Shutterstock
The National Institutes of Health, other top scientists and ethicists around the globe are calling for a worldwide 5-year moratorium on the genetic editing of heritable genes in human babies and embryos.
Scientists want to ensure that human germ lines, the type of genes that are heritable, are not tampered with in embryos or babies.
The problem is, as is already the case with the genetically engineered babies in China, is that the edited genes can then be passed on to future progeny. In other words, making changes to these genes can result in permanent changes in the human species.
This is very different than, say, editing genes of an adult who may not pass on the edited genes.
Taking the danger further, scientists are also worried about the creation of so-called “designer babies,” and the market that such enhancements could create.
What’s at stake here could be a fundamental redesign of the human species, the outcome and potential consequences of which, are far from known.
After the recent announcement/discovery of twin babies born in China who had their genes edited, scientists around the globe have recognized that genetic engineering technology is expanding faster than there is legislation to safeguard its use against potential dangers.
The CRISPR gene editing technology essentially makes manipulating genes as simple as cut and paste is with computers. This technology has emboldened some practitioners to move forward with experimental genetic engineering on humans – even before such practices have been fully studied or tested in animals.
Certainly, the ethics of what’s possible in the era of CRISPR genetic engineering technology has not been fully examined nor is clearly understood.
The call for the moratorium was published as a commentary in the journal Nature. There is a consensus among scientists and ethicists that genes should not be edited in a manner that would cause them to become a permanent trait in the human species.
Heritable genetic alteration would only be permissible in light of a broad agreement that manipulation was safe, necessary and ethical.
The authors wrote:
“To begin with, there should be a fixed period during which no clinical uses of germline editing whatsoever are allowed. As well as allowing for discussions about the technical, scientific, medical, societal, ethical and moral issues that must be considered before germline editing is permitted, this period would provide time to establish an international framework.”
The scientists and ethicists share a consensus that CRISPR and other gene-editing techniques can have many desirable applications. They define this as research on cells, including human embryos, as long as the modified cells aren’t used to establish a pregnancy.
They also have no objections about genetic editing somatic cells to treat an individual patient in a manner that will not pass along those changes to future offspring.
