David Ewing Duncan
Wired.com
Originally published March 27, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
There are also the ethics of using a powerful new technology to muck around with life’s basic coding. Theoretically, scientists could one day manufacture genomes, human or otherwise, almost as easily as writing code on a computer, transforming digital DNA on someone’s laptop into living cells of, say, Homo sapiens. Mindful of the controversy, Church and his HGP-Write colleagues insist that minting people is not their goal, though the sheer audacity of making genome-scale changes to human DNA is enough to cause controversy. “People get upset if you put a gene from another species into something you eat,” says Stanford bioethicist and legal scholar Henry Greely. “Now we’re talking about a thorough rewriting of life? Hairs will stand on end. Hackles will be raised.”
Raised hackles or not, Church and his team are forging ahead. “We want to start with a human Y,” he says, referring to the male sex chromosome, which he explains has the fewest genes of a person’s 23 chromosomes and is thus easier to build. And he doesn’t want to synthesize just any Y chromosome. He and his team want to use the Y chromosome sequence from an actual person’s genome: mine.
“Can you do that?” I stammer.
“Of course we can—with your permission,” he says, reminding me that it would be easy to tap into my genome, since it was stored digitally in his lab’s computers as part of an effort he launched in 2005 called the Personal Genome Project.
The article is here.
Showing posts with label Genetic Engineering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genetic Engineering. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Monday, January 22, 2018
Science and Morality
Jim Kozubek
Scientific American
Originally published December 27, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
The argument that genes embody a sort of sacrosanct character that should not be interfered with is not too compelling, since artifacts of viruses are burrowed in our genomes, and genes undergo mutations with each passing generation. Even so, the principle that all life has inherent dignity is hardly a bad thought and provides a necessary counterbalance to the impulse to use in vitro techniques and CRISPR to alter any gene variant to reduce risk or enhance features, none of which are more or less perfect but variations in human evolution.
Indeed, the question of dignity is thornier than we might imagine, since science tends to challenge the belief in abstract or enduring concepts of value. How to uphold beliefs or a sense of dignity seems ever confusing and appears to throw us up against an age of radical nihilism as scientists today are using the gene editing tool CRISPR to do things such as tinker with the color of butterfly wings, genetically alter pigs, even humans. If science is a method of truth-seeking, technology its mode of power and CRISPR is a means to the commodification of life. It also raises the possibility this power can erode societal trust.
The article is here.
Scientific American
Originally published December 27, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
The argument that genes embody a sort of sacrosanct character that should not be interfered with is not too compelling, since artifacts of viruses are burrowed in our genomes, and genes undergo mutations with each passing generation. Even so, the principle that all life has inherent dignity is hardly a bad thought and provides a necessary counterbalance to the impulse to use in vitro techniques and CRISPR to alter any gene variant to reduce risk or enhance features, none of which are more or less perfect but variations in human evolution.
Indeed, the question of dignity is thornier than we might imagine, since science tends to challenge the belief in abstract or enduring concepts of value. How to uphold beliefs or a sense of dignity seems ever confusing and appears to throw us up against an age of radical nihilism as scientists today are using the gene editing tool CRISPR to do things such as tinker with the color of butterfly wings, genetically alter pigs, even humans. If science is a method of truth-seeking, technology its mode of power and CRISPR is a means to the commodification of life. It also raises the possibility this power can erode societal trust.
The article is here.
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
‘I want to help humans genetically modify themselves’
Tom Ireland
The Guardian
Originally posted December 24, 2017
Josiah Zayner, 36, recently made headlines by becoming the first person to use the revolutionary gene-editing tool Crispr to try to change their own genes. Part way through a talk on genetic engineering, Zayner pulled out a syringe apparently containing DNA and other chemicals designed to trigger a genetic change in his cells associated with dramatically increased muscle mass. He injected the DIY gene therapy into his left arm, live-streaming the procedure on the internet.
The former Nasa biochemist, based in California, has become a leading figure in the growing “biohacker” movement, which involves loose collectives of scientists, engineers, artists, designers, and activists experimenting with biotechnology outside of conventional institutions and laboratories.
Despite warnings from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that selling gene therapy products without regulatory approval is illegal, Zayner sells kits that allow anyone to get started with basic genetic engineering techniques, and has published a free guide for others who want to take it further and experiment on themselves.
The article is here.
The Guardian
Originally posted December 24, 2017
Josiah Zayner, 36, recently made headlines by becoming the first person to use the revolutionary gene-editing tool Crispr to try to change their own genes. Part way through a talk on genetic engineering, Zayner pulled out a syringe apparently containing DNA and other chemicals designed to trigger a genetic change in his cells associated with dramatically increased muscle mass. He injected the DIY gene therapy into his left arm, live-streaming the procedure on the internet.
The former Nasa biochemist, based in California, has become a leading figure in the growing “biohacker” movement, which involves loose collectives of scientists, engineers, artists, designers, and activists experimenting with biotechnology outside of conventional institutions and laboratories.
Despite warnings from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that selling gene therapy products without regulatory approval is illegal, Zayner sells kits that allow anyone to get started with basic genetic engineering techniques, and has published a free guide for others who want to take it further and experiment on themselves.
The article is here.
Monday, October 30, 2017
Human Gene Editing Marches On
bioethics.net
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.
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.
Sunday, October 1, 2017
Future Frankensteins: The Ethics of Genetic Intervention
Philip Kitcher
Here is an excerpt:
The more serious argument perceives risks involved in germline interventions. Human knowledge is partial, and so perhaps we will fail to recognize some dire consequence of eliminating a particular sequence from the genomes of all members of our species. Of course, it is very hard to envisage what might go wrong — in the course of human evolution, many DNA sequences have arisen and disappeared. Moreover, in this instance, assuming a version of CRISPR-Cas9 sufficiently reliable to use on human beings, we could presumably undo whatever damage we had done. But, a skeptic may inquire, why take any risk at all? Surely somatic interventions will suffice. No need to tamper with the germline, since we can always modify the bodies of the unfortunate people afflicted with troublesome sequences.
Doudna and Sternberg point out, in a different context, one reason why this argument fails: some genes associated with disease act too early in development (in utero, for example). There is a second reason for failure. In a world in which people are regularly rescued through somatic interventions, the percentage of later generations carrying problematic sequences is likely to increase, with the consequence that ever more resources would have to be devoted to editing the genomes of individuals. Human well-being might be more effectively promoted through a program of germline intervention, freeing those resources to help those who suffer in other ways. Once again, allowing editing of eggs and sperm seems to be the path of compassion. (The problems could be mitigated if genetic testing and in vitro fertilization were widely available and widely used, leaving somatic interventions as a last resort for those who slipped through the cracks. But extensive medical resources would still be required, and encouraging — or demanding — pre-natal testing and use of IVF would introduce a problematic and invasive form of eugenics.)
The article is here.
Los Angeles Review of Books
Originally posted September 4, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
The more serious argument perceives risks involved in germline interventions. Human knowledge is partial, and so perhaps we will fail to recognize some dire consequence of eliminating a particular sequence from the genomes of all members of our species. Of course, it is very hard to envisage what might go wrong — in the course of human evolution, many DNA sequences have arisen and disappeared. Moreover, in this instance, assuming a version of CRISPR-Cas9 sufficiently reliable to use on human beings, we could presumably undo whatever damage we had done. But, a skeptic may inquire, why take any risk at all? Surely somatic interventions will suffice. No need to tamper with the germline, since we can always modify the bodies of the unfortunate people afflicted with troublesome sequences.
Doudna and Sternberg point out, in a different context, one reason why this argument fails: some genes associated with disease act too early in development (in utero, for example). There is a second reason for failure. In a world in which people are regularly rescued through somatic interventions, the percentage of later generations carrying problematic sequences is likely to increase, with the consequence that ever more resources would have to be devoted to editing the genomes of individuals. Human well-being might be more effectively promoted through a program of germline intervention, freeing those resources to help those who suffer in other ways. Once again, allowing editing of eggs and sperm seems to be the path of compassion. (The problems could be mitigated if genetic testing and in vitro fertilization were widely available and widely used, leaving somatic interventions as a last resort for those who slipped through the cracks. But extensive medical resources would still be required, and encouraging — or demanding — pre-natal testing and use of IVF would introduce a problematic and invasive form of eugenics.)
The article is here.
Sunday, August 20, 2017
The ethics of creating GMO humans
The Editorial Board
The Los Angeles Times
Originally posted August 3, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
But there is also a great deal we still don’t know about how minor issues might become major ones as people pass on edited DNA to their offspring, and as people who have had some genes altered reproduce with people who have had other genes altered. We’ve seen how selectively breeding to produce one trait can unexpectedly produce other, less desirable outcomes. Remember how growers were able to create tomatoes that were more uniformly red, but in the process, they turned off the gene that gave tomatoes flavor?
Another major issue is the ethics of adjusting humans genetically to fit a favored outcome. Today it’s heritable disease, but what might be seen as undesirable traits in the future that people might want to eliminate? Short stature? Introverted personality? Klutziness?
To be sure, it’s not as though everyone is likely to line up for gene-edited offspring rather than just having babies, at least for the foreseeable future. The procedure can be performed only on in vitro embryos and requires precision timing.
The article is here.
The Los Angeles Times
Originally posted August 3, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
But there is also a great deal we still don’t know about how minor issues might become major ones as people pass on edited DNA to their offspring, and as people who have had some genes altered reproduce with people who have had other genes altered. We’ve seen how selectively breeding to produce one trait can unexpectedly produce other, less desirable outcomes. Remember how growers were able to create tomatoes that were more uniformly red, but in the process, they turned off the gene that gave tomatoes flavor?
Another major issue is the ethics of adjusting humans genetically to fit a favored outcome. Today it’s heritable disease, but what might be seen as undesirable traits in the future that people might want to eliminate? Short stature? Introverted personality? Klutziness?
To be sure, it’s not as though everyone is likely to line up for gene-edited offspring rather than just having babies, at least for the foreseeable future. The procedure can be performed only on in vitro embryos and requires precision timing.
The article is here.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
First Human Embryos Edited in U.S.
Steve Connor
MIT Technology News
Originally published July 26, 2017
The first known attempt at creating genetically modified human embryos in the United States has been carried out by a team of researchers in Portland, Oregon, Technology Review has learned.
The effort, led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science University, involved changing the DNA of a large number of one-cell embryos with the gene-editing technique CRISPR, according to people familiar with the scientific results.
Until now, American scientists have watched with a combination of awe, envy, and some alarm as scientists elsewhere were first to explore the controversial practice. To date, three previous reports of editing human embryos were all published by scientists in China.
Now Mitalipov is believed to have broken new ground both in the number of embryos experimented upon and by demonstrating that it is possible to safely and efficiently correct defective genes that cause inherited diseases.
Although none of the embryos were allowed to develop for more than a few days—and there was never any intention of implanting them into a womb—the experiments are a milestone on what may prove to be an inevitable journey toward the birth of the first genetically modified humans.
The article is here.
MIT Technology News
Originally published July 26, 2017
The first known attempt at creating genetically modified human embryos in the United States has been carried out by a team of researchers in Portland, Oregon, Technology Review has learned.
The effort, led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science University, involved changing the DNA of a large number of one-cell embryos with the gene-editing technique CRISPR, according to people familiar with the scientific results.
Until now, American scientists have watched with a combination of awe, envy, and some alarm as scientists elsewhere were first to explore the controversial practice. To date, three previous reports of editing human embryos were all published by scientists in China.
Now Mitalipov is believed to have broken new ground both in the number of embryos experimented upon and by demonstrating that it is possible to safely and efficiently correct defective genes that cause inherited diseases.
Although none of the embryos were allowed to develop for more than a few days—and there was never any intention of implanting them into a womb—the experiments are a milestone on what may prove to be an inevitable journey toward the birth of the first genetically modified humans.
The article is here.
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Revamping the US Federal Common Rule: Modernizing Human Participant Research Regulations
James G. Hodge Jr. and Lawrence O. Gostin
JAMA. Published online February 22, 2017
On January 19, 2017, the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Department of Health and Human Services, and 15 federal agencies published a final rule to modernize the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (known as the “Common Rule”).1 Initially introduced more than a quarter century ago, the Common Rule predated modern scientific methods and findings, notably human genome research.
Research enterprises now encompass vast multicenter trials in both academia and the private sector. The volume, types, and availability of public/private data and biospecimens have increased exponentially. Federal agencies demanded more accountability, research investigators sought more flexibility, and human participants desired more control over research. Most rule changes become effective in 2018, giving institutions time for implementation.
The article is here.
JAMA. Published online February 22, 2017
On January 19, 2017, the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Department of Health and Human Services, and 15 federal agencies published a final rule to modernize the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (known as the “Common Rule”).1 Initially introduced more than a quarter century ago, the Common Rule predated modern scientific methods and findings, notably human genome research.
Research enterprises now encompass vast multicenter trials in both academia and the private sector. The volume, types, and availability of public/private data and biospecimens have increased exponentially. Federal agencies demanded more accountability, research investigators sought more flexibility, and human participants desired more control over research. Most rule changes become effective in 2018, giving institutions time for implementation.
The article is here.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Researchers Are Divided as FDA Moves to Regulate Gene Editing
Paul Basken
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally published February 22, 2017
As U.S. regulators threaten broad new limits on the use of gene-editing technology, a Utah State University researcher now engineering goats to produce spider silk in their milk isn’t particularly worried.
"They’re just trying to modernize" rules to keep up with technology, the Utah professor, Randolph V. Lewis, said of the changes proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
But over in Minnesota, a researcher working to create cows without horns — as a way of keeping the animals safe from one another — has a far different take.
"It’s a huge overreach" by the FDA that could stifle innovation, said Scott C. Fahrenkrug, an adjunct professor of functional genomics at the University of Minnesota at Twin Cities.
The FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of food and drugs sold to Americans, and for years it has defined that oversight to require its approval when genes are added to animals whose products might be consumed. The change it proposed last month would expand that authority to cover new technologies such as CRISPR that enable gene-specific editing, potentially enabling changes not found in any known species.
To supporters, the FDA is simply trying to keep up with the science. To detractors, it’s a reach for authority so broad as to go beyond any reasonable definition of the FDA’s mandate.
The article is here.
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally published February 22, 2017
As U.S. regulators threaten broad new limits on the use of gene-editing technology, a Utah State University researcher now engineering goats to produce spider silk in their milk isn’t particularly worried.
"They’re just trying to modernize" rules to keep up with technology, the Utah professor, Randolph V. Lewis, said of the changes proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
But over in Minnesota, a researcher working to create cows without horns — as a way of keeping the animals safe from one another — has a far different take.
"It’s a huge overreach" by the FDA that could stifle innovation, said Scott C. Fahrenkrug, an adjunct professor of functional genomics at the University of Minnesota at Twin Cities.
The FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of food and drugs sold to Americans, and for years it has defined that oversight to require its approval when genes are added to animals whose products might be consumed. The change it proposed last month would expand that authority to cover new technologies such as CRISPR that enable gene-specific editing, potentially enabling changes not found in any known species.
To supporters, the FDA is simply trying to keep up with the science. To detractors, it’s a reach for authority so broad as to go beyond any reasonable definition of the FDA’s mandate.
The article is here.
Friday, March 10, 2017
Why genetic testing for genes for criminality is morally required
Julian Savulescu
Princeton Journal of Bioethics [2001, 4:79-97]
Abstract
This paper argues for a Principle of Procreative Beneficence, that couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others. If there are a number of different variants of a given gene, then we have most reason to select embryos which have those variants which are associated with the best lives, that is, those lives with the highest levels of well-being. It is possible that in the future some genes are identified which make it more likely that a person will engage in criminal behaviour. If that criminal behaviour makes that person's life go worse (as it plausibly would), and if those genes do not have other good effects in terms of promoting well-being, then we have a strong reason to encourage couples to test their embryos with the most favourable genetic profile. This paper was derived from a talk given as a part of the Decamp Seminar Series at the Princeton University Center for Human Values, October 4, 2000.
The article is here.
Princeton Journal of Bioethics [2001, 4:79-97]
Abstract
This paper argues for a Principle of Procreative Beneficence, that couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others. If there are a number of different variants of a given gene, then we have most reason to select embryos which have those variants which are associated with the best lives, that is, those lives with the highest levels of well-being. It is possible that in the future some genes are identified which make it more likely that a person will engage in criminal behaviour. If that criminal behaviour makes that person's life go worse (as it plausibly would), and if those genes do not have other good effects in terms of promoting well-being, then we have a strong reason to encourage couples to test their embryos with the most favourable genetic profile. This paper was derived from a talk given as a part of the Decamp Seminar Series at the Princeton University Center for Human Values, October 4, 2000.
The article is here.
Monday, November 28, 2016
CRISPR gene-editing tested in a person for the first time
David Cyranoski
Nature
Originally published November 16, 2016
A Chinese group has become the first to inject a person with cells that contain genes edited using the revolutionary CRISPR–Cas9 technique.
On 28 October, a team led by oncologist Lu You at Sichuan University in Chengdu delivered the modified cells into a patient with aggressive lung cancer as part of a clinical trial at the West China Hospital, also in Chengdu.
Earlier clinical trials using cells edited with a different technique have excited clinicians. The introduction of CRISPR, which is simpler and more efficient than other techniques, will probably accelerate the race to get gene-edited cells into the clinic across the world, says Carl June, who specializes in immunotherapy at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and led one of the earlier studies.
The article is here.
Nature
Originally published November 16, 2016
A Chinese group has become the first to inject a person with cells that contain genes edited using the revolutionary CRISPR–Cas9 technique.
On 28 October, a team led by oncologist Lu You at Sichuan University in Chengdu delivered the modified cells into a patient with aggressive lung cancer as part of a clinical trial at the West China Hospital, also in Chengdu.
Earlier clinical trials using cells edited with a different technique have excited clinicians. The introduction of CRISPR, which is simpler and more efficient than other techniques, will probably accelerate the race to get gene-edited cells into the clinic across the world, says Carl June, who specializes in immunotherapy at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and led one of the earlier studies.
The article is here.
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Genome Editing: An Ethical Review
Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Published September 2016
This review considers the impact of recent advances in genome editing, which have diffused rapidly across many fields of biological research, and the range of ethical questions to which they give rise. It was carried out by an interdisciplinary Working Group that included expertise in science, law, philosophy, ethics, sociology and industry. In coming to its conclusions, the Working Group invited contributions from a wide range of people, including through an open call for evidence that ran from November 2015 until February 2016.
The review sets out our preliminary findings on the impact of genome editing across different areas of biological research and applications, and the range of questions to which this gives rise.
Read on:
The next stages of this programme of work will focus on examining and addressing the ethical and practical questions arising in two contexts where genome editing may have a significant impact: firstly, the avoidance of genetic disease and, secondly, livestock farming. Reports on each of these two areas, with recommendations for policy and practice, will be published in 2017.
The full resource can be downloaded here.
Published September 2016
This review considers the impact of recent advances in genome editing, which have diffused rapidly across many fields of biological research, and the range of ethical questions to which they give rise. It was carried out by an interdisciplinary Working Group that included expertise in science, law, philosophy, ethics, sociology and industry. In coming to its conclusions, the Working Group invited contributions from a wide range of people, including through an open call for evidence that ran from November 2015 until February 2016.
The review sets out our preliminary findings on the impact of genome editing across different areas of biological research and applications, and the range of questions to which this gives rise.
Read on:
- Genome editing in brief: what, why and how?
- The context of genome editing
- Moral perspectives
- Human health
- Food
- Wildlife and ecosystems
- Other applications: industrial, military and amateur use
- Conclusions
The next stages of this programme of work will focus on examining and addressing the ethical and practical questions arising in two contexts where genome editing may have a significant impact: firstly, the avoidance of genetic disease and, secondly, livestock farming. Reports on each of these two areas, with recommendations for policy and practice, will be published in 2017.
The full resource can be downloaded here.
Friday, October 14, 2016
First 'three person baby' born using new method
By Michelle Roberts
BBC News online
BBC News online
Originally published September 27, 2016
The world's first baby has been born using a new "three person" fertility technique, New Scientist reveals.
The five-month-old boy has the usual DNA from his mum and dad, plus a tiny bit of genetic code from a donor.
US doctors took the unprecedented step to ensure the baby boy would be free of a genetic condition that his Jordanian mother carries in her genes.
Experts say the move heralds a new era in medicine and could help other families with rare genetic conditions.
But they warn that rigorous checks of this new and controversial technology, called mitochondrial donation, are needed.
It's not the first time scientists have created babies that have DNA from three people - that breakthrough began in the late 1990s - but it is an entirely new and significant method.
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Driven to extinction? The ethics of eradicating mosquitoes with gene-drive technologies
Jonathan Pugh
J Med Ethics 2016;42:578-581
Abstract
Mosquito-borne diseases represent a significant global disease burden, and recent outbreaks of such diseases have led to calls to reduce mosquito populations. Furthermore, advances in ‘gene-drive’ technology have raised the prospect of eradicating certain species of mosquito via genetic modification. This technology has attracted a great deal of media attention, and the idea of using gene-drive technology to eradicate mosquitoes has been met with criticism in the public domain. In this paper, I shall dispel two moral objections that have been raised in the public domain against the use of gene-drive technologies to eradicate mosquitoes. The first objection invokes the concept of the ‘sanctity of life’ in order to claim that we should not drive an animal to extinction. In response, I follow Peter Singer in raising doubts about general appeals to the sanctity of life, and argue that neither individual mosquitoes nor mosquitoes species considered holistically are appropriately described as bearing a significant degree of moral status. The second objection claims that seeking to eradicate mosquitoes amounts to displaying unacceptable degrees of hubris. Although I argue that this objection also fails, I conclude by claiming that it raises the important point that we need to acquire more empirical data about, inter alia, the likely effects of mosquito eradication on the ecosystem, and the likelihood of gene-drive technology successfully eradicating the intended mosquito species, in order to adequately inform our moral analysis of gene-drive technologies in this context.
The article is here.
J Med Ethics 2016;42:578-581
Abstract
Mosquito-borne diseases represent a significant global disease burden, and recent outbreaks of such diseases have led to calls to reduce mosquito populations. Furthermore, advances in ‘gene-drive’ technology have raised the prospect of eradicating certain species of mosquito via genetic modification. This technology has attracted a great deal of media attention, and the idea of using gene-drive technology to eradicate mosquitoes has been met with criticism in the public domain. In this paper, I shall dispel two moral objections that have been raised in the public domain against the use of gene-drive technologies to eradicate mosquitoes. The first objection invokes the concept of the ‘sanctity of life’ in order to claim that we should not drive an animal to extinction. In response, I follow Peter Singer in raising doubts about general appeals to the sanctity of life, and argue that neither individual mosquitoes nor mosquitoes species considered holistically are appropriately described as bearing a significant degree of moral status. The second objection claims that seeking to eradicate mosquitoes amounts to displaying unacceptable degrees of hubris. Although I argue that this objection also fails, I conclude by claiming that it raises the important point that we need to acquire more empirical data about, inter alia, the likely effects of mosquito eradication on the ecosystem, and the likelihood of gene-drive technology successfully eradicating the intended mosquito species, in order to adequately inform our moral analysis of gene-drive technologies in this context.
The article is here.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
CRISPR helps evo-devo scientists to unpick the origins of adaptions
Editorial Comment
Nature
Originally published August 17, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
The field of evolutionary developmental biology — evo-devo — is full of such creations: from mice with longer, bat-like limbs to fruit flies with torsos segmented like beetles’. But until now, the brute tools used to create these creatures have been imperfect.
This is about to change. In a paper published online on 17 August, a team used CRISPR–Cas9 to inactivate the genes involved in zebrafish development, resulting in fin tips more like the feet and digits of land vertebrates (T. Nakamura et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature19322; 2016). Other recent CRISPR experiments have tinkered with butterflies to learn how they see more colours than flies do, and done away with crustaceans’ claws to understand the origin of these specialized appendages.
The article is here.
Nature
Originally published August 17, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
The field of evolutionary developmental biology — evo-devo — is full of such creations: from mice with longer, bat-like limbs to fruit flies with torsos segmented like beetles’. But until now, the brute tools used to create these creatures have been imperfect.
This is about to change. In a paper published online on 17 August, a team used CRISPR–Cas9 to inactivate the genes involved in zebrafish development, resulting in fin tips more like the feet and digits of land vertebrates (T. Nakamura et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature19322; 2016). Other recent CRISPR experiments have tinkered with butterflies to learn how they see more colours than flies do, and done away with crustaceans’ claws to understand the origin of these specialized appendages.
The article is here.
Friday, August 12, 2016
First CRISPR trial in humans is reported to start August 2016
By Sharon Begley @sxbegle
Stat News
Originally published July 21, 2016
Scientists in China plan to use the genome-editing technology CRISPR-Cas9 in patients as early as next month, Nature reported on Thursday. If they go ahead, it would be the first time people would be injected with cells whose DNA has been altered by CRISPR.
A US proposal to run a similar study received approval by a federal ethics and safety panel last month, but it faces months of additional regulatory hurdles before it can go ahead by the end of 2016 at the earliest. The Chinese scientists, led by oncologist Lu You of Sichuan University’s West China Hospital in Chengdu, received approval from the hospital’s review board on July 6, Nature reported, and plan to treat their first patient in August.
Both the US and Chinese scientists would use CRISPR to edit immune-system T cells in patients with cancer in an effort to make those cells destroy malignant cells.
The article is here.
Stat News
Originally published July 21, 2016
Scientists in China plan to use the genome-editing technology CRISPR-Cas9 in patients as early as next month, Nature reported on Thursday. If they go ahead, it would be the first time people would be injected with cells whose DNA has been altered by CRISPR.
A US proposal to run a similar study received approval by a federal ethics and safety panel last month, but it faces months of additional regulatory hurdles before it can go ahead by the end of 2016 at the earliest. The Chinese scientists, led by oncologist Lu You of Sichuan University’s West China Hospital in Chengdu, received approval from the hospital’s review board on July 6, Nature reported, and plan to treat their first patient in August.
Both the US and Chinese scientists would use CRISPR to edit immune-system T cells in patients with cancer in an effort to make those cells destroy malignant cells.
The article is here.
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
It’s time society discussed the ethical issues raised by the gene revolution
Linda Geddes
The Guardian
Originally posted June 11, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Since the method was first published in 2012, CRISPR has swept through the scientific community. On Wednesday, the US National Academy of Sciences published a report on the transformative potential of one such application: genetic engineering technology called gene drive. Mosquitoes are currently being engineered with “gene drives” that could render female offspring sterile and potentially wipe species of mosquitoes off the planet .
The technology could also be used to eliminate invasive species such as Japanese knotweed or to reverse herbicide resistance and make agriculture more productive. Until now, such efforts have been stymied because in changing an organism’s DNA, you are reducing its ability to survive and reproduce, meaning the changes are eventually weeded out by natural selection. Gene drives overcome this by ensuring the changes are passed to all offspring. The technology could irreversibly alter entire ecosystems. Another potential application of CRISPR is growing human organs in pigs to meet the demand from transplant recipients. Already, genetically altered pig embryos have been injected with human cells, which it is hoped will develop into pancreases that could be transplanted into humans without the risk of rejection by the immune system.
The article is here.
The Guardian
Originally posted June 11, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Since the method was first published in 2012, CRISPR has swept through the scientific community. On Wednesday, the US National Academy of Sciences published a report on the transformative potential of one such application: genetic engineering technology called gene drive. Mosquitoes are currently being engineered with “gene drives” that could render female offspring sterile and potentially wipe species of mosquitoes off the planet .
The technology could also be used to eliminate invasive species such as Japanese knotweed or to reverse herbicide resistance and make agriculture more productive. Until now, such efforts have been stymied because in changing an organism’s DNA, you are reducing its ability to survive and reproduce, meaning the changes are eventually weeded out by natural selection. Gene drives overcome this by ensuring the changes are passed to all offspring. The technology could irreversibly alter entire ecosystems. Another potential application of CRISPR is growing human organs in pigs to meet the demand from transplant recipients. Already, genetically altered pig embryos have been injected with human cells, which it is hoped will develop into pancreases that could be transplanted into humans without the risk of rejection by the immune system.
The article is here.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Genetic editing is like playing God – and what’s wrong with that?
Johnjoe McFadden
The Guardian
Originally published February 2, 2016
The announcement that scientists are to be allowed to edit the DNA of human embryos will no doubt provoke an avalanche of warnings from opponents of genetic modification (GM) technology, who will warn that we are “playing God” with our genes.
The opponents are right. We are indeed playing God with our genes. But it is a good thing because God, nature or whatever we want to call the agencies that have made us, often get it wrong and it’s up to us to correct those mistakes.
Sadly, of the half a million or so babies that will be born in the UK this year, about 4% will carry a genetic or major birth defect that could result in an early death, or a debilitating disease that will cause misery for the child and their family. This research will eventually lead to technologies that could edit DNA in the same way that we can edit text – to correct the mistakes before the child’s development goes to its final draft. Its successful implementation could reduce, and eventually eliminate, the birth of babies with severe genetic diseases.
The article is here.
The Guardian
Originally published February 2, 2016
The announcement that scientists are to be allowed to edit the DNA of human embryos will no doubt provoke an avalanche of warnings from opponents of genetic modification (GM) technology, who will warn that we are “playing God” with our genes.
The opponents are right. We are indeed playing God with our genes. But it is a good thing because God, nature or whatever we want to call the agencies that have made us, often get it wrong and it’s up to us to correct those mistakes.
Sadly, of the half a million or so babies that will be born in the UK this year, about 4% will carry a genetic or major birth defect that could result in an early death, or a debilitating disease that will cause misery for the child and their family. This research will eventually lead to technologies that could edit DNA in the same way that we can edit text – to correct the mistakes before the child’s development goes to its final draft. Its successful implementation could reduce, and eventually eliminate, the birth of babies with severe genetic diseases.
The article is here.
Monday, December 21, 2015
Summit fails to ban genetic engineering of human embryos
By Michael Cook
BioEdge.org
Originally published December 5, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
The most controversial item on the agenda was genetic editing of human embryos and germ cells. Chinese scientists have already done this with surplus IVF embryos, although all of them died. Unsurprisingly, the International Summit on Human Gene-Editing declared that it would be “irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germline editing” until the risks were better understood. But it failed to endorse even a moratorium on human germline gene-editing, let alone a blanket ban.
Gene-editing has far-reaching uses in basic and pre-clinical research and modification of somatic cells. If embryos or germ cells are edited, it might be possible to avoid severe inherited diseases or to enhance human capabilities.
The entire article is here.
BioEdge.org
Originally published December 5, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
The most controversial item on the agenda was genetic editing of human embryos and germ cells. Chinese scientists have already done this with surplus IVF embryos, although all of them died. Unsurprisingly, the International Summit on Human Gene-Editing declared that it would be “irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germline editing” until the risks were better understood. But it failed to endorse even a moratorium on human germline gene-editing, let alone a blanket ban.
Gene-editing has far-reaching uses in basic and pre-clinical research and modification of somatic cells. If embryos or germ cells are edited, it might be possible to avoid severe inherited diseases or to enhance human capabilities.
The entire article is here.
Debate begins over ethics of genetic editing
By Michael Cook
BioEdge.org
Originally posted December 5, 2015
At the heart of the debate over the use of CRISPR technology for gene-editing is the human embryo. While manipulation of the genomes of plants and animals also raises profound ethical issues, it is the possibility of altering the human genome which generates summits and white papers.
So this week, there was a flurry of activity about the ethics of human genetic engineering.
The entire article is here.
BioEdge.org
Originally posted December 5, 2015
At the heart of the debate over the use of CRISPR technology for gene-editing is the human embryo. While manipulation of the genomes of plants and animals also raises profound ethical issues, it is the possibility of altering the human genome which generates summits and white papers.
So this week, there was a flurry of activity about the ethics of human genetic engineering.
The entire article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)