Geneticists debate DNA editing in human embryos
“We are humans, not transgenic rats.”
Edward Lanphier, president of Sangamo and chairman of the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine in Washington DC
Should germline modification – a gene-editing technique – be allowed on human embryos? This ethically laced question has generated much hype and discussion among geneticists. On March 5, MIT Technology Review reported that studies using genome-editing tools, such as CRISPR/Cas9 and zinc-finger nucleases, to make changes to the human embryo’s DNA are about to be published. Such genetic modifications to the embryos would be passed on to the future generations; therefore, some researchers opine that this is an ethical line that should not be crossed.
Following the article in MIT Technology Review, Edward Lanphier and his colleagues who are involved in the study of genome-editing techniques in somatic (non-reproductive) cells, wrote a comment article in Nature. They appealed to scientists to refrain from modifying human embryos, even in research, since genome editing in human embryos with the use of current technologies "could have unpredictable effects on future generations” and that such work can be misused for “non-therapeutic modifications” such as creating a genetically modified baby with ‘perfect blue eyes.’ Moreover, they also warn that such an “ethical breach” could possibly jeopardize the use of gene editing even in non-reproductive cells.
While some researchers are completely against germline editing, others such as Nobel laureate geneticist Craig Mello of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, are in support of germline editing as it could offer humans protection from life-threatening diseases such as cancer and HIV. George Church, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, feels that modification of human embryos should be banned only till “safety issues are cleared up and there is general consensus that it is OK.” Church remarks that gene editing should be closely monitored in animals before it is practiced on humans, as this would address the concern some researchers have raised regarding unintended introduction of mutations at locations other than those targeted.
Dana Carroll, a geneticist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City suggests a way of resolving this ethical issue. She thinks a national agency, such as the US National Academy of Sciences, that includes medical professionals and interested public, should be organized to weigh up the positive and negative aspects of germline editing.
It remains to be seen whether the study on germline modification gets published and the research gets a legal nod. What are your thoughts on this issue? Please share your views.
Published on: Mar 31, 2015
Comments
You're looking to give wings to your academic career and publication journey. We like that!
Why don't we give you complete access! Create a free account and get unlimited access to all resources & a vibrant researcher community.
