Will South Africa become first country to accept controversial form of human genome editing?

Sarah Wild

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03643-4

IF: 64.8

2024-11-09

Nature

Abstract:Scientists raise the alarm following updated research ethics guidelines on heritable human genome editing. Scientists raise the alarm following updated research ethics guidelines on heritable human genome editing.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A deliberative public engagement study on heritable human genome editing among South Africans: Study results

Donrich Thaldar,Bonginkosi Shozi,Michaela Steytler,Gill Hendry,Marietjie Botes,Ntokozo Mnyandu,Meshandren Naidoo,Siddharthiya Pillay,Magda Slabbert,Beverley Townsend

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275372

IF: 3.7

2022-11-28

PLoS ONE

Abstract:This paper reports the results of a public engagement study on heritable human genome editing (HHGE) carried out in South Africa, which was conducted in accordance with a study protocol that was published in this journal in 2021. This study is novel as it is the first public engagement study on HHGE in Africa. It used a deliberative public engagement (DPE) methodology, entailing inter alia that measures were put in place to ensure that potential participants became informed about HHGE, and that deliberations between the participants were facilitated with the aim of seeking consensus. A diverse group of 30 persons was selected to participate in the DPE study, which took place via Zoom over three consecutive weekday evenings. The main results are: Provided that HHGE is safe and effective, an overwhelming majority of participants supported allowing the use of HHGE to prevent genetic health conditions and for immunity against TB and HIV/Aids, while significant majorities opposed allowing HHGE for enhancement. The dominant paradigm during the deliberations was balancing health benefits (and associated improvements in quality of life) with unforeseen health risks (such as loss of natural immunity). The seriousness of a health condition emerged as the determining factor for the policy choice of whether to allow an application of HHGE. More generally, equal access to HHGE qua healthcare service featured as an important value, and it was uncontested that the South African government should allocate resources to promote scientific research into HHGE. These results are aligned with the policy principles for regulating HHGE in South Africa suggested by Thaldar et al. They call for urgent revision of South African ethics guidelines that currently prohibit research on HHGE, and for dedicated HHGE legal regulations that provide a clear and comprehensive legal pathway for researchers who intend to conduct HHGE research and clinical trials.
On human gene editing: International summit statement

David Baltimore, Françoise Baylis, Paul Berg, George Q Daley, Jennifer A Doudna, Eric S Lander, Robin Lovell-Badge, Pilar Ossorio, Duanqing Pei, Adrian Thrasher, E Winnacker, Qi Zhou

2015-12-03

Abstract:Scientific advances in molecular biology over the past 50 years have produced remarkable progress in medicine. Some of these advances have also raised important ethical and societal issues–for example, about the use of recombinant DNA technologies or embryonic stem cells. The scientific community has consistently recognized its responsibility to identify and confront these issues. In these cases, engagement by a range of stakeholders has led to solutions that have made it possible to obtain major benefits for human health while appropriately addressing societal issues.Fundamental research into the ways by which bacteria defend themselves against viruses has recently led to the development of powerful new techniques that make it possible to perform gene editing–that is, precisely altering genetic sequences–in living cells, including those of humans, at much higher accuracy and efficiency than ever before possible. These techniques are already in broad use in biomedical research. They may also enable wide-ranging clinical applications in medicine. At the same time, the prospect of human genome editing raises many important scientific, ethical, and societal questions.
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
Experiments that led to the first gene-edited babies: the ethical failings and the urgent need for better governance

Jing-Ru Li,Simon Walker,Jing-Bao Nie,Xin-Qing Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1800624

Abstract:The rapid developments of science and technology in China over recent decades, particularly in biomedical research, have brought forward serious challenges regarding ethical governance. Recently, Jian-kui HE, a Chinese scientist, claimed to have "created" the first gene-edited babies, designed to be naturally immune to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The news immediately triggered widespread criticism, denouncement, and debate over the scientific and ethical legitimacy of HE's genetic experiments. China's guidelines and regulations have banned germline genome editing on human embryos for clinical use because of scientific and ethical concerns, in accordance with the international consensus. HE's human experimentation has not only violated these Chinese regulations, but also breached other ethical and regulatory norms. These include questionable scientific value, unreasonable risk-benefit ratio, illegitimate ethics review, invalid informed consent, and regulatory misconduct. This series of ethical failings of HE and his team reveal the institutional failure of the current ethics governance system which largely depends on scientist's self-regulation. The incident highlights the need for urgent improvement of ethics governance at all levels, the enforcement of technical and ethical guidelines, and the establishment of laws relating to such bioethical issues.
UK Scientists Reject Call for Moratorium on Gene Editing

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2601

2015-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:New techniques for editing genes, used for the first time in human embryos by researchers in China, have considerable potential as a research tool and are already being used in animals, UK experts told a briefing at the Science Media Centre in London on 12 May. Clinical applications in humans are far more problematical and much further off, and the use of the technique has raised ethical concerns, because such changes are heritable and could have unpredictable effects on future generations. The UK scientists, however, rejected calls for a moratorium. Tony Perry of the University of Bath said it would be unenforceable and would risk driving research underground, and Robin Lovell-Badge of the Francis Crick Institute called a moratorium “pointless.” The disclosure that a group led by Junjiu Huang at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou had edited human embryonic genes caused a …
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.
On human gene editing: international summit statement by the organizing committee

David Baltimore, Françoise Baylis, Paul Berg, George Q Daley, Jennifer A Doudna, Eric S Lander, Robin Lovell-Badge, Pilar Ossorio, Duanqing Pei, Adrian Thrasher, Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker, Qi Zhou

2016-04-01

Abstract:Scientific advances in molecular biology over the past 50 years have produced remarkable progress in medicine. Some of these advances have also raised important ethical and societal issues. The scientific community has consistently recognized its responsibility to identify and confront these issues. In these cases, engagement by a range of stakeholders has led to solutions that have made it possible to obtain major benefits for human health while appropriately addressing societal issues. Fundamental research into the ways by which bacteria defend themselves against viruses has recently led to the development of powerful new techniques that make it possible to perform gene editing in living cells, including those of humans, at much higher accuracy and efficiency than ever before possible. These techniques are already in broad use in biomedical research. They may also enable wide-ranging clinical …
Recent Developments in the Regulation of Heritable Human Genome Editing

S Soni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10332-w

Abstract: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.
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 society-wide conversation is needed about germline genome editing using CRISPR

Ewan Birney

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02681-1

IF: 82.9

2024-01-05

Nature Medicine

Abstract:Therapeutic genome editing has great potential to cure some rare diseases, but germline editing is banned. With a broad societal discussion supported by national and transnational legislation, it could be allowed in certain circumstances.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
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 …
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
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
UK's Approval of Mitochondrial Donation Shows How Decisions on Gene Editing Can Be Made.

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6745

2015-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:The approval in the United Kingdom of mitochondrial donation provides a blueprint for future decisions on modifying the genome, the government’s chief scientific adviser told a conference in London on Wednesday 9 December. Mark Walport said that the UK should be proud of the process through which mitochondrial donation was approved, culminating in votes in parliament earlier this year and regulations that came into force on 29 October.1 These made it possible for women with abnormalities in the mitochondrial DNA of their eggs to avoid giving birth to unhealthy children by replacing that DNA with donated material. Several steps remain before the technique is actually used, the chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Sally Chaplin, told the Progress Educational Trust’s annual conference. “Once final safety and efficacy tests are completed, we will be able to offer licences to …
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.
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.
Making genome editing a success story in Africa

Hussein M. Abkallo,Patrick Arbuthnot,Thomas O. Auer,Dave K. Berger,Johan Burger,Ereck Chakauya,Jean-Paul Concordet,Abdoulaye Diabate,Vincenzo Di Donato,Jan-Hendrik Groenewald,Amadou Guindo,Lizette L. Koekemoer,Florence Nazare,Tony Nolan,Fredros Okumu,Emma Orefuwa,Lily Paemka,Lucia Prieto-Godino,Steven Runo,Marie Sadler,Kassahun Tesfaye,Leena Tripathi,Charles Wondji

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02187-2

IF: 46.9

2024-03-20

Nature Biotechnology

Abstract:Similar to other biotechnologies, genome editing faces substantial obstacles in Africa. These include regulatory uncertainty, limited access to laboratories, equipment and reagents for molecular biology work, a shortage of trained professionals, and a low rate of returnees among the diaspora. There is also little investment: most countries devote less than 1% of their gross domestic product (GDP) to research and development. The dependency of African institutions on external funding, unequal collaborations with the Global North and control of intellectual property and licensing by foreign entities further hinder progress. Additionally, there are low levels of integration of biotechnology in school and university curricula, inaccurate risk perceptions and apparent low levels of public support (often due to misinformation), and, as a consequence, inadequate political will. Genome editing, in contrast to more classical genetic modification approaches, promises greater accuracy, precision, efficiency and cost-effectiveness and, in turn, a better return on investment. In resource-constrained environments, reducing barriers to the genetics-based innovation offered by genome editing could enable local innovators to be more successful in sectors that are crucial for Africa's biotechnology-based economic development. In addition, genome editing-based health products — including novel gene therapies — can have a notable effect on public health.

biotechnology & applied microbiology
Human heritable genome editing and its governance: views of scientists and governance professionals

R. Jean Cadigan,Margaret Waltz,John M. Conley,Rami M. Major,Elizabeth K. Branch,Eric T. Juengst,Michael A. Flatt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2024.2404061

2024-09-22

New Genetics and Society

Abstract:Heritable human genome editing has garnered significant attention in scholarly and lay media, yet questions remain about whether, when, and how heritable genome editing ought to proceed. Drawing on interviews with scientists who use genome editing in their research and professionals engaged in human genome editing governance efforts, we examine their views on the permissibility of heritable genome editing and the governance strategies they see as necessary and realistic. For both issues, we found divergent views from respondents. We place the views of these scientists and governance professionals within the context of the larger bioethical discussion of heritable genome editing governance, along a continuum of hard to soft approaches. These respondents' views highlight the challenges of various hard forms of governance and the potential virtues of soft governance approaches.

genetics & heredity,social sciences, biomedical,history & philosophy of science,biotechnology & applied microbiology,social issues
Gene editing: the risks and benefits of modifying human DNA

Rafael Nogueira Furtado

Abstract:The article analyzes discussions on human genetic editing found in scientific articles, institutional statements and delivered at the International Summit on Gene Editing held in 2015. This analysis has the objective of to explaining and reflecting on arguments favorable and contrary to DNA modification. Gene editing techniques have benefits such as: the treatment of diseases; creation of model organisms for basic biomedical research; development of transgenic foods, among other applications. However, discussions have been held in order to determine the risks of this technology. The Interlocutors, in these discussions, assume divergent positions, condemning gene editing, praising it or recommending caution in the execution of experiments. The article critically analyzes scientific discourses around the theme, seeking to highlight the argumentative strategies present in the debates.

Biology,Philosophy
Advances in Genetic Editing of the Human Embryo

Vasile Astarăstoae,Beatrice Gabriela Ioan,Liliana M Rogozea,Bianca Hanganu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MJT.0000000000001604

Abstract:Background: Genetic engineering has allowed a major development of research in this field, with specialists attempting to edit the human genome, after the successful editing of the genomes of plants and animals. However, human gene editing technologies are at the center of ethical debates around the world. Areas of uncertainty: Ethical concerns about genetic editing of the human embryo raise several issues that can be viewed through the prism of optimism and reluctance leading to a number of recommendations regarding the acceptance of what may soon become a reality. Data sources: A literature search was conducted through PubMed, MEDLINE, Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science (2015-2022) using combinations of keywords, including: human genome or gene editing plus ethics. Ethics and therapeutic advances: Gene therapy is seen by researchers as a way to solve congenital diseases, multifactorial diseases in general or specific diseases such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, or can increase resistance to HIV infection. Genome editing technologies, germline gene editing, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats gene editing technology, technologies such as zinc finger nucleases are not only advanced gene therapies that require solving technical problems, but also techniques that require complex and complete analysis of ethical problems. Genetic engineering raises many ethical concerns such as: safety concerns especially the risk of off-target effects; autonomy of the individual-with the limitation of the future generations to consent for an intervention over their genome; social justice-keeping in mind the costs of the procedures and their availability to the general population. Discussions can go further from questions such as "How can we do this?" to questions such as "Should we do this?" or "Is society ready to accept this technology and is it able to manage it rationally?" Conclusions: The ethics of biomedical research should be based on global dialogue, on the involvement of experts and the public, to achieve a broad social consensus. The fundamental review of the ethics of genetics is a desire and an opportunity of the current period.

Will South Africa become first country to accept controversial form of human genome editing?

A deliberative public engagement study on heritable human genome editing among South Africans: Study results

On human gene editing: International summit statement

Debating Ethical Issues in Genome Editing Technology

Experiments that led to the first gene-edited babies: the ethical failings and the urgent need for better governance

UK Scientists Reject Call for Moratorium on Gene Editing

Human Germline Genome Editing

On human gene editing: international summit statement by the organizing committee

Recent Developments in the Regulation of Heritable Human Genome Editing

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

A society-wide conversation is needed about germline genome editing using CRISPR

Human Genome Editing is Not Unethical, Says Nuffield Council

When is it Safe to Edit the Human Germline?

An ethical pathway for gene editing.

UK's Approval of Mitochondrial Donation Shows How Decisions on Gene Editing Can Be Made.

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

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

Making genome editing a success story in Africa

Human heritable genome editing and its governance: views of scientists and governance professionals

Gene editing: the risks and benefits of modifying human DNA

Advances in Genetic Editing of the Human Embryo