[Winstonm]

http://www.epigenome...hp?page=project

A fascinating subject rife with potential to help mankind. This is a project everyone should be able to support - the epigenome project.

[han]

I don't believe DNA exists.

[mike777]

GEEZ I wonder if really cheap(pennies) super imaging could help here?

Maybe they could even see DNA.

[han]

mike777, on Oct 17 2007, 06:09 PM, said:

GEEZ I wonder if really cheap(pennies) super imaging could help here?

Maybe they could even see DNA.

Seeing DNA?

Maybe it should be called super imagining.

[mike777]

Hannie, on Oct 17 2007, 06:37 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 17 2007, 06:09 PM, said:

GEEZ I wonder if really cheap(pennies) super imaging could help here? 

Maybe they could even see DNA.

Seeing DNA?

Maybe it should be called super imagining.

IF we can see atoms or stars billions and billions of miles away, I am not sure why, one day, we could not see double helix strands of DNA if you believe the laws of science do not forbid it.

I have faith if smart people can see genes, cells or dna that will be a big help in them coming up with solutions to health problems.

[Winstonm]

What I think we need is a sign.

[sceptic]

I think echogenome is the only persons opinion that counts here and the rest of you are unqualified to comment

[helene_t]

mike777, on Oct 18 2007, 01:09 AM, said:

GEEZ I wonder if really cheap(pennies) super imaging could help here? 

Maybe they could even see DNA.

Maybe if one was interested in the methylation pattern of an individual cell, some kind of microscopy could help. But that is not available and would also not be appropriate (sorry for that word, I mean adequate) for typical problems. One wants to establish a consensus profile for a large number of cells. Also, you have two copies of each locus and often one will be methylated and the other not.

What we usually do is that we treat the DNA with sodium hydrogen carbonate, whereby one of the nucleotides (I don't remember which one) gets substituted by uracil if it is methylated and otherwise not. Sequencing the DNA will then reveal which loci were originally methylated.

There are also microarrays with clones that hybridize specifically to methylated DNA.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Oct 18 2007, 01:41 AM, said:

mike777, on Oct 18 2007, 01:09 AM, said:

GEEZ I wonder if really cheap(pennies) super imaging could help here? 

Maybe they could even see DNA.

Maybe if one was interested in the methylation pattern of an individual DNA specimen, some kind of microscopy could help. But that is not available and would also not be appropriate (sorry for that word, I mean adequate) for typical problems. One wants to establish a consensus profile for a large number of specimen. In particular, you have two copies of each locus and often one will be methylated and the other not.

What we usually do is that we treat the DNA with sodium hydrogen carbonate, whereby one of the nucleotides (I don't remember which one) gets substituted by uracil if it is methylated and otherwise not. Sequencing the DNA will then reveal which loci where originally methylated.

There are also microarrays with clones that hybridize specifically to methylated DNA.

I repeat..seeing Dna can only help.....seeing proteins...can only help....

If need be I can cite...numerous..PHD types....

Alot of bang for buck.

I repeat as non scientist....alot of bang for buck.

Why are so many smart people against image research...as top.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Oct 18 2007, 10:26 AM, said:

I repeat..seeing Dna can only help.....seeing proteins...can only help....

If need be I can cite...numerous..PHD types....

Alot of bang for buck.

I repeat as non scientist....alot of bang for buck.

Why are so many smart people against image research...as top.

Am I they only one that finds it highly amusing that Mike "All taxes are evil" 777 is making posts like the following

Quote

I repeat..I am calling for a huge government program on a basic education/research level on imaging.......als the moon shot......

yes that means billions wasted.......

spend more billions......

In any case, I don't think that I have a particularly well informed opinion about medical imaging technology, ergo I don't feel any strong need to be making pronouncements about funding levels or public versus private investment.

[mike777]

Just because all taxes are evil does not mean I am against all of them in all forms, there are greater evils......

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

I only hope those that wield that power have some wisdom.

Amazing how forum statements gets extrapolited to mean anything people want it to mean.

I am for government funding of basic science.

I find it amusing that people do not think taxes may be destructive in some forms in some way.

Some people never saw a tax they dislike.

[Echognome]

sceptic, on Oct 17 2007, 10:16 PM, said:

I think echogenome is the only persons opinion that counts here and the rest of you are unqualified to comment

I'm a sceptic...

[blackshoe]

Most governments take the power to tax for granted. The government taxes, and then uses the citizenry's money to, among other things, fund research of which the government's bureaucrats approve. This is one reason, IMO, for Robert Heinlein's statement that

Quote

in any reasonably mature society, the term "civil servant" is equivalent to "civil master".

Far better, IMO, that the government not have the power to tax, and that individuals contribute to the funding of those lines of research of which they approve.

[helene_t]

For this kind of research, I personally prefer private money to public money. I also tend to think that there's enough private funding available. For the kind of work Han is doing (for example), public money may be necessary.

[Winstonm]

It is of interest to me that early research shows a correlation between upbringing and epigenome activation, giving an early lead to the environment-based argument.