archive-org.com » ORG » B » BIOEDGE.ORG

Total: 1811

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • BioEdge: 3-parent IVF approved by British Parliament
    only be 152 women affected each year Of these perhaps 10 or 20 might take advantage of it Prof Alison Murdoch one of the technique s pioneers said This is good news for progressive medicine In a challenging moral field it has taken scientific advances into the clinic to meet a great clinical need and Britain has showed the world how it should be done How was it done How did British scientists manage to persuade Parliament to overcome the moral challenges and to accept progressive medicine which its opponents described ominously as genetic engineering three parent babies and eugenics There appear to be four elements in their lobbying strategy Advance planning a number of scientific ethical and public consultations have been carried out since 2011 with the enthusiastic backing of scientific and government organisations Highlighting the suffering of the children and their parents Some affected families have had very tragic experiences One woman Sharon Bernardi lost all seven of her children to mitochondrial disease Framing the technique as a cure for children In the media mitochondrial transfer was consistently described as a cure for dread diseases In fact not one child will be cured instead healthy IVF children will be created The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics Julian Savulescu phrased it very carefully in an article for the Guardian Importantly by doing this transplant at the very early stage of embryo development the disease is cured The children of the offspring of this procedure will themselves be free of mitochondrial disease It would be eradicated forever in this family But in a video directed at members of Parliament he said less cautiously every year 150 children are born with this condition and you have the power to cure them Defining the human person as nuclear DNA Mitochondrial DNA constitutes only 0 054 per cent of the total DNA in a cell according to Dame Sally Davies Chief Medical Officer for England who played an important role in the debate It is the DNA in the nucleus which determines our personal characteristics and traits such as personality hair and eye colour This was repeated over and over by supportive scientists mitochondrial DNA is just a battery pack No one explained how mitochondrial DNA could be both a negligible part of the human person and could also have devastating effect upon a child s organs systems and personality Redefining genetic engineering Instead of defining genetic engineering as modification of the genome scientists spoke of it as modification only of nuclear DNA The mitochondrial DNA was simply a replaceable module or an interchangeable spare part In one of the cleverest redefinitions Stephen Wilkinson a bioethicist at Lancaster University mitochondrial replacement isn t genetic modification as such but rather donation nothing really new is being added to the human gene pool In other words genetic engineering only happens if an artificial or non human gene is added to the embryo Not all scientists welcomed the decision Paul Knoepfler of UC Davis

    Original URL path: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/3_parent_ivf_approved_by_british_parliament/11314 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • BioEdge: US stem cell expert questions UK plans for 3-parent embryos
    to the chance that this technology will succeed in preventing mitochondrial disorders In fact there are precedents that would suggest that negative outcomes are reasonably likely In the 1990s fertility clinics in the US China and elsewhere performed human reproductive procedures similar to what is being proposed now 2 6 While the goal in those experiments was to simply create babies for infertile couples and not specifically to deal with mitochondrial disorders the technologies employed are largely alike In fact these 1990s procedures were far simpler and less invasive they only involved transfer of some oocyte cytoplasm than what is being proposed now with mitochondrial therapies where an entire nucleus or set of chromatin is moved from one cell to another where an entire nucleus has also been removed The end result from these human reproductive experiments in the 1990s was a mixture of outcomes including not only seemingly healthy children thank goodness but also miscarriages a child with severe developmental disability and chromosomal aberrations These are very real concerning possible outcomes for the proposed human mitochondrial transfer technology today and in the future should it be allowed to proceed the proponents claim incorrectly that mitochondrial donation is not human genetic modification It is in fact genetic modification Notably the first team to ever make this kind of technology work unambiguously stated in their paper that it was genetic modification This report is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children The proponents of 3 parent technology also incorrectly claim that the concerns about it or risks associated with it are just hypothetical although in reality the concerns based on past experiences discussed earlier are quite concrete and real Proponents also might be overly optimistic about the chances that the technology will frequently prevent mitochondrial

    Original URL path: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/us_stem_cell_expert_questions_uk_plans_for_3_parent_embryos/11210 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • BioEdge: UK to press ahead with 3-parent IVF babies
    transmission of serious mitochondrial disease are prohibited The UK s Chief Medical Officer Professor Sally Davies said Allowing mitochondrial donation would give women who carry severe mitochondrial disease the opportunity to have children without passing on devastating genetic disorders It would also keep the UK at the forefront of scientific development in this area This is more accurate than describing the technique as life saving Rather than helping existing children the technique creates a designed embryo with genetic material taken from two eggs Embryos which do not make the grade are presumably discarded David King of Human Genetics Alert a lobby group was critical of the latest step If passed this will be the first time any government has legalized inheritable human genome modification something that is banned in all other European countries he said in a statement Such a decision of major historical significance requires a much more extensive public debate MORE ON THESE TOPICS mitochondrial disease three parent embryos UK This article is published by Michael Cook and BioEdge under a Creative Commons licence You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non commercial purposes following these guidelines If you teach at a

    Original URL path: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/uk_to_press_ahead_with_3_parent_ivf_babies/10873 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • BioEdge: Politicians denounce three-parent embryos as “eugenic”
    the Human Genome and Human Rights indicates that germ line interventions could be considered as practices which are contrary to human dignity And the Council of Europe s Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine states that an intervention seeking to modify the human genome may only be undertaken for preventive diagnostic or therapeutic purposes and only if its aim is not to introduce any modification in the genome of any descendants Supporters of the technique contend that it has broad public support and will help couples not to have handicapped children A spokesman for the Wellcome Trust a major funder of the technique that that it would give affected families the chance to have children free from devastating disorders who can grow up to have healthy children of their own something most of us take for granted The written declaration does not bind the Council of Europe which has 318 representatives However it could put it on the CE s agenda for a debate MORE ON THESE TOPICS mitochondrial disease three parent embryos UK This article is published by Michael Cook and BioEdge under a Creative Commons licence You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution

    Original URL path: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/politicians_denounce_three_parent_embryos_as_eugenic/10718 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • BioEdge: UK to consider three-parent IVF
    are inherited from the mother They are rare only about 100 affected children are born each year in the UK but often very disabling The proposed procedure involves extracting the nucleus from an affected woman s egg transferring it to the shell of an egg supplied by a donor with healthy mitochondria then fertilising it with the sperm of the affected woman s partner The ensuing baby would have genetic characteristics mainly from its mother and father and some from the third parent the donor In another method the woman s egg is fertilised with her partner s sperm and then transferred into the donor egg Strictly speaking the procedure does not cure the disease at all and it will be of no help to current sufferers Instead it creates an embryo which lacks the disease It is not clear whether the procedure itself is safe The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said These macabre experiments are both destructive and dangerous and therefore unethical Scientists should abandon the spurious field of destructive embryo experimentation and instead promote the ethical alternative of adult stem cell research which is already providing cures and treatments for the same conditions Independent Jan

    Original URL path: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/uk_to_consider_three_parent_ivf/9908 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • BioEdge: the latest news and articles about bioethics
    taking it to its logical conclusions than Patricia Churchland Judges should enrol in Neuroscience 101 says US bioethicist Xavier Symons 16 November 2013 Comments tags law neuroethics neuroscience The debate over neuroscience in the courtroom continues The latest word the discussion comes from Nita Farahany a member of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues Neuroscience in crisis Michael Cook 26 October 2013 Comments tags neuroethics neuroscience The majority perhaps the vast majority of neuroscience findings are as spurious as brain waves in a dead fish Ban boxing says neuroscientist Michael Cook 21 September 2013 Comments tags boxing neuroethics One of Britain s leading neuroscientists John Hardy of University College London has used the magazine New Scientist to call for a ban on boxing The coming battle over brain scans in the courtroom Michael Cook 21 September 2013 Comments tags brain scans neuroethics neuroscience The possibility of reading minds with brain scans is creating fierce controversy among legal scholars Did Tamerlan Tsarnaev turn to terror because he was punch drunk Michael Cook 27 April 2013 Comments tags neuroethics neuroscience Here s the bioethical angle on the Boston Marathon bombing A bright future for neuroethics after Obama greenlights huge neuroscience project Michael Cook 23 February 2013 Comments tags neuroethics neuroscience Neuroethics looks like the place to be for up and coming bioethicists after President Obama s state of the union address He specifically mentioned neuroscience as the Next Big Thing in American science Maybe there is free will after all Michael Cook 17 August 2012 Comments tags free will neuroethics neuroscience The shuttlecock of free will has been batted back into the determinist court with a startling reinterpretation of a classic experiment Neuroscience comes under fire from British philosopher Michael Cook 31 March 2012 Comments tags neuroethics neuroscience Roger

    Original URL path: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/tag/neuroethics (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • BioEdge: the latest news and articles about bioethics
    in the number of brain technology patents in the US Search BioEdge Subscribe to BioEdge newsletter Subscribe to BioEdge RSS feed Recent Posts Dutch psychiatric patients may get euthanasia too easily says US study 14 Feb 2016 A Dutch report applies the brakes on completed life euthanasia 13 Feb 2016 Celebrating 15 years of Dutch euthanasia 13 Feb 2016 Canada s euthanasia courts 13 Feb 2016 IVF audit in Australia

    Original URL path: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/tag/neurotechnology (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Death penalty losing support of US population Oklahoma
    alone the share supporting the death penalty has declined six percentage points from 62 in 2011 Much of the decline in support over the past two decades has come among Democrat voters Currently just 40 of Democrats favour the death penalty while 56 are opposed In 1996 Democrats favoured capital punishment by a wide margin 71 to 25 The study conducted Mar 25 29 among 1 500 adults in the US found that the majority of Americans are concerned about the possibility that an innocent person could be executed a majority also believe that minorities are more likely than whites to be sentenced to death The results echo the sentiments of US Attorney General Eric H Holder Jr who opposes the death penalty due to the risk of someone being executed in error MORE ON THESE TOPICS death penalty lethal drugs lethal injection US This article is published by Xavier Symons and BioEdge under a Creative Commons licence You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non commercial purposes following these guidelines If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees

    Original URL path: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/death-penalty-losing-support-in-us/11420 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive



  •