Citations

This poster presents an expert consensus position on the current controversy regarding calcium supplement use and risk of myocardial infarction. In November 2011, The CRN Foundation with the support of the National Osteoporosis Foundation and National Bone Health Alliance convened an expert panel of scientists from the nutrition and medical communities to review the total body of evidence and specifically studies relating calcium supplements to an increased risk of myocardial infarction. Because of the many data limitations present in the supporting studies relating calcium supplements to an increased risk of myocardial infarction and contrast to the large majority of the literature accompanied with recent reanalyses of the data, no change in prescribing practice is currently recommended. Prescribers should consider the potential benefits of calcium supplements for prevention of osteoporotic fractures based on an individual's personal dietary intake. Positive outcomes of calcium supplementation such as prevention of obesity and colorectal cancers may also carry weight in support of calcium supplements when individual dietary intakes are inadequate to meet IOM recommendations.

Abstract New gene-editing tools challenge conventional policy proscriptions of research aimed at either human germline gene editing or human enhancement by potentially lowering technical barriers to both kinds of intervention. Some recent gene-editing reports have begun to take up the prospect of germline editing, but most experts are in broad agreement that research should prioritize medical applications over attempts to enhance human traits. However, there is little consensus about what counts as human enhancement in this context, or how to deal with the issues it flags. Moreover, several influential reports interpret medical applications to include disease prevention as well as treatment as a goal for gene-editing research. This challenges the current policy consensus because using gene editing to prevent disease would incidentally facilitate human enhancement applications in a variety of ways. If such research efforts are penalized by policy concerns about enhancement, then their preventive health benefits could be lost. To avoid being caught off guard by such challenges, science policy makers will need to think more carefully about what “prevention” might mean in the gene-editing context, and develop research governance that can anticipate and address the human enhancement concerns it will raise. To accomplish the latter, the scope of policy making will need to expand from its narrow focus on human clinical trials to engage with basic researchers driving the translational pipeline toward preventive gene editing and the science policy makers who have to address its “off-label” uses.