1-14 of 14 results for legtitle:"Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.217 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.003 seconds
- Search query
- legtitle:"Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000"
- We searched for
- legislationTitle_t:"Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000"
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Publisher
To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 18 December (WA 210–11) and 22 January (WA 129), why they cited the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 when the latter question made no such reference, and, given their previous statement that it would...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 18 December (WA 210–11) and 22 January (WA 129), why they cited the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 when the latter question made no such reference, and, given their previous statement that it would...
My written answers of 18 December and 22 January made reference to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 because the noble Lord had referred to techniques carried out in non-human species that are subject to these regulations in his questions.
The Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations were developed specifically to cover techniques in non-human organisms and exclude humans and human embryos.
The proposed mitochondrial donation techniques only allow for unaltered nuclear DNA to be transferred into an egg or embryo that has unaltered healthy mitochondria and the original nuclear DNA removed. The key consideration is that these mitochondria] donation techniques only substitute, rather than alter, a very limited number of unhealthy genes in the 'battery pack' of the cells with healthy ones. Most importantly, mitochondria] donation techniques do not alter personal characteristics and traits, as they do not alter the parental nuclear DNA and genes.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 18 December (WA 210–11), in what terms it would be appropriate to discuss such work; what principles they adopt in defining the same scientific techniques in closely related species; and whether in doing so they follow...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 18 December (WA 210–11), in what terms it would be appropriate to discuss such work; what principles they adopt in defining the same scientific techniques in closely related species; and whether in doing so they follow...
The Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 specifically exclude humans and human embryos from their coverage and there is no read across from legislation that was developed to cover techniques in non-human organisms.
In developing draft regulations for consultation, which would allow mitochondrial donation techniques to be used in treatment, the Government has had regard to the advice of the expert panel convened by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The expert panel carried out scientific reviews of the safety and efficacy of methods to avoid mitochondrial disease through assisted reproduction in April 2011 and March 2013, including looking at research involving different species. The expert panel will be asked to review the latest scientific evidence on safety and efficacy before regulations are put before Parliament.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 18 December 2013 (WA 210–11), whether there are any techniques listed under Schedule 2 to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 that might be applied to humans but which they consider should not be...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 18 December 2013 (WA 210–11), whether there are any techniques listed under Schedule 2 to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 that might be applied to humans but which they consider should not be...
As I advised the noble Lord in my Written Answer of 18 December 2013 (Official Report, col. WA 211), genetic modification of humans or human embryos are specifically excluded by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 and it would be inappropriate to discuss such activities in terms of these Regulations.
There is no universally agreed definition of genetic modification for human beings. We do not consider that permitting mitochondrial donation, aimed at preventing serious hereditary conditions, would be contrary to human dignity as envisaged by Article 24 of the UNESCO declaration.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 3 December (WA 33 and WA 36), whether it is intended that no human eggs or embryos that could be classed as “permitted eggs” or “permitted embryos” should be subjected to any of the same techniques...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 3 December (WA 33 and WA 36), whether it is intended that no human eggs or embryos that could be classed as “permitted eggs” or “permitted embryos” should be subjected to any of the same techniques...
The two mitochondrial donation techniques about which the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) undertook its public dialogue in 2012 involve the transfer of the nuclear DNA to an egg or embryo with healthy mitochondria that has had its own nuclear DNA removed. The nuclear DNA, which shapes personal characteristics and traits, is not therefore modified. However, as the aim is that children born as a result of mitochondrial donation, and their offspring, would be free of serious mitochondrial disease it would be a form of germline modification or germline gene therapy, as respectively recognised by the HFEA and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Genetic modification of humans or human embryos is not covered by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000. Therefore, whilst the techniques described in Schedule 2 might be applied to humans, it would be inappropriate to discuss such work in terms of these Regulations.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 30 October (WA 259), by Viscount Younger of Leckie on 12 November (WA 114) and by Lord Freud on 5 November (WA 32) and 18 November (WA 143), why they regard the technique described in question...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 30 October (WA 259), by Viscount Younger of Leckie on 12 November (WA 114) and by Lord Freud on 5 November (WA 32) and 18 November (WA 143), why they regard the technique described in question...
As indicated by Lord Freud in his answers of 5 and 18 November (WA 32 and WA 143), the information provided in the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 about genetic modification is of a general and not specific nature. Techniques involving human embryos are excluded from the scope of the regulations. There is therefore no link between the GMO Regulations and human embryos.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Freud on 5 November (HL2881), to which specific part of Schedule 2 to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 the techniques and experimental approach described in the previous question pertain. [HL3206]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Freud on 5 November (HL2881), to which specific part of Schedule 2 to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 the techniques and experimental approach described in the previous question pertain. [HL3206]
The person proposing to undertake such an experiment would have the legal duty to use the information in Schedule 2 in order to decide whether the work is covered by Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 (as amended). Based on the limited information provided in the question, Part III of Schedule 2 would apply in this case.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to include the injection of nuclear genetic material from any Mustela nivalis cell other than a male gamete into a genetically distinct oocyte or zygote of the same species, in which fusion is mediated by the envelope of inactivated Sendai virus,...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to include the injection of nuclear genetic material from any Mustela nivalis cell other than a male gamete into a genetically distinct oocyte or zygote of the same species, in which fusion is mediated by the envelope of inactivated Sendai virus,...
There are no plans to modify Schedule 2 of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 (as amended). This Schedule sets out over-arching criteria to establish the kinds of techniques that constitute genetic modification and also clarifies which of these techniques are covered by the Regulations. The information provided is of a general nature and the Schedule does not list specific experiments.
The Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000, as amended and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Exclusion of Information from the Public Register)(No 1) Direction 2002. DTLR. 2002.
The Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000, as amended and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Exclusion of Information from the Public Register)(No 1) Direction 2002. DTLR. 2002.
Consultation on emergency amendment of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000. HSE. 2001.
Consultation on emergency amendment of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000. HSE. 2001.
SI 2000/2831 (Negative instrument). Coming into force 15 November 2000.
SI 2000/2831 (Negative instrument). Coming into force 15 November 2000.