scholarly journals Live births following genome editing in human embryos: a call for clarity, self-control and regulation

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen C O'Neill ◽  
Jacques Cohen
2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (8) ◽  
pp. 103682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joyce C. Harper ◽  
Gerald Schatten
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana S. Iltis ◽  
Sarah Hoover ◽  
Kirstin R. W. Matthews

As scientific research pushes the boundaries of knowledge, new discoveries and technologies often raise ethical and social questions. Public responses vary from surprise, to unrealistic optimism about imminent new treatments, confusion, and absolute opposition. Regardless of the intent, the use of a precise gene editing tool on human embryos, such as CRISPR-Cas9, is an example of such a controversial emerging technology. Substantive disagreement about the appropriate research pathways and permissible clinical applications is to be expected. Many ethical concerns, especially related to genetic manipulation of human embryos, are rooted in deeply held moral, religious, or ideological beliefs that science alone cannot address. Today, more scientists and scientific societies as well as policy makers are calling for public and stakeholder engagement in developing guidelines and policies governing scientific practice. We conducted a critical interpretive review of the literature on public and stakeholder engagement in science policy development regarding emerging technologies to determine the ideals that should guide engagement efforts of entities developing recommendations or guidelines on policy for such technologies. We identify and describe five ideals. To illustrate possible applications of these ideals, we review the engagement efforts described in three reports on heritable human genome editing and assess those efforts in light of these ideals. Finally, we recommend possible avenues for engagement that would advance those goals.


Author(s):  
Emma Ford ◽  
Cerys E. Currie ◽  
Deborah M. Taylor ◽  
Muriel Erent ◽  
Adele L. Marston ◽  
...  

Aneuploidy in human embryos is surprisingly prevalent and increases drastically with maternal age, resulting in miscarriages, infertility and birth defects. Frequent errors during the meiotic divisions cause this aneuploidy, while age-independent errors during the first cleavage divisions of the embryo also contribute. However, the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood, largely because these events have never been visualised in living human embryos. Here, using cell-permeable DNA dyes, we film chromosome segregation during the first and second mitotic cleavage divisions in human embryos from women undergoing assisted reproduction following ovarian stimulation. We show that the first mitotic division takes several hours to complete and is highly variable. Timings of key mitotic events were, however, largely consistent with clinical videos of embryos that gave rise to live births. Multipolar divisions and lagging chromosomes during anaphase were frequent with no maternal age association. In contrast, the second mitosis was shorter and underwent mostly bipolar divisions with no detectable lagging chromosomes. We propose that the first mitotic division in humans is a unique and highly error-prone event, which contributes to fetal aneuploidies.


2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-225
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Agius

The uncharted territory of genome editing technology, which can be described as the Copernican revolution of our age, presents the challenge of the trade-offs between the benefits to people now and the known unknowns concerning future dangers and risks. It is for this reason that critics of human germline modification argue that it is unethical to harvest benefits in the immediate future while causing a whirlwind in the far-distant future! The current generation has, therefore, to make sensible decisions about the research and clinical application of human gene editing technologies to prevent far-reaching deleterious impact on an indefinite number of generations yet to come. Certainly, techniques of heritable human genome editing could increase vulnerability, discrimination and division among and between generations without the guidance of social justice which is inseparable from solidarity. Since the descendants of edited human embryos may be exposed to unknown, possibly negative long-term effects, without consenting to having these risks imposed on them, the thorny issues of harm, safety and precaution are crucial to address the knowledge-gaps and uncertainties implied the clinical application of human genome editing. Thus, the intergenerational moral consciousness and conscientiousness on the benefits and risks of human genome editing have to remain vigilant and alert!


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document