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

Heritable genome editing: ethical aspects of a developing domain

In the past decade, scientific developments in human germline genome editing (GGE) have reinvigorated questions about research ethics, responsible innovation, and what it means to do good in the field of reproductive biology and medicine. In recent years, it has become part of the ethical debate on GGE whether categorical objections about (un)naturalness, dignity, respect for the gene pool as common heritage, are and should be supplemented by more pragmatic questions about safety, utility, efficacy, and potential 'misuse', which seem to become more dominant in the moral discussion. This mini-review summarizes the morally relevant aspects of the rapidly developing domain of GGE, focusing on reproductive applications and with special attention to the ethical questions pertaining to how this technology may affect the interests of those that come to be by means of it. While vital, this encompasses more than safety considerations. Taking this perspective, it will be crucial to engage with normative questions about how GGE maps on the importance of accommodating future parents' preference to have genetically related children, and how far we should go to facilitate this. Similarly, a comprehensive ethical debate about 'appropriate application' of GGE cannot shake off the more fundamental question about how notions like 'normalcy', 'quality of life', and 'disability' can be conceptualized. This is crucial in view of respecting persons whichever traits they have and in view of acceptable boundaries to parental responsibilities.

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.

Perspectives, Expectations, and Concerns of European Patient Advocates on Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products

This paper presents the results of a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews of 10 expert patient advocates on several different issues around Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs). The interviews were conducted between February and May 2020 based on a guideline with a list of 8 topics that covered concerns about safety and ethics, access problems and limitations, pricing of ATMPs and educational needs for patient communities. Overall, the interviewees expressed a high degree of convergence of opinions on most of the topics and especially on the identification of the reasons for concern. Conversely, when asked about possible solutions, quite a wide range of solutions were proposed, although with many common points. However, it highlights that the debate is still in its infancy and that there are not yet consolidated positions across the whole community. A general concern emerging from all the interviews is the potential limitation of access to approved ATMPs, both due to the high prices and to the geographical concentration of treatment centers. However, patients recognize the value of a model with a limited number of specialized clinical centers administering these therapies. On the ethical side, patients do not show particular concern as long as ATMPs and the underlying technology is used to treat severe diseases. Finally, patients are asking for both more education on ATMPs as well as for a more continuous involvement of patient representatives in the whole “life-cycle” of a new ATMP, from the development phase to the authorization, from the definition of the reimbursement scheme to the collection of Real Word Data on safety and long-term efficacy of the treatment.

The DNA-Dialogue: A Broad Societal Dialogue About Human Germline Genome Editing in the Netherlands

For years, calls for public involvement in the debate concerning the acceptability of human germline genome editing (HGGE) have been made. A multidisciplinary consortium of 11 organizations in the Netherlands organized a broad societal dialogue to inquire about the views of Dutch society toward HGGE. The project aimed to reach a wide and diverse audience and to stimulate a collective process of deliberative opinion forming and reflection. To that end, several instruments and formats were developed and employed. We present the results of 27 moderated dialogues organized between October 2019 and October 2020. Overall, participants of the dialogues were capable of assessing and discussing the subject of HGGE in a nuanced way. Analysis of these dialogues shows that in general, participants had no fundamental and absolute objections toward HGGE technology. However, they only deemed HGGE to be acceptable when it is used to prevent serious heritable diseases and under strict conditions, without affecting important (societal) values. There was a small group of participants who found HGGE fundamentally unacceptable because it would cross natural, socio-ethical, or religious boundaries.

Reproductive genome editing interventions are therapeutic, sometimes

In this paper I argue that some human reproductive genome editing interventions can be therapeutic in nature, and thus that it is false that all such interventions just create healthy individuals. I do this by showing that the conditions established by a therapy definition are met by certain reproductive genome editing interventions. I then defend this position against two objections: (a) reproductive genome editing interventions do not attain one of the two conditions for something to be a therapy, and (b) some reproductive genome editing interventions are therapeutic but in a nonstandard way. In the Conclusion I call for a more nuanced discussion of the nature of reproductive genome editing interventions.

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.

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.'

Is selecting better than modifying? An investigation of arguments against germline gene editing as compared to preimplantation genetic diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Recent scientific advances in the field of gene editing have led to a renewed discussion on the moral acceptability of human germline modifications. Gene editing methods can be used on human embryos and gametes in order to change DNA sequences that are associated with diseases. Modifying the human germline, however, is currently illegal in many countries but has been suggested as a 'last resort' option in some reports. In contrast, preimplantation genetic (PGD) diagnosis is now a well-established practice within reproductive medicine. Both methods can be used to prevent children from being born with severe genetic diseases.

MAIN TEXT

This paper focuses on four moral concerns raised in the debate about germline gene editing (GGE) and applies them to the practice of PGD for comparison: Violation of human dignity, disrespect of the autonomy and the physical integrity of the future child, discrimination of people living with a disability and the fear of slippery slope towards immoral usage of the technology, e.g. designing children for specific third party interests. Our analysis did not reveal any fundamental differences with regard to the four concerns.

CONCLUSION

We argue that with regard to the four arguments analyzed in this paper germline gene editing should be considered morally (at least) as acceptable as the selection of genomes on the basis of PGD. However, we also argue that any application of GGE in reproductive medicine should be put on hold until thorough and comprehensive laws have been implemented to prevent the abuse of GGE for non-medical enhancement.

Ethical Challenges of Germline Genetic Enhancement

The new reproductive technologies have opened the door to different processes of germline genetic enhancement by which the characteristics of an individual according to the interests of the agents involved could be selected during its gestation. Although the initiative is apparently oriented towards developing individuals that would excel in society, critical voices raise the concerns about that this approach would generate and need for a reflection on the ethical, social and legal implications of these techniques and their implementation in society. We reviewed the literature about these issues throughout their historical records to date, focusing on the moral arguments and non-clinical aspects that affect the legal and social environment. We have observed various trends of thought with divergent positions (proactive, preventive, and regulatory) as well as a large number of articles that try to reconcile the different approaches. This review illustrates a series of concepts from the ethics and philosophy fields which are frequently used in studies that evaluate the ethical implications of germline genetic enhancement, such as dignity, benefit, autonomy, and identity. In addition, amongst the many unresolved controversies surrounding genetic enhancement, we identify procreative beneficence, genetic disassociation, gender selection, the value of disability, embryo chimerization, and the psychosocial inequality of potentially enhanced individuals as crucial. We also develop possible scenarios for future debate. We consider especially important the definition and specification of three aspects which are essential for the deployment of new reproductive technologies: the moral status of the embryo undergoing enhancement, the legal status of the enhanced individual, and the responsibility of the agents executing the enhancement. Finally, we propose the precautionary principle as a means to navigate ethical uncertainties.

The relative importance of genetic parenthood

RESEARCH QUESTION

How much do patients with severe infertility and their gynaecologists value genetic parenthood relative to other key treatment characteristics?

DESIGN

A discrete choice experiment included the following treatment characteristics: genetic parenthood, pregnancy rate, curing infertility, maternal health, child health and costs. The questionnaire was disseminated between 2015 and 2016 among Dutch and Belgian patients with severe infertility and their gynaecologists.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 173 patients and 111 gynaecologists. When choosing between treatments that varied in safety, effectiveness and costs, the treatment's ability to lead to genetic parenthood did not affect the treatment preference of patients with severe infertility (n = 173). Genetic parenthood affected the treatment preference of gynaecologists (n = 111) less than all other treatment characteristics. Patients indicated that they would switch to a treatment that did not enable genetic parenthood in return for a child health risk reduction of 3.6%, a cost reduction of €3500, an ovarian hyperstimulation risk reduction of 4.6%, a maternal cancer risk reduction of 2.7% or a pregnancy rate increase of 18%. Gynaecologists made similar trade-offs.

CONCLUSIONS

While awaiting replication of this study in larger populations, these findings challenge the presumed dominant importance of genetic parenthood. This raises questions about whether donor gametes could be presented as a worthy alternative earlier in treatment trajectories and whether investments in novel treatments enabling genetic parenthood, like in-vitro gametogenesis, are proportional to their future clinical effect.

Genetic overlap between birthweight and adult cardiometabolic diseases has implications for genomic medicine

Before implementing therapeutic genomic interventions for optimizing health in early life, comprehensive understanding of their effect on several traits across the life course is warranted. Abnorml  birthweight is associated with cardiometabolic disease risk in adulthood; however, the extent of genetic pleiotropy in the association has not been comprehensively investigated. We tested for pleiotropy and enrichment of functional loci between birthweight and 15 cardiometabolic disease traits (CMD). We found significantly abundant genetic pleiotropy (P < 3.3 × 10⁻³) and enrichment of functional annotations (P < 3.3 × 10⁻³) in loci influencing both birthweight and CMD. We did not observe consistent effect directions of pleiotropic loci on the traits. A total of 67 genetic loci, of which 65 loci have been reported in previous genome-wide association studies, were associated with both birthweight and CMD at a false discovery rate of 5%. Two novel loci were associated with birthweight and adult coronary artery disease (rs2870463 in CTRB1) and with birthweight and adult waist circumference (rs12704673 in CALCR). Both loci are known to have regulatory effects on expression of nearby genes. In all, our findings revealed pervasive genetic pleiotropy in early growth and adulthood cardiometabolic diseases, implying the need for caution when considering genetic loci as therapeutic targets.

CRISPR-Cas9: A cornerstone for the evolution of precision medicine

Modern genetic therapy incorporates genomic testing and genome editing. It is the finest approach for precision medicine. Genome editing is a state-of-the-art technology to manipulate gene expression thus generating a particular genotype. It encompasses multiple programmable nuclease-based approaches leading to genetic changes. Not surprisingly, this method triggered internationally a wide array of controversies in the scientific community and in the public since it transforms the human genome. Given its importance, the pace of this technology is exceptionally fast. In this report, we introduce one aspect of genome editing, the CRISPR/Cas9 system, highlight its potential to correct genetic mutations and explore its utility in clinical setting. Our goal is to enlighten health care providers about genome editing and incite them to take part of this vital debate.

Human germline gene editing: Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, first of all for somatic gene editing but in theory also for germline gene editing (GLGE). GLGE is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if GLGE would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique can help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? 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. After consulting its membership and experts, this final version of the Recommendations was endorsed by the Executive Committee and the Board of the respective Societies in May 2017. Taking account of ethical arguments, we argue that both basic and pre-clinical research regarding GLGE can be justified, with conditions. Furthermore, while clinical GLGE would be totally premature, it might become a responsible intervention in the future, but only after adequate pre-clinical research. Safety of the child and future generations is a major concern. Future discussions must also address priorities among reproductive and potential non-reproductive alternatives, such as PGD and somatic editing, if that would be safe and successful. The prohibition of human germline modification, however, needs renewed discussion among relevant stakeholders, including the general public and legislators.

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.

Human germline gene editing. Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, first of all for somatic gene editing but in theory also for germline gene editing (GLGE). GLGE is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if GLGE would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique can help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? 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. After consulting its membership and experts, this final version of the Recommendations was endorsed by the Executive Committee and the Board of the respective Societies in May 2017. Taking account of ethical arguments, we argue that both basic and pre-clinical research regarding human GLGE can be justified, with conditions. Furthermore, while clinical GLGE would be totally premature, it might become a responsible intervention in the future, but only after adequate pre-clinical research. Safety of the child and future generations is a major concern. Future discussions must also address priorities among reproductive and potential non-reproductive alternatives, such as PGD and somatic editing, if that would be safe and successful. The prohibition of human germline modification, however, needs renewed discussion among relevant stakeholders, including the general public and legislators.