fantastic post. thanks.

It's difficult to PROVE that someone has been re-infected. It requires analysis of complete virus sequences. Testing does not routinely generate these sequence data, so relatively little systematic effort has gone into looking for reinfection. As a result, we know it CAN occur, but still do not know how common or uncommon reinfection occurs. An important point of this study is not that reinfection is prevalent, but that it is a thing and we should probably start measuring its frequency.

That's why it needs to be aggressively supported with funding - to identify the potential dangers before being used on humans.

Perhaps not paying the fund managers $480M for a $8B fund. That's a problem just as much if not bigger than paying the useless administrative critters. That 6% cut of the fund is way too large.

Is "Get me off your fucking mailing list" biomed?

http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11...

0.02% of articles are retracted according to 538: http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

Agreed on the calm down message. Here is a recent article with a good perspective on this fraud: http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

I disagree with you on what science is about. I think this article sums it up better by saying that science is about "becoming less wrong" about things (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/). For some areas, this can get to black and white answers (benefits of vaccines). Other areas remain gray (almost anything diet).

As you noted, folks can ignore science and quote mythical facts or just deny science (climate change deniers). But that is their fault, not the fault of Science.

Well said. One point to add is that people contributing to develop the therapies should all reap some sort of reward commensurate with their level of contribution. So, those folks harboring valuable mutations, who will not benefit from therapies, they should receive some compensation for giving up private information. I am not sure if this regularly happens or if they usually give away their information for free because they feel it is the right thing to do.

Good points. It goes beyond basic civility, though. It is a total waste to disregard the experts, in this case scientists. They are being paid largely by the gov't to develop knowledge and understanding. But somehow, when that knowledge presents an inconvenience, it gets attacked and denied. Weak.

The problem is that it restricts science to a narrow set of topics. Areas of research that do not have an obvious payout at the end will not be initiated, even though they could provide substantial benefits to humans. Vaccine development is one example of an area of applied research that is not a big money maker and thus not picked up by companies. Basic research where knowledge and understanding is the end product is also not much of a money maker. But, it is important. New genome editing tools are good examples of recent basic research advances that will probably change humanity. This area of research never would start in a company.

One point is that the off-target effects have a chance of messing up other parts of the genome while repairing the CFTR mutation. We still don't really have a good handle on how bad these off target effects are, and how to control them. So, until that is figured out, I don't think it is such a slam dunk decision.

If we can eliminate these concerns, then the decision seems rather simple in cases like CF.

It is also the mechanism whereby it is distributed that is the problem. We get grants for a few years at a time for discrete projects. When one of these grants is not renewed, a lab can basically collapse and then shut down completely. This prevents long term thinking and taking the risk on something that won't fit in that 2-5 year window and on that specific project. The NIGMS at NIH is trying out a new way to provide more stable funding in exchange for less overall funding for some labs. Think of it as funding people rather than projects (http://watersheding.wordpress.com/72314-mira-mira-on-the-wall-whos-the-fairest-grant-funding-system-of-all/). I think it is a good start.

You may be a bit behind the most recent development. ES cells can be differentiated and substantially engraft into monkey hearts. See http://seattletimes.com/html/l.... Can adult stem cells perform similarly well?

Wrong

My 5 year old boy and 7 year old girl freakin love Star Wars.They have watched and rewatched all six movies.

Most of their little friends love Star Wars, too. Take a look at toy stores, and you fill find sections of Star Wars junk, indicating the continued interest among youngsters..

Star Wars.has already been "passed down" to the next generation.