Being Libertarian | We Need to Fix the Libertarian National Convention Being Libertarian That's a fairly simple maxim, yet it is one the Libertarian Party has frequently ignored, to its detriment. In 2016, when many Americans began flailing about, searching for an alternative to the least popular mainstream candidates in history, the ... Libertarians delay state convention |
Originally posted here:
We Need to Fix the Libertarian National Convention - Being Libertarian
Courtesy Illustration
This article is part of a Point/Counterpoint series. Click here to see the initial response about Liberal Capitalism.
~
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
-Buckminster Fuller
We live in a cage that prevents sincere freedom and justice, and ultimately deeper democracy and peace. The bars of this cage are comprised of power hierarchies, which divide people into classes and countries that childishly wage endless, costly wars. Consequently, this locks up the highest potential for humanity by constraining our psychologies, relationships, and peaceful socioeconomic evolution.
When speaking of politics, the core issue is power. The question becomes: is power concentrated in the hands of one person or a few people in de facto dictatorship? This applies not just to political power, but also centralized economic power in the form of dictatorial private corporations.
Clearly, wealth is power. In our system of extreme inequality, the wealthiest few have far more power to buy property resources, politicians, elections, laws and entire governments. That is oligarchy, and a 2014 Princeton study found this is what we have, not democracy.
Dismantling power imbalances, and building something with deeper freedom and justice, has been the aim of libertarian socialism since the Enlightenment, from Godwin to Chomsky. Institutions targeted for dissolution are the coercive state, the oppressive security apparatus for the wealthiest few, and capitalism itself, which inherently generates vast inequality and injustice.
This rich philosophical tradition of more traditional anarchism has largely remained hidden from Americans by information gatekeepers. Few teachers, politicians or media institutions intelligently mention it. Despite capitalist and communist distortions creating manifold misunderstandings, the historical fact remains that libertarian socialism has always meant a highly organized system where people govern themselves, without rulers.
Philosopher Rudolph Rocker wrote, (Anarchism is) a definite trend in the historical development of mankind, whichstrives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life. (Anarchists would replace political and capitalistic economic dictatorships that divide) every country into hostile classes internally, and externallyinto hostile nations; (causing) open antagonism and by their ceaseless warfare keep the communal social life in continual convulsions.
Importantly, we have examples of libertarian socialism succeeding. In addition to thousands of functional worker co-operatives globally, examine the 1936 Spanish Revolution. Anarchists took over considerable regions of Spain, arguably the best modern example of true civilization, before communists, fascists and capitalists crushed them.
George Orwell described the Spanish Revolution well: (The) normal motives of civilized lifesnobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc ceased to existclass-division of society (disappeared and) no one owned anyone else as his master. (There was) a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine.
As in Spain, this more evolved order must be organized based on smaller organic units of power, such as democratized workplaces, villages and neighborhoods. According to Dunbars Number, derived from measuring the neocortex ratio of primates, the ideal unit is approximately 150 people.
These smaller units would make local decisions, and elect representatives that can be immediately recalled in a global federation. Collective, federated decision-making is essential for peace and fearless disarmament. A more just system of wealth and property decentralization would also vastly reduce or eliminate crime.
A federated architecture would also protect the most vital human needs of clean water and healthy soil for food production, the most fundamental basis of a sane, sustainable economy. Indeed, capitalist destruction of soil and water is the most unsustainable and violently impoverishing human activity. Soil takes thousands of years to form, so its ruin promises reverberation for millennia and untold generations. Even progressive Fayetteville endlessly paves paradise for parking lots, in the words of Joni Mitchell.
To evolve beyond the destructive dominator paradigm, the dictatorial state and capitalist corporations must be replaced. However, other hierarchies demand dissolution as well, including patriarchy, racial supremacy, Nature domination and middle man religion. Christian Anarchists took steps on the latter, with Leo Tolstoys Kingdom of God is Within being a foundational document, inspiring Gandhi, Dr. King and the Berrigan brothers.
Ultimately, the current system is a chaotic house of cards that must transform or crumble. An evolutionary social vision is mandatory to alter the structures threatening our survival, particularly in terms of climate change and nuclear war. These problems go deeper than Trump, since both Wall Street war parties sell bombs to dictators, and profit from war and environmental holocaust.
People speak of Trump not representing our values, but the reality is, mainstream American culture has none. He is the unmasked face of the corporatist empire where money is the American idol, where profit matters more than human life. It is painfully unjust, disgusting and embarrassingly cruel when capitalist tycoons drown in money while workers struggle to afford medicine, pay rent and feed their children. Trump is the American mirror.
We must peer into the mirror, and ignite a revolution in the mind, as Krishnamurti insisted. Begin with a few leaves, some beautiful ideas, and then a spark. From there, breathe life into this fire until it is a raging revolutionary inferno, impossible to extinguish.
Social evolution is a developing child, first an infant, then toddler, and now selfish warring juveniles. A Newer World awaits adult cage free humanity.
See the original post here:
Rare.us | Libertarian-leaning Republican Mark Sanford isn't afraid to criticize President Trump Rare.us On the same day Donald Trump is visiting Boeing in South Carolina, one of that state's most prominent congressmen is making it known that just because they belong to the same party, that doesn't mean the president will get a free pass. In a lengthy ... 'I'm a Dead Man Walking' - POLITICO Magazine Mark Sanford isn't afraid to criticize President Trump because 'truth ... |
Originally posted here:
Libertarian-leaning Republican Mark Sanford isn't afraid to criticize President Trump - Rare.us
Since 2014, China has been building islands in the middle of the South China Sea. What were once underwater reefs are now sandy islands complete with airfields, roads, buildings, and missile systems. In less than two years, China has turned seven reefs into seven military bases in the South China Sea, one of the most contentious bodies of water in the world.
The sea is one of the most important areas of ocean in the world. Its estimated to hold 11 billion barrels of oil, 109 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 10 percent of the worlds fisheries. Most importantly, 30 percent of the worlds shipping trade flows through the South China Sea to the busy ports of Southeast Asia. Its an incredibly important strategic area, and five countries currently claim some part of it.
Most countries base their claims off the United Nations Law of the Seas, which says a countrys territory extends 200 miles off its shores, an area called the exclusive economic zone, or EEZ. Any trade or resources that fall in a countrys EEZ belong to that country; theyre its sovereign territory. Any area that is not in an EEZ is considered international waters and subject to UN maritime law, meaning its shared by everyone. Every country in the region, which includes Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei, and Vietnam, bases its claim to the South China Sea on the UNs EEZ laws except China.
China argues it has a historical claim to the South China Sea, dating back to naval expeditions in the 15th century. After World War II, the Japanese Empire lost control of the South China Sea, and China took advantage of the moment to reclaim it. On maps, it started drawing a dashed line that encompassed most of the South China Sea. This line became its official claim and is known today as the Nine-Dash Line, because it always has nine dashes. In 1973, when the UN law established EEZs, China reaffirmed its Nine-Dash Line, refusing to clarify the lines boundaries and rejecting other countries claims.
Since then, tensions have built around who rightfully owns the South China Sea. The dispute has centered on the Spratly Islands, an archipelago at the heart of the South China Sea. Currently, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam claim some part of the Spratly Island chain. Theyve asserted their claims by putting small buildings, ports, and even some people on what are essentially rocks in the middle of the ocean.
But the Spratlys are very important, because whichever country can successfully claim them can extend its EEZ to include them, thus gaining miles of precious sovereign territory. This is why China began building up islands in 2014. By turning these rocks into military bases, the Chinese are now able to support hundreds of ships, bolstering their presence in the region. They are using fishing boats, surveillance ships, and navy destroyers to set up blockades around other countries islands and defend their own. This is all done very cautiously and in small steps in order to avoid sparking a wider conflict.
Since China began building islands, the disputes have not become violent. But tensions are building in the region. As China deploys more of its military to the Spratlys, other countries are getting nervous and building up their own islands. Its a complex situation that will continue to gain international attention, for better or for worse.
See the rest here:
Why China is building islands in the South China Sea - Vox - Vox
This means it will be an offence to fish, collect corals or moor boats within the Sisters Islands Marine Park without the approval of the National Parks Board (NParks).
The terrestrial areas of the islands are already protected under the law, and the latest change makes clear that the marine and foreshore areas, too, are to be safeguarded.
Desmond Lee, senior minister of state for national development, said during the debate on the Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill: It is amazing our waters, which lie within some of the busiest commercial sea lanes in the world, are home to over a third of the worlds total coral species. So protecting the reefs at the Sisters Islands Marine Park is crucial to our coral conservation efforts.
The marine park, Singapores first, is a 40-minute boat ride from Marina South Pier and about the size of 50 soccer fields. It comprises the two Sisters Islands, the surrounding reefs and the western reefs of nearby St Johns Island and Pulau Tekukor.
Lee said NParks would make new rules specific to marine parks in due course, such as imposing restrictions on diving and the movement of vessels. This will be done in consultation with the marine-conservation community and other stakeholders, such as boat operators, he said.
The bill received support from all nine MPs who spoke on it, with many welcoming the preservation of Singapores natural heritage.
Associate Professor Fatimah Lateef of the Marine Parade Group Representation Constituency and Non-Constituency MP Daniel Goh asked if there were plans for other marine parks. Lee said his ministry would work with nature groups, and use science and technology to determine if other areas should be designated as marine parks.
He added that the Sisters Islands site was chosen based on the richness of species and habitats there, as well as its importance as a source of coral larvae. Scientists had found that the reefs there are the mother reef of sorts, and the waters around them are the likely source of Singapores coral diversity.
Another amendment to the act makes it an offence for people to release animals into water bodies outside nature reserves if there is cause to believe that the animals might end up in the reserves.
This is meant to prevent the introduction of non-native species, which can upset the balance of the natural ecosystem and harm native species. First-time offenders could be fined up to 50,000 Singapore dollars (Bt1.23 million), jailed up to six months, or both.
Previously, the law only restricted the release of animals in a nature reserve.
Original post:
Why the emphasis on peace-building in the UN Sustainable Development Goals is essential.
By Nathan Page for The Diplomat
February 18, 2017
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include peace-building as part of a changing paradigm of how to achieve development. As a set of guiding principles that cover a broad range of issues, it is hard to interpret the SDGs as 17 stand-alone goals; the keys to sustainable development are difficult to isolate. Hence why the SDGs have expanded beyond pure economics. In particular, Goal 16 is dedicated to the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development.
The Solomon Islands, unfortunately, perfectly exemplifies why SDG 16 is necessary. Without a secure environment, all human efforts can be burnt up and consumed in the slow simmer of violent conflict.
Starting in 1978, the Solomon Islands achieved and sustained peaceful post-colonial independence for two decades. But by late 1998, uneven economic development had aggravated ethnic animosity on Guadalcanal Island. Approximately 1,000 firearms were looted from local police armories and between 2000-2003 ethno-tribal conflict escalated into a civil war. In 1999 economic installations and infrastructure were also targeted, such as Goldridge Mine and Solomon Islands Plantations Limiteds palm-oil plantation. In the ensuing violence, approximately 200 people were killed and 30,000 people were displaced. According to estimates from Amnesty International, at least 100 child soldiers took part in the conflict.
Rising social disruption affected the governments ability to operate effectively. By 2000, government expenditure far outstripped revenue. That same year, the dysfunctional government was overthrown and all major industries closed or scaled down. Approximately 8,000 jobs were lost with approximately one-quarter of these in the tuna fishing and cannery industry a heavy blow in a country with population of about 233,000 people over 18 years old. Two-thirds of the nations teachers were required to take unpaid leave.
Due to the conflict, the Solomon Islands has seen export revenue drop by 60 percent since 1997. Per capita GDP halved between 2000 and 2006, accompanied with a rise in unemployment. As of 2014, the World Bank estimated the cost of the conflict for Solomon Islands at 134 percent of GDP.
Today, 80 percent of the population has become subsistence farmers or fishers outside the cash economy. Fully 70 percent of the countrys revenue is provided by exporting non-renewable resources, particularly lumber exports. The recovery in employment from 2003 onward has not reached pre-conflict levels. Thanks to these setbacks, the Solomon Islands ranked 157th out of 187 countries on the 2014 UN Human Development Index.
The Solomon Islands exemplifies all the human suffering and social and economic consequences of conflict. Some costs are quantifiable in terms of loss of life, disability, destruction and displacement, while others are not easily tallied in economic terms: the loss of social capital and trust, disruption of education, and forgone investment and trade. Increasingly, insecure investment environments are seen as major obstacles to development. In short, the material foundations for opportunity are destroyed by violent conflict.
On average civil wars cost the equivalent of 30 years of GDP growth for a medium sized country. WDR researchshows that for every three years that a country is affected by major violence, poverty reduction lags behind by 2.7 percentage points.
The SDGs directly address violence and conflict as an integrated development issue. Global lessons and the changing discourse on the security-development overlap are on display in the Solomon Islands, where disarmament is now firmly linked to progressive political change, social stability, and economic development.
In line with global trends, in the Solomon Islands armed ethnic conflict profoundly reduced the living standards of Solomon Islanders and caused possibly irreparable damage to the economy. Subsequently, the post-conflict environment has yet to see a significant return of previous economic indicators, including living standards. Investing in institutions capable of establishing law and order and delivering services is typically much more cost effective than post-conflict remedial interventions.
Yet even now, the causes of the Solomon Islands conflict uneven access to services, economic opportunities, and development spending remain unaddressed.
There is no panacea for conflict. However, Goal 16 of the SDGs exemplifies a paradigm shift in the normative language of development. For the Solomon Islands, creating effective, accountable, and transparent institutions capable of establishing rule of law and delivering widespread government services (as articulated in Goal 16) is the first step for development.
In the Solomon Islands context, sustainable development requires safeguarding human beings and their productivity from individual property rights to public infrastructure from the possibility of a new wave of conflict that kills and destroys opportunity and human potential. The social and economic benefits of a fully implemented SDG 16 are one of the most important foundations upon which to build a future development strategy for the Solomon Islands.
Nathan Page has a Masters of Development Studies from University of Melbourne specializing in conflict and development. Nathan is the former project coordinator at Pacific Small Arms Action Group. In 2016 he coordinated a workshop in Solomon Islands with government officials on arms control legislation and procedures.
Link:
No Development Without Peace: The Solomon Islands Example ... - The Diplomat
Indias only active volcano, the Barren Islands volcano, located in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, erupted for about four hours in January this year, say scientists attached to the Goa-based National Institute of Oceanography (NIO).
According to a statement issued by the Press Information Bureau on Friday, quoting an account of the NIO research team which was in the vicinity of the volcano on January 23, the volcano emitted red lava fountains and samples of volcanic ash have been collected for testing and research.
The team moved about one mile from the volcano, which is located on an uninhibited island, and began closely observing it. The volcano was erupting in small episodes lasting about five to 10 minutes. During the daytime only ash clouds were observed, the statement said.
It added that after sundown, however, the team observed red lava fountains spewing from the crater into the atmosphere and hot lava flows streaming down the slopes of the volcano.
The NIO research team sailing on the vessel RV Sindhu Sankalp was led by Abhay Mudholkar.
They have sampled the sediments and water in the vicinity of the volcano and recovered coal-like black pyroclastic material representing proximal volcanic ejecta, the statement read.
It said, Clouds were seen at the crater mouth where the smoke was bellowing out in an otherwise clear sky. These samples will help in deciphering the nature of the present and past volcanic activity in the region.
The statement added that the team did not land on the island because it was deemed to be too dangerous.
The Barren Islands are located around 140 km northeast of the Andamans capital city Port Blair.
Link:
Barren Islands, India's only active volcano, erupted in January: Scientists - Hindustan Times
Once research has shown it is safe to do so, human embryos, sperm and eggs could all be genetically manipulated to mend faulty genes which are known to cause serious disease or disability. Photograph: TEK image/Getty Images/Science Photo Library RF
Powerful gene editing procedures could one day be allowed to prevent people from passing on serious medical conditions to their children, according to a major report from senior US researchers.
The cautious endorsement from two of the most prestigious US science institutions means that human embryos, sperm and eggs could all be genetically manipulated to mend faulty genes which are known to cause serious disease or disability, once research has shown it is safe to do so.
The report from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine says the procedure is highly contentious because any genetic changes that are made are then inherited by the next generation. The technology would therefore cross a line many have viewed as ethically inviolable, it states.
Most scientists agree that far more work is needed before clinical trials of so-called germline therapies can begin in humans. But the report argues that if the procedure is found to be safe and effective in the years ahead, it should not be ruled out in exceptional cases.
We have identified a very strict set of criteria which, if satisfied, could make it permissible to start clinical trials, said Alta Charo, co-chair of the report committee and professor of law and bioethics at the University of WisconsinMadison. While gene editing is unlikely to affect the prevalence of diseases any time soon, it could provide some families with their best hope for having healthy children.
According to the report, human embryos, sperm and eggs should only be considered for gene editing to prevent serious conditions and when no other alternative is available. To go ahead, scientists would have to be confident they could stop a disorder by rewriting the DNA in a faulty gene to make it into a healthy version already found in the population.
The report stresses the need for a stringent oversight system for any such trials to make sure scientists, patients and the broader public understand the risks and benefits, and to come down hard on any clinics that offer treatment for less serious disorders or for human enhancement.
There is an enormous amount of research that has to go into this, and then the question is what are the conditions where youd even consider it, and those are very tightly defined, said Rudolf Jaenisch, a member of the report committee and professor of biology at MIT. It would be conditions where no other options exist to have a healthy baby.
One example is when an adult carries two copies rather than one of the gene that causes Huntingtons disease, a devastating condition that steadily damages nerves in the brain. If that person has children they will inherit at least one copy and will develop the disease. With gene editing, harmful copies could potentially be fixed in the parents sperm or eggs, or in any embryos created through IVF.
Under British law, gene edited embryos, or embryos made with genetically engineered sperm or eggs, cannot be implanted into a woman. The only exception, endorsed by parliament in 2015, is for a procedure called mitochondrial transfer, which aims to prevent women from passing on genetic diseases to their children. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration is currently not allowed to consider applications for germline therapy clinical trials, but the temporary restriction is only in place until April this year.
The national academies report comes at a time when scientists are making spectacular progress in genome editing. With the latest gene editing tool, named Crispr-cas9, scientists can alter single letters of the DNA code, or rewrite whole genes. The technique has given researchers unprecedented insights into the basic biology of development and cancer, but has also been tested in animals as a treatment for a wide range of diseases. Last year, a Chinese group became the first to launch a trial of Crispr-cas9 to treat patients with aggressive lung cancer for whom all other therapies had failed.
In separate research published in Nature Communications on Wednesday, scientists at the University of Washington in Seattle used gene editing to rewrite faulty genes responsible for Duchenne muscular dystrophy in adult mice. Were a long way from clinical application but theres no doubt that the results of this study are exciting, said Darren Griffin, a geneticist at the University of Kent. Other studies reporting progress with different diseases emerge at least every month.
The national academies report goes on to back the use of genome editing to correct faulty genes in adult tissues, such as the liver, lungs and heart, where the changes will not be passed on to children. But while it recommends that the tool is used only to prevent and treat diseases and disabilities, the report points out that in the future, the same interventions could potentially enhance peoples natural abilities. For example, a gene editing therapy that boosts the muscles of patients with muscular dystrophy could perhaps be given to healthy people to give them superhuman strength. We need an ongoing public conversation about how much value we place on some of these so-called enhancements, said Charo. Until we know that, we cant know how to value them against the risks.
Even the academies heavily-caveated endorsement of gene editing will raise fears of a slippery slope that leads to a society of genetic haves and have-nots. But Richard Hynes, a report chair and cancer researcher at MIT, said that regulations could effectively block the use of the tools for enhancement. The slope is not very slippery. Friction is introduced by the regulatory system, he said.
Charo ruled out the use of gene editing to boost peoples intelligence, which is thought to be influenced by hundreds, if not thousands, of genes. We have no idea how to define intelligence, let alone how to manipulate it genetically, Charo said. Its one of the examples that is raised all the time, but its one of the least likely to be relevant, because we dont have a clue how wed do that.
Read the rest here:
Major report prepares ground for genetic modification of human embryos - The Guardian
Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.
6
Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about
A new facility that will house the Clemson University Center for Human Genetics has opened at the Greenwood Genetic Center.
Try Another
Audio CAPTCHA
Image CAPTCHA
Help
CancelSend
A link has been sent to your friend's email address.
A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.
Liv Osby , losby@gannett.com Published 4:59 p.m. ET Feb. 16, 2017 | Updated 9:54 a.m. ET Feb. 17, 2017
Self Regional Hall(Photo: Craig Mahaffey/Clemson University)
A new facility that will house the Clemson University Center for Human Genetics has opened at the Greenwood Genetic Center.
The $6 million 17,000-square-foot structure, named Self Regional Hall, will allowClemsons growing genetics program to collaborate closely withresearchers at the center and to focus on early diagnostic tools for autism, cognitive developmental disorders, cancer and rare metabolic disorders.
Opening Self Regional Hall means that we will be able to do even more to help children with genetic disordersand their families, and to educate graduate students who will go out into the world and make their own impact, said Clemson University President James P. Clements, who has a child with special needs.
As you all know," he added, "an early diagnosis can make a huge difference for a child and their family because the earlier you can figure out what a child needs the earlier you can intervene and begin treatment.
The building will house eight laboratories and several classrooms, conference rooms and offices for graduate students and faculty, officials said.
GCC director Dr. Steve Skinner said the facilityis the nextstep in a collaboration of more than 20 years.
"We look forward to our joint efforts with both Clemson and Self Regional Healthcare to advance the research and discoveries that will increase our understanding and treatment of human genetic disorders, he said.
For more information about GGC, go towww.ggc.org.
Read or Share this story: http://grnol.co/2lcrenp
0) { %>
0) { %>
Read more from the original source:
New research facility opens at Greenwood Genetics Center - Anderson Independent Mail
New York Times | Congress Goes Home, and Constituents Fired Up Over Health Care Are Waiting New York Times In email alerts, MoveOn.org is mobilizing members to attend town-hall-style meetings across the country, and it has set up a website, ResistanceRecess.com, to help people find them. The site includes a guide to health care recess messaging. (The ... |
Original post:
Congress Goes Home, and Constituents Fired Up Over Health Care Are Waiting - New York Times
Photo: Colleen Ingerto / Times Union
Joan Regan Hayner, Chief Executive Officer at CapitalCare Medical Group, at her office in Albany, N.Y. on Tuesday, November 29, 2016. (Colleen Ingerto / Times Union)
Joan Regan Hayner, Chief Executive Officer at CapitalCare Medical Group, at her office in Albany, N.Y. on Tuesday, November 29, 2016. (Colleen Ingerto / Times Union)
Joan Regan Hayner, Chief Executive Officer at CapitalCare Medical Group, at her office in Albany, N.Y. on Tuesday, November 29, 2016. (Colleen Ingerto / Times Union)
Joan Regan Hayner, Chief Executive Officer at CapitalCare Medical Group, at her office in Albany, N.Y. on Tuesday, November 29, 2016. (Colleen Ingerto / Times Union)
January/February 2017 edition of Women@Work magazine.
January/February 2017 edition of Women@Work magazine.
Women in health care: Meet Joan Regan Hayner
After many years in public accounting, Joan Regan Hayner realized she hadn't found her passion. Then it found her. An accounting client who was a physician became involved with founding CapitalCare Medical Group. They were looking for a financial person, and he urged her to consider because he said, she had all the necessary skills. She was hired as controller at CapitalCare in 1997. She was quickly promoted to chief financial officer, then to chief administrative officer in 2000. On Jan. 1, 2004, Hayner was named chief executive officer.
Q: You've said that losing a brother to AIDS gave you a desire to bring quality health care to those who need it. After leaving the financial world, was there a point in which you said to yourself, 'This is where I'm supposed to be.'?
A: You have a tendency when you're young to drive toward something that you think you can be good at. I went into accounting because I was good at math. ... While I was working as a CPA, I did lose a brother to AIDS in the early 1990s, and I started second-guessing my own career and purpose ... but didn't really know what to do. It didn't happen immediately, but in 1997, I got a call because this CapitalCare Medical Group was forming, and they needed a financial person.
Women@Work
This story also appears in the January/February issue of Women@Work magazine. For more inspiring stories about Capital Region working women and articles that offer career advice, sign up today for $25 at tuwomenatwork.com. You'll get a year's subscription to the magazine and become part of a network of 1,700 Capital Region women who want to grow their careers and help other women grow, too.
I wasn't really progressing in my career because I wasn't really thrilled with it, and I thought, 'You know what? I'm going to do something different.'
Harkening back when my brother went through what he went through, I saw some really positive aspects of health care and some really negative aspects. And I took a leap, and found I love it. I had a really rare opportunity professionally in that I was kind of given a blank slate and told create processes, create systems, put together at that time, the financial aspects of the organization.
It just all kind of clicked for me. I loved it all, and I loved learning.
Q: It sounds like you had to be open and aware that something big was presenting itself to you.
A: What happened to me was you just always have to have your eye open to possibilities. When I was in my last position in accounting, I just happened to get a client who was a doctor and he was my client for many years. And we just kind of hit it off, and I got kind of a kick out of all the entrepreneurial things he did on top of his position. He was one of the founding physicians in CapitalCare, and he saw something in me ... I was like, 'I do your taxes, and I do your tax planning, and I don't do that stuff.' And he saw that in me. I did business planning for him in these small entrepreneurial endeavors he had, and he said, 'You've helped me in your businesses, and I think you would do really well in this.'
What I tell people now, and young women in particular, is always be open to the possibility that you don't think is out there and put yourself in a position where you can be seen. Seek out a mentor. Reach out to people who you respect and admire and ask them for advice, take them out to coffee.
Try things you think you maybe wouldn't normally do to get exposure in other areas if you need help in trying to drive toward that passion.
There are certain skills that women excel in more than men that make it more easy to adapt to other situations. We excel in our emotional intelligence and in our ability to be creative. We're nurturers, and we want everybody to do well. Those natural tendencies that women have can really help them progress from one field to another field even more easily than men do.
Q: If more women move into top roles, do you think it would impact the health care industry?
A: We cannot achieve better outcomes and reducing costs without being creative. We cannot have an attitude of doing the same old thing. Women don't so much have a my-way-or-the-highway kind of approach to their thinking, and how they approach leadership. So I think our best chance of achieving what we want to achieve in this industry and really for the country, is to really see more women contributing and leading.
The women in nursing and who have been in the trenches in health care, they need to be informing the policymakers.
I got so frustrated with regulations and decisions that were being made without taking into account the operational aspect of the decision, so I just started calling legislators, and I started inviting them to come in. If you're considering legislation, come into my office and take a look at what the impact is going to be. And then I got invited to sit on this committee. And I think policymakers need to hear from people in the trenches about the impact their decisions are going to have.
Q: What advice do you have for women who work in health care and are looking to advance their careers?
A: Don't be afraid to speak up. That's a big one. If you have a good idea or you think you have a good idea, if you don't want to speak up in a big group, go to your mentor or go find somebody who you can bounce an idea off of. Look for mentor and be a mentor.
More:
Women in health care: Meet Joan Regan Hayner - Albany Times Union
Over the past decade, employees have seen their healthcare plans deductibles and co-pays increase six times faster than wages. Many experts agree that this cost-shifting was not a direct result of the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
However, with the onset of the ACAs new reforms, these same experts suggest that the ACA did not stem this trend toward increased out-of-pocket spending. But, regardless of what happens to the ACA, one thing is clear: Individuals will be forced to take on more responsibility for their healthcare. Enter the dawn of the role of the individual.
Now, were looking to the new leadership in Washington, D.C. to create the equivalent for healthcare expanding and unbundling health savings accounts (HSAs) from high-deductible health plans (HDHPs).
HSAs are a powerful savings vehicle for healthcare. Like 401(k)s, consumers can put away money each month, tax free. But unlike 401(k)s, they can access that money at any point in their lives.
The theory is if consumers choose an HDHP bundled with an HSA, they are more responsible for upfront costs for their healthcare and will therefore be more judicious about how they spend these dollars ultimately slowing rising healthcare costs.
The problem with this theory is that the majority of healthcare plans now have high deductibles, regardless of whether theyre legally considered an HDHP. This puts consumers without access to an HSA at more financial risk.
My company, Benefitfocus, recently put out our annual State of Employee Benefits Report that looks at actual enrollment data from more than 500 large employers during the fall of 2016 data that shows its not just those with HDHPs that could benefit from an HSA. Almost everyone has seen their costs go up.
PPO subscribers saw substantial hikes in their deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, 8 percent for individual and 9 percent for family coverage, putting PPOs only a couple hundred dollars below the IRS threshold for a plan to be considered an HDHP. This means were getting closer to a world where every plan can and should have an HSA.
Several proposals to replace the ACA call for expanding the scope of HSAs. For example, the House Republicans Better Way plan proposes to increase HSA contribution limits by allowing the tax-free contributions to equal the insurance plans annual deductible and out-of-pocket maximums meaning that families could put away more than $14,000 a year.
Other proposals would get rid of maximum contribution limits entirely and would allow HSAs to be coupled with any type of plan including those PPOs that are just below the current threshold.
This would support the long-held conservative view that consumers should be responsible for their healthcare a reality thats already here.
But HSAs are only the beginning of what I expect to be a robust system of financial wellness measures protecting individuals from the crippling effects of rising healthcare costs and less government protection.
Whether its through employer-sponsored care or some version of government protection for those most in need, consumers must have the resources to protect their health and financial well-being.
Voluntary income protection benefits, often referred to as gap products, should be offered alongside every type of insurance plan.
They often come in the form of accident, critical illness or hospital indemnity insurance, and can help cover the costs of unexpected healthcare needs needs that can bankrupt the average American, who has less than $1,000 saved for emergencies.
These benefits are gaining traction, as our State of Employee Benefits report also found nearly half of large employers are offering at least one. But we still have a long way to go. Consumers need more education and support to ensure they understand the value of HSAs and voluntary benefits, and that theyre equipped to take on the full burden of healthcare.
Healthcare decisions are unlike any other consumer choice deeply personal and with the potential for long-term financial and health implications. Employers, the government and individuals must share the responsibility of this burden, just like they do for retirement.
The government should expand the availability and reach of HSAs, and employers and any government protection for those most in need should ensure consumers have access to supplemental voluntary benefits to offset those rising deductibles. Thats the key to true success in the dawn of the role of the individual.
Shawn Jenkins is co-founder and CEO of Benefitfocus, is a platform that supportsbenefits enrollment/management for 825+ large enterprises, 55+ insurance carriers and numerous consumers. The company enables employers and carriers with a powerful SaaS technology platform that empowers people to make better health, wealth and wellness decisions.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.
Originally posted here:
The role of the individual and taking control of their own healthcare - The Hill (blog)
New York Times | A Big Week for Health Care New York Times In the fight to save the ACA, next week is absolutely pivotal, Topher Spiro tweeted on Thursday, referring to the health care law. And YOU can help The fight for the law is really a fight to prevent millions of people from losing health insurance ... Republicans Outline Plan to Eliminate Health Care for Millions Sanford's plan for health care Trump says health care plan could come as early as March |
Follow this link:
Forbes | When Health Care Ignores Your Goals Forbes By Denise Logeland, Next Avenue Contributor. Five days after a surgery and being mostly bed-bound, my 83-year-old mom was discharged from the hospital and looked forward to one thing in particular. She hadn't been able to bathe since she left home. |
Originally posted here:
As the former head of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Governor Baker (above) has been seen as friendly to businesses. But as a result of the soaring expense of MassHealth, last month he unveiled a proposal to penalize companies that dont offer workers adequate health insurance.
Governor Charlie Baker became one of the business communitys biggest allies on Beacon Hill the moment he moved into the State House two years ago. As the former head of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, he knows what executives want out of government as little interference as possible, and definitely no new expensive mandates.
But for the first time, a major rift has opened up between business leaders and the Republican governor. Baker has been backed into a corner by the soaring expense of MassHealth, the states publicly subsidized health insurance program for lower-income residents. MassHealth now accounts for about 40 percent of the state budget, and he fears that even more people will choose it over their employers coverage.
Advertisement
To help keep that from happening, the governor last month unveiled a measure that would penalize companies that dont offer adequate health insurance to their workers.
Bakers plan which could pump $300 million into the states budget for the next fiscal year also would snare many companies that offer generous health plans by penalizing those that fall short of a new 80 percent participation mandate. Business groups say most companies dont meet that goal, in part, because many workers get their insurance through a spouse or parents.
Get Talking Points in your inbox:
An afternoon recap of the days most important business news, delivered weekdays.
From any administration thats got their ear to the business community, thats a surprising proposal, said Peter Ubertaccio, a political science professor at Stonehill College in Easton.
The blowback from business lobbyists has prompted a few of Bakers top aides, including budget chief Kristen Lepore and health and human services secretary Marylou Sudders, to start negotiating with them on an alternative.
Were hopeful that we can maybe all roll up our sleeves and find something thats a little fairer to the business community, said Christopher Geehern, an executive vice president at Associated Industries of Massachusetts, a trade group. You really are hitting employers who provide health insurance, who are doing what theyre supposed to be doing, as opposed to targeting those employers who arent providing health insurance.
Advertisement
The goal is to have an alternative option ready by April, when House leaders take up the budget. Representative Jeffrey Sanchez, a House point person on health care issues, said Bakers plan requires more analysis to better understand its effects. Sanchez notes that its important to recognize the uncertainty surrounding federal health care reimbursements, now that President Trump and the Republican-led Congress are moving to undo the Affordable Care Act.
MassHealth enrollment rose about 3 percent in the past year, to more than 1.9 million people, or about one in four Massachusetts residents. Meanwhile, the states MassHealth costs rose from $13.7 billion to $14.1 billion, according to figures provided by the Baker administration. (This state spending is typically matched by federal funds.)
The big surge in enrollment started showing up by 2014, before Baker took office. Thats also around the time when the fair share assessment a provision of the 2006 Massachusetts health care overhaul was repealed. The assessment, which went away in mid-2013, was aimed at employers who didnt do their part to offer adequate insurance. There was an assumption that the Affordable Care Act would invoke a similar rule, but that never happened. MassHealth enrollment quickly ballooned as many workers sought cheaper coverage, state officials said. Participation grew from 1.4 million in 2013 to nearly 1.9 million in 2016.
One of the biggest drivers for the increase, according to the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, is that the Affordable Care Act vastly expanded eligibility for MassHealth by allowing income-eligible adults without children to participate. That change took effect in January 2014.
Theres another possible culprit. The original state plan that passed while Mitt Romney was governor prevented income-eligible workers who had access to an employer-sponsored plan from choosing state-subsidized insurance instead. But that restriction went away with the advent of the Affordable Care Act.
Business leaders say Bakers version of the assessment is vastly different from the one put in place under the Romney administration. Instead of paying a $295 per employee penalty as the old regulation called for, companies would be hit with a $2,000-per-employee charge if they dont provide coverage that meets state standards. Companies whose health insurance participation rate is under 80 percent would have to pay the $2,000-per-worker fee for the amount of employees they would need to reach the threshold. Only businesses with fewer than 11 employees would be exempt.
Many companies expect to pay fees that total in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, according to business groups, and some could be on the hook for more than $1 million.
Briana Moore
Steve DiFillippo, chief executive of the Davios restaurant group, says the new regulations, as proposed, would cost him a lot of money.
Steve DiFillippo, chief executive of the Davios restaurant group, said he offers health insurance to full-timers after theyre on the payroll for at least 90 days. He said he pleads with some of his 400 Massachusetts workers to sign up for the companys health insurance plan but recognizes some younger employees stay on their parents plans until theyre 26 years old and then opt to go without any coverage.
He estimates that the participation rate in his plan is about 55 percent, far short of the 80 percent Baker would require. That means the new regulations, as proposed, would cost him a lot of money.
Why is it that I get in trouble? DiFillippo said. What theyre trying to do is to push me to spend more. I think thats wrong.
Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce chief executive James Rooney has a similar opinion. He says the proposed assessment, which he calls a tax, could punish employers trying to do the right thing. But Rooney also said theres some wisdom behind Bakers strategy it underscores the pressure that MassHealth is putting on state finances.
A blanket ... tax on companies that employ people, in and of itself, is not a solution, he said. [But] tactically putting it out there is smart, even if you disagree with it. Shining a brighter light on the problem is the right thing to do.
The Baker administration backs up its argument with a chart that shows a 16-percent increase in full-time workers between 2011 and 2015 who were not on employer-sponsored insurance. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has launched its own research to pinpoint the reasons for surging MassHealth costs.
What the administration was implying was that employers were cutting back on their coverage, said Eileen McAnneny, the groups president. The MTF is questioning the causal link that the administration is suggesting between the growth in MassHealth and the drop of employer-sponsored insurance.
Christopher Anderson, president of the Massachusetts High Technology Council, warns that an assessment could send the wrong message to businesses considering moving to Massachusetts or expanding their operations here.
We run the risk through a whole series of new developments to return closer and closer to the Taxachusetts moniker that weve worked so hard to minimize over the last 10 years, Anderson said.
The disagreement between Baker and business leaders, though serious, probably wont make them adversaries. The governor received a warm reception when he spoke before a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce gathering Thursday, although he didnt focus on the new assessment in his speech.
I dont think this is an issue that will prompt the business community or business interests to walk away from this governor, said Ubertaccio, the politics professor at Stonehill. Youre not always going to see eye-to-eye with the main groups in your coalition, but theyre willing to give you some leeway.
Here is the original post:
Baker, business leaders are at odds on health care - The Boston Globe
Stanford team is growing healthy skin for ill patients-Jean Tang, associate professor of dermatology;Peter Marinkovich, associate professor of dermatology; andAnthony Oro, professor of dermatology are quoted in this article...Full Article
KGO TV- Filmmakers Tap Quarterback Legend To Fight Skin Cancer - Susan Swetter, MD, Stanford Professor of dermatology isfeatured in this article...Full Article
Automated dermatologist' detects skin cancer with expert accuracy- Roberto Novoa, Clinical Assistant Professor is featured in this article...Full Article
Deep learning algorithm does as well as dermatologists in identifying skin cancer- Susan Swetter, MD, Justin Ko, MD MBA, Roberto Novoa, MD are featured in this article...Full Article
Gene therapy for blistering skin disease appears to enhance healing in clinical trial- Peter Marinkovich, MD, andJean Tang, MD, PhD, Associate Professors of dermatologyare featured in this articleFull Article
Factors to consider before genetic testing -Joyce Teng, Clinical Associate Professor of dermatology is featured in this articleFull Article
USPSTF: Not enough proof for visual skin Ca screening- Susan Swetter, MD, Stanford Professor of dermatology is quoted in this article...Full Article
Possible psoriasis drug target identified - Peter Marinkovich, MD, Stanford Associate Professor of dermatology is featured in this articleFull Story
5 Questions: Susan Swetter on choosing a sunscreen-Susan Swetter, MD, Stanford Professorof dermatology is featured in this article....Full Article
Acne treatments: A Q&A with Stanford dermatologist Justin Ko-Justin Ko, MD, MBA, Stanford clinical assistant professor of dermatology is featured in this article....Full Article
Ultraviolet light-induced Mutation Drives Many Skin Cancers-Paul Khavari, MD, PhD, Carl J Herzog Professor of Dermatology and chair of the Department of Dermatology is quoted on this study...Full Story
Disproportionate Rates of Melanoma Found in Marin County-Stanford professor of dermatology, Susan Swetter, MD,, is featured in this audio forum...Audio
Antifungal drug may treat common skin cancer, study finds-Stanford associate professor of dermatology, Jean Tang, MD, PhD, is featured in this article...Full Story
Inflammatory skin damage in mice blocked by bleach solution, study finds...Thomas Leung, MD, PhD, Stanford instructor of dermatology and lead author comments....Full Story
New study: Genes may affect skin youthfulness...Anne Lynn S Chang, MD, Stanford assistant professor of dermatology comments....SCOPE Blog
Melanoma deaths more likely in young men than women...Susan Swetter, MD., professor of dermatology at Stanford is quoted....Full Story
See SCOPE Blog
How to weather summer's health challenges...Playing it safe in the sun...Susan Swetter, MD and Brooks Bahr, MD., Stanford dermatologists are featured....See Newsletter
In The News Archive
Current Newsletter
More here:
Boehringer Ingelheim recentlyannounced a collaboration with Weill Cornell Medicine to identify new treatment approaches forchronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)in order to develop novel treatments that could possibly halt or even reverse the progression of the disease process. The new, three-year collaboration combines Weill Cornell Medicines Department of Genetic Medicines unique understanding of chronic airway diseases and experience in the investigation of novel therapeutic concepts for airway repair with Boehringer Ingelheims expertise in the discovery and development of new therapies for respiratory diseases. This collaboration is the second collaboration between Boehringer Ingelheim and Weill Cornell Medicine, following prior work in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
Chronic lower respiratory diseases, which include COPD, are the third leading cause of death in the United States,and approximately 15million Americans have been told by a healthcare provider that they have COPD.It cannot be cured and current treatment approaches focus on bronchodilation, reducing symptoms and preventing exacerbations to decelerate the downward spiral of the disease.The goal is to help patients keep as active as possible and overall, improve their quality of life.
Our continuous search for molecular drivers of chronic obstructive airway diseases has revealed novel repair mechanisms that warrant further investigation of their potential as therapeutic approaches, said Dr. Ronald G. Crystal, Chairman of Genetic Medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and lead investigator in the new collaboration. We will look to further expand our knowledge about progressive airway destruction in close collaboration with Boehringer Ingelheim and focus on promising therapeutic concepts with the potential to slow down or halt progressive airway damage in patients with COPD.
We are delighted to work with Dr. Crystal at Weill Cornell Medicine, who is one of the leading scientists in severe progressive airway diseases worldwide, said Dr. Clive R. Wood, Senior Corporate Vice President, Discovery Research at Boehringer Ingelheim. The scientists at Weill Cornell Medicine and Boehringer Ingelheim will work hand in hand to translate new discoveries into drug discovery and development programs at Boehringer Ingelheim. The new collaboration is an excellent example of our unique partnering approach and our focus on early innovation, underscoring our ambition to develop the next generation of medical treatments for patients with COPD.
Boehringer Ingelheim is combining a focus on cutting-edge science with a long-term view enabling the company to create a stable environment for the development of the next generation of medical breakthroughs. This new project adds another building block in this long-term strategy to improve the lives of patients with high unmet medical needs.
Weill Cornell's Office of BioPharma Alliances and Research Collaborations negotiated the three-year collaboration.The offices mission is to proactively generate, structure and market translational research alliances with industry in order to advance promising research projects that have commercial potential. For more information, contact Larry Schlossman atlas2041@med.cornell.eduor at 212-746-6909.
About Boehringer Ingelheim in Respiratory
Boehringer Ingelheim has over 90 years of heritage in respiratory disease. Since 1921 the company has emerged as a leader in this disease area and has launched several treatments in a range of respiratory conditions including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and lung cancer. Boehringer Ingelheims focus is on improving the quality of life of patients suffering from debilitating respiratory diseases and enabling them to maintain a more independent life.
About Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., based in Ridgefield, CT, is the largest U.S. subsidiary of Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation.
Boehringer Ingelheim is one of the worlds 20 leading pharmaceutical companies.Headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany, the company operates globally with 145affiliates and more than 47,000 employees.Since its founding in 1885, the family-owned company has been committed to researching, developing, manufacturing and marketing novel treatments for human and veterinary medicine.
Boehringer Ingelheim is committed to improving lives and providing valuable services and support to patients and their families. Our employees create and engage in programs that strengthen our communities. To learn more about how we make more health for more people, visit ourCorporate Social Responsibility Report.
In 2015, Boehringer Ingelheim achieved net sales of about $15.8B (14.8billioneuros). R&D expenditure corresponds to 20.3 percent of its net sales.
SOURCE: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
See the rest here:
Boehringer Ingelheim And Weill Cornell Medicine Announce New ... - Clinical Leader
The National Academies of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine today published a report Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance that contends with uses of gene editing for human reproductive purposes, prospects which have been brought into vivid reality since the emergence of new biotechnology tools such as the gene modification system, Crispr-Cas9. The report suggests limitations on genetic engineering to the heritable germline code of embryos, or even earlier upstream in the process, sperm and ovum, which convey information passed on to subsequent generations.
However, the report appears to exclude the public from participation and concludes that clinical trials using heritable germline genome editing should be permitted. They should notnot without public discussion and a more conscious evaluation of how this impacts social standing, stigma and identity, ethics that scientists often tendto cite pro forma and then swiftly scuttle.
The statement is a striking reversal in outlook of leadership since just a year ago in December 2015, when the International Summit on Human Gene Editing was held at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington D.C., a conference which I attended, also drawing Nobel laureates, lawmakers, and bioethicists from across the globe, and declaring that a broad societal consensus be attained before moving ahead with altering heritable code. Indeed, weeks after the Summit, U.S. lawmakers added a rider to an omnibus spending bill to prevent the Food and Drug Administration from spending time or money reviewing applications of gene modification to heritable code.
Unlike more than 40 other countries, and an international treaty Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, the U.S. does not have a legal ban on modification to heritable code, but it does have a strong regulatory framework on drugs, and federal agencies treat Crispr-Cas9 as a drug. But the limitations on heritable code are only in effect temporarily in so far that spending is restricted on applications FDA can review.
Marcy Darnovsky, director for the Center for Genetics and Society noted the report appears to send from scientists to lawmakers a green light for proceeding with efforts to engineer the genes and traits that are passed on to future children and generations while noting that it excludes the public from participation in deciding whether human germline modification is acceptable in the first place.
In fact, there are a number of critical arguments on how we determine what is acceptable. The first is technical. The field of genetics is by no means accomplished. A group called the Human Aggregation Consortium just last year revealed that of 192 high frequency genetic variants that had previously been considered pathogenic, only nine are likely harmfulan important clarification for anyone wanting to recode their genome. Most mutations have very small effects on biological traits, and we know very little about how genetic variants enhance or diminish other genetic variants and differ based on genetic background.
Secondly, as Darnovsky, and Hille Haker, a bioethicist from Loyola University in Chicago, have pointed out that gene modification in combination with reproductive technologies to engender a genetically connected child is not a medical necessity. There is a difference between a negative right, which is a freedom from, a harm, and a full positive right, which is a freedom to access or gain some benefits. If a gene-edited child were a full positive right, society would be required to pay for all of its citizens to have children, apply genetic tests, gene modification and in vitro fertilization techniques to anyone who wants one. Importantly, scientists who patent gene modification systems such as Crispr-Cas9 have an interest in selling it as much as possible, which means the scientists themselves cannot be left solely responsible for shaping the moral frameworkthe public has an important role to play in shaping the morays around science today more than ever. Andthe debates are becoming more nuanced and sophisticated as gene editing systems such as Crispr-Cas9 allow us to do things like circumvent the oldcause celebreof altering human embryos, by editing heritable code in the sperm or eggs.
Our genomes are a constantly undergoing alteration and it would be incorrect to conceive of them as sacrosanct. Genes are shuffled with each new generation so its unlikely that gene editing will give some families permanent advantages. The theory of evolution suggests that we adapt to local conditions rather than progress to a more perfect form. But gene modification risks market based eugenics, meaning putting values on certain traits, and seeking to eliminate other traits, when genetic variants that contribute to many features such as autism, neuropsychiatric disorders, may be less a disease as ways of being in the world.
Evolution does not create values, we do. And we risk molding our children into commodities we would like to have, rather than emphasizing the people they can become. Darnovsky wrote the problem is stigmatizing people with disabilities, exacerbating existing inequalities, and introducing new eugenic abuses. Strangely, theres no apparent connection between those dire risks and the recommendation to move ahead. Thephilosopher-scientist Jean Rostand wrote a generation ago, science hasmade us godsevenbeforewe are worthy of beingmen. But those are professional experts. Its time to hear more from the public on what we think.
Jim Kozubek is the author ofModern Prometheus: Editing the Human Genome with Crispr-Cas9
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
Jim Kozubek
Jim Kozubek is the author of Modern Prometheus: Editing the Human Genome with Crispr-Cas9 (Cambridge University Press)
Credit: Nick Higgins
Read more:
FierceBiotech | Gene therapy treats muscle-wasting disease in dogs: Single infusion ... Science Daily Dogs with an inherited muscle-wasting disorder that was treated with a single infusion of corrective gene therapy were indistinguishable from normal animals ... Gene therapy tried in dogs with muscle disease could prove useful ... |
Read more:
Gene therapy treats muscle-wasting disease in dogs: Single infusion ... - Science Daily
Science Daily | Glowing mice suggest new gene therapy technique -- ScienceDaily Science Daily A collaboration between chemists and gene therapy experts produced a new way of inserting the code for modified proteins into the cells of mice. If successful in ... |
See the rest here:
Glowing mice suggest new gene therapy technique -- ScienceDaily - Science Daily