Skip to main content

Prospects of Human Germline Modification by CRISPR-Cas9 – an Ethicist’s View

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Between Moral Hazard and Legal Uncertainty

Abstract

Genome editing holds the promise of revolutionizing many fields in which human interventions have hitherto proved to be insufficient to meet major global challenges, like nutrition and environmental protection. However, it is controversial how far this method might also be applied to the human germline with a view to preventing the transmission of serious genetic diseases to offspring. While there is a near-consensus that genome editing, at the present stage of science, should not be applied clinically, it is unclear whether this also extends to clinically oriented research. It is argued that among the arguments against interventions in the human germline there is only one that is sufficiently strong to be practically relevant: The argument that it is doubtful whether the challenge of off-target effects with potentially fatal health consequences can be met. Since nearly all objectives of human germline genome editing can be attained by PGD (except for the rare case of homozygous parents with respect to the relevant genes), there are good grounds for directing clinically oriented research toward the improvement of this alternative method, which has been proven to be without substantial risks and which involves no ethical problems over and above those involved in genome editing.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Araki, Motoko, and Tetsuya Ishii. 2014. International Regulatory Landscape and Integration of Corrective Genome Editing Into in Vitro Fertilization. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 12: 108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbacher, Dieter. 2008. Annaherungen an das Instrumentalisierungsverbot. In Menschenwürde. Begründung, Konturen, Geschichte, Brudermüller, Gerd, and Kurt Seelmann (eds.), 1–24. Würzburg: Kӧnigshausen & Neumann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbacher, Dieter. 2011. The Role of Complicity in the Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. In Embryonic Stem Cells – Recent Advances in Pluripotent Stem Cell-Based Regenerative Medicine, Atwood, Craig (ed.), 3–20. Zagreb: InTechnopen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbacher, Dieter. 2014. Naturalness. Is the “Natural” Preferable to the “Artificial”? Blue Ridge Summit: UPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colpin, Hilde, and Stijn Soenen. 2002. Parenting and Psychosocial Development of IVF Children: a Follow-Up Study. Human Reproduction 17: 1116–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Ethics Council. 2007. Should the Stem Cell Act be Amended? Opinion. http://www.ethikrat.org/files/Opinion_Should_the_Stem_Cell_Law_be_amended.pdf. Accessed 15 February 2018.

  • Doudna, Jennifer, and Samuel Sternberg. 2017. A Crack in Creation. The New Power to Control Evolution. London: The Bodley Head.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eser, Albin, et al. 1998. Klonierung beim Menschen. Biologische Grundlagen und ethische Bewertung. In Hello Dolly? Über das Klonen, Ach, Johann (ed.), 223–247. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies. 2015. Statement on Gene Editing. https://ec.europa.eu/research/ege/pdf/gene_editing_ege_statement.pdf. Accessed 15 February 2018.

  • Golombok, Susan, et al. 1996. Children: The European Study of Assisted Reproduction Families: Family Functioning and Child Development. Human Reproduction 11: 2324–2331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinxton Group. 2015. Statement on Genome Editing Technologies and Human Germline Genetic Modification. http://www.hinxtongroup.org/hinxton2015_statement.pdf. Accessed 15 February 2018.

  • Kliemt, Hartmut. 1979. Normative Probleme der künstlichen Geschlechtsbestimmung und des „Klonens“. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 12: 165–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, Puping,et al. 2015. CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Gene Editing in Human Tripronuclear Zygotes. Protein & Cell 6: 363–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Hong, et al. 2017. Correction of a Pathogenic Gene Mutation in Human Embryos. Nature 548: 413–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Human Genome Editing. Science, Ethics and Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dieter Birnbacher .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Birnbacher, D. (2018). Prospects of Human Germline Modification by CRISPR-Cas9 – an Ethicist’s View. In: Braun, M., Schickl, H., Dabrock, P. (eds) Between Moral Hazard and Legal Uncertainty. Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22660-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics