Tag: hit&run

Today The Independent has a
fascinating article on a new extremely precise gene editing
technique called Crispr. The enzyme
CAS9 derived from bacteria enables researchers to edit genomes at
will. The technique clearly has major implications for treating
genetic diseases in people. Current techniques can insert new genes
but often they land fairly randomly and disrupt other genes. The
new technique appears to be so accurate and so safe that it could
be used to correct genetic flaws in human embryos. As The
Independent explains:

A breakthrough in genetics – described as “jaw-dropping” by one
Nobel scientist – has created intense excitement among DNA experts
around the world who believe the discovery will transform their
ability to edit the genomes of all living organisms, including
humans.

The development has been hailed as a milestone in medical
science because it promises to revolutionise the study and
treatment of a range of diseases, from cancer and incurable viruses
to inherited genetic disorders such as sickle-cell anaemia and Down
syndrome.

For the first time, scientists are able to engineer any part of
the human genome with extreme precision using a revolutionary new
technique called Crispr, which has been likened to editing the
individual letters on any chosen page of an encyclopedia without
creating spelling mistakes. The landmark development means it is
now possible to make the most accurate and detailed alterations to
any specific position on the DNA of the 23 pairs of human
chromosomes without introducing unintended mutations or flaws,
scientists said.

The technique is so accurate that scientists believe it will
soon be used in gene-therapy trials on humans to treat incurable
viruses such as HIV or currently untreatable genetic disorders such
as Huntington’s disease. It might also be used controversially to
correct gene defects in human IVF embryos, scientists said….

In addition to engineering the genes of plants and animals,
which could accelerate the development of GM crops and livestock,
the Crispr technique dramatically “lowers the threshold” for
carrying out “germline” gene therapy on human IVF embryos, added
Professor [Craig] Mello [of the University of Massachusetts Medical
School and 2006 Nobelist for his discovery of RNA
interference]….

Germline gene therapy on sperm, eggs or embryos to eliminate
inherited diseases alters the DNA of all subsequent generations,
but fears over its safety, and the prospect of so-called “designer
babies”, has led to it being made illegal in Britain and many other
countries.

The new gene-editing technique could address many of the safety
concerns because it is so accurate. Some scientists now believe it
is only a matter of time before IVF doctors suggest that it could
be used to eliminate genetic diseases from affected families by
changing an embryo’s DNA before implanting it into the womb.

“If this new technique succeeds in allowing perfectly targeted
correction of abnormal genes, eliminating safety concerns, then the
exciting prospect is that treatments could be developed and applied
to the germline, ridding families and all their descendants of
devastating inherited disorders,” said Dagan Wells, an IVF
scientist at Oxford University.

“It would be difficult to argue against using it if it can be
shown to be as safe, reliable and effective as it appears to be.
Who would condemn a child to terrible suffering and perhaps an
early death when a therapy exists, capable of repairing the
problem?” Dr Wells said.

Here’s hoping that the Crispr technique lives up to the hype.
Now if we can only keep the bioethicists (“science is outrunning
our regulations”) from interfering.

The
whole article is worth reading.

H/T Marian Tupy.

Not that the TSA needs more
trouble, but then again, the rest of us don’t need more TSA. And we
really don’t need overpaid, poorly deployed Transportation Security
Administration criminal investigators sent hither and yon on
expensive, poorly conceived tasks that pretty much anybody could
have done at lower cost. And we don’t expect the agency tasked with
providing transportation security to lack any sort of game plan for
determining if it’s doing its job. But that’s exactly what’s been
happening, according to a report from the DHS Office of Inspector
General.

The report
(PDF) found that the Office of Inspections (OOI), which is largely
staffed by well-paid criminal investigators and tasked with
detecting vulnerabilities in TSA security systems and conduct
internal inspections, doesn’t operate efficiently. Specifically,
the OOI uses criminal investigators receiving “premium pay” to
perform duties that could have been performed by other employees at
lower cost. More troubling for an office detailed to determine if
the Transportation Security Administration is actually providing
some sort of transportation security, “Quality controls were not
sufficient to ensure that inspections, internal reviews, and covert
testing complied with accepted standards.”

OOI did not effectively plan its work, did not adequately
measure its performance, and did not have quality control
procedures to ensure that all divisions complied with standards
that the office had committed to using in its work. OOI also could
not require other TSA offices to respond to its recommendations. In
addition, TSA did not hold OOI accountable for developing and
implementing effective quality controls over its resources,
staffing, and operations. As a result of the issues that we
identified with OOI’s quality controls over its work products, TSA
management may not be able to rely on this work, and the office may
not have accomplished its mission to identify and address
transportation security vulnerabilities.

Top-heavy staffing in terms of criminal
investigators is projected to cost an unnecessary $17.5 million in
Law Enforcement Availability Pay (which is 25 percent higher than
base pay) over five years, the report adds. That doesn’t take into
account additional costs from the ability to retire with full
benefits at age 50 after 20 years of service, and faster accruing
pensions. In fact, criminal investigator salaries account for 68
percent of OOI salary costs, even though the law enforcement-rated
staffers are often used for work that anybody could do.

And then there’s that additional problem of not actually
accomplishing its mission, despite those costs. The report warns
that, without quality control, planning or adequate standards,
“management may not be able to rely on OOI’s work.” And since that
work consists of trying to ensure that the TSA is actually
providing security, the rest of us can’t really rely on the TSA as
a whole.

Not that we ever thought we could.

Register today at www.reasoncruise.com

TIME Magazine calls him one of
the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Guardian
says that he’s one of the 50 people who could save the planet—but
Bjorn Lomborg is best known as The Skeptical
Environmentalist.  As the author of Cool It and
How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place,
Lomborg is an expert on the unreasonably high cost
of current environmental policy and common sense alternatives.

Other speakers on this year’s cruise include author and former
Reason Editor in Chief Virginia Postrel, author
and historian Johan Norberg, Reason Editor in
Chief Matt Welch, Reason TV Editor in Chief
Nick Gillespie, Reason Science Correspondent
Ron Bailey, and Reason Senior Editor Jacob
Sullum.

We’ll be traveling in style on the Celebrity Silhouette, and
all-inclusive accommodations start at just $1,650 per person (and
range up to deluxe cabins with incredible ocean views and private
verandas).

Find out more and register today at www.reasoncruise.com

• Federal employees who worked
  during the government shutdown
  are suing the government for damages because they weren’t paid
  on time. It would be so satisfying to watch the government fight
  itself if it weren’t taxpayer dollars it was fighting over.
• Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
  acknowledged that enrollment figures for Obamacare for
  October 
  will be “very low.” Only six people signed up on the first
  day of enrollment. The government’s top healthcare IT official,
  
  meanwhile, has stepped down and is headed to the private
  sector.
• Al Gore slammed the NSA’s surveillance program and predicted
  it will be reined in. Let’s hope that’s more accurate than his
  weather predictions.
• Despite the ordinance legalizing marijuana, the police chief of
  Portland, Maine says officers will
  still issue citations for possession. On the bright side,
  he also said reprimandning pot smokers is a low priority.
• Backers have declared an initiative for a
  $15 hourly minimum wage at Seattle’s Sea-Tac International
  Airport to be victorious.
• Twitter Inc
  could face volatile trade in its debut Thursday on the New York
  Stock Exchange, but analysts remain enthusiastic after the
  money-losing social media company priced its IPO above the expected
  range.
• Syrian troops have retaken a
  key rebel-held town south of Damascus, according to state-run
  media.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on
Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You
can also get the top stories mailed to
you—sign
up here. 

Have a news tip? Send it to us!

Two weeks ago we learned that
the National Security Agency (NSA) has been spying on the
chancellor of Germany and on the president of the United States.
Last week we learned that it has spied on the Pope and on the
conclave that elected him last March. This week we learned that it
also has spied on the secretary general of the United Nations and
has hacked into the computer servers at Google and Yahoo. Andrew
Napolitano says this isn’t the government to which we
consented.

View this article.

In California, Lincoln High
School cheerleaders had planned to hold a car
wash fundraiser until the San Jose Environmental Services
Department stepped in. City officials say all such car washes
violate water discharge laws, which bar anything other than
rainwater from flowing into storm drains.

Newsday’s Lane Filler and Ross Clark of The
Times and The Spectator are the co-winners of Reason
Foundation’s 2013 Bastiat Prize, which honors the writing that best
demonstrates the importance of individual liberty and free markets
with originality, wit, and eloquence.

“Lane Filler and Ross Clark, each in their own way, channel the
spirit of Bastiat to communicate the importance of freedom to the
pursuit of happiness,” said Julian Morris, vice president of Reason
Foundation and founder of the Bastiat Prize.

Filler and Clark split $15,000 in prize money and received
engraved crystal candlesticks at the Reason Media Awards tonight in
New York City.

Dhiraj Nayyar of India Today was awarded
third-place and $1,000. Honorable mentions went to The
Economist’s Tamzin Booth, Stephanie Slade of
U.S. News and World Report, and The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution’s Kyle Wingfield.

Previous Bastiat Prize winners include Virginia Postrel, Anne
Jolis, Tom Easton, Bret Stephens, John Hasnas, A. Barton Hinkle,
Amit Varma, Jamie Whyte, Tim Harford, Mary O’Grady, Robert Guest,
Brian Carney, Sauvik Chakraverti and Amity Shlaes.

In celebration of Reason magazine founder
Lanny Friedlander, who passed away in 2011, the first-ever Lanny
Friedlander Prize was awarded
to Wired co-founders Louis Rossetto and Jane
Metcalfe for their impact helping people understand the power of
free minds and free markets
through Wired’s analysis of technology,
business, and culture. 

Newsday’s Lane Filler and Ross Clark of The
Times and The Spectator are the co-winners of Reason
Foundation’s 2013 Bastiat Prize, which honors the writing that best
demonstrates the importance of individual liberty and free markets
with originality, wit, and eloquence.

“Lane Filler and Ross Clark, each in their own way, channel the
spirit of Bastiat to communicate the importance of freedom to the
pursuit of happiness,” said Julian Morris, vice president of Reason
Foundation and founder of the Bastiat Prize.

Filler and Clark split $15,000 in prize money and received
engraved crystal candlesticks at the Reason Media Awards tonight in
New York City.

Dhiraj Nayyar of India Today was awarded
third-place and $1,000. Honorable mentions went to The
Economist’s Tamzin Booth, Stephanie Slade of
U.S. News and World Report, and The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution’s Kyle Wingfield.

Previous Bastiat Prize winners include Virginia Postrel, Anne
Jolis, Tom Easton, Bret Stephens, John Hasnas, A. Barton Hinkle,
Amit Varma, Jamie Whyte, Tim Harford, Mary O’Grady, Robert Guest,
Brian Carney, Sauvik Chakraverti and Amity Shlaes.

In celebration of Reason magazine founder
Lanny Friedlander, who passed away in 2011, the first-ever Lanny
Friedlander Prize was awarded
to Wired co-founders Louis Rossetto and Jane
Metcalfe for their impact helping people understand the power of
free minds and free markets
through Wired’s analysis of technology,
business, and culture. 

Domestic drone surveillance is an
inevitability, and while certain uses of the machines are unlikely
to cause any significant issues, there’s still the matter of what
law enforcement will (and does) do with them. One senator wants to

establish some rules. Courtesy of the National
Journal:

As the Federal Aviation Administration assesses whether
commercial skies are ready for commercial, nonmilitary drones in
the near future, some lawmakers are attempting to capitalize on the
data-surveillance debate by pushing for preemptive privacy
regulations on the still-grounded industry.

Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., introduced a bill this week that
would require law-enforcement agencies to earn a warrant before
conducting any surveillance via any unmanned aircraft. The bill
would also make drone applications include statements detailing the
purpose and location of any drone and how any data collected is
intended to be used; it would also require the FAA to maintain a
website listing licenses issued and other information about
approved drones.

“Before countless commercial drones begin to fly overhead, we
must ground their operation in strong rules to protect privacy and
promote transparency,” Markey said in a statement. “This
legislation requires transparency on the domestic use of drones and
adds privacy protections that ensure this technology cannot and
will not be used to spy on Americans.”

Drone lobbyists worry that they’re going to be singled out and
want the rules to be “technology-neutral,” which, you know, might
not be a bad idea.

Read the full story
here.

Follow this story and more at Reason
24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get the widgets
here. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at @reason247.

Two LAPD officers, Luis Valenzuela and James Nichols, are under
investigation for reportedly
using the threat of arrest to rape at least four women over the
course of several years. Two of the women reported working for the
officers as confidential informants, while one says she was
detained for prostitution and another was allegedly stopped while
she was simply out walking.

In a
search warrant affidavit released yesterday, an LAPD Internal
Affairs officer outlined the allegations against the officers.

According to the affidavit, the department was first made aware
of the officers’ alleged behavior in January 2010 when a woman who

worked as an informant for Valenzuela and Nichols reported
being detained by the plain clothes officers while she was out
walking; she was then forced to perform sex acts on one of the men.
The investigation was eventually dropped. 

A year later, another woman filed a complaint with LAPD
supervisors, alleging that Valenzuela raped her under almost
identical circumstances. While she was walking down the street in
Hollywood, Valenzuela ordered her into his undercover police
vehicle or be arrested. Once inside, Valenzuela allegedly told her,
“If you don’t suck my dick, you’re going to jail.” He then “grabbed
her by the back of her head and forced her to perform oral
copulation on him,” while Nichols sat in the front seat.

A sex worker also came forward, following an anonymous complaint
filed with the department that “unknown LAPD officers were
exchanging sexual favors from prostitutes in lieu of arrest.” The
woman claimed that Nichols raped her twice. Both times he detained
and handcuffed her, drove to a secluded area, and pulled out his
erect penis. At one point, Nichols allegedly asked the woman, “You
don’t want to go to jail today, do you?”

Additionally, a second confidential informant who worked with
Valenzuela and Nichols for over a year claimed that the men
insisted on using sex as a bargaining tool as she worked off her
arrest.

According to the
LA Times:

Sources familiar with the case…said police officials determined
from the investigation that there was enough evidence of misconduct
to have Nichols and Valenzuela fired.

Under city rules, the chief of police does not have the
authority to fire an officer outright. Instead, Chief Charlie Beck
ordered discipline hearing panels that will decide if the officers
are guilty of the allegations and, if so, whether they should be
fired or given a lesser punishment.

Valenzuela, a 16-year department veteran, and Nichols, who has
been an officer for nearly 13 years, were suspended with pay during
the investigation. They are no longer being paid as they await the
disciplinary hearing.

As the officers prepare for the hearing, Nichols’ attorney

claimed the women “have no credibility.”