Genome editing of human embryos broadens ethics discussions
By Françoise Baylis,
The Conversation
| 10. 01. 2017
For several years, scientists have experimented on human embryos with a powerful genome editing tool called CRISPR to see if they could correct genetic errors or reduce the risk of disease. In September, Kathy Niakan at the Francis Crick Institute in London and her colleagues reported they had used this tool on human embryos for a very different purpose — to better understand human development.
The use of CRISPR (pronounced “crisper”) to modify human embryos has prompted a healthy debate on the ethics of human genetic technologies. This tool is controversial, in part, because changes that are made to the embryo could be passed down to future generations. Niakan’s recent research is novel, and less ethically fraught than some other genome-editing research.
Research labs around the world are using CRISPR to selectively insert, delete or replace DNA with far greater precision and at a lower cost than other genome-editing techniques. Since 2015, five reports have detailed its use in human embryos to correct disease-causing mutations or create resistance to infectious disease.
Scientists have modified the genes responsible for β-thalassemia (an...
Related Articles
Has a commentary in Nature shifted the landscape of the debate about editing the genomes of future children? Or will germline-editing proponents ignore calls for a pause from some of the biggest names in the field?
On March 13, an international group of high-profile scientists and scholars who have been active in global discussions of human gene editing—including a Nobel laureate, the former co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology under Barack Obama, a prominent...
Nature published a commentary on March 13th with the forthright title “Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing.”
It was signed by a remarkable group of scientists from seven countries led by Eric Lander, Françoise Baylis, Feng Zhang, Emmanuelle Charpentier, and Paul Berg, with 13 other signatories of great distinction. Nature accompanied this with an Editorial, “Germline gene-editing research needs rules,” which applauded but did not entirely endorse the call for a moratorium, and two letters: Victor J. Dzau,...
By George J. Annas, Science | 03.10.2019
In 2011, poet and writer George Estreich wrote about the impact of biotechnology on family life in his first book, The Shape of the Eye. The memoir centers on how his family’s life was changed, and enriched, by the...
By Karen Weintraub, Scientific American [cites CGS' Marcy Darnovsky] | 03.13.2019
A group of 18 prominent scientists—including some who helped develop CRISPR–Cas9, the current leading tool for gene editing—issued a call Wednesday for an international moratorium on gene edits to eggs, sperm or embryos, and for establishing a process to discuss...
