So you thought you were all one genome? All your DNA was identical? Think again!
But scientists are discovering that — to a surprising degree — we contain genetic multitudes. Not long ago, researchers had thought it was rare for the cells in a single healthy person to differ genetically in a significant way. But scientists are finding that it’s quite common for an individual to have multiple genomes. Some people, for example, have groups of cells with mutations that are not found in the rest of the body. Some have genomes that came from other people.
Especially pregnant ladies or ladies who were pregnant.
In 2012, Canadian scientists performed autopsies on the brains of 59 women. They found neurons with Y chromosomes in 63 percent of them. The neurons likely developed from cells originating in their sons.
In The International Journal of Cancer in August, Eugen Dhimolea of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and colleagues reported thatmale cells can also infiltrate breast tissue. When they looked for Y chromosomes in samples of breast tissue, they found it in 56 percent of the women they investigated.
A century ago, geneticists discovered one way in which people might acquire new genomes. They were studying “mosaic animals,” rare creatures with oddly-colored patches of fur. The animals didn’t inherit the genes for these patches from their parents. Instead, while embryos, they acquired a mutation in a skin cell that divided to produce a colored patch.
This article makes a very credible point about how statistics count crime.
Statistics are notoriously slippery, but the figures that suggest that violence has been disappearing in the United States contain a blind spot so large that to cite them uncritically, as the major papers do, is to collude in an epic con. Uncounted in the official tallies are the hundreds of thousands of crimes that take place in the country’s prison system, a vast and growing residential network whose forsaken tenants increasingly bear the brunt of America’s propensity for anger and violence.
That’s right, we don’t count prison crime in crime statistics. Very odd, especially considering the growth in prison populations.
From 1980 to 2007, the number of prisoners held in the United States quadrupled to 2.3 million, with an additional 5 million on probation or parole. What Ayn Rand once called the “freest, noblest country in the history of the world” is now the most incarcerated, and the second-most incarcerated country in history, just barely edged out by Stalin’s Soviet Union. We’re used to hearing about the widening chasm between the haves and have-nots; we’re less accustomed to contemplating a more fundamental gap: the abyss that separates the fortunate majority, who control their own bodies, from the luckless minority, whose bodies are controlled, and defiled, by the state.
In a remarkable paperAllison et al. (2011) gather data on the weight at mid-life from 12 animal populations covering 8 different species all living in human environments. Dividing the sample into male and female they find that in all 24 cases animal weight has increased over the past several decades.
Cats and dogs, for example, both increased in weight. Female cats increased in body weight at a rate of 13.6% per decade and males at 5.7% per decade. Female dogs increased in body weight at a rate of 3% per decade and males at a rate of 2.2% per decade.
So the animals around us are getting larger, and there’s no easy explanation.
One ready, although not necessarily correct explanation, is that fat people feed their cats and dogs more and exercise them less. Thus, the authors also looked at animals not directly under human control such as rats.
…For the 1948–2006 time period, male rats trapped in urbanBaltimore experienced a 5.7 per cent increase in bodyweight per decade from 1948 to 2006 and a nearly20 per cent increase in the odds of obesity. Similarly,female rats trapped in urban Baltimore experienced a7.22 per cent per decade increase in body weight, alongwith a 26 per cent increase in the odds of obesity.
that too has a ready, although not necessarily correct, explanation: just as human real wealth and food consumption have increased in the United States, ratswhich presumably largely feed on our refuse, may alsobe essentially richer.
This is where it gets really crazy.
To counter both of these objections the authors do something very clever, they gather data on the weight of controlmice used in many different experiments over decades.
Among mice in control groups in the National ToxicologyProgramme (NTP), there was a 11.8 per centincrease in body weight per decade from 1982 to 2003in females coupled with a nearly twofold increase in theodds of obesity. In males there was a 10.5 per centincrease per decade.
Control mice are typically allowed to feed at will from a controlled diet that has not varied much over the decades, making obvious explanations less plausible. Could mice have gained weight due to better care? Possibly although that is speculative.
So there are mice that have been fed the same diet for years and years, but now they weigh more than they did previously. That shit is confusing.
Old people can have new ideas! In fact most successful entrepreneurs are old. Not young and trendy like Mark Zuckerberg.
Research that my team completed in 2009 determined that the average age of a successful entrepreneur in high-growth industries such as computers, health care, and aerospace is 40. Twice as many successful entrepreneurs are over 50 as under 25; and twice as many, over 60 as under 20. The vast majority — 75 percent — have more than six years of industry experience and half have more than 10 years when they create their startup. Nearly 70 percent start their companies to capitalize on business ideas that they have — which they see as a way to build wealth.
So young people don’t really drive innovation the way we’ve been told they do.