Revising,Correcting, and Transferring Genes

Abstract

The distinction between germline and somatic gene editing is fundamental to the ethics of human gene editing. Multiple conferences of scientists, ethicists, and policymakers, and multiple professional bodies, have called for moratoria on germline gene editing, and editing of human germline cells is considered to be an ethical “red line” that either never should be crossed, or should only be crossed with great caution and care. However, as research on germline gene editing has progressed, it has become clear that not all germline interventions are alike, and that these differences make a significant moral difference, when it comes to ethical questions about research, regulation, clinical application, and medical justification. In this paper, I argue that, rather than lumping all germline interventions together, we should distinguish between revising, correcting, and transferring genes, and I assess the consequences of this move for the ethics of gene editing.     

Black Women and the Future

Black women's influence upon and reaction to social and economic change in the dawn of the twenty-first century are examined. Selected trends in labor force participation and family organization are discussed in relation to possible consequences for black women's role in the family and the socialization of black females. The importance of religion in black women's future is discussed, and it is suggested that they will have an increasing role as religious leaders and concomitant opportunities for organizing around women's issues. Finally, black women's renewed interest in Africa is discussed and implications for personal and community enhancement are examined.     

Combat Exposure and Risk for Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors Among Military Personnel and Veterans: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Due to seemingly mixed empirical results, questions persist about the possible role of deployments and combat exposure. We conducted a narrative review and meta‐analysis of 22 published studies to integrate findings regarding the relationship of deployment‐related predictors (i.e., deployment, deployment to a combat zone, combat experience, and exposure to specific combat events) with suicide‐related outcomes (i.e., suicide ideation, attempt, and death). Across all predictors and outcomes, the combined effect was small and positive, r = .08 [0.04, 0.13], and marked by significant heterogeneity, I² = 99.9%, Q(21)=4880.16, p < .0001, corresponding to a 25% increased risk for suicide‐related outcomes among those who have deployed. Studies examining the relationship between exposure to killing and atrocities (k = 5) showed the largest combined effect, r = .12 [0.08, 0.17], and less heterogeneity, I² = 84.4%, Q(4)=34.96, p < .0001, corresponding to a 43% increased risk for suicide‐related outcomes among those exposed to killing or atrocity. Implications for theory, research, and clinical practice are discussed.