Ariel - Volume 4 Number 4

Editors David A. Jacoby Eugenia Miller Tom Williams Associate Editors Paul Bialas Terry Burt Michael Leo Gail Tenikat Editor Emeritus and Business Manager Richard J. Bonnano Movie Editor Robert Breckenridge Staff Richard Blutstein Mary F. Buechler Meg Brunt Steve Glinks Len Grasman Alice M. Johnson J.D. Kanofsky Tom Lehman Dave Mayer Bernie Odd

Ariel - Volume 4 Number 5

Editors David A. Jacoby Eugenia Miller Tom Williams Associate Editors Paul Bialas Terry Burt Michael Leo Gail Tenikat Editor Emeritus and Business Manager Richard J. Bonnano Movie Editor Robert Breckenridge Staff Richard. Blutstein Mary F. Buechler Alice M. Johnson J.D. Kanofskv Rocky Webe

Identification of chemosensory receptor genes in Manduca sexta and knockdown by RNA interference

Insects detect environmental chemicals via a large and rapidly evolving family of chemosensory receptor proteins. Although our understanding of the molecular genetic basis for Drosophila chemoreception has increased enormously in the last decade, similar understanding in other insects remains limited. The tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta, has long been an important model for insect chemosensation, particularly from ecological, behavioral, and physiological standpoints. It is also a major agricultural pest on solanaceous crops. However, little sequence information and lack of genetic tools has prevented molecular genetic analysis in this species. The ability to connect molecular genetic mechanisms, including potential lineage-specific changes in chemosensory genes, to ecologically relevant behaviors and specializations in M. sexta would be greatly beneficial. Here, we sequenced transcriptomes from adult and larval chemosensory tissues and identified chemosensory genes based on sequence homology. We also used dsRNA feeding as a method to induce RNA interference in larval chemosensory tissues. We report identification of new chemosensory receptor genes including 17 novel odorant receptors and one novel gustatory receptor. Further, we demonstrate that systemic RNA interference can be used in larval olfactory neurons to reduce expression of chemosensory receptor transcripts. Together, our results further the development of M. sexta as a model for functional analysis of insect chemosensation

Guinea pig models for translation of the developmental origins of health and disease hypothesis into the clinic

Over 30 years ago Professor David Barker first proposed the theory that events in early life could explain an individual\u27s risk of non-communicable disease in later life: the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) hypothesis. During the 1990s the validity of the DOHaD hypothesis was extensively tested in a number of human populations and the mechanisms underpinning it characterised in a range of experimental animal models. Over the past decade, researchers have sought to use this mechanistic understanding of DOHaD to develop therapeutic interventions during pregnancy and early life to improve adult health. A variety of animal models have been used to develop and evaluate interventions, each with strengths and limitations. It is becoming apparent that effective translational research requires that the animal paradigm selected mirrors the tempo of human fetal growth and development as closely as possible so that the effect of a perinatal insult and/or therapeutic intervention can be fully assessed. The guinea pig is one such animal model that over the past two decades has demonstrated itself to be a very useful platform for these important reproductive studies. This review highlights similarities in the in utero development between humans and guinea pigs, the strengths and limitations of the guinea pig as an experimental model of DOHaD and the guinea pig\u27s potential to enhance clinical therapeutic innovation to improve human health. (Figure presented.)

Potential extraterrestrial sources of lithium

Extracting raw materials from extraterrestrial sources is a prerequisite for the expansion of our civilization into space. It will be necessary to acquire there practically all commonly used elements – including lithium. The most valuable source of this element currently appears to be lunar soil and rocks, especially K-rich rocks and breccias (>10 ppm of Li). Among the meteorites, the highest content of lithium is characterized by lunar mare basalts and gabbro, eucrites, Martian polymict breccia, nakhlites, howardites (>5 ppm), shergottites, chassignites, lunar anorthosites breccias, mesosiderites, ureilites (>2.5 ppm), diogenites, LL, angrites, H (>2 ppm), L, CM, CO, CV, EH, CI (>1.5 ppm), brachinites, aubrites, EL, CR (>1 ppm), CK and main-group pallasites (<1 ppm). This means that a potential extraterrestrial source of lithium can be the Moon, Mars, and the 4 Vesta minor planet considered as the probable parent body of HED meteorites

Podcasts are patented – or so say the patent trolls

Podcasts are patented&nbsp;– or so say the patent trolls By Harry Blutstein, RMIT University Can podcasting be patented? If you are an instigator of what’s being referred to as the SHIELD Act – introduced into US Congress last month – the answer would seem to be no. If you represent a US company called Personal Audio, the answer would seem to be yes. So who is right, and more likely to win out? That question piques my interest both personally and professionally. Later this year I hope to start podcasting. I’ve bought a microphone, registered at the Apple Store, and am now limbering up the vocal chords before taking the plunge. It sounds so simple, and it’s cheap – or so I thought. &nbsp; themaccraic-david &nbsp; Personal Audio, based in Texas and founded in 1996, claims it “invented” podcasting, has a patent to prove it, and has made millions through litigation and license fees through what’s known as “patent trolling”. Unlike the slang term for someone who posts deliberately inflammatory comments online, patent trolls are people or companies that enforce their patents for financial gain. Even though such behaviour is less of an issue in Australia due to our strong Patents Act, Australians with successful podcasts in the US could be sued too. So if I’m one, I might expect a call from Personal Audio LLC. Who is Personal Audio? Despite reportedly not having sold a single product since 1998, Personal Audio is a nice little earner by being an aggressive patent troll. &nbsp; Dunechaser &nbsp; Which is to say, it sues major podcasters who refuse to pay it a license fee, with some success. In 2011, a federal jury in Texas awarded Personal Audio US8 million in its lawsuit against Apple. This encouraged the company to go after others, with comedy podcast The Adam Carolla Show and HowStuffWorks\u27 Stuff You Should Know podcast among its targets. Samsung, Motorola, RIM, Archos, Coby, Sirius, LG and HTC have paid up license fees to avoid litigation. Patent basics In the US, utility, design, and plant patents are granted by the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Utility patents are most common, and can be issued, according to the USPTO website, to: anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. According to its patent, Personal Audio claims to have designed a “system for disseminating media content representing episodes in a serialised sequence” – a concept within which podcasting falls.   rimblas   And under US patent laws, anyone considered infringing a standing patent – in this case, podcasters – can be sued in Federal court by the patentee. Patent trolls now account for the majority of all US patent lawsuits, and it’s been estimated that they netted US29 billion in 2011 alone. How did Personal Audio secure its patent? As well as being lucrative, patent trolling is easy to do. A quick look at Personal Audio’s patent shows just how simple it is to claim valuable intellectual property. &nbsp; BiblioArchives / LibraryArchives &nbsp; Podcasting has been around for some time, and while Personal Audio’s patent was issued in 2012, the company claims it filed papers in 1996 that covered the same technology. In addition, the overworked patent offices, particularly in the US, often grant patents for ideas that are neither new nor revolutionary. Trolls seize on patents that are vague and describe function, rather than going to the trouble and cost of actually inventing something – and such actions are on the rise. A 2012 study found that lawsuits filed by troll-like entities grew from 22% in 2007 to 40% in 2011. The study’s authors wrote: From all appearances, lawsuits filed are only the tip of the iceberg, and a major operating company may face hundreds of invitations to license for every lawsuit. And trolls don’t only make financial threats. Notorious copyright troll Prenda Law – an Illinois-based law firm – files lawsuits against those who allegedly download copyrighted “adult” films. If the accused don’t settle – perhaps for a few thousand dollars – they risk being sued for a larger sum, with the spectre of their interest in porn being aired in public. Are patent trolls unstoppable? It may seem patent trolls are here to stay, but that might not be the case for much longer. The mission of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – an non-profit digital-rights group based in the US – is to protect “freedoms in the networked world”, and it sees so-called “patent trolls” as a significant threat. According to the EFF website, trolls use “patents as legal weapons, instead of actually creating any new products or coming up with new ideas”, and it specifies that Personal Audio is patent trolling. &nbsp; A SHIELD against trolls. &nbsp; But without a change in the law, patent trolls will continue to prosper. But there is hope. As mentioned at the start of this article, the Saving High-tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes (SHIELD) Act was introduced into the US Congress last month by Reps Peter DeFazio and Jason Cheffetz. The Act is designed to deter would-be patent trolls by forcing them to pay legal costs for lost cases. While some people have their misgivings, the Act has been billed as the first step towards eliminating patent trolls. After all, once my podcast starts making me millions, I don’t want to be sharing it with anyone. Harry Blutstein does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. However, as a prospective podcaster, he could attract a lawsuit from a patent troll. This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article

Is the end in sight for international copyright laws?

Late last year, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) held what might be its most a productive meeting for some time. In Geneva, delegates from about 160 countries moved one step closer to ending a worldwide famine. But it is by no means a done deal. Powerful corporate interests oppose the treaty that is designed to overcome this famine, because they are worried that any international agreement might eat into their profits. This famine not only affects people in poor countries but those in rich countries, although less acutely. In developed countries, only one out of every 20 books is available to Visually Impaired People (VIPs), while in poor countries, only one book out of every 100 is published in braille or as a talking book. Like all famines, this one has its consequences. Because they do not have access to information, it limits the access VIPs have to education, reduces their access to jobs and downgrades them to second-class citizens. Although the treaty will help an estimated 256 million blind and partially sighted people in the world access books by removing barriers contained in international copyright laws, the book famine is virtually unsighted in the mainstream media. By legalising an exception to the international copyright laws, it will allow VIPs easy access to copyrighted material. Manon Ress is a policy analyst at Knowledge Ecology International, a Washington, DC-based human rights lobby group that helped spearhead the treaty. She welcomes this precedent. “This treaty would be the first one that is not done for the copyright owner, but for the user of the works — for the blind to make a copyrighted work accessible.” Opposition to the treaty has come from both European and American companies. These companies range from major software makers and book publishers to motion picture and music companies. The Association of American Publishers, which represents about 300 publishers, claims the treaty is unnecessary. They want VIPs to rely on the free market, where the profit motive will provide an incentive for publishers to make such products available. But industry’s objections have little to do with lost profits; the market is relatively small. Their real concern is that this treaty creates a dangerous precedent where international copyright laws could be relaxed in other cases where a clear public interest exists. Brad Huber, senior director of the US Chamber of Commerce, states, “The treaty … creates a bad precedent by loosening copyright restrictions, instead of tightening them as every previous copyright treaty has done.” There is no justification for looking to international law to strengthen intellectual property rights. What seems to have been forgotten is that these laws were originally introduced in the eighteenth century as a necessary evil. The law establishes temporary monopolies, to reward creators to produce new work, but these rewards are to be kept to a minimum so as not to place unnecessary rents on the public. Unfortunately, lobbyists have dominated international negotiations, and substantially increased the rents the industry has secured, with the public interest no longer a consideration. The WIPO negotiations are a rare exception, and industry lobbyists have thankfully been losing ground. First, the European Union backtracked and now supports a binding treaty. This leaves the US as the only country prevaricating on what position to take. The Obama Administration is playing a subtle game. On one hand it does not wish to be the only country blocking access of affordable written material to the blind; this would not be a good look. On the other hand, it does not want to offend powerful publishers, many of them US companies. As a sop to this powerful lobby, the US had argued that in return for concessions to the blind, it would expect other countries to support its efforts to strengthen international copyright laws. “Indeed, as we work with countries to establish consensus on proper, basic exceptions within copyright law, we will ask countries to work with us to improve the enforcement of copyright,” Justin Hughes, a Department of Commerce senior adviser, told WIPO. “This is part and parcel of a balanced international system of intellectual property.” All signs are positive that when WIPO next meets in Marrakesh (Morocco) in June this year, it will end the book famine. But looking beyond that date, expect industry lobbyists to continue their onward march to extend IP privileges in other areas, with the support of major powers like the US, regardless of the public interest. I do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article. &nbsp; • Harry Blutstein is an adjunct professor in the School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning at RMIT University. With degrees in history and environmental science, Dr Blutstein brings unique insights into the spread of globalization. Dr Blutstein has had various careers. Since 1972 he has been a freelance journalist, starting as an environmental writer for the “Nation Review”. Since then he has had feature articles and Op-Eds published in major national newspapers. He has also worked for the EPA for 27 years in senior positions, working on issues related to sustainable development. During 2002 he worked with the United Nations Environmental Programme, producing the “Melbourne Principles on Sustainable Cities”. He is currently working on “Tomorrow the World”, a history of post-war globalization and he blogs at http://harrryblutstein.com

Les places capitolines d'Espagne

Blutstein-Latremoliere Élisabeth. Les places capitolines d'Espagne. In: Mélanges de la Casa de Velázquez, tome 27-1, 1991. Antiquité et Moyen-Age. pp. 43-64