Bridging consent: from toll bridges to lift bridges?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The ability to share human biological samples, associated data and results across disease-specific and population-based human research biobanks is becoming increasingly important for research into disease development and translation. Although informed consent often does not anticipate such cross-domain sharing, it is important to examine its plausibility. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of bridging consent between disease-specific and population-based research. Comparative analyses of 1) current ethical and legal frameworks governing consent and 2) informed consent models found in disease-specific and population-based research were conducted.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Ethical and legal frameworks governing consent dissuade cross-domain data sharing. Paradoxically, analysis of consent models for disease-specific and population-based research reveals such a high degree of similarity that bridging consent could be possible if additional information regarding bridging was incorporated into consent forms. We submit that bridging of consent could be supported if current trends endorsing a new interpretation of consent are adopted. To illustrate this we sketch potential bridging consent scenarios.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>A bridging consent, respectful of the spirit of initial consent, is feasible and would require only small changes to the content of consents currently being used. Under a bridging consent approach, the initial data and samples collection can serve an identified research project as well as contribute to the creation of a resource for a range of other projects.</p

Gene Editing: How Can You Ask “Whether” If You Don't Know “How”?

Though questions about whether gene editing should be done at all have dominated ethical discussion, a literature about how it can be done ethically has been growing. Work on responsible translational pathways for human germline gene editing has been criticized for focusing on the wrong questions. But questions about responsible translational pathways – questions about how gene editing could be done ethically – are in an important sense prior to questions about whether it is desirable and permissible. Asking ‘whether’ questions about gene editing requires a model of what responsible clinical use of gene editing would look like

Comparison of Pax1/9 Locus Reveals 500-Myr-Old Syntenic Block and Evolutionary Conserved Noncoding Regions

Identification of conserved genomic regions within and between different genomes is crucial when studying genome evolution. Here, we described regions of strong synteny conservation between vertebrate deuterostomes (tetrapods and teleosts) and invertebrate deuterostomes (amphioxus and sea urchin). The shared gene contents across phylogenetically distant species demonstrate that the conservation of the regions stemmed from an ancestral segment instead of a series of independent convergent events. Comparison of the syntenic regions allows us to postulate the primitive gene organization in the last common ancestor of deuterostomes and the evolutionary events that occurred to the 3 distinct lineages of sea urchin, amphioxus, and vertebrates after their separation. In addition, alignment of the syntenic regions led to the identification of 8 noncoding evolutionarily conserved regions shared between amphioxus and vertebrates. To our knowledge, this is the first report of conserved noncoding sequences shared by vertebrates and nonvertebrates. These noncoding sequences have high possibility of being elements that regulate neighboring genes. They are likely to be a factor in the maintenance of conserved synteny over long phylogenetic distance in different deuterostome lineages