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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
J.Travis, “Breakthrough of the Year: CRISPR Makes the Cut,”Science350, no. 6358 (2015): 1456-1457.
21 CFR § 1271 (2017); Letter to Sponsors/Researchers-Human Cells Used in Therapy Involving the Transfer of Genetic Material By Means Other Than the Union of Gamete Nuclei, FDA, July6, 2001, available at <https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170404210748/https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/ucm105852.htm> (last visited December 13, 2018); National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques: Ethical, Social, and Policy Considerations (Washington D.C.: National Academies Press, 2016) at 22 (hereinafter “NAS MRT Report.”)
12.
Zhang Letter, supra note 9.
13.
Article 13, Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, Council of Europe (1997), available at <https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168007cf98> (last visited November 16, 2018); M. Araki and T. Ishii, “International Regulatory Landscape and Integration of Corrective Genome Editing Into In Vitro Fertilization,” Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 12, no. 108 (2014): 1-12 at 9; R. Isasi et al., “Editing Policy to Fit the Genome?” Science 351, no. 6721 (2016): 337-339; United Nations Scientific Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Report of the IBC on Updating Its Reflection on the Human Genome and Human Rights (2015), available at <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002332/233258E.pdf> (last visited November 16, 2018); United Nations Scientific Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997), available at <http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/human-genome-and-human-rights/> (last visited November 16, 2018).
S.Begley, “Do CRISPR Enthusiasts Have Their Head in the Sand About the Safety of Gene Editing?”STAT News, July18, 2016, available at <https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/18/crispr-off-target-effects/> (last visited December 13, 2018); see also M. Porteus and C. Dann, “Genome Editing of the Germline: Broadening the Discussion,” Molecular Therapy 23, no. 6 (2015): 980-982.
21.
Id.
22.
Id., at 981; L.Tanget al., “CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Gene Editing in Human Zygotes Using Cas9 Protein,”Molecular Genetics and Genomics292, no. 3 (2017): 525-533.
23.
S.A.Barnett, “Regulating Human Germline Modification in Light of CRISPR,”University of Richmond Law Review51, no. 2 (2017): 553-591.
“The New Technologies of Human Genetic Modification: A Threshold Challenge for Humanity,”Center for Genetics and Society (2002), available at <https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article/threshold-challenge-new-human-genetic-technologies> (last visited November 16, 2018)(quoting Evelyne Schuster in the Report on the Conference Beyond Cloning: Protecting Humanity from Species Altering Procedures) (hereinafter “The New Technologies.”)
28.
Editorial, “Scientific Buzzwords Obscure Meaning,”Nature538, no. 7624 (2016): 140 (stating “buzzwords are Orwellian and obfuscate even as they pretend to enlighten.”)
29.
NAS Human Genome Editing Report, supra note 14, at 8. NAS Human Genome Editing Report specifically sets forth a list of governance principles including responsible science, due care, and transparency; see generally Drabiak MRT, supra note 6.
NAS Human Genome Editing Report, supra note 14, at 87-88; T.Ishii, “Germ Line Genome Editing in the Clinics: The Approaches, Objectives, and Global Society,”Briefings in Functional Genomics16, no. 1 (2017): 46-56 at 50 (stating the prevention of monogenic diseases before childbirth appears to be a “reasonable application”); E. Juengst, “Crowdsourcing the Moral Limits of Human Gene Editing?” Hasting Center Report 47, no. 3 (2017): 15-23 (stating there appear to be “clear cut cases that enjoy international endorsement.”)
41.
SeeR.Barrangou and J.Doudna, “Applications of CRISPR Technologies in Research and Beyond,”Nature Biotechnology34, no. 9 (2016): 933-941 at 938; E. Lander, “Brave New Genome,” New England Journal of Medicine 373, no. 1 (2015): 5-8.
42.
Savulescu et al., supra note 36, at 876.
43.
Id.; P.Enriquez, “Genome Editing and the Jurisprudence of Scientific Empiricism,”Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law19, no. 3 (2017): 603-695 at 637; E. Grant, “FDA Regulation of Clinical Applications of CRISPR-CAS Gene Editing Technology,” Food and Drug Law Journal 71, no. 4 (2016): 608-633, at 613-614.
44.
Enriquez, supra note 43, at 637 (discussing prophylactic measures and protective mutations); Ishii, supra note 40, at, 53; T.Ishii, “Germline Genome-Editing Research and Its Socioethical Implications,”Trends in Molecular Medicine21, no. 8 (2015): 473-481 at 479 (comparing preventive editing to preventive medicine); Juengst, supra note 40, at 18 (likening genome editing as similar to other public health measures designed to prevent disease and promote health).
45.
Ajunwa, supra note 25; see also Comfort, supra note 26 (asserting that proponents of technology are publicly advocating for the new eugenics couched in technology.)
46.
T.Ishii, “Reproductive Medicine Involving Genome Editing: Clinical Uncertainties and Embryological Needs,”Reproductive Biomedicine34, no. 1 (2017): 27-31 at 28.
J.Gregorio, “Hatching A Plan Toward Comprehensive Regulation in Egg Donation,”DePaul Law Review65, no. 4 (2016): 1283-1319, at 1285-1286.
50.
E.Diamanti-Kandarakiset al., “Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement,”Endocrine Reviews30, no. 4 (2009): 293-342.
51.
See generallyN.Skakkebaeket al., “Male Reproductive Disorders and Fertility Trends: Influences of Environment and Genetic Susceptibility,”Physiological Reviews96, no. 1 (2016): 55-97 at 68; R.S. Tavares et al., “The Non-Genomic Effects of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals on Mammalian Sperm,” Reproduction 15, no. 1 (2015): R1-R13.
52.
A.Bergmanet al. (eds.), State of the Science on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, World Health Organization and United Nations Environment Program (2012)(hereinafter “State of the Science on EDCs”); Skakkebaek et al., supra note 51, at 80-81; see also P. Ghosh, “Sperm Count “Could Make Humans Extinct,’” BBC News, July 25, 2017, available at <http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40719743> (last visited November 16, 2018).
F.Baylis, “Human Genome Germline Editing and Broad Societal Consensus,”Nature Human Behavior1, no. 0103 (2017): 1-3.
59.
21 CFR § 1271.3(d) (2017); Grant, supra note 43, at 615, 624-625; NAS MRT Report, supra note 11, at 25-38, 99-100.
60.
Id.
61.
21 CFR § 1271.150 (2017).
62.
See Drabiak MRT, supra note 6, at 25.
63.
21 CFR § 1271.151 (2017); see also Grant, supra note 43, at 624-625.
64.
Grant, supra note 43, at 624-625; NAS MRT Report, supra note 11, at 25-38, 99-100.
65.
Grant, supra note 43, at 614-615.
66.
Id.
67.
See NAS MRT Report, supra note 11, at 59, 67.
68.
Section 736, Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law No. 115-31, 115th Congress (2016-2017); see alsoR.Castro, “Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy: The UK and US Regulatory Landscapes,”Journal of Law and Biosciences3 no. 3 (2016): 725-735.
69.
NAS Human Genome Editing Report, supra note 14, at 6.
NAS Human Genome Editing Report, supra note 14, at 90 and 102-103.
75.
Barnett, supra note 23, at 553; see also NAS Human Genome Editing Report, supra note 14, at 85.
76.
NAS Human Genome Editing Report, supra note 14, at 89-94.
77.
Id. at 89, 93-95.
78.
Id. at 93-95.
79.
Y.Chenet al., “Functional Disruption of the Dystrophin Gene in the Rhesus Monkey Using CRIPSR/Cas9,”Human Molecular Genetics24, no.13 (2015): 3764-3774 at 3765. Chen and colleagues used 179 rhesus monkey embryos and implanted them in 59 surrogates, which resulted in eight miscarriages, four full term still births, and only fourteen live birth rhesus monkeys. See also U. Midic et al., “Quantitative Assessment of Timing, Efficiency, Specificity, and Genetic Mosaicism of CRISPR-Cas9-Mediated Gene Editing of Hemoglobin Beta Gene in Rhesus Monkey Embryos,” Human Molecular Genetics 26 no. 14 (2017): 2678-2689 at 2684 (finding a 10% survival rate from embryo to full term birth).
80.
Id.; Isasi et al., supra note 13; T.Ishii, “Potential Impact of Human Mitochondrial Replacement on Global Policy Regarding Germline Gene Modification,”Reproductive Biomedicine Online29, no. 2 (2014): 150-155 at 152-153; Araki and T. Ishii, supra note 13, at 9.
Friedrich, supra note 95, at 19, 22; Chneiweiss, supra note 95, at 7, 18, 19.
98.
European Academies, supra note 95; H.Chneiweisset al., “Fostering Responsible Research With Genome Editing Technologies: A European Perspective,”Transgenic Research26, no. 5 (2017): 709-713.
Araki and Ishii, supra note 13, at 8-9; Ishii, supra note 44, at 478-479.
104.
“If you tell a big enough lie, and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” –quote attributed to Joseph Goebbels. SeeT.Stafford, “How Liars Create the Illusion of Truth,”BBC News, October26, 2016, available at <http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth> (last visited November 16, 2018).
105.
S.Newman, “CRISPR Will Never Be Good Enough to Improve People,”Gene Watch30, no.1 (2017): 5-6; G. Annas et al., “Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward An International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 28, no. 2-3 (2002):153-178 at 157-160; S. Jasanoff et al., “CRISPR Democracy: Gene Editing and the Need for Inclusive Deliberation,” Issues in Science and Technology, Fall 2015, available at <http://issues.org/32-1/crispr-democracy-gene-editing-and-the-need-for-inclusive-deliberation/> (last visited November 16, 2018).
106.
See The New Technologies, supra note 27, at 34-35; E.Lanphieret al., “Don’t Edit the Human Germline,”Nature519, no. 7544 (2015): 410-411 at 411.
107.
P.Lianget al., “CRISPR-Cas9-Mediated Gene Editing in Human Tripronuclear Zygotes,”Protein Cell6, no.5 (2015): 363-372 at 366.
108.
Midic et al., supra note 79, at 2685; H.Maet al., “Correction of a Pathogenic Gene Mutation in Human Embryos,”Nature548, no. 7668 (2017): 413-419.
109.
Midic et al., supra note 79, at 2684.
110.
Id. at 2685; NAS Human Genome Editing Report, supra note 14, at 56.
111.
Midic et al., supra note 79, at 2679.
112.
Id.
113.
Id. at 2682; see also Ma et al., supra note 108, at 416.
NAS MRT Report, supra note 11, at 94-95.; D.Carroll and R.A.Charo, “The Societal Opportunities and Challenges of Genome Editing,”Genome Biology16, no. 242 (2015): 1-9. Carroll and Charo specifically assert: “Because editing is performed in a hit-and-run fashion – the nucleases do their job and then are degraded in the cells — no traces of the reagents remains in the organism.” See also Ishii, supra note 40, at 49 (stating “the safety of unprecedented introduction of genome editing nucleases into human embryo deserves special scrutiny.”)
118.
X.Kanget al., “Introducing Precise Genetic Modifications Into Human 3PN Embryos for CRISPR/Cas-Mediated Genome Editing,”Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics33, no. 5 (2016): 581-588 at 587.
119.
Annas el al., supra note 105, at 157.
120.
Id.; S.Newman, “Averting the Clone Age: Prospects and Perils of Human Developmental Manipulation,”Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy19, no. 1 (2003): 431-463; see also Ishii, supra note 40, at 49.
121.
Newman, supra note 120, at 451.
122.
S. Newman, supra note 105; S.Newman, “The Hazards of Human Developmental Gene Modification,”Gene Watch13, no. 3 (2000): 10-12.
123.
Kang et al., supra note 118, at 587.
124.
Human Genetics Alert, supra note 114.
125.
NAS Human Genome Editing Report, supra note 14, at 90-95.
126.
Id. at 56; N.Evittet al., “Human Germline CRISPR-CAS Modification: Toward a Regulatory Framework,”American Journal of Bioethics15, no.12 (2015): 25-29 at 26; E. Hosman, “CRISPR Gene Editing: Proofreaders and Undo Buttons, But Ever Safe Enough?” BioPolitical Times, The Center for Genetics and Society, November 19, 2015, available at <https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/biopolitical-times/crispr-gene-editing-proofreaders-and-undo-buttons-ever-safe-enough> (last visited November 17, 2018).
127.
Newman, supra note 120, at 451.
128.
Knoepfler, supra note 36.
129.
Kang et al., supra note 118, at 585, 587; Midic et al., supra note 79, at 2684; Liang et al., supra note 107, at 364, 366; Chen et al., supra note 79, at 3765.
130.
NAS Human Genome Editing Report, supra note 14, at 89.
131.
Midic et al., supra note 79, at 2684; Chen et al., supra note 79, at 3765.
See generallyI.Campbellet al., “Somatic Mosaicism: Implications for Disease and Transmission Genetics,”Trends in Genetics31, no. 7 (2015): 382-392; J. Vigg et al., “Somatic Mutations, Genome Mosaicism, Cancer and Aging,” Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 26 (2014): 141-149.
136.
NAS Human Genome Editing, supra note 14, at 89; Ishii, supra note 44, at 29.
137.
NAS Human Genome Editing, supra note 14, at 50; Ishii, supra note 46, at 49-50; Ishii, supra note 44, at 29.
138.
Corrigan-Curay et al., supra note 3, at 801; Lander, supra note 41.
139.
Ishii, supra note 44, at 29.
140.
Corrigan-Curay et al., supra note 3, at 799, 805; Kang et al., supra note 118, at 586; see alsoS.Begley, “Do CRISPR Enthusiasts Have Their Head in the Sand About the Safety of Gene Editing?”STAT News, July18, 2016, available at <https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/18/crispr-off-target-effects/> (last visited November 17, 2018).
141.
Id.
142.
Id.; but see Midic et al., supra note 79, at 2681. Midic and colleagues concluded their modifications produced no off target effects, but they examined only the two most common loci where they predicted off target effects would occur.
NAS Human Genome Editing, supra note 14, at 89-90; Midic et al., supra note 79, at 2681; Ishii, supra note 44, at 474.
146.
K.Schaeferet al., “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo,”Nature Methods14, no. 6 (2017): 547-548 [Retracted]; see also K. Brown, “A Controversial Study Is Tearing the CRISPR World Apart,” Gizmodo, June 12, 2017, available at <https://gizmodo.com/a-controversial-study-is-tearing-the-crispr-world-apart-1796026251> (last visited December 13, 2018).
147.
Id.
148.
SeeC.Spicer, “Biotech Companies Criticise CRISPR Mutation Study,”BioNews, June27, 2017, available at <https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_96057> (last visited November 17, 2018).
149.
See generally Spicer, supra note 148 (describing the powerful financial motivations leading Editas Medicine and Intellia Therapeutics to criticize Schaefer et al.’s article and call for reaction; see also K.Hasson, “So, CRISPR Doesn’t Cause All Those Off Target Effects After All?”Center for Genetics and Society, April14, 2018, available at <https://www.genetic-sandsociety.org/biopolitical-times/so-crispr-doesnt-cause-all-those-target-effects-after-all> (last visited November 17, 2018).
150.
M.Kosickiet al., “Repair of Double-Strand Breaks Induced By Crispr-CAS9 Leads to Large Deletions and Complex Rearrangements,”Nature Bioetechnology36, no. 8 (2018): 765-771; see also S. Begley, “Potential DNA Damage From CRISPR Has Been ‘Seriously Underestimated,’ Study Finds,” STAT News, July 16, 2018, available at <https://www.stat-news.com/2018/07/16/crispr-potential-dna-damage-underestimated> (last visited November 17, 2018).
151.
See Drabiak MRT, supra note 6, at 34-37; see alsoP.Hunter, “The Long Term Health Risks of ART,”EMBO Reports18, no. 7 (2017): 1061-1064.
152.
I have referred to this clinical decision-making model as the “Unified Composite Risk Benefit Analysis.” SeeK.Drabiak, “The Impact of a Developing Regulatory Framework Governing LDTs in Precision Oncology: Re-Envisioning the Clinical Risk Assessment Paradigm,”Journal of Health & Biomedical Law13 (2017): 1-89 at 83-88.
153.
Id.;Y.Luet al., “Long Term Follow-up of Children Conceived Through Assisted Reproductive Technology,”Journal of Zhejiang University Biomedicine and Biotechnology14, no. 5 (2013): 359-371 at 361; J. Seggers et al., “Congenital Abnormalities In the Offspring of Subfertile Couples: A Registry Based-Study in the Northern Netherlands,” Fertility and Sterility 103, no. 4 (2015): 1001-1010; D. Kissin, “Association Of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Treatment And Parental Infertility Diagnosis With Autism In ART-Conceived Children,” Human Reproduction 30, no. 2 (2016): 454-465; ESHRE Capri Workshop Group, “Birth Defects And Congenital Health Risks In Children Conceived Through Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART): A Meeting Report,” Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 31, no. 8 (2014): 947–958.
154.
Kissin, supra note 153.
155.
Lu et al., supra note 153.
156.
R.Hart, “Physiological Aspects of Female Infertility: Role of the Environment, Modern Lifestyle, and Genetics,”Physiological Reviews96, no. 3 (2016): 873-909 at 889; see also M. Szalaviz, “The Link Between Infertility Treatments and Birth Defects,” Time, May 7, 2012, available at <http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/07/the-link-between-infertility-treatments-and-birth-defects/> (last visited November 17, 2018).
157.
E.S.Amirian and M.Bondy, “Assisted Reproductive Technology and Risk of Cancer in Children,”Pediatrics137, no. 3 (2016): e20154509; M. Reigstad el al., “Risk of Cancer in Children Conceived by Assisted Reproductive Technology,” Pediatrics 137, no. 3 (2016): e20152061.
158.
FDA Meeting, supra note 114, at 77, 88; NAS MRT Report, supra note 11, at 58.
FDA Meeting supra note 114, at 203, 232-233; NAS Human Genome Editing Report, supra note 14, at 58; Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee, “FDA Briefing Document: Oocyte Modification in Assisted Reproduction for the Prevention of Transmission of Mitochondrial Disease or the Treatment of Infertility,” FDA, February 25-26, 2014 at 14-15, 20 (hereinafter “FDA Brief.”)
Id. at 20; NAS MRT Report, supra note 11, at 58; FDA Meeting, supra note 114, at 104-105; Human Genetics Alert, supra note 114, at 3.
164.
FDA Brief, supra note 160, at 19; Human Genetics Alert, supra note 114, at 3; Genetic Engineering on the Doorstep, supra note, 161 at 5.
165.
FDA Brief, supra note 160, at 19; NAS Genome Editing, supra note 14, at 53.
166.
Midic and colleagues found human embryo efficiency at 52%, but only 10% rhesus monkey zygotes developed to full term. See Midic et al., supra note 79.
167.
I have similarly issued a call to assess the inconsistency between evidence demonstrating grave risks and NAS recommendations pertaining to MRT. See Drabiak MRT, supra note 6, at 37.
Id.; E.C.Hayden, “Seeing Deadly Mutations in a New Light,”Nature538, no. 7624 (2016): 154-157; D. Goldstein et al., “Sequencing Studies in Human Genetics: Design and Interpretation,” Nature Review Genetics 14, no. 7 (2013): 460-470.
170.
Goldstein et al., supra note, 169, at 465; Genetic Reckoning, supra note 168.
171.
Id.
172.
Goldstein et al., supra note 169, at 465.
173.
Id. at 465.
174.
K.Drabiak, “The Impact of a Developing Regulatory Framework Governing LDTs in Precision Oncology: Re-envisioning the Clinical Risk Assessment Paradigm,”Journal of Health and Biomedical Law13, no. 2 (2018): 1-57 at 10-11; C. Holman, “The Critical Role of Patents in the Development, Commercialization, and Utilization of Innovative Genetic Diagnostic Tests and Personalized Medicine,” Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law 21, no. 2 (2015): 297-316 at 302-303.
L.Lostrumboet al., “Prophylactic Mastectomy for the Prevention of Breast Cancer,”Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews11, Article No. CD002748 (2010): 1-93 at 3.
180.
S.Goldman, “Environmental Toxins and Parkinson’s Disease,”Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology54 (2014): 141-164 at 142.
181.
Id.
182.
Id.
183.
F.Pacchierotti and M.Spano, “Environmental Impact of DNA Methylation in the Germline: State of the Art and Gaps of Knowledge,”BioMed Research International (2015), Article ID 123484 (2015): 1-23.
184.
M.Rothsteinet al., “The Ghost in Our Genes: Legal and Ethical Implications of Epigenetics,”Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine19, no. 1 (2009): 1-62 at 4-11.
185.
Id.
186.
Pacchierotti and Spano, supra note 183.
187.
M.Sears and S.Genius, “Environmental Determinants of Chronic Disease and Medical Approaches: Recognition, Avoidance, Supportive Therapy, and Detoxification,”Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2012, Article ID 356798 (2012): 1-15.
188.
SeeK.Drabiak, “Dying to Be Fresh and Clean? Regulatory Shortcomings Governing Toxicants in Personal Care Products, the Impact on Cancer Risk, and Epigenetic Damage,”Pace Environmental Law Review35, no. 1 (2017): 75-107 at 102-104 (discussing environmentally mediated epigenetic damage) (hereinafter Drabiak EDCs).
189.
M.Paraskevaidiet al., “Underlying Role in Mitochondrial Mutagenesis in the Pathogenesis of Disease and Current Approaches for Translational Research,”Mutagenesis32, no. 3 (2017): 335–342 at 341. Paraskevaidi and colleagues suggest simple low risk measures such as exercise and nutrition carry the potential for positive impact because they encourage mitochondrial formation.
190.
See supra note 38.
191.
D.Cooperet al., “When Genotype Is Not Predictive of Phenotype: Towards an Understanding of the Molecular Basis of Reduced Penetrance of Human Inherited Disease,”Human Genetics132, no. 10 (2013): 1077-1130.
192.
F.Nahhaset al., “An Intergenerational Contraction of Fully Penetrant Huntington Disease Allele To A Reduced Penetrance Allele: Interpretation of Results and Significance for Risks Assessment and Genetic Counseling,”American Journal of Medical Genetics149A, no. 4 (2009): 732-736 at 734; C. Kay et al., “Huntington Disease Reduced Penetrance Alleles Occur at High Frequency in the General Population,” Neurology 87, no. 3 (2016): 282-288.
193.
A.Reineret al., “Genetics and Neuropathology of Huntington’s Disease,”International Review of Neurobiology98 (2011): 325-372.
Nahhas et al., supra note 192, at 734. Nahhas and colleagues cite two figures for intermediate allele penetrance arising from two different studies. A study by Langbhen and colleagues 10-53% penetrance for 36-39 CAG repeats, while Quarrell and colleagues estimated 67% penetrance. Nahhas and colleagues cite another study that intermediate alleles affect 1-3.9% of the general population. But see Kay et al., supra note 192. Kay and colleagues estimated intermediate allele occurrence in the general population at only 1/400.
196.
Nahhas et al., supra note 192; see also Cooper et al., supra note 191, at 1084.
197.
Cooper et al., supra note 191, at 1077; see alsoS.Gallati, “Disease Modifying Genes and Monogenic Disorders: Experience in Cystic Fibrosis,”Application of Clinical Genetics7, no. 2014 (2014):133-146.
198.
Gallati, supra note 197, at 134; Cooper et al., supra note 191, at 1077-1078.
199.
Id. at 134; Id. at 1084, 1086.
200.
Id. at 134; Id. 1101-1102.
201.
Id. at 134; Id. at 1101.
202.
Id. at 1102.
203.
Id. at 1078-1078, 1102.
204.
Cooper et al., supra note 191, at 1077; see also S.Gallati, “Disease Modifying Genes and Monogenic Disorders: Experience in Cystic Fibrosis,”Application of Clinical Genetics7, no. 2014 (2014):133-146.
205.
Goldman, supra note 180, at 145-150.
206.
M.Olejniczaket al., “The Role of the Immune System in Triplet Repeat Expansion Disorders,”Mediators of Inflammation 2015, Article ID 873860 (2015): 1-11.
T.Colburnet al., Our Stolen Future (New York: Penguin Books, 1996); State of the Science on EDCs, supra note 52; C. Guerro-Bosagna and M. Skinner, “Environmentally Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Male Infertility,” Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 26 (2014): 79-88; Diamanti-Kandarakis et al., supra note 50; Fertility and Infertility and the Environment, National Center for Environmental Health, centers for disease control and prevention, available at <https://ephtracking.cdc.gov/showRb-FertilityInfertilityEnv> (last visited November 17, 2018).
209.
See generally Diamanti-Kandarakis et al., supra note 50 (discussing reproductive disorders, structural abnormalities, and reduced fertility); Skakkebaek et al., supra note 51 at 3-4 (discussing between impaired semen motility, low sperm count, and testicular cancer); Hart, supra note 156, at 873 (discussing premature ovarian failure and subfertility) and 891 (discussing the connection between obesity and reduced fertility).
Skakkebaek et al., supra note 51, at 3-4, 13, 25; Diamanti-Kandarakis et al., supra note 50, at 309-312; State of the Science on EDCs, supra note 52, at vii, 57, 65, 74.
215.
H.Levineet al., “Temporal Trends in Sperm Count: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis, Human Reproduction Update”Human Reproduction Update23, no. 6 (2017):646-659 at 6-7; Skakkebaek et al., supra note 57, at 68.
216.
Levine et al., supra note 215, at 6-7.
217.
Guerro-Bosagna and Skinner, supra note 208, at 80-83; see alsoR.Sharmaet al., “Lifestyle Factors and Reproductive Health: Taking Control of Your Fertility,”Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology11, no. 66 (2013): 1-15.
218.
Id.; Skakkebaek et al., supra note 51, at 14; Hart, supra note 156, at 887.
219.
Id.; Diamanti-Kandarakis et al., supra note 50; see generally State of the Science on EDCs, supra note 52.
220.
A.Marques-Pinto and D.Carvalho, “Human Infertility: Are Endocrine Disruptors To Blame?”Endocrine Connections2 no. 3 (2013): R15-R29 at R21.
221.
Skakkebaek et al., supra note 51, at 3-6; Tavares et al., supra note 51; State of the Science on EDCs, supra note 52, at vii (discussing the connection between the decrease and fertility and increase in occurrence of endocrine and reproductive disorders).
222.
X.Huoet al., “Bisphenol A and Female Infertility: A Possible Role of Gene-Environment Interactions,”International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health12, no. 9 (2015): 11101–11116 at 11105-11106.
223.
Id. at 11101, 11102; Skakkebaek et al., supra note 51, at 22-24; Tavares et al., supra note 51, at 2 (discussing he potential for environmental factors to exert non genomic effects such as inducing oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction.)
224.
Skakkebaek et al., supra note 51, at 11-12 (asserting the overall decline in male fertility cannot be explained by lifestyle alone); at 14 (discussing the impact of sedentary lifestyle, sleep, stress, and nutrition on fertility); Sharma et al., supra note 217, at 2 (discussing the impact of diet on fertility), at 3 (discussing the role of obesity on fertility), at 3-4 (discussing the role of physical activity on fertility).
225.
State of the Science on EDCs, supra note 52, at 65 (discussing the impact of fetal exposure on PCBs and dioxin), at 189-200 (discussing the impact of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals present in plasticizers, pesticides, and personal care products); Tavares et al., supra note 51, at 3-5 (discussing endocrine disruption from pesticides, phthalates, and PBCs), at 9 (discussing endocrine disruption from PVC products such as raincoats, toys, food packaging, medical devices); Skakkebaek et al., supra note 51, at 6 (discussing how pesticides, fungicides, phthalates, and dioxin exert anti-androgenic influence).
226.
State of the Science on EDCs, supra note 52, at vii.
227.
State of the Science on EDCs, supra note 52, at viii; See Drabiak EDCs, supra note 188, at 27-28 (discussing the critical window of development.)
228.
Guerro-Bosagna and Skinner, supra note 208, at 81-82.
229.
Id. at 83-84.
230.
Drabiak MRT, supra note 6, at 52-53; see alsoA.Regalado, “Who Owns the Biggest Biotech Discovery of the Century?”MIT Technology Review, December4, 2014, available at <https://www.technologyreview.com/s/532796/who-owns-the-biggest-biotech-discovery-of-the-century/> (last visited November 17, 2018). (discussing the billions of dollars at stake over CRISPR related patents); Annas, supra note 32, at 4, 11.
231.
Id.; Comfort, supra note 26.
232.
Both the U.S. and the U.K. have addressed genome editing as a strategy for enhancing capabilities in military personnel. See Nuffield Council Genome Editing Report, supra note 72, at 101; see alsoA.Jacobsen, “Engineering Humans for War,”The Atlantic, September23, 1015, available at <https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/military-technology-pentagon-robots/406786/> (last visited November 17, 2018).
233.
International Summit, supra note 14, at 4.
234.
Annas et al., supra note 105, at 153, 157, 159-161; see also Drabiak MRT, supra note 6, at 58.
