Search This Blog

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Artistic freedom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_freedom

Artistic freedom (or freedom of artistic expression) can be defined as "the freedom to imagine, create and distribute diverse cultural expressions free of governmental censorship, political interference or the pressures of non-state actors." Generally, artistic freedom describes the extent of independence artists obtain to create art freely. Moreover, artistic freedom concerns "the rights of citizens to access artistic expressions and take part in cultural life—and thus [represents] one of the key issues for democracy." The extent of freedom indispensable to create art freely differs regarding the existence or nonexistence of national instruments established to protect, to promote, to control or to censor artists and their creative expressions. This is why universal, regional and national legal provisions have been installed to guarantee the right to freedom of expression in general and of artistic expression in particular. In 2013, Ms Farida Shaheed, United Nations special rapporteur to the Human Rights Council, presented her "Report in the field of cultural rights: The right to freedom of expression and creativity" providing a comprehensive study of the status quo of, and specifically the limitations and challenges to, artistic freedom worldwide. In this study, artistic freedom "was put forward as a basic human right that went beyond the 'right to create' or the 'right to participate in cultural life'." It stresses the range of fundamental freedoms indispensable for artistic expression and creativity, e.g. the freedoms of movement and association. "The State of Artistic Freedom" is an integral report published by arts censorship monitor Freemuse [de] on an annual basis.

Definition of artistic freedom

Repeatedly, the terms artistic freedom and freedom of artistic expressions are used as synonyms. Their underlying concepts "art", "freedom" and "expression" comprise very vast fields of discussion: "Art is a very 'subtle'—sometimes also symbolic—form of expression, suffering from definition problems more than any other form." As a result, "[i]t is almost impossible to give a satisfying definition of the concept art. It is even more difficult to define the concepts artistic creativity and artistic expression." UNESCO's 2005 Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions defines cultural expressions as "those expressions that result from the creativity of individuals, groups and societies, and that have cultural content" while the latter "refers to the symbolic meaning, artistic dimension and cultural values that originate from or express cultural identities." In the context of the freedom of (artistic) expressions, "[t]he word expression in the first instance refers to verbalisation of thoughts." Freedom of artistic expression "may mean that we have to tolerate some art that is offensive, insulting, outrageous, or just plain bad. But it is a small price to pay for the liberty and diversity that form the foundation of a free society." Officially, UNESCO defines artistic freedom as "the freedom to imagine, create and distribute diverse cultural expressions free of governmental censorship, political interference or the pressures of non-state actors. It includes the right of all citizens to have access to these works and is essential for the wellbeing of societies." UNESCO puts forth that "artistic freedom embodies a bundle of rights protected under international law." These include:

  • The right to create without censorship or intimidation;
  • The right to have artistic work supported, distributed and remunerated;
  • The right to freedom of movement;
  • The right to freedom of association;
  • The right to the protection of social and economic rights;
  • The right to participate in cultural life.

Legal frameworks to protect and promote artistic freedom reflect the conviction that "[c]ulture constitutes one process of, and space for, democratic debate. The freedom of artistic expression forms its backbone. There is compelling evidence that participation in culture also promotes democratic participation as well as empowerment and well-being of our citizens." Farida Shaheed wrote: "Artists may entertain people, but they also contribute to social debates, sometimes bringing counter-discourses and potential counterweights to existing power centres." Moreover, she emphasized that "the vitality of artistic creativity is necessary for the development of vibrant cultures and the functioning of democratic societies. Artistic expressions and creations are an integral part of cultural life,which entails contesting meanings and revisiting culturally inherited ideas and concepts." According to Freemuse [de], "[p]opulists and nationalists, who often portray human rights as a limitation on what they claim is the will of the majority, are on the rise globally. As this phenomenon rises, artists continue to play an important role in expressing alternative visions for society." This is why "artists are sometimes responsible for radical criticism." As a result, artistic expressions and artists are suffering censorship and violations worldwide.

Artists are among the first to be silenced by repressive regimes: the poets, playwrights and painters who challenge the status quo are often lone workers, and as such easy targets for an authoritarian state or violent oppressor. When their views fail to accord with the mainstream, the artist is also vulnerable to the censorship of the mob.

Thù" shows that "[i]t is not only governments violating the right to artistic freedom. 2016 saw a worrying amount of actions by non-state actors, ranging from militant extremists to peaceful community groups, against art and artists. In some instances, authorities censored artists based on requests or the interference from civil society groups." Based on this development, "[m]ajor sources of international law across the board recognize freedom of artistic creativity explicitly, or implicitly, as an inherent element of the right to freedom of expression. In these instruments, the individual right to express ideas creatively is often irrevocably linked with the right to receive them." The growing importance of artistic freedom as a specific right is reflected by the introduction of the role of the UN Special Rapporteur in the field of culture in 2009, and other rapporteurs, notably the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression.

UN instruments

Artistic freedom as a specific right

According to Farida Shaheed, the most explicit legal provisions protecting the right to the freedom indispensable for artistic expression and creativity are the following:

In September 2015, 57 UN Member States reaffirmed the right to freedom of expression including creative and artistic expression through a joint statement. Additionally, in 2015, the Carthage Declaration on the Protection of Artists in Vulnerable Situations was adopted in Tunis.

Artistic freedom as a pillar of the right to freedom of expression

The following legal instruments do not specifically mention artistic freedom but rather understand it as a pillar of freedom of expression in general related to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. They aim to guarantee the right to freedom of expression or the right to participate in cultural life without specific reference to the arts.

UNESCO instruments

1980 UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Status of the Artist

Artistic freedom first appeared as a distinct right in UNESCO's 1980 Recommendation concerning the Status of the Artist underlining "the essential role of art in the life and development of the individual and of society' and the duty of States to protect and defend artistic freedom." Although not a binding instrument, the Recommendation is an important reference in defining artists' rights across the spectrum worldwide. The 1980 Recommendation serves as a reference for policy development and as a basis for new formulations of cultural policies:

Member States, recognizing the essential role of art in the life and development of the individual and of society, accordingly have a duty to protect, defend and assist artists and their freedom of creation. For this purpose, they should take all necessary steps to stimulate artistic creativity and the flowering of talent, in particular by adopting measures to secure greater freedom for artists, without which they cannot fulfill their mission, and to improve their status by acknowledging their right to enjoy the fruits of their work.

2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions

The 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions acknowledges that "the diversity of cultural expressions can only be promoted if human rights and fundamental freedoms are guaranteed." A guiding principle of the 2005 Convention is that "cultural diversity can be protected and promoted only if human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression, information and communication, as well as the ability of individuals to choose cultural expressions, are guaranteed." In this context, governance of culture refers to policies and measures governments establish to promote and to protect all forms of creativity and artistic expressions. The most recent UNESCO Convention in the field of culture and ratified by 146 Parties, it frames the formulation and implementation of different types of legislative, regulatory, institutional and financial interventions to promote the emergence of diverse cultural and creative industry sectors around the world. As a result, it aims to ensure participation in cultural life and to support access to diverse cultural expressions (film, music, performing arts, etc.).

National legislative measures to promote artistic freedom

Similar to the aforementioned universal instruments to protect artists and artistic freedom, "[i]n national constitutions (...), freedom of artistic creativity is often located within the strongly-protected right to freedom of expression." Certain countries also "recognize the freedom of artistic expression within the ambit of the right to science and culture." The following national legislative measures are listed in alphabetical order. The list is to be completed.

Burkina Faso

Adopted on 23 May 2013 by "Direction générale des arts (DGA)", the decree "Décret portant statut de l'artiste au Burkina Faso" envisages improving the social protection and the living conditions of artists, particularly the social security of employed artists and freelancers, the return of social contributions of artists and the complement dispositive for mutual accountability.

Canada

In Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects artistic expression.

France

In July 2016, France amended its legislation in order to extend it with the legal protection of artistic freedom, architecture and heritage. For the first time in international law, artistic expressions are established as public goods and the "dissemination of artistic creation is free". This implies not only that artists are free to create but also that the wider public has access to it. As a result, art and artistic expressions cannot be censored or simply excluded from exhibits and other events.

Germany

Article 5 of the German Basic Law contains a special paragraph that connects the right to freedom of expression with the right to freely develop the arts and sciences."

Indonesia

On 12 January 2012, Indonesia ratification UNESCO 2005 Convention. When 2017, Indonesia published Cultural Advancement Law based on principles 11 values, including guaranteeing freedom of expression, ensuring the protection of cultural expression, providing cultural facilities and infrastructure, also funding sources for cultural advancement.

Mexico

On 19 June 2017, Mexico published its "Ley General de Cultura y Derechos Culturales" promising strong protection for artistic freedom and artists and cultural professionals, a provision specifically needed given the alarming conditions under which Mexican artists, journalists and cultural professionals currently work.

Spain

On 6 September 2018, the Spanish Congress of Deputies unanimously ratified a proposal assigned to elaborate a "Estatuto del Artista y del Profesional de la Cultura". Broadly, the decree aims to protect and promote artists with regard to taxation, their work security and legal protection.

Sweden

Article 1 (2) of the Swedish Fundamental Law explicitly includes the freedom of artistic creation as part of the key purposes of freedom of expression: "The purpose of freedom of expression under this Fundamental Law is to secure the free exchange of opinion, free and comprehensive information, and freedom of artistic creation."

Togo

On 20 June 2016, Togo adopted its "Statut de l'artiste". Its major objective is to acknowledge artists as individuals and their moral role in society, their contributions towards the intellectual sphere protected by copyright. It defines the rights and duties linked to artistic professions and aims to promote creativity and to protect artists socially.

Tunisia

Adopted in 2014, article 42 of the Tunisian Constitution states: "The right to culture is guaranteed. The freedom of creative expression is guaranteed. The State encourages cultural creativity and supports the strengthening of national culture, its diversity and renewal, in promoting the values of tolerance, rejection of violence, openness to different cultures and dialogue between civilizations."

United States

In the U.S., the first amendment protects artistic expression. According to the Court, freedom of artistic creativity is an element of the respect for freedom of self-expression, one of the core values of the First Amendment. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has never considered artistic freedom as a distinct category akin to political or commercial speech: "it rather addresses the various forms of art in their relation to the First Amendment on a contextual basis."

Challenges to artistic freedom

The International Cities of Refuge Network (ICORN) explains the purpose of its existence with the following statement:

Writers and artists are especially vulnerable to censorship, harassment, imprisonment and even death, because of what they do. They represent the liberating gift of the human imagination and give voice to thoughts, ideas, debate and critique, disseminated to a wide audience. They also tend to be the first to speak out and resist when free speech is threatened.

Freemuse's report (2018) demonstrates that artistic freedom "is being shut down in every corner of the globe, including in the traditionally democratic West. According to Freemuse's 2016 report, the music industry is the main target of serious violations, and second to film in overall violations, including non-violent censorship. The most serious violations included the murder of Pakistani Qawwali singer Amjad Sabri and the killing of Burundi musician Pascal Treasury Nshimirimana. In 2019, Karima Bennoune, UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, underlines that "the freedom of artistic expression and creativity of persons with disabilities, women or older persons" remains significantly restricted. She states that "many cultural rights actors have not incorporated a gender perspective into their work, while many women's rights advocates have not considered cultural rights issues." Referring to Freemuse's 2016 report, UNESCO stresses that "laws dealing with terrorism and state security, defamation, religion and 'traditional values' have been used to curb artistic and other forms of free expression."

Moreover, new digital technologies, including social media platforms, are challenging artistic freedom: "Art in the online and digital space continues to challenge authorities and corporations who are quick to react by closing down expression rather than using it as an opportunity to foster it." Social media and music streaming channels, like Instagram and SoundCloud are becoming the platforms on which artists publicly display and promote their work. However, they also bring with them threats to rights and freedoms. Online trolls often intimidate artists to withdraw their work. Additionally, growing digital surveillance has a corrosive effect on artistic freedom. Many platforms have established mechanisms, such as Instagram's guidelines on 'standards of behavior' whose formulations are very vague. This provides disproportionate power to individuals and organizations who use the platform's reporting processes to get individual artworks removed, and sometimes entire accounts blocked. In addition, the impact of algorithms on diversity of content is another area of concern: platforms display a plethora of cultural offerings, but also control not only sales but also communication and the recommendation algorithms (e.g. adapting offered content to the profile of each internet user). These algorithms finally serve to promote certain contents while oppressing others.

In conclusion, new digital technologies—while providing a platform for the distribution of artistic content—may interrupt the flow of ideas of artists and curtail their artistic freedom.

In the 10th Anniversary UN Report on Cultural Rights, Ole Reitov, former executive director of Freemuse, underscores the progressive fact that "artistic freedom is no longer a 'marginalized' issue in the 'world of freedom of expression'". Since Farida Shaheed's report and inspired by lobbying from arts and human rights NGOs, efforts to promote artistic freedom have multiplied across the entire United Nations system: "The UN Universal Periodic Review provides an opportunity for NGOs, among others, to make submissions on States' failures to meet human rights standards, including artistic freedom. New calls for a UN Action Plan on the Safety of Artists and Audiences (similar to the one for journalists) have been put forward." As UNESCO's Global Report "Re|shaping Cultural Policies" (2018) shows, the number and capacity of organizations monitoring artistic freedom is increasing. "In this domain as well, cities are taking valuable initiatives by providing safe havens for artists at risk." As the list above shows, "measures to support the economic and social rights of artists are appearing increasingly in national legislation, especially in Africa."

Monitoring artistic freedom

Despite the progress made and legal instruments established to promote and protect freedom of artistic expressions, "there is urgent need for monitoring and surveillance, essential if these freedoms are to become a permanent reality."

Karima Bennoune notes that the increasing number of reported attacks perpetrated by State and non-State actors against cultural professionals reflects the boosting capacity of monitoring artistic freedom. She states the UNESCO global reports monitoring the implementation of the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Cultural Expressions have been "[o]f particular relevance". The reports provide a monitoring framework comprising four overarching goals to enhance cultural policies worldwide. One of these goals aims to "Promote Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" and encompasses artistic freedom as an "area of monitoring" incorporating core indicators to measure achievements regarding the rights and protection of artists. Additionally, the framework relates artistic freedom to the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 of the UN 2030 Agenda, which aims to "'Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels". Specifically, the SDG's target 16.10 aims to "ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements".

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16

Additionally, there are many other initiatives advocating and monitoring artistic freedom. Alongside other organizations documenting violations against freedom of artistic expression (such as Arterial Network, Artists at Risk Connection, PEN International and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions), Freemuse is an independent international organization particularly monitoring the freedom of expression of musicians and composers worldwide. "Freemuse's reports collated from all over the world show that artists are increasingly facing censorship, persecution, incarceration or death, because of their work."

There is also monitoring carried out by Koalisi Seni, an institution that advocates for arts policy in Indonesia. From the results of its monitoring, Koalisi Seni notes, in Indonesia during the pandemic, social restrictions to reduce the spread of COVID-19 became a new excuse for the state to suppress arts activities. There are also notes that stigmatization of art often occurs because art is considered to damage people's morals and invite immorality.

In order to monitor the actions taken to implement the 1980 Recommendation concerning the Status of the Artists, the Secretariat of the 2005 UNESCO Convention (see below) runs a global survey every four years gathering information from Members States, NGOs and INGOs and prepares a report, which is then submitted to the General Conference.

Designer baby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A designer baby is a baby whose genetic makeup has been selected or altered, often to exclude a particular gene or to remove genes associated with disease. This process usually involves analysing a wide range of human embryos to identify genes associated with particular diseases and characteristics, and selecting embryos that have the desired genetic makeup; a process known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Screening for single genes is commonly practiced, and polygenic screening is offered by a few companies. Other methods by which a baby's genetic information can be altered involve directly editing the genome before birth, which is not routinely performed and only one instance of this is known to have occurred as of 2019, where Chinese twins Lulu and Nana were edited as embryos, causing widespread criticism.

Genetically altered embryos can be achieved by introducing the desired genetic material into the embryo itself, or into the sperm and/or egg cells of the parents; either by delivering the desired genes directly into the cell or using gene-editing technology. This process is known as germline engineering and performing this on embryos that will be brought to term is typically prohibited by law. Editing embryos in this manner means that the genetic changes can be carried down to future generations, and since the technology concerns editing the genes of an unborn baby, it is considered controversial and is subject to ethical debate. While some scientists condone the use of this technology to treat disease, concerns have been raised that this could be translated into using the technology for cosmetic purposes and enhancement of human traits.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD or PIGD) is a procedure in which embryos are screened prior to implantation. The technique is used alongside in vitro fertilisation (IVF) to obtain embryos for evaluation of the genome – alternatively, ovocytes can be screened prior to fertilisation. The technique was first used in 1989.

PGD is used primarily to select embryos for implantation in the case of possible genetic defects, allowing identification of mutated or disease-related alleles and selection against them. It is especially useful in embryos from parents where one or both carry a heritable disease. PGD can also be used to select for embryos of a certain sex, most commonly when a disease is more strongly associated with one sex than the other (as is the case for X-linked disorders which are more common in males, such as haemophilia). Infants born with traits selected following PGD are sometimes considered to be designer babies.

One application of PGD is the selection of 'saviour siblings', children who are born to provide a transplant (of an organ or group of cells) to a sibling with a usually life-threatening disease. Saviour siblings are conceived through IVF and then screened using PGD to analyze genetic similarity to the child needing a transplant, to reduce the risk of rejection.

Process

Process of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. In vitro fertilisation involves either incubation of sperm and oocyte together, or injection of sperm directly into the oocyte. PCR - polymerase chain reaction, FISH - fluorescent in situ hybridisation.

Embryos for PGD are obtained from IVF procedures in which the oocyte is artificially fertilised by sperm. Oocytes from the woman are harvested following controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH), which involves fertility treatments to induce production of multiple oocytes. After harvesting the oocytes, they are fertilised in vitro, either during incubation with multiple sperm cells in culture, or via intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), where sperm is directly injected into the oocyte. The resulting embryos are usually cultured for 3–6 days, allowing them to reach the blastomere or blastocyst stage.

Once embryos reach the desired stage of development, cells are biopsied and genetically screened. The screening procedure varies based on the nature of the disorder being investigated.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a process in which DNA sequences are amplified to produce many more copies of the same segment, allowing screening of large samples and identification of specific genes. The process is often used when screening for monogenic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis.

Another screening technique, fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) uses fluorescent probes which specifically bind to highly complementary sequences on chromosomes, which can then be identified using fluorescence microscopy. FISH is often used when screening for chromosomal abnormalities such as aneuploidy, making it a useful tool when screening for disorders such as Down syndrome.

Following the screening, embryos with the desired trait (or lacking an undesired trait such as a mutation) are transferred into the mother's uterus, then allowed to develop naturally.

Regulation

PGD regulation is determined by individual countries' governments, with some prohibiting its use entirely, including in Austria, China, and Ireland.

In many countries, PGD is permitted under very stringent conditions for medical use only, as is the case in France, Switzerland, Italy and the United Kingdom. Whilst PGD in Italy and Switzerland is only permitted under certain circumstances, there is no clear set of specifications under which PGD can be carried out, and selection of embryos based on sex is not permitted. In France and the UK, regulations are much more detailed, with dedicated agencies setting out framework for PGD. Selection based on sex is permitted under certain circumstances, and genetic disorders for which PGD is permitted are detailed by the countries' respective agencies.

In contrast, the United States federal law does not regulate PGD, with no dedicated agencies specifying regulatory framework by which healthcare professionals must abide. Elective sex selection is permitted, accounting for around 9% of all PGD cases in the U.S., as is selection for desired conditions such as deafness or dwarfism.

Pre-implantation Genetic Testing

Based on the specific analysis conducted:

PGT-M (Preimplantation Genetic Testing for monogenic diseases): It is used to detect hereditary diseases caused by the mutation or alteration of the DNA sequence of a single gene.

PGT-A (Preimplantation Genetic Testing for aneuploidy): It is used to diagnose numerical abnormalities (aneuploidies).

Human germline engineering

Human germline engineering is a process in which the human genome is edited within a germ cell, such as a sperm cell or oocyte (causing heritable changes), or in the zygote or embryo following fertilization. Germline engineering results in changes in the genome being incorporated into every cell in the body of the offspring (or of the individual following embryonic germline engineering). This process differs from somatic cell engineering, which does not result in heritable changes. Most human germline editing is performed on individual cells and non-viable embryos, which are destroyed at a very early stage of development. In November 2018, however, a Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, announced that he had created the first human germline genetically edited babies.

Genetic engineering relies on a knowledge of human genetic information, made possible by research such as the Human Genome Project, which identified the position and function of all the genes in the human genome. As of 2019, high-throughput sequencing methods allow genome sequencing to be conducted very rapidly, making the technology widely available to researchers.

Germline modification is typically accomplished through techniques which incorporate a new gene into the genome of the embryo or germ cell in a specific location. This can be achieved by introducing the desired DNA directly to the cell for it to be incorporated, or by replacing a gene with one of interest. These techniques can also be used to remove or disrupt unwanted genes, such as ones containing mutated sequences.

Whilst germline engineering has mostly been performed in mammals and other animals, research on human cells in vitro is becoming more common. Most commonly used in human cells are germline gene therapy and the engineered nuclease system CRISPR/Cas9.

Germline gene modification

Gene therapy is the delivery of a nucleic acid (usually DNA or RNA) into a cell as a pharmaceutical agent to treat disease. Most commonly it is carried out using a vector, which transports the nucleic acid (usually DNA encoding a therapeutic gene) into the target cell. A vector can transduce a desired copy of a gene into a specific location to be expressed as required. Alternatively, a transgene can be inserted to deliberately disrupt an unwanted or mutated gene, preventing transcription and translation of the faulty gene products to avoid a disease phenotype.

Gene therapy in patients is typically carried out on somatic cells in order to treat conditions such as some leukaemias and vascular diseases. Human germline gene therapy in contrast is restricted to in vitro experiments in some countries, whilst others prohibited it entirely, including Australia, Canada, Germany and Switzerland.

Whilst the National Institutes of Health in the US does not currently allow in utero germline gene transfer clinical trials, in vitro trials are permitted. The NIH guidelines state that further studies are required regarding the safety of gene transfer protocols before in utero research is considered, requiring current studies to provide demonstrable efficacy of the techniques in the laboratory. Research of this sort is currently using non-viable embryos to investigate the efficacy of germline gene therapy in treatment of disorders such as inherited mitochondrial diseases.

Gene transfer to cells is usually by vector delivery. Vectors are typically divided into two classes – viral and non-viral.

Viral vectors

Viruses infect cells by transducing their genetic material into a host's cell, using the host's cellular machinery to generate viral proteins needed for replication and proliferation. By modifying viruses and loading them with the therapeutic DNA or RNA of interest, it is possible to use these as a vector to provide delivery of the desired gene into the cell.

Retroviruses are some of the most commonly used viral vectors, as they not only introduce their genetic material into the host cell, but also copy it into the host's genome. In the context of gene therapy, this allows permanent integration of the gene of interest into the patient's own DNA, providing longer lasting effects.

Viral vectors work efficiently and are mostly safe but present with some complications, contributing to the stringency of regulation on gene therapy. Despite partial inactivation of viral vectors in gene therapy research, they can still be immunogenic and elicit an immune response. This can impede viral delivery of the gene of interest, as well as cause complications for the patient themselves when used clinically, especially in those who already have a serious genetic illness. Another difficulty is the possibility that some viruses will randomly integrate their nucleic acids into the genome, which can interrupt gene function and generate new mutations. This is a significant concern when considering germline gene therapy, due to the potential to generate new mutations in the embryo or offspring.

Non-viral vectors

Non-viral methods of nucleic acid transfection involved injecting a naked DNA plasmid into cell for incorporation into the genome. This method used to be relatively ineffective with low frequency of integration, however, efficiency has since greatly improved, using methods to enhance the delivery of the gene of interest into cells. Furthermore, non-viral vectors are simple to produce on a large scale and are not highly immunogenic.

Some non-viral methods are detailed below:

  • Electroporation is a technique in which high voltage pulses are used to carry DNA into the target cell across the membrane. The method is believed to function due to the formation of pores across the membrane, but although these are temporary, electroporation results in a high rate of cell death which has limited its use. An improved version of this technology, electron-avalanche transfection, has since been developed, which involves shorter (microsecond) high voltage pulses which result in more effective DNA integration and less cellular damage.
  • The gene gun is a physical method of DNA transfection, where a DNA plasmid is loaded onto a particle of heavy metal (usually gold) and loaded onto the 'gun'. The device generates a force to penetrate the cell membrane, allowing the DNA to enter whilst retaining the metal particle.
  • Oligonucleotides are used as chemical vectors for gene therapy, often used to disrupt mutated DNA sequences to prevent their expression. Disruption in this way can be achieved by introduction of small RNA molecules, called siRNA, which signal cellular machinery to cleave the unwanted mRNA sequences to prevent their transcription. Another method utilises double-stranded oligonucleotides, which bind transcription factors required for transcription of the target gene. By competitively binding these transcription factors, the oligonucleotides can prevent the gene's expression.

ZFNs

Zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs) are enzymes generated by fusing a zinc finger DNA-binding domain to a DNA-cleavage domain. Zinc finger recognizes between 9 and 18 bases of sequence. Thus by mixing those modules, it becomes easier to target any sequence researchers wish to alter ideally within complex genomes. A ZFN is a macromolecular complex formed by monomers in which each subunit contains a zinc domain and a FokI endonuclease domain. The FokI domains must dimerize for activities, thus narrowing target area by ensuring that two close DNA-binding events occurs.

The resulting cleavage event enables most genome-editing technologies to work. After a break is created, the cell seeks to repair it.

  • A method is NHEJ, in which the cell polishes the two ends of broken DNA and seals them back together, often producing a frame shift.
  • An alternative method is homology-directed repairs. The cell tries to fix the damage by using a copy of the sequence as a backup. By supplying their own template, researcher can have the system to insert a desired sequence instead.

The success of using ZFNs in gene therapy depends on the insertion of genes to the chromosomal target area without causing damage to the cell. Custom ZFNs offer an option in human cells for gene correction.

TALENs

There is a method called TALENs that targets singular nucleotides. TALENs stand for transcription activator-like effector nucleases. TALENs are made by TAL effector DNA-binding domain to a DNA cleavage domain. All these methods work by as the TALENs are arranged. TALENs are "built from arrays of 33-35 amino acid modules…by assembling those arrays…researchers can target any sequence they like". This event is referred as Repeat Variable Diresidue (RVD). The relationship between the amino acids enables researchers to engineer a specific DNA domain. The TALEN enzymes are designed to remove specific parts of the DNA strands and replace the section; which enables edits to be made. TALENs can be used to edit genomes using non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homology directed repair.

CRISPR/Cas9

CRISPR-Cas9. PAM (Protospacer Adjacent Motif) is required for target binding.

The CRISPR/Cas9 system (CRISPR – Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, Cas9 – CRISPR-associated protein 9) is a genome editing technology based on the bacterial antiviral CRISPR/Cas system. The bacterial system has evolved to recognize viral nucleic acid sequences and cut these sequences upon recognition, damaging infecting viruses. The gene editing technology uses a simplified version of this process, manipulating the components of the bacterial system to allow location-specific gene editing.

The CRISPR/Cas9 system broadly consists of two major components – the Cas9 nuclease and a guide RNA (gRNA). The gRNA contains a Cas-binding sequence and a ~20 nucleotide spacer sequence, which is specific and complementary to the target sequence on the DNA of interest. Editing specificity can therefore be changed by modifying this spacer sequence.

DNA repair after double-strand break

Upon system delivery to a cell, Cas9 and the gRNA bind, forming a ribonucleoprotein complex. This causes a conformational change in Cas9, allowing it to cleave DNA if the gRNA spacer sequence binds with sufficient homology to a particular sequence in the host genome. When the gRNA binds to the target sequence, Cas will cleave the locus, causing a double-strand break (DSB).

The resulting DSB can be repaired by one of two mechanisms –

  • Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ) - an efficient but error-prone mechanism, which often introduces insertions and deletions (indels) at the DSB site. This means it is often used in knockout experiments to disrupt genes and introduce loss of function mutations.
  • Homology Directed Repair (HDR) - a less efficient but high-fidelity process which is used to introduce precise modifications into the target sequence. The process requires adding a DNA repair template including a desired sequence, which the cell's machinery uses to repair the DSB, incorporating the sequence of interest into the genome.

Since NHEJ is more efficient than HDR, most DSBs will be repaired via NHEJ, introducing gene knockouts. To increase frequency of HDR, inhibiting genes associated with NHEJ and performing the process in particular cell cycle phases (primarily S and G2) appear effective.

CRISPR/Cas9 is an effective way of manipulating the genome in vivo in animals as well as in human cells in vitro, but some issues with the efficiency of delivery and editing mean that it is not considered safe for use in viable human embryos or the body's germ cells. As well as the higher efficiency of NHEJ making inadvertent knockouts likely, CRISPR can introduce DSBs to unintended parts of the genome, called off-target effects. These arise due to the spacer sequence of the gRNA conferring sufficient sequence homology to random loci in the genome, which can introduce random mutations throughout. If performed in germline cells, mutations could be introduced to all the cells of a developing embryo.

There are developments to prevent unintended consequences otherwise known as off-target effects due to gene editing. There is a race to develop new gene editing technologies that prevent off-target effects from occurring with some of the technologies being known as biased off-target detection, and Anti-CRISPR Proteins. For biased off-target effects detection, there are several tools to predict the locations where off-target effects may take place. Within the technology of biased off-target effects detection, there are two main models, Alignment Based Models that involve having the sequences of gRNA being aligned with sequences of genome, after which then the off-target locations are predicted. The second model is known as the Scoring-Based Model where each piece of gRNA is scored for their off-target effects in accordance with their positioning.

Regulation on CRISPR use

In 2015, the International Summit on Human Gene Editing was held in Washington D.C., hosted by scientists from China, the UK and the U.S. The summit concluded that genome editing of somatic cells using CRISPR and other genome editing tools would be allowed to proceed under FDA regulations, but human germline engineering would not be pursued.

In February 2016, scientists at the Francis Crick Institute in London were given a license permitting them to edit human embryos using CRISPR to investigate early development. Regulations were imposed to prevent the researchers from implanting the embryos and to ensure experiments were stopped and embryos destroyed after seven days.

In November 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced that he had performed the first germline engineering on viable human embryos, which have since been brought to term. The research claims received significant criticism, and Chinese authorities suspended He's research activity. Following the event, scientists and government bodies have called for more stringent regulations to be imposed on the use of CRISPR technology in embryos, with some calling for a global moratorium on germline genetic engineering. Chinese authorities have announced stricter controls will be imposed, with Communist Party general secretary Xi Jinping and government premier Li Keqiang calling for new gene-editing legislations to be introduced.

As of January 2020, germline genetic alterations are prohibited in 24 countries by law and also in 9 other countries by their guidelines. The Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, also known as the Oviedo Convention, has stated in its article 13 "Interventions on the human genome" as follows: "An intervention seeking to modify the human genome may only be undertaken for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic purposes and only if its aim is not to introduce any modification in the genome of any descendants". Nonetheless, wide public debate has emerged, targeting the fact that the Oviedo Convention Article 13 should be revisited and renewed, especially due to the fact that it was constructed in 1997 and may be out of date, given recent technological advancements in the field of genetic engineering.

Lulu and Nana controversy

He Jiankui speaking at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing, November 2018

The Lulu and Nana controversy refers to the two Chinese twin girls born in November 2018, who had been genetically modified as embryos by the Chinese scientist He Jiankui. The twins are believed to be the first genetically modified babies. The girls' parents had participated in a clinical project run by He, which involved IVF, PGD and genome editing procedures in an attempt to edit the gene CCR5. CCR5 encodes a protein used by HIV to enter host cells, so by introducing a specific mutation into the gene CCR5 Δ32 He claimed that the process would confer innate resistance to HIV.

The project run by He recruited couples wanting children where the man was HIV-positive and the woman uninfected. During the project, He performed IVF with sperm and eggs from the couples and then introduced the CCR5 Δ32 mutation into the genomes of the embryos using CRISPR/Cas9. He then used PGD on the edited embryos during which he sequenced biopsied cells to identify whether the mutation had been successfully introduced. He reported some mosaicism in the embryos, whereby the mutation had integrated into some cells but not all, suggesting the offspring would not be entirely protected against HIV. He claimed that during the PGD and throughout the pregnancy, fetal DNA was sequenced to check for off-target errors introduced by the CRISPR/Cas9 technology, however the NIH released a statement in which they announced "the possibility of damaging off-target effects has not been satisfactorily explored". The girls were born in early November 2018, and were reported by He to be healthy.

His research was conducted in secret until November 2018, when documents were posted on the Chinese clinical trials registry and MIT Technology Review published a story about the project. Following this, He was interviewed by the Associated Press and presented his work on 27 November at the Second International Human Genome Editing Summit which was held in Hong Kong.

Although the information available about this experiment is relatively limited, it is deemed that the scientist erred against many ethical, social and moral rules but also China's guidelines and regulations, which prohibited germ-line genetic modifications in human embryos, while conducting this trial. From a technological point of view, the CRISPR/Cas9 technique is one of the most precise and least expensive methods of gene modification to this day, whereas there are still a number of limitations that keep the technique from being labelled as safe and efficient. During the First International Summit on Human Gene Editing in 2015 the participants agreed that a halt must be set on germline genetic alterations in clinical settings unless and until: "(1) the relevant safety and efficacy issues have been resolved, based on appropriate understanding and balancing of risks, potential benefits, and alternatives, and (2) there is broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application". However, during the second International Summit in 2018 the topic was once again brought up by stating: "Progress over the last three years and the discussions at the current summit, however, suggest that it is time to define a rigorous, responsible translational pathway toward such trials". Inciting that the ethical and legal aspects should indeed be revisited G. Daley, representative of the summit's management and Dean of Harvard Medical School depicted Dr. He's experiment as "a wrong turn on the right path".

The experiment was met with widespread criticism and was very controversial, globally as well as in China. Several bioethicists, researchers and medical professionals have released statements condemning the research, including Nobel laureate David Baltimore who deemed the work "irresponsible" and one pioneer of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology, biochemist Jennifer Doudna at University of California, Berkeley. The director of the NIH, Francis S. Collins stated that the "medical necessity for inactivation of CCR5 in these infants is utterly unconvincing" and condemned He Jiankui and his research team for 'irresponsible work'. Other scientists, including geneticist George Church of Harvard University suggested gene editing for disease resistance was "justifiable" but expressed reservations regarding the conduct of He's work.

The Safe Genes program by DARPA has the goal to protect soldiers against gene editing war tactics. They receive information from ethical experts to better predict and understand future and current potential gene editing issues.

The World Health Organization has launched a global registry to track research on human genome editing, after a call to halt all work on genome editing.

The Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences responded to the controversy in the journal Lancet, condemning He for violating ethical guidelines documented by the government and emphasising that germline engineering should not be performed for reproductive purposes. The academy ensured they would "issue further operational, technical and ethical guidelines as soon as possible" to impose tighter regulation on human embryo editing.

Ethical considerations

Editing embryos, germ cells and the generation of designer babies is the subject of ethical debate, as a result of the implications in modifying genomic information in a heritable manner. This includes arguments over unbalanced gender selection and gamete selection.

Despite regulations set by individual countries' governing bodies, the absence of a standardized regulatory framework leads to frequent discourse in discussion of germline engineering among scientists, ethicists and the general public. Arthur Caplan, the head of the Division of Bioethics at New York University suggests that establishing an international group to set guidelines for the topic would greatly benefit global discussion and proposes instating "religious and ethics and legal leaders" to impose well-informed regulations.

In many countries, editing embryos and germline modification for reproductive use is illegal. As of 2017, the U.S. restricts the use of germline modification and the procedure is under heavy regulation by the FDA and NIH. The American National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine indicated they would provide qualified support for human germline editing "for serious conditions under stringent oversight", should safety and efficiency issues be addressed. In 2019, World Health Organization called human germline genome editing as "irresponsible".

Since genetic modification poses risk to any organism, researchers and medical professionals must give the prospect of germline engineering careful consideration. The main ethical concern is that these types of treatments will produce a change that can be passed down to future generations and therefore any error, known or unknown, will also be passed down and will affect the offspring. Theologian Ronald Green of Dartmouth College has raised concern that this could result in a decrease in genetic diversity and the accidental introduction of new diseases in the future.

When considering support for research into germline engineering, ethicists have often suggested that it can be considered unethical not to consider a technology that could improve the lives of children who would be born with congenital disorders. Geneticist George Church claims that he does not expect germline engineering to increase societal disadvantage, and recommends lowering costs and improving education surrounding the topic to dispel these views. He emphasizes that allowing germline engineering in children who would otherwise be born with congenital defects could save around 5% of babies from living with potentially avoidable diseases. Jackie Leach Scully, professor of social and bioethics at Newcastle University, acknowledges that the prospect of designer babies could leave those living with diseases and unable to afford the technology feeling marginalized and without medical support. However, Professor Leach Scully also suggests that germline editing provides the option for parents "to try and secure what they think is the best start in life" and does not believe it should be ruled out. Similarly, Nick Bostrom, an Oxford philosopher known for his work on the risks of artificial intelligence, proposed that "super-enhanced" individuals could "change the world through their creativity and discoveries, and through innovations that everyone else would use".

Many bioethicists emphasize that germline engineering is usually considered in the best interest of a child, therefore associated should be supported. Dr James Hughes, a bioethicist at Trinity College, Connecticut, suggests that the decision may not differ greatly from others made by parents which are well accepted – choosing with whom to have a child and using contraception to denote when a child is conceived. Julian Savulescu, a bioethicist and philosopher at Oxford University believes parents "should allow selection for non‐disease genes even if this maintains or increases social inequality", coining the term procreative beneficence to describe the idea that the children "expected to have the best life" should be selected. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics said in 2017 that there was "no reason to rule out" changing the DNA of a human embryo if performed in the child's interest, but stressed that this was only provided that it did not contribute to societal inequality. Furthermore, Nuffield Council in 2018 detailed applications, which would preserve equality and benefit humanity, such as elimination of hereditary disorders and adjusting to warmer climate. Philosopher and Director of Bioethics at non-profit Invincible Wellbeing David Pearce argues that "the question [of designer babies] comes down to an analysis of risk-reward ratios - and our basic ethical values, themselves shaped by our evolutionary past." According to Pearce,"it's worth recalling that each act of old-fashioned sexual reproduction is itself an untested genetic experiment", often compromising a child's wellbeing and pro-social capacities even if the child grows in a healthy environment. Pearce thinks that as technology matures, more people may find it unacceptable to rely on "genetic roulette of natural selection".

Conversely, several concerns have been raised regarding the possibility of generating designer babies, especially concerning the inefficiencies currently presented by the technologies. Green stated that although the technology was "unavoidably in our future", he foresaw "serious errors and health problems as unknown genetic side effects in 'edited' children" arise. Furthermore, Green warned against the possibility that "the well-to-do" could more easily access the technologies "..that make them even better off". This concern regarding germline editing exacerbating a societal and financial divide is shared amongst other researches, with the chair of the Nuffield Bioethics Council Professor Karen Yeung stressing that if funding of the procedures "were to exacerbate social injustice, in our view that would not be an ethical approach".

Social and religious worries also arise over the possibility of editing human embryos. In a survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre, it was found that only a third of the Americans surveyed who identified as strongly Christian approved of germline editing. Catholic leaders are in the middle ground. This stance is because, according to Catholicism, a baby is a gift from God, and Catholics believe that people are created to be perfect in God's eyes. Thus, altering the genetic makeup of an infant is unnatural. In 1984, Pope John Paul II addressed that genetic manipulation in aiming to heal diseases is acceptable in the Church. He stated that it "will be considered in principle as desirable provided that it tends to the real promotion of the personal well-being of man, without harming his integrity or worsening his life conditions". However, it is unacceptable if designer babies are used to create a super/superior race including cloning humans. The Catholic Church rejects human cloning even if its purpose is to produce organs for therapeutic usage. The Vatican has stated that "The fundamental values connected with the techniques of artificial human procreation are two: the life of the human being called into existence and the special nature of the transmission of human life in marriage". According to them, it violates the dignity of the individual and is morally illicit.

A survey conducted by the Mayo Clinic in the Midwestern United States in 2017 saw that most of the participants agreed against the creation of designer babies with some noting its eugenic undertones. The participants also felt that gene editing may have unintended consequences that it may be manifested later in life for those that undergo gene editing. Some that took the survey worried that gene editing may lead to a decrease in the genetic diversity of the population in societies. The survey also noted how the participants were worried about the potential socioeconomic effects designer babies may exacerbate. The authors of the survey noted that the results of the survey showed that there is a greater need for interaction between the public and the scientific community concerning the possible implications and the recommended regulation of gene editing as it was unclear to them how much those that participated knew about gene editing and its effects prior to taking the survey.

In Islam, the positive attitude towards genetic engineering is based on the general principle that Islam aims at facilitating human life. However, the negative view comes from the process used to create a designer baby. Oftentimes, it involves the destruction of some embryos. Muslims believe that "embryos already has a soul" at conception. Thus, the destruction of embryos is against the teaching of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Shari'ah law, that teaches our responsibility to protect human life. To clarify, the procedure would be viewed as "acting like God/Allah". With the idea, that parents could choose the gender of their child, Islam believes that humans have no decision to choose the gender, and that "gender selection is only up to God".

Since 2020, there have been discussions about American studies that use embryos without embryonic implantation with the CRISPR/Cas9 technique that had been modified with HDR (homology-directed repair), and the conclusions from the results were that gene editing technologies are currently not mature enough for real world use and that there is a need for more studies that generate safe results over a longer period of time.

An article in the journal Bioscience Reports discussed how health in terms of genetics is not straightforward and thus there should be extensive deliberation for operations involving gene editing when the technology gets mature enough for real world use, where all of the potential effects are known on a case-by-case basis to prevent undesired effects on the subject or patient being operated on.

Social aspects also raise concern, as highlighted by Josephine Quintavelle, director of Comment on Reproductive Ethics at Queen Mary University of London, who states that selecting children's traits is "turning parenthood into an unhealthy model of self-gratification rather than a relationship".

One major worry among scientists, including Marcy Darnovsky at the Center for Genetics and Society in California, is that permitting germline engineering for correction of disease phenotypes is likely to lead to its use for cosmetic purposes and enhancement. Meanwhile, Henry Greely, a bioethicist at Stanford University in California, states that "almost everything you can accomplish by gene editing, you can accomplish by embryo selection", suggesting the risks undertaken by germline engineering may not be necessary. Alongside this, Greely emphasizes that the beliefs that genetic engineering will lead to enhancement are unfounded, and that claims that we will enhance intelligence and personality are far off – "we just don't know enough and are unlikely to for a long time – or maybe for ever".

Philosophy of psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Epistemology

Some of the issues studied by the philosophy of psychology are epistemological concerns about the methodology of psychological investigation. For example:

  • What constitutes a psychological explanation?
  • What is the most appropriate methodology for psychology: mentalism, behaviorism, or a compromise?
  • Are self-reports a reliable data-gathering method?
  • What conclusions can be drawn from null hypothesis tests?
  • Can first-person experiences (emotions, desires, beliefs, etc.) be measured objectively?

Ontology

Philosophers of psychology also concern themselves with ontological issues, like:

  • Can psychology be theoretically reduced to neuroscience?
  • What are psychological phenomena?
  • What is the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity in psychology?

Relations to other fields

Philosophy of psychology also closely monitors contemporary work conducted in cognitive neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and artificial intelligence, for example questioning whether psychological phenomena can be explained using the methods of neuroscience, evolutionary theory, and computational modeling, respectively. Although these are all closely related fields, some concerns still arise about the appropriateness of importing their methods into psychology. Some such concerns are whether psychology, as the study of individuals as information processing systems (see Donald Broadbent), is autonomous from what happens in the brain (even if psychologists largely agree that the brain in some sense causes behavior (see supervenience)); whether the mind is "hard-wired" enough for evolutionary investigations to be fruitful; and whether computational models can do anything more than offer possible implementations of cognitive theories that tell us nothing about the mind (Fodor & Pylyshyn 1988).

Related to the philosophy of psychology are philosophical and epistemological inquiries about clinical psychiatry and psychopathology. Philosophy of psychiatry is mainly concerned with the role of values in psychiatry: derived from philosophical value theory and phenomenology, values-based practice is aimed at improving and humanizing clinical decision-making in the highly complex environment of mental health care. Philosophy of psychopathology is mainly involved in the epistemological reflection about the implicit philosophical foundations of psychiatric classification and evidence-based psychiatry. Its aims is to unveil the constructive activity underlying the description of mental phenomena.

Main areas

Different schools and systems of psychology represent approaches to psychological problems, which are often based on different philosophies of consciousness.

Functional psychology Functionalism treats the psyche as derived from the activity of external stimuli, deprived of its essential autonomy, denying free will, which influenced behaviourism later on; one of the founders of functionalism was James, also close to pragmatism, where human action is put before questions and doubts about the nature of the world and man himself.

Psychoanalysis Freud`s doctrine, called Metapsychology, was to give the human self greater freedom from instinctive and irrational desires in a dialogue with a psychologist through analysis of the unconscious. Later the psychoanalytic movement split, part of it treating psychoanalysis as a practice of working with archetypes (analytical psychology), part criticising the social limitations of the unconscious (Freudo-Marxism), and later Lacan`s structural psychoanalysis, which interpreted the unconscious as a language.

Phenomenological psychology Edmund Husserl rejected the physicalism of most of the psychological teachings of his time and began to understand consciousness as the only reality accessible to reliable cognition.[9] His disciple Heidegger added to this the assertion of the fundamental finitude of man and the threat of a loss of authenticity in the technical world, and thus laid the foundation for existential psychology.

Structuralism The recognised creator of psychology as a science, W. Wundt described the primordial structures of the psyche that determine perception and behaviour, but faced the problem of the impossibility of direct access to these structures and the vagueness of their description. Half a century later his ideas, combined with Sossur`s semiotics, strongly influenced the general humanities of structuralism and the post-structuralism and post-modernism that emerged from it, where structures were treated as linguistic invariants.

Philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Epistemology

Some of the issues studied by the philosophy of psychology are epistemological concerns about the methodology of psychological investigation. For example:

  • What constitutes a psychological explanation?
  • What is the most appropriate methodology for psychology: mentalism, behaviorism, or a compromise?
  • Are self-reports a reliable data-gathering method?
  • What conclusions can be drawn from null hypothesis tests?
  • Can first-person experiences (emotions, desires, beliefs, etc.) be measured objectively?

Ontology

Philosophers of psychology also concern themselves with ontological issues, like:

  • Can psychology be theoretically reduced to neuroscience?
  • What are psychological phenomena?
  • What is the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity in psychology?

Relations to other fields

Philosophy of psychology also closely monitors contemporary work conducted in cognitive neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and artificial intelligence, for example questioning whether psychological phenomena can be explained using the methods of neuroscience, evolutionary theory, and computational modeling, respectively. Although these are all closely related fields, some concerns still arise about the appropriateness of importing their methods into psychology. Some such concerns are whether psychology, as the study of individuals as information processing systems (see Donald Broadbent), is autonomous from what happens in the brain (even if psychologists largely agree that the brain in some sense causes behavior (see supervenience)); whether the mind is "hard-wired" enough for evolutionary investigations to be fruitful; and whether computational models can do anything more than offer possible implementations of cognitive theories that tell us nothing about the mind (Fodor & Pylyshyn 1988).

Related to the philosophy of psychology are philosophical and epistemological inquiries about clinical psychiatry and psychopathology. Philosophy of psychiatry is mainly concerned with the role of values in psychiatry: derived from philosophical value theory and phenomenology, values-based practice is aimed at improving and humanizing clinical decision-making in the highly complex environment of mental health care. Philosophy of psychopathology is mainly involved in the epistemological reflection about the implicit philosophical foundations of psychiatric classification and evidence-based psychiatry. Its aims is to unveil the constructive activity underlying the description of mental phenomena.[6]

Main areas

Different schools and systems of psychology represent approaches to psychological problems, which are often based on different philosophies of consciousness.

Functional psychology Functionalism treats the psyche as derived from the activity of external stimuli, deprived of its essential autonomy, denying free will, which influenced behaviourism later on; one of the founders of functionalism was James, also close to pragmatism, where human action is put before questions and doubts about the nature of the world and man himself.

Psychoanalysis Freud`s doctrine, called Metapsychology, was to give the human self greater freedom from instinctive and irrational desires in a dialogue with a psychologist through analysis of the unconscious. Later the psychoanalytic movement split, part of it treating psychoanalysis as a practice of working with archetypes (analytical psychology), part criticising the social limitations of the unconscious (Freudo-Marxism), and later Lacan`s structural psychoanalysis, which interpreted the unconscious as a language.

Phenomenological psychology Edmund Husserl rejected the physicalism of most of the psychological teachings of his time and began to understand consciousness as the only reality accessible to reliable cognition. His disciple Heidegger added to this the assertion of the fundamental finitude of man and the threat of a loss of authenticity in the technical world, and thus laid the foundation for existential psychology.

Structuralism The recognised creator of psychology as a science, W. Wundt described the primordial structures of the psyche that determine perception and behaviour, but faced the problem of the impossibility of direct access to these structures and the vagueness of their description. Half a century later his ideas, combined with Sossur`s semiotics, strongly influenced the general humanities of structuralism and the post-structuralism and post-modernism that emerged from it, where structures were treated as linguistic invariants.

Operator (computer programming)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_(computer_programmin...