Scientific advancements lead us towards a future in which Homo sapiens may no longer be the only sapient being. The societal and legal challenges of this potentiality are immense, and it will require traditionally disparate branches of science to recognise their similarities in order to address them effectively.The present paper aims to inform the bioethical debate on the regulation of human genome editing technologies with a specific focus on the role of scientific experts and their interactions with the general public in the formulation of policy. It reviews and compares two of the major contributions to this debate in the U.K. check details and in the U.S.A., comparing expert approaches towards regulation on genome editing technologies. The results of this analysis offer important lessons that should be appreciated in building an international regulatory framework. On the basis of these results, I conclude that the experts should embrace a socially responsible approach and encourage active public engagement.We support gender equality and freedoms in cases in which 'like equals like'. Such inclusion is central to a progressive society. However, inclusion could potentially conflict with fairness in cases concerning transgendered athletes in elite sport. Accepted science regarding male and female physiology suggests that transwomen have an advantage over their cisgendered counterparts. This advantage stems from relatively high testosterone levels and prior male physiology of transwomen. Conversely, transmen who wish to compete in the men's division may be disadvantaged in comparison with cismen. Hence, while inclusion supports transwomen and transmen competing in the division that matches their gender identity, this may not satisfy the principle of fairness. We reason that transwomen and cismen are not only advantaged, but unfairly advantaged, and propose that the gender binary in elite sport should be replaced with a nuanced algorithm that accounts for both physiological and social parameters. As the algorithm would be applied to all athletes, it would be both inclusive and fair.Genome editing is the precise alteration of DNA in living cells by the cutting or removal of specific sequences, sometimes followed by insertion of new sequences at the cut site. CRISPR-Cas9 has become firmly established as the genome-editing method of choice, replacing the systems that had been developed and in use since the early 1990s. The CRISPR-Cas9 system has been developed from a mechanism used in prokaryotes as a defence against bacteriophage but actually functions in cells of all types of organisms. It is widely used in research as a gene knockout and editing tool; applications in veterinary medicine (such as increased resistance to disease) and human medicine (such as correction of disease-causing mutations) are under development. In agriculture and horticulture, the potential for various aspects of crop improvement is very large. Selected aspects of this potential are presented here, with particular focus on crop quality and disease resistance. The article ends with a brief discussion of the regulatory 'environment' in the USA and the EU.Vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) is the name most often used to refer to the transplantation of anatomical units composed of multiple tissue types (skin, bone, muscle, tendon, nerves, vessels, etc.) when such transplants do not have the primary purpose of extending life, as is the case in the more familiar field of solid organ transplantation (SOT). A serious interest in VCA developed in the late twentieth century following advances in immunosuppression which had led to significant improvements in short and medium-term survival among SOT recipients. Several ethical concerns have been raised about VCA, with many being connected in one way or another to the limitations, burdens, and risks associated with immunosuppression. This article will focus on upper extremity and craniofacial VCA, beginning with a brief review of the history of VCA including reported outcomes, followed by a discussion of the range of ethical concerns, before exploring in greater detail how immunological issues inform and shape several of the ethical concerns.The physiological functions of progesterone (P4) in female reproductive organs including the mammary glands are mediated via the progesterone receptor (PR), but not all P4 functions can be explained by PR-mediated signaling. Progesterone receptor membrane component 1 (PGRMC1), a potential mediator of P4 actions, plays an important role in the ovary and uterus in maintaining female fertility and pregnancy, but its function in mammary glands has not been elucidated. This study investigated the role of PGRMC1 in mouse mammary gland development. Unlike in the uterus, exogenous estrogen (E2) and/or P4 did not alter PGRMC1 expression in the mammary gland, and Pgrmc1-knockout (KO) mice displayed reduced ductal elongation and side branching in response to hormone treatment. During pregnancy, PGRMC1 was expressed within both the luminal and basal epithelium and gradually increased with gestation and decreased rapidly after parturition. Moreover, although lactogenic capacity was normal after parturition, Pgrmc1 KO resulted in defective mammary gland development from puberty until midpregnancy, while the expression of PR and its target genes was not significantly different between wild-type and Pgrmc1-KO mammary gland. These data suggest that PGRMC1 is essential for mammary gland development during puberty and pregnancy in a PR-independent manner. To describe consecutive vulvar biopsy cases and to create an educational template for pathology trainees and practicing pathologists. We reviewed 189 consecutive biopsies from the female genital area skin and mucosa. We classified them based on etiologies and examined limited clinical information. We classified diagnoses as squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (21.5%), melanocytic neoplasia (17.9%), lichenoid dermatoses (15.9%), nonlichenoid dermatoses (11.3%), infectious (6.2%), reparative (4.6%), or miscellaneous (22.6%). The miscellaneous diagnoses included common entities (polyps and cysts) and rarer entities (calcinosis cutis, adnexal neoplasms, or basal cell carcinoma) and nonspecific descriptive diagnoses. Clinicians most often included the actual diagnosis in their differential for melanocytic lesions (83%) and least often for inflammatory lesions (32%). However, some cases included a clinical description without a differential diagnosis (14%) or no helpful clinical information (4%). The distribution of whether correct diagnoses were included in the clinical differential was similar between submitting physicians and midlevel providers.