What next for human gene therapy?
By Eric T. Juengst,
British Medical Journal
| 06. 28. 2003
The high hope of genetic medicine for 30 years has been to develop a way of using recombinant DNA techniques to treat patients through the genes involved in their diseases. As Richard Roblin, scientific director of the Council on Bioethics of the President of the United States, put it in 1979: "There is something aesthetically compelling about cutting to the heart of the problem, by treating the disease at the molecular level, where it originates."1 Since 1990, this vision has generated a modest industry of bench research and animal studies, culminating in almost 1000 clinical trials in humans around the world, for a wide variety of diseases.2 In the past few years, however, the field has learned that in genetic medicine, as in war, the "surgical strike" is rarely as clean and effective as theory implies it should be.
After almost a decade without much clinical success,3 the field has experienced in quick succession its first iatrogenic death,4 its first apparent "cures,"5 and then among those cured patients the first instances of serious downstream disease traceable to the main theoretical...
Related Articles
By Rachel Hall, The Guardian | 11.20.2025
Couples are needlessly going through IVF because male infertility is under-researched, with the NHS too often failing to diagnose treatable causes, leading experts have said.
Poor understanding among GPs and a lack of specialists and NHS testing means male infertility...
By Grace Won, KQED [with CGS' Katie Hasson] | 12.02.2025
In the U.S., it’s illegal to edit genes in human embryos with the intention of creating a genetically engineered baby. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Bay Area startups are focused on just that. It wouldn’t be the first...
By Pam Belluck and Carl Zimmer, The New York Times | 11.19.2025
Gene-editing therapies offer great hope for treating rare diseases, but they face big hurdles: the tremendous time and resources involved in devising a treatment that might only apply to a small number of patients.
A study published on Wednesday...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...