Harvard bioethicist shares hope, concerns on gene-editing

August 9, 2017 by Alvin Powell
Harvard bioethicist shares hope, concerns on gene-editing
Robert Truog, director of the HMS Center for Bioethics, talks to the Gazette about the recent breakthrough in embryological genetic engineering and its potential ramifications. Credit: Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer

The announcement by Oregon Health & Science University that scientists there had edited the genes of human embryos to remove the cause of a deadly disease has raised the prospect of a powerful new tool for physicians—as well as fears of a Pandora's Box that could lead to "designer babies" and humans engineered for desirable traits such as strength or intelligence.

Robert Truog is the Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesiology, and Pediatrics, and the director of Harvard Medical School's Center for Bioethics. In a Gazette Q&A he shared his thoughts on the debate the breakthrough set off.

GAZETTE: Researchers said they cured a relatively common and potentially deadly genetic disease, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Why is this not uniformly good news? What's the big fear?

TRUOG: Many people believe that there's something sacred about the human genome and messing with it feels like playing God. In their view, we shouldn't be interfering with the natural order of things. These are serious concerns and they definitely need to be addressed. But the idea that we could choose not to do this, I think, is impossible. If we were to decide not to pursue human genome editing in the United States, it would still take place everywhere else in the world.

We have an opportunity here for a leadership role—to show how, with good oversight, we can do research in controversial areas in ways that are careful, well-considered, and cautious. The National Academy of Sciences' report captured this extremely well. They did not recommend a prohibition on human genome editing, but they did stipulate a number of considerations that needed to go into any proposals about doing this kind of work.

GAZETTE: What were the most important of those considerations, to your mind?

TRUOG: One is that it concern only severe and life-threatening diseases, such as , which the Oregon researchers were looking at. We're not looking at "enhancements" here, we're not looking at how to make normal people better, we're looking at those rare situations where the genes really are life-threatening. If you have one of these genes, you're likely going to die. And the work right now is focusing on that small set of conditions where that's true.

Another one of the conditions that the National Academy of Sciences placed is that there be no alternatives. And for most couples who are considering having a child and where they carry one of these life-threatening genes, we have , or PGD, which is a really good alternative. Since that's a well-developed technology with a good safety record, that would be something that would be considered first.

It would only be for a really small number of couples who wanted to have a genetically-related child who were incapable of producing disease-free embryos that this kind of technology would make any sense. This isn't about "." This is about offering a very small number of couples their only chance to have a baby that is genetically connected to them that doesn't have a lethal condition.

GAZETTE: Is this analogous to the ethical concerns raised with in vitro fertilization back when that infertility treatment first arose? Is this the beginning of a societal discussion that we need to have?

TRUOG: Yes, I think that's actually a very good analogy. There were many concerns raised around IVF and test-tube babies when that was developed, and I think we had a good societal discussion about it. While issues certainly remain, I think that has become a fairly accepted method for couples who can't otherwise have a child to be able to have a genetically-related offspring.

GAZETTE: Are you troubled at all by the fact that, should a couple have a genetically engineered child, that change would then be passed on generation after generation?

TRUOG: It's hard to imagine an objection to the fact that a non-diseased gene would be passed to the next generation. I think the concerns would be more about off-target changes in the person that may not even be recognized that could then be passed on to future generations. I think that this is a concern and I know that a lot of the research will focus very much on the rates of off-target effects and how to control them and how to assure that they're within acceptable limits.

That being said, there's—in nature—all sorts of alterations to the genome made from one generation to the next that we have no control over, we can't predict. The fact that, in this case, we would be creating these alterations gives us a certain responsibility for monitoring them and being careful, but it's not that unexpected changes in the genome don't occur quite regularly.

GAZETTE: Do you have any particular concerns or were you troubled at all by this research?

TRUOG: I'm really pleased to see this proceeding in a very controlled, thoughtful way. I think my concerns would be twofold. One, that rogue scientists in another country would begin to develop this in ways that we would agree are not socially acceptable. For example, moving quickly into enhancement-type technologies. That's another reason why we in the United States would be foolish to put our heads in the sand. We need to take a leadership role here and be a model for the rest of the world.

Number two is what happened with a lot of the stem cell research, which is where irresponsible clinicians hang out a shingle and make ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims about diseases that they can treat and, in a sense, lure vulnerable patients and perhaps couples into getting therapy that could potentially be quite dangerous.

Explore further: In US first, scientists edit genes of human embryos (Update)

Related Stories

In US first, scientists edit genes of human embryos (Update)

July 27, 2017
For the first time in the United States, scientists have edited the genes of human embryos, a controversial step toward someday helping babies avoid inherited diseases.

Genetics expert discusses creating ground rules for human germline editing

August 4, 2017
A Stanford professor of genetics discusses the thinking behind a formal policy statement endorsing the idea that researchers continue editing genes in human germ cells.

Like a cut-and-paste tool, gene editing transforms research

August 2, 2017
Gene editing is getting fresh attention thanks to a successful lab experiment with human embryos. But for all the angst over possibly altering reproduction years from now, this technology already is used by scientists every ...

Recommended for you

New approach to studying chromosomes' centers may reveal link to Down syndrome and more

November 20, 2017
Some scientists call it the "final frontier" of our DNA—even though it lies at the center of every X-shaped chromosome in nearly every one of our cells.

Genome editing enhances T-cells for cancer immunotherapy

November 20, 2017
Researchers at Cardiff University have found a way to boost the cancer-destroying ability of the immune system's T-cells, offering new hope in the fight against a wide range of cancers.

A math concept from the engineering world points to a way of making massive transcriptome studies more efficient

November 17, 2017
To most people, data compression refers to shrinking existing data—say from a song or picture's raw digital recording—by removing some data, but not so much as to render it unrecognizable (think MP3 or JPEG files). Now, ...

US scientists try first gene editing in the body

November 15, 2017
Scientists for the first time have tried editing a gene inside the body in a bold attempt to permanently change a person's DNA to try to cure a disease.

Genetic mutation in extended Amish family in Indiana protects against aging and increases longevity (Update)

November 15, 2017
The first genetic mutation that appears to protect against multiple aspects of biological aging in humans has been discovered in an extended family of Old Order Amish living in the vicinity of Berne, Indiana, report Northwestern ...

Genetic variant prompts cells to store fat, fueling obesity

November 13, 2017
Obesity is often attributed to a simple equation: People are eating too much and exercising too little. But evidence is growing that at least some of the weight gain that plagues modern humans is predetermined. New research ...

0 comments

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.