Monthly Archives: June 2020

Earliest Genetic Glimpses of the Movement and Mingling of Peoples in West Asia 8,500 Years Ago – India New England

Posted: June 4, 2020 at 8:57 am

Historically, Western Asia, which includes todays Middle East, is one of civilizations most important geographical locations. Not only did it create some of humanitys earliest cities, but its early trade routes laid the foundation for what would become the Silk Road, a route that commercially linked Asia, Africa, and Europe.

Even before they connected with other regions, however, populations across Western Asia had already developed their own distinct traditions and systems of social organization. The areas studied in this paper played major roles in the evolution from farming to pastoral communities to early state-level societies.

With the study, the researchers wanted to fill in some of the anthropological gaps between the origins of agriculture and of cities to get a better grip on how these different communities came together, a dynamic that is still not understood well.

What we see in archaeology is that the interconnectivity within Western Asia increased and areas such as Anatolia, the Northern Levant, and the Caucasus became a hub for [the] exchange of ideas and material culture, said Eirini Skourtanioti, a Ph.D. student at the Max Planck Institute and the lead author of the study, in avideoaccompanying the release of the paper. The goal of our study was to understand the role of human mobility throughout this process.

The authors came from many disciplines and countries, including Australia, Azerbaijan, France, Italy, Germany, South Korea, Turkey, and the U.S. They gathered 110 ancient remains from museums and labs around the world, and took samples from teeth and part of the temporal bone called the petrous, which houses the inner ear. The genetic analysis was conducted by scientists at the Max Planck Institute, including Warinner.

The paper outlines how populations across Anatolia and the Southern Caucasus began mixing approximately 8,500 years ago. That resulted in a gradual change in genetic profile that over a millennium slowly spread across both areas and entered into what is now Northern Iraq. Known as a cline in genetics, this mixture indicated to the researchers ongoing human mobility in the area and the development of a regional genetic melting pot in and surrounding Anatolia.

We see the past through artifacts, through the evidence people leave behind. But sometimes events are happening that dont leave traces in conventional ways.

Christina Warinner

The other shift researchers detected wasnt as gradual. They looked at samples from the ancient cities of Alalakh and Ebla in what is today Southern Turkey and Northern Syria, and saw that around 4,000 years ago the Northern Levant experienced a relatively sudden introduction of new people.

The genetic shifts point to a mass migration. The timing corresponds with a severe drought in Northern Mesopotamia, which likely resulted in an exodus to the Northern Levant. The scientists cant be sure, because they have no well-preserved genomes for people who lived in Mesopotamia.

Along with findings on interconnectivity in the region, the paper presents new information about long-distance migration during the late Bronze Age, roughly 4,000 years ago. A lone corpse, found buried in a well, was genetically linked to people who then lived in Central Asia, not in part of present-day Turkey.

We cant exactly know her story, but we can piece together a lot of information that suggests that either she or her ancestors were fairly recent migrants from Central Asia, said Warinner, who is also a group leader in the Department of Archaeogenetics at the Max Planck Institute. We dont know the context in which they arrived in the Eastern Mediterranean, but this is a period of increasing connectivity in this part of the world.

The corpse had many injuries and the way she was buried indicated a violent death. Warinner hopes more genomic analysis can help unravel the ancient womans story.

For Warinner, who earned her masters in 2008 and her Ph.D. in 2010 from theGraduate School of Arts and Sciences, such studies are proof of the insights DNA analysis can provide when traditional clues dont tell the full story.

Whats really interesting is that we see these populations are mixing genetically long before we see clear material culture evidence of this so long before we see direct evidence in pottery or tools or any of these more conventional archaeological evidence artifacts, Warinner said. Thats important because sometimes were limited in how we see the past. We see the past through artifacts, through the evidence people leave behind. But sometimes events are happening that dont leave traces in conventional ways, so by using genetics, we were able to access this much earlier mixing of populations that wasnt apparent before.

(Reprinted with permission from the Harvard Gazette.)

Originally posted here:
Earliest Genetic Glimpses of the Movement and Mingling of Peoples in West Asia 8,500 Years Ago - India New England

Posted in Genetics | Comments Off on Earliest Genetic Glimpses of the Movement and Mingling of Peoples in West Asia 8,500 Years Ago – India New England

Stem Cell Therapy Market Analysis and Demand 2017 2025 – Cole of Duty

Posted: June 4, 2020 at 8:55 am

Global Stem Cell Therapy Market: Overview

Also called regenerative medicine, stem cell therapy encourages the reparative response of damaged, diseased, or dysfunctional tissue via the use of stem cells and their derivatives. Replacing the practice of organ transplantations, stem cell therapies have eliminated the dependence on availability of donors. Bone marrow transplant is perhaps the most commonly employed stem cell therapy.

Osteoarthritis, cerebral palsy, heart failure, multiple sclerosis and even hearing loss could be treated using stem cell therapies. Doctors have successfully performed stem cell transplants that significantly aid patients fight cancers such as leukemia and other blood-related diseases.

Know the Growth Opportunities in Emerging Markets

Global Stem Cell Therapy Market: Key Trends

The key factors influencing the growth of the global stem cell therapy market are increasing funds in the development of new stem lines, the advent of advanced genomic procedures used in stem cell analysis, and greater emphasis on human embryonic stem cells. As the traditional organ transplantations are associated with limitations such as infection, rejection, and immunosuppression along with high reliance on organ donors, the demand for stem cell therapy is likely to soar. The growing deployment of stem cells in the treatment of wounds and damaged skin, scarring, and grafts is another prominent catalyst of the market.

On the contrary, inadequate infrastructural facilities coupled with ethical issues related to embryonic stem cells might impede the growth of the market. However, the ongoing research for the manipulation of stem cells from cord blood cells, bone marrow, and skin for the treatment of ailments including cardiovascular and diabetes will open up new doors for the advancement of the market.

Global Stem Cell Therapy Market: Market Potential

A number of new studies, research projects, and development of novel therapies have come forth in the global market for stem cell therapy. Several of these treatments are in the pipeline, while many others have received approvals by regulatory bodies.

In March 2017, Belgian biotech company TiGenix announced that its cardiac stem cell therapy, AlloCSC-01 has successfully reached its phase I/II with positive results. Subsequently, it has been approved by the U.S. FDA. If this therapy is well- received by the market, nearly 1.9 million AMI patients could be treated through this stem cell therapy.

Another significant development is the granting of a patent to Israel-based Kadimastem Ltd. for its novel stem-cell based technology to be used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) and other similar conditions of the nervous system. The companys technology used for producing supporting cells in the central nervous system, taken from human stem cells such as myelin-producing cells is also covered in the patent.

The regional analysis covers:

Order this Report TOC for Detailed Statistics

Global Stem Cell Therapy Market: Regional Outlook

The global market for stem cell therapy can be segmented into Asia Pacific, North America, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East and Africa. North America emerged as the leading regional market, triggered by the rising incidence of chronic health conditions and government support. Europe also displays significant growth potential, as the benefits of this therapy are increasingly acknowledged.

Asia Pacific is slated for maximum growth, thanks to the massive patient pool, bulk of investments in stem cell therapy projects, and the increasing recognition of growth opportunities in countries such as China, Japan, and India by the leading market players.

Global Stem Cell Therapy Market: Competitive Analysis

Several firms are adopting strategies such as mergers and acquisitions, collaborations, and partnerships, apart from product development with a view to attain a strong foothold in the global market for stem cell therapy.

Some of the major companies operating in the global market for stem cell therapy are RTI Surgical, Inc., MEDIPOST Co., Ltd., Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., NuVasive, Inc., Pharmicell Co., Ltd., Anterogen Co., Ltd., JCR Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., and Holostem Terapie Avanzate S.r.l.

Buy This Report @https://www.tmrresearch.com/checkout?rep_id=1787<ype=S

About TMR Research:

TMR Research is a premier provider of customized market research and consulting services to business entities keen on succeeding in todays supercharged economic climate. Armed with an experienced, dedicated, and dynamic team of analysts, we are redefining the way our clients conduct business by providing them with authoritative and trusted research studies in tune with the latest methodologies and market trends.

Continued here:
Stem Cell Therapy Market Analysis and Demand 2017 2025 - Cole of Duty

Posted in Stem Cell Treatments | Comments Off on Stem Cell Therapy Market Analysis and Demand 2017 2025 – Cole of Duty

Groundbreaking Gene Therapies for Hereditary Diseases / Alessandro Aiuti, a physician and research scientist from Milan, receives the Else Krner…

Posted: June 4, 2020 at 8:55 am

The current coronavirus pandemic clearly illustrates how dangerous viral infections can become for us. Independent of the present situation, there are people whose bodies are defenseless against infections because their immune systems are unable to combat them - they suffer from immunodeficiency diseases such as ADA-SCID (adenosine deaminase severe combined immunodeficiency) or Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome. Prof. Dr. Alessandro Aiuti, a physician and research scientist based in Milan who works at the San Raffaele-Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy (SR-Tiget) and at the Vita Salute San Raffaele University, is now being honored with the Else Krner Fresenius Prize for Medical Research 2020 for his groundbreaking successes in the development of gene therapies. The award is coupled to 2.5 million euros in prize money.

In the case of the rare immune disorder ADA-SCID, which exclusively afflicts young children and occurs about 15 times a year in Europe, a defective ADA gene within the genome disrupts lymphocyte development, leaving the young patient's body defenseless against infections. "Without effective therapy, the children rarely survive for more than 2 years because any infection can become perilous for them," Aiuti explains. Standard for this therapy is a bone marrow transplantation from a fully matched sibling. However, a suitable donor is available only for a minority of patients. "Meanwhile children with such a condition benefit from the advances we have made in the field of gene therapy. So far we have treated 36 children from 19 countries using the therapy we developed. In more than 80 percent of the cases, the treatment has had such an impact that no enzyme replacement therapy or transplantation is needed. This achievement has been made possible by the extraordinary effort and dedication of SR-Tiget researchers and clinical team throughout 25 years," Aiuti adds. All of the patients are still alive.

For these successes and his other work in the field of gene therapy, Alessandro Aiuti has now been honored with the Else Krner Fresenius Prize for Medical Research 2020 awarded by the Else Krner-Fresenius-Stiftung (EKFS) foundation. At 2.5 million euros, this award is one of the highest endowed prizes for medical research in the world. "Still young by comparison, this year the prize is being awarded for the third time. It honors research scientists for pioneering contributions in the areas of biomedical science. A major percentage of the prize money flows into the prizewinner's research and is supposed to contribute toward achieving further groundbreaking findings and medical breakthroughs in the future as well," emphasizes Prof. Dr. Michael Madeja, scientific director and member of the management board at EKFS.

The decision regarding the prize recipient was made by a ten-member international jury composed of renowned research scientists in the fields of genome editing and gene therapy along with delegates from the Scientific Commission at EKFS. Prof. Dr. Hildegard Bning, chairwoman of the jury and president of the European Society for Gene and Cell Therapy (ESGCT), substantiates the jury's decision: "Alessandro Aiuti is a truly outstanding physician and scientist. His work has decisively contributed to the development and successful treatment of rare, genetically caused disorders such as SCID. Thanks not least of all to the contributions he has made, even patients with other inheritable illnesses can presumably be treated successfully in the future."

After successful clinical trials, the gene therapy developed for ADA-SCID patients was approved as a pharmaceutical remedy in Europe. It is considered to be one of the key findings in the development of gene therapies worldwide. With this treatment certain blood stem cells (CD34+) are taken from the patient, then the cell DNA is modified. The cells are treated outside the body using a viral vector to accomplish this. The correct version of the gene for the ADA enzyme is introduced into the genome of the cells that were collected. The genetically modified cells are returned to the patient's bloodstream via intravenous infusion. A portion of the modified cells subsequently establish themselves in bone marrow again. The patient now has blood stem cells that function properly and produce lymphocytes to defend against infections - presumably on a life-long basis.

Alessandro Aiuti wants to utilize the prize money from EKFS to set the success story forth, to optimize the therapies further and map out the healing mechanisms involved in a better fashion. The scientist sees another major challenge in conveying the acquired knowledge beyond the successful gene therapies from Milan to as many other genetic disorders as possible. Alongside the therapy for ADA-SCID, the San Raffaele Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy has also developed gene therapies for four more hereditary diseases, among them the Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome and metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD). To this day a total of more than 100 patients from 35 different countries have been treated.

Biography of Alessandro Aiuti

Alessandro Aiuti was born in Rome in 1966 and studied medicine there at Sapienza University. Following a stay at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts in the USA, he received his doctorate in Human Biology in 1996 from Sapienza University. Since 1997 he has been active at the San Raffaele Scientific Institute in Milan, where he meanwhile also teaches as a professor at the Vita Salute San Raffaele University. He is furthermore Deputy Director of Clinical Research at the San Raffaele Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy and Head of the Pediatric Immunohematology Unit at San Raffaele Hospital.

Aiuti is the author of numerous and highly acclaimed publications. Over the course of his career he has received a number of prizes from national and international institutions. Aiuti is a member of the board of the European Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and a member of the EMA Committee for Advanced Therapies since 2019.

The Else Krner Fresenius Prize for Medical Research

The international Else Krner Fresenius Prize for Medical Research came into existence in 2013 on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Else Krner's death and is awarded in alternating fields of biomedical science. Endowed with 2.5 million euros, the prize is one of the most highly endowed medical research awards in the world. It honors and supports research scientists who have made significant scientific contributions in their fields and whose work can be expected to yield groundbreaking findings and medical breakthroughs in the future as well.

The Else Krner-Fresenius-Stiftung (EKFS) foundation - Advancing research. Helping people.

The Else Krner-Fresenius-Stiftung, a non-profit foundation, is dedicated to the funding of medical research and supports medical/humanitarian projects. The foundation was established in 1983 by entrepreneur Else Krner and appointed as her sole heir. EKFS receives virtually all of its income in dividends from the Fresenius healthcare group, in which the foundation is the majority shareholder. To date, the foundation has funded around 2,000 projects. With a current annual funding volume around 60 million euros the EKFS is one of the largest foundations for medicine in Germany. More information:www.ekfs.de.

The San Raffaele-Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy (SR-Tiget)

Based in Milan, Italy, the San Raffaele-Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy (SR-Tiget) is a joint venture between the Ospedale San Raffaele and Fondazione Telethon. SR-Tiget was established in 1995 to perform research on gene transfer and cell transplantation and translate its results into clinical applications of gene and cell therapies for different genetic diseases. Over the years, the Institute has given a pioneering contribution to the field with relevant discoveries in vector design, gene transfer strategies, stem cell biology, identity and mechanism of action of innate immune cells. SR-Tiget has also established the resources and framework for translating these advances into novel experimental therapies and has implemented several successful gene therapy clinical trials for inherited immunodeficiencies, blood and storage disorders, which have already treated >115 patients and have led through collaboration with industrial partners to the filing and approval of novel advanced gene therapy medicines.

Fondazione Telethon

Fondazione Telethon is a non-profit organisation created in 1990 as a response to the appeals of a patient association group of stakeholders, who saw scientific research as the only real opportunity to effectively fight genetic diseases. Thanks to the funds raised through the television marathon, along with other initiatives and a network of partners and volunteers, Telethon finances the best scientific research on rare genetic diseases, evaluated and selected by independent internationally renowned experts, with the ultimate objective of making the treatments developed available to everyone who needs them. Throughout its 30 years of activity, Fondazione Telethon has invested more than EUR 528 million in funding more than 2.630 projects to study more than 570 diseases, involving over 1.600 scientists. Fondazione Telethon has made a significant contribution to the worldwide advancement of knowledge regarding rare genetic diseases and of academic research and drug development with a view to developing treatments. For more information, please visit:www.telethon.it

Issued by news aktuell/ots on behalf of Else Krner-Fresenius-Stiftung

Read this article:
Groundbreaking Gene Therapies for Hereditary Diseases / Alessandro Aiuti, a physician and research scientist from Milan, receives the Else Krner...

Posted in Stem Cell Treatments | Comments Off on Groundbreaking Gene Therapies for Hereditary Diseases / Alessandro Aiuti, a physician and research scientist from Milan, receives the Else Krner…

ReNeuron encouraged by progress in stroke and RP treatments – Proactive Investors Australia

Posted: June 4, 2020 at 8:55 am

What the company does

Human retinal progenitor cells (hRPC)

Human retinal progenitor cells differentiate into components of the retina.

Reneuron has developed the ability to scale up the manufacturing of hRPCs using a patented low-oxygen cell expansion technology.

The hRPC cell therapy candidate is being evaluated in an ongoing phase I/IIa clinical trial in the US in subjects with a blindness-causing inherited retinal disease, retinitis pigmentosa (RP).

CTX Cells

CTX cell therapy candidate is a treatment for patients left disabled by the effects of a stroke.

Reneurons product is a standardised, clinical and commercial-grade cell therapy product capable of treating all eligible patients presenting with the diseases targeted, without the need for additional immunosuppressive drug treatments.

Data from the Phase II PISCES trial indicated CTX therapy was safe and well-tolerated and produced clinically meaningful and sustained improvement in the level of disability and dependence as well as motor function.

Exosome platform

Exosomes are nanoparticles, released by cells, and contain a number of active proteins and micro RNAs, which are short non-coding RNAs capable of regulating gene expression, that arebelieved to play a key role in cell-to-cell communication.

ExoPr0, Reneurons first CTX-derived exosome therapeutic candidate, has demonstrated potential as both a novel therapeutic candidate as well as a drug delivery vehicle

hRPC

's ()human retinal progenitor cells (hRPC) have scored some early success.

A Phase I/II assessment of a very small group of sufferers of a blindness-causing disease called retinitis pigmentosa saw a significant improvement in vision after treatment.

Six months after treatment there was a mean improvement of 18.5per treated eye, with a mean improvement of 12 letters per treated eye after nine months, whereasinexorable disease progression is the norm for this disease.

With a total of 22 patients now treated and the study still ongoing, ReNeuron said the efficacy in subsequent patients was seen but at a lower rate and magnitude, with improvement in visual acuity ranging from +5 to +11 letters in the treated eye threemonths after treatment.

In February, clinicaldata from the PISCES II clinical trial were published in peer-reviewedJournal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

CTX

A peer journal review published in May indicated a CTX human neural stem cell line can rescue deficits associated with an accepted animal model of Huntington's disease, a progressive genetic brain disorder.

ReNeuron has previously presented data demonstrating that its CTX stem cell line, currently undergoing clinical evaluation for the treatment of stroke disability, can cause functional and behavioural recovery in animal models of ischemic (restriction of blood supply) injury.

The new data showed that implantation of CTX cells into a model of Huntington's disease can reduce inflammation, glial scar formation and induce host neurogenesis (the generation of new brain cells) leading to a recovery in behavioural deficits.

Coronavirus

In April, Reneuron said it haddeveloped a line of the human exosomes that can deliver a medically relevant payload: Viral vaccines thatmight help in the fight against coronavirus.

The stem cell specialist added that the disruption from lockdowns would inevitably lead to delays in the recruitment of patients for trials of its treatments for stroke disability and retinitis pigmentosa (RP).

It said it will update on how this will affect the release of top-line data from the two studies once it knows the full impact of the restrictions.

The rest is here:
ReNeuron encouraged by progress in stroke and RP treatments - Proactive Investors Australia

Posted in Stem Cell Treatments | Comments Off on ReNeuron encouraged by progress in stroke and RP treatments – Proactive Investors Australia

Tiny Human Livers Grown in The Lab Have Been Successfully Transplanted Into Rats – ScienceAlert

Posted: June 4, 2020 at 8:55 am

Scientists have successfully transplanted functional miniature livers into rats, after growing the bioengineered organs in the lab from reprogrammed human skin cells.

The experiment, which gave the animals working liver organs, could lay the groundwork for future treatments to address terminal liver failure a disease that claims the lives of over 40,000 people in the US every year.

While there's still a lot of work to be done before the technique can directly aid human patients, the researchers say their proof of concept may help underpin a future alternative to liver transplants, which are often incredibly expensive procedures to perform, in addition to being strictly limited by donor supply.

Another positive outcome would be using the approach to temporarily augment failing liver function in patients, lengthening people's lives while they're on the waiting list for these vital organs: a situation facing about 14,000 Americans at any given moment, most of whom won't ever receive a transplant.

"The long-term goal is to create organs that can replace organ donation, but in the near future, I see this as a bridge to transplant," explains pathologist Alejandro Soto-Gutirrez from the University of Pittsburgh.

"For instance, in acute liver failure, you might just need hepatic boost for a while instead of a whole new liver."

To grow their mini livers, the researchers took human skin cells donated by volunteers and reverted them to a stem cell state, known as induced pluripotent stem cells, from which other kinds of cell types can be derived.

The researchers then induced differentiation in the cells with the aid of hormones and other chemicals, prompting them to become liver cells, which were cultured in the lab.

While it ordinarily takes two years for a human's liver to mature from the moment of their birth, the researchers were able to grow their miniature analogues in only a matter of weeks, seeding the grown cells on a rat liver scaffold that had been stripped of its rat cells.

While previous experimental liver graft research has incorporated rodent cells onto the scaffold, here the researchers used the human stem cells to populate the liver's functional tissue, along with its vascular system and bile duct network.

When transplanted into five rats, the mini livers appeared to be functional. After four days - at which point the animals were sacrificed and dissected - tests revealed that the bioengineered livers secreted bile acids and urea; human liver proteins in the animals' blood were another sign that the organs were working.

Not that the transplants functioned perfectly. Evidence of poor blood flow into the graft, in addition to thrombosis and ischemia, reveals there are still serious difficulties in properly connecting grafts like these to an animal's vascular network.

Nonetheless, it's still a remarkable achievement. For a short time, five rats lived their lives with miniature human livers, which isn't something that's ever been demonstrated before, and it could bring us closer to employing the same techniques for the benefit of human patients one day.

That day might be a long time away (perhaps a decade off, the researchers suggest), although it depends on a huge range of future experiments succeeding, including demonstrating that these kinds of engineered transplants are safe for humans, which remains to be seen.

In the meantime, methods like this including work pioneered by the same laboratory last year could enable the use of such mini organs to study simulated diseases and test different treatment options.

"I believe it's a very important step because we know it can be done," Soto-Gutirrez explained to Inverse. "You can make a whole organ that can be functional from one cell of the skin."

The findings are reported in Cell Reports.

Read the original:
Tiny Human Livers Grown in The Lab Have Been Successfully Transplanted Into Rats - ScienceAlert

Posted in Stem Cell Treatments | Comments Off on Tiny Human Livers Grown in The Lab Have Been Successfully Transplanted Into Rats – ScienceAlert

Why Humanize? A New Effort to Defend the Unique Dignity of Human Beings – Discovery Institute

Posted: June 3, 2020 at 6:47 pm

Hello. My name is Wesley J. Smith and I am honored to be chairman of Discovery Institutes Center on Human Exceptionalism. I am writing to you here to introduce the CHEs new blog, which we call Humanize. Humanize will complement and supplement the important work of the Center for Science & Culture and its invaluable Evolution News site.

Why did we choose Humanize as the name for the site? The once self-evident truth of human exceptionalism is under intensifying attack, as readers of Evolution News know well. Indeed, one of the tragic trends in thinking about evolution has been to blur the distinction between humans and animals. History warns us not to regard this lightly. Recent documentaries by Discovery Institute Vice President John West, Human Zoos and The Biology of the Second Reich, illuminate the evils that came from this tendency in the past century.

Today, whether it is to denigrate the intrinsic equal dignity of all human beings or the proposed or actual breaching of our human duty to care for the weakest and most vulnerable of our fellow humans, the time is ripe to robustly advocate for the unique dignity and equal moral worth of all human beings.

Our approach will be principled and intellectually rigorous, standing steadfastly for human equality, without being unduly esoteric. For example, we have joined the worlds rising chorus against the forced organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China, the mass incarceration by that countrys government of Uyghur Muslims, and the establishment of a tyrannical social credit system that deploys powerful technologies such as facial recognition and AI to effectively persecute religious believers and heterodox thinkers with societal excommunication.

Our work is as current as todays headlines. In the current COVID-19 crisis, we have supported medical efforts to limit the spread of the virus, but have also insisted that the pandemic not become a justification to dehumanize and abandon devalued people such as our frail elderly in the name of protecting the public health. In this regard, we are not nave and understand that there are times of emergency when unthinkably difficult choices may have to be made. Thus, at the height of the crisis when it appeared that there might be insufficient medical resources to treat all who needed care we explained the crucial moral distinction between the awful, but sometimes necessary medical act of triage, in which all patients are viewed as equals, while forcefully rejecting utilitarian approaches to rationing care based on ideologies such as the inherently discriminatory and invidious quality of life ethic promoted ubiquitously in bioethics literature.

When it comes to the environment, we enthusiastically endorse the human duty to treat our world responsibly and with proper approaches to conservation and remediation of polluted areas, while rejecting misanthropic approaches that would unduly interfere with human thriving and liberty. For example, a new nature rights movement would declare geological features such as rivers and glaciers to be akin to persons with the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and processes in evolution. These laws have the potential to thwart most enterprises because they permit anyone to sue to defend the supposedly violated rights of nature. Such an approach has the potential to bring economic development to a screeching halt. Alarmingly, nature rights has been endorsed by science journals and the movement has succeeded in having four rivers and two glaciers declared to be rights-bearing entities.

Similarly, Humanize will support the establishment of proper animal welfare standards, while rejecting animal rights. The former concept recognizes the crucial moral distinction between humans and animals, recognizes the propriety of making use of animals for our benefit, while also insisting that animals be treated humanely and with due respect for their ability to experience pain and feel emotions. In contrast, animal rights is an ideology that denies any moral distinction between humans and animals, and that seeks ultimately to prevent all human ownership of animals or their use for any reason. The harm this would cause, for example, to medical research is beyond quantifying.

Humanize will also focus readers attention on bioethical issues and controversies that roil our public discourse. We see assisted suicide/euthanasia as a profound abandonment of those who are most in need of our support and care. We will fight against the ongoing drive to allow infanticide of babies born with disabilities or not wanted by parents, and will resist deconstructing the ethics of organ donation, for example, the proposal to permit vital organs to be harvested as a means of voluntary euthanasia. And we will resist the transhumanist movements attempt to deploy technology to manufacture a post-human species.

In addition to my contributions here, our Research Fellow Tom Shakely will also be a regular writer, bringing with him a youthful energy and understanding of contemporary cultural trends to enliven the discussion.

The Center on Human Exceptionalism reflects Discovery Institutes larger vision of human uniqueness, of purpose, creativity, and innovation, as Discovery President Steven Buri has summarized the Institutes mission. Humanize will thus share the work of Fellows representing other Discovery Institute programs. For example, we will feature John Wests powerful critiques of the threat of a new eugenics, discussed in his book Darwin Day In America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science, as well as neurosurgeon Michael Egnors cogent takes on technology, the neurological sciences, and theories of the mind. The latter are points of emphasis for Discoverys Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence. Evolution News editor David Klinghoffer, of the Center for Science & Culture, recently contributed a thoughtful reflection on the potential dehumanizing impact of ubiquitous wearing of masks during the pandemic. All of Discoverys programs, an intellectual community serving the public and made possible by our supporters and our readers, are advanced by this exchange of ideas.

We hope that you will subscribe its free and join us in the understanding that the morality of the 21st century will depend on our responding energetically and affirmatively to this simple but profound question: Does every human life have equal moral value simply and merely because it is human?

Image: La Bella Principessa, perhaps by Leonardo da Vinci, via Wikimedia Commons.

See original here:
Why Humanize? A New Effort to Defend the Unique Dignity of Human Beings - Discovery Institute

Posted in Transhumanist | Comments Off on Why Humanize? A New Effort to Defend the Unique Dignity of Human Beings – Discovery Institute

Androgen Replacement Therapy Market potential growth, share, demand and analysis of key players – research… – Azizsalon News

Posted: June 3, 2020 at 6:46 pm

This detailed market study covers androgen replacement therapy market growth potentials which can assist the stake holders to understand key trends and prospects in androgen replacement therapy market identifying the growth opportunities and competitive scenarios. The report also focuses on data from different primary and secondary sources, and is analyzed using various tools. It helps to gain insights into the markets growth potential, which can help investors identify scope and opportunities. The analysis also provides details of each segment in the global androgen replacement therapy market

Get Sample Copy of This Report @https://www.quincemarketinsights.com/request-sample-67631?utm_source=AZ&utm_medium=SG

According to the report, the androgen replacement therapy market report points out national and global business prospects and competitive conditions for androgen replacement therapy. Market size estimation and forecasts were given based on a detailed research methodology tailored to the conditions of the demand for androgen replacement therapy. The androgen replacement therapy market has been segmented by product type (creams/gels, patches, injections, implants, and oral tablets/capsules/gums), by active ingredient type (testosterone, methyl testosterone, testosterone undecanoate, testosterone enanthate, and testosterone cypionate), by distribution channel (hospitals pharmacies, retail pharmacies, and online pharmacies). Historical background for the demand of androgen replacement therapy has been studied according to organic and inorganic innovations in order to provide accurate estimates of the market size. Primary factors influencing the growth of the demand androgen replacement therapy have also been established with potential gravity.

Regional segmentation and analysis to understand growth patterns:

The market has been segmented in major regions to understand the global development and demand patterns of this market.

North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific by region are estimated to dominate the androgen replacement therapy market during the forecast period. These regions have been market leaders for the overall healthcare sector in terms of technological developments and advanced medical treatments. Moreover, the government policies have been favourable for the growth of the healthcare infrastructure in these regions. North America and Europe have an established healthcare infrastructure for product innovations and early adaptations. This is expected to drive the demand for androgen replacement therapy market during the forecast period.

Get ToC for the overview of the premium report @https://www.quincemarketinsights.com/request-toc-67631?utm_source=AZ&utm_medium=SG

The US, Germany, France, UK, Canada, and Spain have been some the major markets in the region. Asia Pacific is estimated to register one of highest CAGR for androgen replacement therapy market during the forecast period. This region has witnessed strategic investments by global companies to cater the growing demand in the recent years. China, Japan, India, South Korea, and Australia are amongst some of the key countries for androgen replacement therapy market in the region. Other regions including Middle East, Europe, and Rest of the World (South America and Africa) are estimated to be emerging markets for androgen replacement therapy market during the forecast period.

This report provides:

1) An overview of the global market for androgen replacement therapy market and related technologies.2) Analysis of global market trends, yearly estimates and annual growth rate projections for compounds (CAGRs).

3) Identification of new market opportunities and targeted consumer marketing strategies for global androgen replacement therapy market .4) Analysis of R&D and demand for new technologies and new applications5) Extensive company profiles of key players in industry.

Make an Inquiry for purchasing this Report @https://www.quincemarketinsights.com/enquiry-before-buying/enquiry-before-buying-67631?utm_source=AZ&utm_medium=SG

The researchers have studied the market in depth and have developed important segments such as product type, application and region. Each and every segment and its sub-segments are analyzed based on their market share, growth prospects and CAGR. Each market segment offers in-depth, both qualitative and quantitative information on market outlook.

With an emphasis on strategies there have been several primary developments done by major companies such as AbbVie, Inc., Allergan Plc, Bayer AG, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Kyowa Kirin International Plc, Mylan N.V., Novartis International AG, Pfizer, Inc., Clarus Therapeutics, Ferring Holding SA, Perrigo Company Plc, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Market Segmentation:

By Product Type:o Creams/Gelso Patcheso Injectionso Implantso Oral Tablets/Capsules/Gums.

By Active Ingredient Type:o Hospitals Pharmacieso Retail Pharmacieso Online Pharmacies

By Distribution Channel:o Testosteroneo Methyl Testosteroneo Testosterone Undecanoateo Testosterone Enanthateo Testosterone Cypionate

By Region:

North America Androgen Replacement Therapy Marketo North America, by CountryUSCanadaMexicoo North America, by Product Typeo North America, by Modalityo North America, by Distribution Channel

Europe Androgen Replacement Therapy Marketo Europe, by CountryGermanyRussiaUKFranceItalySpainThe NetherlandsRest of Europeo Europe, by Product Typeo Europe, by Modalityo Europe, by Distribution Channel

Asia Pacific Androgen Replacement Therapy Marketo Asia Pacific, by CountryChinaIndiaJapanSouth KoreaAustraliaIndonesiaRest of Asia Pacifico Asia Pacific, by Product Typeo Asia Pacific, by Modalityo Asia Pacific, by Distribution Channel

Middle East & Africa Androgen Replacement Therapy Marketo Middle East & Africa, by CountryUAESaudi ArabiaQatarSouth AfricaRest of Middle East & Africao Middle East & Africa, by Product Typeo Middle East & Africa, by Modalityo Middle East & Africa, by Distribution Channel

South America Androgen Replacement Therapy Marketo South America, by CountryBrazilArgentinaColombiaRest of South Americao South America, by Product Typeo South America, by Modalityo South America, by Distribution Channel

Reasons to Buy This Report:

o Provides niche insights for decision about every possible segment helping in strategic decision making process.o Market size estimation of the androgen replacement therapy market on a regional and global basis.

o A unique research design for market size estimation and forecast.o Identification of major companies operating in the market with related developmentso Exhaustive scope to cover all the possible segments helping every stakeholder in the androgen replacement therapy

Customization:

This study is customized to meet your specific requirements:

o By Segmento By Sub-segmento By Region/Countryo Product Specific Competitive Analysis

Contact:Quince Market InsightsAjay D. (Knowledge Partner)Office No- A109Pune, Maharashtra 411028Phone: US +1 208 405 2835 UK +44 121 364 6144 APAC +91 706 672 4848Email: sales@quincemarketinsights.comWeb:www.quincemarketinsights.com

ABOUT US:QMI has the most comprehensive collection of market research products and services available on the web. We deliver reports from virtually all major publications and refresh our list regularly to provide you with immediate online access to the worlds most extensive and up-to-date archive of professional insights into global markets, companies, goods, and patterns.

Follow this link:
Androgen Replacement Therapy Market potential growth, share, demand and analysis of key players - research... - Azizsalon News

Posted in Testosterone Replacement Therapy | Comments Off on Androgen Replacement Therapy Market potential growth, share, demand and analysis of key players – research… – Azizsalon News

The Anabolic Doc: There Is NO Safe Way To Use Steroids For Bodybuilding – generationiron.com

Posted: June 3, 2020 at 6:46 pm

Dr. Thomas OConnor has appeared in a selection of our Generation Iron original films over the years. This is due to the fact that he is a doctor that bridges the gap between muscle and medicine. He was strength athlete in his past, he has taken steroids, and he now has a medical license to treat people for after effects of long term steroid use. For this reason, hes known as The Anabolic Doc. So with that in mind, does he believe theres a safe way to use steroids on a bodybuilding level? In our latest GI Exclusive, Dr. Thomas OConnor explains why there is no safe way to use steroids in bodybuilding.

Dr. Thomas OConnor doesnt want to be labeled as an enemy of steroids. He understands and sympathizes on why a person would decide to take the risk and use steroids. Thats why he dedicates his life to treating these people once side effects appear in later years. He tries to bring real medical research into steroid use in sports while also understanding the position these athletes come from. Hes not a fear monger attacking steroids, hes a doctor trying to be an ally to steroid users even when he has to tell the dangerous truths about the drug.

Thats why you wont hear the Anabolic Doc sweepingly say that bodybuilders shouldnt use steroids. He would never say that. What he will do instead, is explain the very real ramifications of that decision. If a bodybuilder is willing to take the risk, he wont discriminate against them down the road when they come back to him for treatment.

What Dr. OConnor wont accept, is lies about the dangers of steroids. He wont sit and let people believe that steroids are actually not that bad for your health. He makes it plain and clear long term steroid use will have permanent effects on your heath. It will lower your testosterone to the point where it might never come back. This leads to needing testosterone replacement therapy (or TRT) for the rest of a persons life. It can lead to enlarged arteries and enlarged hearts. This can then in turn lead to heart disease and death.

Dr. OConnor will never step down from detailing the truly dangerous risks of steroids. But he leaves the decision to use up to the athlete afterwards. Just like cigarettes, people will make their own decision on how they want to handle long term health.

With all of that being said, we wanted Dr. OConnor to clear the air. Is it possible to safely use steroids in bodybuilding at all? Is there some sort of tips or protocol that can help prevent these long term dangers of use?

The Anabolic Docs answer is a simple one. No. Each body is different. Each drug has different effects on different users. Some people might make it out clean but thats not due to a specific way of use. Its due to luck. There is no medical way to condone the use of steroids safely for sports like bodybuilding. Dr. OConnor believes that the research shows its simply impossible.

You can watch Dr. Thomas OConnors, aka The Anabolic Doc, full statements in our latest GI Exclusive interview segment above!

Read more here:
The Anabolic Doc: There Is NO Safe Way To Use Steroids For Bodybuilding - generationiron.com

Posted in Testosterone Replacement Therapy | Comments Off on The Anabolic Doc: There Is NO Safe Way To Use Steroids For Bodybuilding – generationiron.com

Biotech Blog: USDA’s New Biotech Rule Explained | Center for Science in the Public Interest – CSPI Newsroom

Posted: June 3, 2020 at 6:44 pm

The long-awaited updates from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to its genetically engineered (GE) organism regulation are finally here. Issued on May 18th, this final rule completed a more than ten-year process started back in 2008 to revise regulations promulgated in 1987.This article discusses these new regulations and some of their potential impacts.Overall, the new rule ignores the calls from industry, consumer organizations, and environmental groups for continued oversight and transparency. The new regulations, including an option for developers to self-determine whether their products are regulated, could lead to adverse environmental and/or agricultural impacts, potential food safety risks, trade disruptions, and lack of consumer acceptance of new food technologies.

To understand USDAs new regulation of GE plants, it is important to understand how USDA has regulated GE plants since 1987.USDA regulates the import, interstate movement, and environmental release of GE plants under its legal authority to manage plant pests under the Plant Protection Act.A plant pest is any organism that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plants or plant product.Under USDAs regulations, a GE plant has been considered a potential plant pest if any of its newly introduced DNA came from an organism on USDAs list of plant pests, or if the method of introducing DNA into the plants genome involved an organism on USDAs list of plant pests.For example, if a GE plant was developed using the plant pest Agrobacterium to introduce new DNA, as many are, it was regulated.However, if the same DNA were introduced using the gene-gun method of transformation, USDA would not regulate the GE plant.

Under the regulations (found at 7 CFR part 340), developers were required to submit their GE plant products to one of three oversight processes before environmental release.

For each regulatory process, USDA is ensuring that the GE plant is not going to become a plant pest and cause harm to agricultural interests.

Up until 2011, every GE plant tested outdoors either submitted a notification or received a permit, and all commercialized plants satisfactorily completed the petition process. Then, in 2011, USDA established a process whereby GE seed developers could inquire to USDA about whether the GE plants they were developing required regulation, or whether they were exempt because they did not involve any plant pest components. USDA responded to these Am I regulated? inquiries stating whether the GE plant was not regulated and could be planted without oversight. By the end of 2019, USDA determined that more than 85 plants did not fall within its regulatory authority and are exempt from oversight.So, over the last eight years, we have seen a decrease in how many GE plants USDA regulates.[1]

The new rule (called the Sustainable, Ecological, Consistent, Uniform, Responsible, Efficient, (SECURE) Rule), which will be implemented over the next 18 months, applies to organisms produced through genetic engineering, which is defined to include techniques that use recombinant, synthesized, or amplified nucleic acids to modify or create a genome.This broad definition includes classical genetic engineering, which add one or more new genes to organism (what consumers consider GMOs), and newer gene editing techniques such as CRISPR, which can make edits within an organisms existing genome.

While the definition captures all GE plants, USDA exempts many of them from any oversight.First, it exempts products with a single sequence deletion, substitution, or addition (if the addition is from the plant's gene pool). Second, it exempts any GE plant that has the same plant-trait-mechanism of action as any GE plant previous regulated by USDA.This means that if USDA previously regulated a GE plant, such as a glyphosate-tolerant corn, a new GE glyphosate-tolerant corn is exempt if it employs the same mechanism of action (meaning it biologically operates the same way to provide tolerance).Developers can self-determine whether they qualify for these exemptions; confirmation of their self-determination from USDA is not required and the agency need not be informed.

If a GE plant is not exempt, the developer can either: (1) apply for a permit if the GE plant has potential plant pest risks; or (2) seek a Regulatory Status Review (RSR).The RSR starts with an initial 180-day process where USDA determines if the GE plant has any plausible plant pest risks.That initial RSR step is a closer look at the GE plant than the current Am I regulated process, but less detailed than the process used for petitions for non-regulated status.USDA stated that the initial review does not require any plant-specific laboratory or field-test data.If USDA decides there are no plausible risks, USDA sends a letter to the developer stating the plant is not regulated and publishes the letter on its website. If USDA cannot conclude there are no plausible risks, then the developer can either: (1) request that USDA conduct the second part of the RSR, which is detailed evaluation of potential plant pest risks (which can take up to 15 months), or (2) apply for a permit.The more lengthy and detailed RSR evaluation by USDA is comparable to the current petition for non-regulated status process and ends in USDA determining either than the GE plant is not regulated or that it needs a permit.If a developer receives a permit from USDA, any outdoor planting (e.g. a field trial or a commercial planting) is subject to restrictions to prevent inadvertent release into the environment and any adverse plant pest impacts. These are the same restrictions that virtually all GE plants were subject to prior to 2012 under the notification and permitting processes.Only GE plants that receive permits have any continued oversight by USDA.

The most significant problem with USDAs rule is the exemptions.First, they are not supported by scientific evidence showing that these categories of GE plants do not pose risks.Instead, USDA states that since a single deletion, substitution, or addition produces a plant that could be achieved by conventional breeding methods, and because conventionally bred plants have not raised plant pest risks, gene edited plants that are the same as products that could be achieved through conventional breeding will not pose plant pest risks.The problem with this argument is that a science-based regulatory system should base its oversight on whether the plant possesses traits that make it a potential plant risks, not the plants method of production.One of USDAs reasons for revising its rules was to focus on the properties of a product, not how it was developed, yet that is the very approach these exemptions enshrine.While many, if not most, plants with a single deletion may not present any plant pest risks, if one does, shouldnt USDA regulate it?

If USDA does not know which GE plants are exempt, how can it confirm that determination is correct?

The second problem is that the developer self-determines if its product qualifies for an exemption.This sets up an inherent conflict of interest because developers have financial incentives to determine themselves exempt.While some developers will diligently determine the regulatory status of their GE plant, others may not.In addition, when a developer self-determines its product is exempt, neither USDA nor the public knows that the GE plant is being released into the environment and entering the food supply because there is no requirement to notify the agency of ones self-determination.If USDA does not know which GE plants are exempt, how can it confirm that determination is correct?

Fortunately, the rule is not all bad.One positive is USDAs decision to limit the exemptions to single edits.USDAs reasoning for this decision was that while a single edit mimics a product that can be produced through conventional breeding methods, the same is not true for products with multiple edits.Therefore, if a developer makes two or more edits, the developer must apply for a permit or ask for an RSR. The first gene edited commercial product in the USCalyxts high oleic soybean, which USDA exempted from regulation under the Am I regulated? processwould not be exempt under the new rules because it has two edited genes.If most gene edited products end up having two or more edits, the exemptions may have limited applicability.

While multi-edited products are not automatically exempt, USDA is likely to find in the initial step of the RSR process that many do not pose any plausible plant pest risk.So, the result may be the samethese products are not regulated.However, at least the initial RSR determination (instead of a developer self-determination), is made public, so stakeholders will know which multi-edited products are entering the market.

USDA states that one goal of its revisions is to provide regulatory relief, and the final rule clearly achieves that.Many GE plants that historically required containment for field trials through either the notification or permitting process will no longer be subject to any substantive regulation.They either will be exempt or deemed to have no plausible plant pest risks through the initial step of the RSR process.What this means in practice is that GE plant developers (both private developers and academic scientists) can conduct field trials without any confinement conditions that ensure the GE plants do not persist in the environment after the trial is completed.USDA stated in its proposed rule that it hopes developers voluntarily continue confinement measures, but that may or may not happen.GE plants have escaped from field trials with USDA oversight in the past and the likelihood of that happening will only increase without USDA oversight. That could mean new proteins inadvertently entering our food supply before they are deemed safe for human consumption.Experimental GE plants persisting in the environment after a field trial is concluded could also harm non-target organisms. Finally, if an unregulated GE plant escapes from a field trial and enters the export market, it could result in rejection of the US commodity because the experimental plant has not been approved in the importing country.

USDA states that one goal of its revisions is to provideregulatory relief,and the final rule clearly achieves that.

The final rule also fails to provide needed transparency on GE plants that will be commercialized.USDA, food industry stakeholders, and consumers will be at the mercy of developers to make information public about products they are developing that they have deemed exempt.How will the food industry know which foods contain GE plants to ensure they are complying with export market legal requirements?How will food manufacturers and retailers answer questions from consumers asking whether their products contain ingredients from genetically engineered or gene edited plants?If consumers are unable to access information about which GE plants are commercialized, will they become skeptical about those products and their safety?The lack of transparency inherent in the rule will result in international trade problems and misinformation to consumers.

GE plants have and will continue to provide benefits to farmers and the environment and could be beneficial to consumers in the future.However, the USDA rule could impact acceptance of those products by the food industry and leave consumers wondering what developers are hiding.

Excerpt from:
Biotech Blog: USDA's New Biotech Rule Explained | Center for Science in the Public Interest - CSPI Newsroom

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Biotech Blog: USDA’s New Biotech Rule Explained | Center for Science in the Public Interest – CSPI Newsroom

How a new biotech rule will foster distrust with the public and impede progress in science – The Conversation US

Posted: June 3, 2020 at 6:44 pm

In May, federal regulators finalized a new biotechnology policy that will bring sweeping changes to the U.S. food system. Dubbed SECURE, the rule revises U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations over genetically engineered plants, automatically exempting many gene-edited crops from government oversight. Companies and labs will be allowed to self-determine whether or not a crop should undergo regulatory review or environmental risk assessment.

Initial responses to this new policy have followed familiar fault lines in the food community. Seed industry trade groups and biotech firms hailed the rule as important to support continuing innovation. Environmental and small farmer NGOs called the USDAs decision shameful and less attentive to public well-being than to agribusinesss bottom line.

But the gene-editing tool CRISPR was supposed to break the impasse in old GM wars by making biotechnology more widely affordable, accessible and thus democratic.

In my research, I study how biotechnology affects transitions to sustainable food systems. Its clear that since 2012 the swelling R&D pipeline of gene-edited grains, fruits and vegetables, fish and livestock has forced U.S. agencies to respond to the so-called CRISPR revolution.

Yet this rule change has a number of people in the food and scientific communities concerned. To me, it reflects the lack of accountability and trust between the public and government agencies setting policies.

The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, serves as the dominant U.S. regulator for plant health. Since the mid-1990s, genetically modified crops have typically fallen under APHIS oversight because Agrobacterium, a plant pest, is commonly used as a tool to engineer GM products. Using a plant pest did not prevent many GM crops from being approved. But it did mean that if APHIS suspected a plant pest or noxious weed had been created through genetic engineering, the agency would regulate the biotech product, including its release into the environment, and its import, handling, and interstate movement.

Changes to APHIS regulations began during the Obama administration. In January 2017, the agency released new draft rules. However, the Trump administration withdrew these nine months later after pushback from industry and biotech developers which argued that the rules would stifle innovation.

Last summer, USDA released a revised rule for public comment, which it finalized on May 18, 2020. Most changes go into effect in April 2021.

Hints to how USDA intended to treat gene-edited crops came early on, when Penn States nonbrowning mushrooms and DuPonts waxy corn were approved by APHIS in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

Then in March 2018, USDA Secretary Perdue clarified the agencys stance. USDA does not currently regulate, or have any plans to regulate, plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques as long as they are developed without the use of a plant pest as the donor or vector and they are not themselves plant pests.

The new SECURE rule establishes several ways for developers to qualify for deregulated status. Included are CRISPR modifications like deletions of sections of the genetic code, tiny substitutions, and introductions of DNA from related species. So, for example, a CRISPRd cauliflower would not be regulated if a chunk of DNA was deleted. But it would still be regulated if CRISPR introduced foreign DNA into cauliflower in a way that USDA believes could turn the product into a plant pest.

Another significant change is that companies and scientists will get to decide for themselves if a new product qualifies for exemption from oversight. APHIS says that developers may consult regulators if at any point they arent sure if a new crop is exempt. However, the agency has already expressed confidence that only about 1% of plants might not qualify for an exemption or for deregulation after an initial review.

Ironically, this policy has begun aligning communities typically at loggerheads in the polarized GM conversation. For example, the UC-based Innovative Genomics Institute, founded by CRISPR co-inventor Jennifer Doudna, wrote in its public comments to APHIS: While we recognize the agencys rationale behind self-determination and desire to provide regulatory relief in order to spur innovation, we are concerned that rather than stimulating innovation, such an undisclosed step may have the effect of dampening trust through the loss of transparency in the development and oversight process.

Meanwhile, GM-watchdog organizations including the National Family Farmers Coalition, Pesticide Action Network and Friends of the Earth issued a joint press statement criticizing a rule that allows industry to self-determine its regulatory status. The new framework, they said, has dealt a devastating blow to the security of farmers livelihoods, the health of their farms and communities, and their ability to build the biodiverse, climate-resilient, and economically robust farming systems that we so urgently need.

My research on democratizing biotechnology has helped me unpack the problematic ways in which democracy is being hitched to technological innovation. When it comes to CRISPR, the public has been told that being cheap, easy to use and free from regulation is a powerful cocktail that makes gene editing intrinsically more democratic.

Like many convenient narratives, there are certain truths to this story. But just as clearly, cheapness is not equivalent to democratic. According to USDA, some 6,150 comments were received on the draft rule during the three-month public feedback period, a window designed to give citizens a say in government policy.

The agency admitted that most letters expressed general opposition to GE products. Of the comments that specifically addressed provisions of the rule, approximately 25 expressed some support for the rule. This means a vast majority of the comments did not. Yet, the USDA disregarded this feedback. Such a lack of civic input can lead to environmental and health concerns being sidelined.

Thoughtful scientists, social movements and governments are now asking if there is an alternative way to regulate engineered food. For example, the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board has set out an ethics-based regulatory framework aimed at advancing genetic technology, while protecting community and environmental health and promoting societal welfare.

In the academic sphere, colleagues in Europe have proposed a framework for responsible innovation. I have developed a set of principles and practices for governing CRISPR based on dialogue with front-line communities who are most affected by the technologies others usher in. Communities dont just have to adopt or refuse technology they can co-create it.

One way to move forward in the U.S. is to take advantage of common ground between sustainable agriculture movements and CRISPR scientists. The struggle over USDA rules suggests that few outside of industry believe self-regulation is fair, wise or scientific.

At present, companies dont even have to notify the USDA of biotech crops they will commercialize. The result, as Greg Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest told Science, is that government regulators and the public will have no idea what products will enter the market. Farmers and everyone else will pay the price,said Jim Goodman, dairy farmer and board president of the National Family Farm Coalition.

Reclaiming a baseline of accountability, then, is the first step in building public confidence in regulatory systems that work for people as well as science that the public believes in.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

Here is the original post:
How a new biotech rule will foster distrust with the public and impede progress in science - The Conversation US

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on How a new biotech rule will foster distrust with the public and impede progress in science – The Conversation US