What Is Prudent Governance of Human Genome Editing?

Abstract

CRISPR technology has made questions about how best to regulate human genome editing immediately relevant. A sound and ethical governance structure for human genome editing is necessary, as the consequences of this new technology are far-reaching and profound. Because there are currently many risks associated with genome editing technology, the extent of which are unknown, regulatory prudence is ideal. When considering how best to create a prudent governance scheme, we can look to 2 guiding examples: the Asilomar conference of 1975 and the German Ethics Council guidelines for human germline intervention. Both models offer a path towards prudent regulation in the face of unknown and significant risks.

Gene Editing: How Can You Ask “Whether” If You Don't Know “How”?

“…The recent report from the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing, a joint effort of the U.S. National Academy of Medicine, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the United Kingdom's Royal Society, is the latest entry in a developing literature on responsible translational pathways for germline gene editing 1 . Other commission reports on gene editing, along with some work in the academic literature, have considered questions about translational pathways, but the new report goes the furthest to date in considering the ins and outs of how gene editing could be implemented in clinical practice 2 . Up to this point, most discussion of the ethics of gene editing has concerned itself with whether germline gene editing should ever be done.…”

“…1 Other commission reports on gene editing, along with some work in the academic literature, have considered questions about translational pathways, but the new report goes the furthest to date in considering the ins and outs of how gene editing could be implemented in clinical practice. 2 Up to this point, most discussion of the ethics of gene editing has concerned itself with whether germline gene editing should ever be done. Debate has mostly unfolded along two axes: first, about the permissible goals of gene editing (whether it could be used to select traits for "enhancement" or should instead be restricted to "therapeutic" aims alone) and, second, about whether gene editing would be consonant with moral commitments to autonomy, human dignity, and human rights.…”