
The
commercial opportunities are mind-boggling... but the technology simply
did not allow it and so the line in the sand was largely academic.Not so anymore. Recent advances,
notably a powerful gene-editing tool called Crispr, have made snipping
out tageted parts of the DNA of germline and non-germline, “somatic”,
genes a relatively simple process. And the ethical debate has reopened. A
report this week from two high level US scientific bodies US argues
that germline editing should be allowed in very limited circumstances
under strict supervision – only alterations designed to prevent babies
from acquiring genes known to cause “serious diseases and disability”,
and only when there is no “reasonable alternative.”If , for example, it were to
become possible to “edit” the genes of someone with Huntington’s, a
dreadful, incurable, inherited brain disease, so that the condition
could not be passed on to successive generations, why not? How would
that be qualitatively different ethically from the somatic gene therapy
already widely practised?In theory, that is. However there
will be a particularly tough onus on researchers to show that the
techniques when applied to the germline can be perfected to the point
where such “snipping” does not involve “off-target” parts of the DNA or
produce other consequences unrelated to this pupose in subsequent
generations. We must hasten slowly.
No comments:
Post a Comment