Genetic Chimaera
About:
An organism that is made up of cells from more than one different race is called a genetic chimaera.
For example, in Pets:
Due to chimerism, the body of a half-sider Budgerigar, a type of common parrot, is a different colour on each side.
Anglerfish have a very high level of symbiotic chimerism, which means that the male fish joins with and finally becomes a part of the female fish, mixing their genes into a single animal.
Marine sponges can have up to four different types of genes in the same cell.
Natural Chimaeras in People:
- It can happen when the genetic material in one cell changes, making a group of cells that are not the same as the others.
- Fusion of two fertilised zygotes early in the embryonic stage can also create a situation where two sets of genes live together in one person.
- Chimerism can also happen when twin or multiple pregnancies turn into a single pregnancy or when a twin baby merges into a singleton.
- It is known for some people to live with two different blood types. It has been known for pregnant women to carry genetic material from their unborn child in their blood.
- Through non-invasive prenatal tests, this kind of foetal DNA can be used to look for genetic flaws and birth defects.
- Microchimerism is the study of traces of the foetus’ genetic material being found in moms’ cells many years after giving birth. This means that a single person has two sets of genetic material.
- When people get solid organ transfers, they will definitely have two different sets of genes.
- This is called chimerism, and it happens when the donor’s organs are very different from the recipient’s other cells.
- People who have bone marrow transplants are called chimeric.
- People who are getting treatments like bone marrow transplants generally have their own bone marrow killed and then replaced with bone marrow from a good donor.
- Since stem cells are found in bone marrow, they will make blood cells that will then be used to replenish the recipient’s blood cell range.
- At some point, the receiver will have blood cells that look like the donors, but their other organs will have different genes. This will create a chimeric person.
Chimaeras in Non-human Primates:
- Rat-mouse, human-pig, and human-cow chimaeras have been created in the lab in the past to “generate” human parts.
- Rat-mouse chimaeras lived almost as long as normal mice, but human-pig chimaeras had to be killed after three to four weeks.
- These kinds of studies have shown promise in growing organs for transplantation, but they are limited because rats, mice, pigs, and cows are not very similar to humans in terms of development. Using them to grow human organs will be hard from both a biology and a technical point of view.
- In a recent important study, scientists stated that they were able to create a live chimaera in non-human animals, which are related to humans in terms of evolution. This is the first time that scientists have been able to make a hybrid baby monkey that is still alive.
- The study gives scientists new ways to use nonhuman monkeys to make chimaeras, which could soon be used as models for basic and translational biological research.
Applications
- Researchers have created human-pig chimaeras in the lab to try to come up with model systems that could “produce” human parts that are the right size, shape, and function.
- People have lived longer thanks to the successful use of animal insulin and, more recently, animal heart valves in surgery.
- Using progress in induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) technology, scientists have tried to grow whole human parts inside the bodies of animals.
Pluripotent stem cells:
- Regenerative medicine may benefit from pluripotent stem cells. Because they can reproduce endlessly and produce all bodily cell types, including brain, heart, pancreas, and liver cells.
The most common pluripotent stem cell is the embryonic stem cell. Since embryonic stem cells are generated by destroying or manipulating the pre-implantation embryo, their use has been controversial on ethical grounds.
Induced pluripotent stem cells:
- Somatic cells can be used to create induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs).
- Shinya Yamanaka and Kazutoshi Takahashi in Kyoto, Japan, discovered in 2006 that four genes, known as Yamanaka factors, may turn somatic cells into pluripotent stem cells.
- The discovery that adult cells may be reprogrammed to become pluripotent earned Shinya Yamanaka and Sir John Gurdon the 2012 Nobel Prize.
- iPSCs can differentiate into neurons, heart cells, and liver cells, allowing researchers to investigate disorders at the cellular level and find remedies.
- Since they may be made from a patient’s own cells, iPSCs avoid immune rejection and embryonic cells.
While therapeutic transplants are not currently safe, iPSCs are being employed in tailored drug development to investigate patient-specific disease mechanisms.
India’s Global Talent Competitiveness Ranking falls to 103
Context:
Over the past decade, India has experienced a notable decline in its position on the Global Talent Competitiveness Index (GTCI), dropping from 83 to 103 in the most recent report published this month.
Currently, India is situated between Algeria (ranked 102) and Guatemala (ranked 104), both categorized as lower-middle-income nations.
Overview of the Global Talent Competitiveness Index (GTCI)
- The GTCI, a measure of a country’s capability to cultivate, attract, and retain talent, assesses 134 countries.
- The index is issued by INSEAD, a key collaborator and supporter of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), based in Davos, Switzerland.
- INSEAD, a prominent global graduate business school with a widespread presence and affiliations with esteemed institutions, releases the report.
The evaluation of countries in the report is based on six pillars:
- Enable
- Attract
- Grow
- Retain talent
- Vocation and technical skills
- Global knowledge skills
India’s Ranking and Comparative Analysis
- With a current ranking of 103, India falls well below the median score of the countries appraised in the GTCI.
- Among the BRICS nations, India exhibits the weakest performance, with China leading at rank 40, followed by Russia (52), South Africa (68), and Brazil (69).
The top three countries in the GTCI are, Switzerland, Singapore, and the United States.
Skills Mismatch Challenge
- India confronts an escalating skills mismatch and encounters challenges in recruiting adequately skilled professionals.
- These issues contribute to its diminished standings in the ‘Employability’ and ‘Vocational and Technical Skills’ categories.
Noteworthy Achievement
- Despite the overall challenges, India excels in the “Global Knowledge Skills” category within the GTCI.
This accomplishment is propelled by innovation and software development, resulting in its 69th position in the “Talent Impact” sub-pillar.
Border Peace and Tranquility Agreement (BPTA)
Context:
- India and China have been hostile for a long time and went to war in 1962. After years of border issues, they finally came to a deal in 1993 called the Border Peace and Tranquilly deal (BPTA).
- The BPTA’s goal was to keep the peace along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and lower the chance of unexpected fights.
Why talk about this?
After thirty years, this historic deal is still being remembered by different interpretations and broken promises. The current border problem makes it even harder for both countries to come to an understanding.
BPTA: An Important But Controversial Agreement
- At the time, the BPTA was a big political win in the early 1990s because it was arranged after the Sumdorong Chu standoff.
- Putting your signature: The deal was made in 1993, when PV Narasimha Rao was prime minister.
- Peaceful Coexistence: Both countries agreed not to use or threaten to use force against each other. It stressed strict adherence to the LAC and a reduction of armed forces between both sides to keep ties friendly.
- Legacy: The BPTA was very important in keeping the peace for almost 20 years, but it also led to more infrastructure building and more accidents, which ended in the Galwan clash in 2020.
There is some confusion about the LAC.
Uncertainty: The main problem with border deals is that the LAC, which was included in the BPTA, is not clearly defined.
China came up with the name “LAC” in 1959, but India didn’t like it. This was still a controversial matter.
Formulation That Isn’t Clear: The BPTA let both sides make the LAC clearer when they needed to, which suggests that they didn’t agree on how to interpret the 1959 LAC.
Clarity Was Lost: This version of the language didn’t completely reject China’s version of the LAC, but it did try to avoid constant conflict.
What it means for future agreements
- Positive Changes: The BPTA made it possible for other deals to be made, such as steps to boost trust in the military along the LAC (1996) and the appointment of Special Representatives (2003).
- Unfinished Business: Talks about a final border deal broke down, and the tools to explain LAC claims were still not finished.
Building infrastructure and easing tensions
- Race for Facts on the Ground: Because of the lack of clarity over the LAC, both countries strengthened their claims by building up their facilities and sending out more troops.
- Encounters: Tensions along the border were raised by the fact that guards ran into each other a lot.
- Unexpected Effects: The BPTA caused talks on the border to move more slowly because both sides wanted to strengthen their positions along the LAC.
The Current Crisis:
- Brazen Ignorance: For the first time since the BPTA was signed in 2010, both countries have broken the promises they made in the first article.
- Boundary Talks Have Stopped: Because of the situation, talks to settle the boundary disagreement have stopped for the most part.
- A Tough Relationship: The 30-year-old border is still not solved, which is a reflection of how complicated the relationship between India and China is as a whole.
Conclusion
When the BPTA was signed 30 years ago, it was a big deal for ties between India and China.
Its impact, on the other hand, is still very controversial and unclear. As the current border crisis plays out, it remains hard to find a permanent solution and encourage peaceful cooperation between the two countries.
Indo-Pacific Economic Framework
Context:
- The 14 countries that are part of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) signed the IPEF Supply Chain Agreement.
- The third meeting of the Ministers of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) took place in San Francisco on November 14, 2023.
- The framework began in May 2022 and has 14 partner countries. Its goal is to improve economic cooperation so that everyone can grow and be happy.
- It is built on four main points: Trade, Supply Chains, Clean Economy, and Fair Economy.
India is a participant in Pillars II–IV, but only as a spectator in Pillar I.
- There were important agreements made in the talks about Pillars III (Clean Economy), IV (Fair Economy), and the Agreement on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity.
- The IPEF Supply Chain Agreement, which had already been talked over, was signed at the Ministerial Meeting.
- The Clean Economy (Pillar-III) is all about working together on clean energy, climate-friendly technologies, and projects that help the environment. It focuses on working together on study, development, and using technologies that are good for the environment.
- The Fair Economy (Pillar-IV) aims to improve tax and anti-corruption steps to encourage business, trade, and investment.
Sharing information, recovering assets, and conducting investigations across borders to stop graft, money laundering, and funding for terrorism are some of the main benefits.
IPEF:
- The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) is a US-led effort to make economic relationships stronger in the Indo-Pacific area so that they are more resilient, sustainable, open, fair, and competitive.
- IPEF was started in 2021 with 12 partners, which together made up 40% of the world’s GDP. It is not a Free Trade Agreement (FTA), but members can discuss particular areas of interest.
The foundation of the framework is based on four main points:
Steady supply chains Clean energy, lowering carbon emissions, and building new roads and bridges Fair and stable trade India and 13 Pacific Ocean countries are currently members.
These are Australia, Brunei, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, VN, and the United States.
Doctrine of Constitutional Morality
Context:
Just a few years ago, D. Y. Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India, asked that “the doctrine constitutional morality” not be thrown out.
About More news:
- Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud stresses how important constitutional morals is and says it shouldn’t be thrown out because it might go against social norms.
- He stresses that everyone agrees on some constitutional values and talks about how parts of other constitutions were purposely added to the Indian Constitution.
- Chandrachud thinks of the Constitution as a living text that has been changed more than one hundred times to fit India’s specific needs.
- He wants people to see it as something that reflects general values while also changing to fit local needs.
- The Chief Justice says that constitutional morality aims to change the way people live and stop religion, race, or tribe from being used as a basis for power.
- When talking about diversity in judge positions, he talks about how the law field is changing and how important it is to help exceptional people get past gender, religious, and caste biases.
- When it comes to the role of courts in social debate, he thinks that they work well with Parliament because both works to change society within the limits of their own institutions.
What does Constitutional Morality mean?
- Constitutional morality is the set of rules and values that the constitution is based on. These rules and values guide the behaviour of both the government and the people.
- This phrase sums up the idea that a constitution is more than just a set of laws; it’s also a moral code that shows what a society values and wants.
- Along with that, it stresses how important it is to understand and follow the constitution in line with these core values and principles, rather than just taking it at face value.
“Constitutional Morality” is not a word that is used in the constitution.
What are some important Supreme Court decisions about constitutional morality?
The Supreme Court has talked about constitutional morals more than once, in cases like:
- In the SP Gupta Case/First Judge Case (1982), the Supreme Court said that breaking the Constitution was a very bad thing to do.
- In Naz Foundation vs. Government of NCT of Delhi (2010), the Court put constitutional principles ahead of how society thinks about the morality of relationships between people of the same gender.
- In the 2014 case Manoj Narula vs. Union of India, the Chief Justice of India stressed constitutional morals as a dedication to constitutional rules, which discourages actions that go against the law or show random behaviour.
- In NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court emphasised that strict obedience to the Constitution’s ideals was in line with what the Constitution is all about.
- Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018): The Court made a distinction between constitutional and public morality, saying that constitutional morality puts justice ahead of social acceptance. This meant that homosexuality was no longer a crime under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
- In the 2019 case of Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court threw out Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which made adultery a crime. The court did this to protect female equality and the right to equality, and to stress that constitutional morality should lead laws instead of the state’s common morality.
The Indian Young Lawyers Association &Ors vs. The State of Kerala &Ors., (2019) (Sabarimala Case): The Court said that not letting women between the ages of 10 and 50 into the Sabarimala temple was against important basic morals like Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. In Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, the word “morality” refers to civil morality, not public morality.
