This morning I was lucky enough to attend a roundtable discussion sponsored by Genome Alberta. There was an impressive list of attendees, but the major reason for the excitement was the presence of Dr Luc Montagnier, 2008 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology or Medicine for his life’s work in HIV and Aids.

After walking across the Plus15 and winding my way to lecture hall 3, I was delighted to be greeted by Dr, Robert Church at the coffee stand. We spoke briefly of the event about to unfold.



Read more
Continuing into the lecture theatre, I was greeted by Dr. David Bailey (Genome Alberta, President and CEO) and also talked briefly with Dr.Gijs van Rooijen (Genome Alberta, CSO) prior the beginning of the roundtable discussion. I sensed considerable anticipation in the audience in the brief moments prior to the arrival of Dr. Montagnier. Then it began.

David Bailey introduced the morning telling us of the interesting opportunity at this moment for global genomics. He continued by letting us know that after the morning discussion, Dr. Montagnier would be giving the “RB Church Lecture in Biotechnology”

Moderator for the discussion Dr. Kevin Keough gave us an overview of the impressive accomplishments of Dr. Montagnier starting with his work on RNA in 1962 through to his contributions to the role of virus in cancers, study of interferon and ultimately the discovery of HIV which led to his Nobel prize.

After the introduction, Dr Montagnier started off his talk with the picture of a man standing with his back to the camera, facing a windy beach with two suitcases in his hands. He said that one suitcase represents our genetic memory, the other cultural history. He went on to indicate that from what we now know, cells are under constant bombardment from a number of factors, some we can control….others that we cannot. He is convinced that an important factor is oxidative stress and that this plays a very important role with regard to genetic mutation and rearrangement. As environmental factors work on genetic factors over time, normal cells will become cancerous. Additionally, a very important factor to study is the role of what he called “voyager DNA” and the study of epigenetics. He indicated that this will be an area of intriguing debate in the immediate future.

After a short address, the floor was opened up for comments and questions. In the following, I will try to summarize some of the comments that I thought made for great discussion.

Ultimately there is always a sort of trade off between what we call quality of life and the overall cost of healthcare. Obviously this is an area of continuing debate. I was also amused by the statement that we as a species seem to be very happy with where evolution has led us thank you and that now we want it to stop! Good luck with that one.

Of course the topic of the major announcement coming out of Alberta on the living test for BSE was discussed. This was listed under the question of “Why Genomics?” The answer being that genomics has now moved out of the area of lab bench science to being applied to real world problems. That the human genome took about 6 years to complete, now genomes are being sequenced in about 6 hours. A comparison was made between when Galileo studied one star with his telescope to the Hubble Observatory studying whole galaxies.

A question came up asking if the BSE could be done, is Parkinson’s next at having a test. Here though, Dr. Montagnier pointed out that with BSE and the related Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans, there is a transforming protein involved, whereas with Parkinson’s is a degenerative disease. He did point out that research is actively underway however to find if Parkinson’s and Alzheimer's may have some transformational agent involved. He pointed out that with an aging society; these degenerative diseases appear to be on the increase. He also used this as another opportunity to discuss oxidative stress.

This led to a discussion comparing the medical health industry compared to the dental health industry. People seem to search out medical help when they are sick, whereas dental health has a much better track record of prevention. It was pointed out that surveys indicate that people would rather not know and continue with their old eating habits than to find out that they could influence their health outcomes by changing eating habits. Murmurs through the audience about the known perils of smoking and the fact that it still occurs were heard.

A question was asked with regard to finding vectors for gene therapy. To the surprise of some, Dr. Montagnier pointed out that a modified HIV virus may become one of the best vectors as it makes wide use of altering genetic promoters. He also made the point that depending on the age and stage of a person, the risks of treatments may be weighed differently. For example, a young child with a long life ahead is more vulnerable to a later side effect disease, compared to a senior looking for immediate quality of life cure with less chance of a longer term side effect.

Another issue arose over the fact that a lot of independent genomic testing facilities are starting up. Dr. Montagnier was adamant that while the technology is running ahead of public policy, there is still a need to have the results interpreted by professionals. He used this point to revisit his idea that preventative health centres are an important goal.

When the idea of public versus private capital came up, the discussion seemed to be about the fact that new innovations are incredibly expensive to bring to market. There is a huge step to go from the simple lab discovery through preliminary testing and then finally to clinically significant studies. At this time, the “big guys” in the pharmaceutical industry are the only ones equipped to take on the risk and the gamble.

When asked about new areas of future research, Dr. Monagnier said without hesitation that he would like to see physicists get involved and help discover more about the role of water in the DNA. He also indicated that with the aging population we will want to know more about chronic disease. But he cautioned against trying to change a genome that has developed over 3 billion years and taken humans through many previous epidemics.

Global Genomics – Impact on Alberta:
A Roundtable Discussion

February 9, 2009 8:00 PM

Filed Under: Gerry Ward

This morning I was lucky enough to attend a roundtable discussion sponsored by Genome Alberta. There was an impressive list of attendees, but the major reason for the excitement was the presence of Dr Luc Montagnier, 2008 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology or Medicine for his life’s work in HIV and Aids.

After walking across the Plus15 and winding my way to lecture hall 3, I was delighted to be greeted by Dr, Robert Church at the coffee stand. We spoke briefly of the event about to unfold.




Continuing into the lecture theatre, I was greeted by Dr. David Bailey (Genome Alberta, President and CEO) and also talked briefly with Dr.Gijs van Rooijen (Genome Alberta, CSO) prior the beginning of the roundtable discussion. I sensed considerable anticipation in the audience in the brief moments prior to the arrival of Dr. Montagnier. Then it began.

David Bailey introduced the morning telling us of the interesting opportunity at this moment for global genomics. He continued by letting us know that after the morning discussion, Dr. Montagnier would be giving the “RB Church Lecture in Biotechnology”

Moderator for the discussion Dr. Kevin Keough gave us an overview of the impressive accomplishments of Dr. Montagnier starting with his work on RNA in 1962 through to his contributions to the role of virus in cancers, study of interferon and ultimately the discovery of HIV which led to his Nobel prize.

After the introduction, Dr Montagnier started off his talk with the picture of a man standing with his back to the camera, facing a windy beach with two suitcases in his hands. He said that one suitcase represents our genetic memory, the other cultural history. He went on to indicate that from what we now know, cells are under constant bombardment from a number of factors, some we can control….others that we cannot. He is convinced that an important factor is oxidative stress and that this plays a very important role with regard to genetic mutation and rearrangement. As environmental factors work on genetic factors over time, normal cells will become cancerous. Additionally, a very important factor to study is the role of what he called “voyager DNA” and the study of epigenetics. He indicated that this will be an area of intriguing debate in the immediate future.

After a short address, the floor was opened up for comments and questions. In the following, I will try to summarize some of the comments that I thought made for great discussion.

Ultimately there is always a sort of trade off between what we call quality of life and the overall cost of healthcare. Obviously this is an area of continuing debate. I was also amused by the statement that we as a species seem to be very happy with where evolution has led us thank you and that now we want it to stop! Good luck with that one.

Of course the topic of the major announcement coming out of Alberta on the living test for BSE was discussed. This was listed under the question of “Why Genomics?” The answer being that genomics has now moved out of the area of lab bench science to being applied to real world problems. That the human genome took about 6 years to complete, now genomes are being sequenced in about 6 hours. A comparison was made between when Galileo studied one star with his telescope to the Hubble Observatory studying whole galaxies.

A question came up asking if the BSE could be done, is Parkinson’s next at having a test. Here though, Dr. Montagnier pointed out that with BSE and the related Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans, there is a transforming protein involved, whereas with Parkinson’s is a degenerative disease. He did point out that research is actively underway however to find if Parkinson’s and Alzheimer's may have some transformational agent involved. He pointed out that with an aging society; these degenerative diseases appear to be on the increase. He also used this as another opportunity to discuss oxidative stress.

This led to a discussion comparing the medical health industry compared to the dental health industry. People seem to search out medical help when they are sick, whereas dental health has a much better track record of prevention. It was pointed out that surveys indicate that people would rather not know and continue with their old eating habits than to find out that they could influence their health outcomes by changing eating habits. Murmurs through the audience about the known perils of smoking and the fact that it still occurs were heard.

A question was asked with regard to finding vectors for gene therapy. To the surprise of some, Dr. Montagnier pointed out that a modified HIV virus may become one of the best vectors as it makes wide use of altering genetic promoters. He also made the point that depending on the age and stage of a person, the risks of treatments may be weighed differently. For example, a young child with a long life ahead is more vulnerable to a later side effect disease, compared to a senior looking for immediate quality of life cure with less chance of a longer term side effect.

Another issue arose over the fact that a lot of independent genomic testing facilities are starting up. Dr. Montagnier was adamant that while the technology is running ahead of public policy, there is still a need to have the results interpreted by professionals. He used this point to revisit his idea that preventative health centres are an important goal.

When the idea of public versus private capital came up, the discussion seemed to be about the fact that new innovations are incredibly expensive to bring to market. There is a huge step to go from the simple lab discovery through preliminary testing and then finally to clinically significant studies. At this time, the “big guys” in the pharmaceutical industry are the only ones equipped to take on the risk and the gamble.

When asked about new areas of future research, Dr. Monagnier said without hesitation that he would like to see physicists get involved and help discover more about the role of water in the DNA. He also indicated that with the aging population we will want to know more about chronic disease. But he cautioned against trying to change a genome that has developed over 3 billion years and taken humans through many previous epidemics.

Posted by Gerry Ward at February 9, 2009 8:00 PM

Comments

Gabi Ford email -

Dear Gerry,

Having just finished a book by Luther Cressman, I am now interested in reading about Oetzi. I would like to read a definitive book, not something sensational. Also, I would like the book to contain the results of the more recent genetic examinations.

Can you recommend?

Thank you,

Gabi

Name
URL (remove the http://)
Email
Comments
   

TrackBack Link