POTENT ANTIOBIOTIC FOUND IN GIANT PANDA BLOOD
Giant panda blood may hold the secret to curing superbug illnesses in humans as well as other diseases, according to new research.
The teddy bear-like animals would hardly seem to be associated with industrial strength cleanser and potent antibiotics, but their link with these possible cure alls now appears to have been forged.
The primary component in giant panda blood is called cathelicidin-AM. It was found after analyzing the panda’s DNA.
This compound kills bacteria in less than an hour. Other well known antibiotics take more than six hours to tackle the same job.
Xiuwen Yan, who led the research at the Life Sciences College of Nanjing Agricultural University in China, told the London Telegraph: “It showed potential antimicrobial activities against wide spectrum of microorganisms including bacteria and fungi, both standard and drug-resistant strains.”
Yan continued, “Under the pressure of increasing microorganisms with drug resistance against conventional antibiotics, there is urgent need to develop new type of antimicrobial agents. Gene-encoded antimicrobial peptides play an important role in innate immunity against noxious microorganisms. They cause much less drug resistance of microbes than conventional antibiotics.”
Giant pandas are highly endangered, with only about 1,600 left in the wild. The new discovery shows how important it is to save all species — plants, insects, birds and animals — as they could, like the giant panda, hold keys to solving many pressing human health issues.
I (sarcastically) love how it takes our own vested interest to care about the well-being of the world around us, but I suppose that is how we work – us first, right? Though I shudder to think of this leading to breeding giant pandas for their blood only, which I struggle with too. What do you think? Will this help keep the giant panda from going extinct? But how will that work? Will they preserve their natural habitat or just breed them caged for their blood?
TEEN LEGALLY KNOWN ONLY AS GIRL BATTLES TO USE HER OWN NAME
A 15-year-old is suing the Icelandic state for the right to legally use the name given to her by her mother. The problem? Blaer, which means “light breeze” in Icelandic, is not on a list approved by the government.
Like a handful of other countries, including Germany and Denmark, Iceland has official rules about what a baby can be named. In a country comfortable with a firm state role, most people don’t question the Personal Names Register, a list of 1,712 male names and 1,853 female names that fit Icelandic grammar and pronunciation rules and that officials maintain will protect children from embarrassment. Parents can take from the list or apply to a special committee that has the power to say yea or nay.
In Blaer’s case, her mother said she learned the name wasn’t on the register only after the priest who baptized the child later informed her he had mistakenly allowed it.
Now I admit I’m one of those people that thinks it’s stupid and inconsiderate to call your kid “Pilot Inspektor” or “Athiest” or “Monoxide” (yes, all real names). I love original names, unique spellings, etc., but sometimes parents can be just downright ridiculous. BUT I do feel that parents have this right, as unfortunate as it is. So the idea of a name registry where you can only pick certain names does not ring too well with me. Would you want a name registry? If not, is there a solution to parents picking horrid names for their children?
CHURCH OF ENGLAND DROPS OPPOSITION TO GAY BISHOPS IN CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS
The Church of England has dropped its prohibition on gay clergy in civil partnerships becoming bishops.
The announcement, from the Church’s House of Bishops, would allow gay clergy to become bishops if they promise to be celibate.
Conservative evangelical Anglicans say they will fight the move in the Church’s ruling general synod.
The issue has split the church since 2003 amid a row over gay cleric Jeffrey John becoming Bishop of Reading.
Mr John, now Dean of St Albans, was forced to withdraw from the role shortly after having initially accepted it, following protests from traditionalists.
He was also a candidate for Bishop of Southwark in 2010 but was rejected. Evidence emerged that this was because of his sexual orientation.
The Church of England has already agreed to allow people in civil partnerships to become clergy, provided they promised they would remain celibate.
In July last year, the House of Bishops (HoB) said it would review this decision, made in 2005, to decide whether it could also relate to bishops.
I don’t know much about the rules pertaining to becoming a bishop or anything in the church, but from what I can gather, if one is celibate (which seems to be the rule for all people involved in clergy here), how would a man living with a man be sin but not a man living with a woman when no sexual relations are involved? So, can someone who is religious please explain to me – if someone has feelings, is that sinful? Or is it the act? Either way, I’m personally glad to see this as it only seems fair to me. What do you think?