Ethical Issues in Genome Editing using Crispr/Cas9 System

Rodríguez, Eduardo

doi:10.4172/2155-9627.1000266

Cited by 19 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From Habermas’s perspective, the preservation of the “non-chosen” or inherited nature, would protect us from ourselves (Neil, 2008), a protection that could be radically degraded if market laws were deployed in the reproductive industry (Fox, 2008). These laws would eventually determine the criteria for any action facing enhancement, including genetic doping (Gaffney and Parisotto, 2007; McKanna and Toriello, 2010), gene patents (Rodriguez, 2016; Du, 2018; Greenbaum, 2011), or competition between enhanced beings (Jensen, 2011). An additional critical approach may be added, fueled by the instability and insecurity of reprogenetic techniques leading to unpredictable consequences, in which case, use would be irresponsible (Fox, 2010; GüellPelayo, 2014; Hildt, 2016; Newman, 2017; Fox, 2018).…”

Section: Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Challenges of Germline Genetic Enhancement

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The new reproductive technologies have opened the door to different processes of germline genetic enhancement by which the characteristics of an individual according to the interests of the agents involved could be selected during its gestation. Although the initiative is apparently oriented towards developing individuals that would excel in society, critical voices raise the concerns about that this approach would generate and need for a reflection on the ethical, social and legal implications of these techniques and their implementation in society. We reviewed the literature about these issues throughout their historical records to date, focusing on the moral arguments and non-clinical aspects that affect the legal and social environment. We have observed various trends of thought with divergent positions (proactive, preventive, and regulatory) as well as a large number of articles that try to reconcile the different approaches. This review illustrates a series of concepts from the ethics and philosophy fields which are frequently used in studies that evaluate the ethical implications of germline genetic enhancement, such as dignity, benefit, autonomy, and identity. In addition, amongst the many unresolved controversies surrounding genetic enhancement, we identify procreative beneficence, genetic disassociation, gender selection, the value of disability, embryo chimerization, and the psychosocial inequality of potentially enhanced individuals as crucial. We also develop possible scenarios for future debate. We consider especially important the definition and specification of three aspects which are essential for the deployment of new reproductive technologies: the moral status of the embryo undergoing enhancement, the legal status of the enhanced individual, and the responsibility of the agents executing the enhancement. Finally, we propose the precautionary principle as a means to navigate ethical uncertainties.

show abstract

Section: Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Challenges of Germline Genetic Enhancement

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In agriculture, CRISPR-Cas technology has the potential to improve crop quality and yield, and to introduce disease resistance [6] -for example, genome-edited mushrooms that brown slower than other mushrooms, so increasing their shelf-life. [7] GMOs aimed to achieve the same goals, but required the introduction of foreign DNA, resulting in transgenes.…”

Section: Agri-biotechnologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[17] Though current UK legislation, namely the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act, prohibits the implantation of genetically modified embryos, [1] there is no legal ban on germline editing, [16] and research into this area of genetic editing of the germline and embryos may continue as long as it is licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [6] The USA has taken a more cautious approach, with the FDA and National Institutes of Health placing a temporary moratorium on germline gene editing until sufficient risk and safety assessments have been conducted. [16] Other countries such as Sweden and Canada have banned germline editing, maintaining that this practice should be banned because it may affect the development of the embryo.…”

Section: Germline and Embryonic Cellsmentioning

confidence: 99%

CRISPR: Challenges to South African biotechnology law

Pillay

Thaldar

2018

S Afr J BL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These methods are considered ethically acceptable provided they satisfy requirements regarding risk–benefit ratio and informed consent (Lander, 2015; Rodriguez, 2016). However, germline modification raises additional concerns about unpredictable, inherited effects on future generations who would have no say in the decision (Rodriguez, 2016). …”

Section: Can Resistance To Communicable Diseases Be Classified As Hummentioning

confidence: 99%

Disease Resistance and the Definition of Genetic Enhancement

Kleiderman

Touré

et al. 2017

Front. Genet.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent gene editing experiments carried out in human embryos have raised the question of whether interventions like the introduction of a CCR5-Δ32 deletion, which could provide heritable resistance to HIV infection, ought to be considered enhancements. Many authors have used the term “enhancement” in different ways, some based on patients’ biomedical outcomes and others on their social context. These classifications are often considered overly imprecise. Nevertheless, the concept of “enhancement” could affect the ways in which these applications are regulated in different jurisdictions, the availability of coverage by insurers or public health care, and the force of public opinion in shaping future policy on gene editing. In order to ethically situate resistance to communicable disease with reference to other techniques, this article provides an overview of its similarities and differences with disease gene therapy in embryos, gene therapy in consenting adults, and vaccination. In discussing key ethical features of CCR5-Δ32 deletion (including its frequency in various populations, biological mechanism, benefits for individuals, and use in previous clinical trials) we offer some potential guideposts for the continuing discussion on how to classify “enhancements” in the age of CRISPR gene editing.

show abstract

Ethical Issues in Genome Editing using Crispr/Cas9 System

Cited by 19 publications

References 42 publications

Ethical Challenges of Germline Genetic Enhancement

Ethical Challenges of Germline Genetic Enhancement

CRISPR: Challenges to South African biotechnology law

Disease Resistance and the Definition of Genetic Enhancement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About