Advertisement

Opinion on the Legal Framework Concerning Interventions in Human Germline Genes in Belgium

  • Herman NysEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Deutsches, Europäisches und Internationales Medizinrecht, Gesundheitsrecht und Bioethik der Universitäten Heidelberg und Mannheim book series (IMGB, volume 47)

Zusammenfassung

This Opinion deals with the legal framework concerning interventions in human germline genes in Belgium. Gene modification methods are not new and have been used for several decades playing an essential role in biomedical research. The development of new genome editing technologies, such as CRISPR-Cas9 have made possible simple and precise modifications. What makes CRISPR-Cas9 different from earlier known techniques for genetic modification is that it is cheap, easy and quick to work with, which has made it easily accessible. The 40 years old global consensus on prohibiting human germline gene modification (the Asilomar Conference 1975) has come under significant pressure in 2015. The announcement in April 2015 of genome editing of non-viable human embryos using CRISPR-Cas9 demonstrated that human germline modification has moved out of the realm of the theoretical.

References

  1. Araki M, Ishii T (2014) International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 12:108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics (12 February 2007) Advice N° 40. Website Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics: www.health.belgium.be/belgian-advisory-committee-bioethics
  3. Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics (20 April 2009) Advice N° 49 the on the use of PGD to detect healthy carriers of a mutation causing a severe hereditary disease for which offspring can have an increased risk. Website Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics: www.health.belgium.be/belgian-advisory-committee-bioethics
  4. Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics (16 December 2013) Opinion n° 57 on social freezing. Available on the website of the Advisory Committee on Bioethics. Website Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics: www.health.belgium.be/belgian-advisory-committee-bioethics
  5. Committee on Bioethics (DH-BIO) (1–4 December 2015) Statement on genome editing technologies. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  6. Cyranoski D et al (22 April 2015) Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos. Nature News, 22 April 2015Google Scholar
  7. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (2016) Statement on gene editing. Website European Group on Ethics: https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/support-policy-making/scientific-support-eu-policies/european-group-ethics-science-and-new-technologies-ege_en
  8. Explanatory Report to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (1997) Available via https://rm.coe.int/16800ccde5. Accessed 9 Jan 2019
  9. Isasi RM, Knoppers BM (2006a) Mind the gap: approaches to embryonic stem cell and cloning research in 50 countries. Eur J Health Law 13(1):9–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Isasi RM, Knoppers BM (2006b) Beyond the permissibility of embryonic and stem cell research: substantive requirements and procedural safeguards. Hum Reprod 21(10):2474–2481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liang et.al (2015) Nature News, 22 April 2015Google Scholar
  12. Pennings G (2003) New Belgian law on research on human embryos: trust in progress through medical science. J Assist Reprod Genet 20(8):343–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pennings G (2007) Belgian law on medically assisted reproduction and the disposition of supernumerary embryos and gametes. Eur J Health Law 14(3):251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pennings G (26 November 2016) Results of the follow-up of the FCE activities 2006–2015 and comparison with European countries. Symposium of the Federal Commission for medical and scientific research on embryos in vitro, Brussels, power point presentation. Available via the website of the Federal CommissionGoogle Scholar
  15. Pennings G, van Steirthegem A (2004) The subsidiarity principle in the context of embryonic stem cell research. Hum Reprod 19(5):1060–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. The Danish Council on Ethics (2016) Statement from the Danish Council on Ethics on genetic modification of future humans in response to advances in the CRISPR technology. Danish Council on Ethics, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  17. Van Der Brempt (26 November 2016) Het belang van de federale embryo commissie in tijden van genoommodificatie (translation: the importance of the Federal Committee in times of genome editing). Symposium of the Federal Commission for medical and scientific research on embryos in vitro, Brussels. Power point presentation available on the website of the Federal CommitteeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations