Handle with Care: The WHO Report on Human Genome Editing

Abstract

The World Health Organization’s recent Report on Human Genome Editing departs from similar reports from other institutions in that it recognizes that ethical assessments of the technology are deeply complex, surprisingly fragile, and subject to practical and political considerations. The WHO report largely recommends that human genome editing, rather than being accepted in some circumstances and banned in others, should be handled with care. The report recommends some oversight mechanisms—such as intellectual property licensing—previously undiscussed or underexplored in sister reports, and it recognizes that others—like international law—may be impractical. This essay explores how the report has shifted global considerations of governing human genome editing to more pragmatic ends.

Biotechnology and Bioethics

“…Whilst the WHO has provided its guidance vis-à-vis the reports on standards and governance, as well as recommendations for human genome editing, leading scholars in the field have recognized that the WHO recommendation "has shifted global considerations of governing human genome editing to more pragmatic ends" [48]. Instead of recommending an outright ban on human genome editing, the WHO instead recommends that the technology be properly evaluated and "handled with care" [48].…”

“…Whilst the WHO has provided its guidance vis-à-vis the reports on standards and governance, as well as recommendations for human genome editing, leading scholars in the field have recognized that the WHO recommendation "has shifted global considerations of governing human genome editing to more pragmatic ends" [48]. Instead of recommending an outright ban on human genome editing, the WHO instead recommends that the technology be properly evaluated and "handled with care" [48]. Besides the fact that these recommendations are markedly different from the self-imposed global moratorium by the international scientific community, it also does not escape recognition that WHO recommendations do not have the force of law.…”

Evolved Eugenics and Reinforcement of “Othering”: Renewed Ethico-Legal Perspectives of Genome Editing in Reproduction

“…Whilst the WHO has provided its guidance vis-à-vis the reports on standards and governance, as well as recommendations for human genome editing, leading scholars in the field have recognized that the WHO recommendation “has shifted global considerations of governing human genome editing to more pragmatic ends” [ 48 ]. Instead of recommending an outright ban on human genome editing, the WHO instead recommends that the technology be properly evaluated and “handled with care” [ 48 ].…”

“…Whilst the WHO has provided its guidance vis-à-vis the reports on standards and governance, as well as recommendations for human genome editing, leading scholars in the field have recognized that the WHO recommendation “has shifted global considerations of governing human genome editing to more pragmatic ends” [ 48 ]. Instead of recommending an outright ban on human genome editing, the WHO instead recommends that the technology be properly evaluated and “handled with care” [ 48 ]. Besides the fact that these recommendations are markedly different from the self-imposed global moratorium by the international scientific community, it also does not escape recognition that WHO recommendations do not have the force of law.…”

Points to consider in the development of national human genome editing policy

“…The Committee’s work culminated in three reports: a proposed governance framework, a position paper and a set of recommendations (WHO, 2021a , b , c ). It is this proposed governance framework that sets this work of the WHO expert panel apart from the many other reports on genome editing that have preceded it (Cohen et al, 2022 ).…”