Designing babies: Human research issues

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 1-8

  Dresser, Rebecca ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BLASTOCYST; CLINICAL TRIAL; EMBRYO DISPOSITION; EMBRYO RESEARCH; ETHICS; GENE THERAPY; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETICS; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; GERM CELL; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; METHODOLOGY; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

BLASTOCYST; CLINICAL TRIALS; EMBRYO DISPOSITION; EMBRYO RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; GENE THERAPY; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETIC RESEARCH; GERM CELLS; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 13844280307     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3563945     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. Evans J. Playing God? Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.
2. Resnik DB, Steinkraus HB, Langer PJ. Human Germline Gene Therapy: Scientific, Moral and Political Issues. Austin, TX: RG Landes Company, 1999;
3. Walters L, Palmer JG. The Ethics of Human Gene Therapy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
4. For an application of U.S. gene transfer, embryo, and human subjects research regulations to human germline trials, see Dresser R. Genetic modification of preimplantation embryos: Toward adequate human research policies. Milbank Quarterly 2004;82:195-214.
5. Hacein-Bey-Abina S, von Kalle C, Schmidt M, et al. A serious adverse event after successful gene therapy for X-linked severe immune combined immunodeficiency. NEJM 2003;348:255-256;
6. Marshal E. Gene therapy on trial. Science 2000;288:951-957.
7. Copeland NG, Jenkins NA, O'Brien SJ. Mmu 16 - comparative genomic highlights. Science 2002;296:1617-1618.
8. Friedmann T. Approaches to gene transfer to the mammalian germ line. In: Chapman AR, Frankel MS, eds., Designing Our Descendants: The Promise and Perils of Genetic Modification. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003, p. 39-54;
9. Frankel MS, Chapman AR, for the American Association for the Advancement of Science Working Group. Human Inheritable Genetic Modifications: Assessing Scientific, Ethical, Religious and Policy Issues. 2000. Available at http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/publications.shtml, last accessed July 15,1004.
10. Capecchi MR. Human germline gene therapy: How and why. In: Stock G, Campbell J, eds. Engineering the Human Germline. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 31-42.
11. Stock G, Campbell J. The road ahead: A panel discussion. In: Stock G, Campbell J, eds. Engineering the Human Germline. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 73-95;
12. Stock G, Campbell J. Engineering the human germline symposium: Summary report. June 1998. Available at: http://www.ess.ucla.edu/huge/report.html, last accessed July 15, 2004.
13. See ref. 8, Stock and Campbell 1998, p. 3-40.
14. See ref. 6, Frankel and Chapman 2000.
15. Oberman M, Frader J. Dying children and medical research: Access to clinical trials. American Journal of Law & Medicine 2003;29:301-317;
16. Annas G. Baby Fae: The "anything goes" school of human experimentation. Hastings Center Report 1985;15(:1):1-17.
17. Billings PR, Hubbard R, Newman SA. Human germline gene modification: A dissent. Lancet 1999;353:1873-1875.
18. Emanuel E, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 2000;283:2701-2711.
19. See ref. 6, Friedmann 2003.
20. Culver KW. Gene repair, genomics and human germ line modification. In: Chapman AR, Frankel MS. eds. Designing Our Descendants: The Promise and Perils of Genetic Modification. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003, p. 77-91.
21. Willard H. Artificial chromosomes coming to life. Science 2000;290:1308-1309.
22. Blaese RM. Germ line modification in clinical medicine: Is there a case for intentional or unintended germ line changes? In: Chapman AR, Frankel MS, eds. Designing Our Descendants: The Promise and Perils of Genetic Modification. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003, p. 68-76;
23. Neel JV. Germ-line gene therapy: Another view. Human Gene Therapy 1993;4:127-128.
24. See ref. 6, Frankel and Chapman 2000;
25. ref. 12, Billings et al. 1999.
26. Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. Prenatal Gene Transfer: Scientific, Medical and Ethical Issues. 2000. Available at http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/rac/ gtpcreport.pd f., last accessed July 15, 2004.
27. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Additional Protections for Children Involved as Subjects in Research. 45 CFR § 46.405 (2002);
28. See ref. 3, Dresser 2004;
29. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. NEJM 1987;317:141-145.
30. Braude P, Pickering S, Flinter F, Ogilvie CM. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Nature Reviews: Genetics 2002;3:941-953;
31. Botkin JR. Ethical issues and practical problems in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 1998;26:17-28.
32. See ref. 6, Frankel and Chapman 2000;
33. Danks D. Germ-line gene therapy: No place in treatment of genetic disease. Human Gene Therapy 1994;5:151-152.
34. Evans CH. Germ line gene therapy: Can we do it, do we need it, where do we start, and where might it lead? In: Chapman AR, Frankel MS, eds. Designing Our Descendants: The Promise and Perils of Genetic Modification. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003, p. 93-101.
35. Stock G. Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002;
36. Frankel MS. Inheritable genetic modification and a brave new world: Did Huxley have it wrong? Hastings Center Report 2003;33(1):31-36.
37. Wenstrom KD. The correlation between genotype and phenotype. In: Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. Prenatal Gene Transfer: Scientific, Medical and Ethical Issues. 2000, p. 81-88. Available at http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/rac/ gtpcreport.pdf., last accessed July 15, 2004.
38. Parens E. Genetic differences and human identities: On why talking about behavioral genetics is important and difficult. Hastings Center Report 2004;34(1):S1-S35.
39. Anderson WF. A new front in the battle against disease. In: Stock G, Campbell J, eds. Engineering the Human Germline. New York: Oxford, 2000, p. 43-48.
40. See ref. 23, Evans 2003.
41. See ref. 2, Resnik 1999;
42. ref. 21, Botkin 1998.
43. Pinker S. Better babies? Why genetic enhancement is too unlikely to worry about. Boston Globe 2003; June 1, p. D1.
44. Billings PR. In utero gene therapy: The case against. Nature Medicine 1999;5:255-256, 255.
45. For discussion of inadequacies in the oversight system for human PGM trials, see ref. 3, Dresser 2004.
46. Food and Drug Administration. Briefing Documents, Biological Response Modifiers Advisory Committee (9-10 May 2002). Available at http://www.fda.gov/ ohrms/dockets/ac/cbero2.h tm, last accessed July 15, 2004.
47. See ref. 27, Anderson 2000, p. 47.
48. See ref. 23, Evans 2003, p.100.
49. Koshland D. Ethics and safety. In: Stock G, Campbell J, eds. Engineering the Human Germline. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 25-30, 34.
50. Cohen C. Designing tomorrow's children: The right to reproduce and oversight of germ line interventions. In: Chapman AR, Frankel MS, eds. Designing Our Descendants: The Promise and Perils of Genetic Modification. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003, p. 296-310, 308.
51. See ref. 24, Stock 2002;
52. Robertson JA. Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.
53. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants: Report and Recommendations. 2001. Available at http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nb ac/pubs.html., last accessed July 15, 2004;
54. ref. 13, Emanuel et al. 1999.
55. See ref. z, Resnik et al. 1999, p. 42.
56. King N. Accident and desire: Inadvertent germline effects in clinical research. Hastings Center Report 2003;33(2):23-30.
57. Robertson J. Precommitment strategies for disposition of frozen embryos. Emory Law Journal 2001;50:989-1046.
58. Coleman CH. Procreative liberty and contemporaneous choice. Minnesota Law Review 1999;84:55-127.
59. Similar conflicts between prospective parents and researchers might arise about whether a genetically modified fetus should be carried to term, but in this situation the pregnant woman would have clear authority to make the decision.
60. See ref. 2, Walters and Palmer 1997, p. 42.
61. See ref. 30, Pinker 2003.
62. Philipkoski, K. Time for a new pair of genes? Wired News. November 27, 2002. Available at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,566 08,00.html, last accessed July 15, 2004.
63. For an argument that human PGM research should be assigned low priority because other research objectives offer more significant benefits to humanity, see Dresser R. Futile science? Designer babies as a research aim. American Journal of Bioethics, forthcoming.