![]() ![]() Gene editing could theoretically repair these faulty genes. Whether it’s a single gene disorder such as cystic fibrosis or a multi-gene disorder such as schizophrenia, inherited diseases cause great suffering. There are six ethical principles that obligate us to embrace human genome editing:Ĭredit: Jeffrey Phillips 1. It allows us to liberate ourselves from the biological constraints of evolution and move toward a state of self-designed evolution. DNA manipulation allows us to correct genetic aberrations and enhance the human genome. ![]() Humans exhibit some 250 genetic disorders only 20–25% of embryos are fit enough to develop into a baby and 6% of newborns exhibit a major birth defect. It is the result of natural selection under particular environmental pressures. The human animal is not some finely balanced masterpiece of divine creation. Why permitting human genome editing is an ethical obligation Here, in his own words, Savulescu makes his case. An advocate of “procreative beneficence,” which holds that parents should select the best child they could have based on the best available information, he believes the technique is an ethical imperative. Oxford-based, Australian-born bioethicist Julian Savulescu is at the forefront of those who believe we should allow human embryo editing. But some ethicists are now changing their minds. That’s why genetic editing of embryos has been seen as a moral no-go zone for four decades. They range from the potential for creating a genetic elite to unpredictability of the long-term effects of altering the DNA of our species. The perils of genetically engineering babies have been well-articulated. Now we have to decide whether to take the next step.īy any measure, it will be a fraught decision. Precision genetic editing has catapulted us to the threshold of a GATTACA-like world. Do we have the right to consign all future generations to our current idea of what an ideal DNA code is? In Australia, the question is: should we allow the research to happen here? And does this new tool send us down a slippery slope to a world where all babies are engineered? Another consideration: genetically edited embryos would pass on their edited DNA to future generations. ![]() Ultimately it’s not the scientists, but members of the public and their political representatives who determine what laws and regulations are needed. This debate may soon come to a neighbourhood near you. The moral line in the sand, it seems, is now indistinct. Instead, they concluded that “as scientific knowledge advances and societal views evolve, the clinical use of germline editing should be revisited on a regular basis.” While they held that “it would be irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germline editing”, they did not push for a moratorium on research. The participants came to a different view. A month later, Francis Collins, Director of the US National Institutes of Health, proclaimed the agency would not fund research that is viewed “almost universally as a line that should not be crossed”.Īt the end of that year, an international summit was held in Washington, co-hosted by the US National Academy of Sciences and US National Academy of Medicine, the UK Royal Society and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. In March 2015 a number of US researchers, including those employed by private companies who are testing gene editing as a treatment for diseases such as HIV, haemophilia, sickle-cell anaemia and cancer, called for a moratorium on the genetic editing of human embryos. The US has become a major battleground in the ethical debate over CRISPR-Cas9. But others, such as China, have taken a more permissive approach to the technology. In some countries, including Australia, the UK, and many European nations, ethical concerns have prompted restrictions or an outright ban on the use of CRISPR-Cas9. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |