11 organizations urge cautious but proactive approach to gene editing

August 3, 2017, American Society of Human Genetics
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

An international group of 11 organizations with genetics expertise has issued a policy statement on germline genome editing in humans, which recommends against genome editing that culminates in human pregnancy; supports publicly funded, in vitro research into its potential clinical applications; and outlines scientific and societal steps necessary before implementation of such clinical applications is considered.

Published August 3 in The American Journal of Human Genetics, the statement was jointly authored by the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG), the Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors, the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, the International Genetic Epidemiology Society, and the National Society of Genetic Counselors. It was also endorsed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Asia Pacific Society of Human Genetics, the British Society for Genetic Medicine, the Human Genetics Society of Australasia, the Professional Society of Genetic Counselors in Asia, and the Southern African Society for Human Genetics.

"Our workgroup on genome editing included experts in several subfields of as well as from countries with varying health systems and research infrastructure," said Kelly E. Ormond, MS, CGC, lead author of the statement and Professor of Genetics at Stanford University. "Given this diversity of perspective, we are encouraged by the agreement we were able to reach and hope it speaks to the soundness and wider acceptability of our recommendations," she said.

The CRISPR/Cas9 system, a genome editing tool introduced in 2013, has quickly become widely used in genetics research due to the ease with which it can be customized and its effectiveness across cell types and species. There is considerable interest in using this tool in somatic cells—to develop cell-based therapeutics, for example—as well as in , the focus of this statement and an ethically more complex issue because of potential effects on not just the treated individual but also future generations.

"While germline genome editing could theoretically be used to prevent a child being born with a disease, its potential use also raises a multitude of scientific, ethical, and policy questions. These questions cannot all be answered by scientists alone, but also need to be debated by ," said Derek T. Scholes, PhD, ASHG Director of Science Policy.

After considering these issues and the current state of the science in germline genome editing, the statement authors agreed that:

  • At this time, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy, and
  • There is currently no reason to prohibit in vitro (outside of a living organism) germline genome editing research, with appropriate oversight and consent, or to prohibit public funding for such research.

Further, they agreed that before any future clinical application of genome editing takes place, there should be:

  • A compelling medical rationale to use this approach
  • An evidence base to support its clinical use
  • An ethical justification, and
  • A transparent and public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input

"As basic science research into editing progresses in the coming years, we urge stakeholders to have these important ethical and social discussions in tandem," said Professor Ormond.

Explore further: New gene editing tools force renewed debate over therapeutic germline alteration

More information: Ormond KE et al. (2017 Aug 3). ASHG policy statement on human germline genome editing. The American Journal of Human Genetics. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012

Related Stories

New gene editing tools force renewed debate over therapeutic germline alteration

May 1, 2015
Recent evidence demonstrating the feasibility of using novel CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology to make targeted changes in the DNA of human embryos is forcing researchers, clinicians, and ethicists to revisit the highly ...

Guidelines for human genome editing

January 21, 2016
Human genome editing for both research and therapy is progressing, raising ethical questions among scientists around the world.

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

Identifying Crohn's disease risk factors in the Ashkenazi Jewish population

May 25, 2018
It is estimated that one in three individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) descent carry mutations that increase their risk for certain genetic diseases. For instance, Crohn's, a highly heritable inflammatory bowel disease, is ...

How do insects survive on a sugary diet?

May 25, 2018
There's a reason parents tell their kids to lay off the sugar: too much isn't good for you.

Regulatory mutations missed in standard genetic screening lead to congenital diseases

May 25, 2018
Researchers have identified a type of genetic aberration to be the cause of certain neurodevelopmental disorders and congenital diseases, such as autism and congenital heart disease, which are undetectable by conventional ...

New chromosome study can lead to personalised counselling of pregnant women

May 25, 2018
Foetuses with a so-called new balanced chromosomal aberration have a higher risk of developing brain disorders such as autism and mental retardation than previously anticipated. The risk is 20 per cent for foetuses with these ...

New findings on autism-related disorder

May 24, 2018
In a study published today in Nature, Marc Bühler and his group at the Friedrich Miescher Institute for Biomedical Research (FMI) have taken a major step forward in elucidating the mechanisms underlying a disorder known ...

Genome study presents new way to track historical demographics of US populations

May 24, 2018
Sharon Browning of the University of Washington and colleagues developed a method to estimate historical effective population size, which is the number of individuals who pass on their genes to the next generation, to reveal ...

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.