Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 17 2018, @05:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-look-now dept.

After intense discussions regarding the ethical, legal, and social implications of this technology, conversations were initiated at the NIH that led to the establishment of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) in 1974. The RAC's mission was to advise the NIH director on research that used emerging technologies involving manipulation of nucleic acids — a mission that was eventually expanded to encompass the review and discussion of protocols for gene therapy in humans. In 1990, the FDA oversaw the first U.S. human gene-therapy trial, which involved pediatric patients with adenosine deaminase deficiency and was conducted at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

Although no major safety concerns were initially reported, over the course of the 1990s it became evident that many questions regarding the safety and efficacy of gene therapy remained unanswered. These unknowns were brought into sharp focus in 1999 when Jesse Gelsinger died of a massive immune response during a safety trial of gene therapy for ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency.1 This tragic death led to closer scrutiny of the field, including a greater focus on open dialogue and increased regulatory oversight.

[...] In changes proposed on August 17, 2018, in the Federal Register, the NIH and the FDA seek to reduce the duplicative oversight burden by further limiting the role of the NIH and RAC in assessing gene-therapy protocols and reviewing their safety information. Specifically, these proposals will eliminate RAC review and reporting requirements to the NIH for human gene-therapy protocols. They will also revise the responsibilities of institutional Biosafety Committees, which have local oversight for this research, making their review of human gene-therapy protocols consistent with review of other research subject to the NIH Guidelines. Such streamlining will also appropriately place the focus of the NIH Guidelines squarely back on laboratory biosafety.

Source: New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1810628


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @08:16AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @08:16AM (#722720)

    Or, well, just fuck it all. Where are the aristarchus submissions? At least they had something to say, unlike all these sterile medical submissions from the sickest of the Soylentils. #Freearistarchus!!!!

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by realDonaldTrump on Friday August 17 2018, @02:14PM

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday August 17 2018, @02:14PM (#722800) Homepage Journal

    I think @aristarchus stopped writing Subs. And if you look at his journal -- about "Breaking FrontPage" and many more topics -- you can guess why. Very easy to guess why. The Editors & Administrators got tired of his Subs. Because he quoted the Failing Fake News @nytimes [twitter.com]. Saying our alt-right and our Nazis -- fine people -- are the same. Very dumb thing to say. And they don't want to put that "crap" on their website. Nobody wants to see that bullshit. They do many dumb things. But I can't blame them for that.

    And probably he doesn't see your tweets. You can reply to a tweet of his. Or tweet in his journal. And see if he answers. Much better chance that he'll see it. But I doubt that he'll make Subs just for you, his one fan. And I'm very very sure the Editors won't run them just for you. They say, go to another website. I hear that Gab is terrific. And so is Voat.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @02:29PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @02:29PM (#722807)

    these sterile medical submissions

    "Sterile" meaning it doesn't trigger your rabid anti-trump sentiment?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @06:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @06:54PM (#722896)

      Well Trump himself is a rabid sociopath so being anti-Trump kinda makes it rabid by default.