Human germline gene editing: Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE

The need to set explicit goals for human germline gene editing public dialogues

Given the potentially large ethical and societal implications of human germline gene editing (HGGE) the urgent need for public and stakeholder engagement (PSE) has been repeatedly expressed. However, the explicit goals of such PSE efforts often remain poorly defined. In this program report, we outline the goals of our Dutch project called De DNA dialogen (The DNA dialogues). We believe that setting explicit goals in advance is essential to enable meaningful PSE efforts. Moreover, it enables the evaluation of our engagement efforts. The following four goals, which result from intensive consultations among the transdisciplinary projects' consortium members and based on the literature, form the foundation for how we will engage the public and stakeholders in deliberation about HGGE: 1) Enable publics and stakeholders to deliberate on "what if" questions, before considering "whether" and "how" questions regarding HGGE, 2) Investigate agreement and disagreement in values and beliefs regarding HGGE in order to agree and disagree more precisely, 3) Involve diverse publics with various perspectives, with a focus on those that are typically underrepresented in PSE, 4) Enable societally aligned policy making by providing policymakers, health care professionals and legal experts insight into how values are weighed and ascribed meaning in the context of HGGE by various publics, and how these values relate to the principles of democratic rule of law and fundamental rights. The effort to describe our goals in detail may serve as an example and can inform future initiatives striving for open science and open governance in the context of PSE.

Genome editing of human embryos for research purposes: Japanese lay and expert attitudes

Background: Multiple surveys of the general public and experts on human genome editing have been conducted. However, many focused only on editing in clinical applications, with few regarding its use for basic research. Given that genome editing for research purposes is indispensable for the realization of clinical genome editing, understanding lay attitudes toward genome editing in research, particularly using human embryos, which is likely to provoke ethical concerns, is helpful for future societal discussion. Methods: An online survey was conducted with Japanese laypeople and researchers to ascertain their views regarding human genome editing for research purposes. Participants were queried about their acceptance as a function of the target of genome editing (germ cells, surplus IVF embryos, research embryos, somatic cells); then, those who answered "acceptable depending on the purpose" were asked about their acceptance in the context of specific research purposes of genome editing. Participants were also asked about their expectations and concerns regarding human genome editing. Results: Replies were obtained from 4,424 laypeople and 98 researchers. Approximately 28.2-36.9% of the laypeople exhibited strong resistance to genome editing for research purposes regardless of their applications. In contrast, 25.5% of the researchers demonstrated resistance only to genome editing in research embryos; this percentage was substantially higher than those concerning the other three targets (5.1-9.2%). Approximately 50.4-63.4% of laypeople who answered "acceptable depending on the purpose" approved germline genome editing for disease research; however, only 39.3-42.8% approved genome editing in basic research to obtain biological knowledge. In contrast, the researchers displayed a lower degree of acceptance of germline genome editing for research purposes related to chronic diseases (60.9-66.7%) than for other research purposes (73.6-90.8%). Analysis of responses concerning expectations and concerns indicated that laypeople who would not accept genome editing of human embryos did not necessarily worry about "instrumentalization of the embryo." They also had substantially low expectations for recognized advantages of genome editing, including "advances in science" and "reduction of intractable diseases," compared with other groups of respondents. Conclusion: The assumptions shared among experts in conventional bioethical debates and policy discussions on human genome editing are not self-evident to laypeople.

CRISPR/Cas gene editing in the human germline

The ease and efficacy of CRISPR/Cas9 germline gene editing in animal models paved the way to human germline gene editing (HGGE), by which permanent changes can be introduced into the embryo. Distinct genes can be knocked out to examine their function during embryonic development. Alternatively, specific sequences can be introduced which can be applied to correct disease-causing mutations. To date, it has been shown that the success of HGGE is dependent on various experimental parameters and that various hurdles (i.e. loss-of-heterozygosity and mosaicism) need to be overcome before clinical applications should be considered. Due to the shortage of human germline material and the ethical constraints concerning HGGE, alternative models such as stem cells have been evaluated as well, in terms of their predictive value on the genetic outcome for HGGE approaches. This review will give an overview of the state of the art of HGGE in oocytes and embryos, and its accompanying challenges.

Genetics Matters: Voyaging from the Past into the Future of Humanity and Sustainability

The understanding of how genetic information may be inherited through generations was established by Gregor Mendel in the 1860s when he developed the fundamental principles of inheritance. The science of genetics, however, began to flourish only during the mid-1940s when DNA was identified as the carrier of genetic information. The world has since then witnessed rapid development of genetic technologies, with the latest being genome-editing tools, which have revolutionized fields from medicine to agriculture. This review walks through the historical timeline of genetics research and deliberates how this discipline might furnish a sustainable future for humanity.

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.

Gene Therapy Targeting p53 and KRAS for Colorectal Cancer Treatment: A Myth or the Way Forward?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed malignancy worldwide and is responsible as one of the main causes of mortality in both men and women. Despite massive efforts to raise public awareness on early screening and significant advancements in the treatment for CRC, the majority of cases are still being diagnosed at the advanced stage. This contributes to low survivability due to this cancer. CRC patients present various genetic changes and epigenetic modifications. The most common genetic alterations associated with CRC are p53 and KRAS mutations. Gene therapy targeting defect genes such as TP53 (tumor suppressor gene encodes for p53) and KRAS (oncogene) in CRC potentially serves as an alternative treatment avenue for the disease in addition to the standard therapy. For the last decade, significant developments have been seen in gene therapy for translational purposes in treating various cancers. This includes the development of vectors as delivery vehicles. Despite the optimism revolving around targeted gene therapy for cancer treatment, it also has various limitations, such as a lack of availability of related technology, high cost of the involved procedures, and ethical issues. This article will provide a review on the potentials and challenges of gene therapy targeting p53 and KRAS for the treatment of CRC.

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.

Attitudes of Members of Genetics Professional Societies Toward Human Gene Editing

Gene-editing technologies have improved in ease, efficiency, and precision. Although discussions are occurring around acceptable uses of human gene editing, limited data exist on the views of genetics-trained individuals. In 2017, we distributed an anonymous online survey to assess the attitudes of members of genetics professional societies toward gene editing (N = 500). Virtually all respondents were supportive of somatic editing in basic-science (99.2%) and clinical (87.4%) research on nonreproductive human cells. Only 57.2% were supportive of germline-editing basic-science research; 31.9% supported the transfer of viable embryos to humans for clinical research. While most favored future therapeutic uses of somatic (96.6%) and germline (77.8%) editing, there was little support for enhancement in somatic (13.0%) or germline (8.6%) cells. This study describes attitudes toward gene editing from genetics professionals worldwide and contributes to ongoing discourse and policy guidance in this domain.

Human germline genome editing is illegal in Canada, but could it be desirable for some members of the rare disease community?

Human germline genome editing may prove to be especially poignant for members of the rare disease community, many of whom are diagnosed with monogenic diseases. This community lacks broad representation in the literature surrounding genome editing, notably in Canada, yet is likely to be directly affected by eventual clinical applications of this technology. Although not generalizable, the literature does offer some commonalities regarding the experiences of rare disease patients. This manuscript seeks to contribute to the search for broader societal dialogue surrounding human germline genome editing by exploring some of those commonalities that comfort the notion that CRISPR may hold promise or be desirable for some members of this community. We first explore the legal and policy context surrounding germline genome editing, focusing closely on Canada, then provide an overview of the common challenges experienced by members of the rare disease community, and finally assess the opportunities of germline genome editing vis-à-vis rare disease as we advocate for the need to more actively engage with the community in our search for public engagement.

Ethical issues related to research on genome editing in human embryos

Although the potential advantages of clinical germline genome editing (GGE) over currently available methods are limited, the implementation of GGE in the clinic has been proposed and discussed. Ethical issues related to such an application have been extensively debated, meanwhile, seemingly less attention has been paid to ethical implications of studies which would have to be conducted in order to evaluate potential clinical uses of GGE. In this article, we first provide an overview of the debate on potential clinical uses of GGE. Then, we discuss questions and ethical issues related to the studies relevant to evaluation of potential clinical uses of GGE. In particular, we describe the problems related to the acceptable safety threshold, current technical hurdles in human GGE, the destruction of human embryos used in the experiments, involvement of egg donors, and genomic sequencing performed on the samples of the research participants. The technical and ethical problems related to studies on GGE should be acknowledged and carefully considered in the process of deciding to apply technology in such a way that will provide benefits and minimize harms.

Systematic scoping review of the concept of 'genetic identity' and its relevance for germline modification

EU legislation prohibits clinical trials that modify germ line 'genetic identity'. 'Genetic identity' however, is left undefined. This study aims to identify the use of the term 'genetic identity' in academic literature, and investigate its relevance for debates on genetic modification. A total of 616 articles that contained the term were identified. Content analysis revealed that the term was used in various and contradicting ways and a clear understanding of the term is lacking. This review demonstrates that the EU legislation is open to interpretation, because of the diversity of meaning with which 'genetic identity' is currently used. Because of the diversity of meaning with which 'genetic identity' is used and understood, further reflection is needed. This requires further medical, legal, ethical and social debate and a coordinated response at both a European and a global level.

Perspectives of Sickle Cell Disease Stakeholders on Heritable Genome Editing

Advances in CRISPR technology and the announcement of the first gene-edited babies have sparked a global dialogue about the future of heritable genome editing (HGE). There has been an international call for public input to inform a substantive debate about benefits and risks of HGE. This study investigates the views of the sickle cell disease (SCD) community. We utilized a mixed-methods approach to examine SCD stakeholders' views in the United States. We found SCD stakeholders hold a nuanced view of HGE. Assuming the technology is shown to be safe and effective, they are just as supportive of HGE as genetics professionals, but more supportive than the general public. However, they are also concerned about the potential implications of HGE, despite this support. As discourse surrounding HGE advances, it is crucial to engage disease communities and other key stakeholders whose lives could be altered by these interventions.

Where Will We Draw the Line? Public Opinions of Human Gene Editing

The application of gene editing technologies to prevent or mitigate genetic disease in humans is considered one of its most promising applications. However, as the technology advances, it is imperative to understand the views of the broader public on how it should be used. We conducted focus groups to understand public views on the ethical permissibility and governance of gene editing technologies in humans. A total of 50 urban and semirural residents in the upper Midwest took part in six focus groups. Participants expressed multiple concerns about nonmedical uses of gene editing and its potential for unknown harms to human health, and were divided as to whether the individual patient or "medical experts" should be charged with overseeing the scope of its application. As potential stakeholders, the perspectives from the general public are critical to assess as genome editing technologies advance toward the clinic.

Fearful old world? A commentary on the Second International Summit on human genome editing

Genome editing is revolutionising our ability to modify genomes with exquisite precision for medical and agricultural applications, and in basic research. The first International Summit on Human Genome Editing, organised jointly by the US National Academies of Sciences and Medicine, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society, was held in Washington DC at the end of 2015. Its aim was to explore scientific, legal and ethical perspectives on the prospective use of human genome editing as a therapeutic intervention in disease (so-called somatic genome editing) and as a possible intervention in human reproduction (so-called germ-line genome editing). Following that Summit, the Organising Committee had, in a press release, come to the conclusion that: "It would be irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germ line editing unless and until (i) the relevant safety and efficacy issues have been resolved, based on appropriate understanding and balancing of risks, potential benefits and alternatives, and (ii) there is broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application" ( http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12032015a ). A report from the US National Academies subsequently reiterated and developed the approach.

65 YEARS OF THE DOUBLE HELIX: The advancements of gene editing and potential application to hereditary cancer

Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes are associated with germline mutations that lead to increased vulnerability for an individual to develop cancers. Such germline mutations in tumour suppressor genes, oncogenes and genes encoding for proteins essential in DNA repair pathways and cell cycle control can cause overall chromosomal instability in the genome and increase risk in developing cancers. Gene correction of these germline mutations to restore normal protein functions is anticipated as a new therapeutic option. This can be achieved through disruption of gain-of-function pathogenic mutation, restoration of loss-of-function mutation, addition of a transgene essential for cell function and single nucleotide changes. Genome editing tools are applicable to precise gene correction. Development of genome editing tools comes in two waves. The first wave focuses on improving targeting specificity and editing efficiency of nucleases, and the second wave of gene editing draws on innovative engineering of fusion proteins combining deactivated nucleases and other enzymes that are able to create limitless functional molecular tools. This gene editing advancement is going to impact medicine, particularly in hereditary cancers. In this review, we discuss the application of gene editing as an early intervention and possible treatment for hereditary cancers, by highlighting a selection of highly penetrant cancer syndromes as examples of how this may be achieved in clinical practice.

Do CRISPR Germline Ethics Statements Cut It?

The extraordinary wave of genomic-engineering innovation, driven by CRISPR-Cas9, has sparked worldwide scientific and ethical uncertainty. Great concern has arisen across the globe about whether heritable genome editing should be permissible in humans-that is, whether it is morally acceptable to modify genomic material such that the "edit" is transferable to future generations. Here I examine 61 ethics statements released by the international community within the past 3 years about this controversial issue and consider the statements' overarching positions and limitations. Despite their inability to fully address all important considerations, many of the statements may advance debate and national and international law and public policy.

Responsible innovation in human germline gene editing: Background document to the recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, including editing of the germline. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. This document provides the background to the Recommendations. Germline gene editing is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if germline gene editing would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique could help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? This Background document summarizes the scientific developments and expectations regarding germline gene editing, legal regulations at the European level, and ethics for three different settings (basic research, preclinical research and clinical applications). In ethical terms, we argue that the deontological objections (e.g., gene editing goes against nature) do not seem convincing while consequentialist objections (e.g., safety for the children thus conceived and following generations) require research, not all of which is allowed in the current legal situation in European countries. Development of this Background document and Recommendations reflects the responsibility to help society understand and debate the full range of possible implications of the new technologies, and to contribute to regulations that are adapted to the dynamics of the field while taking account of ethical considerations and societal concerns.