HGP与药物研究

198 6年 ,美国科学家Dulbecco在Science杂志上发表文章 ,率先提出人类基因组计划 (HumanGenomeProject,HGP)。HGP研究的成果为药物设计、开发、生产及应用带来了美好的发展前景 ,同时也使我们面临着新的困惑和挑战。1　人类基因组研究为药物的开发开辟了更广阔的天地[1]1 .1　开发了一批性能优良的蛋白质工程制剂和药物例如 ,1 991年英国研究人员在绵羊乳腺中表达人抗胰蛋白酶基因 ,乳汁中抗胰蛋白酶的含量达每升 3 5克。GenzymeTransgenics公司培育出基因工程羊 ,一群羊生产的抗凝血酶Ⅲ相当于一座投资1 .1 5亿美元工厂的产量。一般…     

抗体工程研究中几点思维启示和策略

本文以近几年非常活跃的抗体基因工程研究的几个方面为素材,回顾性地阐述了人们在对深邃的自然界认识过程中认识的逐步深化以及科学的创造性思维对研究工作的设计和结局的重大影响,并地未来抗体工程研究方面几个战略性问题提出了商榷性看法和建议。     

理性思考转基因植物生产药物

转基因植物生产药物是植物栽培、基因工程与分子医学三者相结合而发展起来的.目前还没有足够科学证据表明转基因植物具有长远的安全性.利用转基因植物生产药物技术是"双刃剑",应辩证分析安全性,要全面了解其试验和应用范围的可控性、安全评价方法的科学性、应急处理措施的可操作性、安全管理的严格性.     

生殖细胞系基因工程的人文主义分析

生殖细胞系基因工程的人文主义分析ＦｅｉｔｈＬａｇａｙ对支持与反对生殖细胞系基因工程（ｇｅｒｍ－ｌｉｎｅｇｅｎｅｔｉｃｅｎｇｉｎｅｅｒｉｎｇ,ＧＬＧＥ）的争论进行分析是我国目前的研究工作。我想从传统人文主义的角度研究这些争论所涉及的价值观、情感问题、人...     

恪守生命伦理的圭臬--读库尔特·拜尔茨《基因伦理学》有感

<基因伦理学>是德国哲学家库尔特·拜尔茨发表于1993年的专著,这本书的副标题为"人的繁殖技术化带来的问题".基因工程伦理学是当代生命伦理学的重大课题.有关基因工程伦理问题的研究早已超出了这一学科的狭窄范围,成为广大哲学家、特别是伦理学家共同的探讨、争论对象,因而也就成为当代伦理学最主要的前沿性课题之一.     

药物流产的是与非

药物流产的是与非空军医学高等专科学校（１３２０１１）孙晓兰,南景一西安医科大学杜稚一、药物流产——生育控制的新领域近年研制的流产药物中以米非司酮（Ｍｉｆｅｐｒｉｘｔｏｎｅ或简称ＲＵ４８６）最具代表性,该药是由法国Ｒｏｕｓｓｅｌ－Ｕｃｌａｆ公司１９８２...     

人类基因工程和对未来时代的责任（上）

本文首先对用权利来解决未来世代问题的观点提出了挑战：诉诸权利不能完全解决未来世代问题，而且还遇到许多其他困难，有必要来个范式转换，或建立新的概念框架来解决未来世代问题，西方权利观点所立足的个体论是不适宜的。在新的框架中自我应该由关系中的自我或关系自我来代替。不伤害未来世代，将设法有利于未来世代，是我们世代的责任，即使要影响一些幸福或利益。在基因工程中治疗与增强之间存在着道德的界限。不要去扮演上帝的角色和从事积极优生学。将基因工程用于增强目的的基础是错误的生物学决定论或遗传学决定论以及将社会问题医学化。它也是将现在世代的价值观加于未来世代身上。它给未来世代造成不可预测的危害之大将超出我们的预料。     

从端粒,端粒酶到端粒酶抑制剂的系列研究及其启示

端粒,端粒酶及其与肿瘤的关系是当今分子生物学研究的热点之一,端粒酶抑制被认为是一类潜在的高选择性,有关端粒酶抑制的开发研究为肿瘤药物开辟了一个新方向。从端粒,端粒酶到端粒酶抑制剂的系列研究是循环渐进,紧密相连的逻辑推理过程,集中体现了科学研究的逻辑性和系统性 。     

迎接生物学世纪的曙光

现代生物工程技术是以基因工程、细胞工程、发酵工程酶工程为主体的高新技术。生产工程产业主要包括生物工程药业和生物工程农业两个重要部分。生物工程产业化都需要经过研究、开发、产业化和商业化四个步骤。生物工程产业发展经过了生物工程技术的突破阶段、完善和产业化的开始阶段、大规模产业化的开始阶段、大规模产业化的成熟阶段。其中第三阶段对我国的生物工程产业来说是为关键的。知识产权机会、商业机会为这个阶段我国生物工     

The principle of procreative beneficence and its implications for genetic engineering

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics - Molecular genetic engineering technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9 have made the accurate and safe genetic engineering of human embryos possible. Further advances...     

Can We Genetically Engineer Virtue and Deification?

In this article we ask: could we speed up the attainment of religious goals such as virtuous living or even deification through genetic engineering? After reviewing current scientific knowledge gained from genetic engineering, it is difficult to answer affirmatively. Because virtuous living is complex and difficult to define, it makes searching for relevant genes difficult. To date, such genes do not appear in the geneticist’s inventory. An additional unknown is the role of free will. Even more important, theologically, is the role of God in leading to our sanctification. This present negative conclusion, however, does not preclude possible future advances in the science of virtue.     

Enhancements and justice: problems in determining the requirements of justice in a genetically transformed society

There is a concern that genetic engineering will exacerbate existing social divisions and inequalities, especially if only the wealthy can afford genetic enhancements. Accordingly, many argue that justice requires the imposition of constraints on genetic engineering. However, it would be unwise to decide at this time what limits should be imposed in the future. Decision makers currently lack both the theoretical tools and the factual foundation for making sound judgments about the requirements of justice in a genetically transformed society. Moreover, focusing on the uncertain inequities of the future may result in failure to give priority to more pressing inequities of the present. Especially in a country that recently has enacted tax legislation that will widen existing wealth disparities, concern about the distant threat of a genetic aristocracy appears misplaced.     

The ethics of genetic engineering

ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to determine whether genetic engineering is ever acceptable. The prominent arguments which have been put forward by the opponents of genetic engineering are examined and evaluated. The arguments 'we should not interfere with nature', 'we should not alter the genetic constitution of organisms', and 'we should not alter the genetic constitution of organisms to this extent'are found to be inadequate as valid arguments against all genetic engineering. However, it remains a possibility that there is nothing intrinsically unethical about genetic engineering, but that the risks of misuse render the techniques ethically unacceptable. Since universal legislation is not possible, and the risks of genetic engineering are so real, this alone may be sufficient to dismiss all genetic engineering as wrong.     

Human genetic enhancement: is it really a matter of perfection? A dialog with Hanson, Keenan, and Shuman.

The author reviews the arguments made by Mark Hanson, James Keenan, S.J., and Joel Shuman in this issue. In the first section, she argues that they offer a significant contribution toward an understanding of the inner logic of a new trend in contemporary medicine, genetic engineering. However, she criticizes the authors for relying excessively on procedural guidelines and for failing to bring the practical realities of medicine and technology to bear on theory. She argues that more concrete guidelines, which are ultimately grounded in a Christian conception of the person and on the commandment to love, are necessary. Writing from the Roman Catholic perspective, the author argues that the distinction between genetic enhancement and gene therapy is essential, despite the criticisms which have been offered of this distinction. Understanding this distinction will be critical for identifying as licit only those forms of genetic manipulation which respect the dignity of the human person.     

Verantwortung ohne Verständnis? Wie die Ethikdebatte zur Gentechnik von deren Wissenschaftstheorie abhängt

Responsibility Without Understanding? How the Debate on the Ethics of Genetic Engineering Depends on Its Philosophy of Science. The main thesis in this paper is that bioethics has no own criteria to judge the chances and risks of genetic engineering. But if we distinguish (1) between different types of genetic, (2) between genetic engineering as a set of methods for experimentation and genetic engineering as an industrial technique and (3) reconstruct the metaphors and the terminology in general, which are used by biologists describing their practice, it is possible to formulate such criteria. As the distinction between nature and culture is the result of human actions (not drawn by nature) and the communication about these actions and distinctions in a given cultural context, the criteria are the result of a discourse, in which not only biologists, but all members of a society argue about the reproduction and structuration of their society.     

Defending Cognitive Liberty in an Age of Moral Engineering

In 2009, Mark Walker first proposed the Genetic Virtue Project, advancing that science should explore using genetic engineering to eliminate moral evils just as it attempts to eliminate natural ones like disease. This seemed like an issue for the far future given the unique challenges. Walker focused on the wrong aspect of personhood, however, as moral engineering of the brain appears to be a more likely possibility. As early aspects of moral engineering the brain are in development, especially through the manipulation of the neural correlates of religious and political beliefs, emotions, and behaviors, I consider several issues surrounding this project so as to protect individual rights and prevent future harms. I advance an internal criterion for the field called Acceptability Across Ideologies to serve as a guide to protect against coercive and harmful technologies and analyze how current laws protecting cognitive liberty are lacking and in need of revision.     

Hidden in Plain View: Feminists Doing Engineering Ethics, Engineers Doing Feminist Ethics

How has engineering ethics addressed gender concerns to date? How have the ideas of feminist philosophers and feminist ethicists made their way into engineering ethics? What might an explicitly feminist engineering ethics look like? This paper reviews some major themes in feminist ethics and then considers three areas in which these themes have been taken up in engineering ethics to date. First, Caroline Whitbeck’s work in engineering ethics integrates considerations from her own earlier writings and those of other feminist philosophers, but does not use the feminist label. Second, efforts to incorporate the Ethic of Care and principles of Social Justice into engineering have drawn on feminist scholarship and principles, but these commitments can be lost in translation to the broader engineering community. Third, the film Henry’s Daughters brings gender considerations into the mainstream of engineering ethics, but does not draw on feminist ethics per se; despite the best intentions in broaching a difficult subject, the film unfortunately does more harm than good when it comes to sexual harassment education. I seek not only to make the case that engineers should pay attention to feminist ethics and engineering ethicists make more use of feminist ethics traditions in the field, but also to provide some avenues for how to approach integrating feminist ethics in engineering. The literature review and analysis of the three examples point to future work for further developing what might be called feminist engineering ethics.