• 융합보안논문지
• /
• 제11권4호
• /
• pp.19-29
• /
• 2011

2009년 미국에서 정권 교체가 일어나고 오바마 대통령이 취임한 이후 이전과 차별화되는 사이버보안 정책을 정립하려는 노력이 있었다. 그러한 변화를 잘 보여주는 것이 바로 의회의 사이버보안 입법동향이다. 부시 정권 시기와 오바마정권 시기의 사이버보안 입법동향을 확인하고 양자를 비교 분석한 결과 미국의 사이버보안 입법의 주안점은 처벌 강화에서 근본적인 체계 개선으로 변화되고 있으며 국제협력과 같은 새로운 방안이 모색되고 있음이 파악된다. 이러한 미국의 입법동향에서 우리나라에 적용될 부분과 대응방안을 도출하면 사이버보안을 전국가적 문제라는 인식하에 안보문제로서 다루고 미국 중심의 사이버보안 세계질서에 대비하는 한편 국민의 기본권 보장을 부당하게 침해하지 않아야 한다는 점이 제시된다.

• 보건행정학회지
• /
• 제25권4호
• /
• pp.253-255
• /
• 2015

The concept of precision medicine-prevention and treatment strategies that take individual variability into account-is hot issue of US in the year 2015. Precision medicine is a new concept that approach patients individually by there characteristics, such as genome, life style, environmental exposure, etc. For developing the precision medicine, National Institute of Health of US has been prepared the Precision Medicine Initiative Cohort Program, at least 1 million people cohort. The US President Obama announced the Precision Medicine Initiative on 30th January 2015. He announced that he will pioneer a new model of patient-powered research that promises to accelerate biomedical discoveries and provide clinicians with new tools, knowledge, and therapies to select which treatments will work best for which patients. Most medical treatments have been designed for the 'average patient.' As a result of this 'one-size-fits-all-approach,' treatments can be very successful for some patients but not for others. This is changing with the emergence of precision medicine, an innovative approach to disease prevention and treatment that takes into account individual differences in people's genes, environments, and lifestyles. Precision medicine gives clinicians tools to better understand the complex mechanisms underlying a patient's health, disease, or condition, and to better predict which treatments will be most effective. The healthcare researcher should prepare the new medicine era such as bio-information technology convergence, big data study.

• 보건행정학회지
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• pp.314-325
• /
• 2013

Background: Stem cell research competition is accelerating globally since President Obama signed an executive order, repealing Bush-era policy that limited use of federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research. Methods: In this paper, we conducted a comparative analysis of stem cell research policy changes in three countries, including the Human Fertilisation Embryology Act (HFEA) of UK, executive order 13,505 (removing barriers to responsible scientific research involving human stem cells) of USA, and Bioethics and Safety Act of South Korea. Debates on stem cell research are based on conflicts of fundamental beliefs that exist in the supporting and opposing coalitions. We compared regional characteristics of the advocacy coalitions in three countries and presented various factors that might be related to the policy changes. Results: The UK government, parliament, and the HFEA have sought expert consultations and public opinions to establish guidelines. UK has made social consensus through continued discussion for a long time. US President's veto power was one strongest factors influencing policy. South Korean policy was influenced by public opinion and policy brokers. Also, South Korea has not made social consensus. UK had a strong leadership and strong adjustment of coalitions but US and South Korea had not. Dr. Hwang's scandal has had one of the greatest impacts on policy decision in South Korea. Conclusion: The power of public opinion was critical in all three countries. In particular, the influence of public opinion was noticeable in South Korea. Also it turned out that in US and South Korea, the presence of a policy broker who could pursue his or her goals was the most powerful factor among the advocacy coalition factors.