ESMA sees complex products and volatility as key risks

first_img ECB leaves interest rates and pandemic stimulus unchanged The European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) overall risk assessment remains at high levels, according to ESMA’s Risk Dashboard published on Wednesday.In the first quarter, European equity markets suffered significant price corrections, and saw a rise in volatility. Share this article and your comments with peers on social media Europe’s economy shrank 0.6% in Q1 Related news Market risks remain “very high,” with over-valuation in equities, and heightened market uncertainty, “as the period of ultra-low interest rates draws to a close,” the report states.ESMA’s outlook for liquidity, contagion and credit risk also remains high. Operational risk continues to be elevated “with a deteriorating outlook, as Brexit-related risks to business operations and vulnerabilities to cyber-attacks rise,” the report states.Risks faced by consumers due to complex products — including initial coin offerings (ICOs), virtual currencies, binary options, and contracts for difference (CFDs) — have become a “key concern” for ESMA.center_img James Langton Keywords EuropeCompanies European Securities and Markets Authority ECB speeds up help for virus hit economy Facebook LinkedIn Twitterlast_img read more

Time for Gene Editing “Global Observatory”

first_img A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All Life Sciences Time for Gene Editing “Global Observatory”Wesley J. SmithMarch 25, 2018, 3:23 PM TagsatombiotechnologycellCRISPRdebateeugenicsgene editinggenomegerm lineglobal observatoryJ. Benjamin HurlbutlifenaturepathogensResearchsafetyscienceSheila Jasanoff,Trending Wesley J. SmithChair and Senior Fellow, Center on Human ExceptionalismWesley J. Smith is Chair and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism. Wesley is a contributor to National Review and is the author of 14 books, in recent years focusing on human dignity, liberty, and equality. Wesley has been recognized as one of America’s premier public intellectuals on bioethics by National Journal and has been honored by the Human Life Foundation as a “Great Defender of Life” for his work against suicide and euthanasia. Wesley’s most recent book is Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine, a warning about the dangers to patients of the modern bioethics movement.Follow WesleyProfileTwitterFacebook Share Scientists are assuming the power of gods. Through CRISPR gene editing, they can — literally — change the nature of any cell and genetically alter every life form, including pathogens and eventually, the human germ line.Yet, outside of scientific symposia, we are not having a meaningful discussion about whether and how to regulate what I believe to be the most powerful technology ever invented, and certainly the most portentous since the splitting of the atom.Now, a commentary in Nature argues it is time for a “new kind of conversation” about all of this, what the authors Sheila Jasanoff and J. Benjamin Hurlbut call a “global observatory,” essentially an international heart-to-heart. From “A Global Observatory for Gene Editing” (my emphasis):If successful, the observatory we propose would alter the way problems are framed and expand the idea of a “broad societal consensus”. In current bioethical debates, there is a tendency to fall back on the framings that those at the frontiers of research find most straightforward and digestible.This move comes at great cost. If the ethical stakes of human germline genome editing are limited to questions of physical safety, for example, then the technical evaluation of particular biological endpoints (for instance, off-target effects) might offer sufficient answers. But such a focus short-circuits the central question of how to care for and value human life, individually, societally and in relation to other forms of life on Earth. Likewise, the goals of consensus must go beyond merely agreeing on whether particular applications of genome editing are acceptable or unacceptable.Deliberation is insufficient if the conversation is too quickly boxed into judgements of the pros and cons, risks and benefits, the permissibility or impermissibility of germline genome editing, and so on. Such an approach neglects important background questions — who sits at the table, what questions and concerns are sidelined, and what power asymmetries are shaping the terms of debate.When it comes to shaping the future of humanity, those neglected issues are just as important as the concerns of people poised to radically remake it. Indeed, consensus might even mean agreeing not to proceed with some research until a more equitable approach to setting the terms of debate is achieved.Jasanoff and Hurlbut have launched a crucially important initiative. The authors conclude with a wise caveat:Free enquiry, the lifeblood of science, does not mean untrammelled freedom to do anything. Society’s unwritten contract with science guarantees scientific autonomy in exchange for a research enterprise that is in the service of, and calibrated to, society’s diverse conceptions of the good. As the dark histories of eugenics and abusive research on human subjects remind us, it is at our peril that we leave the human future to be adjudicated in biotechnology’s own “ecclesiastical courts”.It is time to invite in voices and concerns that are currently inaudible to those in centres of biological innovation, and to draw on the full richness of humanity’s moral imagination. An international, interdisciplinary observatory would be an important step in this directionYes! Every power sector needs enforceable checks and balances, and none in our history is as potentially  powerful as biotechnology. Further neglect of this issue represents an abdication of leadership.Photo credit: PhotoshopTofs, via Pixabay.Cross-posted at The Corner. Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis Culture & Ethics Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tourcenter_img Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Requesting a (Partial) Retraction from Darrel Falk and BioLogos Recommended Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Sharelast_img read more