DNA ‘switches’: A new insight into genes
When scientists first began decoding the human genome in the late 1990s, they were surprised to discover that 98 percent of the DNA was “junk,” with no apparent purpose. It turns out that they were wrong. New research by an international team of 440 scientists has discovered that most “junk” DNA actually serves as switches that turn genes on or off—a finding that could lead to entirely new ways of preventing and treating disease. The presence of DNA switches in every person’s genetic makeup, researchers say, explains why some people who are predisposed to certain diseases get them, while others don’t. A person who inherits a vulnerability to breast cancer, for example, might never develop the disease unless some environmental factor or experience switches the bad gene on. “The whole way that we look at the genetic basis of disease is going to change,” researcher John Stamatoyannopoulos tells NPR.org. The human genome contains at least 4 million of these switches, and scientists are already linking specific ones to multiple sclerosis, asthma, type 1 diabetes, cancer, and mental illness. Figuring out exactly what each switch does could lead to new drug treatments—and will revolutionize medicine. Says lead researcher Ewan Birney, “It’s going to take this century to fill in all the details.”
Is organic food better?
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Latest Videos FromThe Week
Americans now pay quite a bit extra to buy organic foods—but is it worth it? That depends on what benefits they expect. A new Stanford University review of 237 studies found that organic produce does have less pesticide residue, but it “did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious,” study author Crystal Smith-Spangler tells Time.com. The researchers said they expected to find higher levels of vitamins and minerals in organic produce, but did not. Organic produce also wasn’t completely free of pesticide residue, probably because it is sometimes grown close to nonorganic fields. On average, 7 percent of organic produce contained pesticides, compared with 38 percent of nonorganic produce, though all at levels the Food and Drug Administration generally considers safe. Organic meat and poultry—which must be raised without antibiotics or growth hormones—also contained fewer antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Many advocates say that buying organic is still worth it, if only to avoid long-term exposure to pesticides and hormones, especially for children. Recent studies have found that children exposed to pesticides have a higher risk of attention deficits and lower IQ.
To eat less, slow down
Want to eat less? Dim the lights, play some soft music, and put some candles and flowers on the dinner table. That’s what researchers from Cornell University did at a Hardee’s fast-food restaurant to test how environment affects our eating habits. The scientists revamped the usually garish and loud dining area to feature window shades, table cloths, candlelight, plants, and soft jazz, and found that patrons who ate there left 18 percent more food on their plates—about 175 calories’ worth—than patrons who dined in the traditional Hardee’s setting, even though both groups ordered the same amount of food. The explanation is simple, study author Brian Wansink tells Reuters.com: People responded to the calmer, more relaxed setting by eating 5 percent slower, as they chatted more and chewed at a more leisurely pace. These patrons also reported feeling “more satisfied and happier” than those who wolfed down more food more quickly.
Your most empathetic friend
Dogs really may be man’s best friend—ranking even higher than our fellow humans in empathy. British researchers put pet dogs of different ages and breeds in a room with their owners or a stranger. Then they had the people either hum, talk, or pretend to cry. They found that the dogs responded most strongly to people who cried, submissively nuzzling and licking the crier—the canine version of offering comfort—whether they knew the person or not. Dogs did not respond to the humming, even though researchers thought that the unusual sound “might be likely to pique the dogs’ curiosity,” study author Deborah Custance of the University of London tells DailyMail.co.uk. She says the dogs’ behavior shows how highly attuned they are to human emotions owing to thousands of years of evolution. The better a dog responds to human emotion, the more likely we are to give the animal food and shelter—and ensure that the pet’s genes are passed on to the next generation. “We have selectively bred them to act as our companions,” Custance says.
