Reexamining the Ethics of Human Germline Editing in the Wake of Scandal

What do people think about genetic engineering? A systematic review of questionnaire surveys before and after the introduction of CRISPR

The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 in 2012 started revolutionizing the field of genetics by broadening the access to a method for precise modification of the human genome. It also brought renewed attention to the ethical issues of genetic modification and the societal acceptance of technology for this purpose. So far, many surveys assessing public attitudes toward genetic modification have been conducted worldwide. Here, we present the results of a systematic review of primary publications of surveys addressing public attitudes toward genetic modification as well as the awareness and knowledge about the technology required for genetic modification. A total of 53 primary publications (1987-2020) focusing on applications in humans and non-human animals were identified, covering countries in four continents. Of the 53 studies, 30 studies from until and including 2012 (pre-CRISPR) address gene therapy in humans and genetic modification of animals for food production and biomedical research. The remaining 23 studies from after 2013 (CRISPR) address gene editing in humans and animals. Across countries, respondents see gene therapy for disease treatment or prevention in humans as desirable and highly acceptable, whereas enhancement is generally met with opposition. When the study distinguishes between somatic and germline applications, somatic gene editing is generally accepted, whereas germline applications are met with ambivalence. The purpose of the application is also important for assessing attitudes toward genetically modified animals: modification in food production is much less accepted than for biomedical application in pre-CRISPR studies. A relationship between knowledge/awareness and attitude toward genetic modification is often present. A critical appraisal of methodology quality in the primary publications with regards to sampling and questionnaire design, development, and administration shows that there is considerable scope for improvement in the reporting of methodological detail. Lack of information is more common in earlier studies, which probably reflects the changing practice in the field.

Mapping the 'Ethical' Controversy of Human Heritable Genome Editing: a Multidisciplinary Approach

Genome editing, for instance by CRISPR-Cas, is a major advancement of the last 10 years in medicine but questions ethically our practices. In particular, human embryo heritable genome editing is a source of great controversy. We explored how this ethical question was debated in the literature from PubMed database, in a period of 4 years (2016-2020) around the announcement of the 'CRISPR babies' Chinese experiment in November 2018. We evaluated the weight of the arguments for and against this topic, through an analysis of reviews published on this question. The most important arguments come from the technical perspective: safety issues and benefits, putative long-term effects on the future generations and the need to assess this aspect. Next, foreseeable clinical benefits and the alternatives to these methods are discussed. The number of people that would benefit from such techniques is also considered. However, social and anthropological issues are addressed in a more disparate way. Parenthood and desire for children are sometimes overlooked. Few authors mention social justice, stigmatisation and equality of access. Consent and information are more clearly addressed, as well as the question of the relationship between generations. Finally, the effects on the nature of humankind or human species are far from being consensual; the risks of enhancement, eugenics and transhumanism are raised. We conclude that the risks associated with the immaturity of the technique were at the forefront of the ethical debate on human embryo heritable genome editing. Their consequences were seen as more immediate and easier to handle than those of sociological or anthropological projections, which are more speculative in nature.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41649-022-00234-1.

Antisense therapies in neurological diseases

Advances in targeted regulation of gene expression allowed new therapeutic approaches for monogenic neurological diseases. Molecular diagnosis has paved the way to personalized medicine targeting the pathogenic roots: DNA or its RNA transcript. These antisense therapies rely on modified nucleotides sequences (single-strand DNA or RNA, both belonging to the antisense oligonucleotides family, or double-strand interfering RNA) to act specifically on pathogenic target nucleic acids, thanks to complementary base pairing. Depending on the type of molecule, chemical modifications and target, base pairing will lead alternatively to splicing modifications of primary transcript RNA or transient messenger RNA degradation or non-translation. The key to success for neurodegenerative diseases also depends on the ability to reach target cells. The most advanced antisense therapies under development in neurological disorders are presented here, at the clinical stage of development, either at phase 3 or market authorization stage, such as in spinal amyotrophy, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, transthyretin-related hereditary amyloidosis, porphyria and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; or in earlier clinical phase 1 B, for Huntington disease, synucleinopathies and tauopathies. We also discuss antisense therapies at the preclinical stage, such as in some tauopathies, spinocerebellar ataxias or other rare neurological disorders. Each subtype of antisense therapy, antisense oligonucleotides or interfering RNA, has proved target engagement or even clinical efficacy in patients; undisputable recent advances for severe and previously untreatable neurological disorders. Antisense therapies show great promise, but many unknowns remain. Expanding the initial successes achieved in orphan or rare diseases to other disorders will be the next challenge, as shown by the recent failure in Huntington disease or due to long-term preclinical toxicity in multiple system atrophy and cystic fibrosis. This will be critical in the perspective of new planned applications to premanifest mutation carriers, or other non-genetic degenerative disorders such as multiple system atrophy or Parkinson disease.

Unproven stem cell interventions: A global public health problem requiring global deliberation

The unproven stem cell intervention (SCI) industry is a global health problem. Despite efforts of some nations, the industry continues to flourish. In this paper, we call for a global approach and the establishment of a World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Advisory Committee on Regenerative Medicine to tackle this issue and provide guidance. The WHO committee can harmonize national regulations; promote regulatory approaches responsive to unmet patient needs; and formulate an education campaign against misinformation. Fostering an international dialog and developing recommendations that can be adopted by member states would effectively address the global market of unproven SCIs.

Addressing the dark matter of gene therapy: technical and ethical barriers to clinical application

Gene therapies for genetic diseases have been sought for decades, and the relatively recent development of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing system has encouraged a new wave of interest in the field. There have nonetheless been significant setbacks to gene therapy, including unintended biological consequences, ethical scandals, and death. The major focus of research has been on technological problems such as delivery, potential immune responses, and both on and off-target effects in an effort to avoid negative clinical outcomes. While the field has concentrated on how we can better achieve gene therapies and gene editing techniques, there has been less focus on when and why we should use such technology. Here we combine discussion of both the technical and ethical barriers to the widespread clinical application of gene therapy and gene editing, providing a resource for gene therapy experts and novices alike. We discuss ethical problems and solutions, using cystic fibrosis and beta-thalassemia as case studies where gene therapy might be suitable, and provide examples of situations where human germline gene editing may be ethically permissible. Using such examples, we propose criteria to guide researchers and clinicians in deciding whether or not to pursue gene therapy as a treatment. Finally, we summarize how current progress in the field adheres to principles of biomedical ethics and highlight how this approach might fall short of ethical rigour using examples in the bioethics literature. Ultimately by addressing both the technical and ethical aspects of gene therapy and editing, new frameworks can be developed for the fair application of these potentially life-saving treatments.