Gene Concepts and Genethics: Beyond Exceptionalism

The discursive explosion that was provoked by the new genetics could support the impression that the ethical and social problems posed by the new genetics are somehow exceptional in their very nature. According to this view we are faced with special ethical and social problems that create a challenge so fundamental that the special label of genethics is needless to justify. The historical account regarding the evolution of the gene concepts could serve us to highlight the limits of what we know about genes and what we can do with genes. The widespread notion about the exceptionality of genetic knowledge and its applicative possibilities is hardly justifiable and leads to misunderstandings regarding the conceptualization of the ethical and social problems we might face. Following a more realistic interpretation of the role of genes in human life we might avoid a whole set of fictive dilemmas and counterproductive regulatory efforts in bioethics. Bioethical discourse should move from the gene-centered scientific discourse toward the more sophisticated and complex discourses where human development represented as a matter of complex interactions between genomes and environments, between genes, educational factors, nutritional regimes, and other different developmental resources. If a gene is seen as one among the different developmental resources that are shaping a given human trait then both genethics and genetic exceptionalism could hardly be represented as a justified approach in discussing the ethical and social problems of genetics.     

“集体主义—个体主义”的差异:来自基因、大脑的证据

文章以"集体主义—个体主义"这一基本文化差异维度为基础,围绕文化、基因和大脑之间的关系,介绍了国内外最新研究进展。研究显示当人类执行各种文化任务时,那些为人类生存提供有力帮助的基因会被选择和保留下来;在自我表征,注意和知觉,决策、情绪和意向推断等心理状态或过程上的"集体主义—个体主义"文化差异都可追溯到脑功能的差异。研究者先后提出社会脑假设、文化—基因协同进化论、神经—文化交互作用模型等理论来解释基因、文化与大脑交互作用的现象。文章分析了当前研究中存在的问题,并对未来的研究进行了展望。     

论保护基因隐私需要引入权利形式

基因技术的发展将基因隐私保护问题摆在人类面前,“采用怎样的方式才能有效保护基因隐私”是一个亟待解决的疑问。从分析侵犯基因隐私所带来的社会危害出发,对“权利形式是否适用于保护基因隐私”这一问题进行分析,并得出肯定性结论。     

The Theory Of Social–Cultural Genetic Gene (S- c Dna)

It took a long time for humanity to know about biogenetics. And yet its role as a determinant in the living system was not proven until the twentieth century when DNA was discovered. Similarly, it took a long time for humanity to know about culture and civilization. And yet until now there is neither definite standards for differentiating them nor a definition that is commonly acceptable. By taking an evolutionary pluralism as ontology framework and the transdisciplinary research method of the systems science, we have in the new social system model discovered the central rules that govern the social–cultural heredity: Culture–Production–Civilization. The relationship between culture and civilization is exactly that of genotype and phenotype. Culture is the S-cDNA within the social system while civilization is the social phenotype. Culture is a determinant that ultimately determines the existence, stagnation, change, and evolution of the social system.     

Raising the Virtuous Bar: The Underlying Issues of Genetic Moral Enhancement

From the perspective of virtue ethics, is it possible and permissible to enhance moral behavior through gene modification? In preparation to answer this question, we must ask five questions: (1) What may we assume regarding genetic inheritance and human nature? (2) Can specific genes predispose behavior related to the moral virtues? (3) What kind of genetic enhancement would be useful for moral enhancement? (4) Should there be a distinction between somatic and germline gene modification? (5) Is genetic modification best approach to moral enhancement? This article concedes that genetic engineering has the capacity to enhance the human disposition to moral behavior, but gene editing cannot create virtue because virtues are stable, habituated dispositions, acquired over time. That being said, gene editing for purposes of enhancing moral behavior is permissible.     

Flashing the Yellow Traffic Light: Choices Forced Upon Us by Gene Editing Technologies

The 2018 birth of two designer babies in China has sparked an immediate global controversy over the ethics of gene editing. For the longer range future, however, we must assess how CRISPR/Cas9, like so many other new bio-technologies, is forcing choice—moral choice—on a large scale. Gene editing for purposes of medical therapy, human enhancement, engineering of future children, and even creating a posthuman species, confront our society with the inescapable necessity of making moral choices. The task for churches in partnership with universities is not to decide in advance what is right or wrong. Rather, it is to prepare our people to make responsible choices.     

心脏生物起搏器的研究现状及展望

心脏生物起搏器是近年来心脏起搏的研究热点,目前主要集中在三种基因治疗策略:(1)使心肌细胞的β2受体表达上调增加心率;(2)转染起搏电流基因使心室肌细胞产生自主起搏功能;(3)改变心室肌细胞钾电流的平衡,使心室肌细胞产生自律性.心脏生物起搏器应用于临床仍面临许多问题,但是随着分子生物学和基因工程技术的发展,心脏生物起搏器必将造福于人类.     

生殖细胞基因增强技术的伦理争议与对策

分析生殖细胞基因增强的概念,论述支持和反对生殖细胞基因增强的理由,初步探讨伦理学对策.在人类理性的指引下,生殖细胞基因增强能够成为造福人类的有力武器.     

脂联素基因多态性与原发性高血压研究进展

脂联素是脂肪细胞特异性细胞因子,与糖、脂代谢、胰岛素抵抗密切相关,具有抗炎、抗动脉粥样硬化特性。脂联素基因序列中存在相当数量的等位基因单核苷酸多态性（SNPs）,＋45T／G、＋164I／T和＋276G／TSNPs发生频率在原发性高血压（EH）中增高,直接影响脂联素血浆浓度。脂联素基因SNPs是EH的一个新易感因素。     

精神分裂症遗传学研究的理性思辨

精神分裂症是一种常见的重性精神障碍,属于复杂的多基因遗传性疾病。随着分子生物学技术和遗传学数据分析方法的进步,精神分裂症易感基因方面的研究取得了一定的进展,但是至今还没有一个精神分裂症的易感基因得到准确定位。系统生物学是采用系统科学的方法研究一个生物系统的一种大科学,为寻找精神分裂症等复杂疾病的易感基因提供一种新的思路。