Genetic engineering of human infants is seeing a resurgence in efforts
The world of genetic modification continues to evolve, with the controversial topic of editing human embryos to create genetically modified babies generating heated debates. This article explores the current regulations, ethical considerations, and ongoing discussions surrounding this groundbreaking yet fraught area.
Regulations:
In many countries, including Hong Kong, the use of reproductive technology for selecting the sex of an embryo is limited to avoiding severe sex-linked genetic diseases. Recent amendments to the Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance (Cap. 561) in Hong Kong have removed limits on storage periods for gametes and embryos, but non-medical sex selection and broad regulation of reproductive technologies remain in place [1].
Globally, the legal landscape is mixed. Some countries allow research on editing human embryos under strict guidelines but prohibit implantation for pregnancy, while others have no specific laws, leaving gaps that some scientists exploit. China, for instance, has scientists who edited human embryos, causing ethical controversy and highlighting regulatory weaknesses [2].
Approximately 70 countries formally prohibit heritable genome editing due to safety, ethical, and social concerns, aligning with many international ethical guidelines that call for a moratorium or bans on such practices [5]. In the United States, regulatory restrictions inhibit genetic editing of embryos destined to develop into humans. However, biotech companies are lobbying for loosening these rules, reflecting ongoing debates about balancing innovation with ethical and safety concerns [4].
Ethical considerations:
Safety concerns remain paramount, as editing embryos can introduce unintended genetic changes (off-target effects) that might cause harm. Ethical debates centre around the potential for "designer babies" with enhanced traits, raising issues of social inequality, eugenics, and the commodification of human life [2][3].
Many experts argue for a cautious approach, pausing clinical uses of germline editing to allow broad societal discussion of the scientific, ethical, and social implications [2][3]. There is international consensus about the need to prevent premature clinical application without robust evidence of safety, efficacy, and fairness [5].
The Future of Human Embryo Gene-Editing:
In the United States, changes in political climate could potentially pave the way for gene-edited babies [6]. Some investors are open to funding gene editing of human embryos beyond disease prevention, with the goal of enhancing children's intelligence or athletic abilities [7].
The first private company planning to pursue editing human embryos is the Manhattan Project, co-founded by entrepreneur Cathy Tie in New York City [8]. However, it's important to note that He Jiankui, the CRISPR baby scientist, has no involvement in this company [9].
The birth of the twins, named Lulu and Nana, in China, approximately a year before the pandemic, was reviled as reckless and unethical due to the newness of CRISPR gene editing [10]. Most scientists and bioethicists still believe that gene editing of human embryos to produce children would be irresponsible.
However, proponents argue that these advances could be used to improve children's health, appearance, or intelligence [11]. Manhattan Project aims to explore safer gene-editing techniques to potentially prove it would be safe to modify embryos to make healthier babies [12].
In conclusion, the genetic modification of human embryos with the goal of creating genetically modified babies is broadly prohibited or heavily restricted worldwide due to unresolved safety, ethical, and social issues. Exceptions are usually limited to preventing serious genetic diseases, and ongoing debates and regulatory evolutions continue, especially influenced by new scientific advances and commercial pressures [1][2][3][4][5].
[1] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3110925/hong-kong-removes-limits-storage-gametes-and [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02360-z [3] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02539-6 [4] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01626-6 [5] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1746-5 [6] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/health/gene-editing-babies-us.html [7] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/health/gene-editing-babies-us.html [8] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/health/gene-editing-babies-us.html [9] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/health/gene-editing-babies-us.html [10] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/health/crispr-babies-china-he-jiankui.html [11] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01626-6 [12] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01626-6
- The legal landscape on editing human embryos varies globally, with some countries permitting research under strict guidelines, while others have no specific laws, causing regulatory inconsistencies.
- Many experts advocate for a ban on human embryo editing to produce children, as it raises safety, ethical, and social concerns such as the potential for designer babies and escalating social inequality.
- In the realm of science and technology news, there is increasing interest in genetic editing of human embryos for the purpose of enhancing traits, a trend which is met with heated debates in the field of education and health-and-wellness.
- Ultimately, ongoing discussions about human embryo gene-editing revolve around balancing the pursuits of medical-conditions advancement with the ethical, safety, and social implications for future generations.
