The gene in the bottle
Agenuinely wondrous moment in an age that brims with them: Scientists have, for the first time, edited the DNA of human embryos to correct a deadly congenital heart condition. Absorb the achievement with awe, wish the innovators great success in applying this technique to other serious diseases — and demand an honest reckoning by public and private sectors alike to ensure that this tremendous power is never used to practice 21st century eugenics.
Through the use of advanced gene-altering techniques, scientists at Oregon Health and Science University, with colleagues around the world, reported correcting a mutation that causes a cardiological defect that can lead to sudden death.
Only that gene is fixed; no others are changed. And if those embryos go on to become fully grown humans, they will not pass on the health problem to their children.
Meaning, what was until now a naturally occurring trait could be effectively erased for all time.
The process remains a long way from clinical application. But as techniques are refined, as science powered by technology gains ever more understanding of how genes shape us, we could soon have in our hands the power to inalterably change the direction of our species.
The old medical credo “First do no harm” isn’t much help here. Other ethical principles must be translated into enforceable law by our government — soon — and then adhered to.
Gene editing should be allowed to extend and save lives and to prevent serious pain and suffering. It should never be used to eliminate merely undesirable human qualities, or to enable parents to design the children they would like to raise.
Wipe out fatal birth defects, such as Tay-Sachs and Huntington’s disease. If discrete genes are located that make people prone to deadly cancer, attack them with a vengeance.
Do not dare allow doctors to toy with cosmetics, or enhance physical prowess, or tweak sexual preference, or hubristically order up people without perceived weaknesses of mind.
Given the range of genetic diversity, the line may not always be a bright one, but it must be drawn.
An advisory panel formed by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine this year for the first time blessed some human gene engineering, while also insisting a range of adjustments be put off limits.
Today, the Food and Drug Administration is flatly prohibited from considering clinical trials involving gene editing, and the National Institutes of Health is barred from funding related research.
When lives can safely be saved by limited uses of the technology, those blanket prohibitions should be lifted. Narrower but strict new laws should be written. And we should step, ever so carefully, into a brave new world.