The question of whether human germline modification, or the genetic modification of human reproductive cells, should be allowed or banned was discussed by a panel of experts in the Ethics, Law and Society session during Day 1 of the World Stem Cell Summit.
On the panel were Aubrey de Grey, Chief Science Officer of the SENS Foundation, Paul Knoepfler, Associate Professor at the UC Davis school of medicine (and a CIRM grantee), and Aaron Levine, Associate Professor of Public Policy at Georgia Tech.
What Paul Knoepfler said…
On the basic research side, Paul discussed how CRISPR has revolutionized the way germline modification is being done from the older, costly, time-consuming method using homologous recombination to the faster, more efficient, and cheaper gene editing technology that is CRISPR.
In the big picture, he said that, “people will pursue germline modification with a variety of different goals.” He further explained that because this will likely happen in the future, scientists need to consider the risks (off target effects to name one) and the societal and ethical impacts of this technology. Another question he said we should consider is, whether as a society, we support the modification of the germline for health or enhancement reasons.
He concluded with a recap of last week’s International Summit on Human Gene Editing saying that while the organizers didn’t put forth a definitive statement on whether there should be a moratorium on editing the human germline, he himself believes that there should be a temporary moratorium on the clinical use of this technology since the idea is still very controversial and there is no overall consensus within the scientific community.
What Aubrey de Grey said…
Aubrey began by saying that as a gerontologist, he is interested in all potential therapies that could postpone the effects of old age, many of which could involve genetic modification. He went on to say that it might not seem intuitive that editing the human germline would be applicable to fighting aging, but that:
“Even though the medical imperative to engaging genetic germline modification may seem to be less clear in the case of aging than it is for inherited diseases, which people are unequivocally agreed on that is a bad thing, never-the-less, the potential application to aging may actually play a significant role in the debate, because we’ve all got aging.”
He gave an example of the ApoE4 gene. If you have two copies of this form of the gene instead of the normal ApoE3 gene, then you have a very high risk of getting Alzheimer’s disease and atherosclerosis. He posed the question to the audience, asking them whether if they knew that they had this disease causing gene, would they consider genetically altering their fertilized eggs back into the safe ApoE3 version to prevent their offspring from inheriting disease even if the therapy wasn’t approved by the FDA. It’s a hard question to answer and Aubrey further commented that if we begin using genetic modification to prevent one disease, where would we draw the line and where would modification end?
He ended with saying that the real question we need to consider is “whether people will want to do germline modification against aging, even though the modifications may really be more in the way of enhancements than genuine therapies.”
What Aaron Levine said…
Aaron Levine began with saying that the question of human germline modification is an old question with new twists. By new twists he meant the recent advances in gene editing technologies like CRISPR and Zinc Finger Nucleases. He further commented that the baseline question of this debate is whether we should modify the DNA of the germline, and that how we do it isn’t as significant.
He played devil’s advocate by saying that germline editing would greatly benefit single gene disorders, but that we should think of the full spectrum. Many traits that we might want, we don’t know enough about and attempting to add or remove these traits using gene editing would be like shooting in the dark.
On policy side, Aaron commented that international policy harmonization would be nice, but that we should treat it skeptically. He said that not everyone is going to agree or follow the same rules and we need to consider this going forward. As for the FDA, he said that its role and regulations regarding germline editing aren’t clear and that these need to be defined.
One really interesting point he made was the issue of unproven stem cell clinics. They exist and pose a huge risk to human health. The real question, he said, is could this turn into unproven CRISPR clinics around the world? He ended with saying that someone will claim to offer this technology soon and asked what we should do about it.
From the peanut gallery…
One of the questions asked by the audience was whether it’s just a matter of time that one of the world’s governments might go forward with human germline modification because of the huge medical implications.
Paul responded first saying that there was a consensus at the gene editing summit that it’s more of a question of when, rather than if this would happen. Aaron agreed and said that he believed it would happen but wasn’t sure when, and followed with saying that the more important question is how it will be done, overseen, and what reasons the editing will be done for.
Bernie Siegel, who is the co-Chair of the World Stem Cell Summit, spoke at the end and said that the panel delivered exactly what he hoped it would. He emphasized a theme that I didn’t mention in this blog but that was brought up by each of the panelists: the voice of patients.
“One of the things missing from the [International Summit on Gene Editing] meeting was the voice of the patient community. Do they understand the concepts of CRISPR technology? Patients are a major stake holder group, and they have the most influence on creating change in policy. When we talk about a moratorium, the patients see it as a five-alarm fire. All they want is to see a few drips of water, and they can’t get it. From a societal and popular culture standpoint, these are a whole group of people that will be experiencing the sweeping changes of biotech today. When those voices that are receiving these technologies enter the conversation, it will be a full debate.”