Donald Trump: Drew Brees ‘caved under the PR pressure’ by changing stance on kneeling

first_imgThe 41-year-old initially said he disagreed with sports stars who take a knee while the anthem is playing, remarks which were made in the wake of the death of George Floyd, who died in police custody in Minneapolis last month, prompting demonstrations across the United States and beyond.Brees’ comments sparked responses of outrage, including from team-mates Michael Thomas and Malcolm Jenkins.MORE: Fact-checking Donald Trump’s comments about Colin Kaepernick’s NFL careerHe later asked for forgiveness, saying he “completely missed the mark”, an apology that drew condemnation from Trump on Twitter….We should be standing up straight and tall, ideally with a salute, or a hand on heart. There are other things you can protest, but not our Great American Flag – NO KNEELING!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2020Trump, speaking in a video with his son Donald Trump Jr. on the Team Trump YouTube page, delved further into the issue, claiming Brees “hurt himself very badly”.”I was shocked, because I consider him a great football player, but I consider him a champion and a star and I didn’t understand what was going on,” Trump said. “And he took it back and I’ve never seen anything like it and I think he hurt himself very badly. “I was going to put out that he’ll regret that in the future years because you stand for the flag. You have to stand for the flag and the anthem. Our national anthem, you have to stand. I think the NFL’s gonna have a lot of problems if they don’t.” United States president Donald Trump suggested Drew Brees caved “under the PR pressure” as he doubled down on his criticism of the New Orleans Saints quarterback.Earlier this month, Brees issued an apology for comments he made about kneeling during the national anthem, a gesture first made in the NFL by Colin Kaepernick in 2016 when he was protesting racial injustice and police brutality. Trump suggested Brees does not necessarily believe his own apology and merely acted to stem the wave of criticism coming his way.”A lot of warriors, they cave under PR pressure because his manager said, ‘Oh this isn’t right’, and his team-mates said, ‘This isn’t right’, and all of a sudden he’s out there disclaiming about the flag and the country,” Trump added.”I don’t believe he believes his second statement, by the way. He may believe it, but what he should be doing is not talking about the second, he should have stuck with his first.”last_img read more

Chain reaction spreads gene through insects

first_img Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) On 28 December 2014, Valentino Gantz and Ethan Bier checked on the fruit flies that had just hatched in their lab at the University of California (UC), San Diego. By the classic rules of Mendelian genetics, only one out of four of the newborn flies should have shown the effects of the mutation their mothers carried, an X-linked recessive trait that causes a loss of pigmentation similar to albinism. Instead, nothing but pale yellow flies kept emerging. “We were stunned,” says Bier, who is Gantz’s Ph.D. adviser. “It was like the sun rose in the west rather than the east.” They hammered out a paper and submitted it to 
Science 3 days later.In the study, published online this week, Gantz and Bier report that the introduced mutation disabled both normal copies of a pigmentation gene on the fruit fly chromosomes, transmitting itself to the next generation with 97% efficiency—a near-complete invasion of the genome. The secret of its success: an increasingly popular gene-editing toolkit called CRISPR, which Gantz and Bier adapted to give the mutation an overwhelming advantage. The technique is the latest—and some say, most impressive—example of gene drive: biasing inheritance to spread a gene rapidly through a population, or even an entire species. At this level of efficiency, a single mosquito equipped with a parasite-blocking gene could in theory spread malaria resistance through an entire breeding population in a single season (see diagram). Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe G. GRULLÓN/SCIENCE Email The paper comes amid intense soul-searching among gene drive researchers, with calls for public dialogue and self-
policing for the technology. George Church, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston who is a leader in the field, believes the new study should not have been published, because it does not include measures to restrain the spread of unintended mutations. “It is a step too far,” he says.Creating a gene drive system wasn’t Gantz’s original goal, Bier says. “We were just trying to solve a practical problem.” Gantz studies the development of fruit fly wing veins, for which he must create flies with multiple mutations. That’s typically painstaking work, requiring large numbers of flies over many generations to create a single multimutant. Last summer, Gantz made a tweak to the CRISPR system, in which an engineered bacterial protein, Cas9, uses a string of RNA to find and delete, replace, or otherwise edit a target DNA sequence. By equipping the CRISPR gene cassette with DNA sequences flanking the targeted gene, Gantz hoped to create a mutation that would “auto-catalyze.” Once incorporated on one chromosome, it would produce new copies of the CRISPR complex that would target and edit the gene everywhere it appeared.Bier realized that Gantz’s self-replicating gene cassette could cause gene drive. After discussions with UC San Diego, the university gave the experiment the green light if certain biosafety measures were taken: The flies are kept in three layers of tubes and boxes, and the lab is locked behind five doors with fingerprint security.Gantz and Bier knew they had achieved the first goal, making double mutants in one step, on 18 December last year, when yellow female flies developed from embryos injected with a CRISPR cassette targeting the X chromosome pigmentation gene. But they wanted to know whether the engineered gene could make it through the germ cells and invade the next generation. The yellow flies they saw on 28 December confirmed that it did, and with 
97% efficiency.The technique is “fantastic,” says geneticist Anthony James of UC Irvine, whose lab made the first transgenic mosquitoes nearly 2 decades ago with a far more laborious technique. Bier and James are already collaborating to create a mosquito equipped with genes designed to block the transmission of malaria and dengue fever—and to quickly spread through a population. “We’re hoping for results by the end of the year,” James says.It’s not the only horse in the gene drive race. Church’s group also has a CRISPR approach that works at near-perfect efficiency in yeast. It includes built-in precautions designed to prevent the system from running amok. For example, Church avoids incorporating Cas9’s gene and the targeting RNA sequence into a single cassette, so that unintended genes can’t become accidentally incorporated and spread. Because Gantz and Bier’s method does not have such safeguards, “it encourages a standard of behavior that is much lower than what we’re recommending,” Church says. “What will spread is not literally their mutant flies, but their protocol.”Bier rejects the criticism. “The safeguards that [Church] is using in yeast just can’t work in flies,” he notes. “I bristle when people say that we haven’t thought carefully about this,” adds James, who last year co-authored a World Health Organization report on precautions for use of transgenic mosquitos. “And how could we not publish this work? Nothing is served by hiding things. The whole point is to show that it is possible and have a 
public discussion.”Science has compiled some of its recent research papers, commentaries, and news articles on CRISPR and its implications in a special collection.last_img read more