During the semester we feature a technology with potential legal, social and/or ethical implications and ask:
What’s YOUR answer?
One $25 Starbucks gift card awarded per challenge based on what we feel is the most judicious response to the highlighted technology, below.
Deadline to be eligible for this month’s Starbucks gift card is March 20,2017.
What are some of the implications, legal and/or ethical, with respect to human gene editing for serious health conditions? Do you agree with the NAS committee’s recommendations? Why? Why not?
*You are not expected to read the full report.
Squelch that feeling of murderous rage. Click here.
Happy Friday All!
February 16, 2017
The HeLa cells controversy is back in the news. We previously reported on HeLa cells here: http://blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com/lsi/2013/08/12/doing-the-right-thing-hela-comes-home/.
It was announced yesterday that Henrietta Lacks’ eldest son will be seeking compensation from Johns Hopkins University for the unauthorized and uncompensated medical use of his mother’s valuable cancer cells. The elder Lacks claims that an agreement reached among certain family members and the National Institutes of Health in 2013 regarding use of the HeLa cell line is unenforceable — that he, as executor of the estate, never executed the 2013 agreement. For its part, according to Andrea McDaniels, Johns Hopkins alleges it has not profited financially from discoveries made through the cell line. The family, however, challenges this and claims that various entities have realized profits through the HeLa cells. The lawsuit, once filed, may, therefore, name additional defendants.
The cells were key in the development of the polio vaccine and many modern scientific applications.
LSI Faculty Director and Regents’ Professor of Law, Gary Marchant,was one of the co-authors of today’s National Academies of Sciences report on Human Gene Editing. Here is a one paragraph summary of the report:
“Genome editing is a powerful new tool for making precise alterations to an organism’s genetic material. Recent scientific advances have made genome editing more efficient, precise, and flexible than ever before. These advances have spurred an explosion of interest from around the globe in the possible ways in which genome editing can improve human health. The speed at which these technologies are being developed and applied has led many policymakers and stakeholders to express concern about whether appropriate systems are in place to govern these technologies and how and when the public should be engaged in these decisions. In a new report from the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine, an expert committee considers important questions about the human application of genome editing including: Balancing potential benefits with unintended risks, governing the use of genome editing, incorporating societal values into clinical applications and policy decisions, and respecting the inevitable differences across nations and cultures that will shape how and whether to use these new technologies. The committee sets forth criteria that must be met before permitting clinical trials of heritable germline editing, provides conclusions on the crucial need for public education and engagement, and presents 7 general principles for the governance of human genome editing. Download the report now to read the recommendations: http://bit.ly/2lhyg9S #GeneEditStudy”
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged CRISPR Cas 9 Human Gene Editing, CRISPR Cas-9, CRISPR Human Gene Editing, Gary E. Marchant, Gary E. Marchant Human Gene Editing, Gary Marchant, human gene editing, Human gene editing CRISPR, NAS Gene Editing, NAS Human Gene Editing Report, National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine Human Gene Editing Report, National Academies of Sciences Gary Marchant, National Academies of Sciences Human Gene Editing
Happy Friday (almost Saturday) All!
TGIF Funny Fix courtesy of Lucy Tournas, JD Candidate,
ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law