Ethical issues of CRISPR technology and gene editing through the lens of solidarity

British Medical Bulletin

Volumn 122, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 17-29

  Mulvihill, John J ^a   Capps, Benjamin ^b   Joly, Yann ^c   Lysaght, Tamra ^d   Zwart, Hub A E ^e   Chadwick, Ruth ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^e RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

CRISPR; ethics; gene editing; genetic engineering; germ cell mutation; solidarity

Indexed keywords

BIOETHICS; CLUSTERED REGULARLY INTERSPACED SHORT PALINDROMIC REPEAT; GENE EDITING; GENE THERAPY; GENETIC MANIPULATION; GERM LINE; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; NONHUMAN; PATENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; CRISPR CAS SYSTEM; ETHICS; GENETIC ENGINEERING; PROCEDURES;

CLUSTERED REGULARLY INTERSPACED SHORT PALINDROMIC REPEATS; CRISPR-CAS SYSTEMS; GENE EDITING; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETIC THERAPY; HUMANS;

EID: 85021233349     PISSN: 00071420     EISSN: 14718391     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldx002     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 2012;337:816-21.
2. Doudna J, Charpentier E. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 2014;28:346, 10.1126/science.1258096.
3. Kahn J The CRISPR quandary. New York Times Magazine November 9, 2015
4. Kohn DB, Porteus MH, Scharenberg AM. Ethical and regulatory aspects of genome editing. Blood 2016;127: 2553-60.
5. Lander ES. The heroes of CRISPR. Cell 2016;164: 18-28. (see comments in PubMed).
6. Vasiliou SK, Diamandis EP, Church GM, et al. CRISPR-Cas9 system: opportunities and concerns. Clin Chem 2016;pii:263186, PMID: 27551006.
7. Müller M, Lee CM, Gasiunas G, et al. Streptococcus thermophilus CRISPR-Cas9 systems enable specific editing of the human genome. Mol Ther 2015; DOI:10. 1038/mt.2015.218.
8. Lee CM, Cradick TJ, Bao G. The Neisseria meningitidis CRISPR-Cas9 system enables specific genome editing in mammalian cells. Mol Ther 2016; DOI:10.1038/mt. 2016.8.
9. Lee CM, Cradick TJ, Fine EJ, et al. Nuclease target site selection for maximizing on-Target activity and minimizing off-Target effects in genome editing. Mol Ther 2016; DOI:10.1038/mt.2016.1.
10. Zimmer C. Breakthrough DNA editing born of bacteria. Quanta Magazine 2015 https://www.quantamagazine. org/20150206-crispr-dna-editor-bacteria/
11. Caplan AL, Parent B, Shen M, et al. No time to waste-The ethical challenges created by CRISPR: CRISPR/Cas, being an efficient, simple, and cheap technology to edit the genome of any organism, raises many ethical and regulatory issues beyond the use to manipulate human germ line cells. EMBO Rep 2015;16: 1421-6.
12. Evitt NH, Mascharak S, Altman RB. Human germline CRISPR-Cas modification: toward a regulatory framework. Am J Bioeth 2015;15:25-9.
13. Ledford H. CRISPR, the disruptor. Nature 2015;522: 20-4.
14. Bosley KS, Botchan M, Bredenoord AL, et al. CRISPR germline engineering-The community speaks. Nat Biotech 2015;33:478-86.
15. The Hinxton Group. Statement on Genome Editing Technologies and Human Germline Genetic Modification 2015. http://www.hinxtongroup.org/Hinxton2015-Statement.pdf
16. Callaway E. UK scientists gain license to edit genes in human embryos. Nature 2016;530:18.
17. Liang P, Xu Y, Zhang X, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell 2015;6:363-72.
18. Travis J. Germline editing dominated DNA summit. Science 2015;350:1299-300.
19. Organizing Committee for the International Summit on Human Gene Editing. On Human Gene Editing: International Summit Statement. http://www8.nationalacadem ies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12032015a
20. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genome Editing: An Ethical Review. Exploring Ethical Issues in Biology and Medicine: Genome Editing. September 2016. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/genome-editing/
21. University of Washington. Ethics in Medicine Website. https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/
22. Center of Disease Control and Prevention Public Health Genomics Knowledge Base (on CRISPR) https://phgkb. cdc.gov/GAPPKB/translationFinder.do?Mysubmit=insight& query=Crispr%20&Mysubmit=Search
23. Hayden EC. Tomorrow's children. Nature 2016;530: 402-5.
24. Rojahn S. Genome surgery. MIT Tech Rev 2014. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/524451/genomesurgery/
25. Kevles DJ. From eugenics to patents: genetics, law, and human rights. Ann Hum Genet 2011;75:326-33.
26. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1978.
27. Häyry M. Precaution and solidarity. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2005;14:199-206.
28. Tauxe W. Genome editing: 4 big questions. Nature 2015;528:S17.
29. Wilson JM. A history lesson for stem cells. Science 2009;324:727-8.
30. Wilson JM, Verma I. Interview with Inder Verma, PhD. Hum Gene Ther Clin Dev 2016;27:5-8.
31. Pollack R. Eugenics lurk in the shadow of CRISPR. Science 2015;348:871.
32. Berg P. Meetings that changed the world: Asilomar 1975: DNA modification secured. Nature 2008;455: 290-1.
33. O'Reilly M, Jambou R, Rosenthal E, et al. The National Institutes of Health oversight of human gene transfer research: enhancing science and safety. Adv Exp Med Biol 2015;871:31-47.
34. Savulescu J. Harm, ethics committees and the gene therapy death. J Med Ethics 2001;27:148-50.
35. Kaiser J. First proposed human test of CRISPR passes initial safety review. Science 2016; DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf5796.
36. Olsen M. The human genome project: a player's perspective. J Mol Biol 2002;319:931-42.
37. Collins F, Green E, Guttmacher A, et al. A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature 2003;422: 835-47.
38. Cong LI, Korthals M. Genomics, patents, and human rights. In: Kumar D, Chadwick R. Genomics and Society: Ethical, Legal, Cultural, and Socioeconomic Implications, 135, New York: Academic Press, 2016;139-41.
39. Capps B. Can a good tree bring forth evil fruit? The funding of medical research by industry. Brit Med Bull 2016;118:5-15.
40. Joly Y, Tonin PN. Social, ethical and legal considerations raised by the discovery and patenting of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. New Genet Society 2014; 33:167-80.
41. Sherkow JS, Greely HT. The history of patenting genetic material. Ann Rev Genet 2015;49:161-82.
42. Beale K. The CRISPR patent battle: who will be ?cut? out of patent rights to one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our generation? Boston Coll Intellect Prop Technol Forum 2016;2-5. online: http://bciptf.org/?p= 1869.
43. Zetsche B, Gootenberg JS, Abudayyeh OO, et al. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system. Cell 2015;163:759-71.
44. Leford H. CRISPR patent probe begins. Nature 2016; 531:149.
45. Plomer A, Torremans P. Embryonic Stem Cell Patents. Oxford: Oxford University, 2010.
46. Bagley MA. Patent first, ask questions later: morality and biotechnology in patent law. William Mary Law Rev 2003;45:469-547.
47. Reardon S. New life for pig organs: gene-editing technologies have breathed life into the languishing field of xenotransplantation. Nature 2015;527:152-4.
48. Boneva RS, Folks TM, Chapman LE. Infectious disease issues in xenotransplantation. Clin Microbiol Rev 2001; 14:1-14.
49. eGenesis, Inc. http://www.egenesisbio.com/
50. Chadwick R, Zwart H. From ELSA to responsible research and promisomics. Life Sci Soc Policy 2013;9:3.
51. Hayden EC. Human genome at ten: life is complicated. Nature 2010;464:664-7.
52. Miller JR, Clemmesen J, Czeizel E, et al. Mutation epidemiology: review and recommendations. A report to the International Commission for Protection against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens by Committee 5 (Epidemiology). Mutat Res 1983;123:1-11.
53. Mulvihill JJ. Preconception exposure to mutagens: medical and other exposures to radiation and chemicals. J Community Genet 2012;3:205-11.
54. Yauk CL, Lucas Argueso J, Auerbach SS, et al. Harnessing genomics to identify environmental determinants of heritable disease. Mutat Res 2013;752: 6-9.
55. Shelby MD. Selecting chemicals and assays for assessing mammalian germ cell mutagenicity. Mutat Res 1996; 352:159-67.
56. Sobels FH. Approaches to assessing genetic risks from exposure to chemicals. Environ Health Perspect 1993; 101:327-32.
57. Rasko JEJ, O'Sullivan GM, Ankeny RA, et al. Is inheritable genetic modification the new dividing line? In: Rasko JEJ, O?Sullivan GM, Ankeny RA. The Ethics of Inheritable Genetic Modification: A Dividing Line? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006;1-16
58. Friedmann T, Jonlin EC, King NM, et al. ASGCT and JSGT joint position statement on human genomic editing. Mol Ther 2015;23:1282.
59. Porteus MH, Dann CT. Genome editing of the germline: broadening the discussion. Mol Ther 2015;23:980-2.
60. Krishan K, Kanchan T, Singh B. Human genome editing and ethical considerations. Sci Eng Ethics 2016;221: 597-9.
61. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Academies? Consensus Study on Human Gene Editing Begins; First Data-Gathering Meeting Feb. 11-12, 2016. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/news item.aspx?RecordID=12082015
62. Shakespeare T. Choices and rights: eugenics, genetics and disability equality. Disabil Soc 1998;13:665-81.
63. Savulescu J. Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children. Bioethics 2002;15:413-26.
64. Watts G, Braude P, Fliner F, et al. Novel Techniques for the Prevention of Mitochondrial DNA Disorders: An Ethical Review. London: Neuffield Council on Bioethics, 2012.
65. Mulvihill JJ. Host factors in human lung tumors: an example of ecogenetics in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1976;57:3-7.
66. Bearn AG. Archibald Garrod and the Individuality of Man. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
67. Prainsack B, Buyx A. Solidarity: Reflections on an Emerging Concept in Bioethics. Wiltshire: ESP Colour Ltd, 2011.
68. Chadwick R, Berg K. Solidarity and equity: new ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nat Rev Genet 2001; 2:318-21.
69. Berg K, Chadwick RF, Cantu JM, et al. HUGO statement on pharmacogenomics (PGx): solidarity, equity and governance. Genomics Soc Policy 2007;3:44-7.
70. Capps B, Chadwick R, Chalmers D, et al. Imagined Futures: Capturing the Benefits of Genome Sequencing for Society. http://www.hugo-international.org/Resources/Documents/CELS-Article-ImaginedFutures-2014.pdf
71. HUGO Ethics Committee. Statement on Benefit Sharing. 2000. http://www.hugo-international.org/Resources/Docu ments/CELS-Statement-BenefitSharing-2000.pdf
72. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations, 2011, Nagoya-protocol-en. pdf.