Download Resolution booklet - European Student Parliaments

Resolution
booklet
European Student
Parliament
Nottingham
3, 18-19 February 2016
A project by:
Organised by:
Funded by:
www.student-parliament.eu
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE
“The changing reproduction of mankind”
Practices of in vitro fertilisation have become quite common and accepted in society –
and here is the very latest: social freezing. Conserving ova is supposed to ensure the
compatibility of career and family. How can the human being manipulate its own
reproduction and does that really work? Which chances and risks exist?
Proposed by:
Theresa Jennings
Trinity School
Jeren Artykova
NCC Youth Cabinet
Sean Carolan
Trinity School
Cameron Blankley
Trinity School
Lucy Macharia
Trinity School
Eronms Amieghemen
Trinity School
Matthew Losdale
Central College
Tizayi Zirereza
Joseph Whitaker School
Alexander Crane
Joseph Whitaker School
Craig Kirton
NTU
Facilitated by: Dr. Karen Moss, Rick Hall
We recognise:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
Therapeutic cloning to produce organs and tissues is more acceptable than an
attempt to produce a whole person and we recognise that technology has its
limits at the minute.
There are ethical and medical issues surrounding embryos through IVF such as
multiple pregnancies, OHSS and the fact that a foetus is considered to be alive
after 14 days. This is currently regulated by Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Authority (HFEA).
Funding in IVF research is low due to more funding being put into research for
cures for diseases which are life threatening rather than procreating life.
IVF eligibility is not the same across the country and some places base it on your
postcode (Market research showed that the general public voted that IVF
eligibility should not be based on the postcode.)
The Council House, Notting
Karyomapping should be invested in and should test for other diseases and help
18th & 19th February 20
eradicate diseases such as cystic fibrosis.
We shouldn’t be trying to switch on/off genes as we do not know the problems
that it will cause.
It is quite uncommon that mitochondrial donation will be needed as it is rare that
the mitochondria need to be replaced.
European Student Parliament Nottingham, 18th & 19th February 2016
Nottingham
European Studen
Parliament
1
www.student-parliament.eu
We claim:
1. We recognise that there should be more opportunities for therapeutic cloning.
E.g. cloning organs and/or tissues.
2. We recognise the need for better legislation and bodies such as Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to license and minimise risks.
3. We recognise the need for more funding of research into IVF.
4. IVF should be free and accessible to everyone who needs it regardless of
postcode.
5. We recognise that Karyomapping should be used more widely so that genetic
diseases can be diagnosed faster and more effectively. E.g. like cystic fibrosis.
6. We recognise that the complications of gene switching (e.g. “Warrior Gene”)
have unintended consequences.
7. Although we recognise the need for development of research in mitochondrial
donations, it is not as highly prioritised as research in other areas such as
IVF/IVG, etc.
END
European Student Parliament Nottingham, 18th & 19th February 2016
2
www.student-parliament.eu
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE
“Augmented Human: optimising the human “
Glasses and prostheses have been employed for many centuries to optimise the
human body. As of now a new wave of modifying the body is being initiated: by
means of the google glasses or a ring that can name objects using a camera. What will
the human being look like in 20 years’ time? Will our skills be extended through
implants, drugs or other technical means?
Proposed by:
Adam Ip
Allison Courage
Amala Joseph
Andrzej Sankowski
Jacob Holt
Jacob Holt
Jasmeet Hayre
Jessica Straw
Laurien Oliver-Mighten
Santiago Gomez-Luengo
Tiarnon Giles
Joseph Whitaker School
Central College
Central College
Joseph Whitaker School
Trinity School
Bilborough College
Bluecoat Academy
Central College
Central College
Trinity School
Trinity School
Moderators: Nader al-Nasser, Adrian Reynolds
We have assessed:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Human Augmentation is the improvement of a person’s ability through
technology 1. This can be normalisation (returning someone to a “normal” state),
for example glasses or hearing aids, or augmenting someone’s natural abilities;
This committee recognises the myriad medical applications of Human
Augmentation to normalise 2 and augment 3 people and the huge potential
benefits to the population.
The funding for these projects, whether public or private, is a potential concern,
due to the high capital investment needed to develop and disseminate this
technology.
The ethical issues surrounding potential Human Augmentations, such as
Cosmetic or Military applications and the potential dangers to society posed by
this technology.
The huge potential dangers of interfacing with the brain and nervous system and
the risks for individuals involved in this.
The potential for Human Augmentation to become a politically divisive topic as
the technology gains widespread adoption.
European Student Parliament Nottingham, 18th & 19th February 2016
3
www.student-parliament.eu
We claim:
1. That Human Augmentation to enable a normal lifestyle should be available to all
2. That said Augmentation should be funded in the same manner as other forms of
healthcare 4
3. That funding for the development of Human Augmentation should be distributed
without bias, and the technology should be developed through partnerships between
the public and private sectors 5
4. That people have a right to alter their own bodies, but the state is not morally obliged
to facilitate or encourage this.
5. That military uses of this technology are dangerous, but that parity in military
technology is needed to obtain peace
6. That it is needed to limit the capability of these technologies available to the general
public through legislation or industry regulation
7. That there is a need for clinical trials and possible restrictions to mitigate the risks
associated with the development of this technology, especially when working with the
brain or nervous system.
Notes
1 http://ieet.org/index.php/tpwiki/human_enhancement
2 return to a “normal” state eg. normal sight compared to short-sightedness
3 increase normal capability eg. military exoskeletons for carrying large loads
4 eg. through taxation or insurance
5 eg. a partnership between a government-funded university and a biotics company
END
European Student Parliament Nottingham, 18th & 19th February 2016
4
www.student-parliament.eu
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE
“Imitating Nature“
Imitating nature through a modular system – that is what synthetic biology is about.
Scientists hope for new medication and new pharmaceutical ingredients. How is that
supposed to function? How can we imitate new biological pieces, gadgets or systems?
And don’t we overstep the mark here?
Proposed by:
Emily Spray
Esther Neat
Ewan Bates
Harry Williams
Julia Auer
Lewis Field
Oliver Barks
Ryan Lettinga
Steph Watson
Veronica Tran
Trinity School
Bluecoat Academy
Central College
Central College
Bilborough College
Central College
Central College
Central College
Central College
Trinity School
Facilitators: Nicholas Nicou, Louis Morin
We have assessed:
i.
We have assessed that we can know the possibilities of using other organisms
to help genetically modify DNA synthetically to aid human health, e.g. 20 p53
genes in elephants and less likely to develop cancer as it impairs DNA, was
implemented in the mouse but had decreased the life expectancy. (Tyner et
al, 2001; Matheu et al, 2007)
ii.
Increasing using synthetic mammalian therapeutic cells to screen for the
biomarkers of all disease and to respond to treating the disease. (Haellman
and Fusseneger et al, 2015)
iii.
They can take T-cells from a patient, and genetically modified it and they
injected into the patient in the purpose of targeting acute lymphoblastic
leukaemia specifically with a chimeric antigen receptor. (James Gallagher,
2016) Also to eliminate cancer cells without damaging normal tissue, the
engineered bacteria is able to diffuse in to a low oxygen level environment
within the tumour and tackle the CTNNB1 gene to prevent colon cancer for
growing (Ruder et al, 2011)
European Student Parliament Nottingham, 18th & 19th February 2016
5
www.student-parliament.eu
iv.
So far E-coli bacteria is successfully synthetically modified to prevent cholera
to producing toxins (Sauyer, 2012)
v.
There is technology to have synthetic robotic arm that is able to attach to
nerves and so the individual is able to feel the sense of touch (Murphy, 2015)
vi.
It possible to synthetically modify stem cells to produce a windpipe for
therapy (BBC, 2015)
vii.
Scientist are well aware of discussing ethical issues using
augmented/synthetic technology. (Woodrow Wilson international centre for
scholars).
We claim:
1. That the current international system requires new global institutions to prevent
any private organisation or state from exercising total authority or ownership
over new technologies in synthetic biology. Govern prioritising the new synthetic
technologies.
2. Within a country, we claim that developments in synthetic biology must not be
for-profit and use a development of the SOFA? Guidelines to assess priority.
3. Independent information and education needs to be disseminated (social-media
iPlayer’s communicate simply, independent of political agenda) across the public
as a prerequisite forgiving everyone a say.
4. Individual should be fully informed by their options to use a synthetic
modification in their body and if unable to think for themselves due to medical
condition, therefore it should be decided in agreement with medical practitioner
and a few relatives.
5. Synthetic biological sample vs synthetic mechanical samples should be made as a
choice for the person to decide on what they want as long they are made aware
of the processes and potential risks.
6. Balance between depth of understanding and breadth of application.
END
European Student Parliament Nottingham, 18th & 19th February 2016
6
www.student-parliament.eu
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE
“Living and eating healthy – but how?“
Organic food is ‘en vogue‘. But what is that supposed to mean? Do we better not eat
meat or even animal products at all? Are genetically engineered foods dangerous for
our health? Are long-term consequences to be expected? And how can we be sure
what is really healthy and what isn’t?
Proposed by:
Aria Sharokhshahi
Harry Callingham
Jujhar Singh
Klaudia Cander
Lottie Sawford
Nathanial Ball
Ruben Jones-Davidson
Sophia Dryden
Facilitator:
NCC Youth Cabinet
Joseph Whitaker School
Central College
Trinity School
NCC Youth Cabinet
Central College
NCC Youth Cabinet
Trinity School
Chris Thompson, Jacqueline Lockhart
We have assessed:
i.
The high level of contradictions of sources of information in the media
ii.
The Levels of GM crop integration into the European economy compared to
other continents.
iii.
Use of GM crops in lesser developed countries and regions
iv.
The impact of sugar on obesity levels and chronic diseases such as diabetes and
strokes.
v.
The overall saturation of sugar in a wide range of food and drinks.
vi.
The difference in lifestyles and mortality rates, of high meat consuming countries
versus vegetarian, and the risks and benefits surrounding meat products.
European Student Parliament Nottingham, 18th & 19th February 2016
7
www.student-parliament.eu
We claim:
1. That encouraging a greater level of critical thinking among the general public will
help to combat the misrepresentation and manipulation of data and messages in
the media concerning the consumption of healthy foodstuffs.
2. The largely negative social and political attitudes towards GMO’s across Europe
are hindering research and development that would significantly benefit
developing nations.
3. That a tax on sugar should be introduced across Europe, to combat high levels of
obesity and reduce spending on health.
4. Providing alternatives to a traditional “meat centric” diet and lifestyle would
improve health outcomes across Europe.
END
European Student Parliament Nottingham, 18th & 19th February 2016
8
www.student-parliament.eu
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE
“The Human Brain“
The human brain has been investigated intensively for years. Experts hope for
therapies against dementia illnesses, but also human thinking and feeling is a core
focus. But how does our brain work? Can we really simulate our brain and thinking?
And will we be able to understand and heal dementia illnesses?
Proposed by:
Aiman Khan
Alaa Targoni
Bilborough College
Bilborough College
Angel Chandwani
Estela Neicelyte
Frieda Wignall
Harriot Grinnell-Moore
Ibraheem Ahmed
NTU
NTU
Bluecoat Academy
NCC Youth Cabinet
NCC Youth Cabinet
Central College
Central College
Klaudi Koska
Shaniah Wenn
Facilitators: Ivan Lafayette, Hasmita Chavda
We recognise:
i.
The Human Brain is a complex organ that controls our physiology, our behaviour
and emotions, and that we know relatively little about.
ii.
When the brain malfunctions it can adversely affect human life including
conditions like dementia that affect 800,000 people in the UK.
iii.
The cost to dementia in the UK is £24bn per year.
iv.
Mental health problems affect 1 in 10 children and young people, and 1 in 4
adults. 70% of young people who experience mental health problems have not
had appropriate interventions at a sufficiently early age.
v.
Lack of public awareness and a social stigma is a barrier to people receiving
treatment for dementia and mental illness.
European Student Parliament Nottingham, 18th & 19th February 2016
9
www.student-parliament.eu
vi.
There is poor accessibility to treatment in regards to mental health and
dementia.
vii.
There is a strong correlation between poor lifestyle choices and increased risk of
mental illness and developing dementia.
viii.
The gene APO E4 has been identified as a bio-marker indicating high risk of
developing Alzheimer’s but that risk can be reduced through exercise.
ix.
Tests for bio-markers are not widely accessible due to the difficulty and expense
of the procedure.
We claim:
There is a pressing need for:
1. There is a pressing need for: screening for mental health and well-being for all
young people of secondary school age;
2. Raising awareness through education programmes and campaigns for mental
health, well-being and prevention strategies for dementia;
3. An increase in public funding into research for the causes of mental illnesses and
dementia as well as inexpensive tests for bio-markers for dementia;
4. Increase in funding for research into brain functions and possible cures and
treatment (including STEM cell research);
5. Better support and resources for carers of people with dementia.
END
European Student Parliament Nottingham, 18th & 19th February 2016
10
Nottingham City Council &
Nottingham Trent University
●
www.student-parliaments.eu
www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk
www.ntu.ac.uk
A project by:
Organised by:
Funded by: