Gene editing has revolutionized the field of biotechnology, and Crispr technology in particular has garnered much attention for its powerful capabilities. However, along with its potential to treat genetic diseases and enhance human traits comes a host of ethical considerations. The focus of ethical discussions primarily revolves around human germline editing, as changes made in the germline can be passed down to future generations. Safety is a major concern, as off-target effects and mosaicism could have unintended consequences. While some argue that germline genome editing should only be attempted once it is deemed safe through extensive research, others believe that existing technologies like preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and in-vitro fertilization (IVF) already offer significant benefits.
Nevertheless, germline editing can address certain needs that are not met by PGD, such as cases where both prospective parents carry disease-causing variants or for families who object to aspects of the PGD process. Concerns also exist regarding the use of genome editing for non-therapeutic and enhancement purposes, as well as potential disparities in access to healthcare and other interventions. Obtaining informed consent for germline therapy is another ethical concern, as the patients affected by the edits are the embryo and future generations. Various organizations and committees, such as the International Bioethics Committee (IBC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the US National Academies of Medicine and Science, have recognized the need for global engagement, discussion, and governance of human genome editing. The ethical considerations and governance of genome editing, specifically focusing on Crispr technology, are essential for ensuring responsible and ethical use of this powerful tool.
- Ethical discussions primarily focus on human germline editing and the potential long-term effects on future generations.
- Safety concerns regarding off-target effects and mosaicism are significant in germline genome editing.
- The consensus among researchers is that germline genome editing for reproductive purposes should only be attempted once it is deemed safe through thorough research.
- Existing technologies like preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and in-vitro fertilization (IVF) may offer greater benefits than genome editing in embryos.
- Germline editing can address specific needs not met by PGD, such as cases where both prospective parents have a disease-causing variant or for families who object to elements of the PGD process.
Introduction to Crispr Technology and Gene Editing
Gene editing has revolutionized the field of biology, allowing scientists to manipulate the genetic material of living organisms with unprecedented precision. One of the most powerful and widely used gene editing technologies is Crispr (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats). In this section, we will provide an overview of Crispr technology and explore the ethical considerations associated with gene editing.
Overview of Crispr Technology
Crispr technology is based on a naturally occurring system found in bacteria that allows them to defend against viral infections. The Crispr system consists of two main components: the Cas9 protein and a small RNA molecule called guide RNA. The guide RNA is designed to recognize and bind to a specific target sequence in the DNA, while the Cas9 protein acts as a pair of “molecular scissors,” cutting the DNA at the desired location. Once the DNA is cut, the cell’s natural repair mechanisms can be harnessed to introduce specific changes to the genetic code.
Crispr technology offers numerous advantages over traditional gene editing techniques. It is highly precise, enabling scientists to target specific genes with unprecedented accuracy. It is also relatively simple and cost-effective, making it accessible to researchers around the world. Furthermore, Crispr has the potential to revolutionize medicine by offering new treatments for genetic diseases, such as cancer, HIV, and sickle cell anemia.
Gene Editing Techniques
Gene editing encompasses a wide range of techniques that allow scientists to modify the DNA of living organisms. Crispr is just one of many approaches to gene editing, but it has gained significant attention due to its simplicity and versatility.
Other gene editing techniques include zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs). Like Crispr, these techniques rely on molecular scissors to cut the DNA at specific locations. However, they require the design and synthesis of custom proteins, which can be time-consuming and expensive.
Another emerging gene editing technology is base editing, which allows for precise changes to individual DNA letters, or nucleotides, without cutting the DNA. This technique holds great promise for correcting disease-causing mutations at the molecular level.
Despite the tremendous potential of gene editing technologies, they also raise significant ethical considerations. The power to manipulate the genetic code of living organisms raises questions about the boundaries of scientific intervention and the potential consequences for future generations.
Ethical discussions surrounding gene editing primarily focus on human germline editing, which involves making changes in the DNA of embryos or reproductive cells. This raises concerns about the potential for off-target effects, mosaicism (where not all cells in an organism carry the desired genetic changes), and the transmission of edited genes to future generations.
Researchers generally agree that germline genome editing for reproductive purposes should not be attempted until it is deemed safe through extensive research and rigorous testing. Some argue that there may never be a time when genome editing in embryos offers a greater benefit than existing technologies like preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and in-vitro fertilization (IVF), which can already help couples avoid passing on genetic diseases to their children.
However, germline editing can address needs not met by PGD, such as cases where both prospective parents have a disease-causing variant or for families who object to elements of the PGD process. Nonetheless, concerns exist about the use of genome editing for non-therapeutic and enhancement purposes, as well as potential disparities in access to healthcare and other interventions.
Obtaining informed consent for germline therapy is a major concern, as the patients affected by the edits are the embryo and future generations who cannot provide consent. This raises complex ethical questions about the rights and autonomy of individuals whose DNA is being modified.
To address these ethical considerations, there have been significant efforts to develop guidelines and regulations for gene editing research. The International Bioethics Committee (IBC) has recommended a moratorium on genome editing of the human germline, emphasizing the need for ongoing global engagement and discussion.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has established an Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing to examine the challenges associated with human genome editing and make recommendations on governance mechanisms. The WHO supports the interim recommendation that it would be irresponsible to proceed with clinical applications of human germline genome editing at this time.
In addition, the US National Academies of Medicine and Science, together with the Royal Society, have convened the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing to develop a framework for assessing potential clinical applications of human germline genome editing. The commission’s final report is scheduled to be released in the spring of 2020.
In conclusion, Crispr technology has revolutionized the field of gene editing, offering unprecedented precision and versatility. However, the ethical considerations surrounding gene editing, particularly in the context of human germline editing, are complex and require careful consideration. It is crucial to strike a balance between the potential benefits of gene editing and the ethical implications and risks associated with manipulating the genetic code of living organisms.
To learn more about the ethical and policy landscape of human genome editing, I recommend reading the book “Altered Inheritance: CRISPR and the Ethics of Human Genome Editing” by Françoise Baylis. This book provides a comprehensive exploration of the ethical dilemmas and governance challenges posed by gene editing technologies.
Click here to read the full article on Frontiers in Public Science.
Ethical Considerations of Gene Editing
Gene editing, particularly with the revolutionary CRISPR technology, has opened up new possibilities and sparked intense ethical discussions. As we delve into the realm of gene editing, it is crucial to consider the ethical implications of this powerful tool. In this section, we will explore the ethical considerations surrounding gene editing, with a focus on human germline editing. We will delve into safety concerns, the importance of informed consent, and the moral and religious objections that arise in this field.
Focus on Human Germline Editing
When we discuss the ethical implications of gene editing, much of the focus centers around human germline editing. This is because any changes made in the germline, such as embryos, will be passed down to future generations. The ability to make alterations to the human germline raises profound ethical questions about the potential consequences for future generations and the boundaries of human intervention.
Safety Concerns
One of the primary concerns surrounding gene editing is safety. The possibility of off-target effects and mosaicism, where edited and unedited cells coexist, raises concerns about unintended consequences. Researchers generally agree that germline genome editing for reproductive purposes should not be attempted until it is deemed safe through thorough research and rigorous testing. Ensuring the safety of these interventions is of utmost importance to avoid any potential harm.
Informed Consent
Obtaining informed consent for germline therapy is a complex issue. The patients affected by the edits are the embryos themselves and the future generations that will inherit the edited genes. This raises questions about the ability to obtain informed consent from individuals who are not yet born. Striking a balance between the potential benefits and the ethical considerations surrounding informed consent is essential in navigating the ethical landscape of gene editing.
Moral and Religious Objections
Moral and religious objections play a significant role in the ethical discussions surrounding gene editing. Some individuals and communities hold strong beliefs that human embryos should not be manipulated or destroyed for research purposes. These objections stem from deeply held moral and religious convictions and contribute to the ongoing ethical debates in this field.
In addition to these specific considerations, broader concerns exist about the use of genome editing for non-therapeutic and enhancement purposes, as well as potential disparities in access to healthcare and other interventions. The ethical implications of gene editing extend beyond the scientific and technical aspects and encompass societal, cultural, and philosophical dimensions.
To address these complex ethical considerations, international organizations and committees have been formed to provide guidance and recommendations. The International Bioethics Committee (IBC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the US National Academies of Medicine and Science, among others, have played significant roles in shaping the ethical discourse surrounding gene editing.
It is crucial to engage in ongoing global discussions and establish frameworks for the governance and oversight of gene editing. The aim is to ensure that the potential benefits of gene editing are balanced with the ethical considerations and potential risks involved. By navigating these ethical dilemmas with care and consideration, we can harness the power of gene editing while upholding the values and principles that guide our society.
Research citation: Ethical and Regulatory Considerations on CRISPR Technology Based Gene Editing
Policy Landscape and Governance of Gene Editing
Gene editing technologies, particularly CRISPR, have revolutionized the field of genetics and opened up new possibilities for treating and preventing genetic diseases. However, with such power comes great responsibility. The ethical considerations surrounding gene editing, especially in the context of human germline editing, have sparked intense debates and discussions among scientists, policymakers, and the general public. In this section, we will explore the policy landscape and governance of gene editing, including international summits, recommendations from influential organizations, and the importance of fair governance and procedural justice.
International Summits on Human Gene Editing
Recognizing the need for global cooperation and dialogue on the ethical and societal implications of gene editing, the first International Summit on Human Gene Editing was held in 2015. This landmark event brought together experts, policymakers, and stakeholders from around the world to discuss the challenges and opportunities presented by gene editing technologies. The organizing committee released a statement emphasizing the importance of ongoing global engagement and discussion on this topic.
Three years later, the second International Summit on Human Gene Editing took place in 2018. While this summit did not call for a moratorium on the clinical use of gene editing, it highlighted the uncertainties and risks associated with the current scientific understanding and technical requirements for clinical practice. The summit emphasized the need for cautious and responsible approaches to gene editing research and applications.
Recommendations from WHO and National Academies
Recognizing the urgent need for guidelines and governance mechanisms in the field of gene editing, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing. This committee aims to examine the challenges associated with human genome editing and make recommendations on governance mechanisms. The WHO supports the interim recommendation that it would be irresponsible to proceed with clinical applications of human germline genome editing at this time.
Furthermore, the US National Academies of Medicine and Science, in collaboration with the Royal Society, convened the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing. This commission is tasked with developing a framework for assessing potential clinical applications of human germline genome editing. The commission’s final report, scheduled to be released in the spring of 2020, will provide valuable insights and recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders.
Importance of Fair Governance and Procedural Justice
In the rapidly advancing field of biotechnology, it is essential to establish fair governance mechanisms and ensure procedural justice. This includes addressing concerns related to patents, private governance, and equitable access to gene editing technologies and therapies. The ethical implications and potential risks associated with gene editing necessitate robust regulations and guidelines to ensure responsible and equitable use.
The controversy surrounding the claim of creating genome-edited babies serves as a stark reminder of the importance of fair governance and oversight. The international outcry that followed this revelation demonstrated the need for clear boundaries and ethical standards governing the use of gene editing technologies.
In addition to ethical considerations, the role of patents in genomics and human genetics must also be carefully examined. Lessons learned from the commercialization of patents in the field can inform the development of policies that balance innovation, accessibility, and ethical considerations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the policy landscape and governance of gene editing are complex and multifaceted. International summits, recommendations from influential organizations like the WHO and National Academies, and a focus on fair governance and procedural justice are crucial in navigating the ethical considerations and potential risks associated with gene editing technologies. As we continue to explore the power and possibilities of CRISPR technology and other gene editing tools, it is essential to ensure that policies and regulations are in place to guide their responsible and equitable use for the benefit of society as a whole.
Citation: Frontiers in Public Health
Patents and Commercialization in Gene Editing
Gene editing technologies, such as CRISPR, have revolutionized the field of genetics and opened up new possibilities for treating and preventing diseases. However, along with the power and potential of gene editing comes a host of ethical considerations that must be carefully navigated. In this section, we will explore the role of patents and commercialization in the context of gene editing, with a specific focus on CRISPR technology.
The Bayh-Dole Act
One important aspect to consider in the commercialization of gene editing technologies is the Bayh-Dole Act. This patent law, enacted in 1980, allows universities and other research institutions to retain ownership of inventions made with federal funding. The goal of the act was to encourage the commercialization of federally funded research and to ensure that the public benefits from the discoveries made.
The Bayh-Dole Act has had a significant impact on the commercialization of gene editing technologies. It has allowed researchers and institutions to secure patents for their inventions and negotiate licensing agreements with private companies. This has facilitated the translation of gene editing technologies from the lab to the market, leading to the development of new therapies and treatments.
Lessons Learned
The commercialization of gene editing technologies has not been without controversy and challenges. The case of the claim of creating genome-edited babies in China, for example, sparked international outcry and raised important ethical questions. This incident served as a reminder of the need for responsible and ethical governance in the field of gene editing.
Lessons have been learned from the commercialization of gene editing patents, and there is now a growing recognition of the importance of fair governance and procedural justice in biotechnology. The ethical implications and potential risks associated with gene editing necessitate the establishment of regulations and guidelines to ensure that research is conducted responsibly and that the benefits are shared equitably.
Role of Patents in Genomics and Human Genetics
Patents play a crucial role in the field of genomics and human genetics. They provide researchers and companies with exclusive rights to their inventions, allowing them to recoup their investments and incentivizing further innovation. Patents also enable the sharing of knowledge and collaboration, as researchers can build upon existing inventions while respecting the rights of patent holders.
However, the role of patents in genomics and human genetics is not without its challenges. Some argue that patents can create barriers to access and hinder innovation by limiting the ability of others to use certain technologies. There have been cases where patents on genes themselves have been controversial, as they raise questions about the ownership of something that is naturally occurring.
To address these challenges, there have been ongoing discussions and debates about the patentability of genes and the need for a balanced approach that considers both innovation and access to healthcare. The lessons learned from the commercialization of gene editing patents can inform these discussions and help shape the future of patent policy in genomics and human genetics.
In conclusion, patents and commercialization play a significant role in the field of gene editing. The Bayh-Dole Act has facilitated the commercialization of gene editing technologies, while lessons learned from past controversies have highlighted the need for responsible governance and ethical considerations. Patents have both benefits and challenges in genomics and human genetics, and ongoing discussions are crucial to strike a balance between innovation and access to healthcare. As the field of gene editing continues to advance, it is essential to ensure that the power of this technology is harnessed responsibly and for the benefit of all.
Controversies and Outcry Surrounding Gene Editing
Claim of Creating Genome-Edited Babies
Gene editing, specifically using CRISPR technology, has sparked significant controversy and outcry in recent years. One of the most notable controversies involves the claim of creating genome-edited babies. This claim, made by Chinese scientist He Jiankui in late 2018, caused a global uproar and raised numerous ethical concerns.
He Jiankui announced that he had used CRISPR technology to genetically modify the embryos of twin girls, with the goal of creating resistance to HIV. This announcement was met with widespread condemnation from the scientific community and the general public. Many experts argued that such experimentation on human embryos was premature and lacked sufficient safety measures.
The claim of creating genome-edited babies not only raised ethical questions but also highlighted the need for strict regulations and guidelines in the field of gene editing. The scientific community recognized the potential risks and called for a more cautious and responsible approach to genome editing.
International Response and Consequences
The claim of creating genome-edited babies prompted a strong international response and led to significant consequences for the scientific community. The incident served as a wake-up call for policymakers and regulatory bodies worldwide, highlighting the urgent need for governance and oversight of human genome editing.
The International Bioethics Committee (IBC) recommended a moratorium on genome editing of the human germline, emphasizing the need for a global conversation on the ethical implications of gene editing. The first International Summit on Human Gene Editing in 2015 brought together stakeholders from around the world to discuss the challenges and potential of gene editing. The organizing committee released a statement calling for ongoing global engagement and discussion on the topic.
In 2018, the second International Summit on Human Gene Editing refrained from calling for a moratorium on clinical use of gene editing. However, it stressed that the scientific understanding and technical requirements for clinical practice remained uncertain, and the risks were too significant at that time.
Recognizing the need for a coordinated global effort, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing. This committee aims to examine the challenges associated with human genome editing and make recommendations on governance mechanisms.
The United States also took action by convening the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing. This commission, consisting of experts from the US National Academies of Medicine and Science and the Royal Society, is responsible for developing a framework to assess potential clinical applications of human germline genome editing.
In conclusion, the claim of creating genome-edited babies has ignited controversies and provoked international outcry. It has highlighted the ethical concerns surrounding gene editing and emphasized the need for comprehensive governance and oversight. As the scientific community continues to grapple with the implications of gene editing, it is crucial to strike a balance between scientific progress and ethical considerations to ensure responsible and safe implementation of this powerful technology.
References:
Potential Applications of Gene Editing in Medicine
Targeted Therapy for Human Diseases
Gene editing technology, particularly CRISPR, holds immense potential for targeted therapy in the field of medicine. By precisely modifying the genetic code, scientists can potentially treat and even cure a wide range of human diseases. This revolutionary technology allows for the correction of disease-causing mutations, the introduction of therapeutic genes, and the modulation of gene expression.
The ability to target specific genes and manipulate their function opens up new possibilities for treating genetic disorders. In the past, the treatment of genetic diseases was often limited to managing symptoms rather than addressing the underlying cause. However, with gene editing, it is now possible to directly modify the DNA responsible for the disease.
For example, in the case of sickle cell disease, a genetic disorder that affects the shape of red blood cells, gene editing can potentially correct the mutation in the hemoglobin gene responsible for the condition. By targeting and repairing the specific mutation, gene editing offers the possibility of a permanent cure for individuals with sickle cell disease.
Similarly, gene editing can also be used to target and modify genes associated with other genetic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and muscular dystrophy. By correcting or modifying the faulty genes, gene editing opens up new avenues for treating these conditions.
Advancements and Possibilities
The advancements in gene editing technology have raised both hopes and concerns within the scientific community and society at large. The power of CRISPR technology to edit the human genome has sparked ethical discussions and considerations.
One of the main ethical concerns surrounding gene editing is its potential use in germline editing. Germline editing involves making changes to the DNA of sperm, eggs, or embryos, which would be passed down to future generations. This raises complex ethical questions about the long-term implications of altering the human germline.
Safety is another primary concern when it comes to gene editing. The possibility of off-target effects, where unintended changes are made to the genome, and mosaicism, where not all cells in an organism carry the edited gene, are areas of concern that need to be addressed before germline genome editing can be considered safe for clinical use.
To ensure the responsible and ethical use of gene editing technology, researchers and organizations have called for a global framework for governance and oversight. The World Health Organization (WHO) has established an Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing to examine the challenges associated with gene editing and make recommendations on governance mechanisms.
In addition to ethical and safety considerations, there are practical and societal implications to be considered. Concerns exist about the use of gene editing for non-therapeutic and enhancement purposes, as well as potential disparities in access to healthcare and other interventions. Obtaining informed consent for germline therapy is also a concern, as the patients affected by the edits are the embryo and future generations.
Despite the challenges and ethical considerations, gene editing research continues to advance. The International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing, comprised of experts from the US National Academies of Medicine and Science and the Royal Society, is currently developing a framework for assessing potential clinical applications of human germline genome editing.
In conclusion, gene editing technology, particularly CRISPR, has the potential to revolutionize medicine by enabling targeted therapy for a wide range of human diseases. However, ethical considerations, safety concerns, and the need for global governance and oversight are crucial aspects that need to be addressed before gene editing can be widely used in clinical practice.
The Need for Global Framework for Gene Editing Governance
Gene editing technologies, such as CRISPR, have revolutionized the field of genetics and offer immense potential for advancements in medicine and biotechnology. However, the power and ethical considerations associated with gene editing have sparked a global conversation about the need for a comprehensive framework for governance.
Importance of Regulations and Guidelines
Ethical discussions surrounding gene editing primarily focus on human germline editing, as changes made in the germline can be inherited by future generations. Safety is a primary concern, as there is a possibility of off-target effects and mosaicism. Researchers agree that germline genome editing for reproductive purposes should not be attempted until it is deemed safe through thorough research.
Some argue that there may never be a time when genome editing in embryos offers a greater benefit than existing technologies like preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and in-vitro fertilization (IVF). However, germline editing can address needs not met by PGD, such as cases where both prospective parents have a disease-causing variant or for families who object to elements of the PGD process.
Furthermore, concerns exist about the use of genome editing for non-therapeutic and enhancement purposes, as well as potential disparities in access to healthcare and other interventions. Obtaining informed consent for germline therapy is also a concern, as the patients affected by the edits are the embryo and future generations.
Research using gene editing in embryos is seen as important for scientific questions about human biology. However, federal funds cannot be used for any research that creates or destroys embryos, leading to moral and religious objections to the use of human embryos for research.
Recommendations from WHO’s Expert Advisory Committee
Recognizing the need for global standards and governance mechanisms for human genome editing, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing. This committee aims to examine the challenges associated with human genome editing and make recommendations on governance mechanisms.
The WHO supports the interim recommendation that it would be irresponsible to proceed with clinical applications of human germline genome editing at this time. The US National Academies of Medicine and Science, along with the Royal Society, have also convened the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing to develop a framework for assessing potential clinical applications.
The international community has come together to discuss gene editing through summits and conferences. The first International Summit on Human Gene Editing in 2015 brought stakeholders from around the world to discuss the ethical implications and technical uncertainties of gene editing. The organizing committee released a statement advising ongoing global engagement and discussion.
The second International Summit on Human Gene Editing in 2018 did not call for a moratorium on clinical use of gene editing but highlighted the need for further scientific understanding and technical requirements before proceeding with clinical practice.
In conclusion, the advancements in gene editing technologies have prompted the need for a global framework for governance and oversight. The ethical considerations, safety concerns, and potential applications of gene editing necessitate regulations and guidelines to ensure responsible and equitable use of these powerful tools. Through international collaboration and ongoing discussions, a comprehensive framework can be established to address the complexities and uncertainties of gene editing.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the focus of ethical discussions regarding genome editing?
Ethical discussions mainly focus on human germline editing, as changes made in the germline would be passed down to future generations.
What is the primary concern regarding genome editing?
Safety is a primary concern due to the possibility of off-target effects and mosaicism.
When should germline genome editing for reproductive purposes be attempted?
Researchers generally agree that germline genome editing for reproductive purposes should not be attempted until it is deemed safe through research.
How does germline editing compare to existing technologies like PGD and IVF?
Some argue that there may never be a time when genome editing in embryos offers a greater benefit than existing technologies like preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and in-vitro fertilization (IVF).
What needs can be addressed by germline editing that are not met by PGD?
Germline editing can address needs not met by PGD, such as cases where both prospective parents have a disease-causing variant or for families who object to elements of the PGD process.
What concerns exist regarding genome editing?
Concerns exist about the use of genome editing for non-therapeutic and enhancement purposes, as well as potential disparities in access to healthcare and other interventions.
Why is obtaining informed consent for germline therapy a concern?
Obtaining informed consent for germline therapy is a concern, as the patients affected by the edits are the embryo and future generations.
What are the limitations on research using gene editing in embryos?
Research using gene editing in embryos is seen as important for scientific questions about human biology, but federal funds cannot be used for any research that creates or destroys embryos.
What is the global policy landscape of human genome editing?
Some countries have allowed genome-editing research on nonviable embryos, while others have approved research studies with viable embryos. Moral and religious objections also exist to the use of human embryos for research.
What recommendations have been made by international organizations?
The International Bioethics Committee (IBC) recommended a moratorium on genome editing of the human germline. The World Health Organization (WHO) supports the interim recommendation that it would be irresponsible to proceed with clinical applications of human germline genome editing at this time.
What initiatives have been taken to develop guidelines for genome editing?
The US National Academies of Medicine and Science, together with the Royal Society, convened the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing to develop a framework for assessing potential clinical applications of human germline genome editing. The commission’s final report is scheduled to be released in the spring of 2020.
What is the role of patents in genome editing?
The article discusses the role of patents in genomics and human genetics, as well as the lessons learned from the commercialization of patents in the field. It also mentions the Bayh-Dole Act, which is a patent law that allows universities and other research institutions to retain ownership of inventions made with federal funding.
What is the importance of fair governance and procedural justice in biotechnology?
The article highlights the need for fair governance and procedural justice in biotechnology, particularly in relation to patents and private governance.
What is the controversy surrounding genome-edited babies?
The article mentions the controversy surrounding the claim of creating genome-edited babies and the international outcry it provoked.
What are the potential applications of genome editing technology?
The article discusses the potential applications of genome editing technology in targeted therapy for human diseases.
What is the need for a global framework for genome editing governance?
The article mentions the need for a global framework for governance and oversight of human genome editing, as recommended by the World Health Organization’s Expert Advisory Committee.
