Moral reasons to edit the human genome: picking up from the Nuffield report

In July 2018, the Nuffield Council of Bioethics released its long-awaited report on heritable genome editing (HGE). The Nuffield report was notable for finding that HGE could be morally permissible, even in cases of human enhancement. In this paper, we summarise the findings of the Nuffield Council report, critically examine the guiding principles they endorse and suggest ways in which the guiding principles could be strengthened. While we support the approach taken by the Nuffield Council, we argue that detailed consideration of the moral implications of genome editing yields much stronger conclusions than they draw. Rather than being merely ‘morally permissible’, many instances of genome editing will be moral imperatives.

Download Full-text

Human genome editing is not unethical, says Nuffield Council

BMJ ◽

10.1136/bmj.k3140 ◽

2018 ◽

pp. k3140

Author(s):

Nigel Hawkes

Keyword(s):

Human Genome ◽

Genome Editing ◽

Nuffield Council

Download Full-text

Global divisions of health; bioethical principles, practices and regulations on human genome editing and stem cell research in Latin America

Bionatura ◽

10.21931/rb/2019.04.03.2 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 4 (3) ◽

pp. 895-896

Author(s):

Abril Saldaña Tejeda

Keyword(s):

Latin America ◽

Stem Cell ◽

Human Genome ◽

Genome Editing ◽

Stem Cell Research ◽

Clinical Care ◽

Human Enhancement ◽

Genetic Technologies ◽

Somatic Genome ◽

Cell Genome

Recent genetic technologies have uncovered the urgent need for global governance of health that can guarantee an ethical consensus on human genome editing and stem cell research. Although the majority of gene-transfer trials have been located in the Americas and Europe, the regulation of human somatic cell genome editing is generally limited in Latin America and largely informed by ethical concerns about genetically modified plants and animals, biopiracy, biosecurity, and use of stem cells for clinical care. Few jurisdictions in the region (i.e., Chile, Panama, Ecuador, and Colombia) have explicitly addressed somatic genome editing. Jurisdictions often address concerns regarding the use of new biotechnologies (i.e., CRISPR-Cas9) for human “enhancement” purposes rather than the prevention or cure of serious medical conditions 1.

Download Full-text

Toward anticipatory governance of human genome editing: a critical review of scholarly governance discourse

Journal of Responsible Innovation ◽

10.1080/23299460.2021.1957579 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-39

Author(s):

John P. Nelson ◽

Cynthia L. Selin ◽

Christopher T. Scott

Keyword(s):

Human Genome ◽

Genome Editing ◽

Critical Review ◽

Anticipatory Governance

Download Full-text

Exosome/Liposome-like Nanoparticles: New Carriers for CRISPR Genome Editing in Plants

International Journal of Molecular Sciences ◽

10.3390/ijms22147456 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (14) ◽

pp. 7456

Author(s):

Mousa A. Alghuthaymi ◽

Aftab Ahmad ◽

Zulqurnain Khan ◽

Sultan Habibullah Khan ◽

Farah K. Ahmed ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Genome Editing ◽

Viral Vectors ◽

Polymeric Materials ◽

Inorganic Nanoparticles ◽

Plant Genome ◽

Delivery Methods ◽

Detailed Consideration ◽

Crispr System ◽

Efficient Delivery ◽

Low Cytotoxicity

Rapid developments in the field of plant genome editing using clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein (Cas) systems necessitate more detailed consideration of the delivery of the CRISPR system into plants. Successful and safe editing of plant genomes is partly based on efficient delivery of the CRISPR system. Along with the use of plasmids and viral vectors as cargo material for genome editing, non-viral vectors have also been considered for delivery purposes. These non-viral vectors can be made of a variety of materials, including inorganic nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, liposomes, and protein- and peptide-based nanoparticles, as well as nanoscale polymeric materials. They have a decreased immune response, an advantage over viral vectors, and offer additional flexibility in their design, allowing them to be functionalized and targeted to specific sites in a biological system with low cytotoxicity. This review is dedicated to describing the delivery methods of CRISPR system into plants with emphasis on the use of non-viral vectors.

Download Full-text

Publics, Scientists and the State: Mapping the Global Human Genome Editing Controversy

The China Quarterly ◽

10.1017/s0305741021000229 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-28

Author(s):

Ya-Wen Lei

Keyword(s):

Public Sphere ◽

Human Genome ◽

Genome Editing ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Theoretical Framework ◽

The State ◽

Scientific Controversies ◽

Chinese State ◽

National Expert ◽

The Impact

Abstract Literature on scientific controversies has inadequately attended to the impact of globalization and, more specifically, the emergence of China as a leader in scientific research. To bridge this gap in the literature, this article develops a theoretical framework to analyse global scientific controversies surrounding research in China. The framework highlights the existence of four overlapping discursive arenas: China's national public sphere and national expert sphere, the transnational public sphere and the transnational expert sphere. It then examines the struggles over inclusion/exclusion and publicity within these spheres as well as the within- and across-sphere effects of such struggles. Empirically, the article analyses the human genome editing controversy surrounding research conducted by scientists in China between 2015 and 2019. It shows how elite scientists negotiated expert–public relationships within and across the national and transnational expert spheres, how unexpected disruption at the nexus of the four spheres disrupted expert–public relationships as envisioned by elite experts, and how the Chinese state intervened to redraw the boundary between openness and secrecy at both national and transnational levels.

Download Full-text