Heritable Genome Editing: Who Speaks for "Future" Children?

Advances in Genetic Editing of the Human Embryo

BACKGROUND

Genetic engineering has allowed a major development of research in this field, with specialists attempting to edit the human genome, after the successful editing of the genomes of plants and animals. However, human gene editing technologies are at the center of ethical debates around the world.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

Ethical concerns about genetic editing of the human embryo raise several issues that can be viewed through the prism of optimism and reluctance leading to a number of recommendations regarding the acceptance of what may soon become a reality.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted through PubMed, MEDLINE, Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science (2015-2022) using combinations of keywords, including: human genome or gene editing plus ethics.

ETHICS AND THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

Gene therapy is seen by researchers as a way to solve congenital diseases, multifactorial diseases in general or specific diseases such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, or can increase resistance to HIV infection. Genome editing technologies, germline gene editing, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats gene editing technology, technologies such as zinc finger nucleases are not only advanced gene therapies that require solving technical problems, but also techniques that require complex and complete analysis of ethical problems. Genetic engineering raises many ethical concerns such as: safety concerns especially the risk of off-target effects; autonomy of the individual-with the limitation of the future generations to consent for an intervention over their genome; social justice-keeping in mind the costs of the procedures and their availability to the general population. Discussions can go further from questions such as "How can we do this?" to questions such as "Should we do this?" or "Is society ready to accept this technology and is it able to manage it rationally?"

CONCLUSIONS

The ethics of biomedical research should be based on global dialogue, on the involvement of experts and the public, to achieve a broad social consensus. The fundamental review of the ethics of genetics is a desire and an opportunity of the current period.

Regulating genetic engineering guided by human dignity, not genetic essentialism

How might a liberal democratic community best regulate human genetic engineering? Relevant debates widely deploy the usually undefined term "human dignity." Its indeterminacy in meaning and use renders it useless as a guiding principle. In this article, I reject the human genome as somehow invested with a moral status, a position I call "genetic essentialism." I explain why a critique of genetic essentialism is not a strawman and argue against defining human rights in terms of genetic essentialism. As an alternative, I propose dignity as the decisional autonomy of future persons, held in trust by the current generation. I show why a future person could be expected to have an interest in decisional autonomy and how popular deliberation, combined with expert medical and bioethical opinion, could generate principled agreement on how the decisional autonomy of future persons might be configured at the point of genetic engineering.

What does the best interests principle of the convention on the rights of the child mean for paediatric healthcare?

The present review analyses the implications of the best interests of the child principle, which is one of the most widely discussed principles of medical ethics and human rights, for paediatric healthcare. As a starting point, it presents the interpretation of the best interests principle by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. On this basis, it points out possible fields of application of the best interests principle with regard to paediatric healthcare and discusses the potential difficulties in the application of the best interests principle. Based on this, it illustrates the implications of the best interests principle for paediatric healthcare through four case studies, which look at ethical dilemmas in paediatric gynaecology, end-of-life care, HIV care and genetic testing.   Conclusion: The best interests principle requires action, inter alia, by health policymakers, professional associations, hospital managers and medical teams to ensure children receive the best possible healthcare. Whilst the best interests principle does not provide a conclusive solution to all ethical dilemmas in paediatric healthcare (as illustrated by the case studies), it provides children, medical teams, parents and families, and clinical ethicists with an indispensable framework for health care centred on the rights of the child. What is Known: • The best interests principle is one of the most widely discussed principles of medical ethics and human rights and one of the four general principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. What is New: • The present review discusses possible fields of application and potential difficulties of the best interests principle with regard to paediatric healthcare. • Based on this, it illustrates the implications of the best interests principle for paediatric healthcare through four case studies, which look at ethical dilemmas in paediatric gynaecology, end-of-life care, HIV care and genetic testing.

Giving Voice to the Voiceless in Environmental Gene Editing

Participatory deliberation, whereby diverse experts and publics collectively engage in decision-making, can ensure a more informed and just decision by centering historically marginalized perspectives and engaging a spectrum of value systems. Broad and diverse participation is crucial for the equitable distribution of risks and benefits resulting from complex and uncertain decisions such as environmental gene editing. From an ethical position that gives intrinsic value to the nonhuman and recognizes the interconnectedness of species across generations, we argue that deliberation over environmental gene editing must include the voice of nature and the voice of future generations. Inclusion of these key participant groups can encourage reflection on the human relationship with nature and help safeguard intergenerational equity of decisions reached. By drawing from the legal rights of nature movement, the Boardman River Dams Project, and methods for representative participation, we offer strategies for inclusion of nonhuman nature and future generations in deliberative processes about environmental gene editing and other crucial decisions about our shared environments.

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.

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.

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.

Responsible Translational Pathways for Germline Gene Editing?

Purpose of Review

Continued development of gene editing techniques has raised the real possibility of clinical application of germline gene editing. These results, as well as reports of an unethical experiment which resulted in the birth of at least two children from edited embryos in 2018, have highlighted the urgency and importance of ethical issues about translational pathways for editing of human germline cells. Charting responsible translational pathways for germline gene editing requires tackling some significant and complex ethical issues.

Recent Findings

A literature on development of clinical applications of germline gene editing is emerging, and several key ethical issues are coming into focus as major challenges for responsible translational pathways.

Summary

Potential clinical utility, clinical justification, and human subjects research for germline gene editing raise outstanding ethical questions. Work on these questions will help provide guidance to researchers and clinicians and direct translational projects toward justifiable applications.

Bioethical issues in genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology

Genome editing technologies have led to fundamental changes in genetic science. Among them, CRISPR-Cas9 technology particularly stands out due to its advantages such as easy handling, high accuracy, and low cost. It has made a quick introduction in fields related to humans, animals, and the environment, while raising difficult questions, applications, concerns, and bioethical issues to be discussed. Most concerns stem from the use of CRISPR-Cas9 to genetically alter human germline cells and embryos (called germline genome editing). Germline genome editing leads to serial bioethical issues, such as the occurrence of undesirable changes in the genome, from whom and how informed consent is obtained, and the breeding of the human species (eugenics). However, the bioethical issues that CRISPR-Cas9 technology could cause in the environment, agriculture and livestock should also not be forgotten. In order for CRISPR-Cas9 to be used safely in all areas and to solve potential issues, worldwide legislation should be prepared, taking into account the opinions of both life and social scientists, policy makers, and all other stakeholders of the sectors, and CRISPR-Cas9 applications should be implemented according to such legislations. However, these controls should not restrict scientific freedom. Here, various applications of CRISPR-Cas9 technology, especially in medicine and agriculture, are described and ethical issues related to genome editing using CRISPR-Cas9 technology are discussed. The social and bioethical concerns in relation to human beings, other organisms, and the environment are addressed.