Experts call for halt to gene editing that results in 'designer babies'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Top scientists and ethicists from seven countries on Wednesday called for a global moratorium on gene editing of human eggs, sperm or embryos that would result in genetically-altered babies after a rogue Chinese researcher last year announced the birth of the world’s first gene-edited twins.
News of their birth prompted global condemnation of the work, raising the ethical specter of so-called designer babies in which embryos could be genetically modified to produce children with desirable traits.
The scientists and ethicists want to halt genetic alterations of “germline cells” - egg or sperm cells - that can then be inherited by others and “could have permanent and possibly harmful effects on the species.”
The global moratorium would be in place until nations can devise international principles to guide how the technology should be used, the experts wrote in the journal Nature. It would not cover gene editing done in embryos for research purposes that would not lead to a live birth.
“The governance framework we are calling for will place major speed bumps in front of the most adventurous plans to re-engineer the human species,” the experts said in a commentary in the Nature. “The introduction of genetic modifications into future generations could have permanent and possibly harmful effects on the species,” they wrote.
Such work differs from research being conducted by numerous drug companies and scientists into gene therapies based on editing so-called somatic cells that affect an individual’s health by correcting a disease or condition but would not be passed on to offspring.
Dr. Francis Collins, director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, said in a letter to the journal that the “NIH strongly agrees” that a ban on the practice should go into immediate effect and stay in place until nations can commit to international rules to determine “whether and under what conditions such research should ever proceed.”
“There is no doubt that genome editing technologies hold huge potential,” Collins said, but added that there are too many scientific and ethical questions that need to be answered.
Some scientists called the proposed ban unnecessary, saying it would not prevent a scientist bent on using the technology from editing DNA in embryos to prevent disease or enhance traits of a child, as was the case with Chinese researcher He Jiankui.
“We do not think a moratorium would have deterred He Jiankui, who acted secretively and in breach of a clear scientific consensus that germline genome editing should not be used in the clinic at this time,” Sarah Norcross, director of Britain-based Progress Educational Trust, said in a statement.
Helen O’Neill, program director for Reproductive Science and Women’s Health at University College London, said the proposal ignores the fact that a global ban already exists.
O’Neill said there were legal and ethical measures in place in China and that He broke many of these rules. “It was not that he did this because the law allowed it.”
WHO panel calls for registry of all human gene editing research
Tags
Who is online
576 visitors
I'm a big proponent of science and research, but this is one area where we as a species are no where near intelligent enough to make sound decisions. Our DNA is the product of millions of years of evolution. Held in that DNA are the blueprints that indicate from where we have come from, and to where we are going as a species. I see this being equivalent to a Neanderthal being introduced to fire while sitting in a cave full of gunpowder.
Eugenics war anyone?
I agree, there are just certain things we should not be fooling around with, well intended or not. As my Sainted mother would have said " The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
While I will not argue that point with you, it is arguable that our species has done a lot of it's learning and advancement by committing mistakes and pushing the envelope. Sure sometimes this has led to injury, death or catastrophe, in the long term the knowledge gained has led to benefits for some or all of us
Truth be told if government or corporations figure they can profit from or make a profit from going down this path then there is nothing a moratorium is going to do to stop it
Talk about a slipper slope.
I wouldn't suggest they proceed recklessly, but it seems to me like it has the potential to do a lot of good. In theory, I wouldn't mind doing without the gene that gives me higher cholesterol, but then I don't know if there are other consequences to losing that gene. Like, maybe I wouldn't be this handsome.
Ya, what could possibly go wrong? ( smirk )
The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh
I was thinking of the movie "Gattica" but this is way better
Like, maybe I wouldn't be this handsome.
I'm not going to be that lucky Tacos.....! My ugly goes clear to the bone Tacos
Talk about unforeseen outcomes. This would have that effect.
Until the medical community can set guidelines, this should not be tolerated. We do not know what subtle changes in the DNA can bring to our entire species once this gets into the gene pool. Very scary stuff here.