SMART THINKING

A controversial experiment has led to calls for a global moratorium on human germline editing.

A controversial experiment raising ethical and social issues has led to calls for a global moratorium on human germline editing.

Seventeen academics from seven countries have called for a global moratorium on all clinical uses of human germline editing to make genetically modified children. The call follows a recent experiment aimed at producing children immune to HIV.

In November 2018, a Chinese biophysics researcher, Associate Professor He Jiankui, claimed to have altered the genomes of twin baby girls born that month to make the children resistant to infection by HIV. He claims to have ‘turned off’ a gene called CCR5 which is associated with HIV entering cells.

The Chinese Society for Cell Biology issued a statement calling the research “a serious violation of the Chinese government’s laws and regulations and the consensus of the Chinese scientific community” and Chinese authorities suspended all of his research.

To prevent such experiments from happening again, Professor Jing-Bao Nie from the University of Otago, together with another 16 academics, have called for an international governance framework in which nations voluntarily commit to not approve any use of clinical germline editing unless certain conditions are met.

Professor Nie says the scientific scandal of the experiment that led to the world’s first genetically modified babies raises many intriguing ethical, social and transcultural/transglobal issues. His main personal concerns include what he describes as the ‘inadequacy’ of the Chinese and international responses to the experiment.

“The Chinese authorities have conducted a preliminary investigation into the scientist’s genetic misadventure and issued a draft new regulation on the related biotechnologies,” he says. “These are welcome moves.

“Yet, by putting blame completely on the rogue scientist individually, the institutional failings are overlooked.”

The group of 17 scientists and bioethicists say it is imperative that extensive public discussions about the technical, scientific, medical, societal, ethical and moral issues must be considered before germline editing is permitted. A moratorium would provide time to establish broad societal consensus and an international framework.

The scientists and bioethicists say that while techniques have improved in recent years, germline editing is not yet safe or effective enough to justify any use in the clinic, with the risk of failing to make the desired change or of introducing unintended mutations still unacceptably high.