Human Germline and Heritable Genome Editing: The Global Policy Landscape

Recent Developments in the Regulation of Heritable Human Genome Editing

In 2018, the Chinese scientist He Jiankui presented his research at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong. While it was intended that he facilitate a workshop, he was instead called on to present his research in heritable human genome editing, where he made the announcement that he had taken great strides in advancement of his research, to the extent that he had gene-edited human embryos and that this had resulted in the live births of two children. While his research ethic and methodology was interrogated, he insisted that two children, twin girls, had been born healthy and that there was another pregnancy (at the time) where birth of a third gene edited child would be imminent. This announcement generated a ripple effect in the scientific community and exposed the gaps in regulation and absence of law relating to the technology. This resulted in a flurry of activity and conversation around regulation of the technology, which scientists stated was not ready for human trials. This article reviews the Third Summit which was held in London in March 2023 and comments on the latest developments in the regulation of heritable human genome editing.

Public participation in human genome editing research governance: what do scientists think?

Within the numerous policy and governance recommendations for human genome editing research, anticipatory public engagement seems universally agreed upon as a vital endeavor. Yet it is unclear whether and how scientists whose research involves genome editing see value in engaging the public in discussions of genome editing research governance. To address this question, we interviewed 81 international scientists who use genome editing in their research. The views of our scientist interviewees about public engagement occupied a broad spectrum from enthusiastic support to strong skepticism. But most scientists' views landed somewhere in the middle, seeing public engagement as merely informing the public about the science of genome editing. We argue that such a stance reflects the traditional "knowledge-deficit model." Beyond addressing the operational difficulties of public engagement, many scientists' adherence to the deficit model is a deeper barrier that needs to be addressed if public engagement is to occur and be successful.

Advancing Precision Medicine with Gene and Cell Therapy in Malaysia: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications

A new era of gene and cell therapy for treating human diseases has been envisioned for several decades. However, given that the technology can alter any DNA/cell in human beings, it poses specific ethical, legal, and social difficulties in its application. In Malaysia, current bioethics and medical ethics guidelines tackle clinical trials and biomedical research, medical genetic services, and stem cell research/therapy. However, no comprehensive framework and policy is available to cater to ethical gene and cell therapy in the country. Incorporating ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) would be crucial to guide the appropriate use of human gene and cell therapy in conjunction with precision medicine. Policy experts, scientists, bioethicists, and public members must debate the associated ELSI and the professional code of conduct while preserving human rights.

CRISPR/Cas9 technology: applications in oocytes and early embryos

CRISPR/Cas9, a highly versatile genome-editing tool, has garnered significant attention in recent years. Despite the unique characteristics of oocytes and early embryos compared to other cell types, this technology has been increasing used in mammalian reproduction. In this comprehensive review, we elucidate the fundamental principles of CRISPR/Cas9-related methodologies and explore their wide-ranging applications in deciphering molecular intricacies during oocyte and early embryo development as well as in addressing associated diseases. However, it is imperative to acknowledge the limitations inherent to these technologies, including the potential for off-target effects, as well as the ethical concerns surrounding the manipulation of human embryos. Thus, a judicious and thoughtful approach is warranted. Regardless of these challenges, CRISPR/Cas9 technology undeniably represents a formidable tool for genome and epigenome manipulation within oocytes and early embryos. Continuous refinements in this field are poised to fortify its future prospects and applications.

Global health and global governance of emerging biomedical technologies

Global governance of emerging, disruptive biomedical technologies presents a multitude of ethical problems. The recent paper by Shozi et al raises some of these problems in the context of a discussion of what could be the most disruptive (and most morally fraught) emerging biomedical technology-human germline genome editing. At the heart of their argument is the claim that, for something like gene editing, there is likely to be tension between the interests of specific states in crafting regulation for the technology, and disagreement about what would be necessary to meet the requirements for responsible translation of gene editing into the clinic. This complicates hopes for a tidy, algorithmic process of crafting global governance via frameworks for regulation built around core 'ethical values and principles' (as they are called in the WHO Framework), and also forces us to confront deeper philosophical questions about biotechnology and global health.

Human genome editing in clinical applications: Japanese lay and expert attitudes

Background: The world's first gene-edited babies, reported by the Chinese scientist He Jiankui, prompted an outcry of criticism and concerns worldwide over the use of genome editing for reproductive purposes. Many countries and academic associations opposed to heritable genome editing (HGE) called for public discussion involving various stakeholders. To hold a discussion of this nature and form a consensus concerning HGE, we must understand under what conditions stakeholders consider HGE acceptable and the reasons for which they deem it unacceptable. Methods: Laypeople and researchers were surveyed in May 2019. They were asked about the degree of their acceptance toward somatic genome editing (SGE) and HGE; those who answered "acceptable depending on the purpose" were queried further regarding their acceptance in the contexts of specific clinical purposes. Results: Responses were obtained from 4,424 laypeople and 98 researchers. The percentage of respondents choosing each option in attitudes to HGE was, from largest to smallest: "acceptable depending on purpose" (laypeople 49.3%; researchers 56.1%), "not acceptable for any purpose" (laypeople 45.8%; researchers 40.8%), and "acceptable for any purpose" (laypeople 5.0%; researchers 3.1%). In an additional question for those who answered "acceptable depending on the purpose," laypeople found the following purposes acceptable: infertility treatment (54.5%), treatment of life-threatening diseases (52.2%), and treatment of debilitating diseases (51.4%). Meanwhile, the degree of acceptance for enhancement purposes was 10.7, 7.9, 6.2, and 5.5% for physical, cognitive, health, and personality enhancements, respectively. In contrast, acceptance among the researchers was 94.5% and 92.7% for the treatment of life-threatening and debilitating diseases, respectively, compared with 69.1% for infertility treatment. Researchers' acceptance for enhancement purposes was similar to that of the lay participants, with 12.7, 9.1, 10.9, and 5.5% for physical, cognitive, health, and personality enhancement, respectively. Conclusion: In the past, debates regarding the acceptability of human genome editing in clinical applications tend to focus on HGE in many countries. Society will now need to debate the acceptability of both types of human genome editing, HGE and SGE.

Eight Strategies to Engineer Acceptance of Human Germline Modifications

Until recently, scientific consensus held firm that genetically manipulated embryos created through methods including Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy or human germline genome editing should not be used to initiate a pregnancy. In countries that have relevant laws pertaining to heritable human germline modifications, the vast majority prohibit or restrict this practice. In the last several years, scholars have observed a transformation of scientific and policy restrictions with insistent calls for creating a regulatory pathway. Multiple stakeholders highlight the role of social consensus and public engagement for governance of heritable human germline modifications. However, in the drive to gain public acceptance and lift restrictions, some proponents provide distorted or misleading narratives designed to influence public perception and incrementally shift the consensus. This article describes eight discrete strategies that proponents employ to influence framing, sway public opinion, and revise policymaking of human germline modifications in a manner that undermines honest engagement.

Towards an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing: a call to synergistic action

The CRISPR-Cas9 system has revolutionised the biotechnology of human genome editing. Human germline gene editing promises exponential benefits to many in Africa and elsewhere, especially those affected by the highly prevalent monogenic disorders - for which, thanks to CRISPR, a relatively safe heritable radical therapy is a real possibility. Africa evidently presents a unique opportunity for empirical research in human germline gene editing because of its high prevalence of monogenic disorders. Critically, however, germline gene editing has raised serious ethical concerns especially because of the significant risks of inadvertent and intentional misuse of its transgenerational heritability. Calls for due prudence have become even more pronounced in the wake of the 2018 case of He Jiankui's 'CRISPR'd babies'. Meanwhile, Africa is seriously lagging in articulating its position on human genome editing. Conspicuously, there has been little to no attempt at comprehensively engaging the African public in discussions on the promises and concerns about human genome editing. Thus, the echoing key question remains as to how Africa should prudently embrace and govern this revolutionary biotechnology. In this article, therefore, I lay the groundwork for the possible development of an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing and call upon all stakeholders to urgent synergistic action. I particularly highlight the World Health Organisation's possible leadership role in promptly establishing the requisite expert working group for this urgent need.

Heritable human genome editing is 'currently not permitted', but it is no longer 'prohibited': so says the ISSCR

The Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation, recently issued by the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), include a number of substantive revisions. Significant changes include: (1) the bifurcation of 'Category 3 Prohibited research activities' in the 2016 Guidelines into 'Category 3A Research activities currently not permitted' and 'Category 3B Prohibited research activities' in the 2021 guidelines and (2) the move of heritable human genome editing research out of the 'prohibited' category and into the 'currently not permitted' category. These changes are noteworthy because of the absence of a clear demarcation line between the two categories insofar as, by definition, that which is 'prohibited' is 'currently not permitted', and vice versa. Permanence is not part of the definition of 'prohibition'. In principle, a prohibition can be rescinded at any time. This begs the question 'Why make a policy change that has no apparent practical effect?' One hypothesis is that the recategorisation of specific 'prohibited' research activities as 'currently not permitted' is meant to seed intuitions about which prohibited research activities should 'soon' be permitted subject to specialised scientific and ethics review and approval.

Recent advances in CRISPR-based genome editing technology and its applications in cardiovascular research

The rapid development of genome editing technology has brought major breakthroughs in the fields of life science and medicine. In recent years, the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-based genome editing toolbox has been greatly expanded, not only with emerging CRISPR-associated protein (Cas) nucleases, but also novel applications through combination with diverse effectors. Recently, transposon-associated programmable RNA-guided genome editing systems have been uncovered, adding myriads of potential new tools to the genome editing toolbox. CRISPR-based genome editing technology has also revolutionized cardiovascular research. Here we first summarize the advances involving newly identified Cas orthologs, engineered variants and novel genome editing systems, and then discuss the applications of the CRISPR-Cas systems in precise genome editing, such as base editing and prime editing. We also highlight recent progress in cardiovascular research using CRISPR-based genome editing technologies, including the generation of genetically modified in vitro and animal models of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) as well as the applications in treating different types of CVD. Finally, the current limitations and future prospects of genome editing technologies are discussed.

Advances in Genetic Editing of the Human Embryo

BACKGROUND

Genetic engineering has allowed a major development of research in this field, with specialists attempting to edit the human genome, after the successful editing of the genomes of plants and animals. However, human gene editing technologies are at the center of ethical debates around the world.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

Ethical concerns about genetic editing of the human embryo raise several issues that can be viewed through the prism of optimism and reluctance leading to a number of recommendations regarding the acceptance of what may soon become a reality.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted through PubMed, MEDLINE, Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science (2015-2022) using combinations of keywords, including: human genome or gene editing plus ethics.

ETHICS AND THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

Gene therapy is seen by researchers as a way to solve congenital diseases, multifactorial diseases in general or specific diseases such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, or can increase resistance to HIV infection. Genome editing technologies, germline gene editing, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats gene editing technology, technologies such as zinc finger nucleases are not only advanced gene therapies that require solving technical problems, but also techniques that require complex and complete analysis of ethical problems. Genetic engineering raises many ethical concerns such as: safety concerns especially the risk of off-target effects; autonomy of the individual-with the limitation of the future generations to consent for an intervention over their genome; social justice-keeping in mind the costs of the procedures and their availability to the general population. Discussions can go further from questions such as "How can we do this?" to questions such as "Should we do this?" or "Is society ready to accept this technology and is it able to manage it rationally?"

CONCLUSIONS

The ethics of biomedical research should be based on global dialogue, on the involvement of experts and the public, to achieve a broad social consensus. The fundamental review of the ethics of genetics is a desire and an opportunity of the current period.

Beyond the theory: From holobiont concept to microbiome engineering

Holobiont research has increasingly moved from descriptive studies to sophisticated field- and laboratory-based manipulations; however, the extent to which changes in the holobiont persist remains largely unknown. In this Burning Question, we ask whether the underlying principles of the holobiont concept, whereby an externally applied evolutionary pressure can lead to a beneficial change in host-associated microbial community composition, could be used to facilitate microbiome engineering and thereby addition of a new ecosystem service that persists across generations. The answer to this question has potential implications for diverse fields including symbiosis, conservation and biotechnology.

Towards an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing: a call to synergistic action

The CRISPR-Cas9 system has revolutionised the biotechnology of human genome editing. Human germline gene editing promises exponential benefits to many in Africa and elsewhere, especially those affected by the highly prevalent monogenic disorders - for which, thanks to CRISPR, a relatively safe heritable radical therapy is now possible. Africa evidently presents a unique opportunity for empirical research in human germline gene editing because of its high prevalence of monogenic disorders. Critically, however, germline gene editing has raised serious ethical concerns especially because of the significant risks of inadvertent and intentional misuse of its transgenerational heritability. Calls for due prudence have become even more pronounced in the wake of the 2018 case of He Jiankui’s ‘CRISPR’d babies’. Meanwhile, Africa is seriously lagging in articulating its position on human genome editing. Conspicuously, there has been little to no attempt at comprehensively engaging the African public in discussions on the promises and concerns about human genome editing. Thus, the echoing key question remains as to how Africa should prudently embrace and govern this revolutionary biotechnology. In this article, therefore, I lay the groundwork for the possible development of an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing and call upon all stakeholders to urgent synergistic action. I particularly highlight the World Health Organisation’s possible leadership role in promptly establishing the requisite expert working group for this urgent need.

Policy landscapes on human genome editing: a perspective from Latin America

Policy landscapes are instruments that identify national regulations on human genome editing (HGE). After examining their ethical and political assumptions, we highlight their limitations and effects for Latin America. We suggest creating other landscapes, such as focusing on processes and drawing attention to potential 'circuits of use' within and across borders.

CRISPR/Cas gene editing in the human germline

The ease and efficacy of CRISPR/Cas9 germline gene editing in animal models paved the way to human germline gene editing (HGGE), by which permanent changes can be introduced into the embryo. Distinct genes can be knocked out to examine their function during embryonic development. Alternatively, specific sequences can be introduced which can be applied to correct disease-causing mutations. To date, it has been shown that the success of HGGE is dependent on various experimental parameters and that various hurdles (i.e. loss-of-heterozygosity and mosaicism) need to be overcome before clinical applications should be considered. Due to the shortage of human germline material and the ethical constraints concerning HGGE, alternative models such as stem cells have been evaluated as well, in terms of their predictive value on the genetic outcome for HGGE approaches. This review will give an overview of the state of the art of HGGE in oocytes and embryos, and its accompanying challenges.

Programmable RNA sensing for cell monitoring and manipulation

RNA is a central and universal mediator of genetic information underlying the diversity of cell types and cell states, which together shape tissue organization and organismal function across species and lifespans. Despite numerous advances in RNA sequencing technologies and the massive accumulation of transcriptome datasets across the life sciences1,2, the dearth of technologies that use RNAs to observe and manipulate cell types remains a bottleneck in biology and medicine. Here we describe CellREADR (Cell access through RNA sensing by Endogenous ADAR), a programmable RNA-sensing technology that leverages RNA editing mediated by ADAR to couple the detection of cell-defining RNAs with the translation of effector proteins. Viral delivery of CellREADR conferred specific cell-type access in mouse and rat brains and in ex vivo human brain tissues. Furthermore, CellREADR enabled the recording and control of specific types of neurons in behaving mice. CellREADR thus highlights the potential for RNA-based monitoring and editing of animal cells in ways that are specific, versatile, simple and generalizable across organ systems and species, with wide applications in biology, biotechnology and programmable RNA medicine.

Site-specific genome editing in treatment of inherited diseases: possibility, progress, and perspectives

Advancements in genome editing enable permanent changes of DNA sequences in a site-specific manner, providing promising approaches for treating human genetic disorders caused by gene mutations. Recently, genome editing has been applied and achieved significant progress in treating inherited genetic disorders that remain incurable by conventional therapy. Here, we present a review of various programmable genome editing systems with their principles, advantages, and limitations. We introduce their recent applications for treating inherited diseases in the clinic, including sickle cell disease (SCD), β-thalassemia, Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA), heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH), etc. We also discuss the paradigm of ex vivo and in vivo editing and highlight the promise of somatic editing and the challenge of germline editing. Finally, we propose future directions in delivery, cutting, and repairing to improve the scope of clinical applications.

Handling Ethics Dumping and Neo-Colonial Research: From the Laboratory to the Academic Literature

This paper explores that the topic of ethics dumping (ED), its causes and potential remedies. In ED, the weaknesses or gaps in ethics policies and systems of lower income countries are intentionally exploited for intellectual or financial gains through research and publishing by higher income countries with a more stringent or complex ethical infrastructure in which such research and publishing practices would not be permitted. Several examples are provided. Possible ED needs to be evaluated before research takes place, and detected prior to publication as an academic paper, because it might lead to a collaborative effort between a wealthier country with restrictive ethical policies and a less wealthy country with more permissive policies. Consequently, if that collaboration ultimately results in an academic paper, there are ethical ramifications of ED to scholarly communication. Institutional review board approval is central to avoid ED-based collaborations. Blind trust and goodwill alone cannot eliminate the exploitation of indigenous or "vulnerable" populations' intellect and resources. Combining community-based participatory research using clear codes of research conduct and a simple but robust verification system in academic publishing may reduce the risks of ED-based research from being published.

Why it is important to study human-monkey embryonic chimeras in a dish

The study of human–animal chimeras is fraught with technical and ethical challenges. In this Comment, we discuss the importance and future of human–monkey chimera research within the context of current scientific and regulatory obstacles.

CRISPR-Cas9: A History of Its Discovery and Ethical Considerations of Its Use in Genome Editing

The development of a method for genome editing based on CRISPR-Cas9 technology was awarded The Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2020, less than a decade after the discovery of all principal molecular components of the system. For the first time in history a Nobel prize was awarded to two women, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna, who made key discoveries in the field of DNA manipulation with the CRISPR-Cas9 system, so-called "genetic scissors". It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the technique as it enables one not only to manipulate genomes of model organisms in scientific experiments, and modify characteristics of important crops and animals, but also has the potential of introducing revolutionary changes in medicine, especially in treatment of genetic diseases. The original biological function of CRISPR-Cas9 system is the protection of prokaryotes from mobile genetic elements, in particular viruses. Currently, CRISPR-Cas9 and related technologies have been successfully used to cure life-threatening diseases, make coronavirus detection tests, and even to modify human embryo cells with the consequent birth of babies carrying the introduced modifications. This intervention with human germplasm cells resulted in wide disapproval in the scientific community due to ethical concerns, and calls for a moratorium on inheritable genomic manipulations. This review focuses on the history of the discovery of the CRISPR-Cas9 system with some aspects of its current applications, including ethical concerns about its use in humans.

Governance of Heritable Human Gene Editing World-Wide and Beyond

To date, the controversy surrounding the unknown risks and consequences of heritable genome editing has grown, with such work raising biosafety and ethical concerns for future generations. However, the current guideline of global governance is limited. In the context of the new framework for the governance of human genome editing developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) committee, this paper presents further analysis by highlighting predicaments of governance on germline engineering that merit the most attention: (1) building a scientific culture informed by a broader set of values and considerations in the internal scientific community at large, such as codes of ethics, and education, in addition to awareness-raising measures; and (2) reflecting on and institutionalizing policies in grassroots practice according to local conditions in external governance, such as the experimentalist governance, which is a multi-layered model of governance that establishes an open-ended framework from the top and offers stakeholders the freedom of discussion. The key to achieving these goals is more democratic deliberation between the public and the inclusive engagement of the global scientific community, which has been extensively used in the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). On a global scale, we believe that practicing heritable human genome editing in accordance with the WHO and BTWC appears to be a good choice.

Addressing Conflicts of Interest and Conflicts of Commitment in Public Advocacy and Policy Making on CRISPR/Cas-Based Human Genome Editing

Leading experts on CRISPR/Cas-based genome editing—such as 2020 Nobel laureates Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier—are not only renowned specialists in their fields, but also public advocates for upcoming regulatory frameworks on CRISPR/Cas. These frameworks will affect large portions of biomedical research on human genome editing. In advocating for particular ways of handling the risks and prospects of this technology, high-profile scientists not only serve as scientific experts, but also as moral advisers. The majority of them currently intend to bring about a “responsible pathway” toward human genome interventions in clinical therapy. Engaging in advocacy for such a pathway, they issue moral judgments on the risks and benefits of this new technology. They declare that there actually is a responsible pathway, they draft resolutions on temporary moratoria, they make judgments on which groups and individuals are credible and should participate in public and semi-public debates, so they also set the standards for deciding who counts as well-informed, as well as the standards of evidence for adopting or rejecting research policies. This degree of influence on public debates and policy making is, at the very least, noteworthy. This contribution sounds a note of caution with regard to the endeavor of a responsible pathway to human genome editing and in particular scrutinizes the legitimacy of expert-driven research policies given commercial conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment among first-rank scholars.

You can't keep a bad idea down: Dark history, death, and potential rebirth of eugenics

"Be careful what you wish for": This adage guides both how this project came to life, and how the topic covered in this review continues to unfold. What began as talks between two friends on shared interests in military history led to a 4-year discussion about how our science curriculum does little to introduce our students to societal and ethical impacts of the science they are taught. What emerged was a curricular idea centered on how "good intentions" of some were developed and twisted by others to result in disastrous consequences of state-sanctioned eugenics. In this article, we take the reader (as we did our students) through the long and soiled history of eugenic thought, from its genesis to the present. Though our focus is on European and American eugenics, we will show how the interfaces and interactions between science and society have evolved over time but have remained ever constant. Four critical 'case studies' will also be employed here for deep, thoughtful exploration on a particular eugenic issue. The goal of the review, as it is with our course, is not to paint humanity with a single evil brush. Instead, our ambition is to introduce our students/readers to the potential for harm through the misapplication and misappropriation of science and scientific technology, and to provide them with the tools to ask the appropriate questions of their scientists, physicians, and politicians.

Germline genome modification through novel political, ethical, and social lenses

Much has been written about gene modifying technologies (GMTs), with a particularly strong focus on human germline genome editing (HGGE) sparked by its unprecedented clinical research application in 2018, shocking the scientific community. This paper applies political, ethical, and social lenses to aspects of HGGE to uncover previously underexplored considerations that are important to reflect on in global discussions. By exploring 4 areas-(1) just distribution of HGGE benefits through a realist lens; (2) HGGE through a national interest lens; (3) "broad societal consensus" through a structural injustice lens; and (4) HGGE through a scientific trustworthiness lens-a broader perspective is offered, which ultimately aims to enrich further debates and inform well-considered solutions for developments in this field. The application of these lenses also brings to light the fact that all discussions about scientific developments involve a conscious or unconscious application of a lens that shapes the direction of our thinking.

Governing Heritable Human Genome Editing: A Textual History and a Proposal for the Future

Heritable human genome editing (HHGE) has become a topic of intense public interest, especially since 2015. In the early 1980s, a related topic—human genetic engineering—was the subject of sustained public discussion. There was particular concern about germline genetic intervention. During the 1980s debate, an advisory committee to the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC)—agreed to provide initial public review of proposals for deliberate introduction of DNA into human beings. In 1984 and 1985, the RAC developed guidelines for research involving DNA transfer into patients. The committee also commented on the possibility of deliberately altering the human germline. We track the textual changes over time in the RAC's response to the possibility of germline genetic intervention in humans. In 2019, the NIH RAC was abolished. New techniques for genome editing, including CRISPR-based techniques, make both somatic and germline alterations much more feasible. These novel capabilities have again raised questions about oversight. We propose the creation of a new structure for the public oversight of proposals to perform HHGE. In parallel with a technical review by a regulatory agency, such proposals should also be publicly evaluated by a presidentially appointed Bioethics Advisory Commission.

Addressing the dark matter of gene therapy: technical and ethical barriers to clinical application

Gene therapies for genetic diseases have been sought for decades, and the relatively recent development of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing system has encouraged a new wave of interest in the field. There have nonetheless been significant setbacks to gene therapy, including unintended biological consequences, ethical scandals, and death. The major focus of research has been on technological problems such as delivery, potential immune responses, and both on and off-target effects in an effort to avoid negative clinical outcomes. While the field has concentrated on how we can better achieve gene therapies and gene editing techniques, there has been less focus on when and why we should use such technology. Here we combine discussion of both the technical and ethical barriers to the widespread clinical application of gene therapy and gene editing, providing a resource for gene therapy experts and novices alike. We discuss ethical problems and solutions, using cystic fibrosis and beta-thalassemia as case studies where gene therapy might be suitable, and provide examples of situations where human germline gene editing may be ethically permissible. Using such examples, we propose criteria to guide researchers and clinicians in deciding whether or not to pursue gene therapy as a treatment. Finally, we summarize how current progress in the field adheres to principles of biomedical ethics and highlight how this approach might fall short of ethical rigour using examples in the bioethics literature. Ultimately by addressing both the technical and ethical aspects of gene therapy and editing, new frameworks can be developed for the fair application of these potentially life-saving treatments.

Global Governance of Human Genome Editing: What Are the Rules?

Human gene editing, particularly using the new CRISPR/Cas9 technology, will greatly increase the capability to make precise changes to human genomes. Human gene editing can be broken into four major categories: somatic therapy, heritable gene editing, genetic enhancement, and basic and applied research. Somatic therapy is generally well governed by national regulatory systems, so the need for global governance is less urgent. All nations are in agreement that heritable gene editing should not proceed at this time, but there is likely to be divergence if and when such procedures are shown to be safe and effective. Gene editing for enhancement purposes is not feasible today but is more controversial with the public, and many nations do not have well-developed regulatory systems for addressing genetic enhancement. Finally, different nations treat research with human embryos very differently based on deeply embedded social, cultural, ethical, and legal traditions. Several international governance mechanisms are currently in operation for human gene editing, and several other governance mechanisms have been proposed. It is unlikely that any single mechanism will alone be effective for governing human gene editing; rather, a polycentric or ecosystem approach that includes several overlapping and interacting components is likely to be necessary.

Heritable human genome editing: Research progress, ethical considerations, and hurdles to clinical practice

Our genome at conception determines much of our health as an adult. Most human diseases have a heritable component and thus may be preventable through heritable genome editing. Preventing disease from the beginning of life before irreversible damage has occurred is an admirable goal, but the path to fruition remains unclear. Here, we review the significant scientific contributions to the field of human heritable genome editing, the unique ethical challenges that cannot be overlooked, and the hurdles that must be overcome prior to translating these technologies into clinical practice.

Why human germline genome editing is incompatible with equality in an inclusive society

Human germline genome editing is increasingly being seen as acceptable provided certain conditions are satisfied. Accordingly, genetic modifications would take place on eggs or sperm (or their precursor cells) as well as very early embryos for the purpose of bringing children into existence with or without particular genetic traits. In this context, a number of already discussed and separate arguments, such as the (1) synecdoche, (2) non-identity (3) inherent equality and (4) expressivist arguments, can be brought together in the new context of examining, from an ethical perspective, some of the possible consequences of such germline genome editing. In so doing, it becomes clear that these novel procedures are incompatible with the concept of equality in value and in worth of all human beings in a genuinely inclusive society. Such equality is expressed in Article 1 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that: 'All human beings are born … equal in dignity and rights.'