header logo image


Page 6«..5678..»

Archive for the ‘Legal Issues Genetic Medicine’ Category

Impact of Global and National Coronavirus Strategy on the SLTT Response – In Public Safety

Saturday, February 8th, 2020

By Dr. Darrell Dantzler, faculty member, Emergency and Disaster Management at American Military University

On January 30, the World Health Organization (WHO) determined the novel coronavirus, formally known as 2019-nCoV, posed an international risk and declared it a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) and a global health emergency, a designation only declared five times previously.

The number of diagnosed 2019-nCoV cases has surpassed SARS cases, including the first known human-to-human spread of the new virus in the United States.

[Related: CDC to Announce First Case of Wuhan Coronavirus Found in US]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) expects many more cases, largely due to the viruss ability to spread from person to person.

However, despite these designations and concerns from health experts, the 2019-nCoV is not classified as a pandemic; although that is subject to change based on the rate of human-to-human transmissions and determination of the lethality of the virus.

[Related: Flu Season and Pandemic Planning: Ethical Approaches to Epidemic Response]

It is critical that state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) emergency managers, public health professionals, and other public safety professionals understand global and national comprehensive emergency management strategies for handling a pandemic outbreak. They include how these strategies affect them and their SLTT emergency management initiatives.

The WHOs primary role is to direct and coordinate international health within the United Nations system. The WHOs goals during the 2019-nCoV outbreak are to strengthen global diagnostic capacity and improve surveillance, early detection, and capabilities to track the spread of disease. WHO lists the following six strategic objectives for responding to the 2019-nCoV:

WHO has implemented a three-pronged approach to enhance the diagnostic capacity for 2019-nCoV:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mission is to enhance and protect the health and well-being of Americans by providing effective health and human services and by fostering advances in medicine, public health, and social services. The secretary of HHS is vested with the authority to act to protect public health and welfare, declare a public health emergency, and prepare for and respond to public health emergencies. The CDC, within the HHS, is the nations health protection agency and the leading national public health institute in the country.

HHS developed seven domains in its Pandemic Influenza Plan to thwart a severe worldwide event. Although 2019-nCoV has not reached the pandemic threshold yet, its important to understand the Pandemic Influenza Plans seven domains, which details areas where capabilities can be optimized:

Regarding the 2019-nCoV, the CDC has accomplished the following strategic response objectives:

At this point, most SLTTs have reviewed and put into place their comprehensive emergency management plan, including the Pandemic annex and the Emergency Support Functions (ESF), including ESF #8, as well as companion ESFs.

SLTT public safety professionals should monitor the global and national climate, along with maintaining situational awareness in their jurisdiction. The director of the HHS stated, (t)he playbook for responding to an infectious disease outbreak is relatively simple: You monitor and communicate, identify cases, isolate the people, diagnose them, and treat them. Then you track down all of the contacts of the infected person, and you do the same with those people, and the same with contacts of contacts if necessary. This is often easier said than done, as virus outbreaks foster volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environments that require immense coordination. Communication and social distancing are among challenges that SLTT public safety official encounter.

Communication

The goal of communication before, during, and after VUCA events like 2019-nCoV is to provide and share accurate and relevant information with the public, partners, and stakeholders, so that well-informed decisions are made that protect the publics health and safety.

Social medial is a double-edged sword when communicating during disease outbreaks. Currently, hoaxes about the coronavirus have spread faster than the actual virus on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. Some examples include Bill Gates being responsible for the virus; the Chinese created a weaponized version of coronavirus and lost control of it; drinking bleach keeps the virus away; coronavirus will cause the zombie apocalypse; parents have abandoned their children in an airport; FEMA proposes martial law to contain the coronavirus; and the US patented a vaccine years ago for the coronavirus.

Misinformation about disease outbreaks is even harder to control because of intense public interest, fear, lack of credible information, and the unknown. The WHO has actively sought to discredit misinformation and has responded to rumors through myth busting on WHOs social media channels and website.

The CDC indicated that the right message at the right time from the right person can save lives. The health agency implemented a six-step crisis communication plan that SLTT public safety agencies can employ to improve communication:

Social Distancing

If a 2019-nCoV outbreak is found in a SLTT jurisdiction, public safety managers can mitigate person-to-person transmission through social distancing. Social distancing is when public health officials restrict when and where people can congregate in order to stop or slow down the spread of a highly contagious. These social distancing measures have a considerable effect on the community; therefore, actions must be coordinated among all stakeholders including city leaders, federal partners, police departments, business, and schools.

Below are some examples of social distancing that can be used to control the spread of 2019-nCoV. Its important for SLTT emergency managers to remember that civil liberties must be balanced with public health.

In summary, the global and national strategies for controlling and eradicating pandemics or the 2019-nCoV directly impacts the strategies at the SLTT jurisdictional levels. Public safety officials should understand the global and national climate to better prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from a potential pandemic in their jurisdiction.

Additionally, SLTT public safety officials must understand crisis communication and ensure their jurisdictions have the most updated and accurate information. Lastly, when determining social distancing strategies, civil liberties must be balance with public health.

About the Author: Dr. Darrell Dantzler is a faculty member at American Military University, teaching courses in Emergency & Disaster Management. He is also the Director of the Fire Protection Analysis and Field Engineering Division within the Office of Fire Protection in the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations at the US Department of State. Darrell brings more than 35 years of experience in Disaster and Emergency Management Planning and Response. He is a 20-year United States Air Force Veteran and a 15-year public servant with the Department of State. At State, he conducted fire assessments, fire investigations, and special emergency management assessments in over 70 countries. Darrell graduated from the National Preparedness on Leadership Initiative, Executive Education Leadership Program at Harvard Universitys T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Harvards Kennedy School of Government. He is a Certified Emergency Manager through the International Association of Emergency Managers. Darrell holds a Ph.D. in Public Safety Leadership with a specialization in Disaster and Emergency Management. To contact the author, email IPSauthor@apus.edu. For more articles featuring insight from industry experts, subscribe to In Public Safetys bi-monthly newsletter.

Sign up now to receive the InPublicSafety eNewsletter.

See the rest here:
Impact of Global and National Coronavirus Strategy on the SLTT Response - In Public Safety

Read More...

Pet Wearables Are a Thing Now. Meet the Company That Wants to Collect Your Dog’s Data – Inc.

Tuesday, February 4th, 2020

Editor's note:This article is part of Inc.'s 2020 Best Industries report.

In February 2017, Donovan got lost during a trip to the park. The skittish rescue dog's ownerCollette Bunton spent hours frantically searchingbefore the rat terrier mix finally found his own way home. To make sure her beloved pet would never get lost again, Buntondid some research on tracking devices, and decided tofitDonovan's collar with a device from a San Francisco-based startup called Whistle.

Fifteen months later, Bunton received a surprise phone call from Whistle: Want to be our CEO? "You probably don't know us very well," said co-founder Ben Jacobs, the voice on the other end. Bunton, a former Roku and Logitech executive, could only laugh: "I know you, and I have ideas on what kind of things we could do."

With Bunton at the helm, Whistle has become a leader in the fast-growing pet wearables industrybyrapidly improving its technology for monitoring customers' furry friends. Its flagship product line of Whistle Go devices--think of them as doggy Fitbits with cellular data-enabled location tracking--used to simply report a pet'slocation and number of miles walked per day. Now, that data gets crunched in real time to notify you through a smartphone appwhen subtle changes, like decreased activity or increased scratching, could indicate a health problem.

"You can, today, do things that you couldn't do six months ago," Bunton says. "There really is a true technology and use case inflection point that's happening."

Whistle's devices cost between $100 and $130, plus a subscription fee. Whistle declined to disclose specific revenue figures, but says it has seen consistent double-digit revenue growth rates since its launch eight years ago.Business intelligence platforms Owler and ZoomInfo estimate Whistle's annual revenue at$30 million and $38.9 million, respectively.

Developments like longer-lasting batteries and5G technology have spedadvancesin pet wearables, according to Ross Rubin, founder andprinciple analyst at consulting firm Reticle Research. The next step, he says, will be to more heavily saturate the market with affordable products:"It's just a question of finding the right combination of cost and functionality."

The pet wearables market--which includes GPS and fitness trackers, cameras, and smart clothing--is expected to grow to $1.7 billion in 2024 from $703 million in 2019, according to data from research firm MarketsandMarkets, andWhistle estimates thatmore than a milliondevices have been sold industry-wideto date.

Striving for customization

Whistle was founded in 2012 by Jacobs, fellow ex-Bain consultantSteven Eidelman, and software engineer Kevin Lloyd. Growing up, Jacobs had a German shepherd named Bear who seemed perfectly healthy, but justdays laterhad to be put down due to intestinal twisting.The founders'idea centered not around pet tracking, but on monitoring canine activity for predictive health, which could have caught Bear's issue sooner.

The startup attracted talent from companies like Apple and Google and grew thanks to more than $20 millionin venture capital funding--until 2016, when it was acquired by Mars Petcare for $117 million. Jacobs credits Mars, Inc.--one of the largest privately owned companies in the U.S.--for allowing Whistle to continue operating independently under its new corporate umbrella.

Between 2017 and 2019, the three co-founders left the company. Eidelman and Lloyd departed for other startups, and Jacobs became head of ventures and partnerships for Kinship, Mars's pet-focused startup accelerator and $100 million venture fund. Enter Bunton, who had runRoku's devices department as asenior vice president and general manager from 2012 to 2014.Upon joining Whistle in June 2018, Bunton immediately set about shifting the company's ethos to prepare for the industry's anticipated growth.

Strategically, that involved amping up services like data collection and analysis, in addition to the company'sfocus on hardware.For example: Whistle'sPet Insight Project, in which dog owners receive the company's newest product, aWhistle Fit,for free in return for access to that device's activity, calorie burn, and mileage data. Whistle hascollected data from more than 60,000 dogs across 900-plus different breeds and mixes, which Bunton hopes will ultimately enable the app to give individualized health recommendations for every dog. "Even in my house, what my other dog, Monster, needs and what Donovan needs are different," she says.

Bunton is keenly aware of the stigma associated with data collection, and says Whistle's largely Millennial staff of about 60 employees (and eight dogs) constantly weighs in on moral and ethical considerations of issues facing the business."It's [about] getting clearer vision on the things that matter to our users," she adds."And you do that through the personal information that they're willing to share with you."

A competitive pack

Whistle says it's "fast approaching" a majority of the industry's market share by units sold. (The companydeclined to provide unitsales figures.)Still, it faces stiff competition from startups like Kansas City, Missouri-based FitBark, founded in 2013,as well as larger companies like Garmin and Motorola, which both sell pet-monitoring devices and boastfinancial heft on par with Mars.

Bunton says Whistle aims to lead the pack by focusing on personalization, offering advice tailored for individual dog owners. That could include new products, features, and significant partnerships with dog-walking and other pet-service businesseslike Rover.com and Wag. "Our biggest challenge is really one of awareness--that it's a real, usable product and not a fun gadget," Bunton says. "That's a thing that takes time, and I'm not known to be the most patient woman in the world."

Published on: Feb 4, 2020

View post:
Pet Wearables Are a Thing Now. Meet the Company That Wants to Collect Your Dog's Data - Inc.

Read More...

Putting buybacks on hold, Pfizer’s CEO is plotting a string of important PhII deals in the year ahead. You’ve been alerted – Endpoints News

Tuesday, February 4th, 2020

When the tech VCs at Andreessen Horowitz entered biotech 4.5 years ago with the $200 million bio fund I, the idea was simple and hubristic: Were not going to do biotech, Vijay Pande said at the time, keeping a16zs longtime stance. Instead, the bio fund is really about funding software companies in the bio space.

In the near-half decade since, they havent softened their rhetoric. Pande and general partner Jorge Condes frequent blog posts often have the tone ofBurning Man technofuturists. Talking of a foundational shift in biology, bio-revolution, and the meaning of life, and dropping koans like what is medicine? has turned them into the well-financed New Age mystics of an AI-driven and bioengineered future.

Today, Andreessen Horowitz is launching bio fund III and putting $750 million behind it more than funds I and II combined. Theyve added new partners, as they did before fund I and II, picking up technologist and entrepreneur Julie Yoo and Vineeta Agarwala, a GV and Broad Institute alumn. Itll take much of the same tack as the earlier funds, investing early and occasionally up to Series B, and pouring funds not only into therapeutics, but also diagnostics, synthetic biology and startups bringing biological advances into other sectors, such as agriculture.

But Conde tells Endpoints News that the group has learned a thing or two since fund I. Pande had talked about extending Moores law to biology through digital therapeutics but they were wrong. It wasnt just about software and artificial intelligence. It was about the long list of ways how biology was done, how drugs were discovered and how the whole healthcare system functions. It was biotechs that worked both with machine learning and wet labs, and founders conversant in both.

Since then, theyve invested in companies like Insitro that integrate AI as a core but not sole part of a drug development chain and Asimov, which is trying to use AI and other tech systems to design a genome from scratch. They even invested in EQRx, Alexander Boriseys startup trying to use me-too drugs to change pricing.

In October, Conde, Pande and Yoo published their most soaring blog post yet: Biology is Eating the World: A Manifesto. They wrote: We are at the beginning of a new era, where biology has shifted from an empirical science to an engineering discipline.

Before the funds launch, though, Conde told Endpoints were at the end of the beginning for that era.

He talked about what theyve learned since bio I, where biology and biotech is headed and how well know when the convergence between engineering and biology hes been prophesizing has arrived.

You called this the end of the beginning for a new era. What does that mean?

Unlock this story instantly and join 71,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily and it's free.

SUBSCRIBE SIGN IN

Continued here:
Putting buybacks on hold, Pfizer's CEO is plotting a string of important PhII deals in the year ahead. You've been alerted - Endpoints News

Read More...

Philly teachers grapple with illness, school building conditions – WHYY

Tuesday, February 4th, 2020

Listen to The Why wherever you get your podcasts:Apple Podcasts|Google Podcasts|Stitcher|RadioPublic|TuneIn

By Avi Wolfman-Arent

On the day before Thanksgiving in 2015, veteran biology teacher Lynn Johnson made an unusual decision she decided not to clean up her classroom.

Her students had just completed a lab experiment, which would typically send her into a frenzy of tidying and straightening. But shed felt off all day. Her body wouldnt let her clean.

My head felt kind of tipsy almost like I was drunk, Johnson said.

So instead of gathering the test tubes and beakers and thermometers, she left the space as it was frozen in a state of suspended discovery.

Then the 55-year-old flicked off the lights in Room 217 and walked out of Franklin Learning Center, the Philadelphia high school where shed taught for 16 years.

I said,`Ill just take care of that when I come back Monday, Johnson remembered. I never came back Monday.

Johnson didnt know it then, but her teaching career had just ended.

The next six months would take her on an odyssey to the edges of medicine to the brackish place where science meets mystery. She would lose her hearing, her balance and, eventually, her independence.

Those six months would flip Johnsons life, and leave her with a gnawing question:

Did my school building do this to me?

That question confronts many Philadelphia teachers now more than ever.

In September, the citys teachers union announced that one of its own 51-year-old special-education instructor Lea DiRusso had been diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma is caused, in virtually every known case, by exposure to asbestos a toxic mineral once commonly used in insulation and other building materials. DiRusso worked for decades in two Philadelphia schools that had asbestos inside them, making it clear there may have been a link between her illness and her job.

DiRussos diagnosis presaged a flood of media coverage on asbestos and other potentially toxic substances inside Philadelphias public schools. It spotlighted the human cost of Philadelphias crumbling school infrastructure and fanned anxiety among educators, many wondering whether their own ailments trace back to something that lurked in their classrooms.

Unlike DiRusso, though, many of them will never conclusively know if working conditions caused their illnesses. Thats because mesothelioma is rare both in its prevalence and in the definitive link it has to an environmental toxin.

Like DiRusso, Lynn Johnson worked for years in a building with a troubling environmental track record. And she, too, had to retire abruptly.

But in every other way, Johnsons story is the photo negative of DiRussos.

Her illness is so mysterious, the medical establishment wont even call it a disease. It has no known cause. It offers more questions than answers.

Johnson and so many other teachers will likely never know if any of this could have been prevented.

Johnson, now 60, was destined to teach.

The Harlem native grew up playing playing school with her identical twin sister, Leslie. Their mother taught science in New York Citys public schools. And even though the pair studied to become dentists, they both circled back to the classroom.

Lynn Johnson started as a substitute in the School District of Philadelphia in 1990. The career appealed to her because of its flexibility, allowing her time to raise her two daughters. But it quickly turned into a calling an outlet for Johnsons natural charisma and gregariousness.

I became alive when I was in that classroom, Johnson said.

In 1999, she moved to Franklin Learning Center, or FLC, a high school just north of Center City, and became a full-time biology teacher.

Johnson thrived there. She won the Lindback Distinguished Teaching Award, one of the districts highest honors, and was a finalist for Philadelphia teacher of the year.

FLC has a proud history as a prize-winning school, but its four-story building, finished in 1909, has a more dubious past.

In 1996, students walked out of FLC because of suspected exposure to lead and asbestos. School district officials promised to demolish the structure and build a new one. They even put a price tag on the project: $30 million.

Talk of a new building lingered for years. Proposals went through modifications and tweaks and wholesale changes.

I dont remember a lot of the old-timers getting excited, Johnson said. I think that as you work with the School District of Philadelphia, you lose your trust in what they say theyre gonna do because sometimes it doesnt happen.

Indeed, the new building never happened. Instead, in 2010, the district set aside money to renovate FLC. It allotted about $3 million one-tenth of the original budget for the new building.

Johnson recalls finding mysterious dust in her room when workers renovated the classroom above her. She said she remembers leaks and crumbling tile and an off-putting directive from administrators to never drink water from the schools fountains.

When she heard the school was being renovated instead of destroyed, she felt more dread than relief.

Something in my head went, Oh, Lord, they disturbing up monsters, Johnson said.

Facilities issues surfaced again at FLC in December 2019, when the school district closed the school for several days after discovering damaged asbestos in an air shaft. The district has since reopened FLC, but parents and teachers staged a rally on the first day back to protest what they see as lingering hazards inside the building.

So far this school year, the district has closed six schools temporarily after discovering exposed asbestos. District officials say theyve upgraded their protocols for finding and remediating asbestos, although the citys teachers union has questioned the districts efficacy in several instances.

When she was teaching there, Johnson knew her high school was old and in need of repairs.

Thats not uncommon. The district has itself admitted that it has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance the legacy of old buildings and insufficient funds. Johnson figured that years in a century-old school might someday harm her, but it was never an acute concern.

Its in the back of your mind, wayyyyy in the back, Johnson said.

Then in November 2015, those years of low-grade unease turned into blinking red warning lights.

After Johnson left her classroom that Wednesday before Thanksgiving, she spent much of the holiday weekend unable to lift her head from the pillow. That Sunday, she tried to attend church with her family, but midway through the service, she turned to her husband.

I cant stand, she told him. I cant hear. Take me to urgent care.

An urgent-care doctor suspected she had a bad cold and gave her Sudafed. But the symptoms didnt subside.

Over the next six months, Johnson bounced from specialist to specialist. There was an infectious-disease specialist, a rheumatologist, and a pair of ear, nose and throat doctors. One by one, they crossed off potential ailments. It wasnt a cold. It wasnt Lyme disease. It wasnt. It wasnt. It wasnt.

Meanwhile, Johnson spiraled. She resigned herself to the possibility of death.

She went totally deaf in her right ear, and lost partial hearing in her left. She lost the ability to balance without a cane. She gave up driving because her eyes seemed unable to focus whenever she turned her head.

Im stuck in this body where I cant express myself. I cant move. I cant do anything, Johnson said. I fell apart.

In spring 2016, Johnson finally got a diagnosis of sorts: Cogans syndrome.

Cogans syndrome is so uncommon and ill-defined that it is not technically a disease. Its a cluster of symptoms that the medical establishment has christened with a name because those symptoms surface in enough patients.

It helps us so that we can group patients and think about how to treat them, said Peter Merkel, an expert on Cogans syndrome and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania. But it does tell us that perhaps were not as precise in our understanding.

Patients with Cogans syndrome have an autoimmune disorder, meaning their own immune system is attacking healthy tissue. If that autoimmune response is taking place in a persons inner-ear while also causing vertigo and eye inflammation, doctors may suspect Cogans syndrome.

There is no test that proves a patient has Cogans syndrome.

A lot of it is patient symptoms, crude measurements, and our gestalt of whats going on, said Steven Eliades, assistant professor of otorhinolaryngology at the University of Pennsylvania. [It] can be incredibly frustrating for the patient and, quite honestly, for me.

The symptoms patients experience often subside or at least stop progressing in response to steroids. Through that treatment, along with physical therapy, people with Cogans syndrome can make modest recoveries. But the condition is chronic and has no cure.

With the help of special grip socks, Johnson can shuffle around her house in Delaware County. Longer walks require a cane or wheelchair, particularly when shes out in public, on unfamiliar terrain.

Her hearing loss is permanent, making her a frustrated bystander in social settings where she used to thrive. Once the center of a room her room Johnson now needs other people to speak slowly, directly, and facing her so she can read their lips.

Johnson gravitated to science not because of what science tells us, but because of what it cannot tell us. She loved the notion that she could reach the limits of human explanation and stare out into the unknown.

I think it connects me to my spiritual awareness, said Johnson. [Science] made me closer with God because theres so much you dont know.

Now, the unknown greets her every day in the form of an illness that the brightest medical minds struggle to understand. She struggled for years to reconcile her awe of lifes mysteries with the reality of what this mysterious ailment had done to her life.

When this disease hit, bam, I questioned everything, Johnson said.

It should be stated plainly: There is no scientific evidence linking Johnsons illness with her work at Franklin Learning Center.

In fact, there is no accepted explanation for why anyone gets Cogans syndrome. It is a sickness without a known origin.

Johnson has long suspected, however, that her work environment somehow contributed to her illness.

When FLC was temporarily closed late last year, Johnsons fears resurfaced.

She suspects a link between her school building and her illness for two main reasons.

The first is her history of allergies. Johnson had severe allergies as a child that required her to receive three shots a week, she said. Allergies are, at heart, an immune-system response to things in the environment that dont typically trigger immune responses.

From this history of allergies, Johnson has concluded that her immune system is especially vulnerable to environmental triggers, and that shes the type of person who might develop an immune-related disease after spending years in an old building with environmental hazards.

My immune system was already on high alert, said Johnson. And its been on high alert for decades.

The second reason for Johnsons suspicions is genetic. She has an identical twin sister, Leslie Childs.

Childs does not have Cogans syndrome, nor does she display the same symptoms Johnson displays.

Childs lives in New York City and has never been inside FLC. The twins both believe that Childs lack of symptoms suggest that there is something in Johnsons environment that unlocked her illness.

Its night and day between her and I physically now, said Childs. Thats the difference. Our environment was different.

None of this is conclusive.

The medical literature is far too thin on Cogans syndrome to make a judgment on Johnsons suspicions.

Cogans expert Peter Merkel said hes seen some evidence that people with the syndrome are more likely to suffer from chronic allergies. But hes also seen some evidence that the illness may be brought on by a cold or infection. This is all from years of professional observation.

Theres no proof. For Johnson, there may never be proof of her theory one way or the other.

Its difficult for patients. Its difficult for physicians to deal with uncertainty, Merkel said. But thats a lot of what we have.

So why tell a story about a teacher who worked in an old school building and has a health condition with no known link to that school building?

In part, because so many stories about Philadelphia school teachers and illness will dead-end at this same point: We simply do not know.

We know that school buildings in Philadelphia have been poorly maintained. We know some teachers will eventually get sick. In individual cases, however, we often dont know if the first and second things have any connection to each other.

Take the case of Sharon Newman Ehrlich.

The veteran science teacher worked for years at Edison High School in North Philadelphia, one of the districts newer facilities.

In 2012, she transferred to Randolph Technical High School in the East Falls neighborhood. Almost immediately, she said, her lungs rebelled.

She developed acute breathing problems that made it almost impossible for her to last through the school day. A doctor eventually diagnosed her with occupational asthma. Ehrlich suspects something in the school triggered this response. She estimated shes made 35 doctor visits over the last seven years to see if she can turn up more answers.

After wheezing through part of the 2012-13 school year, Ehrlich never taught again.

She eventually wandered down a paper trail to figure out if there was something about the buildings history that could explain her sudden reaction. What she found would alarm anybody.

Randolph, it turns out, is located inside a renovated asbestos factory. That is not a typo. A current Philadelphia high school occupies the same site and structure as a converted asbestos factory.

The factory, run by a company called Asten-Hill Manufacturing, was sold in 1968. It opened as Randolph in 1975, just seven years later.

Could any of that explain Ehrlichs health conditions? Again, its almost impossible to know.

I just want to find out whats going on with my body, she said. I want to live as long as I can, and I wanted to teach as long as I could. I loved it.

Neither the teachers union nor the School District of Philadelphia could say how many city educators take early retirement due to medical conditions. And even if that number exists, it would take significant legwork to determine how many of those retirements had even a plausible connection to environmental toxins.

The union has repeatedly raised the specter of a teacher health crisis, drawing attention to DiRussos case and making allusions to cancer clusters.

But right now, there isnt any widespread evidence that staffers in Philadelphia schools are more likely to develop serious illnesses than employees of other school districts.

Theres also the risk of over-attribution, of teachers rightfully scared by media coverage of crumbling buildings being too quick to draw a connection between their health and their schools.

Sometimes, public panic over illness and environment can have serious, real-world consequences. Several experts mentioned the perceived and unproven link between autism and vaccines as a cautionary tale. Though the medical establishment has found no tie between the two, parent suspicions have lingered for decades. And those suspicions are starting to depress vaccination rates in some places.

Thats not to say theres no tie between old buildings and teacher illness only that panic without medical proof can be a slippery slope.

After all this, Lynn Johnson is left mostly with questions and unresolved emotions.

Physically, she said, shes improved or at least adjusted. She uses FaceTime now to make calls so she can read lips. Shes more adept with her cane after going to physical therapy. And she volunteers with an organization that raises awareness about diseases similar to hers.

Still, she cant teach. And it stings.

See the original post:
Philly teachers grapple with illness, school building conditions - WHYY

Read More...

Growing tiny brains for research: Should we ‘frantically panic’ that something might go awry? – Genetic Literacy Project

Saturday, January 18th, 2020

The cutting-edge method of growing clusters of cells that organize themselves into mini versions of human brains in the lab is gathering more and more attention. These brain organoids, made from stem cells, offer unparalleled insights into the human brain, which is notoriously difficult to study.

But some researchersare worriedthat a form of consciousness might arise in such mini-brains, which are sometimes transplanted into animals. They could at least be sentient to the extent of experiencing pain and suffering from being trapped. If this is true and before we consider how likely it is it is absolutely clear in my mind that we must exert a supreme level of caution when considering this issue.

Brain organoids are currently very simple compared to human brains and cant be conscious in the same way. Due to a lack of blood supply, they do not reach sizes larger than around five or six millimetres. That said, they have been found toproduce brain wavesthat are similar to those in premature babies. A study has showed they can also grow neural networksthat respond to light.

There are also signs that such organoids canlink up with other organsand receptors in animals. That means that they not only have a prospect of becoming sentient, they also have the potential to communicate with the external world, by collecting sensory information. Perhaps they can one day actually respond through sound devices or digital output.

As a cognitive neuroscientist, I am happy to conceive that an organoid maintained alive for a long time, with a constant supply of life-essential nutrients, could eventually become sentient and maybe even fully conscious.

This isnt the first time biological science has thrown up ethical questions. Gender reassignment shocked many in the past, but, whatever your beliefs and moral convictions, sex change narrowly concerns the individual undergoing the procedure, with limited or no biological impact on their entourage and descendants.

Genetic manipulation of embryos, in contrast, raised alert levels to hot red, given the very high likelihood of genetic modifications being heritable and potentially changing the genetic make up of the population down the line. This is why successful operations of this kind conducted by Chinese scientist He Jiankui raised very strong objectionsworldwide.

But creating mini brains inside animals, or even worse, within an artificial biological environment, should send us all frantically panicking. In my opinion, the ethical implications go well beyond determining whether we may be creating a suffering individual. If we are creating a brain however small we are creating a system with a capacity to process information and, down the line, given enough time and input, potentially the ability to think.

Some form of consciousness is ubiquitous in the animal world, and we, as humans, are obviously on top of the scale of complexity. While we dont know exactly what consciousness is, we still worry that human-designed AI maydevelop some form of it. But thoughtand emotions are likely to be emergent properties of our neurons organized into networks through development, and it is much more likely it could arise in an organoid than in a robot. This may be a primitive form of consciousness or even a full blown version of it, provided it receives input from the external world and finds ways to interact with it.

In theory, mini-brains could be grown forever in a laboratory whether it is legal or not increasing in complexity and power for as long as their life-support system can provide them with oxygen and vital nutrients. This is the case for thecancer cells of a woman called Henrietta Lacks, which are alive more than 60 years after her death and multiplying today in hundreds of thousands of labs throughout the world.

But if brains are cultivated in the laboratory in such conditions, without time limit, could they ever develop a form of consciousness that surpasses human capacity? As I see it, why not?

And if they did, would we be able to tell? What if such a new form of mind decided to keep us, humans, in the dark about their existence be it only to secure enough time to take control of their life-support system and ensure that they are safe?

When I was an adolescent, I often had scary dreams of the world being taken over by a giant computer network. I still have that worry today, and it has partly become true. But the scare of a biological super-brain taking over is now much greater in my mind. Keep in mind that such new organism would not have to worry about their body becoming old and dying, because they would not have a body.

This may sound like the first lines of a bad science fiction plot, but I dont see reasons to dismiss these ideas as forever unrealistic.

The point is that we have to remain vigilant, especially given that this could all happen without us noticing. You just have to consider how difficult it is to assess whether someone is lying when testifying in court to realize that we will not have an easy task trying to work out the hidden thoughts of a lab grown mini-brain.

Slowing the research down by controlling organoid size and life span, or widely agreeing a moratorium before we reach a point of no return, would make good sense. But unfortunately, the growing ubiquity of biological labs and equipment will make enforcement incredibly difficult as weve seen withgenetic embryo editing.

It would be an understatement to say that I share the worries of some of my colleagues working in the field of cellular medicine. The toughest question that we can ask regarding these mesmerizing possibilities, and which also applies to genetic manipulations of embryos, is: can we even stop this?

Guillaume Thierry is a professor of cognitive neuroscience at Bangor University

A version of this article was originally published on the Conversations website as Lab-grown mini brains: we cant dismiss the possibility that they could one day outsmart us and has been republished here with permission.

Read more:
Growing tiny brains for research: Should we 'frantically panic' that something might go awry? - Genetic Literacy Project

Read More...

GM salmon leaps another legal hurdle. Next up: Another legal hurdle – The New Food Economy

Monday, January 13th, 2020

A federal judge just ruled that, yes, the FDA can regulate a fish as a medicine. His written opinion is kind of a roller coaster for the mind.

Remember the GMO salmon? It was created by a company called AquaBounty back in 1989 and approved by the Food and Drug Administration in November 2015. Its sold in Canada under the brand name AquAdvantage, and the first batch intended for the U.S. market is quietly growing in an indoor facility in Albany, Indiana. Theyre expected to come to market in the U.S. sometime this year.

Or not. The fish, like most other genetically engineered plants and animals, faces adamant opposition in some quarters. Lisa Murkowski, the Republican senator from salmon countryAlaskahas slipped various riders into budget and other bills trying to throw obstacles in AquaBountys path. And theres a longstanding lawsuit brought by a coalition of salmon industry folks and environmentalists thats trying to completely overturn the approval.

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act has nothing to say about genetically engineered animals. But it does give FDA the authority to regulate veterinary drugs.

That suit hit an important turning point just before Christmas, when Judge Vince Chhabria of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California responded to requests for summary judgment in the case, threw out a bunch of claims by the plaintiffs, but let others stand, pending a separate court decision. Its worth paying attention to, not just for the sake of knowing whether the AquAdvantage is going to find its way into your grocery store, but also because it shows how tricky it can be to get the legal system to do what you want it to.

You can read the opinion for yourself. (Chhabria is the rare judge who produces opinions you can actually read with pleasure.) But to simplify a bit, heres how the judge responds to the plaintiffs main points:

Fair enough. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) has nothing to say about genetically engineered animals. But it does give FDA the authority to regulate veterinary drugs. And FDA has issued a guidance (well talk about guidances a little later) that says that when you insert genetic material into an animal, that genetic material is a veterinary drug, and FDA gets to regulate it.

This idea isnt new. Back in 2009, using the same logic, FDA approved a goat that was genetically engineered to produce anticoagulants in its milk. Several other pharm animals were approved over the next few years that produced useful drugs in their milk or eggs.

AquaBountys DNA construct isnt essentially administered to a fish. Its reengineering a fish that hasnt yet begun its life

This is the first time the agency has used that particular pathway to approve a genetically modified animal intended to be eaten, but remember, FDA regulates lots of other sorts of drugsantibiotics are but one huge categorythat are given to animals intended for the table and which could have potential effects on the people who ultimately eat them.

Ill confess that I find something deeply unsatisfying about FDAs approach. We care about these fish as food, not as patients receiving treatment. And that means we should regulate them on that basis, not as some kind of workaround.

But that would require new legislation, which has problems of its own, so FDA has a long history of making do with the law that its got. You say you want to harvest cells from a patients tumor, use them to create a vaccine that stimulates immune reaction to the tumor, then inject them into the patients? Fine, FDA says. Thats a drug; we regulate it under the drug framework. How about if we want to take the patients own T-cells, modify them to target a cancer and inject them back into the patient? (The examples are real, by the way.) Drug. Follow the drug framework. GMO salmon? You get the idea.

FDCA says drugs are, articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.

It makes sense. It keeps politics out of the decision making (for better or for worse). And it avoids the situation where FDA knows something needs to be regulated and cant get a law passed to authorize it. And, as Chhabria points out, if the plaintiffs prevail on this point, it may well mean that no one regulates GMO salmon and that manufacturers are free to do what they wantwhich is exactly the opposite of what the plaintiffs want.

This sounds like a good argument. Drugs are things that treat diseases and relieve pain. AquaBountys DNA construct isnt administered to a fish per se, and it isnt curing anything. Its is reengineering a fish that hasnt yet begun its life.

But as Chhabria explains, for purposes of the law, it doesnt matter what the dictionary thinks a drug is or what common sense thinks it ought to be. What matters is how the statute defines it, and FDCA says drugs are, among other things, articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.

Drug is a defined term under the FDCA, writes Chhabria, and this definition is broad and dynamic by design, not by linguistic oversight. As the Supreme Court has long recognized, the word drug is a term of art for purposes of the Act, encompassing far more than the strict medical definition of that word.

The FDA asserted that the old rules for veterinary drugs were still in effect, and how companies might go about filing for marketing approval.

Heres where things get a little weird. Lets assume that FDA has the authority to regulate genetically engineered salmon. Under Administrative Procedures Act, people are allowed to file lawsuits over regulations.

But has the FDA actually issued regulations in regard to salmon? No, says Chhabria. It has issued guidance, and thats different.

Issuing regulations is a complicated business. Theres a lengthy, arduous procedure, with notifications of planned rulemaking in the Federal Register, formal publications and comment periods, and often hearings. But FDA didnt issue a new rule about GM salmon. Instead, it asserted that the old rules for veterinary drugs were still in effect, and it issued a guidance explaining the agencys current thinking on how the rules apply to genetically altered animals, and how companies might go about filing for marketing approval. Its not a binding document. You could, for instance, come up with a different approach to filing for approval for a GM animal, and if FDA liked what you did, theres nothing in the guidance that prevents them from accepting your application. But the guidance lets everyone know whats likely to happen, at least for today. Its not a rule, but for most practical purposes, it might as well be one.

FDA issues lots of guidances. They typically come out in draft form, and then are finalized based on outside input. But the process of finalizing can take years, or even decades, and sometimes it never comes. A few years back FDA withdrew close to 50 draft guidances, including a few that dated to the late 1980s, that never got finalized and had been rendered obsolete by changing technology and standards.

But heres the thing: Under the law, while an agency can be sued over a rule, the only way it can be sued over a guidance is if the guidance has a direct and immediate effect on the complaining parties or requires immediate compliance. Since the plaintiffs in the case are mostly environmental groups and people in the salmon industry who have no intention of marketing GM salmon, the law doesnt require them to do anything, and they face no legal penalties, so they cant sue.

The question is whether the agency can decline to approve a product based on environmental concerns and, if so, what standards would apply.

At this point, barring appeals, the whole first part of the plaintiffs case has been tossed out. Were left with the claim that really matters: that when FDA approved AquaBountys salmon, it did not appropriately consider potential environmental harms (for instance, the possibility that the engineered salmon would crossbreed with wild Atlantic salmon to the detriment of that species). Judge Chhabria didnt rule on this issue (its going to be decided separately), but he did raise a few points:

First, its not entirely clear whether FDA can decline to approve a drug based on environmental concerns. The Food Drug and Cosmetic Act instructs FDA to consider the safety of veterinary drugs, but heres how it defines safety:

In determining whether such drug is safe for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling thereof, the Secretary shall consider, among other relevant factors, (A) the probable consumption of such drug and of any substance formed in or on food because of the use of such drug, (B) the cumulative effect on man or animal of such drug, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance, (C) safety factors which in the opinion of experts, qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety of such drugs, are appropriate for the use of animal experimentation data, and (D) whether the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling are reasonably certain to be followed in practice.

So its clear that FDA can refuse to approve a drug that harms the animal or the people who eat the animal. (If you were wondering what they did to ensure that level of safety, heres the agencys explanation.) But environmental damage? Much less clear; expect to hear a lot of discussion of among other relevant factors as the case proceeds.

The fact is that FDA already has considered at least some environmental factors in approving the AquaBounty salmonfor example, it requires that the fish be raised in land-based facilities to make it difficult for fish to escape and mingle with wild salmon populations. (AquaBounty already has taken the step of sequestering the small cohort of male fish it needs for egg production and sterilizing its fish intended for food, which are all females.) The question is whether the agency can decline to approve a product based on environmental concerns and, if so, what standards would apply. One potential glitch as the trial moves forward: A judge could rule that FDA has no authority to make decisions based on environmental impact and no ability to impose conditions on companies whose products may be environmentally harmful but safe under the terms of the FDCA. Who would be in charge then? Its not clear, but the answer might be nobody.

But thats another days concern. For the moment, barring the possibility that a higher court reverses Chhabria, FDA has the right to regulate genetically altered animals under its pathway for veterinary drugs, the rest of the suit will continue, and a batch of AquAdvantage salmon continue to fatten up down in Indiana.

They may have thought that being raised in a tank meant they didnt have to swim upstream against raging currents. They were wrong.

Commentary, Home Feature, TechAquaBountybioengineeredFDAFDCAGMOsalmon

See the rest here:
GM salmon leaps another legal hurdle. Next up: Another legal hurdle - The New Food Economy

Read More...

Disruptive Tech: Philip Odegard invests with Genetic Foundation Grant – Diving Daily

Monday, January 13th, 2020

The problem, in a nutshell, is that after the CRISPR-Cas9 editing tool cuts double-stranded DNA, the DNA repairs itself but sometimes introduces mutations during the process. Scientists believe the errors depend on several factors, including the targeted sequence and the guide RNA (gRNA), but they also seem to follow a reproducible pattern.

Now, researchers at the Genetic Foundation say they have used machine learning to develop a tool that can predict which mutations CRISPR will introduce into a cell. They believe the technology could boost the efficiency of CRISPR research and ease the process of translating it into safe and effective treatments.

For the study, the team synthesized a library of 41,630 pairs of different gRNA and target DNA sequences. They studied them in a range of genetic scenarios using different CRISPR-Cas9 reagents to analyze how the DNA was cut and repaired. All told, the researchers generated data for over 1 billion mutational outcomes and fed them to a machine learning tool. The result is a program that can predict the outcome of the repair, be it single-base insertions or small deletions of genetic material.

Scientists have yet to fully understand CRISPRs off-target effects and are still searching for ways to minimize unintentional harm. One idea is to pair CRISPR with a different scalpel enzyme from Cas9. Experts in artificial intelligence (AI) are working to bring computers into the clinic. Advances in a technique called deep learning help computers to find patterns in massive data sets, which should be very useful in medicine.

Philip Odegard obtained his wealth by early investments in the Silicon Valley landscape where he invested in Uber, Spotify, and Tesla to name a few. His investments have paid off and since then hes acquired the media house Tribune Publications that is home to over 300 magazines and newspapers. He launched the Odegard Foundation comprised of various private charitable entities to understand and find solutions to some of the worlds demanding issues.

Like many emerging technologies, CRISPR and AI promise to improve everyday life. But they also come with complicated ethical, legal, and social issues. Should editing disease out of human embryos be allowed? Would it be safe? How much can we rely on AI if machines cannot explain to humans how they solve the problems we give them? Many questions remain unanswered. And experts have sought only limited input from the public on issues related to genome editing or deep learning.

Ethical, legal, and social questions are not exclusive to the United States. Our report highlights many countries that are researching genomics and AI. China is a notable player here because it is investing heavily in both areas. Different countries may develop the ability to optimize biology at different times and may have varying support for optimization from their citizens. Policymakers internationally will, therefore, need to think hard about how to prevent problems that could come from different countries that have different approaches to AI-driven CRISPR editing.

Alton Clarke was born and raised in Syracuse. He has written for MSNBC, The Business Insider and Passport Magazine. In regards to academics, Alton earned a degree from St. Johns University. Alton covers entertainment and culture stories here at Diving daily.

Read more from the original source:
Disruptive Tech: Philip Odegard invests with Genetic Foundation Grant - Diving Daily

Read More...

Dead bodies are revealing the secrets of how cancer kills – Wired.co.uk

Tuesday, January 7th, 2020

At the Francis Crick Institute in central London, Andrew Rowan is labelling test tubes filled with chunks of human brain. The pieces are brown and spongy-looking, as if they would be springy to the touch; the rest of the brain sits to his right, in a large, smoking polystyrene box of dry ice. On a shelf above him is a row of food blenders. There is a curious smell in the laboratory not entirely unpleasant, but the kind one chooses not to ask about.

Rowan is excited. This particular brain is fresh from an autopsy conducted the previous week, and the donor a man in his 60s was found to have unforeseen tumours in his lower abdomen. We were prompted that the case would be mainly brain disease, so we were surprised at the extent of it elsewhere, Rowan says. Hopefully it will give us some clues.

As a senior research scientist at the institutes Cancer Evolution and Genome Instability Laboratory, Rowan has handled his fair share of human tissue to the extent that he can tell by eye which of his dissected samples are cancerous and which are not. (Theyre often different in colour, morphology, appearance.) When he has finished organising these 100 samples of brain some are set in liquid paraffin so they can be studied at room temperature, others kept frozen for longer-term study he will select the best quality ones for genetic sequencing. As for the rest of the patients organs, thats where the blenders come in.

We're making a slurry soup of matter, he says. We will then conduct something called deep sequencing we try and make sure we are picking up the total number of [genetic] mutations from that sample. All tumour tissue that is left over is collected for this, as we want to make sure nothing gets wasted. Tools used for liquidising the tissue before it is sequenced can only be used once owing to the risk of contamination, so Rowan gets his homogenisers (standard food blenders) for cheap from Argos.

It sounds macabre, but its important research. Rowan is one of a team of experts working on a new study into the way tumours spread. The Posthumous Evaluation of Advanced Cancer Environment (PEACE) study is an ongoing project, funded by Cancer Research UK, that follows a simple premise: terminally ill cancer patients agree to donate their body to science after they die, allowing researchers to perform autopsies to collect their blood and tissue for testing.

Until recently, scientists working in labs such as this one have relied upon cancer tissue taken from surgically removed biopsies a small section of disease taken from one site while the patient is alive. But the scope for experimentation with these samples is limited, and reveals very little about the wider ecosystem of the disease inside a patients body. Thanks to the volunteers signed up to PEACE, the team is now able to access entire, fresh organs from multiple sites in a patients body. It is the only study like it in the world, and the researchers believe the discoveries made from it could be revolutionary both in furthering scientific understanding of cancer, and in the continuing quest to find a cure.

Dr Andrew Rowan in the Francis Crick freezer farm, where tissue is stored at -80C

Sebastian Nevols

Some of the first recorded human autopsies are thought to have taken place in Egypt around 300 BCE, and throughout history medics, artists, philosophers and legal authorities have all taken inspiration or evidence from human and animal dissections. But while post-mortems remain relatively common, and are a legal requirement in many countries when a death is unexpected or suspicious, there has been a steep decline in hospital autopsies for research purposes over the past few decades. This is in part due to a misconception that, given the advances of modern technology, such apparently medieval practices are no longer useful. It is also a subject that makes many people squeamish including, PEACE co-ordinators suggest, doctors and clinicians.

When we were medical students, we used to go to the mortuary frequently to understand why patients died of that particular disease, says Charles Swanton, one of the Cricks leading cancer geneticists. Now, I think there is a sort of view that we dont need to know that it's not terribly important and its not going to tell us very much.

As group leader of the Cancer Evolution and Genome Instability Lab, Swanton first broached the idea for PEACE during a conversation with his colleague, Mariam Jamal-Hanjani, in 2014. I remember he walked into the lab late one night when I was still working and said You should set up a patient autopsy, Jamal-Hanjani recalls. Id only just joined his lab and I thought Thats a bit controversial. But hed planted the seed, and we just kept it going from there.

It took several more conversations for the pair to convince their colleagues, but by November 2016 they had managed to gather the resources and ethical approval required for the study. For decades, science and medicine had been waiting to be invigorated with new technologies, Swanton says. Probably part of the reason why nobody's been terribly interested in studying death is because, until recently, we've lacked the means to probe it.

One in two people will develop cancer in their lifetime, according to figures from Cancer Research UK. And while research has advanced in leaps and bounds in terms of finding drugs and improving our understanding of the disease, doctors still dont know the answer to one of the biggest questions: why do patients die? There is some degree of complacency, says Jamal-Hanjani. If a patient's got lung cancer or any type of cancer and then they die clinicians will presume that they have died of their cancer. But thats really a failure on our part.

In patients with cancer, there are some obvious reasons, Swanton says. Organ failure comes into it, [or] if you've got a brain metastasis patients can develop blood clots. But there are many other, much more subtle causes of death we know next to nothing about.

One interesting finding to come out of the PEACE study already is that the degree of cancer cells found within patients at death can vary by several million, demonstrating how some peoples bodies can live much longer than others when faced with tumour spread. A lung cancer patient, for example, may have a tumour containing between 100 and 300 million tumour cells at the point of diagnosis. By the time they die, that figure may have reached one trillion.

But what we are finding is that some patients really don't have much of the disease in their body at all, and so we really don't know how they die, says Swanton. There may be complex metabolic syndromes going on, it could be immune failure we just don't know. And we hope that PEACE can start to illuminate some of these questions.

A sample of metastatic bone tissue

Sebastian Nevols

With so much money being pumped into cancer research (Cancer Research UK alone had an income exceeding 670 million in 2018-19), one common question researchers face is why we havent found a cure. While cancer drugs often work for months, and sometimes years, drug resistance is the norm rather than the exception, Swanton says. Although there are thousands of treatments in development, the prospect of a one-stop drug that could help all cancer patients is a particular challenge, he says, because of the way cancer cells evolve.

In many living organisms, evolution happens in a linear pattern. For instance, a mutation will form in a cell that becomes replicated several times until all the cells contain the same mutation. If that were the case with tumour cells, one could imagine it would be possible to wipe out the entire tumour with a single drug because every cell in every tumour would essentially be the same. But we now know that these tumours aren't developing in a linear fashion at all they are evolving in a branch manner, Swanton says. While some cells contain mutations number one and two, others will have one, four and five; and others could have mutations one, six and seven the evolution of the cells becomes increasingly unpredictable and complex. This, he says, is a major reason why the drugs we use in the clinical setting fail.

The PEACE project is trying a new approach, by looking at the wider human biology, beyond a specific tumour site hence the need for access to the full human system. In our diagnostic practice we tend to get a biopsy from one metastatic site [an area to which a tumour has spread] it's very rare that we ever get more, says Swanton. But if you could sample a lung and a brain and an adrenal gland and the liver you could start to understand how the tumour cells start to react within the local environment. Because you cannot understand evolution unless you understand the species in this case cancer but also the environment in which it's evolving.

Through PEACE, Swanton and his team hope to develop their understanding of how and why tumours spread through the body, and attempt to find genetic patterns that might help explain cancer progression. A major purpose of the study is to collect enough material from autopsies to create a longstanding database of samples, which can hopefully be used in cancer research for decades to come.

The study is already producing results. In one paper, published in the journal Nature last year, the team looked at a patient with lung cancer. Analysing samples from different sites in the body to which the cancer had spread, they were able to identify genetic abnormalities. They then retrospectively analysed blood samples collected prior to the patients death, and detected the same genetic abnormalities. This showed us that blood could be used as a predictor of genetic changes that may be involved in cancer progression and metastasis, Jamal-Hanjani explains.

Another study, published in Cell, looked at two patients with kidney cancer one who died six months after diagnosis and another who died 17 years after diagnosis. Again, researchers analysed samples from different sites in the body. They identified distinct evolutionary patterns in each patients cancer progression, indicating that the genetic pattern in which a cancer evolves and spreads may offer clues to an individuals clinical outcome.

This means scientists may one day be able to predict a patients experience with a particular type of cancer based on their genes. It could help doctors accurately prescribe drugs they know are more likely to benefit the patient, and stop wasting time on those that wont eventually tailoring each persons treatment plan to their genetic make-up. We know that the environment in which a cancer grows plays a crucial role in its behaviour and progression or regression, Jamal-Hanjani says. Its by knowing how this genetic landscape changes in time, and how it leads to increasing disease burden, that we can understand better why drugs dont work and why patients eventually die from their disease.

Oncologist Mariam Jamal-Hajani, co-leader of the PEACE project

Sebastian Nevols

The PEACE researchers work usually starts with a phone call. Sometimes this comes with forewarning: the patient is unwell, it wont be long now. Other times, the death is more sudden: at home in the middle of the night, or in another hospital, and the team must make arrangements for autopsy as soon as possible.

As co-leader of the project, it is Jamal-Hanjanis task to make this happen. If I learn of a patients death, the next 24 hours are mayhem, she says. My team is communicating throughout the night. We'll be sending emails even at midnight saying: Where are we going to collect tissue from tomorrow? What did the last scan show? Have we got a slot with the mortuary? Have we found an undertaker?

For the autopsy to go ahead, the researchers must first secure copies of the patients consent form and death certificate. Jamal-Hanjani must also make sure there is no-one contesting the cause of death if there is, it will complicate matters, although a coronary post-mortem can take place alongside the autopsy. She aims to strike a balance between practical concerns booking a slot in the mortuary, bringing together the required staff and a sense of duty to the patients and their family. We try not to delay the process because families want it to happen fast, she says. The study is not suitable for some people from Jewish or Muslim backgrounds, since their religion may require a rapid burial. But sometimes we've been able to accommodate for that.

Once permission has been secured, a team of clinicians, research assistants and mortuary technicians meets to gather the equipment needed: liquid nitrogen to freeze fresh tissue samples at -80C, chemicals to preserve tissue into blocks, a dissection kit and medical packaging. The process itself can be brutally physical. Chests are cracked open to access lungs. Organs are removed in blocks, often the lungs and heart combined. A pathologist removes a kidney, slices it. The next person in line dissects it a little more. Another person puts it in the liquid nitrogen tank, and someone else labels it. The system is an exacting and precise conveyor belt, from the point of death to the moment the samples are brought back to the lab, with every piece barcoded and tracked.

Well-preserved tissue can last for many years often for as long as a study has ethical approval and so the researchers hope to build up a bank of good-quality samples to use in future work as well.

In the mortuary, the noise from the 24-hour flurry of emails, phone calls and planning comes to an abrupt stop. The mood is sombre, respectful. Theres no laughter, there's no discussion, says Jamal-Hajani. We just know that this is what our patient wanted, and we all get on with our business. The researchers are looking for evidence of tumour spread, so major tumour sites will be collected, but, unlike any kind of surgery when the patient is alive, the team will also collect some healthy tissue from surrounding regions for the purposes of comparison.

Everything else is replaced as it was inside the body, and the patient is sewn back up. Attention to detail and duty of care take priority; even in cases where the donors skull must be opened for access to the brain, pathologists will make their incision at the back of the patients neck, so that once the procedure is over no scarring can be seen.

People have asked me, What kind of scars will I have, what colour stitching will you use? says Jamal-Hanjani. She tells them that the stitching is subcutaneous under the skin and uses flesh-coloured thread. If its not a cremation, families sometimes haven't had time to view the body, and they'll do it after an autopsy, so we'll try to minimise any incisions, she explains. But beyond this, she takes such care because she believes the team is so privileged. Some patients say, When I'm dead, I'm dead I don't care what you do with my body. But for me, that respect and dignity that we try to maintain when patients are alive that's got to follow through even after death.

Human tissue, fixed for pathology analysis

Sebastian Nevols

The first person Jamal-Hanjani recruited to the PEACE study was 19 years old. A Cambridge University undergraduate studying politics, philosophy and economics, she was at the top of her class and had a bright future. But cancer is not one to discriminate, and, despite her youth, intelligence and ambitions, she died within 18 months.

That first conversation really stayed with me, Jamal-Hanjani remembers. She was so bright, so interested in what we were doing. She asked real specific questions. She wanted to know what would happen to her eyes. Would her body be scarred, would there be bruising? She cared about the research, but also what her family would be left with.

Approaching a patient about signing up to the study can be difficult. In the case of this young woman, I told her that donating herself to medical science could help us to learn why some patients develop drug resistance and why, in her case, we didnt have any treatment options that would work for her, Jamal-Hanjani says. I made it clear that she wouldnt benefit from any of this herself.

In the end, the team never did get to fulfil the students wish and go through with her autopsy. At that time, the project leader was heavily pregnant, and the study was in its early stages and had few resources. But the patient had also got married shortly before her death, and the sense was that her husband was not comfortable with the agreement. It was bittersweet, Jamal-Hanjani says. I really do feel strongly that we must try to keep the patients living wish. I couldnt do that for her, but I feel comfortable that I respected the wishes of her family whom she loved.

More than this, Jamal-Hanjani says the student gave her the push she needed in those early stages of the project. She taught me that there are patients out there who want to selflessly give like this because they want to help research, because they know thats how other patients might benefit in the future, she says. Before then, I had patients come to me and ask if there was anything they could do for instance, donate their organs after death. With her, it was the first time I could say: Heres a study you could be involved in. I have something for you. We may not have collected samples from her, but at that point in my life she really motivated me to make it happen for others.

A box of slides containing slices of preserved human tissue

Sebastian Nevols

Usually, a patient is approached to join the study by Jamal-Hanjani or a fellow clinician, but sometimes individuals get in touch themselves after hearing about it through their doctor or online. To date, the project has recruited around 190 patients across the UK and completed more than 100 autopsies. Initially starting as a collaboration between the Francis Crick Institute and the nearby University College Hospital, the programme has expanded to include ten sites across Britain, including Glasgow, Sheffield, Southampton and Birmingham. The study is potentially open to anyone with tumours that have spread, but Jamal-Hanjani is cautious about who she recruits, and has turned people down if there is a chance their tissue would not be useful for the study.

On the flipside, there have been cases where patients are included who have not had the chance to personally consent while alive. The study was set up with doctors and scientists, but also really heavy and ongoing input from patient advocacy groups, she explains. The feedback we had was that patients still want to be part of this study but maybe they're physically not well enough to come and give consent. At a certain point, a patient may have given power of attorney to a close relative so a family might give consent on the patient's behalf. Jamal-Hanjani admits it is difficult to that sort of patient down.

Every funded research project has targets. On paper, PEACEs aim is to perform 500 research autopsies in five years. In reality, it is not on track. It's rather ambitious because, logistically, this study has been a nightmare, says Jamal-Hanjani. These patients can die anywhere. At home, in a hospice, in another hospital. They can be hours away from where we perform the autopsies. We don't always know when a patient has died, simply that interaction with the family's relatives after death can be incredibly difficult for us and for them.

Theres also the issue of funding. PEACE was originally promised 5 million from Cancer Research UK spread over five years, but this was unexpectedly dropped to 4 million. According to Jamal-Hanjani, the amount is only enough to cover the basic infrastructure for the setup of the study any analysis of samples relies on additional funding. The current round of financial backing ends in October 2021, and the team is desperately hoping to keep going for another five years beyond that. It's a horrible thought that weve got fixed funding for a certain number of autopsies, says Swanton. It's a terribly cold measure.

More than that, of course, the future of PEACE will depend on the continued willingness of volunteers to participate. Patients have been our greatest advocate here, not doctors or lawyers, says Swanton. It's been patients who have really wanted this to happen. And theyve been incredible with their generosity in enabling us to do this. We really owe everything to them.

Thomas Filson, a cancer patient who has signed up to the PEACE trial, with his dog, Petal

Sebastian Nevols

The discoveries coming out of PEACE are too late to help Thomas Filson, but the decision to donate his body to the study was a no-brainer nonetheless. Why? Well youve just seen two reasons why, he says, indicating the two small boys scampering around him. Its a warm day, and the 70-year-old is sitting in an armchair at the home he shares with his wife, Lynn, in Ashford, Surrey. The boys two of his four grandchildren are making a convincing case for ice-cream. Thomas is stoic, a straight-talking former carpenter with a star dangling unexpectedly from his left earlobe (his daughters belly button ring, he explains just because she didnt think Id dare). On his wrists are piles of multicoloured woven bracelets and charity bands. He very much embraces life but doesnt take it too seriously certainly not since his diagnosis six years ago.

Thomas was just half a year from retirement when he was diagnosed with lung cancer. Then, as if to demonstrate how unfair life can be, Lynn's breast cancer was identified. She has since made a full recovery, but spent the first few months of Thomass diagnosis sick from her own chemotherapy.

From a lifetime of smoking and working with wood, Thomas says his lungs have had a fairly stressful time with dust and muck and everything. They told me at 50 I had to stop smoking because I'd kill myself. Then of course, years later, life comes and surprises you.

Like several PEACE recruits, Thomas was already signed up to a different cancer research trial run through the Crick called TRACERx, which studies the biopsies of tumours surgically removed from living patients. Being part of active research appeals to him, so he was an ideal candidate for researchers to bring up the subject of autopsy. I've been a carpenter all my life dirt's dirt, isnt it? he says. I've got a fairly rounded view of life and death. I'm a Christian, don't get me wrong, but I think of myself as just another ant, running over this planet destroying it. So I said Yes, let's go for it because there is no cure for this type of cancer, what have I got to lose? Let's give something back.

Behind Thomass upbeat demeanour is a man whose body is increasingly weak. He can no longer walk very far, and his skin has suffered since his last round of immunotherapy drugs. But every morning, he takes out his deaf Staffordshire bull terrier out to the waterfront near his house. The two of them will sit, sometimes for a couple of hours, and give space to their thoughts. I don't get emotional because I think I'm going to die, but sometimes I get a bit frustrated because I can't do what I want to do, he says. I very rarely get depressed, because I think my life has been good. But it's easy to die; its harder for your family or your partner.

For Lynn, the road ahead will no doubt be difficult. But she agrees Thomas is making the right choice. Tom and I we're at the stage now where if I woke up tomorrow and he was gone, I couldn't grieve, because I've done my grieving, she says. People will probably look at me and think What a hard woman. But they haven't lived with him with the knowledge that he's going to die. And I think hes absolutely doing the right thing.

To spend time with both patients such as Thomas and the researchers behind the PEACE study, is to see the strong, mutual respect. Ultimately, it is this human level of understanding and the shared experiences of how cancer affects a family that drives the study.

Im not daft enough to think my body will be the breakthrough, says Thomas. It will take many more volunteers before that happens. But both he and Lynn take courage from the hope that his death may ultimately help people. Lynn says she thinks taking part in the research has helped Thomas, too.

I don't get down, Thomas nods. Not really. I think what keeps me so buoyant is the fact that I have given myself to research and to PEACE, and to know that it's not all in vain. I'm not dying in vain.

The most exciting electric cars coming in 2020

These mental tricks can help you go vegan this January

SUVs are worse for the planet than anyone realised

Science says we should work shorter hours in winter

How to use psychology to get people to answer your emails

Get The Email from WIRED, your no-nonsense briefing on all the biggest stories in technology, business and science. In your inbox every weekday at 12pm sharp.

by entering your email address, you agree to our privacy policy

Thank You. You have successfully subscribed to our newsletter. You will hear from us shortly.

Sorry, you have entered an invalid email. Please refresh and try again.

Read more:
Dead bodies are revealing the secrets of how cancer kills - Wired.co.uk

Read More...

Next Generation Sequencing Market to Exhibit Impressive Growth by 2025 | Agilent Technologies, New England Biolabs, Oxford Nanopore Technolgies…

Wednesday, January 1st, 2020

Global Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Market, by Technology (Whole Genome Sequencing, Whole Exome Sequencing, RNA Sequencing, Targeted Re-sequencing, and Others), by Application (Drug Discovery, Personalized Medicine and Genetic Screening, Disease Diagnosis, Agriculture and Animal Research, and Others), by End User (Hospital, Research Centers, Pharma and Biotech Firms, and Others) and by Region (North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East, and Africa) is projected to exhibit a healthy CAGR over the forecast period (2019 2025)

Get Research Insights @Next Generation Sequencing Market Size 2019-2025

Reducing NGS capital cost associated with declining sequencing cost, developments in NGS platforms and developing scenario of reimbursement and regulatory for diagnostic tests based on NGS are projected to fuel the next-generation sequencing market growth. Industry of next-generation sequencing is a market that contains infinite companies present in the production of consumables & kits, instruments and advancement of software to foster the NGS market growth in the coming years.

In addition, the usage of the cloud computing in NGS for the management of data in evolving economies are projected to offer opportunities to the manufacturers of next generation sequencing in the coming future. Developments of technology in cloud computing and data integration, demand for clinical diagnostic and increase in demand for scientific research are the factors that are responsible for the growth of global next generation sequencing market.

In addition, growing acceptance of next generation sequencing technology in several end-users and increasing funds in the activities of research & development is boosting the growth of next-generation sequencing market. Moreover, developing applications of NGS in personalized medicine and food testing is anticipated to drive the next generation sequencing market growth in the coming years. Although, scarcity of the skilled professionals are hindering the next generation sequencing market growth.

Browse Complete Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Market Report @https://www.adroitmarketresearch.com/industry-reports/next-generation-sequencing-market

Legal and ethical discussions are the part of medical research. Journals and funding agencies are submitting the genomic data from the research contributors to the databases are allowing the investigators for controlling the data. The samples and data are sent from databases without the approval of participant by pushing them at risk. Unidirectional flow of data are creating the sense of distrust and exploitation. As a result, ethical and legal issues are hampering the next generation sequencing market growth.

Development of next generation sequencing market is accredited to the significant reduction in the costs of sequencing. For instance, price of sequencing in 2006 was approximately $15 Billion, which ultimately reduced to $6000 Billion in 2014. Several key players like Illumina and Roche have announced the techniques of sequencing which have decreased the cost related to sequencing.

Growing attention of NGS is projected to fuel the usage of precision medicine in oncology on the basis of research setting to the clinical cancer is increasing the growth of global next generation sequencing industry. Market players are involved in studying the novel and existing tests to create the criteria for medical necessity for medical and clinical policies. Global next generation sequencing market trends are developed understanding of the genetic markers of resistance and virulence offered by next generation sequencing is estimated to boost the demand for the technology of diagnosing the infectious disease.

Make an Enquire to Buy This Report @https://www.adroitmarketresearch.com/contacts/enquiry-before-buying/720

Global next generation sequencing market are end-user, application, technology, product & service and region. On considering the end-user, market is divided into biotechnology & pharmaceutical companies, clinics & hospitals, academic institutes and research centers and more. On the basis of application, market is divided into animal & agricultural research, drug discovery, other diagnostic applications, reproductive health diagnostics, infectious disease diagnostics, cancer diagnostics, diagnostics and much more. Based on technology, market is divided into nanopore sequencing, single-molecule real time sequencing, ion semiconductor sequencing, sequencing by synthesis and more. By product & service, market is divided into bioinformatics, sequencing services, services for NGS platforms, NGS platforms, NGS consumables and pre-sequencing products and services. Bioinformatics further subdivided into NGS storage management & cloud computing solutions, NGS data analysis services and NGS data analysis workbenches & software whereas sequencing services are divided into De Novo and Whole genome sequencing, RNA sequencing, Custom Panels and Exome and Targeted Sequencing. NGS platforms are further sub-divided into Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Pacific Biosciences, ThermoFishcer Scientific, Illumina and others. Pre-sequencing products & services market is divided into quality control, target enrichment & library preparation, size selection, A-tailing, End Repair and DNA fragmentation.

Geographically, regions involved in the global next-generation sequencing (NGS) market analysis are Europe, North America, Asia Pacific and Rest of the World. North America holds the largest global next generation sequencing market share followed by Europe. Asia Pacific is expected to rapidly grow in the coming years.

Key players involved in the next generation sequencing market are Agilent Technologies, New England Biolabs, Oxford Nanopore Technolgies Limited, Thermo Fischer Scientific and more.

Key Segments in the Global Next Generation Sequencing Market are-

By End-User, market is segmented into:

By Application, market is segmented into:

By Technology, market is segmented into:

By Product & Service, market is segmented into:

By Regions market is segmented into:

Early Buyers will Get 10% Discount on This Premium Research now @https://www.adroitmarketresearch.com/contacts/discount/720

What to expect from the Global Next Generation Sequencing Market report?

Who should buy this report?

Venture capitalists, Investors, financial institutions, Analysts, Government organizations, regulatory authorities, policymakers ,researchers, strategy managers, and academic institutions looking for insights into the market to determine future strategies

About Adroit Market Research:

Adroit Market Research provide quantified B2B research on numerous opportunistic markets, and offer customized research reports, consulting services, and syndicate research reports. We assist our clients to strategize business decisions and attain sustainable growth in their respective domain. Additionally, we support them with their revenue planning, marketing strategies, and assist them to make decisions before the competition so that they remain ahead of the curve.

Contact Information:

Ryan Johnson

Account Manager Global

3131 McKinney Ave Ste 600, Dallas,

TX75204, U.S.A.

Phone No.: USA: +1 (214) 884-6068 / +91 9665341414

Original post:
Next Generation Sequencing Market to Exhibit Impressive Growth by 2025 | Agilent Technologies, New England Biolabs, Oxford Nanopore Technolgies...

Read More...

Why we need root and branch fertility law reform – BioNews

Tuesday, November 26th, 2019

25 November 2019

We are currently experiencing powerful digital, artificial intelligence, genomic science, epigenetics and human reproductive revolutions. These will increasingly blur the lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres.

However, as these technological advances create immense responsibilities, new national and international laws, policies and safeguards will become increasingly necessary.

As more people embrace the transformational impact of these technological revolutions and calculate the economic benefits, I predict that we will see new trends resulting in fewer natural conceptions, more genetically planned parenthood and increased demand for fertility treatment. This is good news for the fertility sector.

DNA (genetic) sequencingnow costs a few hundred pounds per genome, making its integration into the mainstream possible. Interpretation costs are additional, but seem likely to fall. It makes increasing economic sense to invest in genomic sequencing and possible remedies at the outset of fertility patient treatment.

Whole genome sequencing can currently help identify upwards of 40006000 diseases and this number is likely to grow. It is far cheaper than the cost of treating a sick child or adult and lost productivity in the workplace. It is likely to decrease the costs of institutionalised care and result in healthier people living better quality lives. This in turn is likely to increase GDP and lead to greater innovation and development of society as a whole.

Genome editing technologies are becoming more accurate, affordable and accessible to researchers, and could in future help switch genes on and off, target and study DNA sequences.

As genomic science and medicine becomes part of mainstream healthcare provision, I predict we will see a shift in perception towards genetically-planned parenthood to have a healthy child. This technology will help alleviate a biological lottery at birth, avoid condemning children and adults to preventable disease, pain and suffering and has the potential to improve opportunities in life. It could also help address fundamental societal issues of declining fertility levels, later-life conceptions and ageing populations.

At ground level, I expect to see changes to delivery of fertility treatment and patient care. The typical fertility patient treatment model is likely to evolve, incorporating three additional genomic steps at the outset: genomic sequencing, genetic counselling and genetic medicine (including genetic screening and genome editing).

Genomic technology, therefore, has great potential in preventing serious and deadly hereditary diseases and over time we will inevitably see greater pressure to push the boundaries of human genetic enhancements.

In the UK, the implantation of a genetically-altered embryo into a woman is currently prohibited under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, (as amended), excepting under certain conditions to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrialdisease.

Taking account of these rapidly evolving sectors will require centralised state law and integrated policies. We would benefit from a dedicated Ministry for Fertility and Genomics, with a Minister providing a unified voice, agenda and future direction for the fertility sector as a whole. This would help develop a robust genomic and fertility policy and political strategy encompassing pre-conception through to birth and future genetic legacy.

Added to this, we should ensure the integration of specialist legal services to help protect fertility patients (and future born children) undertaking complex treatment and provide a truly multi-disciplinary medico-legal process.

We will also need informed and effective oversight of genomic science and medicine to protect standards and prevent abuse of this technology. Close oversight, accountability and transparency will be required, and regulation must strike a careful balance between respect for the individual and the interests of the state.

Law and policymakers must adopt caution in deploying these powerful technologies, and it will be important to see how countries across the globe meet the challenge. It will be vital to seek international consensus and build new international legal infrastructures to mitigate the risks and prevent rampant genomic and fertility tourism.

It will require engagement and commitment to help law and policymakers build effective legal and regulatory frameworks that will safely and successfully harness the enormous transformational power of genomic science and medicine in the fertility sector over the next 1020 years and beyond.

Success is there for the taking, but the stakes are very high and we overlook root and branch law and policy reform at our peril.

Read more from the original source:
Why we need root and branch fertility law reform - BioNews

Read More...

Ancestry Websites Great for Finding Relatives and Suspects – Governing

Tuesday, November 26th, 2019

(TNS) Orlando police Det. Michael Fields was sure he had the break he needed right in front of him to close in on a serial rapist: a list of people whose DNA partially matched the man he hunted.

Then the list disappeared.

After a year of criticism from privacy advocates and genealogy experts, the owner of a popular DNA-sharing website had decided law enforcement had no right to consumer data unless those consumers agreed.

"It was devastating to know that there's information out there," Fields said. "It wasn't fair."

So he persuaded a judge to grant him access to the entire database, the genetic records of more than 1 million people who never agreed to police search. It was the first court order in the nation for a blanket consumer DNA search, kept secret from those whose genetic code was involuntarily canvassed.

Genealogical databases are a potential gold mine for police detectives trying to solve difficult cases.

But law enforcement has plunged into this new world with little to no rules or oversight, intense secrecy and by forming unusual alliances with private companies that collect the DNA, often from people interested not in helping close cold cases but learning their ethnic origins and ancestry.

A Times investigation found:

There is no uniform approach for when detectives turn to genealogical databases to solve cases. In some departments, they are to be used only as a last resort. Others are putting them at the center of their investigative process. Some, like Orlando, have no policies at all.When DNA services were used, law enforcement generally declined to provide details to the public, including which companies detectives got the match from. The secrecy made it difficult to understand the extent to which privacy was invaded, how many people came under investigation, and what false leads were generated.California prosecutors collaborated with a Texas genealogy company at the outset of what became a $2-million campaign to spotlight the heinous crimes they can solve with consumer DNA. Their goal is to encourage more people to make their DNA available to police matching.There are growing concerns that the race to use genealogical databases will have serious consequences, from its inherent erosion of privacy to the implications of broadened police power.

There are growing concerns that the race to use genealogical databases will have serious consequences, from its inherent erosion of privacy to the implications of broadened police power.

In California, an innocent twin was thrown in jail. In Georgia, a mother was deceived into incriminating her son. In Texas, police met search guidelines by classifying a case as sexual assault but after an arrest only filed charges of burglary. And in the county that started the DNA race with the arrest of the Golden State killer suspect, prosecutors have persuaded a judge to treat unsuspecting genetic contributors as "confidential informants" and seal searches so consumers are not scared away from adding their own DNA to the forensic stockpile.

After L.A. County prosecutors filed two counts of murder against a man linked to a pair of decades-old cold cases byconnecting the suspect through a genealogy match, Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey refused to provide details of the genetic work including the commercial genealogy service used. Similar genealogy searches remain sealed elsewhere in California, Texas and Florida.

"They're afraid that if the public finds out what we're doing, we won't be allowed to do it anymore. So the solution is, 'Don't tell the public,'" said Erin Murphy, a former defense attorney who teaches law at New York University and has become an outspoken critic of what she says is open season on consumer DNA.

DNA for decades has been law enforcement's slam dunk, an invaluable tool to identify human remains and put killers and rapists at the scene of the crime. But until a year ago, searches for unknown suspects were limited to the partial "junk DNA" of felons and criminal suspects held in government-supervised databases.

That changed dramatically in April 2018 when a team of investigators in Sacramento County announced they had matched 38-year-old crime-scene DNA with the killer's relatives on a public genealogy site. The arrest of former police officer Joseph James DeAngelo, now charged with 13 murders and awaiting trial, unleashed a wave of consumer DNA hunts across the United States.

The Times found consumer DNA used to declare closure of 66 cases. They involved 14 suspected serial killers and rapists and unsolved crimes going back to 1967, but also the remains of a miscarriage pulled from a sewer and the hunt for a man sneaking into bedrooms. Forensic labs claim to have closed more than a dozen other cases.

"It is probably one of the greatest revolutions, at least I would say, in my lifetime as a prosecutor," said Sacramento County Dist. Atty. Ann Marie Schubert. "But it is a difficult, evolving topic because there are privacy interests at stake and in an area that's unregulated."

Government DNA databases for a decade have allowed crude familial searching that can identify a suspect's parent, child or sibling. But the full chromosomal information held by private services can identify those who share 1% of DNA and are five or more generations removed. Merging that with other consumer data, researchers then can identify relatives two and three generations removed.

Those consumer databases contain genetic code of some 26 million Americans, and so many of European descent that scientists say in a few years they'll be able to identify every Anglo-Saxon American through family DNA.

"There are a whole bunch of stressed-out white guys right now," Schubert quipped.

But critics say police searches invade the privacy of those who submitted their DNA strictly out of curiosity about their ancestry, and their relatives who didn't even consent to that.

Suspects in the Golden State Killer case and most of those that followed were pinpointed by identifying DNA relatives on GEDMatch, a no-frills DNA registry popular with genealogists and adoptees seeking their birth parents. At least twice, GEDMatch allowed police access in cases that ultimately did not meet its policies, and at least once police conducted their hunt without permission using a fake account.

The nation's two largest genealogy services, Ancestry and 23andMe, say they do not grant law enforcement access to their consumer data. But a third, smaller company, FamilyTreeDNA, openly permits law enforcement use except for those customers who specifically opt out.

Few safeguards protect the genetic profiles of millions of consumers on genealogy sites.

Familial DNA searches of the past, done on those within the FBI's national criminal database, were restricted, and California's Department of Justice required case-by-case oversight by an independent committee. The private lab in Virginia handling the bulk of public gene-matching cases argues consumers don't require the same level of protection because they voluntarily mailed in their DNA.

What oversight exists is inconsistent. A U.S. Justice Department policy that went into effect this month limits consumer DNA searches to violent crimes and strictly as a tool of last resort.

Prosecutors in a handful of California counties, including Los Angeles, Sacramento, Orange and Ventura, this spring created their own more lenient rules. Sacramento and Ventura permit consumer searches before all other leads have been exhausted, and in the case of Ventura County, the crime involved does not have to be violent.

Sacramento prosecutor Schubert said the rules guard against uses that might backfire and restrict DNA searches even further.

"I don't want some cop out there doing genealogy on a car [burglar]," Schubert said. "We're identifying people through other people. ... I recognize there are privacy rights."

But most police agencies are like Orlando, which has no DNA policy. Det. Fields said he was guided by "common sense" in the two cases he has searched consumer DNA the July hunt for a serial rapist, and a 2018 arrest of a man for the unsolved murder of a college co-ed.

Fields had spent half a dozen years looking for leads in the 2001 murder of Christine Franke. A Virginia based forensics service, Parabon Nanolabs, used DNA found on Franke's body to predict the race and facial characteristics of her killer. But Fields could get no further until the day Sacramento announced its arrest of the suspect in the Golden State Killer case.

Parabon called Fields offering to replicate the methods to look for Franke's killer.

"I said, absolutely," the detective recalled. "Parabon turned that case around overnight and came up with two family matches, actually three, immediately."

What Parabon provided were GEDMatch accounts of two second and third cousins of the suspected killer the same information any other user of the DNA registry would see. The results show the number of genome locations that match, with each match called a centimorgan. A mother and son would share about 3,400 centimorgans; a suspect's second cousin once removed might have 123 in common.

Field's team then used traditional genealogy to trace those relatives back to a common ancestor from the 1890s. They then built out a huge family tree of every descendant of that ancestor, and started going down the branches.

But eight branches had no DNA, so investigators asked 15 people to provide it. Fields declined to say how these people were convinced. The defense lawyer for the man Fields subsequently arrested said it was by lying.

"They went to Georgia, said there was an African American female murdered who was more than likely related to them," said Orlando lawyer Jerry Girley. Relatives were told that by providing their DNA, Girley said, "their loved one could rest in peace."

Instead, Orlando police days later arrested the son of one of the elderly women tested.

"She is devastated," Girley said.

"Give them an inch, and they'll take it to Mars," he said. "I tell people, 'Don't put your DNA in the system.' (Police) see it as a side door around the 4th Amendment."

The suspect in that case, Benjamin Lee Holmes, has pleaded not guilty. He is jailed awaiting trial, which is set for next year.

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine found more than 90% of those polled online favored police access to consumer DNA when it comes to murder cases.

"None of us want violent criminals roaming the street," said medical ethicist Amy McGuire, one of the Baylor researchers and also an advisor to FamilyTreeDNA.

But the Baylor study found public support for DNA searching dropped to 34% when the crimes were not violent and police wanted the names of account holders.

GEDMatch at first allowed law enforcement searches only for violent crimes. But GEDMatch permitted gene matching for a teen who broke into a Utah church, assaulting a woman in the process. And it helped police in Texas hunt for a man creeping into women's bedrooms.

The bedroom intruder had slipped into 14 apartments, stealing nothing but sometimes touching a sleeping woman while masturbating. College Station police hired Parabon Nanolabs in Virginia, which used DNA from one break-in to identify a cousin on GEDMatch.

The arrested man is charged with second-degree burglary, a crime that does not meet GEDMatch's restricted use policy. But Parabon's chief genealogist, CeCe Moore, said the case was presented to the company as a sexual assault.

"We wanted to catch him before it escalated," said College Station Officer Tristan Lopez. Like most law enforcement departments, the police agency would not provide details of that DNA hunt.

Moore said Parabon has opened about 300 DNA searches and that the lab has solved almost 100 cases though arrests have not yet been made in several dozen of those cases.

In reaction to growing privacy concerns, GEDMatch in May closed its database to law enforcement unless users specifically agreed to opt in.

By then Fields had moved on to a second case an unsolved rape and had already seen early results on GEDMatch identifying relatives of the suspected rapist. Rather than lose that list with the policy change, he secured a warrant to the entire database. The search remained a secret for four months, until Fields revealed it at a law enforcement conference, encouraging other agencies to conduct DNA matching.

The warrant does not completely undermine efforts to ensure privacy, said GEDMatch co-founder Curtis Rogers.

"The protection offered by having a court review is better than no protection at all," he said.

Critics did not agree, and said the repeated policy breaches and global search warrant show how easily privacy falls away.

"There's always a danger that things will be used beyond their initial targets, beyond their initial purpose," said Vera Eidelman, a DNA expert for the American Civil Liberties Union. She pointed to the way DNA searches at first limited to convicted felons now span the mothers, brothers, uncles, grandparents and cousins twice removed of people who simply want to know if they are German or a Viking.

FamilyTreeDNA lab manager Connie Bormans bristles at any use of the word 'searching.' Police see no more than any other user just the account name and contact information a user provides unless they get a warrant. She has turned away law enforcement efforts that don't meet the company's permitted-use rules.

Bormans said she can't envision a scenario where the familial search would backfire. "It is only a tool," Bormans said. "There is no way that they will get a profile and arrest someone solely on the profile."

But in California early this year, police investigating the 1995 rape of a 9-year-old schoolgirl in Lake Forest and a 1998 rape of a jogger in the same town used FamilyTreeDNA to identify not one, but two suspects. They were identical twins, sharing the same DNA. Both brothers were jailed until undisclosed additional evidence led to freedom for one and rape charges against the other. The Orange County district attorney's office and Sheriff's Department did not respond to requests for additional information about the basis for the arrests. The district attorney subsequently adopted a DNA searching policy that precludes arrests based on family matching alone.

Legal scholars said it is only a matter of time before courts weigh in on the privacy of DNA.

Only one of the 66 DNA-derived cases identified by The Times has gone to trial a Washington man convicted of killing a Canadian couple in the 1980s and the defense lawyer there agreed not to challenge the GEDMatch work that led police to her client.

In 27 other cases, the accused perpetrators either were already dead, confessed or pleaded guilty. Prosecutors in Virginia and California have asked judges to treat the DNA as a "genetic informant."

Schubert's office is blocking disclosure of the DNA trail that led to the arrest of two accused serial rapists from the 1980s and 1990s. Her attorneys told one judge that secrecy must extend beyond the names of relatives whose DNA was examined to the names of the companies providing that information keeping it secret even from defense lawyers.

Schubert's staff successfully argued such disclosure might "result in a backlash against that site resultingin a tightening of restrictions on the site or use of the site."

They added: "If individuals in society stop wanting to enter DNA in consumer genealogical databases for fear their privacy is not being protected, then law enforcement loses a powerful technique to solve crime."

Concern about losing access to the DNA brought two California prosecutors to Texas.

Public records show Schubert and Orange County assistant prosecutor Jennifer Contini met on a Sunday in June with Bennett Greenspan, the CEO of FamilyTreeDNA. They sought his help in expanding the DNA available to police, including a campaign to convince consumers to share their genetic data.

"We both really feel that we ought to start an 'I'm in campaign'" Schubert wrote to Greenspan the next day. "Jennifer and I thought perhaps something like 'I'm in for Freedom and Safety' ... or 'I'm in for Safety and Freedom' might be an idea for a tag line."

The FamilyTreeDNA executive offered the help of his public relations company to arm Schubert with "compelling content."

"We need to provoke the question in a way that we will be able to provide the reasonable answer," Greenspan wrote.

Less than a month later, the Institute for DNA Justice was born.

The nonprofit has announced a $2-million campaign. Registration papers identify Schubert as its CEO and Ventura County Dist. Atty. Greg Totten as chief financial officer. There is no direct link to FamilyTreeDNA, but inquiries by The Times to the law firm handling the papers were forwarded to FamilyTreeDNA's media relations firm. A spokeswoman for the media firm said its work for FamilyTreeDNA and the nonprofit are separate, though performed by the same people.

The Orlando cop who bypassed GEDMatch's privacy policy is nonplussed by the concerns over privacy and public buy-in.

"It's Big Brother, but Big Brother's been here for decades," Fields said. "Everyone's trying to focus in on this because it's DNA, but it's no different than anything else that we do in our everyday lives. Police with a piece of paper and the judge can override almost anything."

2019 the Los Angeles Times.Distributed byTribune Content Agency, LLC.

See the article here:
Ancestry Websites Great for Finding Relatives and Suspects - Governing

Read More...

Ventolin is used for – Ventolin gsk recall – What are the drugs called that are used to dilate the walls of the bronchi and treat asthma – Laughlin…

Tuesday, November 26th, 2019

November 19, 2019 Cover

Pam Tillis keeps busy touring, making appearances and forever moving forward to her next musical project. Just last week she was a presenter for the Country Music Association awards with Women of Country Music as the theme.Country music is lucky to have her in their genre. But it wouldnt have mattered what Tillis chose to record and perform, she has one of those rare voices that lends itself to anything she wants to sing. She can easily move from classic country, to pop, to a bluesy torch singer wherever her heart, her soul and the lyrics lead.

Its rare when the puzzle pieces just seem to fit the first time a person opens the jigsaw box, but when Norm Stulz had the ability to make people laugh as early as the second grade in Detroit, there was no denying opening the comedy box was his lifes calling.Just a few years later in the seventh grade, he met the girl of his dreams and to this day, he and his wife Sharon, continue to build on a life together as two crazy kids in love. Laughter has been the glue for the relationship and the career path that has sustained Stulz for nearly 40 years.

Hosting a holiday dinner for your family is an undertaking in itself, but resorts are tasked with preparing the perfect menu for thousands of guests at multiple restaurants.Which items do guests want on the menu? How much food to order? When to start cooking? How many guests to prepare for? These are all questions the food and beverage departments must consider when planning for a holiday.

This time of year box stores are filled to the brim with every electronic device and latest phone known to man, but are there people on your list who already have all that stuff? Everyone has that one relative who is a challenge when comes to finding the perfect gift. Unique people require unique items and thinking outside the traditional box store offerings. Maybe that difficult-to-buy-for person is yourself because you never know what might strike your fancy.

Read the original:
Ventolin is used for - Ventolin gsk recall - What are the drugs called that are used to dilate the walls of the bronchi and treat asthma - Laughlin...

Read More...

Genome editing: a broad perspective on a precision technology – PHG Foundation

Friday, November 22nd, 2019

Genome editing goes prime-time

Genome editing was in the news again recently, following the publication of a paper that describes prime-editing, a new method of altering genetic information. Whilst more information is needed to accurately assess the true potential of this technique, prime-editing does represent another addition to the ever-growing suite of genome editing tools many of which will have an impact on treatment approaches to genetic diseases. In our latest set of policy briefings, we outline the current state of somatic genome editing in health, discussing areas of greatest progress, limitations and the evolving regulatory landscape and ethical considerations surrounding its application.

Genome editing describes a suite of techniques that can be used to alter genetic sequences. These all use a cutting enzyme and a targeting mechanism to make cuts and induce repair in DNA, altering the genetic sequence in the process. CRISPR-Cas has received the greatest attention in recent years, owing to its precision and relative ease of use.

The new technique prime-editing differs from standard CRISPR-Cas by making a cut in only one of the two DNA strands and using different methods to induce repair and add new information to the DNA. The technique could potentially be used to make alterations in genomic regions which preceding techniques cannot. However, it also has its limitations.

The hype surrounding both somatic and germline genome editing has reflected the general excitement and rapid progress in a field that stole the spotlight in 2012, thanks to the arrival of CRISPR-Cas9 for DNA editing. While germline editing is still being hotly debated, and dominates the headlines, greater awareness is needed of the current scope and applicability of somatic genome editing for health, and the broader progress that is being made in addressing genetic disease. The focus on human germline editing has somewhat obscured the impacts of somatic gene editing on individuals and populations.

Several therapies based on genome editing techniques in somatic cells have now made their way into clinical trials, including several therapies for rare blood disorders such as sickle cell disease and retinal disorders such as Leber congenital amaurosis. Genome editing is also having an impact on therapies and diagnostics beyond its direct applications for rare disease; for instance, CAR-T therapies a type of immunotherapy for blood cancer and in research into cancer diagnostics that utilise CRISPR for detecting the presence of genetic variants.

Like all disruptive technologies, somatic genome editing poses legal and ethical challenges, which should be considered alongside the potentially life-changing benefits for patients. Although somatic editing physically impacts only the individual whose cells are edited, its use could still have wide-reaching societal implications. For example, genome editing in one individual will inevitablyhave an impact upon other patients may be stigmatised or discriminated against if they are unable or unwilling to recieve the same therapy. The circumstances in which genome editing is used will also have an impact upon public views of the technology, as studies show that whilst there is widespread support for genome editing for therapeutic applications, this does not extend to non-therapeutic use. High-profile cases may further influence this view one way or another.

Although the drive to develop genome editing comes predominantly from therapeutic need, these techniques could theoretically be put to non-therapeutic use i.e. enhancement. Much policy and public discussion assumes a meaningful distinction between the two. But in recent years, as preventative health has taken centre stage, this distinction has become harder to maintain; medicine is not just about treating acute disease, its about identifying and reacting to risk. Is editing out a mutation that carries an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease a therapeutic intervention? Navigating this blurred line is hugely debated, and societal debate on such issues will become more important as the associated risks and benefits become clearer, influencing how genome editing might be used in the future.

Whilst momentum is building around the use of genome editing technologies, the significant journey from the bench to the bedside is often underestimated, and it can be easy to forget that current developments are built on decades of contributory research in related fields. Patients are beginning to see benefits from genome editing, but use is currently limited to a small number of rare disease and cancer patients taking part in clinical trials. However, looking to the future, new techniques such as prime-editing and base-editing could expand the applications of genome editing. There is much excitement and optimism among researchers about these techniques, but this is only the beginning in terms of exploring how they could practically be used. In time, these techniques might be used to develop new therapies, once their safety and efficacy have been established and technical obstacles such as how to deliver the editing tools to cells have been overcome. A further challenge will be to ensure that the regulatory landscape is sufficiently robust and dynamic to be able to accommodate these novel technologies.

For more information, see our policy briefings:

Continued here:
Genome editing: a broad perspective on a precision technology - PHG Foundation

Read More...

The world’s first Gattaca baby tests are finally here – MIT Technology Review

Thursday, November 14th, 2019

Anxious couples are approaching fertility doctors in the US with requests for a hotly debated new genetic test being called 23andMe, but on embryos.

The baby-picking test is being offered by a New Jersey startup company, Genomic Prediction, whose plans we first reported on two years ago.

The company says it can use DNA measurements to predict which embryos from an IVF procedure are least likely to end up with any of 11 different common diseases. In the next few weeks it's set to release case studies on its first clients.

Handed report cards on a batch of frozen embryos, parents can use the test results to try to choose the healthiest ones. The grades include risk estimates for diabetes, heart attacks, and five types of cancer.

According to flyers distributed by the company, it will also warn clients about any embryo predicted to become a person who is among the shortest 2% of the population, or who is in the lowest 2% in intelligence.

The test is straight out of the science fiction film Gattaca, a movie thats one of the inspirations of the startups CEO, Laurent Tellier. The companys other cofounders are testing expert Nathan Treff and Stephen Hsu, a Michigan State University administrator and media pundit.

So far, fertility centers have not leaped at the chance to offer the test, which is new and unproven. Instead, prospective parents are learning about the designer baby reports through word of mouth or news articles and taking the companys flyer to their doctors.

One such couple recently turned up at New York Universitys fertility center in Manhattan, says David Keefe, who is chairman of obstetrics and gynecology there. Right off the bat it raises all kind of questions about eugenics, he says.

Keefe, who has seven children, worries that couples who think they can choose kids from a menu could be disappointed. Its fraught with parenting issues, he says. So many couples just need to feel they have done enough.

Picking your baby

The companys project remains at a preliminary stage. While some embryos have been tested by the company, Tellier, the CEO, says he is unsure if any have yet been used to initiate a pregnancy.

The test is carried out on a few cells plucked from a days-old IVF embryo. Then Genomic Prediction measures its DNA at several hundred thousand genetic positions, from which it says it can create a statistical estimate, called a polygenic score, of the chance of disease later in life.

Genomic prediction

In October, the company pitched the test, which it calls LifeView, from a trade-show booth at the annual meeting of fertility doctors in Philadelphia. A promotional banner read: She has your partners ears and smile. Just not their risk of diabetes.

Criticism of the company from some genetics researchers has been intense.

It is irresponsible to suggest that the science is at the point where we could reliably predict which embryo to select to minimize the risk of disease. The science simply isnt there yet, says Graham Coop, a geneticist at the University of California, Davis, and a frequent critic of the company on Twitter.

The company has raised several million dollars in venture capital from investors including People Fund, Arab Angel, Passport Capital, and Sam Altman, the chairman of Y Combinator and CEO of OpenAI.

At an investor event last April, Genomic Prediction compared itself to 23andMe for IVF clinics and boasted it was preparing for a massive marketing push.

Our reporting suggests the company has struggled both to validate its predictions and to interest fertility centers in them. Its customers so far seem to be a scattering of individuals from around the world with specific family health worries. The company declined to name them, citing confidentiality.

The company is expected to soon present its first case reports, describing clients and their embryo test results. One case involves a married gay couple who have begun IVF using donor eggs and plan to employ a surrogate mother. That couple wants a child with a low risk for breast cancer.

How will it be used?

Genomic Prediction thinks it can piggyback on the most common type of preimplantation embryo test, which screens days-old embryos for major chromosome abnormalities, called aneuploidies. Such testing has become widespread in fertility centers for older mothers and is already employed in nearly a third of IVF attempts in the US. The new predictions could be added to it.

Fertility centers can also order tests for specific genetic diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, where a gene measurement will give a definite diagnosis of what embryo inherited the problem The new polygenic tests are more like forecasts, estimating risk for common diseases on the basis of variations in hundreds or thousands of genes, each with a small effect.

In a legal disclaimer, the company says it cant guarantee anything about the resulting child and that the assessment is NOT a diagnostic test.

Santiago Munne, an embryo testing expert and entrepreneur, thinks patients already undergoing aneuploidy testing would likely want the add-on test, but that doctors could object if it introduces uncertainty: For monogenic disease, if the embryo is abnormal, we will tell you, and it is. With a risk score, it may be affected. And some patients will only have embryos with higher risks. Then what?

As well, he says it wont be possible with a test to optimize a child for many features at once: My personal opinion is once you start looking, some embryos will be brighter, some will be taller, some will have longevity, and none will have those qualities all together. And in an IVF cycle, you produce maybe six embryos on average. You wont be able to get all the traits that you want.

Despite such inherent limits, theres a bigger plan afoot. Treff, the startup's chief scientist, believes even fertile couples might begin to undergo IVF just so they can select the best child. I do believe this is going to be the future we can start to ... reduce the incidence of disease in humans through IVF, Treff told an audience at a conference in China last month.

How many people will be willing to go through the trouble of IVF if they dont need it to have a baby? IVF involves weeks of hormone shots and two medical procedures (one to collect eggs, another to implant the embryos) and typically costs around $15,000. Add to that the companys fee to test embryos, which is $1,000, plus $400 for each embryo scored.

If someone is fertile, unless there is a family history of disease, I dont think that it is going to be popular, says Munne.

Can you get a smarter baby?

Genomic Prediction has so far won the most attention for the possibility of using genetic scores to pick the most intelligent children from a petri dish. It has tried to distance itself from the controversial concept, but thats been difficult because Hsu, a cofounder, is frequently in the media discussing the idea.

Hsu told The Guardian this year that accurate IQ predictors will be possible if not in the next five years, the next 10 years certainly. He says other countries, or the ultra-wealthy, might be the first to try to boost IQ in their kids this way.

During his talk in China, Treff called improving intelligence via embryo selection an application that many people think is unethical." In private, Treff tells other scientists he thinks it's doable, but wants to promote the technology for medical purposes only.

Ms Tech

For now, the company is limiting itself to alerting parents to embryos it predicts will be the least intelligent, with the highest chance of an IQ which qualifies as intellectual disability according to psychiatric manuals.

Some experts see a transparent maneuver to avoid controversy. They say theyre going to test for the medical condition of intellectual disability, not for the smartest embryos, because they know people are going to object to that, says Laura Hercher, who trains genetic counselors at Sarah Lawrence College. They are trying to slide, slide into traits without admitting as much.

A May report from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem found that trying to pick the tallest or smartest embryos might not work particularly well. Researchers there estimated that using polygenic scores to locate the tallest or smartest child from a batch of sibling embryos would result in an average gain of 2.5 centimeters in height, and less than three IQ points.

They modeled what everyone is scared of happening, Treff said of that study. Its not what we are doing.

The predictions, however, could be more effective at helping people avoid children with specific diseases. Treff, during his speech in China, said that a couple choosing between two embryos would see, on average, a 45% reduction in risk for type 1 diabetes. That is a serious disease from which Treff suffers and which runs in families, although it has complex causes. The more embryos there are to choose from, he says, the more the risk will go down.

Demand for the test

Patients and doctors are mostly on their own when it comes to deciding if the tests really work. While federal and state agencies do oversee laboratory accuracy, the oversight is limited to whether analytes like DNA are correctly measured, not what they mean. So Genomic Prediction doesnt need to prove that the test is useful before selling it. In fact, it could take decades to ascertain if tested kids fare better than others.

Sign up for The Download your daily dose of what's up in emerging technology

And its not only whether the test works or not. Uptake will depend on demand from patients and the degree of pushback from doctors and genetic counselors. In the US, tests for genderthat is, picking a boy or a girl embryoare accepted and relatively routine. But thats never become the case for choosing eye color, which is also possible. In terms of eye color, the pressure not to do it, to not offer it, was met with a weak market demand. So it doesnt exist, says Hercher.

Genomic Prediction provided a map of 12 fertility clinics it says will order its test, including five in the US and others in Nigeria, Peru, Thailand, and Taiwan.

MIT Technology Review was able to independently locate two IVF clinics where customers have recently requested the embryo predictions. Michael Alper, founder of Boston IVF, one of the worlds largest fertility clinics, says his center was approached by a couple a few weeks ago but he decided the request needs to be weighed by the centers ethics committee before he would agree to order it.

This is the first case we have had, says Alper. To me its a 23andMe type of prediction: theres a propensity, but how strong? That is the problem. We dont have any problem testing for cystic fibrosisthat is a lethal disease, it strikes young. But we are not there yet with these other tests. Its soft; its not that predictive.

At NYU, Keefe says the test raises profound questions. His center is in Midtown Manhattan, just blocks from a hub of finance and legal offices. He says his clientele are typically well-off professionals, people who have programmed everything in life and feel they are in control. They sometimes even ask out loud if a mere doctor is smart enough to help them.

The case he is working on involves a family that has two children with autism. They now want a child without the condition, and they hope the intelligence feature of the test will help them. Treff says he counseled the family that the Genomic Prediction test wasnt likely to helpautism can have specific genetic causes that the intelligence prediction isnt designed to capture.

Yet the family remains interested. They want to do whatever they can to have a healthy kid. Keefe says hes so far supporting their choice, but he is concerned by all that it implies. There is potential psychological harm to the kid, he says. God forbid the kids ends up with autism after spending this money.

View post:
The world's first Gattaca baby tests are finally here - MIT Technology Review

Read More...

A short guide to regulation for disruptive technologies – Lexology

Thursday, November 14th, 2019

Introduction

Regulation, by necessity, introduces rigidity to otherwise flexible processes. Done proportionately, this can be an efficient societal device for preventing harm. At the same time, inherent regulatory rigidity creates particular challenges when the nature of the regulatory target changes quickly or unexpectedly.

Disruptive technologies in life sciences - a very dynamic field of activity are a good example of this. Disruptive technologies challenge the way a sector operates, and it is self-evident that (in most cases) this will also have an impact on the relevant normative framework. This effect is most visible in areas which have a direct impact on human life and wellbeing, as these areas are tightly (and often, rather specifically) regulated, and a failure to control a technology appropriately may lead to undesirable outcomes.

The dual purposes of preventing harm through proportionate regulation and maintaining trust in innovation mean that it is all the more important to ensure that regulation is adequately responsive and flexible to react to a disruptive technology. This can be a difficult line to tread, particularly in fields where research and development is also morally or ethically contentious.

We will illustrate the context and challenge of regulating disruptive technologies by discussing two specific case studies: artificial intelligence, and cell and gene therapy. In both cases, we suggest that the current regulatory framework in the UK strikes an appropriate balance between precaution and freedom of research, allowing for innovation subject to strict controls and licensing frameworks. There are, however, numerous challenges which need to be considered and addressed as these technologies advance. Regulators, policy makers and innovators working in this sector must continue to work together to ensure that responsible science is allowed to flourish.

Artificial intelligence

The science of making machines do things that would require intelligence if done by people (Definition of artificial intelligence from the Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence, 1955.)

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies hold the potential to significantly improve health and care, providing faster and more accurate diagnosis, speedier treatments, and facilitating medical breakthroughs through drug discovery.

This is particularly the case in contexts where the pattern-recognition strengths of AI can be deployed to their fullest potential. Tasks such as the correct identification of tumour cells, recognition of areas of concern in medical imaging, and the processing of large amounts of genomic data can be carried out with much greater speed and accuracy by algorithms that learn from previous datasets, and develop their own datasets from which to learn from in the future. The ability to check a patients image or test result against all other available and comparable datasets is, at first glance, far superior to a clinicians ability to make an assessment on the basis of his or her experience.

At the same time, this does give rise to risk. For example, there is an inherent (and proven) risk that an algorithm which learns on the basis of historic human-generated data also takes on the biases that human decision-making has inevitably introduced. So how does regulation play a part in addressing this risk?

The first point to make is that no one body is solely responsible for regulating the adoption of AI technologies in the UK healthcare sector. A number of different regulatory bodies have a remit to oversee aspects of AI, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). In addition, there are nonregulatory bodies which also play an important role, including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and NHSX. However, no one institution has overall responsibility for policing, for example, the prevention of bias in AI algorithms. The most effective way of addressing this risk at present is to avoid exclusively automated decision-making so that the use of AI technologies in the clinical setting will focus instead on assisted decision-making and triage. The application of this approach will come down to individual healthcare payors and providers: in the absence of any direct regulation, it is left to them to decide how best to mitigate risk, and whether and if so how to apply nonbinding codes of conduct, such as the Department of Health and Social Cares code of conduct for data-driven technologies which seek to address the risk.

Reliance on nonbinding codes of conduct as a substitute for regulation may not be ideal and can result in a lack of certainty. Equally, overlapping codes, rules and regulations also pose a risk, for example, as to how NICEs evidence standards framework for digital health technologies interacts with MHRA regulations concerning software as a medical device in relation to clinical evidence. The risk is lack of clarity; the mitigation is raising awareness.

Another challenge arises where regulation designed for a specific purpose is used for a new purpose, for example the application of MHRA regulations designed for traditional medical devices to software incorporating algorithms. A recent state of the nation survey on the use of AI in health and care revealed that half of all software developers were not intending to seek CE mark classification, with the most commonly cited reason being that they did not believe the medical device classification was applicable. It is essential that the sector raises awareness of these requirements, albeit that they are complex and sometimes impenetrable.

One significant area of concern is how existing laws relating to negligence, liability and insurance apply to the clinical use of AI whether in assisting decision-making about a patients treatment, or in the operation of medical devices. Currently, claims are almost always brought against the treating clinician or healthcare provider, but for a clinician using big data analysis as well as his or her own experience, where does the division of responsibility lie? If a patient is injured as a result of a malfunction in an AI-driven device, does liability lie with the manufacturer of the device, the programmer who wrote the code which operates the device, the clinical team, the hospital or all of the above? It remains to be seen whether this will give rise to novel constellations of liability, such as an increase in manufacturers liability or a change in statutory and wider insurance requirements.

One of the major areas of opportunity for AI-based technologies is biomedical research where the strengths of speed and range have huge potential. The extrapolation of the potential of certain compounds against huge databases of similar compounds is commercially powerful. The ability to quickly check clinical trial design against public registries of published results to avoid unnecessary duplication of human-based experimentation is ethically desirable. But as innovators seek to improve drug discovery using AI, it will be important to continue to keep under review laws relating to intellectual property and how they apply to AI-based technologies.

Cell and gene therapy

The area of cell and gene therapy is of particular significance, and great potential, in regenerative medicine. It has seen a decade-long genesis since its inception, and it does not immediately strike one as a field that meets the definition of a disruptive technology. At the same time, however, it provides a good illustration of how a technology may mature for a long time, or be repurposed in an unexpected way, before it becomes disruptive.

The field has come a long way since the first systematic trials in 1989, and by now, there are 17 FDA-approved cell and gene therapy products. Over and beyond technical questions of the safety of the vectors used for the manipulation of cells, there are few remaining ethical and legal issues in relation to somatic cell gene therapy for particularly debilitating conditions (i.e. where the manipulation does not lead to heritable genetic characteristics).

From a regulatory and ethical perspective, however, cell and gene therapy becomes more complex where germline gene therapy is used. The modification of the human germline is subject to significant debate and, in some jurisdictions, strongly prohibitive regulation. The advent of disruptive technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9 prime editing techniques, with their associated precision and purported safety, have already reignited the debate around the prohibition of germline manipulation, with some commentators calling for a relaxation of the regulation while others demand either a global ban or at least a moratorium.

Although the United Kingdom has a reputation of being a liberal jurisdiction for research, it is in fact very tightly regulated and only potentially permissive. UK law reects a compromise: we permit research (including research involving germline gene editing), but we subject such research to strict scrutiny, licensing and oversight, and we criminalise unlicensed research. That being said, the legislation is drafted in such a way as to facilitate a broad variety of research, including (again, potentially) the introduction of novel techniques, and few procedures are prohibited. Overall, this framework helps allay public and political concern about what is often controversial research and provides a degree of protection for researchers operating under a licence, facilitating innovation. Such a robust framework is particularly valuable when it comes to considering how best to address the clinical application of germline genome modication. In circumstances where UK law is comprehensive and clear in its application to gene editing, there is no merit or purpose in a moratorium or further restriction on the use of this technology as some have demanded.

Concluding remarks

The UK has a mature and robust regulatory framework governing research and development in life sciences. We have a successful history in regulating numerous disruptive and controversial new technologies, such as stem cell research, the creation of human-animal hybrids, the clinical use of preimplantation genetics, and mitochondrial donation all testaments to the strength of this framework and its capacity to adapt to accommodate new technologies. This success, however, has been built upon a vital foundation of open and accessible dialogue between innovators, parliamentarians, policy makers and the public, and it is to be hoped that a similar transparency will be maintained in the future. Such dialogue will also ensure that if there are gaps or restrictions in regulation that need to be addressed to avoid stifling innovation, these can be pre-empted.

See the original post:
A short guide to regulation for disruptive technologies - Lexology

Read More...

Mirza Dinnayi’s Aid to Terror Victims Recognized with Aurora Prize – The Armenian Mirror-Spectator

Thursday, November 14th, 2019

In Germany, he became engaged in many Yazidi cultural activities, advocated for the rights of non-Muslim minorities in Iraq, and worked for peace and coexistence. After the fall of the Saddam regime in 2003, when Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani became interim president of Iraq, he invited Dinnayi to become his advisor for non-Muslim minorities. Dinnayi said he stayed there from 2004 to 2005 but it was hard for him to reintegrate into Iraqi society after becoming used to a German lifestyle. More importantly, a civil war had engulfed Baghdad by 2006 and 2007 and death was always around the corner. His family would call every few days to ask what he was doing there.

After this, he became an advisor for some ten years to the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in Erbil concerning disputed regions, which include Yazidi, Christian and Turkmen populated areas, claimed by both the KRG and the central government.

Air Bridge Iraq

On August 14, 2007, Dinnayi was in Germany when the extremist Sunni Muslim terror organization al-Qaeda attacked two Yazidi villages near Mosul in Iraq, killing more than 300 people and injuring more than 850 with truck bombs inside the villages and markets. About 60 children were among the latter.

By this point, Dinnayi had studied both medicine and law, and though not a practicing doctor, knew what the needs were. He did fundraising in Germany for the victims and then went as a volunteer to distribute the money and aid. When he saw many children in the hospital who would die soon without help, he posted an appeal in a German newspaper, Neue Osnabrcker Zeitung, asking for hospitals to host some of these child victims. Two hospitals agreed.

The real challenges then began. Dinnayi said that as the children were from villages, they did not have any passports or identification papers, and the age of one child, who had no family left, was not clear. Dinnayi asked the Iraqi government to issue some kind of passport for them. He also spoke with the German ambassador in Iraq, and explained the emergency. As Dinnayi had dealt with him before when he was an advisor to the government, he trusted Dinnayis judgment and agreed to issue visas within days of receiving the passports. This was a big risk for the embassy because, explained Dinnayi, there was no German NGO in Iraq at the time because of the civil war, and no one believed that Dinnayi would return the children to Iraq after treatment.

Within three days, the passports arrived. The problem, Dinnayi said, was that all Baghdad was a ball of fire. A friend at the German embassy requested that Dinnayi stay in the hotel until going to the airport. As a German citizen, if Dinnayi went outside, he might be kidnapped and cause the government problems.

Yet the hotel happened to have been attacked by al-Qaeda three or four weeks prior and activists and politicians staying there had been killed. Half of the hotel had been destroyed and food was not available.

Dinnayi took the passports and visas of the six children in the first group and went to Erbil, from which he planned to take a charter flight to Germany. The German embassy did not allow family members to go.Some of the children receiving treatment in 2007 (photo courtesy Mirza Dinnayi)

He said, So you can imagine, I had a 6-year-old child who cannot speak, barely walking. I had a girl with broken legs in a wheelchair. I had two other boys, also in wheelchairs. So I was alone with those six children.

An ambulance took them to the airport, but after a wait of two hours, they were told that Turkey would not allow the charter flight to pass through its airspace.

Dinnayi said, The children were very upset. The families told me, you brought the children 150 kilometers from Dohuk to the airport. Now they cannot fly what are you doing? Everybody was blaming me. He took the children to a hotel and the next day got them tickets for a flight to Istanbul. There they booked an airport hotel to stay overnight, and a flight to Dsseldorf, Germany, the next day.

The next morning at the Istanbul airport, the person responsible for check-in refused to let the children on because the flight had no medical equipment. Dinnayi had no choice but to ask for the manager and play hardball. He recalled that he said, These six children are victims of the al-Qaeda terror organization. You have a choice. I can call BBC and CNN in Istanbul and tell them that al-Qaeda killed the innocent minorities of Iraq but the Turks are not allowing us go, or you will bring me a piece of paper and I will sign that all that happens to the children is my responsibility. I will not charge anything. I will not ask for any compensation if anything happens. I am responsible alone in person.

This was accepted, and after the children were treated for about two months in Germany, Dinnayi brought them back to Iraq successfully.

At this point, he thought that since there is no German humanitarian organization in Iraq he and his German friends might as well make one. He said, We called it Luftbrcke Irak because of the Luftbrcke Berlin after Second World War, which also provided humanitarian aid via the air. It was formalized as an organization in November 2008 (see https://luftbruecke-irak.de/?lang=en) and it helps terror victims of all creeds and backgrounds.

From 2007 to the present, all funding has been from private donors and friends. The host families in Germany, along with volunteer workers, do not receive any pay. Approximately 150 children from all over Iraq and from all religious communities (Muslim, Christian, Yazidi etc.) have received treatment in all. This does not include work to aid survivors of the 2014 genocide of Yazidis attempted by ISIS.. Mirza Dinnayi with Lamya Haji Bashar at the International Criminal Court, October 14, 2016. Haji Bashar was forced by ISIS into sexual slavery. She escaped in 2016 but was injured by a land mine. Dinnayis Air Bridge Iraq helped her obtain medical treatment and she became an activist for the Yazidis. In recognition of her human rights achievements, she was given the Sakharov Prize of the European Union. (photo courtesy Mirza Dinnayi)

Assistance to Yazidi Victims of ISIS

Dinnayi was in Erbil for his job as advisor to the KRG as Mosul fell under the control of ISIS on June 10, 2014. He was planning to return to Germany for a summer vacation with his family but he called his wife to cancel, declaring that he feared a huge catastrophe would soon occur. Indeed, two months later, the Yazidis in Sinjar were attacked and the entire community displaced. When 325,000 people went to the mountain it was a huge problem due to the lack of water and food.

Dinnayi was engaged in lobbying, meeting every day with diplomats to try to convince the international community to act. The whole mountain area was occupied by ISIS and the safe zone was 150 kilometers away. For this reason, the Iraqi government decided to initiate a humanitarian mission via helicopter from the Kurdish area to bring food and water there and extract vulnerable people to the safe area.

Dinnayi volunteered to fly with the helicopters, he said, because he knew all the areas where the refugees had collected and was in contact with them. Nearly every day he was with the flights, which were being shot at by ISIS. The helicopters were very old Russian Mi-17 models which were supposed to hold 20-25 people and yet each time they picked up 40-50 people.

One day, Dinnayi said, our helicopter crashed because of overload and I broke my leg. Unfortunately. I lost my friend who was the pilot and some of the refugees died. But we were very lucky, because the crash was over the mount.

Dinnayi was in a wheelchair for three months as his leg and broken ribs healed. He came to Germany and then to Geneva only one week after his return to speak at the UN Human Rights Council on the Yazidis, which led to an investigation about the Yazidi Genocide.Mirza Dinnayi receives a medal as Aurora Humanitarian from the 2011 Liberian Nobel Peace Laureate and Aurora Selection Committee member Leymah Gbowee (Aram Arkun photo)

Helping Yazidi Girls and Women

Only 1 weeks later he returned to Iraq and met the first group of girls who had been raped by ISIS. He said, I was ashamed to hear these stories of atrocities, as a man, to hear what happened with those innocent girls of 16, 17 years old. I decided, I said, well, the catastrophe of the Yazidis and the plight of the Yazidi people is so huge that maybe I cannot help them in all the issues, but maybe I can do something for those women and children. And this was the reason that I concentrated my work to help the survivors of ISIS, and the women and children especially, who were sexually abused.

He helped pressure the Yazidi Spiritual Council to accept these women, because in the beginning the Yazidi community itself would not accept them. Fortunately, the Yazidi religious leader or Baba Sheikh accepted these children and women. Yet, Dinnayi realized, there is no medical or psychological aid for these traumatized beings in Iraq. There is only one psychotherapist per every 250,000 people in Iraq, and generally that person has no experience in trauma.

One of the German states, Baden-Wrttemberg, decided to accept up to one thousand of the women and children victimized by ISIS. The Germans asked Dinnayi to lead this project. Dinnayi did this as a volunteer, and his NGO became a partner of the German project. A German team from the government ministry led and decided for the project, but Dinnayi led the receiving commission in Iraq.

Within almost 9 months, 1,100 women and children were resettled through this project. Dinnayi said it was a very, very hard job. He worked 18 hours a day and had to interview all the women and children. He said, I myself was traumatized, because you hear every day 20 stories of rape, and you ask yourself, every time, why did people do that to those innocent women. I saw 9-year-old or 11-year-old girls who were pregnant because they were raped 20 times or 30 times. In the summer of 2015, I was actually at the end. I couldnt sleep. I was crying every day. I came back to my family, to my wife and children living in Germany. And I told them, okay, lets go and take three days vacation.Mirza Dinnayi surrounded by the founders of the Aurora Prize at Yerevans Freedom Square after he was announced as the 2019 Aurora Prize Laureate (Aram Arkun photo)

During those three days, he debated with himself whether he should withdraw from the project and seek psychological treatment himself. At the end, he decided that if he withdrew, the project would collapse because no one could live under such stress. On the other hand, he said that if he continued, it is only helping me, because I see these atrocities and besides that I see that I can help those victims so maybe this will help to heal my trauma. And I was lucky, that I had overcome this trauma. Until now, I have these traumatic ideas.

The project also had various bureaucratic hurdles to be overcome. The Germans required detailed files on each woman, each between 11 and 32 pages, which Dinnayi had to translate. Then most of the husbands of the women had been killed or were missing, so they were not allowed to get passports for the children nor to fly without their husbands.

Dinnayi went to Iraqi civil courts and asked them to issue a temporary guardian certificate for the children, with which passports could be obtained. When children did not have family, Dinnayi ended up being the guardian.

He had no time for anything but work. Dinnayi related, The problem was that I even forgot day and night during the project, because I was sleeping one night in Duhok (my office was in Duhok), and then I went with the beneficiaries to Erbil, almost two hundred kilometers, sleeping one night there; flying in a special charter with 60 or 70 people to Stuttgart, Germany, sleeping one night in Stuttgart, then moving by train to my family, sleeping one night there, then coming back to Erbil because I had to prepare the next mission. So I was during four days in four different placesSo every time, it was like a joke, before I opened my eyes. Am I at home, I shouldnt do a mistake at least in front of my wifewhere is the bathroom?

Dinnayi said, I am so happy when I compare the situation of those women and children who we got to Germany and the children and women who are still in the camps. There is a big difference. The children are very well integrated. They still have this pain. There is an injury inside them that we are not able heal, unfortunately, because you cannot return back to them their pasts, and you cannot bring their relatives back to them, but their lives are secure, they are no longer living in tents.

The girls and women got visas for two years and there were 22 municipalities in the state of Baden-Wrttemberg state which placed those women in special houses. There they had 24-hour translators, a social worker would take care of them, and each family had its privacy. After 2 years they were moved to regular housing units, the children went to school and the women went to treatment. This was the first time in the history of Germany that a state undertook such a project, Dinnayi said, which is why the project is so unique.

After this, the Canadians started another project for resettlement and took a couple of hundred of the women and the Australians did the same. No Americans helped.

Yazidis and ArmeniansThe new Yazidi temple Quba Mere Diwane at Aknalich, Armenia (Aram Arkun photo)

Dinnayi speaks often about the special relationship between Armenians and Yazidis.

The Armenian parliament and now the Aurora Prize have provided special recognition to the Yazidi Genocide. He said, This is the first time that the Yazidi were accepted and we are so lucky that Armenia, especially the grandchildren of a previous genocide 100 years ago, recognized this genocide. Furthermore, he said, Through the establishment of this forum and this prize Armenia became one of the greatest nations, because they are in solidarity with the victims of genocide.

In general, he said, The Yazidi community in Armenia is a well-integrated community in Armenia. He noted the recent building of a new Yazidi temple in Armenia and contrasted that to the situation in Iraq. If a temple would be destroyed in Iraq, there would be no possibility of rebuilding it, as Yazidis are treated as infidels.

He said, I think we share a cultural heritage together, but unfortunately we also share a history of pain. Aside from culture, Dinnayi has found that there are even close genetic connections between Yazidis and Armenians. He said, I did a DNA investigation with the Family Tree DNA laboratory in the US on some 30 Yazidis from Iraq and the nearest population to the Yazidis was the Armenians. In my family tree, I have more than 100 matches of which many, many are Armenian; 75 percent of my matches were from Armenia and Asia Minor.

The Future

Prior to the Aurora Prize, Dinnayi had another small humanitarian project in Iraq, but at present he said he was mainly working for the recognition of the Yazidi Genocide in Europe, especially with the European Parliament. The latter has passed various resolutions, but what he wants, he said, is to have a special tribunal, either a hybrid tribunal for the crimes of ISIS concerning the Yazidi Genocide, or an internationalized Iraqi tribunal to bring those ISIS fighters to justice and try them according to the international conventions about genocide. While many ISIS fighters are in prisons, they are being tried according to the Iraqi anti-terror law or the Iraqi penal code and not in connection with genocide or international crimes in general. Dinnayi said that the Iraqi penal code is a jokeit is very easy for rapists, for example, to have impunity and overturn any punishment due to a provision allowing this if a certificate of marriage is presented afterwards.

Dinnayi noted that many countries, among them Armenia, symbolically recognized through their parliaments the Yazidi Genocide, which he said is very good and important. He added, We know that this challenge will take a long time. We know about the Armenian Genocide, that it took 100 years until some countries said yes, while the perpetrators until now say no, this was not a genocideSo you see how difficult a situation it is.

He is also working to persuade other countries to accept more women and more victims, though there are no new projects in this vein so far. In the past five years, Dinnayi said, little has changed. Around 80 percent of the Yazidis from Sinjar remain refugees or internally displaced persons in the camps in Kurdistan or outside of Iraq. The people refuse to return to their villages, he said, while those who remain seek an opportunity to leave.

Among the problems is the corruption of the current Iraqi government. It took no steps towards transitional justice and reconciliation. The future, not only for the Yazidis but also the Christians and Mandaeans, is bleak, he said, if there is no special zone or a kind of autonomy established in Sinjar, or the Nineveh plain for Christians. Furthermore, although ISIS is not in this area at present, militias and the Iranian-Turkish conflict create instability.

Meanwhile, Dinnayi is afraid that the Turkish invasion of Syria may lead to a big wave of refugees coming to Sinjar. He exclaimed, I hope that the international pressure on President Trump, on the Europeans, will put enough pressure on Mr. Erdogan to stop this invasion, because it is against humanity, it is against international law. All the Yazidis meanwhile have been deported or displaced from places like Afrin, Syria, over the last five years. There used to be around 35,000 Yazidis there. Some were forcibly converted to Islam.

Going forward, Dinnayi has no intention to slow down.

Dinnayi will continue his work, despite paying a heavy personal price, including health issues. He declared, If you start humanitarian work, you will be part of this humanitarian family and you cannot stop any more. Because you are in direct touch with the victims, with the people in need, with the vulnerable children women, men, and if you stop for one minute, you will feel guilty and you cannot stop more. This was the reason [I continue my work]. I was not expecting to get a prize from any people.

See the rest here:
Mirza Dinnayi's Aid to Terror Victims Recognized with Aurora Prize - The Armenian Mirror-Spectator

Read More...

Global Carrier Screening Market to reach $2.93 billion by 2029 according to a new research report – WhaTech – WhaTech

Thursday, November 14th, 2019

The global carrier screening market was valued at $846.9 million in 2018 and is estimated to grow over $2.93 billion by 2029.

According to a new market intelligence report by BIS Research, titled Global Carrier Screening Market- Analysis and Forecast, 2019-2029, the global carrier screening market was valued at $846.9 million in 2018, and is estimated to grow over $2.93 billion by 2029. The global carrier screening market is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.59% during the forecast period from 2019 to 2029.

The development of the market is aided by the impressive growth in the field of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), genetic testing, and precision medicine.

Browse 16 Market Data Tables and 142 Figures spread through 201 Pages and in-depth TOC on "Global Carrier Screening Market"

Genetic diseases are the leading cause of the infant death, accounting for approximately 20% of annual infant mortality in the U.S. Advancements in the technological platforms in the genomic medicine have made possible low cost, pan-ethnic expanded carrier screening, enabling obstetric care providers to offer screening for over 100 recessive genetic disorders.

However, the rapid integration of use of genomic medicine into routine obstetric practices has eventually raised concerns about the implementation of carrier testing.

Technological and other advancements over the past decade have led to the discovery of thousands of genes that are associated with autosomal and X-linked recessive Mendelian disorders. Recent improvements in assessing the individual variants in the human genome, generally offer the possibility of testing populations for all known severe recessive genetic disorders.

For decades, general population carrier screening was based on the clinical validity and the utility to direct services based on ethnicity, social factors or race that may lead to particular conditions being more common in a particular group. With advancement in genetic knowledge and technologies, carrier screening for disorders such as cystic fibrosis has now become a part of primary care.

BIS Research Report: bisresearch.com/industrarket.html

With genetic screening, arises several important legal issues such as insurance and employment discrimination, confidentiality, and informed consent for both testing and treatment. Approximately, seven states have laws that penalize providers for violating a patients privacy regarding the genetic information of patients and 27 states require consent for disclosure of genetic information to the third parties.

According to Wahid Khan, Principal Analyst at BIS Research North America is the leading contributor to the global carrier screening market and is noticed to be contributing more than 51.82% of the global market value. However, Asia-Pacific is expected to grow at an impressive CAGR of 15.97% during the forecast period from 2019 to 2029.

Currently, the Asia-Pacific market is estimated to contribute approximately 15.11% of total global market value.

Research Highlights:

Report: bisresearch.com/requeste=download

This market intelligence report provides a multidimensional view of the global carrier screening market in terms of market size and growth potential. This research report aims at answering various aspects of the global carrier screening market with the help of key factors driving the market, threats that can possibly inhibit the overall market growth, and the current growth opportunities that are going to shape the future trajectory of the market expansion.

Furthermore, the competitive landscape chapter in the report explicates the competitive nature of the global market and enables the reader to get acquainted with the recent market activities, such as product launches, regulatory clearance, and certifications, partnerships, collaborations, business expansions as well as mergers and acquisitions. The research report provides a comprehensive analysis of the product sales and manufacturers and trend analysis by segment and demand analysis by geographical region.

This report is a meticulous compilation of research on more than 30 players in the market ecosystem and draws upon insights from in-depth interviews with the key opinion leaders of more than 20 leading companies, market participants, and vendors. The report also profiles 15 key companies, namely, Illumina, Inc., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Quest Diagnostics, Natera, Inc., Invitae Corporation, Eurofins Scientific, GenMark Diagnostics, 23and Me, Inc., Sema4, BGI, Centogene AG, Pathway Genomics, and Gene By Gene.

Key Questions Answered in the Report:

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Read more here:
Global Carrier Screening Market to reach $2.93 billion by 2029 according to a new research report - WhaTech - WhaTech

Read More...

BioReference Laboratories and GeneDx to Present at NSGC 2019, Demonstrating Commitment to Genetic Counselors and the Research of Rare Genetic…

Monday, November 4th, 2019

Elmwood Park, NJ, Nov. 04, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- BioReference Laboratories, Inc., an OPKO Health Company, along with its genetics and genomics laboratory, GeneDx, and womens health division, GenPath, today announced the presentation of new research from its genetics program at the National Society for Genetic Counselors (NSGC) 38th Annual Conference in Salt Lake City, UT from November 5-8. Multiple poster presentations will demonstrate the companys commitment to advancing the research of rare genetic disorders and hereditary conditions, and supporting the genetic counseling community.

Each year NSGC offers a distinct opportunity for genetic counselors and other professionals to learn about the many advancements and extensive research completed within the genetics community, said Jon R. Cohen, M.D., Executive Chairman of BioReference Laboratories. This year, we are proud to add to that body of research with multiple papers, including two that were nominated for best paper, as well as contribute to the networking opportunities throughout the show.

A key focus at GeneDxs booth (#501) is to educate providers about how the laboratory is working to expand genetic testing answers with RNA Studies on select exome and genome results. The adjacent GenPath booth (#611) will highlight the companys full service capabilities as a womens health specialty lab, from preconception through delivery, with a focus on genetic test offerings.

The full set of research to be presented throughout the show includes:

How to Avoid Legal and Ethical Pitfalls as a Genetic Counselor

The Frequency of Cancer-Related Secondary Findings in a Cohort of Individuals Undergoing Clinical Exome Sequencing

Outcomes of Panel Testing in the Context of a Known Familial Variant

Presentation and Germline Status of Individuals Referred for Multigene Hereditary Myelodysplastic Syndrome and Leukemia Testing

Utility and Diagnostic Rates of Exome Sequencing for Ataxia-Related Disorders

Relationship Between Phenotypic Complexity and Diagnostic Results from a Large Autism/Intellectual Disability Panel

Trio-based Genetic Testing for Leukodystrophies: High Positive Diagnostic Rate in Both Adults and Children

Lack of Genotype-Phenotype Correlation in Individuals with DMPK CTG Repeat Expansions

Short-term, Defined Mentorship Program Between Genetic Counselors and Genetic Counseling Assistants

For more information about these sessions, please visit https://www.nsgc.org/conference.

About GeneDx, Inc.

GeneDx, Inc. is a global leader in genomics, providing testing to patients and their families from more than 55 countries. Led by its world-renowned whole exome sequencing program, GeneDx has an acknowledged expertise in rare and ultra-rare genetic disorders, as well as one of the broadest menus of sequencing services available among commercial laboratories. GeneDx offers a suite of additional genetic testing services, including diagnostic testing for hereditary cancers, cardiac, mitochondrial, neurological disorders, prenatal diagnostics and targeted variant testing. GeneDx is a subsidiary of BioReference Laboratories, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of OPKO Health, Inc. To learn more, please visit http://www.genedx.com.

About BioReference Laboratories, Inc.

BioReference provides comprehensive testing to physicians, clinics, hospitals, employers, government units, correctional institutions and medical groups. The company is in network with the five largest health plans in the United States, operates a network of 10 laboratory locations, and is backed by a medical staff of more than 160 MD, PhD and other professional level clinicians and scientists. With a leading position in the areas of genetics, womens health, maternal fetal medicine, oncology and urology, BioReference and its specialty laboratories, GenPath and GeneDx, are advancing the course of modern medicine. For more information, visithttps://www.bioreference.com.

About OPKO Health, Inc.

OPKO Health is a diversified healthcare company. In diagnostics, its BioReference Laboratories is one of the nation's largest full service laboratories; GeneDx is a rapidly growing genetic testing business; the 4Kscore prostate cancer test is used to confirm an elevated PSA to help decide about next steps such as prostate biopsy; Claros 1 is a point-of-care diagnostics platform with a total PSA test approved by the FDA. In our pharmaceutical pipeline, RAYALDEE is our first pharmaceutical product to be marketed. OPK88003, a once-weekly oxyntomodulin for type 2 diabetes and obesity recently reported positive data from a Phase 2 clinical trial. Its among a new class of GLP-1/glucagon receptor dual agonists. OPK88004, a SARM (selective androgen receptor modulator) is currently being studied for various potential indications. The companys most advanced product utilizing its CTP technology, a once-weekly human growth hormone for injection, successfully met its primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints in a Phase 3 study and is partnered with Pfizer. OPKO also has research, development, production and distribution facilities abroad. More information is available at http://www.opko.com

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains "forward-looking statements," as that term is defined under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), which statements may be identified by words such as "expects," "plans," "projects," "will," "may," "anticipates," "believes," "should," "intends," "estimates," and other words of similar meaning, including statements regarding advancing the research of rare genetic disorders and hereditary conditions, as well as other non-historical statements about our expectations, beliefs or intentions regarding our business, technologies and products, financial condition, strategies or prospects. Many factors could cause our actual activities or results to differ materially from the activities and results anticipated in forward-looking statements. These factors include those described in the OPKO Health, Inc. Annual Reports on Form 10-K filed and to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and in its other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, forward-looking statements may also be adversely affected by general market factors, competitive product development, product availability, federal and state regulations and legislation, the regulatory process for new products and indications, manufacturing issues that may arise, patent positions and litigation, among other factors. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release speak only as of the date the statements were made, and we do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. We intend that all forward-looking statements be subject to the safe-harbor provisions of the PSLRA.

See the article here:
BioReference Laboratories and GeneDx to Present at NSGC 2019, Demonstrating Commitment to Genetic Counselors and the Research of Rare Genetic...

Read More...

Top 5 ethical issues in medicine – The Hippocratic Post

Wednesday, October 9th, 2019

A leading medical ethicist lists his top 5 ethical issues in medicine today and in the near future.

No one knows exactly how many people are killed each year by medical errors, but it is in the hundreds of thousands in the United States and tens of thousands in the United Kingdom. Along with heart disease and cancer, it is a leading cause of death. Many more people are injured non-fatally by errors and the cost of payouts for clinical negligence claims in England in 2017/2018 was 2.23 billion.

Reducing the human and financial cost of medical errors is an ethical priority. The recent Bawa-Garba case, in which a junior doctor contributed to the death by sepsis of a 6-year-old-boy, highlighted the need to address both individual and systemic issues to reduce errors.

Reducing the human and financial cost of medical errors is an ethical priority. The recent Bawa-Garba case, in which a junior doctor contributed to the death by sepsis of a 6-year-old-boy, highlighted the need to address both individual and systemic issues to reduce errors.

Clinicians have an ethical obligation to be open about their medical errors but how do we encourage them to do so when the personal and professional consequences of honesty can be devastating? The reality is that some medical errors are never disclosed to patients, who are then deprived of compensation, and little is learnt from the mistakes.

The population is ageing and our ability to keep desperately sick people alive is ever-increasing. Should we help people who want to end their lives? If so, should it only be terminally ill patients or should it include those suffering from psychiatric disease, like Aurelia Brouwers, the 29-year-old Dutch woman who was so unhappy that she described her mental suffering as unbearable? She lawfully drank lethal poison in the Netherlands in January 2018. Parliament must urgently consider whether to create a law allowing clinicians to help patients die in certain circumstances.

Doctors have an obligation to keep their patients secrets but when can this be breached? If a person tells their GP that they have been a victim of domestic abuse but refuses to tell the police, should the doctor do so? What about the bus driver with epilepsy who continues to drive but withholds the diagnosis from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)? If a patient has a serious genetic disease which a relative may also have, such as Huntingdons disease (a fatal, incurable condition which is passed on to children 50% of the time), should doctors tell the relative even if the patient refuses permission? Confidentiality is one of the most common issues raised by doctors when they contact the British Medical Associations Ethics Department.

How much money should the NHS receive from the government? Dr Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal, recently argued that the NHS should not receive any more funds because 90% of health results from environment, genes and lifestyle and healthcare rapaciously swallows up funds that would do much for health if invested in education, housing, poverty reduction, the environment, community development.

Within the healthcare budget, how much should be given to each condition? Should acute conditions, such as brain haemorrhages, get more investment than long-term ones, such as diabetes?

Artificial Intelligence is infiltrating the field of medicine, with AI software already interpreting the scans of radiologists, making treatment plans, and assisting surgeons in the operating theatre. Over the next few years, the role of AI will continue to grow but ethical and legal issues are yet to be addressed. Who will be to blame, if anyone, if the AI proves malfunctions?

Over the next few years, the role of AI will continue to grow but ethical and legal issues are yet to be addressed. Who will be to blame, if anyone, if the AI proves malfunctions?

The developer, the manufacturer, the maintenance people, the hospital, the clinician? How can doctors obtain informed consent from patients if no one quite understands how the AIs self-learning algorithm works because it is too complicated, or when the error rate is unknown? And what if the algorithm contains or develops biases, discriminating against certain types of patients: the young, the old, the rich, the poor, men or women?

Several of these ethical issues are likely to be relevant to us at some point in our lives, whichever side of the stethoscope we stand. It is in our collective interest, therefore, to reflect on them and find practical solutions.

Daniel Sokol, PhD, is a medical ethicist and barrister at 12 Kings Bench Walk. His book Tough Choices: Stories from the Front Line of Medical Ethics is published in October 2018 and is available for pre-order.

Dr Daniel Sokol is a medical ethicist and clinical negligence barrister at 12 Kings Bench Walk, London.He has taught medical ethics and law at Keele, St Georges and Imperial College London, and sat on committees for the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice.He is the author of 3 books and over 250 articles on medical ethics and law.www.medicalethicist.net

Read more:
Top 5 ethical issues in medicine - The Hippocratic Post

Read More...

Ethics: The Challenge of Ethical, Legal, and Social …

Wednesday, October 9th, 2019

Kathi C. Huddleston PhD, RN, CNS, CCRC

Citation: Huddleston, K., (December 23, 2013) "Ethics: The Challenge of Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) in Genomic Nursing" OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing Vol. 19 No. 1.

DOI: 10.3912/OJIN.Vol19No01EthCol01

Nurses have always been a cornerstone of healthcare literacy and education. It is essential that, in the complex and quickly changing world of genetics and genomics, they maintain this position. Genetics is the study of the function of a single gene; whereas genomics widens the view to include all genes, and their expression and effects on cell growth, utilizing DNA and bioinformatics (which is the use of biological knowledge to organize and analyze large amounts of data). Genomics includes the emerging fields of omics,such as proteomics (study of protein structures), metabolomics (study of chemical cellular metabolites), and transcriptomics (the study of RNA molecules).

Nurses will soon become as familiar with the omics as they are with vital signs. They will blend this new knowledge into their patient care, while continuing to address, with patients and community members, the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSIs) of future health interventions. These ELSI implications will require basic genetic and genomic health literacy and an understanding of the expectations of the public. The need for the nurse to have baseline competencies in these areas has been well established (American Nurses Association, 2006; Calzone et al., 2012; Gelling, 2013). The multiple findings from studies that have explored health behaviors and attitudes towards genetic testing suggest that people want to know their genetic sequencing results, so as to better understand their personal health profiles (Haga et al., 2013; Hodgson & Gaff, 2013). The ever-expanding discoveries in genomics challenge the nurse to be competent in genomic medicine and knowledgeable in associated, and often difficult, ethical situations (Milton, 2012).

The genomic revolution began with the completion of the sequencing of the human genome in 2003. In the past 10 years, we have seen almost daily releases of studies and reports linking specific changes in genomes with diseases. New genomic discoveries are visible in every arena. Over the past two decades, there has been a growing realization of the complexity of disease and the pathogenesis of both acute and chronic illness (Hamilton, 2009; Lea, 2008). We now know that cancer is not one disease; rather it occurs in different forms with each form being a different disease. Our understanding of several common medical disorders now demonstrates that these disorders are anything but common; they differ in their predisposition, initiation, and path of progression. Something as prevalent as hypertension has proven to be a complex and confusing disorder with numerous etiologies and multiple triggers.

Currently, whole genome sequencing (WGS) serves primarily as a research tool, but that is rapidly changing. We are now seeing the use of WGS in the clinical diagnosis and treatment of complex illnesses (Tabor, Berkman, Hull, & Bamshad, 2011). The impact of genomics research on healthcare and society depends on our ability to deal with the complexity of the genomic revolution and the integration of knowledge to inform our ethical, legal, and social issues (Milton, 2013).

The concepts of autonomy, respect, beneficence, nonmalificence, and justice provide ethicists with a common language and a set of beginning assumptions upon which they can discuss the dilemmas presented to them. Although these concepts can frame the discussion, they are limited in providing answers to the new and complex questions raised by genomics. For example, the concept of autonomy would support the right of persons to obtain their genomic information, but it could also be used to defend their right to refuse such information. Consider a woman who had been found to have a BRCA1 (breast cancer susceptibility gene) variant during genetic testing for a different disorder, in light of the concept of autonomy. She may choose not to learn the results of this incidental finding that she had not consented to. She has the right to refuse that discovery information from her healthcare provider. If she does elect to learn her BRCA1 status, the question arises as to whether she has any obligation to share that information with her sisters or her mother who may have a 1:2 chance of also carrying the disease-causing gene. Does she have the right to test her child? Should the childs right to autonomy reign so that she delays involving her child until the child comes of age and consents to genetic testing? Every ethical question can be discussed and framed to defend or to counter any assumed correct decision.

Today, professional organizations are actively providing guidance and recommendations regarding these questions. The American Nurses Association (2006) has gathered important information about ethical challenges confronted by people receiving genetic- and genomic-based healthcare. Professional codes of ethics, including that of the American Nurses Association and those of professional organizations in other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, provide guidance. These codes provide a framework for nurses who respond to the expansion of the science of genomics in fields such as genetics and genomics. Additionally, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics has recently posted a controversial recommendation for the reporting of incidental findings (Green et al., 2013). As the science advances, specialty organizations will also provide recommendations and guidance. To do this effectively, a basic framework is needed to understand the reason and the rationale for specific decisions so as to provide a consensus of leadership (Evans & Rothschild, 2012; Levenson, 2012).

As knowledge of genomics increasingly influences clinical care, the ethical, legal, and social implications of care decisions demand further inquiry and discussion within hospitals, medical practices, and communities. In my role as Director of Clinical Research at the Inova Translational Medicine Unit, I work with over 1500 families who have enrolled with their newborns to participate as a family in whole genome sequencing research. These families are participating in the exploration of molecular causes of prematurity and the longitudinal study of genomic correlations to childhood health outcomes. We are searching for genomic correlations as to causes of premature birth; but in the course of that research we may incidentally find a baby with a BRCA1 variant. This genetic variant is solely related to the adult onset of breast cancer. Should that result be reported to the mother and father? Would they make choices based on that knowledge that may affect the child? Should the child have the right to choose whether or not she wants to know this finding? What about other children? The question remains as to whether a mother should be told about that genetic susceptibility as it may relate to her reproductive health?

The ethical challenges in our genetic and genomic era regarding questions like these are intertwined with legal and social issues that lead to different interpretations of data privacy. The healthcare world has numerous privacy regulations. However, genomics is different because, although the genomic information belongs to an individual, it is relevant to the family. The patients parents, siblings, and children share roughly 50% of that genomic background, which is central their identity. Patients genetic information can change their perspective of who they are, who their parents are, their place in the world, and their time in the world.

All healthcare professionals must honor the principles of privacy and confidentiality. The technical challenges of coding protected health information through unique, unrelated, numbering systems that are read by computers, as well as the challenges of storing such grand-scale data on secure systems, are creating new markets and new requirements to support confidentiality, patient privacy, and choice. The risks to confidentiality related to genomic information have profound regulatory and insurance implications.

Ethical issues in informed consent have gained greater urgency because of the rapid advances in genomics. Genetic-informed consent is more than a signed document and more than a permission to perform genetic testing. It involves an interaction between the healthcare provider/research team member and the patient/participant. It requires listening and reviewing participants specific needs to ascertain their understanding. Some have even argued that it is not possible to provide informed consent for genetic research because knowledge is advancing so rapidly that we do not know what tests will be possible or what variants may be identified next week.

The increasing utilization of genomics in research and clinical care requires the development of a bioethical framework that considers the ethical, legal, and social implications necessary to advance healthcare and incorporate genomic information into health-related practices. With scientific breakthroughs emerging daily, for example the discovery of bacterial genomes and their interactions with human genomes as they affect health and disease, nurses are faced with more questions than answers. The translation of new knowledge and discoveries requires the integration of science into practice. There are no easy answers to these difficult ethical challenges. Science will continue to push our practice out in front of our comfort zone. Nurses need to develop guiding resources and recommendations, and establish educational competencies, to provide for the challenges of ethical, legal, and social implications in genomic nursing.

Kathi C. Huddleston PhD, RN, CNS, CCRCEmail: kathi.huddleston@inova.org

Dr. Huddleston currently serves as the Director for Clinical Research Projects at the Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Fairfax Medical Campus, Falls Church, VA. She has over 30 years of nursing experience, working in pediatrics, critical care, surgery, and cardiac care. She has worked in childrens hospitals and has practiced in a variety of geographical areas, including Washington DC, Denver (CO), Fresno (CA), and Norfolk (VA). She has now returned turned home to the Washington DC area. Dr. Huddleston has always been interested in clinical outcomes research; and genomic research is a natural progression for her. She notes that one can argue whether genomics is the driver or the passenger in our advancing technologies, but there is no doubt that the genomics vehicle is in the race to the finish! She earned her PhD from George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, her MSN from the California State University in Fresno, and her BSN form the University of Maryland (Baltimore).

American Nurses Association. (2006). Essential genetic and genomic competencies. http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/EthicsStandards/Genetics-1/Essential-Genetic-and-Genomic-Competencies-for-Nurses-With-Graduate-Degrees.pdf

Calzone, K.A., Jenkins, J., Yates, J., Cusack, G., Wallen, G., Liewehr, D.J., McBride, C. (2012). Survey of nursing integration of genomics into nursing practice. Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 28(2), 101-106.

Evans, J.P., & Rothschild, B.B. (2012). Return of result: Not that complicated? Genetics in Medicine, 14 (4), 358-60. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.8

Gelling, L. (2013) Let's tap the patient potential. Nurse Researcher, 20(3), 3.

Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Grody , W.W., Kalia, S.S., Korf, B. R., Martin, C. L., Biesecker, L.G. (2013). ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetic Medicine, 15(7), 565-574. Doi: 10.10.38/gim.2013.73

Hamilton, R. (2009). Nursing advocacy in a postgenomic age. Nursing Clinics of North America, 44(4), 435-446.

Hodgson, J., & Gaff, C. (2013). Enhancing family communication about genetics: Ethical and professional dilemmas. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(1), 16-21.

Lea, D. (2008). Genetic and genomic healthcare: Ethical issues of importance to nurses. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 13(1). doi: 10.3912/OJIN.Vol13No01Man04

Levenson, D. (2012). The tricky matter of secondary genomic findings: ACMG plans to issue recommendations. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A, 158(7), ix-x. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35521

Milton, C.L. (2012). Ethical implications and interprofessional education. Nursing Science Quarterly, 25(4), 313-5. doi: 10.1177/0894318412457066

Milton, C.L. (2013) The ethics of research. Nursing Science Quarterly. 26(1), 20-23. doi: 10.1177/0894318412466740

Tabor, H.K., Berkman, B.E., Hull, S.C., & Bamshad, M.J. (2011). Genomics really gets personal: How exome and whole genome sequencing challenge the ethical framework of human genetics research. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A. 155(12), 29162924. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.34357

2013 OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing Article published December 23, 2013

The rest is here:
Ethics: The Challenge of Ethical, Legal, and Social ...

Read More...

Page 6«..5678..»


2024 © StemCell Therapy is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS) | Violinesth by Patrick