[ad_1]
The creation of babies whose DNA has been altered to give them what parents perceive as the best chance in life has received a cautious go-ahead in a landmark report from a British body. 39; ethics.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics said that changing the DNA of a human embryo could be "morally permissible" if it was in the child's best interest and was Did not add to the inequalities that already divide society.
The report does not call for change in the UK law to allow genetically modified babies, but rather urges research on the safety and effectiveness of the approach, its societal impact, and a Broad debate on its implications
"We consider that genome editing is not morally unacceptable," said Karen Yeung, chair of the Nuffield Task Force and Professor of Law, of the University of Toronto. ethics and computer science at the University of Birmingham. "There is no reason to exclude it in principle."
But the report immediately prompted criticism from of a pressure group accusing the authors of opening the door to the unlimited use of hereditary genetic engineering, and an age of
Recent advances in genetic technology have given scientists the tools to rewrite the bound DNA in cells Living with the procedures in hand, scientists can in principle fine-tune the genetic code of sperm, eggs and embryos, and radically change the development of future children.
While the laws currently prohibit the creation of genetically modified babies in the UK and in other countries, a handful of experiments around the world have shown that the edition of "genetically modified babies" in the UK and in other countries, DNA could, in principle, prevent children from inheriting serious diseases caused by faulty genes.
The prospect of modifying genes in human embryos has long been controversial. For starters, the procedure has not yet been proven. In a study published Monday in Nature Biotechnology, British researchers discovered that the most popular tool for genome editing, Crispr-Cas9, caused more damage to DNA than any other type of gene. we did not think about it before. If scientists are right, gene editing could disrupt healthy genes when it is only aimed at repairing faulty genes.
Another consideration is that any changes made to the DNA of an embryo would affect all of its cells, including sperm or eggs. that genetic modifications would be passed on to all future generations. In addition, in the vast majority of cases, alternative procedures, such as preimplantation genetic testing, can be used to screen for DNA from dangerous embryos.
The DNA edition also raises the possibility of "baby designers". Standard IVF is rewritten so that children have traits that parents deem desirable. The Nuffield Report does not exclude any specific use of genome editing, but states that, to be ethical, applications must follow the principles of the child's best interests and not have adverse effects on society.
Jackie Scully Leach, Professor of Social Ethics and Bioethics of Newcastle University and co-author of the report, said that hereditary modification of the genome might one day become an option for parents "To try to ensure what they consider the best start in life" for their future children.
But she warned that there could be unintended consequences if the law was amended to allow the editing of human embryo genes. Although technology can potentially reduce the number of people affected by certain genetic disorders, it could leave people with diseases feeling more marginalized and receive less medical support.
The report urges the government to create a new body to ensure that as many voices as possible are involved in public discussions about what should and should not be allowed. "We are very clear that what we need to have is as wide a discussion as possible on this issue," Leach Scully said. In the event that the law is changed, the editing of human embryo genes should be examined on a case-by-case basis by the Fertility Regulator, the Fertilizer and Human Embryology Authority. adds the report.
George Church, geneticist at Harvard University, who was not involved in the report, said he concurs with the guiding principle of the report that the gene modification "does not should not increase disadvantage, discrimination or division in society ". dialogue and education. According to Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society in California, changing the common gene variants of sperm and eggs could save about 5% of babies from painful diseases. it would be used for the purposes of improvement and cosmetics. "They dispense with the usual pretext that it could – or, in their view, should – be avoided.They recognize that this can aggravate inequality and social division, but do not believe that this should hinder." In practical terms , they threw a red carpet for the unlimited use of hereditary genetic engineering, and a golden age in which some are treated as "genetic rich" and the rest of us as "destitute". [19659015]
[ad_2]
Source link
