Doubts about DNA cut-and-paste of crisprs

DIY with the genes of an embryo, in order to allow a genetically adapted child to develop there, is ethically acceptable, under certain conditions. This is what the British Nuffield Council on Bioethics wrote in a report released Monday on genetic changes during human reproduction.

Socially and ethically, such intervention in the germline (where the offspring of the child also undergoes genetic change) is warranted. it improves or guarantees well-being. Genetic intervention must also be socially justifiable and not undermine social solidarity.

The ethicists of the Nuffield Council mean that such an intervention can not increase division in society (between educated highs and lows), can not be discriminatory and can not increase the disadvantage of others. The elimination of diseases will largely fall under these conditions, but the "improvement" of people (more muscular or brain power, for example) is harder to reconcile with these ideas.

The British discussion on genetic intervention is yet to begin in the Netherlands

Nuffield's advisory report is now published by bioscientists encouraging the crispr-case technique, which greatly facilitates genetic changes. These optimistic sounds are pervaded by society, but if crisis cases can safely and reliably replace genes in human cells, serious reservations have recently been made about them. More information about this later in this article.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is independent, but its advice has a major impact on the UK Parliament. This has allowed genetic research and therapies that are generally still banned elsewhere in the world.

The Nuffield Counsil does not advise yet to adapt the British law to allow germ therapy. But there is a social discussion about it. The Nuffield Commission believes that the British government should promote an international dialogue through the Council of Europe and Unesco.

The Nuffield Report shows that there is a discussion on the other side of the North Sea that is yet to begin in the Netherlands – or again.

Medical Ethics

In early July, the Minister of Public Health, Hugo de Jonge (CDA), transmitted to the House of Representatives the Memorandum on Medical Ethics. In this paper, the minister writes that he "wants to start stimulating discussion" on germ line modification and embryo growth for research. De Jonge follows the agreements reached in the coalition agreement, under the influence of the Christian Association Union, to be cautious about the authorization of new biomedical techniques for reproduction and the elimination of diseases.

The speed with which we work in many countries is due to the developments around the crispr-case technique, with which genes can be cut and pasted easily and inexpensively. For example, in an embryo, a gene with a pathogenic mutation can be removed to replace it with a non-pathogenic gene.

But meanwhile scientific articles are appearing that warn that crispr-case does not always keep good genes. the right place in the DNA, but, more often than expected, also in other places. "This can cause illness," researchers at the British Wellcome Sanger Institute wrote in an article published in Nature Biotechnology .

Also listen to the episode of our Onbehaarde Apen podcast on Crispr-Case:

A month earlier, British and Swedish researchers in Nature Medicine showed that the cut and paste Crispr-cases work best in mammalian cells in which a mechanism of DNA repair is defective. But these cells will grow in cancer cells sooner. This means that cells in which gene therapy has been successful are more likely to turn into cancer cells. Researchers at the Dutch Cancer Institute also had warnings last month. In Molecular Cell they describe that DNA breaks that occur during the cutting of the cries are slowly stuck and often erroneous.

The first experiments on people with the technique of crispr-case have been approved, write the researchers of the Wellcome Sanger Institute, but they estimate that in an experiment in which billions of cells are treated in a case of patient with crispr -cas (that are real numbers) there will always be some that will have important pathogenic mutations. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics does not call for more research.

Do you know how crispr-case works? Also watch the video.