Search

A central problem for the international governance of heritable germline gene editing is that there are important differences in attitudes and values as well as ethical and health care considerations around the world. These differences are reflected in a complicated and diverse regulatory landscape. Several publications have discussed whether reproductive uses would be legally permissible in individual countries and whether clinical applications could emerge in the context of regulatory gaps and gray areas. Systematic comparative studies that explore issues related to the governance of this technology from different national and international perspectives are needed to address the lack of knowledge in this area. In this research report, we contribute to filling this gap by presenting views of stakeholders in the United Kingdom on challenges to the governance of heritable genome editing. We present findings from a multistakeholder study conducted in the United Kingdom between October 2016 and January 2018 and funded by the Wellcome Trust. This research included interviews, literature analysis, and a workshop. We involved leading U.K. scientists, in vitro fertilization clinicians, and representatives from regulatory bodies, patient organizations, and other civil societal organizations, as well as fertility companies. Part one of this article explores stakeholder perceptions of possible global developments in heritable genome editing and associated risks and governance challenges. Part two presents a range of policy options that were generated during the workshop in relation to the challenges discussed in part one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that taking concepts of euthanasia out of their political and economic contexts leads to violations of the premises on which the Stoic ideal of euthanasia is based: ‘a quick, gentle and honourable death’. 2 For instance, the transplantation of the narrowly defined concept of euthanasia developed under the Dutch welfare system into a developing country, such as the People’s Republic of China (PRC), seems inadequate. For it cannot deal with questions of anxiety about degrading forms of dying and suffering without reference to its economic rationale, demanded by a scarcity (unequal distribution) of health care resources. The weakness of health care provisions for the terminally ill in Mainland China has become increasingly poignant since the collapse of collective health care institutions in the countryside since the reforms of the late-1980s. As in most cases where health care facilities are wanting, it is difficult to apply the criteria of gentleness and dignity at reaching death. Its solution lies not in a faster relief from suffering by euthanasia, but in extending the quality of life through distributive justice within Chinese healthcare policy-making. This paper begins with a brief description of the Dutch euthanasia law, after which it discusses Chinese conceptions of euthanasia in biomedical textbooks, the media and in surveys. It concludes by pointing out the need for a transnational framework in which both the specifics and generalities of euthanasia can be discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the impact of the implementation of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union (EU) on May 25, 2018 to regulate the legal protection of data and the privacy of individuals in the EU. Topics discussed include amendment of justification for doing scientific research to enhance protection of personal data; digital, standardized nature of formalized research ethics and role of disciplinary distance and level of administration on social anthropology.

The article discusses the highlights of an international symposium held at the University of Sussex in November 2015 and a colloquium at Durham University in August 2016 in England which explored ethics and anthropological research. The symposium focused on the challenges posed by ethical reviews. The colloquium examined epistemology and methodology, research ethics and governance and ways of helping early career researchers apply ethical practices.