Reflections about the Molecular Tool That Could Change the Course of Human History: Genome Editing / Reflexiones sobre la herramienta molecular que podría cambiar el curso de la historia humana: la edición genómica / Reflexões sobre as ferramentas moleculares que poderiam mudar o rumo da história humana: a edição de genoma

Abstract Genetic editing has many applications in almost all areas of society, but may also lead to unpredictable consequences. Genome editing to modify the human germline is at the center of global discussion. Owing to the increasing number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, the scientific community agrees that it would be inappropriate to genetically modify embryos. A serious and open debate is necessary to decide whether such research should be suspended or encouraged. Here we show some bold arguments in favor of deleting deleterious genes from the human genome and the risks liberal eugenism poses.

Resumen La edición genética tiene muchas aplicaciones en casi todos los ámbitos de la sociedad, pero también puede tener consecuencias impredecibles. La edición del genoma de la línea germinal humana es el centro de una discusión mundial. Debido al creciente número de cuestionamientos científicos, éticos y políticos, muchos sin una respuesta concreta, el consenso de la comunidad científica manifiesta que sería inapropiado modificar genéticamente embriones humanos. Se considera necesario un debate serio y abierto para decidir si se debe suspender o fomentar la investigación en este sentido. En el presente documento, se exponen algunos argumentos audaces a favor de la eliminación de los genes nocivos del genoma humano y los riesgos que supone el eugenismo liberal.

Resumo A edição de genoma tem muitas aplicações em todos os âmbitos da sociedade, no entanto pode ter consequências imprevisíveis. A edição do genoma da linha germinal humana é o centro de uma discussão mundial. Devido ao número crescente de questionamentos científicos, éticos e políticos, muitos sem resposta concreta, o consenso da comunidade científica manifesta que não seria apropriado modificar geneticamente embriões humanos. Consideramos que é necessário um debate sério e aberto para decidir se é necessário suspender ou fomentar a pesquisa nesse sentido. Aqui mencionamos alguns argumentos audazes a favor da eliminação de genes nocivos do genoma humano e os riscos decorrentes do eugenismo liberal.

Gene editing isn't just about food: comments from U.S. focus groups.

In the United States, adult public perception of genetic modification has been well documented in the domain of agriculture and food; however, recent international news on gene editing in medical applications may present new challenges for science communicators who seek to proactively share benefits of emerging gene editing technology. While research traditionally considers perceptions of agricultural and medical applications separately, gene editing may bridge the gap between the two domains. We find that when asked about thoughts regarding gene editing, adult focus groups discussed medical applications more frequently and extensively than agricultural applications. Although, when examining the length of discussion about specific topics, designer babies, cures for disease, and food were discussed at similar lengths. Understanding audiences' current perceptions of the technology is the first step in shaping strategic communication efforts to inform public opinion. A proper understanding of the benefits and risks of new technology is central to its application.

In Vitro Gametogenesis and the Creation of 'Designer Babies'.

Research into the development of stem cell-derived (SCD) gametes in humans, otherwise known as in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), is largely motivated by reproductive aims. Especially, the goal of establishing genetic parenthood by means of SCD-gametes is considered an important aim. However, like other applications in the field of assisted reproduction, this technology evokes worries about the possibility of creating so-called 'designer babies.' In this paper, we investigate various ways in which SCD-gametes could be used to create such preference-matched offspring, and what this would mean for the acceptability of IVG, if it is premised that it is morally problematic to 'design' offspring. We argue that IVG might facilitate the creation of preference-matched offspring, but conclude that this should not undermine the moral acceptability of IVG altogether-even if one concedes the premise that creating 'designer babies' is morally problematic. In the light of this, we also point at a possible inconsistency for a position that condemns the creation of 'designer offspring,' while accepting the various endeavors to have genetically related offspring.

Are we ready for genome editing in human embryos for clinical purposes?

Perhaps the two most significant pioneering biomedical discoveries with immediate clinical implications during the past forty years have been the advent of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and the genetics revolution. ART, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), intracytoplasmic sperm injection and preimplantation genetic testing, has resulted in the birth of more than 8 million children, and the pioneer of IVF, Professor Bob Edwards, was awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize. The genetics revolution has resulted in our genomes being sequenced and many of the molecular mechanisms understood, and technologies for genomic editing have been developed. With the combination of nearly routine ART protocols for healthy conceptions together with almost error-free, inexpensive and simple methods for genetic modification, the question "Are we ready for genome editing in human embryos for clinical purposes?" was debated at the 5th congress on controversies in preconception, preimplantation and Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis, in collaboration with the Ovarian Club Meeting, in November 2018 in Paris. The co-authors each presented scientific, medical and bioethical backgrounds, and the debate was chaired by Professor Alan Handyside. In this paper, we consider whether genome editing is safe and ethical. We conclude that we are currently not ready for genome editing to be used in human embryos for clinical purposes, and we call for a global debate to determine if and when this technology could be used in ART. ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬.

The Wisdom of Germline Editing: An Ethical Analysis of the Use of CRISPR-Cas9 to Edit Human Embryos.

With recent reports that a Chinese scientist used CRISPR-Cas9 to heritably edit the genomes of human embryos (i.e., germline editing) brought to term, discussions regarding the ethics of the technology are urgently needed. Although certain applications of germline editing have been endorsed by both the National Academy of Sciences (US) and the Nuffield Council (UK), this paper explores the ethical concerns related even to such therapeutic uses of the technology. Additionally, this paper questions whether the technology could ever feasibly be contained to the therapeutic realm. Consequently, this paper necessarily considers the ethical concerns related to enhancement uses of the technology even if only therapeutic applications are initially considered. In light of the concomitant risks, this paper assesses the technology's countervailing benefits to conclude they do not prevail given that similar outcomes can largely be achieved with existing technologies. Consequently, this paper recommends an international ban on germline editing.

Designing humans: A human rights approach.

Advances in genomic technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9, mitochondrial replacement techniques, and in vitro gametogenesis may soon give us more precise and efficient tools to have children with certain traits such as beauty, intelligence, and athleticism. In this paper, I propose a new approach to the ethics of reproductive genetic engineering, a human rights approach. This approach relies on two claims that have certain, independent plausibility: (a) human beings have equal moral status, and (b) human beings have human rights to the fundamental conditions for pursuing a good life. I first argue that the human rights approach gives us a lower bound of when reproductive genetic engineering would be permissible. I then compare this approach with other approaches such as the libertarian, perfectionist, and life worth living approaches. Against these approaches, I argue that the human rights approach offers a novel, and more plausible, way of assessing the ethics of reproductive genetic engineering.

Ethical challenges in assisted reproduction: the place of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in a just society.

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and identify the relevant moral questions it raises. In the course of this discussion, the scope of parental rights and the inherent difficulty in defining disease/disability will be considered.