The ethics of genome editing in the clinic: A dose of realism for healthcare leaders

Abstract

Genome editing technologies promise therapeutic advances for genetic diseases. We discuss the ethical and societal issues raised by these technologies, including their use in preclinical research, their potential to address mutations in somatic cells, and their potential to make germ line alterations that may be passed to subsequent generations. We call for a proportionate response from health leaders based on a realistic assessment of benefits, risks, and timelines for clinical translation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Caulfield

. Ethics hype? Hastings Cent Rep. 2016;46(5):13–16.

Bubela

Hagen

Einsiedel

. Synthetic biology confronts publics and policy-makers: challenges for communication, regulation and commercialization. Trends Biotechnol. 2012;30(3):132–137.

Maeder

Gerbach

. Genome-editing technologies for gene and cell therapy. Mol Ther. 2016;24(3):430–446

Gaj

Gersbach

Barbas

III . ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR/Cas-based methods for genome engineering. Trends Biotechnol. 2013;31(7):397–405.

Mei

Wang

Chen

Sun

. Recent progress in CRISPR/Cas9 technology. J Genet Genomics. 2016;43(2):63–75.

Odling-Smee

Ledford

Reardon

. Genome editing: 7 facts about a revolutionary technology. Nature News. November 30, 2015. Available at: http://www.nature.com/news/genome-editing-7-facts-about-a-revolutionary-technology-1.18869. Accessed March 23, 2017.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 2014 Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research. Available at: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/. Accessed March 23, 2017.

Committee on Human Gene Editing: Scientific, Medical, and Ethical Considerations. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2017. Available at: http://nationalacademies.org/gene-editing/consensus-study/index.htm. Accessed March 23, 2017.

Cyranoski

Reardon

. Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos. Nature News. April 22, 2015. Available at: http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378. Accessed March 23, 2017.

10.

Liang

Zhang

. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell. 2015;6(5):363–372.

11.

Kang

Huang

. Introducing precise genetic modifications into human 3PN embryos by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(5):581–588.

12.

Callaway

. UK scientists gain licence to edit genes in human embryos. Nature. 2016;530:18. Available at: http://www.nature.com/news/uk-scientists-gain-licence-to-edit-genes-in-human-embryos-1.19270. Accessed March 23, 2017.

13.

Callaway

. Gene-editing research in human embryos gains momentum. Nature. 2016;532(7599):289–290. Available at: http://www.nature.com/news/gene-editing-research-in-human-embryos-gains-momentum-1.19767. Accessed March 23, 2017.

14.

National Institutes of Health. Statement on NIH funding of research using gene-editing technologies in human embryos. 4 28, 2015. Available at: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-nih-funding-research-using-gene-editing-technologies-human-embryos. Accessed March 23, 2017.

15.

Piller

. California considers funding controversial research: editing genes in human embryos. STAT News. February 8, 2016. Available at: https://www.statnews.com/2016/02/08/california-weighs-gene-editing-embryos/. Accessed March 23, 2017.

16.

Kaiser

. First proposed human test of CRISPR passes initial safety review. Science. June 21, 2016. Available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/human-crispr-trial-proposed. Accessed March 23, 2017.

17.

Sherkow

. CRISPR: pursuit of profit poisons collaboration. Nature. 2016;532(7598):172–173.

18.

Ledford

. Broad Institute wins battle over CRISPR patents. Nature. 2017;542: 401.

19.

Kimmelman

. Gene Transfer and the Ethics of First-in-Human Research: Lost in Translation. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press; 2009:205.

20.

Benjaminy

MacDonald

Bubela

. “Is a cure in my sight?” Multi-stakeholder perspectives on phase-I choroideremia gene transfer clinical trials. Genet Med. 2013;16(5):379–385.

21.

Benjaminy

Kowal

MacDonald

Bubela

. Communicating the promise for ocular gene therapy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;160(3):408–415.

22.

Regalado

, CRISPR Gene Editing to Be Tested on People by 2017, Says Editas. MIT Technology Review. November 5, 2015. Available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/543181/crispr-gene-editing-to-be-tested-on-people-by-2017-says-editas/. Accessed March 23, 2017.

23.

Bosley

Botchan

Bredenoord

. CRISPR germline engineering—the community speaks. Nature Biotechnol. 2015;33(5):478–486.

24.

Scott

. Treading the line between sensational and groundbreaking science. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(12):1–2.

25.

Marden

Nelkin

. Displaced agendas: current regulatory strategies for germline gene therapy. McGill Law J. 2000;45(2):461–481.