AAAS cautions against germ line gene therapy

J. Fox

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/81043

IF: 46.9

2000-11-01

Nature Biotechnology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Somatic Gene Therapy: Ethics and Access

Alison Bateman-House

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-021623-104458

Abstract:Manipulation of a patient's genome for therapeutic ends is being attempted through numerous methods, some of which have resulted in disease-modifying interventions. The much anticipated promise of somatic gene therapy is starting to pay off; however, there remain many scientific unknowns, including concerns about safety and durability. A significant ethical concern is that of access to these novel interventions, an issue that is normally framed in terms of the high costs of approved products. I describe how access issues permeate gene therapy long before there is any commercial product and how even upstream decisions-such as choices of indication to pursue, viral vector, and where to site a trial-have significant implications for access to resultant products in both the developmental and commercial stages.
Addressing the dark matter of gene therapy: technical and ethical barriers to clinical application

Kateryna Kratzer,Landon J Getz,Thibaut Peterlini,Jean-Yves Masson,Graham Dellaire

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-021-02272-5

Abstract:Gene therapies for genetic diseases have been sought for decades, and the relatively recent development of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing system has encouraged a new wave of interest in the field. There have nonetheless been significant setbacks to gene therapy, including unintended biological consequences, ethical scandals, and death. The major focus of research has been on technological problems such as delivery, potential immune responses, and both on and off-target effects in an effort to avoid negative clinical outcomes. While the field has concentrated on how we can better achieve gene therapies and gene editing techniques, there has been less focus on when and why we should use such technology. Here we combine discussion of both the technical and ethical barriers to the widespread clinical application of gene therapy and gene editing, providing a resource for gene therapy experts and novices alike. We discuss ethical problems and solutions, using cystic fibrosis and beta-thalassemia as case studies where gene therapy might be suitable, and provide examples of situations where human germline gene editing may be ethically permissible. Using such examples, we propose criteria to guide researchers and clinicians in deciding whether or not to pursue gene therapy as a treatment. Finally, we summarize how current progress in the field adheres to principles of biomedical ethics and highlight how this approach might fall short of ethical rigour using examples in the bioethics literature. Ultimately by addressing both the technical and ethical aspects of gene therapy and editing, new frameworks can be developed for the fair application of these potentially life-saving treatments.
Human gene therapy: scientific and ethical considerations.

Anderson Wf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/JMP/10.3.275

1985-08-01

Abstract:The term 'gene therapy' encompasses at least four types of application of genetic engineering for the insertion of genes into humans. The scientific requirements and the ethical issues associated with each type are discussed. Somatic cell gene therapy is technically the simplest and ethically the least controversial. The first clinical trials will probably be undertaken within the next year. Germ line gene therapy will require major advances in our present knowledge and it raises ethical issues that are now being debated. In order to provide guidelines for determining when germ line gene therapy would be ethical, the author presents three criteria which should be satisfied prior to the time that a clinical protocol is attempted in humans. Enhancement genetic engineering presents significant, and troubling, ethical concerns. Except where this type of therapy can be justified on the grounds of preventive medicine, enhancement engineering should not be performed. The fourth type, eugenic genetic engineering, is impossible at present and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future, despite the widespread media attention it has received.

Biology,Sociology,Medicine
Are null segregants new combinations of heritable material and should they be regulated?

Jack A. Heinemann,Katrin Clark,Tessa C. Hiscox,Andrew W. McCabe,Sarah Z. Agapito-Tenfen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgeed.2022.1064103

2023-01-10

Frontiers in Genome Editing

Abstract:Through genome editing and other techniques of gene technology, it is possible to create a class of organism called null segregants. These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are products of gene technology but are argued to have no lingering vestige of the technology after the segregation of chromosomes or deletion of insertions. From that viewpoint regulations are redundant because any unique potential for the use of gene technology to cause harm has also been removed. We tackle this question of international interest by reviewing the early history of the purpose of gene technology regulation. The active ingredients of techniques used for guided mutagenesis, e.g., site-directed nucleases, such as CRISPR/Cas, are promoted for having a lower potential per reaction to create a hazard. However, others see this as a desirable industrial property of the reagents that will lead to genome editing being used more and nullifying the promised hazard mitigation. The contest between views revolves around whether regulations could alter the risks in the responsible use of gene technology. We conclude that gene technology, even when used to make null segregants, has characteristics that make regulation a reasonable option for mitigating potential harm. Those characteristics are that it allows people to create more harm faster, even if it creates benefits as well; the potential for harm increases with increased use of the technique, but safety does not; and regulations can control harm scaling.
The Six-Variable Model - Context Modelling Enabling Systematic Reuse of Control Software

Nelufar Ulfat-Bunyadi,Rene Meis,M. Heisel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5220/0005944100150026

2016-11-20

Abstract:A control system usually consists of some control software as well as sensors and actuators to monitor and control certain quantities in the environment. The context of the control software thus consists of the sensors and actuators it uses and the environment. When starting development of the control software, its context is often not predefined or given. There are contextual decisions the developers can make (e.g. which sensors/actuators/other systems to use). By means of these decisions, the context is defined step by step. Existing approaches (like the Four-Variable Model) call for documenting the environmental quantities (monitored, controlled, input, and output variables) that are relevant after making these contextual decisions. The environmental quantities that have originally been relevant (i.e. before deciding which sensors/actuators/other systems to use) are not documented. This results in problems when the software shall later on be reused in another, slightly different setting (e.g. with additional sensors). Then, it is hard for developers to decide which environmental quantities are still relevant for the software. In this paper, we suggest an extended version of the Four-Variable Model, the Six-Variable Model, and, based on that, a context modelling method, that combines existing approaches. The benefit of our method is that the environmental quantities that are relevant before and after decision making are documented as well as the contextual decisions themselves and the options that were selectable. In this way, later reuse of the software is facilitated.
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.
Is gene therapy a form of eugenics?

John Harris

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.1993.tb00283.x

Bioethics

Abstract:If, as I believe, gene therapy is in principle ethically sound except for its possible connection with eugenics then there are two obvious ways of giving a simple and straightforward answer to a question such as this. The first is to say "yes it is, and so what?" The second is to say "no it isn't so we shouldn't worry". If we accept the first of the above definitions we might well be inclined to give the first of our two answers. If on the other hand, we accept the sort of gloss that Ruth Chadwick gives on Galton's account, "those who are genetically weak should simply be discouraged from reproducing", either by incentives or compulsory measures, we get a somewhat different flavour, and one which might incline a decent person who favours gene therapy towards the second answer.
Treatment of metastatic tumors of the choroid with proton beam irradiation.

E. Tsina,A. Lane,D. Zacks,J. Munzenrider,J. Michael Collier,E. Gragoudas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OPHTHA.2004.09.013

2005-02-01

Abstract:
Somatic Gene Therapy Research in Pediatric Populations: Ethical Issues and Guidance for Operationalizing Early Phase Trials

Alison Bateman-House,Lesha D. Shah,Rafael Escandon,Andrew McFadyen,Cara Hunt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-022-00451-x

2022-12-18

Pharmaceutical Medicine

Abstract:Currently, pediatric research involving investigational gene therapies (GT, used without intending to imply a therapeutic effect) targets a broad range of indications (including rare and ultra-rare diseases) that vary in severity and availability of approved disease-modifying therapies. Because of this diversity of circumstances, there is no one-size-fits-all list of ethical concerns relevant to all uses of investigational GTs in children. Here, we review the main ethical issues, specifically those surrounding the current state of knowledge about GT product-related immunogenicity, toxicity, duration, irreversibility, informed consent/assent, trial design (including the question of who 'goes first'), participant and caregiver burdens, and equity in diagnosis and access to research opportunities. Ethical issues that can be anticipated to arise in pediatric GT clinical trials, e.g., the uncertainty and risk of this research, the resultant preclusion of GT trial participants from other research, the length of follow-up monitoring, and the urgency often felt by caregivers dealing with dire, rapidly progressive conditions, should be proactively identified, addressed in accordance with existing best practices, and transparently discussed among all stakeholders.
Gene Therapy for Genetic Syndromes: Understanding the Current State to Guide Future Care

Marian L Henderson,Jacob K Zieba,Xiaopeng Li,Daniel B Campbell,Michael R Williams,Daniel L Vogt,Caleb P Bupp,Yvonne M Edgerly,Surender Rajasekaran,Nicholas L Hartog,Jeremy W Prokop,Jena M Krueger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/biotech13010001

2024-01-03

Abstract:Gene therapy holds promise as a life-changing option for individuals with genetic variants that give rise to disease. FDA-approved gene therapies for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy, β-Thalassemia, hemophilia A/B, retinal dystrophy, and Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy have generated buzz around the ability to change the course of genetic syndromes. However, this excitement risks over-expansion into areas of genetic disease that may not fit the current state of gene therapy. While in situ (targeted to an area) and ex vivo (removal of cells, delivery, and administration of cells) approaches show promise, they have a limited target ability. Broader in vivo gene therapy trials have shown various continued challenges, including immune response, use of immune suppressants correlating to secondary infections, unknown outcomes of overexpression, and challenges in driving tissue-specific corrections. Viral delivery systems can be associated with adverse outcomes such as hepatotoxicity and lethality if uncontrolled. In some cases, these risks are far outweighed by the potentially lethal syndromes for which these systems are being developed. Therefore, it is critical to evaluate the field of genetic diseases to perform cost-benefit analyses for gene therapy. In this work, we present the current state while setting forth tools and resources to guide informed directions to avoid foreseeable issues in gene therapy that could prevent the field from continued success.
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.
A plea for caution and guidance about using AI in genomics

Mohammad Hosseini,Christopher R. Donohue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-024-00947-y

IF: 23.8

2024-12-01

Nature Machine Intelligence

Abstract:The incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into genetics and genomics research can enable research that would have been otherwise impossible. However, these benefits must be considered together with the potential risks to humans, other sentient beings, and the environment. Genetic and genomic advances require much trial and error to succeed; this is ethically fraught when the consequences are unknown and the moral status of created or modified tissues or organisms is unclear, or possibly comparable to conscious beings. We argue that it is urgent to expand the ethical discourse on the use of AI in genomics research and to develop appropriate guidance. Genetics and genomics research has enabled us to answer questions about historical events and keeps adding considerable depth to what we know about the world and ourselves. For example, it has determined when and how certain animals and plants were domesticated, how diseases spread, how viruses mutate, and thanks to CRISPR, has led to remarkable advances in the understanding and treatment of rare genetic conditions. However, these advances also intensify long-standing tensions between biomedical innovations and research ethics norms, especially with new AI developments.

computer science, artificial intelligence, interdisciplinary applications
Gene therapy comes of age

Cynthia E Dunbar,Katherine A High,J Keith Joung,Donald B Kohn,Keiya Ozawa,Michel Sadelain,Cynthia E. Dunbar,Katherine A. High,J. Keith Joung,Donald B. Kohn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan4672

IF: 56.9

2018-01-12

Science

Abstract:Gene therapy: The power of persistence Nearly 50 years after the concept was first proposed, gene therapy is now considered a promising treatment option for several human diseases. The path to success has been long and tortuous. Serious adverse effects were encountered in early clinical studies, but this fueled basic research that led to safer and more efficient gene transfer vectors. Gene therapy in various forms has produced clinical benefits in patients with blindness, neuromuscular disease, hemophilia, immunodeficiencies, and cancer. Dunbar et al. review the pioneering work that led the gene therapy field to its current state, describe gene-editing technologies that are expected to play a major role in the field's future, and discuss practical challenges in getting these therapies to patients who need them. Science , this issue p. eaan4672

multidisciplinary sciences
Regulatory Considerations for Genome-Edited T-cell Therapies

Julie K. Jadlowsky,Ju-fang Chang,David H. Spencer,John M. Warrington,Bruce L. Levine,Carl H. June,Joseph A. Fraietta,Nathan Singh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/2326-6066.cir-24-0482

IF: 10.1

2024-07-18

Cancer Immunology Research

Abstract:Methods to engineer the genomes of human cells for therapeutic intervention continue to advance at a remarkable pace. Chimeric antigen receptor–engineered T lymphocytes have pioneered the way for these therapies, initially beginning with insertions of chimeric antigen receptor transgenes into T-cell genomes using classical gene therapy vectors. The broad use of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-based technologies to edit endogenous genes has now opened the door to a new era of precision medicine. To add complexity, many engineered cellular therapies under development integrate gene therapy with genome editing to introduce novel biological functions and enhance therapeutic efficacy. Here, we review the current state of scientific, translational, and regulatory oversight of gene-edited cell products.

oncology,immunology
Voxel planes: Rapid visualization and meshification of point cloud ensembles

J. Ryde,Vikas Dhiman,Robert W. Platt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2013.6696889

2013-11-01

Abstract:Conversion of unorganized point clouds to surface reconstructions is increasingly required in the mobile robotics perception processing pipeline, particularly with the rapid adoption of RGB-D (color and depth) image sensors. Many contemporary methods stem from the work in the computer graphics community in order to handle the point clouds generated by tabletop scanners in a batch-like manner. The requirements for mobile robotics are different and include support for real-time processing, incremental update, localization, mapping, path planning, obstacle avoidance, ray-tracing, terrain traversability assessment, grasping/manipulation and visualization for effective human-robot interaction. We carry out a quantitative comparison of Greedy Projection and Marching cubes along with our voxel planes method. The execution speed, error, compression and visualization appearance of these are assessed. Our voxel planes approach first computes the PCA over the points inside a voxel, combining these PCA results across 2×2×2 voxel neighborhoods in a sliding window. Second, the smallest eigenvector and voxel centroid define a plane which is intersected with the voxel to reconstruct the surface patch (3-6 sided convex polygon) within that voxel. By nature of their construction these surface patches tessellate to produce a surface representation of the underlying points. In experiments on public datasets the voxel planes method is 3 times faster than marching cubes, offers 300 times better compression than Greedy Projection, 10 fold lower error than marching cubes whilst allowing incremental map updates.
‘Above all, do no harm’: safeguarding pluripotent stem cell therapy against iatrogenic tumorigenesis

Marek Malecki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/scrt462

2014-06-03

Abstract:Human pluripotent stem cells are the foundations of regenerative medicine. However, the worst possible complication of using pluripotent stem cells in therapy could be iatrogenic cancerogenesis. Nevertheless, despite the rapid progress in the development of new techniques for induction of pluripotency and for directed differentiation, risks of cancerogenic transformation of therapeutically implanted pluripotent stem cells still persist. 'Above all, do no harm', as quoted from the Hippocratic Oath, is our ultimate creed. Therefore, the primary goal in designing any therapeutic regimes involving stem cells should be the elimination of any possibilities of their neoplasmic transformation. I review here the basic strategies that have been designed to attain this goal: sorting out undifferentiated, pluripotent stem cells with antibodies targeting surface-displayed biomarkers; sorting in differentiating cells, which express recombinant proteins as reporters; killing undifferentiated stem cells with toxic antibodies or antibody-guided toxins; eliminating undifferentiated stem cells with cytotoxic drugs; making potentially tumorigenic stem cells sensitive to pro-drugs by transformation with suicide-inducing genes; eradication of differentiation-refractive stem cells by self-triggered transgenic expression of human recombinant DNases. Every pluripotent undifferentiated stem cell poses a risk of neoplasmic transformation. Therefore, the aforementioned or other novel strategies that would safeguard against iatrogenic transformation of these stem cells should be considered for incorporation into every stem cell therapy trial.

cell biology,medicine, research & experimental,cell & tissue engineering
The History, Use, and Challenges of Therapeutic Somatic Cell and Germline Gene Editing

Junghyun Ryu,Eli Y. Adashi,Jon D. Hennebold

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ogx.0001010424.79207.9c

2024-03-20

Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey

Abstract:Gene editing is a technology that has been rapidly developing and that has many applications as well as ethical and practical implications. This article is a review that outlines the history of current technology, as well as the advantages and challenges in use for somatic cell and germline gene editing. Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) was first introduced in 2002 and initially saw limited use among researchers. However, in 2012, it was discovered that a nuclease associated with CRISPR (Cas9) could be used with guide RNA to cleave double-stranded DNA in specific places, raising the potential for targeted gene editing. Immediately, the scientific community saw endless possibilities of this technology for clinical therapies and treatment of genetic disorders. Currently, more than 110 gene editing–based therapies are in clinical trials, with 2 different treatments already in phase 3 clinical trials.

obstetrics & gynecology
The immune system can sabotage gene therapies — can scientists rein it in?

Heidi Ledford

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01483-w

IF: 64.8

2024-05-29

Nature

Abstract:People treated with gene therapy cannot receive a second dose for fear of a dangerous immune response. Researchers hope to find a way around this. People treated with gene therapy cannot receive a second dose for fear of a dangerous immune response. Researchers hope to find a way around this.

multidisciplinary sciences
Gene Editing Technology and Ethical Issues

Barbara Jane Holland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-3479-3.ch136

2021-01-01

Abstract:CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) technology has emerged as a powerful technology for genome editing and is now widely used in basic biomedical research to explore gene function. More recently, this technology has been increasingly applied to the study or treatment of human diseases. CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing has also been applied in immunology-focused applications such as the targeting of C-C chemokine receptor type 5, the programmed death 1 gene and the creation of chimeric antigen receptors in T cells for purposes such as the treatment of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) or promoting anti-tumor immunotherapy. Furthermore, scientist recently suggest through their study that CRISPR may not work for everyone. This paper will review gene editing technology and its ethical concerns.
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

AAAS cautions against germ line gene therapy

Somatic Gene Therapy: Ethics and Access

Addressing the dark matter of gene therapy: technical and ethical barriers to clinical application

Human gene therapy: scientific and ethical considerations.

Are null segregants new combinations of heritable material and should they be regulated?

The Six-Variable Model - Context Modelling Enabling Systematic Reuse of Control Software

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

Is gene therapy a form of eugenics?

Treatment of metastatic tumors of the choroid with proton beam irradiation.

Somatic Gene Therapy Research in Pediatric Populations: Ethical Issues and Guidance for Operationalizing Early Phase Trials

Gene Therapy for Genetic Syndromes: Understanding the Current State to Guide Future Care

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

A plea for caution and guidance about using AI in genomics

Gene therapy comes of age

Regulatory Considerations for Genome-Edited T-cell Therapies

Voxel planes: Rapid visualization and meshification of point cloud ensembles

‘Above all, do no harm’: safeguarding pluripotent stem cell therapy against iatrogenic tumorigenesis

The History, Use, and Challenges of Therapeutic Somatic Cell and Germline Gene Editing

The immune system can sabotage gene therapies — can scientists rein it in?

Gene Editing Technology and Ethical Issues

Debating Ethical Issues in Genome Editing Technology