Search

Casgevy, the world's first approved CRISPR-based cell therapy, has been priced at $2.2 million per patient. Although this hefty price tag was widely anticipated, the extremely high cost of this and other cell and gene therapies poses a major ethical issue in terms of equitable access and global health. In this Perspective, we argue that lowering the prices of future CRISPR therapies is an urgent ethical imperative. Although we focus on Casgevy as a case study, much of our analysis can be extrapolated to the controversies over affordable access to other gene and cell therapies. First, we explain why this first-of-its-kind CRISPR therapy might be so expensive. We then analyze the ethical issues of equity and global health of early CRISPR treatments. Next, we discuss potential solutions to lower the prices of CRISPR gene therapies. We conclude that the approval of CRISPR transforms our obligations of justice and compels us to bring future gene therapies to the maximum possible number of patients with serious genetic diseases at affordable prices.

Traditional distinctions between treatment and enhancement goals for human genome editing (HGE) have animated oversight considerations, yet these categories have been complicated by the addition of prevention as a possible target for HGE applications. To assess the role these three categories might play in continued HGE governance efforts, we report on interviews with genome editing scientists and governance group members. While some accepted traditional distinctions between treatment and enhancement and rejected the latter as unacceptable, others argued that the concept of enhancement is largely irrelevant or not as morally problematic as suggested. Others described how preventive goals for HGE create gray zones where prevention and enhancement may be difficult to distinguish, which may stymie uses of HGE. We conclude by discussing the governance implications of these various understandings of treatment, prevention, and enhancement as HGE research moves beyond the treatment of serious disease to embrace longer range preventive goals.

In the view of many, heritable human genome editing (HHGE) harbors the remedial potential of ridding the world of deadly genetic diseases. A Hippocratic obligation, if there ever was one, HHGE is widely viewed as a life-sustaining proposition. The national go/no-go decision regarding the implementation of HHGE, however, must not, in the collective view of the authors, proceed absent thorough public engagement. A comparable call for an "extensive societal dialogue" was recently issued by the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing. In this communication, the authors lay out the foundational principles undergirding the formation, modification, and evaluation of public opinion. It is against this backdrop that the societal decision to warrant or enjoin the clinical conduct of HHGE will doubtlessly transpire.

The ability to alter genomes specifically by CRISPR-Cas gene editing has revolutionized biological research, biotechnology, and medicine. Broad therapeutic application of this technology, however, will require thorough preclinical assessment of off-target editing by homology-based prediction coupled with reliable methods for detecting off-target editing. Several off-target site nomination assays exist, but careful comparison is needed to ascertain their relative strengths and weaknesses. In this study, HEK293T cells were treated with Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 and eight guide RNAs with varying levels of predicted promiscuity in order to compare the performance of three homology-independent off-target nomination methods: the cell-based assay, GUIDE-seq, and the biochemical assays CIRCLE-seq and SITE-seq. The three methods were benchmarked by sequencing 75,000 homology-nominated sites using hybrid capture followed by high-throughput sequencing, providing the most comprehensive assessment of such methods to date. The three methods performed similarly in nominating sequence-confirmed off-target sites, but with large differences in the total number of sites nominated. When combined with homology-dependent nomination methods and confirmation by sequencing, all three off-target nomination methods provide a comprehensive assessment of off-target activity. GUIDE-seq's low false-positive rate and the high correlation of its signal with observed editing highlight its suitability for nominating off-target sites for ex vivo CRISPR-Cas therapies.

In September 2020, a detailed report on Heritable Human Genome Editing was published. The report offers a translational pathway for the limited approval of germline editing under limited circumstances and assuming various criteria have been met. In this perspective, some three dozen experts from the fields of genome editing, medicine, bioethics, law, and related fields offer their candid reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society report, highlighting areas of support, omissions, disagreements, and priorities moving forward.

I want to enrich the debate about the ethics and governance of human germline editing (HGE) by emphasizing an underappreciated, yet important, set of concerns regarding exclusionary practices, norms, and efforts that impede a broader discussion about the subject. The possibility for establishing a binding, global, regulatory framework is influenced by economic and geopolitical factors as well as historical processes and sociopolitical problems, such as anti-scientific social movements and the politicization of science. Likewise, it is influenced by different understanding, epistemic resources, and goals between the CRISPR/genome editing community and the rest of society. In this Perspective, I explain the concept of "techno-scientific colonialist paternalism" and why it negatively affects our discussion around HGE. I also discuss the pitfalls of scientific self-regulation, and finally, I advocate that the implementation of HGE should cease to allow time and care for a thoughtful global discussion to emerge.

In the midst of the media and professional exuberance regarding the potential benefits of CRISPR technology, voices of criticism and caution have also arisen. One of the thorniest such cautions has been the common objection that CRISPR allows bioscientists to "play God," particularly when it comes to potentially editing the human germline. Many in the biotechnology field are unsure how to address this concern. What does it mean, particularly for bioscientists who may not have any rational or rhetorical categories for God? In this article, I explore possible meanings of "playing God" and the arguments for how those meanings might be applied in the utilization of CRISPR technology for human germline editing. I then test the validity of those arguments and explore potential counterarguments. Finally, I discuss how members of the bioscience community might respond to the objection of "playing God" and contribute to that dialogue in ways that could impact the future of CRISPR development and applications.

The case of twins born with genes modified by He Jiankui highlights the need for international governance of germline gene editing (GGE). This article proposes a global framework that utilizes "ordo-responsibilities." This is a pragmatic ethical approach open to pluralism and grounded in principles of human dignity and human rights. Ordo-responsibility is pragmatic in (1) accepting generally available values on a global level (e.g., human dignity, human rights) and (2) seeking achievable implementation. Genetic science is practiced globally in ways that transcend borders. As such, its practice must take account of the vast complexity of cultural, ethical, legal, and anthropological convictions. Here, we explain the basic structure of an appropriate rule-finding process, outline a possible pathway toward an international framework, and discuss minimal requirements that are needed in that endeavor. We thereby contribute to the debate on how to govern genome-editing technologies and GGE globally.

The potential for using germline genome editing (GGE) in humans has garnered a lot of attention, both for its scientific possibilities as well as for the ethical, legal, and social challenges it ignites. The ethical debate has focused primarily on the suggestions of using GGE to establish a pregnancy (i.e., to offer it in a clinical setting), which is, to date, illegal in many jurisdictions. The use of GGE in research (where a pregnancy would not be established) has received much less attention, despite the fact that it raises serious ethical and social issues as well. Herein, we report on the analysis of informed consent forms for egg and sperm donation used in a widely publicized study where genome editing was used to correct a disease-causing genetic mutation in human embryos. Importantly, embryos were created using eggs and sperm obtained specifically for these experiments. The analysis indicates deficiencies in how the forms addressed various issues, including limited and potentially misleading information about the sensitive nature of the study, the lack of an explicit mention of genomic sequencing, as well as the poor readability of the forms. Furthermore, the arguably high compensation of U.S.$5,000 for egg donors raises questions about undue inducement to participate in research. Moreover, since the procurement of eggs involves serious health risks, it may be questioned whether research requiring such a procedure should be pursued. If such experiments are continued, donors should be informed about all relevant aspects in order to make informed decisions about participating.

Much of the international community opposes editing the human germline. Yet, given enough experience to become better acquainted with strengths and limitations, prominent international figures are cautiously optimistic about using CRISPR-like novel technologies for clinical applications. Not only might such applications be morally (ethically) permissible, but clinical trials for therapeutic aims could be necessary. Here, we assess critical dimensions of early-phase trials deploying germline-editing technologies for "bench-to-bedside" translation. While assuming no overarching position favoring or opposing such research, our discussion primarily focuses on normative considerations. First, we evaluate the imperative of conducting trials to produce reliable, reproducible knowledge and advancement, if possible, for human diseases that are incurable and/or whose treatments are deficient. Second, we address complexities in assessing risk and potential-benefit profiles. Third, we review the moral foundations of trial participation through well-established and accepted bioethical principles: autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and distributive justice. Finally, we raise critical questions about the scope of regulatory authority and investigator and funder accountability for these applications that could have everlasting impacts.

If the safety and efficacy issues relating to heritable genome editing can be resolved, how should liberal democratic societies regulate the use of this technology by prospective parents who wish to effect edits to the genomes of their prospective children? We suggest that recent developments in South African law can be useful in this regard. The country's apex court recently recognized as a legal principle that the scope of possible reproductive decisions that parents may make when using new reproductive technologies excludes decisions that will cause harm to the prospective child-the principle of procreative non-maleficence. We suggest that the principle of procreative non-maleficence provides a mechanism for striking an equitable balance between two competing interests that are given legal recognition in most liberal democracies: the reproductive rights of prospective parents and the state's duty to protect child welfare.

The current debate and policy surrounding the use of genome editing in humans typically relies on a binary distinction between therapy and human enhancement. Here, we argue that this dichotomy fails to take into account perhaps the most significant potential uses of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing in humans. We argue that genetic treatment of sporadic Alzheimer's disease, breast and ovarian cancer predisposing BRCA1/2 mutations, and the introduction of human immunodeficiency virus resistance in humans should be considered within a new category of genetic protection treatments. We suggest that if this category is not introduced, life-altering research might be unnecessarily limited by current or future policy. Otherwise ad hoc decisions might be made, which introduce a risk of unforeseen moral costs, and might overlook or fail to address some important opportunities.

The social acceptability of germline genome editing (GGE) depends on its perceived safety, as well as respect for reproductive autonomy. However, it is doubtful that prospective parents sufficiently understand the risks of GGE. In the future, the use of GGE in specific situations seems plausible, as it offers couples potential means to safeguard genetically related future children from a serious disease and overcome infertility due to a gene mutation. Should GGE fail, however, some couples may be obliged to abort affected fetuses, or give birth to adversely affected children, which would be a tragedy. Some children might develop diseases later in life due to overlooked off-target mutations. Compounding this, some parents are unlikely to inform their offspring about the details of conception, hampering necessary follow-up. Prospective parents, scientists and policy makers should carefully discuss the safety implications of GGE for genetically related future children.

Advances in CRISPR technology and the announcement of the first gene-edited babies have sparked a global dialogue about the future of heritable genome editing (HGE). There has been an international call for public input to inform a substantive debate about benefits and risks of HGE. This study investigates the views of the sickle cell disease (SCD) community. We utilized a mixed-methods approach to examine SCD stakeholders' views in the United States. We found SCD stakeholders hold a nuanced view of HGE. Assuming the technology is shown to be safe and effective, they are just as supportive of HGE as genetics professionals, but more supportive than the general public. However, they are also concerned about the potential implications of HGE, despite this support. As discourse surrounding HGE advances, it is crucial to engage disease communities and other key stakeholders whose lives could be altered by these interventions.

In 2018, Dr. He Jiankui reported that he had edited human embryos and transferred them to a woman, causing her to give birth to twin girls with modified genomes. An international group of scientists and ethicists responded by proposing a global moratorium on heritable genome editing (HGE). In this article, I oppose this proposal on several grounds. A global moratorium might encourage participating nations to ban HGE or postpone access to it indefinitely. It might also deter or delay basic research that could lead to safe and effective HGE. Lastly, a global moratorium might induce participating nations to adopt or maintain laws and regulations that stigmatize children born with modified genomes. As an alternative, I argue that nations should regulate HGE for safety and efficacy only and without distinguishing between therapeutic and enhancing modifications.

Approximately 80% of rare and often incurable and serious conditions affect newborns and children, and roughly half of all rare diseases are considered to have an onset in childhood. Somatic gene therapies are already in clinical trials for spinal muscular atrophy, beta thalassemia, and macular degeneration. If proven to be safe and effective, could heritable genome editing be seen as a form of preventive personalized medicine and as fostering the right to health of the child? The latest calls for global moratoria on clinical applications of heritable genome editing are troubling in that they may create an illusion of control over rogue science and stifle the necessary international debate surrounding an ethically responsible translational path forward. Children are people with distinct rights and interests. An arbitrary moratorium neither fosters their best interests or health nor respects their right to benefit from the advancements of science.

Genome editing has opened up the possibility of heritable alteration of the human germline. The potential of this powerful tool has spurred a call for establishing robust regulatory frameworks to outline permissible uses of genome editing and to map a rational and ethical course. In response, major national scientific bodies and international organizations have convened and released comprehensive reports outlining recommendations for ethical regulatory frameworks. Significantly, these include an emphasis on public participation and the development of principles to guide future applications of genome editing. While essential, public input and principles are not sufficient to ensure ethical uses of this technology. We propose an approach that relies not only on agreed-upon principles and a democratic process but requires a Human Rights Impact Assessment to evaluate the potential burdens that such biomedical interventions may place on human rights.

Germline genome editing (GGE) holds the potential to mitigate or even eliminate human heritable genetic disease, but also carries genuine risks if not appropriately regulated and performed. It also raises fears in some quarters of apocalyptic scenarios of designer babies that could radically change human reproduction. Clinical need and the availability of alternatives are key considerations in the ensuing ethical debate. Writing from the perspective of a fertility clinic, we offer a realistic projection of the demand for GGE. We lay out a framework proposing that GGE, hereditary genetic disorders, and in vitro fertilization are fundamentally entwined concepts. We note that the need for GGE to cure heritable genetic disease is typically grossly overestimated, mainly due to the underappreciated role of preimplantation genetic testing. However, we might still find applications for GGE in the correction of chromosomal abnormalities in early embryos, but techniques for that purpose do not yet exist.

Researchers are exploring the use of gene-editing technologies to prevent and/or treat genetic conditions in humans. Stakeholder views, including those of patient and family populations, are important in the ongoing bioethical discussion. We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with parents of people with trisomy 21 (T21; N  = 10), trisomy 18 (T18; N  = 8), and trisomy 13 (T13; N  = 9)-conditions not previously studied in regard to attitudes toward hypothetical gene editing. While many discussions focus on the morality of gene editing, parents in our study focused on quality of life and concerns about changing their children's identity. All participants prioritized ameliorating life-threatening health issues when those were present; many also emphasized increasing their children's communication and cognitive ability. These results suggest that patient populations with the lived experience of genetic conditions have unique concerns that may differ from broader discourse.

There is no shortage of enthusiasm for the clinical potential of CRISPR-based genome editing: many life-changing cures appear to be just around the corner. However, as mature genetic therapies reach the market, it seems that million-dollar price tags are the new normal. Several factors contribute to the extreme pricing of next-generation medicines, including the need to recoup development costs, the undeniable value of these powerful therapies, and the inherent technical challenges of manufacture and delivery. CRISPR technology has been hailed as a great leveler and a democratizing force in biomedicine. But for this principle to hold true in clinical contexts, therapeutic genome editing must avoid several pitfalls that could substantially limit access to its transformative potential, especially in the developing world.

An international regulatory commission convened by scientific academies is a premature and problematic approach to governing human germline genome editing. Given the complex, international landscape of genome editing and significant cross-national differences among regulatory cultures, deferring to a single commission to set the agenda for global governance raises troublesome questions of framing and representation. Rather, democratic governance on a global level demands a new mechanism for active, sustained reflection by scientists on their own practices, conducted in partnership with scholars from other disciplines, as well as public representatives from varied social, political, and religious backgrounds. To be legitimate, ideas of the right form of governance in this emerging and highly consequential area of research need to be opened up to a wider diversity of views and voices.

This article assesses human germline genome editing (GGE). It argues that such editing is not inherently unethical, largely because of the fuzzy nature of "The Human Germline Genome" and its constant changes, often caused by humans. It further argues that GGE is unlikely to be very useful, at least in the near term to mid term. Other methods, such as preimplantation genetic testing and somatic cell gene therapy, are likely to be safer and more effective for dealing with avoiding single gene diseases. The main exceptions are rare couples wherein both have the same recessive condition or one has two copies of an allele causing a dominant condition. Although GGE should have advantages in dealing with multigenic or enhancement applications, our genomic knowledge is inadequate to support more than a few such applications for many years.

Gene-editing technologies have improved in ease, efficiency, and precision. Although discussions are occurring around acceptable uses of human gene editing, limited data exist on the views of genetics-trained individuals. In 2017, we distributed an anonymous online survey to assess the attitudes of members of genetics professional societies toward gene editing ( N  = 500). Virtually all respondents were supportive of somatic editing in basic-science (99.2%) and clinical (87.4%) research on nonreproductive human cells. Only 57.2% were supportive of germline-editing basic-science research; 31.9% supported the transfer of viable embryos to humans for clinical research. While most favored future therapeutic uses of somatic (96.6%) and germline (77.8%) editing, there was little support for enhancement in somatic (13.0%) or germline (8.6%) cells. This study describes attitudes toward gene editing from genetics professionals worldwide and contributes to ongoing discourse and policy guidance in this domain.