1
|
Elhusseiny SM, Bebawy AS, Saad BT, Aboshanab KM. Insights on monkeypox disease and its recent outbreak with evidence of nonsynonymous missense mutation. Future Sci OA 2023; 9:FSO877. [PMID: 37485445 PMCID: PMC10357398 DOI: 10.2144/fsoa-2023-0048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2023] [Accepted: 06/06/2023] [Indexed: 07/25/2023] Open
Abstract
The 2022 monkeypox outbreak has created a new global health threat and pandemic. Monkeypox virus is a descendant of the genus Orthopoxvirus, producing a febrile skin rash disease in humans. Monkeypox is zoonotic transmitted and transmitted from human to human in several ways. Even though this disease is self-limited, it creates important community health worries due to its inconvenience and widespread complications. Herein, we discussed the up-to-date current situation of monkeypox regarding its epidemiology, clinical manifestations, current in-use therapeutics, necessary protective measures, and response to potential occurrences considering the recent pandemic. Also, in this review, a comparative genomic analysis of the recent circulating strains that have been recovered from various countries including, Egypt, USA, Spain, Japan and South Africa has been investigated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shaza M Elhusseiny
- Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Ahram Canadian University (ACU), 4th Industrial Area, 6th of October City, Cairo, 12566, Egypt
| | - Abraam S Bebawy
- Department of Genomics, HITS Solutions Co., Cairo, 11765, Egypt
| | - Bishoy T Saad
- Department of Bioinformatics, HITS Solutions Co., Cairo, 11765, Egypt
| | - Khaled M Aboshanab
- Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Ain Shams University, Organization of African Unity St., Cairo, Abbassia, 11566, Egypt
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Schmid S, Riebe T, Reuter C. Dual-Use and Trustworthy? A Mixed Methods Analysis of AI Diffusion Between Civilian and Defense R&D. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2022; 28:12. [PMID: 35258776 PMCID: PMC8904348 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-022-00364-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2020] [Accepted: 01/25/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) seems to be impacting all industry sectors, while becoming a motor for innovation. The diffusion of AI from the civilian sector to the defense sector, and AI's dual-use potential has drawn attention from security and ethics scholars. With the publication of the ethical guideline Trustworthy AI by the European Union (EU), normative questions on the application of AI have been further evaluated. In order to draw conclusions on Trustworthy AI as a point of reference for responsible research and development (R&D), we approach the diffusion of AI across both civilian and military spheres in the EU. We capture the extent of technological diffusion and derive European and German patent citation networks. Both networks indicate a low degree of diffusion of AI between civilian and defense sectors. A qualitative investigation of project descriptions of a research institute's work in both civilian and military fields shows that military AI applications stress accuracy or robustness, while civilian AI reflects a focus on human-centric values. Our work represents a first approach by linking processes of technology diffusion with normative evaluations of R&D.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefka Schmid
- Science and Technology for Peace and Security (PEASEC), Technische Universität Darmstadt, Pankratiusstraße 2, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Thea Riebe
- Science and Technology for Peace and Security (PEASEC), Technische Universität Darmstadt, Pankratiusstraße 2, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Christian Reuter
- Science and Technology for Peace and Security (PEASEC), Technische Universität Darmstadt, Pankratiusstraße 2, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Dual-Use and Infectious Disease Research. INFECTIOUS DISEASES IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM 2020. [PMCID: PMC7226902 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-39819-4_9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
Despite rapid advance in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, infectious diseases remain a central challenge for global health policy. In the twenty-first century, the life sciences—including microbiology, virology, and immunology—have been marshalled as key tools in the fight against infectious disease, and the promotion of global health. Rapid advance in these fields, however, has given rise to the “dual-use dilemma,” when one and the same piece of scientific research or technology has the capacity to help or harm humanity. While not unique to fields that address infectious disease, contemporary cases of dual-use research are largely identified in the context of the life sciences. In this chapter I outline the debate about dual-use research in the life sciences, in particular the ethics of dual-use research. After a historical overview of the dual-use dilemma in the twenty-first century, I examine ethical issues in attempting to trade off the risks and benefits of dual-use research. I address how we select alternative, less risky experiments; translational issues arising for dual-use research; and political commitments to realise the benefits and mitigate the risks arising from such research. I then discuss the governance of dual-use research, before concluding with a brief discussion on priority setting in infectious disease research as a path forward for policymakers.
Collapse
|
4
|
Gaspar R, Rohde P, Giger J. Unconventional settings and uses of human enhancement technologies: A non‐systematic review of public and experts' views on self‐enhancement and DIY biology/biohacking risks. HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES 2019. [DOI: 10.1002/hbe2.175] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Rui Gaspar
- Universidade Católica PortuguesaFaculdade de Ciências Humanas, Catolica Research Centre for Psychological, Family and Social Wellbeing (CRC‐W) Lisbon Portugal
| | - Paul Rohde
- Universidade Católica PortuguesaFaculdade de Ciências Humanas, Centre for Research in Communication and Culture (CECC) Lisbon Portugal
| | - Jean‐Christophe Giger
- University of Algarve Faro Portugal
- Centre for Research in Psychology – CIP‐UAL Lisbon Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kabuga AI, El Zowalaty ME. A review of the monkeypox virus and a recent outbreak of skin rash disease in Nigeria. J Med Virol 2019; 91:533-540. [PMID: 30357851 DOI: 10.1002/jmv.25348] [Citation(s) in RCA: 80] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2018] [Accepted: 10/17/2018] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
Since the eradication of smallpox approximately 39 years ago, monkeypox virus remains the most pathogenic poxvirus, being mainly restricted to Central and West Africa. Before 1970, there were no reports of human monkeypox in Nigeria, while between 1971 and 1978 there were three cases, with none having been reported thereafter. However, in September 2017, a case of contagious skin rash disease, typical of monkeypox, was observed in an 11-year-old boy from the southern part of the country and confirmed to be associated with the monkeypox virus. This large outbreak consisted of 262 suspected, 115 confirmed cases, and 7 mortalities across 26 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja. The aim of this manuscript is to provide an updated, comprehensive, and timely review of monkeypox, an important emerging infection in Nigeria. Monkeypox is now a major threat to global health security, requiring an urgent multidisciplinary approach involving veterinarians, physicians, virologists, and public health experts to fast-track the development of diagnostic assays, vaccines, antivirals, and other control strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Auwal I Kabuga
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Parasitology, College of Health Sciences, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria
| | - Mohamed E El Zowalaty
- Virology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research Group, School of Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Wintle BC, Boehm CR, Rhodes C, Molloy JC, Millett P, Adam L, Breitling R, Carlson R, Casagrande R, Dando M, Doubleday R, Drexler E, Edwards B, Ellis T, Evans NG, Hammond R, Haseloff J, Kahl L, Kuiken T, Lichman BR, Matthewman CA, Napier JA, ÓhÉigeartaigh SS, Patron NJ, Perello E, Shapira P, Tait J, Takano E, Sutherland WJ. A transatlantic perspective on 20 emerging issues in biological engineering. eLife 2017; 6:e30247. [PMID: 29132504 PMCID: PMC5685469 DOI: 10.7554/elife.30247] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2017] [Accepted: 10/26/2017] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Advances in biological engineering are likely to have substantial impacts on global society. To explore these potential impacts we ran a horizon scanning exercise to capture a range of perspectives on the opportunities and risks presented by biological engineering. We first identified 70 potential issues, and then used an iterative process to prioritise 20 issues that we considered to be emerging, to have potential global impact, and to be relatively unknown outside the field of biological engineering. The issues identified may be of interest to researchers, businesses and policy makers in sectors such as health, energy, agriculture and the environment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bonnie C Wintle
- Centre for the Study of Existential RiskUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUnited Kingdom
| | - Christian R Boehm
- Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant PhysiologyPotsdamGermany
- Centre for the Study of Existential RiskUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUnited Kingdom
| | - Catherine Rhodes
- Centre for the Study of Existential RiskUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUnited Kingdom
| | - Jennifer C Molloy
- Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUnited Kingdom
| | - Piers Millett
- Future of Humanity InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUnited Kingdom
| | - Laura Adam
- Department of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUnited States
| | - Rainer Breitling
- Manchester Synthetic Biology Research Centre (SYNBIOCHEM), Manchester Institute of BiotechnologyUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUnited Kingdom
| | | | | | - Malcolm Dando
- Division of Peace Studies and the Bradford Centre for International DevelopmentUniversity of BradfordBradfordUnited Kingdom
| | - Robert Doubleday
- Centre for Science and PolicyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUnited Kingdom
| | - Eric Drexler
- Future of Humanity InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUnited Kingdom
| | - Brett Edwards
- Department of Politics, Languages & International StudiesUniversity of BathBathUnited Kingdom
| | - Tom Ellis
- Centre for Synthetic Biology and InnovationImperial College LondonLondonUnited Kingdom
| | - Nicholas G Evans
- Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MassachusettsLowellUnited States
| | | | - Jim Haseloff
- Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUnited Kingdom
| | - Linda Kahl
- BioBricks FoundationSan FranciscoUnited States
| | - Todd Kuiken
- Genetic Engineering & Society CenterNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUnited States
| | | | | | | | - Seán S ÓhÉigeartaigh
- Centre for the Study of Existential RiskUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUnited Kingdom
| | | | | | - Philip Shapira
- Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUnited Kingdom
- School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUnited States
| | - Joyce Tait
- Innogen InstituteUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUnited Kingdom
| | - Eriko Takano
- Manchester Synthetic Biology Research Centre (SYNBIOCHEM), Manchester Institute of BiotechnologyUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUnited Kingdom
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Brown R, Evans NG. The social value of candidate HIV cures: actualism versus possibilism. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2017; 43:118-123. [PMID: 27402887 PMCID: PMC5293842 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103125] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2016] [Revised: 05/20/2016] [Accepted: 06/15/2016] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
A sterilising or functional cure for HIV is a serious scientific challenge but presents a viable pathway to the eradication of HIV. Such an event would be extremely valuable in terms of relieving the burden of a terrible disease; however, a coordinated commitment to implement healthcare interventions, particularly in regions that bear the brunt of the HIV epidemic, is lacking. In this paper, we examine two strategies for evaluating candidate HIV cures, based on our beliefs about the likelihood of global implementation. We reject possibilist interpretations of social value that do not account for the likelihood that a plan to cure HIV will be followed through. We argue, instead, for an actualist ranking of options for action, which accounts for the likelihood that a cure will be low cost, scalable and easy to administer worldwide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Regina Brown
- Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Nicholas Greig Evans
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Selgelid MJ. Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2016; 22:923-964. [PMID: 27502512 PMCID: PMC4996883 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9810-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2016] [Accepted: 06/12/2016] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens. Such research, when conducted by responsible scientists, usually aims to improve understanding of disease causing agents, their interaction with human hosts, and/or their potential to cause pandemics. The ultimate objective of such research is to better inform public health and preparedness efforts and/or development of medical countermeasures. Despite these important potential benefits, GOF research (GOFR) can pose risks regarding biosecurity and biosafety. In 2014 the administration of US President Barack Obama called for a "pause" on funding (and relevant research with existing US Government funding) of GOF experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses in particular. With announcement of this pause, the US Government launched a "deliberative process" regarding risks and benefits of GOFR to inform future funding decisions-and the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) was tasked with making recommendations to the US Government on this matter. As part of this deliberative process the National Institutes of Health commissioned this Ethical Analysis White Paper, requesting that it provide (1) review and summary of ethical literature on GOFR, (2) identification and analysis of existing ethical and decision-making frameworks relevant to (i) the evaluation of risks and benefits of GOFR, (ii) decision-making about the conduct of GOF studies, and (iii) the development of US policy regarding GOFR (especially with respect to funding of GOFR), and (3) development of an ethical and decision-making framework that may be considered by NSABB when analyzing information provided by GOFR risk-benefit assessment, and when crafting its final recommendations (especially regarding policy decisions about funding of GOFR in particular). The ethical and decision-making framework ultimately developed is based on the idea that there are numerous ethically relevant dimensions upon which any given case of GOFR can fare better or worse (as opposed to there being necessary conditions that are either satisfied or not satisfied, where all must be satisfied in order for a given case of GOFR to be considered ethically acceptable): research imperative, proportionality, minimization of risks, manageability of risks, justice, good governance (i.e., democracy), evidence, and international outlook and engagement. Rather than drawing a sharp bright line between GOFR studies that are ethically acceptable and those that are ethically unacceptable, this framework is designed to indicate where any given study would fall on an ethical spectrum-where imaginable cases of GOFR might range from those that are most ethically acceptable (perhaps even ethically praiseworthy or ethically obligatory), at one end of the spectrum, to those that are most ethically problematic or unacceptable (and thus should not be funded, or conducted), at the other. The aim should be that any GOFR pursued (and/or funded) should be as far as possible towards the former end of the spectrum.
Collapse
|
9
|
Bartholomew JC, Pearson AD, Stenseth NC, LeDuc JW, Hirschberg DL, Colwell RR. Building Infectious Disease Research Programs to Promote Security and Enhance Collaborations with Countries of the Former Soviet Union. Front Public Health 2015; 3:271. [PMID: 26636067 PMCID: PMC4660230 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00271] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2015] [Accepted: 11/12/2015] [Indexed: 01/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Addressing the threat of infectious diseases, whether natural, the results of a laboratory accident, or a deliberate act of bioterrorism, requires no corner of the world be ignored. The mobility of infectious agents and their rapid adaptability, whether to climate change or socioeconomic drivers or both, demand the science employed to understand these processes be advanced and tailored to a country or a region, but with a global vision. In many parts of the world, largely because of economic struggles, scientific capacity has not kept pace with the need to accomplish this goal and has left these regions and hence the world vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks. To build scientific capability in a developing region requires cooperation and participation of experienced international scientists who understand the issues and are committed to educate the next generations of young investigators in the region. These efforts need to be coupled with the understanding and resolve of local governments and international agencies to promote an aggressive science agenda. International collaborative scientific investigation of infectious diseases not only adds significantly to scientific knowledge, but it promotes health security, international trust, and long-term economic benefit to the region involved. This premise is based on the observation that the most powerful human inspiration is that which brings peoples together to work on and solve important global challenges. The republics of the former Soviet Union provide a valuable case study for the need to rebuild scientific capacity as they are located at the crossroads where many of the world’s great epidemics began. The scientific infrastructure and disease surveillance capabilities of the region suffered significant decline after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program, a part of the U.S. Department of Defense, together with partner countries, have worked diligently to improve the capabilities in this region to guard against the potential future risk from especially dangerous pathogens. The dissolution of the Soviet Union left behind many scientists still working to study pathogens using antiquated protocols in unsafe laboratories. To address this situation, the CTR program began improving laboratory infrastructure, establishing biosafety and biosecurity programs, and training scientists in modern techniques, with emphasis on biosurveillance and safe containment of especially dangerous pathogens. In the Republic of Georgia, this effort culminated in the construction of a modern containment laboratory, the Richard G. Lugar Center for Public Health Research in Tbilisi to house both isolated especially dangerous pathogens as well as the research to be conducted on these agents. The need now is to utilize and sustain the investment made by CTR by establishing strong public and animal health science programs in these facilities tailored to the needs of the region and the goals for which this investment was made. A similar effort is ongoing in other former Soviet Republics. Here, we provide the analysis and recommendations of an international panel of expert scientists appointed by the Cooperative Biological Engagement Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to provide advice to the stakeholders on the scientific path for the future. The emphasis is on an implementation strategy for decision makers and scientists to consider providing a sustainable biological science program in support of the One Health initiative. Opportunities, potential barriers, and lessons learned while meeting the needs of the Republic of Georgia and the Caucasus region are discussed. It is hoped that this effort will serve as a model for similar scientific needs in not only the former Soviet Union republics but also other regions challenged by infectious diseases where the CTR program operates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James C. Bartholomew
- Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
- *Correspondence: James C. Bartholomew,
| | - Andrew D. Pearson
- Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Maryland Center for Advanced Computer Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
| | - Nils Chr. Stenseth
- Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - James W. LeDuc
- Galveston National Laboratory, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
| | - David L. Hirschberg
- Department of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington Tacoma, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Rita R. Colwell
- Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Maryland Center for Advanced Computer Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Evans NG, Lipsitch M, Levinson M. The ethics of biosafety considerations in gain-of-function research resulting in the creation of potential pandemic pathogens. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2015; 41:901-8. [PMID: 26320212 PMCID: PMC4623968 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2014-102619] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2014] [Accepted: 08/12/2015] [Indexed: 05/28/2023]
Abstract
This paper proposes an ethical framework for evaluating biosafety risks of gain-of-function (GOF) experiments that create novel strains of influenza expected to be virulent and transmissible in humans, so-called potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs). Such research raises ethical concerns because of the risk that accidental release from a laboratory could lead to extensive or even global spread of a virulent pathogen. Biomedical research ethics has focused largely on human subjects research, while biosafety concerns about accidental infections, seen largely as a problem of occupational health, have been ignored. GOF/PPP research is an example of a small but important class of research where biosafety risks threaten public health, well beyond the small number of persons conducting the research.We argue that bioethical principles that ordinarily apply only to human subjects research should also apply to research that threatens public health, even if, as in GOF/PPP studies, the research involves no human subjects. Specifically we highlight the Nuremberg Code's requirements of 'fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods', and proportionality of risk and humanitarian benefit, as broad ethical principles that recur in later documents on research ethics and should also apply to certain types of research not involving human subjects. We address several potential objections to this view, and conclude with recommendations for bringing these ethical considerations into policy development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas Grieg Evans
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA.
| | - Marc Lipsitch
- Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Meira Levinson
- Levinson, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|