Suchergebnisse

Intro -- FrontMatter -- Special Acknowledgments -- Foreword -- Contents -- Boxes and Figures -- Summary -- 1 Introduction -- 2 The State of the Science -- 3 Potential Applications of Heritable Human Genome Editing -- 4 A Translational Pathway to Limited and Controlled Clinical Applications of Heritable Human Genome Editing -- 5 National and International Governance of Heritable Human Genome Editing -- References -- Appendix A: Information Sources and Methods -- Appendix B: Commissioner Biographies -- Appendix C: Glossary -- Appendix D: Acronyms and Abbreviations -- Acknowledgment of Reviewers.

For the better part of a dozen years—and over 3 US presidential terms—heated debates about the ethics of cloning and embryonic stem cell research helped to define the American political landscape. Current lack of public controversy about human genome editing does not signal that ethical issues about engineering human embryos have been settled. Rather, while genome editing raises old ethical questions about the value of human life, eugenics, and the weight of unintended consequences, CRISPR also came into being in a political landscape that vastly differs from the early aughts when bioethics was last a major topic of political controversy.

- Neue gentechnische Verfahren des Genome Editings erlauben gezielte Eingriffe in somatische sowie in Keim(bahn)zellen des Menschen. - Somatische Gentherapien können durch Genome Editing verbessert und ihr Anwendungsbereich erweitert werden. Erste Ansätze werden klinisch erprobt. - Für die Entwicklung gen- und zellbasierter Therapien, insbesondere für seltene Erkrankungen, sind forschungs- und innovationspolitische Impulse nötig. Den voraussichtlich weiterhin hohen Kosten der Verfahren kann durch neuartige Erstattungsmodelle begegnetwerden. - Einer klinischen Anwendung von Keimbahneingriffen stehen ungeklärte gesundheitliche Risiken und grundsätzliche ethische Fragen ...

CRISPR/Cas-based genome editing technologies have the potential to fast-track large-scale crop breeding programs. However, the rigid cell wall limits the delivery of CRISPR/Cas components into plant cells, decreasing genome editing efficiency. Established methods, such as Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated or biolistic transformation have been used to integrate genetic cassettes containing CRISPR components into the plant genome. Although efficient, these methods pose several problems, including 1) The transformation process requires laborious and time-consuming tissue culture and regeneration steps; 2) many crop species and elite varieties are recalcitrant to transformation; 3) The segregation of transgenes in vegetatively propagated or highly heterozygous crops, such as pineapple, is either difficult or impossible; and 4) The production of a genetically modified first generation can lead to public controversy and onerous government regulations. The development of transgene-free genome editing technologies can address many problems associated with transgenic-based approaches. Transgene-free genome editing have been achieved through the delivery of preassembled CRISPR/Cas ribonucleoproteins, although its application is limited. The use of viral vectors for delivery of CRISPR/Cas components has recently emerged as a powerful alternative but it requires further exploration. In this review, we discuss the different strategies, principles, applications, and future directions of transgene-free genome editing methods.

Genome Editing gilt als Technologiesprung in der Gentechnologie. Die potenzielle Reichweite der Verfahren und die damit verbundenen Chancen und Risiken geben Impulse für eine neue Runde in der Debatte über Gentechnologien, die vor allem im Bereich der Grünen Gentechnik bislang durch Lagerdenken und einen Mangel an Zwischenpositionen gekennzeichnet ist. Um in Zukunft sachgerechter und unter Einbeziehung unterschiedlicher gesellschaftlicher Interessen über Optionen der weiteren Entwicklung der neuen Technologien diskutieren zu können, werden in diesem Beitrag Anforderungen an eine Neuausrichtung der Wissenschaftskommunikation umrissen.

Neue Pflanzenzüchtungstechnologien wie CRISPR/Cas haben das Potenzial zur Verbesserung der Nachhaltigkeit in der Landwirtschaft. Mit den Techniken des Genome Editing können die Erträge bei gleichzeitig reduziertem Pestizideinsatz gesteigert werden. Auch an der Verbesserung des Nährwerts von Pflanzen wird weltweit geforscht. Ob die neuen Techniken allerdings in Europa zum Einsatz kommen, ist gegenwärtig fraglich. Soll Genome Editing wie die "klassische" Gentechnik reguliert werden? Und wie kann eine verantwortliche Auslegung des Vorsorgeprinzips beim Einsatz der neuen Technologien aussehen? Die politische Diskussion um die Bewertung der neuen Pflanzenzüchtungstechnologien ist in vollem Gange. Die Beiträge dieses Sammelbands präsentieren rechtliche, soziale und ethische Aspekten zum Thema, die auf einer Summer School des Instituts Technik-Theologie-Naturwissenschaften (TTN) an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München zur Diskussion standen.Mit Beiträgen vonStephan Schleissing; Sebastian Pfeilmeier; Christian Dürnberger; Jarst van Belle; Jan Schaart; Robert van Loo; Katharina Unkel; Thorben Sprink; Aurélie Jouanin; Marinus J.M. Smulders; Hans-Georg Dederer; Brigitte Voigt; Felix Beck; João Otávio Benevides Demasi; Bartosz Bartkowski; Chad M. Baum; Alexander Bogner; Helge Torgersen; Sebastian Schubert; Anne Friederike Hoffmann; Ksenia Gerasimova; Karolina Rucinska

Die Publikation behandelt Grundlagen, Probleme und Grenzen des deutschen Rechts, die sich in Zusammenhang mit Genome Editing-Methoden der Genmanipulation stellen. Der Fokus ist dabei insbesondere auf die rechtliche Einbettung von Genome Editing-Behandlungen mittels CRISPR/Cas am Menschen im Rahmen von therapeutischen Keimbahneingriffen gerichtet.

There are a variety of governance mechanisms concerning the ownership and use of patents. These include government licenses, compulsory licenses, march-in rights for inventions created with federal funding, government use rights, enforcement restrictions, subject-matter restrictions, and a host of private governance regimes. Each has been discussed in various contexts by scholars and policymakers and some, in some degree, have been employed in different cases at different times. But scholars have yet to explore how each of these choices are subject to—or removed from—democratic control. Assessing the range of democratic implications of these patent governance choices is important in understanding the social and political implications of controversial or wide-ranging technologies because their use has a significant potential to affect the polity. This paper seeks to unpack these concerns for genome editing, such as CRISPR, specifically. Patents covering genome editing make an interesting case because, to date, it appears that the polity is concerned less with certain kinds of access, and more with distribution and limits on the technology's particular uses, such as human enhancement and certain agricultural and environmental applications. Here, we explore what it means for patents to be democratic or non-democratically governed and, in so doing, identify that patents covering many of the most controversial applications—that is, ones most likely to gain public attention—are effectively controlled by either non- or anti-democratic institutions, namely, private restrictions on licensing. This may be effective—for now—but lawmakers should be wary that such restrictions could rapidly reverse themselves. Meanwhile, other choices, like compulsory licenses, more broadly touch on democratic deliberation but, as currently structured, are aimed poorly for particular applications. Insofar as the public wants, or perhaps deserves, a say in the distribution and limits of these applications, illuminating the ways in which these governance choices intersect—or fail to intersect—with democratic institutions is critical. We offer some concluding thoughts about the nature of patents and their relationship with democratic governance as distributed claims to authority, and suggest areas for scholars and policymakers to pay close attention to as the genome editing patent landscape develops.

There are a variety of governance mechanisms concerning the ownership and use of patents. These include government licenses, compulsory licenses, march-in rights for inventions created with federal funding, government use rights, enforcement restrictions, subject-matter restrictions, and a host of private governance regimes. Each has been discussed in various contexts by scholars and policymakers and some, in some degree, have been employed in different cases at different times. But scholars have yet to explore how each of these choices are subject to—or removed from—democratic control. Assessing the range of democratic implications of these patent governance choices is important in understanding the social and political implications of controversial or wide-ranging technologies because their use has a significant potential to affect the polity. This paper seeks to unpack these concerns for genome editing, such as CRISPR, specifically. Patents covering genome editing make an interesting case because, to date, it appears that the polity is concerned less with certain kinds of access, and more with distribution and limits on the technology's particular uses, such as human enhancement and certain agricultural and environmental applications. Here, we explore what it means for patents to be democratic or non-democratically governed and, in so doing, identify that patents covering many of the most controversial applications—that is, ones most likely to gain public attention—are effectively controlled by either non- or anti-democratic institutions, namely, private restrictions on licensing. This may be effective—for now—but lawmakers should be wary that such restrictions could rapidly reverse themselves. Meanwhile, other choices, like compulsory licenses, more broadly touch on democratic deliberation but, as currently structured, are aimed poorly for particular applications. Insofar as the public wants, or perhaps deserves, a say in the distribution and limits of these applications, illuminating the ways in which these ...

Genome editing and modification techniques enable breeders to create single point mutations and to insert or delete new DNA sequences at a specific location in the plant genome thus for the first time making possible the precise modulation of traits of interest with unprecedented control and efficiency. The advent of genome editing has evoked enthusiasm but also controversy, creating regulatory and governance challenges worldwide. Plant genome editing could play a key role in developing crops that will contribute significantly to attaining multiple Sustainable Development Goals provided that accompanying the rapid scientific progress also policy and governance problems will be solved. Today, several countries, most of which located in the Americas, have adapted legislations to these technologies or released guidelines supporting the use of genome editing. Other countries are debating the path to come either because there is no clarity on the legal classification or due consensus is hampered by a renewed GMO debate. In recent years (2017–2020), eight countries have introduced guidelines clarifying the legal status of genome edited products and many of those are actively committed to international harmonization of their policies. In this chapter which is mainly based on a recent up-to-date review published by Menz et al. (Front Plant Sci 11(588027), 2020) we provide an overview on the current and potentially future regulatory environment for genome edited plants at national and international level.

Rechtliche Bewertung von Genome Editing-Behandlungen bei schwerwiegenden monogenen Erkrankungen – Vorliegen der Voraussetzungen individueller Heilversuche – Gegenwärtiger Stand der Wissenschaft – Prämisse zukünftiger Stand der Wissenschaft von CRISPR/Cas

Targeted genetic modification (TagMo) technologies are being used for new approaches to genetic engineering often called 'genome editing'. These approaches are in the early stages of development, and basic understandings of what TagMo is, of its likely future, and how it should be governed are still being established. In order to inform these discussions and increase their transparency, we map the scientific landscape of TagMo using advances in tech mining and bibliometrics and in consultation with experts in the field. We assess the sub-topics and disciplines associated with TagMo research, and the actors, institutions, and nations involved, while making observations about the funding of research and the collaborative patterns among actors. The technology assessment approach used in this article has important implications for anticipatory governance of TagMo plant products. It is designed to help scientists, managers, and policy-makers understand trends in TagMo technological development in order to prepare for future governance. © 2013 © 2013 Taylor & Francis.