Genetically modified babies given go ahead by UK ethics body
Genetically modified babies given go ahead by UK ethics
body
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics says changing the DNA
of a human embryo could be ‘morally permissable’ if it is in the child’s best
interests
Making changes to the genes in sperm and eggs in order
minimise future disease could save a significant number of babies from pain and
suffering, said a Harvard geneticist.
Ian Sample Science editor Tue 17 Jul 2018 01.01 EDT
The creation of babies whose DNA has been altered to give
them what parents perceive to be the best chances in life has received a
cautious green light in a landmark report from a leading UK ethics body.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics said that changing the
DNA of a human embryo could be “morally permissible” if it was in the future
child’s interests and did not add to the kinds of inequalities that already
divide society.
The report does not call for a change in UK law to permit
genetically altered babies, but instead urges research into the safety and
effectiveness of the approach, its societal impact, and a widespread debate of
its implications.
“It is our view that genome editing is not morally
unacceptable in itself,” said Karen Yeung, chair of the Nuffield working group
and professor of law, ethics and informatics at the University of Birmingham.
“There is no reason to rule it out in principle.”
But the report drew immediate criticism from some
quarters, with one lobby group accusing the authors of opening the door to the
unrestricted use of heritable genetic engineering, and an age of genetic haves
and have-nots.
Recent advances in genetic technology have given
scientists the tools to rewrite the DNA bound up in living cells, letter by
letter. With the procedures in hand, scientists can in principle tweak the
genetic code in sperm, eggs and embryos, and change dramatically how future
children develop.
While laws in the UK and some other countries currently
ban the creation of genetically altered babies, a handful of experiments around
the world have shown that DNA editing could, in principle, prevent children
from inheriting serious diseases caused by faulty genes.
The prospect of modifying genes in human embryos has long
been controversial though. For a start, the procedure has yet to be proven
safe. In a study published in Nature Biotechnology on Monday, British
researchers found that the most popular tool for genome editing, Crispr-Cas9,
caused more damage to DNA than previously thought. If the scientists are right,
gene editing could disrupt healthy genes when it is meant only to fix faulty
ones.
Another consideration is that any changes made to an
embryo’s DNA would affect all of its cells, including the sperm or eggs,
meaning that genetic modifications would be passed down to all future
generations. Also, in the vast majority of cases alternative procedures, such
as preimplantation genetic testing, can be used to screen embryos for harmful
DNA.
DNA editing also raises the possibility of “designer
babies”, where the genetic code of embryos created through standard IVF is
rewritten so that children have traits the parents find desirable. The Nuffield
report does not rule out any specific uses of genome editing, but says that to
be ethical, any applications must follow the principles of being in the child’s
interests, and have no ill-effects for society.
Jackie Leach Scully, professor of social ethics and
bioethics at Newcastle University, and a co-author on the report, said
heritable genome editing may one day become an option for parents “to try and
secure what they think is the best start in life” for their future children.
But she warned that there could be unintended
consequences if the law were changed to allow gene editing of human embryos.
While the technology could potentially reduce the number of people affected by
certain genetic disorders, it could leave those with the diseases feeling more
marginalised and with less medical support.
The report urges government to set up a new body to
ensure that as many voices as possible are involved in public discussions about
what should and should not be permissible. “We are very clear that what we need
to have is as wide a discussion about this issue as possible,” Leach Scully
said. In the event that the law is changed, gene editing of human embryos
should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the fertility regulator, the
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the report adds.
George Church, a geneticist at Harvard University who was
not involved in the report, said he agreed with the report’s guiding principle
that gene editing “should not be expected to increase disadvantage,
discrimination, or division in society,” adding that this would be aided by
lower costs and better public dialogue and education. Making changes to common
gene variants in sperm and eggs could save roughly 5% of babies from painful
diseases he said.
But Marcy Darnovsky at the Center for Genetics and Society
in California said that the report recognised that if reproductive gene editing
was permitted, it would be used for enhancement and cosmetic purposes. “They
dispense with the usual pretence that this could – or, in their estimation,
should – be prevented. They acknowledge that this may worsen inequality and
social division, but don’t believe that should stand in the way. In practical
terms, they have thrown down a red carpet for unrestricted use of inheritable
genetic engineering, and a gilded age in which some are treated as genetic
‘haves’ and the rest of us as ‘have-nots’.”
Comments
Post a Comment