Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing

Lander, Eric S.; Βaylis, Françoise; Zhang, Feng; Charpentier, Emmanuelle; Berg, Paul R.; Bourgain, Catherine; Friedrich, Bärbel; Joung, J. Keith; Li, Jinsong; Liu, David; Naldini, Luigi; Nie, Jing‐Bao; Renzong, Qiu; Schoene-Seifert, Bettina; Shao, Feng; Terry, Sharon F.; Wei, Wensheng; Winnacker, Ernst‐Ludwig

doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00726-5

Cited by 346 publications

(246 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

222

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Scientists from across the world, including CRISPR co-inventor Feng Zhang, have called for a global moratorium on germline editing. This would include a freeze on any ongoing germline editing projects until an international framework for practice can be outlined [18]. …”

Section: The Power Of Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

Genetically Modified Humans: The X-Men of Scientific Research

Straiton¹

2019

BioTechniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Power Of Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

Genetically Modified Humans: The X-Men of Scientific Research

Straiton¹

2019

BioTechniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…An objection likely to be made against the use of synthetic biology and gene drives in conservation is that they are hubristic. Concerns about hubris often arise in the context of both intentional environmental modification and genetic engineering, for example, geoengineering to address climate change (Hamilton 2014), ecosystem engineering in restoration (Katz 2000), genetic modification in agriculture (Comstock 2000), and human germline engineering (Lander et al 2019;Yaeger 2019). The central component of hubris-oriented concerns is that those who develop, advocate for, or employ the technology overestimate their (or other's) ability to predict the full range of outcomes of the intervention and address problematic unintended effects.…”

Section: Impact Of Genetic Engineering In Conservation On the Human-nmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethics of genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation

Sandler

2019

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ethical issues associated with using genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation are typically described as consisting of risk assessment and management, public engagement and acceptance, opportunity costs, risk and benefit distributions, and oversight. These are important, but the ethical concerns extend beyond them because the use of genetic engineering has the potential to significantly alter the practices, concepts, and value commitments of conservation. I sought to elucidate the broader set of ethical issues connected with a potential genetic engineering turn in conservation and provide an approach to ethical analysis of novel conservation technologies. The primary rationales offered in support of using genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation are efficiency and necessity for achieving conservation goals. The instrumentalist ethical perspective associated with these rationales involves assessing novel technologies as a means to accomplish desired ends. For powerful emerging technologies the instrumentalist perspective needs to be complemented by a form‐of‐life perspective frequently applied in the philosophy of technology. The form‐of‐life perspective involves considering how novel technologies restructure the activities into which they are introduced. When the form‐of‐life perspective is applied to creative genetic engineering in conservation, it brings into focus a set of ethical issues, such as those associated with power, meaning, relationships, and values, that are not captured by the instrumentalist perspective. It also illuminates why the use of gene drives in conservation is so ethically and philosophically interesting.

show abstract

“…The organizing committee of the Hong Kong summit declared, for example, the need for “a rigorous, responsible translational pathway toward” “clinical trials of germline editing” that establishes international “standards for preclinical evidence and accuracy of gene modification, assessment of competency for practitioners of clinical trials, [and] enforceable standards of professional behavior.”8 This statement was criticized, however, by both scientists and social scientists because it deemphasized the commitment to a “broad societal consensus” that was evident in the NASEM and Nuffield Council reports and in other publications 9. A group of scientists and ethicists working with the geneticist Eric Lander, for instance, now demanded the adoption of a temporary global moratorium on all clinical uses of human germline editing, arguing that the decision to move toward clinical applications should not be made by the scientific or medical community, but by societies as a whole 10. At the same time, the World Health Organization responded to the news of the genetically modified babies in China by setting up a new advisory committee to develop global standards for the governance and oversight of human genome editing, aiming to work toward a strong international governance framework 11.…”

Section: Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

Heritable Genome Editing in a Global Context: National and International Policy Challenges

Rosemann¹,

Balen²,

Nerlich³

et al. 2019

Hastings Center Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A central problem for the international governance of heritable germline gene editing is that there are important differences in attitudes and values as well as ethical and health care considerations around the world. These differences are reflected in a complicated and diverse regulatory landscape. Several publications have discussed whether reproductive uses would be legally permissible in individual countries and whether clinical applications could emerge in the context of regulatory gaps and gray areas. Systematic comparative studies that explore issues related to the governance of this technology from different national and international perspectives are needed to address the lack of knowledge in this area. In this research report, we contribute to filling this gap by presenting views of stakeholders in the United Kingdom on challenges to the governance of heritable genome editing. We present findings from a multistakeholder study conducted in the United Kingdom between October 2016 and January 2018 and funded by the Wellcome Trust. This research included interviews, literature analysis, and a workshop. We involved leading U.K. scientists, in vitro fertilization clinicians, and representatives from regulatory bodies, patient organizations, and other civil societal organizations, as well as fertility companies. Part one of this article explores stakeholder perceptions of possible global developments in heritable genome editing and associated risks and governance challenges. Part two presents a range of policy options that were generated during the workshop in relation to the challenges discussed in part one.

show abstract

Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing

Cited by 346 publications

References 11 publications

Genetically Modified Humans: The X-Men of Scientific Research

Genetically Modified Humans: The X-Men of Scientific Research

The ethics of genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation

Heritable Genome Editing in a Global Context: National and International Policy Challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About