Facebook Lexicon Launches – Google Trends for Facebook

first_imgRelated Posts …and a comparable trend map from Google Trends: Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting Tags:#Product Reviews#web Facebook has just launched a neat new trend mapping tool, called Lexicon. Similar to Google Trends, it allows you to create a trend graph for different words and (two-word) phrases on Facebook Walls. It has a surprisingly slick UI too, with the scroll bar enabling you to zoom in and out to get different views of the trend line. You can compare up to 5 different trends by separating words/phrases with a comma. Although Lexicon compares favorably to Google Trends, it has some flaws. In our tests it had trouble with low frequency words (like “semantic”) and also it choked on “web 2.0” (“Invalid term: web 2.0. Check that each term is a single word or two-word phrase, and that each term uses only alphanumeric characters”). Also, to compare apples to apples, Google Trends has a wider range of data – including breakdowns by region, city and language.Here is an example of Lexicon:center_img A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… 8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market richard macmanus In announcing this new service, Facebook was careful to emphasize that no privacy violations have occured:“We have a cluster of computers that count the number of occurrences of every term (for example, “juno”) across profile, group and event Walls every day. The system strips out all personally identifiable information so that there is no way to track a mention back to a specific person. No human at Facebook ever reads these Wall posts, and Lexicon does not look at personal messages, invitations, or any other private user-to-user communications.”Overall, it’s good to see Facebook mining some of the vast data that they have – but not stepping on sensitive privacy toes while doing so.last_img read more

Cartoon: A Thicker Skin

first_imgrob cottingham 4 Keys to a Kid-Safe App 5 Outdoor Activities for Beating Office Burnout Related Posts So it’s happened again: a company comes under fire for some misdeed — perceived or actual — and gets a few critical comments on their Facebook Page. And their crisis communications strategy is to pour gasoline on that little flame by deleting those comments.The latest folks to do this are the people at ChapStick, who ran a print ad that offended a few folks. Those critics posted their complaints on ChapStick’s Facebook page (most of them quite civil). ChapStick’s page administrators then deleted the comments; this case adds an ironic new wrinkle because of the ad copy pointing people to their Facebook presence, which reads “Be heard.”After enduring a torrent of criticism for deleting the criticism, ChapStick posted an apology for the ad and a sort-of explanation for deleting the comments, saying they follow Facebook guidelines and “remove posts that use foul language, have repetitive messaging, those that are considered spam-like (multiple posts from a person within a short period of time) and are menacing to fans and employees.” Which, with most of the comments, wasn’t the case.It seems to bear repeating: brands, learn to take some criticism on your social web presences. Why? Because…Accusations of suppressing those comments are often more damaging than the original criticisms themselves.The presence of critical comments gives the conversation happening on your Facebook Page, blog or other presence a sense of authenticity. That means the positive user comments carry more weight than they would if your site had nothing but obsequious flattery.A critical comment can be an opportunity for engagement on your part. It’s your chance to answer a criticism, resolve a complaint, correct some misinformation. And you may be catching a little issue before it becomes a much bigger one.A critical comment can be an spur to participation and conversation by your community. Let’s face it; for most brands and organizations, excess participation usually isn’t the problem with their Facebook pages.So maybe it’s time to learn to love the negative. A thicker skin not only saves you from the sting of a little criticism; it can let you realize from genuine benefit… and keep you from becoming the latest high-profile case study in why comment deletion can backfire.See more of Rob’s Noise to Signal cartoons herecenter_img Tags:#Cartoons#web 9 Books That Make Perfect Gifts for Industry Ex… 12 Unique Gifts for the Hard-to-Shop-for People…last_img read more

First U.S.-based group to edit human embryos brings practice closer to clinic

first_imgPostfertilization editing Healthyegg Egg’sDNA An earlier edit Introducing CRISPR machinery at the point of fertilization appeared to eliminate patchy genome repair known as mosaicism. Mutated sperm and CRISPR introduced The ethical and practical debates over using the DNA-editing method CRISPR to alter human embryos just got less hypothetical. A week after the news leaked out, a U.S.-based team has published the first rigorous demonstration that CRISPR can efficiently repair a gene defect in human embryos—one that would cause a potentially deadly heart condition—without introducing new mutations elsewhere. Although none of the labmade embryos were transferred into women, the research team, led by embryologist Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) in Portland, says the success paves the way for using the technique in the clinic to prevent the transmission of genetic disease.Because their approach appears to avoid the problems of patchy and imprecise editing seen in previous CRISPR tests on human embryos, the researchers claim it’s a viable strategy for rescuing mutated embryos that would otherwise be screened out of in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. But evidence of the technique’s long-term safety is still lacking, and many researchers and ethicists have argued that germline editing—making permanent, heritable changes to the genome that could correct genetic disease, but also theoretically introduce other designer traits—should for now be limited to research exploring basic biology.“I’m uncomfortable, honestly, with the sort of stated purpose of this study,” says Jennifer Doudna, a molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who is among the pioneers of the CRISPR method. “It’s not about research, I don’t think. It’s about how we get to a clinical application of this technology.”Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*)Mitalipov’s lab has navigated ethically complicated embryo research before. He advanced a technique to prevent the transmission of disease-causing mutations in a woman’s mitochondria, organelles with their own genes, by transferring her nuclear DNA into a donor egg, which is controversial because any offspring would inherit DNA from three individuals.But the CRISPR editing project was especially hard to sell to his university, Mitalipov says. He first made the proposal to OHSU’s institutional review board about 3 years ago. His plan was to use CRISPR—a DNA-cutting enzyme and an RNA that guides it to a target sequence—to slice into the gene MYBPC3 at the site of a mutation that leads to an enlarged heart and can cause sudden cardiac arrest, even in young, seemingly healthy athletes. The researchers would also insert short DNA strands bearing the healthy gene sequence. Then they would rely on a human embryo’s natural ability to repair cuts in its DNA, hoping it would use the healthy sequence as a template.The university set up two committees to judge the proposal, one evaluating its ethics and the other its scientific merits. Some of their members—kept anonymous even from Mitalipov—were hesitant to sign off, he says. The three other published human embryo–editing experiments, all from Chinese research teams using small numbers of embryos, have suggested that CRISPR’s enzyme sometimes cuts unintended targets in the DNA. They also produced embryos that were mosaic: A portion of their cells contained the healthy gene, whereas others kept the mutated one. Committee members thus worried the technique was too inefficient and risky to improve on current IVF procedures, Mitalipov recalls.Others questioned whether CRISPR technology was needed at all. A person carrying a mutated copy of the MYBPC3 gene still has a 50% chance of passing on the other, healthy copy, and doctors can already screen out mutated embryos during IVF. (People with two mutated copies of the gene are more rare, and their condition is more severe.) Mitalipov pushed back against reluctant committee members with his own take. “Discarding 50% of embryos [in IVF], knowing that you could actually correct the mutation, is morally wrong,” he told them.Because the work required creating and destroying human embryos, it was barred from receiving U.S. government funding. The OHSU lab used institutional funds; collaborators at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California, relied on funding from three charitable foundations; Korean and Chinese collaborators also got federal or regional funding to help with the project.The OHSU group collected eggs from healthy women recruited and compensated for the research, and sperm from a man whom the OHSU’s cardiovascular institute had identified as having one mutated copy of MYBPC3. Instead of injecting the CRISPR system hours after the egg is fertilized, as in previous published experiments, they added it right alongside the sperm, hoping to prevent mosaicism by catching the new embryo before it had a chance to divide and make copies of the mutated gene. And to reduce the chance of cuts at unintended parts of the genome, they relied on a short-lived version of CRISPR, whose enzyme and guide RNA wouldn’t stick around in the cell after making their initial edit. G. Grullón/Science SpermDNAVariationsin repairCRISPR added as DNA replicatesMosaicembryo Human embryos, newly fertilized (left) and at the eight-cell stage (right), that had DNA edited by CRISPR. Sperm withmutation By Kelly ServickAug. 2, 2017 , 1:00 PMcenter_img Simultaneous injectionCRISPR First U.S.-based group to edit human embryos brings practice closer to clinic Egg’sDNA Nucleus Corrected sperm DNA HealthyeggUniformhealthy embryo Shoukhrat Mitalipov Of 58 IVF embryos that developed after the CRISPR injection, nearly three-quarters managed to repair the paternal MYBPC3. None of these successfully edited embryos harbored cells with the mutated gene, the researchers reported this week in Nature. And they found no evidence that CRISPR had cut outside the intended site.Unexpectedly, all but one of the embryos repaired the sliced MYBPC3 using the existing healthy copy of the gene (inherited from the egg donor), instead of the added template. Compared with more developed cells, maybe the early embryo “evolved to more efficiently repair errors in the DNA,” says Jun Wu, a stem cell biologist at Salk and a collaborator on the project. (Mitalipov cautions, however, that the repair process at work in these embryos is unlikely to be efficient if an embryo inherits mutated versions of a disease-causing gene from both parents. In such cases, researchers would need a more effective DNA template, Mitalipov says.)“This paper seems to allay many of the concerns about risk,” says George Daley, a stem cell researcher at Boston Children’s Hospital and dean of Harvard Medical School in Boston, “but it’s really, really important not to overinterpret and generalize.” Efficiency and the risk of off-target editing can vary based on the targeted gene, he notes.To some clinicians, even a slight increase in the healthy IVF embryo pool for certain couples seems justification enough for turning to CRISPR. Even if half of the embryos don’t inherit a mutated gene, those with the healthy gene may bear other abnormalities in older parents, and finding a viable one through screening can be difficult, says James Grifo, a reproductive endocrinologist at New York University’s Langone Medical Center in New York City. “I don’t think we should be alarmist about these possibilities of treating and avoiding disease.”But earlier this year, a committee convened by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine in Washington, D.C., took a different position: that clinical use of germline editing could be allowed, but only in situations where a couple otherwise has no chance of a healthy biological child. In the new study, “we already have a case that challenges [those] criteria,” says Jeffrey Kahn, a bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and a member of the panel. “As these kinds of research findings accumulate … at what point will somebody say it’s time to use this in a clinical context?”Mitalipov shares the concern that embryo editing will be used in the clinic before it’s fully understood. Congress prohibits the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from approving clinical trials involving embryo editing. But despite a similar restriction on the mitochondrial method Mitalipov pioneered, a U.S. fertility specialist used it last fall to produce an apparently healthy baby in Mexico. As Mitalipov’s team continues to optimize the gene-editing technique for a possible clinical trial, “we’re not going to transfer [embryos to a uterus] without oversight,” he says. But, he adds, “the private clinics will be using it one way or another.”last_img read more