Connect with us

science

This Dental Device May Help Fight Obesity, But Twitter Users Find It Shocking

Published

on

Researchers at the New Zealand’s University of Otago, in collbaoration with researches from the UK,  have developed a device — the world’s first — to fight global obesity. Dental Slim Control, an intra-oral device, is fitted by a dentist to the upper and lower back of teeth and it restricts a person to a liquid diet. The product uses magnetic devices with custom-manufactured locking bolts. It limits the opening of the mouth of the wearer to about 2mm, just enough for a liquid diet. The researchers, however, said that the Dental Slim Control doesn’t restrict your ability to speak and breathe.  

People, who took part in the Dunedin-based trial, lost an average of 6.36kg in two weeks, researchers said, adding they were even further motivated to continue their weight-loss journey. Professor Paul Brunton, lead researcher, Pro-Vice-Chancellor at the University of Otago Health Sciences, said that the device will be an effective, safe, and affordable tool for people battling obesity. “The main barrier for people for successful weight loss is compliance and this helps them establish new habits, allowing them to comply with a low-calorie diet for a period of time. It really kick-starts the process,” Brunton said in a statement.

Researchers said that even though a dental professional fits the Dental Slim Control, wearers can remove it anytime they want, adding it can be repeatedly fitted and removed. “It is a non-invasive, reversible, economical and attractive alternative to surgical procedures,” Brunton said.

Advertisement

But people on Twitter expressed shock and even asked the team to reconsider their idea.

User @ravenscimaven wrote, “Delete this. Delete the research team. Delete everything.”

Another user, @SaraFeistiness, quoted a participant from the paper published in the British Dental Journal. “After 24 hours, the participants indicated that they occasionally felt embarrassed, self-conscious and that life, in general, was less satisfying,” the post read.

“Not to be gross here but if someone vomits while wearing this they will choke to death or aspirate. Also bad for dental hygiene. Can’t brush properly or floss. Bad idea all around,” commented @squishsmawmaw.

User @Polymathically expressed shock and said there was a need for ethics to be taught in science. “Good God, I thought medicine was past these kinds of torture devices,” the user added.

Advertisement

Seeing the criticism, the University added two more tweets to the original one and clarified what the purpose of the device was. “The intention of the device is not intended as a quick or long-term weight-loss tool; rather it is aimed to assist people who need to undergo surgery and who cannot have the surgery until they have lost weight,” the tweet read. 

It further said that a wearer can get magnets disengaged and the device removed after two to three weeks. “They could then have a period with a less restricted diet and then go back into treatment,” the University tweeted. “This would allow for a phased approach to weight loss supported by advice from a dietician.”

Speaking of people’s experience, Brunton said that overall they felt better about themselves, were more confident and committed to their weight loss journey. “Patients who really want to do this have to be committed,” he said. “This could actually help a lot of people.”

Advertisement

Studies have revealed that that 1.9 billion of the world’s adults are overweight, while about 650 million are obese. Overweight or obesity leads to about 2.8 million deaths a year. Not just that, according to some estimates, about 57 percent of the world’s adult population will be overweight or obese by 2030.

Brunton said that besides the aforementioned factors, psychological symptoms, including embarrassment, depression and loss of self-esteem may also be present among obese people. They may also suffer “eating disorders” coupled with “stigmatisation and discrimination.”


We discuss the return of PUBG Mobile, sorry, Battlegrounds Mobile India on Orbital, the Gadgets 360 podcast. Orbital is available on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music and wherever you get your podcasts.

Source link

Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments

science

Elon Musk’s SpaceX Launched Falcon 9 With 46 Starlink Satellites to Low-Earth Orbit

Published

on

Billionaire tycoon Elon Musk-led SpaceX launched another batch of Starlink satellites into orbit on Friday.Taking to his official Twitter account, Musk, the founder of American spacecraft manufacturer, and satellite communications corporation SpaceX shared the details about the new satellite launch.

According to the SpaceX reports, Falcon 9 launched 46 Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit from Space Launch Complex 4 East (SLC-4E) at Vandenberg Space Force Base, California.

Nine minutes after the launch, the rocket first landed over a drone ship in the Pacific Ocean and it was liftoff in a short time. The second stage was expected to deploy the satellites 63 minutes after launch after the livestream concluded.

Advertisement

The new satellites are part of Group 3, which orbits in a shell that might be prone to debris “squalls” from a Russian anti-satellite test that took place in November last year, according to SpaceNews report.

A space-tracking company COMSPOC recently revealed a conjunction squall event, in which the 841 Starlink satellites representing about 30 percent of the SpaceX constellation are affected by 6,000 close approaches.

A conjunction, by COMSPOC standards, is defined as two orbiting objects being within 6 miles (10 kilometres) of each other. SpaceX hasn’t commented on whether any Starlinks were affected, but in past discussions about space junk, the company has emphasized that its satellites can manoeuvre to dodge close-approaching spacecraft or debris.

COMSPOC stated in a report that, Group 3 of Starlink’s five layers spacecraft are in a similar orbit to other sun-synchronous satellites that have come close to the Russian ASAT debris before.

Group 3 is at an inclination of 97.6 degrees and at an altitude of 347 miles (560 kilometres), according to Teslarati.

SpaceX has already sent two other Group 3 collections into orbit, on July 10 and July 22, both from Vandenberg.

SpaceX’s 36th launch of 2022 added to its ever-growing record for launches in a year. The company also concluded its 62nd consecutive landing of a first stage, and a 34th reflight of a booster in 2022.

Advertisement

Friday’s flight was the 10th for this particular Falcon 9 first stage, according to reports, it was a SpaceX mission.


What should you make of Realme’s three new offerings? We discuss them on Orbital, the Gadgets 360 podcast. Orbital is available on Spotify, Gaana, JioSaavn, Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music and wherever you get your podcasts.

Source link

Continue Reading

science

First Synthetic Embryos: the Scientific Breakthrough Raises Serious Ethical Questions

Published

on

Children, even some who are too young for school, know you can’t make a baby without sperm and an egg. But a team of researchers in Israel have called into question the basics of what we teach children about the birds and the bees, and created a mouse embryo using just stem cells. It lived for eight days, about half a mouse’s gestation period, inside a bioreactor in the lab.

In 2021 the research team used the same artificial womb to grow natural mouse embryos (fertilised from sperm and eggs), which lived for 11 days. The lab-created womb, or external uterus, was a breakthrough in itself as embryos could not survive in petri dishes.

If you’re picturing a kind of silicone womb, think again. The external uterus is a rotating device filled with glass bottles of nutrients. This movement simulates how blood and nutrients flow to the placenta. The device also replicates the atmospheric pressure of a mouse uterus.

Advertisement

Some of the cells were treated with chemicals, which switched on genetic programmes to develop into placenta or yolk sac. Others developed into organs and other tissues without intervention. While most of the stem cells failed, about 0.5% were very similar to a natural eight-day-old embryo with a beating heart, basic nervous system and a yolk-sac.

These new technologies raise several ethical and legal concerns.

Artificial wombs

In the latest study, scientists started with collections of stem cells. The conditions created by the external uterus triggered the developmental process that makes a fetus. Although the scientists said we are a long way off synthetic human embryos, the experiment brings us closer to a future where some humans gestate their babies artificially.

Each year over 300,000 women worldwide die in childbirth or as a result of pregnancy complications, many because they lack basic care. Even in wealthy countries, pregnancy and childbirth is risky and healthcare providers are criticised for failing mothers.

There is an urgent need to make healthcare more accessible across the planet, provide better mental health support for mothers and make pregnancy and childbirth safer. In an ideal world every parent should expect excellent care in all aspects of motherhood. This technology could help treat premature babies and give at least some women a different option: a choice of whether to carry their child or use an external uterus.

Some philosophers say there is a moral imperative to develop artificial wombs to help remedy the unfairness of parenting roles. But other researchers say artificial wombs would threaten a women’s legal right to terminate a pregnancy.

Advertisement

Synthetic embryos and organs

In the last few years, scientists have learned more about how to coax stem cells to develop into increasingly sophisticated structures, including ones that mimic the structure and function of human organs (organoids). Artificial human kidneys, brains, hearts and more have all been created in a lab, though they are still too rudimentary for medical use.

The issue of whether there are moral differences between using stem cells to produce models of human organs for research and using stem cells to create a synthetic embryo are already playing out in law courts.

One of the key differences between organoids and synthetic embryos is their potential. If a synthetic embryo can develop into a living creature, it should have more protection than those which don’t.

Synthetic embryos do not currently have potential to actually create a living mouse. If scientists did make human synthetic embryos, but without the potential to form a living being, they should arguably be treated similarly to organoids.

Advertisement

Some countries (for example Australia) have taken the position that synthetic embryos such as “blastoids” (which resemble five-to-six-day-old embryos) should be treated like natural embryos, because of similarities in structure. Other countries (such as the UK, the US, Japan) treat synthetic embryos as different from embryos because they can’t currently produce a live baby.

Another important legal issue is the source of stem cells and consent. The synthetic mouse embryo creators used stem cells from early embryos.

However, in the future it might be possible to make synthetic embryos from induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS). The worst case scenario would be a person donates a skin cell to research into producing organs to cure disease but this is used without their knowledge or consent to produce synthetic embryos.

Cloning

IPS cells are created by taking a mature cell (such as a skin cell) from a living or dead person and applying treatments which drive it backwards to a more immature state. If the cell could be driven all the way back to an embryonic stem cell, it may one day be possible to use IPS cells to make viable embryos.

Advertisement

That embryo would be a clone of the cell donor. The public and scientists have huge concerns about human cloning.

But it has been possible to clone a human being using a different process called nuclear transfer, for 25 years. Nuclear transfer created Dolly the Sheep in 1997 and a monkey in 2018. In the late 90s and early 2000s, a flurry of laws introduced around the world successfully banned human cloning.

We should not let our fears about cloning stand in the way of crucial research. The benefits could make organ donor waiting lists a thing of the past, save premature babies and give women an option to have children a different way. Cloning, or any other unethical use of the technology, can be prevented by regulation.


What should you make of Realme’s three new offerings? We discuss them on Orbital, the Gadgets 360 podcast. Orbital is available on Spotify, Gaana, JioSaavn, Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music and wherever you get your podcasts.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

science

First Synthetic Embryos: the Scientific Breakthrough Raises Serious Ethical Questions

Published

on

Children, even some who are too young for school, know you can’t make a baby without sperm and an egg. But a team of researchers in Israel have called into question the basics of what we teach children about the birds and the bees, and created a mouse embryo using just stem cells. It lived for eight days, about half a mouse’s gestation period, inside a bioreactor in the lab.

In 2021 the research team used the same artificial womb to grow natural mouse embryos (fertilised from sperm and eggs), which lived for 11 days. The lab-created womb, or external uterus, was a breakthrough in itself as embryos could not survive in petri dishes.

If you’re picturing a kind of silicone womb, think again. The external uterus is a rotating device filled with glass bottles of nutrients. This movement simulates how blood and nutrients flow to the placenta. The device also replicates the atmospheric pressure of a mouse uterus.

Advertisement

Some of the cells were treated with chemicals, which switched on genetic programmes to develop into placenta or yolk sac. Others developed into organs and other tissues without intervention. While most of the stem cells failed, about 0.5% were very similar to a natural eight-day-old embryo with a beating heart, basic nervous system and a yolk-sac.

These new technologies raise several ethical and legal concerns.

Artificial wombs In the latest study, scientists started with collections of stem cells. The conditions created by the external uterus triggered the developmental process that makes a fetus. Although the scientists said we are a long way off synthetic human embryos, the experiment brings us closer to a future where some humans gestate their babies artificially.

Each year over 300,000 women worldwide die in childbirth or as a result of pregnancy complications, many because they lack basic care. Even in wealthy countries, pregnancy and childbirth is risky and healthcare providers are criticised for failing mothers.

There is an urgent need to make healthcare more accessible across the planet, provide better mental health support for mothers and make pregnancy and childbirth safer. In an ideal world every parent should expect excellent care in all aspects of motherhood. This technology could help treat premature babies and give at least some women a different option: a choice of whether to carry their child or use an external uterus.

Some philosophers say there is a moral imperative to develop artificial wombs to help remedy the unfairness of parenting roles. But other researchers say artificial wombs would threaten a women’s legal right to terminate a pregnancy.

Synthetic embryos and organs In the last few years, scientists have learned more about how to coax stem cells to develop into increasingly sophisticated structures, including ones that mimic the structure and function of human organs (organoids). Artificial human kidneys, brains, hearts and more have all been created in a lab, though they are still too rudimentary for medical use.

Advertisement

The issue of whether there are moral differences between using stem cells to produce models of human organs for research and using stem cells to create a synthetic embryo are already playing out in law courts.

One of the key differences between organoids and synthetic embryos is their potential. If a synthetic embryo can develop into a living creature, it should have more protection than those which don’t.

Synthetic embryos do not currently have potential to actually create a living mouse. If scientists did make human synthetic embryos, but without the potential to form a living being, they should arguably be treated similarly to organoids.

Some countries (for example Australia) have taken the position that synthetic embryos such as “blastoids” (which resemble five-to-six-day-old embryos) should be treated like natural embryos, because of similarities in structure. Other countries (such as the UK, the US, Japan) treat synthetic embryos as different from embryos because they can’t currently produce a live baby.

Another important legal issue is the source of stem cells and consent. The synthetic mouse embryo creators used stem cells from early embryos.

Advertisement

However, in the future it might be possible to make synthetic embryos from induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS). The worst case scenario would be a person donates a skin cell to research into producing organs to cure disease but this is used without their knowledge or consent to produce synthetic embryos.

Cloning IPS cells are created by taking a mature cell (such as a skin cell) from a living or dead person and applying treatments which drive it backwards to a more immature state. If the cell could be driven all the way back to an embryonic stem cell, it may one day be possible to use IPS cells to make viable embryos.

That embryo would be a clone of the cell donor. The public and scientists have huge concerns about human cloning.

But it has been possible to clone a human being using a different process called nuclear transfer, for 25 years. Nuclear transfer created Dolly the Sheep in 1997 and a monkey in 2018. In the late 90s and early 2000s, a flurry of laws introduced around the world successfully banned human cloning.

We should not let our fears about cloning stand in the way of crucial research. The benefits could make organ donor waiting lists a thing of the past, save premature babies and give women an option to have children a different way. Cloning, or any other unethical use of the technology, can be prevented by regulation.

Advertisement

What should you make of Realme’s three new offerings? We discuss them on Orbital, the Gadgets 360 podcast. Orbital is available on Spotify, Gaana, JioSaavn, Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music and wherever you get your podcasts.

Source link

Continue Reading

Most Popular