• No results found

European governance challenges in bio-engineering : STOA workshop report

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "European governance challenges in bio-engineering : STOA workshop report"

Copied!
16
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

European governance challenges in bio-engineering : STOA

workshop report

Citation for published version (APA):

Slagt, R., Est, van, R., & Stemerding, D. (Eds.) (2011). European governance challenges in bio-engineering : STOA workshop report. European Parliament, STOA.

Document status and date: Published: 01/01/2011

Document Version:

Publisher’s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers)

Please check the document version of this publication:

• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.

• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.

• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers.

Link to publication

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.

If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

www.tue.nl/taverne

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at:

openaccess@tue.nl

providing details and we will investigate your claim.

(2)

1 European Technology Assessment Group

ITAS  DBT  FCRI  ISI IST ITA TC  Rathenau

ETAG

Making Perfect Life

Bio-engineering (in) the 21

st

Century

STOA Workshop Report

European Governance

Challenges in Bio-engineering

Deliverable No.6 of the STOA Project “Making Perfect Life”

Commissioned by STOA and carried out by ETAG

Contract No. IP/A/STOA/FWC/2008-096/LOT6/C1/SC3

Ref.: Framework Contract No. IP/A/STOA/FWC/2008-096/LOT6

Report edited by:

Robert Slagt (Slagtekst)

Dr. ir. Rinie van Est (Rathenau Instituut) Dr. Dirk Stemerding (Rathenau Instituut) Rathenau Instituut, The Hague

15 November 2011

Contact:

Dr Leonhard Hennen (Co-ordinator)

Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis; Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

c/o Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Ahrstr. 45, D-53175 Bonn

Leonhard.Hennen@kit..edu

European Technology Assessment Group

Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe

Danish Board of Technology (DBT), Copenhagen

Catalan Foundation for Research and Innovation (FCRI), Barcelona

Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI), Karlsruhe

Institute Society and Technology (IST), Brussels

Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA), Vienna

Rathenau Instituut, The Hague

(3)

2 Project Description

Contract number IP/A/STOA/FWC/2008-96/LOT6/C1/SC3 The project is being carried out by:

Rathenau Instituut, The Hague (Project Co-ordinator) together with the Institute of Technology Assessment, Vienna; Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation

Research, Karlsruhe; and the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe, as members of ETAG.

Project Leader:

Dr.ir. Rinie van Est, Rathenau Instituut

Members of the European Parliament in charge: Malcolm Harbour

Vittorio Prodi

STOA staff in charge: Vittorio De Crescenzo

(4)

3

FOREWORD

A living cell with synthetic DNA is already a reality. Smart implants and stem cells are on their way to the clinic. Scientists also work on other cutting edge technologies, from robots that can act like humans to building supercomputers resembling the human brain. In many ways, technology and biology are increasingly intertwined.

What is the impact of these developments and our vision of the ideal future of Europe? Can the EU foster innovation in these fields while at the same time managing social and ethical concerns in our society? These and other questions were addressed during the conference “Making Perfect Life”, hosted by STOA on the 10th of November 2010 in the European Parliament in Brussels.

To inform and stimulate further political debate in the European Parliament, the STOA “Making Perfect Life” team has now prepared a final report, highlighting the governance challenges arsing from a number of specific developments in four fields of 21st century bio-engineering: the rise of whole genome sequencing, the market introduction of neurodevices, the growing possibilities to capture psychological and physiological states of users by information technology, and the needs for standardisation in synthetic biology. We welcome you at the STOA workshop of today, in which European policy makers will meet with scientific experts, regulators, stakeholders and other relevant communities, to discuss the European governance challenges in 21st century bioengineering!

(5)

4

PROGRAMME

13.00 Registration 13.30

Welcome address by Malcolm Harbour (STOA Vice Chairman) 13.40

Introduction: Bio-engineering in the 21st century: major themes and issues Rinie van Est, Rathenau Instituut

14.00

Privacy, data protection and policy implications in whole genome sequencing Bärbel Hüsing, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research 14.30

Market development and regulation for neurodevices in Europe Ira van Keulen, Rathenau Instituut

15.00 Coffee Break 15.30

Monitoring mental states through information technology: issues of privacy and autonomy

Michael Rader, Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (KIT) 16.00

Standards for synthetic biology: towards a European bio-economy Helge Torgersen, Institute for Technology Assessment (OAW) 16.30

Governance challenges in 21st century bio-engineering: implications for EU policy-making

Dirk Stemerding, Rathenau Instituut

Comments: Herbert Gottweis, University of Vienna Paneldiscussion with Members of Parliament Moderator: Frans Brom, Rathenau Instituut 17.30

Closing remarks by Vittorio Prodi (STOA Panel Member) 17.45

(6)

5

Workshop Introduction and Conclusions

BIO-ENGINEERING NEEDS NEW FORMS OF GOVERNANCE

European laws lagging behind major developments in biosciences

European policy makers need to start up active ‘bio-politics’ to keep control on the fast moving developments in bio-engineering. That is the main conclusion of the European STOA-project ‘Making Perfect Life’, which was coordinated by the Rathenau Instituut. Their report was presented on October 11 at the European Parliament in Brussels. According to the researchers there is an evident need for new forms of governance of current and future developments in bio-engineering.

The STOA project ‘Making Perfect Life. Bio-engineering (in) the 21st century’, which took

three years to realize, focused on four areas where biology and technology are becoming increasingly intertwined: body, brain, intelligent artefacts and living artefacts. The possibilities to intervene in both the body and the brain are growing, while simultaneously there is an increasing capability to create artefacts which have life-like and intelligent qualities.

“The main message of this report is that biosciences are transforming into ‘bio-engineering’. The increasing interplay between biology and technology implies we urgently need to start a much broader political and public debate on the growing amount of bio-ethical issues which is coming our way,” said project coordinator Rinie van Est of the Rathenau Instituut.

In the STOA-workshop, in which seventy scientists and politicians participated, researchers presented four case studies showing the huge developments European citizens will be experiencing over the next decade in DNA-research, brain science, artificial intelligence and synthetic biology. In certain fields of bio-engineering stricter regulations are needed at very short notice.

“Within the next five to ten years we can expect a wave of innovations which we can’t handle within the current legal framework,” Van Est indicated. “Current legislation is incomplete to regulate the socio-technical dynamics which are coming our way. This means we are entering a new phase: to adjust the rules where they are under pressure or make new regulations where they are missing. The ball now lies in the court of politicians.”

‘Regulatory wasteland’

Dirk Stemerding, researcher at the Rathenau Instituut, gave a broader overview of the governance challenges European policy makers on bio-engineering will be confronted with in the next decade. “We are faced by many new discoveries on the one hand. The second problem is: where do these discoveries fit in with the current patchwork of established regulations?”

Stemerding distinguishes two serious challenges for politicians. The first is to keep the current legislative framework flexible enough to fit in new discoveries. Another serious problem is posed by what he calls the ‘regulatory wasteland’: products and procedures in bioengineering for which no rules actually exist.

“There are many uncertainties ahead: the speed and the direction of new developments; the influence new applications can have on socio-political values such as privacy; and the fact that we don't know whether the current framework is adequate.” For Stemerding it is

(7)

6 evident that the European Union should adopt a more active strategy: “We need to move beyond bio-ethics, into the sphere of real bio-politics.”

Closer communication needed

For the Austrian political scientist Herbert Gottweis, the STOA report and workshop showed that politicians need to get a better overview of what is going on in bio-engineering. “The need for action is evident, especially in the field of whole genome research and the engineering of the brain.”

Moreover, Gottweis said, citizens expect politicians to take care of medical and ethical dilemmas, which will affect their lives. “The communication on the new technologies needs to become a lot better. For many, bio-banks and whole genome screening are rather mysterious concepts.”

European policy makers too were impressed by the governance challenges they are being faced with in 21st century bio-engineering. “I am dizzy from all the information I heard

today and the huge task which lies ahead of us,” European Parliament member and STOA board member Vittorio Prodi said. “At the same time, we are very pleased by this report. We now have the framework and the methodology to start developing new policies. We owe this to European citizens: to convince them that our dignity as a human being isn’t threatened by developments in bioengineering. So let’s go to work fast. We need to make decisions.”

(8)

7

Presentation:

Bärbel Hüsing, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research

NEW DNA DATA RESEARCH INTERFERES WITH

PERSONAL PRIVACY

Technologies for DNA sequencing are developing at such a high pace that in the next decade the whole international framework for privacy and data protection needs to be revised, says senior researcher Bärbel Hüsing from the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research. “The big question at the moment for many people is: how do we deal with the DNA material and other personal data which will become available to us in the coming years?”

In her case study presentation, Hüsing focused on the impact of whole genome sequencing, which has developed at a tremendous pace over the last two decades. “In 1991, one PhD student would take about three years to sequence one gene. Twenty years later, he is able to sequence a complete individual genome within a matter of weeks. At the moment this process will cost about 50.000 euro, but in about five years time this will be much lower: a mere one thousand euro.”

According to Hüsing, larger quantities of genetic information will become available to researchers and citizens both faster and cheaper, which poses both advantages and threats. “Whole genome sequencing is a unique identification method, for instance to analyse family ancestry and reveal if someone has a hereditary risk to develop a certain disease. But all this DNA information can be stored, re-analysed and misused as well, possibly leading to discrimination and stigmatization.”

Handling personalised medicine

Another issue is that, as science keeps making giant steps ahead, these raw DNA data on a person can be used for unexpected discoveries we cannot foresee now, which affects confidentiality. “With the expected increase of data exchange and internationalization the biomedical field needs to adapt a code of conduct on how to share these data. What level of confidentiality is needed here? How are we going to handle bio banking and personalised medicine?”

In the current debate on DNA and privacy Hüsing distinguishes two groups. The libertarians defend the individual autonomy and demand a stricter data protection. The communitarians focus on the collective interest of curing illnesses and want a more open and transparent medical research culture. The German researcher pleaded for establishing better frame conditions so citizens know their DNA is dealt with in a responsible way.

“The debate is on, but we need to widen it more. In the future a huge quantity of quality DNA data will arrive at our doorstep. How will we handle them? And who will be making the decisions to reassess these data: the doctor or an independent monitoring body? The public awareness on this issue needs to be raised. We need more safeguards and high quality standards. My personal view is that more international harmonization of regulations by the European Union is desirable.”

Discussion

In the ensuing discussion, STOA board member Vittorio Prodi pointed out the necessity to regulate both the storage of DNA data and human samples. “These samples could still be used after someone has died, and the deceased person’s will must be respected. It makes clear that in the future we will be confronted with a huge amount of data about ourselves.”

(9)

8 Another important question, which was raised, is: which data are personal data? Bärbel Hüsing indicated that a former STOA report on direct to consumer genetic testing, published in 2009, sees it as a legitimate desire that citizens can acquire data about themselves and their families. “But the quality control is not yet in place. We need a neutral body to provide unbiased information on the pros and cons of obtaining this knowledge”.

STOA board member Malcolm Harbour pointed out that the challenge for the future is how difficult data control will become because of a cheaper and more accessible DNA technology. “So the key question will be: if we have the raw data on a person, what should we analyse or not?”

(10)

9

Presentation:

Ira van Keulen, Rathenau Instituut

REGULATORY VACUUM IN GROWTH MARKET OF

NEURODEVICES

The fast growing market for neuromodulation devices poses new governance challenges to the European Union, says Ira van Keulen, senior researcher at the Rathenau Instituut. “We have found regulatory issues about the use and the definition of neurodevices. For example, when they are used for non-medical reasons, like gaming or performance enhancement, can they get around the medical device regulation? This is an odd situation.”

Although the market for neurodevices is still relatively small, with an annual output of 4 to 5 billion euros, it is now growing at a pace of 18% per year at the moment and is expected to grow even more in the coming decade. The advantage of stimulating the brain electronically instead of chemically is that they don’t affect the whole body like drugs do. Also, introducing them into the market is less time consuming than pharmaceuticals because of different and less stringent pre-market EU regulations. Besides new molecular knowledge has not resulted in new effective psychopharmaceuticals. Big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer are therefore now investing in the neuromodulating industry.

In her presentation, Van Keulen focused on three important upcoming devices for neuromodulation: EEG neurofeedback, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS).

Starting with DBS, Van Keulen showed an impressive video of a serious tremor case. A woman who was shaking intensely, suddenly stopped: her doctor had switched on a DBS-device which ended her tremor directly.

At the moment about 75.000 people worldwide are using DBS-devices. “The limitation of DBS is that it doesn’t cure a disease, but it only treats the symptoms,” Van Keulen explained. “Also, a 10-40% of the patients experience side effects from DBS which can be quite severe, such as depression or hypersexuality.”

Shift towards psychiatry

At the same time DBS, which started off in 1997 as a highly specialised treatment for people suffering from Parkinson’s disease, is currently being used for depression and compulsive disorders. “There is now a clear shift in DBS towards psychiatric indications.” The same goes for TMS: manipulating the brain with magnetic fields is now increasingly being used in therapy for severe depression and bipolar disorders, besides Parkinson’s disease and epilepsy, mostly in private clinics. “What happens is that certain parts of the brain – 3,5 cm below the skull at the deepest - are ‘switched off’. The technology, which started in 1985, is quite safe as long as it is done by skilled professionals.”

The third form of brain manipulation, EEG neurofeedback, uses video displays or sound to give moment-to-moment information to patients on the state of their physiological functioning. “As a patient you actually see what is happening in your brain. It is being used for ADHD patients and many other medical indications like epilepsy, autism, insomnia and addiction, but the effect has not yet been robustly proven.”

Game or medical device?

Researchers expect all three techniques, and especially DBS treatment, will be used a lot more over the next five to ten years in treatment. According to Van Keulen, the focus in the public debate is now on the safety and performance of the devices. One of the most important problems found in the case study are definition problems. For example, there

(11)

10 is a lack of clarity on the classification, especially with EEG neurofeedback. Also, the intended use of the devices is sometimes very narrowly described by manufacturers or very broadly. This results in either off-label use or introduction of neuromodulating therapy in private clinics while their efficacy and efficiency are not proven yet. Some neuromodulating devices are already offered for non-medical purposes, for example to enhance your cognitive performance or gaming. It is unclear whether these devices can completely bypass medical device regulation.

“There is a modest debate going on now if we should regulate these devices like pharmaceutical drugs. But the industry says this will slow down the process of bringing them onto the market and patients will miss out on new therapies. But what we see now is that in practice there is some regulatory vacuum when it comes to EU regulations on the use of especially non-invasive neurodevices. But also when it comes to governance, there are some issues. For example, harmonization of reimbursement policies in the EU is lacking and each therapist using EEG neurofeedback is making his own protocol. There is no standardization. This is a situation which needs to be addressed by policy makers.”

(12)

11

Presentation:

Michael Rader, Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (KIT)

BIOCYBERNETICS: KNOWING WHAT THE SYSTEM KNOWS

OF YOU

The vast amount of personal data used in biocybernetics will require more extensive regulations in the future, says Michael Rader, former senior researcher at the KIT-ITAS Institute in Karlsruhe. “The use of data in health care is largely covered but we are lagging behind in new developments. The main question is: who will have access to all the data?”

Biocybernetics deals with computer applications where vital data of the user are collected to enable the computer system to adapt to the person who is using it. “This type of artificial intelligence began to develop in the 1990’s,” Rader explains. “It’s about creating a situation where the computer system seems to ‘understand’ the person who is using it.”

Computers are already being used to measure physiological functions, such as blood pressure and stress, visual attention and skin reactions. The next step is to register neurophysiological behaviour like emotions and brain activity.

An interesting example of biocybernetics is ambient intelligence, or creating electronic environments that are sensitive and responsive to the presence and activities of people. In an ambient intelligence world, devices work together to support people in carrying out their everyday life activities. “The system reads your mood, so to speak.”

Examples of ambient intelligence are helping the disabled or elderly to live more independently in their homes. Some progress has already been made to help them communicate better. Other envisaged applications include education, monitoring humans in safety-critical situations and gaming. “Through this, computers can become sensitive partners. For example through games that can give biofeedback to young patients to motivate them.”

Pioneering phase

The main problem now is that this application is still very much in the pioneering phase, according to Rader. “There are already applications of adaptive bio cybernetics in gaming and for medical use it is still in the early stages. But daily applications are still far away. For example: it’s difficult to recognise biosignals when there are several people in a room who make different noises and movements.”

However, if ambient intelligence would move forward in developing applications, this will raise a new problem: what to do with the huge amounts of data that are required? “The advertising sector will have a huge interest in developing adaptive systems which can read people’s actions and minds. But all of the computers in the world have many different owners. So how do you control all these very intimate data? Who will be able in the future to turn the system on or off? We will need a system of licensing here and procedures to control the data. We have enough experience to develop them, but at the moment we are lagging behind.”

(13)

12

Presentation:

Helge Torgersen, Institute for Technology Assessment (OAW)

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY: TOWARDS EUROPEAN

STANDARDS?

With synthesized biological building blocks becoming more widely and cheaply available, new questions are arising as to biological objects can be completely standardized, says Helge Torgersen, researcher at the Institute for Technology Assessment in Vienna. “Most experts say safety standards for Synthetic Biology are all right, but new developments will make some rethinking necessary.” The Austrian researcher directly pointed out to the STOA workshop participants that the topic of his case study was “much further into the future than the three other topics. I will talk about standard genes and ‘bioparts’, which is only a small part of synthetic biology.”

Torgersen began by explaining that synthetic biology (SynBio) can actually have two forms: the design and construction of new artificial biological parts and systems, as well as the redesign of existing natural biological systems. “This means that the question is SynBio genetic engineering? should be answered by yes and no. There is a big overlap between old and new biotechnology.”

For modern students, Torgersen indicated, SynBio is a fascinating world as it has some similarities with computer science. “They see it as a new way of programming or gaming. So for the youth it’s very attractive.” There is also a strong quest for “open source” instead of patenting.

Sudden take-off possible

At the moment SynBio is still in a “lagging phase”, according to Torgersen. “We are now in the phase of standardizing the building blocks. We need exact descriptions of bioparts. But once this is done, within five or ten years SynBio can develop very fast: we may have a sudden take-off.”

At the same time, the scientific challenges in synthetic biology are considerable. “Many bioparts are still undefined and incompatible with others, the circuitry is unpredictable and the endless variability can always crash the system: organisms grow, multiply and change as they like.”

As to the options for European policy makers, therefore, Torgersen sees three options: business as usual; increase monitoring or: taking precautionary actions. “Most experts say that the existing safety standards for SynBio are okay. But: new developments can make rethinking of these standards necessary. There are no special laws yet on SynBio. And with the ‘patent sharks’ from big business, we definitely need to sort out intellectual property questions. So, a wider public debate will play an important role in the coming years when practical applications appear.”

(14)

13

PARTICIPANTS LIST

Organisation Last name First name

Dr. A. Energy Consultant SPRL Antonelli Roberto

ARCHES Aroulmoji Vincent

European Science Foundation Berghmans Stephane IEO - European Institute of Oncology Blasimme Alessandro

European Commission/JRC Bock Anne-Katrin

APCO Worldwide Boeynaems Francis

C. von Bonhorst MD Bonhorst, von Carlos

Bioethics Institute Gent Bonte Pieter

Utrecht University Bos Colette

ULB Bourdeau Philippe

Rathenau Instituut Brom Franciscus

Bird & Bird LLP Carbonnelle Nicolas

IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza Chiarelli Pasquale

Heales Coeurnelle Didier

Studio Dann Cortier Henk

IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza Crupi Domenico Francesco Flemish government, cabinet minister Lieten De Caesemaeker Bart Center for Science, Technology and Ethics De Tavernier Johan

COCIR Deneve Olivier

Eindhoven University of Technology Dignum Marloes

University of Twente Doodkorte Daniel

Rathenau Instituut Douglas Conor Merrick

Williams

Independent scholar Dutoit Dominique

n/a Dutoit Dominique

European Commission Economidis Ioannis

Rathenau Instituut Egmond, van Constance

Rathenau Instituut Est, van Quirinus Cornelis

Amgen Fandel Marie-Hélène

(15)

14 Fondation Fourmentin Guilbert Fourmentin Eric

Rathenau Instituut Geesink Ingrid

IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza Giuliani Francesco Centre for Social Marketing, NGO Gomelskaya Veronika

University of Vienna Gottweis Herbert

Medical University of Lodz Gurdala Mikolaj

Fraunhofer ISI Hüsing Bärbel

Rathenau Instituut Keulen, van Maria Theodora Elisabeth Liaison Agency Flanders-Europe Knops-Gerrits Peter-Paul

Europolitics Kugyela Tamas David

Fraunhofer ISI Kukk Piret

Europaen Parliament Majoch Martyna

Bird & Bird LLP Martens Marc

Centre for ethics in medicine, University of Bristol Meulen, ter Rudolf

Maastricht University Mitzschke Andreas

Utrecht University Innovation Studies Moors Elisabeth

European Commission Naneva Christina

Univ. of Amsterdam Neicu Maria

Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus Ninkovic Dejan Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport Olthof Gerrit

NL Ministry of Defence Pelt Willem

European Commission Poireau Michel

EC Puolamaa Maila

Rathenau Instituut Rerimassie Virgil Germaine

Rathenau Instituut Schuijff Mirjam Jeanette

Freelance jourmalist Slagt Robert Christopher

Rathenau Instituut Stemerding Dirk

ARCHES Toffanin Renato

Istitute of Technology Assessment, Austrian Academy of Sciences

Torgersen Helge Michael Universidad de Guadalajara Valenzuela Zapata Ana Guadalupe European Academies Science Advisory Council Vanthournout Sofie

Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale Velizara Anastasova

European Commission Verachtert Barend

(16)

15

KU Leuven Vinchhi Bakul Jitendra

LIS Consult Vriend, de Hubrecht

German Ethics Council Weber-Hassemer Kristiane Andrea European Science Foundation Weehuizen Rifka Maria Ministerie van VWS Wijngaard, van den Johannes

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

The Group has been formally established in October 2002 in the context of the Community action programme to combat discrimination, in order to provide an independent analysis of

13: ‘(1) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and within the limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council, acting unanimously on a

Second, the Flemish Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt of 8 May 2002, the Dekret bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt adopted

Finnish legislation contained anti-discriminatory provisions even before the implementation of the Council Directive 2000/78/EC started in 2001. The provisions of the Penal Code

The principle is that of the freedom of proof (eyewitness accounts, bailiff’s report, memos, internal documents, testing 66 , etc). Penal law is only concerned with cases of

The option of mediation is provided for in section 78 of the Act, both in proceedings before the Equality Tribunal and the Labour Court. The Equality Tribunal established

Article 3(2)(d) explicitly states that the Decree shall be without prejudice to the provisions already in force concerning marital status and the benefits dependent thereon,

AAV, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) associated vasculitis; ACR, American College of Rheumatology; BVAS, Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score; CHCC, Chapel Hill