Paris conference investigates CRISPR potential


CRISPR and other gene-editing technologies hold great promise for treating disease. However, they also provoke significant ethical concerns, especially about germline modification and the consequences of altering the genetic heritage of future generations.

On April 28 and 29, two conferences were held in Paris, one organised by European scientists and the other by Americans. They were attended by the world’s leading figures in stem cell research and ethics for a discussion of regulation, governance, and ethical issues surrounding human gene-editing research.

Caroline Simons, an Irish lawyer, reported on the proceedings in a guest post on The Niche, the blog of Paul Knoepfler’s stem cell lab. It’s a very useful summary of the status quo.

1.  Germline gene editing technologies are not ready for clinical application in humans.

2.  No country has regulated specifically for these technologies, but some consider that their regulations would encompass, or at least not prohibit, somatic gene editing.

3.  Most countries prohibit germline gene editing.

4.  There is no support for the clinical application of germline gene editing, but there is consensus that basic research should continue.

5.  There is consensus that research and, when safety and efficacy concerns are satisfied, that clinical trials of somatic gene editing should continue.

6.  There is no common understanding of ‘enhancement’ and no consensus that editing to achieve it should be permitted, even in somatic cells.

7.  The UK is the only country to permit mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT), which will result in germline alteration. Neither the US nor China consider it prudent to approve MRT technology at this time.

8.  There is no consensus on the status of the human embryo (or even on what is an embryo), no consensus that embryos may be created for research or that they ought be available for research beyond the fourteenth day.

9.  The scientific evidence presented in the session which considered potential applications for germline editing did not demonstrate any ‘high unmet medical need’ for germline editing at this time. In fact, Dr. Clevers couldn’t think of any situation where using CRISPR/Cas9 on an embryo would be feasible.

10.There is consensus that public discussion of gene editing technology is urgently needed and that ‘broad, informed consent’ from the public is necessary before any clinical application of gene editing in humans.




MORE ON THESE TOPICS | CRISPR, stem cell research

This article is published by Michael Cook and BioEdge under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

 
 Search BioEdge

 Subscribe to BioEdge newsletter
rss Subscribe to BioEdge RSS feed

 
comments powered by Disqus