National Academies Recommendations on Human Gene Editing

[Ygggdrasil]

This week on, Feb 14, the US National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine released a report giving recommendations on how https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/dont-fear-https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/dont-fear-crispr-new-gene-editing-technologies-wont-lead-designer-babies/-new-gene-editing-technologies-wont-lead-designer-babies/—making changes to the DNA of humans that are heritable across generations—should be regulated:

The 261-page document follows a 2015 National Academies summit that brought together scientists, ethicists, legal experts and patient groups from around the world. Meeting organizers wanted to survey concerns about human germline editing: genetic modifications to embryos, sperm or egg cells that can be passed on to offspring.

Given the raft of scientific, ethical and legal questions surrounding the issue, the organizers concluded at the time that scientists shouldn’t yet perform germline editing on embryos intended for establishing a pregnancy. But they decided that altering human embryos in the lab for the sake of basic research was acceptable.

The latest report builds on the earlier consensus and outlines strict limits under which scientists could proceed in the future. It recommends restricting the technique to severe medical conditions for which no other treatment exists. It also calls for international cooperation, strict regulatory and oversight framework, public input into decisions and long-term follow-ups of children who have edited genomes. The report adds that for now, genome editing should not be used for human enhancement, such as improving a person’s intelligence or giving them super-strength.

http://www.nature.com/news/us-science-advisers-outline-path-to-genetically-modified-babies-1.21474

A one-page summary of the recommended criteria for germline gene editing is available here: http://nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/genesite/documents/webpage/gene_177255.pdf

The full report can be accessed here: http://nationalacademies.org/gene-editing/consensus-study/index.htm
Popular press coverage:
Nature
New York Times
NPR

 

[1oldman2]

Lancet has a good write-up on the subject also,
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)30389-6/fulltext
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)30389-6/abstract
"With the first clinical trial using CRISPR targeting cancer cells approved in the USA in June, 2016, and the first CRISPR-edited genes injected into a patient in China in November, 2016, the race for results is under way. Although, for now, the report signals both the beginning of a new phase of productivity and an end of sorts to the debate around the way forward for human gene editing."

A very informative read, It's interesting to see the politics of business involved.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6326/680.full
http://www.nature.com/news/why-the-...chnologies-wont-lead-designer-babies/']crispr-patent-verdict-isn-t-the-end-of-the-story-1.21510[/URL]