You may have read about the discovery, recently, of a new and radically more effective mosquito repellent. Based on molecules found in black pepper, it was not discovered using traditional laboratory methods. Instead, it came about through computer simulations based on knowledge of mosquito cell biology. This is just the tip of the bioinformatics iceberg.

Until recently, cell biology has been something of a “black box.” We could observe how cells functioned, but had little insight into the actual mechanisms. Now, though, scientists are learning how cells work on the molecular level.

Using mathematical models and new technologies for detecting molecular processes, researchers are extracting raw data from DNA and modeling the ways genes work and interact. To understand this field, you should view your own genome as a giant software program for manufacturing proteins.

The process of unraveling and decoding the DNA software involves massive amounts of data collection. Then, once collected, correlation and other forms of computer analysis are performed on those data to figure out cause and effect. How big is this challenge?

Consider this: Each human cell contains about 3 gigabytes (3 billion bytes) of pure data and instructions. If this information were written in book form, it would require 5,000 volumes, each 300 pages long. That’s 120 times larger than the kernel of the Windows operating system, which is about 25 megabytes of code. This data resides, of course, in each cell’s pinpoint-sized nucleus. The human body, in turn, has approximately 100 trillion of these 3-gig cells.

Add to this complexity about 5,000 different proteins expressed by each cell. Different cells, however, express different proteins. These proteins, the proteome, behave as computer commands and serve to communicate between cells.

The decoding of all these systems is, obviously, a huge computational challenge. It has only just begun and it would not be possible, in fact, without recent advances in computer technologies. As more powerful computing comes online, the pace of bioinformatics discovery will accelerate. Quantum computing, because it is particularly suited to sorting out cell biology, will enable a “quantum” leap in understanding.

Today, there are three main areas of research in computational biology. These are genome analysis, protein structure prediction and drug design.

• Genomic analysis is, as you would expect, the statistical analysis of genes. As more and more DNA is analyzed in conjunction with individual medical information, more is known. Among other reasons for performing this analysis, scientists are looking for the genes that cause or contribute to diseases.

• Protein structure predictions are based on computer models that integrate information about the function of these proteins. This is an immense task, as there are tens of thousands of proteins. Ultimately, understanding the proteome will enable truly personalized medicine, with minimal side effects for patients.

• With the knowledge gained from understanding the genome and proteome, computer models of target proteins can be created. Using these virtual proteins, drugs can be designed and tested using in silica simulations before testing in the lab.

The development of these virtual molecules, the heart of computational biology, is ending the practice of shooting blindfolded while hunting for drug candidates. Instead of randomly testing different drug candidates and analyzing the results, the field of candidates can be significantly narrowed using simulations. This radically improves the “hit rate,” increasing the speed of drug discovery and lowering costs.

Moreover, computer cell simulations improve as additional data are collected and integrated back into the models. Significant advances have already taken place in this transformational space. Medicine, incidentally, is only one area that is benefiting from bioinformatics. Many of the benefits are taking place in the agricultural sector. The genetic engineering of microorganisms is another area of enormous potential.

This new science of building and experimenting on virtual molecules may be the most important new experimental tool since the scientific method was codified by John Stuart Mill in the 1840s. As Moore’s law (the exponentially increasing power and cost-effectiveness of computers) continues to prove true, so will the power and importance of bioinformatics.

Regards,

Patrick Cox

Source: When Computers Meet Cell Biology

Moreover, there will be huge profit opportunities, in many enabling technologies, for those who invest accordingly. And today I’m going to tell you about a company that will hand you your best chance to make a transformational fortune.

We know that many current treatments work on some people, yet not others. Some drugs are safe for many people, but have dangerous side effects for others. This is because all of us have individual differences in our genetic code based on heredity and environment. Even slight differences can lead to very different reactions to medications.

This has created serious regulatory problems. Drugs are denied regulatory approval not because they do not work, but because some fraction of the population suffers adverse effects. As a result, we are often denied incredibly effective therapies simply because they are not universally effective.

This shockingly primitive state of affairs exists because, until very lately, we simply have not had the tools to get to the genetic roots of disease. Scientists and pharmaceutical companies haven’t precisely known how a particular drug’s chemical profile interacts with a genetic one. Medical science, in turn, has been unable to tailor drugs to work with a specific genetic makeup.

This is rapidly changing. Just a few short years ago, the human genome was first mapped. The genome, as you know, is the entire collection of genetic code that defines us at a biological level. Now scientists are studying single genes and their individual expressions.

It is meaningful, from the investor’s perspective, that Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, has just been selected by the Obama administration to head up the National Institutes of Health. Collins has long been a prominent champion for using the knowledge gained from human genome to accelerate personalized medicine.

This is important because institutional forces, with lobbying clout, always resist change. Much of Big Pharm, and its regulators, are vested in the “one size fits all” model. Many of the old players fear personalized medicine because it threatens the existing hierarchy. Collins’ presence at the top of the NIH will help counter this institutional resistance.

Incidentally, Collins has stated that genomics is currently where the computer industry was back in the 1970s – at the beginning of a technological revolution. While he was speaking in scientific terms, we should remember that the ’70s was also the right time to begin investing in a diversified portfolio of breakthrough computer technologies. Those who did so, despite claims that it was too risky or early, were made rich.

Dr. Collins is not alone in his views about personalized medicine. Former FDA director under G.W. Bush Dr. Andrew Von Eschenbach urges that the FDA approval process be overhauled and streamlined to help accelerate the adoption of personalized medicine. He is on record predicting that the medical industry will, in fact, undergo this profound metamorphosis.

I won’t pretend, by the way, that the prospect of socialized US medicine does not threaten the pace of this transformation. If American pharm’s prices and profits are controlled by the same people who run the Post Office and Medicare, it will not be good for R&D. It will not, however, stop progress. It will only shift it offshore.

Canada and much of Europe have squelched innovation in their countries by nationalizing health care. Rather than allowing drug companies the profits needed to fund future medical technologies, they mandate cheap care. This is why we regularly see politicians from these countries coming to the US to avoid long delays or get therapies unavailable in their own countries. I live in Florida, incidentally, and a million or so Canadians winter here annually. The weather is a factor, of course, but so is our superior medical care.

Many Asian and Eastern European countries, though, have learned from America’s past successes. They are more than willing to become the next medical science powerhouses.

I speak regularly with the CEOs of some of the most important breakthrough medical companies. Universally, they tell me the same thing. They are all constantly courted by Asian investors who come with the blessings of their political leaders. These American CEOs are saddened, as am I, by the prospect that they may be forced offshore. They are, though, unwilling to halt the progress of medical science in the misguided quest for lower medical costs. I maintain hope, by the way, that Americans will stop this self-destructive move toward socialist health care.

In Greek mythology, Proteus was the son of Poseidon, who could change his shape at will. From this comes the adjective “protean,” meaning versatile, flexible and adaptable. It is not coincidence that this also describes the proteins expressed by our genes.

By now, the public is somewhat aware of genome progress. Now that the code is cracked, however, we know that it was simply the first step in the process of developing truly personalized medicine.

Though our genome contains the basic information that determines our biology, our proteome is the entire domain of protein chemistry that regulates the structure and functioning of our individual cells. By extension, the proteome determines how each of our bodies function. Everyone’s proteome is unique, because each of us has a unique genome and has been exposed to unique environmental factors.

The human genome contains a staggering amount of information. If it were a book, it would contain a billion words. Yet consider this: Each individual gene can determine the cellular manufacture and function of many, many proteins. Genes are merely the instructions for making proteins. Unlike our genome, which stays mostly the same over time, our proteome is always in a state of flux.

Proteomics concerns itself with these proteins and their interactions. These interactions determine the course of nearly all human diseases. They also open up entire new avenues of treatments and investment.

One important proteomic avenue is cancer chemotherapy. A recent study of personalized medicine by Scottsdale Healthcare showed that when cancer patients were individually profiled at the molecular level, treatments were more successful. Tumors that had resisted shrinkage using several courses of conventional chemotherapy were successfully treated when the patient’s individual genetic makeup was used to customize treatment.

Many of these personalized treatments use therapeutic monoclonal antibodies directed against specific proteins. They work only, however, in specific tumors that strongly express that particular protein. For example, tumors need to develop new blood vessels in order to grow. If the protein instructions are known, antibodies can be developed that prevent new blood vessel formation by these tumors. Antibodies can also be developed against other growth factors that feed the tumor’s growth.

We have already seen big investor successes in this arena. Early investors in Genentech struck gold. Genentech (NYSE:DNA), now owned by Roche, was the first company to develop a targeted proteomic cancer therapy when it brought the breast cancer drug Herceptin to the market in 1998. Yet Herceptin is effective only in less than a third of breast cancer patients. In some, it can trigger dangerous cardiac side effects.

The FDA, therefore, has approved procedures to test the breast cancer for the genetic protein expression that is specifically targeted by Herceptin. Women can now be individually screened for overexpressing the particular HER2 protein that Herceptin targets.

Regards,

Patrick Cox

Source: The Impact of the Genome

If you were at the Agora Financial Investment Symposium in Vancouver, you may have heard Juan Enriquez announce that Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) had given Synthetic Genomics Inc. (SGI) $300 million to work on producing biofuels using algae. SGI is run by Craig Venter, the man who broke the human genome. Exxon is not a company known for wasting money on environmental gestures. The energy company wants and expects that Venter will find a way, using genomics and algae, to produce raw materials for its refineries.

The startup Solazyme, which I’ve written about before, just picked up an additional $57 million in its quest for algal oil. Solazyme is targeting not only fuels, but also oils for cosmetics and the food industry. Solazyme is concentrating on using sugars, instead of sunlight. The company uses biomass and industrial byproducts, including cellulosic materials and waste glycerol, to feed their algae. As a result, they can grow algae in dark tanks, which has obvious advantages.

Then there is the wild card, Joule Biotechnologies. Little is known about this company except that the photosynthetic microorganism it uses to produce energy is not algae. Some are reporting that they are harnessing bacteria, but that is not yet certain. Currently, however, the company claims it can produce fuels competitively when subsidies are factored in. I don’t believe you can or should count on subsidies, but the core technology may be improved to the point that it is honestly profitable…

Fortunes will be made in this space, and we intend to have a piece.

Source: Biofuels are Back

I suspect that these defensive recommendations are worthwhile. They may, in fact, protect investors from the worst of this downturn. I don’t believe, however, that they are in any way trades “of the decade.”

First, we happen to be living through a radical acceleration of the medical sciences. This acceleration has not only left laypeople in the dust. Scientists are unable to keep up with research outside their own areas. As a result, the companies that own these breakthrough technologies are not widely understood or properly valued.

It is also true that health care stocks are traditionally countercyclical. This isn’t surprising since consumers tend to cut back on everything else before sacrificing medical care. It’s no accident that biotechs in our portfolio have done well.

There is, however, another aspect of companies that control these new medical technologies that makes them immune to downturns. Their initial customers include extremely wealthy early adopters.

One of the most notable economic developments of the last decades is the remarkable growth of “high net worth individuals” (HNWI). As defined by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, HNWIs are people with at least $750,000 managed by the reporting investment adviser or whose net worth the investment adviser reasonably believes exceeds $1,500,000. Others define HNWIs as people controlling at least $1 million in assets excluding primary residence.

Regardless, the number of these people has been growing dramatically for decades, far outpacing inflation. If you pay attention to politics, you know how upset this makes people who worry about the big increases in income or wealth “disparity.” While the biggest concentrations of HNWIs are still in North America and Europe, the fastest growth, by far, is in China and India.

This category of people controls so much wealth that, even after the financial meltdown, they remain relatively unscathed. If you loose a third of a portfolio worth $2 million, which is below the average for many HNWIs, you still have lots of options.

The total wealth at the disposal of HNWIs is immense. Though it is difficult to know exactly, it is probably around US$40 trillion, along with the associated annual income it generates. Today, according to Merrill Lynch and Capgemini, there are more than 8.5 million of these people in the world. They and their immediate families comprise a population that may exceed 25 million people. Spending on luxury items by HNWIs and family members remains strong.

According to Bertrand Lavayssière, managing director of global financial services Capgemini, “Even as financial market turmoil impacted the United States during the second half of the year, luxury goods makers, high-end services providers and auction houses all found ready clients in the emerging markets of the world — most notably, China, India, Russia and the Middle East — thereby sustaining their own growth.”

Nothing better describes the market for emerging breakthrough health care. The market segment that continues to buy Ferraris, yachts and private jets will also buy regenerative therapies for themselves and their loved ones. I don’t doubt that certain metals will do OK in the years to come. Even they, however, are subject to the vagaries of the overall economy. HNWIs, however, are largely immune to the big economic fluctuations. When stem cell therapies bestow the power to rejuvenate hearts, livers, skin and cartilage, even at sky-high prices, there will be millions and millions of happy buyers.

I mention stem cell therapies specifically, by the way, because most of the important patents are concentrated in a few companies. We own, I am convinced, the key companies now. I will, however, be adding more in the future as new enterprises spin off and develop alternative approaches.

Incidentally, two major news magazines have had prominent stem cell-related stories in the last week or so. Both of these stories, in Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report, were marked by bias and error. That, however, is not the point. Nor is it new.

They do reflect the growing public awareness of stem cell technologies. One of the most interesting aspects of these articles is their limited, even insular, perspective. Both focus on the U.S. market.

HNWIs, however, are an international group, and they are used to traveling to get the best health care. As I’ve been saying since I started with Breakthrough Technology Alert, the U.S. market is overregulated and overtaxed. We are, unfortunately going to see these technologies come online elsewhere first.

Regardless, I believe regenerative medicine is the play of the decade. No, I take it back. It’s the play of the century. Go ahead and invest in resources. I believe in a diversified portfolio. However, I remain convinced that the surest way to join the ranks of HNWIs yourself is to bet on the willingness of the very rich to buy the ultimate resource: longer, healthier lives, i.e. “time.”

For transformational profits,
Patrick Cox

Source: Regenerative Medicine Is the ‘Play of the Century’

If you missed the chance to buy into the computer industry when it was young, this is a second shot…

Currently, the mainstream electronics industry processes data by moving bunches of electrons about in huge batches. Think of the components in your PC as electrical plumbing. Data are usually stored as batches of electrons. Imagine your computer’s hard drive as a bunch of very small buckets, some full of water, some not. This will change.

Improved materials technologies from emerging nanosciences are allowing us to replace batches of electrons with the smallest individual unit: the electron. As a result, computers will work at far higher speeds. Additionally, far less electricity will be required to do the same amount of work.

Much of this exciting news is being ignored by the market. It’s an unfortunate truth that investors often lose sight of long-term opportunities to create wealth because they get distracted by the short-term noise and news in the markets. When it comes to big transformational technologies, don’t worry about timing. The returns that disruptive technologies yield justify getting in early.

Quantum Superposition

One important quantum effect that will be used in future generations of computer technology is “quantum superposition.” In a nutshell, this means that a quantum particle can exist in multiple states and everything in between at the same time. This is because a quantum particle, such as an electron, behaves as both a particle and a wave.

Have you heard of the particle wave theory? In practical terms, it means that bizarre and counterintuitive effects occur on very small scales, and they can be harnessed.

This “quantum superposition” effect will, for example, utterly transform how we do “computer math.” Currently, nearly everything done by computers is done in binary. The smallest piece of information a computer handles, the bit, is either one or zero. A quantum computer, though, would be able to store and work with number systems other than binary.

This means computers would become exponentially more powerful because each “quantum bit” (qubit) could store a much greater range of numbers than the two that binary math restricts us to. Imagine a laptop with the computing power of the world’s 10 most powerful supercomputers. Then you begin to grasp the potential of quantum computing.

Decoding Quantum Encryption

Quantum computing also offers the means of making our communications and business transactions far more secure than they are today. Quantum cryptography exploits several remarkable effects of “quantum entanglement.” One is the ability to generate pairs of utterly unique and unbreakable keys. Basically, two random but identical particle keys can be created using entanglement. Since reading a quantum particle alters it, any effort to eavesdrop on communication is detected and that communication is either disrupted or ended.

Using this technology, we can create completely secure communications networks. Recently, Toshiba’s R&D labs announced the successful testing of quantum cryptography over fiber-optic networks. Austrians were able to send entangled photons between two Spanish islands nearly 90 miles apart.

Spintronics

One of the likeliest quantum technologies to go mainstream is the field of spintronics. This is the exploitation of different electron states. The only property of the electron that we use in electronics now is charge. Electrons, however, have another property called “spin.” Because we can change and read this spin, it can be used to compute. Already, the tech giants are investing in this technology. And there’s a reason.

I’ve written a lot about HP’s work on memristor technology. Memristors are going to provide the next great leap in computer technology. HP has been making rapid and well publicized advances. It could, in fact, have product on the market next year. This initially concerned me because HP is too big to get us anything close to a memristor pure play.

Fortunately, memristors can be built using techniques other than HP’s. My associate Ray Blanco has been poring through patents and tech journals. What he’s found is enormously exciting.

Basically, a number of other groups have made similar memristor advances using different technologies. One is based on spintronics. Seagate Technology (NASDAQ:STX) scientists believe, in fact, that spintronic-based memristors would be more efficient and customizable than the ion-based tech debuted by HP’s labs. There are other players here, and we’ll tell you about them in the future.

The big question now, however, is not which of these technologies will emerge as the best solution. The question we’re looking at today is who will build these new components. Who, in effect, will be the Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) of the future?

For transformational profits,
Patrick Cox

Source: The Quantum Leap of Quantum Computing

They’ll keep our homes, track our finances and clean up after our pets. Best of all, they’ll be robotic. So you won’t have to feel guilty. You won’t even have to tip them! Within a few years, truly sophisticated consumer robots will be common in high-income households. Before you know it, incredibly capable general-purpose robots will be seen as essential appliances.

It’s funny how hard it is for people to accept big, obvious change. Even when the world is transforming in front of their eyes, lots of folks don’t see it. I remember when the prevailing opinion was that personal computers were a novelty. The real money, analysts said, would be in mainframes. Do you remember when the Internet itself was viewed as merely interesting, but with little financial potential?

If you go back further, you’ll see this same inability to recognize trends with cars. At first, the notion that people would want to own automobiles was too much for the mainstream. Sitting in traffic these days, it’s hard too imagine such shortsightedness was once conventional wisdom.

Those who understood that those changes were inevitable made fortunes. They didn’t worry about timing or recessions. They just invested in a portfolio of early carmakers. Despite the fact that some automakers crashed and burned, those who bought diversified portfolios of car stocks made vast fortunes. That’s what I’m urging investors to do with robotics now: build a diversified portfolio of the companies that hold key competitive positions in the industry.

Already, some low-end robots are exploding into new markets. Even as consumers cut back dramatically last quarter, sales at one of the robot companies I follow increased dramatically during the first quarter. This trend will continue. Selected robot companies are bucking dismal economic conditions. Moreover, military spending on robotics continues to expand and buoy many robot companies. Just days ago, the U.S. Army ordered 125 robots from a company I have been following.

The proposed Obama budget increases funding for the Department of Defense programs that move robotics forward. The trend toward unmanned robotic weaponry, like iRobot’s PackBot, is unstoppable. Military conflict will not go away, and robots offer many developed nations a way to reduce battlefield casualties.

As Moore’s Law continues to improve computer technologies, the decision to risk robots, rather than humans, will be easier and easier to make. Regardless of consumer spending trends, we will see far more advanced robots in the battlefield and on crime scenes. Those advances will, in turn, accelerate the domestic and industrial robotic industries.

Believe me. You want to own robots.

Part II: Memristors

Memristors are the “fourth circuit variable” hypothesized in 1971. Until now, though, three circuit variables have long been the basis for all electronic circuits. They are resistance, capacitance and inductance.

Last year, HP made news by demonstrating a practical application of memristance. At the time, I was astonished that the development had occurred so soon after HP’s announcement that it had discovered a way to build memristors.

HP may have been only the first group to recognize what it had on its hands. Researchers from such institutions like the University of Parma in Italy and UC San Diego have also built prototype memristors from polymers and metallic oxides. They too are exploring applications for this exciting new technology and could end up holding important memristor intellectual property.

Nearly all existing commercially available transistor-based technology is capable of assuming only two states per element, either 1 or 0. So by necessity, all calculation is done in binary.

Memristors, because they can assume different states corresponding to different levels of resistance, are multi-state elements. This quality facilitates a much higher data density. Memristor storage density will be at least 10 times that which is achievable using current transistor-based technology. Imagine the storage capacity of a large hard drive on the head of a pin.

Moreover, memristor memory is nonvolatile. It retains its state even when no power is applied to the circuit. This has tremendous advantages over current memory technologies that lose their data when the power is switched off. Furthermore, unlike current transistor technology, memristance becomes more pronounced and efficient the smaller the element is. In transistors, small size and high density lead to greater power loss and heat production. The opposite is true with memristors. Nanotech-level scaling actually amplifies the memristive properties of the individual elements.

It’s not only computer scientists who are excited by these developments. Biologists are beginning to realize the potential memristors have to mimic organic or biological computing.

Because many of the properties of memristors are so similar to brain cells they may be used to imitate brain functions. If, as scientists believe, they can be used to mimic synaptic function, they could bring true artificial intelligence much closer.

Recently, researchers have been able to model the learning ability of the amoeba with a simple memristive circuit. According to HP, these circuits can “remember and associate a series of events in a manner similar to the way a human brain recognizes patterns.” In other words, the circuits learn.

While HP has grabbed the headlines, such devices are currently being developed for use as nonvolatile resistive memory by various companies. Some, like HP, are probably too big to be breakthrough technology stocks. Samsung is one of the giants working on the technology. On the other hand, Micron Technology and Unity Semiconductor apparently have some patent rights, at least, to memristor technologies. If they’re significant, these companies could be small enough to experience transformational profits that rival Intel’s historic growth.

It is only a matter of time before this new technology begins to break through. We will be monitoring this area for developments and will keep you informed.

P.S.: The question now, of course, is will there be a memristor pure play. One of my colleagues (an IT engineer) is currently talking to researchers about that very question… Get on my list and become one of the first to learn about these transformational companies as they develop. Here’s a link.

Source: Robots and Memristors

Think about the service this company has done mankind. C. diff, as hospital diarrhea is called, is a growing cause of hospital deaths. Though many cases outside of hospitals are never diagnosed, we know it kills at least 30,000 Americans annually. Those who do recover, about 9 out of ten, can suffer horribly for months. Bravo to Medarex and all those who made this breakthrough possible by investing your money in this incredibly worth effort.

So what does this have to do with swine flu?

So far, swine flu is a minor problem compared to C. diff. Only one person in the U.S. has died from the infection. Survival rates, in fact, are far higher than they are for C. diff. Still, it could get worse, and governments are looking for a vaccine. So, just what are the financial opportunities?

I see nothing significant in the short run. One can never account for mob psychology though, and there have already been surges in some vaccine companies. In terms of fundamentals, however, I don’t think standard flu vaccines are going to make investors rich. The reason is that governments are the real customers for flu vaccines. On top of that, vaccines are an established industry and yields tend to be driven down by competition.

Those who are interested in playing swings should probably look into:

• Novavax  (NASDAQ: NVAX)
• Dynavax (NASDAQ: DVAX)
• Hemispherx Biopharma (AMEX: HEB)
• BioCryst Pharma (NASDAQ: BCRX)
• AVI BioPharma (NASDAQ: AVII)
• deCode Genetics (NASDAQ: DCGN)
• Crucell (NASDAQ: CRXL)
• Vical (NASDAQ: VICL)

This does not mean there are not long-term flu-related opportunities. Even if swine flu doesn’t turn into a major pandemic, influenza is a serious international problem that drains resources and lives. The World Health Organization, estimates that influenza infects 5 to 15% of the world’s population in a typical year. This results in 250,000 to 500,000 deaths. The WHO and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are, of course, concerned about the potential for a major global pandemic. Medical science has progressed significantly since 1918, when the “Spanish Flu” killed upward of 50 million people; but it is still a serious illness.

Right now, the headlines generated by the flu are largely about trying to track and stop its progress. Today, this is extremely difficult. There are, however, solutions on the horizon.

I’ve written before about biochip sensors. These are a true transformational technology. Last year, agricultural losses of hundreds of millions of dollars were caused by the inability to quickly locate the source of a salmonella infection. What is needed, and will arrive in the not-so-distant future, are sensors that can detect disease pathogens cheaply and instantaneously. Think Star Trek tricorders…

And we’re getting close. EETimes is reporting that CombiMatrix Corp. (NASDAQ: CBMX) has made biochips that can be programmed to identify any known flu type. CombiMatrix says its microarray can be updated for new influenzas in less than a day and can deliver test results in only four hours.

A little bit further out are even bigger profit opportunities. Specifically, we’re looking at is an end to specific flu vaccines.

Pandemic influenzas emerge from a sudden change in the flu virus against which there is no immunity. Vaccines are the mainstay of flu prevention, but they have two key limitations. First, they are developed against single, known flu strains. Therefore, they may be ineffective against new strains. Second, vaccines are produced using a lengthy process requiring incubation in chicken eggs. New flu vaccines take months or years to stockpile.

There are general antiviral medications approved to treat influenza. Influenza virus strains, however, can become resistant to these medications. For this reason, scientists are looking to RNA interference for a brand new approach to preventing flu viruses.

I know of at least two companies that have been engaged in the search for an RNAi flu cure. The potential advantage of RNAi antiviral therapeutics is that RNAi can be used to provoke an immune response that prevents replication of all influenza viruses, new or old. Stockpiling of an effective RNAi treatment would be possible in advance of a global pandemic and could be used for routine flus as well. Moreover, whoever produces the therapy would have a significant profit potential.

For transformational profits,
Patrick Cox

Source: Why Standard Flu Vaccines Won’t Make Investors Rich

For those of you who are not familiar with RNA interference, here’s what it is and how it works: DNA is, in a sense, the operating system software for our cells. As such, DNA does not directly interact with genes. It’s too important to risk corruption through unnecessary exposure. Instead, DNA operates by sending out chemical instructions. These instructions are in the form of complex RNA molecules. They are similar to double-stranded DNA, but are usually single stranded.

Basically, these extraordinarily complex RNA molecules control gene activity or expression. This is important because nearly all diseases are either caused or cured by the proteins produced by genes. You can, therefore, think of the ability to increase or decrease the production of these proteins as an on/off switch for diseases.

The remarkably young science of RNA interference is based on the accidental discovery that it is possible to flip these switches. The remote control, so to speak, for these switches consists of portions of RNA molecules. Because these portions are recognized as invaders by the body, they provoke the rejection of larger disease-causing RNA molecules. The other side of the coin is “RNA activation.” This is the process that increases gene expression.

The birthday of the science, according to many, was in 1998. That was the year when scientists Craig Mello and Andrew Fire published their paper on RNA interference in nematode worms. The paper earned them the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 2006.

RNAi companies, unlike stem cell firms, have grown very rapidly. Many have already been gobbled up by Big Pharma companies, positioning for a foothold in this promising new field.

Unlike regenerative medicine (think: stem cells), RNAi scientists and companies sidestepped the legal and ethical scrutiny that has hobbled some stem cell companies. Now the legal situation has been clarified and embryonic stem cells have been replaced for therapeutic uses by iPS and parthenogenetic cells. As a result, we can expect important stem cell companies to make similar deals with Big Pharma companies.

Regardless, many RNAi companies already have significant capitalization and Big Pharma partnerships. Even at that stage of their development, however, they still have profound transformational potential. For example, I would have added RNAi pioneer Sirna Therapeutics to our portfolio. Sirna, however, was acquired in 2006 by Merck & Co. Inc. in a deal worth $1.1 billion.

That deal, the largest in the RNAi space so far, was followed by others:

Anglo-Swedish pharm firm, AstraZeneca Intl., made a $400 million deal with a European RNAi firm, Silence Therapeutics. Alnylam formed a $1 billion partnership with Swiss giant, Roche. The high-water mark for RNAi stockholders, however, is still the Sirna Therapeutics acquisition by Merck in October 2006.

As I’ve said repeatedly, RNA interfering molecules work. There is no question that they flip the switches they’re supposed to flip. The challenge, however, is getting them to their target genes before they are recognized and destroyed by the body’s immune system. Various companies are homing in on specific delivery solutions now. There are, however, many different solutions to the delivery problem. Each gene switch has its own special considerations and there is no “one size fits all” solution.

Most of the new RNAi companies have been founded specifically to develop RNAi therapies. Opportunity abounds in this sector. But beware; the failures will be as spectacular as the successes.

Source: RNAi’s Buyout Deals: Who Will Benefit?

Unfortunately, “No Nuke” rock musicians and actors have had more influence on U.S. energy policies than scientists like Petr Beckmann.

Dr. Beckmann was a Czech refugee from the Nazis, who spent much of his career in America promoting nuclear power. Until he died, Beckmann was treated as some sort of demon by the environmental movement. No longer.

Today, even green leaders are admitting the folly of rejecting this cheap, clean and safe (when compared rationally with other energy sources) technology. If there were justice, Beckmann would have statues erected in his honor.

The green turnaround on nuclear power is particularly relevant now. President Obama has picked several “climate change” activists to serve as top officials. The most important is Harvard physicist John Holdren. As presidential science adviser, he could have a significant impact on energy policy. His career, in fact, has focused on climate change, next-generation nuclear energy and nuclear disarmament.

From the perspective of an investor, what does this mean? Among other things, it could rapidly accelerate the transition from the current generation of nuclear power plants to the next. I would, incidentally, never invest in a technology simply because it has political support. Ethanol, for example, had lots of it. It was never a good idea, though, and is finally being recognized as such.

Nuclear power as we know it today is obsolete. Current light water reactors use uranium-235. This fuel is not only expensive, but its byproducts create problems. They are difficult politically to handle and can be used to create nuclear weapons.

Those byproducts are, ironically, the reason we initially adopted uranium-235. America needed the materials for nuclear weapons. Power plants using uranium-235 provided them. Regulators, naturally, favored the technology despite the fact that there were superior fuels – especially thorium, element #90 on the Periodic Table.

Thorium is not only far more abundant than uranium-235, but thorium reactors do not produce waste materials useful in nuclear weapons. In fact, the wastes are far less hazardous and much cheaper to deal with. Thorium reactors are safer in general to operate, producing little radioactive threat outside their shielding. They cannot, in fact, experience a catastrophic meltdown.

This is a much bigger deal than it appears on the surface. Fuel costs, though much lower for thorium, don’t play much of a role in total nuclear power costs. In his book The Nuclear Energy Option, Bernard Cohen estimates that safety measures to counter meltdowns account for about 75% of current plant costs. As thorium plants can’t melt down, energy costs would be significantly lower.

Additionally, thorium reactors can be almost any size. Prototypes have been made small enough for military aircraft. This makes them economically viable in developing countries without the additional cost of large-scale electrical infrastructure. Thorium reactors would also be easier to sell internationally because they cannot be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. (To learn a bit more about the wonderful world of thorium energy, check out this blog.)

The shift to thorium would facilitate economic, environmental and nonproliferation causes. So why are we still building plants that burn uranium-235? This is one of the hazards of government involvement in the sciences. Once grants and regulatory attitudes that favor a technology are in place, they are huge barriers to competitors.

A free market would favor thorium over uranium anyway. Coincidentally, Obama’s administration could significantly reduce barriers to thorium energy production. I’m looking hard now at several ways to take advantage of this revolutionary development.

Source: The Ultimate Alternative Energy

This from The Daily Reckoning:

Contrary to the common misconception, we have no energy shortage. In fact, we have more energy available than we could ever use. If not for the anti-nuclear movement, the funders of terrorism would not be awash with petrodollars and our economy would be significantly stronger. Unfortunately, rock musicians and actors had more influence on energy policies than scientists like Petr Beckmann, whom I was lucky to have as a friend.

Dr. Beckmann was a Czech refugee from Nazism who spent much of his career in America promoting nuclear power. Until he died, Beckmann was treated as some sort of demon by the environmental movement. No longer.

Today, even green leaders are admitting the folly of rejecting this cheap, clean and safe (when compared rationally with other energy sources) technology. If there were justice, Beckmann would have statues erected in his honor.

The green turnaround on nuclear power is particularly relevant now. President-elect Obama has picked several global warming activists to serve as top officials. The most important is Harvard physicist John Holdren. As presidential science adviser, he could have a significant impact on energy policy. His career, in fact, has focused on climate change, next-generation nuclear energy and nuclear disarmament.

From the perspective of an investor, what does this mean? Among other things, it could rapidly accelerate the transition from the current generation of nuclear power plants to the next. I would, incidentally, never invest in a technology simply because it has political support. Ethanol, for example, had lots of it. It was never a good idea, though, and is finally being recognized as such.

Nuclear power as we know it today is obsolete. Current light water reactors use uranium-235. This fuel is not only expensive, but its byproducts create problems. They are difficult politically to handle and can be used to create nuclear weapons.

Those byproducts are, ironically, the reason we initially adopted uranium-235. America needed the materials for nuclear weapons. Power plants using uranium-235 provided them. Regulators, naturally, favored the technology despite the fact that there were superior fuels – especially thorium.

Thorium is not only far more abundant than uranium-235, but thorium reactors do not produce waste materials useful in nuclear weapons. In fact, the wastes are far less hazardous and much cheaper to deal with. Thorium reactors are safer in general to operate, producing little radioactive threat outside their shielding. They cannot, in fact, experience a catastrophic meltdown.

This is a much bigger deal than it appears on the surface. Fuel costs, though much lower for thorium, don’t play much of a role in total nuclear power costs. In his book The Nuclear Energy Option, Bernard Cohen estimates that safety measures to counter meltdowns account for about 75% of current plant costs. As thorium plants can’t melt down, energy costs would be significantly lower.

Additionally, thorium reactors can be almost any size. Prototypes have been made small enough for military aircraft. This makes them economically viable in developing countries without the additional cost of large-scale electrical infrastructure. Thorium reactors would also be easier to sell internationally because they cannot be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.

The shift to thorium would facilitate economic, environmental and nonproliferation causes. So why are we still building plants that burn uranium-235? This is one of the hazards of government involvement in the sciences. Once grants and regulatory attitudes that favor a technology are in place, they are huge barriers to competitors.

A free market would favor thorium over uranium anyway. Coincidentally, Obama’s administration could significantly reduce barriers to thorium energy production. I’m looking hard now at several ways to take advantage of this development.

There is one potential wrench in these works, though. It’s nuclear fusion, and it could change everything. The fuel for fusion is essentially free, so the cost of power generation is a matter of capital costs and maintenance. I’ve been a skeptic about the economics of fusion, but that has begun to change. It appears that early research grants may have derailed and forced out more promising and cheaper fusion technologies than those favored by various governments’ research efforts.

Source: The Ultimate Alternative Energy