Śǀū ƺƫ ƺƴƨŤƫ ř ƹ ƭ ƺƬƘƬƫ ŠƇ ŚŴƫ ř Šǀƫ ƹ Ŷƫ ř Šƿ Ź ƺƀƫ ř ŠƘƯ ŚŬƫ ř
العلوم و التكنولوجيا رئيس التحرير :أ .د .فيصل ديوب
العدد األول -كانون الثاني /يناير 2010
هيئة التحرير أ .د .فيصل ديوب
عميد كلية طب األسنان رئيس التحرير
عميد كلية الصيدلة
عميد كلية الطب
عميد كلية اهلندسة
عميد كلية اهلندسة البرتولية
عميد كلية العلوم
أ .د .أسامة عارف العوا
نائب رئيس التحرير-اإلخراج
أ .د .هشام قطنا أ .د .كرم العودة أ .د .خالد عقيل
ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺽ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻃﻨﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ :ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻓﻮﺩﻳﻞ `Daffodilﺫﻭ ﺍﻷﺯﻫﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺤﻴﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﻴﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﻴﻖ ﺍﳌﺴﻤﻰ ﺃﺭﻛﺎﻳﺎ Archaeaﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻄﻦ ﺑﻴﺌﺎﺕ ﺷﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﳌﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻴﻨﺎﺑﻴﻊ ﻭﺷﻘﻮﻕ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻴﺎﻩ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻴﻌﺎﻥ ﻭﺃﻧﺖ. ﺍﶈﻴﻄﺎﺕ، ﹶ ﺇﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﺐ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﳕﺎﺫﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎ ﹰ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ،ﺣﺘﻰ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﻣﺨﺘﺺ ﺑﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻗﺼﺔ ﺗﺪﻭﺭ ﺃﺣﺪﺍﺛﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﺑﻌﻴﺪ .ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ، ﻓﺈﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﻗﺮﺍﺑﺔ ﻭﺭﺍﺛﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻚ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﺮﺟﺲ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﻛﺎﻳﺎ .ﻭﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ،ﺇﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﻗﺮﺍﺑﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺑﻼﻳﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﺴﻴﻄﺔ . ﻛﻴﻒ ﲤﻜﻨﺎ ﻧﺤﻦ ﻭﺃﻗﺎﺭﺑﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻧﺴﺎﺑﻬﻢ ﻋﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻇﻬﺎﺭ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻛﺜﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻗﻠﻢ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ؟ ﻟﻘﺪ ﺑﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻮﻥ ﻳﺠﻴﺒﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻗﺮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﻴﻨﲔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﺁﻧﺬﺍﻙ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﹸﺳ ﱢﻤﻲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﺍﺛﺔ .geneticsﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻇﻬﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻮﻥ ﻳﺪﺭﺳﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺭﺛﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ -ﺃﻭ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﻮﺭﺛﺎﺕ -ﻓﻲ ﺁﻥ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ.
ﻭﺍﺣﺪ .ﺃﻣﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﻦ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻛﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺭﺛﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺎﺋﻦ ﺣﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ .ﻭﺗﺪﻋﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺍﳌﺘﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﳉﻴﻨﻮﻡ .genomics ﻳﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﻭﺍﳉﻴﻨﻮﻡ ﺣﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﹰ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺍﳌﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﺍﺛﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺤﺪﺙ ﺿﻤﻨﻬﺎ .ﻭﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻤﻴﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﳋﻼﻳﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﲢﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﺮﺩ .ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻼﺕ ﻣﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺟﺰﺋﻴﺎ ﹰ ﺑﺎﳉﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻭﺟﺰﺋﻴﺎ ﹰ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ .ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺑﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺑﺈﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻣﺎﻳﻜﺎﺩ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺼﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﺪﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳉﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﻧﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺮﺟﺲ ﺃﻭ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻴﺶ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻴﻨﺎﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﳊﺎﺭﺓ ،ﺃﻭ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﻟﻴﻚ ﺃﻧﺖ. ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ،ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﺤﻜﻢ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺤﺪﺙ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﳋﻼﻳﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﻤﺾ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺒﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻭﻱ ﺍﳌﻨﻘﻮﺹ ﺍﻷﻛﺴﺠﲔ ) ﺍﻟﺪﻧﺎ .(DNAﻭﺍﻟﺪﻧﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺿﺨﻤﺔ ﻣﺨﺰﹼﻧﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﺳﻤﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﺒﻐﻴﺎﺕ )ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻭﻣﻮﺯﻭﻣﺎﺕ -chromo (somesﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﺓ .ﻭﳝﻜﻨﻚ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﳉﲔ )ﺍﳌﻮﺭﺛﺔ( ﻛﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﺒﺔ ،ﻭﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺼﺒﻐﻲ ﻛﺨﺰﺍﻧﺔ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺗﻀﻢ ﺁﻻﻑ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ.
ﻧﻈﺮﺍ ﹰ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﺗﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﲤﺘﻠﻚ ﺃﺩﻭﺍﺭﺍ ﹰ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﳉﺴـــﻢ، ﻓﺈﻥ ﻟﻬــﺎ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻻ ﹰ ﻭﺃﺣﺠﺎﻣﺎ ﹰ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ. ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﺗﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺟﺴـﺎﻣﻨﺎ ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺴـﺎﻋﺪﻧﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻔﻬــﻢ ﺍﻷﻣــﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﳌﺴﺒﺒﺔ ﻋـــﻦ ﺑﺮﻭﺗﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺷﺎﺫﺓ.
ﻳﹸﻄﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻭﺑﻮﻧﲔ Cﺍﻻﻧﻘﺒﺎﺽ ﺍﻟﻌﻀﻠﻲ ﺑﺘﻐﻴﻴــﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ .ﻓﺎﻟﺒﺮﻭﺗﲔ ﹸﳝﺴﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﺴﻴﻮﻡ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ »ﻗﺒﻀﺎﺗﻪ« ﻭﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ »ﻳﻠﻜﻢ« ﺑﺮﻭﺗﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻟﺒﺪﺀ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﻘﺒﺎﺽ.
ﻳﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻻﺟﲔ ﻣﺘﺎﻧﺘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻏﻀﺎﺭﻳﻔﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻄﺘﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﻪ ﺍﳊﺒﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﺍﳉﺪﺍﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ
You Charged Me All Night Long Is it a sin to leave your cell phone plugged in overnight? By Nina Shen RastogiPosted Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2009, at 7:03 AM ET
A cell phone chargingI always charge my phone, laptop, and MP3 player overnightâ€”even though it only takes a few hours to get them fully charged. Should I be losing sleep over this? Would it better for me to charge my electronics during my morning commute, by plugging them into the car charger? As far as environmental sins go, you can file this one in the venial category. Yes, charging your gadgets for longer than necessary wastes some energy. Will better habits significantly reduce the footprint of your techno-lust? Not likely. Let's start with the most ubiquitous mobile deviceâ€”the cell phone. What happens if you leave yours plugged in all night? According to measurements from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the average cell phone draws 3.68 watts of power from the outlet while it's charging and 2.24 watts when charged. Let's take the worst-case scenario and assume that you're over-juicing a charged battery for the entire night. Leave the average phone plugged in for eight unnecessary hours, and it'll use about 0.018 kilowatt-hours of electricity. Do that every night for a week, and the figure rises to 0.13 kWh; every night for a year, and you're looking at a grand total of 6.5 kWh of electricity. Given that the average American's residential electricity consumption is more than 4,000 kWh each year (PDF), the Lantern doesn't think that a handful of kilowatt-hours are worth much tossing and turning. You could do way more for the planet, for example, by swapping out a single incandescent light bulb in your home for a compact fluorescent one; as the Lantern pointed out in a previous column, that simple action alone can save 126 kWh a year. Plus, charging your gadgets while you sleep has the added benefit of shifting a tiny fraction of your energy usage from the daytime, when demand is highest, to the nighttime, making things just a bit easier on your local grid. What if you leave your phone charger plugged in all the time, even when the phone itself isn't attachedâ€”how much vampire power would that suck up? Again using the Berkeley Lab figures, if the average charger is plugged in for the entire 8,760 hours of the year, it'll use about 2.3 kWh of
21st Century Scientists
Research Training Opportunities for Underrepresented Minorities
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences
Genetic interventions and enhancement of human beings
Should we use science and medical technology not just to prevent or treat disease, but to intervene at the most basic biological levels to improve biology and enhance people’s lives? By enhance, I mean help them to live a longer and/or better life than normal. There are various ways in which we can enhance people but I want to focus on biological enhancement, especially genetic enhancement. There has been considerable recent debate on the ethics of human enhancement. A number of prominent authors have been concerned about or critical of the use of technology to alter or enhance human beings, 1 2 citing threats to human nature and dignity as one basis for these concerns. 3 4 5 The President’s Council Report entitled Beyond Therapy was strongly critical of human enhancement.6 Michael Sandel, in a widely discussed article, has suggested that the problem with genetic enhancement “is in the hubris of the designing parents, in their drive to master the mystery of birth…it would disfigure the relation between parent and child, and deprive the parent of the humility and enlarged human sympathies that an openness to the unbidden can cultivate….[T]he promise of mastery is flawed. It threatens to banish our appreciation of life as a gift, and to leave us with nothing to affirm or behold outside our own will.7 Frances Kamm has given a detailed rebuttal of Sandel’s arguments, arguing that human enhancement is permissible.8 Nicholas Agar, in his book, Liberal Eugenics,9 argues that enhancement should be permissible but not obligatory. He argues that what distinguishes liberal eugenics from the objectionable eugenic practices of the Nazis is that it is not based on a single conception of a desirable genome and that it is voluntary and not obligatory. In this chapter, I will take a more provocative position. I want to argue that far from being merely permissible, we have a moral obligation or moral reason to enhance ourselves and our children. Indeed, we have the same kind of obligation as we have to treat and prevent disease. Not only can we enhance, we should enhance. I will begin by considering the current interests in and possibilities of enhancement. I will then offer 3 arguments that we have very strong reasons to seek to enhance. Tom Murray concludes his thoughtful and wide ranging treatment of enhancement in this volume by arguing that “the ethics of enhancement must take into account the meaning and purpose of the activities being enhanced, their social context, and the other persons and institutions affected by them.” Such caution is no doubt well grounded. But it should not blind us to the very large array of cases where biological modification will improve the opportunities of an individual to lead a better life. In such cases, we have strong
A vision for the future of genomics research
The completion of a high-quality, comprehensive sequence of the human genome, in this fiftieth anniversary year of the discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA, is a landmark event. The genomic era is now a reality. In contemplating a vision for the future of genomics research,it is appropriate to consider the remarkable path that has brought us here. The rollfold (Figure 1) shows a timeline of landmark accomplishments in genetics and genomics, beginning with Gregor Mendel’s discovery of the laws of heredity1 and their rediscovery in the early days of the twentieth century.Recognition of DNA as the hereditary material2, determination of its structure3, elucidation of the genetic code4, development of recombinant DNA technologies5,6, and establishment of increasingly automatable methods for DNA sequencing7–10 set the stage for the Human Genome Project (HGP) to begin in 1990 (see also www.nature.com/nature/DNA50). Thanks to the vision of the original planners, and the creativity and determination of a legion of talented scientists who decided to make this project their overarching focus, all of the initial objectives of the HGP have now been achieved at least two years ahead of expectation, and a revolution in biological research has begun. The project’s new research strategies and experimental technologies have generated a steady stream of ever-larger and more complex genomic data sets that have poured into public databases and have transformed the study of virtually all life processes. The genomic approach of technology development and large-scale generation of community resource data sets has introduced an important new dimension into biological and biomedical research. Interwoven advances in genetics, comparative genomics, highthroughput biochemistry and bioinformatics *Endorsed by the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research, whose members are Vickie Yates Brown, David R. Burgess, Wylie Burke, Ronald W. Davis, William M. Gelbart, Eric T. Juengst, Bronya J. Keats, Raju Kucherlapati, Richard P. Lifton, Kim J. Nickerson, Maynard V. Olson, Janet D. Rowley, Robert Tepper, Robert H. Waterston and Tadataka Yamada.
NATURE | VOL 422 | 24 APRIL 2003 | www.nature.com/nature
are providing biologists with a markedly improved repertoire of research tools that will allow the functioning of organisms in health and disease to be analysed and comprehended at an unprecedented level of molecular detail. Genome sequences, the bounded sets of information that guide biological development and function, lie at the heart of this revolution. In short, genomics has become a central and cohesive discipline of biomedical research. The practical consequences of the emergence of this new field are widely apparent. Identification of the genes responsible for human mendelian diseases,once a herculean task requiring large research teams, many years of hard work, and an uncertain outcome, can now be routinely accomplished
in a few weeks by a single graduate student with access to DNA samples and associated phenotypes, an Internet connection to the public genome databases, a thermal cycler and a DNA-sequencing machine. With the recent publication of a draft sequence of the mouse genome11, identification of the mutations underlying a vast number of interesting mouse phenotypes has similarly been greatly simplified. Comparison of the human and mouse sequences shows that the proportion of the mammalian genome under evolutionary selection is more than twice that previously assumed. Our ability to explore genome function is increasing in specificity as each subsequent genome is sequenced. Microarray technologies have catapulted many laboratories from studying the expression of one or two genes in a month to studying the expression of tens of thousands of genes in a single afternoon12. Clinical opportunities for gene-based pre-symptomatic prediction of illness and adverse drug response are emerging at a rapid pace, and the therapeutic promise of genomics has ushered in an exciting phase of expansion and exploration in the commercial sector13. The investment of the HGP in studying the ethical, legal and social implications of these scientific advances has created a talented cohort of scholars in ethics, law, social science, clinical research, theology and public policy, and has already resulted in substantial increases in public awareness and the introduction of significant (but still incomplete) protections against misuses such as genetic discrimination (see www.genome.gov/PolicyEthics). These accomplishments fulfil the expansive vision articulated in the 1988 report of the National Research Council, Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome14. The successful completion of the HGP this year thus represents an opportunity to look forward and offer a blueprint for the future of genomics research over the next several years. The vision presented here addresses a different world from that reflected in earlier plans published in 1990, 1993 and 1998 (refs 15–17). Those documents addressed the goals of the 1988 report, defining detailed paths towards the development of genome1
A. BARRINGTON BROWN/SPL
Francis S. Collins, Eric D. Green, Alan E. Guttmacher and Mark S. Guyer on behalf of the US National Human Genome Research Institute*
A blueprint for the genomic era.
Contents ;L]MWKIRIXMGWMQTSVXERXXSQ]JEQMP]ERHQI# ;LEXQEOIWQIYRMUYI# 8IPPQIQSVIEFSYXQ]KIRIW ;L]HSJEQMP]QIQFIVWLEZIXLMRKWMRGSQQSR# ;L]HSWSQIHMWIEWIWVYRMRJEQMPMIW# ,S[GERJEQMP]LIEPXLLMWXSV]LIPTQIWXE]LIEPXL]# ;L]WLSYPH-FVMRKQ]JEQMP]LIEPXLLMWXSV] XSQ]LIEPXLGEVITVSZMHIV# (MWIEWIWXLEXVYRMRXLIJEQMP] Want a different ,IEVXHMWIEWI condition included? Coronary artery disease Substitute High blood pressureit for %WXLQE Asthma. (MEFIXIW Type I Type 2 Want different 'ERGIV cancers? Pick Breast any 3. Lung Prostate 7MRKPIKIRIHMWSVHIVW 6IWSYVGIW Want a specific
condition included? Substitute it for SGDs.