Lastly, commenters on the issue are concerned that the use of genome editing for reproductive purposes will be regulated differently inside and outside of the U.S., leading to uses considered objectionable to the American public. 6 They believe that concerns about enhancement should be managed through policy and regulation. Others argue that genome editing, once proved safe and effective, should be allowed to cure genetic disease (and indeed, that it is a moral imperative). Some researchers and bioethicists are concerned that any genome editing, even for therapeutic uses, will start us on a slippery slope to using it for non-therapeutic and enhancement purposes, which many view as controversial.
This includes when both prospective parents are homozygous for a disease-causing variant (they both have two copies of the variant, so all of their children would be expected to have the disease) cases of polygenic disorders, which are influenced by more than one gene and for families who object to some elements of the PGD process.
However, scientists and bioethicists acknowledge that in some cases, germline editing can address needs not met by PGD. Some researchers argue that there may never be a time when genome editing in embryos will offer a benefit greater than that of existing technologies, such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Researchers and ethicists who have written and spoken about genome editing, such as those present at the International Summit on Human Gene Editing, generally agree that until germline genome editing is deemed safe through research, it should not be used for clinical reproductive purposes the risk cannot be justified by the potential benefit. Other groups also use the term "gene editing." In general, these terms are used interchangeably.ĭue to the possibility of off-target effects (edits in the wrong place) and mosaicism (when some cells carry the edit but others do not), safety is of primary concern. NHGRI uses the term "genome editing" to describe techniques used to modify DNA in the genome. For more information on this summit, see What's happening right now? This effort officially launched in December 2015 with the International Summit on Human Gene Editing in Washington, DC. 3 There is also an international effort led by the US, UK, and China to harmonize regulation of the application of genome editing technologies. As of 2014, there were about 40 countries that discouraged or banned research on germline editing, including 15 nations in Western Europe, because of ethical and safety concerns. 1, 2 Most stakeholders agree that it is important to have continuing public deliberation and debate to allow the public to decide whether or not germline editing should be permissible. The debate about genome editing is not a new one but has regained attention following the discovery that CRISPR has the potential to make such editing more accurate and even "easy" in comparison to older technologies.īioethicists and researchers generally believe that human genome editing for reproductive purposes should not be attempted at this time, but that studies that would make gene therapy safe and effective should continue.
0 kommentar(er)
