Back in late January, Rosari Isasi et al. published a policy forum paper in Science that discussed the issues surrounding genome editing policies around the world. Key points discussed include the differences between "permissive" and "restrictive" viewpoints, whether restrictions on clinical applications also apply to research - and how vague legislative language sometimes makes this distinction unclear - and, how thresholds for acceptability have been applied in related contexts.
Nice maps are given that indicate the general level of regulation around the world for this issue and for related topics such as preimplantation diagnosis.
Friday, May 13, 2016
Monday, February 1, 2016
UK approves gene editing of human embryos for in vitro research purposes. (NOT for implantation/procreation).
The HFEA has approved an application from UK reserachers to perform specific gene editing experiments in human embryos for research purposes. The embryos will not be cultured beyond the blastocyst stage (a small ball of ~250 cells). The purpose of this research is to examine the development of cells that form the placenta and other tissues that support embryo growth. This sort of research may lead to better understanding of why some miscarriages occur.
Reports from various news outlets:
BBC News
The Guardian
Washington Post
Reports from various news outlets:
BBC News
The Guardian
Washington Post
Friday, December 4, 2015
Statement released by the International Summit on Human Gene Editing, and related news links. #GeneEditing #CRISPR
Here is the link to the International Summit on Human Gene Editing Organizing Committee's statement on gene editing.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12032015a
It's a fairly brief statement in comparison to the Hinxton report, but it makes its points. Some may be surprised that an outright moratorium - or even more permanent restrictions - on germline gene editing were not called for specifically in the statement. Instead the tone leaves the door open. I think this is in keeping with the idea that it is conceptually possible that at some point in the future, germline modification might be safe and effective enough for preventing certain diseases that it would be ethically permissible - at least in come cases.
However, there are certainly strong notes of caution in the document - in particular, that germline gene editing to produce actual babies is clearly still too risky at this time. At the same time, the statement leaves the door open for research in embryos that may shed light on these issues, while also possibly be very beneficial from a basic science perspective.
News reports:
The Guardian: Summit rules out ban on gene editing embryos destined to become people.
LA Times: International gene editing conference declines to ban eventual use in humans.
Nature: Gene-editing summit supports some research in human embryos.
Reuters: Gene summit organizers urge caution on human gene editing.
Finally, here's a link to a good piece in STAT about the whole summit.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12032015a
It's a fairly brief statement in comparison to the Hinxton report, but it makes its points. Some may be surprised that an outright moratorium - or even more permanent restrictions - on germline gene editing were not called for specifically in the statement. Instead the tone leaves the door open. I think this is in keeping with the idea that it is conceptually possible that at some point in the future, germline modification might be safe and effective enough for preventing certain diseases that it would be ethically permissible - at least in come cases.
However, there are certainly strong notes of caution in the document - in particular, that germline gene editing to produce actual babies is clearly still too risky at this time. At the same time, the statement leaves the door open for research in embryos that may shed light on these issues, while also possibly be very beneficial from a basic science perspective.
News reports:
The Guardian: Summit rules out ban on gene editing embryos destined to become people.
LA Times: International gene editing conference declines to ban eventual use in humans.
Nature: Gene-editing summit supports some research in human embryos.
Reuters: Gene summit organizers urge caution on human gene editing.
Finally, here's a link to a good piece in STAT about the whole summit.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
International summit on human gene editing is occurring now in DC. Live webcast. #geneediting #CRISPR
Link to webcast:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/gene-editing/Gene-Edit-Summit/index.htm
http://www.nationalacademies.org/gene-editing/Gene-Edit-Summit/index.htm
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Commentary in Nature on genome editing ethics and #CRISPR by members of the Hinxton group.
This commentary provides a very good summary of key points discussed by the Hinxton group, during their process of creating their recent position statement on genome editing.
Monday, November 9, 2015
Friday, November 6, 2015
Somatic gene editing therapies hold great promise in treating disease.
...And because of this, it will be important that discussion of the ethics surrounding germline gene editing do not frame all gene editing applications in a dangerous light. This post was stimulated by the news releases over the last day or so, concerning a young leukemia patient in the UK who apparently has responded extremely well to an infusion of gene-edited, cancer-fighting T-cells.
e.g.
In a nutshell, the team involved used heterologous T-cells that went through a few steps of editing before infusion into the patient.
Note this has not been peer-reviewed yet, and it's only one patient. But hopefully it will be the first of many more similar good stories to come about gene editing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)