Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Speaking of Projects and Nonprofits Funded by The Broad Foundation…. How about The Broad Institute (and its role in waging Patent Wars over CRISPR (Gene Perturbation, RNA/DNA cutting-edge research) with UCBerkeley?) [Publ. June 18, 2017]

with one comment

Speaking of genetics, here’s the geneaology of this post Speaking of Projects and Nonprofits Funded by The Broad Foundation…. How about The Broad Institute (and its role in waging Patent Wars over CRISPR (Gene Perturbation, RNA/DNA cutting-edge research) with UCBerkeley?) (case-sensitive short-link ending “-720” that “0” is a zero, not O as in “Ohio.”).  

My unpaid, ad hoc “developmental editor” (sounding board for coherence, flow, and how it communicates the central ideas, not personally involved in the primary content I report on, by now familiar with the blog and my writing style), suggested I not dilute the middle of the previous (parent) post (“Why Bother to Unravel….”) with this fascinating information on another Broad Foundation project at Harvard & MIT.

I didn’t want to add this fascinating information to the end of the “Why Unravel…?” post (full title and starting sentences — see image below left)  — it was too relevant and interesting to be that far down — so a new post it is as of June 15, 2017 (so far). (and now published..//LGH)

I already had a second, more detailed (older sibling?) post** started on the same topic, so this can stand in as a preview. (**The Broad Institute (MIT,Harvard, TBF*, 2008) and Stanley Family Foundation (see MBI, Inc.)-funded Psychiatric Research (“schizophrenic, bi-polar”) Testing & Treatment Advocacy (TAC) and Gene-Editing (CRISPR-Cas9) USPTO Patent Wars with UCBerkeley et al. (case-sensitive short-link ending “-71z” and post started June 14, 2017, currently in draft published in July). I’ll post the link again at the bottom.

After following that ad hoc editor’s advice, I then somewhat ignored it by still leaving in a shorter section, (a “footprint”– image below-right with extended caption) then expanding further upon another of the organizations of the type I was blogging, that is, upon the Council of State Governments, an association of the same generic “type” as the one which had received a $10.5M grant long ago for a MIA (“Missing-In-Action” that is, not to be found in anything resembling $10.5M worth of product, or as described) project by the Council of Chief State School Officers.  From the earlier version of The Broad Foundation (dba of “The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation.”)

Snapshot of my June 16 2017 post, the section referring to The Broad Institute (involving Harvard, MIT & The Broad Foundation) and their recent patent wars with UCBerkeley over CRISPR processes), and the “footprint” of Broad Institute info left at the “Why Unravel” 6/16/2017 post more on private associations named after public officials or entities (State legislators, Governors, Mayors, City Managers, School Facilities Planners, or, case in point, Chief State School Officers).

But first, a bit of “genealogy” of The Broad Foundation, or as they now say “The Broad Foundations.” (their financial statements identify what’s meant by that — includes one related to art).

I’ll pick up the narrative with a reminder below this section.

First, A Bit About The Broad Foundation

(Some consciousness-raising from its website, global financial history events in mainstream media about an insurance company it bought for $52M, sold for $18B a generation later, after which the US Taxpayers had to bail out the insurer for $85B, AND they also paid some of its CEOs $165M to stay on and straighten out the mess they’d made, and pay a nearly $1 billion settlement to shareholders.  As I’m reviewing this, and the startup of the Broad Institute at JUST ABOUT the same time, I’m also remembering how the Broad Foundation (will summarize below again) switched its EIN# and corporate Entity#s, moving assets smoothly from one to another, while persuading the IRS it wasn’t a real termination of the earlier one.

In addition (as it reminds me) exceptions were made for their “Broad Center” (with both old and new nonprofits focused on training urban education leaders) on its 990s, despite being primarily funded by The Broad Foundation (old & new EIN#s both) in stating that the major philanthropic foundation wasn’t “really” a related entity (as the IRS form prompts to reveal), despite being the major funder and having major overlap of board of directors in common (typical indicators).  I won’t post that info here (might have previously), or it might overburden this post, but will respond to any comment asking for the details.  Or, you can go through the process I did, and read the involved Form 990s of all four entities around the time of transition.  I posted some of it near the bottom of my recent (June 16, 2017) post.)

“Broad” in this foundation is not pronounced like a derogatory term for women, but to rhyme with “road” or “Rhodes” as in a Rhodes scholarship.  

Current website features education first (Education, Science, and the Arts) and uses very large font, many pictures and bright colors, while (as I found with theBroadCenter.org) no easy link to find the financials. A link to “Foundation Report” will instead lead to descriptions of their projects.  No audited financial reports and certainly no Form 990PFs (next two images).

It also has the short version of their astounding success from humble origins (Detroit Public Schools, Michigan State, married straight out of college, Eli Broad went from CPA to homebuilder [nationwide AND France], making homes without basements therefore more affordable to young people, Kaufman & Broad for a while, also purchasing SunLife (retirement savings for the Baby Boomers he was already selling homes to), and moving to Los Angeles by 1963:

In 1971, Eli acquired SunLife, a small insurance company founded in 1890, for $52 million and transformed it into a new business that would answer another essential public need: offering secure retirement savings to aging Baby Boomers—the same customers who bought homes from Kaufman and Broad. SunAmerica, as Eli renamed the company, provided retirements for a generation of Americans. The company was the best-performing on the New York Stock Exchange for a decade, brought thousands of jobs to Los Angeles and created wealth for its employees, shareholders and Eli’s family when he sold the company to AIG for $18 billion in 1999.

AIG was world’s largest insurer.  Only nine years later, after the Broads got out of it, with MAJOR profits creating no doubt debt to be funded, in 2008, the U.S. taxpayers bailed out AIG…. Wall Street Journal article (see image.  Unfortunately, WSJ  wants a subscription to read it all; but I’ll bet most of my readers over the age of 20 may remember events of 2008).  (U.S. to Take over AIG in $85 Billion Bailout: Central Banks Inject Cash as Credit Dries Up | Emergency Loan Effectively Gives Government Control of Insurer; Historic Move Would Cap 10 Days That Reshaped U.S. Finance)

WSJ on AIG Takeover (date: Sept. 2008)Click image if needed to read the preview shown

An April 11, 2017 retrospective in “The Balance.com” by Kimberly Amadeo, recounts how the AIG bailout made (then-chairman of the Federal Reserve) Benanke angrier than anything else.  A good reminder of how it happened and how many were involved, I’d read it…

Click image to read whole article at The Balance.com this past April (2017) retro on the AIG Bailout and a good reminder of the costs, and followup (2012, 2015)

As a young man, and CPA, Eli Broad was already smart enough not to plan a career curve that did not involved himself as an employee (from what we can tell) for anyone else, but building a business he could own, in a market niche then fairly new.  As a CPA, he was/they were  also obviously smart enough to start the foundation early on also, building good will and dependent relationships, especially locally, while making major wealth in the real estate and RE development business.  So, here’s from the Broadfoundations.org page:

Unlike many foundations, we don’t have a formal application process. Our grants team seeks out innovative leaders and nonprofit organizations that are pursuing transformative ideas. In addition to offering financial support, we provide non-monetary assistance, serving as thought-partners and helping our grantees go from early-stage implementation to achieving their goals.  And we expect results. We establish benchmarks at the start of each grant to track progress, and we partner with our grantees to help them advance their work

Reminds me of that Harvard/Bain/Bridgspan LBO targeted to nonprofits business model I was posting on earlier this year. When I read the statement about “partnering with our grantees” and “establishing benchmarks” and realize that (at least now in 2017) the foundations page is focusing on EDUCATION first (see two images of popup and home page banner, right below), I wonder how it is that $10.5M worth of sponsorship to the Council of Chief State School Officers for “SchoolMatters.com” didn’t exactly result in an enduring, or perhaps ever existing project as advertised when the grants were claimed as qualifying distributions on Forms 990PF in 2005…  Where were the benchmarks then?

First pop-up from BroadFoundation.org home page viewed @ Fathers’ Day 2017

Home page of BroadFoundation.org viewed Fathers’ Day 2017








Moving on; about this post,  Speaking of Projects and Nonprofits Funded by The Broad Foundation…. How about The Broad Institute (and its role in waging Patent Wars over CRISPR (Gene Perturbation, RNA/DNA cutting-edge research) with UCBerkeley?) (case-sensitive short-link ending “-720” that “0” is a zero, not O as in “Ohio.”).  

As I said, my unpaid, ad hoc “developmental editor” (sounding board for coherence, flow, and how it communicates the central ideas, not personally involved in the primary content I report on, by now familiar with the blog and my writing style), suggested I not dilute the middle of the previous (parent) post (“Why Bother to Unravel….”) with this fascinating information on another Broad Foundation project at Harvard & MIT.

from Wikipedia for “springboard”

from Wikipedia on “springboard,” in gymnastics

(figuratively) Anything that gives a person or thing energy or impulse, or that serves to launch or begin something.

“The opportunity served a springboard to their success.”

(verb:) To launch or propel as if from a springboard.”



This 2008ff project (The Broad Institute) helping further springboard (infuse hundreds of millions of dollars and other types of support into) the science, R&D, and public acceptance of personal genetic sequencing, targeted medicines (and/or treatments, and/or specific targeted down to the gene, processes) research which would, naturally, result in patents and as this IS the direction medicine and science are going, sponsoring the creative minds in the field along with it, result in billions of dollars of profits down the road, by whichever entities own the patents.

Some of the companies founded or co-founded by the warring originators (and their associated major institutions helping sponsor the CRISPR processes) have already been set up, from the news I read.

And by 2013, it’s already well into the patent wars and (see my successor post) has already won “Round 1” as of early 2017.  UCBerkeley is appealing, so it ain’t over yet.

A bit MORE about The Broad Foundation(s) shows tendencies to form many tax-exempt entities named after themselves, often with common management: 
RE: Look-alikes, shared DNA but actually different organisms?  But, things are possible in the world of corporations dealing with the IRS which may or may not (yet) be possible in biology or genetics — simply declaring that what are identifiably two different corporations and foundations, where one’s contents assets were transferred (like a complete blood transfusion?) to the new one’s container, identifiably not the same — but declare that the process was not actually a termination of the old one.

It’s an interesting contrast to read about the science, and know what I do already from my habit of reading Form 990s and movement of philanthropic assets, on the education reform projects of the Broad Foundation (which has a controlling Membership part in the “Institute,”) and how, if you can follow this (I had to rub my eyes and read it at least twice): right before the Broad Institute was at least incorporated (9/11/2008), the then below-one-billion-dollar-assets and recently renamed “The Broad Foundation” got special permission from the IRS to switch its EIN#, corporation entity# in California, and move assets from the old to new, change the name of the old, and use a dba (the “successor” entity foundation goes by the former name of the older foundation, before it was changed to “The Broad Foundation,” which former name of the old, and current name of the new (under two different EIN#s) includes the famous couple’s first names:  “The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation.”  Then, the new (since about 2007) foundation added a “dba” which is simply “The Broad Foundation.”I’m wondering why.  Perhaps I should just write and ask them, but the timing sure seems odd.

The new website (from which I was quoting above) thus is named “broadfoundatioN.org” but referred to on the website in the plural, and it represents “plural” (two foundations), which, organized by subject matter (Education, Science, the Arts) at the back of its reports, are represented AS IF three; in fact it’s two organizations, but the contact information (email and phone numbers, but not street address) are only for two (image with dark-gray background, white print, click to enlarge if needed).

End matter from report @ Broadfoundation.org shows two different entities but 3 different listings, rather than one “Foundation” and under it, showing contact Email and Tel. for EDUC and another for ART, which would be visually, a little more honest, while technically, nothing wrong. How hard would it be to show — here– that “The Broad Foundations” (grandiose, and other philanthropists — such as “Price Philanthropies — use the phrase) are in fact, only two.

The address above doesn’t match the current (Form 990PF) Broad Art Foundation address, but the report was for Year 2008 and the 990PF I just viewed for 2015.

Broad Art Foundation CA 2015 990PF 36 $1,104,211,367.00 95-4664939
Broad Foundation CA 2015 990PF 49 $1,842,260,094.00 95-4686318
Broad Foundation, Eli & Edythe L. CA 2007 990PF 17 $0.00 95-6192122
Broad Foundation, Eli & Edythe L. CA 2006 990PF 103 $614,646,020.00 95-6192122

Highlit to show change in EIN#s and nearby change in total assets.  Meanwhile the label given by the Form990finder (Foundation Center database) is the new one’s dba, not its legal name, based on information from: the Form 990PFs, the California Secretary of State Business Entity Search, and though I’m not finished looking at it, no doubt the California Charitable Trusts Registry, for both Broad Foundations, AND (see subcontractors on some of the tax returns), Family Financial Services, LLC and/or Family Financial Investment Services, LLC at the same street address as the foundations).

While I’m here, below are the tax returns for The Broad Institute (the 501©3 in Massachusetts involving Harvard and MIT, also over $1B Total Gross Assets) and its supporting foundation labeled “Stanley Fund for the Broad Institute.” For the latter, you can see in the table below an apparent startup time from, its Total Assets going from $100.00 to over $40M in one year.  Clearly there were some previous relationships among the various individuals. I’d show a few more, but already detailed in the successor post on The Broad Institute.

Broad Institute MA 2015 990 85 $1,385,449,314.00 26-3428781
Broad Institute MA 2014 990 111 $1,342,875,416.00 26-3428781
Broad Institute MA 2013 990 79 $1,228,067,672.00 26-3428781
STANLEY FUND FOR THE BROAD INSTITUTE MA 2015 990 39 $40,579,160.00 46-5574304
STANLEY FUND FOR THE BROAD INSTITUTE MA 2014 990EZ 13 $100.00 46-5574304

So, again, I didn’t want to add this fascinating information below to the end of the “Why Unravel…?” post — it was too relevant and interesting to be that far down — so a new post it is as of June 15, 2017 (so far). I already had a second, more detailed (older sibling?) post** started on the same topic, so this can stand in as a preview.  ;(**The Broad Institute (MIT,Harvard, TBF*, 2008) and Stanley Family Foundation (see MBI, Inc.)-funded Psychiatric Research (“schizophrenic, bi-polar”) Testing & Treatment Advocacy (TAC) and Gene-Editing (CRISPR-Cas9) USPTO Patent Wars with UCBerkeley et al. (case-sensitive short-link ending “-71z” and post started June 14, 2017, currently in draft). I’ll post the link again at the bottom.

After following that ad hoc editor’s advice, I then somewhat ignored it by still leaving a shorter section, (a “footprint”) there and by then expanding further upon another of the organizations of the type I was blogging, that is, upon the Council of State Governments. At least that expansion was still on-topic.

Snapshot of my June 16 2017 post, the section referring to The Broad Institute (involving Harvard, MIT & The Broad Foundation) and their recent patent wars with UCBerkeley over CRISPR processes), and the “footprint” of Broad Institute info left at the “Why Unravel” 6/16/2017 post more on private associations named after public officials or entities (State legislators, Governors, Mayors, City Managers, School Facilities Planners, or, case in point, Chief State School Officers).

I had already lengthened the post by showing up –dual-membership of a State TANF Program Manager(?) from Oklahoma’s participation in a PEERTA conference in Washington, D.C. (Sept. 1-3, 2015) which was blatantly — although in a private conference here only for its 31pp of attendees and 8 State TANF Administators, a conference facilitated by “ICF International,” which I knew to be a significant player already in the HHS-funded “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” funding — because earlier in this blog, my focuse was on following those grants.

It doesn’t take long, doing that, to see who’s getting the biggest ones, or, for any particular numbered series, the largest ones under a particular CFDA (Category of Federal Domestic Assistance), typically but not always only, “93.086.”  ICF International or some version of it had been subcontracting with the “National Fatherhood Initiative.”

So it was hardly surprising in that context to recognize another fathers’ rights nonprofit, this one from Baltimore Maryland (CFUF) leader, hawking the wares and promoting the programming.  That’s PEERTA network for you. …..   But, the network I’d led into it from was actually APSHA.

In order to show similar characteristics across several associations, I had to show each and discuss what they had in common.  It takes a while!

THIS post is, the “PREVIEW” of another one on similar topic, is Speaking of Projects and Nonprofits Funded by The Broad Foundation…. How about The Broad Institute (and its role in waging Patent Wars over CRISPR (Gene Perturbation, RNA/DNA cutting-edge research) with UCBerkeley?) (ending with case-sensitive shortlink, active and accurate when published, ending “-720” and that last digit is “zero” and not a capital “O” as in “Ohio.”)

…or as I titled the section, hoping it would fit in elsewhere:


..and as that section ended (now moved here), referring to main scheduled content of the day

******BACK TO THE TOPIC IN THE POST TITLE, Incl. SCHOOL MATTERS.com and the “Phenotype” of the Council of Chief State School Officers *******

The discussion on PHENOTYPE as a word satisfies some of my own curiosity, leads to another website of a project based at Harvard Medical School and signs of things to come.  This section is an add-on (at no extra cost), which is my typical writing style as some readers by now probably realize.  I like to know “just a little bit more” — all the time — about what I’ve already posted.  I post new information as quickly as possible, realizing at what pace these fields (particularly operating funded, in or around universities, and with deep-pocket sponsors who can do MAJOR startups without breaking a real sweat) are moving.

PHENO-, or GENO-?  I used it as an analogy where no word existed to describe what I was seeing in a different “field” — that of public/private hybrids in a world where supposedly public =/= private when it comes to things like rights, responsibilities, and tax receipts…  That is, government by consent of the governed.

Many of these so-called “hybrids” have been around for decades (some, about a century although technically speaking, not much longer, as the US Income tax, facilitating the corporate status “tax-exempt” officially started, last I looked, in 1913.  Well after the country itself).

So it would appear those of us who can’t even identify, see, and are not being provided –in our (public) schooling K-12, on-line for the most part, in the mainstream media, or otherwise — even enough vocabulary to talk about it through collective tacit agreement to silence and (face it) at times, deliberate distraction by those who reasonably ARE aware of it, it’s looking many of us have been turned into over-specialized species encourage to inhabit a certain niche in life, only.

Vocabulary, and the use of analogy when vocabulary doesn’t exist yet shows the importance of recognizing what one is looking at — and being able to describe it.  Another reason I’m taking a little time this post to discuss PHENOTYPE (simply a word that came to mind from this arena).  ALSO, the Broad Institute I’m referencing here is quite interested in the Human Genome Project and exploring this field, so it’s relevant from two points of view:  As direct subject matter, and as an analogy for those sponsoring the development of “ground-breaking” [taken from the construction vocabulary],”“cutting-edge” (taken from the surgery/medical?] research at various institutes and universities, internationally and nationwide in the US.

PgEd (referring to “Personal genetics Education”) (image below) provided a straightforward identification which makes sense based on the root word for “pheno” which comes from the Greek word to “show” or manifest (cf.

click image to access source website (not just a copy of this image). Explore website for more INFO.


Looking up “Phenotype,” the root of “Pheno” comes from Greek, meaning to cause to appear, to shine (i.e., reveal)

Oddly, for a website whose name is based on “Education” and references collaborations with teachers in different high schools, curriculum plans, and more, not one reference to the root word meanings is on this basic page.

I found it on Wiki (could’ve found it — well, then did find  it –also on Online Etymology Dictionary),(<=browse p.26 of the “Ps” to find, not “phenotype” but words showing the usage “to bring to light” in other words, and when they were first known to be used)  but again — why wouldn’t this basic significant (meaning of the Greek word it came from) information be put out for a page obviously aimed at a general (“lay”) audience who may end up on the page just as I did — through a google search on the word “phenotype”?

I have some familiarity with Greek (through Bible study mostly, curiosity, and some backup medical transcriptionist experience — which I got because the familiarity with root words helped with the spelling, initially), but even if I didn’t, in one short reference, mentioning that the “pheno” in “phenotype” refers to what’s revealed or appears from an underlying (presumed) cause (in part, “geno”) puts a historic connection to earlier medical studies, and to fields outside medicine.

If this page at “PgEd.org” is aimed at attracting people to the field, why not simply let that bit of light in, and connection and understanding with it?  Possibly because the purpose comes from the website’s Harvard and Human Genome Project connections and directions?

Notice overuse of the direct address (of “you” and “your” as if to a very young audience) to reader from the teachers. I’m going to italicize each use.  This actually conceals how few straightforward, declaratory statements using the verb “is,” (third person) information actually shows up free from words implying second person (Speaker/Reader direct address).  Anything in first person singular or plural (I, we) until the last sentence and even then, it’s not clear to whom it refers, is just absent.

In other words, it’s a rather artificial tone and form of writing for communicating technical information to a lay audience.  Who coached them, or where did the person or people responsible for web content learn to write in this way?

Your genotype is your complete heritable genetic identity; it is your unique genome that would be revealed by personal genome sequencing. However, the word genotype can also refer just to a particular gene or set of genes carried by an individual. For example, if you carry a mutation that is linked to diabetes, you may refer to your genotype just with respect to this mutation without consideration of all the other gene variants that your [word missing___]  may carry.

In contrast, your phenotype is a description of your actual physical characteristics. This includes straightforward visible characteristics like your height and eye color, but also your overall health, your disease history, and even your behavior and general disposition. Do you gain weight easily? Are you anxious or calm? Do you like cats? These are all ways in which you present yourself to the world, and as such are considered phenotypes. However, not all phenotypes are a direct result of your genotype; chances are that your personal disposition to cats is the result of your life’s experience with pets rather than a mutation in a hypothetical cat fancier gene.

Most phenotypes are influenced by both your genotype and by the unique circumstances in which you have lived your life, including everything that has ever happened to you. We*** often refer to these two inputs as “nature,” the unique genome you carry, and “nurture,” the environment in which you have lived your life.

*** We folks at PgEd.org or “we” in the general sense, like everything else, so far, on this page is?

Wow.  I didn’t notice this at first reading. Look again — a page housed at Harvard Medical School is talking down to its audience, as though attention might wander if it wasn’t all about “me, myself, and I” for the potential reader.  There’s barely a straightforward, specific, declaratory sentence WITHOUT the word “you” or “your” in three paragraphs.  While using the words “genotype” and “phenotype” a few times, no other link or point or reference to its definition is provided.  The lack of will to actually define EITHER phenotype OR genotype more specifically, or provide links to any source right on the page which might, is, perhaps PgEd’s “phenotype.”  At least I just observed it.  How many times in the definition of any term can the same term be used, reused, and used again? Look at what we have on “phenotype” from just three paragraphs (and no more on the page).  First “is” statement is VERY broad.  In fact, it seems so broad that the usage of one word (and not the other) seems more based on the attempt to dissect cause from effect:

In contrast, your phenotype is a description of your actual physical characteristics. This includes straightforward visible characteristics like your height and eye color, but also your overall health, your disease history, and even your behavior and general disposition

Wow, that clarifies it, almost, while using the word “your” six times!  and mis-using the word “physical” in “Physical characteristics.”  Who gives them the right to do this?   My health and disease history =/= my physical characteristics.  Nor are my behavior and disposition.  A history is a history.  Behavior and/or disposition (which comes under behavior) can be observed (which goes with the root meaning of ‘Phenotype” — not that they showed it above).  But it’s not a physical characteristic. (Did the writers not understand the basic meaning of the word “physical” or just not care about it here?).

Then several examples (lest the reader’s attention stray?) of what “are considered” (minus the “by whom…”) are given, in addition to the revolutionary concept that there might even be more than one cause of human behavior outside the (genetic or “genotype”).

Do you gain weight easily? Are you anxious or calm? Do you like cats? These are all ways in which you present yourself to the world, and as such are considered phenotypes.

Do people come to this page whose url reads “https://pged.org/what-is-genotype-what-is-phenotype/” looking for what others consider phenotypes, or for a functional definition and understanding of what it is?

Instead, they got an advertisement (the only link within that article) to Personal Genome Sequencing (I’ll call it “PGS” here for short; they don’t), and for the Human Genome Project; see next image, which is from that page, again titled (window frame and page itself) What Is Personal Genome Sequencing? and over the process of the page including a link back to the genotype/phenotype one above, does NOT tell what PGS is:  See next image, and the only paragraph on the page where they might have actually defined “personal genome sequencing,” but never quite got around to it.  They talk about it, but do not answer the question, “What is personal genome sequencing?” with a functional statement “personal genome sequencing IS.”

I doubt the authors (based, again, at Harvard Medical School, and with an Advisory Staff, and others (see those drop-down menus at top of PgEd) and connections to others with Ivy League educations (meaning, presumably, they’re also more literate than this writing reveals — or at least I HOPE so!):

from PgEd.org; click image for source page.

A title “sequencing personal genomes” is about it, not defining it.  Again a plug for the Human Genome Project and expense factors.

Sequencing personal genomes

The technology that made the Human Genome Project possible is plummeting in cost, and as a result, genetic analysis is increasingly available to a broader population. The first sequence of the human genome was achieved with hundreds of sequencing machines working for years. [NO link NO time reference, NO reference to place, etc.] Now a single machine can sequence a full human genome in a matter of days. (Note, the analysis takes much longer than the actual process of sequencing.) In 2016, the cost of sequencing a human genome is roughly $1,000 (US), and companies continue to compete to reduce the cost.

Sequencing a person’s genome has already found clinical applications, particularly in the diagnosis of rare childhood conditions and informing cancer therapeutics.

Vision for the future?

Source: Oxford Nanopore Technologies

To make the sequencing technology more accessible, there has also been a push to make sequencing machines smaller and more affordable. Some companies are developing sequencing machines that are the size of a loaf of bread or even a bar of soap (see MinION photo for one example). In the coming years, perhaps reading human genomes might become a routine tool for preventative medicine as well and might be carried out in your doctor’s office.

WOW.  At first glance (maybe it was the plain presentation and nice color scheme), I liked this page and thought it might be useful for purposes of better understanding those words (I was going to find an outside definition anyway).  Now I’m just annoyed at the tone.

Perhaps this overall tone comes from the need to solicit (i.e., recruit) more people into getting their personal genomes sequenced, and based on the presentation, they may be aiming at people who just don’t really need good working definitions, just a little more persuasion.  Keep them on the website hoping to learn something useful, and meanwhile advertise.

The second link on the “What is PGS” page leads to another one, mislabeled again, “personal genetics.”  It has a few more vocabulary words (gently introduced) and another one which obviously comes from mythology — but will this be mentioned in discussing it, providing another memory peg, or link to common understandings and historical knowledge outside the “right now, today” world?  The word is “chimerism” which obviously has some link to the “Chimera.”  The subtitle “Chimerism” again sets up some expectation of a definition, but none is provided.  Only this:


Some people carry genetically distinct cells that originate from another individual. This phenomenon, called chimerism, can arise in people who have received bone marrow transplants or women who have carried a pregnancy.

Where’d the word come from?  When and how did it become common use in the field?  Who named it?  What’s the significance? Who knows (from this source).  Meanwhile, do you think someone who read an EOD definition (I quoted from it above in an image) like this might remember the meaning and understand the essence of its meaning, in part from the graphic mythological reference in its name, including as something (female) weird, odd, strange, and to be slain by a (male) hero on a winged horse?

chimera (n.) Look up chimera at Dictionary.comfabulous monster, late 14c., from Old French chimere or directly from Medieval Latin chimera, from Latin Chimaera, from Greek khimaira, name of a mythical creature, slain by Bellerophon, with a lion’s head, a goat’s body, and a serpent’s tail (supposedly personification of snow or winter); literally “year-old she-goat” (masc. khimaros), from kheima “winter season” (see hibernation). Figurative meaning “wild fantasy” first recorded 1580s in English (attested 13c. in French).

Beestis clepid chymeres, that han a part of ech beest, and suche ben not, no but oonly in opynyoun. [Wyclif, “Prologue”]

chimerical (adj.) Look up chimerical at Dictionary.com1630s, from chimera + -ical. Related: Chimeric (1650s).Bellerophon Look up Bellerophon at Dictionary.comlocal hero of Corinth, who slew the Chimera, from Latin form of Greek Bellerophontes, probably literally “killer of (the demon) Bellerus,” with -phontes“killer of.”

For comparison, here’s a still-short definition from Medicine.net, which gives more examples, includes more links, explains at least the circumstances around the first use of the word “chimerism” and finally, references its word origins.  By contrast, PgEd just isn’t into that many links. I guess they like their readers with more rapt attention to the narrators.  Instead of “chimerism” they describe “Chimera” as a person containing genetically distinct types of cells, and then refer to the “microchimera” situations.


Chimera: In medicine, a person composed of two genetically distinct types of cells. Human chimeras were first discovered with the advent of blood typing when it was found that some people had more than one blood type. Most of them proved to be “blood chimeras” — non-identical twins who shared a blood supply in the uterus. Those who were not twins are thought to have blood cells from a twin that died early in gestation. Twin embryos often share a blood supply in the placenta, allowing blood stem cells to pass from one and settle in the bone marrow of the other. About 8% of non-identical twin pairs are chimeras.

Many more people are microchimeras and carry smaller numbers of foreign blood cells that may have passed from mother across the placenta, or persist from a blood transfusion. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is also contributing to the number of human chimeras. To improve success rates, two or more embryos are placed in the uterus so women who have IVF have more twin pregnancies than usual. More twins mean more chimeras.

In Greek mythology, the Chimera was an awesome fire-breathing monster with the head of a lion, the body of a goat, and the tail of a serpent. The Chimera was killed by the hero Bellerophon mounted, in most versions of the tale, on Pegasus, the winged horse.
Last Editorial Review: 1/24/2017


Based on this definition of “PHENOTYPE,” I think I got it right for figurative use referring to a private association posing as if a public (government) one by its name.  The word “genotype” is in my vocabulary too, but somehow “phenotype” came to mind first.

Exploring the usage (“phenotype”) further, especially on the second reference page I provided below, Wikipedia, raises the question of who decides what’s cause, what’s effect, and what to call it.

People talk about “technology” all the time, but how many realize that in an information age, if not the artificial intelligence age (what “age” ARE we in anyhow??), language is a lever; it is a technology.  It also has “operating systems”

Controlling (language), worldwide or nationwide is a question of control of the media (internet acreage), getting people to reproduce, refer, reblog, and reference — which gets down to another profession, propaganda (Bernays, the “father of public relations,” Freud’s nephew, etc.), most of which also relates to (let’s face it), the basic human desire for survival beyond the bare necessities and providing for the next generation of one’s own type.

Of the types of advanced technology most people think of when it comes to “science,” I believe probably there is a general awareness that the major funding may come from combination of military and government, with help from private corporations — including corporations which may have over the years of their existence, prospered from contracts with the federal government, including military, during and after the wars (I’m talking about the need for massive and effective communciations, materials movement, people movement, heirarchy, training, manpower, food, MEDICAL, CHEMICAL, TRANSPORTATION, etc.).

Let’s take another VERY quick look at the Bentley 500 and see in which fields of operation the world’s largest owners of asset infrastructure (not software) are:

Infrastructure Showcase 2016 Bentley Infrastructure 500 Top Owners (This “showcase” features colorful piecharts with nearly invisible font (although you can clearly see what US is nearly HALF) and moving the formerly feature table (which I found more helpful) to the bottom, also fine print, and their description, also fine print.  Welcome to the sub-verbal, post-literate, visually-oriented culture. A link is provided (though not active) in the short description of the piecharts (with tables below).  Please view both, with attention to some of the fine-print labels on a series of piecharts, because I again question how the “United States” can own 47% of this asset infrastructure, yet still be in major deficit.  Also see the piechart showing “by sector” and what portion “Public Utilities” (by owner and by value) is.

Also, the disclaimer on the text — it IS referring to “reported” ownership, which doesn’t say anything about off-radar, criminal or illegal activities, I suppose, although funds from crime can still support otherwise legal enterprises.

InformedInfrastructure.com logo, as you see above. (“Todd Danielson on February 16, 2017 – in Articles, Featured, Showcase”)

“Normally in an Infrastructure Showcase, we profile unique, fascinating and/or award-winning projects that had a major impact on design and engineering. For this issue, we wanted to highlight an endeavor that goes beyond attractive photos and defines just how important infrastructure is worldwide.

“The Bentley Infrastructure 500 annually ranks the top owners of infrastructure from public and private sectors to help compare investment levels across types of infrastructure, world regions and organizations. Bentley Systems compiles this list “to help global constituents appreciate and explore the magnitude of investment in infrastructure and the potential to continually increase the return on that investment.” The Bentley Infrastructure 500’s value, at more than $15.5 trillion, is 84 percent of the 2016 nominal GDP estimate of the United States ($18.5 trillion) and close to the combined 2016 GDPs of China and Japan. 

“The Bentley Infrastructure 500 ranks owners according to their reported tangible fixed assets (or other comparable non-current physical assets such as buildings or fixed structures, land and machinery). For the complete rankings and additional details on the methodology, visit www.bentley.com/en/top-infrastructure-owners.”

From that page, you can see an interactive table (the next image isn’t though) with miniature piecharts underneath.  Notice U.S. Military and Civilian are separate line items.

Click image to access 2016 Bentley Infrastructure Top 10 Owners (and more)



I encourage you also to click through most pages of this basically simple, easy to navigate website (I did) whose “Contact us” leads to six addresses at Harvard Medical School, and become aware it exists, and what the mission is.  https://pged.org/what-is-genotype-what-is-phenotype/.

To answer my first question about any such webpage, especially referencing a project, is “what’s the business entity — is it a nonprofit, corp., interdisciplinary center at a university, or what?” is here:

Housed in the Department of Genetics at Harvard Medical School (HMS),  we believe that teaching and writing about the use of genetic information in the public domain is an integral part of our work. Founded in 2006, we are a diverse mix of scientists and educators engaging with science policy, curriculum reform, and – more broadly – the ways in which genetic information might transform health care, basic research, insurance, law, and our ideas about family, privacy, and identity.

click image to access source website (not just a copy of this image). Explore website for more INFO.

I borrowed the word “phenotype” from obviously, outside the business and corporations vocabulary to refer to something within it — what appears to be manifesting under names involving public officials (see that “Why Bother to Unravel..” post full title, and main theme) which populate a certain type of synchronized entity.  Perhaps because “phenotype” and “genotype” seems to refer to specific individuals, a better usage might have been “species.”  The lack of a specific vocabulary to describe that “type” of entity makes it harder to discuss, but it can still be recognized by identifying characteristics.

One of the hardest, and particularly frustrating “battles” as an investigative blogger with specific interest in a specific topic as the original motivator* opening the door to much wider understanding of how the courts, governments, the nonprofit sector, and the collaborations between them and (more recently) famous universities forms networks which can both support and repress ideas at the same time.  In other words, awareness of this network is essential — is, particularly without personal (in your face, same physical location, social/emotional bonding) ongoing contact — persuading women in my situation — sometimes in almost exactly the same situation, whether earlier or more recently — that they really MUST get their heads out of exclusively a local geography (county court system), and a single topic only (i.e., “parental alienation,”) and take a look at the horizon, the wider landscape in which courts AND other institutions operate financially.

Some will explore this direction (looking up the nonprofits, corporations or 990s — or grants) SOME, but will not go the distance and are not committed to changing their own vocabulary to continually incorporate acknowledgement it exists into the on-line conversations:  blogs, Twitter, FaceBook, other social media I’m less active on — because of the format.

I’ve also had conversations (many!) over time on the importance, when re-blogging mainstream media or “alternate” media websites (which tend to be less than “bipartisan”! or even highly reputable, or at least long-established ones:  WaPo (Washington Post), New York Times, Boston Globe — whatever (including some in the UK known to often post on US events — the DailyTelegraph, the Mirror, the Guardian, etc.) — ALL of these are still companies or corporations (or, “LLCs in some cases in the US) — they are owned media outlets.  From time to time, they get sold off to other conglomerates, who may and do restructure, sell off the nonproducers, and sometimes change the focus.

Similarly, when advocacy groups have ANY “*.org” website name, someone  or some entity is associated as the owner of that domain, and possibly sponsor.  We are in an age now where governments may also sponsor *.org websites –they are not all listed “*.gov”.  Or where someone may have an “*.org” platform (I do — see Donate Button!) without actually being a nonprofit.

So among the first questions to be answered before engaging seriously with on-line CONTENT about SUBJECT MATTER, is the CONTAINER.  WHO is speaking.  Maybe this was not so important pre-Internet, but it is now.  People adopt common languages with common blind-spots in those languages.  In the cause-based rhetoric, as legitimate and important as the causes may be and often are, there is ALWAYS, somewhere in the mix, and underlying financial aspect to who is speaking, and as such, to whether and where that speaker may be hooked into wider networks, sometimes formally, which wish to appear more “grassroots” and popular than they actually are.

(*i.e, the post-DV separation family court fiascoes now, FYI, rotating in and out of probate court in my case, shedding LOTS of light on why my own family line was more interested in sponsoring the opposing side in a custody battle, than in continuing a status of protection supporting financial independence as a single mother, when I was known to be working in my profession and had rapidly restored its essential elements (i.e., lines of work) before that restraining order had even expired.)

I thought I may have used the word “phenotype” incorrectly, and did a quick lookup.

Wikipedia gives some basics and history of the term, as well as some “subtleties” of its use which came up over time:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The shells of individuals within the bivalve mollusk species Donax variabilis show diverse coloration and patterning in their phenotypes.

 Here the relation between genotype and phenotype is illustrated, using a Punnett square, for the character of petal color in pea plants. The letters B and b represent genes for color and the pictures show the resultant flowers.

phenotype (from Greek phainein, meaning ‘to show‘, and typos, meaning ‘type’) is the composite of an organism‘s observable characteristics or traits, such as its morphologydevelopment, biochemical or physiological properties, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird’s nest). A phenotype results from the expression of an organism’s genetic code, its genotype, as well as the influence of environmental factors and the interactions between the two. When two or more clearly different phenotypes exist in the same population of a species, the species is called polymorphic. A well-documented polymorphism is Labrador Retriever coloring; while the coat color depends on many genes, it is clearly seen in the environment as yellow, black and brown.

This genotype-phenotype distinction was proposed by Wilhelm Johannsen in 1911 to make clear the difference between an organism’s heredity and what that heredity produces.[1][2] The distinction is similar to that proposed by August Weismann, who distinguished between germ plasm (heredity) and somatic cells (the body). The genotype-phenotype distinction should not be confused with Francis Crick‘s central dogma of molecular biology, which is a statement about the directionality of molecular sequential information flowing from DNA to protein, and not the reverse.

Richard Dawkins in 1978[3] and then again in his 1982 book The Extended Phenotype suggested that bird nests and other built structures such as caddis fly larvae cases and beaver dams can be considered as “extended phenotypes“.

and just one more quote from that Wiki again emphasizing the words require understanding in use, and that usage may change over time:

Difficulties in definition[edit]

The term “phenotype” has sometimes been incorrectly used as a shorthand for phenotypic difference from wild type, bringing the absurd statement that a mutation has no phenotype.[4]

Despite its seemingly straightforward definition, the concept of the phenotype has hidden subtleties. It may seem that anything dependent on the genotype is a phenotype, including molecules such as RNA and proteins. Most molecules and structures coded by the genetic material are not visible in the appearance of an organism, yet they are observable (for example by Western blotting) and are thus part of the phenotype; human blood groups are an example. It may seem that this goes beyond the original intentions of the concept with its focus on the (living) organism in itself. Either way, the term phenotype includes traits or characteristics that can be made visible by some technical procedure. A notable extension to this idea is the presence of “organic molecules” or metabolites that are generated by organisms from chemical reactions of enzymes.

Another extension adds behavior to the phenotype, since behaviors are also observable characteristics. Behavioral phenotypes include cognitive, personality, and behavioral patterns. Some behavioral phenotypes may characterize psychiatric disorders[5] or syndromes.[6][7]

Previewing my “successor post” (link at the bottom of this one, also at the top):

When we realize (through studying, it’s not THAT hidden information) that a supporting foundation of The Broad Institute (dates from 9/11/2008, despite website claims it dates from 2004 somehow), called “Stanley Fund for the Broad Institute” (dates from only 2013) was funded by wealth from Theodore R. and Vada Stanley, major philanthropists who — after their son Jonathan (now on the Board) had been severely impacted as of about 1988 in his youth, and diagnosed “bipolar,” — focused their significant philanthropic capacity upon institutions bearing the Stanley name (and control on board of directors) focused on specifically psychiatric research, with a view to cause, effect AND treatment (including pharmaceutical, that is, Rx), we can see it’s a natural fit with The Broad Institute’s interest in genetics, both as potential for targeted solutions to major diseases (cancer, AIDS, etc.).

Total results: 3Search Again.

Stanley Medical Research Institute MD 2015 990 68 $96,556,847.00 06-1610506
Stanley Medical Research Institute MD 2014 990 48 $124,151,653.00 06-1610506
Stanley Medical Research Institute MD 2013 990 43 $151,855,434.00 06-1610506

A single news article on the (Jan. 2016) death of the father, Theodore R. Stanley, referenced the Stanley Family Foundation which, naturally, I looked up.  Immediately you can see the flooding of institutions with contributions (maintaining leadership control).  One article said, $1.2 billion towards the cause, another, 3rd in line from Bill and Melinda Gates as funding scientific research. (I have links on either this post below, or the next one upcoming, so not providing here), based on hope, presumption and demand to research, cause-and-effect for that which most directly affected their offspring.  An entity with board overlap with SMRI, this one instead with a Virginia address:

Total results: 9Search Again.

Treatment Advocacy Center VA 2015 990 46 $877,319.00 54-1905826
Treatment Advocacy Center VA 2014 990 32 $777,869.00 54-1905826
Treatment Advocacy Center VA 2013 990 35 $601,697.00 54-1905826

I haven’t caught a single article referencing any other surviving Stanley heir besides Jonathan (which doesn’t mean there aren’t any — some families have their “black sheep”); he is the only one showing up on the board of directors, and now as both parents are gone, the only family name on the Stanley Family Foundation.

Again, from Wikipedia:

Behavioral phenotypes include cognitive, personality, and behavioral patterns. Some behavioral phenotypes may characterize psychiatric disorders[5] or syndromes.[6][7]

The last statement on the Wiki reminds me of the drive to, potentially, while healing diseases, branch out into controlling human behavior genetically, through targeted, precise therapies.  When it comes to the CRISPR-Cal9 process (associated with Jennifer Doudna at UCBerkeley, who has a lab named after her, I show it below), this has also raised the ethics question again.

But even just reading that Wiki, you can see the discussion centers around words from (given the pace of discovery) pretty long ago which presume cause-and effect, Geno vs. pheno.

We have to watch the power of labeling and those dominating the vocabulary regarding any particular behavior as possibly being geno OR pheno in origin — some may also be much more responsive to the situations people are placed in, with corresponding people (always) ready to create the stressors, then sit back and write it up (or better yet, hire/sponsor young and established professionals to build their careers in preferring one language over another to describe the same reality).

At some levels, it’s just “playing God…” and particularly when there is no source of counterweight sponsorship among the well-endowed (i.e., family lines like Broad, Stanley, others) to say,

I had a lot to say, so broke it up into sentences, and have quoted as a hypothetical conversation in a conference which did not, and of a type which is not, taking place. This is only two complete sentences (about).  I think in long sentences. The paragraph breaks are just for readers to take a breath inbetween digesting section by section.

“excuse me, sir, ma’am, with all due respect, but speaking as an equal human being (and, last I checked, in full possession of my cognitive abilities), this is great stuff — I’m intrigued, but someone MUST take heed to further empowering the mental health, psychiatric, psychologizing, and psychoanalyzing (let alone social science R&D) INDUSTRIES in this country, which  ….

….when interwoven with the, let’s call it for sake of a common (to you) language, “genotypes AND phenotypes” of pre-existing governmental institutions which WE must support, and whose policies have been structured around scarcity of their own resources (falsely so — see “CAFR” and where the other assets are stowed, but not made accessible for use in the yearly or bi-annual budgets),

….as much as you may enjoy publishing, conferencing, and schmoozing with colleagues or collaborators from different disciplines (but in the same social classes) (and writing off continuing education and/or travel hotel expenses, perhaps — or having universities or other institutions pay it for you — OR having a salary large enough to simply pay it outright yourself)…

…you need to start hearing other voices in this mix, and reconsider where your sponsorships come from, and the practices of those sponsors — whether public, OR private.  In THIS country, that’s a factor of the tax-exempt vs. the “ain’t got enough to tax — so will become the fodder for others’ studies (i.e., Institute for Research on Poverty), are struggling to survive because of JUSTICE issues (“Institute for Domestic Violence in the African-American Community,”) and are dealing with backlash of the last round of attempts to attain equal human status by way of gender (more recent, but still there — groups like “Fatherhood Research and Practice Network”) and ALL which tap into the central (federal) sources which soak up much of their budgetary needs from the population at large.


(Obviously, Berkeley, Calif. is in SF Bay Area which is  “NoCal.”  Ironically, The Broad Foundation, and Eli and Edythe Broad are associated with “SoCal,” Los Angeles area).

When it comes to the Jennifer Doudna CRISPR-Cal9 patent war, The Broad Institute, which it turns out is controlled by its members:  MIT, President and Fellows of Harvard College, and The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, a.k.a. “The Broad Foundation,”  is on one side and UCBerkeley (with Doudna) on the other. The profits from the patent look to possibly be in the billions, I’m sure it’s a heated one, and it may be “winner-take-all.”  Meanwhile, Doudna claims to have had a nightmare involving Hitler (congratulating her on the work and asking, “now how did you do that, again?”) and has testified warnings regarding usage (as I understand it).  Incidentally, she has a book, “A Crack in Creation,” that just came out this week.  (See “RNA.Berkeley.edu” — labeled “The Doudna Lab” — for more info; next two images):

I took a closer look at the Forms 990, 990PF of those involved with the Broad Institute which with its focus on genetic research and the Human Genome Project, also had within it a “Stanley Psychiatric Research Institute.”  However, the same funders (“The Stanley Family Foundation, formerly the Theodore and Vada Stanley Foundation”) also funded a “Stanley Medical Research Institute” (with focus on things psychiatric, especially relating to things bipolar and/or schizophrenic, with a view towards what pills and treatments (i.e., add in “pharma”) could be produced for treatments.

As often happens with major philanthropists — and it seems the Stanleys are in that category — what happened to THEIR immediate descendants is a public issue and should be prioritized for everyone else, too.  They have the weight to throw around, but what I found out is, who controls the donee entities — bearing a strong resemblance to the donor families and their foundations, too.  Taken as a whole, and applied to encouraging genetic and pharmaceutical R&D for things psychiatric and involving the DNA, this is, to put it mildly, a “potent cocktail of power,” and causes one to think more deeply about both philanthropy, centers at universities, and (speaking for myself) where those investment assets are being held, and how moved from place to place — sometimes with major press coverage and gratitude all along — while not, really, moving out of the collective control of the donors, or the close-knit circles of philanthropists — certainly NOT a world most of us live in.

[Ironic, in this cross-university war — Doudna’s original 1989 PhD was from Harvard.  Here’s the posted academic/research background, with dates, and obviously, funders shown by which institutes she was working at, including Howard Hughes, Henry Ford II, Eli Lilly, Searle etc.):

Dr. Jennifer Doudna is a member of the departments of Molecular and Cell Biology and Chemistry at UC Berkeley, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, along with the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Biographical Highlights:

I thought to be fair I should post The Broad Institute talking about CRISPR also, looking for the individual whose name was in the news regarding the patent wars — but despite his name in its discovery, I didn’t find it in The Broad Institute heirarchy, which has its own categories (Institutional Leadership, “Institute Members” — but that refers to FACULTY members, incl. an “Associate” category; also “Scientific Lead Staff” and “Scientific Advisory Panel” (or similar name — see image).  I found it funny so many are on the Scientific Panel, including some from USF and U Santa Cruz (both in California) but not one from UCBerkeley.  Maybe it’s kind of like competition from major sports franchises — and you have to show allegiance to one side or the other, no crossovers.  (I’m not a sports person, so if the analogy doesn’t fit, take it easy — I just meant, university-based pride here).

Broad has “Platforms” and Gene Perturbation (where CRISPR seems to fit) is one of them.

Descrip. of things CRISPR (excerpt) from The Broad Institute. Whole page @ https://www.broadinstitute.org/research-highlights-crispr

Descrip. of things CRISPR (excerpt) from The Broad Institute, notice claim of discovery. Click image for whole page.


Here is Feng Zhang credits and photo at Broad: (https://www.broadinstitute.org/bios/feng-zhang). It is about five paragraphs, explaining what he does here, and the fifth paragraph listing his many award (with links to each) but no “C.V.”  I notice he got his A.B. in chemistry and physics at Harvard, but his PhD in chemistry at Stanford.  I went looking, and found another writeup (similar) at the McGovern Institute for Brain Science at MIT; (“McGovern.MIT.Edu/Principal-Investigators/ Feng-Zhang”) here’s the last paragraph — notice it references a company (“Editas”) he founded and even some time working alongside Jennifer Doudna.  It also puts a timeline to when he joined the McGovern and Broad Institutes.  (That’s a very interesting link; I’d bookmark it!)


Feng Zhang is a McGovern Investigator and an Associate Professor in the Departments of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and of Biological Engineering. He is also a core member of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard (now called simply, “The Broad Institute”). He joined MIT and the Broad Institute in 2011 and was awarded tenure in 2016. Feng Zhang grew up in Iowa after moving there with his parents from China at age 11. He received his A.B. in chemistry and physics from Harvard College and his PhD in chemistry from Stanford University.

Zhang has received many awards for his work in genome editing and optogenetics, including the Perl/UNC Prize in Neuroscience (2012, shared with Karl Deisseroth and Ed Boyden), the NIH Director’s Pioneer Award (2012), the National Science Foundation’s Alan T. Waterman Award (2014), the Jacob Heskel Gabbay Award in Biotechnology and Medicine (2014, shared with Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier), the Society for Neuroscience Young Investigator Award (2014), the Okazaki award, the Canada Gairdner International Award (shared with Doudna and Charpentier along with Philippe Horvath and Rodolphe Barrangou) and the 2016 Tang Prize (shared with Doudna and Charpentier). Zhang is a founder of Editas Medicine, a genome editing company founded by world leaders in the fields of genome editing, protein engineering, and molecular and structural biology.

So, that whole East (Broad)/West (UCBerkeley) CRISPR patent war current news conversation, really,  should be teamed with this one — the only difference are the donor vehicles and the project focus.  There, it was scientific, medical research, with a HEAVY infusion of Broad Foundation philanthropy.

What applies to the donor’s behaviors (and/or with their chosen investment managers, of course) in ONE area may transfer over to others.  Grants for both medical and educational research and projects are seen from the same Form 990PF lists.  Some philanthropists share habits (including a penchant to make sure they’re on the board of institutes they create, not just having the institutes bear their name).

I can’t speak, obviously, after just one day’s research (about what I put in so far) to the legitimacy of the hundreds of millions (totaling over $1B from just one of the two families mentioned) donations to several interlocking nonprofit 501©3s (at least two of them called “______ Institute”).  But I can raise it as a possibility that what IS found in the educational field MAY also apply to the medical research, psychiatric/mental illness R&D (whether genetically or pharmaceutically) application to altering (in this latest news-making arena) DNA in animals AND humans — that if the character traits are less noble than the public relations warrants, we might want to wake up and take notice.

When hundreds of millions of dollars (I’m sure, over time) of salaries, too, are involved, those on the receiving end of course may not want to hear this.  But it might still need to be heard anyhow.  There are Pros and Cons to this entire set-up, as I will continue to blog, while I still can.  I took the above-summarized conversation to:

The Broad Institute (MIT,Harvard, TBF*, 2008) and Stanley Family Foundation (see MBI, Inc.)-funded Psychiatric Research (“schizophrenic, bi-polar”) Testing & Treatment Advocacy (TAC) and Gene-Editing (CRISPR-Cas9) USPTO Patent Wars with UCBerkeley et al. (case-sensitive short-link ending “-71z” and post started June 14, 2017, currently in draft) (now published, mid-July)


Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 18, 2017 at 5:36 pm

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. daveyone1

    June 19, 2017 at 12:35 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: