1932

Abstract

Advances in human genome editing, in particular the development of the clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 method, have led to increasing concerns about the ethics of editing the human genome. In response, the US National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine constituted a multidisciplinary, international committee to review the current status and make recommendations. I was a member of that committee, and the core of this review reflects the committee's conclusions. The committee's report, issued in February 2017, recommends the application of current ethical and regulatory standards for gene therapy to somatic (nonheritable) human genome editing. It also recommends allowing experimental germline genome editing to proceed if () it is restricted to preventing transmission of a serious disease or condition, () the edit is a modification to a common DNA sequence known not to be associated with disease, and () the research is conducted under a stringent set of ethical and regulatory requirements. Crossing the so-called red line of germline genome editing raises important bioethical issues, most importantly, serious concern about the potential negative impact on individuals with disabilities. This review highlights some of the major ethical considerations in human genome editing in light of the report's recommendations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-112717-094629
2019-01-27
2024-05-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/med/70/1/annurev-med-112717-094629.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-112717-094629&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.  Davis BD 1970. Prospects for genetic intervention in man. Science 170:1279–83
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. Pres. Counc. Bioeth. 2003. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness Washington, DC: Harper Perennial352 pp.
  3. 3.  Kohn DB, Porteus MH, Scharenberg AM 2016. Ethical and regulatory aspects of genome editing. Blood 127:2553–60
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.  Juengst ET 1991. Germ-line gene therapy: back to basics. J. Med. Philos. 16:587–92
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.  Hinxton Group 2015. Statement on genome editing technologies and human germline genetic modification. http://www.hinxtongroup.org/hinxton2015_statement.pdf
  6. 6.  Hirsch F, Levy Y, Chneiweiss H 2017. CRISPR-Cas9: a European position on genome editing. Nature 541:30
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.  Cox DB, Platt RJ, Zhang F 2015. Therapeutic genome editing: prospects and challenges. Nat. Med. 21:121–31
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. Counc. Europe. 2015. Statement on genome editing technologies. https://www.coe.int/en/web/bioethics/news/-/asset_publisher/EV74osp47zWZ/content/gene-editing
  9. 9.  Chan S, Donovan PJ, Douglas T et al. 2015. Genome editing technologies and human germline genetic modification: the Hinxton Group consensus statement. Am. J. Bioeth. 15:42–47
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. Pres. Comm. Stud. Bioeth. Issues. 2015. Gray matters: topics at the intersection of neuroscience, ethics, and society https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/sites/default/files/GrayMatter_V2_508.pdf
  11. 11.  Ramsey P 1971. The ethics of a cottage industry in an age of community and research medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 284:700–6
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.  Fletcher J 1971. Ethical aspects of genetic controls. Designed genetic changes in man. N. Engl. J. Med. 285:776–83
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.  Funk C, Kennedy B, Podrebarac Sciupac E 2016. U.S. public wary of biomedical technologies to ‘enhance’ human abilities. Pew Res. Cent. Internet and Technol. Rep. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/07/26/u-s-public-wary-of-biomedical-technologies-to-enhance-human-abilities/
  14. 14. Nuffield Counc. Bioeth. 2016. Public dialogue on genome editing: Why? When? Who? Rep. Worksh. Public Dialogue for Genome Editing. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Public-Dialogue-on-Genome-Editing-workshop-report.pdf
  15. 15.  Kessler DA, Siegel JP, Noguchi PD et al. 1993. Regulation of somatic-cell therapy and gene therapy by the Food and Drug Administration. N. Engl. J. Med. 329:1169–73
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. EMEA (Eur. Med. Agency). 2006. ICH considerations: general principles to address the risk of inadvertent germline integration of gene therapy vectors Int. Counc. Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Rep. CHMP/ICH/469991/2006. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002679.pdf
  17. 17. FDA. 2006. Guidance for industry: gene therapy clinical trials—observing subjects for delayed adverse events Guidance for industry, US Dep. Health Hum. Serv., Food and Drug Admin., Cent. Biologics Eval. Res. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/CellularandGeneTherapy/ucm078719.pdf
  18. 18. FDA. 2015. Considerations for the design of early-phase clinical trials of cellular and gene therapy products Guidance for industry, US Dep. Health Hum. Serv., Food and Drug Admin., Cent. Biologics Eval. Res. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/CellularandGeneTherapy/UCM564952.pdf
  19. 19. FDA. 1991. Points to consider in human somatic cell therapy and gene therapy 1991. Hum. Gene Ther. 2:251–56
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.  Andorno R 2005. The Oviedo convention: a European legal framework at the intersection of human rights and health law. J. Int. Biotechnol. Law 2:133–43
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.  Ishii T 2015. Germline genome-editing research and its socioethical implications. Trends Mol. Med. 21:473–81
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. Comm. Sci., Space, Technol. 2015. Subcommittee examines human genetic engineering Press Release, Jun. 16, Comm Sci., Space, Technol Washington, DC: https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/subcommittee-examines-human-genetic-engineering
  23. 23.  Cohen IG, Adashi EY 2016. The FDA is prohibited from going germline. Science 353:545–46
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.  Collins FS 2015. Statement on NIH funding of research using gene-editing technologies in human embryos https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-nih-funding-research-using-gene-editing-technologies-human-embryos
  25. 25.  Collins FS 2002. Genetic enhancements: current and future prospects Paper presented at Pres. Counc. Bioeth Washington, DC: Dec 12–13 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcbe/transcripts/dec02/session5.html
  26. 26.  Wright AV, Nunez JK, Doudna JA 2016. Biology and applications of CRISPR systems: harnessing nature's toolbox for genome engineering. Cell 164:29–44
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.  Lander ES 2016. The heroes of CRISPR. Cell 164:18–28
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.  Liang P, Xu Y, Zhang X et al. 2015. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell 6:363–72
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. NASEM (Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med.). 2015. International Summit on Human Gene Editing: A Global Discussion. Dec 1–13 Washington, DC: http://nationalacademies.org/gene-editing/Gene-Edit-Summit/
  30. 30.  Baltimore D, Baylis F, Berg P et al. 2015. On human gene editing: international summit statement News release, Dec. 3, International Summit on Human Gene Editing. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12032015a
  31. 31. Comm. Hum. Gene Editing: Sci., Med., Ethical Consid. 2017. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  32. 32.  Hynes RO, Coller BS, Porteus M 2017. Toward responsible human genome editing. JAMA 317:1829–30
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.  United Nations 1948. Universal declaration of human rights http://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf
  34. 34. Natl. Comm. Prot. of Hum. Subj. of Biomed. and Behav. Res. 1979. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research US Dep. Health, Educ., and Welf. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html
  35. 35. IOM (Inst. Med.). 2014. Oversight and Review of Clinical Gene Transfer Protocols: Assessing the Role of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  36. 36.  Califf RM 2017. Benefit-risk assessments at the US Food and Drug Administration: finding the balance. JAMA 317:693–94
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. FDA. 2017. FDA approves novel gene therapy to treat patients with a rare form of inherited vision loss News Release, Dec. 19, US Food and Drug Admin Washington, DC: https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm589467.htm
  38. 38.  McClain LE, Flake AW 2016. In utero stem cell transplantation and gene therapy: recent progress and the potential for clinical application. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 31:88–98
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.  Lander ES 2015. Brave new genome. N. Engl. J. Med. 373:5–8
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.  Cohen J, Pertsemlidis A, Kotowski IK et al. 2005. Low LDL cholesterol in individuals of African descent resulting from frequent nonsense mutations in PCSK9. Nat. Genet. 37:161–65
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.  Ji W, Foo JN, O'Roak BJ et al. 2008. Rare independent mutations in renal salt handling genes contribute to blood pressure variation. Nat. Genet. 40:592–99
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.  Hutter G, Bodor J, Ledger S et al. 2015. CCR5 targeted cell therapy for HIV and prevention of viral escape. Viruses 7:4186–203
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.  Lee SM 2017. This guy says he's the first person to attempt editing his DNA with CRISPR. BuzzFeed News Oct. 14. https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/this-biohacker-wants-to-edit-his-own-dna?utm_term=.fskkY6Ywx#.ce0N2R28a
  44. 44.  Wang X, Niu Y, Zhou J et al. 2018. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated MSTN disruption and heritable mutagenesis in goats causes increased body mass. Anim. Genet. 49:43–51
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. UNESCO. 2017. Universal declaration on the human genome and human rights: adopted on 11 November 1997. Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997) and International Declaration on Human Genetic Data (2003) Paris: United Nations Educ., Sci. and Cult. Organ http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002539/253908e.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.  Scally A 2016. The mutation rate in human evolution and demographic inference. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 41:36–43
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.  Gao Z, Wyman MJ, Sella G et al. 2016. Interpreting the dependence of mutation rates on age and time. PLOS Biol 14:e1002355
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.  Thomas L 1979. The Medusa and the Snail New York: Viking
  49. 49.  Cohen IG, Daley GQ, Adashi EY 2017. Disruptive reproductive technologies. Sci. Transl. Med. 9:372
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.  Hikabe O, Hamazaki N, Nagamatsu G et al. 2016. Reconstitution in vitro of the entire cycle of the mouse female germ line. Nature 539:299–303
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.  Ishikura Y, Yabuta Y, Ohta H et al. 2016. In vitro derivation and propagation of spermatogonial stem cell activity from mouse pluripotent stem cells. Cell Rep 17:2789–804
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.  Lanphier E, Urnov F, Haecker SE et al. 2015. Don't edit the human germ line. Nature 519:410–11
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.  Dorff EN 1998. Matters of Life and Death: A Jewish Approach to Modern Medical Ethics Philadelphia: Jewish Publ. Soc
  54. 54.  Dorff EN, Zoloth L 2015. Jews and Genes: The Genetic Future in Contemporary Jewish Thought Philadelphia: Jewish Publ. Soc
  55. 55.  Napier S Dignitas Personae on gene therapy and enhancement: a commentary on Dignitas Personae, Part Three nn 24–27 https://www.ncbcenter.org/resources/information-topic/dignitas-personae/gene-therapy
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.  Mena A 2017. Catholics shouldn't totally reject human gene editing—but it still has ethical problems News Release, Apr. 11 Catholic News Agency Denver, CO: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholics-shouldnt-totally-reject-human-gene-editing–but-it-still-has-ethical-problems-29961
  57. 57.  Blendon RJ, Gorski MT, Benson JM 2016. The public and the gene-editing revolution. N. Engl. J. Med. 374:1406–11
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.  Shuster E 1997. Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg Code. N. Engl. J. Med. 337:1436–40
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.  Moitra K, Garcia S, Jaldin M et al. 2017. ABCC6 and pseudoxanthoma elasticum: the face of a rare disease from genetics to advocacy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 18:1488
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.  Terry SF 2017. The study is open: participants are now recruiting investigators. Sci. Transl. Med. 9:371eaaf1001
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.  Mand C, Duncan RE, Gillam L et al. 2009. Genetic selection for deafness: the views of hearing children of deaf adults. J. Med. Ethics 35:722–28
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.  Parens E, Asch A 2000. Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press
  63. 63.  Global Genes 2018. Advocating for your child with a rare disease at their school RARE Toolkit, Parent Information Cent. Special Education, New England Genetics Collaborative, Durham, NH. https://globalgenes.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/GG_toolkit_educational-advocacy_web-hyperlinked.pdf
  64. 64.  Sundar V 2017. Operationalizing workplace accommodations for individuals with disabilities: a scoping review. Work 56:135–55
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.  Bunn HF 2013. The triumph of good over evil: protection by the sickle gene against malaria. Blood 121:20–25
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.  Piel FB, Patil AP, Howes RE et al. 2010. Global distribution of the sickle cell gene and geographical confirmation of the malaria hypothesis. Nat. Commun. 1:104
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.  Daniels N 2000. Normal functioning and the treatment-enhancement distinction. Cambridge Q. Healthcare Ethics 9:309–22
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 67a.  Walters L, Palmer JG 1997. The Ethics of Human Gene Therapy New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  69. 68.  Juengst ET 1997. Can enhancement be distinguished from prevention in genetic medicine?. J. Med. Philos. 22:125–42
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 68a.  Evans JH 2002. Playing God? Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  71. 68a.  Evans JH, Schairer CE 2009. Bioethics and human genetic engineering. Handbook of Genetics and Society P Atkinson, P Glasner, M Lock 349–66 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 69.  Wadhera RK, Steen DL, Khan I et al. 2016. A review of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, treatment strategies, and its impact on cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality. J. Clin. Lipidol. 10:472–89
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 70.  Oparil S, Acelajado MC, Bakris GL et al. 2018. Hypertension. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 4:18014
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 71.  Carbine NE, Lostumbo L, Wallace J et al. 2018. Risk-reducing mastectomy for the prevention of primary breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 4:CD002748
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 72.  Schmidt AF, Pearce LS, Wilkins JT et al. 2017. PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 4:CD011748
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 73.  Harris J 2007. Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making People Better Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  77. 74.  Bostrom N 2005. In defense of posthuman dignity. Bioethics 19:202–14
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 75.  Porter A 2017. Bioethics and transhumanism. J. Med. Philos. 42:237–60
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 76.  Dawkins R 1989. The Selfish Gene Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  80. 77.  Buckholtz JW, Marois R 2012. The roots of modern justice: cognitive and neural foundations of social norms and their enforcement. Nat. Neurosci. 15:655–61
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 78.  Smith D, Schlaepfer P, Major K et al. 2017. Cooperation and the evolution of hunter-gatherer storytelling. Nat. Commun. 8:1853
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 79.  McAuliffe K, Jordan JJ, Warneken F 2015. Costly third-party punishment in young children. Cognition 134:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 80.  Fotheringham W 2015. Timeline: Lance Armstrong's journey from deity to disgrace. Guardian Mar. 8
  84. 81.  Sandel MJ 2013. The case against perfection. In Society, Ethics, and Technology M Winston, R Edelbach 343–54 Boston: Cengage Learning
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 82.  Meilaender G 2008. Chapter 11: Human dignity: exploring and explicating the council's vision. Human Dignity and Bioethics: Essays Commissioned by the President's Council on Bioethics Washington, DC: Pres. Counc. Bioeth https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/human_dignity/chapter11.html
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 83. Catholic News Agency. 2009. New ‘designer babies’ make life a commodity, bioethicist says News Release, Catholic News Agency, Mar. 4, Denver, CO. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new_designer_babies_make_life_a_commodity_bioethicist_says
  87. 84. Cent. Genet. Soc. 2015. Extreme genetic engineering and the human future: Reclaiming emerging biotechnologies for the common good Rep., Cent. Genet. Soc. Berkeley, CA: https://1bps6437gg8c169i0y1drtgz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/wpallimport/files/archive/FOE_ExtremeGenEngineering_10.pdf
  88. 85.  Rouet P, Smih F, Jasin M 1994. Introduction of double-strand breaks into the genome of mouse cells by expression of a rare-cutting endonuclease. Mol. Cell. Biol. 14:8096–106
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 86.  Kosicki M, Tomberg K, Bradley A 2018. Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nat. Biotech. 36:765–71
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 87.  Chen JS, Dagdas YS, Kleinstiver BP et al. 2017. Enhanced proofreading governs CRISPR-Cas9 targeting accuracy. Nature 550:407–10
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 88.  Nienhuis AW, Dunbar CE, Sorrentino BP 2006. Genotoxicity of retroviral integration in hematopoietic cells. Mol. Ther. 13:1031–49
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 89.  Proctor R 1988. Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis Boston: Harvard Univ. Press414 pp.
  93. 90.  Greenhalgh S 2008. Just One Child: Science and Policy in Deng's China Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press404 pp.
  94. 91.  Black E 2003. War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race New York: Four Walls Eight Windows
  95. 92.  Goldberg L 2016. Jennifer Lopez sets futuristic bio-terror drama at NBC (exclusive). Hollywood Reporter Oct. 8. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jennifer-lopez-sets-futuristic-bio-939509
  96. 93.  Franklin S 2013. Biological Relatives: IVF, Stem Cells, and the Future of Kinship Durham/London: Duke Univ. Press364 pp.
  97. 94.  Klitzman RL 2013. How IRBs view and make decisions about social risks. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics 8:58–65
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 95.  Murray M, Luker K 2014. Cases on Reproductive Rights and Justice St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press949 pp.
  99. 96.  Hernandez B, Keys CB, Balcazar FE 2004. Disability rights: attitudes of private and public sector representatives. J. Rehabil. 70:28–37
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 97.  Makas E 1988. Positive attitudes toward disabled people: disabled and nondisabled persons’ perspectives. J. Soc. Issues 44:49–61
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 98.  Steinbach RJ, Allyse M, Michie M et al. 2016. “This lifetime commitment”: public conceptions of disability and noninvasive prenatal genetic screening. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 170A:363–74
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 99.  Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, Howell EL et al. 2017. U.S. attitudes on human genome editing. Science 357:553–54
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 100.  Jasanoff S, Hurlbut JB 2018. A global observatory for gene editing. Nature 555:435–37
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-112717-094629
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-112717-094629
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error