This article assesses human germline genome editing (GGE). It argues that such editing is not inherently unethical, largely because of the fuzzy nature of “The Human Germline Genome” and its constant changes, often caused by humans. It further argues that GGE is unlikely to be very useful, at least in the near term to mid term. Other methods, such as preimplantation genetic testing and somatic cell gene therapy, are likely to be safer and more effective for dealing with avoiding single gene diseases. The main exceptions are rare couples wherein both have the same recessive condition or one has two copies of an allele causing a dominant condition. Although GGE should have advantages in dealing with multigenic or enhancement applications, our genomic knowledge is inadequate to support more than a few such applications for many years.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Greely HT. Human genetic enhancement: A lawyer's view. Med Humanit Rev 2003;17:42–46, review of Mehlman MJ. Wondergenes: Genetic Enhancement and the Future of Society. Bloomington, IN.: Indiana University Press. 2003.
2.
Greely HT. Genetic modification. J Am Med Ass'n 2004;292:1374–1375 review of Designing Our Descendants: The Promises and Perils of Genetic Modifications (Chapman AR, Frankel MS; eds). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2003.
MarchioneM. Chinese Researcher Claims First Gene-Edited Babies. Associated Press, November 26, 2018. Available online at www.apnews.com/4997bb7aa36c45449b488e19ac83e86d (accessed January11, 2019).
5.
GreelyHT. CRISPR'd babies: Human germline genome editing in the “He Jiankui affair.” J Law Biosci 2019, advance publication. Available online at https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz010 (accessed August13, 2019).
6.
GreelyHT.How should science respond to CRISPR'd babies?. Issues Sci Tech, 2019; 35:32–37.
The Committee on Human Gene Editing: Scientific, Medical, and Ethical Considerations of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Medicine; and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Human. Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. 2017.
LewensT. Blurring the germline: Genome editing and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Bioethics. Available online at https:doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12606 (accessed September18, 2019) (first published July 2, 2019).
19.
JaniakMC.Evolution: Of starch and spit. eLife, 2019; 8:e47523.
LuoS, ValenciaCA, ZhangJ, et al.Biparental inheritance of mitochondrial DNA in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2018; 115:13039–13044.
22.
HandysideAH, KontogianniEH, HardyK, et al.Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature, 1990; 344:768–770.
23.
U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention and Control. 2016 Assisted Reproductive Technology: Clinical Success Rates Report. Available online at www.cdc.gov/art/reports/2016/fertility-clinic.html (accessed May25, 2019).
24.
U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention and Control. 2015 Assisted Reproductive Technology: Clinical Success Rates Report. Available online at www.cdc.gov/art/reports/archive.html (accessed May25, 2019).
25.
Greely HT. The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2016.
26.
SteffannJ, JouannetP, BonnefontJP, et al.Could failure in preimplantation genetic diagnosis justify editing the human embryo genome?. Cell Stem Cell, 2018; 22:481–482.
27.
MaH, Marti-GuttierezN, ParkSW, et al.Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature, 2017; 548:413–419.
SollochUV, LangK, LangeV, et al.Frequencies of gene variant CCR5-Δ32 in 87 countries based on next-generation sequencing of 1.3 million individuals sampled from 3 national DKMS donor centers. Hum Immunol, 2017; 78:710–717.
ChaudharyR, GargJ, ShahN, et al.PCSK9 inhibitors: A new era of lipid lowering therapy. World J Cardiol, 2017; 9:76–91.
34.
WeiX, NielsenR. CCR5-Δ32 is deleterious in the homozygous state in humans. Nat Med, 2019; 25:909–910.
35.
FalconA, CuevasMT, Rodriguez-FrandzenA, et al.CCR5 deficiency predisposes to fatal outcome in influenza virus infection. J Gen Virol, 2015; 96:2074–2078.
36.
LimJK, MurphyPM. Chemokine control of West Nile virus infection. Exp Cell Res, 2011; 317:569–574.
37.
GreelyHT.Remarks on human biological enhancement. U Kan L Rev, 2008; 56:1139–1157.
Ethics of Sports, Doping, Bigger, stronger, faster: The unexpected virtue of danger. Sports Ethics (Blog), November 24, 2015. Available online at https://ethicsofsports.wordpress.com/tag/doping (accessed May 25, 2019).
40.
Epstein D. The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance. New York: Current. 2013.
