DOCSLIB.ORG

Genome Editing and Human Reproduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Genome Editing and Human Reproduction Genome editing and human reproduction Previous Nuffield Council publications Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues Genetic screening: a supplement to the 1993 report Published March 2017 by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Published July 2006 Genome editing: an ethical review Published September 2016 The ethics of research involving animals Published May 2005 Children and clinical research: ethical issues Published May 2015 The ethics of research relating to healthcare in developing countries: a follow-up Discussion Paper The collection, linking and use of data in biomedical Published March 2005 research and health care: ethical issues Published February 2015 The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries: a follow-up discussion paper The findings of a series of engagement activities Published December 2003 exploring the culture of scientific research in the UK Published December 2014 Pharmacogenetics: ethical issues Published September 2003 Novel neurotechnologies: intervening in the brain Published June 2013 Genetics and human behaviour: the ethical context Published October 2002 Donor conception: ethical aspects of information sharing The ethics of patenting DNA: a discussion paper Published April 2013 Published July 2002 Emerging biotechnologies: technology, choice and The ethics of research related to healthcare in the public good developing countries Published December 2012 Published April 2002 Novel techniques for the prevention of mitochondrial Stem cell therapy: the ethical issues – a discussion DNA disorders: an ethical review paper Published June 2012 Published April 2000 Human bodies: donation for medicine and research The ethics of clinical research in developing countries: Published October 2011 a discussion paper Genome editing and Published October 1999 Biofuels: ethical issues Published April 2011 Genetically modified crops: the ethical and social human reproduction issues Medical profiling and online medicine: the ethics of Published May 1999 ‘personalised healthcare’ in a consumer age Published October 2010 Mental disorders and genetics: the ethical context Published September 1998 Dementia: ethical issues Published October 2009 Animal-to-human transplants: the ethics of xenotransplantation Public health: ethical issues Published March 1996 Published November 2007 Human tissue: ethical and legal issues The forensic use of bioinformation: ethical issues Published April 1995 Published September 2007 Genetic screening: ethical issues Critical care decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine: Published December 1993 Council on Bioethics Nuffield ethical issues Published November 2006 Published by Nuffield Council on Bioethics 28 Bedford Square London WC1B 3JS Printed in the UK © Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2017 ISBN: 978-1-904384-33-5 Published by Nuffield Council on Bioethics 28 Bedford Square London WC1B 3JS Telephone: 020 7681 9619 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org ISBN: 978-1-904384-34-2 July 2018 To order a printed copy, please contact the Nuffield Council on Bioethics or visit the website. £10 per report (where sold) Developing countries: free © Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2018 All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, no part of the publication may be produced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without prior permission of the copyright owners. Web references throughout this report were accessed June 2018. Printed in the UK ESP Colour Ltd. Elgin Drive Swindon Wiltshire SN2 8XU http://www.espcolour.com Suggested citation: Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2018) Genome Editing and Human Reproduction: social and ethical issues (London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics) Genome editing and human reproduction: social and ethical issues Nuffield Council on Bioethics Professor David Archard (Chair) Professor Simon Caney Dr Tara Clancy Professor Ann Gallagher Dr Andy Greenfield Professor Erica Haimes Professor Julian Hughes (Deputy Chair) Sir Roland Jackson Dr David Lawrence Professor Michael Parker* Professor Shaun Pattinson Professor Tom Shakespeare Professor Mona Siddiqui Professor Christine Watson Professor Robin A. Weiss Professor Heather Widdows Mr Adam Wishart Professor Karen Yeung** Dr Paquita de Zulueta * Co-opted member of the Council while chairing the working party on research in global health emergencies. ** Co-opted member of the Council while chairing the working party on genome editing and human reproduction. iii Executive Hugh Whittall (Director) Kate Harvey Catherine Joynson Ranveig Svenning Berg Dr Peter Mills Dr Anna Wilkinson Katharine Wright Jade Rawling (maternity cover) Carol Perkins Sophia Griffiths Sarah Walker-Robson The Nuffield Council’s terms of reference: ■ To identify and define ethical questions raised by recent developments in biological and medical research that concern, or are likely to concern, the public interest; ■ To make arrangements for the independent examination of such questions with appropriate involvement of relevant stakeholders; ■ To inform and engage in policy and media debates about those ethical questions and provide informed comment on emerging issues related to or derived from its published or ongoing work; and ■ To make policy recommendations to Government or other relevant bodies and to disseminate its work through published reports, briefings and other appropriate outputs. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is funded jointly by the Medical Research Council, the Nuffield Foundation, and Wellcome iv Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge many of the people who helped and encouraged the working party and executive staff in the course of this project. We would especially like to acknowledge the input and encouragement of Charis Thompson, who was a member of the working party that produced the Council’s 2016 report. Charis was initially a member of the present working party but was unable, due to an appointment at University of California, Berkeley on the west coast of the United States, to continue as a full participant in the group’s deliberations. She nevertheless provided continuing advice and input, including in relation to parallel developments in the United States. We thank Rumiana Yotova for the preparation of a research report on the international regulation of genome editing and Alisa McKeon for providing her with research assistance. We also thank Achim Rosemann, Li Jiang and Xinqing Zhang for the preparation of a report on relevant law and regulation in the People’s Republic of China. We are making both of these documents available in the expectation that others will draw further benefit from them. We are grateful to George Gaskell of the London School of Economics and Political Science for reviewing and advising on our online questionnaire, and to the volunteers who tested it, as well as everyone who participated – their thoughtful responses enriched the discussions of the working party and we expect that they will repay further study. We would also like to recognise the important contributions of those whose input is acknowledged in the first two Appendices: participants in fact-finding meetings, those who made themselves available for our series of research interviews, all those who responded to our call for evidence as well as our thorough and constructive external reviewers. A number of people have assisted us at various times by providing information, intellectual engagement and opportunities to discuss our emerging thoughts in other contexts. In no particular order, our thanks go to Jonathan Montgomery, the former chair of the Nuffield Council, Katherine Littler, Sarah Rappaport and other colleagues at Wellcome, François Hirsch and Hervé Chneiweiss at INSERM, Lluis Montoliu of ARRIGE, Simon Burall at Involve, Katie Bowman, Keegan Sawyer and colleagues at the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Sheila Jasanoff and Ben Hurlbut in the US, Nuria Terribas and colleagues at The Fundació Víctor Grífols i Lucas, Laurence Lwoff at the Council of Europe, Andy Greenfield at the MRC Harwell Institute, Robin Lovell-Badge at the Francis Crick Institute and Allan Pacey of the University of Sheffield. Throughout this project, we have been kept on our mettle by the regular scrutiny of members of the Nuffield Council and, in particular, a subgroup of members who have provided more detailed feedback: Erica Haimes, Roland Jackson, Shaun Pattinson, Tom Shakespeare and Robin Weiss. Additional research assistance was provided by Ran Svenning Berg, and Jade Rawling helped to brush up the document in the final stages. We are also extremely grateful to Claudia Stocker of Vivid Biology, who worked patiently with us to produce the two diagrams contained in this report. Finally, we acknowledge the contribution of two members of the Nuffield Council staff who left the Executive before the conclusion of this project: Dr Bettina Schmietow, who provided research support in the early stages of the work, and Dr Shaun Griffin, who provided very able maternity cover in the role of Communications Manager. v Foreword The capacity to select the traits of our future children has long been a central theme in science fiction writing, often solemnly warning of the moral dangers associated with doing so, even when undertaken with the best of intentions. The discovery of DNA, the so-called ‘code of life’, pointed the way towards the scientific avenue through which deliberate intervention
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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]