Scientists: It's Time To Resolve the Ethics of Editing Human Genome

An anonymous reader writes: We've previously discussed a system called CRISPR-cas9, which is dramatically reducing the cost and effort required to do gene editing. In fact, the barrier to entry is now so low that a group of biologists is calling for a moratorium on using the method to modify the human genome. Writing in the journal Science (abstract), the scientists warn that we've reached the point where the ethical questions surrounding DNA alteration can be put off no longer. David Baltimore, one of the group's members, said, "You could exert control over human heredity with this technique, and that is why we are raising the issue. ... I personally think we are just not smart enough — and won't be for a very long time — to feel comfortable about the consequences of changing heredity, even in a single individual." Another group of scientists called for a similar halt to human germline modification, and the International Society for Stem Cell Research says it agrees.

Comments

Lord Baltimore, eh?

[damn_registrars]

While this time he does have a point - there needs to be an ethical discussion - he is another character who has ruffled a lot of feathers after winning his Nobel Prize. He's up there with James Watson and Kary Mullis in the realms of prize winners who some of us wish would just go away so we can go back to just doing science.

Re:I'm all for this

[Chris Mattern]

Of course we can't cure all hereditary diseases at once with this. But the OP talked about Cystic Fibrosis; it's hard to think of a better candidate to use this technique on than CF. Cystic Fibrosis's genetic basis is simple and well understood. It's just one gene, which has been thoroughly studied. Editing it in germ plasm to eliminate it should not pose insurmountable obstacles.

Re:The cat's out of the bag

[jimbolauski]

Before you can perfect editing the genome without side effects you are going to mess things up. That is the ethical dilemma that needs to be answered who do you practice on.

Morality Wizards

[JimSadler]

It seems that we have a group of people who just insist upon applying theories of morality to every little situation. We still have people protesting abortions for example. Yet none of the abortion protesters take into account what our population level would be like if we had not allowed abortions. Obviously the offspring would be a huge number and might have been such a great burden that our nation could not survive. The same thing can be said about subjects like the Civil War. Without that war we surely would have now had several hundred million extra Americans. War is not completely negative. Pregnancy is not completely positive. Weak minds latching onto an absolute position simply demonstrate the absurdity of modern life. Yet we have numerous pumpkin headed citizens that fixate on really stupid issues and just make their entire life all about pushing some supposedly moral platform. As far as the human genome goes we can store it and revert back to unedited DNA any time we like. It is simply a matter of not allowing people to reproduce who have had unwanted consequences from edited genes.

Re:fathers

[GameboyRMH]

A baby made in a back seat by two morons who can't find a condom is superior, "ethically" speaking, to a baby with maladapted genes removed.

This. We've modified the human genome in most imaginable ways already, most often with no real aim, but the moment we do it intentionally and purposefully it's a big ethical problem?

Reminds me of the idiots who are categorically opposed to all geoengineering.

Re:I'm all for this

[DarkOx]

There are a number of diseases like this, sickle cell comes to mind as well. Watch out though sickle cell does confer +1 malaria resistance and given the warming trends...

Re: fathers

[Anonymous Coward]

You could make the same argument against all sorts of therapies. We wiped out polio and other diseases in the first world using vaccines, we mass produced antibiotics, and in so doing improved the quality of life for people in the first world. You could say "We should stop producing antibiotics and vaccines because people who can't afford them don't get the benefit!" -- If you wanted to really push it, you could claim "We should not use our knowledge of nutrition! It isn't fair that someone in the first world should know what to eat to be healthy when a poor person in a wartorn nation can't!"

But in reality, a rising tide lifts all boats. The same technologies that help those in the first world eventually become less expensive and are implemented in the developing world, and so the quality of life for all people is improved.

Look at cell phones. You could argue that their existence is a huge advantage to the most privileged people on earth, and by the logic you've presented, we should throw the technology away. However; that same technology is now being rapidly deployed to developing nations, and having that instant access to information is helping farmers get access to resources they simply didn't and couldn't have before. The tide is rising, and it's not just helping the richest people, but the poorest people have a better quality of life.