(no subject)

Gene responsible for depression found
By Claire Weaver and Andrew Chesterton
February 26, 2006

IN a world first, researchers from NSW have discovered the gene responsible for depression.

After 25 years' research, scientists have found that people who carry a particular gene are more likely to suffer depression regardless of their life experiences.

The medical breakthrough will have major ramifications for diagnosis and treatment of the disease which affects one in four Australians.

The study, to be published in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry this week, shows that people who carry a short serotonin transporter gene are predisposed to depression.

Conversely, those who carry a long version of the serotonin transporter gene would be more resilient to whatever life throws at them.

Around 43 per cent of the population is believed to carry the short version of the gene.

The breakthrough comes in the wake of a series of recent high-profile cases of depression, including former WA premier Geoff Gallop, the late rugby league legend Steve Rogers and former state opposition leader John Brogden.

Former Australian Olympic swimmer John Konrads and actor Garry McDonald were also sufferers. It is hoped the findings could be used to pre-warn carriers of their susceptibility and take early preventative treatment.

Mr Konrads described the breakthrough as exciting.

"I think it's wonderful to think that people who might have that doubt could confidentially find if they're conducive to depression or not, that would be fantastic," he said.

The serotonin transporter gene, which is responsible for our uptake of "feel good" serotonin and mood control, has been implicated in depression before – but this is the first and most conclusive evidence of its true role.

The Sunday Telegraph

(no subject)

Gene responsible for depression found
By Claire Weaver and Andrew Chesterton
February 26, 2006

IN a world first, researchers from NSW have discovered the gene responsible for depression.

After 25 years' research, scientists have found that people who carry a particular gene are more likely to suffer depression regardless of their life experiences.

The medical breakthrough will have major ramifications for diagnosis and treatment of the disease which affects one in four Australians.

The study, to be published in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry this week, shows that people who carry a short serotonin transporter gene are predisposed to depression.

Conversely, those who carry a long version of the serotonin transporter gene would be more resilient to whatever life throws at them.

Around 43 per cent of the population is believed to carry the short version of the gene.

The breakthrough comes in the wake of a series of recent high-profile cases of depression, including former WA premier Geoff Gallop, the late rugby league legend Steve Rogers and former state opposition leader John Brogden.

Former Australian Olympic swimmer John Konrads and actor Garry McDonald were also sufferers. It is hoped the findings could be used to pre-warn carriers of their susceptibility and take early preventative treatment.

Mr Konrads described the breakthrough as exciting.

"I think it's wonderful to think that people who might have that doubt could confidentially find if they're conducive to depression or not, that would be fantastic," he said.

The serotonin transporter gene, which is responsible for our uptake of "feel good" serotonin and mood control, has been implicated in depression before – but this is the first and most conclusive evidence of its true role.

The Sunday Telegraph

(no subject)

My cousin's bub, Logan, is finally home. Nearly 9 weeks old, he's just passed the 3kg mark (about 6 pounds 9 ounces, which was apparently about his mum's weight when she was born).

*

Went into Ezydvd to get Scrubs season 3 (wow...it's not out in the US till May, we feel special). They had copies of Firefly and Serenity sitting on the checkout counter. I asked the bloke how they were selling. He said there's a good turnover (and he'd sold lots of Scrubs today, he had to go out the back to find me a copy).

*

Just started listening to the commentary on the season 2 Pretender finale. It's the creators/producers/director, plus Andrea and Michael (oh, their voices...). If the first 5 minutes are any guide, it's going to be hilarious. And I'm proud of myself, managed to finish the season before season 3 arrives.

*

And I've just been contemplating the almost certainness that Commander in Chief will rate much better here than West Wing and the inherent unfairness in that, and lo and behold, there's an article in The Age:
Cult versus mainstream

Also has Buffy versus Charmed, and Oz versus Prison Break.

And when you recreate something to please the maximum number of people, you inevitably move further away from reality. Because reality isn't resolvable in 50 minutes and it isn't easily understood. What you lose is moral complexity.

And it's that moral complexity that arouses the passions, that creates must-see TV, that encourages heated water-cooler conversations. Because real life is complex. And drama that attempts to replicate that is not comforting. It's confronting. It makes us think - and argue - about the big stuff, whether that's the nature of reality, what it means to be human, the mutability of ethics, or if it's ever OK to assassinate a foreign leader.

But not everyone wants to be challenged by television. Most people don't. They want to sit down at the end of the day - a complicated, unresolved, unsatisfying day - and slip into a soothing self-contained world where no matter how bad things seem at the 40-minute mark, you know it's going to be OK by the time the credits roll.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But we need the cult shows too, the shows that people don't get, that confuse them or repulse them, the shows that don't rate, that attract an intense audience rather than a broad one.

Not least because they do pave the way for milder, more accessible remakes. Which even in diluted form give a mass audience the chance to view the world in a different way.

(no subject)

My cousin's bub, Logan, is finally home. Nearly 9 weeks old, he's just passed the 3kg mark (about 6 pounds 9 ounces, which was apparently about his mum's weight when she was born).

*

Went into Ezydvd to get Scrubs season 3 (wow...it's not out in the US till May, we feel special). They had copies of Firefly and Serenity sitting on the checkout counter. I asked the bloke how they were selling. He said there's a good turnover (and he'd sold lots of Scrubs today, he had to go out the back to find me a copy).

*

Just started listening to the commentary on the season 2 Pretender finale. It's the creators/producers/director, plus Andrea and Michael (oh, their voices...). If the first 5 minutes are any guide, it's going to be hilarious. And I'm proud of myself, managed to finish the season before season 3 arrives.

*

And I've just been contemplating the almost certainness that Commander in Chief will rate much better here than West Wing and the inherent unfairness in that, and lo and behold, there's an article in The Age:
Cult versus mainstream

Also has Buffy versus Charmed, and Oz versus Prison Break.

And when you recreate something to please the maximum number of people, you inevitably move further away from reality. Because reality isn't resolvable in 50 minutes and it isn't easily understood. What you lose is moral complexity.

And it's that moral complexity that arouses the passions, that creates must-see TV, that encourages heated water-cooler conversations. Because real life is complex. And drama that attempts to replicate that is not comforting. It's confronting. It makes us think - and argue - about the big stuff, whether that's the nature of reality, what it means to be human, the mutability of ethics, or if it's ever OK to assassinate a foreign leader.

But not everyone wants to be challenged by television. Most people don't. They want to sit down at the end of the day - a complicated, unresolved, unsatisfying day - and slip into a soothing self-contained world where no matter how bad things seem at the 40-minute mark, you know it's going to be OK by the time the credits roll.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But we need the cult shows too, the shows that people don't get, that confuse them or repulse them, the shows that don't rate, that attract an intense audience rather than a broad one.

Not least because they do pave the way for milder, more accessible remakes. Which even in diluted form give a mass audience the chance to view the world in a different way.