Search

This paper covers developments from International Embryo Technology Society (IETS) meetings over the past 50 years. The IETS was officially 'born' at a meeting in Denver, Colorado on Sunday 26 May 1974. There have been 51 IETS meetings (the first was in May 1974), and the first conference at which papers were presented was in 1975. The name of the IETS was changed from International Embryo Transfer Society to International Embryo Technology Society in 2016. The annual IETS conferences are held once a year in January. Embryo technology advanced from the laborious and slow techniques of surgical recovery and transfer of bovine embryos to non-surgical recovery and transfer in many species. Cryopreservation of embryos was initially a slow process that met with only moderate technical success before the development of technology that resulted in high embryo survival rates. The polymerase chain reaction was used to determine the sex of embryos following laminar flow cytology, which came into use to separate X- and Y-bearing spermatozoa. IVF has grown to become widely used, and several factors make it more useful than superovulation and embryo recovery/transfer. Perhaps the most important tool of all was the system that allowed the genetic 'mapping' of the genomic sequence of Bos taurus cattle. Charting key DNA differences by scientists, 'haplotypes' are now used routinely to identify animals with desirable traits of economic importance, discover new genetic disorders, and track carrier status of genotyped animals. Future technology is discussed. This paper deals with the 50-year history of embryo transfer technology. It covers the formation of the International Embryo Technology Society, a group of scientists and veterinarians who study or work in the field of embryos and the animals that produce them. These embryos can be frozen, moved from animal to animal, maintained outside the female, and modified by a number of procedures. Photograph by Jenson. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the covid-19 pandemic, basic income pilot programs spread across U.S. cities like the novel coronavirus itself. The policy of no-strings-attached cash transfers marks a potentially significant change in the development of post-austerity politics, but only if basic income programs can endure beyond their trial phase. This paper centers the phenomenon of viral cash —cash transfer programs that mutate and multiply like the coronavirus to which they respond—as a means of assessing the possible pathways from trial programs to standing policy. Drawing on case studies of pilot programs in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Denver, I argue that basic income pilots extend beyond their end-date by creating individual and institutional constituencies invested in unconditional cash transfers. Focusing on these constituencies draws attention to basic income's role in popularizing child tax credits, program cash stipends and other policy reforms recently enacted by cities and states. Seen this way, basic income's virus-like susceptibility to mutation plays a key role in seeding support for urban policies and politics that counter prior austerity by centering investment in human capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper studies the effect of craft breweries on residential property values. Using a hedonic Difference‐in‐Differences (DID) approach and about 250 thousand housing transactions in Denver, Colorado from 1990 to 2016, we investigate the impact of proximity to a craft brewery on residential property values. We consider three types of residence (single‐family home, row house, and condominiums), three types of brewery (all craft breweries, microbreweries, and brewpubs/taprooms), and two measurements of distance (Euclidian and walk‐time). Our most robust results are found for single‐family homes, whose values enjoy a premium of up to 20.4% for being in proximity to a brewpub/taproom several years after, with the average annual maximum premium around 3%. As expected, premiums decline as distance from breweries increase. Beyond a distance of 0.5 km or a 10‐min walk‐time, the premium for a regional/microbrewery is greater than that for a brewpub/taproom. For single family homes within 4 km or 40‐min walk‐time, the annualized premium ranges between 0.41% and 3.01%. These findings support the narrative that craft breweries are a neighborhood asset. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]