Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 327–335 | Cite as

Ethical Issues of Using CRISPR Technologies for Research on Military Enhancement

  • Marsha Greene
  • Zubin MasterEmail author
Critical Perspectives

Abstract

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.

Keywords

CRISPR/Cas 9 Enhancement Military Ethics of research involving humans Informed consent Risk–benefit analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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

References

  1. Abelson, J., P-G. Forrest, J. Eyles, P. Smith, E. Martin, and F-P. Gauvin. 2003. Deliberation about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine 57(2): 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Arévalo, M.T., A. Navarro, C.D. Arico, et al. 2014. Targeted silencing of anthrax toxin receptors protects against anthrax toxins. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 289(22): 15730–15738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashcroft, R.E. 2008. Regulating biomedical enhancements in the military. American Journal of Bioethics 8(2): 47–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyce, R.M. 2009. Waiver of consent: The use of pyridostigmine bromide during the Persian Gulf War. Journal of Military Ethics 8(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, M. 2009. Military chemical warfare agent human subjects testing: Part 1—History of six-decades of military experiments with chemical warfare agents. Military Medicine 174(10): 1041–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchanan, A., D.W. Brock, N. Daniels, and D. Wikler. 2000. From chance to choice. Genetics and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan, S., and J. Harris. 2007. In support of human enhancement. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 1(1): Article 10.Google Scholar
  10. 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.
  11. Cornelis, M.C., N.R. Nugent, A.B. Amstadter, and K.C. Koenen. 2010. Genetics of post-traumatic stress disorder: Review and recommendations for genome-wide association studies. Current Psychiatry Reports 12(4): 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cyranoski, D. 2016. CRISPR gene-editing tested in a person. Nature 539(7630): 479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.
  14. Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 3216.02. 2002—Protection of human subjects and adherence to ethical standards in DoD-supported research. Google Scholar
  15. Dresser, R. 2009. First-in-Human trial participants: Not a vulnerable population, but vulnerable nonetheless. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37(1): 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.
  17. Gao, C. 2018. The future of CRISPR technologies in agriculture. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 19(5): 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Gaskell, G., I. Bard, A. Allansdottir et al. 2017. Public views on gene editing and its uses. Nature Biotechnology 35(11): 1021–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.
  21. Gracheva, E.O., N.T. Ingolia, Y.M. Kelly et al. 2010. Molecular basis of infrared detection by snakes. Nature 464(7291): 1006–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hammond, A., R. Galizi, K. Kyrou, et al. 2016. A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Nature Biotechnology 34(1): 78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harris, J. 2007. Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hoehn, A.R., R.H. Solomon, S. Efron, et al. 2017. Strategic choices for a turbulent world: In pursuit of secuirty and opportunity. Santa Monica:Rand Corportation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ishii, T. 2017. Germ line genome editing in clinics: The approaches, objectives and global society. Briefings in Functional Genomics 16(1): 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jonas, W.B., F.G. O’Connor, P. Deuster, J. Peck, C. Shake, and S.S. Frost. 2010. Why total force fitness? Military Medicine 175(8): 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Katz, R.D. 2000. Friendly fire: The mandatory military anthrax vaccination program. Duke Law Journal 50: 1835–1865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kiuru, M., and R.G. Crystal. 2008. Progress and prospects: Gene therapy for performance and appearance enhancement. Gene Therapy 15(5): 329–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Land, B.C. 2010. Current Department of Defense guidance for total force fitness. Military Medicine 175(8): 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ma, H., N. Marti-Gutierrez, S. Park, et. al. 2017. Correcting a Pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature 548: 413–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martchenko, M., S.I. Candille, H. Tang, and S.N. Cohen. 2012. Human genetic variation altering anthrax toxin sensitivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(8): 2972–2977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCaughey, T., P.G. Sanfilippo, G.E. Gooden, et al. 2016. A global social media survey of attitudes to human genome editing. Cell Stem Cell 18(5): 569–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2017. Human genome editing: Science, ethics, and governance. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  34. 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.
  35. Nature Methods. 2018. CRISPR off-targets: A reassessment. Nature Methods 15(4): 229–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nunez de la Fuente, C., and T.K. Lu. 2017. CRISPR-Cas9 technology; Applications in genomic engineering, development of sequence-specific antimicrobials and furture prospects. Integrative Biology 9(2): 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. Qi, L.S., M.H. Larson, L.A. Gilbert, et al. 2013. Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Cell 152(5): 1173–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rabino, I. 2003. Gene therapy: Ethical issues. Theor Med Bioethics 24(1): 31–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.
  42. Rose, D., J. Russo, and T. Wykes. 2013.Taking part in a pharmacogenetic clinical trial: Assessment of trial participants understanding of information disclosed during the informed consent process. BMC Medical Ethics 14: 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Savulescu, J. 2001. Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15(5/6): 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. ———. 2005. New breeds of humans: The moral obligation to enhance. RBMOnline 10(Supp 1): 36–39.Google Scholar
  45. Savulescu J., and G. Kahane. 2009. The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics 23(5): 274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schaefer, K.A., W. Wu, D.F. Colgan, et al. 2017. Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo. Nature Methods 14(6): 547–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scheufele, D.A., M.A. Xenos, E.L. Howell et al. 2017. U.S. attitudes on human genome editing. Science 357(6351): 553–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shakespeare, T. 1995. Back to the future? New genetics and disabled people. Critical Social Policy 44(5): 22–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. ———. 1998. Choices and rights? Eugenics, genetics and disability equality. Disability and Society 13(5): 665–681.Google Scholar
  50. Simón, C. 2013. Personal assisted reproductive technology. Fertility and Sterility 100(4): 922–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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.
  53. 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.
  54. Zou, Q., X. Wang, Y. Liu, et al. 2015. Generation of gene-target dogs using CRISPR/Cas9 system. Journal of Molecular Cell Biology 7(6): 580–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Senior Policy Analyst, Peraton, Contracted to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and EngineeringAlexandriaUSA
  2. 2.Biomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations