Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adashi, E., and I.G. Cohen 2016. Going germline: Mitochondrial replacement as a guide to genome editing. Cell 164: 832–835.
Adashi, E., A. Caplan, A. Capron et al. 2019. In support of mitochondrial replacement therapy. Nature Medicine 25(6): 870–871.
Adashi, E., M. Burgess, S. Burall, et al. 2020. The public engagement imperative. The CRISPR Journal 3(6): 434–439.
Adashi, E., D.S. Rubenstein, J.A. Mossman. 2021. Mitochondrial disease: replace or edit? Science 373(6560): 1200–1201.
Ahmad, F., and R. Anderson. 2021. The leading causes of death in the US for 2020. JAMA 325(18): 1829–1830.
Ajunwa, I. 2015. Data & Society Databite #41: Ifeoma Ajunwa on Genetic coercion. Open Transcripts. http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/databite-ifeoma-ajunwa-genetic-coercion/. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Alanis-Lobato, G., J. Zohren, A. McCarthy et al. 2021. Frequent loss of heterozygosity in Crispr-cas9-editied early human embryos. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 118(2): 1–9.
Andorno, R., F. Baylis, M. Darnovsky et al. 2020. Geneva Statement on heritable human genome editing: The need for course correction. Trends in Biotechnology 38(4): 351–354.
Angrist, M., R. Barrangou, F. Baylis et al. 2020. Reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society report on heritable human genome editing. The CRISPR Journal 3(5): 332–349.
Annas, G.J., L.B. Andrews, R. Isasi. 2002. Protecting the endangered human: Toward an international treaty prohibiting cloning and inheritable alternations. American Journal of Law and Medicine 28: 151–178.
Arguedas-Ramirez, G. 2020. Ethics and global governance of human germline genome editing: The problem of techno-scientific colonialist paternalism. The CRISPR Journal 3(2): 83–88.
Associated Press. 2016. Could three-parent IVF be coming to the US? CNN, February 14. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-3-parent-ivf-be-coming-to-the-u-s/. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. 2022. Mitochondrial donation. https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/mitochondrial-donation. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Australian Government Department of Health. 2021. Legalizing mitochondrial donation in Australia public consultation paper. https://consultations.health.gov.au/strategic-policy/mitochondrial-donation-in-australia/supporting_documents/Mitochondrial%20Donation%20%20Public%20Consultation%20Paper.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2022.
Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. 2020. Expert statement: Mitochondrial donation expert working committee. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/file/15361/download?token=dk_6PqlQ. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Ball, P. 2017. Designer babies: An ethical horror waiting to happen? The Guardian, January 29. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/08/designer-babies-ethical-horror-waiting-to-happen. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Baylis, F. 2017. Human nuclear genome transfer (so-called mitochondrial replacement): clearing the underbrush. Bioethics 31(1): 7-19.
———. 2019. Human genome editing: Our future belongs to all of us. Issues in Science and Technology 35(3): 42–44.
Baylis, F., M. Darnovsky, K. Hasson, and T. Krahn. 2020. Human germline and heritable genome editing: The global policy landscape. The CRISPR Journal 3(5): 365–377.
Beadnell, T.C., A.D. Scheid, C.J. Vivian, and D.R. Welch. 2018. Roles of the mitochondrial genetics in cancer metastasis: Not to be ignored any longer. Cancer Metastasis Review 37(4): 615–632.
Blasimme, A. 2019. Why include the public in genome editing governance deliberation? AMA Journal of Ethics 21(12): E1065–1070.
Brunst K., A. Baccarelli, and R.J. Wright. 2015. Integrating mitochondriomics in children’s environmental health. Journal of Applied Toxicology 35(9): 976–991.
Castro, R. 2016. Mitochondrial replacement therapy: The U.K. and U.S. regulatory landscapes. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 3(3): 726–735.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020a. Prevent type 2 diabetes. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/prevent-type-2/index.html. Accessed July 10, 2023.
———. 2020b. Familial hypercholesterolemia. https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/fh/FH.htm. Accessed July 10, 2023.
———. 2020. National diabetes statistics report 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Cohen, I.G., E.Y. Adashi, S. Gerke, C. Palacios-González, and V. Ravitsky. 2020. The regulation of mitochondrial replacement techniques around the world. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 21(1): 565–586.
Comfort, N. 2015. Can we cure disease without slipping into eugenics? The Nation, July 16. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/can-we-cure-genetic-diseases-without-slipping-into-eugenics/. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Commonwealth of Australia Department of Health and Aged Care. 2021. Harnessing new technology to save lives. https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/media/harnessing-new-technology-to-save-lives. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Cooper, D., M. Krawczak, C. Polychronakos, C.Tyler-Smith, H. Kehrer-Sawatzki. 2013. When genotype is not predictive of phenotype: Towards and understanding of the molecular basis of reduced penetrance of inherited disease. Human Genetics 3(10): 1077–1130.
Cwik, B. 2019. Moving beyond therapy and enhancement in the ethics of gene editing. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28(4): 695–707.
Daley, G., R. Lovell-Badge, and J. Steffann. 2019. After the storm: A responsible path for genome editing. New England Journal of Medicine 380(10): 897–899.
Daltzell, S. 2021. Ground-breaking technique to reduce risk of potentially fatal genetic diseases could soon be legal in Australia. ABC News Australia, February 3. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-03/australia-mitochondrial-donation-to-treat-genetic-disease-bill/13114862. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Drabiak, K. 2018. Emerging governance of mitochondrial replacement therapy: Assessing coherence between scientific evidence and policy outcomes. DePaul Journal of Health Care Law 20(1): 1–61.
———. 2019. Untangling the promises of human genome editing. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 46(4): 991–1009.
———. 2020. The Nuffield Council’s green light for genome editing human embryos defies fundamental human rights law. Bioethics 34(3): 223–227.
———. 2017. Engineering consensus in the development of genome editing policy. Hastings Center Bioethics Forum, March 14. https://www.thehastingscenter.org/engineering-consensus-development-genome-editing-policy/. Accessed July 10, 2023.
———. 2021. Liberal government condones risky IVF procedure. Independent Australia, March 22. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/liberal-government-condones-risky-ivf-procedure,14912. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Dunham-Snary, K., and S. Ballinger. 2015. Mitochondrial-nuclear DNA mismatch matters. Science 349(6255): 1449–1450.
English, J., J.M. Son, M.D. Cardamone, C. Lee, V. Perissi. 2020. Decoding the Rosetta Stone of mitonuclear communication. Pharmacological Research 161(105161): 1–15.
European Parliament and the Council of Europe. 2014. Regulation (EU) No 536/14. https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-11/reg_2014_536_en_0.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Fu, L., Y.X. Luo, Y. Liu, et al. 2021. Potential of mitochondrial genome editing for human fertility health. Frontiers in Genetics 12(673951): 1–14.
Greely, H. 2019. CRISPR’d babies: Human germline genome editing and the He Jiankui affair. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 6(1): 111–183.
Greenfield, A. 2021. Making sense of heritable human genome editing: Scientific and ethics considerations. Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science 182: 1–28.
Hamzelou, J. 2018. First U.K. three-parent babies could be born this year. The New Scientist, February 2. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2160120-first-uk-three-parent-babies-could-be-born-this-year/#ixzz7JqNosDZT. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Harris Williams. 2022. Fertility market overview. https://www.harriswilliams.com/our-insights/fertility-market-overview-1. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Hasson, K. 2019. Are CRISPR babies healthy? Enhanced? Speculation takes a disturbing turn. Center for Genetics and Society, March 8. https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/biopolitical-times/are-crispr-babies-healthy-enhanced-speculation-takes-disturbing-turn. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Herbrand, C. 2022. Silences, omissions and oversimplification? The U.K. debate on mitochondrial donation. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online 14: 53–62.
Hoffmann, E.R., and I. Roig. 2020. Cas9 in human embryos: On target but no repair. Cell 183(6): 1464-1466.
Hurlbut, J.B. 2020. Imperatives of governance: Human genome editing and the problem of progress. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 63(1):177–194.
Institute of Life. 2020. Fifth baby born in Greece using the maternal spindle transfer method as part of pilot trial conducted by the Institute of Life and Embryotools scientific team. PR News Wire, October 21. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fifth-baby-born-in-greece-using-the-maternal-spindle-transfer-method-as-part-of-pilot-trial-conducted-by-the-institute-of-life-and-embryotools-scientific-team-301155984.html. Accessed July 10, 2023.
———. 2023. Maternal spindle transfer. Institute of Life. https://www.iolife.eu/emeis/ereyna-metaforas-mitrikis-atraktoy-mst/. Accessed July 10, 2023.
International Bioethics Committee. 2015. Report of the IBC on updating its reflection on the human genome and human rights. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233258. Accessed July 10, 2023.
———. 2021. Report of the IBC on the principle of protecting future generations. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000378723. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Kang, E., J. Wu, N.M. Gutierrez, A. Koski, et al. 2016. Mitochondrial replacement in human oocytes carrying pathogenic mitochondrial DNA mutations. Nature 540(7632): 270–275.
Keefe, D.L. 2019. Easing U.S. restrictions on mitochondrial replacement therapy would protect research interests but grease the slippery slope. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 36(9): 1781–1785.
Koplin, J.J., C. Gyngell, J. Savulescu. 2020. Germline gene editing and the precautionary principle. Bioethics 34(1): 49–59.
Kosicki, M., K. Tomberg, and A. Bradley. 2018. Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nature Biotechnology 36: 765–771.
Lambertini, L., and H.M. Byun. 2016. Mitochondrial epigenetics and environmental exposure. Current Environmental Health Reports 3(3): 214–224.
Latorre-Pellicer, A., R. Moreno-Loshuertos, A. Lechuga-Vieco, et al. 2016. Mitochondrial and nuclear DNA matching shapes metabolism and healthy ageing. Nature 535(7613): 561–565.
Leibowitz, M., S. Papathanasiou, P.A. Doerfler, et al. 2021. Chromothripsis as an on-target consequence of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing. Nature Genetics 53(6): 895–906.
Lewens, T. 2020. Blurring the germline: Genome editing and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Bioethics 34(1): 7–15.
Maiden, S. 2021. Australia to vote on “three-person baby” IVF. NewsComAu, February 2. https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/australia-to-vote-on-threeperson-baby-ivf/news-story/5e51bc2c31cc4a7da4d8c7cfe6c873da. Accessed July 10, 2023.
McGee, A. 2020. Using the therapy and enhancement distinction in law and policy. Bioethics 34: 70–80.
Mehravar, M., A. Shirazi, M. Nazari, and M. Banan, 2019. Mosaicism in CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing. Developmental Biology 445(2): 156–165.
Mito Action. 2020. Mitochondrial disease FAQs. https://www.mitoaction.org/mitochondrial-disease/faq/. Accessed July 21, 2023.
Mito Foundation. 2022. Mitochondrial donation. https://www.mito.org.au/mitochondrial-donation/#:~:text=The%20Mito%20Foundation%20has%20welcomed,Budget%20on%2011%20May%202021. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Molteni, M. 2022. Researchers revive abandoned technique in effort to make artificial human eggs in a test tube. Stat News, July 28. https://www.statnews.com/2022/07/28/abandoned-technique-revived-in-effort-to-make-artificial-human-eggs/. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Morrow, E.H., and F.C. Ingleby. 2017. Detecting differential gene expression in blastocysts following pronuclear transfer. BMC Research Notes 10(97): 1–5.
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. International summit on human genome editing: Continuing the global discussion: Proceedings of a workshop–in brief. https://www.nap.edu/read/21913/chapter/1. Accessed July 10, 2023.
———. 2017. Human genome editing: science, ethics, and governance. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24623/human-genome-editing-science-ethics-and-governance. Accessed July 10, 2023.
———. 2019. Second international summit on human genome editing: Continuing the global discussion: Proceedings of a workshop–in brief. https://www.nap.edu/read/25343/chapter/1. Accessed July 10, 2023.
National Academies Press. 2020. Heritable human genome editing. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25665/heritable-human-genome-editing. Accessed July 10, 2023.
National Health and Medical Research Council. 2020. Expert statement: mitochondrial donation expert working committee. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/file/15361/download?token=dk_6PqlQ. Accessed July 21, 2023.
———. 2021. Mitochondrial donation. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/mitochondrial-donation. Accessd July 10, 2023.
Newcastle University. 2017. Newcastle awarded world's first mitochondrial licence. https://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/archive/2017/03/mitochondrialicence/. Accessed July 10, 2022.
NHS England. 2016. NHS England to fund ground-breaking new mitochondrial donation clinical trial. NHS News, December 15. https://www.england.nhs.uk/2016/12/mitochondrial-donation/. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Nie, J.B., and A. Cheung. 2019. He Jiankui’s genetic misadventure, part 3: What are the major ethical issues? Hastings Center Bioethics Forum. https://www.thehastingscenter.org/jiankuis-genetic-misadventure-part-3-major-ethical-issues/. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Nissanka, N., and C.T. Moraes. 2020. Mitochondrial DNA heteroplasmy in disease and targeted nuclease-based therapeutic approaches. EMBO Reports 21(e49612): 1–12.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2016. Genome editing: an ethical review. https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publications/genome-editing-an-ethical-review. Accessed July 10, 2023.
———. 2018. Genome editing and human reproduction: Social and ethical issues. https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publications/genome-editing-and-human-reproduction. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Ou, X., and Q. Sun. 2017. Mitochondrial replacement techniques or therapies (MRTs) to improve embryo development and to prevent mitochondrial disease transmission. Journal of Genetic and Genomics 44(2017): 371–374.
Papathanasiou, S., S. Markoulaki, L. Blaine, et al. 2021. Whole chromosome loss and genomic instability in mouse embryos after CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing. Nature Communications 12(5855): 1–7.
Paraskevaidi, M., P.L. Martin-Hirsch, M. Kyrgiou, and F.L. Martin. 2017. Underlying role of mitochondrial mutagenesis in the pathogenesis of a disease and current approaches for translational research. Mutagenesis 32(3): 335–342.
Rainie, L., C. Funk, M. Anderson, and A. Tyson. 2022, Mar. 17. Americans are closely divided over editing a baby’s genes to reduce serious health risk. Pew Research Center, March 17. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/03/17/americans-are-closely-divided-over-editing-a-babys-genes-to-reduce-serious-health-risk/#:~:text=About%20seven%2Din%2Dten%20Americans%20(71%25)%20say%20they,say%20they're%20not%20sure. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Reardon, S. 2016. Reports of “three-parent babies” multiply. Nature News, October 16. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.20849. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Regalado, A. 2022. This startup wants to copy you into an embryo for organ harvesting. MIT Technology Review, August 4. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/04/1056633/startup-wants-copy-you-embryo-organ-harvesting. Accessed July 21, 2023.
Reinhardt, K., D. Downing, and E.H. Morrow. 2013. Mitochondrial replacement, evolution, and the clinic. Science 341(6152): 1345–1346.
Reynolds, J.C., C.P. Bwiza, and C. Lee. 2020. Mitonuclear genomics and aging. Human Genetics 139(3): 381–399.
Rusecka, J., M. Kaliszewska, E. Bartnik, and K. Tońska. 2018. Nuclear genes involved in mitochondrial diseases caused by instability of mitochondrial DNA. Journal of Applied Genetics 59(1): 43–57.
Savulescu, J. 2015. Mitochondrial disease kills 150 children a year. A micro transplant can cure it. The Guardian, February 22. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/02/mitochondrial-transfer-micro-transplant-parliamentary-debate. Accessed July 10, 2022.
Shawsky, R. 2014. Reduced penetrance in human inherited disease. Egyptian Journal of Human Medical Genetics 15(2): 103–111.
Specter, M. 2015. The gene hackers. The New Yorker, November 16. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/the-gene-hackers. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Sugarman, J. 2015. Ethics and germline gene editing. EMBO Reports 16(8): 879–880.
Touma, R. 2021. Mitochondrial donation: how an IVF procedure could help Australian families “break the genetic chain.” The Guardian, June 5. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jun/06/mitochondrial-donation-how-an-ivf-procedure-could-help-australian-families-break-the-genetic-chain. Accessed July 10, 2023.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2014. 59th meeting of the Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapy Advisory Committee. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/BloodVaccinesandOtherBiologics/CellularTissueandGeneTherapiesAdvisoryCommittee/UCM390945.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2023.
U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2020. Mitochondrial donation: An 18 month outcome study. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04113447?term=NCT04113447&cntry=GB&draw=2&rank=1. Accessed July 10, 2023.
van Beers, B. 2020. Rewriting the human genome, rewriting human rights law? Human rights, human dignity, and human germline modification in the CRISPR era. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 7(1): 1–36.
World Health Organization. 2005. Preventing chronic diseases: A vital investment. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43314. Accessed July 10, 2023.
———. 2021. Human genome editing: A framework for governance. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240030060. Accessed July 10, 2023.
———. 2022a. Infertility. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/infertility. Accessed July 21, 2023.
———. 2022b. Preventing cancer. https://www.who.int/activities/preventing-cancer. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Yamada, M., V. Emmanuele, M.J. Sanchez-Quintero, et al. 2016. Genetic drift can compromise mitochondrial replacement by nuclear transfer in human oocytes. Cell Stem Cell 18(6): 749–754.
Yamada, M., K. Akashi, R. Ooka, K. Miyado, and H. Akutsu. 2020. Mitochondrial genetic drift after nuclear transfer in oocytes. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 21(5880): 1–13.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Authors have read and agreed to article’s content and confirm that the manuscript conforms to the journal’s policies.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Khan, S., Drabiak, K. Eight Strategies to Engineer Acceptance of Human Germline Modifications. Bioethical Inquiry 21, 81–94 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10266-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10266-3