Whole-genome sequencing in synthetic biology is advancing, making the possibilities open in new medicines, treating genetic diseases, and sustainable energy. Scientists must keep in mind the ethics of this technology and how it can be misused.

“With the emergency use authorization process in a swirl of controversy, understanding the ethical dimensions of issuing it for a vaccine can provide clarity on the necessity of stringent guidelines from the FDA.”

Recent news offers compelling evidence that an effective vaccine for #COVID19 is on its way. Although this news provides optimism, many questions are considered. Who gets it first? Could it help quell the pandemic? Questions follow this exciting news.

What could infections among animals mean for humans, especially in the context of COVID-19? The decision to kill Mink by the Danish government echoes concerns about mutations that occur with coronavirus and its implications for human health. What do we do?

Can AI help doctors differentiate between COVID-19 and the regular flu? What information would the technology need and where should we draw those boundaries? Some models are showing promise by sifting through common health data.

The debate over plasma therapy continues on. Should its use become widespread? Although it has been authorized for use from the government, many hospitals grapple with this therapeutic due to need for further study.

The race for a COVID-19 vaccine has been on the forefront of many research pursuits, and bioethics is crucial when considering vaccine development and distribution. Clinical trials progressing through defined phases allow developers to gauge the effect of the vaccine in the larger population and study any effects of long-term utilization. Carl Zimmer of The New York Times provides a look at the early results from the “Sputnik V” vaccine in Russia.

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has overturned the state’s “Safer at Home” orders and mandated that all future statewide restrictions to battle the coronavirus must be approved by the legislature’s rule-making committee before they could be implemented.

The decision came after a group of doctors, patients and proponents sued, arguing that a 2015 law infringed on their constitutional right to make decisions about their own lives.

For years, California law required psychotherapists to report any patient who admitted developing, duplicating, printing or exchanging material depicting an obscene act involving a child. The therapists accepted that requirement. They regarded it as an obligation to report producers and distributors of child pornography. But when the Legislature amended the law in 2014 to reflect new technology, many therapists balked, complaining the new wording required them to inform on patients who posed no threat to others.