DOCSLIB.ORG

Making Perfect Life: Bio-Engineering (In) the 21St Century Is the Result of the Second Phase of the STOA-Project “Making Perfect Life”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Science and Technology Options Assessment S T O A MAKING PERFECT LIFE BIO-ENGINEERING (IN) THE 21st CENTURY MONITORING REPORT PHASE II (IP/A/STOA/FWC-2008-96/LOT6/SC1) PE 471.570 DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT E: LEGISLATIVE COORDINATION AND CONCILIATIONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS ASSESSMENT MAKING PERFECT LIFE BIO-ENGINEERING (IN) THE 21st CENTURY MONITORING REPORT - PHASE II Abstract The report describes four fields of bio-engineering: engineering of living artefacts (chapter 2), engineering of the body (chapter 3), engineering of the brain (chapter 4), and engineering of intelligent artefacts (chapter 5). Each chapter describes the state of the art of these bio-engineering fields, and whether the concepts “biology becoming technology” and “technology becoming biology” are helpful in describing and understanding, from an engineering perspective, what is going on in each R&D terrain. Next, every chapter analyses to what extent the various research strands within each field of bio-engineering are stimulated by the European Commission, i.e., are part and parcel of the European Framework program. Finally, each chapter provides an overview of the social, ethical and legal questions that are raised by the various scientific and technological activities involved. The report’s final chapter discusses to what extent the trends “biology becoming technology” and vice versa capture many of the developments that are going on in the four bio-engineering fields we have mapped. The report also reflects on the social, ethical and legal issues that are raised by the two bio- engineering megatrends that constitute a new technology wave. IP/A/STOA/FWC/2008-096/LOT6/SC1 SEPTEMBER 2011 PE 471.570 EN STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment _______________________________________________________________________________________ This project has been carried out by the Rathenau Institute, The Hague (Project C o- ordinator); together wi th the Ins titute of Tec hnology Assessment, Vienna; Fraunhofer Institute fo r Systems and Innova tion Research , Karlsruhe; the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe, as members of ETAG. Project Leaders: Mr Rinie van Est (Rathenau Institute) Mr Dirk Stemerding (Rathenau Institute) AUTHORS Mr Rinie van Est (Rathenau Institute, editor) Mr Dirk Stemerding (Rathenau Institute, editor) Ms Ira van Keulen (Rathenau Institute) Ms Ingrid Geesink (Rathenau Institute) Ms Mirjam Schuijff (Rathenau Institute) Mr Helge Torgersen (ITA) Mr Markus Schmidt (Biofaction) Ms Karen Kastenhofer (ITA) Ms Bärbel Hüsing (Fraunhofer ISI) Mr Knud Böhle (ITAS) Mr Christopher Coenen (ITAS) Mr Michael Decker (ITAS) Mr Michael Rader (ITAS) RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATORS Mr Theodoros Karapiperis (Administrator) Mr Vittorio De Crescenzo (Seconded National Expert) Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) Directorate E: Legislative Coordination and Conciliations DG Internal Policies European Parliament Rue Wiertz 60 - RMD 00J008 B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE PUBLISHER To contact STOA or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in September 2011. Brussels, © European Parliament, 2011. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/default_en.htm DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the a uthor and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commerc ial purposes are au thorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. Making Perfect Life __________________________________________________________________________________________ Contents Executive summary 10 1. Introduction 12 1.1. NBIC convergence: The new technology wave 12 1.2. Two bio-engineering megatrends 13 1.2.1. Biology is becoming technology 14 1.2.2. Technology is becoming biology 14 1.3. A societal debate perspective 14 1.3.1. Biology is becoming technology 15 1.3.2. Technology is becoming biology 15 1.4. Content 15 References 16 2. Engineering of Living Artefacts: Synthetic Biology 17 2.1. Introduction 17 2.2. Scientific-tecnological state-of-the-art 19 2.2.1. Framing the Field 19 2.2.2. Ambitions and activities in the field of SB 20 2.2.3. The engineering approach in SB: its role and limits 22 2.2.4. The Promise to deliver 25 2.2.5. The novelty of SB 26 2.3. Relevance to European research 28 2.3.1. Research programmes 28 2.3.2. Criteria for assessing projects 30 2.4. Ethical, legal and social issues 31 2.4.1. Disruptive technoscience – or business as usual? 31 2.4.2. Playing God, altering nature - An ontological argument? 32 2.4.3. Playing God as a metaphor of disruptiveness 34 2.4.4. The mundane world of risks and benefits 36 2.4.5. Safety and security: accidents and intentional misuse 36 2.4.6. How to govern benefits: intellectual property protection 40 2.4.7. The relation to the public 41 2.5. Governance issues 42 2.6. Conclusion: living machines and artificial life 45 References 47 References for Table 1 50 Annex 1: Projects funded by EU funded institutions 54 STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment __________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Engineering of the Body 58 3.1. Introduction to the field 58 3.2. Scientific and technological state of the art 64 3.2.1. Elucidating information on how the body functions: Molecular Medicine64 3.2.2. Studying and engineering materials of the human body: Advanced therapies and regenerative medicine 66 3.3. Research in the 7th framework programme 74 3.3.1. Gaining information about key life processes – Research needs and challenges for research policy 74 3.3.2. Material derived from humans for technology: Research needs and challenges for research policy 76 3.3.3. Conclusion 78 3.4. Ethical, legal, social, R&D policy impacts 79 3.4.1. General considerations 79 3.4.2. Ethical, legal, social, R&D policy issues related to elucidating and using genetic and medical information 80 3.4.3. Ethical, legal, social, R&D policy impacts of using material derived from humans for medical technology - Efficacy, safety and quality 83 3.5. Conclusions 85 References 87 4. Engineering of the Brain 93 4.1. Introduction 93 4.1.1. The engineering approach 94 4.1.2. How to read this chapter 97 4.2. Reverse engineering of the brain 98 4.2.1. Narrow reverse engineering: rebuilding the brain Blue Brain project 99 4.2.2. Neuromorphic engineering: building supercomputers 100 4.2.3. In vitro engineering: cultured neuronal networks 103 4.3. Forward engineering of the brain 104 4.3.1. Neuromodulation 104 4.3.2. Brain computer interfaces 109 4.4. Engineering the brain in European research programmes 112 4.4.1. Trends in FP6 en FP7 112 4.4.2. Trends in ESF projects 117 4.5. Ethical, legal and other impacts of neural engineering 117 4.5.1. The ethics of neural engineering 119 4.5.2. Reverse engineering 121 4.5.3. Forward engineering 122 4.6. Conclusion 129 References 132 Making Perfect Life __________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Engineering of Intelligent Artefacts 136 5.1. Introduction 136 5.2. State of the Art 137 5.2.1. The Chequered History of Artificial Intelligence 137 5.2.2. Robots 141 5.2.3. Agents and Avatars 148 5.3. Relevance to European Research 157 5.4. Ethical, Legal and Societal Aspects 161 5.4.1. Ethical and Legal Aspects 162 5.4.2. Broader Societal and Policy Aspects 167 5.5. Conclusions 171 References 173 6. Conclusions 177 6.1. Radically strengthening our bio-engineering capabilities 178 6.1.1. Biology becoming technology – and vice versa 178 6.1.2. A new range of interventions and artefacts 181 6.2. Fundamental broadening of the biodebate 184 6.2.1. Long term perspectives 185 6.2.2. Gradually changing fundamental categories 187 6.2.3. Regulatory challenges 189 6.3. The European Commission’s governance challenge 195 6.3.1. The European Commission’s current role 195 6.3.2. Safeguarding human dignity in the 21st century 196 References 198 STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment __________________________________________________________________________________________ Making Perfect Life __________________________________________________________________________________________ General information This monitoring report Making Perfect Life: Bio-engineering (in) the 21st Century is the result of the second phase of the STOA-project “Making Perfect Life”. This phase ran from December 2009 to November 2010. This document provided input for a conference which involved both Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) as well as other experts, which was held on 10 November 2010 in Brussels, in the European Parliament. This phase elaborates on the horizon scan and preliminary research that was done during the first phase, which ran from September to November 2009. That preparatory phase led to an interim study (Van Est et al., 2010), which was instrumental in defining the research focus of the current second phase of the STOA-project “Making Perfect Life” and setting up a team of researchers from the Dutch Rathenau Institute in the Hague, the Austrian Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA) in Vienna, the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (Fraunhofer ISI), and the Institute for Technology
Recommended publications
  • Alternative Biochemistries for Alien Life: Basic Concepts and Requirements for the Design of a Robust Biocontainment System in Genetic Isolation

    Alternative Biochemistries for Alien Life: Basic Concepts and Requirements for the Design of a Robust Biocontainment System in Genetic Isolation

    G C A T T A C G G C A T genes Review Alternative Biochemistries for Alien Life: Basic Concepts and Requirements for the Design of a Robust Biocontainment System in Genetic Isolation Christian Diwo 1 and Nediljko Budisa 1,2,* 1 Institut für Chemie, Technische Universität Berlin Müller-Breslau-Straße 10, 10623 Berlin, Germany; [email protected] 2 Department of Chemistry, University of Manitoba, 144 Dysart Rd, 360 Parker Building, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]; Tel.: +49-30-314-28821 or +1-204-474-9178 Received: 27 November 2018; Accepted: 21 December 2018; Published: 28 December 2018 Abstract: The universal genetic code, which is the foundation of cellular organization for almost all organisms, has fostered the exchange of genetic information from very different paths of evolution. The result of this communication network of potentially beneficial traits can be observed as modern biodiversity. Today, the genetic modification techniques of synthetic biology allow for the design of specialized organisms and their employment as tools, creating an artificial biodiversity based on the same universal genetic code. As there is no natural barrier towards the proliferation of genetic information which confers an advantage for a certain species, the naturally evolved genetic pool could be irreversibly altered if modified genetic information is exchanged. We argue that an alien genetic code which is incompatible with nature is likely to assure the inhibition of all mechanisms of genetic information transfer in an open environment. The two conceivable routes to synthetic life are either de novo cellular design or the successive alienation of a complex biological organism through laboratory evolution.
  • Phenomenological Perspectives on Technological Posthumanism

    Phenomenological Perspectives on Technological Posthumanism

    Master thesis Phenomenological perspectives on technological posthumanism Supervisors: prof. dr. Paul Ziche, dr. Iris van der Tuin Date: 10. 8. 2017 Name: Tomáš Čech Student number: 5656664 Number of Words: 24 678 i Content 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Posthumanism/transhumanism – how to make sense of it all ......................................................... 4 2.1. What is transhumanism and transhuman? ............................................................................... 7 2.2. Transhumanist perception of technology and science ........................................................... 11 2.3. Comparison between transhumanism and religion ................................................................ 13 2.4. In Summary ........................................................................................................................... 15 3. Debate about transhumanism ........................................................................................................ 15 3.1. Transhumanism as an ideology ............................................................................................. 17 3.2. Reaction to transhumanism - bioconservatism ...................................................................... 21 3.3. Bioconservative arguments – why transhumanism is not such a great idea .......................... 26 3.4. Human dignity and the transhumanism debate.....................................................................
  • Columbia University Journal of Bioethics 1 2 Fall 2008

    Columbia University Journal of Bioethics 1 2 Fall 2008

    Columbia University Journal of Bioethics 1 2 Fall 2008 Columbia University Journal of Bioethics And Supplement on BIOCEP Volume VI. No 1, Fall 2008 Editorial Board Faculty Editors Editors-in-Chief Dr. John D. Loike Dr. Ruth L. Fischbach Copy Editors Soo Han Cover Design: “Entwine‖ Komal Kaothari Robyn Scheinder and Dr. John D. Loike Please send your comments to Dr. John D. Loike at: [email protected] Production & Creative Directors Robyn Scheinder Jana Bassman Web Version is available through the undergraduate page: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ Or through http://www.bioethicscolumbia.org/ Copyright 2008 by: Columbia University Center for Bioethics NO PART OF THIS JOURNAL MAY BE COPIED OR USED WITHOUT PERMISSION. All views in the articles reflect those of the authors only. Columbia University Journal of Bioethics 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 5 Introductions by Dr. John Loike and Dr. Ruth Fischbach ............ …………………………………..…….6-7 Section I: Genetics The Sound and the Fury By Katie O‘Neill and Wei-Jen Hsieh……………………………………………….. Majority Report: DNA Data-banking As an Opt-Out System By Emilia Javorsky and Robyn Schneider………………………………………... Could Genetic Research Interfere with Medicine? By Jorge Jara and Joanna Etra………………………………………………. Charging You for Being You By Elisa Fung and Gabriela Vargas…………………………………………. Section II: Stem Cells and Reproductive Medicine Altered Nuclear Transfer: A Novel Way of Developing Pluripotent Stem Cells By Sarah Eberle and Tabby Khan………………………………………………... Secrets and Lies: Mandating Disclosure in Oocyte Donation By Tiffany Hsieh………………………………………………………………….. Diagnosing Disability… And Keeping It by David Yin and John Tseng……………………………………………….. Section III: Neuroethics Programmed Free Will By Elisa Fung and Lindsay Kugler………………………………………………….
  • Download Download

    Download Download

    Volume III - Article 2 Legislating Limits on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Sïna A. Muscati1 Spring 2003 Copyright © 2003 University of Pittsburgh School of Law Journal of Technology Law and Policy Introduction Research on embryonic stem cells has generated great intrigue in the scientific community. Many medical researchers consider stem cell-based therapies to have the potential of treating a host of human ailments and yielding a number of medical benefits. They are motivated by the possibility of treating incurable diseases or facilitating effective treatment methods. Their enthusiasm is shared by many of those who are afflicted with these debilitating diseases. However, the methodology of this research raises numerous ethical and public policy concerns. The extraction of embryonic stem cells for research destroys the human embryo. This has generated a storm of debate about if, and in what circumstances, this research can be legally and ethically justified. The concerns are heightened further when embryos are created specifically for use in the very research that occasions their destruction. In response, numerous countries have passed legislation that attempts to control some of the more controversial aspects of embryonic stem cell research. For example, in May 2002, Canada introduced draft legislation that would govern and restrict a number of practices related to this fast-growing field of research. 1 L.L.B., third year, University of Ottawa; B.Sc. (Hons.) 2001, Carleton University. The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Centre of Innovation Law and Policy of the University of Toronto. The author also wishes to thank Professor Ian R. Kerr of the University of Ottawa for his guidance throughout the writing of this Article.
  • Flourishing and Discordance: on Two Modes of Human Science Engagement with Synthetic Biology

    Flourishing and Discordance: on Two Modes of Human Science Engagement with Synthetic Biology

    Flourishing and Discordance: On Two Modes of Human Science Engagement with Synthetic Biology by Anthony Stavrianakis A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Paul Rabinow, Chair Professor Xin Liu Professor Charis Thompson Fall 2012 Abstract Flourishing and Discordance: On Two Modes of Human Science Engagement with Synthetic Biology by Anthony Stavrianakis Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology University of California, Berkeley Professor Paul Rabinow, Chair This dissertation takes up the theme of collaboration between the human sciences and natural sciences and asks how technical, veridictional and ethical vectors in such co-labor can be inquired into today. I specify the problem of collaboration, between forms of knowledge, as a contemporary one. This contemporary problem links the recent past of the institutional relations between the human and natural sciences to a present experience of anthropological engagement with a novel field of bioengineering practice, called synthetic biology. I compare two modes of engagement, in which I participated during 2006–2011. One project, called Human Practices, based within the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center (SynBERC), instantiated an anthropological mode of inquiry, explicitly oriented to naming ethical problems for collaboration. This project, conducted in collaboration with Paul Rabinow and Gaymon Bennett, took as a challenge the invention of an appropriate practice to indeterminate ethical problems. Flourishing, a translation of the ancient Greek term eudaemonia, was a central term in orienting the Human Practices project. This term was used to posit ethical questions outside of the instrumental rationality of the sciences, and on which the Human Practices project would seek to work.
  • Could Artificial Wombs End the Abortion Debate?

    Could Artificial Wombs End the Abortion Debate?

    Philosophy Faculty Works Philosophy Summer 2005 Could Artificial ombsW End the Abortion Debate? Christopher Kaczor Loyola Marymount University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/phil_fac Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Christopher Kaczor, “Could Artificial ombsW End the Abortion Debate?” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 5.2 (Summer 2005): 73-91. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Could Artificial Wombs End the Abortion Debate? Christopher Kaczor Although artificial wombs may seem fanciful when first considered, certain trends suggest they may become reality. Between 1945 and the 1970s, the weight at which premature infants could survive dropped dramatically, moving from 1000 grams to around 400 grams.1 In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding Roe v. Wade, considered viability to begin around twenty-eight weeks. In 2000, premature babies were reported to have survived at eighteen weeks.2 Advanced incubators already in existence save thousands of children born prematurely each year. It is highly likely that such incubators will become even more advanced as technology progresses. Researchers are working to make super-advanced incubators, “artificial wombs,” a reality. Temple University professor Dr. Thomas Schaffer hopes to save premature infants using a synthetic amniotic fluid of oxygen-rich perfluorocarbons. Lack of funding has thus far prevented tests on human infants born prematurely, but Shaffer has successfully transferred premature lamb fetuses from their mother’s wombs and used the synthetic amniotic fluid to sustain their lives.3 At Cornell University, Dr.
  • The Bio Revolution: Innovations Transforming and Our Societies, Economies, Lives

    The Bio Revolution: Innovations Transforming and Our Societies, Economies, Lives

    The Bio Revolution: Innovations transforming economies, societies, and our lives economies, societies, our and transforming Innovations Revolution: Bio The The Bio Revolution Innovations transforming economies, societies, and our lives May 2020 McKinsey Global Institute Since its founding in 1990, the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) has sought to develop a deeper understanding of the evolving global economy. As the business and economics research arm of McKinsey & Company, MGI aims to help leaders in the commercial, public, and social sectors understand trends and forces shaping the global economy. MGI research combines the disciplines of economics and management, employing the analytical tools of economics with the insights of business leaders. Our “micro-to-macro” methodology examines microeconomic industry trends to better understand the broad macroeconomic forces affecting business strategy and public policy. MGI’s in-depth reports have covered more than 20 countries and 30 industries. Current research focuses on six themes: productivity and growth, natural resources, labor markets, the evolution of global financial markets, the economic impact of technology and innovation, and urbanization. Recent reports have assessed the digital economy, the impact of AI and automation on employment, physical climate risk, income inequal ity, the productivity puzzle, the economic benefits of tackling gender inequality, a new era of global competition, Chinese innovation, and digital and financial globalization. MGI is led by three McKinsey & Company senior partners: co-chairs James Manyika and Sven Smit, and director Jonathan Woetzel. Michael Chui, Susan Lund, Anu Madgavkar, Jan Mischke, Sree Ramaswamy, Jaana Remes, Jeongmin Seong, and Tilman Tacke are MGI partners, and Mekala Krishnan is an MGI senior fellow.
  • The Cybernetic Revolution and the Forthcoming Epoch of Self-Regulating Systems Grinin, Leonid; Grinin, Anton

    The Cybernetic Revolution and the Forthcoming Epoch of Self-Regulating Systems Grinin, Leonid; Grinin, Anton

    www.ssoar.info The Cybernetic Revolution and the Forthcoming Epoch of Self-Regulating Systems Grinin, Leonid; Grinin, Anton Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Monographie / monograph Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Grinin, L., & Grinin, A. (2016). The Cybernetic Revolution and the Forthcoming Epoch of Self-Regulating Systems. Moscow: Uchitel Publishing House. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-57569-8 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer Basic Digital Peer Publishing-Lizenz This document is made available under a Basic Digital Peer zur Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den DiPP-Lizenzen Publishing Licence. For more Information see: finden Sie hier: http://www.dipp.nrw.de/lizenzen/dppl/service/dppl/ http://www.dipp.nrw.de/lizenzen/dppl/service/dppl/ The International Center for Education and Social and Humanitarian Studies Volgograd Center for Social Research Leonid Grinin and Anton Grinin The Cybernetic Revolution and the Forthcoming Epoch of Self-Regulating Systems Moscow 2016 ББК 30г 60.5 63 Leonid Grinin and Anton Grinin The Cybernetic Revolution and the Forthcoming Epoch of Self-Regulating Systems. Moscow: Moscow branch of Uchitel Publishing House, 2016. – 216 pp. ISBN 978-5-7057-4877-8 The monograph presents the ideas about the main changes that occurred in the devel- opment of technologies from the emergence of Homo sapiens till present time and outlines the prospects of their development in the next 30–60 years and in some respect until the end of the twenty-first century. What determines the transition of a society from one level of development to another? One of the most fundamental causes is the global technological transformations.
  • Synthetic Biology an Overview of the Debates

    Synthetic Biology an Overview of the Debates

    SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY PROJECT / SYNBIO 3 SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY Ethical Issuesin SYNBIO 3/JUNE2009 An overview ofthedebates Contents Preface 3 Executive Summary 4 Who is doing what, where are they doing it and how is this current work funded? 6 How distinct is synthetic biology from other emerging areas of scientific and technological innovation? 9 Ethics: What harms and benefits are associated with synthetic biology? 12 The pro-actionary and pre-cautionary frameworks 18 N OVERVIEW OF THE DEBATES N OVERVIEW OF A Competing—and potentially complementary—views about non-physical harms (harms to well-being) 23 The most contested harms to well-being 25 Conclusion: Moving the debate forward 26 References 29 ETHICAL ISSUES IN SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY: ETHICAL ISSUES IN SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY: ii The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect views Sloan Foundation. Wilson International Center for Scholars or the Alfred P. of the Woodrow Ethical Issues in SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY An overview of the debates Erik Parens, Josephine Johnston, and Jacob Moses The Hastings Center, Garrison, New York SYNBIO 3 / JUNE 2009 2 ETHICAL ISSUES IN SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY: AN OVERVIEW OF THE DEBATES Preface Synthetic biology will allow scientists and where such topics are divided into two broad engineers to create biological systems categories: concerns about physical and non- that do not occur naturally as well as to physical harms. While physical harms often re-engineer existing biological systems to trigger debates about how to proceed among perform novel and beneficial tasks. This researchers, policymakers, and the public, emerging field presents a number of non-physical harms present more difficult opportunities to address ethical issues early conundrums.
  • Abstracts: Oral Presentations *All Oral Presentations Will Take Place in the Devon Room at the Times Listed Below*

    Abstracts: Oral Presentations *All Oral Presentations Will Take Place in the Devon Room at the Times Listed Below*

    Abstracts: Oral Presentations *All oral presentations will take place in the Devon Room at the times listed below* Augustine & Culture Seminar Program (ACSP) (2:00 p.m.) Playing Mother: The Daunting Possibilities of Artificial Womb Technology Author: Hanlon, Erin Advisor: Dr. Peter Busch So often in our society, technological advances are met with the reaction that we must be wary of “playing God.” Yet, we often ignore this concern when the technology is created for the betterment of society and to solve a critical problem. This was the case for the CHOP research team that created an extra-uterine physiologic support system for the extreme premature lamb, a bio-bag system that could support an extremely premature lamb within a womb-like environment that would allow for survival and development up to a fuller point of gestation. This research, when translated to humans, would give extremely premature babies an increased chance of survival and ability to thrive post-birth with limited health complications. What I focused my research on is, what comes after this technology? We most likely will continue building upon this research until a baby could survive within this system from as early as conception. With a fully artificial womb and no need for a woman to carry a child, what possibilities does this allow for? How does this change women’s role within society? Would we even need women involved in the process? Could women donate eggs as men donate sperm and men can have a child independently? Could this possibly eliminate the abortion debate? What kind of policies will we need surrounding fetuses and the process? What potential risks does this allow for? The very real possibility of artificial womb technology brings to light many questions and ethical dilemmas that we, as a global community, may face in the very near future and we must begin to explore these possibilities in order to make the most ethical and just decisions for the future of our society.
  • 21St Century Borders/Synthetic Biology: Focus on Responsibility and Governance

    21St Century Borders/Synthetic Biology: Focus on Responsibility and Governance

    Social science Engineering Framework Institute on Science for Global Policy (ISGP) Risk-benefit Media Public Synthetic Biology Genetic Governance Regulation Voluntary Anticipatory Databases Xenobiology 21st Century Borders/Synthetic Biology: Focus on Responsibility and Governance Conference convened by the ISGP Dec. 4–7, 2012 at the Hilton El Conquistador, Tucson, Arizona Risk Technology Oversight Plants Uncertainty Product Less-affluent countries DIYBIO Biotechnology Emerging Dynamic Environmental Government Biosafety Self-regulation Nefarious Genetically modified Protein Standards Dual use Distribution Applications Food Microbial Authority Assessment Agricultural Institute on Science for Global Policy (ISGP) 21st Century Borders/Synthetic Biology: Focus on Responsibility and Governance Conference convened by the ISGP in partnership with the University of Arizona at the Hilton El Conquistador Hotel Tucson, Arizona, U.S. Dec. 4–7, 2012 An ongoing series of dialogues and critical debates examining the role of science and technology in advancing effective domestic and international policy decisions Institute on Science for Global Policy (ISGP) Tucson, AZ Office 845 N. Park Ave., 5th Floor PO Box 210158-B Tucson, AZ 85721 Washington, DC Office 818 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 www.scienceforglobalpolicy.org © Copyright Institute on Science for Global Policy, 2013. All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-0-9803882-4-0 ii Table of contents Executive summary • Introduction: Institute on Science for Global Policy (ISGP) .............. 1 Dr. George H. Atkinson, Founder and Executive Director, ISGP, and Professor Emeritus, University of Arizona • Conference conclusions: Areas of consensus and Actionable next steps ...................................... 7 Conference program ........................................................................................... 11 Policy position papers and debate summaries • Synthetic Biology — Do We Need New Regulatory Systems? Prof.
  • Wired 13.03: Mind Control

    Wired 13.03: Mind Control

    Wired 13.03: Mind Control http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/brain.html Issue 13.03 - March 2005 Subscribe - save over 80% and get a FREE Gift! Mind Control Matt Nagle is paralyzed. He's also a pioneer in the new science of brain implants. By Richard Martin Matthew Nagle is beating me at Pong. "O, baby," he Feature: mutters. The creases in his forehead deepen as he moves the onscreen paddle to block the ball. "C'mon - here you go," Mind Control he says, sending a wicked angle shot ricocheting down the Plus: screen and past my defense. "Yes!" he says in triumph, his Thoughts Into Action voice hoarse from the ventilator that helps him breathe. "Let's go again, dude." The remarkable thing about Nagle is not that he plays skillfully; it's that he can play at all. Nagle is a C4 quadriplegic, paralyzed from the neck down in a stabbing three years ago. He pilots a motorized wheelchair by blowing into a sip-and-puff tube, his pale hands strapped to the armrests. He's playing Pong with his thoughts alone. A bundle of wires as thick as a coaxial cable runs from a connector in Nagle's scalp to a refrigerator-sized cart of electronic gear. Inside his brain, a tiny array of microelectrodes picks up the cacophony of his neural activity; processors recognize the patterns associated with arm motions and translate them into signals that control the Pong paddle, draw with a cursor, operate a TV, and open email. Nagle, 25, is the first patient in a controversial clinical trial that seeks to prove brain-computer interfaces can return function to people paralyzed by injury or disease.