CRISPR

Background: Postpartum hemorrhage is the most common cause of mortality in women with vaginal or cesarean delivery. WHO statistics shows that about 500 thousands women have died of complications related to pregnancy or during childbirth in 2013. haemorrhage probability is the main reason to order blood requests in delivery and cesarean units. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the ratio of cross-matched to transfused blood in pregnant women during one year before and after the implementation of health reform program. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective descriptive study, the requests of blood reserves for pregnant patients with the gravid of 34±7 weeks and the age of 30±16 years old in two periods, before and after the implementation of health reform program were being collected and compared. Blood group antiserums and anti-human globulins with bovine albumins were purchased from LORN company and Baharafshan Company respectively. Results: The total number of requests ...

According to the WHO, cancer has taken away the lives of an estimate of 9.6 million people in 2018 globally. 1 in 6 deaths worldwide is caused by cancer, making it the second leading cause of death (WHO, 2018). This malignant disease is characterized by an uncontrollable proliferation of the patient's own cells due to the activation of a tumor-initiating gene or the inhibition of a tumor-suppression gene. Such an activation or inhibition is usually triggered by external pressures, including radiation and viral infections, or internal pressures such as innate genetic predispositions. Knowing that cancer may occur in any cell capable of replication, one extremely fatal type of cancer which is sweeping nations worldwide is lung cancer. Throughout the past 40 years, despite the exorbitant amount of research invested, the overall survival rate of the major type of lung cancer has merely increased from 14% to 18%, and this statistic still holds true for today (Ron Chen, 2014). In 2018, out of the 2.09 million cases of lung cancer worldwide, only 330,000 individuals have survived their battle with cancer, which means that 84% of these cases died (WHO, 2018). Also, it is pivotal to keep in mind that lung cancer, in specific, has numerous risk factors. One factor that is exceptionally prevalent in our Lebanese society is smoking (Tobacco products), which not only affects smokers themselves, but also the people around them who are affected by secondhand smoke. Further influences include air pollution (Garbage crisis in Lebanon), exposure to asbestos, arsenic, and radiation. Therefore, lung cancer's inefficient
treatments, coupled with its extremely poor prognosis and prolific risk factors, affirm the need for a new approach for treatment.

Mevcut antibiyotik stratejileri spesifik olmayıp; dirençli bakteriler, direnç geni olmayan bakterilerin çoğalmasına izin vererek direnç genlerinin bakteri popülasyonunda yayılmalarını sağlamaktadır. Ancak, genetik mühendislik teknolojilerinin gelişmesiyle birlikte özellikle virülans veya antibiyotiğe dirençli bakterileri hedef alabilecek yeni antimikrobiyal silahlar üretilebilir. Bunların başında, bakterilerin bakteriyofaj virüslerine karşı sahip oldukları adaptif immün sistem olarak tanımlanan CRISPR-Cas mekanizması gelmektedir. Bu nedenle, CRISPR-Cas antimikrobiyalleri, bakterilere karşı en yeni savunma hattı olabileceği düşünülmektedir.

The emergence of multiple drug-resistant bacteria has prompted interest in alternatives to conventional antimicrobials. One of the possible replacement options for antibiotics is the use of bacteriophages as antimicrobial agents. Phage therapy is an important alternative to antibiotics in the current era of drug-resistant pathogens. Bacteriophages have played an important role in the expansion of molecular biology and have been used as antibacterial agents since 1966. In this review, we describe a brief history of bacteriophages and clinical studies on their use in bacterial disease prophylaxis and therapy. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of bacteriophages as therapeutic agents in this regard.

CRISPR gene-editing technology has been hailed as 'revolutionary' and 'groundbreaking' (Zhang and Zhou 2014; Mariscal and Petropanagos 2016). It is viewed as a 'game-changer' in biology and is being adopted and deployed at a 'breakneck pace' (Ledford 2015a, 20–21). CRISPR is significantly cheaper, more versatile, and more effective than previous genetic engineering technologies and this has reignited the optimism among scientists in the possibility of a genuine genetic revolution. However, it has also been noted that the pace of adoption and use of CRISPR has left little time for ethical reflection (Doudna 2015; Baltimore et al. 2015). This paper aims to begin filling that gap by evaluating the ethics of using CRISPR on non-human animals in comparison to previous techniques. My aim is to assess whether CRISPR is as much an ethical game-changer as it is a scientific one. Although there are a variety of ethical issues related to genetic engineering, I will focus my attention on two: first, the popular intrinsic objection to genetic engineering that it is wrong because it involves crossing species boundaries; and second, general concerns relating to animal welfare. Based on consideration of these issues, I suggest that CRISPR can be construed as an ethical game-changer insofar as it substantially alters the landscape of ethical debate. It reduces the force of some ethical concerns while heightening the force of others and encourages us to rethink the overall debate and the regulatory frameworks we develop to monitor and guide genetic engineering.

“One of the most gifted science journalists of his generation, Carl Zimmer tells a gripping human story about heredity from misguided notions that have caused terrible harm to recent ongoing research that promises to unleash more powerful technologies than the world has ever known.  The breadth of his perspective is extraordinarily compelling, compassionate, and valuable.  Please read this book now.”
—Jennifer Doudna, UC Berkeley, coauthor of A Crack in Creation

Imagine a world where everyone is healthy, intelligent, long living and happy. Intuitively this seems wonderful albeit unrealistic. However, recent scienti c breakthroughs in genetic engineering, namely CRISPR/Cas bring the question into public discourse, how the genetic enhancement of humans should be evaluated morally. In 2001, when preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF), enabled parents to select between multiple embryos, Julian Savulescu introduced the principle of procreative bene cence (PPB), stating that parents have the obligations to choose the child that is expected to have the best life. In this paper I argue that accepting the PPB and the consequentialist principle (CP) that two acts with the same consequences are morally on par, commits one to accepting the parental obligation of genetically enhancing one's children.

Development of new plant breeding techniques have facilitated easy manipulation of plants at genetic level. Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR associated protein9 (Cas9) system is a valuable addition in programmable nucleases. The CRISPR/Cas9 system uses an RNA component to recognize a target DNA sequences and it has shown promising results with respect to simultaneous editing of multigenic plant traits. In this review, components of CRISPR/Cas9, their construction and its methods of delivery to plant cells are analyzed. Variation in nucleotide sequence of the protospacer adjacent motif, codon optimization and progress in web-based bioinformatic tools, will make CRISPR/Cas9 systems more efficient for plants. Development and optimization of protocols to efficiently targ et  all plant species is still under development. Along with this, methods to inspect induced mutation and efficiency of the system have also been reviewed. Auxiliary improvement...

Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna made history on October 7th, 2020  for being the first all-female recipient team of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Charpentier  and Dounda’s use of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and the associated (Cas) proteins (the CRISPR-Cas system) is essentially a ‘‘genetic
scissor’ that allows researchers to specially design a DNA template to edit the genome. Described as a revolutionary technology contributing to new cancer therapies and making the dream of curing inherited diseases come true, CRISPR is branded as the face of genetic engineering and medical treatment. However, there are potential downsides to the
sudden rise of CRISPR. As the technology progresses, so does the discussion of ethical implications for use on humans; CRISPR debates have revealed deep disagreements over definitions of disability and quality of life. Using the history of eugenics as a starting point, I argue that CRISPR replicates and is an extension of the foundation of eugenics
under the definition of ‘neo-eugenics'. ‘Neo-eugenics’ is the theoretical and clinical approach to manipulating physical and mental attributes for a desired outcome on a molecular level via gene editing (Comfort, 2018). I use three case studies to examine current ethical debates surrounding CRISPR and bioengineering: Deafness, Dwarfism, and Down Syndrome. Each chapter follows the dialogue about genetic engineering between activists, bioethicists and philosophers, and scientists. Using these three case studies, I find that CRISPR has the potential to be a dangerous shift against disabled communities and bring about the casual acceptance of eugenics in the twenty-first century.

The current public health crisis has shed light on one of food systems’ most pressing challenges: reaching sustainable food security for all in a way that meets environmental and socio- economic sustainability. It has further confirmed that the logic of industrial agriculture has led our food
systems down an unsustain-able path, and that we must urgently change course. Agroecology is increasingly offered as the transformative and comprehensive solution that delivers benefits across all dimensions of sustainability. Yet, proponents of “business-as-usual” approaches continue to insist that producing higher, more resilient yields – particularly through new genomic techniques such as CRISPR/Cas – will serve as the means to ensure long-term food system resilience. Given the urgency for food systems transformation and drawing on agroecology as the paradigm shift we need, this article considers how new technologies can be assessed to evaluate their compatibility
with food systems sustainability. Using the example of CRISPR/Cas, this article offers a preliminary framework for assessment based on FAO’s 10 Elements of Agroecology. The purpose here is not to offer a comprehensive and definite assessment of CRISPR/Cas, but to serve as an example to highlight the need for holistic assessment tools when considering the development and uptake of new agricultural technologies.

Prominent critics and skeptics of genetic engineering have treated the ethical issue of human germline genetic modification (HGGM) as if it were still science fiction, like the artificially made Creature imagined in Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein. After surveying the history of making genetically modified (GM) children through three-person IVF since the late 1990s, I sketch a framework for a normative political theory of the rights of the GM children made from heritable biotechnological interventions in the human genome. In light of the history and trajectory of HGGM, the preeminent hard question is no longer “Should science genetically engineer children?” An equally difficult question is “What are the rights of the GM child?” The source of all speculative fiction, Frankenstein presciently addresses the latter question by having the Creature articulate a child’s fundamental and universal rights to both parental love and nondiscrimination, regardless of reproductive circumstances or genetic features.

Comment le dossier des V(r)TH a hérité du conflit des OGM
Francis Chateauraynaud (GSPR-EHESS) Version du 26 février 2018
Le vote de la loi française de 2008 sur les OGM, transposition tardive et intensément débattue de la directive européenne de 2001, avait réussi à faire bifurquer, sans le clore définitivement, un conflit historique. Le cas des OGM n'a pas de véritable précédent et a durablement marqué les politiques du risque, au croisement des biotechnologies, de l'agriculture et de l'environnement, sur plusieurs échelles d'action et de jugement – de la parcelle aux arènes internationales. En France, fin 2008, la plupart des observateurs tablaient sur une période de calme relatif, fondée sur le compromis instauré par la loi et dont le concept de coexistence, forgé un peu plus tôt à l'échelle européenne, formulait le principe 2. Si, comme dans d'autres domaines, les conflits autour des biotechnologies passent par des périodes de silence, ou de faible intensité, ils ne sont jamais complètement éteints. Sans redéployer l'histoire mouvementée des OGM, marquée par plusieurs phases de mobilisations 3 , il faut d'abord rappeler que ce dossier a surtout pris la forme d'un conflit autour des modèles agricoles, transformant les rapports de forces et de légitimités entre les acteurs, en laissant des traces profondes dans de multiples champs d'expertise. S'il a produit des innovations notables en matière d'évaluation des risques –dont la création du Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies–, le dossier des OGM a mis durablement l'ensemble du système d'expertise « sous pression ». Et tout indique que ce n'est pas fini. Les croisements de plus en plus fréquents entre les alertes sanitaires relatives aux pesticides ou aux herbicides, et les enjeux agronomiques, économiques et juridiques liés aux différents modèles 1 Ce texte a servi de base à la contribution au rapport d'évaluation de l'ANSES, Risques et bénéfices liés à l'utilisation des variétés rendues tolérantes aux herbicides non-transgéniques cultivées en France (rapport final prévu dont la sortie publique est prévue pour octobre 2018). Cette expertise collective a été menée suite à la saisine du 4 mars 2015 par la ministre de l'Ecologie, Ségolène Royal. Cette saisine faisait suite à un amendement introduit dans les discussions de la loi sur la biodiversité. Selon la ministre qui défendait l'amendement : « Le problème existe puisque ces plantes sont quasiment des OGM, sans moratoire cependant. J'ai saisi l'Anses le 4 mars dernier avec le ministre de l'agriculture-je peux vous communiquer la lettre de mission. Votre amendement pourrait accélérer ce dossier, en montrant la volonté du législateur de faire la lumière sur le sujet ».

Will CRISPR usher in a new era of Promethean overreach? CRISPR makes gene editing widely available and cheap. Anti-play-god bioethicists fear that geneticists will play god and precipitate a backlash from nature that could be devastating. In contrast to the anti-play-god bioethicists, this article recommends that laboratory science invoke the Precautionary Principle: pause at the yellow caution light, but then with constant risk-assessment proceed ahead.

In den letzten fünf Jahren ist ein wachsendes Interesse an den neuen Möglichkeiten der Genom-Editierung zu erkennen. So zeigen sich nicht nur eine rasant steigende Zahl an Studien und wissenschaftlichen Publikation zu CRISPR und Co., die Anwendungsmöglichkeiten der Genom-Editierung werden auch breit in den öffentlichen Medien verhandelt. Zahlreiche Magazine, darunter Der Spiegel, The Economist, National Geographic oder auch TIME haben dem Thema mittlerweile eine eigene Titelseite gewidmet. Die Rezeption in Wissenschaft und den Medien ist dabei von moralische Ambiguität gekennzeichnet. Während regelmäßig darauf hingewiesen wird, dass die neuen und zukünftigen Möglichkeiten der Genom-Editierung eine ,schnelle, präzise, einfache und kostengünstige' Möglichkeit zur Veränderung von Lebewesen darstellen, wird zugleich eine Warnung hinterhergeschoben: zwar biete die Genom-Editierung in der klinischen Anwendung große Potenziale bezüglich somatischer Gentherapien. Die neuen Werkzeuge dürften allerdings nicht zur Veränderung der Keimbahn dienen, zumindest nicht, um mit entsprechend veränderten Embryonen oder Keimbahnzellen eine Schwangerschaft herbeizuführen. Exemplarisch sind in diesem Zusammenhang die zwei weit rezipierten Kommentare in Nature und Science zu nennen, die kurz vor der Veröffentlichung der ersten Versuche an menschlichen Embryonen durch ein chinesisches Forscherteam veröffentlich wurden. 1 Die Sorgen um die möglichen Gefahren der Genom-Editierung kulminieren dabei in der Behauptung, dass entsprechende Techniken zur Veränderung der Keimbahn zu einer Form der Eugenik führten. So findet sich in der Reihe an Magazinen, die den Durchbrüchen der Genom-Editierung eine Titelgeschichte widmeten, auch The Spectator wieder. Der dort eingeschlagene Ton ist düster: " Eugenics is back " lesen wir, bebildert von Föten und einem Säugling in einer Petrischale. 2 Diese Sorge einer Rückkehr oder auch Erneuerung ,der Eugenik' zieht sich nicht nur durch die journalistische Presse. Die Wissenschaftshistoriker und Eugenik-Forscher Daniel J. Kevles und Nathaniel C. Comfort haben sich im Zuge der Auseinandersetzung mit CRISPR um eine Parallelisierung mit der vergangenen Eugenik bemüht 3 und auch in Science wurde ein entsprechender Vergleich aufgegriffen. Kurz bevor das Magazin CRISPR zur technischen Entwicklung des Jahres 2015 prämierte, druckte es einen besorgten

The genetics revolution that will transform our healthcare, the way we make babies, the nature of the babies we make, and ultimately our evolution as a species has already begun. It will arrive far sooner than most of us think and will transform our lives and the world around us in ways we can hardly imagine - and we aren't ready. If you have a sense that the genetics revolution is important but recognize you need to know more about what’s happening, what’s at stake, what this means for you, and what you should be doing now to prepare.

Could this be the most important book of our generation?

Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a part of a person's genome, suffering from hereditary/familial/rare diseases, to repair a defective gene to maintain its functional phenotype. At the beginning of the 2000s, upon the introduction of the human genome project, genetic disorders that have caused many diseases have come to light and the development of gene therapy methods has been accelerated to repair these damaged DNA sequences.

Commemorating the 200th publication anniversary of Mary Shelley's classic novel, Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus, we recognize the enduring power of the ancient Promethean myth for prompting visceral fears of scientific monsters today. Today's Frankenfear arises from worry that laboratory scientists will trespass against the sacredness of nature, and that nature will retaliate with fiendish violence. Apprehension that scientists might be playing god surfaces with public fear over environmental degradation, climate change, genetic engineering, cloning, and global nuclear war. Is such Frankenfear realistic? Or, is it paranoia? Theologically, there is no ground for fearing that scientists are playing god. Instead of stopping research based on paranoia, courageous future-oriented scientists should proceed with caution.

CRISPR bakterilerin viral enfeksiyonlar ile nasıl savaştığının araştırılmasıyla ortaya çıkmış olup, CRISPR/Cas9 teknolojisi hücrelerdeki DNA yapısını değiştirerek genetik hastalıkları tedavi etme imkânı sunacak şekilde tasarlanmıştır. Cas9 proteinin aktivitesi üzerine  çalışmalar  proteinin işlevlerini, genetik mühendisliği teknolojisine ve bilim adamlarına geçmişte mümkün olmayan fırsatları veren, spesifik DNA parçalarının oldukça hassas bir şekilde hücre içinden çıkartılması ya da eklenmesini sağlayan bir yol olarak kullanılabilirliğini ortaya çıkarmıştır.

CRISPR alanında çalışmalarımız ve popüler bilim yazılarımız arttıkça, sık sık bilim insanlarından Türkçe kaynak sıkıntısı çektiklerine dair mailler almaya başladım. Bu sebeple, biliminsanlarımıza hem bilimsel bir temel kazandırmak; hem de CRISPR tekniğini gerçekleştirmek üzere gerekli araçlara (plazmid DNA vs.) kolayca ulaşabilmelerini sağlamak için, Uluslararası Plazmid Sağlayacısı Addgene’nin misafir yazarlarla derlemiş olduğu CRISPR 101 kitabının tercüme edilmesine karar verdim. Bu noktada ülkemizdeki yirmiye yakın farklı üniversiteden bilime aç ve aşık öğrenci arkadaşlarımın büyük özveri ve çalışmasıyla, 3 aylık kısa bir vakitte, tercüme kitabımızı tamamlamayı başardık.

Η εντυπωσιακή πρόοδος της γενετικής τα τελευταία έτη και ειδικότερα η ανακάλυψη της μεθόδου crispr/cas9, με την οποία επιτυγχάνεται σχετικά γρήγορα και εύκολα η επεξεργασία του γονιδιώματος προκαλεί αισιοδοξία για βελτίωση της ζωής, ανησυχία για τυχόν απρόβλεπτους κινδύνους και προβληματισμό για τον τρόπο που η κοινωνία θα διαχειριστεί τις νέες δυνατότητες και εφαρμογές. Φαίνεται ο άνθρωπος να αποκτά τη δυνατότητα να σχεδιάζει εν μέρει την υπό δημιουργία ζωή και να προδιαγράφει σε κάποιο βαθμό το μέλλον της, καθώς παρεμβαίνει στη γενετική ιδιοσυστασία του απογόνου. Το γεγονός αυτό είναι εξόχως σημαντικό που ευλόγως τίθεται το ερώτημα, αν ο άνθρωπος υπερβαίνει τα όριά του και υπεισέρχεται σε αρμοδιότητες του Θεού (playing God). Κατά την ορθόδοξη διδασκαλία ο άνθρωπος δημιουργείται κατ’ εικόνα Θεού με την προοπτική να ομοιάσει σε Αυτόν και να θεωθεί. Η επιθυμία του ανθρώπου να γίνει θεός είναι επομένως φυσική και θεάρεστη, αλλά μπορεί να γίνει παρά φύσιν και αυτοκαταστροφική, αναλόγως με τον τρόπο, με τον οποίον ο άνθρωπος επιδιώκει την πραγματοποίησή της. Αυτός μπορεί να είναι η υπακοή και η μίμηση του Θεού, μπορεί όμως να είναι η ανυπακοή, η έπαρση και η αλαζονεία.

Ποια από τις δύο αυτές επιλογές εκφράζεται με τη επιθυμία επεξερ- γασίας του γονιδιώματος; Επιχειρώντας να δώσουμε μια απάντηση αναφερόμαστε σε τρία γνωρίσματα του ανθρώπου, τα οποία συνδέονται στην ορθόδοξη παράδοση με το κατ’ εικόνα, δηλ. τη δημιουργική ικανότητα, την κυριότητα επί της κτίσης και την ελευθερία, τα οποία συσχετίζουμε αντιστοίχως με την ηθικό προβληματισμό για την ασφάλεια της γενετικής παρέμβασης, με τη διαχείρισή της για θεραπευτικούς ή άλλους σκοπούς και με την αυτονομία του απογόνου. Για την ασφάλεια επισημαίνεται ότι σήμερα δεν υφίστανται ακόμα επαρκείς γνώσεις, ώστε οι μέθοδοι μετατροπής του γενετικού υλικού να είναι ασφαλείς. Η εφαρμογή των νέων μεθόδων για θεραπευτικούς σκοπούς κρίνεται αποδεκτή και επαινετή, εφόσον καταστεί ασφαλής. Όταν όμως επιδιώκεται η βελτίωση των ανθρωπίνων χαρακτηριστικών, η ηθική αξιολόγηση είναι σαφώς διαφορετική, αφού οδηγούμαστε αναπόφευκτα σε μια μορφή θετικής ευγονικής, σε διαχωρισμό των ανθρώπων σε γενετικά βελτιωμένους και μη, και σε διεύρυνση του χάσματος ανάμεσα στους πλουσίους, που θα έχουν πρόσβαση στη γενετική βελτίωση (enhancement), και στους φτωχούς, που θα τη στερούνται. Τέλος, η επιθυμία ετεροπροσδιορισμού του απογόνου μέσω του γενετικού σχεδιασμού αποτελεί προσβολή της αξιοπρέπειάς του, καθώς φαίνεται ότι δεν γίνεται αποδεκτός αυτός καθ’ εαυτός, αλλά ως μέσο για την επίτευξη κάποιου σκοπού.

Κατά την άποψη μας η πραγματική βελτίωση του ανθρώπου δεν εξαρτάται τόσο από την ενίσχυση των διαφόρων βιολογικών του χαρακτηριστικών όσο από την καρποφορία της πνευματικής ζωής, η οποία αντανακλάται στην προσωπική του σχέση με το Θεό, τον συνάνθρωπο και ευρύτερα με την κτίση.

This paper analyzes recent advances in the fields of microbiology, genetics, and computer engineering that may enable the development of genetically targeted bioweapons. The analysis is conducted by first examining the evolution of ethical and feasibility concerns in regards to genetic weapons development wherein there is a gradual acceptance of the viability of a genetic weapon among bioethicists and other genetic specialists. The paper then seeks to determine whether it is possible to construct a viable genetic weapon by evaluating three requirements delineated by the British Medical Association. The three requirements are that there would have to exist genetically distinct populations, genome disruption mechanisms, and effective vectors. Recent studies show that human populations may be genetically diverse enough to enable exploitation via genetic targeting systems and the discovery of the CRISPR-Cas genome editing system may fulfill the second and third requirements.
    The final segment of the paper delves into how genetic weapons may revolutionize warfare and impact the current nation-state system. To achieve this analysis, the works of international relations theorists such as Alexander Wendt, Robert Jervis, Robert Gilpin, and John Mearsheimer are examined in the context of genetic weapons. The paper also examines how biological weapons were used in the past to determine how they are likely to be used in the future, with particular consideration to possible use for assassinations and in ethnic conflict. Concluding, the paper looks at statements made by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin concerning the field of genetics and the future of weapons development.

Academy of Sciences took place on December 1-3, 2015 in Washington to discuss the scientific, ethical, legal and regulatory issues associated with "Gene Editing" human DNA for both research, clinical and personal "enhancement" applications. A summary of the Summit is available at the following link. Following the Summit, the Organizing Committee Members issued the following Summit Statement on Gene Editing human DNA for research and its potential applications.

While CRISPR-Cas genome editing technology has been heralded as a great ad- vancement for science, human health, bioengineering and medicine, there is a potential dark side of CRISPR genome editing that may be a greater danger to humanity than nuclear weapons. We present some of the more obvious poten- tial military and bioterrorism applications of CRISPR and related genome editing technology. CRISPR weapons have significant advantages over conventional nu- clear weapons. The balance of power based on mutual assured destruction cannot be maintained once CRISPR weapons enter the international arena. Disturbingly, because of the easy entrance to the technology, it opens the door for small organi- zations and countries to enter the international arms arena. The simplicity and ease of development of such weapons makes it essential that CRISPR genome editing technology be carefully applied and regulated.

(MIBIO 2022) will provide Biological Sciences Research remains the ubiquitous realm in better human health and well being. Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary Bioscience Research has been stressed for explicit scientific advancements. Impact publications for a wider outreach are ascertained. MIBIO 2022 represents the launch-pad forum for researchers, biologists, students, Scientists and Physicians in peer-reviewed podium encompassing Biological Sciences. The conference takes pleasure in inviting your peer Research for a fantabulous realm of rapport in the arena of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary Life sciences. The area offers discussions with biomedical and environment impact assessors. This allows you to enlighten, enrich and rejuvenate the multitude of oneness in biological sciences The wide realms of research addressing any of the significant developments in the abovementioned broad areas are welcome. The conference invites researchers to submit in the pivotal areas of publication interests.

İnsanın dünyayı anlama ve etrafını keşfetme uğraşı yüzyıllardır devam etmektedir. Bu uğraş insan bedeninin keşfi ile öze yönelirken en büyük yardımcısı da gelişen teknoloji olmaktadır. Bilişim ve teknolojinin hâkim olduğu dünyamızda insanların kendi yarattığı biyoteknolojik sorunlarla başa çıkmaya çalıştığı görülmektedir. Gelişen teknolojinin insan hayatlarından ziyade artık insan bedenine daha fazla etki etmesi ve bu durumun yeterince tartışılmaması söz konusudur. Çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden literatür taraması kullanılmıştır. Bu makalede insanın teknolojiyi nasıl şekillendirdiğinden çok, teknolojinin insana nasıl şekil vermeye başladığı gözler önüne serilmeye çalışılmıştır. Geçmişteki devrimlerden çok daha hızlı içine sürüklendiğimiz bu biyoteknoloji devriminin olası sonuçlarının, sadece yaşayan kuşağı etkilemekle kalmayıp sonraki tüm nesillerin tamamını da etkileyeceği öngörülmektedir. Araştırmada CRISPR teknolojisi ile insana müdahalenin getireceği genetik ayrımcılık, insan çeşitliliğinin kaybolması, insan haklarının dönüşümü gibi belli etik sorunlar; birey, aile ve toplum açısından ele alınmıştır.

This introductory paper aims to provide a brief background for CRISPR-Cas9 before delving into the legal frameworks in the International Institutions, United States, the United Kingdom, People’s Republic of China and Turkey with respect to new developments whilst examining the new calls for moratorium on human germline engineering.

Many trends in agricultural biotechnology have extended fluidly from the first era of genetic modification using recombinant DNA techniques to the era of gene editing. But the high-profile, explicit, and assertive discourse of democratization with gene editing — especially CRISPR-Cas9 — is something new. In this paper, I draw on semi-structured interviews with gene editors, policy analysts, and communications experts as well as with critical academic and civil society experts. I use Science and Technology Studies and political ecology lenses to unpack democratization in three main parts. First is democratizing discourses: On what grounds is CRISPR said to be democratic? Who is saying so? How do dissident communities respond to these narratives? Second is agricultural applications, with a focus on the Innovative Genomics Institute’s work in developing gene-edited food crops, including a case of saveable clonal hybrid rice. Third is governance, where I contrast US Department of Agriculture regulations and the CRISPRcon conference as “closed” and “invited” spaces, respectively, for democratic participation. Next, I argue that “created spaces,” in which power is held by typically delegitimized actors and ideas, offer an opening for working out democracy on the terrain of biotechnology. I conclude with a set of principles and practices for CRISPR governance based on the idea that democratization of biotechnology requires epistemic justice. By gathering multiple, partial knowledges together, we move beyond narrow risk-benefit framings to better evaluate not just what CRISPR is and does, but what democracy means and whom it serves.

2012 yılı itibariyle geliştirilmeye başlanan CRISPR-Cas gen düzenleme sisteminin, geçen yedi yılda birçok yeni nesil versiyonları üretildi. Ancak şimdiye kadar bu sistemin hiçbir versiyonu, "Prime Editing" (PM) adı verilen yeni gen düzenleme teknolojisi kadar heyecan vermedi.

Resumen: La pandemia de covid-19 originada en China coincide con el inicio y desarrollo de una serie de transformaciones sociales llamada Cuarta Revolución Industrial. Esta etapa debería estar caracterizada por la aparición y mayor uso de nanotecnologías, biotecnologías, tecnologías de la información y de las ciencias cognitivas, así como de sus múltiples convergencias y combinaciones. En el siguiente artículo se presenta una revisión del rol desempeñado por la nanotecnología, la técnica CRISPR/Cas, el cultivo celular, la robótica, la inteligencia artificial, las supercomputadoras, la computación cuántica, los drones y la impresión 3D en la creación de estrategias y soluciones para enfrentar la pandemia y la crisis social desatada por ella.

Palabras clave: Pandemia, SARS-CoV-2, Cuarta Revolución Industrial, Industria 4.0, NBIC, coronavirus.

The Clustered Regions of Interspersed Palindromic Repeats-Cas9 (CRISPR/Cas9), a viral defense system found in bacteria and archaea, has emerged as a tour de force genome editing tool. The CRISPR/Cas9 system is much easier to customize and optimize because the site selection for DNA cleavage is guided by a short sequence of RNA rather than an engineered protein as in the systems of zinc finger nucleases (ZFN), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALEN), and meganucleases. Although it still suffers from some off-target effects, the CRISPR/Cas9 system has been broadly and successfully applied for biomedical discoveries in a number of areas. In this review, we present a brief history and development of the CRISPR system and focus on the application of this genome editing technology for biomedical discoveries. We then present concise concluding remarks and future directions for this fast moving field.

Hearing loss is the most common sensory impairment in humans and currently disables 466 million people across the world. Congenital deafness affects at least 1 in 500 newborns, and over 50% are hereditary in nature. To date, existing pharmacologic therapies for genetic and acquired etiologies of deafness are severely limited. With the advent of modern sequencing technologies, there is a vast compendium of growing genetic alterations that underlie human hearing loss, which can be targeted by therapeutics such as gene therapy. Recently, there has been tremendous progress in the development of gene therapy vectors to treat sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in animal models in vivo. Nevertheless, significant hurdles remain before such technologies can be translated toward clinical use. These include addressing the blood-labyrinth barrier, engineering more specific and effective delivery vehicles, improving surgical access, and validating novel targets. In this review, we both highlight recent progress and outline challenges associated with in vivo gene therapy for human SNHL.

Imagine a world where everyone is healthy, intelligent, long living and happy. Intuitively this seems wonderful albeit unrealistic. However, recent scientific breakthroughs in genetic engineering, namely CRISPR/Cas bring the question into public discourse, how the genetic enhancement of humans should be evaluated morally. In 2001, when preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF), enabled parents to select between multiple embryos, Julian Savulescu introduced the principle of procreative beneficence (PPB), stating that parents have the obligations to choose the child that is expected to have the best life. In this paper I argue that accepting the PPB and the consequentialist principle (CP) that two acts with the same consequences are morally on par, commits one to accepting the parental obligation of genetically enhancing one's children.