Posts tagged with ‘genetics’
The FBI’s case against Bruce Ivins summons mythical fears of science as a perilous ethical endeavor—and that’s a threat to the image of scientists everywhere.
A quick look at the issues making the rounds on the science blogs this week.
An expert panel at Stanford University has determined that nearly one quarter of the colonies of human embryonic stem cells that the Bush administration had approved as ethically derived and eligible for study with federal funds do not meet Stanford’s ethics standards and should no longer be available to researchers there.
A quick look at the issues making the rounds on the science blogs this week.
Are selective mandatory genetic tests for presidential candidates merited in the case of Huntington’s disease?
In Sunday’s Outlook section of the
Washington Post, Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Rick Weiss takes a close look at the personal impacts of new direct-to-consumer genetic testing services. He suggests that we need to properly regulate this auspicious technology to harness its benefits.
New research published this week indicates that a genetic mutation prevalent in individuals of African descent may increase susceptibility to HIV infection.
Resent research concludes that even if scientists were to score a complete home run by finding a “cure” for any single chronic disease such as cancer or stroke, life spans in developing countries would hardly grow longer.
The United States lags behind Europe in terms of genetic privacy legislation, argues a commentary in this week’s
Journal of the American Medical Association, but we can use European experience to guide future policy that builds on the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act.
Individual genetic markers can reveal increased risks of breast and ovarian cancer, but recent research examines the cumulative impact of multiple markers and could inform more effective genetic screening procedures.
The Association of British Insurers has extended a moratorium banning the use of genetic testing results in setting life insurance premiums.
Filmmaker Joanna Rudnick tested positive for a BRCA1 mutation at age 27. Staring down an almost certain risk of developing breast cancer, she set out to make a documentary of her own choices about prevention and to explore the impact of genetic testing and cancer on women across the country.
A lack of federal leadership on the regulation of genetic testing could undermine the benefits of the next medical revolution.
What do researchers and clinicians actually need to understand about a gene in order to diagnose and treat patients? Play-by-play from a lively discussion on the state of genetics at the World Science Festival.
President Bush signed the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act into law on Wednesday, which will protect Americans from prejudicial treatment by employers or insurance companies based on their DNA. But this groundbreaking piece of legislation isn’t just important because it allays public concern.
Presidents and candidates for the office voluntarily release their medical records. But with advances in screening and treatment for many kinds of medical conditions, how do we know we’re getting the full story on the health of the Commander-In-Chief? (And do we want it?)
The British parliament has passed a bill that authorizes inserting genetic material from humans into cow eggs in order to study diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
In a Washington Post column, former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson takes on claims that the administration has engaged in a “war on science.” He asserts that, “for the most part, these accusations are a political ploy.” Considering his qualifying phrase it seems that some of them are not ploys. Disappointingly, Gerson does not tell us which ones. Instead, he makes a careless historical argument to support his claim claim that liberalism threatens human equality.
Last week, at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania researchers announced that they had used a genetically engineered virus to introduce a gene into the retinas of young adults with a form of congenital blindness that has no treatment, Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA).
Before you send off that swab of DNA to learn your fate, even in light of the recent passage of the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act, consider the legacy of genetic screening and testing.
Dr. Arno Motulsky, who is now 87, essentially launched the field of pharmacogenomics, which studies how an individual’s genetic makeup affects his or her response to medication, in 1957. The New York Times Science section recently featured an interview with Dr. Motulsky, who has a hopeful but cautionary attitude about the future of genetic medicine.
The Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act (H.R. 493) moved another step closer to becoming law yesterday. Although the House passed the bill last year, a reconciled version had go through again, as the Senate added an amendment when it passed the bill last week.
Reflecting on the meaning and implications of DNA Day underscores the need for a national science curriculum.
The Senate just passed the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act (H.R. 493) by a vote of 95-0 after two hours of debate consisting of mostly well-deserved self-congratulations. Senator Enzi (R-WY), a cosponsor of the bill, raised a very good point, saying about GINA that “If the publicity doesn’t go out on it, the people don’t know about it….we are interested in people knowing what this bill does that will help them and that will encourage them to use the genome.”
The Senate is closing in on a deal for the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (HR 493), and a vote might come as early as Wednesday. According to Congress Daily, Senate Majority Leader Reid will “hotline” the bill to determine if any Senator objects to the legislation.
Various companies now offer direct-to-consumer genetic counseling. Public concern about genetic discrimination is on the rise. The Senate may soon vote on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. But there are many uncertainties to consider as genetic medicine gets increasingly personal.
Public engagement is not about getting the policy you want; it’s about getting the public input you need to craft sustainable policy that enjoys public confidence.
Rapid advances in genetic research are revealing mind-boggling amounts of information about how our DNA shapes who we are and how we get sick. The work will shape the future of medicine, but we still have a lot to learn.
Two stories this week describe two different approaches to plant genetic resources. Tuesday, researchers from Washington University and Iowa State university announced a completed draft of the corn genome. The same day, the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, which will store seeds from around the world in the event of catastrophic loss, opened on a remote Norwegian island.
Genetic nondiscrimination legislation has been around since 1995 and has been introduced in both chambers of every Congress since then. It’s time to pass the bill and protect patients.
A new plan to sequence and compare one thousand human genomes; WHO releases data on bird flu monitoring; Ares 1 design flaw could cause violent vibrations.
Scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland have succeeded in synthesizing the complete genome of a bacterium,
Mycoplasma genitalium. If the stitched DNA can be inserted into a cell that then replicates, it will appear to have met the criteria for the first “artificial life” form.
Healthcare professionals helping patients with mental health problems have an increasing array of treatment and prevention tools at their disposal. But on the horizon is a preventative tool that poses challenging public policy questions about ethics and privacy: personal genomic sequencing.
DeCode Genetics, an Icelandic company, announced personal genome sequencing, available immediately for $985. But there’s quite a bit of fine print to consider as other companies join this infant industry.
The onrush of new genetic information that appears to reflect differences in various characteristics that are statistically associated with continents of origin means that we have special reason to be alert to that data’s misuse.
The J. Craig Venter Institute, along with researchers at MIT and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, recently released a report entitled “Synthetic Genomics | Options for Governance.” But are there larger unanswered questions about the societal impacts of creating synthetic life?
Sperm banking is largely unregulated, raising controversial genetic, medical, and ethical questions. Yet the remedies are equally contentious.
J. Craig Venter recently announced his institutes’s goal of sequencing the genomes of up to 50 people by the end of 2008, with an ultimate goal of sequencing 10,000 people’s genomes within ten years. Personalized genome sequencing will open the door to powerful new therapies, but it also poses ethical concerns over the possibility of genetic discrimination.
Researchers at Stanford University appear to have developed a blood test that can predict the onset of diagnosable Alzheimer’s Disease with up to 90 percent accuracy. If the technique is confirmed and does become widely available before effective interventions, it is sure to spark another chapter in an ongoing discussion about the wisdom of such predictive power.
The Guardian reported this past weekend that J. Craig Venter will soon announce that he has created artificial life. But even his spokesperson is saying that’s not the whole story.
