Jupiterimages/Thinkstock
On Aug. 3, the scientific article in Nature finally gave us some facts about the much-hyped experiments that involved editing the genomes of human embryos at the Center for Embryonic Cell and Gene Therapy at Oregon Health and Science University. The story had broken in late July in Technology Review, spurring profuse hand-wringing and discussion. But until we saw the scientific paper, it was not clear what cells and methods were used, what genes were edited, or what the results were.
Now we know more, and while the paper demonstrates the possibility of genome editing of human embryos, it raises more questions than it answers. It is a useful demonstration of technical promise, though not an immediate prelude to the birth of a genome-edited baby. But the process by which the news emerged is also an ominous harbinger of the discombobulated way the debate about genetically altering human embryos is likely to unfold. We need open, vigorous debate that captures the many, often contradictory, moral views of Americans. Yet what we are likely to get is piecemeal, fragmented stories of breakthroughs with incomplete details, more sober publication in science journals that appear later, news commentary that lasts a few days, and very little systematic effort to think through what policy should be.
The science underlying this news cycle about human genome editing builds on a technique first developed six years ago by studying how bacteria alter DNA. CRISPR genome editing is the most recent, and most promising, way to introduce changes into DNA. It is faster, easier, and cheaper than previous methods and should eventually be more precise and controllablewhich is why it may one day be available for clinical use in people.
Though headlines about the study discussed designer babies, researchers prefer to emphasize how these techniques could help stop devastating genetic disorders. The Oregon experiments with human embryo cells corrected disease-associated DNA variants associated with heart muscle wasting that can cause heart failure. The treated embryos were alive for only a few days and were never intended to become a human baby. They were, however, human embryos deliberately created for the research.
U.S. guidance in this area is sparse and reflects the lack of societal consensus. In 1994, when the federal government was contemplating funding for research involving human embryos, the NIH Embryo Research Panel concluded that just this kind of experiment was ethically appropriate. But within hours of that reports release, then-President Bill Clinton announced he did not agree with creating embryos in order to do research on them.
The United States currently has just two policies relevant to genomic editing of human embryos. The first blocks federal funding: On April 28, 2015, Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, stated, NIH will not fund any use of gene-editing technologies in human embryos. This is not embedded in statute or formal executive order, but members of Congress are fully aware of it and it is, in effect, a federal policy. NIH can (and does) fund genome editing of nonembryonic cells that might be used to treat cancer and for other possible therapeutic purposes, but not embryonic cells that would have their effect by creating humans with germline alterations.
Second, Congress has prohibited the Food and Drug Administration from reviewing research in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification. This language comes from a rider to FDAs annual appropriations. Yet use of human embryonic cells for treatment should be subject to FDA regulation. So this language in effect means alterations of embryonic cells cannot be done in the United States if there is any intent to treat a human being, including implantation of an altered embryo into a womans uterus. This will remain true so long as the rider is included in FDAs annual appropriations. The federal government thus has two relevant policies, both of which take federal agencies out of the action: One removes NIH funding, and the other precludes FDA oversight of genome-edited human embryos.
This leaves privately funded research that has no direct therapeutic purpose, such as with the Oregon experiments. The funding came from OHSU itself; South Korean Basic Research Funds; the municipal government of Shenzhen, China; and several private philanthropies (Chapman, Mathers, Helmsley, and Moxie). The research complies with recommendations to study the basic cellular processes of genome editing, keeping an eye on possible future clinical use but only so long as the work does not attempt to create a human pregnancy.
By coincidence, on the same day the Nature paper came out, the American Journal of Human Genetics also published a thoughtful 10-page position statement about germline genome editing from the American Society for Human Genetics endorsed by many other genetic and reproductive medicine organizations from all over the world. It reviews recommendations of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, several international and U.S.-based organizations and commissions, and makes several recommendations of its own, concluding it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy, but also there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications. Indeed, the statement argues for public funding. Finally, it urges research to proceed only with compelling medical rationale, strong oversight, and a transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.
So is there a problem here? It is truly wonderful that medical and scientific organizations have addressed genome editing. It is, however, far from sufficient. Reports and scientific consensus statements inform the policy debate but cannot resolve it. All of the reports on genome editing call for robust public debate, but the simple fact is that embryo research has proven highly divisive and resistant to consensus, and it is far from clear how to know when there is enough thoughtful deliberation to make policy choices. Its significant that none of the reports have emerged from a process that embodied such engagement. The Catholic Church, evangelical Christians, and concerned civic action groups who view embryo research as immoral are not likely to turn to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, the American Society for Human Genetics, the Hinxton Group, the Nuffield Council on Bioetics, or other scientific and medical organizations for their primary counsel. They may well listen to scientists, but religious and moral doctrine will get greater weight. Yet religious groups highly critical of embryo research are part of the political systemand whether we embrace this sort of genome editing in the United States is a political question, not a purely technical one.
Reports and scientific consensus statements inform the policy debate but cannot resolveit.
Addressing the political questions will be extremely difficult. The U.S. government is poorly positioned to mediate the policy debate in a way that recognizes and addresses our complex moral pluralism. NIH and FDA are two of the most crucial agencies, but current policies remove them from line authority, and with good reason, given that engaging in this debate could actually endanger the agencies other vital missions. International consensus about genome editing of human embryos remains no more likely than about embryo research in general: Some countries ban it while others actively promote and fund it. Private foundations dont have the mandate or incentive to mediate political debate about a controversial technology that rouses the politics of abortion. What private philanthropic organization would willingly take on such a thankless and politically perilous task, and what organization would be credible to the full range of constituencies?
So who can carry out the public engagement that everyone seems to agree we need? The likely answer is no one. This problem occurs with all debate about fraught scientific and technical innovations, but its particularly acute when it touches on highly ossified abortion politics.
The debate about genomic editing of human embryos is unlikely to follow the recommendations for systematic forethought proposed by illustrious research bodies and reports. Given the reactions weve seen to human embryonic stem-cell research in the past two decades, we have ample reason for pessimism. Rather, debate is more likely to progress by reaction to events as researchers make newsoften with the same lack of information we lived with for the last week of July, based on incomplete media accounts and quotes from disparate experts who lacked access to the details. Most of the debate will be quote-to-quote combat in the public media, leavened by news and analysis in scientific and medical journals, but surrounded by controversy in religious and political media. It is not what anyone designing a system would want. But the recommendations for robust public engagement and debate feel a bit vacuous and vague, aspirations untethered to a concrete framework.
Our divisive political system seems fated to make decisions about genomic editing of human embryos mainly amidst conflict, with experts dueling in the public media rather than through a thoughtful and well-informed debate conducted in a credible framework. As the furor over the Oregon experiments begins to dissipate, we await the event that will cause the next flare-up. And so it will continue, skipping from news cycle to news cycle.
History shows that sometimes technical advances settle the issues, at least for most people and in defined contexts. Furor about in vitro fertilization after Louise Brown, the first test tube baby, was born in 1978 gave way to acceptance as grateful parents gave birth to more and more healthy babies and welcomed them into their families. Initial revulsion at heart transplants gave way in the face of success. Anger about prospects for human embryonic stem-cell research might similarly attenuate if practical applications emerge.
Such historical examples show precisely why reflective deliberation remains essential, despite its unlikely success. Momentum tends to carry the research forward. Yet at times we should stop, learn more, and decide actively rather than passively whether to proceed, when, how, and with what outcomes in mind. In the case of genome editing of human embryos, however, it seems likely that technology will make the next move.
This article is part of Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, follow us on Twitter and sign up for our weekly newsletter.
Read more from the original source:
Listening for the Public Voice - Slate Magazine
- Copy number variation of the restorer Rf4 underlies human selection ... - Nature.com - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- NYU Langone Health in the NewsThursday, November 9, 2023 - NYU Langone Health - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- Eugenics: Plaguing scientific community with dark history | Opinion ... - The Arkansas Traveler - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- Cranberries can bounce, float and pollinate themselves: The saucy ... - Japan Today - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- Government Housing Assistance Linked to Increased Cancer ... - HealthDay - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- Rate of New Lung Cancer Cases Has Decreased Over Last Five Years - HealthDay - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- Clinically relevant antibiotic resistance genes are linked to a limited ... - Nature.com - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- Disparities in Guideline-Concordant Care Found for Black CRC ... - HealthDay - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- Mathematician Heather Harrington is new director at the Max Planck ... - EurekAlert - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- New study finds genetic testing can effectively identify patients with ... - EurekAlert - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- STK11 loss leads to YAP1-mediated transcriptional activation in ... - Nature.com - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- CRISPR-broad: combined design of multi-targeting gRNAs and ... - Nature.com - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- Master regulator of the dark genome greatly improves cancer T-cell ... - Science Daily - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- Omega Therapeutics Showcases Bidirectional and Multiplexed ... - BioSpace - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- Today is International 15q Day - ASBMB Today - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- Evolution of taste: Sharks were already able to perceive bitter ... - EurekAlert - November 15th, 2023 [November 15th, 2023]
- Stanford Scientists Uncover New Indicators of Health, Disease, and ... - SciTechDaily - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- NHGRI Director Eric Green elected to the National Academy of ... - National Human Genome Research Institute - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Monkey survives for two years after gene-edited pig-kidney transplant - Nature.com - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Opinion: Interest in RNA Editing Accelerates as Therapies Approach ... - BioSpace - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Regulation of dermal fibroblasts by human neutrophil peptides ... - Nature.com - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Consistent effects of the genetics of happiness across the lifespan ... - Nature.com - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Storytelling through the looking glass of genetics The Stute - The Stute - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Pet dogs shed light on human health, researchers say - UPI News - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Native microbiome dominates over host factors in shaping the ... - Nature.com - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Illinois-led project to sequence soybean genomes, improve future ... - Herald-Whig - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Unrealized targets in the discovery of antibiotics for Gram-negative ... - Nature.com - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- How Biotech And AI Are Transforming The Human - Noema Magazine - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- The Many Lives of Alexandria Forbes - BioSpace - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- CEP20 promotes invasion and metastasis of non-small cell lung ... - Nature.com - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Genotyping, sequencing and analysis of 140,000 adults from Mexico ... - Nature.com - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- The role and impact of alternative polyadenylation and miRNA ... - Nature.com - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Human - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - January 30th, 2023 [January 30th, 2023]
- Deep Dive Ties Together Dog Genetics, Brain Physiology and Behavior to Explain Why Collies Are Different from Terriers - Scientific American - December 12th, 2022 [December 12th, 2022]
- How oxytocin drives connections of newly integrated adult-born neurons: Research - Hindustan Times - December 12th, 2022 [December 12th, 2022]
- Alzheimer's Disease Genetics Fact Sheet - National Institute on Aging - December 2nd, 2022 [December 2nd, 2022]
- Human genetic clustering - Wikipedia - November 23rd, 2022 [November 23rd, 2022]
- Human Genome Project Fact Sheet - November 23rd, 2022 [November 23rd, 2022]
- Abstracts | International Congress of Human Genetics 2023 - November 23rd, 2022 [November 23rd, 2022]
- Ancient DNA and Neanderthals | The Smithsonian Institution's Human ... - November 16th, 2022 [November 16th, 2022]
- Biological Influences on Human Behavior: Genetics & Environment - November 16th, 2022 [November 16th, 2022]
- Fluent BioSciences showcasing breakthrough solutions to enable unprecedented scale, cost-efficiency and access for single-cell RNA sequencing at the... - October 28th, 2022 [October 28th, 2022]
- Human behaviour genetics - Wikipedia - October 23rd, 2022 [October 23rd, 2022]
- Nucleome Therapeutics raises oversubscribed 37.5 million Series A financing to decode the dark matter of the human genome and deliver first-in-class... - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Gladstone data scientist elected to the National Academy of Medicine - EurekAlert - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Ocugen to Host R&D Day in New York City on Tuesday, November 1, 2022 - Yahoo Finance - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Pharmacy researcher earns $2.3 million NIH award to study opioid addiction - EurekAlert - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Study shows age often plays a bigger role than genetics in gene expression and susceptibility to disease - Anti Aging News - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- CSRWire - Direct Relief, Amgen and C/Can Team Up To Improve Access to Breast Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment in Paraguay - CSRwire.com - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Maze Therapeutics Appoints Harold Bernstein, M.D., Ph.D., as President, Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer - Business Wire - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- New Rare Disease Therapy Effectively Lowers Plasma Phe in Patients with PKU - MD Magazine - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- GSK : announces expanded collaboration with Tempus in precision medicine to accelerate R&D - Marketscreener.com - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Famous Scientific Discoveries That Changed the Course of History - 24/7 Wall St. - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Construction workers seek fulfilment of their demands - Star of Mysore - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- Genetics - Wikipedia - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- Study looking at human genetics and Covid vaccine immune responses - Science Media Centre - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- ASHG 2022 in Los Angeles brings together researchers from around the world to advance discoveries in genetics, genomics research - EurekAlert - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- Maze Therapeutics Appoints Harold Bernstein, M.D., Ph.D., as President, Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer - Yahoo Finance - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- The Age of the Pangenome Dawns - DNA Science - PLOS - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- Influence of the microbiome, diet and genetics on inter-individual variation in the human plasma metabolome - Nature.com - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- Genome editing technologies: final conclusions of the re-examination of Article 13 of the Oviedo Convention - Council of Europe - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- Global Biobank Meta-analysis Initiative making genome-wide association studies more diverse and representative - EurekAlert - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- New NHS genetic testing service could save thousands of children in England - The Guardian - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- Covid protection may be boosted by genes, study shows - Yahoo News Australia - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- Genomics in Cancer Care Market is estimated to be US$ 72.61 billion by 2032 with a CAGR of 16.3% during the forecast period 2032 - By PMI -... - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- Identification of hub genes and candidate herbal treatment in obesity through integrated bioinformatic analysis and reverse network pharmacology |... - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- Our *Homo sapiens* ancestors shared the world with Neanderthals, Denisovans and other types of humans whose DNA lives on in our genes -... - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- Blue Eyed People Have a Single Ancestor | History of Yesterday - History of Yesterday - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- Heart infection could be cause of death of Polish, US hero - ABC News - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- 23andMe Announces Trials-in-Progress Poster Presentation on 23ME-00610, An Investigational Antibody Targeting CD200R1, at The Society for... - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- The Genetic Drivers Of Longevity In Mice, Humans And Worms - Science 2.0 - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- ANGPTL7, a therapeutic target for increased intraocular pressure and glaucoma | Communications Biology - Nature.com - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- 'Neanderthal Man' Nobel Prize winner Svante Pbo revolutionized anthropology. Here is a look back at his groundbreaking 2014 memoir - Genetic Literacy... - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- Understanding Human Genetic Variation - NCBI Bookshelf - September 14th, 2022 [September 14th, 2022]
- Genetics - National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) - September 14th, 2022 [September 14th, 2022]
- People with ME invited to take part in major genetic study - The Independent - September 14th, 2022 [September 14th, 2022]
- Ketamine Promising for Rare Condition Linked to Autism - Medscape - September 14th, 2022 [September 14th, 2022]
- How a small, unassuming fish helps reveal gene adaptations - University of Wisconsin-Madison - September 14th, 2022 [September 14th, 2022]
- How Nutrigenomics Explores Links Between Nutrition And Genes - Health Digest - September 14th, 2022 [September 14th, 2022]