Human genome editing: how to prevent rogue actors

Beyond the traditional distinctions of genome editing: evaluating a vulnerability framework

Over 40 years ago, the 1982 Splicing Life report outlined the two distinctions that have orientated much of the normative and legal landscape of genetic intervention or genome editing since - that of somatic versus germline (or heritable interventions) and medical versus non-medical (or enhancement) applications. During this time, these distinctions have been used to ethically prioritize some areas of research and potential application, such as somatic treatments, while considering others for prohibition, such as germline enhancements. Nevertheless, somatic interventions may also be done for controversial enhancement purposes while some germline interventions may be done with greater prima facie justification (e.g., the enhancement of athletic ability versus the avoidance of Tay-Sachs disease). Even with new somatic treatments that are generally lauded, exemplified with the case of Casgevy, many issues still arise - such as cost and access, particularly salient on a global level. The concerns over a dystopian future of genetic haves and have nots, as a result of enhancement and/or germline interventions, that perhaps may happen, should not distract us from a greater attention to what is happening in the here and now. In this paper, we will highlight the limits of the two distinctions in terms of moving from questions of "should a technology be used" to "how should a technology be used." We argue that an additional focus on vulnerability and marginalization can be useful to support the attempt to better prioritize which interventions should be permitted or prohibited. We show how this can better dovetail with calls for effective (global) governance and reasonable consensus by focusing on the most urgent issues and developing policy accordingly, while leaving aside more abstract issues for further discussion.

Human Heritable Genome Editing and its Governance: Views of Scientists and Governance Professionals

Heritable human genome editing has garnered significant attention in scholarly and lay media, yet questions remain about whether, when, and how heritable genome editing ought to proceed. Drawing on interviews with scientists who use genome editing in their research and professionals engaged in human genome editing governance efforts, we examine their views on the permissibility of heritable genome editing and the governance strategies they see as necessary and realistic. For both issues, we found divergent views from respondents. We place the views of these scientists and governance professionals within the context of the larger bioethical discussion of heritable genome editing governance, along a continuum of hard to soft approaches. These respondents' views highlight the challenges of various hard forms of governance and the potential virtues of soft governance approaches.

CRISPR technology in human diseases

Gene editing is a growing gene engineering technique that allows accurate editing of a broad spectrum of gene-regulated diseases to achieve curative treatment and also has the potential to be used as an adjunct to the conventional treatment of diseases. Gene editing technology, mainly based on clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-CRISPR-associated protein systems, which is capable of generating genetic modifications in somatic cells, provides a promising new strategy for gene therapy for a wide range of human diseases. Currently, gene editing technology shows great application prospects in a variety of human diseases, not only in therapeutic potential but also in the construction of animal models of human diseases. This paper describes the application of gene editing technology in hematological diseases, solid tumors, immune disorders, ophthalmological diseases, and metabolic diseases; focuses on the therapeutic strategies of gene editing technology in sickle cell disease; provides an overview of the role of gene editing technology in the construction of animal models of human diseases; and discusses the limitations of gene editing technology in the treatment of diseases, which is intended to provide an important reference for the applications of gene editing technology in the human disease.

Stakeholder Involvement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing in Japan

Genome editing is a technology that can accurately and efficiently modify the genome of organisms, including the human genome. Although human genome editing (HGE) has many benefits, it also involves technical risks and ethical, legal, and social issues. Thus, the pros and cons of using this technology have been actively debated since 2015. Notably, the research community has taken an interest in the issue and has discussed it internationally. However, for the governance of HGE, the roles of government agencies and the general public are also important for an effective regulatory system. Here, we examine the roles of the research community, government, and public in the governance of HGE through an analysis of discussions in the Japanese Expert Panel on Bioethics. During the discussion of the research ethics review system, the professionalism of the research community and the pros and cons of state oversight have become issues for debate. Furthermore, through an examination of the overall policy-making process, three stakeholders are clearly involved in the governance of emerging medical technologies in the Expert Panel on Bioethics, a discussion forum established by government agencies. The contrast among these roles provides insight into the positive roles of government agencies and the research community and the conditions under which these roles are played. We also note that there are diverse actors in the public, which may have an impact on their participation. Our results may serve as a guide for countries and organizations to establish governance on emerging medical technologies.

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.

Reproductive Embryo Editing: Attending to Justice

The use of embryonic genome editing tools is often touted as a way to ensure the birth of healthy and genetically related children. Many would agree that this is a worthy goal. Yet the purpose of this article is to argue that, if we are concerned with justice, accepting such a goal as morally appropriate commits one to rejecting the use of social resources for further development of embryo editing for reproductive purposes. This is so because there are safer and more effective means that can allow many more prospective parents to achieve the same valued goal and that can offer additional benefits.

Future of global regulation of human genome editing: a South African perspective on the WHO Draft Governance Framework on Human Genome Editing

WHO in 2019 established the Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing, which has recently published a Draft Governance Framework on Human Genome Editing. Although the Draft Framework is a good point of departure, there are four areas of concern: first, it does not sufficiently address issues related to establishing safety and efficacy. Second, issues that are a source of tension between global standard setting and state sovereignty need to be addressed in a more nuanced fashion. Third, it fails to meaningfully engage with the extent to which the conceptualisation of human dignity may justifiably vary between jurisdictions. Fourth, the meaning of harm to the interests of a future person requires clarity. Provided these four areas of concern can be addressed, the future of the global governance of human genome editing may hold promise.

Genome Editing among Bioethics and Regulatory Practices

In the last decade, genome editing technologies became very effective and several clinical trials have been started in order to use them for treating some genetic diseases. Interestingly, despite more than 50 years of discussion about the frontiers of genetics in human health and evolution, the debate about the bioethics and the regulatory practices of genome editing is still far from satisfactory answers. This delay results from an excessive emphasis on the effectiveness of the genome editing technologies that is relevant for the regulatory practices, but not at a bioethical level. Indeed, other factors (such as accessibility and acceptability) could make these techniques not accepted at the bioethical level, even in the presence of their 100% effectiveness.

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.