Reproductive CRISPR does not cure disease

An analysis of different concepts of "identity" in the heritable genome editing debate

Human heritable genome editing (HHGE) involves editing the genes of human gametes and/or early human embryos. Whilst 'identity' is a key concept underpinning the current HHGE debate, there is a lack of inclusive analysis on different concepts of 'identity' which renders the overall debate confusing at times. This paper first contributes to reviewing the existing literature by consolidating how 'identity' has been discussed in the HHGE debate. Essentially, the discussion will reveal an ontological and empirical understanding of identity when different types of identity are involved. Here, I discuss genetic, numerical, qualitative and narrative and how each of them is relevant in the HHGE context. Secondly, given the different types of identity, the paper explores how we could navigate these different interpretations of identity in a way that promotes an inclusive and informed discussion between primary stakeholders and the general public in the HHGE debate. Here, I argue for and refine a multi-faceted concept of identity as a suitable framework for discussing the ethical and societal implications of HHGE because it not only could integrate different understandings of identity but also highlight the interconnectedness between these different understandings.

Heritable genome editing: ethical aspects of a developing domain

In the past decade, scientific developments in human germline genome editing (GGE) have reinvigorated questions about research ethics, responsible innovation, and what it means to do good in the field of reproductive biology and medicine. In recent years, it has become part of the ethical debate on GGE whether categorical objections about (un)naturalness, dignity, respect for the gene pool as common heritage, are and should be supplemented by more pragmatic questions about safety, utility, efficacy, and potential 'misuse', which seem to become more dominant in the moral discussion. This mini-review summarizes the morally relevant aspects of the rapidly developing domain of GGE, focusing on reproductive applications and with special attention to the ethical questions pertaining to how this technology may affect the interests of those that come to be by means of it. While vital, this encompasses more than safety considerations. Taking this perspective, it will be crucial to engage with normative questions about how GGE maps on the importance of accommodating future parents' preference to have genetically related children, and how far we should go to facilitate this. Similarly, a comprehensive ethical debate about 'appropriate application' of GGE cannot shake off the more fundamental question about how notions like 'normalcy', 'quality of life', and 'disability' can be conceptualized. This is crucial in view of respecting persons whichever traits they have and in view of acceptable boundaries to parental responsibilities.

Reasons and Reproduction: Gene Editing and Genetic Selection

Many writers in bioethics, science, and medicine contend that embryo selection is a morally better way of avoiding genetic disorders then gene editing, as the latter has risks that the former does not. We argue that one reason to use gene editing is that in many cases it would be better for the person who would develop from the edited embryo, so that not to have done it would have been worse for that person. By contrast, embryo selection is never better for the person who develops from the selected embryo. This reason to use gene editing has, however, been challenged on two grounds: first, that it makes no difference, morally, whether a bad effect is worse for someone, or a good effect better for someone; and, second, that beneficent gene editing would not be unequivocally better for the person who would develop from the edited embryo. We argue that both of these objections can be satisfactorily answered and thus that there is indeed a significant moral reason, at least in some cases, to use gene editing rather than embryo selection.

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.

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.

Gene Editing, Identity and Benefit

Some suggest that gene editing human embryos to prevent genetic disorders will be in one respect morally preferable to using genetic selection for the same purpose: gene editing will benefit particular future persons, while genetic selection would merely replace them. We first construct the most plausible defence of this suggestion-the benefit argument-and defend it against a possible objection. We then advance another objection: the benefit argument succeeds only when restricted to cases in which the gene-edited child would have been brought into existence even if gene editing had not been employed. Our argument relies on a standard account of comparative benefit which has recently been criticised on the grounds that it succumbs to the so-called 'pre-emption problem'. We end by considering how our argument would be affected were the standard account revised in an attempt to evade this problem. We consider three revised accounts and argue that, on all three, our critique of the benefit argument stands.

Ethical considerations of preconception and prenatal gene modification in the embryo and fetus

The National Academies of Sciences and Medicine 2020 consensus statement advocates the reinstatement of research in preconception heritable human genome editing (HHGE), despite the ethical concerns that have been voiced about interventions in the germline, and outlines criteria for its eventual clinical application to address monogenic disorders. However, the statement does not give adequate consideration to alternative technologies. Importantly, it omits comparison to fetal gene therapy (FGT), which involves gene modification applied prenatally to the developing fetus and which is better researched and less ethically contentious. While both technologies are applicable to the same monogenic diseases causing significant prenatal or early childhood morbidity, the benefits and risks of HHGE are distinct from FGT though there are important overlaps. FGT has the current advantage of a wealth of robust preclinical data, while HHGE is nascent technology and its feasibility for specific diseases still requires scientific proof. The ethical concerns surrounding each are unique and deserving of further discussion, as there are compelling arguments supporting research and eventual clinical translation of both technologies. In this Opinion, we consider HHGE and FGT through technical and ethical lenses, applying common ethical principles to provide a sense of their feasibility and acceptability. Currently, FGT is in a more advanced position for clinical translation and may be less ethically contentious than HHGE, so it deserves to be considered as an alternative therapy in further discussions on HHGE implementation.

In Our Image: The Ethics of CRISPR Genome Editing

The advent of genome editing technology promises to transform human health, livestock and agriculture, and to eradicate pest species. This transformative power demands urgent scrutiny and resolution of the ethical conflicts attached to the creation and release of engineered genomes. Here, I discuss the ethics surrounding the transformative CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing technology in the contexts of human genome editing to eradicate genetic disease and of gene drive technology to eradicate animal vectors of human disease.

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.'

Can reproductive genetic manipulation save lives?

It has recently been argued that reproductive genetic manipulation technologies like mitochondrial replacement and germline CRISPR modifications cannot be said to save anyone's life because, counterfactually, no one would suffer more or die sooner absent the intervention. The present article argues that, on the contrary, reproductive genetic manipulations may be life-saving (and, from this, have therapeutic value) under an appropriate population health perspective. As such, popular reports of reproductive genetic manipulations potentially saving lives or preventing disease are not necessarily mistaken, though such terminology still requires further empirical validation.

Responsible Translational Pathways for Germline Gene Editing?

Purpose of Review

Continued development of gene editing techniques has raised the real possibility of clinical application of germline gene editing. These results, as well as reports of an unethical experiment which resulted in the birth of at least two children from edited embryos in 2018, have highlighted the urgency and importance of ethical issues about translational pathways for editing of human germline cells. Charting responsible translational pathways for germline gene editing requires tackling some significant and complex ethical issues.

Recent Findings

A literature on development of clinical applications of germline gene editing is emerging, and several key ethical issues are coming into focus as major challenges for responsible translational pathways.

Summary

Potential clinical utility, clinical justification, and human subjects research for germline gene editing raise outstanding ethical questions. Work on these questions will help provide guidance to researchers and clinicians and direct translational projects toward justifiable applications.

Genome Editing 2020: Ethics and Human Rights in Germline Editing in Humans and Gene Drives in Mosquitoes

The moon landing, now more than a half century in the past, has turned out to be the culmination of human space travel, rather than its beginning. Genetic engineering, especially applications of CRISPR, now presents the most publicly-discussed engineering challenges-and not just technical, but ethical as well. In this article, I will use the two most controversial genomic engineering applications to help identify the ethics and human rights implications of these research projects. Each of these techniques directly modifies the mechanisms of evolution, threatens to alter our views of ourselves as humans and our planet as our home, and presents novel informed consent and dual use challenges: human genome editing and gene drives in insects.I begin with a discussion of so far disastrously unsuccessful attempts to regulate germline editing in humans, including a summary of the first application of germline genome editing in humans and its aftermath. I then turn to a discussion of setting ethical standards for a genomic technology that has not yet been deployed in nature-gene drives. Finally, I end by suggesting that human rights can and should be directly applicable to defining the ethics of genomic research.

Ethical issues related to research on genome editing in human embryos

Although the potential advantages of clinical germline genome editing (GGE) over currently available methods are limited, the implementation of GGE in the clinic has been proposed and discussed. Ethical issues related to such an application have been extensively debated, meanwhile, seemingly less attention has been paid to ethical implications of studies which would have to be conducted in order to evaluate potential clinical uses of GGE. In this article, we first provide an overview of the debate on potential clinical uses of GGE. Then, we discuss questions and ethical issues related to the studies relevant to evaluation of potential clinical uses of GGE. In particular, we describe the problems related to the acceptable safety threshold, current technical hurdles in human GGE, the destruction of human embryos used in the experiments, involvement of egg donors, and genomic sequencing performed on the samples of the research participants. The technical and ethical problems related to studies on GGE should be acknowledged and carefully considered in the process of deciding to apply technology in such a way that will provide benefits and minimize harms.