Should we impose limits on the production of genetically modified babies?

The scandal surrounding the birth of genetically modified babies in China has "triggered" the proposal for urgent measures to control the use of this technology because of the risks it implies for the human species.

Many of the scientists who developed it are concerned and have asked that an international moratorium is established in order not to use genetic editing of embryos over the next five years. A group of experts from the World Health Organization this week said the application of genetic modification to embryos is "irresponsible". To control it, they want a strong regulatory framework and a record of ongoing and future investigations.

The cascade of proposals results from the scandal caused by the announcement of the birth of the first babies by genetic edition last November in China. The scientist He Jiankui ignored the usual rules for carrying out a clinical trial, modified the embryos and produced the first babies by genetic editing, according to his own ads on YouTube. At that time, He Jiankui argued that he had experimented so that babies would be born with a modification that would prevent them from developing the infection with the AIDS virus that one their parents contracted. But this has triggered global warnings: the risk of using gene editing on embryos is far greater than its potential benefit, as the technology could lead to unexpected sequelae in the offspring.. Due to the use of embryonic gene editing, his lack of transparency and insufficient information from parents about babies, He Jiankui has been hard-wired by the global scientific community. Last February, he was fired from the university where he was investigating. The Chinese Ministry of Health has issued guidelines to end the unapproved use of biomedical technologies in clinics.

In response to the scandal, Many of the scientists who led the technology and experts in bioethics have now called for a worldwide moratorium to prevent the production of genetically modified babies. It is the French Emmanuelle Charpentier, the American Eric Lander, the Chinese-American Feng Shang, the Canadian Françoise Baylis and fourteen other researchers representing seven countries. They worry about the risks badociated with the use of genetic publishing in sperm and egg cells. and embryos when the technology still does not provide safety or efficiency.

They launched the call through an article published March 14 in the journal Nature. "By global moratorium, we do not understand a permanent ban," they said in the second paragraph. We call for the establishment of an international framework in which the nations, while retaining the right to make their own decisions, voluntarily undertake not to allow the use of the same. Clinical germline genetic editing as long as certain conditions are not met. "

They urged national governments to commit to not allowing, at least for the next five years, to propose genetic editing with human embryos in health centers or hospitals.

In addition, the WHO expert group would not accept a temporary moratorium, but a global effort to regulate technology. Margaret Hamburg, one of the group members who is also part of the American Academy of Medicine, felt that a "vague moratorium is not the solution to what". we must do now. " The panel will release guidelines on the use of gene editing in embryos and patients over the next 18 months. They suggested creating a research registry that included genetic editing to increase transparency.

As of 2012, the implications of genetic publishing technology began to be discussed. In 2015, a team of scientists published the embryonic DNA in China and the controversy was sown. In 2018, the announcement of the birth of the edited drinks, which was part of a technology summit in Hong Kong, broke the hesitations of the scientific community to make more decisive decisions.

In the text currently published by Nature scientists, such as Lander and Charpentier, it is already mentioned that 30 countries already have standards that limit the use of genetic modification on embryos and that could leave the moratorium indefinitely or prohibit it. use. . But they call for a global framework and do not forget people who are not scientists but who might be interested in developing technology.

One of the potential risks is that its application in embryos generates even more inequality among social groups having access to technology if it were safe and effective in the future.

Viewed by Infobae, Hugh Whittall, director of the Nuffield Bioethics Council, a prestigious London-based non-governmental organization, who studies and badyzes the ethical dilemmas posed by scientific activity, said: "Even if a global moratorium is instituted or not, we strongly support the conclusion that no further attempt at the clinical use of genome modification should be made. be made before that society has had a wide debate about its acceptance and that this technique should not be used on embryos until the research has allowed to bring to an acceptable level the considerable uncertainty surrounding the risks badociated with clinical use.We still do not know if genome editing will provide enough security for clinical use, or what uses might be appropriate, but we should not wait for everything to be ready so that we can act before deciding if we should do it anyway. "

With respect to the regulation of technology, Whittall noted that "In many countries, the clinical use of genetic modification technique is not regulated today. Different countries have their own debates on genetic publishing. In our last report last year, we recommended international action to ensure that policy on this issue can be developed in all countries in a manner that respects human rights. . "

In Argentina, there are still no rules on genetic modification technology for human embryos to prevent disease or improve species. Yes, it was the first country in the world to regulate the use of genetic publishing for animal and plant experimentation. Since September 2018, a standard has been in place to evaluate therapies by modifying human body cells after birth as biological drugs.

Last December, a meeting of experts was held at the Cultural Science Center in Buenos Aires, organized by the Government Secretariat for Science, Technology and Productive Innovation, by the Secretariat of Agri-Food Industries. of Conicet, the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) and the National Administration of Laboratories and National Institutes of Health (ANLIS). In contrast, genetic editing in human germ cells is still regulated by Congress, nor by any body of executive power.

As part of the Association for Responsible Research and Innovation in Genetic Publishing, Argentine attorney Fabiana Arzuaga said that "UNESCO should amend the statement on the issue. use of the human genome and clarify that the use of genetic editing in embryos should not be allowed. " Until you demonstrate safety and efficiency, and after a long debate. "