Category Archives: Human Genetic Engineering

The dogs, which are test tube bred in a lab, have twice the muscle mass of their natural counterparts and are considerably stronger and faster.

The canine genome has been especially difficult to engineer and replicate but its close similarity to the human genome means it has long been the prize of geneticists.

Now the Chinese success has led to fears the same technology could be used to create super-humans.

David King, director of Human Genetics Alert (HGA), voiced his fears over what is widely viewed as the first step on s slippery slope.

He told the Express.co.uk: Its true that the more and more animals that are genetically engineered using these techniques brings us closer to the possibility of genetic engineering of humans.

Dogs are as a species, in respect of cloning are very difficult, and even more difficult to clone human beings.

Theres no medical case for it, the scientists are interested in being the first person in the world to create a genetically engineer child.

Theyre interested in science and the technology and their careers. They will continue pushing the regulations for it.

GETTY

That does set us on the road to eugenics. I am very concerned with what Im seeing.

An army of super-humans has been a staple of science fiction and superhero comics for decades but the super-dog technology brings it closer to reality.

The Chinese researchers first self-bred cloned dog was named Little Long Long.

The beagle puppy, one of 27, was genetically engineered by deleting a gene called myostatin, giving it double the muscle mass of a normal beagle.

The advance genetic editing technology has been touted as a breakthrough which could herald the dawn of superbreeds, which could be stronger, faster, better at running and hunting.

NC

The dogs could potentially be deployed to frontline service to assist police officers, scientists said.

Dr Lai Liangxue, researcher at Guangzhou institute of biological medicine and health, said: "This is a breakthrough, marking China as only the second country in the world to independently master dog-somatic clone technology, after South Korea."

Some 65 embryos were edited, and from that 27 were born, with Little Long Long the only one who was created without the myostatin gene. Myostatin is known to control muscle size in humans.

Dogs are one of the hardest animals to clone, with only South Korea thought to have successfully created a clone in the past.

As well as the enhancements, researchers said in the Journal of Molecular Cell Biology some dogs will be bred with DNA mutations in a bid to help medical research, including some which mimic Parkinsons.

1 of 10

Dr Lai added: "The goal of the research is to explore an approach to the generation of the new disease dog models for biomedical research.

"Dogs are very close to humans in terms of metabolic, physiological and anatomical characteristics."

But some have criticised the experiments, citing ethical concerns.

Mr King continued: This is the way its likely to proceed if the law is changed, first of all they will use it for medical purposes, most likely to treat a genetic condition.

GETTY

I am very concerned with what Im seeing

David King

In terms of genetic engineering we will be seeing this more and more.

There are also fears that, as well as medical, tinkering with genetics could also lead to a rise in designer or novelty pets.

Dr Lai said his team have no intentions to breed the bulked up beagles as pets.

But Mr King also voiced fears that this breakthrough, coupled with existing cases of altering human embryos, could lead to further calls for designer babies.

The director of HGA, and independent body, claimed there are multiple examples of eugenics going on already, citing women who are intelligent and beautiful are paid more for their eggs in the US.

Mr King said: Its not scaremongering.

Im seeing the beginning of a campaign within the scientific community to legalise human genetic engineering.

Weve seen how it happened with the thee-parent embryo.

NC

I can see the same thing building up with genetic engineering.

There are strict laws around cloning, but one example of a case in the UK is Dolly the sheep.

Born in 1996, she died aged six in 2003, half the normal life span of a Finn Dorset sheep.

And recently, an artificial womb for premature babies was tested on lambs, and showed significant success.

Lambs born at the equivalent of 23 weeks were placed inside the fake womb which contained fluid mimicking that found in an amniotic sac.

They remained inside for 28 days, and continued to develop, even growing white fleeces.

Guo Longpeng, the China press officer for the Asia division of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said: "Cloning is unethical.

"Like any other laboratory animal, these animals are caged and manipulated in order to provide a lucrative bottom line."

See more here:
China unveils technology to create SUPER-HUMANS via hyper-muscular test-tube dogs - Express.co.uk

A business owner, a school superintendent and a lawyer walk into a bar . Sounds like the beginning of a lame joke, right? Well, it was definitely a joke even worse than the kind of joke that might illicit an eye roll from spouse or friends. Ninety-two years ago this week, one of the greatest legal farces in history commenced in the small town of Dayton, Tenn. It all started at a drug store lunch counter as many things do in a small town when a manager at a local company met with the school superintendent and a local attorney. The story goes that the businessman, George Rappleyea of the Cumberland Coal and Iron Company, hatched a plan designed to bring much needed publicity to Dayton. So, you must wondering, what kind of publicity campaign did they devise? They, of course, decided to bring suit against a 24-year-old substitute teacher named John T. Scopes, for unwittingly teaching evolution in science class.

Pit fundamentalist Christians against modernist ones. Place science and the Bible itself on trial. Drive a wedge between conservative people of faith and the scientific community. Create a cloud of doubt and fear about scientific claims, and instead of encouraging people to study and wrestle with the claims themselves, encourage a spirit of bitter resentment and dismissal. Create a media driven campaign to discredit scientists, thereby discrediting science in general. Make sure all this is started and largely funded by a leader in the fossil fuels industry. Make sure the ACLU (among others) is on the side of the liberal, anti-God movement.

Now, instead of the Scopes Monkey Trial, think global warming and climate change. Its the same playbook, folks. As people of faith we should be able to recognize and name a farce when we see one, and stand up for truth in the face of propaganda meant to drive a wedge between good people of faith. Care for creation may well be the most pressing ethical and theological issue of our time, and the church cannot allow disinformation and indoctrination to rule the day.

We live in a time of seemingly unprecedented political division, and many organizations and movements decry the changes in our culture, and the progress we are making. Harry Emerson Fosdick said in his famous sermon, Shall the Fundamentalists Win, The new knowledge and the old faith cannot be left antagonistic or even disparate, as though a man on Saturday could use one set of regulative ideas for his life and on Sunday could change gears to another altogether. We must be able to think our modern life clear through in Christian terms, and to do that we also must be able to think our Christian faith clear through in modern terms. Think that sounds tough in modern times? How about postmodern times?

Many of the same challenges that existed in the last century persist today. Pastors in churches across the country face the challenge of placing faith in the contemporary context a context marked by sweeping and rapid change. One peer-reviewed article I recently read cites that the only cross-segment of American society that has grown in its distrust of science since the late 1970s is Protestant Evangelicals. Let that sink in for a minute. Think about how that fact impacts our political climate. Think about how that fact impacts our planetary climate. Simply astounding.

Interesting, is it not, that the rise of evangelical distrust in science itself coincides with the rise of the so-called Moral Majority and the culture wars of the 1980s and 90s?

Its been nearly a hundred years since The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, but for many, science (or the Bible depending on your perspective) remain on trial. As Christians, we (perhaps) still struggle to speak of faith and science in ways that dont alienate or divide people in our churches. In 1925, the conversation was about the future of education and about the nature of religion, focusing largely on the history of humanity. Today the conversation between science and faith revolves around the future of the planet, the ethics of human genetic engineering, human sexuality, and the nature of religion itself, focusing largely on the future of humanity.

The conversations between science and faith will never go away. As scientific knowledge exponentially proliferates at unprecedented rates, those of us in faith communities need to strongly consider how we are called to respond to the discoveries and claims of the scientific community. I fear many are still living in 1925.

Related story:Millennials not OK with conventional science vs. religion debates, experts say

Related opinion:Genius hesitates, both in science and religion | Scott Dickison

OPINION: Views expressed in Baptist News Global columns and commentaries are solely those of the authors.

Read this article:
The Scopes Monkey Trial and global warming: Same playbook, different football - Baptist News Global

Paul Levine, a resident of West Tisbury, former professor at Harvard, and visiting professor at Stanford University, writes occasionally about scientific research taking place today, along with profiles of the Islands scientists and their work and facts of scientific note on the Island. This week, he follows up on his gene-editing column from six weeks ago, which described the genetics research that has led to CRISPR, which stands for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. If youre wondering what that is, read on.

In this, the second column on the subject of gene editing, imagine a world in which many human genetic disorders have been eliminated, no children are born with cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, sickle cell anemia, or other genetic disorders. Welcome to the world of CRISPR, an acronym for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats of the DNA of a gene. CRISPR can locate a defective gene and, along with an enzyme called Cas9, can, like a pair of scissors, snip out the unwanted gene and suture a desirable gene in its place. It is a technique of genetic editing that is more precise, efficient, and affordable than anything that has come before. What I describe below is specific to the Vineyard (the elimination of Lyme disease) and relevant to society as a whole for the potential for great good, but also for possible misuse use of the technology, which has raised questions of ethics and safety.

CRISPR-Cas9 as a tool for genetic editing has a history that goes back to a 2011 scientific conference at which microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier, now the director of the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology in Berlin, met Jennifer Doudna, professor of chemistry and molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. They talked about CRISPR-Cas9, and what follows is the story of one of the most significant achievements in genetics since the discovery of the structure and function of DNA. It is a story that involves brilliant scientists, competition, big egos, patent disputes, and the possibility of a Nobel Prize, not to mention the immense financial gain by biotech, agribusiness, and pharmaceutical companies.

Prior to todays application of CRISPR to edit genes, it was known that it was a means by which bacteria protected themselves from infection by viruses by recognizing and binding to viral DNA and destroying it with enzymes. Charpentier and Doudna wondered whether the technique could be applied to other things than the detection and destruction of viral DNA. If it could, it might lead to a way to snip out bad genes and possibly replace them with good ones. They began a collaborative research project with bacteria, and developed a technique for cutting out and replacing bacterial genes with CRISPR and an enzyme, Cas9. In other words, it was now possible to edit the bacterial genome by cutting and pasting genes. Doudna and Charpentier published their research in the journal Science in 2012. Aware of the great potential that the ability to edit genomes presented, the University of California patented their discovery.

At about the same time, Feng Zhang at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard was working with Cas9, and discovered that CRISPR-Cas9 could also be applied to edit the genes of animals and plants. His discovery was published a few months after the publication of the work of Doudna and Charpentier.

The Broad Institute applied for and received a patent based on the results of Zhangs research. However, prior to their filing, the University of California, Berkeley, had filed for and received a patent based on Doudnas and Charpentiers research.

In a patent dispute, it was ruled that the Broad Institutes patent took precedent over the University of California patent because it applies to animal and plant cells. The University of California, Berkeley, has asserted that although their patent involves bacteria, it includes all forms of life.

Unfortunately, a consequence of the dispute is the enmity that has developed between some of the parties involved.

It was not long before life scientists throughout the world began to develop the technique in order to advance progress in human genetic engineering to cure some of the 6,000 human genetic disorders.

With respect to applications of CRISPR-Cas9 to edit human genes, research is underway to use it to control insect- and spider-borne disease; for example, mosquitoes that carry the malaria parasite and the viruses that cause dengue, West Nile, and Zika fever. The object of the research is to produce sterile female mosquitoes by using CRISPR-Cas9 to edit out the genes required for their fertility, and distribute the sterile females in areas around the world where mosquito-borne diseases occur. This approach has been met with some success at the laboratory level.

Another research effort which might be familiar to you is to eliminate Lyme disease by distributing white-footed mice that have been manipulated with gene-editing techniques to effectively be immune to the bacteria which causes Lyme, all using CRISPR-Cas9. This would break the transmission cycle of the bacteria (see MV Times, Scientist proposes genetic attack on M.V. ticks, July 20, 2016).

I havent mentioned possible commercial applications of CRISPR-Cas9, and the great profits to be made by Monsanto and other agribusiness companies by the production of genetically modified plants and domestic animals. The technology is also appealing to Big Pharma. Its worth looking at the highly controversial and ethical questions that accompany the use of CRISPR-Cas9. In contrast with noninheritable somatic cell human gene editing described above, there is another technique called germ line gene editing, which makes gene changes at the level of human eggs, sperm, and embryos that would be heritable. Experiments on human embryos have been carried out by scientists in China and the U.K. that have raised concern that CRISPR-Cas9 could lead to the production of designer babies parents choosing the traits they want their children to have. Designer babies are a vast topic, too vast to bring up here, but there is an excellent discussion of the subject in Roger Gosdens The Brave New World of Reproductive Technology.

Jennifer Doudna, at U.C. Berkeley, and Feng Zhang at MIT, the principal developers and promoters of gene editing, appear to be at odds over the ethical questions surrounding the technology. Doudna is concerned with the ethics and the publics perception of CRISPR-Cas9, but Zhang appears less so, and prefers to drive the research to cure genetic disorders, putting aside the possibility of the production of designer babies.

If you want to explore CRISPR-Cas9 and come to an opinion regarding one of the most significant developments in genetics in this century, I urge you to read Robert Kolkers 2016 article in Bloomberg BusinessWeek, How Jennifer Doudnas Gene Editing Technique Will Change the World. It can be found at bit.ly/CRISPRdoudna. Listen to Doudnas TED Talk here: bit.ly/TEDdoudna.

Finally, I should mention that a two-act play named Gene Play, about the story of recDNA and CRISPR-Cas9, will be read by a cast of actors at the Vineyard Playhouse on June 19.

Excerpt from:
Science and Scientists on the Vineyard: Genes at play with CRISPR - Martha's Vineyard Times

On A Friday Forum earlier this year, Illinois U.S. Representatives Bill Foster and Randy Hultgren talked about their hopes and concerns for the new Congress as it began its work. For this week's Friday Forum,WNIJ's Guy Stephens asked the two for an update on how things are going in Congress.

Randy Hultgren and Bill Foster have both served several terms in the U.S. House. Hultgren, a Republican considered one of the most conservative members of Congress, took the old 14th District from Foster in 2010. When new lines were drawn in 2012, Hultgren won election in the new 14th, while Foster, who calls himself a centrist Democrat, won the seat in the new 11th District. Both won re-election last year.

Its been a tumultuous several months in Washington, but Hultgren felt that Congress, at least, has earned a fairly good grade. He gave it a B. Why?

"Theres some really good things happening," he said, but it could be better -- with some help.

"We need to be doing our work, certainly, in the House, but also need the Senate to step up and do some of the important things. Theyve been very focused early on in this session on appointments and I know that took a lot of time.

Hultgren based his positive assessment, in part, on Congresss productivity. Just look at the numbers through this week, he said. Theres more going on than youd guess from the headlines. He finds that encouraging.

Weve passed 158 bills through the House, and thats the highest, really, in recent history," he said. "The average at this point would be right around a little over 91 bills, and 37 of them have actually gone on to become law, through the Senate and signed by the President. So in spite of all of the busy-ness and noise and challenges and bumps, were still getting our work done. Were still moving forward on some important issues.

But Hultgren said he thinks there is a limited window of opportunity to pursue those big issues, and the challenge is for the White House and Congress to stay focused. Otherwise, the people may give his party a much lower grade than his in the 2018 elections.

Foster had a very different view. He didnt disagree that a lot has been done. Whether thats a positive, he said, it depends.

Well," he said,"youd have different grades in different subjects. For instance, in health care, I would give Congress a D-.

Foster said thats because he thinks Republicans should have gone in another direction than they did with the GOP health care bill, which he said was often referred to during the debate by opponents as a "wealthcare bill."

"The starting point and the ending point of that was a tax cut for the wealthy of most of a trillion dollars," he said. "And when thats your starting point, you then have to balance the books. You have to take away most of a trillion dollars of healthcare from someone in the United States.

Foster said likewise, the effort to repeal and replace the financial reform legislation known as Dodd-Frank, which passed on a party-line vote, has provisions that could have dire consequences for both individuals and the economy.

Foster said those concerns also apply to proposals on tax reform and infrastructure spending, which he says have so far been disappointing, but where there remains the possibility of bipartisan action.

Hultgren emphasized that most of the issues and bills that he and his colleagues are working on arent the big polarizing ones like health care or tax reform. But theyre still important. He listed his service on the financial services committee, as co-chairman of the Tom LantosHuman Rights Commission that deals with problems such as religious persecution and human trafficking, work on improving access to Perkins Loans that provide individuals money for education, a bill to protect veterans whose credit has been adversely affected by reimbursement delays when using the Veterans Choice Program, and work to strengthen the Federal Home Loan Bank.

Hultgren said those efforts are often -- in fact, mostly -- bipartisan. Foster, too, said it has been possible to work across the aisle on some things. One he pointed to thats transcended party politics is the opioid crisis. He said the problem is widespread and has, on average, affected Republican districts harder than Democratic ones.

"Its something where, if youre going to do some good, you have to spend money," he said. "And so, even people who believe they were elected to cut the size of government are often willing to spend some amount of taxpayer money on things like dealing with the heroin epidemic.

Foster said that was evident in the bipartisan pushback that reversed proposed cuts to addiction programs in the administrations preliminary budget.

He said progress also can happen on things that dont seem so dire in fact, maybe just the opposite.

Ive often found its easier to get bipartisan agreement when youre talking about the long-distant future," he said."If youre talking about next years budget, it immediately gets very partisan."

He cites as an example human genetic engineering -- think designer babies --which seems the stuff of science fiction, but which Foster said is closer to being a reality than you think. He was able to get the chairman of his committee, a Republican with whom he says he rarely agrees, to arrange a hearing on the topic.

Although hes in the majority, Hultgren said he too realizes that getting a bill not just through the House but the Senate as well and signed into law means reaching out to the other side. He said he often strives to do so, even as he tries to move quickly on his own and his partys agenda.

But Foster remains concerned about how that process happens in the House these days. He said hed like to return to how things used to work in Congress -- whats known as regular order. He explained by giving as an example what used to happen to an appropriations bill.

It would come up under whats called an open rule, where any member of Congress would get to propose an amendment," he said. "We couldnt just arbitrarily add large amounts of money to a program, but we could, for example, move money from one bucket to another bucket within the same bill."

This, Foster said, was a very positive way for members of both parties to get involved in coming to a better place, and he thought it was a very healthy thing for the institution.

"But," he said, "it is not loved by those who are in charge of the U.S. House. They want -- them and their staff -- to write just write all the final deals.

As a result, he said, members of Congress often are asked only for an up-or-down vote on big omnibus bills put before them.

On top of that, Foster said the turmoil -- as well as the policies -- of the Trump Administration has him worried and complicates efforts in Congress to do something constructive for the country. But he said hell continue to do his bit to affect change for the better.

Hultgren doesnt necessarily disagree about the effects of the turmoil on the process. Still, he said, in spite of that, he reminds people once again that its not all partisan battling and stalemate in Washington.

I would say eighty percent of the things we work on or more are absolutely bipartisan things," he said. "So, well continue to get things done and continue to struggle and find ways to get things done on the other twenty percent or so that we absolutely do disagree on.

But he thinks that, for more of that to happen, both representatives including him -- and their constituents need to work harder at being well-informed, to recognize other points of view, and not take every bit of information that comes their way from a particular source as gospel truth.

To listen to not just Fox News, but to tune in to MSNBC once in a while, or CNN, or vice versa," he said. "Or to still get a newspaper and look through that, or if you can get some different websites where you can get some information."

He adds that public radio continues to be a great place to hear a range of perspectives and for going a little bit more in depth on issues than, say, the cable news shows.

If everyone did that, he said, then the system and Congress would have a better chance to work more like it should.

Read the rest here:
Two Representatives Offer A Look At How Congress Is Doing - WNIJ and WNIU

Anime fans in the U.S. who grew up watching Gundam Wing on Cartoon Networks Toonami block will love the darker, more mature take on the mecha subgenre of anime theyll find with Netflixs Knights of Sidonia.

Whereas series like Power Rangers, Voltron, and various Gundam iterations are lighthearted in their tone and small in their stakes, Knights of Sidonia is a dark post-apocalyptic story of mecha vs. kaiju that feels an awful lot like Battlestar Galactica meets Pacific Rim and its not afraid to depict some truly grisly deaths.

In Knights of Sidonia, the year is 3394 and the half-million remaining humans live aboard a massive arc named Sidonia as it hurdles through space. As the series begins, Sidonia has already spent 1,000 years fleeing from the gauna, the monstrous shapeshifting alien race that destroyed Earth. A select few Knights pilot Gardes, Sidonias name for giant mechs.

The protagonist Nagate Tanikaze grew up hidden underground with his grandfather, training daily in a Garde simulation. He emerges from hiding to join a society he never knew, and he eventually becomes one of humanitys greatest defenders. Its a job he trained his entire life for, and through his eyes, the viewer slowly learns truly how desperate existence is on Sidonia.

Special humans piloting giant mecha is a tried-and-true premise for an anime that could very easily be a bore here, but rather than just throw mecha pilots into an endless war with flashy fight scenes, Knights of Sidonia deftly explores the practical implications of its setting.

What would humanity really look like after a thousand years aboard a massive space arc? What technologies or innovations would be invented for the sake of survival? How dangerous and gritty would their lives be? Knights of Sidonia has a lot to say about these questions and so much more.

Much like the recently released Blame! anime film, Knights of Sidonia is adapted from a manga by Tsutomu Nihei and produced by Polygon Pictures. Both anime feature a very similar dystopian sci-fi design aesthetic with 3D character animations (at times its even implied that both series exists in the same universe). Whereas many sci-fi anime can come across colorful and refined, both these series make a point of presenting worlds with a uniquely weathered look that conveys how grim and desperate these dystopias really are.

Sure, both Blame! and Knights of Sidonia present high-tech settings in the worlds of tomorrow, but after millennia, even our future could become the distant past. High-tech gadgets are transformed into ancient relics by the passage of time. Even Sidonia itself is of brutish, practical design, built right into a massive asteroid.

In Sidonias society, innovations like human cloning, asexual reproduction, and human genetic engineering are commonplace, along with an adaptation that allows most humans to gain nutrients via photosynthesis rather than actually eating. And one of the shows most interesting characters is Izana Shinatose, who is actually a nonbinary third gender. She has androgynous features and, like all third genders, her body can shift into either male or female when she finds a mate.

These adaptations do not arise out of creative or inspired feats of innovation; they arise out of necessity in a resource-starved and highly volatile existence. Much of it is very cool, but as a whole the series does a great job of communicating how bleak life is on Sidonia.

Starvation might be a concern, but the real threat comes from the gauna, which are faceless, emotionless, formless blobs that are nearly impossible to kill. Because theyre so grotesquely inhuman, theyre that much more of an absolute terror.

Not only are the fight scenes in Knights of Sidonia truly horrifying even with Gardes, humanity is hopelessly outmatched and the frequent deaths are truly gruesome but the despair permeates throughout and beyond the militarized portion of society.

Humanity is totally screwed. If you dont die from a gauna attack of some kind, then youll probably just die of starvation at some point. In this, Knights of Sidonia is a lot like Attack on Titan in space.

Knights of Sidonia is easily one of the best anime available on Netflix right now, and you cant watch it anywhere else. Sure, its overwhelmingly dark and gritty, but at least theres a fun and hilariously cute momma bear that takes care of Nagate:

Because what would an anime be without some bizarre comic relief?

See the article here:
'Knights of Sidonia' is the Pinnacle of Gritty Mecha Anime - Inverse

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

The chasm between rich and poor in the world has become so extreme it is frequently difficult to grasp. The eight richest men in the world now own as much as the entire bottom half of the worlds population. The wealthy OECD countries, representing less than 20% of the global population, consume 86% of the worlds goods and services, while the poorest 20% consume only 1.3%. These numbers translate into the shameful reality that a billion people go hungry every day and another billion remain chronically malnourished.

Nevertheless, you wont hear much talk about these numbers in techno-optimist circles that breathlessly discuss the tantalizing possibilities of human enhancement. When futurists blithely envision the possibilities for human enhancement, they ignore the fact that billions of people are barely surviving. and will have no realistic chance of gaining access to these advances. In fact, spend enough time on these topics and youre liable to forget that the majority of human beings are struggling to make ends meet and barely able to think about the next month, never mind decades ahead.

In certain affluent echelons of the developed world, the technological promise of an enhanced human lifestyle exerts a powerful attraction. Leading Silicon Valley companies are funding startups intent on discovering how to disrupt the aging process and allow people to achieve something close to immortality. Breakthroughs in neural implant technology raise the possibility of people being able to communicate with their computer and each other by thought alone in the near future.

Meanwhile, advances in genetic engineering offer the possibility that, within a few decades, the gulf between rich and poor might extend beyond economics and technology to become part of our biological makeup. Scientists are working on identifying sets of genes that correlate with better intelligence, physical fitness, health, and longevity. Once they do so, affluent parents will not forego the advantages that genetic engineering could offer their offspring. At first, new generations will appear much like the older ones, only somewhat more intelligent, healthier, and longer lived. Before too long, however, we will see a new default perception of what constitutes a human being in the affluent world.

Gregory Stock, an advocate of human genetic engineering, predicts we will soon see humans as divergent as poodles and Great Danes. Hes not alone in this view. Physicist Freeman Dyson has warned that engineering the human germline could cause a splitting of humanity into hereditary castes, while biologist Lee Silver sees what he calls GenRich and naturals ultimately splitting into entirely separate species, with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.

Eventually, the affluent and the dispossessed will become effectively, if not literally two separate species. One species, genetically and technologically enhanced, exploring entirely new ways of being human; the other species, genetically akin to us, left behind to struggle in a world reeling from resource exploitation and environmental degradation. Its a future scenario I refer to as Technosplit.

Cameron and Jude, circa 2050

Based on the current rate of converging technical advances, its reasonable to expect, by 2050, a young affluent urban couple lets call them Cameron and Jude to be planning their genetically optimized offspring while communicating their thoughts and feelings to each other in an enhanced form using neural implants.

Cameron and Jude will be increasingly segregated from the fate of billions of others suffering the effects of climate change and resource scarcity. They are fortunate to be living in London, one of the affluent cities that by then, will have spent many billions of dollars to protect itself against the massive tidal surges that will be part of the new normal. As they enjoy their virtual reality tours of the few carefully engineered eco-zones still maintained as wilderness parks, what kind of world will the majority of humanity be experiencing on the other side of the Technosplit divide?

In future decades, as the affluent minority enjoy their neurally interconnected, genetically enhanced lives, cities in much of Africa and Southeast Asia, beleaguered by political instability, massive poverty and inadequate infrastructure, are likely to be reeling from the ravages of climate change. Reduction in river flows and falling groundwater tables will lead to widespread shortages of potable water. Flooding and landslides will disrupt electricity, sanitation and transportation systems, leading to rampant infectious disease.

Meanwhile, even as these cities strain to the breaking point, millions more refugees will be streaming in from the rural hinterland where the effects of climate change will be even more devastating. Wealthier residents will flee these urban disaster zones for safer abodes, either in the developed world or newly planned, segregated cities insulating them from the suffering of their compatriots, leaving the largest urban population centers without the capital reserves to fortify their structures against the threatening onslaught of even more severe climate disruption.

Along with the human catastrophe of failed states and the misery of billions in overwhelmed coastal megacities, the nonhuman world is heading inexorably to its own form of collapse. At current rates of destruction, natural ecosystems are likely to be reduced to islands of conservation habitats surrounded by vast agribusiness plantations and urban sprawl. Tropical rainforests will only survive as degraded, shrinking remnants in national parks.

Cameron and Jude might not, however, consider this situation as gravely as we do, given their reduced expectation of the natural world and their ability to experience vastly enhanced virtual reality immersions in wildlife reservations, enabling them to feel closer to nature in some ways than many of todays urban residents. Meanwhile, the affluent world will be doing its utmost to maintain an iron grip on access to vital global resources through its stranglehold on the worlds economic and military systems.

A betrayal of human values

At the current rate of increase in global economic disparity and technological innovation, this is what we must expect for humanitys future. But is it what people desire, even in the affluent world? Many techno-optimists, who argue that humanitys defining feature is the ability to reach beyond the limitations of our biology, believe so and celebrate the possibility of humanitys ultimate triumph: the unfettered progress of technologys conquest of nature.

But theres another view of humanity that permeates the modern world, one based on the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. These words, from the U.N.s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, represent a different kind of historical progressthe progress of humanitys moral scope, which has expanded beyond tribal groupings to encompass the entire human race. In this view, spelled out by the Declaration in 1948, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. According to this view, everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

From this viewpoint, the Technosplit scenario would be a fundamental betrayal of human values. It would be equivalent to the rich minority building a luxury lifeboat and deserting a rapidly sinking ship thats taking down those who cant afford the entry ticket.

Avoiding Technosplit

On the other hand, might Cameron and Jude be more profoundly disturbed by the convulsions of their world than an equivalent couple in todays society? Could their enhanced connection with whats left of the natural world cause them to treasure it more keenly? Might the impending devastation from climate change drive them and their peers to demand a radical redirection in the worlds trajectory? Could their potentially enhanced neural ability to connect with the suffering of the impoverished billions cause them to press for a different world economic order that honors the intrinsic rights of each human being?

The attitude Cameron and Jude and millions of their peers take to their world will fundamentally affect the future trajectory the human race. And this attitude will depend ultimately on their core values, which will emerge to a large extent from ideas developed by our generation.

A scenario where humanity remains resilient requires something deeper than even the most compelling economic and technological solutions to our current crises, such as a global price on carbon and massive investment in green energy. These are undoubtedly necessary to avert disaster, but even if theyre fully effective, they wouldnt be sufficient to avoid the Technosplit scenario. That would require a more fundamental shift in the underlying values that drive our daily decisions, along with structural changes to the global economic system that is causing the inequalities wrenching humanity apart and leading us step-by-step towards Technosplit.

When a system is stretched to breaking point, something has to give. In the Technosplit scenario, our economic model remains resilient, but our shared humanity is transformed beyond recognition. In a scenario where our shared humanity remains intact, the economic system driving our current trajectory would need to be transformed, along with its underlying values: the pursuit of never-ending material growth and the glorification of humanitys conquest of nature. In its place, we need to nurture a new set of values, ones that emphasize growing the quality of life rather than material possessions, a profound sense of our shared humanity, and a commitment to the flourishing of the natural world.

As we progress further into this century, with its combination of glorious possibilities and existential threats, it is becoming clear that our generation, along with the next, is engaged in nothing less than a struggle over the future of what it means to be human.

This article was adapted from the final chapter of The Patterning Instinct: Trajectories to Our Future.

Visit link:
Technosplit: The bifurcation of humanity - Salon

MONTREAL, May 4, 2017 /PRNewswire/ --Fortuna Fix Inc.("Fortuna"), a private, clinical-stage biotech company, is aiming to be the first to eliminate the need for embryonic and fetal stem cells by using direct reprogramming of autologous cells to treat neurodegenerative diseases. Fortuna announced today the launch of its Scientific Advisory Board ("SAB") with Professor Michael Fehlings, MD, PhD; Father Kevin FitzGerald, S.J., PhD; Col. (R) Dallas Hack, MD, MPH; and Professor James Giordano, PhD.

"We are excited and honored to have these world-leading experts join our SAB," says CEO Jan-Eric Ahlfors. "We look forward to working with them to bring our novel regenerative medicine solutions to patients suffering from neurotrauma and neurodegeneration."

Fortuna's two flagship technologies autologous directly reprogrammed neural precursor cells ("drNPC") and Regeneration Matrix ("RMx") are poised to lead a revolution in neuro-regeneration.

For the first time, patients suffering from neurotrauma or neurodegeneration will be able to get treated with autologous neural stem cells produced by direct reprogramming (i.e. starting with and only using the patient's own cells, bypassing use of pluripotent stem cells and avoiding harvesting and use of human embryos or fetuses). The method of direct reprogramming developed by Fortuna relies on an ethical, rapid, high throughput, low cost and fully automated manufacturing process. As drNPC do not involve any genetic engineering, pluripotent stem cells, or use of immune-suppression, it provides patients with personalized stem cells that are also expected to have a greater safety profile. In addition, drNPC are expected to replace dead neural cells, something that no other current technology can do effectively.

RMx is a unique and highly efficient bio-scaffold for the promotion of neural tissue regrowth.

"Our testing of drNPC at the Krembil Neuroscience Centre of the University Health Network in various Spinal Cord Injury ("SCI") animal models to characterize their regenerative capacity and safety profile indicates that drNPC are a promising source of therapeutic stem cells with potential for tissue preservation and functional improvement after SCI. I am highly encouraged by the reprogramming efficiency of drNPC and look forward to leading the clinical development of drNPC for SCI," says Professor Fehlings, after working on the drNPC in his lab for two years.

Dr. Hack further remarks:"Fortuna's autologous drNPC represent a major advance in cell therapy for treatment of CNS injury and degeneration. For the first time, neurons, astrocytes and oligodendrocytes the three type of cells of the brain and spinal cord can be repaired and replaced where these cells have died or been destroyed due to trauma or neurodegenerative disease. Fortuna's proprietary automated manufacturing addresses a key hurdle of personalized cell therapy, making drNPC commercially viable both at small and large scale"

"Stem cell therapeutics have been plagued with controversy and hype, raising ethical and political issues that have resulted in a relatively hostile funding environment for research and development in the field. I am excited to work alongside Fortuna to help advance development of their ethical and commercially viable platform for cell therapeutics to benefit patients, their families, and our entire society," says Father FitzGerald.

The SAB members encompass unique expertise in key areas of importance for the company:

Professor Michael G. Fehlings, MD, PhD, FRCSC, FACS

Dr. Michael Fehlings is a world-renowned Neurosurgeon focusing on Spinal Cord Injury and a leader in the field of stem cell therapeutics for SCI. Dr. Fehlings is the Vice Chair of Research for the Department of Surgery, Co-Director of the Spine Program and a Professor of Neurosurgery at the University of Toronto. He is well known for his work on early decompressive surgery, which demonstrated significant improvement on neurological and functional outcomes after SCI that had an important impact on how spinal trauma is managed today. Recently, during the Henry Farfan Award ceremony (2013), he was described as the "single most influential active spinal cord injury researcher and clinician in the world."Dr. Fehlings is also the recipient of the coveted Olivecrona Award from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden (known as the "Nobel Prize of Neuroscience").

Dr. Fehlings has been an integral part of the work performed by independent validators sponsored by CIHR (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) on Fortuna's technology. Dr. Fehlings' work was presented at the annual International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) conference in June 2016 in San Francisco with a follow up to be presented at the ISSCR in June 2017 in Boston.

Father Kevin T. FitzGerald, S.J., PhD, PhD

Father Kevin FitzGerald is a Professor at Georgetown University and advisor to the Vatican on Bioethics (including human genetic engineering, cloning, stem cell research, and personalized medicine). Father FitzGerald is the Dr. David Lauler Chair of Catholic Health Care Ethics in the Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University, and an Associate Professor in the Department of Oncology at the Georgetown University Medical Center. He is a founding member of Do No Harm, a member of the ethics committee for the March of Dimes, a member of the Genetic Alliance IRB, and a member of the Georgetown-MedStar Hospital Ethics Committee. Father FitzGerald has been a Corresponding Member of the Pontifical Academy of Life since 2005, and has been a Consultor to the Pontifical Council for Culture since 2014. He has a Ph.D. in molecular genetics, and a second Ph.D. in bioethics, from Georgetown University. His research efforts focus on the investigation of abnormal gene expression in cancer, and on ethical issues in biomedical research and medical genomics.

Col. (R) Dallas Hack, MD, MPH, MMS, CPE

Dr. Dallas Hack, recently retired from the US military, is one of the leaders of military medicine of his time, with a particular focus on brain health (Traumatic Brain Injury ("TBI") and concussion). He served as the Director of the US Army Combat Casualty Care Research Program and Chair of the Joint Program Committee for Combat Casualty Care from 2008 to 2014 and as the Senior Medical Advisor to the Principal Assistant for Research and Technology, US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command from 2014 to 2015. He coordinated more than 70% of the Department of Defense trauma research to improve battlefield trauma care of those injured in combat at a time when the Department of Defense funded more TBI research than any other organization in the world because of the increasing awareness of the massive burden of TBI in the military. He has held numerous military medical leadership positions, including Chief of Clinical Services at Fort Knox, KY, Commander of the NATO Headquarters Healthcare Facility, and Command Surgeon at the strategic level during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

Col. (R) Dallas Hack has received numerous military awards, including the Bronze Star, two Legion of Merit awards, and seven Meritorious Service Medals and was inducted as a Distinguished Member of the Military Order of Medical Merit. He has appointments from the School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh as Adjunct Professor of Neurosurgery, and from the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University as Associate Clinical Professor.

Professor James Giordano, PhD, MPhil

Dr. James Giordano is Professor in the Departments of Neurology and Biochemistry, and Chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics of Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Prof.Giordano has served as a member of the Neuroethics, Legal and Social Issues Advisory Panel of the Defense Advanced Research Projects' Agency (DARPA), as a Senior Science Advisory Fellow of the Strategic Multilayer Assessment Branch of the Joint Staff of the Pentagon, is an appointed member of the Secretary of Health and Human Services Advisory Council for Human Research Protection, and is a Research Fellow of the European Union Human Brain Project. In recognition of his ongoing work, Prof. Giordano was elected to the European Academy of Science and Arts.

About Fortuna Fix Inc.

Fortuna is a private, clinical-stage biotech company with a patented direct cell reprogramming technology platform together with a patented bio-scaffolding technology for treatment of neurodegenerative diseases and neurotrauma. The company is focused on clinical development of its platforms for a range of neurodegenerative diseases including SCI, Parkinson's disease, stroke, TBI, and ALS. The company has developed a proprietary fully automated GMP manufacturing system for production of drNPC, initially to be used in clinical trials in Parkinson's disease and Spinal Cord Injury.

Media contact

Vikram Lamba, CFO Email: vikramlamba09@gmail.com http://www.fortunafix.com

This content was issued through the press release distribution service at Newswire.com. For more info visit: http://www.newswire.com

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/breakthrough-regenerative-therapeutics-company-establishes-scientific-advisory-board-300451560.html

SOURCE Fortuna Fix, Inc.

http://www.fortunafix.com

See more here:
Breakthrough Regenerative Therapeutics Company Establishes Scientific Advisory Board - PR Newswire (press release)

DNA editing techniques have been available for decades and are crucial tools for understanding gene functions and molecular pathways. Recently, genome editing has stepped back into the limelight because of newer technologies that can quickly and efficiently modify genomes by introducing or genetically correcting mutations in human cells and animal models. These tools include Zinc Finger Nucleases (ZFNs), Transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and the most recent player to join the ranks, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic repeats (CRISPR) (here, here). In a short time span, CRISPR/Cas9 has completely revolutionized the understanding of protein function, disease modeling, and potential therapeutic applications.

BACKGROUND on CRISPR/Cas9

The CRISPR/Cas9 system functions similarly to ZFNs and TALENs, it also takes advantage of a cells DNA repair machinery to delete (knock-out) or add in (knock-in) sequences of DNA. However, CRISPR/Cas9 offers several advantages: it is easier to target a specific gene of interest since designing the required CRISPR component is simple and efficient, whereas generating ZFNs and TALENs is more time consuming; it is often more proficient in generating the desired recombination results; and it is exponentially more cost effective, so almost any laboratory in the world can use it. CRISPR/Cas9 has been shown to work in several model organisms, and consequently researchers are keen to apply this technology for modifying genetic mutations in humans with uncured diseases as well as in human embryos, which arouses many scientific and ethical considerations.

Human embryonic gene editing

Genome editing technologies have come a long way and have already advanced towards mammalian models and clinical trials in humans. Recently, genetic modification of human embryos using CRISPR/Cas9 technology was achieved by the Huang laboratory in China in April 2015. They genetically modified un-viable embryos obtained from an in vitro fertilization clinic. These embryos were fertilized with two different sources of sperm, thus impairing their development. In this study, the Huang group repaired a mutation in the human -globin gene (HBB) that causes the blood disorder -thalassaemia. The CRISPR/Cas9 system and a donor DNA sequence containing the normal, healthy version of the HBB were injected into 86 embryos. A total of four embryos successfully integrated the corrected version of the HBB at the appropriate site. However, the authors reported a high number of off-target effects, meaning that CRISPR/Cas9 modified other locations in the genome; a non-ideal situation that could cause the disruption of other essential gene functions. The study demonstrated two important findings: genetic engineering is possible in human embryos and the CRISPR/Cas9 system requires essential improvements before it can be used in future studies on human embryos. More importantly, these results force scientists to question the future and the implications of such a powerful technology. Should we accept genetic engineering of human embryos? If yes, when and in what capacity should we accept it?

Current guidelines and regulation

Scientists in the United States are addressing the need for regulation of human embryonic gene editing. On April 29th, the US National Institute of Health (NIH) director, Dr. Francis Collins, released a statement emphasizing the bureaus policy against funding research involving genome editing of human embryos and the ethical concerns regarding this technology. However, the policy does not necessarily cover privately funded projects.

Safety regarding genetic engineering is a major concern and Huangs publication highlights this point. However, this publication forces the community to address whether scientists should use non-viable or discarded embryos to improve the efficiency and efficacy of the CRISPR/Cas9 system. The CRISPR/Cas9 system was developed for human genome targeting in 2012 and since then has seen rapid improvements. If it is decided that unviable embryos can be used for this type of research, the next step for US lawmakers is to evaluate new guidelines for the funding and safety of genetic engineering in these embryos.

Ethical concerns

While the interest and use of CRISPR/Cas9 has exploded since its discovery in 2012, prominent scientists in the field have already initiated conversations regarding the ethical implications that arise when modifying the human genome. Preventing genetic diseases by human genetic engineering is inevitable. The slippery slope is when/if we start to use it for cosmetic changes such as eye color or for improving a desired athletic trait. A perfect example is surgery, which we have performed for hundred years for disease purposes and is now widely used as a cosmetic tool. Opening the doors for genetic engineering of human embryos could with time lead to manipulate genetics for desirable traits, raising the fear of creating a eugenic driven human population.

Who are we to manipulate nature? However, for all those who suffer from genetic diseases the answer is not so simples; if we can safely prevent severe genetic diseases and create healthy humans, why not manipulate nature? Have we not already done this in other animal populations? At this time the long term effects of genome editing remain unknown, raising additional questions. As the field progresses, with appropriate regulations and guidelines it will eventually co-exist alongside other major controversial topics including nuclear power and genetically modified organisms. Since ethics are different across the world, creating international guidelines will be a challenge, but a necessity. Strict regulations are in place for nuclear power, the same should be possible for genetic engineering of human embryos. To outlaw genetic engineering entirely will be potentially declining a place at the discussion table, as the further utilization of CRISPR/Cas9 technology is unlikely to be abandoned.

This fall The National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine, together with CRISPR/Cas9 discoverers Dr. Jennifer Doudna, Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier, and other leading scientist within the field are organizing an international summit to consider all aspects (both ethical and scientific) of human genetic engineering to develop standard guidelines and policies for practicing human genome editing. The NIH already has guidelines in place, and will potentially add more as a result of this summit. It is expected that other countries will have varying guidelines for human genomic engineering. Also, to avoid fear and misunderstanding, scientists will need to convey human genome editing in a responsible manner to the general human population. This summit is a step in the right direction encouraging caution and regulations. Hence, there is now a need for a timely but thoughtful set of guidelines for the general scientific community as well as for the broader human community.

Excerpt from:
Ethical Implications of Human Genetic Engineering | SAGE

(RC$IR)gESj&Y#*kh]eOg]R[RR"nhxblU|b ?okH>L'^J6"uYf>dC2Td)CI/SO=$ 0)4t}?!SYu TVarppp~.|bB'_1U!9d57FhgvyZd00,$c?#4AR_w5j7_0e/L^=[KUNwd'W. rX2laXgYTw2"U,V` jh~&6w%=HqccH@~HA-Yr '677":tbkOo{gy"_ ,X` *0:8RqUwG $N:8DT'ypK[[WNa$,2kf?j'Ovrp/IR =g9ix*3i:Pye(~I*CI9nCSu"Ke63I`X,0cIst"8u[*SW1%+V_ikKDFxbW0y%U=Z]YYRRu"LOtvoo24.8/xI 1wI+I!jCsBRlc!QPW6Oz}UW_W*F!vN?L7e$N>0=n@_DU*g1)cTfE0Q8ZEE8}"k~>. e -=pbb_|?}Kc}`2pUwbDj(=5}l;K-pMAHDSpcy]`Jp-kE/9sfiBf22.^UsN^Cx90t+'~.7*#)_9pDqY|OXdL 24:^X$O.^T%$^23fH7,E'-t`#Pq3wiiYcL?^Q)R%b_wukeyyyXC}}'xIUg8D>Yh^ Cc1r 'I*{bY>=MJZ[TEEK)x!oQ-8s34xV-=Z1ASy:1! CC&rpnjc:::x!3j6Ocn"H!S7;e )]vT"?;f7utR^ |M"tzgac#LUPW}"=mb-%h7I qShyF[lL~#t[C&iWbI/Y$1flI#e(4w$UR0F@yJi}g4,-S3kmqVhy1Ph n xLUV7O$3@Rbe(> [[HL1>`(KFPKHfSyT@_'%6MV3%V@ax?^/lVPIJ Yuo avLpC|b[*,vIU!"cwxq.amHq;xPfN:(T*ti2|";b%(2,_M~0Wx{G~6qO=Z3c!*-3+y!AA3oE#yAdZx`]2&EOVe=VzUeMLU{v1OwY~(-;hW>b&g9s&y?O ,j2robO;o~Tah2 .sF ,kpG}w!y_>fZ|iX-Fi5MJcilsC;9s&7PY!#66DO$!RPr Gk&G'L}lY2a&pnRiMRO CCzCu_*mT$%b6WWb#CRHg*F od:2?3mXE4HF/zfACMHef{x-0[=wTz&N?M1>05W:XyGrVoye[ k[hS Qhh C34+3-.r0ZA ?p /t^HCr=HXm|,E=2=1?U:r4LVe Fr(YGig-3.so6^5@ [at,=;N:0E-9U`|+X/m?AqR3F1{}od(q+a#r'),B+#6_bOu0Dchql*dOR)JH2Ha@A F1xg m)j= o[yI;#s*9gx4+6-Rp9L";Jwv7/]^!Y-BSwh$-~ !`(!rURmg4X2]Qbz3$HC!k)inO(K5bZO[keXAS/]SX,AAR,4/ 1 UqPB0n^^,,vXw-0Izm`"iN?W2&G'MBr$[WCekRx$0> @%Ls.F}=tS92ovX!zkt*@(#IY~=#]:+jnBR,Mo_%7_?:A$DX!r1>q~|1hL2_v0 k|E>V, l~1oeP'%ELLR(l'-)Le8#k/JD Q#uvL'>(USUX?=2EHFASmmGO]{Sga8)T5'e!Yj +[P*8potVdg R )n8w2;kn[E C")8CCK?+2a7NdR1`l&RHGk,`u 3rb[)xiJ`]/e2J {zqG3'8fv!g^zvoWW;n7]hnZ3N~,/Or)v9FVp0K~M:yN&t+TXkhFkS%8psIa;)lZY;~k!)gDTj%)jYt)Y y?G7~kd3gg~R(Wiv|BIvVTT,&),L{jx,FCWU*?FAR^^*ZyXIIV]V=Oo?]^&v? wHb+D" !LRX%#'}p=?!}QLwWOtG&~(K|rZ!:z8=6x~tB43!,K2/?FJJjonS!P6+UXoB-)xclRLR=/wsYfJCla^GPJk}{`K #)Z(K6%KZ]uw)2Kp Qc"k$={V4b=C=$o$ef2?=L+w&y6m_`O8giukmHA{px.q,|,0C1&>poo^U$eYaskKKuw2lyRbvMRRISuB",1J#*B~Ig]Nwbc[[MI LmT&Q#_)`Dy&x-** p[/LR}*7dTcz=~g}G5IR3:H2ahUHHH8GGMTmQQ5ykTvX8fl5fN?(.u"=f1h$F1)^p5p$P Sn&'kGz_-8~PSr0Q2/%wD+4-2C/jfT`L,q&rSp;)IY4eF7>wrD]uP326>uJ+?_fq-=hKE Fv'BVja@2yd.vH a9O>5>xH`Dl5'd5EW=,0kkW&N:}_w>kg[{?|$Z;[LG ERLRL qCRLfp'n~EYkXN*,YC,9Jv-DGeLR8H $;P(JD "G?9j#S MX5Ik[yR#f$Yv>}d#OR61%1a!2OW3zO*2dLRh|)=_68CSxPeF)!b!Lp12Xn)(-edLHZ1Ky!S~([D$W==(u|(D}inO+31 Y'Ohvp,."401g'?F]@ 6PZyzig-%$_[T#g=p;2(|k0V|CJG")?~`Z2UISTky`5>)PL Ii"@A' bY2wy'?wh |e$gF1U U~M:Zf9oS&z3x -Nff@sS*ICZeHih]RgKOH`L8_2c Cg|myyoxI01@ERH 2bP`(` uS9>J)!@Rd' ~P(:u^b9a$`Y@f)#H0H 23-a2@PmX=&8URBWWYXO`w ]VO^0U

Zb/xN(^fj"[g&gWU%2KXDaHQLyU;(tK1HW9vTTju%P%?xS8TyCeAxJ__2"s0JNBoYfNihb@*>s}.9IQ0h%mM!/qauIjP_R,2#LO'(*xJr%K87rXu}1EvZ+Db% @'p@/E`a2n71(^tgR~c@2)n),.S~f tDS2a;IQT+X^Vds?di`Jy5XA$}HT8h/>R|"_Y;+#AR _t5*Off8(8tahia@l2K R>4"D"5XhRO G-GP):!n411=KT jy'#(^CMK80KVI%477~hd=V LpI($t: O.9@bNY N}KU}|PcP&>,Id*k-cS *@vj>T;H#ad?hys#?8+6Hhf'3~KCW&) qyV]$I"tLQ~gAI]kKkpJDVl#CJtr$;wdDcb%Q1S(BjCS-~Vs }VdIR0E*CANV*yl@R[Z"df$nN/1-/+2j QoUWyw-vtGR>Lmj}dh1wDdt}Z:;;'[77PSQFua|OZe!$z#!F]f3`{i%wX54 C/8Hj2~"2P:@ L'ojx?6m/.Yrs 2d 3na"/O>`K$%o;ERd^SOA(6$)x~Eb]H%~ ]- S?U~,*!Rgtr/ FbIbe&e|S__L1SNq0"3:/BX9#cGw${P=,[*HAOa",T`1jOM eJYWUd4(k'3OeL_md(',;@RX/(ker6VUuJt]-MVs.^VlSm )Q/odq]'L=_3TTs|q[3K!)0T/41wdI?,@RSM3.qPRk|K~1f&)9}gI,xL/F1gX0 "SdjIeGR$sYqYY}Db]^yB#Cib>Et))/De M2z"_M5>_o,6f( 8E3+7Zit LU2#8M4yb?=4K>;NxAa^i4L*CR`RcIu2sNpDPs=t@g|QW,:4Uc_?>Go?4Y7;N`aOpn#XV0Oe:{,amG3B2Z.KH CPX_$%Ed@ZV8>y[jLLw?sp(PmSvo9s~g 1ox25=WxoEGW1vVTT3T9(w!EM&a.v*@J,XzS(8sI 9y?tIkAawwTHg,_c}^][WW#4$%Yj}Xnb9sy+HYke`9-HX#ZLFsdS$t%Fy.aL$,u,BkUl^cHS

j@IqH;uQ)8s@K&)c=xP|Hw >ED*L:mmmHWUs6 uY{v6,_e(Kj4OOuis rkJuw'zJZ%l(jAb,*> y*o(OQoG,I*c 2j*..>-j5%!UQP.W#+{VRlX]1*o$ bAd)Kei K,KStYo(fr!)?0!WD"Q,"XLhnn~fMc"/Egj5p>?{a)-LAPO0E>N4=5dx lF]e) K$1J6uMA @,w 9|kF?_~Z,GyU&'Mzn?vNJD_@R,. 2I =Y5MIJ)/^Xf?Snm`D[D#Sda?O =e.[*w0/sKuk1#V,idc_{z7q|G"4HX'SqT>x/-J)2>E R. ,ON %BURRWiH$%kI4!^3J)TJ`5#J.y$Oi_pu$d"}uMna:::|z_r)+Zc16/EjXAvWn

^%*xJ&rgR>T%[%D:'jJ$sZYGd-C"xx^ F.7B&p9Ex_/o!V -HBTtS&nhzOH sh/#=u8Qwc .}GOm.x(3]q1@ggrp IOT5z [99Q'7mSxbM8!/$ppaf+ou TIs(O3g!t1Y|;NR|sbzkcW]c?8ZTij|lXkdB3lY)0fXzamDf1*$ET5gTi_7~PA "L I9802V;w.V`>E$, 6=, Jt_B5%6-}Bupp=83w1?yk5#`_JEf#45uL]:za,bHYdORd2H,]3Sh>Twk6 [GV%'u|yCj+.3yHKuQ CJzc!$X[8"YM0SXwN4X+>I)YrL=`rXp)S4vW2)P1ttt8rHfT.]SXm}(a@|% wb4pRd%`)Ji:uJr:D38u%Ez STQH.]pAOo"2$E Y|kY7 28Jc!)] ^Wd@H$x"zZVS:]aP`,@44%5+NC/^Xf?Z[ekNe,JR+}(%BHeQ=N Y:_`(5jIJHFRl$3!/~O$Ftx}:i:X+[{R)+OWSa@d&)Xria=x2Q}}ua|Puu"HRd--J+R]BQ>Gy>!70Ao")10iMPH UU~JJf&YU,%pMT=mt=!;fFpJwwwOO_&o R)nX }.PPFHJ Rj Y;`:b `(MKa|#o$E O~CI6$%t=oW Uqrbn1;?C4S~`9wMHPtex'rpp O^r'hii ei}PFRr+7 aOd%L"H'$G]!o?c~Gw[ XdJ.'~C=;wd>R`CViD{)t`810uO(9E2c IA,Hzd^b~OC?)|FRDZn$EAFw??kU3>r-[#0?G{kXKc!)IG1HHmAbN_B>JImH>J]dF27$O&01:~RYCACACA#o$uMq|I$0knn~uI7 4XMQlI md|MRd4c=f} m;:?`zu0f"Aa w:88+ER#(CD.$d$&(J`bA@ .m^cw%I~00ICggs8pp$0HIQ][ I-I9888>/Length 32773>>stream x tTU.#j@D~NcZ2+d~Vqgc3.gkL;5siisi#MtQB H{sNU*!^CSg}Wd%+YJZ$'YJV6bnVO0mmmyyyCxCYJVrHyyyFl=:}DGQSC^??z^v]z?pW6Syx1!C$~xU0o 7+Y.&I9BHVz3yL=vU/~>$qiTsa0BF&tj RIPK0u$bD |=COO8ckx>UlY hl N8TpLZ_ shbnVs{waJ@V=pZ& 0m'?F,Gt@kI:K?xvmjW*/rrpiy0bSe sG~(d60%LP{,%]4id%-rf(5)VqQ3Yy-smKy*]^T|O `._F[X .y#p[!02/&@@LSk9s50:8A bx=`__~??JVW='O2{:tT`w)h|3fWs5>648+

{[*>S8%mL2sKg7keB+L]8+f6Suwb.+/**JFJJhDwy.BZdl:)eENjc8 R.ZUiKd Hz@'#T?J,EiADuCbP-ld mlive^ RC[x"ONkAFWL1 53R}S2VVV;2)R&Ug5?_O?vc5Skp[[^3LdG 2_xpn_+`s9 [BaiDNO0ALE]ltEMWVel>wfi+]4Z Bf" n{zqYS]=== :ah#[?g$ZMbar+_ t[Soph.y.(B;x{%.8'NrTUnJg"/)7n(NfsmUW:aTV8+3(H/n?7$oB+$*Ii0x1Tbn&:8PoAi'#,3B!y-u!b>+n:Tr"2^S2s1%F@*^]$kN.|9[Tkp0~c@ {(p%Mb{@c':zP@^Z]Fxh jM x5]}p2Fs=@rsvEv;fZ&J/455EIlWYyckCP 0Vqe#OspR/_jS%o+pNII {Vg=?2 ![1NE:6 C1 K[& FOxv.pmOmLFe4Gfxa;`h/{[Zl@aw{Fqidq11)itW;&__]z?v5!%naIp?}F@ 9ORcOx6'#tA|a>MUk=BGxr}F@aW[bi>[s.]`X?yC9+N~8jW%B= Wu3 Ygt=#[IU,L56&(J$8uM^WG.B$g9JYq{Eu61Z)([j/tWYLv{P4 q%2]>L ~t`rlq}3^3][`#FYi@[ArzYpC@XEA):GB7xJ6v7WA*~?A*f Z|jik~2fCAx]QZT*^henecaUsEk_@'jx{2o#0C5Kl*`9E Z/ _D fyi&]@xXcG]%0+- ,z"*U93mket3a7XBul:v{:s?:M9b`Su&5Ay.3nE^.mH5g.yI~_Ahs?{5o8b4+d$kG', !x E0.r8Dss*aal5 Dde(HApQT]=NtD1Og]`4R,f%+Y21I.8QmcOfr-?*t%L{OUQQS,f%+Y2%&Nc mE(/oikdI`zns .t3yNi.F_PP'OYwcKodXuwvCsa/.=j{b[Y!cAX!LI%Khf~7Z-h2L1ywqClp &5NYJV2bx%q^Dx n;u+$y5n^I`vwGd17+Y maX|hQlF{{?p_N2QyA[_Nel 7qoX2TnC_^tZ$YJV-=&!CUSVqMgj 1)[mI$YI1ZbnVt>H3z^6X@6mmm[m%Ur"%bnV`nunIO^wo/_|Z_*^J?%L/YJV-pZr~1LJIBzJ3/2b[7&gbPZFBsozv:Oky0tZeSC3{NCi;},}WA`OWcz* ? 2NnK/%JV^}Y~~~s-Q(a&}8z*W-a )_ t^Kty}@GO^*+.%e`6yxqeso;~i_s%w*$77'eU+Sv|J-%Q'h#G&O:%zFQVyDj82hCa26J=BV}}|4;TZ' rp*XP?L_c]z5gs21"M,R|xt'zVHhGmUkLXW VlcDhLv?|yIaYJo~aX=1JRV'3JDeEH*yE_rqT'Ga8p).:O+"v#qg/-..J(eG0Y[[zkz17$]sgui1Z$,X;J|S4H' /jx5*Jd Jq`*tgAmm}u*M7ykO57,&F===g3f9bfFZK6j;vLcl9a;z]@)|S'LICg5E2QCS91lalDwCkRkza- &r_|^"[7]P8m$6ze:~&Vv=gC4n{8okVY~ /8t`8hVQ,vDhK7}-6#L,6lNN {z~moI^x Fv=v'D,]Rw[C=~x&sv)wD0jku= ^Yk@rTP>R

zx|Q8ib%a`[ZG1qF[d3?{{9y3P[MCfHYA8hr|G@.3t~!8x}FA-5zg2k4tj-%":?!!F25?4:D'GhA= vO8A Xvb4vyH-r9so_1ed7Y%tS>0aUukd*#v&H'e* =!s+z*--:~x"qR*3=J6Il --pZXtn^R94hzj!rpUvCV8LvwZKva.TWLL$==PtGthiD[zm#AT" Yv_aAe.s ptb@nMqnkk+3$2).ZMbhEv.>}S?t|b:pZ0G&x9y6}&r=p#CCu>PsL+p-y C {UUs%1vI~7zV72Tm*_}Q/!uCrh'^Pp bOUZZz&g*ti(.gA3Q0;[ Q&MW/*Ndr76muKB"F@mWtWl,@,-$EZMktoT>u>4yzK'HS.|O>ZBv47G"z]YT4DX4rZujhPv;=}8|3%F 1^f *>BbuOnQ&us1~;iNzIr2sJ'cG)Quo6m yM4Wi&6zo_nh$8YT)mM}Q3dS-k^h#GwFm@Civ{kJK5Q5@;Tri6N2y) %UDK$(8 .{t0`aq]K`;V~#QZb/d@Cs,/rV&" w]pG8H-VMM [ny+"(q2WU%t}pY}yvbp/>3{Ai96 sW H /iP31635 S'%mo;>4PW]@Cj"U."8^Xz'O^1 ZP#4&%W2sM# RC "v")1__RP_=6&D#GVN2n-P]% GQR4 |QuVUVz #`V!A|&aaAW}U H6X**s=^i:>5dPEc'AMB#5a>(Y jgs2IQm&2SniH>JKx1W9&wun/F* *0WX 5X M`mxMR:l?p0xnK^"bmKkfxbaK`@O?"DO+NS-IOZ9a'N*P$C(9ab$xqtd9E3MR +4_C[*!L~tR'yL IX BsfAi.&%QLS1k,'dJCd8r~VMMJvx4}4,x0>M6F'>v]r4-JB44DUo#6KWw54@#84iOeGVk/i" Hu.Ib[9pJM@Wovj'VDXX? l:7{).~={r"YZe_%QukKBk61f]DvyO 5Gt~.W1$2saI bK+D[(i U[03z3lpD_^2/ %JePk!Z*]B b#6W8>(9'wf{tv>n7![0=IJG[lKK4Z|Ws|3aIp~.7;tm`#4bh&,zrIAS p+ s_YH96J;TW& Y9 [^Z&h[/v>} wkx}Qs}W:rg&V*IHfv_[}Xz7/nj7(jvZ }0l~cLYszj#{e59Dvt`:*f %)Xn>f6P#RUK^~&,H6dUNmvw/;!MHoF2x6aCS;*^H// QtaFuMi|8K w-V*Y1l>}z7e4_A[ki* q$Q,nXF1kq[;b| $H%9i0/fuO95xaiF(!9s>SPc.]5v|+b:=Vv}#5~g5K~K D?& 0z|v0"V"D;Rc q/ 9 y"Sl[Z0 xou)&A^4paji, [Xv20us'SH-1/Kp@K8iv#wC*Ft{T[9s$MU9^"yrPi#.E6d-ll)75*1u)27&%Kmth,0uR. #}yf{{HE9:Y.Xw~x (A"ObB7I.to`Ri70 x]BZoWfcpfeC"oFooJlq;h|1WxJ#W^yyPjM^e}w%1JWf8q.kZm[~xGrp*F_~{W;u hm#G5/Vp^ZK`P0W ?l@v}-s={he!2vi+i&+!7 wofr~[&?M$Weped2PH6::7g{S+2Nil:E">h&LXzZD9eI07sf5bgC)'&WY[KP++S&=]lR&e;prZV|iK3aV?O n8akFwSgKo~g$.(__I{LnDa*nJz{J3e`1x8vC2gPNyOa4HtVc0sfl#SD@YI3?N7Y?zo17D>LdIB ^ bN $,"{z=f{QnbHH$t}B{%]6#!vosO(Fd]t/uPw}fOwr9;]G4E%L}w;),x~wkseX,$&Y(XiWv3U2s[ZZh9Zx r&fn*} !r3 % f*F"_^blh]=8sVjve,bVvwWQT']*zN0W9f3m37hz- 4xI' 4%Qu Rk'_aV.r{'x$c0uq$Be5d8niv$DDt@YJ~XWp LkSUp|0&&F~= g||+8,''[ @w>r-xYv;s(d| r&aIvsMJqdI&!EKh^YH`YTBiX SUNF57 xD~aNUEL@ .$aW[|{a5zZ}0-FA68&-++#e#4"+7d*-^E'FKftC" 5Mzo}u~U!YZ0Lbzs~qv 5(q#qAw4&OVVxwiGAZwEU%/YJ$0VB+,b N^Ien-6C>DL'hBa%Qit#t.dYexbj|#MC7 e+B?Sq~ghQ] 4"r5kl8sa_^Zp$d&nlo_j xp/;@OddPPQ%()AU| %dTN &s? gjJHqI"eYS:J1t2n^HUV={6{uvL.v2ZN~&N

F{HK ds.xIcV~jX;mtNB5 ]'9jP++knxpZ&ti_DLz3c{bb$q-B /ziG0gR}~A|:Jw9h:e$0{/bVpiVlb=MNC? tx'0d=/ppO Irt2K"[s2/wMh~^J40WB1cKOixd065## }C (aJSV&$Bu8oX0>vcF~rQsi=PBmY.ZaWxf?: V(qBuk@9,KLD_`Rv HCLQ4DB99@@w)IpS^+H.X_i@!`7r00UU {Xa*DK5r"~ytW^ZI]*"i$M6rfBuiBc4u3N G3. >$11X^$CObvPH@G@)g>Mb%5HzzQYY4}:z4>O?}^!+O9d|WTWn"gYZ6La0aWKm)@|7OWF$duq6YWpCKDCAB4i1Fu3'_^oMLL!;wf39%?E"p5 5([[L~]nn,Ea!WW9mOJ'Lb2f|]q#ZU F6my[}ay}e`-suSJGp{WHy5MmWF|jw6]-v7C'BAnotxWpsxUDt@p fNlv}5I"Ba%J-t,()NNbUU->-=oLNNNb^b?E/Cr [^Mk{V`=6l1^C/,]qi&O=~7ag+gV*=@v?*-!MVMRO@U/I[(3mUb4H|BGr'Puu_vj2Eo- vj_umH[a{ y("[E6e. {w)^_ }k6knps.yq?f^,EQfY/F#>:Tn]gHY;U9l.L1[@oq@0#P[!LNN8R~x?ngyyBtM>NN45% Ql6S~S)5-']=~X(9_z>R:mH"@B1l 9iE*pW}yi{Zd2UU&YMH&& (i>Drx4*jh"(i;)2*_}Z[W;?P@23;Wj) ylP'*`5 Ar+jAx`{s.k!=fGJ jYW|Z#bB0F#c-ZXhA)55 FG/ 5I8U47+|XWBYSDOGK&?PWGv1J`LB]|EzGN=6@jS^CJdAz8Lr{2;{vhhj[@gR[5d j^\B7xe`AX 4`}=1SH-k.uWL:MV|ee%2@=I!.j|N&'eGA0Qos'wO[RtJmhp|K=W2,.(Yd;7ejK=WA4W(W^{+q^8UxDsf}u">tGypI[E/s-0sM$.UUU[@ K+I^@;8a~3:MNDos[u_)G2NKJJt+{>99yxVKLFnzJ A5n',ydFz+Wjv [?K=XN>>S2xSOH$WhJAq.r'4>Yv]v8p&J2PYskLY*c%-|eGV%*5aD.MmmIYYfQ_H>Htz~[1/:X&GLq?sqYzmH-'+VJUkgv?>W. o=9}7)}y|5B&_~+lF`7ygrCkXs.;=9Cu]8s)/sc#'`/vxv1V4WkUfTd`|Qsq%o&mp1$p&X0Ge%?'{%]OH> endobj 41 0 obj <> endobj 42 0 obj <> endobj 46 0 obj <> endobj 47 0 obj <> endobj 51 0 obj <> endobj 52 0 obj <> endobj 56 0 obj <> endobj 57 0 obj <> endobj 61 0 obj <> endobj 62 0 obj <> endobj 63 0 obj <>stream x| x93F%vY[UlY^x8{H bCB-"!@O))MR@iKShKH>>Og29#h#PJHVo:/E#z/[(0h,jA]Q%p^%4~'t9QrQH@oME;sX(2t3:E rE5?F2-h}A$jxeK34%oOozQ> Gf-AVJ^!]!t:}kC".9wL1 v3r@/uM_BOB^@/y'wC>gkD&9-"DB@JC9(GC;U+CEC 4)F{p!.aF<_i#BN( ""b'qq6Cc3!w o*h8ihO%5F`&#5TE(J(h}928l@{^}n~Gr< B'Ak9@{4o]?g>CI8X),2ZlVl `"*2[q;x} x'(_ow1@;x_OC''.#Zb7qxxI I R !k: Wcsk;dykyyN^w{Cu;wO R*JO]G=)%B31n'Q#BD0Xos7qr(F#&XD$0E!k5?{EVTL:Y//HFRQFk::z|KkK2Hf;Q:kY]Cu ]#XE _Q- P 71ux#S6!N:#hfv5*Z5qAm^cvN!o32'{w(SyO{Dh]]/6emFr,`eO[,io/R/L~x".ZN>xBIK IhoS+> 4maiB6XcTbt[>k'r ?1)E"J0R]@?_#)K`S"U"6M@#%<6 Q~tPJ:(9(%.'. )~KGK9 Eso5..>OqN.DRQLIONI'S,#|t%',j3QN5x)9kE3hP1I;RdC;CSw s USS;ZheRMZ)^O_h?G&OZOLv=kqm~Z-_C fZU{ZJZL !qjpP`L 6ghOF O ^^85+/``iD2x}gcg8e8;;dI{gN{rzO>,icF} }}bjH{ARY U{} p{y&hVj9~G#FBDw';#_|WyQ>8:9bnEec"STV=9&rrLY1=dK1^+ZBH> J*4`%PR<('gp99gy MNr_159j||rp= v,G|:=hZXmnS3*@doAtVNY!' { oM~C!L>1Q]VYC2yRr3"Rh;i&anzVkXivV("~gO[-tsTb,cp|gW#RkU:[#[#[####C^ S^yL)(H9e1$]hf MBP/ B0' B`'8"?5?`f/gjp!jx= .vF6lP|-F6OxKo/zd/>WUK*X[6rv;X#N't:w6w1B7wX{fh,qz'Cpb@' + N,"Nb'&uMh'D2 RRRu8IEU@ 5e4M24HLL3WSKxhk 6G=0w6y>?AiIc/c?N/+v nkj>//8F=BT[[Vr#D*$s: S^:.Qp6SI6`a J Eo^K-4IRPSZ".Amrv#Ne&lm_QBDyTIaA%Q,Q:+:'nc5GxeE}.k|:k3QZy d5QT]rg&F?>#<9O.S2u]/R'3s<F>slm^)^ qP`!t J@ql.)09"IuI%9`5 &,x_KU^ym'Ze*I2,!tPb>tS09STV~=*$%vN%!W&8XiP7jEjXptMC`2.iW^sJlLV,0#%uB,}mk5-we1u60=tx_{y':37[| zt'b-kjG"Z>SMm1SggrnnEj+dm5Db,`7fZNtT;UXg>tU)c^:.WK??Vfy7W]szmN4U%cOC+1w +,b_8h]rO`h9XoX~KK6 R6{ivr73&E[smYffF)a3Z^0 ` 0_E6|D)]#=`q;O g&Mcr;{FF*[Cr S4h `D~>!4b.8.!"65XIsiJ+ }-bTmW[W7#F}+*YY|=HdSU_ P/X,=R+X4aj9Qp6y0."5,q[s*kr2N;}$$l/gfYa] r3f~gk6w37&?]w>|s]#[w` lry=k?gFh{J6d3s$9,]/zm"ZCVrTl Y/wnSF| W ]sz@=^b_5w%W:uM}4DZ[jp(r?s/?CA?R]>E/m>,U2l.{@VZd|U`~xi*-g{I 7&4MMyYNAZ KJHp)Rz7NWaP|YK+t~%hg TX)X5z.*U-o5-;DVQ<>]" iMywTm#me^XRbin4`E ]d(iYV+ay] huD+*+UYz"j.7S=-?@BSis,'vRB 8S5jLJ08"8_S_ER#nl+[-+v //cJs_u}!k=iNz=7:d+VZ2 qc3" !=vLPCneC}|W-gV_ ?*FVdZ23WJ> X1T+UjB]NfYYyl,:gl latjRTVB<[YaA]y~NN@w*k.y%(=:BS!qyt*cH9YJjV [NX5VxXhTfp$Ig"RB1NMBl_yG6voqk?,xw^1:&9c-eOTU6O3dP l%fHZZY2::GcaKiqa ]92dfeqA)Y.l` xt`-a?_:Kw3h-OvW*J 2*rcdCJlr HL$7/`ak+h;>{O2uQDyH'1L0Xx drA9Sxu7n9q>_6r^1Z*,j5C cjepfef e"UPj'("eph,oSb$C ,,-ZM[y/ebHMHTj /RSX4X4to$nxoV* +Es+G L7vfXn+s/6;[d++^^*"n)+^ %~tuvtge{DHPA#i-VEY>50 V1bl5IsjqF*Ct@i 3lcL mR_85T,M6)!]^p'Kv*1/?V"4k]EUae;YUk?Wf_ %DvDKoiiZ~.|AGj(HxF!41Zmjj!,F)0xlDy9 5JU/1G#x~.n3Fi3gtwjCRik*d`$WfB0pLWQ*mZSf2uMFzLy%/a]{+19P ht|LRA9j3dP:"]jEAjj1M .;r*D!`Izzv("N){"e("x<OKivW7Mv-};o ~1'T%J[p2;1T`n3BD44$d CDoclQ[,[P2-@Qm68[l z0EOTB I*;;H^b57N'iY,WM#`q*2,@v1tCNX+ 57{m}uUS#w,U8V=;kvC6gzO;6o*FUGZ}8tK"3t?wuGnC*[kk1_w :'TH(:hDFRGdr/GYl,U6P&3X,H>If=o/EsKK~l`AbSIZ^klvr}\i'!oj{VgKk.{vf~V7|fr[ao.TvIWLG~{y^?/:Ah8 bipvvm$d+knJAdcj]{L2yN}3z(zS?`8.&5^0Al@r/7l*/^X^h96 kK!X{3g xe7'~f8*UK[#w;Zq}GM[ +l+[%83JF&H_Nyy|w~w*C[Yux{7d5Feo[xYMqOK?9"l5 ls?j2,<>A}Rq9SdG15m"xrHEbZ-'+F"Zd"$BQ'[ xR*)|yDiRaU^@s#b # h!(U@@z%'a8VE~=Cspi/) FRN'_RgDV0UIU%+s$~ _N||cpc)*: PR-)NLh+!K9t"w KmqJD=$&*=#n%we|SG]ZD~+3|[U_uTk#aJ?nTEey`&R'%j%Kw,[%Ozr?oO K1x'`8.)APbj@ 5%_diA sC)E}h2dl{cP )BGkJy/ KO?F_woo=Hsw~/A|sve[G?p^A#p=A(c:K-bA?~jP)cp6rzO|fa <>stream x|yxUt$,vh H$Hf3FI5b4D"2J3 8:(33c^EqKwnueyySws=U ApP2kn0?45Ihp>8mV_re]5uo``PUm-~R|

Read more:
Human Genetic Engineering on the Doorstep - hgalert.org

David King

The main debate around human genetics currently centres on the ethics of genetic testing, and possibilities for genetic discrimination and selective eugenics. But while ethicists and the media constantly re-hash these issues, a small group of scientists and publicists are working towards an even more frightening prospect: the intentional genetic engineering of human beings. Just as Ian Wilmut presented us with the first clone of an adult mammal, Dolly, as a fait accompli, so these scientists aim to set in place the tools of a new techno-eugenics, before the public has ever had a chance to decide whether this is the direction we want to go in. The publicists, meanwhile are trying to convince us that these developments are inevitable. The Campaign Against Human Genetic Engineering, has been set up in response to this threat.

Currently, genetic engineering is only applied to non-reproductive cells (this is known as 'gene therapy') in order to treat diseases in a single patient, rather than in all their descendants. Gene therapy is still very unsuccessful, and we are often told that the prospect of reproductive genetic engineering is remote. In fact, the basic technologies for human genetic engineering (HGE) have been available for some time and at present are being refined and improved in a number of ways. We should not make the same mistake that was made with cloning, and assume that the issue is one for the far future.

In the first instance, the likely justifications of HGE will be medical. One major step towards reproductive genetic engineering is the proposal by US gene therapy pioneer, French Anderson, to begin doing gene therapy on foetuses, to treat certain genetic diseases. Although not directly targeted at reproductive cells, Anderson's proposed technique poses a relatively high risk that genes will be 'inadvertently' altered in the reproductive cells of the foetus, as well as in the blood cells which he wants to fix. Thus, if he is allowed to go ahead, the descendants of the foetus will be genetically engineered in every cell of their body. Another scientist, James Grifo of New York University is transferring cell nuclei from the eggs of older to younger women, using similar techniques to those used in cloning. He aims to overcome certain fertility problems, but the result would be babies with three genetic parents, arguably a form of HGE. In addition to the two normal parents, these babies will have mitochondria (gene-containing subcellular bodies which control energy production in cells) from the younger woman.

Anderson is a declared advocate of HGE for medical purposes, and was a speaker at a symposium last year at UCLA, at which advocates of HGE set out their stall. At the symposium, which was attended by nearly 1,000 people, James Watson, of DNA discovery fame, advocated the use of HGE not merely for medical purposes, but for 'enhancement': 'And the other thing, because no one really has the guts to say it, I mean, if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we do it?'

In his recent book, Re-Making Eden (1998), Princeton biologist, Lee Silver celebrates the coming future of human 'enhancement', in which the health, appearance, personality, cognitive ability, sensory capacity, and life-span of our children all become artifacts of genetic engineering, literally selected from a catalog. Silver acknowledges that the costs of these technologies will limit their full use to only a small 'elite', so that over time society will segregate into the "GenRich" and the "Naturals":

"The GenRich - who account for 10 percent of the American population - all carry synthetic genes... that were created in the laboratory ...All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class...Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as labourers, and their children go to public schools... If the accumulation of genetic knowledge and advances in genetic enhancement technology continue ... the GenRich class and the Natural class will become...entirely separate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee."

Silver, another speaker at the UCLA symposium, believes that these trends should not and cannot be stopped, because to do so would infringe on liberty.

Most scientists say that what is preventing them from embarking on HGE is the risk that the process will itself generate new mutations, which will be passed on to future generations. Official scientific and ethical bodies tend to rely on this as the basis for forbidding attempts at HGE, rather than any principled opposition to the idea.

In my view, we should not allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by this argument. Experience with genetically engineered crops, for example, shows that we are unlikely ever to arrive at a situation when we can be sure that the risks are zero. Instead, when scientists are ready to proceed, we will be told that the risks are 'acceptable', compared to the benefits. Meanwhile, there will be people telling us loudly that since they are taking the risks with their children, we have no right to interfere.

One of the flaws in the argument of those who support the possibility of HGE for medical purposes is that there seem to be very few good examples where it is the only solution to the medical problem of genetic disease. The main advantage of HGE is said to be the elimination of disease genes from a family. Yet in nearly all cases, existing technologies of prenatal and preimplantation genetic testing of embryos allow the avoidance of actual disease. There are only a few very rare cases where HGE is the only option.

Furthermore, there is always another solution for those couples who are certain to produce a genetically disabled child and cannot, or do not want to deal with this possibility. They can choose not to have children, to adopt a child, or to use donor eggs or sperm. Parenthood is not the only way to create fulfilment through close, intimate and long lasting relationships with children. The question we have to ask is whether we should develop the technology for HGE, in order to satisfy a very small number of people.

Although the arguments for the first uses of HGE will be medical, in fact the main market for the technology will be 'enhancement'. Once it was available, how would it be possible to ensure that HGE was used for purely medical purposes? The same problem applies to prenatal genetic screening and to somatic gene therapy, and not only are there no accepted criteria for deciding what constitutes a medical condition, but in a free market society there seems to be no convincing mechanism for arriving at such decision. The best answer that conventional medical ethics seems to have is to `leave it up to the parents', ie. to market forces.

Existing trends leave little doubt about what to expect. Sophisticated medical technology and medical personnel are already employed in increasingly fashionable cosmetic surgery. Another example is the use of genetically engineered human growth hormone (HGH), developed to remedy the medical condition of growth hormone deficiency. Because of aggressive marketing by its manufacturers, HGH is routinely prescribed in the USA to normal short children with no hormone deficiency. If these pressures already exist, how much stronger will they be for a technology with as great a power to manipulate human life as HGE?

Germ line manipulation opens up, for the first time in human history, the possibility of consciously designing human beings, in a myriad of different ways. I am not generally happy about using the concept of playing God, but it is difficult to avoid in this case. The advocates of genetic engineering point out that humans constantly 'play God', in a sense, by interfering with nature. Yet the environmental crisis has forced us to realise that many of the ways we already do this are not wise, destroy the environment and cannot be sustained. Furthermore, HGE is not just a continuation of existing trends. Once we begin to consciously design ourselves, we will have entered a completely new era of human history, in which human subjects, rather than being accepted as they are will become just another kind of object, shaped according to parental whims and market forces.

In essence, the vision of the advocates of HGE is a sanitised version of the old eugenics doctrines, updated for the 1990s. Instead of 'elimination of the unfit', HGE is presented as a tool to end, once and for all, the suffering associated with genetic diseases. And in place of 'improving the race', the 1990s emphasis is on freedom of choice, where 'reproductive rights' become consumer rights to choose the characteristics of your child. No doubt the resulting eugenic society would be a little less brutal than those of earlier this century. On the other hand the capabilities of geneticists are much greater now than they were then. Unrestrained, HGE is perfectly capable of producing Lee Silver's dystopia.

In most cases, the public's function with respect to science is to consume its products, or to pay to clean up the mess. But with HGE, there is still time to prevent it, before it becomes reality. We need an international ban on HGE and cloning. There is a good chance this can be achieved, since both are already illegal in many countries. Of course it may be impossible to prevent a scientist, somewhere, from attempting to clone or genetically engineer humans. But there is a great difference between a society which would jail such a scientist and one which would permit HGE to become widespread and respectable. If we fail to act now, we will only have ourselves to blame.

Read the rest here:
The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering - hgalert.org