Scientists also say that replacing a defective gene with a normal one may seem entirely harmless but perhaps would not be. <\/p>\n
\"We worry about people making changes without the knowledge of what those changes mean in terms of the overall genome,\" Dr. Baltimore said. \"I personally think we are just not smart enough and won't be for a very long time to feel comfortable about the consequences of changing heredity, even in a single individual.\" <\/p>\n
Many ethicists have accepted the idea of gene therapy, changes that die with the patient, but draw a clear line at altering the germline, since these will extend to future generations. The British Parliament in February approved the transfer of mitochondria, small DNA-containing organelles, to human eggs whose own mitochondria are defective. But that technique is less far-reaching because no genes are edited. <\/p>\n
Read MoreFDA approves first DNA-based test for colon cancer<\/p>\n
There are two broad schools of thought on modifying the human germline, said R. Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin and a member of the Doudna group. One is pragmatic and seeks to balance benefit and risk. <\/p>\n
The other \"sets up inherent limits on how much humankind should alter nature,\" she said. Some Christian doctrines oppose the idea of playing God, whereas in Judaism and Islam there is the notion \"that humankind is supposed to improve the world.\" She described herself as more of a pragmatist, saying, \"I would try to regulate such things rather than shut a new technology down at its beginning.\" <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
More here: Scientists also say that replacing a defective gene with a normal one may seem entirely harmless but perhaps would not be. \"We worry about people making changes without the knowledge of what those changes mean in terms of the overall genome,\" Dr. Baltimore said. Continue reading
\nScientists question editing of DNA<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"