Heres what you need to know. <\/p>\n
Kate HarloeJul. 28, 2017 1:35 PM <\/p>\n
Ben Birchall\/Associated Press <\/p>\n
For the first known time in the United States, scientists used a gene-editing technique called CRISPR to modify early-stage human embryos, according to a report published Wednesday in MIT Technology Review. <\/p>\n
Since the development several years ago ofCRISPR, a tool that allows scientists to change sequences of DNA within a cell, scientists have speculated about its potential to free families of genetic disease or stop the spread of other diseases like malaria, among other possibilities. But the technology also raises major ethical questions. <\/p>\n
Heres a quick rundown of the latest breakthroughand how it could change the way we think about humanreproduction and, well, humans themselves.<\/p>\n
How did the experiment work? <\/p>\n
According to MIT Technology Reviews report, a team of researchers at Oregon Health & Science University, led by geneticist Shoukhrat Mitalipov, used CRISPR to correct disease-causing genes in human embryos. Its not yet clear whether these were viable embryosembryos that could, theoretically, grow into humans. <\/p>\n
A wide range of diseaseslike Huntingtons, sickle-cell anemia, and Tay-Sachs, for exampleare caused by mutations in genes. Its also not clear what genes Mitalipov and his team edited in their experiment. But regardless, it appears that their study was successful in a couple ways: First, they reportedly edited a greater number of embryos than scientists had in previous studies. Second, Mitalipov and his team claim they did so without causing as manyerrors as previous scientists. <\/p>\n
CRISPR has been used to edit human embryos a few times before; Chinese scientists did it in March. But in prior experiments, scientists ran into problems when CRISPR edits were taken up only by some of the cells in an embryo. This is called mosaicism:it means that the child that develops from the embryo could still inherit the disease that scientists tried to edit away. <\/p>\n
According to MITs report, Mitalipov reduced the occurrence of mosaicism and seemed to largely avoid off-target edits (another kind of CRISPR error, wherein scientists accidentally alter a gene other than the one they aim to change). <\/p>\n
Why is this important? <\/p>\n
A couple reasons. First, its the only known attempt to use CRISPR to edit human embryos in the United States. More on the legality of that below. <\/p>\n
Second, if this attempt really was successful, its big news for people whose families carry genetic disease. In theory, using this technique, scientists could edit not just our offspring, but our offsprings offspring. This is called human germline editing. When scientists edit the DNA in an embryo, the changes will theoretically be inherited by each successive generation, permanently fixing the germlinethe genetic inheritanceof a family. <\/p>\n
This seems ethically complex. <\/p>\n
Right. The ethics and laws surrounding human germline editingare murky. Scientists in favor of human germlinemodification often argue that the techniquewill help us reduce the occurrence of genetic diseases. <\/p>\n
But criticsdisagree.This is just not needed for preventing inheritable disease, said Marcy Darnovsky, Executive Director of the Center for Genetics and Society. There are [other techniques that] can already be used safely to prevent the births of children with serious genetic diseases in almost every case. One example of such a technique is preimplantation diagnosis, commonly referred to as PGD, which allows parents to screen embryos for certain disease-causing genes before implanting them through in vitro fertilization (IVF). But its not always effectiveif someone carries two copies of a defective gene, for example, all their embryos would carry that gene, as well. <\/p>\n
Darnovsky also worries about safety. Despite whatever the claims are about safety, [like] no mosaicism, we still dont know if that would mean its safe to create a new human being and anyone who tried it would be taking an enormous and unacceptable risk with that future persons life. <\/p>\n
Another concern: Right now, scientists aresupposed to stick to editing disease-causing genes. But the technology opens up the possibility of editing genes for enhancementallowing parents to edit for certain kinds of physical and behavioral characteristics in their children. Darnovsky worries that this would usher in an era of genetic discrimination. That would be layering new forms of inequality and discrimination onto the ones we already live with, she said. <\/p>\n
Is this legal? <\/p>\n
Probably.In 2015, Congress passed a law forbidding the Food and Drug Administration from reviewing applications for germline editing of human embryos, meaning no clinical trials can move forward with FDA funding. We dont yet knowhow Mitalipov funded his project, but assuming it was funded privately, its perfectly legal. <\/p>\n
That wouldnt be the case in many other countries. The Center for Genetics and Society reports that over 40 countries, including most with established biotech sectors, have established legal prohibitions on germline modification for human reproduction. An international treaty also prohibits it. The United States has no such policy. <\/p>\n
Whats next? <\/p>\n
Well know more once the study is released, but its worth noting that in February of this year, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy published a report that said human germline editing could be permitted in the future. It outlined criteria for germline editing, recommending that it only be used for disease prevention. The authors of the report wrote that editing for the enhancement of human traits and capacities should not be allowed at this time. But the report didnt eliminate the possibility of editing for enhancement in the future. <\/p>\n
Reactions to the report were mixed. Some experts, like Darnovsky, feel that human germline modification should not be done for any purpose. But in an interview with Science, Eric Lander, president and founding director of MIT and Harvards Broad Institute, a genomics research center, said he thought the report struck the right balance of optimism and caution. They want to put friction tape on the slope so the slope isnt slippery, Lander said. Whether and for how long the tape will hold is an open question. <\/p>\n
Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the original: <\/p>\n
US Scientists Just Edited a Human Embryo for the First Time. (Yes, People Are Freaking Out.) - Mother Jones<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Heres what you need to know. Kate HarloeJul Continue reading