Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing – new and old ethical issues arising from a revolutionary technology

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

Abstract

Although germline editing has been the subject of debate ever since the 1980s, it tended to be based rather on speculative assumptions until April 2015, when CRISPR/Cas9 technology was used to modify human embryos for the first time. This article combines knowledge about the technical and scientific state of the art, economic considerations, the legal framework and aspects of clinical reality. A scenario will be elaborated as a means of identifying key ethical implications of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in humans and possible ways of dealing with them. Unlike most other discussions of CRISPR/Cas9 germline editing, which are generally based on deontological arguments, the focus in this case will be on a consequentialistic argument against certain applications of germline and somatic editing that takes not only the potential benefits and risks but also socioeconomic issues into consideration. The practical need for an indication catalogue, guidelines for clinical trials, and for funding of basic research will be pointed out. It will be argued that this need for regulatory action and discussion does not stem primarily from the fact that CRISPR/Cas9 germline editing is revolutionary in terms of its ethical implications and potential for human therapy, although this is the prevailing view in the current discussion. Understanding the value and interest dependency of arguments put forward by different stakeholders and learning from past debates related to similar technologies might prove a fruitful method of reaching judgments and decisions that come closer to a consensus upon which society as a whole can agree - which after all should be the true goal of an ethical debate and of bioethics.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Transcription activator-like effector nuclease

  2. Zinc-finger nucleases

References

  1. Liang P, Xu Y, Zhang X, Ding C, 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(5):363–372. doi:10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Doudna JA, Charpentier E (2014) The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 346(6213):1077. doi:10.1126/science.1258096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cox DBT, Platt RJ, Zhang F (2015) Therapeutic genome editing: prospects and challenges. Nat Med 21(2):121–131. doi:10.1038/nm.3793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gersbach CA (2014) Genome engineering: the next genomic revolution. Nat Methods 11(10):1009–1011. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mussolino C, Mlambo T, Cathomen T (2015) Proven and novel strategies for efficient editing of the human genome. Curr Opin Pharmacol 24:105–112. doi:10.1016/j.coph.2015.08.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Singh P, Schimenti JC, Bolcun-Filas E (2015) A mouse geneticist’s practical guide to CRISPR applications. Genetics 199(1):1–15. doi:10.1534/genetics.114.169771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ran Le Cong FA, Cox D, Lin S, Barretto R, Habib N, Hsu PD, Wu X, Jiang W, Marraffini LA, Zhang F (2013) Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339(6121):819–823. doi:10.1126/science.1231143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bosley KS, Botchan M, Bredenoord AL, Carroll D, Charo RA, Charpentier E, Cohen R, Corn J, Doudna J, Feng G, Greely HT, Isasi R, Ji W, Kim JS, Knoppers B, Lanphier E, Li J, Lovell-Badge R, Martin GS, Moreno J, Naldini L, Pera M, Perry ACF, Venter JC, Zhang F, Zhou Q (2015) CRISPR germline engineering—the community speaks. Nat Biotechnol 33(5):478–486. doi:10.1038/nbt.3227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lanphier E, Urnov F, Haecker SE, Werner M, Smolenski J (2015) Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature 519(7544):410–411. doi:10.1038/519410a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vogel G (2015) Embryo engineering alarm. Science 347(6228):1301. doi:10.1126/science.347.6228.1301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Norman C (1983) Clerics urge ban on altering germline cells. Science 220(4604):1360–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Torgersen H, Schmidt M (2013) Frames and comparators: how might a debate on synthetic biology evolve? Futures 48(100):44–54. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. AJ Newson, A Wrigley (2015) Identifying key developments, issues and questions relating to techniques of genome editing with engineered nucleases. Background paper. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Genome-Editing-Briefing-Paper-Newson-Wrigley.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  14. Sarewitz D (2015) CRISPR: science can’t solve it. Nature 522(7557):413–414. doi:10.1038/522413a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ledford H (2015) CRISPR the disruptor. Nature 522(7554):20–24. doi:10.1038/522020a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaiser J, Normile D (2015) Embryo engineering study splits scientific community. Science 348(6234):486–487. doi:10.1126/science.348.6234.486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pollack R (2015) Eugenics lurk in the shadow of CRISPR. Science 348(6237):871. doi:10.1126/science.348.6237.871-a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Miller HI (2015) Germline gene therapy: we’re ready. Science 348(6241):1325. doi:10.1126/science.348.6241.1325-a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Krishan K, Kanchan T, Singh B (2016) Human genome editing and ethical considerations. Sci Eng Ethics 22(2):597–599. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9675-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goldim JR (2015) Genetics and ethics: a possible and necessary dialogue. J Community Genet 6(3):193–196. doi:10.1007/s12687-015-0232-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sugarman J (2015) Ethics and germline gene editing. EMBO Rep 16(8):879–880. doi:10.15252/embr.201540879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Carroll D, Charo RA (2015) The societal opportunities and challenges of genome editing. Genome Biol 16(1):242. doi:10.1186/s13059-015-0812-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Araki M, Ishii T (2014) International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 12:108. doi:10.1186/1477-7827-12-108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ishii T (2015) Germline genome-editing research and its socioethical implications. Trends Mol Med 21(8):473–481. doi:10.1016/j.molmed.2015.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Merlot J (2015) Umstrittene Experimente: Forscher manipulieren Erbgut menschlicher Embryonen. SPIEGEL, 24 April 2015. http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/medizin/forscher-manipulieren-gene-menschlicher-embryonen-a-1030142.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  26. Focus (2015) Forscher aus China verändern Erbgut von Embryos. Focus, 24 April 2015. http://www.focus.de/wissen/mensch/tabubruch-der-gentechnik-chinesische-forscher-veraendern-erbgut-von-embryos_id_4635723.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  27. Schlütter J (2015) Tagesspiegel, 24 April 2015. Die Weltgemeinschaft sollte über ethische Grenzen diskutieren! http://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/gentechnisch-optimierte-embryonen-dieweltgemeinschaft-sollte-ueber-ethische-grenzen-diskutieren/11681026.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  28. Zinkant K (2015) Eine Grenze ist überschritten. Süddeutsche Zeitung, 25 April 2015. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/genetische-manipulation-eine-grenze-ist-ueberschritten-1.2452395. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  29. Bahnsen U (2015) Der Mensch kann seine Evolution nun selbst bestimmen. ZEIT, 23 April 2015. http://www.zeit.de/wissen/gesundheit/2015-04/genetik-erbgut-embryo-china. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  30. Zimmer C (2015) Editing human embryos: so this happened. http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/22/editing-human-embryos-so-this-happened. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  31. Economist (2015) Editing Humanity. Economist, 22 August 2015. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21661651-new-technique-manipulating-genes-holdsgreat-promise-rules-are-needed-govern-its. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  32. 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 germline gene modification. Science 348(6230):36–38. doi:10.1126/science.aab1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Berg P (2008) Meetings that changed the world: Asilomar 1975: DNA modification secured. Nature 455(7211):290–291. doi:10.1038/455290a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kaebnick GE (2015) A Moratorium on Gene Editing? http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=7359&blogid=140. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  35. Heavey P (2013) Synthetic biology ethics: a deontological assessment. Bioethics 27(8):442–452. doi:10.1111/bioe.12052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ter Meulen R, Biller-Andorno N, Newson A, Hunter D (2013) How to object to radically new technologies on the basis of justice: the case of synthetic biology. Bioethics 27(8):426–434. doi:10.1111/bioe.12049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Smith K (2013) Synthetic biology: a utilitarian perspective. Bioethics 27(8):453–463. doi:10.1111/bioe.12050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Smith KR, Chan S, Harris J (2012) Human germline genetic modification: scientific and bioethical perspectives. Arch Med Res 43(7):491–513. doi:10.1111/bioe.12050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pugh J (2015) Autonomy, natality and freedom: a liberal re-examination of habermas in the enhancement debate. Bioethics 29(3):145–152. doi:10.1111/bioe.12082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A (2011) Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod 26(7):1768–1774. doi:10.1093/humrep/der106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Das SK, Menezes ME, Bhatia S, Wang X-Y, Emdad L, Sarkar D, Fisher PB (2015) Gene therapies for cancer: strategies, challenges and successes. J Cell Physiol 230(2):259–271. doi:10.1002/jcp.24791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ledford H (2015) Mini enzyme moves gene editing closer to the clinic. Nature 520(7545):18. doi:10.1038/520018a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kendler KS (2013) What psychiatric genetics has taught us about the nature of psychiatric illness and what is left to learn. Mol Psychiatry 18(10):1058–1066. doi:10.1038/mp.2013.50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lander ES (2015) Brave new genome. N Engl J Med 373(1):5–8. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1506446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Powledge TB (2014) Whole-genome sequencing in your doctor’s office? A reality check, but sooner than later. http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/03/25/whole-genome-sequencing-in-your-doctors-office-a-reality-check-but-sooner-than-later/. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  46. Winand R, Hens K, Dondorp W, de Wert G, Moreau Y, Vermeesch JR, Liebaers I, Aerts J (2014) In vitro screening of embryos by whole-genome sequencing: now, in the future or never? Hum Reprod 29(4):842–851. doi:10.1093/humrep/deu005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hens K, Dondorp W, de Wert G (2015) A leap of faith? An interview study with professionals on the use of mitochondrial replacement to avoid transfer of mitochondrial diseases. Hum Reprod 30(5):1256–1262. doi:10.1093/humrep/dev056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hammitt JK (2002) QALYs versus WTP. Risk Anal 22(5):985–1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. EMA, Guideline on the quality, non-clinical and clinical aspects of gene therapy medicinal products: Draft. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2015/05/WC500187020.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  50. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services- FDA- Center for Biologics Evaluation (2006) Gene therapy clinical trials - observing subjects for delayed adverse events: guidance for industry. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  51. Europäisches Parlament und Europäischer Rat (2009) RICHTLINIE 2009/120/EG, 2009

  52. Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. Hart, Schaffner & Marx, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  53. DACEHTA-Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment (2015) Health technology assessment handbook. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2015/05/WC500187020.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  54. Nature Medicine (2015) Germline editing: time for discussion. Nat Med 21(4):295. doi:10.1038/nm.3845

  55. Morrison C (2015) $1-million price tag set for glybera gene therapy. Nat Biotechnol 33(3):217–218. doi:10.1038/nbt0315-217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. ECDC & EMEA (2009) The bacterial challenge - time to react: a call to narrow the gap between multidrug-resistant bacteria in the EU and development of new antibacterial agents, 2009. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  57. Kuhrt N (2013) Was darf ein Monat Leben kosten? Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 20 January 2010. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/medizin/krebstherapie-was-darf-ein-monat-leben-kosten-1907448.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  58. Wirth T, Parker N, Ylä-Herttuala S (2013) History of gene therapy. Gene 525(2):162–169. doi:10.1016/j.gene.2013.03.137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Clinicaltrials.gov. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  60. Knoppers BM, Chadwick R (2005) Human genetic research: emerging trends in ethics, nature reviews. Genetics 6(1):75–79. doi:10.1038/nrg1505

    Google Scholar 

  61. Cressey D, Abbott A, Ledford H (2015) UK scientists apply for licence to edit genes in human embryos. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-apply-for-license-to-edit-genes-in-human-embryos. Accessed 8 Dec 2015

  62. Tu Z, Yang W, Yan S, Guo X, Li X-J (2015) CRISPR/Cas9: a powerful genetic engineering tool for establishing large animal models of neurodegenerative diseases. Mol Neurodegener 10:35. doi:10.1186/s13024-015-0031-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Combes RD, Balls M (2014) Every silver lining has a cloud: the scientific and animal welfare issues surrounding a new approach to the production of transgenic animals. ATLA Altern Lab Anim 42(2):137–145

    Google Scholar 

  64. Reardon S (2015) NIH reiterates ban on editing human embryo DNA. http://www.nature.com/news/nih-reiterates-ban-on-editing-human-embryo-dna-1.17452. Accessed 8 Dec 2015

  65. Fateh-Moghadam B (2011) Rechtliche Aspekte der somatischen Gentherapie. In: Fehse B, Domasch S (eds) Gentherapie in Deutschland. Dornburg: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, pp 151–184

  66. Reich J (ed) (2015) Genomchirurgie beim Menschen - zur verantwortlichen Bewertung einer neuen Technologie: eine Analyse der interdisziplinären Arbeitsgruppe Gentechnologiebericht. BBAW, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  67. Johnson MH, Franklin SB, Cottingham M, Hopwood N (2010) Why the medical research council refused Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe support for research on human conception in 1971. Hum Reprod 25(9):2157–2174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit. PID. http://www.bmg.bund.de/glossarbegriffe/p-q/praeimplantationsdiagnostik.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  69. van Montfoort APA, Hanssen LLP, de Sutter P, Viville S, Geraedts JPM, de Boer P (2012) Assisted reproduction treatment and epigenetic inheritance. Hum Reprod Update 18(2):171–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Wang J, Sauer MV (2006) In vitro fertilization (IVF): a review of 3 decades of clinical innovation and technological advancement. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2(4):355–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Karen Geraghty, Protecting the Public: Profile of Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey. http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2001/07/prol1-0107.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  72. Review of scientific methods to avoid mitochondrial disease (2014) http://www.hfea.gov.uk/8807.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  73. Europäisches Parlament und Rat zur Schaffung eines Gemeinschaftskodexes für Humanarzneimittel im Hinblick auf Arzneimittel für neuartige Therapien, zur Änderung der Richtlinie 2001/83/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Schaffung eines Gemeinschaftskodexes für Humanarzneimittel im Hinblick auf Arzneimittel für neuartige Therapien: RICHTLINIE 2009/120/EG, 2009.

  74. Asher Mullard (2015) Use of personalized cancer drugs runs ahead of the science. http://www.nature.com/news/use-of-personalized-cancer-drugs-runs-ahead-of-the-science-1.18389. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  75. Nuffield Council (2012) Novel techniques for the prevention of mitochondrial DNA disorders: an ethical view. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London

    Google Scholar 

  76. Mitalipov S, Wolf DP (2014) Clinical and ethical implications of mitochondrial gene transfer. Trends Endocrinol Metab 25(1):5–7. doi:10.1016/j.tem.2013.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Tachibana M, Sparman M, Sritanaudomchai H, Ma H, Clepper L, Woodward J, Li Y, Ramsey C, Kolotushkina O, Mitalipov S (2009) Mitochondrial gene replacement in primate offspring and embryonic stem cells. Nature 461(7262):367–372. doi:10.1038/nature08368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Jesse Reynolds (2009) Monkeys, mitochondria, and the human germline. http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=3904&blogid=140. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  79. Kouros N (2013) Eugenics concerns over mitochondrial replacement. Monash Bioeth Rev 31(2):5–6

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ball P (2014) The art of medicine: unnatural reactions. Lancet 383:1964–1965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Smajdor A, Ives J, Baldock E, Langlois A (2008) Getting from the ethical to the empirical and back again: the danger of getting it wrong, and the possibilities for getting it right. Health Care Anal 16(1):7–16. doi:10.1007/s10728-007-0079-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotechnol 4(5):273–274. doi:10.1038/nnano.2009.26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Deutscher Ethikrat (2014) Sollten Vorkern- und Spindeltransfer bei mitochondrialen Erkrankungen in Deutschland zulässig sein? http://www.ethikrat.org/dateien/pdf/jt-22-05-2014-vorkern-und-spindeltransfer.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  84. Engelhardt HT (2011) Confronting moral pluralism in posttraditional Western societies: bioethics critically reassessed. J Med Philos 36(3):243–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Patenaude J, Legault GA, Béland J-P, Parent M, Boissy P (2011) Moral arguments in the debate over nanotechnologies: are we talking past each other? NanoEthics 5(3):285–293. doi:10.1007/s11569-011-0132-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Macer D (1995) International perceptions and approval of gene therapy. Hum Gene Ther 6:791–803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Robillard JM (2015) Communicating in context: a priority for gene therapy researchers. Expert Opin Biol Ther 15(3):315–318. doi:10.1517/14712598.2015.1001735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Robillard JM, Roskams-Edris D, Kuzeljevic B, Illes J (2014) Prevailing public perceptions of the ethics of gene therapy. Hum Gene Ther 25(8):740–746. doi:10.1089/hum.2014.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Madhusoodanan J (2015) Bioethics accused of doing more harm than good. Nature 524(7564):139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Pinker S (2015) The moral imperative for bioethics. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/07/31/the-moral-imperative-for-bioethics/JmEkoyzlTAu9oQV76JrK9N/story.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  91. Niu Y, Shen B, Cui Y, Chen Y, Wang J, Wang L, Kang Y, Zhao X, Si W, Li W, Xiang AP, Zhou J, Guo X, Bi Y, Si C, Hu B, Dong G, Wang H, Zhou Z, Li T, Tan T, Pu X, Wang F, Ji S, Zhou Q, Huang X, Ji W, Sha J (2014) Generation of gene-modified cynomolgus monkey via Cas9/RNA-mediated gene targeting in one-cell embryos. Cell 156(4):836–843. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.01.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Wu Y, Liang D, Wang Y, Bai M, Tang W, Bao S, Yan Z, Li D, Li J (2013) Correction of a genetic disease in mouse via use of CRISPR-Cas9. Cell Stem Cell 13(6):659–662. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2013.10.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Munich Center for Technology in Society, TU Munich, Arcisstrasse 21, 80333, Munich, Germany

    Martina Baumann

Authors
  1. Martina Baumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martina Baumann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baumann, M. CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing – new and old ethical issues arising from a revolutionary technology. Nanoethics 10, 139–159 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0259-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0259-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation