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

fathers

[bigdavex]

I can see fathers objecting to their daughter's suitors on the grounds that they are GMOs. They'll start to demand labeling.

Re:fathers

[Catbeller]

I once thought Bob Heinlein was a bit too cynical in "Friday", a world of the near future where designed humans - optimized for health, etc. - were considered subhuman ungodly creatures that were trained from birth to be subordinate to the point where Friday was trained to be a prostitute from birth. And once again, Grandfather knew his fellow Missourans well - and I must move my needle downwards again. 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.
I'm old enough to recall the moment where the "Genetic Ethics" profession was born. I believe it was when Dolly the sheep was born, the first mammalian clone that made it out of the chute alive. The "ethics" chair was created that week, and self-appointed experts at once popped up on TV to tell us what was right and what was wrong. The nature of journalists embraces the idea of the professional expert, so these carpetbaggers hopped up to take charge.
Most of the "ethicsists" are fundamental christian types or outright clergy, I'd guess from my Heinlein-trained cynical mind, as most media censors are. I do not take orders from them.

Re:fathers

[BarbaraHudson]

The worst part was that most of those self-appointed ethicists was that, just listening to them,, it should have been painfully the underlying objection was quasi-religious, No testing, no studies, no empirical evidence, just mental masturbation.

Ask anyone suffering from a chronic disease if they would like the genes involved to be edited out in their offspring - there will be plenty of motivated volunteers. After all, they have first-hand experience with what it's like with bad genes.

And yes, Heinlein was AMAZING !!!

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: fathers

[websensei]

As if the chasm between haves and the have-nots wasn't wide enough already... now lucking into a wealthy family will get the "born on 3rd base" advantages amplified by an order of magnitude.

Specific consequences are impossible to predict, but I susect the kind of permanent, intergenerational inequality this would engender would not make for a more peaceful planet.

As a cancer survivor (grade 4 GBMO), I am a natural mutant with a lot at stake. But altering genes to prevent disease is not the same thing as optimizing your progeny's IQ or height.

Re:fathers

[ShanghaiBill]

What I find most disturbing is their presumption that "they" have the right to decide for "us". Each individual should decide for themselves what is and isn't done with their genome. It is nobody else's damn business.

Re:fathers

[the gnat]

Most of the "ethicsists" are fundamental christian types or outright clergy

The people writing the letter referred to in TFA are not professional ethicists at all - they are practicing scientists, including one of the people who figured out how the system in question works. (Disclaimer: I know one of them personally and I've had a handful of interactions with another.) If any one of them is at all religious, it's news to me. I'd guess they're totally in favor of genome editing in general, especially since several of them are involved in companies that have this goal. The ethical issue is whether to leap right into modifying embryos with an unproven and potentially unsafe technology, which amounts to experimentation on unwilling human test subjects.

I'm all for this

[dixonpete]

Ask anyone with Cystic Fibrosis about the morality of gene editing.

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:I'm all for this

[morgauxo]

But we don't want the DISEASES to benefit. We want to get rid of those!

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.

Many people do not care, when money is involved

[hooiberg]

Even if scientists in the Western World ban human editing, there are many parts of the world (For example China; India; South America) where ethics are not always that high up the list of priorities. The technology will be used, as long as there is money to be made by doing so.

From that point of view, we might as well open up the technology for every one to use, and let everybody handle it as he or she sees fit.

Re:FRIST

[Chrisq]

post!!!!111111111111

Thanks to genetically engineered faster than human reaction times.

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.

Cowards!

[Graydyn Young]

These people want to put a stop to progress because they think humans are some kind of holy ground that must not be tred upon. Does anybody ever even consider the suffering caused by NOT pursuing gene mods?

I have to suspect that the real reason they are arguing against mods is that suffering and dying of muscular distrophy, or cystic fibrosis, or any other horrible genetic condition, is "natural".

Those people out there that are willing to accept the risks inherent to genetic modification shouldn't be limited by cowards that are OK with people dying, as long as they don't get their own hands dirty.

Needs animal testing/experimentation, not a ban.

[Rande]

My ethical problem would be that in the short-medium term, we don't understand what we're doing and will hurt more than we heal.
So need a few more decades with animal testing.

After that? Open the floodgates. Not everyone will want the 6'2" white blonde blueeyed children. I can see a market for catpeople, dogpeople, merpeople (colonise the oceans!); I'm sure there'll be one or two who want to incarnate Cthulu; wings capable of unaided flight might be difficult.
Never worry about being the wrong skin colour as everyone will be any colour of the rainbow - or even rainbow coloured!
Nightvision - eyeshine a reality!
Solar powered - get a lot of your daily calories just by standing naked in the sun.
Turn hair-growth on and off. Never have to shave again.

People who worry about eugenics are just lacking in imagination.

There is no debate.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

This technology will be developed to the point where traits like intelligence, disease resistance, emotional stability, beauty, et. al. will be almost guaranteed. If it's outlawed in one nation state, wealthy people will just have it done in another. Their children will benefit. The poor will be at a financial AND genetic disadvantage.

The hand wringing ethical concerns of "scientists" will have no effect on this whatsoever.

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.