To prevent serious medical conditions, scientists should be able to edit people’s DNA, panel says – Los Angeles Times

Scientists should be allowed to altera persons DNA in ways that will be passed on to future generations, but only to prevent serious and strongly heritable diseases, according to a new report from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine.

However, tinkering with these genes in orderto enhance or alter traits such as strength, intelligence or beauty should remain off-limits, the report authors concluded.

Changing theso-called germline effectively, editing humanitys future by altering genes in human reproductive cells is illegal in the United States. It has largely been considered ethically off-limits here as well, at least whilebioethicists and scientists pondered the unforeseen effects and unexamined moral dilemmas of using new gene-editing technologies.

However, scientists have moved forward aggressively to explore the feasibility of altering disease genes in other adult human cells with a revolutionarytechnique known asCRISPR-Cas9. It is widely believed that gene editing of this sort could treat patients with metabolic disorders, certain cancers, anda range of otherdiseases that arise from genetic mutationswithout altering the germline.

Last year, Chinese scientists launched a trial that uses CRISPR-Cas9 in a treatment for lung cancer. While the trials outcome is awaited with high anticipation, scientists outside of China have expressed concern that ethical reservations in the United States and Europe will put themat a disadvantage.

CRISPR-Cas9 makesgene editing more straightforward, more precise and far more widespread. As such, the National Academies report acknowledgesthat changingheritable DNA ineggs, sperm and early embryosis fast becoming a realistic possibility that deserves serious consideration.

The 22-memberpanel of scientists and bioethicists who produced the report completed a comprehensive review of the issues raised by that prospect.

Clinical trials involving germline editing should onlybe pursuedto treat diseases that cannot be improvedwith reasonable alternatives, the committee said. In addition, they added,scientists should convincingly demonstratethey are targeting a gene that eithercauses or strongly predisposes a carrier to a serious disease or condition, and that they have weighed the likely risks and benefits of altering that gene.

These clinical trials should be conducted under public scrutiny that takes into account issues ofsocietal fairness, personal dignityand scientific integrity, the panel said.

Finally, scientists should conduct long-term follow-up studies to discern how gene editing affects subsequent generations.Public debate and discussion about the technologyshould continue, the panel added.

Genome editing research is very much an international endeavor, and all nations should ensure that any potential clinical applications reflect societal values and be subject to appropriate oversight and regulation, saidMIT cancer researcher Richard O.Hynes, who co-chaired the panel with University of Wisconsin-Madison bioethicist R. Alta Charo. These overarching principles and the responsibilities that flow from them should be reflected in each nations scientific community and regulatory processes.

Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, an immunologist and bioethicist who was not on the panel, said the grouphas asked the compelling questions, sparkinga conversation that must keep up with a rapid pace of scientific discovery in this field. He called the reportsrelease a fantastic development.

What theyre saying is, lets start the conversation, maintain ethical structures along the way, and hopefully do this the right way, said Whelan, who serves on the advisory board of USCs Institute for Advanced Catholic Studies.

The international panel included members from the U.S., China, France, Israel andItaly.Their report was underwritten in part by the Department of Defenses Advanced Research Projects Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

melissa.healy@latimes.com

Follow me on Twitter @LATMelissaHealy and "like" Los Angeles Times Science & Health on Facebook.