Person-Affecting Reasons for Prenatal Gene-Editing?

David Wasserman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2361891

2024-08-20

The American Journal of Bioethics

Abstract:The views expressed in this commentary are the author's alone. They do not refect the position or policy of NIH or the federal government. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ethics,medical ethics,social issues,social sciences, biomedical

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns

Wiley, Lindsay,Cheek, Mattison,LaFar, Emily,Ma, Xiaolu,Sekowski, Justin,Tanguturi, Nikki,Iltis, Ana

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-024-09538-1

2024-09-21

HEC Forum

Abstract:The possibility of editing the genomes of human embryos has generated significant discussion and interest as a matter of science and ethics. While it holds significant promise to prevent or treat disease, research on and potential clinical applications of human embryo editing also raise ethical, regulatory, and safety concerns. This systematic review included 223 publications to identify the ethical arguments, reasons, and concerns that have been offered for and against the editing of human embryos using CRISPR-Cas9 technology. We identified six major themes: risk/harm; potential benefit; oversight; informed consent; justice, equity, and other social considerations; and eugenics. We explore these themes and provide an overview and analysis of the critical points in the current literature.

ethics
Reasons and Reproduction: Gene Editing and Genetic Selection

Jeff McMahan,Julian Savulescu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2250288

2023-09-13

The American Journal of Bioethics

Abstract: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.

ethics,medical ethics,social issues,social sciences, biomedical
Germline genome editing of human IVF embryos should not be subject to overly stringent restrictions

Kevin Richard Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03174-x

Abstract: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.
Chapter 12 Gene Editing in Human Embryos. A Comment on the Ethical Issues Involved

Iñigo De Miguel Beriain,Ana María Marcos del Cano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60684-2_12

2018-01-01

Abstract:CRISPR gene edition constitutes one of the most promising tools in the area of human health. However, it also involves a number of issues that require further consideration. The concerns, indeed, are twofold: the first are connected with the safety of the technology, while the second relate to some ethical issues and it is precisely those ethical issues that this chapter will deal with. To this purpose, we will focus on four main issues: the necessity of this technology and the risk issues involved; the embryo loss involved; the alteration of the human genome and human identity; and the enhancement/eugenics issue. Some of our main conclusions are the following: (1) We strongly support the idea that if further research reduces the risks involved, then the reasons for the prohibition of gene editing in human beings will vanish; (2) Embryo loss is not a key factor in terms of the ethical discussion of gene editing; (3) a general ban on human embryo editing on the grounds of the defense of the human genome is clearly unjustified, even if we really hold this approach; (4) a general ban on gene editing affecting the embryo’s germ line genetic identity is hard to understand and entails a number of questions that hinder its practical applicability; and (5) referring to eugenics can hardly justify a general ban on the use of gene editing in human embryos, considering the benefits that are at stake and the moral imperative to pursue them.
Human Germline Genome Editing

Kelly E Ormond,Douglas P Mortlock,Derek T Scholes,Yvonne Bombard,Lawrence C Brody,W Andrew Faucett,Nanibaa' A Garrison,Laura Hercher,Rosario Isasi,Anna Middleton,Kiran Musunuru,Daniel Shriner,Alice Virani,Caroline E Young

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012

2017-08-03

Abstract:With CRISPR/Cas9 and other genome-editing technologies, successful somatic and germline genome editing are becoming feasible. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in March 2017. The workgroup included representatives from the UK Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, International Genetic Epidemiology Society, and US National Society of Genetic Counselors. These groups, as well as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asia Pacific Society of Human Genetics, British Society for Genetic Medicine, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Professional Society of Genetic Counselors in Asia, and Southern African Society for Human Genetics, endorsed the final statement. The statement includes the following positions. (1) At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy. (2) Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research. (3) Future clinical application of human germline genome editing should not proceed unless, at a minimum, there is (a) a compelling medical rationale, (b) an evidence base that supports its clinical use, (c) an ethical justification, and (d) a transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.
When is it Safe to Edit the Human Germline?

Janella Baxter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00320-x

IF: 3.777

2021-07-06

Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract:<p class="a-plus-plus">In the fall of 2018 Jiankui He shocked the international community with the following announcement: two female babies, "Lulu" and "Nana," whose germlines had been modified by the cutting edge, yet profoundly unsafe CRISPR-Cas9 technology had been born. This event galvanized policy makers and scientists to advocate for more explicit and firm regulation of human germline gene editing (GGE). Recent policy proposals attempt to integrate safety considerations and public input to identify specific types of diseases that may be safe targets for human GGE (Sarkar forthcoming; Guttinger. 2019. "Editing the Reactive Genome: Towards Postgenomic Ethics of Germline Editing." Journal of Applied Philosophy. "Editing the Reactive Genome: Towards Postgenomic Ethics of Germline Editing." Journal of Applied Philosophy. "Editing the Reactive Genome: Towards Postgenomic Ethics of Germline Editing." Journal of Applied Philosophy; Lander et al., 2019). This paper argues these policy proposals are inadequate in different ways. While Sarkar (forthcoming) intends to incorporate input from the disability community for the purpose of deciding the value of human GGE, I argue that his strategy for doing so is inadequate. I'll argue that an iterative, deliberative process is a more appropriate framework for allowing the disability community to inform policy on human GGE. Further policy proposals have been framed in terms of monogenetic or single-gene diseases (Guttinger. 2019. "Editing the Reactive Genome: Towards Postgenomic Ethics of Germline Editing." Journal of Applied Philosophy. "Editing the Reactive Genome: Towards Postgenomic Ethics of Germline Editing." Journal of Applied Philosophy. "Editing the Reactive Genome: Towards Postgenomic Ethics of Germline Editing." Journal of Applied Philosophy; Lander et al., 2019). I argue that this way of conceptualizing disease is not what matters for deciding which disorders are viable candidates for human GGE. Instead, what matters is that (1) the disease in question must have (among its set of causes) genes that have a high degree of causal control with respect to the disease and (2) alternative nucleic acid sequences variants that are likely to produce traits deemed desirable must be identified. Previous policy proposals leave (2) unspecified. What conditions must be met for satisfying condition (2) should not be left to individual scientists to decide for themselves. The present proposal offers some guidance on this issue.</p>

ethics,history & philosophy of science,multidisciplinary sciences,engineering, multidisciplinary
CCR5-Δ32 biology, gene editing, and warnings for the future of CRISPR-Cas9 as a human and humane gene editing tool

MengMeng Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13578-020-00410-6

2020-03-30

Abstract:Background: Biomedical technologies have not just improved human health but also assisted in the creation of human life. Since the first birth of a healthy baby by in vitro fertilization (IVF) 40 years ago, IVF has been the mainstay treatment for couples struggling with infertility. This technology, in addition to increasingly accessible genetic testing, has made it possible for countless couples to have children. Since CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing was described in 2015, its potential for targeting genetic diseases has been much anticipated. However, the potential of using CRISPR-Cas9 for human germline modification has led to many fears of "designer babies" and widespread concerns for the impact of this technology on human evolution and its implications in Social Darwinism. In addition to these ethical/moral concerns, there remain many unknowns about CRISPR-Cas9 technology and endless unanticipated consequence to gene editing. Methods: In this paper, we analyze the current progresses of CRISPR-Cas9 technology and discuss the theoretical advantages of certain allelic variances in the C-C chemokine receptor 5 gene (CCR5) in the setting of recent ethical/moral concerns regarding gene editing using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Results: These uncertainties have been highlighted recently by the birth of Chinese twins whose C-C chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) gene had been inactivated via CRISPR-Cas9 to be theoretically protective against HIV infection. CCR5 signaling is critical for the successful infection of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and people with homozygous inactivating CCR5-Δ32 mutations have been shown to be protected against HIV infection. Those with the CCR5-Δ32/Δ32 mutation also have greater neuroplasticity, allowing for improved recovery from neurological trauma, and decreased Chagas cardiomyopathy. However, the CCR5-Δ32/Δ32 mutation has also been associated with earlier clinical manifestations for West Nile infection, ambiguous effects on osteoclast function, and a four-fold increased mortality from influenza infection. These detrimental health impacts, in addition to the confounding factor that these CRISPR babies do not carry this exact CCR5-Δ32/Δ32 mutation, lead to many questions regarding the children's future health and the moral conundrum of their birth. The creation and birth of these babies was not completed with any scientific, ethical, or governmental oversight, which has spurned the acceleration of talks regarding global regulations for human genetic editing. Conclusions: Although we can try to regulate for ethical, health-related only use of this technology, moral and governmental oversights need to be supplemented by technical regulations. For instance, whole genome sequencing needs to be used to eliminate off-target mutations that could affect the health and safety of infants born to this process. Like Pandora's Box, we cannot pretend to forget CRISPR-Cas9 technology, all we can do is ensure a safe, moral, and equitable used of this technology.
An ethical pathway for gene editing.

P. Singer,J. Savulescu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12570

2019-01-29

Bioethics

Abstract:The central importance of ethics to science is exquisitely illustrated by the recent gene editing of two healthy embryos by the Chinese biophysicist He Jiankui, resulting in the birth of baby girls born this month, Lulu and Nana. A second pregnancy is underway with a different couple. To make the babies resistant to HIV, He edited out a gene (CCR5) that produces a protein which allows HIV to enter cells. One girl has both copies of the gene modified (and may be resistant to HIV), while the other has only one (making her still susceptible to HIV).1

Medicine,Psychology,Philosophy,Biology
Ethical considerations in prenatal genomic testing

Ruth Horn,Alison Hall,Anneke Lucassen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2024.102548

2024-09-07

Abstract:This paper discusses ethical issues arising in the context of prenatal genomic testing. While genomic information in the prenatal context might increase reproductive choice, e.g. to better understand a phenotype detected during screening, the availability of ever broader screens, even in the absence of a suspicion of abnormality, will generate increasingly complex and uncertain information. This raises questions of how much and what information should be provided prior to testing and what information should be returned (and to whom) once testing has been performed. As prenatal genomic testing becomes broader and more routine, the information generated will have more often implications not only for the fetus, but also for the parents, siblings and the wider family, raising questions about professionals' responsibilities. Further challenges discussed in this paper include access to genomic testing and justice, as well as ongoing management and post-pregnancy follow-up. The paper highlights the importance of taking into account the particular difficulties that arise in the context of prenatal genomic testing: the uncertainty of the information while choices are binary (to continue with or to terminate pregnancy); the time pressure due to the statutory limits on the availability of termination; and the impact the testing of the fetus has on the woman's body and life.
Why Human Germline Editing is More Problematic than Selecting Between Embryos: Ethically Considering Intergenerational Relationships

Christoph Rehmann-Sutter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2018.1441669

2018-01-02

The New Bioethics

Abstract:Do we have a moral obligation to genetically cure embryos rather than selecting between them? Such an obligation would be an ethical argument for human germline gene editing (hGGE) to avoid the inheritance of genetic conditions instead of using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In this article, the intuition that we do have such a moral obligation is critically evaluated. The article first develops a theoretical framework for discussing the ethical questions of hGGE. This framework is based on an exploration of the phenomenology of the germline, from both biological and philosophical points of view. It interprets the germline as an embodied intergenerational relationship that carries meanings for the parents and for the children-to-be. It relates them to previous family generations, and to their own children. Hence, the germline is a phenomenologically much richer concept than just the line of cells that carry the inheritable genetic information. Against this background, selection is compared with editing and a key moral difference is identified: editing is in effect an act of co-constructing the genome, which necessarily assumes a wider range of responsibilities that include those parts that are left unedited. Introducing hGGE into societies would hence significantly affect and change the moral structure of the intergenerational relationships. Selective implantation, on the other hand (in the context of PGD), is based on a moral choice in favour of the embryo which is to be unaffected by a disease or disability that causes suffering, rather than selecting knowingly the affected one. The claim that hGGE is in the best interests of the child-to-be counterfactually assumes the presence of a patient who has an interest in being cured. The embryo (a potential future patient) is, however, brought into existence by the same act that is also the treatment. The future children who would result from treatment by hGGE may rather have an interest in not having been treated by hGGE, since it makes the intergenerational relationships more complicated and burdensome. The question 'Is hGGE justified, or even an obligation?' is answered with a No.
Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Polygenetic Conditions: A Legal, Ethical, and Scientific Challenge

Perrine Ginod,Michael H. Dahan,Dahan,Michael H.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1782618

2024-03-24

Seminars in Reproductive Medicine

Abstract:The recent commercialization of the Embryo Health Score (EHS), determined through preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic conditions, offers the potential to select embryos with lower disease risk, thus potentially enhancing offspring longevity and health. Lately, Orchid Health company increased testing from less than 20 diseases to more than 900+ conditions for birth defects. However, the "geneticization" of phenotype estimates to a health state erases the environmental part, including the in vitro fertilization potential risks, questioning its scientific usefulness. EHS is utilized in countries with minimal regulatory oversight and will likely expand, while it remains illegal in other countries due to ethical and legal dilemmas it raises about reproductive autonomy, discrimination, impacts on family dynamics, and genetic diversity. The shift toward commercialized polygenic embryo screening (PES) redefines healthcare relationships, turning prospective parents into consumers and altering the physician's role. Moreover, PES could increase social inequalities, stigmatize those not born following PES, and encourage "desirable" phenotypic or behavioral traits selection, leading to ethical drift. Addressing these issues is essential before further implementation and requires a collaborative approach involving political, governmental, and public health, alongside geneticists, ethicists, and fertility specialists, focusing on the societal implications and acceptability of testing for polygenic traits for embryo selection. Article published online: 22 March 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. 333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

obstetrics & gynecology,reproductive biology
Debating Ethical Issues in Genome Editing Technology

R. Qiu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/ASB.2016.0026

2016-12-29

Abstract:This paper provides an ethical analysis of the controversy that arose from the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing research involving human embryos that was conducted by a research team in Guangzhou, China, in 2015. It is argued that the researchers involved did not overstep ethical boundaries. This was confirmed to be the case in an international meeting of experts that was convened following the controversy. It is further argued that the controversy highlights the tension between two fundamentally different policies on developing genome editing technology – one proactionary and the other precautionary. This paper argues for a third approach, based on the policy of “crossing the river by probing stones”. Such an approach is consistent with current international recommendations to prioritise basic and pre-clinical research, and to allow the application of genome editing technology to somatic human cells. However, the application of the technology in germline genetic modification for human reproduction or enhancement for medical purposes should not be allowed at present. This is because the attending risks are not well understood and could be excessive or extraordinary, with little or no prospect of benefit. In addition, this paper calls for norms and regulations to be developed for genetically modifying non-human living things. Finally, the paper concludes with a letter that was sent by the author (and another) to the New York Times, setting out China’s fundamental stance on genetic modification involving humans and human derivatives.

Biology,Sociology,Philosophy,Medicine
Should Parents Design Their Children’s Genome: Some General Arguments and a Confucian Solution

Jianhui Li,Xin Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/PHILOSOPHIES4030043

2019-07-30

Philosophies

Abstract:With the emergence of clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) as one of the most promising new gene-editing techniques, scientists are now endeavoring to apply it to various domains. Among all the possible applications, gene editing in human embryos has received the most attention. Against this background, this article carries out a philosophical study on the ethical problems of human embryo gene editing or designing. Arguments against human embryo gene designing include that parents should be prohibited from deciding their children’s future; commodifying children should be prohibited; the natural reproductive process should not be disturbed; and human embryo gene designing might foster discrimination. Arguments for human embryo gene designing include that parents should have the freedom to design their own babies and this freedom should not be limited; designing babies can promote the happy life of the baby; and totally forbidding embryo gene editing would drive the practice underground, where it would be performed illegally. This article analyzes all of these arguments and points out that all of them have some flaws. In order to draw a thoughtful conclusion, we turn to Confucianism and find a new perspective to determine whether designing babies with CRISPR technology is ethically permissible.

Psychology
Addressing ethical issues related to prenatal diagnostic procedures

Dan Kabonge Kaye

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40748-023-00146-4

2023-02-03

Abstract:Background: For women of advanced maternal age or couples with high risk of genetic mutations, the ability to screen for embryos free of certain genetic mutations is reassuring, as it provides opportunity to address age-related decline in fertility through preimplantation genetic testing. This procedure has potential to facilitate better embryo selection, improve implantation rates with single embryo transfer and reduce miscarriage rates, among others, yet confers some risk to the embryo and additional costs of assisted reproductive technology. This raises questions whether, when and which patients should receive routine PGT-A prior to embryo transfer. Discussion: Prenatal diagnostic procedures refer to tests done when one or both genetic parents has a known genetic disorder (or has worries about the disorder) and testing is performed on them, their gametes or on the embryos to determine if the latter is likely to carry a genetic disorder. PGT is used to identify genetic defects in gametes or embryos (often created through in vitro fertilization (IVF). The procedures generate immense potential to improve health and wellbeing by preventing conception or birth of babies with undesirable traits, life-limiting conditions and even lethal conditions. However, they generate a lot of information, which often may challenge decision-making ability of healthcare providers and parents, and raise ethical challenges. Conclusion: Prenatal diagnostic procedures have potential to address uncertainty and risk of having a child affected with a genetic disease. They, however, often raise own uncertainty and controversies, whose origin, manifestation and related ethical issues are presented. There is need to develop individual and couple decision support tools that incorporate patients' values and concerns in the decision-making process in order to promote more informed decisions, during counseling.
Should Parents Design Their Children'S Genome: Some General Arguments And A Confucian Solution

Jianhui Li,Xin Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies4030043

2019-01-01

Philosophies

Abstract:With the emergence of clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) as one of the most promising new gene-editing techniques, scientists are now endeavoring to apply it to various domains. Among all the possible applications, gene editing in human embryos has received the most attention. Against this background, this article carries out a philosophical study on the ethical problems of human embryo gene editing or designing. Arguments against human embryo gene designing include that parents should be prohibited from deciding their children's future; commodifying children should be prohibited; the natural reproductive process should not be disturbed; and human embryo gene designing might foster discrimination. Arguments for human embryo gene designing include that parents should have the freedom to design their own babies and this freedom should not be limited; designing babies can promote the happy life of the baby; and totally forbidding embryo gene editing would drive the practice underground, where it would be performed illegally. This article analyzes all of these arguments and points out that all of them have some flaws. In order to draw a thoughtful conclusion, we turn to Confucianism and find a new perspective to determine whether designing babies with CRISPR technology is ethically permissible.
Editorial: In Utero Exposure to Maternal Affective Symptoms: Prenatal Programming of Child Psychopathology Is Independent of Shared Genes of Risk

Catherine Monk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2023.12.007

Abstract:The womb is an influential first home. This felicitous phrase is attributed to David Barker, often called the father of the late 20th century developmental origins of health and disease hypothesis, which asserts that maternal experiences during pregnancy are biologically transmitted to, and embedded in, the fetus, shaping child development.1 Specifically, Barker focused on maternal inadequate nutrition as a key in utero exposure to which the fetus biologically adapts, leading to biologically programmed changes, meaning long-lasting, that potentially put the offspring at risk for future metabolic diseases.1 In more recent developmental origins of health and disease publications, the impact of affective symptoms in pregnant women-defined broadly to include perceived stress, depression, and anxiety-on fetal and infant brain and behavior development has been identified. There is a third pathway for the familial inheritance of risk for psychiatric illness beyond shared genes and compromised parental postnatal mental health and caregiving: prenatal programming of risk for psychopathology originating in mental health symptoms of mothers.1 However, despite decades of experimental preclinical studies demonstrating maternal prenatal stress predicting altered offspring outcomes,2 the alternative interpretation-that shared genes of risk account for the outcomes-has remained challenging to disprove for human studies, perhaps particularly when the mother reports on her own and her child's mental health (a common study design further addressed below). In this context, the article by Chen et al.3 using polygenic risk scores to provide a single measure of genomic risk for complex phenotypes reports rigorous and original results demonstrating effects of maternal affective symptoms on child psychiatric outcomes while controlling for genomic risk.
Human Genome Editing is Not Unethical, Says Nuffield Council

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3140

2018-01-01

Abstract:There is no moral or ethical objection to making changes to the human genome that would pass down to future generations, as long as certain preconditions are met, the Nuffield Council for Bioethics has concluded.1 Germline engineering, as the technique is sometimes called, was for a long time the red line in biology. Any changes made would become part of the genome of the individual, to be passed on to future generations. The uncertainties and risks were deemed so great that it should never be attempted. But attitudes have shifted so much that the Nuffield report does not even attempt to restrict the technique to therapeutic uses. It says, rather, that it could be ethically acceptable if it contributes to the welfare of the person born as a consequence and does not increase …
Focusing on Human Rights: a framework for CRISPR germline genome editing ethics and regulation

Kevin Doxzen,Jodi Halpern

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2020.0003

Abstract:The late 2018 announcement of the claimed births of CRISPR-edited babies has stimulated widespread condemnation and calls by some leading scientists for a moratorium on any further germline genome editing (GGE) for reproductive purposes. Concurrently, national and international bodies are calling for the development of robust guidelines and regulations that will identify permissible conditions under which such GGE efforts might eventually proceed. Crucially, these conditions go beyond rigorous safety standards to address some of the social and ethical concerns that arise with germline interventions. As these bodies convene to navigate this unique terrain, we suggest an important standard for generating ethically robust guidelines. Our approach builds from concerns about social exclusion and social justice with a focus on fundamental human rights. We believe that a deontological or rights-based approach, rather than a utilitarian approach, is needed to ensure that this socially disruptive technology minimizes further marginalization of people with disabilities and does not create a new form of social injustice. In pursuit of a deontological framework, we propose the implementation of an objective assessment tool: the Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA). Use of the HRIA establishes necessary constraints on applications of GGE in order to safeguard the most vulnerable members of society.
The Public Perception of the #GeneEditedBabies Event Across Multiple Social Media Platforms: Observational Study

Congning Ni,Zhiyu Wan,Chao Yan,Yongtai Liu,Ellen Wright Clayton,Bradley Malin,Zhijun Yin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/31687

2022-03-11

Abstract:Background: In November 2018, a Chinese researcher reported that his team had applied clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats or associated protein 9 to delete the gene C-C chemokine receptor type 5 from embryos and claimed that the 2 newborns would have lifetime immunity from HIV infection, an event referred to as #GeneEditedBabies on social media platforms. Although this event stirred a worldwide debate on ethical and legal issues regarding clinical trials with embryonic gene sequences, the focus has mainly been on academics and professionals. However, how the public, especially stratified by geographic region and culture, reacted to these issues is not yet well-understood. Objective: The aim of this study is to examine web-based posts about the #GeneEditedBabies event and characterize and compare the public's stance across social media platforms with different user bases. Methods: We used a set of relevant keywords to search for web-based posts in 4 worldwide or regional mainstream social media platforms: Sina Weibo (China), Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube. We applied structural topic modeling to analyze the main discussed topics and their temporal trends. On the basis of the topics we found, we designed an annotation codebook to label 2000 randomly sampled posts from each platform on whether a supporting, opposing, or neutral stance toward this event was expressed and what the major considerations of those posts were if a stance was described. The annotated data were used to compare stances and the language used across the 4 web-based platforms. Results: We collected >220,000 posts published by approximately 130,000 users regarding the #GeneEditedBabies event. Our results indicated that users discussed a wide range of topics, some of which had clear temporal trends. Our results further showed that although almost all experts opposed this event, many web-based posts supported this event. In particular, Twitter exhibited the largest number of posts in opposition (701/816, 85.9%), followed by Sina Weibo (968/1140, 84.91%), Reddit (550/898, 61.2%), and YouTube (567/1078, 52.6%). The primary opposing reason was rooted in ethical concerns, whereas the primary supporting reason was based on the expectation that such technology could prevent the occurrence of diseases in the future. Posts from these 4 platforms had different language uses and patterns when they expressed stances on the #GeneEditedBabies event. Conclusions: This research provides evidence that posts on web-based platforms can offer insights into the public's stance on gene editing techniques. However, these stances vary across web-based platforms and often differ from those raised by academics and policy makers.
Comparison of Patients' Ethical Perspectives of Preimplantation Embryo Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A) vs. Monogenic Disorders (PGT-M)

J Zhang,L R Rubin,H Zierhut,L M Pastore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-021-00644-w

Abstract:What are the ethical perspectives of preimplantation genetic testing in patients using/considering PGT-A compared to those using/considering PGT-M? A 17-item questionnaire administered online was used to assess ethical perspectives in US patients who recently used/considered PGT-A (n=80) vs. those who used/considered PGT-M (n=72). Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square, and Fisher exact tests were conducted with STATA. Most PGT-A and PGT-M users/considerers supported using PGT to screen for diseases fatal in childhood (86-89%) and those causing lifelong disabilities (76-79%) and opposed using PGT to screen for non-medical physical (80-87%) or intellectual traits (74-86%). Both groups agreed that PGT aids in parental decision-making, although some expressed concern over its potential to lead to unforeseen consequences for society and the PGT offspring. More PGT-M than PGT-A users/considerers opposed implanting genetically abnormal embryos when requested by parents (29% PGT-A vs. 56% PGT-M, p = 0.007). For embryo disposition, more PGT-A users/considerers favored freezing (95% PGTA vs. 82% PGT-M, p = 0.018) or donating genetically normal embryos to research (73% PGT-A vs. 57% PGT-M, p = 0.044), while more PGT-M users/considerers supported donating embryos with known genetic abnormalities to research (56% PGT-A vs. 81% PGT-M, p = 0.001). Regardless of the reason for using PGT, users generally agreed on the acceptable and unacceptable uses for it, as well as the potential societal impact. PGT-M users/considerers expressed more opposition than PGT-A users/considerers to implanting embryos with a genetic alteration when requested by the parents.

Person-Affecting Reasons for Prenatal Gene-Editing?

The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns

Reasons and Reproduction: Gene Editing and Genetic Selection

Germline genome editing of human IVF embryos should not be subject to overly stringent restrictions

Chapter 12 Gene Editing in Human Embryos. A Comment on the Ethical Issues Involved

Human Germline Genome Editing

When is it Safe to Edit the Human Germline?

CCR5-Δ32 biology, gene editing, and warnings for the future of CRISPR-Cas9 as a human and humane gene editing tool

An ethical pathway for gene editing.

Ethical considerations in prenatal genomic testing

Why Human Germline Editing is More Problematic than Selecting Between Embryos: Ethically Considering Intergenerational Relationships

Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Polygenetic Conditions: A Legal, Ethical, and Scientific Challenge

Debating Ethical Issues in Genome Editing Technology

Should Parents Design Their Children’s Genome: Some General Arguments and a Confucian Solution

Addressing ethical issues related to prenatal diagnostic procedures

Should Parents Design Their Children'S Genome: Some General Arguments And A Confucian Solution

Editorial: In Utero Exposure to Maternal Affective Symptoms: Prenatal Programming of Child Psychopathology Is Independent of Shared Genes of Risk

Human Genome Editing is Not Unethical, Says Nuffield Council

Focusing on Human Rights: a framework for CRISPR germline genome editing ethics and regulation

The Public Perception of the #GeneEditedBabies Event Across Multiple Social Media Platforms: Observational Study

Comparison of Patients' Ethical Perspectives of Preimplantation Embryo Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A) vs. Monogenic Disorders (PGT-M)