Monthly Archives: January 2020

Immunology

University of Iowa professor has studied coronavirus – KCRG

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP/ABC News) - There's now a second-confirmed case of coronavirus in the U.S.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the patient is in isolation at a Chicago hospital. They've only identified her as a woman in her sixties who flew from Wuhan to Chicago on Jan. 13.

The woman was not ill while traveling and health authorities don't think she spread the virus during that time. They say she's had limited contact with others since returning to Chicago.

So far, health officials say sixty-three people from 22 states are under investigation for the virus.

A man in his 30s in the Seattle area was confirmed to have coronavirus earlier in the week.

"It's certainly a confirmation of something we worried about," Dr. Stanley Perlman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Iowa who has done research on SARS and MERS, told ABC News of the human-to-human transmission cases.

Perlman told ABC News while it made sense that the outbreak started in a Chinese fish market, if there was no person-to-person transmission, it should have ended quickly, once the market was closed and fumigated.

Perlman cautioned that experts don't yet have a good read on how severe the virus is.

"It's a concerning development, but we don't know the level of contagiousness or the number of cases," he said to ABC News.

Read the original here:
University of Iowa professor has studied coronavirus - KCRG

Genetics

23andMe just laid off 100 employees as the DNA-testing ‘fad’ ends – Business Insider – Business Insider

DNA-testing giant 23andMe is laying off about 14% of its staff, the latest sign of a slump in the business.

About 100 employees have been let go in departments across the organization in an effort to scale back on work that isn't core to the consumer testing and therapeutics businesses that 23andMe operates, a spokesman told Business Insider. The therapeutics team was not impacted by the layoffs, he said.

CNBC's Christina Farr reported on the layoffs earlier on Thursday.

23andMe will also be scaling back on its work recruiting for clinical trials, the spokesman said.

Over the past few years, genetic tests have grown in popularity. That's helped consumer genetics companies like 23andMe grow to 10 million users who've shipped off their spit with the hopes of learning more about their family trees, genetic traits, or even some health information.

Along the way, there have been beenflags raised about ethics and privacy, along with a slew of tough questions about identity and family.

Still, for years, it seemed like interest in genetic testing was only increasing. But in 2019, the companies started to run into a slowdown.

Read more: The DNA-testing 'fad' is over, and one company just halted operations. The CEOs of Ancestry and 23andMe reveal how they're fighting back.

The first warning was raised by Illumina, the company that makes all the tech that's used to read info about your genes. On an earnings call in July, the company noted "softness" in the market.

And in December, Veritas Genetics, a company that provides whole-genome sequencing for $600, said it had suspended its US operations, citing issues raising additional funding.

"It's a new technology, and I think it's hit a lull," 23andMe CEO Anne Wojcicki told Business Insider in an October interview on the sidelines of a conference.

She attributed that in large part to privacy concerns coming in from the tech industry, or what she calls the "Facebook Effect."

Originally posted here:
23andMe just laid off 100 employees as the DNA-testing 'fad' ends - Business Insider - Business Insider

Genetics

Genetics and lifestyle can be obesity risks – Coshocton Tribune

Emily Marrison, Columnist Published 11:00 a.m. ET Jan. 25, 2020

For better and for worse, we all inherit particular characteristics from our parents.

Maybe its our mothers eyesor maybe our fathers temper. Some of that is directly the result of the DNA weve receivedand some of it comes from the influence they exerted in our environment.

Emily Marrison(Photo: Submitted)

When it comes to our health and wellness, it can be challenging to determine whether nature or nurture has more of an impact. In some cases, it may not really matter. But when it causes you to feel powerless or apathetic about how much you can change your condition, it definitely matters.

Results of a long-term study were recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association of Cardiology. The study tracked data on more than 2,500 Americans who were followed for decades from young adulthood in 1985 to 2010. One of their findings is that body mass index (BMI) in youth appears to be the best predictor of long-term obesity risk.

There have been other studies in recent years that have identified certain genes that are believed to be responsible for a person becoming overweight and obese. There are rare inherited causes of obesity, but this is not the case for the majority of the population. This study suggests that daily lifestyle is the more important factor for determining our weight.

When we look at the BMI of children, this is showing the result of genetics as well as environment. The genes we inherit can certainly make us more susceptible to weight gain, but that doesnt mean it is inevitable. Hopefully, this research can empower people to know that being obese doesnt have to be someones destiny. Their healthy lifestyle choices the foods they eat, their portion sizesand physical activity can result in a better quality of life.

According to the National Heart, Lungand Blood Institute, being overweight or obese increases your risk of developing heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, gallstones, breathing problems and certain cancers. A European study linked obesity to a nearly six-fold increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

If you are looking for ways to learn more about healthy lifestyle choices while managing diabetes, theOSU Extension has some great resources available. I am pleased that we will be partnering with the Coshocton Regional Medical Center this April to offer Dining with Diabetes. This is a cooking school and nutrition education program designed for people with diabetes and their family members or caregivers.

Dining with Diabetes will be held from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Mondays April 6 to 27 at Coshocton Regional Medical Center, 1460 Orange Street, Coshocton. The cost of the program is $20 per person and includes all four classes, educational handoutsand small-sized meals that feature a variety of recipes. You are encouraged to also register a support person to attend with you for an additional $5. You can find more details and registration information at coshocton.osu.edu.

Today, Ill leave you with this quote from Billy Graham, When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost.

Emily Marrison is an OSU Extension Family & Consumer Sciences Educator and may be reached at 740-622-2265.

Read or Share this story: https://www.coshoctontribune.com/story/news/local/2020/01/25/genetics-and-lifestyle-can-obesity-risks/4562639002/

Read this article:
Genetics and lifestyle can be obesity risks - Coshocton Tribune

Genetics

Genetic test developed to predict onset of glaucoma – The Siasat Daily

Washington: A group of researchers from Australia has formulated a genetic test that could detect peoples susceptibility towards developing glaucoma, which is a debilitating ocular disease that can potentially make its sufferers go blind.

The team of scientists suggests that there are 107 genes that are responsible for the onset of this condition.

They are looking forward to 20,000 peoples participation in their Genetics of Glaucoma Study in order to help them find more genes involved in the disease.

Glaucoma is characterised by progressive damage and degeneration of the optic nerve which also causes gradual loss of vision. It is the leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide and is predicted to affect 76 million people by 2020.

There is still no proven cure for the disease, but treatment can reliably slow or halt deterioration in most cases. Up to 50 percent of those affected are not even aware.

Stuart MacGregor, lead researcher and the head of QIMR Berghofers Statistical Genetics Group, Associate Professor, said that identifying new genes allowed them to develop a glaucoma polygenic risk score (PRS) that can predict who is likely to get the eye disease.

Glaucoma is a genetic disease and the best way to prevent the loss of sight from glaucoma is through early detection and treatment, MacGregor defined.

Our study found that by analysing DNA collected from saliva or blood, we could determine how likely a person was to develop the disease and who should be offered early treatment and/or monitoring, he added.

He also feels that unlike existing eye health checks that are based on eye pressure or optic nerve damage, the genetic test can be done before damage begins so that regular screening can be put in place.

Clinical lead researcher and academic head of the Department of Ophthalmology at Flinders University, Professor Jamie Craig, said that the study results gave hope that mass screening for glaucoma could be offered in the future.

There are Australians who, if theyd had appropriate treatment a few years earlier, wouldnt have gone blind, said Professor Craig, who is also a consultant ophthalmologist.

One in 30 Australians has glaucoma, but most people only find out they have it when they go to the optometrist because they are losing vision, or for a general eye check, shares Craig, continuing, Early detection is paramount because existing treatments cant restore vision that has been lost, and late detection of glaucoma is a major risk factor for blindness.

He said that glaucoma can arise at any age but most of those affected are in their 50s or older, so their aim is to offer blood tests to people of that age to find out if they are at risk, and then hopefully act on it.

This test is likely to be helpful in identifying those who would benefit from a more aggressive intervention such as surgery rather than simple eyedrops.

The researchers are hoping to get in touch with people with a family history of the disease. We want to know who will get glaucoma, and for those who are susceptible, we want to be able to pinpoint at what age theyre going to get it, said Associate Professor MacGregor.

The researcher concluded, That would allow us to develop a personalised approach for earlier treatment of high-risk individuals, and means people at lower risk could have less intensive monitoring and treatment. This would have benefits for patients, doctors and the health care system with reduced interventions and reduced costs.

See the original post:
Genetic test developed to predict onset of glaucoma - The Siasat Daily

Genetics

GyanSys Selected by AgReliant Genetics as the Primary Partner for Their Implementation of SAP S/4HANA as Part of Their Digital Transformation -…

CARMEL, Ind., Jan. 24, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --AgReliant Genetics, a leader in seed research, production and provider of seed solutions, signed a contract with GyanSys Inc. ("GyanSys"), a leading IT services provider headquartered in Indiana, to implementSAP S/4HANA on HANA Enterprise Cloud (HEC) as part of their digital transformation journey to replace their legacy ERP systems.

Steve Thompson, CIO of AgReliant Genetics "GyanSys led our team to conduct S/4HANA Best Practice workshops, gap analysis, and recommended the right SAP software bill-of-materials. AgReliant is excited to start our digital transformation journey partnering with GyanSys to build a scalable digital core for our Finance, Purchasing, Planning, Sales, Manufacturing, and Warehouse Management systems."

Rajkishore Una, President & CEO of GyanSys "GyanSys is committed to successfully deliver AgReliant Genetics' new SAP environment with our global delivery approach and our best practice-led implementation methodology. We are bringing our expertise in SAP S/4HANA digital core, alongside BPC, EWM, aATP, Manufacturing for Planning & Scheduling, and Analytics Cloud, for AgReliant to derive the most value from this strategic investment."

About AgReliant Genetics:

AgReliant Genetics offers corn, soybean, sorghum, and alfalfa seed solutions to farmers through their product brands. Contact your local AgriGold, LG Seeds, or PRIDE Seeds representative for more information.

Learn more about AgReliant Geneticsat http://www.agreliantgenetics.com.

About GyanSys Inc.:

GyanSys is a mid-tier global systems integrator specializing in SAP, Salesforce, Microsoft, and ServiceNow Platforms to improve the Sales, Finance, Supply Chain, Manufacturing, Operations, and HR business processes to support digital transformation.

Headquartered in Indiana, GyanSys was founded in 2005 and has approximately 1,000+ professionals globally serving 125+ customers across various industries, including the manufacturing, automotive, high-tech, CPG, and life sciences industries.

For more information about GyanSys, visit http://www.gyansys.com.

For press inquiries and more information, contact:Cliff SaitoDigital Marketing ManagerE-mail: cliff.saito@gyansys.com

Related Images

gyansys-logo.png GyanSys Logo

Related Links

AgReliant Genetics Website

GyanSys Website

SOURCE GyanSys

Home

View post:
GyanSys Selected by AgReliant Genetics as the Primary Partner for Their Implementation of SAP S/4HANA as Part of Their Digital Transformation -...

Embryology

STANTON: The Pro-Abortion Democrats And Their Unscientific Roe-volution – The Daily Wire

Roe v. Wade is the essence of science denial, and it has been for nearly 50 years. Yet the 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates share a vision of America that centers around Roe and its long-debunked scientific notions about human biology.

Ever since the first Democratic presidential debates, the candidates have increasingly asserted their ferventbeliefin Roe v. Wade a fallacious decision that is based upon and perpetuates erroneous and obsolete ideas that contradict the fundamental, objective scientific facts of the biological science of human embryology. The most egregious, blatant, and disingenuous of all Roes distortionsisits central tenet that it remains a mystery when human life begins.

More, in order to completely obscure the biological truth and redefine human reproduction to satisfy their political point of view, the politicians have announced numerous policies to augment Roe, including the promise to codify this toxic source of misinformation about human development.

Roe v. Wade declares: We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines ofmedicine, philosophy, and theologyareunable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of mans knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Since when should those in medicine, philosophy, and theology be consulted for such a specificallybiologicalissue when they have no such academic expertise? Most philosophers and theologians have never had a graduate course in biology, much less in human embryology, and most physicians briefly learn about human embryology as part of a broader anatomy course and are not properly considered scientists. Human embryology is the study of development of the new individual from beginning to end and is the only science that specializes in when a human life starts; solely the testimonies of those biologists with doctoral degrees in human embryology should, in theory, be consulted. Yet not one human embryologist was allowed to testify during theRoelitigation.

In addition, to help rationalize the decision to reject the concept of personhood of the human embryo and fetus until viability, cited at the time to be between 24 and 28 weeks, Roe refers to ancient scientific ideas about human reproduction when it claims: There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics.

The Stoics were a group of Greek philosophers, existing around 300 B.C.E. Are the Democratic presidential candidates endorsing the suggestion that human biology has not advanced for more than 2000 years and that it will never do so?

Among the scientific experts, there is and has long been an international consensus regarding the beginning of a human life. When a human being an individual, living member of the human species begins to exist has been known and documented for more than 100 years and was instituted in 1942 in the Carnegie Stages of Human Embryonic Development. The Carnegie Stages continue to be refined and advanced as the global standard of human embryological research, and Carnegie Stage 1 still documents human sexual reproduction.

Carnegie Stage 1 states that all sexually reproduced human beings begin to exist at the start of the process of fertilization (Carnegie Stage 1a). Human embryologists know that fertilization also initiates the continuum of human life in other words, after fertilization, the new human being does not become a different kind of thing. He or she continues to grow and develop as the same human organism throughout the rest of the embryonic period, the fetal period, and then after birth, during the subsequent stages of life.

Thus, the term human embryo or human fetus is simply the scientific name for an already-existing human being during the embryonic or fetal period of human development. Thus, for sexually reproduced human beings, personhood begins at fertilization, not at viability, first breath, or some later point that conveniently fits a popular political, social, or economic narrative.

Under the Supreme Courts current abortion jurisprudence precedent, as established in Roe v. Wade and modified/upheld in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, states are still prohibited from applying the objective scientific facts and banning abortion prior to viability. However, as medical technology has improved, Roes fetal viability threshold has moved back from 28 weeks not forward to 40 weeks as imagined by the Democratic presidential hopefuls. In the U.S., infants born at 22 weeks gestation have a nearly 25% survival rate and in Japan, the survival rate is over 30%. In Sweden, for infants younger than 22 weeks gestation, the survival rate has improved from 3.6% to 20% over the last decade.

Rather than pledging allegiance to, expanding upon, and imposing their misconceptions and Roe v. Wades absurd scientific myths on the American people, the Democratic presidential candidates should acknowledge that the immediate product of human sexual reproduction is both a human being and a human person and renounce public policies and laws that do not reflect this scientific reality.

Brooke Stanton is the CEO of Contend Projects, a registered 501(c)(3) education organization spreading the basic, accurate scientific facts about when a human life starts and the biological science of human embryology.

Follow this link:
STANTON: The Pro-Abortion Democrats And Their Unscientific Roe-volution - The Daily Wire

Embryology

Letters to the Editor – Sherwood Park News

I am a health professional and have chaired medical research and related initiatives. My training included spending hundreds of hours in anatomy, neuroanatomy and embryology labs. Here are some observations and questions.

Science is Important. Activist Greta Thunberg has said; Listen to the scientists. Science in 2020 says the fetus is a human being. When dealing with horses or hummingbirds, biologists accept that the new being begins at fertilization. From that moment on, the organism merely unfolds the capacities that belong intrinsically to the kind of creature that it is. These same scientific facts apply to human babies. Virtually no credible professional scientist denies that life begins at conception. The embryo is biologically human. A human being.

Questions:Why are we not willing to follow the science?Why are we not listening to the science of embryology?

Doesnt Everyone Begin as an Unborn Child?At some point, every human being currently living on the planet was a living unborn child. This should be obvious and self-evident. This is not a feeling and not an opinion. Its another scientific fact.

Questions: If we were afforded to human right to live by our parent(s), why wouldnt we extend the same basic human rights and opportunity to other unborn children?

What makes you or me, or qualifies either of us, or any other person, to be the arbiter of life and death, the yes or no to the existence of another human being?

What If We Dont Like Science?If you or I dont like or care for science and believe that feelings are more important than facts, then at the very least we might consider the voice of Grammy Award-winning black hip-hop artist, Lecrae Moore. Moore publicly admitted the role he played in persuading his girlfriend to abort their child and admitted that he selfishly choose his life over hers. In his song,Good, Bad, Ugly,he says;I was too selfish with my time/Scared my dreams were not gonna survive/So I dropped her off at the clinic/That day, a part of us died.

What Kind of Culture and Community Do You Want? Lecrae is correct. The consequence of an abortion procedure is death. Another scientific fact. That is the cold forceps and needle to the brain and the suction tube reality. That ewww, gross science stuff that arts majors and journalism students studiously seem to avoid. Just like anatomy, biochemistry, physics and embryology labs. To abort the baby is not to save it. It is to kill the tiny person and to perhaps later auction off its vacuumed parts to the highest bidders.

Questions:What kind of culture and community do you want? A life culture? A death culture?What community evil is greater than taking a human life? Losing a job? Dropping out of university? A tight financial budget? Social stigma? Losing a boyfriend?

As you are aware, Canada currently has no federal law governing the abortion procedure. As we are the only civilized country without any legislation, and embryological science has confirmed the humanity of the unborn baby, MP Garnett Genuis is correct in soliciting feedback from his constituents and Canadians. He should be commended and not condemned. And for the sake of the 3.3 per cent late-term abortion figure that you quoted, our community and country desperately needs debate, legislation and regulation.

Listen to Greta. Just follow the science.

Brent Kassian

A big thanks to editor Lindsay Morey for standing up for womens rights in her editorial regarding the recent survey put out by MP Garnett Genuis. This is issue should have been put to bed yearsago and yet a few reps in the House of Commons, Geniusincluded seem hell-bent on making this a talking point. Looking at some recent polls I see that 77 per cent of Canadians support abortion rights. If thats the case then how can this be in Genuis top issues in his survey? Ive used the word survey here in quotes as I find the definition of the term to not be accurate with what came in the mail from our MP. Heavily biased answers and limited choices, along with zero chance for a respondent to add comments is hardly data gathering.

I consider the question on Genuis survey to be an attack on womens rights. The idea of controlling what a woman can do with her body is flat out, just another attempt at rolling back the clock and locking women in the mold that conservative men seem the need to have them in.

Genuis has said that people keep bringing the issue up to him. Really? When Genuis was campaigning this year and his people came to my door I asked what his main goals for his term would be if elected. Jobs. They were adamant that jobs were the number one issue. Nothing else. We spoke for about 15-20 minutes and I listened to the whole spiel. I clearly recall nothing about abortion in the conversation. The fact that Genuis has endeared himself to hardcore pro-life groups is extremely disturbing to me. Antiquated beliefs and archaic viewpoints such as those do not belong in the HoC and I certainly hope they are not what the folks of Sherwood Park believe. Having lived here almost my entire life I can say that while being, for the most part, conservative the people of this hamlet have a fairly solid streak of progressiveness on social issues.

So why does Genuis continue to beat this drum? Look at his past. Genuis was a founder of the Parents for Choice group that sought to move public education dollars to private religious schools. This was also the group that recently campaigned hard against GSAs in schools and pushed for a change of sex-ed curriculum. Put that together with the Coalition for Life group that heartily endorses him and you have a large and influential base. I would be very curious to know just how much influence these groups and their agenda have over our MP. These groups are well known to financially support, sometimes directly and sometimes by way of individual contributions, MPs who fit their ideals.

Plainly, Genuis has trouble with a separation of church and state. His constituents would be far better served if he lead with a real mandate from them in his hand than with a cross.

Joe Belohorec, Sherwood Park resident

(In the column) editor Lindsay Morey argued that Canadians in general, and the people of Sherwood Park in particular, favored legal abortion. Furthermore, she held that the government had no right to criminalize abortion after the R v Mortgentaler Supreme Court decision in 1988. Because of these two factors, she believed that her Member of Parliament, Garnett Genuis, should not be asking his constituents for input on the issue.However, she is factually wrong on both points. The latest polling indicates that Canadians are overwhelmingly uncomfortable on the current state of abortion law in Canada. Over 90 per cent of Canadians believe that sex-selective abortion should be made illegal. Approximately 60 per cent of Canadians dont support third-trimester abortions, with similarly overwhelming opposition to abortion once the pre-born child can feel the pain of being killed.Canada has no abortion law to ban any of this. Clearly Canadians do not want their politicians to shirk their duty to discuss uncomfortable moral issues. They were elected to lead, not to hide. Genuis could have ran from these issues, instead, he chose to be a leader and to get feedback from his constituents. That is what a good MP does.Finally, there is the issue of the Mortgentaler Supreme Court decision. Far from making it possible for no criminal laws to regulate abortion in the country, the court actually found that while the tangle of abortion laws that existed in 1988 was not constitutional because of technicalities, that the government had both the authority to draft criminal abortion laws. No right to abortion has ever been found to exist by our Supreme Court.All of this leads me to one last point: abortion should not be a right because it is actually a human rights violation. It is the direct and intentional killing of a pre-born human being. Biology tells us that at fertilization new organism of the species homo-sapiens comes into existence, and because all human beings have human rights, the direct and intentional killing of the pre-born must be a human rights violation. Ultimately, we should be ashamed that pre-born children can be legally tortured to death in this country, and we should have more MPs who demonstrate the leadership necessary to start regulating this trade in human blood. Stephanie Fennelly, The Wilberforce Project executive director

Kudos to The News for setting out the issues raised by MP Garnett Genuis recent survey of constituents, and highlighting the underlying bias in the survey. Just as an MP has the right to ask for input, he has a right to his personal opinion on all matters. He does not have the right, however, to hide or obscure his position from constituents, nor impose it on constituents. Conservatives did not do well in the federal election not so much because of Andrew Scheers views on abortion and civil rights, but because he was less than upfront about them and the effect his personal views would have on government policy. He could not answer a simple question honestly, because he knew that in most of the country, there would be considerable political fallout.

In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada invited Parliament to draft new laws concerning access to abortion, as they saw fit, but without violating the Constitution. To date, Parliament has been unable or unwilling to fulfill that mandate. Access to abortion is a human right. It is seen by Alberta Health Services as being a component of any womans access to a complete slate of reproductive and health services. Getting an abortion or not continues to be a decision that must be made by the woman herself, taking her own circumstances into consideration. Simply put, it is no one elses business.

It is especially not the business of a group of men who use abortion as a political crutch. #keepyourpoliticsoutofmyuterus indeed!

Genuis needs to turn his attention to matters that confront Albertans today climate action, jobs, childcare, healthcare. As the editorial said fighting lawful access to abortion will not put food on your constituents kitchen tables.

Maureen Towns, Sherwood Park resident

Read this article:
Letters to the Editor - Sherwood Park News

Embryology

Study suggests sperm donation, like organs, should be allowed post-mortem – Big Think

Can, and should, dead men procreate? Yes and yes, says a recent article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

The UK is facing a sperm donor crisis. According to the article, UK sperm banks only take on a few hundred new donors per year, forcing them to import thousands of sperm samples from the U.S. and Denmark, which dominate the global market for sperm donations due to their high supply.

These countries have a high supply of sperm primarily because of laws and regulations protecting the donor's anonymity in the UK, for instance, babies born from sperm donations are permitted to contact their biological father after they turn 18, an emotional confrontation that dissuades many from donating. In fact, in a 2016 study based in the U.S., 29 percent of current donors said they would have refused to donate if they could not be anonymous.

How can we increase the supply of sperm donors while simultaneously shielding donors from a potentially life-upending confrontation and providing children with the right to know their own ancestry? Allow for post-mortem sperm donations. Men could opt-in to become sperm donors after their death, just like they do as organ donors. So long as they were collected no longer than 48 hours after death, sperm could be collected via surgery or electrical stimulation of the prostate and be frozen for later use.

"If it is morally acceptable that individuals can donate their tissues to relieve the suffering of others in 'life-enhancing transplants' for diseases," wrote the article authors, "we see no reason this cannot be extended to other forms of suffering like infertility."

As it turns out, this idea isn't all that new. The first posthumous sperm retrieval occurred in 1980 after a 30-year-old man suffered a fatal brain injury in a car accident. His family requested that his sperm be preserved, which was done through surgery soon after he had been declared dead.

There have been numerous postmortem sperm retrievals since then, but they've always existed in a legal grey area. For instance, in 1997, a UK man named Stephen Blood caught meningitis, collapsed into a coma, and died soon after. His wife, Diane Blood, had requested that doctors extract two samples of semen from Mr. Blood.

However, the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority had forbidden Mrs. Blood from using those samples to become pregnant, as Mr. Blood had passed away prior to giving written consent to the procedure. In the UK posthumous sperm donation is illegal without written consent. After an appeal, Mrs. Blood was permitted to seek fertility treatment outside of the UK and later gave birth to a son.

Other countries, such as France, Germany, and Taiwan, have a full ban on posthumous fertilization. At the same time, countries like the U.S. and Belgium have no legislation on the subject whatsoever. Given the complex legal, ethical, and medical nature of posthumous fertilization, this range of legislative response is not unexpected. For example, is it ethical to collect sperm from an individual who never wanted to procreate in a country where the young population is dwindling and sperm donors are in short supply? Such is the case in many parts of the UK Is it reasonable to collect sperm from donors who have died and who are, by extension, more likely to be older and with less healthy sperm? Is the offspring of a deceased sperm donor considered to be the donor's legal heir?

These and other issues muddy the waters for countries when crafting policies around posthumous sperm donation. However, the authors of the recent Journal of Medical Ethics article argue that allowing for this procedure is at the very least ethically permissible and likely beneficial for society at large.

"The ability to reproduce matters to people and donated sperm enables many people to fulfill their reproductive desires," write the authors. "It is both feasible and morally permissible for men to volunteer their sperm to be donated to strangers after death in order to ensure sufficient quantities of sperm with desired qualities."

Related Articles Around the Web

Go here to see the original:
Study suggests sperm donation, like organs, should be allowed post-mortem - Big Think

Embryology

Im in love with my wifes sister and Ive agreed to be her sperm donor – The Sun

DEAR DEIDRE: MY wife has agreed I should be her sisters sperm donor so she can have the baby she longs for, but she has no idea that I am in love with her sister and have been for years.

I am 45. My wife is 41. We have two boys. My wife got pregnant both times right away, without any problems.

1

We have been careful to use contraception since then, as we feel our family is complete.

My sister-in-law is 37. I told her a while back how I feel about her. She said she was flattered but would never hurt her sister.

Now my wife has come up with this plan for me fathering a child with her sister, I worry where it would all lead.

Get in touch with Deidre today

Got a problem?

Send an email to problems@deardeidre.org. Every problem gets a personal reply, usually within 24 hours weekdays.

You can also send a private message on the DearDeidreOfficial Facebook page.

Follow me on Twitter @deardeidre.

DEIDRE SAYS: You are right to worry.

There are all sorts of drawbacks to being a sperm donor without proper checks, let alone all the tangled feelings you would inevitably have here.

Be firm that this is not a sensible way for your sister-in-law to find a father for a child.

Suggest she check out the information available on sperm donation, through the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (hfea.gov.uk). Meanwhile, focus on strength-ening your marriage.

Read more here:
Im in love with my wifes sister and Ive agreed to be her sperm donor - The Sun

Neuroscience

New University of Iowa Brain Sciences Building a long time coming – The Gazette

IOWA CITY Five years after the Board of Regents rejected a University of Iowa request to renovate its antiquated Seashore Hall which housed one of its largest undergraduate departments the campus on Friday finally realized its dream of a modern home for the Psychological and Brain Sciences.

In dedicating the new $33.5 million Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences Building, the university introduced its first centralized home for the popular department, which boasts 1,200 psychology majors, 500 minors and 200-plus undergraduates conducting research in its labs.

Before now, the largest department in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences was dispersed among three buildings Spence Laboratories of Psychology, Stuit Hall and Seashore, built in 1899 as the campus first hospital.

The psychology department was assigned space in Seashore in 1930, with administrators long appealing for a more adequate environment.

After breaking ground on the six-story, 66,470-square-foot building east of Spence Labs, UI President Bruce Harreld in 2018 didnt mince words.

I say this with humor, but I actually at times do worry about where the cockroaches and other rodents are going to go, Harreld said, referencing the dilapidated Seashore. This is how bad we have let things get.

With the university pushing a renewed emphasis on neuroscience creating the Iowa Neuroscience Institute in 2016 and introducing an undergraduate major in neuroscience in 2017 the departments first centralized home is expected to transform teaching and research.

It will, according to UI officials, position the university to better prepare students for learning modern psychology, and finding jobs in the field.

The building is a long time coming, with the university in September 2014 pitching a $27 million project that would have modernized portions of Seashore Hall and eliminated outdated components.

Regents Milt Dakovich and Larry McKibben criticized that proposal as fixing something broken and old, prompting the university to return years later with an amended pitch.

Crews broke ground on the new Psychological and Brain Sciences Building in October 2017, and some administrators began using it this month, according to spokesman Richard Lewis.

In conjunction with the project, the university is razing Seashore Hall, work that started in 2000 with the structurally deficient southwest wing. The Board of Regents in 2016 approved razing the southeast section.

Then in September 2019, regents approved the third and final razing of Seashore, allowing crews to take down the remaining 128,000 square feet deemed inadequate to serve the teaching and research missions of current occupants.

By razing the space, UI officials projected saving $27.8 million in deferred maintenance costs. The $2.8 million to demolish Seashore is coming from Treasurers Temporary Investment Income.

The university is tapping that source and a combination of others, including gifts and earnings, to cover the cost of the new building.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

The UI Center for Advancement reported the university set no public fundraising goal for the project and has raised about $500,000 to date.

Comments: (319) 339-3158; vanessa.miller@thegazette.com

See original here:
New University of Iowa Brain Sciences Building a long time coming - The Gazette