Dbacks president Derrick Hall Franchise still f

first_img D-backs president Derrick Hall: Franchise ‘still focused on Arizona’ And they drive fans and coaches up the wall.“I’m going to tell you honestly, he can’t make some of those throws that he made,” Cardinals coach Ken Whisenhunt said after the win over the Dolphins Sunday. “He’s been better about that coming into this game. Going forward, he will continue to work not to do that.“He responded big on that last drive.”Follow up some horrid mistakes with an amazing rally. Yeah, that’s how Jake did it. Of Plummer’s 30 wins as a Cardinal, 15 involved a fourth quarter comeback/game-winning drive. The same can be said for three of Kolb’s six wins as a Cardinal. Truth be told, while many of us were in awe with the way Plummer used to lead the Cardinals to wins late in games, much of the time it was necessary because of the quarterback’s own mistakes. He threw 15 interceptions in those 15 wins, and one could easily make the case that better QB play early would have led to not needing heroics late. The same could easily be said for Kolb — especially in the win over the Dolphins — as without the bone-headed pick in the end zone there’s a good chance the Cardinals would have increased their lead and won the game fairly comfortably. What an MLB source said about the D-backs’ trade haul for Greinke 0 Comments   Share   – / 15 Kevin Kolb, meet Jake Plummer. Jake, Kevin. “Woah, it’s like looking in a mirror.”Plummer, who quarterbacked the Cardinals from 1997-2002, and Kolb, who has been in the Valley for less than two years, have much in common.They’re about the same size (Plummer 6’2″, 212 lbs. and Kolb 6’3″, 218 lbs.), they were both selected in the second round of their respective drafts, and they tallied identical 3-6 records as starters in their first year with the Cardinals. Cardinals expect improving Murphy to contribute right away Nevada officials reach out to D-backs on potential relocation Guess it comes with the territory when you take the beating Kolb did — physically and emotionally — and still come out on top.“It feels really good to know that even when the game is on the line we’ve got a quarterback that can make that throw,” Cardinals running back Ryan Williams said of the game-tying touchdown to Andre Roberts, adding that the entire play was right on the money.“It feels good to know that we have guys that are not going to quit.”Larry Fitzgerald joked after the win that fans pay to see close games, that the barnburners are more fun — with the caveat that the Cardinals come out on the winning side. Back in the late 90s, the Cardinals were rarely on the right side of the scoreboard, but when they were it was largely due to some late-game magic from Jake Plummer that followed some early game disaster. With “The Snake” under center you knew the team was never out of the game, even if the QB himself appeared to put it out of reach, and that meant something.Kevin Kolb followed a similar pattern Sunday against the Dolphins, and while it may have made things more stressful than necessary, it may have been necessary for Kolb to cement himself as the guy in Arizona. Top Stories But no QB is perfect, and the ability to bounce back after mistakes — yours or someone else’s — is an important trait to have for any person, let alone an NFL QB.And Kolb, like Plummer many times before him, did exactly that. He led the Cardinals on a 10-play, 51 yard scoring drive that started with the QB being sacked twice and ended with him throwing a dart to Andre Roberts for the game-tying touchdown on fourth down.“Looking back on it now and the circumstances, it’s probably the most special in my career,” Kolb said of the touchdown pass. “Now, the one before that was probably the worst in my career.“That’s definitely the worst in my career.”The former Eagle got a second chance because his defense forced a fumble, and took advantage of it by showing the same resiliency that led many to believe John Skelton was the team’s best choice at the position. Who knows, he still might be. But for now Kolb has certainly done enough to warrant a continued grasp on the starting job. He has led the team to a 4-0 start, and is coming off two of the best games of his Cardinal career. The 28-year-old should now get the benefit of the doubt from fans, as he has the full confidence of his teammates. last_img read more

Russian geneticist answers challenges to his plan to make geneedited babies

first_img CC STUDIO/Science Source A Russian biologist wants to use the in vitro fertilization clinic he works at to create more gene-edited babies. Russian geneticist answers challenges to his plan to make gene-edited babies By Jon CohenJun. 13, 2019 , 5:55 PM Denis Rebrikov/Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Email Rebrikov, whose lab is in a busy in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic, does not plan to repeat He’s experiment—he thinks its design was flawed. In He’s study, the Chinese researcher selected couples seeking IVF in which the male partner was infected with HIV. Although this by itself does not pose much risk for an IVF baby—the virus can be washed from sperm before injecting it into an egg—He said he wanted to “genetically vaccinate” the children against future risk of infection with the AIDS virus so they would not suffer the stigma and discrimination faced by their HIV-infected fathers.Rebrikov, in contrast, wants to find HIV-infected women who have had a “weak response to antiretroviral therapy,” as he explained in a paper he published last year in the Bulletin of Russian State Medical University (where he also works). The short paper describes his preclinical work using CRISPR and its Cas9 enzyme to modify CCR5 in nonviable human embryos.Rebrikov spoke with ScienceInsider yesterday about his plans, addressing the scientific arguments against his CCR5 target and specifics about his ultimate aims and the prospect of his controversial experiment moving forward. This is a condensed version of the conversation that has been edited for clarity. Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Denis Rebrikov says he’s planning to use the genome editor CRISPR on a gene whose protein is used by HIV to infect cells. In a bold rejection of the widespread sentiment—and regulations in many countries—that no one should alter the genome of a human embryo and transfer it to a woman, Russian geneticist Denis Rebrikov last week went public with his plans to become the second researcher to cross this red line. “We can’t stop progress with words on paper,” Rebrikov told ScienceInsider yesterday, when asked about international efforts to ban such research.Rebrikov, who is at the Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology in Moscow, does not yet have Russian approval to do the experiment. But, as Nature first reported on 10 June, he would like to use the genome editor CRISPR to modify the CCR5 gene in embryos so they would be highly resistant to infection with HIV.This is the strategy that Chinese researcher He Jiankui attempted in a widely condemned experiment that led to the birth of twin girls. Jiankui, who did not publicly discuss his trial until news stories revealed details of it in November 2018, triggered an international push to step up oversight of human embryo studies that create heritable, DNA changes. Concerns about this so-called “germline editing” have led some prominent scientists to call for a moratorium. An expert committee at the World Health Organization and, separately, an international commission organized by academies of sciences have been convened to wrestle with the thorny question about how to create a framework that will responsibly move germline editing from the lab to the clinic. Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Q: In your paper, you cite two studies about pregnant, HIV-infected women who do not respond to antiretrovirals (ARVs). They’re both older studies with suboptimal drugs, and the women started treatment during pregnancy, which isn’t ideal. What current evidence is there that there are pregnant, infected women who fail all ARVs and transmit to their babies?A: We have about one woman in 30,000 to 40,000 of HIV-positive women who has no response on ARV therapy. They’re like multidrug-resistant people. We use different therapies and they still have persistence of HIV in the blood with a relatively high level. Nobody knows why it is. So this young woman who wants to get pregnant, she has a high risk of vertical transmission of the virus to the embryo. That’s the target group.Q: Russia has about 1 million infected people. That would mean you’re talking about 30 women in the country?A: Yes.Q: Only a subset of those want to get pregnant. What’s more, there’s been a steady introduction of new ARVs, and the new integrase inhibitors have extremely little evidence of people having drug resistance. Given that, what’s the rationale?A: CCR5 editing is just a proof of concept. If I can’t find an HIV-infected woman who doesn’t respond to ARV therapy and wants to be pregnant, I’ll look for different cases where both parents have a homozygous mutation for some genetic disease, like dwarfism, deafness, or blindness. We need models to start to use CRISPR embryo editing in clinical practice. I think we need several, 50, maybe 100 cases of using this technology, and after that we can we can try to use it more broadly. For example, we can see in a family that all babies will be born with a high risk of cancer. Now, when genome editing is just starting, it’s dangerous and not proven so we can’t use it with them. But in the near future, I think we can say to these parents, “Would you like to make some changes in the genome of your babies to reduce their risk of cancer?” And not only cancer, but different diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and so on.Q: But returning to HIV, even if a mother receives no treatment, transmission in utero or at birth only happens about 15% of the time. Cesarean section lowers the risk even further. You can also reduce risk by giving the newborn a liquid dose of an ARV. CRISPR, on the other hand, could alter the genome in the wrong place, causing a dangerous off-target mutation. Some studies suggest crippling CCR5 could make people more susceptible to other diseases like West Nile or even shorten life spans. How do you balance this risk versus benefit equation?A: My experiment is concentrated on creating a system of genome editing that has no off-target activity. If we can convincingly show that there is no off-target activity in the genome, this system can be used in different types of genome editing. I have maybe a unique system, and maybe it’s possible only in Russia. I don’t know. Is it worth preventing some HIV transmission at the risk of decreasing longevity or putting people at risk of other diseases? It’s a philosophical question. Nobody knows the exact answer. It depends on a lot of factors.Q: Another risk is that you can only test a small percentage of the edited cells from an embryo before you implant it. [Embryos are sometimes “mosaic,” with different mutations in different cells.] There could be off-target edits that you can’t detect.A: Yes, the main problem is the mosaicism, because I can take only five, seven cells from the blastocyst’s 250 cells. So, we always have the risk that we check these five cells and find that everything is perfect, and then have problems in the other 200 cells.Q: In the Nature article, you said you could get approval in a few months to a few years. How does the approval process in Russia work? And what are the laws and regulations regarding germline editing?A: Approval from the government is not the biggest problem, it’s not the bottleneck. For me, the bottleneck is to find the correct clinical model. If I’ll find the good case, I think that we can get approval from regulators.Q: Let’s say you find that HIV-infected woman who wasn’t responding to any ARVs, wanted to get pregnant, and was willing to do this. How long will the approval process take?A: Maybe a couple of months.Q: Have you discussed it with regulators?A: We’ve just started to discuss it, and they say that if it will be a good clinical case, we can we can discuss it further.Q: In the United States, and in many other countries, there are actually laws that prohibit germline editing. Is there any such law in Russia?A: As far as I know, we don’t have direct restriction of such type of experiments, but usually Russia agrees with international rules. I know that transmission of germline-edited embryos into women is prohibited in most countries in Europe. In Russian law, we don’t have such language.Q: So you might face international regulations that prohibit you from doing what you want to do?A: I’m not a lawyer. So I don’t have an answer.Q: Two international committees are now discussing how to move forward with germline editing, and we also know the reaction to what He Jiankui did. If Russia went forward right now with this experiment, would those international considerations come into play? A: I don’t think it’s possible to restrict some experiments worldwide. You can try to restrict it in some areas, researchers can go to islands in the Pacific Ocean if they want to do it. We can’t stop progress with words on paper. So even if we say, let’s not do the nuclear physics, because it can make a bomb, a lot of scientists will still do this. We can’t stop it. A lot of groups will try to do experiments with embryos to transfer to women, and maybe it won’t be in my group, but we will see in the next years that they will have some results, and they will publish it. That’s maybe the problem for humans on the planet, that we cannot stop the progress.Q: What’s your clinic like?A: My lab is inside one of the biggest Russian obstetrics and gynecology center and we have about 10,000 IVF cycles per year.Q: What do you think of the harsh reaction to what He did?A: That’s a normal reaction of human population and all life systems, not only humans—maybe birds. Any life system, 90% of a population is very conservative. That’s normal. And maybe 5% is progressive. We just need to wait some time, maybe some years. And we need very good clinical cases to show people that this instrumentation is powerful, but it’s safe and has good results.Q: Do you think He has been treated too harshly? A: In Russia we have a phrase that if you have success, you are right. So if he is a lucky guy and these girls will be OK, in some years he will again be seen as a good researcher.Q: What was your reaction when you first learned what he did?A: It was positive. Actually, I don’t want to be the first. I want to transfer this technology in practice, and his experiment makes it closer to practice.Q: Do you expect that if you, too, go forward you will be intensely criticized?A: In Russia I think not so much. Internationally? I don’t want to move forward until I have approval from ethical committees and regulators, and I think it will not be as crazy as his steps.Q: Has anything happened since the Nature story appeared? Has any government official called you and said, “Stop this, don’t talk about this?”A: No. Russia now, I think, is a good country to do this type of experiments. It’s not very free in politics, but it’s very free in science.Q: What do you think of germline editing that’s not for disease, but for enhancement of things like running speed, IQ, or eye color?A: It will be the next step. But in 20 to 30 years. Now, I’m opposed to it. In 2040, I’ll support it. I’m not against the idea itself. And these people who are opposed want to have all these things in their children but only by “divine providence,” not by science. They are liars or stupid.last_img read more