Genome Editing and Human Reproduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Genetics and Other Human Modification Technologies: Sensible International Regulation Or a New Kind of Arms Race?
GENETICS AND OTHER HUMAN MODIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES: SENSIBLE INTERNATIONAL REGULATION OR A NEW KIND OF ARMS RACE? HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 19, 2008 Serial No. 110–201 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 43–068PDF WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts STEVE CHABOT, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado DIANE E. WATSON, California RON PAUL, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington JEFF FLAKE, Arizona RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JOE WILSON, South Carolina GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida RUBE´ N HINOJOSA, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas DAVID WU, Oregon TED POE, Texas BRAD MILLER, North Carolina BOB INGLIS, South Carolina LINDA T. -
Fertility Network UK Magazine – Autumn 2016
INUK Autumn 2016.e$S_Layout 1 11/10/2016 10:21 Page 1 No.51 Autumn 2016 The national charity, here for anyone who has ever experienced fertility problems NHS Funding Fundin g for NHS fertility treatmen the country, with access entir your postcode. t var ely dependies across ent on Information aby, you can find If you are trying to have a b rmation about fertility problems, treatment info upport here. options, funding and emotional s News News art parents icles f or those trying to become Support Our support network is here to offer those affected by fertility issues the support and understanding they need, when they need it. Events We have details of events which are free to attend and we will also list details of open days and free patient events for clinics who are members of our clinic outreach scheme. Our new website will be launched at The Fertility Show in November: www.fertilitynetworkuk.org INUK Autumn 2016.e$S_Layout 1 11/10/2016 10:23 Page 2 Fertility Network UK Susan Seenan Staff Gallery Chief Executive [email protected] Tel: 01294 230730 Mobile: 07762 137786 Sheena Andrew Coutts Catherine Hill Gillian Young Business Media McLaughlin Head of Development Relations Volunteer Business Manager Officer Co-ordinator Development [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Mobile: 07710 764162 Mobile: 07794 372351 Mobile: 07469 660845 Mobile: 07909 686874 Head Office Claire Heritage Alison Hannah Head Office Onash Tramaseur Manager Administrator -
Eugenics, Biopolitics, and the Challenge of the Techno-Human Condition
Nathan VAN CAMP Redesigning Life The emerging development of genetic enhancement technologies has recently become the focus of a public and philosophical debate between proponents and opponents of a liberal eugenics – that is, the use of Eugenics, Biopolitics, and the Challenge these technologies without any overall direction or governmental control. Inspired by Foucault’s, Agamben’s of the Techno-Human Condition and Esposito’s writings about biopower and biopolitics, Life Redesigning the author sees both positions as equally problematic, as both presuppose the existence of a stable, autonomous subject capable of making decisions concerning the future of human nature, while in the age of genetic technology the nature of this subjectivity shall be less an origin than an effect of such decisions. Bringing together a biopolitical critique of the way this controversial issue has been dealt with in liberal moral and political philosophy with a philosophical analysis of the nature of and the relation between life, politics, and technology, the author sets out to outline the contours of a more responsible engagement with genetic technologies based on the idea that technology is an intrinsic condition of humanity. Nathan VAN CAMP Nathan VAN Philosophy Philosophy Nathan Van Camp is postdoctoral researcher at the University of Antwerp, Belgium. He focuses on continental philosophy, political theory, biopolitics, and critical theory. & Politics ISBN 978-2-87574-281-0 Philosophie & Politique 27 www.peterlang.com P.I.E. Peter Lang Nathan VAN CAMP Redesigning Life The emerging development of genetic enhancement technologies has recently become the focus of a public and philosophical debate between proponents and opponents of a liberal eugenics – that is, the use of Eugenics, Biopolitics, and the Challenge these technologies without any overall direction or governmental control. -
The Mechanisms of Planar Cell Polarity, Growth and the Hippo Pathway
Developmental Biology 377 (2013) 1–8 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Developmental Biology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/developmentalbiology Review The mechanisms of planar cell polarity, growth and the Hippo pathway: Some known unknowns Peter A. Lawrence n, Jose´ Casal Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3 EJ, United Kingdom article info abstract Article history: Planar cell polarity (PCP) is a small but important area of research. In this review we discuss a limited Received 18 December 2012 number of topics within the PCP field, chosen because they are difficult, unsolved, controversial or just Received in revised form because we find them interesting. Because Drosophila is the best studied and technically most amenable 26 January 2013 system we have concentrated on it, but also consider some examples from work on vertebrates. Topics Accepted 28 January 2013 discussed include the number of genetic pathways involved in PCP, as well as the causal relationship between embryonic axes, gradients of morphogens and PCP itself. We consider the vexed question of Keywords: the roles of the Wnt genes in PCP in both vertebrates and Drosophila. We discuss whether the proteins Planar cell polarity involved in PCP need to be localised asymmetrically in cells in order to function. We criticise the way Growth the Hippo pathway is described in the literature and ask what its wildtype function is. We explore Gradients afresh how the Hippo pathway might be linked both to growth and to PCP through the gigantic Morphogens Hippo cadherin molecule Fat. We offer some new ways of making sense of published results, particularly Fat those relating to the Frizzled/Starry night and Dachsous/Fat systems of PCP. -
Tilburg University Patentability of Human Enhancements Schellekens, M.H.M.; Vantsiouri, P
Tilburg University Patentability of human enhancements Schellekens, M.H.M.; Vantsiouri, P. Published in: Law, Innovation and Technology Publication date: 2013 Document Version Peer reviewed version Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Schellekens, M. H. M., & Vantsiouri, P. (2013). Patentability of human enhancements. Law, Innovation and Technology, 5(2), 190-213. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 01. okt. 2021 Patentability of Human Enhancements Maurice Schellekens and Petroula Vantsiouri* I. INTRODUCTION The patent system is dynamic. Its limits are redefined as industries evolve and explore new technologies. History has shown that campaigners for novel patents are likely to succeed, except where they meet persistent opposition from other interests groups.1 Human enhancing technologies may very well be the next field where the battle of patentability is fought. We define human enhancement as a modification aimed at improving individual human performance and brought about by science-based or technology-based interventions in the human body.2 Hence, in our analysis we use a broad concept of human enhancement, which may involve aspects of healing. -
Multicentre Study of the Clinical Relevance of Screening IVF Patients for Carrier Status of the Annexin A5 M2 Haplotype
RBMO 1128 No. of Pages 8, Model 6+ 15 April 2014 Reproductive BioMedicine Online (2014) xxx, xxx– xxx www.sciencedirect.com www.rbmonline.com ARTICLE 7 4 Multicentre study of the clinical relevance 8 5 of screening IVF patients for carrier status 6 of the annexin A5 M2 haplotype a, b b c 9 Simon Fishel *, Rashmi Patel , Alison Lytollis , Jeanette Robinson , e d a a 10 Mary Smedley , Paula Smith , Craig Cameron , Simon Thornton , a b d e 11 Ken Dowell , Glenn Atkinson , Adel Shaker , Philip Lowe , c f f 12 Rahnuma Kazem , Sandra Brett , Anna Fox 13 a CARE Fertility Group, John Webster House, 6 Lawrence Drive, Nottingham Business Park, Nottingham NG8 6PZ, United 14Q1 Kingdom; b CARE Manchester, 108–112 Daisy Bank Road, Victoria Park, Manchester M14 5QH, United Kingdom; c CARE 15 Northampton, 67 The Avenue, Cliftonville, Northampton NN1 5BT, United Kingdom; d CARE Sheffield, 24–26 Glen Road, 16 Sheffield S7 1RA, United Kingdom; e CARE Nottingham, John Webster House, 6 Lawrence Drive, Nottingham Business Park, 17 Nottingham NG8 6PZ, United Kingdom; f CARE Dublin, Beacon CARE Fertility, Beacon Court, Sandyford, Dublin 18, Ireland 18 * Corresponding author. E-mail address: simon.fi[email protected] (S Fishel). Simon Fishel is CEO of CARE Fertility Group. He commenced research at Cambridge University with Bob Edwards in 1975. In 1980, he joined Patrick Steptoe and Bob at the start of Bourn Hall and was also awarded the prestigious Beit Memorial Fellowship and Research Fellowship at Churchill College. He has published more than 200 papers and three books and has received many international awards. -
Human Genetic Enhancements: a Transhumanist Perspective
Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective NICK BOSTROM Oxford University, Faculty of Philosophy, 10 Merton Street, Oxford, OX1 4JJ, U. K. [Preprint of paper published in the Journal of Value Inquiry, 2003, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 493-506] 1. What is Transhumanism? Transhumanism is a loosely defined movement that has developed gradually over the past two decades. It promotes an interdisciplinary approach to understanding and evaluating the opportunities for enhancing the human condition and the human organism opened up by the advancement of technology. Attention is given to both present technologies, like genetic engineering and information technology, and anticipated future ones, such as molecular nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.1 The enhancement options being discussed include radical extension of human health-span, eradication of disease, elimination of unnecessary suffering, and augmentation of human intellectual, physical, and emotional capacities.2 Other transhumanist themes include space colonization and the possibility of creating superintelligent machines, along with other potential developments that could profoundly alter the human condition. The ambit is not limited to gadgets and medicine, but encompasses also economic, social, institutional designs, cultural development, and psychological skills and techniques. Transhumanists view human nature as a work-in-progress, a half-baked beginning that we can learn to remold in desirable ways. Current humanity need not be the endpoint 1 of evolution. Transhumanists -
Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions & Answers
Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology Volume 4, Issue 1 2010 Article 4 Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions & Answers Fritz Allhoff∗ Patrick Liny James Moorz John Weckert∗∗ ∗Western Michigan University, [email protected] yCalifornia Polytechnic State University, [email protected] zDartmouth College, [email protected] ∗∗Charles Sturt University, [email protected] Copyright c 2010 The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved. Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions & Answers∗ Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, James Moor, and John Weckert Abstract This paper presents the principal findings from a three-year research project funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) on ethics of human enhancement technologies. To help untangle this ongoing debate, we have organized the discussion as a list of questions and answers, starting with background issues and moving to specific concerns, including: freedom & autonomy, health & safety, fairness & equity, societal disruption, and human dignity. Each question-and- answer pair is largely self-contained, allowing the reader to skip to those issues of interest without affecting continuity. KEYWORDS: human enhancement, human engineering, nanotechnology, emerging technolo- gies, policy, ethics, risk ∗The authors of this report gratefully acknowledge the support of the US National Science Foun- dation (NSF) under awards #0620694 and 0621021. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. We also acknowledge our respective institutions for their support: Dartmouth College and Western Michigan University, which are the recipients of the NSF awards referenced above, as well as California Polytechnic State University and Australia’s Centre for Ap- plied Philosophy and Public Ethics. -
Lecture Slides
(J. American Chemical Association, 78, 3458-3459) The Secondary Structure of Complementary RNA E. Peter Geiduschek, John W. Moohr, and Smauel B. Weiss, Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, 48, 1078-1086, 1962. R.H. DOI RH, and S. SPIEGELMAN Homology test between the nucleic acid of an RNA virus and the DNA in the host cell. Science 1962 Dec 14 1270-2. MONTAGNIER L, SANDERS FK. REPLICATIVE FORM OF ENCEPHALOMYOCARDITIS VIRUS RIBONUCLEIC ACID. Nature. 1963 Aug 17;199:664-7. (Science 143, 1034-1036, March 6, 1964) WARNER RC, SAMUELS HH, ABBOTT MT, KRAKOW JS. (1963) Ribonucleic acid polymerase of Azotobacter vinelandii, II. Formation of DNA- RNA hybrids with single-stranded DNA as primer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 49:533-8. Double Stranded RNA as a Specific Biological Effector December 8, 2006 Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden Viral interference (Interferon) effects in animals M. Hoskins (1935) A protective action of neurotropic against viscerotropic yellow fever virus in Macacus rhesus. American Journal of Tropical Medicine, 15, 675-680 G. Findlay and F. MacCallum (1937) An interference phenomenon in relation to yellow fever and other viruses. J. Path. Bact. 44, 405-424. A. Isaacs and J. Lindenmann (1957) Virus Interference. I. The Interferon Proc. Royal Soc. B 147, 268-273. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Volume 58, Pages 782-789. 1967 Promoter Make transgenic worms geneX Antisense Transcripts Interference (Development 113:503 [1991]) geneX Promoter Make transgeneic worms geneX SENSE Transcripts Also Interference! (Development 113:503 [1991]) In Vitro Promoter Make RNA in vitro geneX Antisense RNA Inject worm gonad Interference! (Guo and Kemphues, 1995) In Vitro geneX Promoter Make RNA in vitro geneX SENSE RNA Inject worm gonad Also Interference! (Guo and Kemphues, 1995) Craig Mello's RNAi Workshop: 1997 C. -
30388 OID RS Annual Review
Review of the Year 2005/06 >> President’s foreword In the period covered by this review*, the Royal Society has continued and extended its activities over a wide front. There has, in particular, been an expansion in our international contacts and our engagement with global scientific issues. The joint statements on climate change and science in Africa, published in June 2005 by the science academies of the G8 nations, made a significant impact on the discussion before and at the Gleneagles summit. Following the success of these unprecedented statements, both of which were initiated by the Society, representatives of the science academies met at our premises in September 2005 to discuss how they might provide further independent advice to the governments of the G8. A key outcome of the meeting was an We have devoted increasing effort to nurturing agreement to prepare joint statements on the development of science academies overseas, energy security and infectious diseases ahead particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, and are of the St Petersburg summit in July 2006. building initiatives with academies in African The production of these statements, led by the countries through the Network of African Russian science academy, was a further Science Academies (NASAC). This is indicative illustration of the value of science academies of the long-term commitment we have made to working together to tackle issues of help African nations build their capacity in international importance. science, technology, engineering and medicine, particularly in universities and colleges. In 2004, the Society published, jointly with the Royal Academy of Engineering, a widely Much of the progress we have has made in acclaimed report on the potential health, recent years on the international stage has been environmental and social impacts of achieved through the tireless work of Professor nanotechnologies. -
An Assessment of Progress in Human Genome Programmes Worldwide (A Support Study for the Evaluation of the EC Human Genome Analysis Programme)
EUR 15. U \Z$ ISSN 1018-5593 European Commission An assessment of progress in Human Genome Programmes worldwide (A support study for the evaluation of the EC Human Genome Analysis Programme) Report Research evaluation EUR 15412 EN European Commission An assessment of progress in Human Genome Programmes worldwide (A support study for the evaluation of the EC Human Genome Analysis Programme) Authors: B.R. Jordan The opinions contained in this report are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Commission. " """'"■■""■•»»Τ*«»*«»··!·»—■-■w·^·^ 1994 NC EUR 15412 EN C1. Published by the EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL XIII Telecommunications, Information Market and Exploitation of Research L-2920 Luxembourg LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1994 ISBN 92-826-8226-9 © ECSC-EC-EAEC Brussels · Luxembourg, 1994 Printed in Belgium TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD I. INTRODUCTION 1 Π. REVIEW OF MAJOR NATIONAL PROGRAMMES 5 Π A. UNITED STATES 5 Π A 1. Current plan and major participants Π A 2. Assessment of progress A caveat The DOE juggernaut The NIH kaleidoscope Π A 3. General comments (scientific) Genetic maps Physical maps Cytogenetics Sequencing Π A 4. General comments (organizational) DOE vs NIH Manpower Informatics and instrumentation Π A 5. Recent developments Π Β. JAPAN 11 Π Β 1. Current plan and major participants Π Β 2. -
Time-Lapse Imaging Algorithms Rank Human Preimplantation Embryos According to the Probability of Live Birth
304 RBMO VOLUME 37 ISSUE 3 2018 ARTICLE Time-lapse imaging algorithms rank human preimplantation embryos according to the probability of live birth BIOGRAPHY Simon Fishel, Founder and President of CARE Fertility Group, Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology worked with IVF pioneer and Nobel Laureate Robert Edwards from 1975-1985 at Cambridge University and as Deputy Scientific Director of the first IVF clinic, Bourn Hall. In 1978 he received the Beit Memorial Fellowship and was elected Research Fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge. In 2009 was awarded Liverpool John Moores University Honorary Fellowship for ”outstanding contributions to humanity and science in the field of fertility treatment including embryology and IVF” Simon Fishel1, Alison Campbell1,*, Sue Montgomery2, Rachel Smith3, Lynne Nice4, Samantha Duffy2, Lucy Jenner5, Kathryn Berrisford5, Louise Kellam5, Rob Smith6, Fiona Foad7, Ashley Beccles1 KEY MESSAGE This retrospective study demonstrated for the first time that human blastocyst embryos can be objectively ranked according to their propensity to produce a live birth using an in-house derived morphokinetic-based algorithm from time-lapse imaging. This appears to have greater discriminating power than subjective, conventional morphology assessment. ABSTRACT Research question: Can blastocysts leading to live births be ranked according to morphokinetic-based algorithms? Design: Retrospective analysis of 781 single blastocyst embryo transfers, including all patient clinical factors that might be potential confounders for the primary outcome measure of live birth, was weighed using separate multi-variable logistic regression models. Results: There was strong evidence of effect of embryo rank on odds of live birth. Embryos were classified A, B, C or D according to calculated variables; time to start (tSB) and duration (dB{tB – tSB}) of blastulation.