The ethics of clinical applications of germline genome modification: a systematic review of reasons

Comparative ethical evaluation of epigenome editing and genome editing in medicine: first steps and future directions

Targeted modifications of the human epigenome, epigenome editing (EE), are around the corner. For EE, techniques similar to genome editing (GE) techniques are used. While in GE the genetic information is changed by directly modifying DNA, intervening in the epigenome requires modifying the configuration of DNA, for example, how it is folded. This does not come with alterations in the base sequence ('genetic code'). To date, there is almost no ethical debate about EE, whereas the discussions about GE are voluminous. Our article introduces EE into bioethics by translating knowledge from science to ethics and by comparing the risks of EE with those of GE. We, first (I), make the case that a broader ethical debate on EE is due, provide scientific background on EE, compile potential use-cases and recap previous debates. We then (II) compare EE and GE and suggest that the severity of risks of novel gene technologies depends on three factors: (i) the choice of an ex vivo versus an in vivo editing approach, (ii) the time of intervention and intervention windows and (iii) the targeted diseases. Moreover, we show why germline EE is not effective and reject the position of strong epigenetic determinism. We conclude that EE is not always ethically preferable to GE in terms of risks, and end with suggestions for next steps in the current ethical debate on EE by briefly introducing ethical challenges of new areas of preventive applications of EE (III).

The role of zygotic genome activation in genetic-related reproductive medicine: Technological perspective, religious and bioethical concerns, challenges and benefits

Zygotic Genome Activation (ZGA) is a crucial developmental milestone in early embryogenesis, marking the transition from maternal to embryonic control of development. This process, which varies in timing across species, involves the activation of the embryonic genome, paving the way for subsequent cell differentiation and organismal development. Recent advances in genomics and reproductive medicine have highlighted the potential of ZGA in the realm of genetic screening, providing a window into the genetic integrity of the developing embryo at its earliest stages. The intersection of ZGA and genetic screening primarily emerges in the context of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). These techniques, often employed during assisted reproductive technologies, aim to detect potential genetic abnormalities or chromosomal imbalances before embryo implantation. Given that ZGA represents the onset of embryonic gene expression, understanding its intricacies can significantly enhance the accuracy and predictive power of these screening processes. With the advent of next-generation sequencing and other high-throughput genomic techniques, detailed mapping of the transcriptomic changes during ZGA has become feasible. Such advancements have deepened our insights into the dynamics of early embryonic development and the onset of genetic disorders. As our knowledge in this realm expands, it promises to revolutionize our capabilities in detecting, understanding, and potentially rectifying genetic anomalies at the earliest stages of human life, thereby optimizing reproductive outcomes.

Bioethics of somatic gene therapy: what do we know so far?

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic overview of bioethical debate on somatic gene therapy as documented in the scientific literature.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of reasons, following Strech and Sofaer approach, which is a method to systematically identify and classify arguments (reasons) used in the scientific literature. We identified 217 eligible publications retrieved from PubMed, Lilacs, PhilPapers, and Google Scholar. A meta-synthesis was performed to analyze the data.

RESULTS

We extracted 189 arguments. Arguments were grouped into 23 categories. Twelve categories were classified as research-related, including the risk/benefit ratio, priorities and limits, informed consent, review, and monitoring. Eleven were classified as society-related, including population impact, human identity, public perception, human health.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides a database of existing challenges and arguments of somatic gene therapy and may serve as the basis of normative analysis. By presenting collected arguments, we contribute to the discussion about the ethics and social dimensions of somatic gene therapy.

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.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for "Non-Medical" Traits: Ensuring Consistency in Ethical Decision-Making

The scope of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) could expand in the future to include detailed analysis of the fetal genome. This will allow for the testing for virtually any trait with a genetic contribution, including "non-medical" traits. Here we discuss the potential use of NIPT for these traits. We outline a scenario which highlights possible inconsistencies with ethical decision-making. We then discuss the case against permitting these uses. The objections include practical problems; increasing inequities; increasing the burden of choice; negative impacts on the child, family, and society; and issues with implementation. We then outline the case for permitting the use of NIPT for these traits. These include arguments for reproductive liberty and autonomy; questioning the labeling of traits as "non-medical"; and the principle of procreative beneficence. This summary of the case for and against can serve as a basis for the development of a consistent and coherent ethical framework.

Initial heritable genome editing: mapping a responsible pathway from basic research to the clinic

Following the Second Summit on Human Gene Editing in Hong Kong in 2018, where the birth of two girls with germline genome editing was revealed, the need for a responsible pathway to the clinical application of human germline genome editing has been repeatedly emphasised. This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion on research ethics issues in germline genome editing by exploring key issues related to the initial applications of CRISPR in reproductive medicine. Following an overview of the current discussion on bringing germline genome editing into clinical practice, we outline the specific challenges associated with such interventions and the features that distinguish them from conventional clinical testing of new medical treatments. We then review proposed ethical requirements for initial heritable genome editing, such as the absence of reasonable alternatives, the existence of sufficient and reliable preclinical data, appropriate informed consent, requirements related to safety, and long-term follow-up.

A deliberative public engagement study on heritable human genome editing among South Africans: Study results

This paper reports the results of a public engagement study on heritable human genome editing (HHGE) carried out in South Africa, which was conducted in accordance with a study protocol that was published in this journal in 2021. This study is novel as it is the first public engagement study on HHGE in Africa. It used a deliberative public engagement (DPE) methodology, entailing inter alia that measures were put in place to ensure that potential participants became informed about HHGE, and that deliberations between the participants were facilitated with the aim of seeking consensus. A diverse group of 30 persons was selected to participate in the DPE study, which took place via Zoom over three consecutive weekday evenings. The main results are: Provided that HHGE is safe and effective, an overwhelming majority of participants supported allowing the use of HHGE to prevent genetic health conditions and for immunity against TB and HIV/Aids, while significant majorities opposed allowing HHGE for enhancement. The dominant paradigm during the deliberations was balancing health benefits (and associated improvements in quality of life) with unforeseen health risks (such as loss of natural immunity). The seriousness of a health condition emerged as the determining factor for the policy choice of whether to allow an application of HHGE. More generally, equal access to HHGE qua healthcare service featured as an important value, and it was uncontested that the South African government should allocate resources to promote scientific research into HHGE. These results are aligned with the policy principles for regulating HHGE in South Africa suggested by Thaldar et al. They call for urgent revision of South African ethics guidelines that currently prohibit research on HHGE, and for dedicated HHGE legal regulations that provide a clear and comprehensive legal pathway for researchers who intend to conduct HHGE research and clinical trials.

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.

The Promise of CRISPR for Human Germline Editing and the Perils of "Playing God"

In the midst of the media and professional exuberance regarding the potential benefits of CRISPR technology, voices of criticism and caution have also arisen. One of the thorniest such cautions has been the common objection that CRISPR allows bioscientists to “play God,” particularly when it comes to potentially editing the human germline. Many in the biotechnology field are unsure how to address this concern. What does it mean, particularly for bioscientists who may not have any rational or rhetorical categories for God? In this article, I explore possible meanings of “playing God” and the arguments for how those meanings might be applied in the utilization of CRISPR technology for human germline editing. I then test the validity of those arguments and explore potential counterarguments. Finally, I discuss how members of the bioscience community might respond to the objection of “playing God” and contribute to that dialogue in ways that could impact the future of CRISPR development and applications.

Regulating reproductive genetic services: dealing with spiral-shaped processes and techno-scientific imaginaries

PURPOSE

We have been inquiring into the diffusion process of reproductive genetic services (RGS) and the viability of geneticization in human reproduction.

METHOD

A 2-round modified-Delphi survey was applied amongst Israeli and Spanish experts to analyze regulatory attitudes and expectations about the future applications of RGS. We argue that an explanation of RGS diffusion based on a 'technology-push' impulse should be complemented by a 'demandpull' approach, which underscores the importance of regulatory frameworks and demand-inducing policies. The diffusion of RGS is advancing in a 'spiralshaped' process where technology acts as a cause and effect simultaneously, modulating social acceptance and redefining the notions of health and responsibility along the way.

RESULTS

We suggest that there is a 'grey-zone' of RGS regulations regarding four procedures: the use of germline genome modification (GGM) for severe monogenic disorders, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for detection of chromosomal abnormalities, PGT for multifactorial diseases, and PGT with whole-exome screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Although far from the geneticization of human reproduction, our findings suggest that, since techno-scientific imaginaries tend to shape regulations and thus favor the diffusion of RGS, policymakers should pay attention to those procedures by focusing on good practices and equity while providing sound information on potential risks and expected success rates. A broad and inclusive societal debate is critical for overcoming the difficulty of drawing a clear line between medical and non-medical uses of genetic selection and engineering while searching for the right balance between allowing reproductive autonomy and protecting the public interest.

Should germline genome editing be allowed? The effect of treatment characteristics on public acceptability

STUDY QUESTION

To what extent do characteristics of germline genome editing (GGE) determine whether the general public supports permitting the clinical use of GGE?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The risk that GGE would cause congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on support for allowing GGE, followed by effectiveness of GGE, while costs, the type of application (disease or enhancement) and the effect on child well-being had moderate effects.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Scientific progress on GGE has increased the urgency of resolving whether and when clinical application of GGE may be ethically acceptable. Various expert bodies have suggested that the treatment characteristics will be key in determining whether GGE is acceptable. For example, GGE with substantial risks (e.g. 15% chance of a major congenital abnormality) may be acceptable to prevent a severe disease but not to enhance non-medical characteristics or traits of an otherwise healthy embryo (e.g. eye colour or perhaps in the future more complex traits, such as intelligence). While experts have called for public engagement, it is unclear whether and how much the public acceptability of GGE is affected by the treatment characteristics proposed by experts.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The vignette-based survey was disseminated in 2018 among 1857 members of the Dutch general public. An online research panel was used to recruit a sample representing the adult Dutch general public.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A literature review identified the key treatment characteristics of GGE: the effect on the well-being of the future child, use for disease or enhancement, risks for the future child, effectiveness (here defined as the chance of a live birth, assuming that if the GGE was not successful, the embryo would not be transferred), cost and availability of alternative treatments/procedures to prevent the genetic disease or provide enhancement (i.e. preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)), respectively. For each treatment characteristic, 2-3 levels were defined to realistically represent GGE and its current alternatives, donor gametes and ICSI with PGT. Twelve vignettes were created by fractional factorial design. A multinominal logit model assessed how much each treatment characteristic affected participants' choices.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The 1136 respondents (response rate 61%) were representative of the Dutch adult population in several demographics. Respondents were between 18 and 89 years of age. When no alternative treatment/procedure is available, the risk that GGE would cause (other) congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on whether the Dutch public supported allowing GGE (coefficient = -3.07), followed by effectiveness (coefficient = 2.03). Costs (covered by national insurance, coefficient = -1.14), the type of application (disease or enhancement; coefficient = -1.07), and the effect on child well-being (coefficient = 0.97) had similar effects on whether GGE should be allowed. If an alternative treatment/procedure (e.g. PGT) was available, participants were not categorically opposed to GGE, however, they were strongly opposed to using GGE for enhancement (coefficient = -3.37). The general acceptability of GGE was higher than participants' willingness to personally use it (P < 0.001). When participants considered whether they would personally use GGE, the type of application (disease or enhancement) was more important, whereas effectiveness and costs (covered by national insurance) were less important than when they considered whether GGE should be allowed. Participants who were male, younger and had lower incomes were more likely to allow GGE when no alternative treatment/procedure is available.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Some (e.g. ethnic, religious) minorities were not well represented. To limit complexity, not all characteristics of GGE could be included (e.g. out-of-pocket costs), therefore, the views gathered from the vignettes reflect only the choices presented to the respondents. The non-included characteristics could be connected to and alter the importance of the studied characteristics. This would affect how closely the reported coefficients reflect 'real-life' importance.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study is the first to quantify the substantial impact of GGE's effectiveness, costs (covered by national insurance), and effect on child well-being on whether the public considered GGE acceptable. In general, the participants were strikingly risk-averse, in that they weighed the risks of GGE more heavily than its benefits. Furthermore, although only a single study in one country, the results suggests that-if sufficiently safe and effective-the public may approve of using GGE (presumably combined with PGT) instead of solely PGT to prevent passing on a disease. The reported public views can serve as input for future consideration of the ethics and governance of GGE.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Young Academy of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (UPS/RB/745), Alliance Grant of the Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute (2017-170116) and National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Programme. No competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

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.'

A primer to gene therapy: Progress, prospects, and problems

Genetic therapies based on gene addition have witnessed a variety of clinical successes and the first therapeutic products have been approved for clinical use. Moreover, innovative gene editing techniques are starting to offer new opportunities in which the mutations that underlie genetic diseases can be directly corrected in afflicted somatic cells. The toolboxes underpinning these DNA modifying technologies are expanding with great pace. Concerning the ongoing efforts for their implementation, viral vector-based gene delivery systems have acquired center-stage, providing new hopes for patients with inherited and acquired disorders. Specifically, the application of genetic therapies using viral vectors for the treatment of inborn metabolic disorders is growing and clinical applications are starting to appear. While the field has matured from the technology perspective and has yielded efficacious products, it is the perception of many stakeholders that from the regulatory side further developments are urgently needed. In this review, we summarize the features of state-of-the-art viral vector systems and the corresponding gene-centered therapies they seek to deliver. Moreover, a brief summary is also given on emerging gene editing approaches built on CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases and, more recently, nickases, including base editors and prime editors. Finally, we will point at some regulatory aspects that may deserve further attention for translating these technological developments into actual advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs).

How will new genetic technologies, such as gene editing, change reproductive decision-making? Views of high-risk couples

Couples at increased risk of having offspring with a specific genetic disorder who want to avoid having an affected child have several reproductive options including prenatal diagnosis (PND) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). In the future, non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD), germline gene editing (GGE) and somatic gene editing (SGE) might become available. This study explores if, and how, availability of new genetic technologies, including NIPD, GGE, SGE, would change reproductive decision-making of high-risk couples. In 2018, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 genetically at-risk couples. Couples previously had received genetic counselling for PND and PGT, and in most cases opted for (one of) these techniques, at one Dutch Clinical Genetics Center between 2013 and 2017. Considerations participants mentioned regarding the hypothetical use of NIPD, GGE and SGE, seem similar to considerations regarding PND and PGT and are reflected in underlying concepts. These include safety and burden for mother and child, and moral considerations. Couples generally favoured NIPD over PND as this would be safe and enables earlier diagnosis. Increased opportunities of having a 'healthy' embryo and less embryo disposal were considerations in favour of GGE. Some regarded GGE as unsafe and feared slippery slope scenarios. Couples were least favourable towards SGE compared to choosing for a genetic reproductive technology, because of the perceived burden for the affected offspring. With the possibly growing number of technological options, understanding high risk couples' perspectives can assist in navigating the reproductive decision-making process. Counsellors should be prepared to counsel on more and complex reproductive options.

Ethics and Global Governance of Human Germline Genome Editing: The Problem of Techno-Scientific Colonialist Paternalism

I want to enrich the debate about the ethics and governance of human germline editing (HGE) by emphasizing an underappreciated, yet important, set of concerns regarding exclusionary practices, norms, and efforts that impede a broader discussion about the subject. The possibility for establishing a binding, global, regulatory framework is influenced by economic and geopolitical factors as well as historical processes and sociopolitical problems, such as anti-scientific social movements and the politicization of science. Likewise, it is influenced by different understanding, epistemic resources, and goals between the CRISPR/genome editing community and the rest of society. In this Perspective, I explain the concept of "techno-scientific colonialist paternalism" and why it negatively affects our discussion around HGE. I also discuss the pitfalls of scientific self-regulation, and finally, I advocate that the implementation of HGE should cease to allow time and care for a thoughtful global discussion to emerge.

Ethical arguments concerning human-animal chimera research: a systematic review

Background

The burgeoning field of biomedical research involving the mixture of human and animal materials has attracted significant ethical controversy. Due to the many dimensions of potential ethical conflict involved in this type of research, and the wide variety of research projects under discussion, it is difficult to obtain an overview of the ethical debate. This paper attempts to remedy this by providing a systematic review of ethical reasons in academic publications on human-animal chimera research.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of the ethical literature concerning human-animal chimeras based on the research question: “What ethical reasons have been given for or against conducting human-animal chimera research, and how have these reasons been treated in the ongoing debate?” Our search extends until the end of the year 2017, including MEDLINE, Embase, PhilPapers and EthxWeb databases, restricted to peer-reviewed journal publications in English. Papers containing ethical reasons were analyzed, and the reasons were coded according to whether they were endorsed, mentioned or rejected.

Results

Four hundred thirty-one articles were retrieved by our search, and 88 were ultimately included and analyzed. Within these articles, we found 464 passages containing reasons for and against conducting human-animal chimera research. We classified these reasons into five categories and, within these, identified 12 broad and 31 narrow reason types.

15% of the retrieved passages contained reasons in favor of conducting chimera research (Category P), while 85% of the passages contained reasons against it. The reasons against conducting chimera research fell into four further categories: reasons concerning the creation of a chimera (Category A), its treatment (Category B), reasons referring to metaphysical or social issues resulting from its existence (Category C) and to potential downstream effects of chimera research (Category D). A significant proportion of identified passages (46%) fell under Category C.

Conclusions

We hope that our results, in revealing the conceptual and argumentative structure of the debate and highlighting some its most notable tendencies and prominent positions, will facilitate continued discussion and provide a basis for the development of relevant policy and legislation.

Reexamining the Ethics of Human Germline Editing in the Wake of Scandal

In November 2018, the announcement that genetically edited human embryos had been used for reproductive purposes caused international uproar; many observers argued that editing the human germline was unethical, particularly given the early stage of the science and the absence of appropriate oversight. We provide an overview of the implications of these events, focusing on the relevant ethical considerations for physicians addressing patient questions and concerns. The editing of the human germline for reproductive purposes should be understood against an historic backdrop of clinical research in assisted reproduction, as well as other exemplars of translational investigation. An important question raised by our growing capacity to genetically alter human embryos is how to understand the implicit social contract between science and society. To ensure that translational research continues to enjoy the historic trust placed in scientists and research organizations, it is critical that scientific and health care institutions proactively engage governments, patient advocacy organizations, and the general public in the formation of policies that guide gene editing.

Germline genome editing versus preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Is there a case in favour of germline interventions?

CRISPR is widely considered to be a disruptive technology. However, when it comes to the most controversial topic, germline genome editing (GGE), there is no consensus on whether this technology has any substantial advantages over existing procedures such as embryo selection after in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Answering this question, however, is crucial for evaluating whether the pursuit of further research and development on GGE is justified. This paper explores the question from both a clinical and a moral viewpoint, namely whether GGE has any advantages over existing technologies of selective reproduction and whether GGE could complement or even replace them. In a first step, I review an argument of extended applicability. The paper confirms that there are some scenarios in which only germline intervention allows couples to have (biologically related) healthy offspring, because selection will not avoid disease. In a second step, I examine possible moral arguments in favour of genetic modification, namely that GGE could save some embryos and that GGE would provide certain benefits for a future person that PGD does not. Both arguments for GGE have limitations. With regard to the extended applicability of GGE, however, a weak case in favour of GGE should still be made.

The technical risks of human gene editing

A recent report from Dr He Jiankui concerning the birth of twin girls harbouring mutations engineered by CRISPR/Cas nucleases has been met with international condemnation. Beside the serious ethical concerns, there are known technical risks associated with CRISPR/Cas gene editing which further raise questions about how these events could have been allowed to occur. Numerous studies have reported unexpected genomic mutation and mosaicism following the use of CRISPR/Cas nucleases, and it is currently unclear how prevalent these disadvantageous events are and how robust and sensitive the strategies to detect these unwanted events may be. Although Dr Jiankui's study appears to have involved certain checks to ascertain these risks, the decision to implant the manipulated embryos, given these unknowns, must nonetheless be considered reckless. Here I review the technical concerns surrounding genome editing and consider the available data from Dr Jiankui in this context. Although the data remains unpublished, preventing a thorough assessment of what was performed, it seems clear that the rationale behind the undertaking was seriously flawed; the procedures involved substantial technical risks which, when added to the serious ethical concerns, fully justify the widespread criticism that the events have received.

Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public

STUDY QUESTION

What are the general public's reasons for being in favour of or against the use of genome modification for five potential applications?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Overall, 43 reasons for being in favour, 45 reasons for being against as well as 26 conditional reasons for the use of genome modification were identified.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Various applications of somatic genome modification are progressing towards clinical introduction and several recent studies have reported on germline genome modification. This has incited a debate on ethical and legal implications and acceptability. There is a growing plea to involve the general public earlier on in the developmental process of science and (bio)technology including genome modification.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

In April 2016, a cross-sectional survey was launched online among the Dutch general public. A documentary on genome modification on public television and calls in social media invited viewers and non-viewers, respectively, to participate.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

The questionnaire introduced five potential future applications of genome modification: modified wheat for individuals with gluten intolerance; somatic modification for individuals with neuromuscular diseases; germline modification to prevent passing on a neuromuscular disease; germline modification to introduce resistance to HIV; and germline modification to increase intelligence. Participants were asked to indicate whether and why they would make use of genome modification in these scenarios. The reasons mentioned were analysed through content analysis by two researchers independently. The proportion of respondents that was willing to modify was described per scenario and associations with respondent characteristics were analysed.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The survey was completed by 1013 participants. Forty-three reasons for being in favour, 45 reasons for being against as well as 26 conditional reasons for the use of genome modification were identified. These could be categorized into 14 domains: safety of the individuals concerned; effectiveness; quality of life of the individuals concerned; existence of a clinical need or an alternative; biodiversity and ecosystems; animal homo sapiens (i.e. relating to effects on humans as a species); human life and dignity; trust in regulation; justice; costs; slippery slope; argument of nature; parental rights and duties; and (reproductive) autonomy. Participants' willingness to use genome modification was dependent on the application: most participants would eat modified wheat if gluten intolerant (74%), would use genome modification to cure his/her own neuromuscular disease (85%) and would apply germline modification to prevent passing on this neuromuscular disease (66%). A minority would apply germline modification to introduce resistance to HIV (30%) or increase intelligence (16%). Being young (odds ratio (OR) = 0.98 per year increase), being male (OR = 2.38), and having watched the documentary (OR = 1.82) were associated with being willing to apply genome modification in more scenarios.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

Inquiring for reasons through open questions in a survey allowed for a larger sample size and intuitive responses but resulted in less depth than traditional face-to-face interviews. As the survey was disseminated through social media, the sample is not representative of the overall Dutch population, and hence the quantitative results should not be interpreted as such.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Further public consultation and a more in-depth ethical and societal debate on principles and conditions for responsible use of (germline) genome modification is required prior to future clinical introduction.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

Funded by the University of Amsterdam and University Medical Centre Utrecht. No conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.