Gene genies spark fresh designer baby debate
TWO hundred years since Frankenstein’s monster was unleashed on a horrified world, scientists revealed plans this week to make human cells from scratch.
Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus, published in 1818, relates how science student Victor Frankenstein creates a grotesque creature in an unorthodox experiment.
Now boffins writing in the journal Science have unveiled a plan to create synthetic human genes, chromosomes and cells within 10 years.
In South Africa, there is confusion about whether the law prohibits research to create “designer babies”, which is in its embryonic stages in laboratories in several countries.
One lawyer said legislation “strictly prohibits” gene editing, but an academic said there were “glaring loopholes” that rogue scientists could abuse.
Gene editing entails altering the DNA sequence in a living cell by “cutting out” certain elements or introducing new ones. It introduces irreversible changes to be passed down the generations.
Sweden was the third country after China and the UK to give the green light to laboratory research using live embryos, prompting other countries to examine their laws on genetic research.
Last week, scientists in the Netherlands were given the goahead to grow human embryos WRITE STUFF: Scientists hope to create human cells from scratch within a decade specifically for gene-editing research, with health minister Edith Schippers saying she wanted to “give people the possibility of [healthy] children”.
Marietjie Botes, a senior associate at law firm Dyason Incorporated, is adamant that “the manipulation of any genetic material of human gametes” is prohibited under South Africa’s constitution.
But Professor Michael Pepper, director of the Institute for Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Pretoria, said the legislation dealt specifically with cloning and not at all with gene editing.
Advances in technology were “rapid” and the law “lags behind”, he said. Scientists should thus selfregulate but rogues could aim for gaps in the legislation.
One of gene editing’s biggest opponents is Marcy Darnovsky, head of the Center for Genetics and Society in the US, and her words are chilling to those who know how competitive parents can be: “It is all too easy to imagine fertility clinics offering ‘offspring upgrades’ to affluent parents who want to ensure that their children aren’t ‘left behind’.”
Exactly a year ago in China, gene editing was done for the first time for research on correcting a mutation that causes blood disease.
The 25 scientists who this week announced the Human Genome Project-write hope to grow organs for transplant patients, engineer immunity to lethal viruses such as Ebola, and develop cancer-resistant cells.
But Darnovsky said the other application of gene-editing targeted sperm, eggs or early embryos “in an effort to alter the DNA and traits of resulting children”.
And the line between editing out disease genes and creating the proverbial blue-eyed boy is up for debate.
On the upside, said Botes, gene editing “offers the possibility of treatment for debilitating genetic disorders and the improvement of fertility treatments” among others.
In South Africa, for example, Wits University professor Mark Weinberg and his team are trying to cut out the HIV from the genome of infected cells.
On the downside, there is concern that tailor-making babies will reinforce inequality.
Either way, the human race is under reconstruction.
Said Botes: “The latest gene-editing technology is one of the biggest biotech inventions and it has the potential to change the human race, as we know it, forever.”