Tag: evolution

Bioethics News

Pre-embryo. This term is no longer used in current discussions regarding the nature of the embryo

Everything suggests that the term has been artificially created to justify the use of embryos for IVF and biomedical experiments
A recent article has studied the use of the term “pre-embryo” (see “Determining whether the preimplantation human embryo is a living being of our species“) since its origin in June 1979 until the end of 2014, in both the scientific and bioethical literature. Its evolution over time was compared with other terms generally used in embryology. The authors also studied in which journals this term most frequently appeared, its impact factor within journals in its field, and which authors used it most. The term “pre-embryo” first emerged in the scientific literature in 1979, but it was 6 years before it next appeared. Then, after an increase in articles in the 1990s, its use began to decline, although the term never completely disappeared. This study also shows that the use of the word “pre-embryo” has not increased over time; in contrast, it is becoming less frequently used in the biomedical literature. This has not happened with other terms that refer to the pre-implantation embryo, which have continued to increase over these years, in relation to both the human and other animal species. In addition, this word has abnormally high use in humans for no apparent reason, which supports its artificial nature. Finally, the term “pre-embryo” very seldom appears in journals in the area of reproductive biology, unlike the fields of obstetrics and gynecology, where many articles on assisted reproduction are published. In conclusion, instead of substituting classical embryological terms, the word “pre-embryo” seems not to affect the use of them, while in current discussions regarding the human nature of the embryo, this term is no longer used, everything suggests that the term has been artificially created to justify the use of embryos for IVF and biomedical experiments.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Human genetic architecture, mapped for the first time, shows objective sexual differences

Men and women is not just a social construct as affirm gender ideology. This work provides evidences of the sex-differential transcriptome and its importance to human entire body and physiology. Around 6,500 genes with activity that was biased toward one sex or the other in at least one tissue.

Shmuel Pietrokovski and Moran Gershoni, both researchers in the Molecular Genetics Department at the Weizmann Institute of Sciences, have revealed that close to 6,500 protein-coding human genes react differently in males and females (BMC, 6 – 1 – 2017, see HERE).

This finding is contrary to gender ideology, which considers that the difference between men and women is a social and/or cultural fact, i.e., a construct, rather than something biological or natural (see HERE). In a recent article, the scientists said that, in order identify the thousands of genes, they turned to the GTex project, a very large study of human gene expression in which numerous organs and tissues of the body had been examined in more than 550550 adult donors

Human sex genetic architecture differences were mapped

According to the authors, “that project enabled, for the first time, the comprehensive mapping of the human sex-differential genetic architecture”.

The researchers examined close to 20,000 protein-coding genes, classifying them by sex and searching for differences in expression in each tissue.

The eventually identified “around 6,500 genes with activity that was biased toward one sex or the other in at least one tissue”.

In the same manner, many genes that are associated with sexually dimorphic traits might undergo differential selection, which will likely impact reproduction, evolution, and even speciation events.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Can We Feed The World With Farmed Fish?

August 16, 2017

Be the first to like.
Share

But new research suggests there is space on the open ocean for farming essentially all the seafood humans can eat. A team of scientists led by Rebecca Gentry, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, found that widescale aquaculture utilizing much of the ocean’s coastal waters could outproduce the global demand for seafood by a staggering 100 times.

Their paper, published Monday in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, could have significant implications for a planet whose human population is projected to reach 10 billion by 2050. Nearly every coastal country has the potential to meet its own domestic demand for seafood, “typically using only a minute fraction of its ocean territory,” write the authors.

… Read More

Image: By Asc1733 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47649920

Be the first to like.
Share

NPR The Salt

Tags: , , , ,

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

CRISPR Star Doudna Calls for Public Debate on Embryo Editing

August 4, 2017

Be the first to like.
Share

Tinkering with genetics, a system that has been produced through billions of years of evolution, takes humanity into unknown territory. This powerful technology can be used for many purposes, not just stopping disease. Alterations in an embryo’s edited genome would be passed along to generations of descendants — for good or ill.

Doudna, a UC Berkeley molecular biologist, said during a visit to San Diego this week that society needs to catch up to this potentially world-transforming field of science. She has co-authored a book, “A Crack in Creation,” on the benefits, perils and ethics of what scientists call germline editing.

“The question will be as the technology comes to fruition … should we use it in that fashion?” Doudna said about germline editing in a Monday interview at the American Association for Clinical Chemistry’s scientific meeting in San Diego.

… Read More

Image: 由Duncan.Hull – 自己的作品,CC BY-SA 4.0,https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54379852

Be the first to like.
Share

San Diego Union-Tribune

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

New artificial species. Could they affect biodiversity?

An article was recently published in the blog Practical Ethics, defending the use of synthetic biology and gene editing to obtain new organisms that do not exist in nature. Its author argues that if biodiversity is valuable, then it should be promoted, adding new species instead of conserving it as it is.

Contrary to the commonly assumed idea that current levels are optimal, he says that global biodiversity has been deeply affected by the acts of humans, having lost countless species. Moreover, he denies that ecosystems are fragile and finely balanced units, arguing on one side that the interactions between organisms tend to undermine their stability and, on the other, that the introduction of a new species does not have a major biological impact, statements that seem contradictory.

Artificial species and biodiversity

The aforementioned article lacks references that support these novel views on biodiversity and ecosystems, which contrasts with what has so far been understood and observed from the biological and environmental sciences. Nevertheless, even if his statements were true, this does not lead to the conclusion that it is advisable to increase the present biodiversity by producing new artificial species.

Neither does it mention whether the species produced should be non-pathogenic, or whether the researchers should take into account the type of organisms produced, their number, place of release, evolution perspectives (never completely controllable), organisms with which they would interact, etc. We do not believe it necessary to explain why it would not be appropriate to introduce organisms into the natural environment without first taking into account these and other considerations.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Fake News and Partisan Epistemology

by Regina Rini

ABSTRACT. This paper does four things: (1) It provides an analysis of the concept ‘fake news.’ (2) It identifies distinctive epistemic features of social media testimony. (3) It argues that partisanship-in-testimony-reception is not always epistemically vicious; in fact some forms of partisanship are consistent with individual epistemic virtue. (4) It argues that a solution to the problem of fake news will require changes to institutions, such as social media platforms, not just to individual epistemic practices.

Did you know that Hillary Clinton sold weapons to ISIS? Or that Mike Pence called Michelle Obama “the most vulgar First Lady we’ve ever had”? No, you didn’t know these things. You couldn’t know them, because these claims are false.[1] But many American voters believed them.

One of the most distinctive features of the 2016 campaign was the rise of “fake news,” factually false claims circulated on social media, usually via channels of partisan camaraderie. Media analysts and social scientists are still debating what role fake news played in Trump’s victory.[2] But whether or not it drove the outcome, fake news certainly affected the choices of some individual voters.

Why were people willing to believe easily dis-confirmable, often ridiculous, stories? In this paper I will suggest the following answer: people believe fake news because they acquire it through social media sharing, which is a peculiar sort of testimony. Social media sharing has features that reduce audience willingness to think critically or check facts. This effect is amplified when the testifier and audience share a partisan orientation.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Human Contamination: The Infectious Border Crossings of Jeff VanderMeer’s Area X by Sophia Booth Magnone

“What if an infection was a message, a brightness a kind of symphony? As a defense? An odd form of communication? If so, the message had not been received, would probably never be received” (Acceptance 490).

“What if containment is a joke?” (Acceptance 576).

It all begins with a thorn: the delicate, glittering prickle of an unidentified plant growing at the base of a lighthouse in a sleepy coastal town. On a peaceful sunny day, the thorn pricks a man’s thumb, an act of violence so mild, so mundane, it scarcely attracts notice. Yet the end of the world starts there, where one organism pierces the skin of another. That tiny rift swells to a full-fledged invasion; the man and his lighthouse become the first targets of an inexplicable transformative force. When the initial cataclysm subsides, the coast has been purged of all human life, its inhabitants dead or transformed beyond recognition. The rest of the world is left only with questions. What exactly happened at the lighthouse? What lies dormant in that lonely landscape? Most importantly, how can whatever remains there be contained?

This nebulous, quietly sinister premise forms the foundation of Jeff VanderMeer’s novels Annihilation, Authority, and Acceptance, collectively known as the Southern Reach trilogy. The novels take place, for the most part, thirty years after the mysterious event at the lighthouse, which has been officially categorized an “environmental disaster” and, by most people, forgotten about entirely. Only the government organization known as the Southern Reach continues to investigate the cordoned-off region now designated “Area X”: from the byzantine depths of its crumbling bureaucracy, the Southern Reach dispatches research expeditions, interprets findings, and scrabbles desperately at the possibility of defensive action.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Rethinking the Belmont Report?

Some bioethicists link the beginnings of our field to the Nazi Medical experiments and the Nuremberg Trial (Annas). Whether this is the beginning of bioethics is debatable, but without a doubt, research ethics has been a central topic in the field. In fact, the very first federal bioethics commission laid out the principles of research ethics in the Belmont Report. Later, the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research recommended to the President and Congress that a uniform framework and set of regulations should govern human subjects research.  This effort reached fruition under The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects or the “Common Rule” that was issued in 1991.  Since then, there have been no major changes to the regulations – until now.  After a five-year process and thousands of comments, the new “final rule” was released on January 19th, 2017.  The July 2017 issue of the American Journal of Bioethics addresses these changes.  In addition to our usual open peer commentaries, we are posting a number of blog posts written in response to the AJOB target article.


by Ibrahim Garba, MA, JD, LLM, Elizabeth Hall-Lipsy, JD, MPH, Leila Barraza JD, MPH

Norms supporting ethical research have been part of international human rights law from the start. The Doctors Trial in 1947 convicting 23 Nazi physicians and officials accused of euthanasia and unethical medical experiments produced the Nuremburg Code. The Code became a blueprint for subsequent human subject protection frameworks, most notably the World Medical Association’s Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (i.e.,

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Legal status of human-animal chimeras – hybrid embryos

In addition to the biomedical problems raised by human-animal hybridization, there are also objective legal problems.

A recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics (2014; 40, 284-285) reviewed this topic following a debate in the United Kingdom (UK) House of Lords in December 2012. The underlying problem is to determine whether hybrids containing human biological material, mainly DNA, should be considered partially human and if so, what their legal status should be.

See our Special Report New advances and challenges in the production of human-animal chimeras

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFE Act 2008) regulates the legal aspects of human-animal hybrids. These hybrids refer to any embryo containing human nuclear or mitochondrial DNA as well as animal nuclear or mitochondrial DNA, but in which the animal DNA is not predominant. Other categories of hybrids can be legally regulated by the “Animal Act 1986”.

However, deciding which of the two categories into which hybrid embryos should fall is not that easy.

The English Health Minister, Lord Darzi of Denham, stated that hybrid embryos should be regulated by human statutes when they are considered to be “predominantly” human, which is not easy to determine. In fact, a chimeric embryo in which non-human cells were initially predominant could continue to develop into a hybrid in which human cells predominate.

Lord Darzi also stated that chimeric embryos that are “functionally” predominantly human should also be considered as human. However, the term “functionally human” is ambiguous, which complicates the issue of its legal status.

It was therefore concluded that the UK parliament needs to more definitively determine the legal status of embryos containing human and animal genetic material, following an extensive, in-depth debate that must take into account public opinion on this matter.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

How Flu Changes within the Human Body May Hint at Future Global Trends

June 27, 2017

Be the first to like.
Share

Evolution is usually very slow, a process of change that takes thousands or millions of years to see.

But for influenza, evolution is fast – and deadly. Flu viruses change rapidly to escape the body’s defenses. Every few years, new variants of flu emerge and cause epidemics around the world.

Controlling the spread of flu means dealing with this ongoing evolution. Each year, experts from the World Health Organization (WHO) must make their best guess about how the virus will change in order to choose which flu strains to include in the annual vaccine.

This work is difficult and uncertain, and mistakes have real consequences. Worldwide, flu infects several million people each year and causes hundreds of thousands of deaths. In years when predictions miss the mark and the flu shot is very different from circulating strains, more people are vulnerable to infection.

In the past several years, advances in genome sequencing have begun to shed light on the beginnings of viral evolution, deep within individual infections. We wondered whether, for flu, this information might give us an early glimpse of future global evolutionary trends.

What could a single person’s flu infection tell us about how the virus changes across the world? As it turns out, a surprising amount.

Be the first to like.
Share

The Conversation

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.