bookmark:
connotea
::
del.icio.us
::digg
::furl
::reddit
::yahoo::
redux [07.13.00]
The New York Times Genes May Cause 25% of 3 Major Cancers
[requires 'free' registration]
"Genes may cause more than one-quarter of three major types of cancer, more than previously thought, a group of researchers says.
Scandinavian researchers concluded that genes account for 42 percent of the risk for prostate cancer, 35 percent for colorectal cancer and 27 percent for breast cancer.
The rest of the cases are caused by what people do, such as smoking and diet, or what happens to them, such as on-the-job hazards or viral infections, the researchers said."
"...the conclusion runs contrary to the widespread belief that scientists "will find solutions or cures to all diseases in the genes," Dr. Lichtenstein said. "That won't be the case."redux [05.26.00]redux [04.25.00]
British Medical Journal Genetic epidemiology
"Research in disease aetiology has shifted towards investigating genetic causes, powered by the human genome project. Successful identification of genes for monogenic disease has led to interest in investigating the genetic component of diseases that are often termed complex, that is, they are known to aggregate in families but do not segregate in a mendelian fashion. Genetic epidemiology has permitted identification of genes affecting people's susceptibility to disease, although progress has been much slower than many people expected. While the role of genetic factors in diseases such as hypertension, asthma, and depression is being intensively studied, family studies and the large geographical and temporal variation in the occurrence of many diseases indicate a major role of the environment. Thus, it is necessary to consider findings about susceptibility genes in the context of a population and evaluate the role of genetic factors in relation to other aetiological factors. This article discusses some approaches used to resolve the genetic architecture of disease and to study the relation of genes to environmental factors in the population. "
UniSci Selfish Gene Theory Of Evolution Called Fatally Flawed
"In the current issue of Advances in Complex Systems (February-April), Dr. Yaneer Bar-Yam, president of the New England Complex Systems Institute and an expert on the application of mathematical analysis to complex systems, contends that the selfish-gene theory of evolution is fatally flawed.
If his mathematical proof gains general acceptance, it will shut the door on controversial "gene-centered" views of evolution.
Bar-Yam, in the upcoming article, proves that the "selfish gene" approach is not valid in the general case. He demonstrates that the gene-centered view, expressed in mathematical form, is only an approximation of the dynamics actually at work."
"The key to Bar-Yam's analysis lies in recognizing three levels of structure in nature: the gene, the organism and the group (or network) of organisms."
redux [07.11.00]
Biospace.Com Big Picture Biology
"For most of us, formal biology education begins with complex systems--the traditional dissection of a frog in high school biology class is virtually a rite of passage in the U.S.
But the way many people learn about and invest in biotechnology is at the smallest end of the spectrum--the genome, now often described as the "periodic table" of biology. Genomics and all its related buzzwords have been responsible for much of the media attention, government grants, and investment capital heaped on the biotech industry over the past decade.
But just as there is a whole lot of chemistry that happens in between the periodic table and a birthday cake, there is a lot of biology in between the genome and a living organism. With the completion of biology's periodic table within sight, academics and industry players alike are pondering the best way to apply our hard won knowledge.
The only problem is, the path from genome to system seems to get harder the more we learn."
“Bioinformatics will be at the core of biology in the 21st century. In fields ranging from structural biology to genomics to biomedical imaging, ready access to data and analytical tools are fundamentally changing the way investigators in the life sciences conduct research and approach problems. Complex, computationally intensive biological problems are now being addressed and promise to significantly advance our understanding of biology and medicine. No biological discipline will be unaffected by these technological breakthroughs.”
BIOINFORMATICS IN THE 21st CENTURY
biospace
/
genomeweb
/
bio-it world
/
scitechdaily
/
biomedcentral
/
the panda's thumb
/
bioinformatics.org
/
nodalpoint
/
flags and lollipops
/
on genetics
/
a bioinformatics blog
/
andrew dalke
/
the struggling grad student
/
in the pipeline
/
gene expression
/
free association
/
pharyngula
/
the personal genome
/
genetics and public health blog
/
the medical informatics weblog
/
linuxmednews
/
nanodot
/
complexity digest
/
eyeforpharma
/
nsu
/
nyt science
/
bbc scitech
/
newshub
/
biology news net
/
informatics review
/
stanford
/
bmj info in practice
/
bmj info in practice
/
look snazzy and support the site at the same time by buying some snowdeal schwag !
valid xhtml 1.0?
This site designed by
Eric C. Snowdeal III
.
© 2000-2005