Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature. 2019;567:165-168. [PMID: 30867611 DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-00726-5]

Ethical considerations of preconception and prenatal gene modification in the embryo and fetus

The National Academies of Sciences and Medicine 2020 consensus statement advocates the reinstatement of research in preconception heritable human genome editing (HHGE), despite the ethical concerns that have been voiced about interventions in the germline, and outlines criteria for its eventual clinical application to address monogenic disorders. However, the statement does not give adequate consideration to alternative technologies. Importantly, it omits comparison to fetal gene therapy (FGT), which involves gene modification applied prenatally to the developing fetus and which is better researched and less ethically contentious. While both technologies are applicable to the same monogenic diseases causing significant prenatal or early childhood morbidity, the benefits and risks of HHGE are distinct from FGT though there are important overlaps. FGT has the current advantage of a wealth of robust preclinical data, while HHGE is nascent technology and its feasibility for specific diseases still requires scientific proof. The ethical concerns surrounding each are unique and deserving of further discussion, as there are compelling arguments supporting research and eventual clinical translation of both technologies. In this Opinion, we consider HHGE and FGT through technical and ethical lenses, applying common ethical principles to provide a sense of their feasibility and acceptability. Currently, FGT is in a more advanced position for clinical translation and may be less ethically contentious than HHGE, so it deserves to be considered as an alternative therapy in further discussions on HHGE implementation.

In vivo somatic cell base editing and prime editing

Recent advances in genome editing technologies have magnified the prospect of single-dose cures for many genetic diseases. For most genetic disorders, precise DNA correction is anticipated to best treat patients. To install desired DNA changes with high precision, our laboratory developed base editors (BEs), which can correct the four most common single-base substitutions, and prime editors, which can install any substitution, insertion, and/or deletion over a stretch of dozens of base pairs. Compared to nuclease-dependent editing approaches that involve double-strand DNA breaks (DSBs) and often result in a large percentage of uncontrolled editing outcomes, such as mixtures of insertions and deletions (indels), larger deletions, and chromosomal rearrangements, base editors and prime editors often offer greater efficiency with fewer byproducts in slowly dividing or non-dividing cells, such as those that make up most of the cells in adult animals. Both viral and non-viral in vivo delivery methods have now been used to deliver base editors and prime editors in animal models, establishing that base editors and prime editors can serve as effective agents for in vivo therapeutic genome editing in animals. This review summarizes examples of in vivo somatic cell (post-natal) base editing and prime editing and prospects for future development.

The Promise and the Hope of Gene Therapy

It has been over 30 years since visionary scientists came up with the term "Gene Therapy," suggesting that for certain indications, mostly monogenic diseases, substitution of the missing or mutated gene with the normal allele via gene addition could provide long-lasting therapeutic effect to the affected patients and consequently improve their quality of life. This notion has recently become a reality for certain diseases such as hemoglobinopathies and immunodeficiencies and other monogenic diseases. However, the therapeutic wave of gene therapies was not only applied in this context but was more broadly employed to treat cancer with the advent of CAR-T cell therapies. This review will summarize the gradual advent of gene therapies from bench to bedside with a main focus on hemopoietic stem cell gene therapy and genome editing and will provide some useful insights into the future of genetic therapies and their gradual integration in the everyday clinical practice.

The Off-Targets of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats Gene Editing

The repurposing of the CRISPR/Cas bacterial defense system against bacteriophages as simple and flexible molecular tools has revolutionized the field of gene editing. These tools are now widely used in basic research and clinical trials involving human somatic cells. However, a global moratorium on all clinical uses of human germline editing has been proposed because the technology still lacks the required efficacy and safety. Here we focus on the approaches developed since 2013 to decrease the frequency of unwanted mutations (the off-targets) during CRISPR-based gene editing.

Polygenic risk scoring of human embryos: a qualitative study of media coverage

BACKGROUND

Current preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) technologies enable embryo genotyping across the whole genome. This has led to the development of polygenic risk scoring of human embryos (PGT-P). Recent implementation of PGT-P, including screening for intelligence, has been extensively covered by media reports, raising major controversy. Considering the increasing demand for assisted reproduction, we evaluated how information about PGT-P is communicated in press media and explored the diversity of ethical themes present in the public debate.

METHODS

LexisNexis Academic database and Google News were searched to identify articles about polygenic embryo screening. This led to 535 news articles. 59 original articles met the inclusion criteria. Inductive content analysis was used to analyse these articles.

RESULTS

8.8% of articles gave embryo polygenic scoring a positive portrayal, while 36.8% expressed a negative attitude. 54.4% were neutral, mostly highlighting limited practical value of the technology in in vitro fertilization settings. We identified five main ethical themes that are also present in academic literature and the broader debate on reproductive technologies: a slippery slope towards designer babies, well-being of the child and parents, impact on society, deliberate choice and societal readiness.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of embryo polygenic profiling engenders a need for specific recommendations. Current media analysis discloses important ethical themes to consider when creating future guidelines for PGT-P.

Germline genome modification through novel political, ethical, and social lenses

Much has been written about gene modifying technologies (GMTs), with a particularly strong focus on human germline genome editing (HGGE) sparked by its unprecedented clinical research application in 2018, shocking the scientific community. This paper applies political, ethical, and social lenses to aspects of HGGE to uncover previously underexplored considerations that are important to reflect on in global discussions. By exploring 4 areas-(1) just distribution of HGGE benefits through a realist lens; (2) HGGE through a national interest lens; (3) "broad societal consensus" through a structural injustice lens; and (4) HGGE through a scientific trustworthiness lens-a broader perspective is offered, which ultimately aims to enrich further debates and inform well-considered solutions for developments in this field. The application of these lenses also brings to light the fact that all discussions about scientific developments involve a conscious or unconscious application of a lens that shapes the direction of our thinking.

Germline genome editing: Moratorium, hard law, or an informed adaptive consensus?

With the development of practical means of human germline genome editing (HGGE) in recent years, there have been calls for stricter regulation and oversight over HGGE interventions with potential for heritable changes in the germline. An international moratorium has been advocated. We examine the practicality of such a proposal, as well as of a regulation through the "traditional" mechanisms of international and municipal laws. We argue that these mechanisms are unlikely to achieve their intended objectives and that the better approach is to engage the international community of stakeholders, researchers, scientists, clinicians, and other workers directly involved in the field in working toward the development of an "informed adaptive consensus". We offer suggestions as to how this may be achieved and how existing indirect levers of regulation may be harnessed toward this end.

A virtual deliberative public engagement study on heritable genome editing among South Africans: Study protocol

This article outlines the protocol for a prospective study for virtual deliberative public engagement on heritable genome editing in humans. The study intends to create a platform for a diverse group of 25–30 South Africans to engage with a facilitator and each other on 15 policy questions regarding heritable genome editing, with a focus on: a) the prevention of heritable genetic conditions; b) editing for immunity; and c) editing for enhancement. The aim is to understand the views on these issues so as to inform further research and policy, and to analyse the process and effect of deliberation on opinion. Participants will be expected to study the provided resource materials and pass the entrance exam—aligning with the protocols of the Harvard Personal Genome Project. In this way, the commitment, openness and basic knowledge of the candidates will be tested to ascertain whether they are suitable participants for the deliberative engagement.

The View from the Benches: Scientists' Perspectives on the Uses and Governance of Human Gene-Editing Research

The advent of human gene editing has stimulated international interest in how best to govern this research. However, research on stakeholder views has neglected scientists themselves. We surveyed 212 scientists who use gene editing in their work. Questions captured views on oversight and use of somatic and germline human gene editing for treatment, prevention, and enhancement. More respondents were supportive of somatic than germline editing, and more supported gene editing for treatment compared to prevention. Few supported its use for enhancement. When presented with specific conditions, levels of support for somatic editing differed by type of condition. Almost all respondents said scientists and national government representatives should be involved in oversight, but only 28% said scientists are best positioned to oversee gene-editing research. These results can inform the development of sound approaches to research governance, demonstrating the importance of identifying specific gene-editing uses when considering oversight.

Toward Anticipatory Governance of Human Genome Editing: A Critical Review of Scholarly Governance Discourse

The rapid development of human genome editing (HGE) techniques evokes an urgent need for forward-looking deliberation regarding the aims, processes, and governance of research. The framework of anticipatory governance (AG) may serve this need. This article reviews scholarly discourse about HGE through an AG lens, aiming to identify gaps in discussion and practice and suggest how AG efforts may fill them. Discourse on HGE has insufficiently reckoned with the institutional and systemic contexts, inputs, and implications of HGE work, to the detriment of its ability to prepare for a variety of possible futures and pursue socially desirable ones. More broadly framed and inclusive efforts in foresight and public engagement, focused not only upon the in-principle permissibility of HGE activities but upon the contexts of such work, may permit improved identification of public values relevant to HGE and of actions by which researchers, funders, policymakers, and publics may promote them.

CRISPR therapy towards an HIV cure

Tools based on RNA interference (RNAi) and the recently developed clustered regularly short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) system enable the selective modification of gene expression, which also makes them attractive therapeutic reagents for combating HIV infection and other infectious diseases. Several parallels can be drawn between the RNAi and CRISPR-Cas9 platforms. An ideal RNAi or CRISPR-Cas9 therapeutic strategy for treating infectious or genetic diseases should exhibit potency, high specificity and safety. However, therapeutic applications of RNAi and CRISPR-Cas9 have been challenged by several major limitations, some of which can be overcome by optimal design of the therapy or the design of improved reagents. In this review, we will discuss some advantages and limitations of anti-HIV strategies based on RNAi and CRISPR-Cas9 with a focus on the efficiency, specificity, off-target effects and delivery methods.

When is it Safe to Edit the Human Germline?

In the fall of 2018 Jiankui He shocked the international community with the following announcement: two female babies, "Lulu" and "Nana," whose germlines had been modified by the cutting edge, yet profoundly unsafe CRISPR-Cas9 technology had been born. This event galvanized policy makers and scientists to advocate for more explicit and firm regulation of human germline gene editing (GGE). Recent policy proposals attempt to integrate safety considerations and public input to identify specific types of diseases that may be safe targets for human GGE (Sarkar forthcoming; Guttinger. 2019. "Editing the Reactive Genome: Towards Postgenomic Ethics of Germline Editing." Journal of Applied Philosophy. "Editing the Reactive Genome: Towards Postgenomic Ethics of Germline Editing." Journal of Applied Philosophy. "Editing the Reactive Genome: Towards Postgenomic Ethics of Germline Editing." Journal of Applied Philosophy; Lander et al., 2019). This paper argues these policy proposals are inadequate in different ways. While Sarkar (forthcoming) intends to incorporate input from the disability community for the purpose of deciding the value of human GGE, I argue that his strategy for doing so is inadequate. I'll argue that an iterative, deliberative process is a more appropriate framework for allowing the disability community to inform policy on human GGE. Further policy proposals have been framed in terms of monogenetic or single-gene diseases (Guttinger. 2019. "Editing the Reactive Genome: Towards Postgenomic Ethics of Germline Editing." Journal of Applied Philosophy. "Editing the Reactive Genome: Towards Postgenomic Ethics of Germline Editing." Journal of Applied Philosophy. "Editing the Reactive Genome: Towards Postgenomic Ethics of Germline Editing." Journal of Applied Philosophy; Lander et al., 2019). I argue that this way of conceptualizing disease is not what matters for deciding which disorders are viable candidates for human GGE. Instead, what matters is that (1) the disease in question must have (among its set of causes) genes that have a high degree of causal control with respect to the disease and (2) alternative nucleic acid sequences variants that are likely to produce traits deemed desirable must be identified. Previous policy proposals leave (2) unspecified. What conditions must be met for satisfying condition (2) should not be left to individual scientists to decide for themselves. The present proposal offers some guidance on this issue.

Haploinsufficiency, Dominant Negative, and Gain-of-Function Mechanisms in Epilepsy: Matching Therapeutic Approach to the Pathophysiology

This review summarizes the pathogenic mechanisms that underpin the monogenic epilepsies and discusses the potential of novel precision therapeutics to treat these disorders. Pathogenic mechanisms of epilepsy include recessive (null alleles), haploinsufficiency, imprinting, gain-of-function, and dominant negative effects. Understanding which pathogenic mechanism(s) that underlie each genetic epilepsy is pivotal to design precision therapies that are most likely to be beneficial for the patient. Novel therapeutics discussed include gene therapy, gene editing, antisense oligonucleotides, and protein replacement. Discussions are illustrated and reinforced with examples from the literature.

Making sense of it all: Ethical reflections on the conditions surrounding the first genome-edited babies

In November 2018 the birth of the first genome-edited human beings was announced by Chinese scientist, He Jiankui. The ensuing ethical controversy, institutional investigations and legal proceedings led to the revision of standards, rules and procedures at many levels. Arguably, however, these developments have not fundamentally changed the conditions or the culture that nourished He Jiankui's vaulting ambition in the first place and enabled it to find expression. In this paper we explore the clinical, regulatory and societal circumstances of the 'gene-edited baby' case, the political, cultural and economic conditions that created a radical and dangerous climate for biotechnology innovation, and the responsibilities of the international research community, many of whose members were apprised of Dr He's intentions. The aim is not to heap anathemas on the heads of implicated individuals but to draw attention to the need for different communities (researchers, authorities and domestic publics) to play a part actively in the governance of biomedical innovation and for research to be bridled by human values.

Public Acceptability of Gene Therapy and Gene Editing for Human Use: A Systematic Review

Gene therapy and gene editing technologies are complex and it can be difficult for the public to understand their possible benefits or side effects. However, patient and public support is critical for the successful adoption of any new technology. Given the recent advances in gene therapy and gene editing, their potential clinical benefits, and the significant attention that has been given to the first-known successful attempt at permanent and heritable changes to the human genome, a systematic review was performed to assess beliefs and attitudes toward gene therapy and gene editing for human use, and to highlight the factors that influence acceptability. A systematic search following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was undertaken in April 2018 to identify articles examining opinions and attitudes regarding the acceptability of gene therapy and gene editing. Overall, 1,561 records were retrieved from 4 databases (Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science). Duplicates were removed, and titles and abstracts independently screened, leaving 86 full-text articles assessed for eligibility. Following full-text review, 33 were included, with 5 articles added after forward/backward searching. An additional three articles were added following an updated search in March 2019 (total n = 41). Findings from the studies were integrated according to common themes: the impact of demographics; risks versus benefits of success; treatment specifics (e.g., medical vs. other reasons; disease severity and status; somatic vs. germ line; and mode of delivery); moral or ethical issues; and changes with time. In general, perceptions were positive, particularly for medical reasons and fatal diseases, but were also influenced by perceived risk. Somatic therapies had higher levels of acceptability than germ line therapies. While available in various forms, limitations exist in the measurement of perceptions of gene therapy and gene editing. Treatment acceptability is essential for future clinical trials, so it is important for scientists and clinicians to be clear about the risks and benefits of these technologies, and how these are communicated to the public, while encouraging education about genetic therapies to a broad range of individuals.

Procreative Non-Maleficence: A South African Human Rights Perspective on Heritable Human Genome Editing

If the safety and efficacy issues relating to heritable genome editing can be resolved, how should liberal democratic societies regulate the use of this technology by prospective parents who wish to effect edits to the genomes of their prospective children? We suggest that recent developments in South African law can be useful in this regard. The country's apex court recently recognized as a legal principle that the scope of possible reproductive decisions that parents may make when using new reproductive technologies excludes decisions that will cause harm to the prospective child—the principle of procreative non-maleficence. We suggest that the principle of procreative non-maleficence provides a mechanism for striking an equitable balance between two competing interests that are given legal recognition in most liberal democracies: the reproductive rights of prospective parents and the state's duty to protect child welfare.

Systemic cell therapy for muscular dystrophies : The ultimate transplantable muscle progenitor cell and current challenges for clinical efficacy

The intrinsic regenerative capacity of skeletal muscle makes it an excellent target for cell therapy. However, the potential of muscle tissue to renew is typically exhausted and insufficient in muscular dystrophies (MDs), a large group of heterogeneous genetic disorders showing progressive loss of skeletal muscle fibers. Cell therapy for MDs has to rely on suppletion with donor cells with high myogenic regenerative capacity. Here, we provide an overview on stem cell lineages employed for strategies in MDs, with a focus on adult stem cells and progenitor cells resident in skeletal muscle. In the early days, the potential of myoblasts and satellite cells was explored, but after disappointing clinical results the field moved to other muscle progenitor cells, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Most recently, mesoangioblasts and pericytes have been pursued for muscle cell therapy, leading to a handful of preclinical studies and a clinical trial. The current status of (pre)clinical work for the most common forms of MD illustrates the existing challenges and bottlenecks. Besides the intrinsic properties of transplantable cells, we discuss issues relating to cell expansion and cell viability after transplantation, optimal dosage, and route and timing of administration. Since MDs are genetic conditions, autologous cell therapy and gene therapy will need to go hand-in-hand, bringing in additional complications. Finally, we discuss determinants for optimization of future clinical trials for muscle cell therapy. Joined research efforts bring hope that effective therapies for MDs are on the horizon to fulfil the unmet clinical need in patients.

Students' attitudes towards somatic genome editing versus genome editing of the germline using an example of familial leukemia

Although the discussion on possibilities and pitfalls of genome editing is ever present, limited qualitative data on the attitudes of students, who will come into contact with this technology within a social and professional context, is available. The attitude of 97 medical students and 103 students of other subjects from Hannover and Oldenburg, Germany, was analyzed in winter 2017/18. For this purpose, two dilemmas on somatic and germline genome editing concerning familial leukemia were developed. After reading the dilemmas, the students filled out a paper-and-pencil test with five open questions. The qualitative evaluation of the answers was carried by a deductive-inductive procedure of content analysis. There was a high approval for the use of somatic genome editing. When it came to germline genome editing, concerns were raised regarding enhancement, interventions in nature, and loss of uniqueness. The students recognized that somatic genome editing and germline genome editing prove different ethical challenges and need to be judged separately. Many students expressed not feeling fully informed. The results of this project show the importance of educating the public about the possibilities, limitations, and risks of somatic and germline genome editing. We recommend that this should already be addressed in schools in order to optimally prepare students and adults for participation in public discourse. Especially for patients affected by genetic diseases, it is of great importance that the treating physicians and geneticists are sufficiently informed about the method of genome editing to ensure good counseling.

Gene Editing: How Can You Ask "Whether" If You Don't Know "How"?

Though questions about whether gene editing should be done at all have dominated ethical discussion, a literature about how it can be done ethically has been growing. Work on responsible translational pathways for human germline gene editing has been criticized for focusing on the wrong questions. But questions about responsible translational pathways-questions about how gene editing could be done ethically-are, in an important sense, prior to questions about whether it is desirable and permissible. Asking "whether" questions about gene editing requires a model of what responsible clinical use of gene editing would look like.

Legal and Ethical Issues in the Report Heritable Human Genome Editing

This essay discusses the new report, Heritable Human Genome Editing, by the National Academy of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Royal Society. After summarizing the report, we argue that the report takes four quite bold steps away from prior reports, namely (1) rejecting an omnibus approach to heritable human genome editing (HHGE) in favor of a case-by-case analysis of possible uses of HHGE, accepting that HHGE is acceptable in some cases; (2) recognizing that the interest in having children who are genetically related to both would-be rearing parents is one that the regulation of HHGE should honor; (3) patterning a regulatory model for HHGE on the United Kingdom's approach to regulating mitochondrial replacement techniques; and (4) conveying skepticism that international regulation is possible while showing a strong preference for a default into national regulatory regimes for HHGE.

Beyond babies: Implications of human genome editing for women, children, and families

Scholarship on human germline editing has centered on the risks to the genetically-modified child. However, far less emphasis is focused on women who will become pregnant with a genetically modified embryo as part of human subject research or the families that raise children whose genomes were modified as an embryo. The lack of attention on women and families places these key stakeholders in genomic technologies at significant medical, ethical, and personal harm as research rapidly moves forward to advance the science of genomic modification. Now is the time to address how the interests of women and families should be represented in the ethical and scientific frameworks of human genomic modification, with specific considerations for Institutional Review Boards who review protocols for rigorous human subject protections and scientists who develop scientific methodologies that dictate the potential risks conferred to research participants. In this paper, we examine the implications of genomic modification of human embryo for women, children, and families to explore how to review a first-in-human clinical protocol of human genomic officiation responsibly.

Genetic Disease and Therapy

Genetic diseases cause numerous complex and intractable pathologies. DNA sequences encoding each human's complexity and many disease risks are contained in the mitochondrial genome, nuclear genome, and microbial metagenome. Diagnosis of these diseases has unified around applications of next-generation DNA sequencing. However, translating specific genetic diagnoses into targeted genetic therapies remains a central goal. To date, genetic therapies have fallen into three broad categories: bulk replacement of affected genetic compartments with a new exogenous genome, nontargeted addition of exogenous genetic material to compensate for genetic errors, and most recently, direct correction of causative genetic alterations using gene editing. Generalized methods of diagnosis, therapy, and reagent delivery into each genetic compartment will accelerate the next generations of curative genetic therapies. We discuss the structure and variability of the mitochondrial, nuclear, and microbial metagenomic compartments, as well as the historical development and current practice of genetic diagnostics and gene therapies targeting each compartment.

Mapping the Ethical Issues of Brain Organoid Research and Application

In 2008, researchers created human three-dimensional neural tissue - known as the pioneering work of "brain organoids." In recent years, some researchers have transplanted human brain organoids into animal brains for applicational purposes. With these experiments have come many ethical concerns. It is thus an urgent task to clarify what is ethically permissible and impermissible in brain organoid research. This paper seeks (1) to sort out the ethical issues related to brain organoid research and application and (2) to propose future directions for additional ethical consideration and policy debates in the field. Toward (1), this paper first outlines the current state of brain organoid research, and then briefly responds to previously raised related ethical concerns. Looking next at anticipated scientific developments in brain organoid research, we will discuss (i) ethical issues related to in vitro brain organoids, (ii) ethical issues raised when brain organoids form complexes or have relationships with other entities, and (iii) ethical issues of research ethics and governance. Finally, in pursuit of (2), we propose research policies that are mindful of the ethics of brain organoid research and application and also suggest the need for an international framework for research and application of brain organoids.

"Un-Promethean" science and the future of humanity: Heidegger's warning

The twentieth-century German philosopher Martin Heidegger distinguished "meditative" (besinnlich) and "calculative" (rechnende) modes of thinking as a way of highlighting the problematique of modern technology and the limits of modern science. In doing so he also was prescient to recognize, in 1955, that the most significant danger to the future of humanity are developments in molecular biology and biotechnology, in contrast to the post-World War global threat of thermonuclear weapons. These insights are engaged here in view of recent discussion of the need for international regulation of heritable human genome editing and the announcement in 2018 of the birth of the world's first gene-edited babies in China. Heidegger's call for meditative thinking requires modern medicine and the life sciences to appropriate the phenomenological conception of the human "way to be" (Seinsweise) such that it is not restricted to the "present-at-hand" (vorhanden) physiology and pathology of the human body (Körper).

Global Governance of Human Genome Editing: What Are the Rules?

Human gene editing, particularly using the new CRISPR/Cas9 technology, will greatly increase the capability to make precise changes to human genomes. Human gene editing can be broken into four major categories: somatic therapy, heritable gene editing, genetic enhancement, and basic and applied research. Somatic therapy is generally well governed by national regulatory systems, so the need for global governance is less urgent. All nations are in agreement that heritable gene editing should not proceed at this time, but there is likely to be divergence if and when such procedures are shown to be safe and effective. Gene editing for enhancement purposes is not feasible today but is more controversial with the public, and many nations do not have well-developed regulatory systems for addressing genetic enhancement. Finally, different nations treat research with human embryos very differently based on deeply embedded social, cultural, ethical, and legal traditions. Several international governance mechanisms are currently in operation for human gene editing, and several other governance mechanisms have been proposed. It is unlikely that any single mechanism will alone be effective for governing human gene editing; rather, a polycentric or ecosystem approach that includes several overlapping and interacting components is likely to be necessary.

The CRISPR revolution and its potential impact on global health security

Global health security is constantly under threat from infectious diseases. Despite advances in biotechnology that have improved diagnosis and treatment of such diseases, delays in detecting outbreaks and the lack of countermeasures for some biological agents continue to pose severe challenges to global health security. In this review, we describe some of the challenges facing global health security and how genome editing technologies can help overcome them. We provide specific examples of how the genome-editing tool CRISPR is being used to develop new tools to characterize pathogenic agents, diagnose infectious disease, and develop vaccines and therapeutics to mitigate the effects of an outbreak. The article also discusses some of the challenges associated with genome-editing technologies and the efforts that scientists are undertaking to mitigate them. Overall, CRISPR and genome-editing technologies are poised to have a significant positive influence on global health security over the years to come.

Heritable human genome editing: Research progress, ethical considerations, and hurdles to clinical practice

Our genome at conception determines much of our health as an adult. Most human diseases have a heritable component and thus may be preventable through heritable genome editing. Preventing disease from the beginning of life before irreversible damage has occurred is an admirable goal, but the path to fruition remains unclear. Here, we review the significant scientific contributions to the field of human heritable genome editing, the unique ethical challenges that cannot be overlooked, and the hurdles that must be overcome prior to translating these technologies into clinical practice.

Gene editing technology: Towards precision medicine in inherited retinal diseases

Purpose: To review preclinical and clinical advances in gene therapy, with a focus on gene editing technologies, and application to inherited retinal disease.Methods: A narrative overview of the literature, summarizing the state-of-the-art in clinical gene therapy for inherited retinal disease, as well as the science and application of new gene editing technology.Results: The last three years has seen the first FDA approval of an in vivo gene replacement therapy for a hereditary blinding eye disease and, recently, the first clinical application of an in vivo gene editing technique. Limitations and challenges in this evolving field are highlighted, as well as new technologies developed to address the multitude of molecular mechanisms of disease.Conclusion: Genetic therapy for the treatment of inherited retinal disease is a rapidly expanding area of ophthalmology. New technologies have revolutionized the field of genome engineering and rekindled an interest in precision medicines for these conditions.

Informed Consent for Human Embryo Genome Editing

In the event that human embryo genome editing is considered safe enough for the clinic, researchers will need to consider how to administer consent so that would-be recipients of edited embryos can make an informed decision. Informed consent will require truthfulness, sensitivity, regulatory compliance, and attention to the highest ethical standards.

Should germline genome editing be allowed? The effect of treatment characteristics on public acceptability

STUDY QUESTION

To what extent do characteristics of germline genome editing (GGE) determine whether the general public supports permitting the clinical use of GGE?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The risk that GGE would cause congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on support for allowing GGE, followed by effectiveness of GGE, while costs, the type of application (disease or enhancement) and the effect on child well-being had moderate effects.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Scientific progress on GGE has increased the urgency of resolving whether and when clinical application of GGE may be ethically acceptable. Various expert bodies have suggested that the treatment characteristics will be key in determining whether GGE is acceptable. For example, GGE with substantial risks (e.g. 15% chance of a major congenital abnormality) may be acceptable to prevent a severe disease but not to enhance non-medical characteristics or traits of an otherwise healthy embryo (e.g. eye colour or perhaps in the future more complex traits, such as intelligence). While experts have called for public engagement, it is unclear whether and how much the public acceptability of GGE is affected by the treatment characteristics proposed by experts.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The vignette-based survey was disseminated in 2018 among 1857 members of the Dutch general public. An online research panel was used to recruit a sample representing the adult Dutch general public.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A literature review identified the key treatment characteristics of GGE: the effect on the well-being of the future child, use for disease or enhancement, risks for the future child, effectiveness (here defined as the chance of a live birth, assuming that if the GGE was not successful, the embryo would not be transferred), cost and availability of alternative treatments/procedures to prevent the genetic disease or provide enhancement (i.e. preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)), respectively. For each treatment characteristic, 2-3 levels were defined to realistically represent GGE and its current alternatives, donor gametes and ICSI with PGT. Twelve vignettes were created by fractional factorial design. A multinominal logit model assessed how much each treatment characteristic affected participants' choices.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The 1136 respondents (response rate 61%) were representative of the Dutch adult population in several demographics. Respondents were between 18 and 89 years of age. When no alternative treatment/procedure is available, the risk that GGE would cause (other) congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on whether the Dutch public supported allowing GGE (coefficient = -3.07), followed by effectiveness (coefficient = 2.03). Costs (covered by national insurance, coefficient = -1.14), the type of application (disease or enhancement; coefficient = -1.07), and the effect on child well-being (coefficient = 0.97) had similar effects on whether GGE should be allowed. If an alternative treatment/procedure (e.g. PGT) was available, participants were not categorically opposed to GGE, however, they were strongly opposed to using GGE for enhancement (coefficient = -3.37). The general acceptability of GGE was higher than participants' willingness to personally use it (P < 0.001). When participants considered whether they would personally use GGE, the type of application (disease or enhancement) was more important, whereas effectiveness and costs (covered by national insurance) were less important than when they considered whether GGE should be allowed. Participants who were male, younger and had lower incomes were more likely to allow GGE when no alternative treatment/procedure is available.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Some (e.g. ethnic, religious) minorities were not well represented. To limit complexity, not all characteristics of GGE could be included (e.g. out-of-pocket costs), therefore, the views gathered from the vignettes reflect only the choices presented to the respondents. The non-included characteristics could be connected to and alter the importance of the studied characteristics. This would affect how closely the reported coefficients reflect 'real-life' importance.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study is the first to quantify the substantial impact of GGE's effectiveness, costs (covered by national insurance), and effect on child well-being on whether the public considered GGE acceptable. In general, the participants were strikingly risk-averse, in that they weighed the risks of GGE more heavily than its benefits. Furthermore, although only a single study in one country, the results suggests that-if sufficiently safe and effective-the public may approve of using GGE (presumably combined with PGT) instead of solely PGT to prevent passing on a disease. The reported public views can serve as input for future consideration of the ethics and governance of GGE.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Young Academy of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (UPS/RB/745), Alliance Grant of the Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute (2017-170116) and National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Programme. No competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Why human germline genome editing is incompatible with equality in an inclusive society

Human germline genome editing is increasingly being seen as acceptable provided certain conditions are satisfied. Accordingly, genetic modifications would take place on eggs or sperm (or their precursor cells) as well as very early embryos for the purpose of bringing children into existence with or without particular genetic traits. In this context, a number of already discussed and separate arguments, such as the (1) synecdoche, (2) non-identity (3) inherent equality and (4) expressivist arguments, can be brought together in the new context of examining, from an ethical perspective, some of the possible consequences of such germline genome editing. In so doing, it becomes clear that these novel procedures are incompatible with the concept of equality in value and in worth of all human beings in a genuinely inclusive society. Such equality is expressed in Article 1 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that: 'All human beings are born … equal in dignity and rights.'

Therapeutic genome editing in cardiovascular diseases

During the past decade, developments in genome editing technology have fundamentally transformed biomedical research. In particular, the CRISPR/Cas9 system has been extensively applied because of its simplicity and ability to alter genomic sequences within living organisms, and an ever increasing number of CRISPR/Cas9-based molecular tools are being developed for a wide variety of applications. While genome editing tools have been used for many aspects of biological research, they also have enormous potential to be used for genome editing therapy to treat a broad range of diseases. For some hematopoietic diseases, clinical trials of therapeutic genome editing with CRISPR/Cas9 are already starting phase I. In the cardiovascular field, genome editing tools have been utilized to understand the mechanisms of diseases such as cardiomyopathy, arrythmia, and lipid metabolism, which now open the door to therapeutic genome editing. Currently, therapeutic genome editing in the cardiovascular field is centered on liver-targeting strategies to reduce cardiovascular risks. Targeting the heart is more challenging. In this review, we discuss the potential applications, recent advances, and current limitations of therapeutic genome editing in the cardiovascular field.

The Ground Zero of Organismal Life and Aging

Cells may naturally proceed or be forced to transition to a state with a radically lower biological age, that is, be rejuvenated. Examples are the conversion of somatic cells to induced pluripotent stem cells and rejuvenation of the germline with each generation. We posit that these processes converge to the same 'ground zero', the mid-embryonic state characterized by the lowest biological age where both organismal life and aging begin. It may also be related to the phylotypic state. The ground zero model clarifies the relationship between aging, development, rejuvenation, and de-differentiation, which are distinct throughout life. By extending the rejuvenation phase during early embryogenesis and editing the genome, it may be possible to achieve the biological age at the ground zero lower than that achieved naturally.

Heritable Human Genome Editing: The Public Engagement Imperative

In the view of many, heritable human genome editing (HHGE) harbors the remedial potential of ridding the world of deadly genetic diseases. A Hippocratic obligation, if there ever was one, HHGE is widely viewed as a life-sustaining proposition. The national go/no-go decision regarding the implementation of HHGE, however, must not, in the collective view of the authors, proceed absent thorough public engagement. A comparable call for an "extensive societal dialogue" was recently issued by the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing. In this communication, the authors lay out the foundational principles undergirding the formation, modification, and evaluation of public opinion. It is against this backdrop that the societal decision to warrant or enjoin the clinical conduct of HHGE will doubtlessly transpire.

Altered evolution: are reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists ready for the genetically engineered future?

Science, propelled forward by noble aspirations and, at times, human hubris, has the capacity to affect lives and alter the world in unanticipated ways. Even seemingly minor discoveries have repeatedly proven to have far reaching implications that experts within their respective fields could not have predicted. Nuclear technology is both a source of energy and a potential means of annihilation. The internet has both seamlessly connected the world but has also opened society to the misuse and manipulation of information. Both exemplify how new technologies have the potential for positive and negative outcomes that often go beyond what was initially intended. This is not a fault of science and innovation but rather an inherent occupational hazard as new discoveries exist within a gray zone between ignorance and comprehension. These gaps in our knowledge can only be filled over time as our knowledge expands. Innovations that were once seen as fringe, over time, become mainstream and that which was once revolutionary becomes a part of everyday life. Occasionally, a scientific advancement comes along that challenges societal norms and causes us to question what is feasible, acceptable, and ethical. Nowhere in the twenty-first century has this been more evident than within the fields of genetics and genetic engineering. As we gain a deeper understanding of the source code of life, from individual base pairs to epigenetic influences, the implications of new discoveries will go far beyond curing genetic diseases, and the possibilities will be endless. Reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) specialists utilize many tools including expanded carrier screening, preimplantation genetic testing, and embryo selection and have become some of the experts at the forefront of the ongoing genetic revolution. Now more than ever, there is a need for REIs to be trained in the fundamentals of genetics, exposed to novel gene sequencing and editing techniques, and involved in the coming ethical discussions in order to be prepared for the genetically engineered future.

New York State Creates New Governance of Commercial Gestational Surrogacy

United States law recognizes adult reproductive liberty and many states view surrogacy services through that lens. During the COVID-19 pandemic in March, 2020, New York State enacted the Child-Parent Surrogacy Act (CPSA) into law, after feminists and their allies had caused its defeat in 2019. Just before approval of the CPSA, a group of legislators introduced the Alternative Surrogacy Bill (ASB). This article is a case study that examines how the CPSA and not the ASB became law, examining surrogate rights, the best interests of the child, and the ethical issues related to adult donor-conceived and surrogacy born children's rights to information about their ancestry.

International Reporting Mechanism for Unethical Germline Gene Editing Experiments Is Needed

Recent reporting found that a number of scientists internationally knew about the experiment resulting in the birth of the first gene-edited babies well before the news broke. Because scientists have a responsibility to reveal such activities, an international governance mechanism for reporting unethical gene editing experiments should be established.

Back to Basics: Application of the Principles of Bioethics to Heritable Genome Interventions

Prior to their announcement of the birth of gene-edited twins in China, Dr. He Jiankui and colleagues published a set of draft ethical principles for discussing the legal, social, and ethical aspects of heritable genome interventions. Within this document, He and colleagues made it clear that their goal with these principles was to "clarify for the public the clinical future of early-in-life genetic surgeries" or heritable genome editing. In light of He's widely criticized gene editing experiments it is of interest to place these draft principles in the larger ethical debate surrounding heritable genome editing. Here we examine the principles proposed by He and colleagues through the lens of Beauchamp and Childress' Principles of Biomedical Ethics. We also analyze the stated goal that the "clinical future" of heritable genome editing was clarified by He and colleagues' proposed principles. Finally, we highlight what might be done to help prevent individual actors from pushing forward ahead of broad societal consensus on heritable genome editing.

Human germline editing: Legal-ethical guidelines for South Africa

Human germline editing holds much promise for improving people’s lives, but at the same time this novel biotechnology raises ethical and legal questions. The South African ethics regulatory environment is problematic, as it prohibits all research on, and the clinical application of, human germline editing. By contrast, the South African legal regulatory environment allows a regulatory path that would, in principle, permit research on human germline editing. However, the legal regulation of the clinical application of human germline editing is uncertain. As such, the current ethical and legal positions in South Africa are in need of reform. Five guiding principles – aligned with the values of the Constitution – are proposed to guide ethical and legal policy reform regarding human germline editing in South Africa: (1) Given its potential to improve the lives of the people of South Africa, human germline editing should be regulated, not banned. (2) Human germline editing clinical applications should only be made accessible to the public if they are proven to be safe and effective. (3) Non-therapeutic human germline editing may be permissible, and should be regulated in the same way as therapeutic human germline editing. (4) The decision on whether to use germline gene editing on a prospective child, should, subject to Principle 2, be left to the prospective parents. (5) Concerns about exacerbating social inequalities should be addressed by measures to increase access. In conclusion, recommendations are made to policymakers and scientists contemplating research in this field.

Disruptive Synergy: Melding of Human Genetics and Clinical Assisted Reproduction

The melding of human genetics with clinical assisted reproduction, now all but self-evident, gave flight to diagnostic and therapeutic approaches previously deemed infeasible. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, mitochondrial replacement techniques, and remedial germline editing are particularly noteworthy. Here we explore the relevant disruption brought forth by coalescence of these mutually enabling disciplines with the regulatory and legal implications thereof.

Making sense of it all: Ethical reflections on the conditions surrounding the first genome-edited babies

In November 2018 the birth of the first genome-edited human beings was announced. The ensuing ethical controversy, institutional investigations and legal proceedings led to the revision of standards, rules and procedures at many levels. Arguably, however, these developments have not fundamentally changed the conditions or the culture that nourished He Jiankui's vaulting ambition in the first place and enabled it to find expression. In this paper we explore the clinical, regulatory and societal circumstances of the 'gene-edited baby' case, the political, cultural and economic conditions that created a radical and dangerous climate for biotechnology innovation, and the responsibilities of the international research community, many of whose members were apprised of Dr He's intentions. The aim is not to heap anathemas on the heads of implicated individuals but to draw attention to the need for different communities (researchers, authorities and domestic publics) actively to play a part in the governance of biomedical innovation and for research to be bridled by human values.

Ethics parallel research: an approach for (early) ethical guidance of biomedical innovation

Background

Our human societies and certainly also (bio) medicine are more and more permeated with technology. There seems to be an increasing awareness among bioethicists that an effective and comprehensive approach to ethically guide these emerging biomedical innovations into society is needed. Such an approach has not been spelled out yet for bioethics, while there are frequent calls for ethical guidance of biomedical innovation, also by biomedical researchers themselves. New and emerging biotechnologies require anticipation of possible effects and implications, meaning the scope is not evaluative after a technology has been fully developed or about hypothetical technologies, but real-time for a real biotechnology.

Main text

In this paper we aim to substantiate and discuss six ingredients that we increasingly see adopted by ethicists and that together constitute “ethics parallel research”. This approach allows to fulfil two aims: guiding the development process of technologies in biomedicine and providing input for the normative evaluation of such technologies. The six ingredients of ethics parallel research are: (1) disentangling wicked problems, (2) upstream or midstream ethical analysis, (3) ethics from within, (4) inclusion of empirical research, (5) public participation and (6) mapping societal impacts, including hard and soft impacts. We will draw on gene editing, organoid technology and artificial intelligence as examples to illustrate these six ingredients.

Conclusion

Ethics parallel research brings together these ingredients to ethically analyse and proactively or parallel guide technological development. It widens the roles and judgements from the ethicist to a more anticipatory and constructively guiding role. Ethics parallel research is characterised by a constructive, rather than a purely critical perspective, it focusses on developing best-practices rather than outlining worst practice, and draws on insights from social sciences and philosophy of technology.

Assessing Public Opinion on CRISPR-Cas9: Combining Crowdsourcing and Deep Learning

Background

The discovery of the CRISPR-Cas9–based gene editing method has opened unprecedented new potential for biological and medical engineering, sparking a growing public debate on both the potential and dangers of CRISPR applications. Given the speed of technology development and the almost instantaneous global spread of news, it is important to follow evolving debates without much delay and in sufficient detail, as certain events may have a major long-term impact on public opinion and later influence policy decisions.

Objective

Social media networks such as Twitter have shown to be major drivers of news dissemination and public discourse. They provide a vast amount of semistructured data in almost real-time and give direct access to the content of the conversations. We can now mine and analyze such data quickly because of recent developments in machine learning and natural language processing.

Methods

Here, we used Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT), an attention-based transformer model, in combination with statistical methods to analyze the entirety of all tweets ever published on CRISPR since the publication of the first gene editing application in 2013.

Results

We show that the mean sentiment of tweets was initially very positive, but began to decrease over time, and that this decline was driven by rare peaks of strong negative sentiments. Due to the high temporal resolution of the data, we were able to associate these peaks with specific events and to observe how trending topics changed over time.

Conclusions

Overall, this type of analysis can provide valuable and complementary insights into ongoing public debates, extending the traditional empirical bioethics toolset.