Harvard bioethicist shares hope, concerns on gene-editing

August 9, 2017 by Alvin Powell, Harvard University
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

Researchers uncover molecular mechanisms linked to autism and schizophrenia

December 13, 2018
Since the completion of the groundbreaking Human Genome Project in 2003, researchers have discovered changes to hundreds of places in the DNA, called genetic variants, associated with psychiatric diseases such as autism spectrum ...

CRISPR joins battle of the bulge, fights obesity without edits to genome

December 13, 2018
A weighty new study shows that CRISPR therapies can cut fat without cutting DNA. In a paper published Dec. 13, 2018, in the journal Science, UC San Francisco researchers describe how a modified version of CRISPR was used ...

Noncoding mutations contribute to autism risk

December 13, 2018
A whole-genome sequencing study of nearly 2,000 families has implicated mutations in 'promoter regions' of the genome—regions that precede the start of a gene—in autism. The study, which appears in the December 14 issue ...

New method for studying ALS more effectively

December 13, 2018
The neurodegenerative disease ALS causes motor neuron death and paralysis. However, long before the cells die, they lose contact with muscles as their axons atrophy. Researchers at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden have now ...

Paternal grandfather's high access to food may indicate higher mortality risk in grandsons

December 12, 2018
A paternal grandfather's access to food during his childhood is associated with mortality risk, especially cancer mortality, in his grandson, shows a large three-generational study from Stockholm University. The reason might ...

New genetic study could lead to better treatment of severe asthma

December 12, 2018
The largest-ever genetic study of people with moderate-to-severe asthma has revealed new insights into the underlying causes of the disease which could help improve its diagnosis and treatment.

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.