Search

Your search keyword '"Lunshof, Jeantine E."' showing total 196 results
Start Over Author "Lunshof, Jeantine E."
196 results on '"Lunshof, Jeantine E."'

2. Core commitments for field trials of gene drive organisms.

Author

Long, Kanya C, Alphey, Luke, Annas, George J, Bloss, Cinnamon S, Campbell, Karl J, Champer, Jackson, Chen, Chun-Hong, Choudhary, Amit, Church, George M, Collins, James P, Cooper, Kimberly L, Delborne, Jason A, Edwards, Owain R, Emerson, Claudia I, Esvelt, Kevin, Evans, Sam Weiss, Friedman, Robert M, Gantz, Valentino M, Gould, Fred, Hartley, Sarah, Heitman, Elizabeth, Hemingway, Janet, Kanuka, Hirotaka, Kuzma, Jennifer, Lavery, James V, Lee, Yoosook, Lorenzen, Marce, Lunshof, Jeantine E, Marshall, John M, Messer, Philipp W, Montell, Craig, Oye, Kenneth A, Palmer, Megan J, Papathanos, Philippos Aris, Paradkar, Prasad N, Piaggio, Antoinette J, Rasgon, Jason L, Rašić, Gordana, Rudenko, Larisa, Saah, J Royden, Scott, Maxwell J, Sutton, Jolene T, Vorsino, Adam E, and Akbari, Omar S

Subjects
Animals, Organisms, Genetically Modified, Safety, Guidelines as Topic, Gene Drive Technology, Genetics, Generic health relevance, General Science & Technology
Abstract

We must ensure that trials are scientifically, politically, and socially robust, publicly accountable, and widely transparent

Published
2020

3. Harnessing the microbiome to prevent global biodiversity loss

Author

Peixoto, Raquel S., Voolstra, Christian R., Sweet, Michael, Duarte, Carlos M., Carvalho, Susana, Villela, Helena, Lunshof, Jeantine E., Gram, Lone, Woodhams, Douglas C., Walter, Jens, Roik, Anna, Hentschel, Ute, Thurber, Rebecca Vega, Daisley, Brendan, Ushijima, Blake, Daffonchio, Daniele, Costa, Rodrigo, Keller-Costa, Tina, Bowman, Jeff S., Rosado, Alexandre S., Reid, Gregor, Mason, Christopher E., Walke, Jenifer B., Thomas, Torsten, and Berg, Gabriele

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. Reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society Report on Heritable Human Genome Editing.

Author

Angrist, Misha, Barrangou, Rodolphe, Baylis, Françoise, Brokowski, Carolyn, Burgio, Gaetan, Caplan, Arthur, Chapman, Carolyn Riley, Church, George M, Cook-Deegan, Robert, Cwik, Bryan, Doudna, Jennifer A, Evans, John H, Greely, Henry T, Hercher, Laura, Hurlbut, J Benjamin, Hynes, Richard O, Ishii, Tetsuya, Kiani, Samira, Lee, LaTasha Hoskins, Levrier, Guillaume, Liu, David R, Lunshof, Jeantine E, Macintosh, Kerry Lynn, Mathews, Debra JH, Meslin, Eric M, Mills, Peter HR, Montoliu, Lluis, Musunuru, Kiran, Nicol, Dianne, O'Neill, Helen, Qiu, Renzong, Ranisch, Robert, Sherkow, Jacob S, Soni, Sheetal, Terry, Sharon, Topol, Eric, Williamson, Robert, Zhang, Feng, and Davies, Kevin

Subjects
Germ Cells, Humans, Human Experimentation, Genome, Human, Academies and Institutes, Societies, Research Report, Gene Editing, Human Genome, Genetics
Abstract

In September 2020, a detailed report on Heritable Human Genome Editing was published. The report offers a translational pathway for the limited approval of germline editing under limited circumstances and assuming various criteria have been met. In this perspective, some three dozen experts from the fields of genome editing, medicine, bioethics, law, and related fields offer their candid reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society report, highlighting areas of support, omissions, disagreements, and priorities moving forward.

Published
2020

5. How collaboration between bioethicists and neuroscientists can advance research

Author

Hyun, Insoo, Scharf-Deering, J. C., Sullivan, Sarah, Aach, John Dennis, Arlotta, Paola, Baum, Matthew L., Church, George M., Goldenberg, Aaron, Greely, Henry T., Khoshakhlagh, Parastoo, Kohman, Richie E., Lopes, Melissa, Lowenthal, Caroline, Lu, Aric, Ng, Alex H. M., Pasca, Sergiu P., Paulsen, Bruna, Pigoni, Martina, Scott, Christopher T., Silbersweig, David A., Skylar-Scott, Mark A., Truog, Robert D., and Lunshof, Jeantine E.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

7. A public resource facilitating clinical use of genomes

Author

Ball, Madeleine P, Thakuria, Joseph V, Zaranek, Alexander Wait, Clegg, Tom, Rosenbaum, Abraham M, Wu, Xiaodi, Angrist, Misha, Bhak, Jong, Bobe, Jason, Callow, Matthew J, Cano, Carlos, Chou, Michael F, Chung, Wendy K, Douglas, Shawn M, Estep, Preston W, Gore, Athurva, Hulick, Peter, Labarga, Alberto, Lee, Je-Hyuk, Lunshof, Jeantine E, Kim, Byung Chul, Kim, Jong-Il, Li, Zhe, Murray, Michael F, Nilsen, Geoffrey B, Peters, Brock A, Raman, Anugraha M, Rienhoff, Hugh Y, Robasky, Kimberly, Wheeler, Matthew T, Vandewege, Ward, Vorhaus, Daniel B, Yang, Joyce L, Yang, Luhan, Aach, John, Ashley, Euan A, Drmanac, Radoje, Kim, Seong-Jin, Li, Jin Billy, Peshkin, Leonid, Seidman, Christine E, Seo, Jeong-Sun, Zhang, Kun, Rehm, Heidi L, and Church, George M

Subjects
Human Genome, Genetics, Biotechnology, Generic health relevance, Good Health and Well Being, Cell Line, Data Collection, Databases, Genetic, Genetic Variation, Genome, Human, Humans, Phenotype, Precision Medicine, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Software, genome interpretation, genomic medicine, human genetics
Abstract

Rapid advances in DNA sequencing promise to enable new diagnostics and individualized therapies. Achieving personalized medicine, however, will require extensive research on highly reidentifiable, integrated datasets of genomic and health information. To assist with this, participants in the Personal Genome Project choose to forgo privacy via our institutional review board- approved "open consent" process. The contribution of public data and samples facilitates both scientific discovery and standardization of methods. We present our findings after enrollment of more than 1,800 participants, including whole-genome sequencing of 10 pilot participant genomes (the PGP-10). We introduce the Genome-Environment-Trait Evidence (GET-Evidence) system. This tool automatically processes genomes and prioritizes both published and novel variants for interpretation. In the process of reviewing the presumed healthy PGP-10 genomes, we find numerous literature references implying serious disease. Although it is sometimes impossible to rule out a late-onset effect, stringent evidence requirements can address the high rate of incidental findings. To that end we develop a peer production system for recording and organizing variant evaluations according to standard evidence guidelines, creating a public forum for reaching consensus on interpretation of clinically relevant variants. Genome analysis becomes a two-step process: using a prioritized list to record variant evaluations, then automatically sorting reviewed variants using these annotations. Genome data, health and trait information, participant samples, and variant interpretations are all shared in the public domain-we invite others to review our results using our participant samples and contribute to our interpretations. We offer our public resource and methods to further personalized medical research.

Published
2012

9. Response

Author

LUNSHOF, JEANTINE E., CHURCH, GEORGE M., and PRAINSACK, BARBARA

Published
2014

11. Minibrains: What's in a Name? The Reality of Organoids

Author

Lopes, Melissa, Kohman, Richie E., Lunshof, Jeantine E., Paulsen, Bruna, Pigoni, Martina, White, Sasha, Aach, John, and Hyun, Insoo

Subjects
Brain -- Models -- Physiological aspects, Tissue culture -- Methods, Science and technology
Abstract

Brain organoids have emerged in recent years as a powerful new tool for neuroscience research. Unfortunately, the promise of this tool has been muddied by misplaced fear and hype, born [...]

Published
2021

13. Reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society Report on Heritable Human Genome Editing

Author

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Church, George M, Hynes, Richard O, Kiani, Samira, Liu, David R., Lunshof, Jeantine E., Zhang, Feng, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Church, George M, Hynes, Richard O, Kiani, Samira, Liu, David R., Lunshof, Jeantine E., and Zhang, Feng

Abstract

In September 2020, a detailed report on Heritable Human Genome Editing was published. The report offers a translational pathway for the limited approval of germline editing under limited circumstances and assuming various criteria have been met. In this perspective, some three dozen experts from the fields of genome editing, medicine, bioethics, law, and related fields offer their candid reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society report, highlighting areas of support, omissions, disagreements, and priorities moving forward.

Published
2022

14. Governing Gene Drive Technologies: A Qualitative Interview Study

Author

Medical Humanities Onderzoek Team 2, JC onderzoeksprogramma Methodologie, Child Health, Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cells, de Graeff, N., Jongsma, Karin R., Lunshof, Jeantine E., Bredenoord, Annelien L., Medical Humanities Onderzoek Team 2, JC onderzoeksprogramma Methodologie, Child Health, Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cells, de Graeff, N., Jongsma, Karin R., Lunshof, Jeantine E., and Bredenoord, Annelien L.

Published
2022

15. Biobanks: Oversight Offers Protection

Author

Hens, Kristien, Wright, John, Dierickx, Kris, Gurwitz, David, Fortier, Isabel, Lunshof, Jeantine E., and Knoppers, Bartha Maria

Published
2009

17. Laboratory-Generated DNA Can Cause Anomalous Pathogen Diagnostic Test Results

Author

Robinson-McCarthy, Lindsey R., primary, Mijalis, Alexander J., additional, Filsinger, Gabriel T., additional, de Puig, Helena, additional, Donghia, Nina M., additional, Schaus, Thomas E., additional, Rasmussen, Robert A., additional, Ferreira, Raphael, additional, Lunshof, Jeantine E., additional, Chao, George, additional, Ter-Ovanesyan, Dmitry, additional, Dodd, Oliver, additional, Kuru, Erkin, additional, Sesay, Adama M., additional, Rainbow, Joshua, additional, Pawlowski, Andrew C., additional, Wannier, Timothy M., additional, Angenent-Mari, Nicolaas M., additional, Najjar, Devora, additional, Yin, Peng, additional, Ingber, Donald E., additional, Tam, Jenny M., additional, and Church, George M., additional

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

19. Laboratory-Generated DNA Can Cause Anomalous Pathogen Diagnostic Test Results

Author

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Institute for Medical Engineering & Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Biological Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Media Laboratory, Robinson-McCarthy, Lindsey R., Mijalis, Alexander J., Filsinger, Gabriel T., de Puig Guixe, Helena, Donghia, Nina M., Schaus, Thomas E., Rasmussen, Robert A., Ferreira, Raphael, Lunshof, Jeantine E., Chao, George, Ter-Ovanesyan, Dmitry, Dodd, Oliver, Kuru, Erkin, Sesay, Adama M., Rainbow, Joshua, Pawlowski, Andrew C., Wannier, Timothy M., Angenent-Mari, Nicolaas M., Najjar, Devora, Yin, Peng, Ingber, Donald E., Tam, Jenny M., Church, George M., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Institute for Medical Engineering & Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Biological Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Media Laboratory, Robinson-McCarthy, Lindsey R., Mijalis, Alexander J., Filsinger, Gabriel T., de Puig Guixe, Helena, Donghia, Nina M., Schaus, Thomas E., Rasmussen, Robert A., Ferreira, Raphael, Lunshof, Jeantine E., Chao, George, Ter-Ovanesyan, Dmitry, Dodd, Oliver, Kuru, Erkin, Sesay, Adama M., Rainbow, Joshua, Pawlowski, Andrew C., Wannier, Timothy M., Angenent-Mari, Nicolaas M., Najjar, Devora, Yin, Peng, Ingber, Donald E., Tam, Jenny M., and Church, George M.

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought about the unprecedented expansion of highly sensitive molecular diagnostics as a primary infection control strategy. At the same time, many laboratories have shifted focus to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) research and diagnostic development, leading to large-scale production of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids that can interfere with these tests. We have identified multiple instances, in independent laboratories, in which nucleic acids generated in research settings are suspected to have caused researchers to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 in surveillance testing. In some cases, the affected individuals did not work directly with these nucleic acids but were exposed via a contaminated surface or object. Though researchers have long been vigilant of DNA contaminants, the transfer of these contaminants to SARS-CoV-2 testing samples can result in anomalous test results. The impact of these incidents stretches into the public sphere, placing additional burdens on public health resources, placing affected researchers and their contacts in isolation and quarantine, removing them from the testing pool for 3 months, and carrying the potential to trigger shutdowns of classrooms and workplaces. We report our observations as a call for increased stewardship over nucleic acids with the potential to impact both the use and development of diagnostics.

Published
2021

20. Core commitments for field trials of gene drive organisms

Author

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Media Laboratory, Long, Kanya C., Alphey, Luke, Annas, George J., Bloss, Cinnamon S., Campbell, Karl J., Champer, Jackson, Chen, Chun-Hong, Choudhary, Amit, Church, George M., Collins, James P., Cooper, Kimberly L., Delborne, Jason A., Edwards, Owain R., Emerson, Claudia I., Esvelt, Kevin Michael, Evans, Sam Weiss, Friedman, Robert M., Gantz, Valentino M., Gould, Fred, Hartley, Sarah, Heitman, Elizabeth, Hemingway, Janet, Kanuka, Hirotaka, Kuzma, Jennifer, Lavery, James V., Lee, Yoosook, Lorenzen, Marce, Lunshof, Jeantine E., Marshall, John M., Messer, Philipp W., Montell, Craig, Oye, Kenneth A., Palmer, Megan J., Papathanos, Philippos Aris, Paradkar, Prasad N., Piaggio, Antoinette J., Rasgon, Jason L., Rašić, Gordana, Rudenko, Larisa, Saah, J. Royden, Scott, Maxwell J., Sutton, Jolene T., Vorsino, Adam E., Akbari, Omar S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Media Laboratory, Long, Kanya C., Alphey, Luke, Annas, George J., Bloss, Cinnamon S., Campbell, Karl J., Champer, Jackson, Chen, Chun-Hong, Choudhary, Amit, Church, George M., Collins, James P., Cooper, Kimberly L., Delborne, Jason A., Edwards, Owain R., Emerson, Claudia I., Esvelt, Kevin Michael, Evans, Sam Weiss, Friedman, Robert M., Gantz, Valentino M., Gould, Fred, Hartley, Sarah, Heitman, Elizabeth, Hemingway, Janet, Kanuka, Hirotaka, Kuzma, Jennifer, Lavery, James V., Lee, Yoosook, Lorenzen, Marce, Lunshof, Jeantine E., Marshall, John M., Messer, Philipp W., Montell, Craig, Oye, Kenneth A., Palmer, Megan J., Papathanos, Philippos Aris, Paradkar, Prasad N., Piaggio, Antoinette J., Rasgon, Jason L., Rašić, Gordana, Rudenko, Larisa, Saah, J. Royden, Scott, Maxwell J., Sutton, Jolene T., Vorsino, Adam E., and Akbari, Omar S.

Abstract

Gene drive organisms (GDOs), whose genomes have been genetically engineered to spread a desired allele through a population, have the potential to transform the way societies address a wide range of daunting public health and environmental challenges. The development, testing, and release of GDOs, however, are complex and often controversial. A key challenge is to clarify the appropriate roles of developers and others actively engaged in work with GDOs in decision-making processes, and, in particular, how to establish partnerships with relevant authorities and other stakeholders. Several members of the gene drive community previously proposed safeguards for laboratory experiments with GDOs (1) that, in the absence of national or international guidelines, were considered essential for responsible laboratory work to proceed. Now, with GDO development advancing in laboratories (2–5), we envision similar safeguards for the potential next step: ecologically and/or genetically confined field trials to further assess the performance of GDOs. A GDO's propensity to spread necessitates well-developed criteria for field trials to assess its potential impacts (6). We, as a multidisciplinary group of GDO developers, ecologists, conservation biologists, and experts in social science, ethics, and policy, outline commitments below that we deem critical for responsible conduct of a field trial and to ensure that these technologies, if they are introduced, serve the public interest.

Published
2021

22. Anomalous COVID-19 tests hinder researchers

Author

Robinson-McCarthy, Lindsey R., primary, Mijalis, Alexander J., additional, Filsinger, Gabriel T., additional, de Puig, Helena, additional, Donghia, Nina M., additional, Schaus, Thomas E., additional, Rasmussen, Robert A., additional, Ferreira, Raphael, additional, Lunshof, Jeantine E., additional, Chao, George, additional, Ter-Ovanesyan, Dmitry, additional, Dodd, Oliver, additional, Kuru, Erkin, additional, Sesay, Adama M., additional, Rainbow, Joshua, additional, Pawlowski, Andrew C., additional, Wannier, Timothy M., additional, Yin, Peng, additional, Collins, James J., additional, Ingber, Donald E., additional, Church, George M., additional, and Tam, Jenny M., additional

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

24. New recommended policies for pathogen surveillance testing of researchers and improved stewardship of diagnostic DNA

Author

Robinson-McCarthy, Lindsey, primary, Mijalis, Alexander J., additional, Filsinger, Gabriel T, additional, de Puig, Helena, additional, Donghia, Nina M., additional, Schaus, Thomas E., additional, Rasmussen, Robert A., additional, Ferreira, Raphael, additional, Lunshof, Jeantine E., additional, Chao, George, additional, Ter-Ovanesyan, Dmitry, additional, Dodd, Oliver, additional, Kuru, Erkin, additional, Sesay, Adama M., additional, Rainbow, Joshua, additional, Pawlowski, Andrew C., additional, Wannier, Timothy M., additional, Yin, Peng, additional, Collins, James J., additional, Ingber, Donald, additional, Tam, Jenny, additional, and Church, George M., additional

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

26. Governing Gene Drive Technologies: A Qualitative Interview Study.

Author

de Graeff, N., Jongsma, Karin R., Lunshof, Jeantine E., and Bredenoord, Annelien L.

Subjects
HEREDITY, QUALITATIVE research, POWER (Social sciences), APPROPRIATE technology, VECTOR-borne diseases
Abstract

Gene drive technologies (GDTs) bias the inheritance of a genetic element within a population of non-human organisms, promoting its progressive spread across this population. If successful, GDTs may be used to counter intractable problems such as vector-borne diseases. A key issue in the debate on GDTs relates to what governance is appropriate for these technologies. While governance mechanisms for GDTs are to a significant extent proposed and shaped by professional experts, the perspectives of these experts have not been explored in depth. A total of 33 GDT experts from different professional disciplines were interviewed to identify, better understand, and juxtapose their perspectives on GDT governance. The pseudonymized transcripts were analyzed thematically. Three main themes were identified: (1) engagement of communities, stakeholders, and publics; (2) power dynamics, and (3) decision-making. There was broad consensus amongst respondents that it is important to engage communities, stakeholders, and publics. Nonetheless, respondents had diverging views on the reasons for doing so and the timing and design of engagement. Respondents also outlined complexities and challenges related to engagement. Moreover, they brought up the power dynamics that are present in GDT research. Respondents stressed the importance of preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and reflected on dilemmas regarding whether and to what extent (foreign) researchers can legitimately make demands regarding local governance. Finally, respondents had diverging views on whether decisions about GDTs should be made in the same way as decisions about other environmental interventions, and on the decision-making model that should be used to decide about GDT deployment. The insights obtained in this interview study give rise to recommendations for the design and evaluation of GDT governance. Moreover, these insights point to unresolved normative questions that need to be addressed to move from general commitments to concrete obligations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

29. Reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society Report onHeritable Human Genome Editing

Author

Angrist, Misha, primary, Barrangou, Rodolphe, additional, Baylis, Françoise, additional, Brokowski, Carolyn, additional, Burgio, Gaetan, additional, Caplan, Arthur, additional, Chapman, Carolyn Riley, additional, Church, George M., additional, Cook-Deegan, Robert, additional, Cwik, Bryan, additional, Doudna, Jennifer A., additional, Evans, John H., additional, Greely, Henry T., additional, Hercher, Laura, additional, Hurlbut, J. Benjamin, additional, Hynes, Richard O., additional, Ishii, Tetsuya, additional, Kiani, Samira, additional, Lee, LaTasha Hoskins, additional, Levrier, Guillaume, additional, Liu, David R., additional, Lunshof, Jeantine E., additional, Macintosh, Kerry Lynn, additional, Mathews, Debra J.H., additional, Meslin, Eric M., additional, Mills, Peter H.R., additional, Montoliu, Lluis, additional, Musunuru, Kiran, additional, Nicol, Dianne, additional, O'Neill, Helen, additional, Qiu, Renzong, additional, Ranisch, Robert, additional, Sherkow, Jacob S., additional, Soni, Sheetal, additional, Terry, Sharon, additional, Topol, Eric, additional, Williamson, Robert, additional, Zhang, Feng, additional, and Davies, Kevin, additional

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

39. Pharmacogenomics education in medical and pharmacy schools: conclusions of a global survey

Author

Kuzelicki, Natasa Karas, Zitnik, Irena Prodan, Gurwitz, David, Llerena, Adrian, Cascorbi, Ingolf, Siest, Sofia, Simmaco, Maurizio, Ansari, Marc, Pazzagli, Mario, Di Resta, Chiara, Brandslund, Ivan, Schwab, Matthias, Vermeersch, Pieter, Lunshof, Jeantine E., Dedoussis, George, Flordellis, Christodoulos S., Fuhr, Uwe, Stingl, Julia C., van Schaik, Ron H. N., Manolopoulos, Vangelis G., Marc, Janja, Kuzelicki, Natasa Karas, Zitnik, Irena Prodan, Gurwitz, David, Llerena, Adrian, Cascorbi, Ingolf, Siest, Sofia, Simmaco, Maurizio, Ansari, Marc, Pazzagli, Mario, Di Resta, Chiara, Brandslund, Ivan, Schwab, Matthias, Vermeersch, Pieter, Lunshof, Jeantine E., Dedoussis, George, Flordellis, Christodoulos S., Fuhr, Uwe, Stingl, Julia C., van Schaik, Ron H. N., Manolopoulos, Vangelis G., and Marc, Janja

Abstract

Aim: The need for pharmacogenomic education is becoming more and more urgent. Our aim was to evaluate the progress in pharmacogenomics education since then, and to put forward further recommendations. Methods: A survey was sent to 248 schools of medicine, pharmacy, nursing and health professions around the world. Results: The majority of the study programs (87%) include pharmacogenomics education, which is generally taught as part of the pharmacology curriculum. On average, educators and teachers have selected appropriate and highly relevant pharmacogenomics biomarkers to include in their teaching programs. Conclusions: Based on the results, we can conclude that the state of pharmacogenomics education at the surveyed universities has improved substantially since 2005.

Published
2019

40. The ethics of experimenting with human brain tissue

Author

Farahany, Nita A., primary, Greely, Henry T., additional, Hyman, Steven, additional, Koch, Christof, additional, Grady, Christine, additional, Pașca, Sergiu P., additional, Sestan, Nenad, additional, Arlotta, Paola, additional, Bernat, James L., additional, Ting, Jonathan, additional, Lunshof, Jeantine E., additional, Iyer, Eswar P. R., additional, Hyun, Insoo, additional, Capestany, Beatrice H., additional, Church, George M., additional, Huang, Hao, additional, and Song, Hongjun, additional

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

41. Erratum: Revisiting the Warnock rule

Author

Hurlbut, J Benjamin, primary, Hyun, Insoo, additional, Levine, Aaron D, additional, Lovell-Badge, Robin, additional, Lunshof, Jeantine E, additional, Matthews, Kirstin R W, additional, Mills, Peter, additional, Murdoch, Alison, additional, Pera, Martin F, additional, Scott, Christopher Thomas, additional, Tizzard, Juliet, additional, Warnock, Mary, additional, Zernicka-Goetz, Magdalena, additional, Zhou, Qi, additional, and Zoloth, Laurie, additional

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

42. Revisiting the Warnock rule

Author

Hurlbut, J Benjamin, primary, Hyun, Insoo, additional, Levine, Aaron D, additional, Lovell-Badge, Robin, additional, Lunshof, Jeantine E, additional, Matthews, Kirstin R W, additional, Mills, Peter, additional, Murdoch, Alison, additional, Pera, Martin F, additional, Scott, Christopher Thomas, additional, Tizzard, Juliet, additional, Warnock, Mary, additional, Zernicka-Goetz, Magdalena, additional, Zhou, Qi, additional, and Zoloth, Laurie, additional

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

43. Ethical principles for the use of human cellular biotechnologies

Author

Wolpe, Paul Root, Rommelfanger, Karen S., Borenstein, Jason, Labrecque, Cory Andrew, Bennetzen, Jeffrey L., Boyd, Sarah, Gaudray, Patrick, Giordano, Sara, Kim, Ock-Joo, Thierry, Magnin, Nerem, Robert M., Reynolds, Joel Michael, Sahlin, Nils-Eric, Weir, David Brandin, Awong-Taylor, Judy, Gjerris, Mickey, Condit, Celeste M., Darnovsky, Marcy, Offermann, Margaret, Eisen, Arri, Queen, Edward, Ahrlund-Richter, Lars, Karen, Kasey, Kuiken, Todd, Sexson, William, Sudduth, Elizabeth, Wallach, Wendell, Warner, Christopher, Yarborough, Mark, York-Simmons, Kevin, Crane, Jonathan K., Deng, Yi, Jin, Peng, Capps, Benjamin, Khan, Fazal, Kirkman, Robert, Loring, Jeanne, Ross, Heather, Pollitt, Stephanie, Kinlaw, Kathy, Levine, Aaron, Dickert, Neal, Gaffield, Chad, Gunter, Chris, Javazon, Elisabeth, Kraftchick, Steven, Lowenthal, Justin, Ogbogu, Ubaka, Szymanski, Laura, Walker, Elaine, Shaw, Kelly, Boldt, Joachim, Chen, Estella, Douglas, Mark, Estrada, Karol, Happe, Kelly E., Lee, MyungSun, Lunshof, Jeantine E., Min, Seon Yeo, Pentz, Rebecca D., Singh, Ilina, Yeager, Jordan, Yudin, Boris, Wolpe, Paul Root, Rommelfanger, Karen S., Borenstein, Jason, Labrecque, Cory Andrew, Bennetzen, Jeffrey L., Boyd, Sarah, Gaudray, Patrick, Giordano, Sara, Kim, Ock-Joo, Thierry, Magnin, Nerem, Robert M., Reynolds, Joel Michael, Sahlin, Nils-Eric, Weir, David Brandin, Awong-Taylor, Judy, Gjerris, Mickey, Condit, Celeste M., Darnovsky, Marcy, Offermann, Margaret, Eisen, Arri, Queen, Edward, Ahrlund-Richter, Lars, Karen, Kasey, Kuiken, Todd, Sexson, William, Sudduth, Elizabeth, Wallach, Wendell, Warner, Christopher, Yarborough, Mark, York-Simmons, Kevin, Crane, Jonathan K., Deng, Yi, Jin, Peng, Capps, Benjamin, Khan, Fazal, Kirkman, Robert, Loring, Jeanne, Ross, Heather, Pollitt, Stephanie, Kinlaw, Kathy, Levine, Aaron, Dickert, Neal, Gaffield, Chad, Gunter, Chris, Javazon, Elisabeth, Kraftchick, Steven, Lowenthal, Justin, Ogbogu, Ubaka, Szymanski, Laura, Walker, Elaine, Shaw, Kelly, Boldt, Joachim, Chen, Estella, Douglas, Mark, Estrada, Karol, Happe, Kelly E., Lee, MyungSun, Lunshof, Jeantine E., Min, Seon Yeo, Pentz, Rebecca D., Singh, Ilina, Yeager, Jordan, and Yudin, Boris

Abstract

Recent developments in bioengineering promise the possibility of new diagnostic and treatment strategies, novel industrial processes, and innovative approaches to thorny problems in fields such as nutrition, agriculture, and biomanufacturing. As modern genetics has matured and developed technologies of increasing power, debates overrisk assessments and proper applications of the technology, and over who should have decision-making power over such issues, have become more prominent. Recently, some scientists have advocated that ethicists step out of the way, whereas others have called for greater ethical scrutiny, or even for moratoria on some lines of research1,2. As a community, however, we must together determine the proper application of these powerful biological tools. This paper, a consensus statement of a group of interdisciplinary delegates drawn from the top biotech-producing countries of the world, offers a set of ethical principles to contribute to the ethical conversation about human cellular biotechnological research moving forward.

Published
2017

46. Brain Surrogates—Empty or Full Makes the Difference.

Author

Lunshof, Jeantine E.

Subjects
*ANIMAL experimentation, *BIOETHICS, *BRAIN, *MEDICAL research, *NEUROSCIENCES, *RESEARCH ethics, *HUMAN research subjects
Abstract

The article discusses models have deserved of the kinds of ethical and legal respect that have hindered brain research in human beings. Topics include the brain, or rather the nervous system, has identified as the biological substrate of capabilities like the experience of "pleasure and pain," and human neural organoids have derived from human stem cells.

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

47. Pharmacogenomics education in medical and pharmacy schools: conclusions of a global survey

Author

Karas Kuželički, Nataša, Prodan Žitnik, Irena, Gurwitz, David, Llerena, Adrian, Cascorbi, Ingolf, Siest, Sofia, Simmaco, Maurizio, Ansari, Marc, Pazzagli, Mario, Di Resta, Chiara, Brandslund, Ivan, Schwab, Matthias, Vermeersch, Pieter, Lunshof, Jeantine E, Dedoussis, George, Flordellis, Christodoulos S, Fuhr, Uwe, Stingl, Julia C, van Schaik, Ron HN, Manolopoulos, Vangelis G, and Marc, Janja

Abstract

Aim:The need for pharmacogenomic education is becoming more and more urgent. Our aim was to evaluate the progress in pharmacogenomics education since then, and to put forward further recommendations. Methods:A survey was sent to 248 schools of medicine, pharmacy, nursing and health professions around the world. Results:The majority of the study programs (87%) include pharmacogenomics education, which is generally taught as part of the pharmacology curriculum. On average, educators and teachers have selected appropriate and highly relevant pharmacogenomics biomarkers to include in their teaching programs. Conclusions:Based on the results, we can conclude that the state of pharmacogenomics education at the surveyed universities has improved substantially since 2005.

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

48. Misdirected precaution: personal-genome tests are blurring the boundary between experts and lay people. Barbara Prainsack, Jenny Reardon and a team of international collaborators urge regulators to rethink outdated models of regulation

Author

Prainsack, Barbara, Reardon, Jenny, Hindmarsh, Richard, Gottweis, Herbert, Naue, Ursula, and Lunshof, Jeantine E.

Subjects
23andMe Inc. -- Services, deCODE genetics Inc. -- Services, Navigenics Inc. -- Services, Genetic research -- Social aspects -- Usage, Biotechnology industry -- Services, Genetic screening -- Usage -- Social aspects, Environmental issues, Science and technology, Zoology and wildlife conservation, Social aspects, Usage, Services
Abstract

Since the introduction of direct-to-consumer, whole-genome testing in 2007, a handful of new companies have simultaneously fascinated and exasperated observers. 23andMe in Mountain View, California, deCODE Genetics of Reykjavik, Iceland, [...]

Published
2008

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results