Jurassic Park was just a movie -- there isn't really a practical way to pull intact dinosaur DNA from fossilized mosquitoes. But recently-extinct animal species might be cloned because we can actually gather intact DNA and cell fragments that can be manipulated more easily. Here are just a few examples of projects that could create animals that are now considered extinct.

• There are several TED talks on de-extinction, discussing cloning and various animals that could potentially be revived. We could learn a lot from figuring out how to take somewhat arbitrary DNA instructions and produce viable organisms. [url]
• Dolly the sheep was born in 1996, and in 2003, an extinct wild goat (Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica) was cloned, but it died with some major genetic defects. Since then, cloning techniques have gotten better, but re-creating an extinct animal is one thing. Raising a healthy animal that was once extinct is a completely different challenge. [url]
• At the Central Veterinary Research Laboratory in Dubai, scientists have reportedly engineered a male duck to produce chicken sperm that fathered a chicken. The process of introducing chicken DNA into the reproductive organs of a male duck embryo could presumably be used in other birds (especially for other birds that may be endangered). [url]
• An extinct Australian frog species has been brought back to life (almost). Scientists cloned an extinct frog (Rheobatrachus silus) by injecting its dead cell nucleus into a fresh egg of distantly-related frog, (Mixophyes fasciolatus), and observed the embryo grow -- but it didn't survive beyond a few days. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

While some environmentalists complain about the rate at which known species are dying, the absolute amount of biodiversity on Earth is actually not well known. There could be 100 million different species, but we've only identified about 2 million so far. Here are just a few recent developments that could help expand our databases of living species.

• James Cameron has recently donated his custom-built submarine to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (a year after his record-setting dive to the bottom of the Mariana Trench). Last year, Cameron observed about 68 specimens of life on the ocean floor, and future dives could possibly turn up more discoveries. [url]
• DNA characterization techniques promise to speed up the identification of new species. Ecogenomics will be used to survey biodiversity and could lead to finding hundreds of new species in a matter of months. [url]
• The Dead Sea looks devoid of life on the surface, but biologists since the 1930s have known that the salty body of water is teeming with microbes that thrive in water that is over 8 times saltier than the ocean. More recently, life has been discovered at the bottom of the Dead Sea, about 100 feet down, where mats of bacteria survive near freshwater springs. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

It seems like every day there's another report of problems with our food -- E. Coli in beef and packaged salads, Salmonella in canteloupe, Listeria in packaged sliced apples, etc. Worries about bacterial contamination in food is pretty common, but it seems like we should also be worrying about whether the food we're eating is really what we think it is. Recently, there was the scandal in the UK over beef products that contained horsemeat. But thanks to modern day technology, scientists are now able to test food products and determine whether they are indeed what they claim to be. Here are just a few examples.

• After that whole horsemeat scandal, Burger King has announced that it will be testing its burger patties for non-beef DNA, including horse, pork, and lamb. So far, it has been testing specifically for horse DNA and hasn't found any in its beef, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's free of other kinds of animals... [url]
• The US FDA has officially adopted DNA barcoding to detect seafood mislabeling. Think you're eating "white tuna" sushi? Maybe you're actually eating "escolar" which has been banned in Japan since 1977 because the Japanese government is concerned about its "toxicity". [url]
• A laser "isotope ratio-meter," which was originally designed to study carbon isotope levels on Mars, is now being used to test the purity of honey. This kind of laser analysis can even match the honey to the flowers of a specific geographic region. Honey is expensive, so it's often adulterated with cheaper ingredients, like sugar, malt sweeteners, corn or rice syrup, to name just a few honey substitutes. [url]

The fountain of youth has been an elusive goal for centuries, and there's still no magic potion (or pharmaceutical) that can stop the aging process. But bits of progress suggest that there might be ways to extend a healthy human lifespan by a significant amount. Here are just a few more data points that could point to a future of living longer and longer.

• Brooke Greenberg is twenty years old, but she has an extremely rare disorder (she's the only person known to have Syndrome X) that hinders her growth so that she appears to be about five years old. Researchers are looking at this girl's DNA to try to figure out if there is a genetic cause and which genes may be behind this unusual aging process. [url]
• The German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg is looking at a glycoprotein called Dickkopf-1 (aka Dkk1) which seems to be involved in the cognitive abilities of elderly brains. The function of this molecule isn't entirely clear, but some researchers are trying to understand it in an effort to determine the mechanisms of declining cognitive abilities as people age. [url]
• The effects of consuming resveratrol aren't fully understood yet, but when honeybees eat this compound, they eat less and live longer. So there's a possibility that resveratrol plays a role in caloric restriction when it's associated with extending lifespans of various animals. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Biology is a messy science. Nature doesn't lend itself to nice, orderly categories for people to understand. The tree of life is really tangled, and it's probably a bad analogy to start with. As we learn more about genetic analysis and find samples of ancient DNA, scientists are starting to reconsider some evolutionary processes. Here are just a few fascinating studies.

• A single-celled organism in Norway doesn't quite fit the label of being an animal, plant, fungus, alga or protist -- but it is a eukaryote because it has a cell membrane. This microorganism isn't easily classified, and it might be our oldest living ancestor. [url]
• Biologists are finding about 2,000 new marine species every year, but there are an estimated 700,000 to a million marine species living in the world's oceans. It's going to take a while to document all these organisms, and hopefully, we'll be able to do it before more species go extinct. [url]
• Evolutionary biologists might need to re-think their understanding of how early animals developed. Previously, animals with a mouth and anus were classified as either protostomes or deuterostomes, depending on how they grew... but a recently-studied protostome throws a wrench into the naming conventions and how biologists look at the largest branch of animals in the tree of life. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

There are lots of ways to store information nowadays -- from cloud services to nano-lithography to synthesizing custom strands of DNA. Some methods are cheaper or more convenient than others, but if physical space is really a premium, then encoding a gazillion bits of data on a few grams of DNA seems like the way to go. Here are just a few projects working on using DNA as an archiving medium.

• A recent project encoded all of Shakespeare's sonnets (along with some other text and images) on DNA, putting 5.2 million bits of information (including some error correction) into some tangible goo. It costs roughly $12,400 to encode a megabyte of data and $220 to read it, and since sequencing DNA will never become obsolete (and is getting cheaper to do), DNA storage could be an excellent archiving technology. [url]
• A milligram of DNA *could* contain all the text every book in the Library of Congress -- and all digital data that humans have ever created could be stored on a handful of DNA. We'd just have to make sure never to forget how to translate the digitized data from DNA back into a comprehensible form. [url]
• Researchers at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) created the first self-replicating synthetic bacterial cell in 2010 -- and included a genetic watermark in the bacteria's DNA. The DNA watermark encoded some extra data such as the names of 46 researchers who worked on the project, as well as a URL and some famous quotations. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

The human genome contains an incredible amount of information that we are only starting to parse. Sequencing large amounts of DNA is getting cheaper and faster, so it's only a matter of time before we'll be able to collect a vast amount of genetic information and connect it with practical medical diagnoses and treatments. Here are just a few projects working on decoding our genetic blueprints.

• The international ENCODE project has been looking at the human genome to try to figure out what all the nucleotides do. Less than 2% of the genome is used for making proteins, and we're just beginning to discover that about 80% of the genome is biologically active and isn't just "junk" DNA. [url]
• The Genographic Project is asking the general public to participate in a genome analysis experiment to gather a broad sampling of DNA data. The results will be anonymous (but they'll have your DNA...?) and dedicated to the public domain. [url]
• The 1000 Genomes Project currently claims to have the world's largest, most detailed catalog of human genetic variation. The database includes sequenced genomes from over 1,092 people and should help medical researchers develop tests for genetic diseases. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Storing digital data can be unreliable if you want it to last a really long time. But there are many ways to store vast amounts of data, and if you're not in a hurry to retrieve the data, it can be somewhat cheap to maintain an enormous amount of information nowadays. Here are just a few examples of storing LOTS of data in somewhat unconventional ways.

• Printing at about 100,000 dots per inch in full color has been achieved by researchers at the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) in Singapore. As a proof of principle, a test image of Lenna was formed on a silicon wafer covered with a nanoscale metal coating. [url]
• Amazon is starting to offer archival storage for just $0.01 per gigabyte per month. This Glacier storage service is aimed at replacing old tape archives and geographically distinct facilities, but retrieving the data isn't so convenient: data retrieval requests can take hours (hence the name Glacier) and there's also a retrieval fee after you've accessed more than 5% of your data vault in a month. [url]
• Geneticists in Boston have stored a 5.27-megabit book (containing 53,246 words, 11 JPG image files and a JavaScript program) on DNA. This is the highest density of non-biological data ever encoded by DNA, and a gram of material could store 455 exabytes of data. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Well this is unfortunate, but not too surprising. After the Supreme Court rejected medical diagnostic patents in the Mayo case, it vacated the ruling by the Federal Circuit appeals court (CAFC) on gene patents in the Myriad Genetics case, where CAFC had said genes are patentable, and asked it to redo the case in light of the Mayo decision. The ruling came out today, and CAFC more or less repeated what it said in the original ruling. The same panel of three judges effectively argued that Mayo had no real impact on what it said last year, and it was sticking by its decision. The Patently-O link above has a bit more detail, or you can read the full 106 pages (pdf and embedded below), which includes all three panelists entering their opinions (one dissenting). If you read last years, you'll find this one pretty similar, with just a few nods to why they were redoing the process.

All that really matters at this point is that isolated genes are still considered patentable. Even though people like James Watson, who was as part of the team that discovered DNA's structure, have argued that this kind of ruling is pure lunacy, the court is sticking by its position.

The case is likely far from over and there's a decent chance that it, too, will end up in front of the Supreme Court, where they'll have yet another chance to smack CAFC around for being overly infatuated with letting everything in the world be patentable. First up, though, will likely be an attempt to rehear the case "en banc" (with the full slate of CAFC judges, rather than just the three-judge panel). In other words, this is far from over, but if you're in the camp of folks who think the idea of patenting your genes is insanity, well, we're still living in an insane world.

Techdirt has been covering the important Myriad Genetics case for a while. Although the CAFC decided that isolated genes could be patented, the Supreme Court has asked the appeals court to review the case in light of the former's rejection of medical diagnostic patents.

The importance of this case is highlighted by the amicus curiae brief filed by James Watson, co-discoverer with Francis Crick of the structure of DNA, for which they received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962 (along with Maurice Wilkins for related work.) Watson makes his views plain from the start:

what the Court misses, I fear, is the fundamentally unique nature of the human gene. Simply put, no other molecule can store the information necessary to create and propagate life the way DNA does. It is a chemical entity, but DNA’s importance flows from its ability to encode and transmit the instructions for creating humans. Life’s instructions ought not be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts.

Watson recalls discussions on the topic during the $3 billion Human Genome Project to sequence human DNA as completely as possible:

Even at the early stages of the project, we were concerned about the issue of patenting human genes. Most, although not all, eminent scientists recognized that human genes should not be monopolized by patents. I believed at the time -- and continue to believe -- that the issue of patenting human genes went to the very crux of whether the information encoded by human DNA should be freely available to the scientific community. Some twenty years ago, I explained that patenting human genes was lunacy, and I was not a lone voice.

He also points out some concrete problems with gene patents in terms of their impact on assays (tests) that involve multiple genes:

If each of the human genes used in a new multi-gene assay are subject to patents, I fear that useful tests requiring multiple human genes will be unnecessarily delayed, become prohibitively expensive, or, worse yet, never be made available to patients at all. For a new assay using hundreds of human genes, the sea of patents and patent applications would create hundreds, if not thousands, of individual obstacles to developing and commercializing the assay. The best way, in my view, to resolve this problem is to eliminate the unnecessary patenting of human genes.

As this makes clear, if gene patents are permitted, patent thickets are likely to develop, which will delay new tests, and make them more expensive.

Aside from his position as one of the people that discovered the structure of DNA in the first place, Watson has another reason why his views on patenting genes carry some weight. As he relates in a footnote to his submission to the court:

Amusingly, after I gave my first presentation of our DNA structure in June 1953, Leó Szilárd, the Hungarian physicist and inventor of the nuclear chain reaction, asked whether I would patent the structure. That, of course, was out of the question.

Like Tim Berners-Lee with the World Wide Web, Watson declined to patent one of the most important discoveries of all time because he believed it was the right thing to do. Let's hope the appeals court agrees with him when it hands down its decision on gene patents.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+