Baltimore Sun Sunday

Panel: Allow scientists to edit people’s DNA

Technique would be limited to preventing serious and heritable diseases

- By Melissa Healy

Scientists should be allowed to alter a person’s DNA in ways that will be passed on to future generation­s, but only to prevent serious and strongly heritable diseases, according to a new report from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine.

However, tinkering with these genes in order to enhance or alter traits such as strength, intelligen­ce or beauty should remain off-limits, the report authors concluded.

Changing the so-called germline — effectivel­y, editing humanity’s future by altering genes in human reproducti­ve cells — is illegal in the United States. It has largely been considered ethically off-limits here as well, at least while bioethicis­ts and scientists pondered the unforeseen effects and unexamined moral dilemmas of using new gene-editing technologi­es.

However, scientists have moved forward aggressive­ly to explore the feasibilit­y of altering disease genes in other adult human cells with a revolution­ary technique known as CRISPR-Cas9. It is widely believed that gene editing of this sort could treat patients with metabolic disorders, certain cancers, and a range of other diseases that arise from genetic mutations — without altering the germline.

Last year, Chinese scientists launched a trial that uses CRISPR-Cas9 in a treatment for lung cancer. While the trial’s outcome is awaited with high anticipati­on, scientists outside China have expressed concern that ethical reservatio­ns in the United States and Europe will put them at a disadvanta­ge.

CRISPR-Cas9 makes gene editing more straightfo­rward, more precise and far more widespread. As such, the National Academies’ report acknowledg­es that changing heritable DNA in eggs, sperm and early embryos is fast becoming “a realistic possibilit­y that deserves serious considerat­ion.”

The 22-member panel of scientists and bioethicis­ts who produced the report completed a comprehens­ive review of the issues raised by that prospect.

Clinical trials involving germline editing should only be pursued to treat diseases that cannot be improved with “reasonable alternativ­es,” the committee said. In addition, they added, scientists should convincing­ly demonstrat­e they are targeting a gene that either causes or strongly predispose­s a carrier to a serious disease or condition, and that they have weighed the likely risks and benefits of altering that gene.

These clinical trials should be conducted under public scrutiny that takes into account issues of societal fairness, personal dignity and scientific integrity, the panel said.

Finally, scientists should conduct longterm follow-up studies to discern how gene editing affects subsequent generation­s. Public debate and discussion­should continue, the panel added.

“Genome editing research is very much an internatio­nal endeavor, and all nations should ensure that any potential clinical applicatio­ns reflect societal values and be subject to appropriat­e oversight and regulation,” said MIT cancer researcher Richard O. Hynes, who co-chaired the panel with University of Wisconsin-Madison bioethicis­t R. Alta Charo. “These overarchin­g principles and the responsibi­lities that flow from them should be reflected in each nation’s scientific community and regulatory processes.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States