Will CRISPR Germline Engineering Close the Door to an Open Future?

Abstract

The bioethical principle of autonomy is problematic regarding the future of the embryo who lacks the ability to self-advocate but will develop this defining human capacity in time. Recent experiments explore the use of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 for germline engineering in the embryo, which alters future generations. The embryo’s inability to express an autonomous decision is an obvious bioethical challenge of germline engineering. The philosopher Joel Feinberg acknowledged that autonomy is developing in children. He advocated that to reserve this future autonomy, parents should be guided to make ethical decisions that provide children with open futures. Here, Feinberg’s 1980 open future theory is extended to the human embryo in the context of CRISPR germline engineering. Although the embryo does not possess the autonomous decision-making capacity at the time of germline engineering, the parental decision to permanently change the unique genetic fabric of the embryo and subsequent generations disregards future autonomy. Therefore, germline engineering in many instances is objectionable considering Feinberg’s open future theory.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is currently debate regarding which institution was the first to patent CRISPR technology (The University of California Berkley or Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard) but published accounts occurred within 2012–2013.

  2. 2.

    Many diseases are caused by multiple gene mutations. To eliminate diseases caused by multiple known genes, multiplex CRISPR genetic engineering would need to be applied. This is more complicated and will take more time to develop.

  3. 3.

    Genetically engineering a trait is difficult because in many circumstances there is not a direct relationship between a single gene and a trait. For instance, there are multiple genes associated with height or intelligence. Consequently, these applications will come later, as these genetic targets are pinpointed and multiplex genetic engineering is further developed.

References

  1. Boddy, J. (2016). Swedish scientist edits DNA of human embryo. Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/sifter/swedish-scientist-edits-dna-human-embryo?utm_source=newsfromscience. Accessed 13 September 2018.

  2. Bowens, K. K. (2006). The legal status of embryos and implications for reproductive technologies and biotechnology research. The Journal of Biolaw and Business, 9(1), 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brownsword, R. (2007). Ethical pluralism and the regulation of modern biotechnology. In F. Francioni (Ed.), Biotechnologies and international human rights (pp. 45–70). Portland: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen, I. G., & Adashi, E. Y. (2016). The FDA is prohibited from going germline. Science, 353(6299), 545–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Collins, F. (2015). Statement on National Institutes of Health funding of research using gene-editing technologies in human embryos. National Institutes of Health. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-nih-funding-research-using-gene-editing-technologies-human-embryos. Accessed 16 September 2018.

  6. Cong, L., Ran, F. A., Cox, D., Lin, S., Barretto, R., Habib, N., et al. (2013). Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science, 339(6121), 819–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Connor, S. (2017). Exclusive: First human embryos edited in US using CRISPR. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608350/first-human-embryos-edited-in-us/. Accessed 14 September 2018.

  8. Consolidated Appropriations Act. (2016). The United States Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2029/text?r=20. Accessed 19 September 2018.

  9. Cyranoski, D., & Reardon, S. (2015). Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos. Nature. https://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378. Accessed 7 September 2018.

  10. Davis, D. S. (1997). Genetic dilemmas and the child’s right to an open future. Hastings Center Report, 27(2), 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Doudna, J. (2018). Gene editing. Aspen Ideas Festival. https://www.c-span.org/video/?429982-2/gene-editing&start=201. Accessed 15 September 2018.

  12. Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2014). The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR–Cas9. Science, 346(6213), 1258096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Feinberg, J. (1980). The child’s right to an open future. In W. Aiken & H. LaFollette (Eds.), Whose child? (pp. 124–153). Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fetal Homicide Laws. (2018). State laws on fetal homicide and penalty-enhancement for crimes against pregnant women. National conference of state legislatures. www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx. Accessed 17 September 2018.

  15. Fletcher, J. C., & Richter, G. (1996). Human fetal gene therapy: Moral and ethical questions. Human Gene Therapy, 7(13), 1605–1614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. George, R. P., & Tollefsen, C. (2008). Embryo: A defense of human life. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Guttinger, S. (2018). Trust in science: CRISPR–Cas9 and the ban on human germline editing. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(4), 1077–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gyngell, C., Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J. (2017). The ethics of germline gene editing. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34(4), 498–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. House Bill 214. (2018). Prohibit abortion if unborn has or may have Down syndrome. https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA132-HB-214. Accessed 18 September 2018.

  20. Isaacs, D. (2003). Moral status of the fetus: Fetal rights or maternal autonomy? Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 39(1), 58–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jinek, M., Chylinski, K., Fonfara, I., Hauer, M., Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2012). A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science, 337(6096), 816–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Joint Committee on Taxation. (2017). Description of the chairman’s modification to the chairman’s mark of the tax cuts and jobs act. Senate Committee on Finance. https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/111417-Chairmans-Modified-Mark.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2018.

  23. Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals: With on a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns (3rd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lanphier, E., Urnov, F., Haecker, S. E., Werner, M., & Smolenski, J. (2015). Don’t edit the human germline. Nature, 519(7544), 410–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Liang, P., Xu, Y., Zhang, X., Ding, C., Huang, R., Zhang, Z., et al. (2015). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein and Cell, 6(5), 363–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lotz, M. (2006). Feinberg, Mills, and the child’s right to an open future. Journal of Social Philosophy, 37(4), 537–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. McShane, L. (2017). Pregnant woman’s unborn baby counted as Texas church shooting victim. New York Daily News. www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pregnant-woman-unborn-baby-counted-texas-church-shooting-vic-article-1.3617240. Accessed 19 September 2018.

  28. Miklavcic, J. J., & Flaman, P. (2017). Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus. Linacre Quarterly, 84(2), 130–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mills, C. (2003). The child’s right to an open future? Journal of Social Philosophy, 34(4), 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Millum, J. (2014). The foundation of the child’s right to an open future. Journal of Social Philosophy, 45(4), 522–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mullin, A. (2014). Children, paternalism and the development of autonomy. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 17(3), 413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine. (2015). International summit on human gene editing: A global discussion. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21913.

    Google Scholar 

  33. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine. (2017). Human genome editing: Science, ethics, and governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24623.

    Google Scholar 

  34. National Institutes of Health. (2016). Guidelines for research involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule. National Institutes of Health. https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/NIH_Guidelines.html. Accessed 19 September 2018.

  35. Petre, I. (2017). Future generations and the justifiability of germline engineering. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 42(3), 328–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ran, F. A., Hsu, P. D., Wright, J., Agarwala, V., Scott, D. A., & Zhang, F. (2013). Genome engineering using the CRISPR–Cas9 system. Nature Protocols, 8(11), 2281–2308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ranisch, R. (2017). Germline genome editing and the functions of consent. The American Journal of Bioethics, 17(12), 27–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Resnik, D. B. (2007). Embryonic stem cell patents and human dignity. Health Care Analysis, 15(3), 211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schroeder, D. (2010). Dignity: One, two, three, four, five, still counting. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 19(1), 118–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tang, L., Zeng, Y., Du, H., Gong, M., Peng, J., Zhang, B., et al. (2017). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human zygotes using Cas9 protein. Molecular Genetics and Genomics, 292(3), 525–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. The Balanced Budget Downpayment Act of 1996. (1996). An act making appropriations for fiscal year 1996 to make a downpayment toward a balanced budget, and for other purposes. The United States Government Publishing Office. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ99/content-detail.html. Accessed 18 September 2018.

  42. Wilkens, S. (2011). Beyond bumper sticker ethics: An introduction to theories of right and wrong. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Yang, Y., Wang, L., Bell, P., McMenamin, D., He, Z., White, J., et al. (2016). A dual AAV system enables the Cas9-mediated correction of a metabolic liver disease in newborn mice. Nature Biotechnology, 34(3), 334–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zanjani, E. D., & Anderson, W. F. (1999). Prospects for in utero human gene therapy. Science, 285(5436), 2084–2088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruth L. Fischbach.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mintz, R.L., Loike, J.D. & Fischbach, R.L. Will CRISPR Germline Engineering Close the Door to an Open Future?. Sci Eng Ethics 25, 1409–1423 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0069-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • CRISPR
  • Germline engineering
  • Human embryo
  • Autonomy
  • Paternalism
  • Joel Feinberg
  • Open future
  • Human dignity