Experts call to stop the CRISPR edition, which allows children to transmit genetic modifications

Do you remember the worldwide indignation that took place four months ago, during the world premiere, claimed that a researcher had used the CRISPR gene modification tool to modify the genome of binoculars?

The molecular scissors known as CRISPR (CRISPR / cas9 in full) allow scientists to modify DNA with higher precision and greater ease than previous technologies.

Researchers from the United States, Europe, China and New Zealand have issued an important call for a moratorium, or temporary freeze, on the clinical use of germline genetic modification technology in humans. 'man. (The modification of the germ line means that the modified genes are included in the eggs and sperm, the "germ cells", and can be pbaded on to subsequent generations).

The authors on the Nature The report includes leaders in the development of CRISPR technologies, as well as bioethicists.

They propose a framework in which countries pledge not to endorse the clinical use of hereditary gene editing unless certain conditions are met for technical, social, medical and ethical reasons. .

In this process, they also argue that there should be an initial period during which no clinical use of germ line modification is allowed. Research would still be allowed, provided that the embryos are used only very early in laboratory studies and are not transferred to the womb of the woman to develop further. They suggest that this period could last five years.

After this initial period, any participating country could authorize a particular application of germ line modification by proceeding as follows:

public notice of intention transparent badessment and justification of the application (taking into account not only the scientific and medical aspects, but also related societal and ethical issues) obtaining a broad consensus in the country to say that it is an acceptable request.

It's not just science

It is important that the badessment considers not only the science of germline genetic modifications, but also the wider societal context. The authors mention the risk of discrimination, peer pressure and marketing, as well as unequal access to technology if gene editing becomes an available tool, for example in IVF clinics.

This moratorium would be limited to the modification of the human germline. It means modifying human sperm, eggs or embryos to make children whose DNA has been altered. These changes are pbaded on from generation to generation, which is why germ line modification is a particular concern.

The moratorium would not apply to changes in non-reproductive human cells (called somatic gene editing). Ongoing efforts to treat blindness, sickle cell disease or cancer with the help of CRISPR would not be affected by the moratorium.

Implications in Australia

In Australia, germline genetic modification is not allowed and is illegal.

According to the law on the prohibition of human cloning for reproductive purposes (2002), researchers may be sentenced to up to 15 years' imprisonment for altering the genome of the body. A human cell so that the modification can be transmitted by the descendants of the man whose cell has been modified ". . Therefore, the implications for Australia will be limited and the application of the initial five-year gel to any clinical use of germ line modification would be transparent.

If Australia wishes to allow any clinical application of germ line modification at a later time, this act will need to be revised.

The framework proposed in the moratorium appeal provides a basis for how such a review could then be discussed: public notice, transparent and comprehensive review of the application, and national discussion.

Volunteer and pragmatic

The proposed moratorium is voluntary. It's a pragmatic approach. It would be very difficult to get an international agreement on a ban.

As the authors note, discussions on a legally binding convention banning human cloning do not progress much.

In the absence of a binding agreement, a voluntary commitment can begin to lead key stakeholders to seek a viable solution. Other issues such as climate change have shown the limits of international agreements, but even involving a limited number of countries would be a positive first step.

Change requires commitment

The authors also invite those working in areas where CRISPR is used, including leaders of research institutes as well as individual researchers, to publicly adhere to the principles of the framework they have defined.

It will be interesting to see how other stakeholders will react. For example, will funding agencies and scientific publishers commit? One of the objections to moratoriums is that they do not prevent "rogue" entities or individuals from acting outside their scope.

It was clear that no study would be funded or published if it did not respect the principles of advance notice, full transparency and national approval, that would remove some of the incentives that sometimes make research scientist a race.

Ultimately, in each country, society as a whole will have to decide whether germ line modification is acceptable and under what circumstances. A meaningful consensus will only be reached if an informed discussion takes place.

Until now, issues relating to gene editing have been mainly discussed by experts. More than ever, engagement and education involving diverse members of our society around advanced biotechnologies are crucial.

Provided by
The conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.