Professor of Soft Matter & Biophysics. Membranes, vesicles, medical applications, artificial cells. Interdisciplinary science education. Art-science interface.
University of Leeds
Joined April 2011
- Tweets2.4K
- Following816
- Followers1.3K
- Likes1.4K
One week left to apply for these two exciting postdoc positions.
Please repost and circulate to your networks. Thanks!
Research Fellow in Artificial Cell Modification
Particularly suited to applicants with expertise in protein overexpression and purification, peptide synthesis and characterisation of proteins and their conjugates, including mass spectrometry.
jobs.leeds.ac.uk/vacancy.asp…
Research Fellow in Artificial Cell Engineering
Particularly suited to applicants with expertise in assembly & characterisation of biomimetic membranes/vesicles, including encapsulation of functional biomolecules and/or functionalisation of the membranes.
jobs.leeds.ac.uk/vacancy.asp…
We are recruiting 2 postdocs for the ACROPATH project, which aims to develop artificial cells for diagnosis of pathogen infections.
This is a joint UK-Japan collaboration with secondments at project partners.
Deadline is Monday 3rd February.
Details of the positions are below.
When resorting to calling a Fellow of the Royal Society a neo-fascist then we know things must really be a mess!
Great to see this work finally out in @angew_chem. Congratulations to @zexi_xu on producing fascinating data on the interaction dynamics between cubosomes and vesicles. Lots of potential for developing this towards minimal machinery for membrane remodelling in artificial cells.
Topological and Morphological Membrane Dynamics in Giant Lipid Vesicles Driven by Monoolein Cubosomes (Paul A. Beales and co-workers) @zexi_xu @michellepeckham @NotAnElf @BealesLab #openaccess 🔓 onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/…
There's no controlling how the press present a story. I've experienced that too. We need to be nuanced & balanced in discussions. I thought the Science article was very worst case scenario. Life always amazes me & it wouldn't surprise me if native life soon adapted to any threat.
The community probably needs a discussion on how best to engage in measured dialogue about ethics and risk. I'm not convinced that initiating major press headlines of "mirror bacteria that could wipe out mankind" is the answer.
For me, the question is the extent of this idea of "invisibility" - there would still be intermolecular interactions. I bet if we decorated nanoparticles with right-handed proteins and gave repeat doses to immune-competent mice, they would soon generate antibodies against them.
Interesting hypothesis. I was thinking the carbon fixation could be good for the climate! I guess you can have too much of a good thing!
Then was the article and press coverage an example of putting the cart before the horse? Should the wider community discussions have been had first before presenting outcomes to the public?
Was the entire field in agreement? The fact you plan a workshop/discussion on this next year suggests not. But what will be the purpose of this meeting when the bad press and public mistrust has already been created?
I have no opinion on mirror life, only questions. However your previous comment came across as fairly absolute and final!
But at least there'll likely be a good Hollywood disaster movie or Netflix series that comes out of this!
That is why I think it's a dangerous precedent. Do we want a scientific community that is constantly throwing fear at the public? Will that more broadly improve public trust in science? I think not. We need less public forums to play out these conversations first. (4/4)
Then what is to stop another group of scientists (e.g. some disgruntled mirror life researchers) writing a white paper and putting out press releases warning against another area of research, e.g. synthetic cells. (3/x)
This is a public assassination of a field by presenting apocalyptic extinction fears to the public. There will be no way back in the eyes of the public even if these fears later proven unfounded. There's also ethics in science communication as well as science ethics. (2/x)
Then why call for open dialogue if already entrenched in your opinion? It's important to question and avoid groupthink, the pandemic of social media. I have no vested interest in mirror life but I do in broader biotech and I think your article sets a dangerous precedent (1/x)
Would the chirality of cyanotoxins matter? I don't know. But a moot point as it's now a lost technology given the press release and subsequent news articles of putative doomsday scenarios. Even if later proven unjustified, public opinion will always now fear this.