Summit rules out ban on gene editing embryos destined to become people
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
"Heritable human genetic modification could prevent some rare genetic diseases so there is real potential there, but it also could open the door to serious problems such as unforeseen health consequences across generations, social justice issues, and eugenics … Keep in mind that most but not all genetic diseases already are preventable via existing technology that allows for genetic screening of unmodified human embryos … Time is short. The technology in this arena is advancing at warp speed, it is so ubiquitous, and there is such strong enthusiasm that we do not have the luxury of years to have more meetings and discussions, as much as they may be very important, without taking a clear stance."
Even the rhetoric used gives me the creeps. Quoting a paragraph from the article:
> Critics of germline therapy argue that any couple at risk of passing on a genetic disorder to their children could avoid the outcome by going through IVF and having their embryos screened for problematic genes, by using donated sperm or eggs, or adopting. Future uses could see germline editing used to lower people’s chances of developing Alzheimer’s disease and other conditions by removing high risk genes.
The last sentence alone could have been used as a newspaper clipping and inserted at the beginning of this deleted scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFjaOnCp0lo
Less than 20 years from satire to a policy talking point.
By no means am I per se opposed to exploring gene editing technology, but the gleeful enthusiasm for use of this nascent technology seems to be neglecting due diligence to make sure that we "above all do no harm".
The history of medicine is chock full of instances where researchers and clinicians alike jump on it with both feet, only to be dismayed when eventually finding out about risks not initially known or adequately appreciated.
I'm no expert in genomics (though a good friend of mine is), but it's easily apparent that we know very little about the implications of discoveries made every day. At the least, a note of caution before plowing ahead, and modifying things we know little about makes sense.
No doubt I have much to learn on these subjects, but I don't think I'm alone in that. The issue for the field may best be summarized by the idea of "premature optimization", painting ourselves into a corner from which no easily extricated.
Sure gene editing is a very enticing prospect. I'd call it a fantastic research tool, and in that respect let's use it to the hilt. But applying it to real clinical situations before having much more knowledge about the risks (and you know it's inevitable there will be "side-effects") seems to me to be foolish, and maybe even embodies a measure of hubris.
I was probably nudged toward development and similar minded activities because any type of physical labor just isn't an option for me. Will we similarly shape our society?
Some conditions like CF have advantages, such as an increase resistance to cholera. Will we see a side effect if we eliminate those conditions?
Don't get me wrong. Somedays being short of breath sucks (no pun intended), I wish I could eat without taking a handful of pills, and my wife certainly wishes we didn't have to deal with CF's infertility issues. I do think all of the calculus has to be considered, however.
Just to nitpick, but it is being a silent carrier (heterozygous) that provides the resistance to cholera - until very recently few suffers of cf lived long enough to die of anything else.