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. (shrink)

Ever since the publication of Derek Parfit’s Reasons and Persons, bioethicists have tended to distinguish between two different ways in which reproductive technologies may have implications for the...

Interventions in the human germline have been regarded as a red line in genetic engineering up to now. However, with the recent progress in genome editing techniques, first and foremost CRISPR-based methods, the tide seems to be turning. The therapeutic benefits in particular are brought forward as an argument in favor of germline genome editing. According to this view, the main benefit of GGE is disease prevention. The procedure could be used to prevent monogenetic (...) conditions for which no treatment is available so far. This leads many commentators to the view that the benefits of GGE outweigh the risks. In this article, I examine the status and ethical implications of GGE as a means of disease prevention. I intend to show that the notion of GGE as disease prevention is only true for one specific application. Instead of being preventive treatments, most applications of GGE are advanced techniques of assisted reproduction. As such, they can be thought of as wish-fulfilling medicine, that is the use of medical techniques for non-medically indicated purposes. Thus, it is necessary to reconsider the risk-benefit analysis of GGE for most of its applications. (shrink)

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 prec...

Sperm, eggs and embryos are made up of more than genes, and there are indications that changes to non‐genetic structures in these elements of the germline can also be inherited. It is, therefore, a mistake to treat phrases like ‘germline inheritance’ and ‘genetic inheritance’ as simple synonyms, and bioethical discussion should expand its focus beyond alterations to the genome when considering the ethics of germline modification. Moreover, additional research on non‐genetic inheritance draws attention to a variety (...) of means whereby differences can be inherited in offspring generations that do not rely on differences in germline structures. Research on these diverse forms of inheritance challenges the notion that there is some special form of ethical concern that falls on germline interventions in general, and on interventions to the nuclear genome within the germline in particular. (shrink)

Assisted reproductive technologies have greatly increased our control over reproductive choices, leading some bioethicists to argue that we face unprecedented moral obligations towards progeny. Several models attempting to balance the principle of procreative autonomy with these obligations have been proposed. The least demanding is the minimal threshold model (MTM), according to which every reproductive choice is permissible, except creating children whose lives will not be worth living. Hence, as long as the future child is likely to have a life worth (...) living, prospective parents may be allowed to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to select embryos with genetic diseases or disabilities. Assuming a consequentialist person‐affecting view of morality, this paper investigates whether the MTM is an appropriate tool to guide procreative decisions given the continuous development of reproductive genetic technologies. In particular, I consider germline genome editing (GGE) and I argue that its application in human reproduction, unlike PGD, should be conceived as person‐affecting towards future progeny. I claim that even if we assume the plausibility of the MTM within PGD, we are committed to accepting that a greater moral obligation towards progeny should guide procreative decisions if GGE were available. In this case, the MTM should no longer be considered an appropriate instrument to guide procreative choices. Finally, I investigate when we face this greater moral obligation, concluding that it applies only when prospective parents have already engaged in the in vitro fertilization process. (shrink)

The year 2018 was the 40th anniversary of the birth of Louise Joy Brown, marking four decades of clinical in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Though this milestone, reached first by Steptoe and Edwards in the United Kingdom, is well acknowledged through Nobel accolade, the achievement was not entirely celebrated at the time. Global contention was not just moral, but political and legislative. In the United States, the achievement led in 1978 to the freezing of federal funds by the National (...) Institute of Health for research on human embryos and oocytes.A report published on May 4, 1979, by the Ethics Advisory Board of the Department of Health... (shrink)

The prospect of using genome technologies to modify the human germline has raised profound moral disagreement but also emphasizes the need for wide-ranging discussion and a well-informed policy response. The Hinxton Group brought together scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and journal editors for an international, interdisciplinary meeting on this subject. This consensus statement formulated by the group calls for support of genome editing research and the development of a scientific roadmap for safety and efficacy; recognizes the ethical challenges (...) involved in clinical reproductive applications of genome editing but, importantly, rejects the idea that human reproductive germline modification is necessarily morally unacceptable; and highlights the importance of meaningful engagement in discussions of genome editing and the development of regulation and oversight mechanisms to govern future uses of such technologies. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 8, August 2020, Page 1-4.

the recent announcement of the claimed births of CRISPR-edited babies has prompted both widespread condemnation and calls by leading scientists for a moratorium on any further germline genome editing for reproductive purposes. Concurrently, national and international bodies are calling for the development of robust guidelines and requirements that will identify permissible conditions under which such GGE efforts may proceed. As detailed recommendations to navigate this unique terrain are under development, we suggest an approach that begins with identifying (...) serious concerns about social exclusion and social justice that arise... (shrink)

Over the past few years, developments in the science of precise editing of human genomes using CRISPR-Cas9 have led many countries that lack specific laws in this area, such as South Africa, to contemplate legal reform. Thaldar et al. recently published five principles to guide legal reform in SA on heritable genome editing. In a similar vein, concerns about the global impact of human germline genome editing have led to calls for a global regulatory (...) mechanism. This is what the World Health Organization has tried to achieve with the recently published ‘Draft governance framework for human genome editing’. In this article, we compare the policies proposed by the draft framework to the current SA legal position, as well as the five guiding principles. The article concludes that SA law is in need of reform in order to meet the global standards that the draft framework seems to be moving towards. (shrink)

Robert Sparrow (2022) concludes his article “Human Germline Genome Editing: On the Nature of Our Reasons to Genome Edit” with the following sentence: “The issues around genome-editing are complex e...

Two major reports in the UK and USA have recently sanctioned as ethically acceptable genome editing of future generations for the treatment of serious rare inherited conditions. This marks an important turning point in the application of recombinant DNA techniques to humans. The central question this paper addresses is how did it became possible for human genetic engineering (HGE) of future generations to move from an illegitimate idea associated with eugenics in the 1980s to a concrete proposal sanctioned (...) by scientists and bioethicists in 2020? The paper uses the concept of a regime of normativity to understand the co-evolution and mutual shaping of technology, imaginaries, norms and governance processes in debates about HGE in the USA and UK. It will be argued that interlinked discursive, institutional, political and technological changes have made proposals for the use of genome editing in the genetic engineering of future generations both “thinkable” and legitimate. (shrink)

With the arrival of new methods of genome editing, especially CRISPR/cas 9, new perspectives on germline interventions have arisen. Supporters of germ line genome editing claim that the procedure could be used as a means of disease prevention. As a possible life-saving therapy, it provides benefits that outweigh its risks. Opponents of GGE claim that the medical and societal risks, especially the use of GGE for genetic enhancement, are too high. In our paper, we analyze (...) the risks and benefits of GGE. We show that the medical risk on an individual level might be reduced by further research in the near future so that they may be outweighed by the benefits. We also show that the societal risks of the procedure, i.e. genetic enhancement, are manageable by establishing a regulative framework before the GGE is implemented. Since the effects of modifying genes for the genepool of a given population are extremely difficult to model, the medical risks on the population level might be too high. (shrink)

Abstract: This working paper focuses on the question whether there is a therapeutic imperative that, in specific situations, would oblige us to perform genome editing at the germline level in the context of assisted reproduction. The answer to this central question is discussed primarily with reference to specific scenarios where preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) does not represent an acceptable alternative to germline genome editing based on either medical, or ethical, or – from the perspective (...) of the potential parents – moral or religious grounds. This article deals with four different types of case constellations that result from these possible reasons against PGD as well as from the necessity or dispensability of a subsequent “control PGD.” These cases are discussed based on hypotheses concerning contextual factors and theoretical assumptions. In conclusion, we point out that if our assumptions are correct, there is probably no therapeutic imperative for genome editing at the germline level. We draw this rationale from the fact that germline interventions are likely not person-affecting. However, we caution the reader that our result is preliminary and needs to be more carefully examined in future work in light of the bioethical debate and potential objections. -/- // Abstract: Im Zentrum dieses Working Papers steht die Frage, ob es einen therapeutischen Imperativ geben kann, der uns, in bestimmten Situationen, verpflichten würde, eine Genomeditierung (genome editing) auf Keimbahnebene im Rahmen der assistierten Befruchtung vorzunehmen. Die Antwort auf diese zentrale Frage wird insbesondere mit Bezug auf Fälle diskutiert, in denen das Verfahren der Präimplantationsdiagnostik (PID) keine aus entweder medizinischen oder ethischen oder – aus Sicht der potentiellen Eltern – moralischen bzw. religiösen Gründen akzeptable Alternative zu einem Keimbahneingriff darstellt. Die möglichen Gründe gegen die PID sowie die Erforderlichkeit oder Verzichtbarkeit einer nachfolgenden «Kontroll-PID» ergeben vier verschiedene Fallkonstellationen, denen sich der Beitrag zuwendet. Auf Grundlage von Hypothesen zu kontextuellen Faktoren und theoretischen Annahmen diskutieren wir diese Fälle. Im Ergebnis verweisen wir darauf, dass es, wenn unsere Annahmen zutreffen, vermutlich keinen therapeutischen Imperativ zum genome editing auf Keimbahnebene gibt. Dies begründet sich daraus, dass der Keimbahneingriff vermutlich nicht als personenbezogen (person-affecting) zu bezeichnen ist. Wir weisen jedoch darauf hin, dass unser Ergebnis vorläufig ist und unter Berücksichtigung der bioethischen Debatte und möglicher Einwände genauer geprüft werden muss. -/- // Résumé: Ce Working Paper se concentre sur la question de l’existence d’un impératif thérapeutique qui, dans des situations spécifiques, nous obligerait à réaliser une édition du génome au niveau de la lignée germinale dans le cadre de la procréation assistée. Afin de répondre à cette question centrale nous développons quatre scénarios spécifiques dans lesquels le diagnostic préimplantatoire (DPI) ne représente pas une alternative acceptable à l’édition du génome germinal pour des raisons médicales, éthiques ou – du point de vue des futurs parents – morales ou religieuses. Cet article traite de quatre constellations différentes de cas résultant des raisons mises en avant pour s'opposer au DPI ainsi que de la nécessité ou de l’inutilité d’un ultérieur « DPI de contrôle » Ces cas sont discutés sur la base d’hypothèses portant sur les facteurs contextuels et sur les présupposés théoriques. En conclusion, nous soulignons que si nos hypothèses sont correctes, il n’y a probablement aucun impératif thérapeutique justifiant l’édition du génome au niveau de la lignée germinale. Nous arrivons à cette conclusion parce qu’une intervention au niveau de la lignée germinale n’est probablement pas susceptible d’affecter la personne. Cependant, nous mettons en garde le lecteur sur le fait que notre conclusion est préliminaire et qu’elle doit être examinée avec soin dans des futurs travaux instruits par le débat bioéthique et par les éventuelles objections. (shrink)

Germline genome editing is often disapproved of at the international policy level because of its possible threats to human dignity. However, from a critical perspective the relationship between this emerging technology and human dignity is relatively understudied. We explore the main principles that are referred to when 'human dignity' is invoked in this context; namely, the link with eugenics, the idea of a common genetic heritage, the principle of equal birth and broader equality and justice concerns. Yet (...) the concept is also used in favour of germline genome editing as it might improve the overall well-being of future generations. We conclude that dignity concerns do not justify a complete ban on safe heritable genome editing but should inform the implementation of side constraints to ensure that the value judgements about human traits that are inherent in this practice do not result in a diminished basic respect for those people affected by them. (shrink)

Would direct genetic modification of human embryos affect the welfare of future persons? Sparrow’s approach to answering this question fails a core goal of bioethics: to generate perspectives capab...

In “Human germline genome editing: On the nature of our reasons to genome edit,” Robert Sparrow (2022) presents a central claim and a secondary one. The central claim is that, for the foreseeable f...

In this paper, I will present the empirical version of the slippery slope argument (SSA) in the field of genome editing. According to the SSA, if we adopt germline manipulation of embryos we will eventually end up performing or allowing something morally reprehensible, such as new coercive eugenics. I will investigate the actual possibility of sliding towards eugenics: thus, I will examine enhancement and eugenics both in the classical and liberal versions, through the lens of SSA. In (...) the first part, I will discuss the classical eugenics from a historical perspective and conclude that classical eugenics is morally deplorable; but by currently accepting genome editing I argue that it is not possible to ‘slip’ into classical eugenics. Then, I will analyze liberal eugenics: I will consider Habermas’ and Sandel’s objections to liberal eugenics and genetic human enhancement. Subsequently, I will reply to these arguments affirming that, although it is not possible to refuse any form of genetic enhancement, liberal eugenics would not consider the principles of justice, non-maleficence, and non-instrumentalization; hence, it should be considered not morally acceptable. In addition, I will support the thesis according to which the possibility of relapsing into liberal eugenics is more likely than relapsing into classical eugenics. Then, I will present a strategy that, while avoiding falling into the undesirable scenarios related to SSA, still accepts some application of germline genome editing of embryos and gametes. In such a way, I will show that even if we accept the plausibility of a certain slip into an undesirable scenario, SSA does not offer conclusive reasons to forbid any use of germline genome editing technique in both therapeutic and enhancement fields. (shrink)

The governance of human (germline) genome modification at the international and transnational level -- The regulation of human germline genome modification in Canada (E Kleiderman) -- The regulation of human germline genome modification in the United States (Kerry Macintosh) -- The regulation of human germline genome modification in Mexico (M Medina Arellano) -- The regulation of human germline genome modification in Europe (J Almqvist, C Romano) -- The regulation of human (...) germline genome modification in the United Kingdom (J Lawford Davies) -- The regulation of human germline genome modification in Germany (T Faltus). (shrink)

This paper explores the ethics of introducing genome-editing technologies as a new reproductive option. In particular, it focuses on whether genome editing can be considered a morally valuable alternative to preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Two arguments against the use of genome editing in reproduction are analysed, namely safety concerns and germline modification. These arguments are then contrasted with arguments in favour of genome editing, in particular with the argument of the child’s (...) welfare and the argument of parental reproductive autonomy. In addition to these two arguments, genome editing could be considered as a worthy alternative to PGD as it may not be subjected to some of the moral critiques moved against this technology. Even if these arguments offer sound reasons in favour of introducing genome editing as a new reproductive option, I conclude that these benefits should be balanced against other considerations. More specifically, I maintain that concerns regarding the equality of access to assisted reproduction and the allocation of scarce resources should be addressed prior to the adoption of genome editing as a new reproductive option. (shrink)

BackgroundHuman genome editing technologies offer much potential benefit. However, central to any conversation relating to the application of such technologies are certain ethical, legal, and social difficulties around their application. The recent misuse, or inappropriate use, by certain Chinese actors of the application of genome editing technologies has been, of late, well noted and described. Consequently, caution is expressed by various policy experts, scientists, bioethicists, and members of the public with regard to the appropriate use of (...) human germline genome editing and its possible future effect on future generations.Main textAs concerns about the applications of heritable genome editing have grown, so too have the questions around what is to be done to curtail ‘rogue actors’. This paper explores various ways in which to regulate genomic editing that are socially beneficial, while being cognisant of legal and ethical principles and rights values. This is done by evolving regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions in an attempt to raise issues, address common principles, and set responsible standards for stewardship of the novel technology.ConclusionsIt is suggested that robust and concrete regulatory measures be introduced that are culturally and contextually sensitive, inclusive, appropriate, and trustworthy – and are based on public empowerment and human rights objectives. Doing so will ensure that we are perfectly positioned to harness and promote the benefits that novel technologies have to offer, while safeguarding public health and curtailing the ambitions of rogue actors. This it is acknowledged is no easy task, so, as a point of departure, this paper sets out a path forward by means of certain, practical recommendations – by constructing genome editing regulation in a manner that both fulfils the desire to better progress human health and that can withstand legal and ethical scrutiny.The following observations and recommendations are made: Firstly, that a solution of effective, legitimate governance should consist of a combination of national and supranational legislative regulation or ‘hard’ law, in combination with ‘soft’ ethics, firmly anchored in and underpinned by human rights values. Second, that efforts to support legal and ethical solutions should be rigorous, practical, and robust, contribute to a reaffirmation of human rights in a contextually sensitive manner, and be transnational in reach. Lastly, that greater harmonisation across jurisdictions and increased public engagement be sought. This it is proposed will address the question of how to implement a normative framework which in turn can prevent future rogue actors. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that some human reproductive genome editing interventions can be therapeutic in nature, and thus that it is false that all such interventions just create healthy individuals. I do this by showing that the conditions established by a therapy definition are met by certain reproductive genome editing interventions. I then defend this position against two objections: (a) reproductive genome editing interventions do not attain one of the two conditions for something (...) to be a therapy, and (b) some reproductive genome editing interventions are therapeutic but in a nonstandard way. In the Conclusion I call for a more nuanced discussion of the nature of reproductive genome editing interventions. (shrink)

Although germline editing has been the subject of debate ever since the 1980s, it tended to be based rather on speculative assumptions until April 2015, when CRISPR/Cas9 technology was used to modify human embryos for the first time. This article combines knowledge about the technical and scientific state of the art, economic considerations, the legal framework and aspects of clinical reality. A scenario will be elaborated as a means of identifying key ethical implications of CRISPR/Cas9 genome (...) class='Hi'>editing in humans and possible ways of dealing with them. Unlike most other discussions of CRISPR/Cas9 germline editing, which are generally based on deontological arguments, the focus in this case will be on a consequentialistic argument against certain applications of germline and somatic editing that takes not only the potential benefits and risks but also socioeconomic issues into consideration. The practical need for an indication catalogue, guidelines for clinical trials, and for funding of basic research will be pointed out. It will be argued that this need for regulatory action and discussion does not stem primarily from the fact that CRISPR/Cas9 germline editing is revolutionary in terms of its ethical implications and potential for human therapy, although this is the prevailing view in the current discussion. Understanding the value and interest dependency of arguments put forward by different stakeholders and learning from past debates related to similar technologies might prove a fruitful method of reaching judgments and decisions that come closer to a consensus upon which society as a whole can agree - which after all should be the true goal of an ethical debate and of bioethics. (shrink)

Though genome editing is a powerful technology, germline GE engineering is strongly objectionable for a huge ethical challenge. The after-effects of the genome-edited babies incident have been emerging in China, whether technology or ethics. It is very noticeable that the case has been adverse effects on the application of GE technology in other fields, especially in GE crops. After the incident, research and development of GE crops was affected obviously. It is clear that GE crops and (...) other basic research and application related to GE technology should be encouraged and should not be treated differently. An ethically acceptable development route of GE technology needs to be established in China. (shrink)

A central problem for the international governance of heritable germline gene editing is that there are important differences in attitudes and values as well as ethical and health care considerations around the world. These differences are reflected in a complicated and diverse regulatory landscape. Several publications have discussed whether reproductive uses would be legally permissible in individual countries and whether clinical applications could emerge in the context of regulatory gaps and gray areas. Systematic comparative studies that explore issues (...) related to the governance of this technology from different national and international perspectives are needed to address the lack of knowledge in this area. In this research report, we contribute to filling this gap by presenting views of stakeholders in the United Kingdom on challenges to the governance of heritable genome editing. We present findings from a multistakeholder study conducted in the United Kingdom between October 2016 and January 2018 and funded by the Wellcome Trust. This research included interviews, literature analysis, and a workshop. We involved leading U.K. scientists, in vitro fertilization clinicians, and representatives from regulatory bodies, patient organizations, and other civil societal organizations, as well as fertility companies. Part one of this article explores stakeholder perceptions of possible global developments in heritable genome editing and associated risks and governance challenges. Part two presents a range of policy options that were generated during the workshop in relation to the challenges discussed in part one. (shrink)

The reported birth of genetically modified twins in late 2018 has given new fuel to debates about the ethics of germline genome editing (GGE). There is a broad consensus among stakeholders that clinical uses of GGE should be temporarily banned as the technology is not yet deemed safe for use in humans. However, the idea of a complete ban is dismissed by many based on the expectation that more research will eventually allow scientists to make the technology (...) safe without having to put humans at risk first. In this article, I will analyse this assumption and argue that it is undermined by recent developments in the postgenomic life sciences. In particular, I will argue that in a postgenomic view of germline editing a complete ban on specific uses of the technology is warranted, because the research needed to assess the safety of these interventions would not be morally defensible. (shrink)

Editing human germline genes may act as boon in some genetic and other disorders. Recent editing of the genome of the human embryo with the CRISPR/Cas9 editing tool generated a debate amongst top scientists of the world for the ethical considerations regarding its effect on the future generations. It needs to be seen as to what transformation human gene editing brings to humankind in the times to come.

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. (shrink)

In the wake of the advent of genome editing technology CRISPR-Cas9 (clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeat (CRISPR)-associated protein 9), there has been a global debate around the implications of manipulating the human genome. While CRISPR-based germline gene editing is new, the debate about the ethics of gene editing is not – for several decades now, scholars have debated the ethics of making heritable changes to the human genome. The arguments that have been raised (...) both for and against the use of genetic technologies in human reproduction reiterate much of the arguments made in the pre-CRISPR debate. As such, it is instructive for South Africa to reflect on these arguments now, in considering our position on the regulation of the use of this novel biotechnology. There are two dominant schools of thought in this area, bioliberalism and bioconservatism. Bioconservatives raise concerns about the risks of genetic manipulation, and argue that it ought to be limited or prohibited to avert these risks to human health and human nature. Bioliberal scholars are more open to the prospect of genetic manipulation, because of its potential utility. In this article, I conclude that in liberal democracies such as our own, bioliberal arguments ought to be seriously considered when formulating policy on human genome editing because of the extent to which they resonate with our Constitutional values and human rights. I further suggest that there is a need for an enquiry into the relevance of African perspectives on the ethical questions that arise concerning germline genome editing. (shrink)

The development of gene-editing technologies, such as the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats and associated Cas9 endonuclease system, coincides with a rapidly expanding knowledge of the role of genes in the human ageing process. This raises the prospect that, in addition to the treatment of genetic diseases and disorders, it may become possible to use gene-editing technologies to alter the ageing process and significantly extend the maximum human lifespan. Germline editing poses distinctive problems due to (...) its implications for individual members of future, unborn generations. In this essay, I wish to home in, narrowly, on a single ethical objection to extending the lifespan of future generations by editing the human germline. The objection suggests that to extend lifespans is to unethically inflict the harm of loneliness on future people. I claim that the argument rests on assumptions that ought to be rejected. (shrink)

This paper provides an ethical analysis of the controversy that arose from the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing research involving human embryos that was conducted by a research team in Guangzhou, China, in 2015. It is argued that the researchers involved did not overstep ethical boundaries. This was confirmed to be the case in an international meeting of experts that was convened following the controversy. It is further argued that the controversy highlights the tension between two fundamentally different policies on developing (...) genome editing technology – one proactionary and the other precautionary. This paper argues for a third approach, based on the policy of “crossing the river by probing stones”. Such an approach is consistent with current international recommendations to prioritise basic and pre-clinical research, and to allow the application of genome editing technology to somatic human cells. However, the application of the technology in germline genetic modification for human reproduction or enhancement for medical purposes should not be allowed at present. This is because the attending risks are not well understood and could be excessive or extraordinary, with little or no prospect of benefit. In addition, this paper calls for norms and regulations to be developed for genetically modifying non-human living things. [End Page 307] Finally, the paper concludes with a letter that was sent by the author to the New York Times, setting out China’s fundamental stance on genetic modification involving humans and human derivatives. (shrink)

A paper by Andorno and colleagues, recently published in Trends in Biotechnology, condemns support for heritable human genome editing (HHGE) that is claimed to be premature and to have occurred without sufficient public consultation. The general message of the paper is welcome in its emphasis on the importance of gaining broader perspectives on the uses and regulation of HHGE before calls for clinical use are made. However, some problematic arguments for their position lead them to seemingly condemn not (...) only current premature calls for clinical use of HHGE but also any analysis of the ways in which it might be appropriately regulated in the future. (shrink)

The ability to make direct genetic changes to the DNA of future children poses profound challenges for governance: should it be done? For what purposes and subject to what limitations? And, no less importantly, who should decide? As a resolution pending in the US Senate rightly states, the prospect of editing the germline "touches on all of humanity". Given this, how should we as a human community guide and govern this emerging technology?The question of how human genome (...) editing should be governed—and by whom—has been at the heart of the debates that have unfolded over the course of the last five years.... (shrink)

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). (shrink)

In July 2018, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics released the report Genome editing and human reproduction: Social and ethical issues, concluding that human germline modification of human embryos for implantation is not ‘morally unacceptable in itself’ and could be ethically permissible in certain circumstances once the risks of adverse outcomes have been assessed and the procedure appears ‘reasonably safe’. The Nuffield Council set forth two main principles governing anticipated uses and envisions applications that may include health enhancements (...) as a public health measure. This essay provides a critique of three aspects in the Nuffield Council’s Report: its presumption of therapeutic efficacy, its inflation of parental rights to create a certain type of child, and its reliance on a specially commissioned report that appears to distort key definitions in international law. (shrink)

The recent development of CRISPR/Cas9 technology has rekindled the ethical debate concerning human germline modification that has begun decades ago. This inexpensive technology shows tremendous promise in disease prevention strategies, while raising complex ethical concerns about safety and efficacy of the technology, human dignity, tampering with God’s creation, and human genetic enhancement. Germline gene editing may result in heritable changes in the human genome, therefore the question of whether it should be allowed requires deep and careful (...) discussion from various perspectives. This paper explores Islamic perspectives on the concerns raised and highlights the ethical principles in Islam that should be taken into consideration when assessing the permissibility of CRISPR/ Cas9-mediated human germline gene editing. As argued in this paper, human germline gene editing would be considered lawful for medical purpose under certain conditions. It should not be applied on humans until the safety and efficacy issues are resolved. Robust ethical guidelines and strict regulations are necessary to preserve human dignity and to prevent premature and misuse of the technology. Maqasid al-shariah’s principles of preservation of human life, lineage, and dignity and ‘preventing harm takes precedence over securing benefit’ are among the guiding principles in assessing the permissibility of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated human germline editing from an Islamic perspective. Further discussions are important to address the controversies as well as to explore the related ethical principles. (shrink)

The concept of vulnerability has become widely acknowledged as a fundamental concept for medical ethics and research ethics, yet rarely considered with respect to ethical assessments of human germline genome editing. A first aim of this paper is to make vulnerability ethics considerations fruitful for issues related to these technical innovations. The possibility of altering the genome promises to overcome forms of vulnerability inherently connected to our existence as physical beings and would hence allow to increase (...) the resilience of human nature or even to move evolution forward by equipping people with new character traits and enhanced capabilities. I suggest a more fine-grained distinction of various applications purposes than the dichotomy of therapeutic and enhancement. I support the rejection of most application purposes as ‘therapeutic’ and claim that framing them as ‘therapeutic’ in the context of the current discursive constellation runs the risk of accentuating existing vulnerabilities. With respect to intergenerational responsibilities, I reject the view that editing the germline necessarily leads to corrupt intergenerational relations based on which it must be categorically excluded. I conclude that it is nevertheless important to take a very close look at the challenges that arise, especially from a vulnerability perspective, before irreversible facts are created overhastily. (shrink)

Genome Editing Techniques are seen to be at the frontier of current research in the field of emerging biotechnologies. The latest revolutionary development, the so-called CRISPR technology, represents a paradigmatic example of the ambiguity of such techniques and has resulted in an international interdisciplinary debate on whether or not it is necessary to ban the application of this technique by means of a moratorium on its use for human germline modifications, particularly in human embryos in the reproduction (...) process. However, given that other germline engineering techniques like mitochondrial DNA transfer techniques are already permitted and applied, the question arises what lies at the root of the apparent social unease about the modification of the human germline by Genome Editing Techniques like CRISPR. Against this background, the book seeks to make a substantial contribution to the current debate about a responsible and participatory framework for research on emerging biotechnologies by analysing underlying perceptions, attitudes, arguments and the reasoning on Genome Editing Techniques. (shrink)

On September 5, 2020, the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing, established by the U.S. National Academy of Medicine, the National Academy of Science,...

Recent scientific advances in the field of gene editing have led to a renewed discussion on the moral acceptability of human germline modifications. Gene editing methods can be used on human embryos and gametes in order to change DNA sequences that are associated with diseases. Modifying the human germline, however, is currently illegal in many countries but has been suggested as a ‘last resort’ option in some reports. In contrast, preimplantation genetic diagnosis is now a well-established (...) practice within reproductive medicine. Both methods can be used to prevent children from being born with severe genetic diseases. This paper focuses on four moral concerns raised in the debate about germline gene editing and applies them to the practice of PGD for comparison: Violation of human dignity, disrespect of the autonomy and the physical integrity of the future child, discrimination of people living with a disability and the fear of slippery slope towards immoral usage of the technology, e.g. designing children for specific third party interests. Our analysis did not reveal any fundamental differences with regard to the four concerns. We argue that with regard to the four arguments analyzed in this paper germline gene editing should be considered morally as acceptable as the selection of genomes on the basis of PGD. However, we also argue that any application of GGE in reproductive medicine should be put on hold until thorough and comprehensive laws have been implemented to prevent the abuse of GGE for non-medical enhancement. (shrink)

CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing can and has altered human genomes, bringing bioethical debates about this capability to the forefront of philosophical and policy considerations. Here, I consider the underexplored implications of CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives for heritable human genome editing. Modification gene drives applied to heritable human genome editing would introduce a novel form of involuntary eugenic practice that I term guerrilla eugenics. Once introduced into a genome, stealth genetic editing by a gene drive (...) genetic element would occur each subsequent generation irrespective of whether reproductive partners consent to it and irrespective of whether the genetic change confers any benefit. By overriding the ability to ‘opt in’ to genome editing, gene drives compromise the autonomy of carrier individuals and their reproductive partners to choose to use or avoid genome editing and impose additional burdens on those who hope to ‘opt out’ of further genome editing. High incidence of an initially rare gene drive in small human communities could occur within 200 years, with evolutionary fixation globally in a timeframe that is thousands of times sooner than achievable by non-drive germline editing. Following any introduction of heritable gene drives into human genomes, practices intended for surveillance or reversal also create fundamental ethical problems. Current policy guidelines do not comment explicitly on gene drives in humans. These considerations motivate an explicit moratorium as being warranted on gene drive development in heritable human genome editing. (shrink)

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). (shrink)

Review of Francoise Baylis, Altered Inheritance: CRISPR and the Ethics of Human Genome Editing (2019).

This article traces the rapid progression of policy pertaining to human genome germline modifications using genome editing. It provides an overview of how one fertility physician implemented and advertised experimental techniques as part of his fertility clinic services, examines US law and policy, and assesses the impact of rhetoric influencing global policy and interpretation of the law. This article provides an in-depth examination of the medical rationale driving the acceptance of genome editing human embryos (...) in two contexts: to cure disease and treat infertility. It describes complexities in genomics and outlines risks currently associated with genome editing, asserting the available evidence fails to demonstrate genome editing constitutes a curative therapy. (shrink)

In late 2019, He Jiankui, the Chinese scientist who created the world's first gene‐edited babies, and two embryologists were sentenced to prison and fined. Thirteen months earlier, when the world first learned about the experiment, He and his colleagues drew swift and nearly uniform international condemnation for prematurely moving to human trials, for the risks they took with the children's health, and for He's secrecy. The organizing committee for the second genome editing summit said the experiment failed to (...) conform with international norms.” In the United States, the legal picture is complex. No doubt the specific experiment He performed would have run afoul of long‐standing research regulations due to its problems with informed consent and ethical review. But other laws also affect this kind of work, in particular, a budget rider that for the past four years has been included in federal appropriations legislation. (shrink)

Scheinerman (2023) proposes a Citizen’s Jury on human germline genome editing (HGGE) to promote more inclusive public engagement, agenda setting and governance. She argues these juries should work...

Excerpt: 1. Introduction This chapter provides insight into the diverse ethical debates on genetics and epigenetics. Much controversy surrounds debates about intervening into the germline genome of human embryos, with catchwords such as genome editing, designer baby, and CRISPR/Cas. The idea that it is possible to design a child according to one’s personal preferences is, however, a quite distorted view of what is actually possible with new gene technologies and gene therapies. These are much more limited (...) than the editing and design metaphors suggest. Such metaphors are therefore highly problematic phrases in the context of new gene technologies, for two reasons. On one hand, to design a child of choice by modifying the genome would require modifying any gene of choice, which is more than can be done with current gene technologies, such as CRISPR/Cas. On the other hand, a modification of genes would need to be enough to create any characteristic of choice in the future child. The latter presupposes the assumption of genetic determinism. Moreover, the CRISPR/Cas technology can not only be used in a potentially therapeutic manner at the germline level. In addition, there is the (more likely) scenario of a future clinical therapeutic use of these new gene technologies for modifying the DNA sequence of other cells of the body (somatic genome editing). There is also the option of modifying the epigenome, that is, the spatial configuration of DNA (epigenome editing) (see table 1). Like genetics and genome editing, epigenetics has been at the center of recent popular scientific and ethical discourse as well as scientific debates. The concept of epigenetics has given rise to very different notions of inheritability and responsibility for health, which, however, are oftentimes based on scientifically controversial basic assumptions. That there continues to be covert genetic determinism in the form of epigenetic determinism (see table 2) in debates about epigenetics has been pointed out in ethical analyses of epigenetics. Neither genetic determinism nor epigenetic determinism has been confirmed scientifically. It is therefore important to recognize the concepts that are discussed (and sometimes harshly criticized) in debates about genome editing and epigenetics—for example, concepts about the causal role of DNA for our own life course. This importance is based on the fact that if we understand such controversial concepts, we will be able to remain critical when evaluating scientific knowledge and ethical arguments about genome editing and epigenetics. This chapter, therefore, explains some of these concepts. For an ethical analysis of epigenetics as well as of genome editing, it is necessary to understand and critically reflect upon the underlying concepts of genetic determinism and other, related -isms. The following section offers a detailed introduction to these -isms (section 2; see also table 2). Section 3 provides an ethical analysis of genome editing and epigenetics based on the explanations in section 2. Section 3 focuses on inheritability and responsibility, justice, safety, the problem of consent, and the effects of genome editing and epigenetics on embryos and future generations. This section does not discuss in detail further points that can be found in ethical debates about epigenetics as well as in ethical debates about genome editing. These points include (among others): • fear that the findings of epigenetics and that the methods of genome editing are misused—this also with respect to eugenics and enhancement; • naturalness—an issue we mention in passing a few times in the following analysis; • a possible connection between the genome/epigenome and the concept of human dignity, and the derived danger of instrumentalization and infringement of autonomy when intervening in the genome or epigenome. Since current discourse about ethical issues associated with genome editing focuses mainly on germline interventions, which are, for instance, interventions into a human embryo’s genome, we mainly focus on germline interventions when comparing the debates on genome editing and on epigenetics in section 3. (shrink)