Genome editing: Bioethics shows the way

Abstract

When some scientists hear the word “bioethics,” they break out in intellectual hives. They shouldn’t. Good bioethics is about enabling science to move forward. Bioethics pushes scientists to acknowledge that they operate not within a vacuum but within a society in which diverse perspectives and values must be engaged. Bioethicists give voice to those divergent perspectives and provide a framework to facilitate informed and inclusive discussions that spur progress, rather than stall it. The field is needed to advance cutting-edge biomedical research in domains in which the benefits to be had are enormous, such as genome editing, but ethical concerns persist.

The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature

“…By contrast, it was argued that some uses of genome editing could generate public resistance to the technologies [12,22,89,102,108,126], for example, if public funds were used to bring back extinct species [12] or if genetically modified mosquitoes were to cross borders to other countries that did not support their release [22,89,102]. Other authors asserted that the latter concern could be mitigated by using gene drive designs that could enable local communities to make decisions concerning their own local environments [31].…”

“…Second, it was argued that genome editing could be used to decrease the suffering of research animals, for example, by decreasing the occurrence of unwanted genetic effects [53] and reducing the number of animals [110] used to create animal model systems compared to traditional methods [110]. On the other hand, it was argued that, if genome editing were to be widely used, this decrease in suffering per experiment would be offset by the overall increase in the numbers of transgenic animals used in research [36,53]; in this way, genome editing could contribute to animal suffering by perpetuating their continued use in research [9,36,53,108]. Moreover, it was mentioned that genome editing could bring routine genome editing of non-human primates within reach, which could substantially diminish these organisms' welfare and quality of life [110].…”

“…Authors argued that both genome-edited organisms [28,139] and gene drive organisms [6,7,20,28,34,35,82,83,106,108,126,139,143] could have unknown negative effects on ecosystems. It was mentioned that gene drive organisms could be more transformative, uncontrollable and ecologically damaging than other genome-edited organisms that contain self-limiting genes [107], particularly if gene drives were used to eradicate species [7,34,35,83,108,139]. By eradicating a species, gene drives could disrupt the positive contributions of these species in native ecosystems [89], for example, by eliminating the food source of another species [7,34,83] or promoting the proliferation of invasive pests [7,34].…”

Responsible Translational Pathways for Germline Gene Editing?

“…It is high time for bioethicists to redirect their attention and energy to more constructive issues about gene editing. Progress in biomedicine requires progress on ethics, and good work on the ethics of gene editing can help advance the science by mapping out possibilities for responsible research, development, and clinical use [79]. A literature on the complex ethics of translational pathways for gene editing that is more closely in dialog with the scientific literature and research, and more attentive to the specific issues raised by research into possible clinical applications, is emerging.…”

Getting serious about the challenge of regulating germline gene therapy

“…Many think there is no justification, and prohibitions abound [9,10,11,12]. If such work is justifiable, a serious framework must be imposed that insures that the research is done following the highest ethical standards that both protect human subjects and insure public trust and support [13].…”