Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday May 26 2018, @02:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the people-who-know-what-they-are-talking-about dept.

On March 27, 2015, astronaut Scott Kelly rode a rocket to the International Space Station. Waving up at him from Earth was Mark Kelly, his mustachioed twin brother. While they were 400 vertical kilometres apart, NASA scientists studied how the human body reacts to the stresses of long-term space travel. Scott was the test subject; Mark served as the control. Over the course of the one-year mission, NASA extensively examined the twins' physiology, gut bacteria and even their genetic code – sure enough, NASA saw the toll of space stress on Scott.

However, NASA's sloppy wording of their findings, followed by reporting from a non-critical media, beamed the research into the realm of science fiction. "Space travel changes our genes" said one news report in March. "NASA astronaut's DNA no longer matches his twin" reported another.

These articles quoted NASA's January 2018 report which stated Scott's genetic code differed from Mark's by 7 per cent. That's not just an improbably claim – it's an impossible one, with identical twins. In anyone, twin or sibling or unrelated human, a 7-per-cent change in genetic code would mutate that person into something not human-like. "What NASA meant by genetic code was, in fact, gene expression," Smith said. "If only the journalists had quoted scientists, this incident of fake science could have been averted."

So what is the difference between genetic code and gene expression? Your genetic code is a blueprint for your body's functioning. The cells in your liver and heart contain the same code. Yet, these cells differ in their functioning because of differences in the deployment – the active expression – of the cell's genetic code. "If every gene in your cells were being actively expressed, your kidneys would be growing eyes," Smith joked.

[...] With manned missions costing taxpayers millions of dollars, the public trusts NASA. That two-way channel of trust is mediated by journalists. Scientists who convey the information in the first place need to make sure their data is sound – and their communication about it, clear.

Phys.org

[Source]: University of Western Ontario

This is an interesting take on "fake news". Do you think that scientists don't do enough to convey news accurately? Or, is the media to blame for bad/sensational reporting?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @05:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @05:42PM (#684605)

    Correct. 7% random changes means a dead individual.

    You probably don't even have two cells with the same sequence in your body, and have many with over 7% difference from each other RIGHT NOW.

    Changes in ploidy number were among the first somatic variants detected. For example, liver polyploidy and aneuploidy have been known for decades, being first noted in 1909 [45, 46]. It has been estimated that approximately 50 % of human hepatocytes are polyploid and 30–90 % are aneuploid [46]. Taken together, these data are astounding for the overall level of somatic variation observed.
    [...]
    Specifically, when monozygotic (MZ) twins discordant for multiple sclerosis were genetically and genomically characterized, twin pairs differed at up to ~0.3 % of sites in the genome.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40142-013-0029-z [springer.com]

    It is commonly assumed that all healthy cells that arise from the same zygote possess the same genomic content, with a few known exceptions in the immune system and germ line. However, a growing body of evidence shows that genomic variation exists between differentiated tissues.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3497787/ [nih.gov]

    And BTW, that page you linked to is 6 years old. In a topic as active as sequencing, the information in it is most likely horribly outdated.

    It was discussed on SN a year ago: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=17/07/29/039200 [soylentnews.org]

    There doesn't seem to be enough interest in completing the genome for some reason so no progress has been made for over a decade on the difficult stretches.