Originally published October 6, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
In all three cases, the main biologic approach, and the main ethical issues, are the same. The main differences were which genes were being edited, and how the embryos were obtained.
This prompted Nature to run an editorial to say that it is “time to take stock” of the ethics of this research. Read the editorial here. The key points: This is important work that should be undertaken thoughtfully. Accordingly, donors of any embryos or cells should be fully informed of the planned research. Only as many embryos should be created as are necessary to do the research. Work on embryos should be preceded by work on pluripotent, or “reprogrammed,” stem cells, and if questions can be fully answered by work with those cells, then it may not be necessary to repeat the studies on whole, intact human embryos, and if that is not necessary, perhaps it should not be done. Finally, everything should be peer reviewed.
I agree that editing work in non-totipotent cells should be at all times favored over work on intact embryos, but if one holds that an embryo is a human being that should have the benefits of protections afforded human research subjects, then Nature’s ethical principles are rather thin, little more than an extension of animal use provisions for studies in which early humans are the raw materials for the development of new medical treatments.
The article is here.