Advertisement

Asian Bioethics Review

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 133–141 | Cite as

Risks and benefits of human germline genome editing: An ethical analysis

  • Giovanni RubeisEmail author
  • Florian Steger
Original Paper

Abstract

With the arrival of new methods of genome editing, especially CRISPR/Cas 9, new perspectives on germline interventions have arisen. Supporters of germ line genome editing (GGE) claim that the procedure could be used as a means of disease prevention. As a possible life-saving therapy, it provides benefits that outweigh its risks. Opponents of GGE claim that the medical and societal risks, especially the use of GGE for genetic enhancement, are too high. In our paper, we analyze the risks and benefits of GGE. We show that the medical risk on an individual level might be reduced by further research in the near future so that they may be outweighed by the benefits. We also show that the societal risks of the procedure, i.e. genetic enhancement, are manageable by establishing a regulative framework before the GGE is implemented. Since the effects of modifying genes for the genepool of a given population are extremely difficult to model, the medical risks on the population level might be too high.

Keywords

Bioethics CRISPR/Cas9 Disease prevention Genome editing Germ cells Germline therapy 

References

  1. Baltimore, D., P. Berg, M. Botchan, D. Carroll, R.A. Charo, G. Church, J.E. Corn, G.Q. Daley, J.A. Doudna, M. Fenner, H.T. Greely, M. Jinek, G.S. Martin, E. Penhoet, J. Puck, S.H. Stemberg, J.S. Weissman, and K.R. Yamamoto. 2015. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science 348: 36–38.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baylis, F. 2013. The ethics of creating children with three genetic parents. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 26: 531–534.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callaway, E. 2016. UK scientists gain licence to edit genes in human embryos. Nature 530.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19270.
  4. Gyngell, C., T. Douglas, and J. Savulescu. 2017. The ethics of germline gene editing. Journal of Applied Philosophy 34: 498–513.  https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hildt, E. 2016. Human germline interventions–think first. Frontiers in Genetics 7.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2016.00081.
  6. Ishii, T. 2017a. Germ line genome editing in clinics: the approaches, objectives and global society. Briefings in Functional Genomics 16: 46–56.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bfgp/elv053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ishii, T. 2017b. Reproductive medicine involving genome editing: clinical uncertainties and embryological needs. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 34: 27–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.09.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kang, X., W. He, Y. Huang, Q. Yu, Y. Chen, X. Gao, X. Sun, and Y. Fan. 2016. Introducing precise genetic modifications into human 3PN-embryos by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 33: 581–588.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0710-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lanphier, E., F. Urnov, S.E. Haecker, M. Werner, and J. Smolenski. 2015. Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature 519: 410–411.  https://doi.org/10.1038/519410a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Liang, P., Y. Xu, X. Zhang, C. Ding, R. Huang, Z. Zhang, J. Lu, X. Xie, Y. Chen, Y. Li, Y. Sun, Y. Bai, S. Zhou, W. Ma, C. Zhou, and J. Huang. 2015. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein & Cell 6: 363–372.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Long, C., J.R. McAnally, J.M. Shelton, A.A. Mireault, R. Bassel-Duby, and E.N. Olson. 2014. Prevention of muscular dystrophy in mice by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing of germline DNA. Science 345: 1184–1188.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ma, Hong, N. Marti-Gutierrez, J. Wu S-W Park, Y. Lee, K. Suzuki, A. Koski, D. Ji, T. Hayama, R. Ahmed, H. Darby, C. Van Dyken, Y. Li, E. Kang, A.-R. Park, D. Kim, S.-T. Kim, J. Gong, Y. Gu, X. Xu, D. Battaglia, S.A. Krieg, D.M. Lee, D.H. Wu, D.P. Wolf, S.B. Heitner, J.C. Izpisua Belmonte, P. Amato, J.-S. Kim, S. Kaul, and S. Mitalipov. 2017. Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature 548: 413–419.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ormond, K.E., D.P. Mortlock, D.T. Scholes, Y. Bombard, L.C. Brody, W.A. Faucett, N.A. Garrison, L. Hercher, R. Isassi, A. Middleton, K. Musunuru, D. Shriner, A. Virani, and C.E. Young. 2017. Human Germline Genome Editing. American Journal of Human Genetics 101: 167–176.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Powell, R. 2015. In genes we trust: Germline engineering, eugenics, and the future of the human genome. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 40:669–695.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhv025.
  15. Rubeis, G., and F. Steger. 2016. Genome Editing in der Pränatalmedizin. Eine medizinethische Analyse. In Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik - Annual Review of Law and Ethics, ed. Sharon B. Byrd, Joachim Hruschka, and Jan C. Joerden, vol. 24, 143–159. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  16. Savulescu, J., and C. Gyngell. 2015. The medical case for gene editing. Ethics in Biology, Engineering and Medicine 6: 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Savulescu, J., J. Pugh, T. Douglas, and C. Gyngell. 2015. The moral imperative to continue gene editing research on human embryos. Protein & Cell 6: 476–479.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13238-015-0184-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Human genome editing: science, ethics, and governance.  https://doi.org/10.17226/24623.
  19. Vij, S.C., E. Sabanegh Jr., and A. Ashok. 2018. Biological therapy for non-obstructive azoospermia. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 18: 19–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2018.1380622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National University of Singapore and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of MedicineUlm UniversityUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations