Scientists want to rethink bans on tinkering with human embryo DNA
WRITTEN BY
Olivia Goldhill
September 12, 2015
Tweaking human embryo DNA is no longer a theoretical prospect. Rapid advances
in “genome editing” technology mean that scientists can now efficiently and
precisely modify DNA.
The only thing stopping them are a range of laws, guidelines and other
restrictions, which an international group of experts says need to be
reconsidered.
Editing human embryos’ DNA has long been seen as an ethical red line. Without
proper oversight, the science could create designer babies and eugenics horror
stories.
But the Hinxton group, an international network of stem cell researchers,
bioethicists and policy experts, has joined calls for a debateon the subject. In
a statement issued this week (pdf), the group said that genetically modifying
human embryos is of “tremendous value” to research.
The Hinxton group added that, though it did not currently support allowing GM
embryos to be born, there could be “morally acceptable uses of this technology in
human reproduction”.
Most developed countries have some form of legislation to prohibit human
embryo genetic modification. The map below, taken from a paper on the
socioethical implications of GM embryos, shows the restrictions in place across 39
surveyed countries.
But legislation is not universal, and earlier this year scientists in China published
the world’s first scientific paper on altering the DNA of human embryos. Robin
Lovell-Badge, a member of the Hinxton Group and scientist at the Francis Crick
Institute, tells Quartz that the West should not “shut the door” to genetically
modified embryos. “By doing that, you make people who are doing stuff that’s
relevant, do so behind closed doors,” he says.
Genetic modification of embryos could lead to several health benefits in the long
run. It could improve IVF treatment, correct genetic defects such as Huntington’s
Disease, and create humans with in-built resistance to certain diseases.
“You could think about making disease resistance for a variety of infectious
diseases, even influenza,” Lovell-Badge tells Quartz
“When you talk to people and say, ‘Would you like to have children who are
resistant to a range of different diseases,’ most people would think, ‘Well maybe
that’s not such a bad idea.’ That’s the acceptable form of enhancement.”
But several scientists have warned that attempts to genetically engineer human
embryos could lead to unacceptable uses of the technology. In March, a group of
US scientist voiced their opposition in an article for Nature, saying:
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.
International legislation is unfeasible, and so even if scientists operate under clear
guidelines, there’s always the danger that researchers in another country could
misuse their work.
There’s also a risk that genetic modification of humans could create a class of
wealthy superhumans, who are impervious to the diseases that blight poorer
people.
“Is this just going to be technology for rich people in rich countries? The people
who would benefit most from disease resistance would be people in pooper
countries in sub-Saharan Africa, where HIV is prevalent, and they are the ones
least likely to afford it. I can’t solve that,” says Lovell-Badge.
Genetic modification could be misused to create beautiful offspring, though
Lovell-Badge says he finds this “pointless” rather than immoral.
“I think it’s a bit of a waste of the technology but I don’t have a real ethical
problem against it,” he says. “I just think it would be a trivial use.”
Others may well disagree, but these debates no longer belong in the realm of
science fiction.