{"title":"The Fate of the Soul","authors":"C. H. William","doi":"10.4324/9781315554723-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315554723-3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49779,"journal":{"name":"Natural History","volume":"113 1","pages":"52-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2004-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70648947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter contains sections titled: The Politics of the Empirical, Expansion of the Domain, Theory as a Barrier, The Value of Comparison, The Depoliticization Effect of Politics, The Detachment of Effects from Social Processes of Originary Concern, The Emergence of a Post-Law Society, Discussion, Notes
{"title":"A Long View.","authors":"Rachel S. Sussman","doi":"10.2307/j.ctt1t89f7m.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t89f7m.9","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter contains sections titled: The Politics of the Empirical, Expansion of the Domain, Theory as a Barrier, The Value of Comparison, The Depoliticization Effect of Politics, The Detachment of Effects from Social Processes of Originary Concern, The Emergence of a Post-Law Society, Discussion, Notes","PeriodicalId":49779,"journal":{"name":"Natural History","volume":"45 1","pages":"11-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68724799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-01-01DOI: 10.4324/9780203401897-26
Mark W. Denny
{"title":"The rewards of chance.","authors":"Mark W. Denny","doi":"10.4324/9780203401897-26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203401897-26","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49779,"journal":{"name":"Natural History","volume":"110 1","pages":"72-77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70584612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/15.1.241
Ellen Goldensohn
Authored by Ingrid Schneider The essence of this Opinion is supported by Christoph Then This document is a dissenting opinion to the Report on patents in the field of human stem cells (hereinafter referred to as the “Report”) of the Expert Group on the development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering (E02973). As in the Report, this dissenting opinion is focused on human stem cells, human embryos and gametes as well as the application of the ordre public and morality clause of Art. 53 EPC and the respective Articles 5 and 6 in the Directive 98/44/EC. Summary The Report does not object to “non‐destructive uses” of human embryos (cf. Report, page 18). Article 6(2)c of the Directive, however, considers unpatentable "uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes" and does not distinguish between "destructive" and "non‐destructive" uses of human embryos. It is arbitrary to exclude "destructive uses" from patentability and to allow "non‐destructive" uses of human embryos. Even if "non‐destructive" uses of human embryos were deemed patentable, the method disclosed in Chung et al. 2008 does not provide sound evidence for a "non‐ destructive" use of human embryos, contrary to the Report (page 20) Stem cells derived from activated human egg cells (parthenogenetic embryonic stem cells, hpES) are not identical to human embryonic stem cells, and therefore it is inadmissible to grant patents for processes and products on human embryonic stem cells, based on such hpES methods. Novel methods enable the use of iPS or embryonic stem cells to create artificial gametes and embryos genetically derived from two partners of same sex or from one individual only. It is recommended that both the European Commission and the EPO specify and clarify that the term “germ cell” also includes artificially created egg and sperm cells, and that the term embryo also covers those artificially fused embryos. Genome editing technologies such as CRISPR have reignited the debate on human germline modification. It is paramount that both the European Commission and the EPO specify and clarify that Articles 6(2)b and 6(2)c apply to CRISPR‐Cas9 and CRISPR‐ Cpf1, if practiced in human germ cells and human embryos. Transparency and accountability of the work of the EPO requires disclosure of data on patent applications and grants, and revelation of changed granting practices in the EPO's Guidelines for Examination. There is a strong need for a better balance in patent law to secure the proper interpretation of the ordre public and morality exemption in European patent law, in accordance with the purposes and intentions of the European legislator and with the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. This requires the European Commission to take the initiative in strengthening the patent exclusions in Articles 5 and 6. In view of the rapid scientific developments it is urgently needed to provide an adequate clarification and
{"title":"A Dissenting Opinion.","authors":"Ellen Goldensohn","doi":"10.1093/icsidreview/15.1.241","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/15.1.241","url":null,"abstract":"Authored by Ingrid Schneider The essence of this Opinion is supported by Christoph Then This document is a dissenting opinion to the Report on patents in the field of human stem cells (hereinafter referred to as the “Report”) of the Expert Group on the development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering (E02973). As in the Report, this dissenting opinion is focused on human stem cells, human embryos and gametes as well as the application of the ordre public and morality clause of Art. 53 EPC and the respective Articles 5 and 6 in the Directive 98/44/EC. Summary The Report does not object to “non‐destructive uses” of human embryos (cf. Report, page 18). Article 6(2)c of the Directive, however, considers unpatentable \"uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes\" and does not distinguish between \"destructive\" and \"non‐destructive\" uses of human embryos. It is arbitrary to exclude \"destructive uses\" from patentability and to allow \"non‐destructive\" uses of human embryos. Even if \"non‐destructive\" uses of human embryos were deemed patentable, the method disclosed in Chung et al. 2008 does not provide sound evidence for a \"non‐ destructive\" use of human embryos, contrary to the Report (page 20) Stem cells derived from activated human egg cells (parthenogenetic embryonic stem cells, hpES) are not identical to human embryonic stem cells, and therefore it is inadmissible to grant patents for processes and products on human embryonic stem cells, based on such hpES methods. Novel methods enable the use of iPS or embryonic stem cells to create artificial gametes and embryos genetically derived from two partners of same sex or from one individual only. It is recommended that both the European Commission and the EPO specify and clarify that the term “germ cell” also includes artificially created egg and sperm cells, and that the term embryo also covers those artificially fused embryos. Genome editing technologies such as CRISPR have reignited the debate on human germline modification. It is paramount that both the European Commission and the EPO specify and clarify that Articles 6(2)b and 6(2)c apply to CRISPR‐Cas9 and CRISPR‐ Cpf1, if practiced in human germ cells and human embryos. Transparency and accountability of the work of the EPO requires disclosure of data on patent applications and grants, and revelation of changed granting practices in the EPO's Guidelines for Examination. There is a strong need for a better balance in patent law to secure the proper interpretation of the ordre public and morality exemption in European patent law, in accordance with the purposes and intentions of the European legislator and with the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. This requires the European Commission to take the initiative in strengthening the patent exclusions in Articles 5 and 6. In view of the rapid scientific developments it is urgently needed to provide an adequate clarification and","PeriodicalId":49779,"journal":{"name":"Natural History","volume":"109 1","pages":"6-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/icsidreview/15.1.241","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60937343","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1999-01-01DOI: 10.5040/9781474214766.ch-001
Ellen Goldensohn
Years ago, when I first moved to New York, my name got changed. I was setting up phone service for my new apartment, and the woman on the other end ran through a series of questions: Call waiting? Call forwarding? How do you want to be listed? My answers: Yes, no, and by my first initial. A week later, a thick packet from Verizon landed in my mailbox. It was addressed to “E,” no first name, no last — only that letter sitting alone above my street name and number. For several years, until I moved in with my boyfriend, “E” I remained — on my calling card, in the phone book, on all Verizon correspondence. I liked the way it looked on its own. My “E” felt full of possibility, like putting on a bright shade of lipstick, like slipping into a slinky dress. Maybe this signaled the new me. I think of this story now, as I turn to my then-boyfriend, now husband, and say, “Maybe I’ll change my name. Take yours instead.” “If you want,” he says. Blessedly, he doesn’t mention that I’ve brought it up enough times over the course of our five-year marriage to become something of a joke. “I would love it, but really, it’s up to you.” At the time of our wedding, the time you’d think I would have answered this question once and for all, I never seriously considered taking his name. It wasn’t who I was. I liked my name, liked that it was different from his. A name struck me as the most incidental of connections. Why would we ever need to share one? And now — well, now things have changed. Now there are three of us. We have a daughter — a wondrous little girl — who at 17 months is just now saying her first name. I suspect she will not care much that her last name differs from her mother’s. I’m the one who feels a twinge when we receive invitations addressed to the three of us or see our names listed in our building’s directory — the awkwardness of having my husband’s and daughter’s names linked while mine remains alone. The myriad solutions that others have alighted on never felt right. Would you hyphenate Umansky? And yet I just can’t seem to take the plunge. Change the name I’ve always had, that long clunky name that somehow made it through Ellis Island and fought off the assimilating forces that followed? Change the name that links me not only to my brothers and paternal family but to the little town of Uman in Ukraine, where at the start of the Jewish New Year, thousands flock to the gravesite of Rabbi Nachman and chant, Uman, Uman, Rosh Hashanah? I decided long ago that I would retain my name professionally, so in many ways, changing it feels slightly ridiculous, a grand, hollow gesture. Perhaps it comes down to this: Five years ago, I worried about preserving my own identity. Now it feels equally important to carve out a collective identity for the three of us, my family. The last time I brought it up, my husband, daughter and I were walking on a nearly empty beach, on a glorious fall day. It was blissful, and I found myself thinking, with a nervous jab of excite
{"title":"What's in the Name?.","authors":"Ellen Goldensohn","doi":"10.5040/9781474214766.ch-001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474214766.ch-001","url":null,"abstract":"Years ago, when I first moved to New York, my name got changed. I was setting up phone service for my new apartment, and the woman on the other end ran through a series of questions: Call waiting? Call forwarding? How do you want to be listed? My answers: Yes, no, and by my first initial. A week later, a thick packet from Verizon landed in my mailbox. It was addressed to “E,” no first name, no last — only that letter sitting alone above my street name and number. For several years, until I moved in with my boyfriend, “E” I remained — on my calling card, in the phone book, on all Verizon correspondence. I liked the way it looked on its own. My “E” felt full of possibility, like putting on a bright shade of lipstick, like slipping into a slinky dress. Maybe this signaled the new me. I think of this story now, as I turn to my then-boyfriend, now husband, and say, “Maybe I’ll change my name. Take yours instead.” “If you want,” he says. Blessedly, he doesn’t mention that I’ve brought it up enough times over the course of our five-year marriage to become something of a joke. “I would love it, but really, it’s up to you.” At the time of our wedding, the time you’d think I would have answered this question once and for all, I never seriously considered taking his name. It wasn’t who I was. I liked my name, liked that it was different from his. A name struck me as the most incidental of connections. Why would we ever need to share one? And now — well, now things have changed. Now there are three of us. We have a daughter — a wondrous little girl — who at 17 months is just now saying her first name. I suspect she will not care much that her last name differs from her mother’s. I’m the one who feels a twinge when we receive invitations addressed to the three of us or see our names listed in our building’s directory — the awkwardness of having my husband’s and daughter’s names linked while mine remains alone. The myriad solutions that others have alighted on never felt right. Would you hyphenate Umansky? And yet I just can’t seem to take the plunge. Change the name I’ve always had, that long clunky name that somehow made it through Ellis Island and fought off the assimilating forces that followed? Change the name that links me not only to my brothers and paternal family but to the little town of Uman in Ukraine, where at the start of the Jewish New Year, thousands flock to the gravesite of Rabbi Nachman and chant, Uman, Uman, Rosh Hashanah? I decided long ago that I would retain my name professionally, so in many ways, changing it feels slightly ridiculous, a grand, hollow gesture. Perhaps it comes down to this: Five years ago, I worried about preserving my own identity. Now it feels equally important to carve out a collective identity for the three of us, my family. The last time I brought it up, my husband, daughter and I were walking on a nearly empty beach, on a glorious fall day. It was blissful, and I found myself thinking, with a nervous jab of excite","PeriodicalId":49779,"journal":{"name":"Natural History","volume":"108 1","pages":"6-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"1999-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70524124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1997-01-01DOI: 10.1525/9780520957947-016
M. Crowe, Jack W. Dykinga
When Colonel Davis made his offer I didn't pay it much attention. No more collecting trips south of the border. While I loved Mexico and fieldwork there, it was all over now, ending in a dissertation on one hundred animals: the frogs, salamanders, snakes, and lizards found at the edge of the tropics in eastern Mexico. Puzzles about distributions of such animals led to questions that could better be tackled by studying fossils than by rummaging around in the Sierra Madre. I had another life to live.
{"title":"The Treasure of the Sierra Madre","authors":"M. Crowe, Jack W. Dykinga","doi":"10.1525/9780520957947-016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520957947-016","url":null,"abstract":"When Colonel Davis made his offer I didn't pay it much attention. No more collecting trips south of the border. While I loved Mexico and fieldwork there, it was all over now, ending in a dissertation on one hundred animals: the frogs, salamanders, snakes, and lizards found at the edge of the tropics in eastern Mexico. Puzzles about distributions of such animals led to questions that could better be tackled by studying fossils than by rummaging around in the Sierra Madre. I had another life to live.","PeriodicalId":49779,"journal":{"name":"Natural History","volume":"106 1","pages":"48-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67341253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：