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

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: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.

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.

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.