Making the case for human life extension: personal arguments

In the close to medium future, the life sciences might permit a vast extension of the human life span. I will argue that this is a very desirable development for the individual person. The question whether death is a harm to the dying is irrelevant here. All it takes is that being alive is good for the living person and not being alive is not good for anyone. Thus, living persons who expect to live on happily are rationally required to want to stay alive. Eventual uncertainty whether it will be possible to be happy in the future provides no objection, but rather an incentive to try. This view, however, may be naive in assuming that persons are unchanging entities that exist separately from their psychological information. Objections have been derived from reductionistic views that value our future experiences in a way that declines with time, so that there will be a future point beyond which only negligible value accrues. If we adopt such a view, then we cannot now be concerned to have experiences beyond that point. I argue that these arguments fail to take into account all the reasons we might have to be concerned for the future and all kinds of such concern that come from them. The adoption of a plausible reductionistic account can arguably weaken our concern for the future and certainly change its quality in important ways. But this provides no objection to the desire to live forever, nor to live at all.     

Personalised food: how personal is it?

Consumer goods became increasingly personalised, particularly during the last half of the 20th century. Foods and food products have been added a new flavour in this consumer trends with increasingly personalised values of convenience, cost, packaging, and taste. Now functional food industry is ready to take its next venture in a relatively new domain personalising health. Whether the goal of matching foods to individual genotypes to improve the health of those individuals can be attained, and personalised nutrigenomic foods enter the world’s food markets, depends on numerous hurdles being overcome: some scientific in nature, some technical and others related to consumer, market or ethical issues. Public adoption of new technologies is an important determinant for their success. Many of the drivers behind the trend in personalisation of food are now known, particularly ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) are the major drivers. Future development in the field of nutrigenomics undoubtedly will place its seemingly huge potential in better perspective. Thus, the agriculture and food enterprise has an extraordinary opportunity to link individuals with foods that are personalised for their health.     

Rho family GTPases: Making it to the third dimension

The role of Rho family GTPases in controlling the actin cytoskeleton and thereby regulating cell migration has been well studied for cells migrating on 2D surfaces. In vivo, cell migration occurs within three-dimensional matrices and along aligned collagen fibers with rather different spatial requirements. Recently, a handful of studies coupled with new approaches have demonstrated that Rho GTPases have unique regulation and roles during cell migration within 3D matrices, along collagen fibers, and in vivo. Here we propose that migration on aligned matrices facilitates spatial organization of Rho family GTPases to restrict and stabilize protrusions in the principle direction of alignment, thereby maintaining persistent migration. The result is coordinated cell movement that ultimately leads to higher rates of metastasis in vivo.     

Making sense of it all: bacterial chemotaxis

Bacteria must be able to respond to a changing environment, and one way to respond is to move. The transduction of sensory signals alters the concentration of small phosphorylated response regulators that bind to the rotary flagellar motor and cause switching. This simple pathway has provided a paradigm for sensory systems in general. However, the increasing number of sequenced bacterial genomes shows that although the central sensory mechanism seems to be common to all bacteria, there is added complexity in a wide range of species.     

GM crops: science, politics and communication

As the public debate in Europe about genetically modified (GM) crops heats up and the trade row between the United States and the European Union over GM food escalates, what better time to examine the issues with an international group of experts (Box 1). Their views are diverse, but they all agree that we need more impartial communication, less propaganda and an effective regulatory regime that is based on a careful case-by-case consideration of GM technology. It seems that GM crops are here to stay, so let us hope that these requirements are met and that the developing nations that perhaps have the most to gain from this technology can start to reap its benefits.     

Evolution: like any other science it is predictable

Evolutionary biology rejoices in the diversity of life, but this comes at a cost: other than working in the common framework of neo-Darwinian evolution, specialists in, for example, diatoms and mammals have little to say to each other. Accordingly, their research tends to track the particularities and peculiarities of a given group and seldom enquires whether there are any wider or deeper sets of explanations. Here, I present evidence in support of the heterodox idea that evolution might look to a general theory that does more than serve as a tautology (‘evolution explains evolution’). Specifically, I argue that far from its myriad of products being fortuitous and accidental, evolution is remarkably predictable. Thus, I urge a move away from the continuing obsession with Darwinian mechanisms, which are entirely uncontroversial. Rather, I emphasize why we should seek explanations for ubiquitous evolutionary convergence, as well as the emergence of complex integrated systems. At present, evolutionary theory seems to be akin to nineteenth-century physics, blissfully unaware of the imminent arrival of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Physics had its Newton, biology its Darwin: evolutionary biology now awaits its Einstein.