lynddion has added a photo to the pool:
:format(jpeg):fill(f8f8f8,true)/s3/static.nrc.nl/bvhw/wp-content/blogs.dir/114/files/2019/07/roosmalen-marcel-van-online-homepage.png)
New analysis by the Guardian has revealed the disturbing extent of these firms’ influence in highly sensitive areas
Children’s homes and care placements are not ordinary commodities. Yet Britain has allowed some of its most sensitive public services to become assets in private equity portfolios: bought, loaded with debt, restructured and sold, while the state continues to fund the contracts and vulnerable people carry the risk when things go wrong.
Private equity’s role in public services is not notional. The year after Compass Community was sold by its owner, Graphite Capital, to another private equity group, Cap10, the poor state of some of its children’s homes was made plain by Ofsted reports. Inspectors who visited two homes in England – which had previously been rated good and outstanding – found “high levels of distress” and staff as well as children feeling unsafe. Cap10 denies that standards fell following the change of ownership.
Continue reading...Polling shows that the public supports this new technology, but the conversation must move beyond simple questions of safety
Ever since Crispr-Cas9 gene-editing technology emerged in the early 2010s, ethical questions around genetically altered humans, so-called designer babies, have become increasingly urgent. There is already a worldwide legal prohibition. No country currently allows human germline editing (meaning genetic changes to an embryo that could also be passed on to its children), and 70 have laws against it, including the UK. But a series of recent discoveries and a new poll suggest that scientists and the public believe gene-edited humans are likely – even desirable – in the near future.
Two new studies use base editing – a more precise next-generation Crispr tool – on human embryos to study early development or disease (this research is legal in the UK and US as long as the embryos are destroyed within 14 days). The lead author of one study, Dieter Egli, said that the technology wasn’t yet ready for the clinic, but the advances would “guide responsible research to achieve its ultimate safe and effective use”. This encapsulates the view of many scientists, who believe the regulated use of germline editing to eradicate hereditary conditions is inevitable, and the main objection is around safety.
Continue reading...What ORMs have taught me: just learn SQL (2014): https://wozniak.ca/blog/2014/08/03/1/index.html
Discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48742175