Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 10 de 10
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Am J Trop Med Hyg ; 103(3): 976-985, 2020 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32748773

RESUMEN

Gene drive technologies represent powerful tools to develop vector control strategies that will complement the current approaches to mitigate arthropod-borne infectious diseases. The characteristics of gene drive technologies have raised additional concerns to those for standard genetically engineered organisms. This generates a need for adaptive governance that has not been met yet because of the rapid rate of progress in gene drive research. For the eventual release of gene drive insects into wild populations, an international governance network would be helpful in guiding scientists, stakeholders, public opinion, and affected communities in its use. We examined the current institutions and governing bodies among various continents that could have an impact on gene drive governance or the potential to adapt to its future use. Possible governance strategies also are proposed that seek to bridge gaps and promote an ethically sound policy framework. Ideally, governance strategies should be developed before or at the same pace as gene drive research to anticipate field releases and maximize their impact as a public health tool. However, this is not likely to happen as it takes years to develop global accords, and some countries may choose to move ahead independently on the new technology.


Asunto(s)
Culicidae/genética , Tecnología de Genética Dirigida/legislación & jurisprudencia , Cooperación Internacional/legislación & jurisprudencia , Control de Mosquitos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Mosquitos Vectores/genética , Agricultura/ética , Agricultura/métodos , Animales , Animales Modificados Genéticamente , Investigación Biomédica/ética , Investigación Biomédica/métodos , Tecnología de Genética Dirigida/ética , Humanos , Control de Mosquitos/organización & administración , Salud Pública , Carácter Cuantitativo Heredable
2.
Am J Law Med ; 46(2-3): 143-165, 2020 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32659189

RESUMEN

The moon landing, now more than a half century in the past, has turned out to be the culmination of human space travel, rather than its beginning. Genetic engineering, especially applications of CRISPR, now presents the most publicly-discussed engineering challenges-and not just technical, but ethical as well. In this article, I will use the two most controversial genomic engineering applications to help identify the ethics and human rights implications of these research projects. Each of these techniques directly modifies the mechanisms of evolution, threatens to alter our views of ourselves as humans and our planet as our home, and presents novel informed consent and dual use challenges: human genome editing and gene drives in insects.I begin with a discussion of so far disastrously unsuccessful attempts to regulate germline editing in humans, including a summary of the first application of germline genome editing in humans and its aftermath. I then turn to a discussion of setting ethical standards for a genomic technology that has not yet been deployed in nature-gene drives. Finally, I end by suggesting that human rights can and should be directly applicable to defining the ethics of genomic research.


Asunto(s)
Repeticiones Palindrómicas Cortas Agrupadas y Regularmente Espaciadas , Formularios de Consentimiento/normas , Ética en Investigación , Tecnología de Genética Dirigida/ética , Edición Génica/ética , Células Germinativas , Animales , Códigos de Ética , Culicidae/genética , Femenino , Edición Génica/métodos , Derechos Humanos , Humanos , Masculino , Mala Conducta Profesional
3.
J Bioeth Inq ; 17(1): 133-144, 2020 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31900854

RESUMEN

Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) genome editing has already reinvented the direction of genetic and stem cell research. For more complex diseases it allows scientists to simultaneously create multiple genetic changes to a single cell. Technologies for correcting multiple mutations in an in vivo system are already in development. On the surface, the advent and use of gene editing technologies is a powerful tool to reduce human suffering by eradicating complex disease that has a genetic etiology. Gene drives are CRISPR mediated alterations to genes that allow them to be passed on to subsequent populations at rates that approach one hundred per cent transmission. Therefore, from an anticipatory biomedical ethics perspective, it is possible to conceive gene drive being used with CRISPR to permanently ameliorate aberrant genes from wild-type populations containing mutations. However, there are also a number of possible side effects that could develop as the result of combining gene editing and gene drive technologies in an effort to eradicate complex diseases. In this paper, we critically analyse the hypothesis that the combination of CRISPR and gene drive will have a deleterious effect on human populations from an ethical perspective by developing an anticipatory ethical analysis of the implications for the use of CRISPR together with gene drive in humans.


Asunto(s)
Bioética , Repeticiones Palindrómicas Cortas Agrupadas y Regularmente Espaciadas , Análisis Ético , Tecnología de Genética Dirigida/ética , Edición Génica/ética , Humanos , Formulación de Políticas
4.
Bioethics ; 33(9): 1091-1097, 2019 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31389027

RESUMEN

Gene drive technology has immense potential. The ability to bypass the laws of Mendelian inheritance and almost ensure the transmission of specific genetic material to future generations creates boundless possibilities. But alongside these boundless possibilities are major social and ethical issues. This article aims to introduce gene drive technology, some of its potential applications, and some of the social and ethical issues that arise during research into the technology. For example, is investigation into gene drives hubristic? Would applications of gene drives count as technological fixes? Or does research into such a technology sit on a slippery slope or lock us in to its full-scale use? Are there perverse effects of engaging in research, and, most importantly, who ought to be included in the decision-making process regarding research and field trials? Understanding the basic ethical landscape of this technology will prove invaluable to the public, scientists, and policy-makers as research moves forward.


Asunto(s)
Bioética , Tecnología de Genética Dirigida/ética , Tecnología de Genética Dirigida/normas , Principios Morales , Humanos
5.
BMC Med Ethics ; 20(1): 54, 2019 07 27.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31351474

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The development of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system has generated new possibilities for the use of gene drive constructs to reduce or suppress mosquito populations to levels that do not support disease transmission. Despite this prospect, social resistance to genetically modified organisms remains high. Gene drive open field research thus raises important questions regarding what is owed to those who may not consent to such research, or those could be affected by the proposed research, but whose consent is not solicited. The precise circumstances under which informed consent must be obtained, and from whom, requires careful consideration. Furthermore, appropriate engagement processes should be central to any introduction of genetically modified mosquitos in proposed target settings. DISCUSSION: In this work, international guidance documents on informed consent and engagement are reviewed and applied to the genetically modified mosquito research context. Five analogous research endeavours that involve area-wide / open field experiments are reviewed. The approach of each in respect to the solicitation of individual informed consent and community engagement are highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: While the solicitation of individual informed consent in host settings of gene drive field trials may not be possible or feasible in some instances, local community and stakeholder engagement will be key to building trust towards the proposed conduct of such research. In this regard, the approaches taken by investigators and sponsors of political science field research and weather modification field research should be avoided. Rather, proponents of gene drive field research should look to the Eliminate Dengue field trials, cluster randomised trials, and pragmatic clinical trials for guidance regarding how the solicitation of individual informed consent of host communities ought to be managed, and how these communities ought to be engaged.


Asunto(s)
Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles , Participación de la Comunidad , Investigación Participativa Basada en la Comunidad/ética , Tecnología de Genética Dirigida/ética , Consentimiento Informado , Animales , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/métodos , Investigación Participativa Basada en la Comunidad/métodos , Investigación Participativa Basada en la Comunidad/normas , Culicidae/genética , Dengue/prevención & control , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa/prevención & control , Tecnología de Genética Dirigida/métodos , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Consentimiento Informado/normas , Control de Mosquitos/ética , Control de Mosquitos/métodos , Mosquitos Vectores/genética , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto/ética , Confianza , Wolbachia
7.
Elife ; 72018 06 19.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29916367

RESUMEN

Recent reports have suggested that self-propagating CRISPR-based gene drive systems are unlikely to efficiently invade wild populations due to drive-resistant alleles that prevent cutting. Here we develop mathematical models based on existing empirical data to explicitly test this assumption for population alteration drives. Our models show that although resistance prevents spread to fixation in large populations, even the least effective drive systems reported to date are likely to be highly invasive. Releasing a small number of organisms will often cause invasion of the local population, followed by invasion of additional populations connected by very low rates of gene flow. Hence, initiating contained field trials as tentatively endorsed by the National Academies report on gene drive could potentially result in unintended spread to additional populations. Our mathematical results suggest that self-propagating gene drive is best suited to applications such as malaria prevention that seek to affect all wild populations of the target species.


Asunto(s)
Sistemas CRISPR-Cas , Conservación de los Recursos Naturales , Tecnología de Genética Dirigida/ética , Modelos Genéticos , Alelos , Animales , Genética de Población , Humanos , Plantas/genética
8.
ACS Chem Biol ; 13(2): 296-304, 2018 Feb 16.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29448764

RESUMEN

CRISPR-based approaches to genetic engineering are progressing at a rapid pace and present exciting new avenues for science, medicine, and technology. Many of the most cutting-edge advances in genome engineering are encompassed in the Research Articles, Reviews, and Perspectives in this special issue, often with an eye toward future directions for the field. Yet, many questions remain at this new frontier. We asked over 100 CRISPR researchers, including our contributing authors, for their perspectives on some of the most pressing questions surrounding the future of genome engineering and the CRISPR-Cas platform, the challenges that lie ahead, and opportunities for chemists and chemical biologists to drive creative molecular solutions.


Asunto(s)
Sistemas CRISPR-Cas , Edición Génica , Biología/ética , Biología/tendencias , Repeticiones Palindrómicas Cortas Agrupadas y Regularmente Espaciadas , Ecología/ética , Ecosistema , Tecnología de Genética Dirigida/ética , Tecnología de Genética Dirigida/tendencias , Edición Génica/ética , Edición Génica/tendencias , Humanos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...