Why do we need Slow Science?

In an article recently published in Nature, a group of prominent scientists and ethicists have called for a moratorium on clinical research using CRISPR / Cas9 gene editing.

This moratorium concerns the use of the germ-line CRISPR / Cas9 gene editing, modifying the hereditary DNA present in sperm, eggs or embryos, to produce genetically modified children.

In other words, there would be a temporary ban on experiments that could lead to more CRISPR babies.

Read more:
Opening of Pandora & # 39; s Box: The Edition of Genes and Its Consequences

The document was signed and written by a number of renowned ethicists and scientists, including Emmanuelle Charpentier (one of the co-discoveries of CRISPR / Cas9) and Peng Zhang (one of the first to use CRISPR in human cells), as well as geneticist Eric Lander and bioethicists Françoise Baylis and Jing-Bao Nie.

However, CRISPR researcher Jennifer Doudna (the other co-discoverer of the CRISPR / Cas9 system) refused to sign this call for a moratorium. She said The Washington Post"My feeling is that it's just a matter of remembering what's been going on for a number of years."

This is a controversial point because the word moratorium has been little used by scientists involved in this research. Many signatories, however, have expressed their views on gene editing in germ lines in the past.

By calling for a worldwide moratorium, the signatories do not mean a permanent ban, but a temporary ban, to allow the establishment of an international governance framework around the modification of the human genome. Specifically, they suggest a five-year moratorium, enough time to allow critical conversations and stakeholder engagement.

Importantly, they do not call for a unanimous decision of nations either. Countries would be allowed to develop their own regulatory framework taking into account the ethical, scientific, technical and medical considerations of the CRISPR / Cas9 germinal gene editing.

Slowing science for the common good

CRISPR / Cas9 gene editing has progressed at an unprecedented rate since CRISPR was first used in vitro in human cells in 2013 for the birth of the first germ-line-modified babies in 2018. C 'is very worrying, especially social risks are still the subject of debate and the safety and effectiveness of treatments are still largely unknown.

In our opinion, what the authors of the recent Nature The editorials ask: Slow CRISPR Science. Slow Science – a response to the growing speed and interest of companies at the base of the scientific process and the "paradigm of publishing or perishing" – was built on the concepts of the Slow Food movement.

Slow Food was a direct response to Fast Food, a system in which the environment, people and economies were often jeopardized to the detriment of corporate interests that apparently provided quick and easy meals. Ideally, the Slow movement does not claim "less productivity or efficiency" but more thoughtful and engaging work in the food industry and science.

In the case of gene editing, advancing slowly would mean refining nonhereditary gene editing techniques in patients before attempting clinical editing trials of heritable genes loaded onto the plane. ethical and technically more difficult (which seem to be motivated by profit or necessity than social need or the common good).

J. Benjamin Hurlbut, badociate professor of biology and society at Arizona State University, wrote in a Nature commentary beginning of january 2019:

"To move in a positive direction, science must not claim to fix the destination of a technology, but must follow the direction we, the people, provide."

A slow CRISPR science would allow proper consultation of appropriate stakeholders and the public before making the decision to go forward.

A divided scientific community

Scientific communities do not agree on the issue of a moratorium. In fact, a commentary published in Science in 2015 called for a "prudent way forward" and discussed measures to ensure the ethical and safe use of this technology.

However, the word moratorium has never been used in this document. In addition, many of the authors of the 2015 publication have fled a moratorium and much of the organizing committee of the 2018 Human Genome Publishing Summit (many of whom were also authors of the 2015 report). Science article) suggesting a "translation pathway" based on a "broad scientific consensus" on genome editing of the human germ line.

This is in direct contradiction to the wording of the final declaration of the summit on the editing of the 2015 human gene that considered the editing of the germinal genome as "irresponsible" until the security issues and effectiveness are resolved and that a "broad society consensus" is reached.

Many have jumped to the question of "How can we do this" rather than "Should we do this?

Ultimately, a period of reflection and reflection would allow citizens of each country to have an important debate about whether their society tolerates germinal genome editing. Every society must decide for itself whether the benefits outweigh the risks, based on science but not dictated by it.

It's time to do things right

For Canada, the moratorium will have little effect on CRISPR research activities, as germ-gene editing is already prohibited under the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, 2004.

It is clear that the stakes are high and that the first applications of CRISPR to human health may lead to a total ban on this technology, which offers incredible prospects for relieving human suffering by curing genetic diseases.

Therefore, a cautious step in our opinion is to temporarily support germline gene editing to allow for a more in-depth badysis of the risks and benefits. Essentially, this is what these scientists and ethicists are asking for in their proposed moratorium.

They ask for time to pause and think. It is time to conduct appropriate consultations with relevant stakeholders and (very importantly) the public in order to reach a broad societal consensus. Finally, it is time to develop the most robust and accurate gene editing tools, so that when we use CRISPR / Cas9 to rewrite the source code of humanity, we get the results that suitable.