Search

CRISPR-Cas (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats and CRISPR-associated proteins) systems are adaptive immune systems originally present in bacteria, where they are essential to protect against external genetic elements, including viruses and plasmids. Taking advantage of this system, CRISPR-Cas-based technologies have emerged as incredible tools for precise genome editing, thus significantly advancing several research fields. Forensic sciences represent a multidisciplinary field that explores scientific methods to investigate and resolve legal issues, particularly criminal investigations and subject identification. Consequently, it plays a critical role in the justice system, providing scientific evidence to support judicial investigations. Although less explored, CRISPR-Cas-based methodologies demonstrate strong potential in the field of forensic sciences due to their high accuracy and sensitivity, including DNA profiling and identification, interpretation of crime scene investigations, detection of food contamination or fraud, and other aspects related to environmental forensics. However, using CRISPR-Cas-based methodologies in human samples raises several ethical issues and concerns regarding the potential misuse of individual genetic information. In this manuscript, we provide an overview of potential applications of CRISPR-Cas-based methodologies in several areas of forensic sciences and discuss the legal implications that challenge their routine implementation in this research field., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

As shocking as He Jiankui's genetic experiment resulting in the world's first gene-edited babies may have been, a socioethical inquiry into this paradigmatic case of scientific misconduct reveals its deep roots in genetic and scientific nationalism, as manifested in the widely accepted practice of yousheng (superior birth or eugenics) in China and the country's authoritarian pursuit of science superpower status. Along with eugenics, bionationalism has long been an international phenomenon. A global sociobioethics or ethical transculturalism is thus necessary to adequately investigate the macrolevel sociopolitical, historical, and transnational forces, such as bionationalism, that structurally shape bioethical issues and people's responses to them, causing the systematic undermining of essential bioethical norms and the instrumentalization of human life., (© 2024 The Hastings Center.)

Background: The Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology (ECNH) of Switzerland is an independent expert committee appointed by the Federal Council and mandated to advise the federal authorities from an ethical perspective in the field of nonhuman biotechnology and gene technology. Due to recent developments in the field of xenotransplantation after the introduction of genome editing technologies, the ECNH has commissioned an expert report on the ethical questions of xenotransplantation with a focus on animal ethics. The subject of the inquiry is, in particular, if current developments in the field of xenotransplantation raise new questions regarding ethics in the nonhuman realm or if existing questions have to be re-examined and answered anew., Methods: An interdisciplinary approach was applied to answer this question. Based on the latest empirical results from medicine and biotechnology, xenotransplantation is analyzed and evaluated with reference to the dignity of the creature (Würde der Kreatur)-which is defined in the Swiss Federal Constitution-and the dignity of animals (Tierwürde) that is stipulated in the Swiss Animal Welfare Act and the Federal Act on Non-Human Gene Technology, as well as contemporary positions in the ethics of the human-animal relationship., Results: The report concludes that genome editing for xenotransplantation does not generate any qualitatively new ethical issues concerning ethics in the nonhuman realm. However, contemporary biotechnological developments must be taken as an opportunity to discuss existing ethical issues in an urgent and intensified manner, particularly regarding the significance of animals' moral standing. The lack of consideration of animal-related aspects and the neglect of current developments and the state of the art of animal ethics in the recent discussion about xenotransplantation is a scientific, ethical, and political issue because animals are most negatively affected by xenotransplantation. This is especially relevant because the contemporary state of the art in animal ethics tends to consider and protect animals more strongly than in the past., (© 2024 The Author(s). Xenotransplantation published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

'Ethics first' reform in China significantly changes the governance framework for the research of emerging technologies. The misapplication of human genome editing technology reflects the urgent need to reform the governance framework. Strengthening ethics governance in medical research has become a consensus in China, where legal and ethical reforms are proceeding in parallel. The protection of human dignity, the prevention of biosafety risks, as well as the regulation of technological crimes are at the core of the legal system, which has been embodied in numerous fundamental legislations following the CRISPR-babies incident. Establishing a national ethics committee to coordinate ethics governance, and reinforcing ethics review and external oversight are significant steps in ethical reform. Essentially, ethics governance requires implementing the basic concept of 'ethics first', focusing on forward-looking and preventive governance rather than delayed intervention, while maintaining openness and collaboration., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The revolution in biology triggered by the different genome-editing tools has of course arrived to the research field of animal reproduction. Yeast meganucleases, zinc-finger nucleases, TALEN and, particularly, the several generations of CRISPR tools have landed in animal reproduction thereby providing novel strategies to optimize or modify some of the features and capabilities of the recipient animals. All these genome-editing proposals and activities are associated with ethical considerations regarding how those planned genome alterations might affect important animal welfare issues. The ethical dimension of all these genome editing must be seriously considered. Hence, all ethical aspects bound to any given genome-edited allele in animals should be discussed in order to ensure that we are maximizing benefits and reducing any potential risk or negative considerations of these modifications. In this review, I will summarize some of the experiments reported aiming to investigate or improve animal reproduction and I will address the ethics issues that should also be considered., (© 2024 The Author(s). Reproduction in Domestic Animals published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH.)

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.

While somatic cell editing to treat disease is widely accepted, the use of human genome editing for "enhancement" remains contested. Scientists and policy-makers routinely cite the prospect of enhancement as a salient ethical challenge for human genome editing research. If preventive genome editing projects are perceived as pursuing human enhancement, they could face heightened barriers to scientific, public, and regulatory approval. This article outlines what we call "preventive strengthening research" (or "PSR") to explore, through this example, how working to strengthen individuals' resistance to disease beyond what biomedicine considers to be the human functional range may be interpreted as pursuing human enhancement. Those involved in developing guidance for PSR will need to navigate the interface between preventive goals and enhancement implications. This article identifies and critiques three of these ideas in the interest of anticipating the wider emergence of PSR and the need for a normative approach for its pursuit. All three "candidate criteria" merit attention, but each also faces challenges that will need to be addressed as further research policy is developed., (© 2024 The Hastings Center.)

Actions to prepare for and prevent pandemics are a common topic for bioethical analysis. However, little attention has been paid to global catastrophic biological risks more broadly, including pandemics with artificial origins, the creation of agents for biological warfare, and harmful outcomes of human genome editing. What's more, international policy discussions often focus on economic arguments for state action, ignoring a key potential set of reasons for states to mitigate global catastrophic biological risks: moral reasons. In this paper, I frame the mitigation of such risks as a global public good, and I explore three possible categories of moral reasons that might motivate states to provide this global public good: nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and interstate obligations. Whilst there are strong objections to moral nationalism as a reason for states to act, moral cosmopolitanism may provide a broad reason which is further supplemented for individual states through the elaboration of interstate moral obligations. The obligations I consider are moral leadership, fairness, and reciprocity. Moral reasons for individual states action may more effectively or more appropriately motivate states to mitigate global catastrophic biological risks., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Reproductive biotechnologies can separate concepts of parenthood into genetic, gestational and social dimensions, often leading to a fragmentation of heteronormative kinship models and posing a challenge to historical methods of establishing legal and/or moral parenthood. Using fictional cases, this article will demonstrate that the issues surrounding the intersection of current and emerging reproductive biotechnologies with definitions of parenthood are already leading to confusion regarding social and legal family ties for offspring, which is only expected to increase as new technologies develop. Rather than opposing these new technologies to reassert traditional concepts of the family, however, this article will explore the opportunities that these technologies represent for re-imagining various culturally cherished values of family-making in a way that is inclusive of diverse genders, sexualities and cultures. It will consider IVF, gametogenesis, mitochondrial donation, surrogacy, artificial gestation, CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, foster care and adoption as some of many possible pathways to parenthood, including for members of the LGBTIAUQ+ community., (© 2023 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Many writers in bioethics, science, and medicine contend that embryo selection is a morally better way of avoiding genetic disorders then gene editing, as the latter has risks that the former does not. We argue that one reason to use gene editing is that in many cases it would be better for the person who would develop from the edited embryo, so that not to have done it would have been worse for that person. By contrast, embryo selection is never better for the person who develops from the selected embryo. This reason to use gene editing has, however, been challenged on two grounds: first, that it makes no difference, morally, whether a bad effect is worse for someone, or a good effect better for someone; and, second, that beneficent gene editing would not be unequivocally better for the person who would develop from the edited embryo. We argue that both of these objections can be satisfactorily answered and thus that there is indeed a significant moral reason, at least in some cases, to use gene editing rather than embryo selection.

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.

This paper critiques the restrictive criteria for germline genome editing recently proposed by Chin, Nguma, and Ahmad in this journal. While praising the authors for resisting fervent calls for an outright ban on clinical applications of the technology, this paper argues that their approach is nevertheless unduly restrictive, and may thus hinder technological progress. This response advocates for weighing potential benefits against risks without succumbing to excessive caution, proposing that ethical oversight combined with genetic scrutiny at the embryo stage post-editing can enable responsible use of the technology, ultimately reducing the burden of genetic diseases and enhancing human health, akin to how IVF transformed reproductive medicine despite strong initial opposition., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

This paper critically engages with how life not worth living (LNWL) and cognate concepts are used in the field of beginning-of-life bioethics as the basis of arguments for morally requiring the application of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and/or germline genome editing (GGE). It is argued that an objective conceptualization of LNWL is largely too unreliable in beginning-of-life cases for deriving decisive normative reasons that would constitute a moral duty on the part of intending parents. Subjective frameworks are found to be more suitable to determine LNWL, but they are not accessible in beginning-of-life cases because there is no subject yet. Conceptual and sociopolitical problems are additionally pointed out regarding the common usage of clear case exemplars. The paper concludes that a moral requirement for the usage of PGD and GGE cannot be derived from the conceptual base of LNWL, as strong reasons that can be reliably determined are required to limit reproductive freedom on moral grounds. Educated predictions on prospective well-being might still be useful regarding the determination of moral permissibility of PGD and/or GGE. It is suggested that due to the high significance of subjective experience in the normativity of beginning-of-life bioethics, the discipline is called to more actively realize the inclusion of people with disabilities. This regards for instance research design, citation practices, and language choices to increase the accessibility of societal debates on the reproductive ethics of genetic technologies., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

This study investigates changes in the social valuation of the human genome over the more than 30 years since the establishment of the Human Genome Project. It offers a descriptive sociological analysis of the three waves of this valuation, mainly by considering three key UNESCO declarations and a relevant report. These waves represent a shifting balance between collectivism and individualism, starting with a broadly constructed valuation of the human genome as common human heritage and moving toward a valuation of dynamic applications within various social and medical contexts (e.g., personalized genomic medicine and genome editing). We seek to broaden the analytical perspective by examining how the declarations' ethical foci are framed within the context of rapidly evolving genetic technologies and their social applications. We conclude by discussing continuity and change in value balancing vis-à-vis changing genomic technologies., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Mexico has the in-house technical and regulatory capacity to undertake human genome editing (HGE) governance. However, its regulatory framework must be reformed to be more targeted and govern the application of any emerging HGE technologies, leaving no room for unethical or unsafe practices for reproductive purposes., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The author declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Heritable human genome editing (HHGE) to correct a nuclear gene sequence that would result in a serious genetic condition in a future child is presented as 'treatment' in various ethics and policy materials, and as morally preferable to the 'selection' practice of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), which is subject to the disability critique. However, whether HHGE is 'treatment' for a future child, or another form of 'selection', or whether HHGE instead 'treats' prospective parents, are now central questions in the debate regarding its possible legalisation. This article argues that the idea of 'treatment' for a future child is largely a proxy for 'seriousness of purpose', intended to distinguish HHGE to avoid serious genetic conditions from less obviously justifiable uses; that HHGE is best understood, and morally justified, as a form of 'treatment' for prospective parents who strongly desire an unaffected genetically related child and who have no, or poor, options to achieve this; that HHGE would be morally permissible if consistent with that child's welfare; that legalisation is supportable with reference to the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and that HHGE is morally distinguishable from PGT., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Targeted modifications of the human epigenome, epigenome editing (EE), are around the corner. For EE, techniques similar to genome editing (GE) techniques are used. While in GE the genetic information is changed by directly modifying DNA, intervening in the epigenome requires modifying the configuration of DNA, for example, how it is folded. This does not come with alterations in the base sequence ('genetic code'). To date, there is almost no ethical debate about EE, whereas the discussions about GE are voluminous. Our article introduces EE into bioethics by translating knowledge from science to ethics and by comparing the risks of EE with those of GE. We, first (I), make the case that a broader ethical debate on EE is due, provide scientific background on EE, compile potential use-cases and recap previous debates. We then (II) compare EE and GE and suggest that the severity of risks of novel gene technologies depends on three factors: (i) the choice of an ex vivo versus an in vivo editing approach, (ii) the time of intervention and intervention windows and (iii) the targeted diseases. Moreover, we show why germline EE is not effective and reject the position of strong epigenetic determinism. We conclude that EE is not always ethically preferable to GE in terms of risks, and end with suggestions for next steps in the current ethical debate on EE by briefly introducing ethical challenges of new areas of preventive applications of EE (III)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

In 2018, the Chinese scientist He Jiankui presented his research at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong. While it was intended that he facilitate a workshop, he was instead called on to present his research in heritable human genome editing, where he made the announcement that he had taken great strides in advancement of his research, to the extent that he had gene-edited human embryos and that this had resulted in the live births of two children. While his research ethic and methodology was interrogated, he insisted that two children, twin girls, had been born healthy and that there was another pregnancy (at the time) where birth of a third gene edited child would be imminent. This announcement generated a ripple effect in the scientific community and exposed the gaps in regulation and absence of law relating to the technology. This resulted in a flurry of activity and conversation around regulation of the technology, which scientists stated was not ready for human trials. This article reviews the Third Summit which was held in London in March 2023 and comments on the latest developments in the regulation of heritable human genome editing., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Until recently, scientific consensus held firm that genetically manipulated embryos created through methods including Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy or human germline genome editing should not be used to initiate a pregnancy. In countries that have relevant laws pertaining to heritable human germline modifications, the vast majority prohibit or restrict this practice. In the last several years, scholars have observed a transformation of scientific and policy restrictions with insistent calls for creating a regulatory pathway. Multiple stakeholders highlight the role of social consensus and public engagement for governance of heritable human germline modifications. However, in the drive to gain public acceptance and lift restrictions, some proponents provide distorted or misleading narratives designed to influence public perception and incrementally shift the consensus. This article describes eight discrete strategies that proponents employ to influence framing, sway public opinion, and revise policymaking of human germline modifications in a manner that undermines honest engagement., (© 2023. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd.)

The application of genetic editing techniques for the prevention or cure of disease is a highly promising tool for the future of humanity. However, its implementation contains a number of ethical and legal challenges that should not be underestimated. On this basis, some sectors have already asked for a veto on any intervention that modifies the human germ line, while supporting somatic line editing. In this paper, I will support that this suggestion makes no sense at all, because the somatic/germ line disjunctive has no moral relevance and, therefore, it should not play any role in legal terms. I will provide a number of reasons to hold this assumption, such as the non‐sacred nature of the germ line, the difference between germ line and human genome modification, or the moral importance of the presence of a will to create modified descendants. While doing so, I will provide some examples of the different approaches to germ line editing adopted by different regulations so as to demonstrate that, contrary to what is sometimes stated, a general ban on this practice is not the rule, but the exception. Additionally, I will show how alternative options which currently exist, such as a selective ban based on criteria different to the germ line/somatic line distinction, match better with the need to conciliate research needs and legitimate ethical concerns. Finally, I will introduce some further suggestions to this same purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding moral acceptability and willingness to use is crucial for informing policy.

In the last decade, genome editing technologies became very effective and several clinical trials have been started in order to use them for treating some genetic diseases. Interestingly, despite more than 50 years of discussion about the frontiers of genetics in human health and evolution, the debate about the bioethics and the regulatory practices of genome editing is still far from satisfactory answers. This delay results from an excessive emphasis on the effectiveness of the genome editing technologies that is relevant for the regulatory practices, but not at a bioethical level. Indeed, other factors (such as accessibility and acceptability) could make these techniques not accepted at the bioethical level, even in the presence of their 100% effectiveness.