Individualized interventions for rare genetic conditions and the research-treatment spectrum: Stakeholder perspectives.

PURPOSE: Advances in the study of ultrarare genetic conditions are leading to the development of targeted interventions developed for single or very small numbers of patients. Owing to the experimental but also highly individualized nature of these interventions, they are difficult to classify cleanly as either research or clinical care. Our goal was to understand how parents, institutional review board members, and clinical geneticists familiar with individualized genetic interventions conceptualize these activities and their implications for the relationship between research and clinical care. METHODS: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 28 parents, institutional review board members, and clinical geneticists and derived themes from those interviews through content analysis. RESULTS: Individuals described individualized interventions as blurring the lines between research and clinical care and focused on hopes for therapeutic benefit and expectations for generalizability of knowledge and benefit to future patients. CONCLUSION: Individualized interventions aimed at one or few patients reveal the limitations of a binary framing of research and clinical care. As a hybrid set of activities, individualized interventions suggest the need for flexibility and new frameworks that acknowledge these activities across the spectrum of research and clinical care.

Clarifying the Ethics and Oversight of Chimeric Research.

This article is the lead piece in a special report that presents the results of a bioethical investigation into chimeric research, which involves the insertion of human cells into nonhuman animals and nonhuman animal embryos, including into their brains. Rapid scientific developments in this field may advance knowledge and could lead to new therapies for humans. They also reveal the conceptual, ethical, and procedural limitations of existing ethics guidance for human-nonhuman chimeric research. Led by bioethics researchers working closely with an interdisciplinary work group, the investigation focused on generating conceptual clarity and identifying improvements to governance approaches, with the goal of helping scholars, funders, scientists, institutional leaders, and oversight bodies (embryonic stem cell research oversight [ESCRO] committees and institutional animal care and use committees [IACUCs]) deliver principled and trustworthy oversight of this area of science. The article, which focuses on human-nonhuman animal chimeric research that is stem cell based, identifies key ethical issues in and offers ten recommendations regarding the ethics and oversight of this research. Turning from bioethics' previous focus on human-centered questions about the ethics of "humanization" and this research's potential impact on concepts like human dignity, this article emphasizes the importance of nonhuman animal welfare concerns in chimeric research and argues for less-siloed governance and oversight and more-comprehensive public communication.

Budgets versus Bans: How U.S. Law Restricts Germline Gene Editing.

In late 2019, He Jiankui, the Chinese scientist who created the world's first gene-edited babies, and two embryologists were sentenced to prison and fined. Thirteen months earlier, when the world first learned about the experiment, He and his colleagues drew swift and nearly uniform international condemnation for prematurely moving to human trials, for the risks they took with the children's health, and for He's secrecy. The organizing committee for the second genome editing summit said the experiment failed to conform with international norms." In the United States, the legal picture is complex. No doubt the specific experiment He performed would have run afoul of long-standing research regulations due to its problems with informed consent and ethical review. But other laws also affect this kind of work, in particular, a budget rider that for the past four years has been included in federal appropriations legislation.

Shaping the CRISPR Gene-Editing Debate: Questions About Enhancement and Germline Modification.

Today's debate about the use of gene-editing technologies to alter human DNA brings together two longstanding lines of inquiry in bioethics: the ethics of human enhancement, and the ethics of heritable genetic modification. This article traces that lineage by identifying key distinctions and ethics questions in these preexisting lines of inquiry that are also employed in four recent policy and ethics statements on human gene editing. These distinctions and ethics questions can be helpful heuristics for organizing discussion, learning from existing analysis, and highlighting what is at stake with new gene-editing technologies. Yet scientists, policymakers, and others new to the ethics of emerging technologies should also be aware of both the limitations of these distinctions and past challenges in adequately addressing the ethics questions they raise. In particular, the treatment-enhancement distinction and the somatic-germline distinction are not as clear-cut as they might initially appear. More importantly, they cannot be used to definitively differentiate right from wrong uses of the technologies in question.

The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature.

In recent years, new genome editing technologies have emerged that can edit the genome of non-human animals with progressively increasing efficiency. Despite ongoing academic debate about the ethical implications of these technologies, no comprehensive overview of this debate exists. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a systematic review of the reasons reported in the academic literature for and against the development and use of genome editing technologies in animals. Most included articles were written by academics from the biomedical or animal sciences. The reported reasons related to seven themes: human health, efficiency, risks and uncertainty, animal welfare, animal dignity, environmental considerations and public acceptability. Our findings illuminate several key considerations about the academic debate, including a low disciplinary diversity in the contributing academics, a scarcity of systematic comparisons of potential consequences of using these technologies, an underrepresentation of animal interests, and a disjunction between the public and academic debate on this topic. As such, this article can be considered a call for a broad range of academics to get increasingly involved in the discussion about genome editing, to incorporate animal interests and systematic comparisons, and to further discuss the aims and methods of public involvement. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'The ecology and evolution of prokaryotic CRISPR-Cas adaptive immune systems'.

Sequencing Newborns: A Call for Nuanced Use of Genomic Technologies.

Many scientists and doctors hope that affordable genome sequencing will lead to more personalized medical care and improve public health in ways that will benefit children, families, and society more broadly. One hope in particular is that all newborns could be sequenced at birth, thereby setting the stage for a lifetime of medical care and self-directed preventive actions tailored to each child's genome. Indeed, commentators often suggest that universal genome sequencing is inevitable. Such optimism can come with the presumption that discussing the potential limits, cost, and downsides of widespread application of genomic technologies is pointless, excessively pessimistic, or overly cautious. We disagree. Given the pragmatic challenges associated with determining what sequencing data mean for the health of individuals, the economic costs associated with interpreting and acting on such data, and the psychosocial costs of predicting one's own or one's child's future life plans based on uncertain testing results, we think this hope and optimism deserve to be tempered. In the analysis that follows, we distinguish between two reasons for using sequencing: to diagnose individual infants who have been identified as sick and to screen populations of infants who appear to be healthy. We also distinguish among three contexts in which sequencing for either diagnosis or screening could be deployed: in clinical medicine, in public health programs, and as a direct-to-consumer service. Each of these contexts comes with different professional norms, policy considerations, and public expectations. Finally, we distinguish between two main types of genome sequencing: targeted sequencing, where only specific genes are sequenced or analyzed, and whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing, where all the DNA or all the coding segments of all genes are sequenced and analyzed. In a symptomatic newborn, targeted or genome-wide sequencing can help guide other tests for diagnosis or for specific treatment that is urgently needed. Clinicians use the infant's symptoms (or phenotype) to interrogate the sequencing data. These same complexities and uncertainties, however, limit the usefulness of genome-wide sequencing as a population screening tool. While we recognize considerable benefit in using targeted sequencing to screen for or detect specific conditions that meet the criteria for inclusion in newborn screening panels, use of genome-wide sequencing as a sole screening tool for newborns is at best premature. We conclude that sequencing technology can be beneficially used in newborns when that use is nuanced and attentive to context.

Are Parents Really Obligated to Learn as Much as Possible about Their Children's Genomes?

As new parents quickly learn, parenting always involves choosing your battles. Ideally, parents have the freedom to make those moral choices without the prejudice of an unreasonable or premature inflicted ought. Resolving the predictive uncertainties of genomic information is the professional responsibility of the biomedical community, just as clarifying the impact of global warming or assessing the risks of rising multidrug resistance is the responsibility of similar specialists. Until sequencing can give parents clear and meaningful information that they can use to protect their children without also burdening parents with uncertain findings about which little if anything can be done, it makes no sense to impute an obligation for them to seek it out. To do so not only increases the mental and emotional burden on parents but also distorts the scope of parental responsibility in ways that undermine parents' capacity to play their immediate role as the nurturers of a new life.

Autonomy in Tension: Reproduction, Technology, and Justice.

Respect for autonomy is a central value in reproductive ethics, but it can be a challenge to fulfill and is sometimes an outright puzzle to understand. If a woman requests the transfer of two, three, or four embryos during fertility treatment, is that request truly autonomous, and do clinicians disrespect her if they question that decision or refuse to carry it out? Add a commitment to justice to the mix, and the challenge can become more complex still. Is it unfair for insurance policies to exclude from coverage the costs of giving fertility to those who lack it or restoring fertility in those who have lost it? What does "just reproduction" look like in the face of multifarious understandings of both justice and autonomy and in light of increasingly complex and costly reproductive technologies? In today's dialogue about reproduction, medicine, and ethics in the United States, old ethical issues-such as whether women ought to be allowed to access pregnancy termination-are more contested than they have been in decades, while new technologies-like those used to edit the genes of human embryos-suggest that our species could face unprecedented questions about who should exist. As we considered the discussions accompanying these issues and contemplated a special report responding to them, we found ourselves consistently circling back to two ethical commitments: respect for autonomy and the pursuit of justice. As one of the nine essays in this collection asks, why should certain women receive help to establish a pregnancy while others are thrown in jail when they miscarry or their child is stillborn? Respect for autonomy is required where individuals have the ability to make fully informed and voluntary choices. Yet does respecting autonomy require acceding to all the choices of patients or consumers of medical care? We consider these and related questions in this special report from the Hastings Center Report.

The Future of Reproductive Autonomy.

In a project The Hastings Center is now running on the future of prenatal testing, we are encountering clear examples, both in established law and in the practices of individual providers, of failures to respect women's reproductive autonomy: when testing is not offered to certain demographics of women, for instance, or when the choices of women to terminate or continue pregnancies are prohibited or otherwise not supported. But this project also raises puzzles for reproductive autonomy. We have learned that some clinicians and patients do not discuss the fact that prenatal testing can lead to a decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy-they just don't talk about it. And while the decision whether to agree to prenatal screening and diagnostic testing is to be made with women's free and informed consent, many screening tests have been routinized in such a way that some women do not even recall agreeing to testing, while others feel that agreeing to testing is what their clinicians expect of them or that the testing is necessary to protect themselves and their families from the significant financial hardship of raising a child with a disability. In the face of these pressures, can one really say that women are freely choosing to undergo testing or are freely choosing to continue or terminate a pregnancy following receipt of test results? The reality of these pressures is requiring us to consider expanding the scope of our investigation beyond the clinical encounter to the broader context-to think harder about what reproductive autonomy means and how best to enhance it.

Trustworthy Research Institutions: The Challenging Case of Studying the Genetics of Intelligence.

It is simple enough to claim that academic research institutions ought to be trustworthy. Building the culture and taking the steps necessary to earn and preserve institutional trust are, however, complex processes. The experience motivating this special report--a request for the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University to collaborate on research regarding the genetics of intelligence--illustrates how ensuring institutional trustworthiness can be in tension with a commitment to fostering research. In this essay, we explore the historical context for biomedical research institutions like Johns Hopkins that have worked to build local community trust. In so doing, we consider how the example under focus in this special report can lead to greater consideration of how research institutions balance fostering trust with their other commitments.