GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: Japanese committee recommends no regulation for some forms of gene editing

domingo, 26 de agosto de 2018

Japanese committee recommends no regulation for some forms of gene editing

Japanese committee recommends no regulation for some forms of gene editing

Bioedge

Japanese committee recommends no regulation for some gene editing

by Xavier Symons | 25 Aug 2018 |

A government committee in Japan has garnered criticism after recommending that certain forms of gene editing in plants and animals should not be regulated.

The expert committee, convened by the Ministry of the Environment, recommended on Monday that only genetic editing involving exogenous genes (genes from outside the organism) should be regulated. Gene editing that involves switching off or deleting genes already present in the genetic code of organisms should not require government approval, the committee said.

The committee did, however, recommend the creation of a thoroughgoing information management system on organisms with edited genomes, under which the type and purpose of all organisms that fell outside GMO restrictions would have to be reported to the authorities with an exception of those produced at closed facilities for microorganisms.

Consumer groups criticised the recommendations, saying that there is no difference between gene editing that turns off genes and gene editing that introduces new genes.

“They (the committee) came to this conclusion after just two meetings. How can they say it's safe?”, said Consumers Union of Japan secretariat chief Michiyo Koketsu. “We need a debate that includes a wide range of experts, not just a small section of the research community”.

The regulation of gene editing of crops and animals differs in jurisdictions around the world. In late July, the European Union's top court ruled that crops created using genome editing methods should in principle come under existing law regulating Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). In contrast, the United State’s Department of Agriculture announced in late March that it did not plan to regulate CRISPR-edited crops in the same was as GMOs.

Sunday, August 26, 2018

The Norwegian bioethicist Ole Martin Moen has published an unusual but intriguing article in the journal Bioethics. He analyses the arguments in the half-mad manifesto of the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski. For those whose memories don’t stretch back that far, Kaczynski was a brilliant mathematician who became obsessed with the decay of American society. He retired to a backwoods cabin and worked as a serial postal bomber whose handiwork killed three people and maimed 23 between 1978 and 1995. The New York Times published his 35,000-word manifesto in 1995 which eventually led to his capture.

Moen says that Kaczynski’s concerns should be taken seriously and refuted philosophically, even if he is a terrorist. “Although philosophers can only play a modest role in fighting terrorism, it is striking that, today, the most obvious line of response to one’s adversaries—to listen carefully, to show that one has understood their position, and to explain why one believes they are mistaken—is hardly even attempted as a means to discourage terrorists.”

His words can usefully be applied to many other areas of public discourse today, not just dialogues with ideologically-motivated terrorists. It’s very seldom that opposing sides listen carefully to each other. In the Middle Ages, academic battles took the form of “disputation and debate”. Stating the other side’s argument in the strongest possible form was an essential part of the process – before demolishing it, of course. We need a bit more of this fairness, even for madmen like Kaczynski.