Frontier Foundation activist April Glaser, originally appeared on the foundation’s website on April 25.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been on the road, traveling to cities and towns across the country to bring our message of digital rights and reform to community and student groups.
And while we had the tremendous opportunity to talk about our work and our two lawsuits against the National Security Agency, the best part of the trip was learning about all of theinspiring and transformative activism happening everyday on the local level to combat government surveillance and defend our digital rights.
We met students and professors in Eugene, Ore., who held a campus-wide digital rights event at the University of Oregon. There, students had the opportunity to unpack their campus privacy policy, download and learn freedom-enhancing software, and explore their library’s open access initiative.
We traveled to Cambridge, Mass., where we met local activists and students ready to join the fight against draconian computer crime laws and raise awareness about the effects of mass surveillance on student innovation and academic freedom. In one particularly inspiring meeting with MIT’s Student Information Processing Board, we talked about how student innovators have long felt rudderless in the face of poorly written and outdated computer crime laws.
Most recently, a student was issued a subpoena for a project developed with fellow MIT classmates at a local hackathon. The students’ project, called TidBit, demonstrates how a client’s computer can mine for Bitcoin as an alternative to website advertising. The project was designed for a hackathon (where it won an award for innovation) and was never actually implemented, but instead explicitly marked as a proof of concept. Yet the State of New Jersey issued a subpoena trying to get info about the project and suggesting the TidBit developers had violated the law. EFF is helping the students fight back by moving to quash the subpoena. The TidBit case is the latest in a string of student confrontation with computer crime laws at MIT over the years.
We remember how Aaron Swartz was charged under the grossly unfair and outdated Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. And we remember when the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority ordered that MIT students cancel their scheduled presentation at DEFCON about vulnerabilities that they found in Boston’s transit fare payment system, violating their 1st Amendment right to discuss their important research. The facts are clear: Student innovation is chilled by broken computer crime laws, and reform is sorely needed.
While we were in Cambridge, we participated in LibrePlanet, the annual Free Software Foundation conference. And after the conference local activists, technologists and free software enthusiasts joined us for a Free Software Foundation/EFF Speakeasy. We had the opportunity to talk about how the Free Software Foundation is one of the 22 plaintiffs in ourFirst Unitarian Church of Los Angeles  v. NSA case, as well as what technologists can do to combat mass surveillance.
EFF also stopped in New York City to meet with students from the New School and New York University to talk about what students can do on campus to oppose NSA surveillance. And we were delighted to co-host a Students’ Speakeasy, where we chatted about ways to get active on campus with the Student Net Alliance, a growing network of people involved in campus communities that support sound Internet law and policy. Whether it’s writing a letter about how mass surveillance chills academic freedom, learning, and the need to research and discuss controversial topics; holding regular campus cryptoparties; or petitioning for better open access policies on campus, there are plenty of things that students can do join the fight to protect our digital rights.
“The Internet was born on university campuses, and universities have always been at the center of critical fights to keep the Internet free and open,” said Alec Foster, founder of Student Net Alliance. “As students, we believe in advancing policy and technology that support the free and open flow of information, and ensure our private communications are equally protected online and offline.”
It’s been a busy month! Just last week we visited Iowa, where we collaborated with the student-run Iowa State University Digital Freedom Group to put together a giant event for the campus-wide First Amendment week. More than 250 people showed up to hear about EFF’s litigation against the NSA and learn about reforms in Congress that aim to rein the NSA back within the bounds of the Constitution.
When the ISU Digital Freedom Group was trying to form on campus last year, they met serious resistance from the school’s administration who wouldn’t give them the green lightbecause they did not want ISU students to advocate for or participate in the “secrecy network” Tor and would not permit the student group to use any “free software designed to enable online anonymity.”
But the students had not proposed that a Tor node be established on campus. Rather, they simply asked that they be able to provide a forum to “discuss, learn and practice techniques to anonymize and protect digital communication.” EFF wrote an open letter to university administrations across the country about the importance of student groups like the Digital Freedom Group that aim to discuss and learn about methods for secure and private use of the Internet.
After our tremendously successful event, the ISU Digital Student Group hosted their first cryptoparty, where campus based technologists taught about important Internet privacy tools like GPG email encryption, Tor, and Off-the-Record instant messaging. We all had a wonderful time in Ames and look forward to watching the group grow.
At EFF we are thrilled to meet more activists across the country working on the front lines to defend our digital rights. And this fight is now more important than ever. Snowden’s revelations have brought conversations about government surveillance and the right to privacy into the spotlight. Now is the time to organize for real reform. Join us.