It’s been a typically busy transfer window at Loftus Road, with confirmation of Junior Hoilett’s arrival taking the number of QPR’s summer signings to seven.[poll id=”29″]Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
(CLICK HERE, if you are unable to view this photo gallery on your mobile device.)SAN JOSE — Charlie McAvoy scored with 1:03 remaining in overtime, spoiling Joe Thornton’s revenge hat trick against the team that traded him to San Jose 13 years ago.McAvoy clinched a 6-5 win for the Boston Bruins at SAP Center on Monday after his teammate Chris Wagner tied the game at 18:11 of the third in controversial fashion, letting the air out of Thornton’s big night.Thornton refused to hide his emotions …
Conservatives rightly get a bad rap for anti-science policies. But progressives can be just as bad(Visited 73 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Finding an article on a secular science site that criticizes the left and defends the right is so rare, it’s news.On New Scientist today, Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell blasted political leftists for their “war on reason” with “lefty nonsense” that pretends to be scientifically-based but is not. The caption reads, “Conservatives rightly get a bad rap for anti-science policies. But progressives can be just as bad, say Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell.”As an example, the two describe a Congressional “green” initiative to keep plastic and styrofoam utensils out of the Capitol and replace them with biodegradable ones. It sounded good; it felt good; but it ended up more wasteful and harmful to the environment than before. This led to their key paragraph:Conservatives’ sins against science – objections to stem cell research, denial of climate science, opposition to evolution and the rest – are widely reported and well known. But conservatives don’t have a monopoly on unscientific policies. Progressives are just as bad, if not worse. Their ideology is riddled with anti-scientific feel-good fallacies designed to win hearts, not minds. Just like biodegradeable spoons, their policies often crumble in the face of reality and leave behind a big mess. Worse, anyone who questions them is condemned as anti-science.This paragraph makes it clear that they are not embracing or defending conservatism – just calling out anti-science (as they conceive it) on both sides. “We have all heard about the Republican war on science; we want to draw attention to the progressive war on reason.” This statement, though, begs the question whether science and reason are separable.Berezow, editor of RealClearScience.com, is clearly anti-creationist but also anti-nonsense from any political stripe. Campbell is his co-author of a book whose title is self-explanatory: Science Left Behind: Feel-good fallacies and the rise of the anti-scientific left. While not letting conservatives off the hook for their “sins against science” (as perceived by Berezow and Campbell), they feel the charges need to be fairly distributed on both sides of the political spectrum. While claiming only a “lunatic fringe” among progressives is guilty, the guilt is pressing:We contend that there is a disturbing and largely unreported trend among influential progressive activists who misinterpret, misrepresent and abuse science to advance their ideological and political agendas.Of all of today’s political philosophies, progressivism stands as the most pressing problem for science. Progressives, not conservatives, are the ones most likely to replace scientific research with unscientific ideology.Strong words coming from a news site that typically takes the progressive position as a given. “Conservatives who endorse unscientific ideas are blasted by the scientific community, yet progressives who do the same get a free pass,” they ended. “It is important the problem be recognised, and that free pass revoked.”Update 2/05/13: New Scientist admitted to a leftist bias. Commenting on Berezow and Campbell’s rebuke, they agreed it is right to “Challenge unscientific thinking, whatever its source.” They considered whether the left gets a free pass by scientists and reporters. Their conclusion was a call to freedom:Is there any substance to that suspicion? We should go to every possible length to ensure there isn’t. Unreason of any hue is dangerous; any suggestion of bias only makes it harder to overcome. Science and liberalism are natural allies, but only in the literal sense of liberalism as the pursuit of freedom. That means freedom of thought, freedom of speech and, above all, freedom from ideology – wherever on the political spectrum it comes from.Trying to explain the bias, they said, “The suspicion must be that this is because scientists themselves lean towards the left, as does the media that covers them.” Then in parentheses, they added, “(Both friends and critics of New Scientist tell us we lean in that direction.)”Freedom from ideology? Good luck. Everyone has a world view, whether carefully thought out or not. We’d like the editors of New Scientist to explain “unreason” in Darwinian terms.Refreshing as the main article is, it doesn’t even come close to levelling the playing field. First of all, Berezow and Campbell adopt, without question, the leftist talking points that anti-evolutionism is unscientific, that global warming theory is scientific, and that no one has a scientific right to question “stem cell science” (presumably the destruction of human embryos, an ethical question, not an issue of science). They already condemned conservatives before examining irrational ideas from progressives. They essentially tarred and feathered all conservatives before pointing out that just a few leftists on the “lunatic fringe” are just as bad or worse. Is this the best New Scientist can say? It’s too little too late. (Understand that it’s not because Republicans or conservatives actually are anti-science that gives them the bad rap; the leftists who control the media, education, labor and scientific societies hate conservatives for everything they stand for, scientific or not.)Berezow and Campbell did well to distinguish liberalism from progressivism:Liberalism, as defined by John Locke, means the pursuit of liberty. By that definition progressives are not liberal. Though they claim common cause with liberals (and most of them are Democrats because very few progressives are Republican), today’s progressive movement is actually socially authoritarian. Unlike conservative authoritarians, however, they are not concerned with banning “immoral” things like sex, drugs and rock and roll. They instead seek dominion over issues such as food, the environment and education. And they claim that their policies are based on science, even when they are not.This distinction is correct and rarely recognized. If Berezow and Campbell wish to promote liberalism of the Locke version, though, then let them promote academic freedom and freedom of inquiry – including freedom to criticize evolution, global warming and stem cell research, without pre-judging it as anti-science in a socially authoritarian way.Berezow and Campbell appear to employ a simplistic philosophy of science known as positivism or scientism, which can be described as, “anything the scientific institutions describe as scientific is scientific; anyone from outside who disagrees is a nut.” While we appreciate them calling out progressives for their “sins against science,” we suggest they define their terms in context of the idol they trust, Darwin. Define sin, define science, and define reason in evolving, aimless, purposeless terms of natural selection. We contend they cannot. Their appeal to reason is coming from their soul, not their body; from their conscience, not some imagined evolutionary past. They are acting “like theists” in spite of themselves.Nevertheless, thanks to New Scientist and these men for the partial recognition of a huge problem. We wish them well on their journey toward a non-self-refuting rational foundation.
“In addition, the 2010 IBR survey indicates a group of ten economies – which includes South Africa – where businesses are more optimistic about the outlook for their economies than International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecasts might suggest,” says Brehm. All countries which recorded negative balances for employment were European, led by Ireland and Italy (both -14%). Improving revenues, profits, investment “SA business owners are certainly looking with renewed optimism towards the coming 2010 Fifa World Cup year and its associated rewards,” Grant Thornton South Africa chairman Leonard Brehm said in a statement this week. “Many people blamed globalisation for the speed of the downturn but we are now seeing that globalisation may also help us accelerate out of recession. The giant emerging markets of China, India and Brazil are confident that they can help to pull the rest of the world back into growth. Businesses were much less hopeful about selling prices with 21 out of 36 economies, including South Africa, less optimistic about increasing their prices than they were in 2009. Businesses in Chile, India, Australia, Vietnam and Brazil are the most optimistic, all scoring over +70%. Close behind are South Africa, China, Singapore, Canada and Hong Kong (which showed the biggest swing of sentiment from 2009) at +60% or higher. Businesses in places as geographically diverse as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Malaysia and Germany recorded disproportionately higher optimism than might be expected. The IBR statistics indicate that 26% of South African privately held business owners expect an upturn during the first half of 2010, with 33% expecting the upturn to take place in the second half of the year – most likely as a direct result of the World Cup event in June/July. South African companies are hopeful that the worst of the recession is behind them, according to Consultancy firm Grant Thornton’s latest International Business Report, which shows an optimism/pessimism balance of +60% compared to +35% a year ago. First half upturn 21 January 2010 South Africa’s employment optimism data indicates a +25% increase, compared to the global number of +20%. European businesses were far more pessimistic than their counterparts elsewhere in the world; a negative balance of -1% in Europe compared to balances of +33% and +42% in Asia Pacific and Latin America respectively. Of all trends highlighted, global privately held businesses expectations of increased revenue came out highest. Employment optimism At the other end of the scale, many Eurozone countries remain pessimistic about the future; Italy, Denmark, Finland and France all scored -10% or lower. “South African specific data found that expectations of increased revenues in 2010 once again surpassed global trends with +60% optimism balance, compared to the global +40% figure,” says Brehm. Why are South African business owners optimistic? “Many governments, on reading these results, will hope their business community is right and that their GDP in 2010 will outstrip IMF forecasts,” said Brehm. “This is especially because privately held businesses contribute 81% of global GDP. The global business community should be encouraged by the results of this survey.” The International Business Report (IBR) survey of over 7 400 privately held busiensses across 36 economies, now in its 8th year, also highlights that South Africa expects the turnaround post-recession to occur a lot earlier than in most other countries. “This suggests that during the recession businesses have become leaner and more cost effective which may enable them to lower prices while still securing increased revenues and, crucially, profits,” says Brehm. “As the global economy emerges from recession, we are likely to see many businesses reaping the rewards of recession induced efficiencies.” Privately held businesses in South Africa also believe that profitability (+44%) and investment in plant and machinery (+37%) will both increase. Global figures for profitability (+29%) and investment in plant and machinery (+31%) also indicated increases. In comparison, global statistics indicate a turnaround during the second half of 2010 (34%) or only during 2011 (23%). Optimism among companies around the world has bounced back to give the Grant Thornton global optimism/pessimism index for 2010 an overall optimism balance of +24%, compared to its lowest ever score of -16% this time last year. Increased global optimism “Businesses in many other economies are equally optimistic that they have not only survived this recession but are well placed to help drive the upturn, and see their business grow as a result,” concludes Brehm. SAinfo reporterWould you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See: Using SAinfo material
Money flowed like the water of a flooded river in Bangalore on Saturday as top players in international cricket were bought by the 10 franchisees of the Indian Premier League. The amount splurged in the 2011 auction trumped the millions spent in the inaugural sale in 2008.If $1.55 million (Rs 7.13 crore) was the biggest amount spent till last season – on Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff – the fourth edition of the league kicked off with franchisees spending over $2 million (Rs 9.2 crore) on players like Gautam Gambhir ($2.4 mn; Rs11.04 cr), Robin Uthappa and Yusuf Pathan ($2.1 mn; Rs 9.66 cr).A player like Andrew Symonds commanded $1.35 million earlier (Rs 6.21 crore at current rate), but the trend this time around is clear – if you have to splurge, splurge on the Indian players. What emerged from the auction on Saturday is that the team owners have become smarter. It’s not that they didn’t make sound business decisions earlier or that the deals struck for the new season were reasonable.But if one is allowed to spend up to $9 mn (Rs 41.4 crore), it makes sense to spend one’s millions on Indian stars than on international ones.There are a few reasons behind it. Firstly, the Indian team is one of the top sides in world cricket right now and most of the players are in red hot form. And more importantly, they will be available for the entire duration of the IPL, unlike players from England or the West Indies.The unavailability of foreign players in previous editions hurt the franchisees, who paid them huge sums but couldn’t play them for a large number of games. The team owners have become wiser and have taken the availability of foreign players into account while deciding on their buys.advertisementIt is for that reason that the top seven most expensive players are Indians and the highest amount commanded by a foreign players is $1.5 million (Rs6.9 cr) – for Mahela Jayawardene by Kochi. What the teams have learnt is that irrespective of the quality of the international players, it will be the Indian stars who will form the backbone of the sides. They are the ones who will attract most of the crowds and will be most sought after.Another trend that was visible is the loss in market value of the Australian players. With the aura surrounding the players from Down Under fast diminishing with a string of defeats over the past year, the Aussies are not so much in demand.However, the stock of the English players hasn’t risen correspondingly. It has, however, gotten more to do with the uncertainty over their availability. In the inaugural auction, a lot of money was spent on international players who did well in their domestic T20 tournaments. But this time, the moolah has been splurged only on proven international performers as the franchises would rather take chances with unknown local talent.But the fact remains that unheard of amounts have been spent on players for a one-anda- half month tournament. Even in this apparent madness, there is a method. And the method is to back the Indians.IPL 4 teams till now:KOLKATA KNIGHT RIDERS Previous squad Sourav Ganguly; Ajit Agarkar; Shane Bond; Ashok Dinda; Chris Gayle; Brad Hodge; Murali Kartik; Brendon McCullum; Angelo Mathews; Ajantha Mendis; Cheteshwar Pujara; Wriddhiman Saha; Owais Shah; Ishant SharmaCurrent squadGautam Gambhir (Rs 11.04 cr), Yusuf Pathan (Rs 9.66 cr), Jacques Kallis (Rs 5.06cr), Brad Haddin (Rs 1.49), Shakeeb Al Hasan (Rs 1.95cr); Brett Lee (Rs 1.84cr); Eoin Morgan (Rs 1.61 cr); Manoj Tiwary (Rs 2.18cr)ROYAL CHALLENGERs BANGALOREPrevious squad Anil Kumble; Mark Boucher; Rahul Dravid; Dillon du Preez; Shreevats Goswami; Jacques Kallis; Virat Kohli; Praveen Kumar; Abhimanyu Mithun; Kevin PieteRs en; Steven Smith; Dale Steyn; Ross Taylor; RobinCurrent squad Tillakaratne Dilshan (Rs 2.99 cr), Zaheer Khan (Rs 4.14 cr), AB de VillieRs (Rs 5.06 cr), Daniel Vettori (Rs 2.53 cr), Saurabh Tiwary (Rs 7.36 cr); Dirk Nannes (Rs 2.99 cr); Cheteshwar Pujara (Rs 3.22 cr); Virat Kohli (retained)RAJASTHAN ROYALSPrevious squad Shane Warne; Swapnil Asnodkar; Johan Botha; Abhishek Jhunjhunwala; Kamran Khan; Michael Lumb; Morne Morkel; Naman Ojha; Munaf Patel; Yusuf Pathan; Shaun Tait; Siddharth Trivedi; Adam Voges; Graeme Smith Uthappa; Cameron WhiteCurrent squad Ross Taylor (Rs 2.6 cr), Rahul Dravid (Rs 2.3 cr), Johan Botha (Rs 4.37 cr); Paul Collingwood (Rs 1.15 cr); Shane Warne (retained); Shane Watson (retained)MUMBAI INDIANSPrevious squad Sachin Tendulkar; Dwayne Bravo; Shikhar Dhawan; JP Duminy; Dilhara Fernando; Harbhajan Singh; Zaheer Khan; Dhawal Kulkarni; Lasith Malinga; Ali Murtaza; Abhishek Nayar; Kieron Pollard; Aditya Tare; Saurabh TiwaryCurrent squad Rohit Sharma (Rs 9.2 cr), Andrew Symonds (Rs 3.91 cr), David Jacobs (Rs 87 lakh), James Franklin (Rs 46 lakh); Sachin Tendulkar (retained); Harbhajan Singh (retained); Kieron Pollard (retained); Lasith Malinga (retained)advertisementDECCAN CHARGERSPrevious squad Adam Gilchrist; Anirudh Singh; Azhar Bilakhia; HeRs chelle Gibbs; Harmeet Singh; Ryan Harris; VVS Laxman; Mitchell MaRs h; Pragyan Ojha; Ravi Teja; Kemar Roach; Rohit Sharma; RP Singh; T Suman; Andrew SymondsCurrent squadKevin PieteRs en (Rs 2.99 cr), Cameron White (Rs 5.06 cr), Kumar Sangakkara (Rs 3.22 cr), JP Duminy (Rs 1.38 cr), Shikhar Dhawan (Rs 1.38 cr); Dale Steyn (Rs 5.52 cr); Amit Mishra (Rs 1.38 cr); Ishant Sharma (Rs 2.07 cr) Pragyan Ojha (Rs 2.3 cr)MUMBAI INDIANSPrevious squad Sachin Tendulkar; Dwayne Bravo; Shikhar Dhawan; JP Duminy; Dilhara Fernando; Harbhajan Singh; Zaheer Khan; Dhawal Kulkarni; Lasith Malinga; Ali Murtaza; Abhishek Nayar; Kieron Pollard; Aditya Tare; Saurabh TiwaryCurrent squad Rohit Sharma (Rs 9.2 cr), Andrew Symonds (Rs 3.91 cr), David Jacobs (Rs 87 lakh), James Franklin (Rs 46 lakh); Sachin Tendulkar (retained); Harbhajan Singh
SELECTMEN NEWS Finalists For Towns New Finance Director Position Revealed Public Interviews Scheduled
WILMINGTON, MA — The Wilmington Board of Selectmen will interview the finalists in the town’s search for its Finance Director/Town Accountant on Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 7pm at Town Hall.The two finalists are Hayley S. Green, CPA — who currently serves as the Town Accountant/Assistant Finance Director for the Town of Andover — and Bryan Perry, CPA — who currently serves as the City Auditor for Lowell.Green will interview at 7pm. Perry will interview at 8:15pm. Each interview is scheduled to last an hour. These interviews will be open to the public.As described in a memo written by Town Accountant Mike Morris and provided to the Selectmen on Monday night, the town received 10 applicants for the job opening.The screening committee — which consisted of the soon-to-be-retiring Town Account Mike Morris, Town Manager Jeff Hull, Assistant Town Manager Kerry Colburn-Dion, and Selectman Jonathan Eaton — interviewed three applicants and decided to bring forth two finalists — Green and Perry — for the Selectmen to interview.Town Accountant Mike Morris, who has served the town for more than 30 years, has announced his intention to retire in early July.Selectmen took the opportunity to tweak the town’s financial management structure, turning the Town Accountant position into a Finance Director/Town Accountant position.The new position is responsible to the Town Manager and Board of Selectmen, serves as Town Accountant and Chief Financial Officer, and oversees the Town’s financial activities which include accounting, assessing, collections, treasury, financial systems and purchasing. The position advises the Town Manager on revenue projections, serves as the Town Manager’s technical advisor on departmental budgets and management, and has oversight of the preparation of the Town’s annual operating and capital budgets.Like Wilmington Apple on Facebook. Follow Wilmington Apple on Twitter. Follow Wilmington Apple on Instagram. Subscribe to Wilmington Apple’s daily email newsletter HERE. Got a comment, question, photo, press release, or news tip? Email email@example.com. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading… RelatedSELECTMEN NEWS: Board To Interview 2 Finalists For Finance Director/Town Accountant On Wednesday NightIn “Government”SELECTMEN NEWS: New Finance Director & Town Accountant AppointedIn “Government”5 QUICK QUESTIONS with Wilmington’s New Finance Director Bryan PerryIn “5 Quick Questions”
SUVs Luxury cars Future Cars Enlarge ImageTalk about getting off to a good start. Andrew Krok/Roadshow When a car is more efficient, less expensive and more powerful than its also-new competition, that sounds like a pretty good start. Lincoln should have plenty to celebrate this week, then, now that fuel economy numbers are out for the base-trim 2020 Aviator.According to newly published EPA figures, the 2020 Lincoln Aviator in base, rear-wheel drive trim is rated at 18 miles per gallon city, 26 mpg highway and 21 combined. It’s still more expensive than your average vehicle, which is why the EPA estimates that Aviator owners will spend $2,250 more in fuel costs over five years when compared to the average new car.That’s not bad, considering its engine is a 3.0-liter, twin-turbocharged V6 that puts out 400 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque. Its starting price is $52,195, which includes destination, and adding AWD will tack another $2,500 on to the price, likely lowering fuel economy a bit in the process.Let’s compare that to the Aviator’s also-new competitor, the 2020 Cadillac XT6. It’s rated just a smidge lower than the Aviator at 18 mpg city, 25 highway and 20 combined. Yet, it’s a more expensive proposition at $53,690 including destination. Front-wheel drive is standard, as opposed to the Aviator’s standard RWD. Most surprising, though, is the huge output delta between these two — the XT6’s naturally-aspirated 3.6-liter V6 only musters 310 hp and 271 lb-ft. Yikes. The XT6 is also down a cog in its automatic transmission, packing 9 compared to the Aviator’s 10.The 2020 Cadillac XT6 goes on sale this summer, around the same time the Aviator does. It’ll be interesting to see how both perform, not only against each other, but against the greater midsize luxury SUV segment. 1:26 Lincoln Cadillac More From Roadshow Review • 2019 Lincoln Navigator: Bigger and better More about 2019 Lincoln Navigator 2020 Lincoln Aviator takes off at LA Auto Show 58 Photos 2020 Lincoln Aviator plug-in hybrid first drive: This changes everything Tags 2020 Lincoln Aviator first drive: Stylish SUV takes flight with smart tech Share your voice 1 2020 Cadillac XT6 first drive: Sometimes ‘more’ is more Comment The sky’s the limit in the 2020 Lincoln Aviator Now playing: Watch this: Lincoln Cadillac
(PhysOrg.com) — Two research groups working independently have come up with two different ways to use whole-genome sequencing to follow the path bacteria take in developing resistance to anti-bacterial drugs. Such research could prove useful in figuring out ways to stop the evolutionary process, thereby safeguarding current anti-bacterial agents for future patients. Both groups have published papers describing their work in Nature Genetics. The first group has found a way to actually monitor the evolution of the E. coli bacteria over several generations as it’s exposed to three types of anti-bacterial agents. The second group has figured out a way to follow mutations in bacteria that occur after anti-bacterial agents have been discontinued. More information:  Whole-genome sequencing of rifampicin-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains identifies compensatory mutations in RNA polymerase genes, Nature Genetics (2011) doi:10.1038/ng.1038AbstractEpidemics of drug-resistant bacteria emerge worldwide, even as resistant strains frequently have reduced fitness compared to their drug-susceptible counterparts. Data from model systems suggest that the fitness cost of antimicrobial resistance can be reduced by compensatory mutations; however, there is limited evidence that compensatory evolution has any significant role in the success of drug-resistant bacteria in human populations. Here we describe a set of compensatory mutations in the RNA polymerase genes of rifampicin-resistant M. tuberculosis, the etiologic agent of human tuberculosis (TB). M. tuberculosis strains harboring these compensatory mutations showed a high competitive fitness in vitro. Moreover, these mutations were associated with high fitness in vivo, as determined by examining their relative clinical frequency across patient populations. Of note, in countries with the world’s highest incidence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB, more than 30% of MDR clinical isolates had this form of mutation. Our findings support a role for compensatory evolution in the global epidemics of MDR TB.Evolutionary paths to antibiotic resistance under dynamically sustained drug selection, Nature Genetics (2011) doi:10.1038/ng.1034AbstractAntibiotic resistance can evolve through the sequential accumulation of multiple mutations. To study such gradual evolution, we developed a selection device, the ‘morbidostat’, that continuously monitors bacterial growth and dynamically regulates drug concentrations, such that the evolving population is constantly challenged. We analyzed the evolution of resistance in Escherichia coli under selection with single drugs, including chloramphenicol, doxycycline and trimethoprim. Over a period of ~20 days, resistance levels increased dramatically, with parallel populations showing similar phenotypic trajectories. Whole-genome sequencing of the evolved strains identified mutations both specific to resistance to a particular drug and shared in resistance to multiple drugs. Chloramphenicol and doxycycline resistance evolved smoothly through diverse combinations of mutations in genes involved in translation, transcription and transport. In contrast, trimethoprim resistance evolved in a stepwise manner, through mutations restricted to the gene encoding the enzyme dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR). Sequencing of DHFR over the time course of the experiment showed that parallel populations evolved similar mutations and acquired them in a similar order. Citation: Researchers use whole-genome sequencing to monitor evolution of drug resistance in bacteria (2011, December 19) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2011-12-whole-genome-sequencing-evolution-drug-resistance.html © 2011 PhysOrg.com Explore further The first group, all working out of Harvard University, created what they call a “morbidostat”; a computer controlled environment that reads signs from a bacteria culture to asses its degree of happiness with its surroundings, then tweaks it just a little bit to make it unhappy. Bacteria that are happy don’t need to adapt, thus, to cause them to evolve, three types of antibacterial agents were introduced into the morbidostat along with the bacteria: chloramphenicol, doxycyclin, and trimethoprim. To see what evolutionary changes were occurring, the team took regular samples and studied them using whole-genome sequencing. Using this technique the team found they could actually watch the bacteria evolve into resistant strains. But of particular note, they found that at least when exposed to trimethoprim, Escherichia coli evolves in very predictable ways, a bit of knowledge that could help doctors stay one step ahead of such changes when treating patients by predicting them before they are able to occur.Just as interesting is the study undertaken by the second group; a team made up of an international group of researchers. Here the team wanted to know what goes on with bacteria that are subjected to anti-bacterial agents, after the treatment is stopped. Do they stop evolving, or do they keep on doing so as a means of responding to the effects of the drugs?Prior research has already shown that most often drug-resistant bacteria for some reason don’t grow as quickly as those that aren’t resistant when in an environment free of antibiotics, which should mean resistant strains should have transmission rates that are lower. Unfortunately, this is not always the case as some resistant strains of some types of bacteria have shown an ability to transmit just as quickly as their non-resistant brethren. To find out why this is, the team analyzed both types of strains using whole-genome sequencing to find out exactly what was going with different strains of M. tuberculosis.The team found that those strains that were both resistant and able to transmit at the same rates as the non-resistant group had developed two types of mutations. The first was, obviously, the changes that had come about that had made them resistant. The second change was the surprise; the bacteria samples had actually evolved in a way that allowed them to regain a high transmission rate, which showed they had continued to evolve after the anti-bacterial drug had been stopped, this time, to get back something it had lost due to the drug.Taken together, the studies show that by using whole-genome sequencing, researchers are moving ever closer to fully understanding how bacteria mutate and evolve to make themselves resistant to anti-bacterial agents. The hope is that once the entire process is fully understood, new ways to prevent it from happening can be developed. Drug-resistant bacteria can be controlled This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
Kolkata: Thousands of people from neighbouring states are getting benefits of various health schemes initiated by the Bengal government.Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s dream projects of providing free-of-cost health services in all state-run hospitals and medical colleges, have already become a great success with a large number of people availing free treatment at the hospitals. Now, it has been found that many patients from neighbouring states and countries are also benefitting from the health schemes.The success of the project has gone to the extent where a large number of people are coming to the city to undergo critical surgeries at various hospitals, thereby availing the benefits of the health schemes started by the Mamata Banerjee government. According to a senior Health department official, people from outside the state are reaping the benefits of the projects and many of these patients are undergoing critical surgeries at various state-run medical colleges in the city, free-of-cost.A sizeable number of patients are from Bangladesh. In most of the cases, the state Health department is clueless about the whereabouts of these patients coming from outside, as they show themselves to be local residents. After the disease is cured, the patients go back to their respective native places. This in turn is creating a pressure on the state government.”We cannot stop a patient from outside from being treated at a government hospital free-of-cost, only because he/she is not a resident of the state. Thus, many outside patients are found to be getting the benefits of various health schemes of the state,” a senior official of the Health department said.It has been found that in many cases, the patients mention the address of their local relatives, where they stay during their visit to the state. Most of these outside patients are from Jharkhand and Bihar, among other states. A large number of people from Bangladesh and Nepal also visit the hospitals.