Will gene editing create designer babies?

February 3, 2016 by Michael Brown, University of Alberta
Artist's representation of the Crispr gene editing technique, which gives researchers unprecedented precision in "cutting and pasting" DNA sequences. Credit: Ernesto del Aguila III, NHGRI

On Feb. 1, Britain's fertility regulator approved the country's first research application to use a new gene editing technique known as Crispr on human embryos.

This general research, which aims to do nothing more than provide a deeper understanding of the earliest moments of human life—it is illegal to implant the modified embryos into a woman—has invited debate at all levels concerning whether this move opens the door to "designer babies."

To help sort through this debate, we sat down with Timothy Caulfield, Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy and professor in the Faculty of Law and the School of Public Health.

What are the good intentions behind new gene editing research?

First, it is important to recognize that what is happening here is not a genetic modification of an embryo for the purposes of producing a child—the hope here is to understand how gene editing plays out in a human being and whether one day we're going to be able to use gene editing to cure incurable diseases like Tay-Sachs and perhaps cystic fibrosis through the modification of genes.

In addition to that, we might be able to use gene editing as a research tool to simply learn more about these diseases. All of that is exciting from a scientific perspective and it is potentially exciting from a therapeutic and clinical perspective.

And what comes out of Pandora's box?

Yes, the slippery slope argument always comes into play. For instance, if we allow this kind of basic research that they are doing in the UK, is it going to make the application in the future easier? I find it is always tough to use slippery slope arguments in the context of science because where do we draw the line? Do we say we can't do physics because we fear the creation of the atomic bomb? I think it is better to regulate the specific activity that you're trying to stop than prohibit the overall scientific activity and inhibit the scientific inquiry.

Where does Canada come out on gene editing?

In Canada, it is currently a criminal offence to produce genetic modifications that are passed on to future generations. If a physician were to perform some treatments where you're just treating the person in front of you and that change isn't going to be passed on, that would be legal.

I'm not a fan of using criminal prohibitions in this context. For me the debate is very similar to the debate surrounding somatic cell nuclear transfer, cloning technology, or the "Dolly" technology; however, I find to be a much more nuanced debate than we had in the early days of cloning, which seemed to be completely driven by fear-mongering.

I don't think everybody is going to agree that this technology is appropriate or should go forward. But at least it seems like the temperature is a little lower and we are having a quite sophisticated discussion, at various levels, about the benefits and risks of this technology.

In Canada we may need to grapple with a change in our law if we think therapeutic applications are appropriate in the future. That may not be the easiest thing to do, as you can imagine.

Where is the gene modification conversation currently?

Right now, I think there is a relatively broad consensus in the scientific community to not be using this technology for the purpose of creating children, or for modifying the human genome in a manner that will be passed on to .

What we are going to need to struggle with in the future is, if this technology proves to be effective and efficient, where do we draw the line and how do we police the scientific community once that line has been drawn?

Right now, I think everyone agrees that if this is not safe and effective, it should not be used in the context of reproduction. It will become more challenging in the future if and when it does become safe and effective. Then we are going to have bigger ethical and philosophical questions about how to apply this technology.

Explore further: Scientists, ethicists debate future of gene editing

Related Stories

Scientists, ethicists debate future of gene editing

December 3, 2015
(HealthDay)—What if faulty genes in your DNA could be easily corrected, avoiding the ravages of diseases like cystic fibrosis or certain cancers?

Promise and peril: a primer on gene editing

February 1, 2016
Britain's granting of a licence Monday for scientists to alter the genes of embryos for infertility research has thrown the controversial technique under a white-hot spotlight.

'Gene-edited' cells must not be used for pregnancy: scientists

December 4, 2015
Human cells or embryos that undergo a process of gene-editing must not be used to establish a pregnancy, an international scientific panel said Thursday, urging strict limits on the controversial research.

Gene editing is on a roll, but is it safe to clear the way?

December 11, 2015
What do disease-resistant pigs and the eradication of malaria have in common? These seemingly distant topics, both of which were extensively covered in the press this week, are actually just early glimpses of gene editing's ...

Britain allows first genetic modification of embryos (Update 2)

February 1, 2016
Britain on Monday granted its first research licence to genetically modify human embryos to a project that aims to give hope to women struggling to conceive, raising ethical concerns about "designer babies".

Why treat gene editing differently in two types of human cells?

December 7, 2015
At the conclusion of the recent International Summit on Human Gene Editing in Washington, DC, its organizing committee released a much-anticipated statement recommending how human genetic engineering should be regulated. ...

Recommended for you

New study explains why genetic mutations cause disease in some people but not in others

August 20, 2018
Researchers at the New York Genome Center (NYGC) and Columbia University have uncovered a molecular mechanism behind one of biology's long-standing mysteries: why individuals carrying identical gene mutations for a disease ...

Researchers find potential new gene therapy for blinding disease

August 20, 2018
The last year has seen milestones in the gene therapy field, with FDA approvals to treat cancer and an inherited blinding disorder. New findings from a team led by University of Pennsylvania vision scientists, who have in ...

Critical role of DHA on foetal brain development revealed

August 17, 2018
Duke-NUS researchers have found evidence that a natural form of Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) made by the liver called Lyso-Phosphatidyl-Choline (LPC-DHA), is critical for normal foetal and infant brain development, and that ...

New algorithm could improve diagnosis of rare diseases

August 17, 2018
Today, diagnosing rare genetic diseases requires a slow process of educated guesswork. Gill Bejerano, Ph.D., associate professor of developmental biology and of computer science at Stanford, is working to speed it up.

Gene silencing critical for normal breast development

August 17, 2018
Researchers have discovered that normal breast development relies on a genetic 'brake', a protein complex that keeps swathes of genes silenced.

Officials remove special rules for gene therapy experiments

August 16, 2018
U.S. health officials are eliminating special regulations for gene therapy experiments, saying that what was once exotic science is quickly becoming an established form of medical care with no extraordinary risks.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.