Do CRISPR Germline Ethics Statements Cut It?

Carolyn Brokowski

doi:10.1089/crispr.2017.0024

Abstract

The extraordinary wave of genomic-engineering innovation, driven by CRISPR-Cas9, has sparked worldwide scientific and ethical uncertainty. Great concern has arisen across the globe about whether heritable genome editing should be permissible in humans—that is, whether it is morally acceptable to modify genomic material such that the “edit” is transferable to future generations. Here I examine 61 ethics statements released by the international community within the past 3 years about this controversial issue and consider the statements' overarching positions and limitations. Despite their inability to fully address all important considerations, many of the statements may advance debate and national and international law and public policy.

Highlights

In February 2017, the United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) Committee on Human Gene Editing published an expansive report[1] reviewing scientific, ethical, and legal concerns about the astonishing rise of genomic engineering technology
The modification of the germline with the aim of generating a new human being who could transfer the genomic change to future generations—should be impermissible now[2] but eventually could be justified for certain medical indications
The NASEM committee did not sanction the use of CRISPR{ for any form of enhancement

Summary

Introduction

In February 2017, the United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) Committee on Human Gene Editing published an expansive report[1] reviewing scientific, ethical (moral), and legal concerns about the astonishing rise of genomic engineering technology. The NASEM committee did not sanction the use of CRISPR{ for any form of enhancement It is unlawful for U.S federal funds to be used to create, destroy, or modify human embryos to include heritable genetic changes for research purposes.[3,4,5] Yet the NASEM report’s conclusion implies that once safety risks are better understood, clinical trials conceivably could commence. Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; industry groups and organizations including the Biotechnology Innovation Organization and various genome-editing biotech companies; and political groups such as the 2015 White House These statements vary considerably in both length and depth of analysis, they provide a large body of scholarship in which to frame and discuss the medical and moral permissibility of heritable genome engineering. Some of the questions raised and debated provide a preliminary basis for addressing key critical issues and advancing international law and public policy in this arena

Take Your Positions

American Society for Investigative

Findings

International Institute of Advanced Studies Center for Applied Philosophy