Search

Objectives: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to critically important antimicrobials (CIAs) amongst Gram-negative bacteria can feasibly be transferred amongst wildlife, humans and domestic animals. This study investigated the ecology, epidemiology and origins of CIA-resistant Escherichia coli carried by Australian silver gulls (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae), a gregarious avian wildlife species that is a common inhabitant of coastal areas with high levels of human contact.Methods: Sampling locations were widely dispersed around the perimeter of the Australian continent, with sites separated by up to 3500 km. WGS was used to study the diversity and molecular characteristics of resistant isolates to ascertain their epidemiological origin.Results: Investigation of 562 faecal samples revealed widespread occurrence of extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant (21.7%) and fluoroquinolone-resistant (23.8%) E. coli. Genome sequencing revealed that CIA-resistant E. coli isolates (n = 284) from gulls predominantly belonged to human-associated extra-intestinal pathogenic E. coli (ExPEC) clones, including ST131 (17%), ST10 (8%), ST1193 (6%), ST69 (5%) and ST38 (4%). Genomic analysis revealed that gulls carry pandemic ExPEC-ST131 clades (O25:H4 H30-R and H30-Rx) and globally emerging fluoroquinolone-resistant ST1193 identified among humans worldwide. Comparative analysis revealed that ST131 and ST1193 isolates from gulls overlapped extensively with human clinical isolates from Australia and overseas. The present study also detected single isolates of carbapenem-resistant E. coli (ST410-blaOXA-48) and colistin-resistant E. coli (ST345-mcr-1).Conclusions: The carriage of diverse CIA-resistant E. coli clones that strongly resemble pathogenic clones from humans suggests that gulls can act as ecological sponges indiscriminately accumulating and disseminating CIA-resistant bacteria over vast distances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over 12 months prior to the recent United Nations decision to defer a decision about what type of international treaty should be developed in the global stem-cell research and human cloning debate, the Federal Parliament of Australia passed two separate pieces of legislation relating to both these concerns. After a five-year long process of community consultation, media spectacle and parliamentary debate, reproductive cloning has been banned in Australia and only embryos considered to be excess to assisted reproductive technologies in existence on the 5th of April 2002 are currently valid research material. This paper argues that underpinning both pieces of legislation is a profound belief in the disruptive potential of all types of human cloning for the very nature and integrity of human species being. A belief, moreover, that is based on a presumption that it is apparently possible to conceptualise what being human even means for all Australians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the current Australian regulatory response to human reproductive cloning. The central consideration is the capacity of the current regulatory regime to effectively deter human cloning efforts. A legislative prohibition on human cloning must be both effective and clear enough to allow researchers to know what practices are acceptable. This paper asks whether the current Australian regime evinces these qualities and suggests that Australia should follow the example set in the UK by the enactment of the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on the support of the Australian Senate to the acts concerning therapeutic cloning. It offers information on the Human Cloning Act and Research Involving Human Embryos Act, which were reviewed by Federal Court Judge John Lockhart. The review of Lockhart suggested to lift the ban on therapeutic cloning unless the research has the consent from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Kay Patterson passed a bill containing the recommendations of Lockhart.

Presents several brief news articles related to science for April 15, 1999. United States' dominance in the field of immunology; Recommendations about human cloning from two Australian authorities; Merger of biotechnology companies Merlin Ventures and the Rothschild Bioscience Unit.

The article reports that the Australian government has approved the practice of therapeutic cloning, otherwise known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Scientists will now be allowed to experiment with human embryonic stem cells. The new law however requires destruction of SCNT-created embryos within 14 days. Australian scientists are elated at the development, which may enable them to generate genetically tailored populations of stem cells to study diseases.

The article states that the lure of California has proven irresistible for two U.S.-born stem cell scientists now based in Australia. Biologist Martin Pera is leaving Monash University and the Australian Stem Cell Center (ASCC) in Melbourne, Victoria where he headed embryonic stem cell research, to become director of the new Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, California. A colleague, geneticist and patent law expert Dianna DeVore has resigned as ASCC chief operating officer to participate in an as-yet-undisclosed commercial venture in San Diego, California to bring stem cell technologies, many developed in Australia, from the laboratory to the clinic. Pera and DeVore say they were drawn by the rosy funding outlook for stem cell science in California, where the state plans to spend $295 million annually on the field over the next 10 years. By contrast, the Australian government has given ASCC--the nation's flagship stem cell enterprise--a total of $55 million through 2011. California also offers a flexible regulatory framework that permits somatic cell nuclear transfer, a technology currently outlawed in Australia.

Reports on developments related to genetics, as of November 2001. Publication of a book 'Genes on the Fork,' by Beda Stadler; Italian scientist Severino Antinori's claim that he will clone the first human being by the end of the year; Implications of the elections on medical research and science in Australia.

Reports that the Australian Academy of Science (AAS) asserted that medical research using human cloning techniques should be permitted for therapeutic purposes. Use of cloning for the treatment of damaged tissues and organs; The AAS' opposition to reproductive cloning to create fetuses; Criticism of the AAS from the Catholic church and some ethicists.

Comments the report issued by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council's Health Ethics Committee supportive of an international call for a ban on human cloning. Alternative proposed by the committee to boost the country's capacity for therapeutic cloning research; State of cloning research in the country.