[ad_1]
Several of the world's leading CRISPR scientists and bioethicists are calling for a global moratorium on editing human genes that can be passed on from parents to children.
In a new Nature Commentary, published Wednesday, Feng Zhang and Emmanuelle Charpentier – two discoverers of the revolutionary CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system – along with MIT biologist Eric Lander and 15 other researchers from around the world sperm, eggs, and embryos – known as the human germline
The scholars were inspired to write the article, Lander told Vox, after China's He Jiankui revealed in November that he defied international norms and edited the DNA of three children, ostensibly to make them resistant to HIV.
"By 'global moratorium', we do not mean a permanent ban," the authors wrote. "Rather, we call for the establishment of an international framework in which nations, while retaining the right to make their own decisions, voluntarily commit to not
And in the meantime, other CRISPR research would continue, including germline editing for research that does not lead to modified babies, and editing nonheritable (somatic) cells.
The hope is to move the conversation beyond a focus on individual rogue actors, like He. "Lander said," The real questions going forward are what decisions will be made over the years and which applications, if any, should be allowed, "Lander said. "We want a framework in place so that our children are proud of the decisions that get made, rather than thinking society moved forward thoughtlessly."
Scientists traditionally avoided the word "moratorium" when talking about CRISPR
Right now, 30 countries, including the United States, have laws that directly prohibit germline editing, according to the Nature paper.
But as CRISPR-Cas9 technology has made gene editing more accessible in recent years – how do you do it? best to proceed.
While there is some potential for the future of hereditary genetic diseases in the future, there is also ample acceptance that it is simply too early to experiment with germline editing that would lead to genetically modified children. That 's why He Jiankui' s advertising was such a stir, as did the fact that many scientists knew what he was up to.
Most notably, in December 2015, the organizing committee of the first International Summit on Human Gene Editing at the National Academy of Sciences. The document reflects the excitement and wonder of this new technology, but also the researchers drew the line.
"It would be irresponsible to proceed with any further study of the problem and the need for it to be resolved … and (ii) there is broad societal consensus on the appropriateness of the proposed application," they wrote.
But the statement authors stopped using the word "moratorium," a word the Nature authors now embrace.
"This time we're saying we have a moratorium, we should not be afraid to call it a moratorium," Lander said. The authors also acknowledge, however, that a moratorium will eventually – and what's important is figuring out what the world should look like.
Countries need to get the same page about questions that "ultimately affect the entire species"
Gene editing has the potential to do incredible things, like delete horrible diseases right out of the genome, edit crops to make them more nutritious, or alter entire species.
There's also the distant goal of "designer babies," or using CRISPR to enhance certain human traits. "The idea that parents could feel their child's side of the issue," Lander said. "There will be powerful marketing forces and will not say that, 'how come you did not give your kids the latest, greatest, genome edit.'"
In the paper, Lander and his co-authors
With stigmatization and discrimination. Parents could be powerful and improve their children. … Many religious groups and others are likely to find the idea of redesigning the fundamental biology of humans morally troubling. Unequal access to the technology could increase inequality. Genetic enhancement could even divide humans into subspecies.
Even before these nightmare scenarios materialize, we know the gene editing tools. Scientists have learned, for example, that the CRISPR-Cas9 system may inadvertently wipe out and rearrange large swaths of DNA in ways that may be imperil human health, so called "off-target edits." They've also shown that CRISPR-edited cells can inadvertently trigger cancer.
But Lander said it's a mistake to dwell too much on the technical challenges posed by CRISPR and other gene editing technologies.
Instead, he said, it is necessary to make it easier to move ahead and proceed transparently, first voluntarily. After that, they would agree to certain conditions are met – like alerting the public about the experiment and engaging in an international consultation about its pros and cons.
"Nations might well choose different paths," the authors wrote, "but they would agree to proceed with an opinion on the issues of humankind.
A veiled message to China
To do that, one option might be setting up a coordinating body – possibly organized by the World Health Organization – to support the global framework, the authors suggests. And under that body, they recommend two sub-panels: one of medical and scientific voices and one of a diversity of perspectives, including "people with disabilities, patients and their families, economically disadvantaged communities, historically marginalized groups, religious groups and civil society at large. "
"Certainly, the framework we are calling for will be the most important plans to reengineer the human species," they wrote. "But the risks of the alternative – which include harming patients and eroding public trust – are much worse."
Bioethicists and research organizations embraced the call to action. In a letter accompanying the Nature Commentary, Representatives at the US National Academy of Medicine, US National Academy of Sciences, and the Royal Society in London called "Broad Societal Consensus Before Making Any Decisions, Given the Global Implications of Heritable Genome Editing."
(Another CRISPR-Cas9 co-discoverer, Jennifer Doudna, was noticeably absent from the author list. technical issues are addressed and the ethical issues are resolved. ")
"University of Minnesota bioethicist Leigh Turner, who did not contribute to the paper, told Vox," public debate, public conversation and serious deliberation of all the ethical, legal, and scientific issues related to heritable genome editing, "
The framework is deliberately open and voluntary, so countries can make decisions "informed by their history, culture, values and political systems," the authors wrote. "Still, the common principle would be all nations agreeing to proceed deliberately and with due respect to the opinions of humankind."
It also contained a message to China. While the Chinese government has condemned He Jiankui's actions, there have been questions over whether the government should have been involved. The commentary of the authors is more often than not.
"The idea is that countries should come together and be transparent," said Lander, "if they're thinking about a potential application. … They should be straight forward, give notice and engage in consultation about it. "
At the same time, Turner said, "It's just that much more than the best-intentioned scientists and international agreements."
"It's easy to see how unwanted activity could occur despite calls for a moratorium," he said, "how [gene editing] could and does not actually regulate or allow a sufficient amount of resources to be used in the future. "And that's what makes CRISPR so powerful – and so scary.
[ad_2]
Source link