SpaceX rocket blasts off for space station
22.05.2012, 08:10:43
Falcon 9 commercial rocket takes off from Cape Canaveral with supplies for ISS A privately owned, unmanned rocket has blasted off from Cape Canaveral air force station in Florida on the first commercial flight to the International Space Station. The 54-metre (178ft) Falcon 9 rocket lifted off at 3.44 am (0744 GMT) from a refurbished launch pad just south of where Nasa launched its now retired space shuttles. Less than 10 minutes later, the rocket and its cargo - a Dragon capsule with 544 kg of supplies for the station crew - reached orbit. "Feels like a giant weight just came off my back," the company's founder and chief executive, Elon Musk, posted on Twitter after Dragon deployed its solar panels, the first of several key milestones that must be met before the spacecraft is cleared to dock at the station. "Falcon flew perfectly!!" Musk wrote. Nasa is counting on companies such as Space Exploration Technologies - SpaceX - to take over the task of flying cargo, and eventually astronauts, to the $100bn space station, which orbits about 240 miles (390km) above Earth. Nasa is dependent on Russia to fly crew to the station at a cost of more than $60m per person. Russia, Europe and Japan also fly cargo to the station. If its test flight is successful, SpaceX will become the first private company to reach the space station, a microgravity research complex for science experiments and technology demonstrations. SpaceX and a second company, Orbital Sciences Corp , already hold contracts worth a combined $3.5bn to fly cargo to the station. SpaceX is among four firms vying to build space taxis to fly astronauts, tourists and non-Nasa researchers. Separately, Nasa contributed nearly $400m to SpaceX's $1.2bn commercial space programme, which includes development and up to three test flights of Falcon 9 rockets and Dragon capsules. An analysis by the US government accountability office shows that a similar programme under traditional Nasa procurement would have cost four to 10 times as much, said Nasa's Alan Lindenmoyer, who manages the agency's commercial spaceflight initiatives. Tuesday's launch followed a last-second cutoff of Falcon's planned liftoff on Saturday . Engineers later traced the problem to climbing pressure in an engine chamber due to a faulty purge valve. "It looks like we probably could have flown with the condition," SpaceX's president, Gwynne Shotwell, said during a pre-launch commentary broadcast on Nasa Television. "Once we separated from the ground, things would have settled down a bit, but it was still the right thing to do." Dragon will take about a day to reach the space station's orbit. It will then spend another day practising manoeuvres and testing its communications systems and navigation aids. If all goes as planned, Nasa is expected to clear Dragon for berthing at the space station on Friday. Space International Space Station Nasa Florida United States guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
|
|
GM crops: protesters go back to the battlefields
22.05.2012, 13:46:00
A decade ago anti-GM protesters tore up fields and Britain roundly rejected so-called 'Frankenfood'. Now, as researchers trial new crops, activists are once more squaring up to the scientists. But have the arguments changed? During the summer of 2003, more than 600 public meetings were held across the country on the order of the government. One was even held in the fictional town of Ambridge, setting for Radio 4's rural soap The Archers, such was the desire to spark a "national debate". At each event, attendees were asked about their attitudes towards a technology that left very few people on the fence - genetically modified (GM) food . When Professor Malcolm Grant, the man chosen by the Labour government to lead the consultation, published the findings of the "GM Nation" report a few months later, the conclusions could not have been clearer: "The mood ranged from caution and doubt, through suspicion and scepticism, to hostility and rejection." Such views, added the report, "far outweighed any degree of support or enthusiasm for GM". In fact, only 2% of those surveyed said they would be happy to eat GM food. It was about an emphatic a "No!" from the British public as it could muster. The food industry, especially the supermarkets, heard it loud and clear and abandoned the technology. But almost a decade on from the report - and after barely a word spoken about the technology in the British media in the intervening period - GM food is once again creating a growing ripple of headlines. A collective of anti-GM protestors calling themselves Take the Flour Back promised last month that they would rip up a test crop of genetically modified, aphid-resistant spring wheat currently being grown at the Rothamsted research station in Hertfordshire on 27 May unless the small band of publicly funded research scientists abandoned the trial. The scientists have so far refused to back down , instead posting an emotional appeal on YouTube calling for the protestors to meet them and "discuss the science". But tensions were raised further earlier this week when an organic farmer from Devon was charged for allegedly breaking in and vandalising crops and property at Rothamsted over the weekend, an act which a Take the Flour Back spokeswoman said the group "had no information about". In stark contrast to the widespread anti-GM mood a decade ago - an age when GM was being described in the popular press as a "Frankenfood" and protesters dressed in bio-hazard suits routinely trampled on and pulled up test crops - it appears that the scientists have been far more successful this time at garnering sympathy and understanding of their work and motives. And there are signs from Europe, too, that attitudes are - albeit glacially - starting to shift: on Monday, Europe's food safety agency ruled against a temporary French ban on a strain of GM maize made by the US company Monsanto , saying there was "no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment" to justify it. But the protesters feel the public is still on their side - a point supported by a British Science Association survey published in March which found that opposition to GM food in UK has only weakened by a few percentage points since 2003. Liz Walker, a veteran of the 1990s anti-GM protests who is now an active member of Take the Flour Back, says any notion that GM "went away" is folly. While the UK and, to an equal extent, the European Union, has largely shunned the technology, the rest of the world, particularly North America and Asia, has pushed ahead with growing GM crops commercially. "Around 2.7% of the global agricultural acreage is under GM crops now," she says. "There has been an almost unchallenged wave of pro-GM lobbying over the past few years in the UK and despite the GM Nation consultation finding clear opposition from the British public, there has been an absolute continuum of support for GM between the last government and the present one. Our supermarkets don't want it because they know their customers don't. They are not stupid. And there's just no market for it in Europe. But, despite all this, in recent years the UK government has approved GM wheat and potato trials." Walker, who says she "works for a soap company" but doesn't wish to discuss her background in further detail, says the protesters are happy to talk with the scientists but insists the planned direct action will only be called off if the trial is halted. Rothamsted has "no democratic mandate to proceed", she says. Furthermore, the various claims by GM advocates - it is safe to grow and eat and offers multiple advantages to farmers and the environment - simply don't stack up: "Supposed reassurances from America about the safety of GM crops have not been borne out. And there is a question mark about it being cheaper for consumers, too. Even the UN and World Bank said in a major joint report in 2008 that GM isn't a contender." (The 2,500-page " International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development " - IAASTD - concluded that the "information [about GM] is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable".) When it was revealed last year that a trial for blight-resistant GM potatoes was being conducted at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, 60 protesters with signs saying "Stop gambling with our chips" marched through the city , before dumping a tractor-load of potatoes at the entrance. But media interest was negligible. Walker admits that there has been a conscious decision by the protesters this time round to raise the stakes. "It took the announcement of this new protest to get everyone interested again in GM. The idea for the direct action emerged last year at a series of meetings held between those concerned by the announcement of the trial. Many were connected to the Community Food Growers Network ." The network's online manifesto says it is "actively engaged in growing food plants and supporting others to grow food, in healthy, sustainable ways." It adds: "We exist to join together in defence of any member whose legitimate activities are threatened: an injury to one is an injury to all." Walker also admits that the group contains "some of the same faces" that were part of the Climate Camp , a nationwide, non-hierarchical collective of environmentalists that has organised a series of high-profile protest camps in recent years, but which appears to be now focusing on "fracking", the controversial method of extracting natural gas from shale, as well as partially dissolving into groups such as Occupy and UK Uncut . Beyond this, Walker refuses to say who the protesters are or how many they number: "We don't have a leadership structure. There's no fixed office and we take it in turns to man the phone." She says the protesters are "keeping an open mind" about how far they are prepared to take things on the day of the protest, but insists they have a mandate to express their objections. "The scientists and their supporters are in a massive minority. Concerns about the science of GM, and its corporate ownership, are both key, intertwined reasons for opposing it. The public mood on this is clear." Mark Lynas , an anti-GM protester in the late 1990s who now admits to a Damascene conversion to the merits of the technology in recent years, believes the protesters have misjudged the public attitude to GM this time round. "I think there are several reasons why GM is making a comeback. First, the blanket opposition to GM per se as a technology is obviously untenable in any scientific sense - there is no reason why it should present any new dangers in food, and, indeed, may well be safer than conventional breeding in crops." The experience of seeing GM crops grown and sold in other parts of the word goes a long way to prove this, he says: "With the passage of more than a decade since the widespread commercialisation of GM crops in North America, Brazil and elsewhere, hundreds of millions of people have eaten GM-originated food without a single substantiated case of any harm done whatsoever." But the world's priorities and needs are also fast changing, says Lynas. Issues such as climate change and population rise mean we just don't have the luxury any more as a species to ignore or decry this technology: "It is increasingly obvious - even to environmentalists like myself who had initial strong doubts about the technology - that unnecessarily ruling out crop improvement technologies harms the interests of humanity when our challenge is to feed over nine billion much richer people by mid-century on a similar cultivated area to today and without enormous increases in fertiliser and pesticide use." Lynas believes that the opposition to GM is now more driven by ideological rather than scientific objections: "I think most of the remaining opposition to GM is really a displaced fear about big corporations dominating the food chain, which is why every argument about GM seems to be reduced down to one word: Monsanto. In which case we should be encouraging publicly-funded, open-source GM such as that conducted at Rothamsted and the John Innes Centre, not threatening to rip out their crops." It was, in part, the fear of international biotech firms such as Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta attaining a stranglehold on global farming through their patented GM seeds that enraged so many back in the 1990s, when campaign groups such as GM Freeze were first formed to block the technology's advance. Pete Riley, a Friends of the Earth campaigner back then but now spokesperson for GM Freeze, the "only UK national umbrella organisation" to campaign against GM, says there is an increasingly pro-GM stance being adopted by the UK "establishment". "The UN's IAASTD report back in 2008 concluded that GM offered marginal benefits," says Riley. "But since then we've seen the government's Foresight Global Food and Farming Futures report published last year, as well as the Royal Society, being positive about GM. This has helped to push it back on to the table here in the UK." Riley says GM Freeze doesn't participate in direct action itself, but shares Take the Flour Back's concerns. "Spring wheat only accounts for 1% of wheat grown in the UK. There just isn't a market for it here. You have to wonder if this wheat trial at Rothamsted is just an attempt to justify their stream of public funding. Anyway, alternative technologies such as marker-assisted selection [non-GM genetic mapping] is now overtaking GM, but the immense lobbying power of the industry could still get it back on to the agenda." It's the "same-old" thinking and assumptions being made about agriculture, observes Riley: "Ultimately, we need to have a wide debate about the direction of agriculture in the EU. We've been abusing our soil for 60 years. We need to move away from monoculture, energy-intensive farming. We don't need GM for a healthy diet. There's no evidence it increases yields. We need a diverse gene pool. The experience of using GM crops in the US has proved not to be good. There are now 21 herbicide-resistant weeds, meaning the industry is now proposing that more herbicides are introduced to tackle them. It's a pesticide treadmill in the US and a blind alley that we must not also go down." This kind of talk exasperates Colin Ruscoe, chairman of the British Crop Production Council , a charity, supported by the biotech industry, which "promotes the use of good science and technology in the understanding and application of effective and sustainable crop production". The council has angrily condemned the planned anti-GM protest and believes it is an "attack on science". Ruscoe says it was a "deja vu moment" when he heard about the protest, which "took me back to when we had all those debates about 'Frankenfood'". "We saw the same reaction when the plough was introduced," he sighs. "I am pessimistic about this debate. Europe is well fed. There is just no incentive to debate GM properly. It's simply not that high on the political agenda at the moment. Denmark, as president of the European Council, recently attempted to get it back on the table, but that failed. A compromise was also opposed. The opposition to GM in countries such as Germany is just too strong. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is racing ahead of us." Ruscoe believes this is foolish as GM offers the promise of a number of beneficial traits: "Some crops could be climate change resistant. They could be both salt and drought resistant. Or they could be enhanced with extra health-giving properties such as omega-3 oils. Food security - being able to grow your own indigenous food supplies - has also become a bigger concern since the late 1990s. But it will take a few more shocks to the system to get the debate going again in Europe." But Ruscoe offers a controversial half-way house as a suggested way forward for this seemingly interminable debate. "There has been a clever, yet misleading use of the word 'contamination' in this debate by the organic food lobby. I actually have a lot of respect for the principles of that form of farming. The best of both worlds would be a meshing together of the two systems, with each crop treated on a case-by-case basis, with one shared goal being reduced pesticide use. This would clearly threaten the organic brand and cause problems for labelling organic foods. But it would only cause a contamination of the brand. We have to be more pragmatic and sanguine about GM." However, whether the protesters like it or not, GM crops are already heading towards Europe, insists Ruscoe. "Eventually, due to their use in neighbouring regions, we will get GM crops blowing into Europe over borders. There will be leaks in the dyke. We need to accept and prepare for this, not fear it." GM Farming Agriculture Plants Genetics Leo Hickman guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
US petition could tip the scales in favour of open access publishing
22.05.2012, 11:39:00
A petition urges President Obama to implement open access for all federally funded research. This is our chance to demonstrate public support and goad the White House into action The problem of access to research has been well covered in the Guardian - by analysis , by excoriation and by parable . The situation again, in short: governments and charities fund research; academics do the work, write and illustrate the papers, peer-review and edit each others' manuscripts; then they sign copyright over to profiteering corporations who put it behind paywalls and sell research back to the public who funded it and the researchers who created it. In doing so, these corporations make grotesque profits of 32%-42% of revenue - far more than, say, Apple's 24% or Penguin Books' 10% . So far, so depressing. But what makes this story different from hundreds of other cases of commercial exploitation is that it seems to be headed for a happy ending. That's taken some of us by surprise, because we thought the publishers held all the cards. Academics tend to be conservative, and often favour publishing their work in established paywalled journals rather than newer open access venues. The missing factor in this equation is the funders. Governments and charitable trusts that pay academics to carry out research naturally want the results to have the greatest possible effect. That means publishing those results openly, free for anyone to use. Suddenly it seems that funding bodies are waking up to the importance of this. In recent weeks, we've seen the Wellcome Trust promising to get tough on grant recipients who don't make their work available; the astonishing pro-open access speech by science minister David Willetts to the Publishers Association AGM; and the European Union's intention to use open access for the results of its EUR80 billion Horizon 2020 programme. Publishers' responses to all this have been tiresomely predictable. Commenting on the new draft open-access guidelines proposed by Research Councils UK , Graham Taylor of the Publishers Association said that publishers would not accept that authors could deposit their papers in open-access repositories six months after publication. This is pure bluster. It's none of publishers' business what conditions funders impose on authors. Publishers are only service providers, with no more right to dictate policy than suppliers of laboratory equipment. If funders choose to impose conditions, authors will have to abide by them. If that means depositing papers in open-access repositories, publishers who forbid that will simply be bypassed in favour of those that are not stuck in the 1990s. So mandates from funders are the way to break through on open access , and it's great to see the UK and European Union leading the way. The surprise at the moment is that the US government - having introduced the important and influential NIH public access policy in 2005 - seems to have fumbled the ball. This is disappointing for the US, but also disturbing for Britain. As Willetts pointed out in his speech: "In future we could be giving our research articles to the world for free via open access. But will we still have to pay for foreign journals and research carried out abroad?" For any country to get the full benefit from its own government's open-access mandates, it needs other countries to do the same. Happily, an opportunity has arisen in the US to fix this. The White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy has taken a strong interest in open access, sponsoring two requests for public information in as many years. The issue also has the attention of President Obama's science adviser , who has met with both publishers and open access advocates . There is a feeling that the administration fully understands the value of open access, and that a strong demonstration of public concern could be all it takes now to goad it into action before the November election. To that end a Whitehouse.gov petition has been set up urging Obama to "act now to implement open access policies for all federal agencies that fund scientific research". Such policies would bring the US in line with the UK and Europe. There is always a question of whether petitions really make a difference. But there are good reasons for optimism in this case. The White House has been looking at open access for some time and is known to be sympathetic . This is a chance to demonstrate public support for action, and the executive has the power to direct federal agencies to take that action. Also, there is already bipartisan legislation in both US houses to require public access to federally funded US research . Demonstrating public support will strengthen this legislation's chances. Change in politics comes when the opportunity for decision coincides with a clear statement of the community's view. You need both. So please sign the White House petition . You do not need to be a US citizen . Anyone aged 13 or older is eligible. Signing requires very minimal registration (email address and password), and clicking a link in a confirmation email. Do it now. You can make a difference. Open access scientific publishing Science policy Higher education Peer review and scientific publishing Newspapers & magazines US politics Mike Taylor guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
Stroke: Everything you need to know
22.05.2012, 10:10:00
Stroke is a major cause of death and disability in the UK and across the world. What is stroke, how many people does it kill and how are mortality rates changing?
|
Alternative medicines can't escape the long arm of the law
22.05.2012, 06:30:02
Practitioners of alternative medicine who do not abide by the rules of evidence-based practice may fall foul of the law Alternative medicine has been in the firing line for a very long time. By and large, the critics are healthcare professionals who argue that the therapeutic claims made for alternative treatments are neither evidence-based nor plausible. In recent years, their arguments have been increasingly adopted by the legal profession and the battles over alternative medicine are increasingly fought in the courts. In the UK, Simon Singh famously won the libel case brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association . Ever since Simon was sued, many of my articles for medical journals have had to be scrutinised by libel lawyers before being published. In the US, a patient has accused Stanislaw R Burzynski, a proponent of alternative cancer cures , of swindling her out of nearly $100,000 (£63,000) by using "false and misleading tactics". The case is ongoing. Also in the US, a woman was awarded $7.4m (£4.7m) after suffering a stroke following the intake of a herbal supplement. Most sensationally, perhaps, the world's largest homeopathic manufacturer Boiron recently settled for CAD$12m (£7.4m) after a class action that was brought against it in Canada for selling homeopathic remedies under false pretences. Ian Freckelton, an Australian barrister and professor of law, has scrutinised alternative medicine in more general legal terms. This year he has written about homeopathy and the law , and in 2003 he addressed a wide range of unorthodox therapies by evaluating selected legal cases from across the world . The treatments examined included: o Laetrile ("vitamin B17") o Spirtual healing o Magnet healing o Oxygen therapy o Coffee enemas o Colonic irrigation o Topical application of sulphuric acid o Ozone therapy o High-dose vitamin C o Live blood analysis o Aqua Tilis o Neck manipulation These treatments have been used by clinicians for a wide range of serious, life-threatening conditions and the money spent on them has usually been considerable. Subsequently some of these clinicians have found themselves in the dock. In almost all cases, the practitioners were found guilty of professional misconduct or negligence. Freckelton's conclusions are, I think, remarkable: "It is the responsibility of the registered practitioner to abstain from engaging in unprofessional practice by obtaining genuinely informed consent from their patients and it is a criminal (and a disciplinary) offence under Australia's national regulatory scheme for registered health practitioners for them to engage in false, misleading and deceptive advertising, to use testimonials or purported testimonials about services or to create an unreasonable expectation of beneficial treatment. It is unprofessional conduct to provide treatment that is excessive, unnecessary or otherwise not reasonably required for the person's wellbeing." Freckelton also urges clinicians to consider their professional obligations: "By electing not to undertake treatment likely to be successful, or by refraining from orthodox clinical trials and instead proffering unscientific treatments, they are acting unprofessionally, regardless of whether they procure informed consent in that such conduct would be of a lesser standard than most of their colleagues and members of the public would reasonably expect of them. This issue is yet to be finally resolved by the courts and disciplinary tribunals. Generally, though, the theoretical distinction is not problematic. Contemporary health practice that involves the provision of assessments and treatments that are not justified by the relevant professional literature is usually accompanied by impoverished provision of information to patients and therefore by practice that has denied treatment options and thus been without informed consent." In essence, this tells us that the practitioners, promoters or manufacturers of alternative medicines who do not abide by the rules of evidence-based practice are likely to be operating outside the law. This makes a lot of sense. How much of alternative medicine would survive if the legal principles outlined by Freckelton were rigorously applied? Science and scepticism Medical research Alternative medicine Edzard Ernst guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
How life begins in the deep ocean
22.05.2012, 07:00:00
How do sea creatures get their start in life? This wonderful video explores that theme, bringing you stunning looks at these gorgeous animals "Don't let my calm adult exterior fool you; I was a rocket ship I was a wild child." Where do squid, jellyfish and other sea creatures begin life? The story of a sea urchin reveals a stunningly beautiful saga of fertilization, development and growth in the ocean depths. This video combines lovely imagery with science and poetic narration to tell you about the early life of a sea urchin: [ video link ] Lesson by Tierney Thys, visualization by Christian Sardet (CNRS/Tara Oceans), Noé Sardet, and Sharif Mirshak (Plankton Chronicles Project, Parafilms). .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Marine biologist Tierney Thys earned her degree in biology from Brown University in Rhode Island, and dedicated her career to studying the ocean. After receiving her PhD studying fish biomechanics, she became enthralled with the power of film to teach science and to convey conservation messages
Christian Sardet is a researcher at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique , founder of the Fédération Réaumur des Sciences du Vivant and creator of Plankton Chronicles . He also was awarded the 2007 "EMBO Award for Communication in the Life Sciences"
Noé Sardet can be found on vimeo
Sharif Mirshak can be found on vimeo .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. twitter: @ GrrlScientist facebook: grrlscientist evil google+: grrlscientist email: grrlscientist@gmail.com Zoology Marine life GrrlScientist guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
Health agency says hospital staff must be trained to combat pneumonia
23.05.2012, 05:00:01
All hospitals recommended to publish their data on the use of antibiotic and anti-fungal medicines so as to cut unecessary use Hospitals in England have been warned they must sharpen their training of ward staff on reducing pneumonia and lower respiratory tract infections in patients. Less sedation, more physiotherapy, more careful use of antacids and appropriate mouth hygiene should be encouraged to minimise the risks of the infection in severely ill patients, including those intubated for fluids or air, says the government's Health Protection Agency. Many are in intensive care units. The agency also recommend all hospitals should publish data on their use of antibiotic and antifungal medicines, an attempt to ensure that moves to cut their unnecessary use are not forgotten as the incidence of MRSA and C difficile infections tumble. The prevalence of MRSA soared until recently because of the development of antibiotic resistance. Similar problems emerged with C difficile, which can also develop because antibiotics have destroyed too many 'good' bacteria. Antacids used to prevent or treat mouth ulcers can also have the same effect, meaning 'bad' bacteria are more likely to transfer from the gut , via the stomach, to the respiratory system. Experts warn that it is important to target infections with the right antibiotics, rather than using so-called 'broad spectrum' drugs. Staff should remove catheters to drain or administer fluids as soon as possible since they too are liable to cause infections. The key messages, which Department of Health policy advisers will now consider how to take further, emerge from a 2011 snapshot survey of infections linked to people's healthcare before and during hospital and covering almost 52,500 patients. Although direct comparisons cannot be made with previous surveys, such infections dropped from 8.2% in 2006 to 6.4%. More than one in five (22.8%) were respiratory, with urinary tract infections (17.1%) and on parts of the body where there has been surgery (15.7%) the next most prevalent. Since the 2006 check, there has been an 18-fold reduction in MRSA bloodstream infections (1.3% to less than 0.1%) and a five-fold reduction in C difficile(2% to 0.4%). Professor Anthony Kessel, director of public health strategy and medical director at the HPA, said: "There have been great results achieved in reducing the levels of MRSA and C difficile over the last five years in the NHS and these can be seen in the figures reported today. These have been accomplished through national policies and guidelines and changes to infection control. There are now new challenges to meet and I am sure that hospitals will be equally as vigilant in addressing these." Hygiene Infectious diseases Health policy James Meikle guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
Beating heart muscle cells created from skin cells - video
22.05.2012, 23:10:01
Scientists took skin tissue from men who had suffered a heart attack and transformed it into fresh heart cells
|
|
Home | Bookmark this site
Google News