Skip to main content
Log in

From Asilomar to Genome Editing: Research Ethics and Models of Decision

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the presentation is to focus on the differences between two scientific contexts: the genetic engineering context of the 1970s, with specific attention paid to the use of the recombinant DNA technique to generate genetically modified molecules, and the current genome editing context, with specific attention paid to the use of CRISPR-Cas9 technology to modify human germ line cells genetically. In both events, scientists have been involved in discussions that have gone beyond mere professional deontology touching on specific policy issues such as freedom of research, responsibility for the consequences of research, the right of the public to participate in the evaluation of the goals of research methods, the relationship between cost and benefit and possible social consequences. The comparison between these two scientific contexts suggests the need of handling such issues by defining procedures that meet the criteria of democracy and responsibility towards society. The underlying objective should be to effectively launch actions and interventions based not on a hierarchical approach but rather a reticular conception of knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Callon M (1999) The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Sci Technol Soc 4:81–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Swazey JP, Sorenson JR, Wong CB (1978) Risks and benefits, rights and responsibilities: A history of the recombinant DNA research controversy. So Cal L Rev 51:1019–1078

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berg P (2008) Asilomar 1975: DNA modification secured. Nature 455:290–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wade N (1973) Microbiology: hazardous profession faces new uncertainties. Science 182:566–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hellman A, Oxman M. N, Pollack R (1973) Biohazards in biological research. Proceedings of a Conference Held at the Asilomar Conference Center, Pacific Grove, California, January 22-24. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York

  6. Singer M, Soll D (1973) Guidelines for DNA Hybrid Molecules. Science 181:1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berg P et al (1974) Letters, Potential biohazards of recombinant dna molecules. Science 185:303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Berg P, Baltimore D, Brenner S, Roblin RO 3rd, Singer MF (1975) Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA molecules. Science 188:991–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. NIH (1976) Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules. Fed Regist 41:27911

    Google Scholar 

  10. Berg P (1977) Recombinant DNA research can be safe. Trends Biochem Sci 2:25–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Berg P (1977) Genetic engineering: challenge and responsibility. Ambio 6:253–261

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rogers M (1975) The Pandora’s box congress. Rolling Stone 139:34–78

    Google Scholar 

  13. Turney J (1998) Frankenstein's footsteps: science, genetics and popular culture. Yale University Press, Yale

    Google Scholar 

  14. Capron AM, Schapiro R (2001) Remember Asilomar? Reexamining science’s ethical and social responsibility. Perspect Biol Med 44:162–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Douglas HE (2003) The moral responsibilities of scientists (tensions between autonomy and responsibility). Am Philos Q 40:59–68

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jasanoff S (2005) Design on nature. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Liang PP, Xu YW, Zhang XY, Ding CH, Huang R, Zhang Z, Lv J, Xie X, Chen Y, Li Y, Sun Y, Bai Y, Songyang Z, Ma W, Zhou C, Huang J (2015) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein & Cell 6:363–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Baltimore D, Berg P, Botchan M, Carroll D, Charo RA, Church G, Corn JE, Daley GQ, Doudna JA, Fenner M, Greely HT, Jinek M, Martin GS, Penhoet E, Puck J, Sternberg SH, Weissman JS, Yamamoto KR (2015) A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germile gene modification. Science 348:36–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gregorowius D, Biller-Andorno N, Deplazes-Zemp A (2017) The role of scientific self-regulation for the control of genome editing in the human germline. EMBO Rep 18:355–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Parthasarathy S (2015) Governance lessons for CRISPR/Cas9 from the missed opportunities of Asilomar. Ethics Biology Eng Med 6:3–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jasanoff S, Hurlbut JB, Saha K (2015) CRISPR democracy: gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues Sci Technol 32:25–32

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sarewitz D (2015) Science can’t solve it. Nature 522:413–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Addison C, Taylor-Alexander S (2015) Gene editing and germ-line intervention: the need for novel responses to novel technologies. Mol Ther 23:1678–1680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hurlbut JB (2015) Limits of responsibility: genome editing, Asilomar, and the politics of deliberation. Hast Cent Rep 45:11–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. U.S National Academy of Sciences, U.S National Academy of Medicine, The Royal Society, Chinese Academy of Sciences (2015) International summit on human gene editing. a global discussion. Commissioned Paper, December 1-3 2015. Washington, DC

  26. Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Olson S, editor (2016) International summit on human gene editing: a global discussion. Meeting in Brief. National Academies Press (US), Washington, DC

  27. Blasimme A (2017) Governare il genoma: sapere e sovranità nei recenti sviluppi dell’ingegneria genetica. Notizie di Politeia 126:92–102

    Google Scholar 

  28. National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) Human genome editing: science, ethics, and governance. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2018) Genome editing and human reproduction: social and ethical issues. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jasanoff S, Hurlbut JB (2018) A global observatory for gene editing. Nature 555:435–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hurlbut JB, Jasanoff S, Saha K (2018) Building capacity for a global editing observatory: conceptual challenges. Trends Biotechnol 36:639–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Academy of Sciences of Hong Kong, Royal Society of the United Kingdom, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. National Academy of Medicine (2018) Statement by the organizing committee of the second international summit on human genome editing. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/news/2018/human-genome-editing-statement-29-11-2018.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2019

  33. Lander E, Baylis F, Zhang F, Charpentier E, Berg P et al (2019) Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature 567:166–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Imperial College Health Partners (2016) Patient and public participation tool. https://imperialcollegehealthpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PPI-Tool-V2.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2019

  35. Buyx A, Del Salvio L, Prainsack B, Völzke H (2017) Every participant is a PI. Citizen science and participatory governance in population studies. Int J Epidemiol. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw204

  36. De Marchi B, Biggeri A, Cervino M, Mangia C et al (2017) A participatory project in environmental epidemiology: lessons from the Manfredonia case study (Italy 2015–2016). Public Health Panorama 3(2):321–327

  37. Jasanoff S (2011) Rewriting life, reframing rights. In: Jasanoff S (ed) Reframing rights: bioconstitutionalism in the genetic age. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA), pp 1–27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Information About Attribution

The “Introduction” and the “Conclusion” sections are to be attributed to both authors; “Recombinant DNA and the Asilomar Conference (1975)” is to be attributed to Fabrizio Rufo; “2015: CRISPR-Cas9 Technology and Human Genome Editing” is to be attributed to Antonella Ficorilli.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabrizio Rufo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they don't have potential conflicts of interest; the paper is not part of research involving human participants and/or animals; for the characteristics of the paper, no informed consent is required.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rufo, F., Ficorilli, A. From Asilomar to Genome Editing: Research Ethics and Models of Decision. Nanoethics 13, 223–232 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-019-00356-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-019-00356-1

Keywords

Navigation