SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Editors Note: The source article for this story appears to have been extensively edited replacing 'gene line' with 'germ line'. Nevertheless, and bearing that in mind, it is an interesting article.]
Heritable human genetic modifications pose serious risks, and the therapeutic benefits are tenuous, warn Edward Lanphier, Fyodor Urnov and colleagues.
It is thought that studies involving the use of genome-editing tools to modify the DNA of human embryos will be published shortly. There are grave concerns regarding the ethical and safety implications of this research. There is also fear of the negative impact it could have on important work involving the use of genome-editing techniques in somatic (non-reproductive) cells.
In our view, genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations. This makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable. Such research could be exploited for non-therapeutic modifications. We are concerned that a public outcry about such an ethical breach could hinder a promising area of therapeutic development, namely making genetic changes that cannot be inherited.
http://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1.17111
Would you agree with this assessment? Should this technology be regulated? Once the technique is known, how can we control/monitor what scientists do with this technology?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @06:01PM
Safety case: "CRISPR isn't good enough! The genome edit might fail!" Test the technique then. Sequence the embryos to see what CRISPR did. Or replace CRISPR with something newer and more reliable.
Legal case: "It's banned! It could lead to non-therapeutic genetic enhancement!" Western Europe? Researchers in China won't have to worry about puny ethical concerns. You can't stop the proliferation of biology.
Dialogue needed: "Bring in the international scientific community! Make a clear distinction between somatic and germ cells!" Yes, let dozens of "expert bioethicists" determine policy in an age of cheap DIY biology. Protect the profits of Sangamo BioSciences and the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine members by stalling morally inconvenient acts.
Here's a thought: women (ideally) have control of their bodies and unborn blobs, so parents should have control over the germ line of their offspring. Once prospective parents are "adequately informed" of the risks, they should have complete creative control over the unborn spawn. In fact, forget the parenthood aspect once artificial wombs and synthetic DNA become common.