Academic literature on the topic 'Marco (1916-2001)'

A list of Curculionoidea (Nemonychidae, Anthribidae, Rhynchitidae, Attelabidae, Brentidae, Apionidae, Nanophyidae, Brachyceridae, Curculionidae, Erirhinidae, Raymondionymidae, Dryoph-thoridae, Scolytidae, Platypodidae) thus far known from Italy is drawn up, updating that by Abbazzi et al. published in 1995. Distributional data of each species are given for broad regions such as northern, central, southern Italy, Sicily and Sardinia. New synonymies are: Acentrotypus laevigatus (Kirby, 1808) (= A. brunnipes (Boheman, 1839), syn.nov.), Ceutorhynchus talickyi Korotyaev, 1980 (= C. strejceki Dieckmann, 1981, syn. nov.), Ceutorhynchus pallipes Crotch,1866 (= Curculio minutus Reich, 1797 not Drury, [1773], syn. nov.; = Curculio contractus Marsham, 1802 not Fourcroy, 1785, syn. nov.), Dodecastichus consentaneus (Boheman, 1843) (= D. c. latialis (Solari & Solari, 1915), syn. nov.; = D. c. dimorphus (Solari & Solari, 1915), syn. nov.; = D. c. pentricus Di Marco & Osella, 2001, syn. nov.), Dodecastichus dalmatinus (Gyllenhal, 1843) (= D. d. lauri (Stierlin, 1861), syn. nov.), Dodecastichus mastix (Olivier, 1807) (= D. m. perlongus (Solari & Solari, 1915), syn. nov.; = D. m. scabrior (Reitter, 1913), syn. nov.), Dorytomus Germar, 1817 (= D. subgen. Chaetodorytomus Iablokov-Khnzorian, 1970, syn. nov.; = D. subgen. Euolamus Reitter, 1916, syn. nov.; = D. subgen. Olamus Reitter, 1916, syn. nov.), Exapion Bedel, 1887 (= Ulapion Ehret, 1997, syn. nov.), Larinus ursus (Fabricius, 1792) (= L. carinirostris Gyllenhal, 1837, syn. nov.; = L. genei Boheman, 1843, syn. nov.), Lixini Schönherr, 1823 (= Rhinocyllini Lacordaire, 1863, syn. nov.), Metacinops rhinomacer Kraatz, 1862 (= M. calabrus Stierlin, 1892, syn. nov.), Microplontus nigrovittatus (Schultze,1901) (= Ceutorhynchus subfasciatus Chevrolat, 1860 not Schönherr, 1826, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus amicalis cenomanus Colonnelli & Magnano, nom. nov. (= O. a. lessinicus (Osella, 1983) not O. lessinicus Franz, 1938, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus anophthalmoides omeros nom. nov. (= O. a. istriensis (F. Solari, 1955) not Germar, 1824, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus anthracinus (Scopoli, 1763) (= O. calabrus Stierlin, 1880, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus armadillo (Rossi, 1792) (= O. halbherri Stierlin, 1890, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus clibbianus Colonnelli & Magnano, nom. nov. (= O. judicariensis (Osella, 1983) not Reitter, 1913, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus cornicinus Stierlin, 1861 (= Curculio laevigatus Fabricius, 1792 not Paykull, 1792, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus fortis Rosenhauer, 1847 (= O. fortis valarsae Reitter, 1913, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus nodosus (O. F. Müller, 1764) (= O. nodosus comosellus Boheman, 1843, syn. nov.; = O. nodosus gobanzi Gredler, 1868, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus pupillatus Gyllenhal, 1834 (= O. p. angustipennis Stierlin, 1883, syn. nov.; = O. venetus F. Solari, 1947, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus serradae Colonnelli & Magnano, nom. nov. (= O. carinatus (Osella 1983) not (Paykull, 1792), syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus strigirostris Boheman, 1843 (= O. aterrimus : Di Marco & Osella, 2002 not Boheman, 1843, syn. nov.; = O. calvus Fiori, 1899, syn. nov.), O. sulcatus (Fabricius, 1775) (= O. linearis Stierlin, 1861, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus tenebricosus (Herbst, 1784) (= O. olivieri Abbazzi & Osella, 1992, syn. nov.), Phrydiuchus augusti Colonnelli, nom. nov. (= Ceuthorrhynchus speiseri Schultze, 1897 not C. speiseri Frivaldszkyi, 1894, syn. nov.), Phyllobius maculicornis Germar, 1824 (= P. m. lucanus Solari & Solari, 1903, syn. nov.), Phyllobius pyri (Linné, 1758) (= P. vespertinus (Fabricius, 1792), syn. nov.), Polydrusus subgen. Chaerodrys Jacquelin du Val, [1854] (= P. subgen. Metadrosus Schilsky, 1910, syn. nov.), Polydrusus subgen. Eudipnus C. G. Thomson, 1859 (= P. subgen. Chrysoyphis Gozis, 1882, syn. nov.; P. subgen. Thomsoneonymus Desbrochers, 1902, syn. nov.), Polydrusus subgen. Eurodrusus Korotyaev & Meleshko, 1997 (= P. subgen. Neoeustolus Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999, syn. nov.), Polydrusus armipes Brullé, 1832 (= P. a. faillae Desbrochers, 1859, syn. nov.), Pseudomyllocerus invreae invreae (F. Solari, 1948) (= Curculio cinerascens Fabricius, 1792 not [Gmelin], 1790], syn. nov. ), Zacladus Reitter, 1916 (= Z. subgen. Amurocladus Korotyaev, 1997, syn. nov.; = Z. subgen. Angarocladus Korotyaev, 1997, syn. nov.; = Z. subgen. Gobicladus Korotyaev, 1997, syn. nov.; = Z. subgen. Scythocladus Korotyaev, 1997, syn. nov.). New placements are: Amalini Wagner, 1936 as a tribe from synonymy under Ceutorhynchini; Acentrotypus Alonso-Zarazaga, 1990, Aizobius Alonso-Zarazaga, 1990, Aspidapion Schilsky, 1901, Catapion Schilsky, 1906, Ceratapion Schilsky, 1901, Cistapion Wagner, 1924,Cyanapion Bokor, 1923, Diplapion Reitter, 1916, Eutrichapion Reitter, 1916, Exapion Bedel, 1887, Helianthemapion Wagner, 1930, Hemitrichapion Voss, 1959, Holotrichapion Györffy, 1956, Ischnopterapion Bokor, 1923, Ixapion Roudier & Tempère,1973, Kalcapion Schilsky, 1906, Lepidapion Schilsky, 1906, Melanapion Wagner, 1930, Mesotrichapion Györffy, 1956, Metapion Schilsky, 1906, Omphalapion Schilsky, 1901, Onychapion Schilsky, 1901, Oryxolaemus AlonsoZarazaga, 1990, Osellaeus Alonso-Zarazaga, 1990, Perapion Wagner, 1907, Phrissotrichum Schilsky, 1901, Pirapion Reitter, 1916, Protapion Schilsky, 1908, Pseudapion Schilsky, Pseudoperapion Wagner, 1930, Pseudoprotapion Ehret, 1990, Pseudostenapion Wagner, 1930, Rhodapion AlonsoZarazaga, 1990, Squamapion Bokor, 1923, Stenopterapion Bokor, 1923, Synapion Schilsky, 1902, Taeniapion Schilsky, 1906, Trichopterapion Wagner, 1930, all as genera from subgenera of Apion Herbst, 1797; Aspidapion subgen. Koestlinia Alonso-Zarazaga, 1990 and Phryssotrichum subgen. Schilskyapion Alonso-Zarazaga, 1990 from synonymy with Apion Herbst, 1797; Phyllobius italicus Solari & Solari, 1903 and Phyllobius reicheidius Desbrochers, 1873, both from subspecies of P. pyri (Linné, 1758); Mogulones aubei (Boheman, 1845) as a valid species from synonymy with M. talbum (Gyllenhal, 1837); Styphlidius italicus Osella, 1981 as species from subspecies of S. corcyreus (Reitter, 1884). Otiorhynchus subgen. Presolanus Pesarini, 2001 is here selected over O. subgen. Pesolanus Pesarini, 2001, alternative original spelling, here rejected. The incorrect original spelling Otiorhynchus nocturnus peetzi Franz, 1938 is emended in O. n. peezi. New combination are: Eremiarhinus (Depresseremiarhinus) dilatatus (Fabricius, 1801), comb. nov.; Eremiarinus (Pseudorhinus) impressicollis (Boheman, 1834) jarrigei (Roudier, 1959); E. (Pseudorhinus) impressicollis luciae (Ragusa, 1883), comb. nov.; E. (Pseudorhinus) impressicollis peninsularis (F. Solari, 1940), comb. nov.; E. (Pseudorhinus) laesirostris (Fairmaire, 1859), comb. nov., all resulting from the new placement of Depresseremiarhinus Pic, 1914 and of Pseudorhinus Melichar, 1923 as subgenera of Eremiarhinus Fairmaire, 1876. The subfamilial name Phytonominae Gistel, 1848 is used as valid over Hyperinae Marseul, 1863. Nomenclatural changes published from 1992 to date, and affecting Italian weevils are also listed.

According to an anonymous obituary in The Times newspaper on 12 March 2001, Claude Shannon was [a] playful genius who invented the bit, separated the medium from the message, and laid the foundations for all digital communications. … [He] single-handedly laid down the general rules of modern information theory, creating the mathematical foundations for a technical revolution. Without his clarity of thought and sustained ability to work his way through intractable problems, such advances as e-mail and the World Wide Web would not have been possible. the great breakthroughs in understanding which heralded the convergence of computing and communications. To colleagues in the corridors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who used to warn each other about the unsteady advance of Shannon on his unicycle, it may have seemed improbable that he could remain serious for long enough to do any important work. Yet the unicycle was characteristic of his quirky thought processes, and became the topsy-turvy symbol of unorthodox progress towards unexpected theoretical insights. The ability to make astonishing leaps beyond the intellects of his colleagues (all the more remarkable at MIT, the forcing house of technological theory) had to be acknowledged as genius, and Claude Shannon was recognised as a giant throughout the industry.

In September 2006, I challenged the members of my senior seminar class at the University of Western Ontario to research the life of a student from their school who fought and died in World War I. For the students, what began as a straightforward class project rapidly transformed into something much more profound. They devoted far greater effort to it than I had expected; some even continued their research long after the course had ended. For many, the project marked their immersion into "doing" history in the manner of historians. They chased small leads through primary sources, worked in archives, conducted interviews, wrote grant proposals, and experienced, as one student put it, "the disappointment of the dead end and the excitement of a new and unexpected find." Along the way, they illuminated the remarkable and tragically brief life of a forgotten young man who, in his own time, had been a star athlete, hometown hero, and, for a very brief moment in 1916, one of the most famous soldiers in the British Empire. The story of the class project began several years ago. In March 2001, while working as a teaching assistant at the University of Western Ontario, I gave my first lecture in a university classroom, shaking and sweating my way through a fifty-minute overview of Canadian participation in the First World War. It was not a good lecture, and my clip-on microphone, which I probably didn't need in the first place, kept cutting in and out. After about thirty minutes, all the telltale signs of a classroom lost were there: The pens were down, eyes had glazed over, and heads were beginning to droop. I stumbled on. Near the end of my time I played the only significant card I had. I encouraged students to consider that Canadians who fought and died in the Great War were mostly young people like themselves. "And this is one of them," I said, clicking to my PowerPoint slide of Eddie McKay, a Western student who had been killed in 1917. I had discovered him in a footnote in a book about the university's history, and then found a grainy photograph of him in a crumbling clip file about the school's rugby team. I told students the bare-bones facts that I knew about McKay. He had been a student at Western in 1914, had played left wing on the rugby team, and served overseas, but his youth and athleticism had not saved him from being killed in the mud and blood of the Western Front. I thought I detected a moment of renewed attention and reflection in the classroom, and I let it linger for a few moments before dismissing them. Afterwards, a student told me that he was on the rugby team, too, and that the end of my lecture was "the first time I've ever thought about anything."

La institución romana del domicilium convierte al sujeto en residente. Suele designar el lugar de residencia prolongada del incola o habitante que ha emigrado a una comunidad, por contraposición al municeps; por lo tanto, es un vínculo jurídico entre la ciudad y la persona que ha emigrado a ella. Frente a la expresión de la origo en los textos epigráficos, que es muy abundante, la manifestación del domicilo solo se hace de forma excepcional, en atención al escaso número de referencias conservadas, y su enunciación es muy similar a la que marca el origen. Palabras clave: domicilium, origo, ciudadano, epigrafía, latina.Topónimos: Imperio Romano.Periodo: Principado (27 a. C. – 284 d. C.) ABSTRACTThe Roman institution of the domicilium turns the subject into a resident. It usually designates the place of prolonged residence of the incola or inhabitant who has emigrated to a community, as opposed to the municeps. Therefore, it is a legal link between the city and the person who emigrates there. As opposed to the expression of the origo in epigraphic texts, which is very common, the manifestation of the domicile occurs only exceptionally, in view of the scant number of surviving references, and its enunciation is very similar to that which indicates provenance. Keywords: domicilium, origo, citizen, epigraphy, Latin.Place names: Roman EmpirePeriod: Principate (27 BC - 284 AD) REFERENCIASAncelle, A. (1875), Du Domicile, Paris, these pour le doctorat, Faculte de droit de Paris.Andreu, J., (2008), “Sentimiento y orgullo cívico en Hispania: en torno a las menciones de origo en la Hispania Citerior”, Gerión, 26(1), pp. 349-378.Ayiter, K. (1962),“Einige Bemerkungen zum Domicilium des Filius Familias im römischen Recht“, en Studi in onore di Emilio Betti, vol. II, Milano, pp. 71-84.Baccari, M. P. (1996), Cittadini, popoli e comunione nella legislazione dei secoli IV-VI, Torino, G. Giappichelli.Baudry, F. (1892), s.v. “domicilium”, en Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines Daremberg-Saglio, II.1, Paris, Hachette.Berger, A, (1916), s.v. “incola”, en Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, IX.2, Stuttgart, J. B. Metzler Verlag.Bianchi, L. (2019), “Celebrazioni monumentali delle guerre daciche di Traiano sui luoghi degliavvenimenti”, en A. M. Liberati, Da Roma all’Oriente. Riflessioni sulle campagne traianee. Atti della Giornata di studi Istituto Nazionale di Studi Romani, 11 ottobre 2017. Città di Castello-Italia: LuoghInteriori, 193-241.Bonjour, M. (1975), Terre natale. Études sur une composante affective du patriotisme romain, Paris, Les Belles Lettres.Brugi, B. (1926), Istituzioni di Diritto Romano (diritto privato giustinianeo). Torino, Utet.Bruguière, M. B. (1979), “Le domicile dans les droits antiques”, en Mélanges dédiés à Gabriel Marty, Tolouse, Université des sciences sociales, 199-219.Burdese, A. (1964), s.v. “Domicilio (diritto romano)”, voce dell'Enciclopedia del Diritto, XIII, Milano, Giuffrè editore, pp. 837-838.Cagnat, R. (1898), Cours d’epigraphie latine, Paris, A. Fontemoing.Calzada, M. A. (2010), “Origo, incolae, municipes y civitas Romana a la luz de la «Lex Irnitana»”, Anuario de historia del derecho español, 80, pp. 673-688.Chavanes, H., (1863), Du Domicile, Paris, Thèse de Doctorat, Faculté de Droit de Paris, 17 Août 1863.Cichorius, C. (1904), Die römischen denkmäler in der Dobrudscha. Ein erklärungsversuch, Berlin, Weidmann Verlag.Colin, J. (1956), “Le Préfet du Prétoire Cornelius Fuscus: un enfant de Pompei”, Latomus, 15-1, pp. 57-82.Cuena, J. (2008), “Nuevos significados de origo en las fuentes legislativas postclásicas”, Revista General de Derecho romano, 10, pp. 1-27.De Martino, F. (1973), Storia della costituzione romana, III, Napoli, Casa Editrice Eugenio Jovene.De Ruggiero, E. (1921), La patria nel diritto pubblico romano, Roma, Maglione Strini.De Savigny, F. (1924), Sistema de Derecho romano actual, (traducción española de J. Mesía y M. Poley), Madrid, Centro Editorial de Góngora.Dessau, H. (1914-1916), Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae: pars III. Indices, Berlín, apud Weidmannos.D'Ors, A. (1951), Epigrafía de la España romana, Madrid, Instituto Nacional de Estudios Jurídicos.Encarnação, J. (2000), “L’Africa et la Lusitania: trois notes épigraphiques”, en M. Khanoussi, P. Ruggeri y C. Vismara, L’Africa romana. Geografi, viaggiatori, militari nel Maghreb: alle origini dell’archeologia nel Nord Africa. Atti del XIII convegno di studio Djerba, 10–13 dicembre 1998, Roma, Carocci, Vol. II, pp. 1291-1298.Forcellini, A. A. (1965), Lexicon Totius Latinitatis, II, Patavaii, 1940 (2ª reimpresión anastática de 1965), Patavii [Padoue], Gregoriana edente; Bononia [Bologne], A. Forni. s. v. “domicilium”, pp. 191 ss., y s.v. “domus”, pp. 194 ss.Humbert, G. (1900), s.v. “incola”, en Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines Daremberg-Saglio, III, Paris, Hachette, pp. 457-458.Gagliardi, L. (2006), Mobilità e integrazione delle persone nei centri cittadini romani. Aspetti giuridici. I. La classificazione degli incolae, Milano, A. Giuffrè.García, E. (1991), El ius latii y la municipalización de Hispania: aspectos constitucionales, Tesis Doctoral, Universidad Complutense, Madrid.Gaspard, A. (1851), Recherches sur l'incolat, le droit de bourgeoisie et le domicile, Paris, Faculté de droit de Paris.González, R. (2011), “El término origo en la epigrafía latina”, Zephyrus, 68, pp. 229-237.González, R., y Molina, J. A. (2011), “Precisiones a las menciones de origo con la fórmula domo + topónimo/gentilicio en la epigrafía romana de Hispania”, Emerita, 79, pp. 1-29.González M. C. y Ramírez, M. (2007), “Observaciones sobre la mención de la origo ‘intra ciuitatem’ en la epigrafía funeraria de Hispania”, en M. Mayer et alii (eds.), Actas del XII Congressus Internationalis Epigraphiae Graecae et Latinae (Barcelona 2002), Instituto de Estudios Catalanes-Universidad de Barcelona-Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona. 2007, pp. 595-600.Grossi, P. (1964), s.v. “domicilio (Diritto intermedio) ”, en L'Enciclopedia del Diritto, XIII, Milano, Giuffrè editore, p. 840.Hernández, R. (2001), Poesía latina sepulcral de la Hispania Romana: Estudio de los tópicos y sus formulaciones, Valencia, Universidad de Valencia.Kajanto, I. (1974), “On the idea of eternity in Latin epitaphs”, Arctos, 8, pp. 59-69.Laffi, U. (1966), Adtributio e contributio: Problemi del Sistema Politico-Amministrativo dello Stato Romano. (Studi di lettere, storia e filos. pubbl. dalla Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, XXXV), Pisa, Nistri-Lischi.Lattimore, R. (1962), Themes in Greek and Roman Epitaphs, Urbana, University of Illinois Press.Le Gall, J. (1983), “Origo et ciuitas. Quelques remarques à propos d'une inscription du Museo Arqueológico Nacional (CIL II, 3423)”, Homenaje al Profesor Martín Almagro Basch, Madrid, vol. III, pp. 339-345.Leonhard, R. (1905), s.v. “domicilium”, en en Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, V, Stuttgart, J. B. Metzler Verlag., V, cols. 1299 ss.Licandro, O. (2004), Domicilium habere. Persona e territorio nelladisciplina del domicilio romano, Torino, Giappichelli Editori.López M. L. (2008), Domicilium y vinculación jurídica local. Régimen jurídico del domicilio en Derecho romano, Madrid, http://vlex.com/vid/54106991Mahboubi, M. (1982), “Les élites municipales de la Numidie: deux groupes: étrangers à la cité et vétérans”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. II. Principat. 10, 2, pp. 673-682.Marucchi, O. (1912), Christian Epigraphy. An Elementary Treatise with a Collection of Ancient Christian Inscriptions Mainly of Roman Origin, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Mommsen, Th. (1887), Römisches Staatsrechts III.1, (Leipzig, 1887), Basel, Stuttgart, Benno Schwabe.Nörr, D. (1963), “Origo. Studien zur Orts-, Stadt-, und Reichszugehörigkeit in der Antike”, Revue d’Histoire du Droit, 31.4, pp. 525-600.Nörr, D. (1965), s.v. “origo”, en Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart, J. B. Metzler Verlag, Suppl. Bnd. X.Orelli, J. C. v. (1828), Inscriptionum latinarum selectarum amplissima collectio ad illustrandam Romanae... emendationesque exhibens; (Reprod. facs. de la ed. de Turici, Orellius).Ortiz, J. (2018), “Dinámicas migratorias y movimientos de población en Lusitania: el caso de Olisipo Felicitas Iulia”, Anales de Arqueología Cordobesa, 29, pp. 111-136.Pavis D'Escurac, H. (1988), “Origo et résidence dans le monde du commerce sous le Haut Empire”, Ktema, 13, pp. 57-68.Pernice, A. (1873), Marcus Antistius Labeo. Das römische Privatrecht im ersten Jahrhundert der Kaiserzeit, II.1, Halle, Buchhandlg d. Waisenhauses Verlag.Portillo, R. (1983), ‘Incolae’, una contribución al análisis de la movilidad social en el mundo romano, Córdoba, Universidad de Córdoba.Potthoff, S. E. (2017), The Afterlife in Early Christian Carthage: Near-Death Experiences, Ancestor Cult and the Archaeology of Paradise, London and New York, Routledge.Rodríguez, J. F. (1978), “La situación socio-política de los incolae en el mundo romano”, Memorias de Historia Antigua 2, pp. 147-169.Roussel, F. (1878), Du domicile, en droit romain. De la formation des conventions, en droit international privé, Paris, Challamel aîné.Salgado, J. (1980), “Contribución al estudio del «domicilium» en el Derecho romano”, Revista de Derecho privado, 64, pp. 495-510.Saumagne, Ch., (1937), “Du rôle de l'origo et du census dans la formation du colonat romain”, Byzantion, 12, pp. 487-581.Tedeschi, V., (1932), “Contributo allo studio del domicilio in diritto romano”, Rivista Italiana per le Scienze Giuridiche, 7, pp. 212-244.Tedeschi, V. (1936), Del Domicilio, Padova.Tedeschi, V. (1960), s.v. “domicilio, residenza e dimora”, en Novissimo Digesto Italiano, VI, Torino, Uninoe tipografico-editrice torinese.Thomas, Y. (1996), “«Origine» et «Commune Patrie»”, Étude de Droit Public Romain (89 av. J.-C. - 212 ap. J.-C.), Paris-Rome, Ecole française de Rome.Visconti, A. (1939), “Note preliminari sull'origo nelle fonti imperiali romane”, Studi di storia e diritto in onore di Carlo Calisse I, Milano, pp. 89-105.Visconti, A. (1947), “Note preliminari sul «domicilium» nelle fonti romane”, en Studi in onore di C. Ferrini inoccasione della sua beatificazione, I, Milano, pp, 429-442.Wiegels, R. (1985), Die Tribusinschriften des romischen Hispanien, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter Co.Zilletti, U. (1962), s.v. “incolato (Diritto romano) ”, en Novissimo Digesto Italiano, VIII, Torino, Unione tipografico-editrice torinese, pp. 541-542.

ABSTRACT This article examines the bioethical discourse on polygenic embryo screening (PES) in reproductive medicine in blogs and news stories published during 2021 in response to the first baby’s birth using polygenic risk scores (PRS) derived from genome-wide association studies. We further contextualize the findings by synthesizing the emerging peer-reviewed bioethics literature on the issue, which has emphasized considerations regarding the child-parent future relationship, equity of access, and the absence of professional guidelines. Our media content analysis has established that expert opinion was prominently featured in news coverage, with bioethicists and other academics contributing 38 percent of articles and providing extensive commentary on ethical, social, and policy implications in the articles written by journalists. The overall perspective towards the use of PES was primarily negative (59 percent of the articles), without significant differences in negativity and positivity between experts and science reporters. This indicates a shift from the predominantly neutral attitudes towards the technology in media discourse prior to its deployment in clinical settings. There is heightened awareness that offering these tests to prospective parents is unethical and can create unrealistic expectations, with the two most prominent arguments being uncertainty about the prediction accuracy of polygenic risk scores in this context (72 percent of the articles) and the potential of PES to lead to a eugenic future of human reproduction that normalizes the discrimination of people based on their genetics (59 percent of the articles). INTRODUCTION The possibility of using genetic technologies to engineer the perfect baby has long haunted the public imagination. While some techno-utopians have openly advocated for human genetic enhancement, many critics have warned that advances in DNA technology come with myriads of ethical dilemmas and potentially dangerous social consequences. Literary and cinematic works have offered dystopian visions of our genetic futures—from Aldous Huxley’s powerful socio-political fantasy in his book Brave New World (1932) to cult classics of sci-fi cinema, such as Blade Runner (1982) and Gattaca (1997), there has been no shortage of ominous predictions that genetic engineering would lead to a new form of eugenics, which would ultimately create new social hierarchies grounded on genetic discrimination. Moreover, concerns about the use of genetic and genomic technologies for social control have been entangled with deep philosophical questions about personal autonomy, the right of the child to an open future, and the morality of changing, improving, or redesigning human nature.1 The perennial debate on human enhancement was recently reignited with a new controversy over the use of pre-implantation screening of embryos using polygenic risk scores.2 While the profiling of IVF embryos to detect hereditary, monogenetic diseases has been widely accepted, some companies are now pushing the envelope with unrealistic promises of tests that can predict genetic possibilities for desirable traits such as a child’s intelligence, athletic ability, and physical appearance. One event that prompted a public outcry in late 2021 was news about the birth of the first baby from an embryo selected through polygenic testing, a girl named Aurea.3 Although the embryo screening in Aurea’s case was used to decrease the likelihood for certain health conditions, many commentators believed that it signaled a real possibility of embryo selection for non-medical reasons becoming a commercial procedure in the foreseeable future, especially in the largely unregulated US fertility market.4 In the past, there have been discrepancies in how ethical and policy issues arising from advances in reproductive medicine have been viewed by experts (e.g., bioethicists, philosophers, legal scholars) and presented in the news. Like other advances in medical genetics, gene editing and screening technologies have been frequently characterized by exaggeration, sensationalism, and hype around clinical possibilities.5 Moreover, news media have often amplified the anticipated health benefits of genetic testing while overlooking uncertainty associated with its clinical validity and emerging ethical concerns, as shown in a recent study of the media portrayal of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT).6 The issue of polygenic embryo screening (PES) initially gained traction in the media in 2017 when the New Jersey biotech startup Genomic Prediction made headlines with claims that its testing technology could identify and avoid implanting embryos with very low IQs.7 The company also claimed that it had the capability to identify embryos with high IQs, although it committed not to offer that procedure for ethical reasons.8 The media coverage of polygenic risk scoring of human embryos between 2017 and 2019 was previously analyzed in a study published in BMC Medical Ethics in September 2021.9 This media content analysis has established that while most news articles were neutral towards the technology, one of the most significant critiques raised by science reporters was the absence of solid scientific evidence for the technology’s predictive accuracy and its practical value in IVF settings. It has also identified five major ethical concerns articulated by science reporters that have also been addressed in the academic discourse and within broader policy debates on reproductive technologies: a slippery slope towards designer babies, well-being of the child and parents, impact on society, deliberate choice, and societal readiness. In this article, we examine the discourse on PES in bioethics blogs, opinion articles, and news stories published in 2021, with a specific focus on reactions to the birth of the first polygenic risk score baby. We compare the perspectives of experts and science reporters to establish their attitudes towards PES, the main ethical themes in press coverage, and the key issues highlighted for a future policy debate. We also juxtapose our findings to the previous study of media coverage to establish if the case of baby Aurea has raised any new issues and pressing ethical concerns. I. Polygenic Embryo Screening in Reproductive Medicine While complex diseases and human traits result from a combination of genetic, lifestyle, and environmental factors, genomic medicine is quickly gaining momentum, and demands for genetic tests in clinical practice have significantly increased. Scans and analyses of genomes from various populations, a research area known as genome-wide association studies, have enabled scientists and researchers to identify genetic differences or variants associated with a particular trait or medical condition. These variants can be combined into a polygenic risk score that predicts an individual’s traits or increased risk for a certain disease. For instance, PES have been used to predict a range of diverse common conditions, from diabetes and cancer to attention deficit issues10 and, in some cases, well-being in general.11 This testing modality relies on the probabilistic susceptibility of individuals to certain diseases to offer personalized medical treatments and inform therapeutic interventions. Polygenic embryo screening uses polygenic risk scores to assess an embryo’s statistical risks of developing diseases (e.g., cardiovascular diseases) and potentially traits (e.g., intelligence, athletic ability, among others) and is performed in an IVF setting. It is currently marketed by several US companies such as MyOme, OrchidHealth, and Genomic Prediction to prospective parents as a method to screen pre-implantation embryos for health and non-health related conditions and is accessible to those who can afford to pay for it. As stated in a recent report on companies bringing PES into reproductive medicine, Genomic Prediction has already made their test for polygenic disorders, LifeView, available to couples. In contrast, Orchid Health has only recently invited couples to an early-access program for their testing technology, and MyOme is still in the process of launching its own test.12 In September 2021, Bloomberg first reported the birth of baby Aurea using screening conducted by Genomic Prediction. She was born after her parents used IVF and subsequently PES to select from 33 candidate pre-implantation embryos in 2020.13 Aurea’s embryo was deemed to have the best genetic odds of avoiding conditions such as breast cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and schizophrenia in adulthood. It is worth noting that Genomic Prediction made the announcement almost one year following Aurea’s birth, thus delaying the media’s reaction to this development and the ensuing bioethical and policy debates. II. Ethical, Social, and Policy Implications Some important ethical, social, and regulatory considerations regarding the development and clinical use of PES have been raised within the academic community. The bioethics literature on the issue, however, appears rather thin, which is not surprising given that prior to 2021, the possibility of using this screening method in clinical practice was largely hypothetical. Other genomic technologies that have enabled polygenic embryo selection, such as whole-genome sequencing and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, have received more attention from bioethicists, legal scholars, and Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) researchers. Our analysis of the emerging literature has shown that some proponents of PES advocate its current use and go as far as to suggest a permissive regulatory environment for the purpose of outpacing the ethical concerns and potential restrictions once the technology becomes widely available. This approach suggests that embryo selection should be allowed for or against any trait associated with higher odds for better health and well-being in general, often without further discussion of what accounts for wellbeing.14 Scholars applying the principle of procreative beneficence to defend the use of PES have also argued for regulation that addresses issues of justice and equality and expands access to the procedure for those who are currently unable to afford it. By contrast, opponents have argued that the clinical utility of this embryo selection method is yet to be proven, and its current use may create unrealistic expectations in parents, making it an unethical practice to offer the procedure as part of IVF treatments.15 They state that predictive models from PRS have been developed with data from genomes of adult populations. Therefore, extrapolating results for embryo screening, along with the absence of a research protocol to validate its diagnostic effectiveness, is dangerous and misleading.16 Another layer of complexity is added because PRS already faces many translational hurdles that would undermine its predictive value assessment for certain traits or diseases. Scientists have noted that PRS take into consideration the genetic component of a particular trait putting aside the effects of other non-genetic factors, such as lifestyle and environment, which might interfere and influence the calculation of these scores.17 Discussions on the ethics and societal implications of PES in the bioethics literature can be grouped into three distinct categories: 1) relational issues between parents and the future child (e.g., selection as identity-determining, concerns about the instrumentalization of children and the child’s right to an open future); 2) concerns about social justice and equality (e.g., fears about a new eugenics that establishes new social hierarchy, limited access to the technology due to its cost); and 3) implementation and regulatory concerns (e.g., lack of professional guidelines and advertising of PES by private companies). An important ethical implication of PES relates to the well-being of the future child and the way that selecting children based on their genetic make-up might negatively affect the parent-child relationship. This is in line with previously raised ethical concerns in the literature around cloning and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis that by choosing a child’s genetic predisposition, we are limiting to and, in some cases, denying their right to an open future. For instance, the future child’s options would be restricted if parents chose a genetic predisposition to musicality that might interfere with the child’s ability to make certain life choices.18 On a societal level, there are concerns PES may alter social perceptions of what is “normal” and “healthy,” resulting in discrimination and stigmatization of certain conditions.19 Related to this are fears about encouraging eugenic attitudes that can exacerbate discrimination against people with disabilities. Furthermore, one of the main ethical concerns raised is that the growing use of PES might exacerbate societal pressure to use this technology, influencing parents’ decisions to select the embryo with the “best” genetics giving rise to a generation of “designer babies.” 20 Finally, direct-to-consumer marketing and clinical introduction of the technology prior to the publication of professional guidelines and in the absence of scientific validity for its use, as well as without appropriate regulatory oversight, is seen as a premature step that might erode public trust.21 III. News Stories and Expert Commentary on Polygenic Embryo Screening in 2021 We conducted searches on google news using keywords such as “polygenic embryo screening,” “polygenic risk scores,” “baby Aurea,” and “embryo selection” and selected blogs and articles from major news sources (e.g., Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, Guardian, The Times, etc.). An additional effort was made to collect all relevant articles from prominent bioethics blogs such as the Hastings Center Bioethics Forum, Impact Ethics, Bioethics.net, Biopolitical Times (Center for Genetics and Society), among others. The time period for the study was one year, from January 1 to December 31, 2021. While most coverage occurred after the Bloomberg report on the birth of the first baby using PES, there were a number of news stories and blogs in response to a special report on embryo selection based on polygenic risk scores published in the New England Journal of Medicine on July 1, 2020.22 This report, which has received significant attention in the press, warns that companies that offer genetic services can create unrealistic expectations in health providers and prospective parents through their marketing practices. It has further emphasized the scientific uncertainty around the predictive results of PRS in the context of embryo selection. In general, our search has established that the news media coverage on PES over the past year has revolved around these two events – the NEJM Report and the announcement about the first baby born after PES. In total, we collected 29 publications, of which 12 were blog posts and 17 publications under the general category of “news,” including ten news articles, three opinion pieces/perspective articles, two press releases, and one radio broadcast transcript (see Supplementary Material). IV. Methods for content analysis We utilized an inductive-deductive process to develop coding categories for a systematic content analysis of the blogs and new articles. The first author undertook a close reading of the entire dataset to derive inductively recurrent themes and ethical arguments in the media representations of PES. Based on this preliminary analysis, both authors agreed on the categories for textual analysis. The coding book was further refined by using a deductive approach that incorporates themes that have been previously articulated in the scholarly literature on the issue, particularly questions about the perceived attributes of the test, ethical concerns, and emerging policy considerations. The following categories were used to analyze key issues and attitudes towards PES expressed by experts and science journalists: a. Claims that PES is unethical because it violates the future child’s autonomy. b. Concerns about PES as a step towards eugenics and/or genetic discrimination. c. Defenses of PES with arguments that parents have a duty to give the child the healthiest possible start in life (and reduce public health burden). d. Claims that the science behind PRS-based diagnostics is uncertain, and it will take some time to prove its clinical validity. e. Concerns about the equality of access to PES. f. Arguments that PES can exacerbate ethnic and racial inequality (e.g., that most polygenic scores are created using DNA samples from individuals of European ancestries and predictions may not be accurate in other populations). g. Arguments that PES provides health benefits and can help overcome genetic and health inequalities. h. Concerns about the negative impact that PES may have on the child-parent relationship. i. Arguments about the need for better regulatory oversight of PES. j. Suggestions that there is an urgent need for deliberation and debate on the societal and ethical implications of PES. k. Concerns that patients and clinicians may get the impression that the procedure is more effective and less risky than it is. l. Assessment of whether the article’s perspective towards the use of PES is positive, negative, or neutral. We used yes/no questions to detect the frequencies of mentions in each category, except on the last question, which required a more nuanced, qualitative assessment of the overall tone of the articles. We coded articles as “positive” when the authors viewed the technology favorably and emphasized its potential health benefits over its negative implications. Articles that did not condone the current use of PES and expressed strong concerns about the predictive accuracy of this testing method, its readiness for clinical use, and highlighted its controversial ethical and social implications were coded as “negative.” Finally, articles that simply presented information about the topic and quoted experts on the advantages and disadvantages of using PRS for embryo selection without taking a side or expressing value judgments were coded as “neutral.” Acknowledging the complex polysemic nature of media texts, we took into consideration that support or disapproval of PES may be implicit and expressed by giving credence to some experts’ opinions over others. Therefore, we coded articles that mostly cited expert opinion favorable to PES, or alternatively, presented such views as more credible, as “positive”, while we coded articles that emphasized critical perspectives as “negative.” V. Media Discourse and Expert Opinion On PES We found out that perspectives and opinions by experts were prominently featured in both news (17 articles) and blogs (12 articles). The blog posts in our dataset were written by university professors in bioethics (four articles), academics from other disciplines such as medicine, political science, psychology, human genetics, and neurobiology (four articles), and science journalists and editors (four articles). Furthermore, three of the news articles in influential newspapers and magazines such as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and The Scientific American were opinion articles or commentaries contributed by academics (e.g., a psychology professor, specializing in personality, individual differences, and behavior genetics, a sociology professor, and a director of research in a graduate program in human genetics). The remaining 14 news articles in our dataset were written by science reporters, editors, or other staff writers. Altogether, experts contributed 38 percent of the media coverage (11 articles) on the issue of PES and its wider societal implications. Experts’ comments were also heavily featured in the 18 articles written by science reporters and other media professionals, which accounted for 68 percent of the dataset. Of these articles, 17 extensively cited experts with academic and research backgrounds (professors and research scientists), seven articles quoted industry representatives (e.g., CEOs and spokespersons of Genomic Prediction and Orchid, other commercial developers), and four articles included opinions by parents seeking PES, particularly Aurea’s father, North Carolina neurologist Rafal Smigrodzki, who argued that a parent’s duty is to prevent disease in their child.23 The overall perspective towards the use of PES was mostly negative – 59 percent (17 articles) expressed negative attitudes, while 24 percent (seven articles) were positive and 17% (five articles) were neutral in tone and did not advance arguments in favor or against the technology and its adoption. However, we did not establish significant differences in negativity and positivity between experts and science reporters. For instance, 49 percent of the articles with negative attitudes were written by experts, while 53 percent were authored by science reports. Similarly, the articles by experts with positive perspectives on PES accounted for 13 percent of the dataset, while science reporters contributed 11 percent of the positive articles. VI. Major Themes and Issues The most discussed issue in media coverage was the prediction accuracy of polygenic risk scores and the uncertainties regarding the utility of these tests in embryo screening. Our analysis has established that 72 percent of the articles (21 out of 29) argued that the science behind PES-based diagnostics is uncertain, and it will take some time to prove its clinical validity. The second most frequently mentioned issue was the potential of PES to lead to a eugenic future of human reproduction. More than half of the articles (59 percent or 17 out of 29) raised concerns that PES could become a step towards a new form of eugenics that could eventually normalize the discrimination of people based on their genetics. Despite concerns about the accuracy of PES testing, many articles gave extensive attention to problems concerning equality of access to PES and related diagnostic services, with 49 percent of the articles (13 out of 29) expressing concerns that the procedure is currently offered at a high cost, it is not covered by health insurance plans, and people of lower socioeconomic status cannot afford it. Furthermore, 41 percent of the articles (12 out of 29) raise concern that the current use of PES reflects the existing ethnic and racial inequalities since most PES are created using DNA samples from individuals of European ancestries, and predictions may not be accurate in other populations. Although it has been reported that Genomic Prediction considers offering the procedure to parents of non-European ancestries, their messaging has suggested it would take a significant time to provide them with predictive models that are as relevant as those for European populations.24 The health benefits of this testing technology, its regulation, and the need for a wider debate on how to realize its promise in a responsible manner were also addressed, albeit to a lesser extent. The potential to overcome genetic and health inequalities by selecting healthy embryos with the best odds against diseases and chronic conditions was emphasized in 41 percent of the articles (12 out of 29). The regulation was a topic covered in 38 percent of the articles (11 out of 29), in which the authors argued that better regulatory oversight of PES is needed, especially in the present condition of an unregulated US market for genetic testing. Additionally, 38 percent suggested that there is an urgent need for deliberation and public debate on the societal and ethical implications of PES. Finally, the issue that patients and clinicians may get the wrong impression that the procedure is more effective and less risky was addressed in 31 percent (nine out of 29). We have established that critical issues about how PES may affect the well-being of the future child and the child-parent relationship have received less attention. For instance, only 17 percent of the articles (five out of 29) supported the clinical use of PES with arguments that parents have a moral obligation to give the child the healthiest possible start in life, a line of thought that is prominent in the bioethics literature on procreative beneficence and procreative autonomy.25 These authors also maintained that the technology has the potential to provide benefits to individuals and reduce the burden of disease and public health expenditure. Similarly, just 10 percent of the articles (three out of 29) expressed concerns about the negative impact that PES may have on the child-parent relationship by causing relational asymmetries between generations and limiting the autonomy of the future child. CONCLUSION Our content analysis has shown that the media discourse on PES and the birth of baby Aurea has been highly influenced by expert opinion. In fact, leading experts from bioethics and a range of other academic disciplines contributed 38 percent of the content in the form of blogs, opinion articles, and commentaries, published on prestigious bioethics fora and in the popular press. Furthermore, as our analysis has shown, science reporters have heavily relied on expert opinion in writing stories about the ethical challenges and societal implications of PES. One important finding of our study is the prevalence of negative attitudes towards the technology, as opposed to past media representations of PES, which had been neutral towards the technology.26 This change in attitudes is likely caused by the amplified voices of bioethics experts reacting to the first clinical use of the technology, which made hypothetical ethical dilemmas a very real possibility. As far as the thematic focus of media representations is concerned, the birth of the first baby using PES has raised ethical concerns similar to those highlighted in the literature on PES and embryo selection through pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, with the most prominent issue being the absence of robust scientific evidence for the predictive accuracy of PRS modeling and its practical value in IVF settings. Although the critical nature of media discourse can contribute to raising public awareness about the ethical acceptability of the technology, bioethicists should also examine the effect of economic forces and societal pressures to have a perfect child that may be driving prospective parents to seek such unproven genetic interventions. PES is an emerging niche in a large, unregulated market for genetic testing services that has the potential to shape the future of reproductive medicine, and there is an urgent need for a policy debate on how it can be developed responsibly and ethically. 1 J. Habermas, "The Debate on the Ethical self-Understanding of the Species," The Future of Human Nature (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2003): p. 16-100. 2 Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are used in personalized medicine to predict disease risk in different human populations, not necessarily for risk modelling in embryos. Polygenic embryo screening (PES), on the other hand, involves the clinical use of PRS modelling from genome-wide association studies of adult populations for selecting embryos with the lowest probability of developing certain health conditions in adulthood. It could potentially be used to select embryos with a higher probability for inheritance of certain physical traits or complex characteristics. 3 C. Goldberg, "Picking Embryos With Best Health Odds Sparks New DNA Debate," Bloomberg September 17, 2021. 4 D. Conley, "A new age of genetic screening is coming — and we don’t have any rules for it," The Washington Post June 14, 2021. 5 K. Kamenova, A. Reshef, and T. Caulfield, "Angelina Jolie's faulty gene: newspaper coverage of a celebrity's preventive bilateral mastectomy in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom," Genetics in Medicine 16, no. 7 (2014): 522-28. 6 K. Kamenova et al., "Media portrayal of non-invasive prenatal testing: a missing ethical dimension," Journals of Science Communication 15, no. 2 (2016): 1-19. 7 B. Talat, Choosing the "Smartest" Embryo: Embryo Profiling and the Future of Reproductive Technology, (Canadian Institute for Genomics and Society, March 14, 2019), https://www.genomicsandsociety.com/post/choosing-the-smartest-embryo-embryo-profiling-and-the-future-of-reproductive-technology8 E. Parens, S. P. Applebaum, and W. Chung, "Embryo editing for higher IQ is a fantasy. Embryo profiling for it is almost here.," Statnews, February 12, 2019. 9 T. Pagnaer et al., "Polygenic risk scoring of human embryos: a qualitative study of media coverage," BMC Medical Ethics 22, no. 1 (2021): 1-8. 10 E. L. de Zeeuw et al., "Polygenic scores associated with educational attainment in adults predict educational achievement and ADHD symptoms in children," American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric Genetics 165b, no. 6 (2014): 51020. 11 A. Okbay et al., "Genetic variants associated with subjective well-being, depressive symptoms, and neuroticism identified through genome-wide analyses," Nature Genetics 48, no. 6 (2016): 624-33. 12 F. Ray, "Embryo Selection From Polygenic Risk Scores Enters Market as Clinical Value Remains Unproven," (December 22, 2021). https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/embryo-selection-polygenic-risk-scores-enters-market-clinical-value-remainsunproven#.YeVWzvhOk2w13 J. Savulescu, "The moral case for eugenics?," IAI News, September 28, 2021, https://iai.tv/articles/the-moral-case-for-eugenicsauid-1916. 14 S. Munday and J. Savulescu, "Three models for the regulation of polygenic scores in reproduction," Journal of Medical Ethics 47, no. 12 (2021): 1-9. 15 F. Forzano et al., "The use of polygenic risk scores in pre-implantation genetic testing: an unproven, unethical practice," European Journal of Human Genetics (2021). 16 Forzano et al., 1-3.; P. Turley et al., "Problems with Using Polygenic Scores to Select Embryos," The New England Jourmal of Medicine 385, no. 1 (2021): 78-86. 17 N. J. Wald and R. Old, "The illusion of polygenic disease risk prediction," Genetics in Medicine 21, no. 8 (2019): 1705-7. 18 M. J. Sandel, "The case against perfection: what's wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering," Atlantic Monthly 292, no. 3 (2004): 50-4, 56-60, 62. 19 H. Haidar, "Polygenic Risk Scores to Select Embryos: A Need for Societal Debate," Impact Ethics (blog), November 3, 2021, https://impactethics.ca/2021/11/03/polygenic-risk-scores-to-select-embryos-a-need-for-societal-debate/. 20 Pagnaer et al., " 1-8. 21 Forzano et al., 1-8. 22 Turley et al., 78-86. 23 P. Ball, "Polygenic screening of embryos is here, but is it ethical?," The Guardian, October 17, 2021. 24 W. K. Davis, "A New Kind of Embryo Genetics Screening Makes Big Promises on Little Evidence," Slate, July 23, 2021, https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/prs-model-snp-genetic-screening-counseling.html. 25 J. Savulescu, "Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children," Bioethics 15, no. 5-6 (2001): 413-26. 26 Pagnaer et al., 1-8.

Résumé : L'usine Brionvega (1963-1967), construite à Casella d'Asolo en Vénétie, représente l'une des architectures industrielles les plus intéressantes en Italie. Le projet, développé par l'architecte et designer milanais Marco Zanuso (1916-2001) avec l'ingénieur Silvano Zorzi et le paysagiste Pietro Porcinai, joue un rôle fondamental pour la compréhension du contexte culturel de l'architecture italienne de l'époque. Toutefois, l'originalité de l'usine réside aussi dans l'histoire de la célèbre société italienne d'électronique avec laquelle Zanuso a collaboré pendant plus de vingt-cinq ans, donnant vie à certaines des icônes du design moderne.Cette thèse doctorale se propose de faire connaître l'un des projets les plus significatifs de l'architecte milanais, en raison non seulement de sa qualité architecturale, mais aussi de la relation que l'usine Brionvega entretient avec son travail de designer. Le module-objet du pilier champignon qui organise le hall établit des similitudes conceptuelles et formelles avec certains objets conçus par Zanuso. Il est représentatif de sa « conception intégrée », largement adoptée dans ses projets, pour parvenir à une forme simple et synthétique. En outre, l'élégance de l'usine rappelle les lignes pures des produits Brionvega, dont beaucoup ont été réalisés par le designer milanais, et révèle également la manière dont l'évolution de la technologie, et du contexte culturel, transforme l'image du produit et celle de l'architecture.Notre recherche vise à mettre en évidence cette continuité entre design et architecture, et à comprendre comment Zanuso passe de la « poétique » du montage des usines en Amérique du Sud et du fauteuil Lady (1951) à la synthèse formelle et à l'abstraction de l'objet à l'ère de l'électronique, qui unit la simplicité du pilier champignon de l'usine Brionvega à la linéarité de la radio Cubo (1962) et du téléviseur Black (1969)
Abstract : The Brionvega factory (1963-1967), built in Casella d'Asolo in the Veneto region, is one of the most interesting industrial architecture in Italy. This plan, developed by the Milanese architect and designer Marco Zanuso (1916-2001) in collaboration with the engineer Silvano Zorzi and the landscaper Pietro Pocinai, is fundamental to understanding the cultural context of Italian architecture during this period. However, the originality of the factory is not only about a building, but also about the story of the famous Italian electronic company which Zanuso worked with for more than twenty-five years, creating some of the icons of modern design.This doctoral thesis aims to shed light on one of the Milanese architect's most significant projects, because of its architectural quality and also because of the link between the Brionvega factory and his work as a designer. The module object of the mushroom pillar structuring the hall has conceptual and formal similarities with some objects designed by Zanuso. It represents its “built-in design” widely used in his projects in order to achieve a simple and synthetic form. Furthermore, the elegance of the factory reminds the pure lines of Brionvega's products - many of which have been designed by Marco Zanuso - and also shows the way the product and architecture's image is transformed by the technological and cultural context.Our research aims to highlight this continuity between design and architecture and also to understand how Zanuso went from the factory assembly's “poetry” in South America and from the armchair Lady (1951) to the formal synthesis and the object abstraction in the electronic age, which joins the simplicity of the Brionvega factory's mushroom pillar with the linearity of the radio Cubo (1962) and the television Black (1969)