Technology requirements of exploration beyond Neptune by solar sail propulsion

This paper provides a set of requirements for the technology development of a solar sail propelled Interstellar Heliopause Probe mission. The mission is placed in the context of other outer solar systems missions, ranging from a Kuiper Belt mission through to an Oort cloud mission. Mission requirements are defined and a detailed parametric trajectory analysis and launch date scan performed. Through analysis of the complete mission trade space a set of critical technology development requirements are identified which include an advanced lightweight composite High-Gain Antenna, a high-efficiency Ka-band travelling-wave tube amplifier and a radioisotope thermoelectric generator with power density of approximately 12 W/kg. It is also shown that the Interstellar Heliopause Probe mission necessitates the use of a spinning sail, limiting the direct application of current hardware development activities. A Kuiper Belt mission is then considered as a pre-curser to the Interstellar Heliopause Probe, while it is also shown through study of an Oort cloud mission that the Interstellar Heliopause Probe mission is the likely end-goal of any future solar sail technology development program. As such, the technology requirements identified to enable the Interstellar Heliopause Probe must be enabled through all prior missions, with each mission acting as an enabling facilitator towards the next

Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group

1. Reprinted with permission from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.2. This article is hosted on a website external to the CBCRA Open Access Archive. Selecting “View/Open” below will launch the full-text article in another browser window

Genetic Information, Non-Discrimination, and Privacy Protections in Genetic Counseling Practice

The passage of the Genetic Information Non Discrimination Act (GINA) was hailed as a pivotal achievement that was expected to calm the fears of both patients and research participants about the potential misuse of genetic information. However, six years later, patient and provider awareness of legal protections at both the federal and state level remains discouragingly low, thereby, limiting their potential effectiveness. The increasing demand for genetic testing will expand the number of individuals and families who could benefit from obtaining accurate information about the privacy and anti-discriminatory protections that GINA and other laws extend. In this paper we describe legal protections that are applicable to individuals seeking genetic counseling, review the literature on patient and provider fears of genetic discrimination and examine their awareness and understandings of existing laws, and summarize how genetic counselors currently discuss genetic discrimination. We then present three genetic counseling cases to illustrate issues of genetic discrimination and provide relevant information on applicable legal protections. Genetic counselors have an unprecedented opportunity, as well as the professional responsibility, to disseminate accurate knowledge about existing legal protections to their patients. They can strengthen their effectiveness in this role by achieving a greater knowledge of current protections including being able to identify specific steps that can help protect genetic information

Prophylactic Oophorectomy in Carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations

http://content.nejm.orgThis article is hosted on a website external to the CBCRA Open Access Archive. Selecting "view/open" will launch the full-text article in another browser window.BACKGROUND: Data concerning the efficacy of bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy for reducing the risk of gynecologic cancer in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations are limited. We investigated whether this procedure reduces the risk of cancers of the coelomic epithelium and breast in women who carry such mutations. METHODS: A total of 551 women with disease-associated germ-line BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were identified from registries and studied for the occurrence of ovarian and breast cancer. We determined the incidence of ovarian cancer in 259 women who had undergone bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and in 292 matched controls who had not undergone the procedure. In a subgroup of 241 women with no history of breast cancer or prophylactic mastectomy, the incidence of breast cancer was determined in 99 women who had undergone bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and in 142 matched controls. The length of postoperative follow-up for both groups was at least eight years. RESULTS: Six women who underwent prophylactic oophorectomy (2.3 percent) received a diagnosis of stage I ovarian cancer at the time of the procedure; two women (0.8 percent) received a diagnosis of papillary serous peritoneal carcinoma 3.8 and 8.6 years after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy. Among the controls, 58 women (19.9 percent) received a diagnosis of ovarian cancer, after a mean follow-up of 8.8 years. With the exclusion of the six women whose cancer was diagnosed at surgery, prophylactic oophorectomy significantly reduced the risk of coelomic epithelial cancer (hazard ratio, 0.04; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.01 to 0.16). Of 99 women who underwent bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and who were studied to determine the risk of breast cancer, breast cancer developed in 21 (21.2 percent), as compared with 60 (42.3 percent) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy reduces the risk of coelomic epithelial cancer and breast cancer in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations