Opinion: Human genome editingwe should all have a say – Phys.org – Phys.Org

August 2, 2017 by Franoise Baylis, The Conversation

Mitalipov's team is not the first to genetically modify human embryos. This was first accomplished in 2015 by a group of Chinese scientists led by Junjiu Huang. Mitalipov's team, however, may be the first to demonstrate basic safety and efficacy using the CRISPR technique.

This has serious implications for the ethics debate on human germline modification which involves inserting, deleting or replacing the DNA of human sperm, eggs or embryos to change the genes of future children.

Ethically controversial

Those who support human embryo research will argue that Mitalipov's research to alter human embryos is ethically acceptable because the embryos were not allowed to develop beyond 14 days (the widely accepted international limit on human embryo research) and because the modified embryos were not used to initiate a pregnancy. They will also point to the future potential benefit of correcting defective genes that cause inherited disease.

This research is ethically controversial, however, because it is a clear step on the path to making heritable modifications - genetic changes that can be passed down through subsequent generations.

Beyond safety and efficacy

Internationally, UNESCO has called for a ban on human germline gene editing. And the "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine" the Oviedo Convention specifies that "an intervention seeking to modify the human genome may only be undertaken for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic purposes and only if its aim is not to introduce any modification in the genome of any descendants."

In a move away from the positions taken by UNESCO and included in the Oviedo Convention, in 2015 the 12-person Organizing Committee of the first International Summit on Human Gene Editing (of which I was a member) issued a statement endorsing basic and preclinical gene editing research involving human embryos.

The statement further stipulated, however, that: "It would be irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germline editing unless and until (i) the relevant safety and efficacy issues have been resolved, based on appropriate understanding and balancing of risks, potential benefits, and alternatives, and (ii) there is broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application."

Mitalipov's research aims to address the first condition about safety and efficacy. But what of the second condition which effectively recognizes that the human genome belongs to all of us and that it is not for scientists or other elites to decree what should or should not happen to it?

Modification endorsed

Since the 2015 statement was issued, many individuals and groups have tried to set aside the recommendation calling for a broad societal consensus.

For example, in February 2017, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine published a report endorsing germline modification. It states unequivocally that "clinical trials using heritable germline genome editing should be permitted" provided the research is only for compelling reasons and under strict oversight limiting uses of the technology to specified criteria.

Seeds of change in Canada

In Canada, it is illegal to modify human germ cells. Altering "the genome of a cell of a human being or in vitro embryo such that the alteration is capable of being transmitted to descendants" is among the activities prohibited in the 2004 Assisted Human Reproduction Act.

Worried that "Canadian researchers may fall behind on the international scene" and that "restrictive research policies may lead to medical tourism," the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (with input from the Canadian Stem Cell Network) has begun to plant the seeds of change.

In its Human Germline Gene Editing report, CIHR hints at the benefits of changing the legislation. It also suggests professional self-regulation and research funding guidelines could replace the current federal statutory prohibition.

Future of the species

With the recent announcement of Mitalipov's technological advances and increasing suggestions from researchers that heritable modifications to human embryos be permitted, it is essential that citizens be given opportunities to think through the ethical issues and to work towards broad societal consensus.

We are talking about nothing less than the future of the human species. No decisions about the modification of the germline should be made without broad societal consultation.

Nothing about us without us!

Explore further: Genome editing in human cells

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

New techniques in molecular biology that enable targeted interventions in the genome are opening up promising new possibilities for research and application. The ethical and legal ramifications of these methods, known as ...

Recent evidence demonstrating the feasibility of using novel CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology to make targeted changes in the DNA of human embryos is forcing researchers, clinicians, and ethicists to revisit the highly ...

Human cells or embryos that undergo a process of gene-editing must not be used to establish a pregnancy, an international scientific panel said Thursday, urging strict limits on the controversial research.

The announcement by researchers in Portland, Oregon that they've successfully modified the genetic material of a human embryo took some people by surprise.

Clinical trials for genome editing of the human germline - adding, removing, or replacing DNA base pairs in gametes or early embryos - could be permitted in the future, but only for serious conditions under stringent oversight, ...

A team of researchers has created the first genetically modified human embryos, the MIT Technology Review reported this week.

(Phys.org)A combined team of researchers from the U.S. and China has figured out why scorpion stings are so painful. In their paper published on the open access site Science Advances, the team explains how scorpion venom ...

Monarch butterfly populations have taken a nosedive over the last 20 years, according to researchers who monitor the number of butterflies that spend the winter in Mexico every year. But organizations of citizen scientists ...

Artificial light disrupts nocturnal pollination and leads to a reduced number of fruits produced by the plant. This loss of night time pollination cannot be compensated by diurnal pollinators. The negative impact of artificial ...

Researchers at the Stowers Institute for Medical Research have solved the three-dimensional structure of a complex that is essential for the correct sorting of chromosomes into eggs and sperm during reproductive cell division ...

An Australian trapdoor spider, which usually moves no further than a couple of metres from where it was hatched, must have travelled to Australia over the Indian Ocean from South Africa, University of Adelaide research has ...

Anthrax, a disease so far not associated with tropical rain forests, is common in the Ivory Coast's Ta National Park and is posing a serious threat to wildlife there. The bacterium could soon even cause the extinction of ...

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Now I can see this research as far as understanding EXACTLY how to make those changes in case of some unforeseen global emergency/need in the future.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

The rest is here:
Opinion: Human genome editingwe should all have a say - Phys.org - Phys.Org