Ethical Issues of Using CRISPR Technologies for Research on Military Enhancement
This paper presents an overview of the key ethical questions of performing gene editing research on military service members. The recent technological advance in gene editing capabilities provided by CRISPR/Cas9 and their path towards first-in-human trials has reinvigorated the debate on human enhancement for non-medical purposes. Human performance optimization has long been a priority of military research in order to close the gap between the advancement of warfare and the limitations of human actors. In spite of this focus on temporary performance improvement, biomedical enhancement is an extension of these endeavours and the ethical issues of such research should be considered. In this paper, we explore possible applications of CRISPR to military human gene editing research and how it could be specifically applied towards protection of service members against biological or chemical weapons. We analyse three normative areas including risk–benefit analysis, informed consent, and inequality of access as it relates to CRISPR applications for military research to help inform and provide considerations for military institutional review boards and policymakers.
KeywordsCRISPR/Cas 9 Enhancement Military Ethics of research involving humans Informed consent Risk–benefit analysis
We would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for helpful feedback of the manuscript. This project was initiated while ZM was at the Alden March Bioethics Institute of Albany Medical College. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or official policy of Peraton, the Department of Defense, or the United States Federal Government
- Amoroso, P.J., and L. Wenger. 2003. The human volunteer in military biomedical research, Vol 2. In Military medical ethics, edited by T. Beam and L.R. Sparacino. Office of The Surgeon General. Washington, DC: TMM Publications.Google Scholar
- Annas, C.L., and G.J. Annas. 2009. Enhancing the fighting force: Medical research on American soldiers. Journal of Contemporary Health, Law and Policy 25(2): 283–308.Google Scholar
- Chan, S., and J. Harris. 2007. In support of human enhancement. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 1(1): Article 10.Google Scholar
- Comfort, N. 2015. Can we cure genetic diseases without slipping into eugenics? The Nation https://www.thenation.com/article/can-we-cure-genetic-diseases-without-slipping-into-eugenics/. Accessed March 22, 2018.
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Broad Agency Announcement 14-38. 2008. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=4d817774c8221b0487a8318d41b8034e&tab=core&_cview=1. Accessed May 18, 2018.
- Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 3216.02. 2002—Protection of human subjects and adherence to ethical standards in DoD-supported research. Google Scholar
- Frankel, M.S., and A.R. Chapman. 2000. Human inheritable genetic modifications: Assessing scientific, ethical, religious, and policy issues. American Association for the Advancement of Science Working Group. https://nationalethicscenter.org/resources/185/download/genetic_mod.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2017.
- Gade, R. 2015. The U.S. Judge Advocate in contemporary military operations. In U.S. military operations: Law, policy, and practice, edited by G.S. Corn, R.E. VanLandingham, and S.R. Reeves. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Generations Ahead. 2010. A disability rights analysis of genetic technologies. Report on a national convening of disability rights leaders. http://www.generations-ahead.org/files-for-download/articles/GenerationsAhead_DisabilityRightsConveningReport.pdf. Accessed March 22, 2018.
- Harris, J. 2007. Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2017. Human genome editing: Science, ethics, and governance. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- National Defense Research Institute. 2010. Sexual orientation and U.S. personnel policy. CA: Rand Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2009/RAND_MR323.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2018.
- Pew Research Center. 2016. U.S. public wary of biomedical technologies to “enhance” human abilities. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/07/26/u-s-public-wary-of-biomedical-technologies-to-enhance-human-abilities/. Accessed March 3, 2018.
- President’s Council on Bioethics. 2003. Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. Report from the President’s Council for Bioethics. https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/beyondtherapy/fulldoc.html. Accessed May 18, 2018.
- Reardon, S. 2016. First CRISPR trial gets green light from US panel. Nature News, June 22. https://www.nature.com/news/first-crispr-clinical-trial-gets-green-light-from-us-panel-1.20137. Accessed March 22, 2018.
- ———. 2005. New breeds of humans: The moral obligation to enhance. RBMOnline 10(Supp 1): 36–39.Google Scholar
- ———. 1998. Choices and rights? Eugenics, genetics and disability equality. Disability and Society 13(5): 665–681.Google Scholar
- Smith, E., and Z. Master. 2014. Ethical practice of research involving humans. Reference module in biomedical research, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier. 1–11.Google Scholar
- STAT-Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 2016. The public and genetic editing, testing, and therapy. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/horp/stat-harvard-polls/. Accessed March 23, 2018.
- Wilson, C.J., T. Fennel, A. Bothmer, et al. 2017. The experimental design and data interpretation in “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR Cas9 editing in vivo” by Schaefer et al. are insufficient to support the conclusions drawn by the authors. bioRxiv 153338. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/06/21/153338. Accessed May 18, 2018.