Can scientists use gene editing for disease prevention but not human enhancement?

On the same day a Chinese scientist announced he had used CRISPR gene editing technology to give twin babies resistance to HIV infection, a team of UNC School of Medicine bioethics professors published a paper entitled "Is Enhancement the Price of Prevention in Gene Editing?" in The CRISPR Journal November 26.

"Our paper shows how easy it could be to slide from 'preventive' uses of gene editing for medical-related applications into 'enhancement' uses for personal applications – so-called designer babies," said Eric Juengst, professor of social medicine and director of the UNC Center for Bioethics. "To better anticipate developments like the Chinese intervention, those in charge of developing rules for gene-editing research will need better ways to take account of relevant basic and as it emerges internationally."

The authors wrote:

"Most experts are in broad agreement that research should prioritize medical applications over attempts to enhance human traits. However, there is little consensus about what counts as human enhancement in this context, or how to deal with the issues it flags. Moreover, several influential reports interpret medical applications to include as well as treatment as a goal for gene-editing research. This challenges the current policy consensus because using gene editing to prevent disease would incidentally facilitate human enhancement applications in a variety of ways. If such research efforts are penalized by policy concerns about enhancement, then their preventive health benefits could be lost. To avoid being caught off guard by such challenges, science policy makers will need to think more carefully about what "prevention" might mean in the gene-editing context, and develop research governance that can anticipate and address the human enhancement concerns it will raise. To accomplish the latter, the scope of policy making will need to expand from its narrow focus on to engage with basic researchers driving the translational pipeline toward preventive and the science policy makers who have to address its "off-label" uses.


Explore further

US biologist: Gene-editing work a failure of self-regulation

More information: Eric T. Juengst et al. Is Enhancement the Price of Prevention in Human Gene Editing?, The CRISPR Journal (2018). DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2018.0040
Citation: Can scientists use gene editing for disease prevention but not human enhancement? (2018, November 29) retrieved 18 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-11-scientists-gene-disease-human.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
16 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more