Cargando…
Human germline editing in the era of CRISPR-Cas: risk and uncertainty, inter-generational responsibility, therapeutic legitimacy
BACKGROUND: Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats-associated (CRISPR-Cas) technology may allow for efficient and highly targeted gene editing in single-cell embryos. This possibility brings human germline editing into the focus of ethical and legal debates again. MAIN BODY: Again...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7488432/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32912206 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00487-1 |
_version_ | 1783581688943607808 |
---|---|
author | Schleidgen, Sebastian Dederer, Hans-Georg Sgodda, Susan Cravcisin, Stefan Lüneburg, Luca Cantz, Tobias Heinemann, Thomas |
author_facet | Schleidgen, Sebastian Dederer, Hans-Georg Sgodda, Susan Cravcisin, Stefan Lüneburg, Luca Cantz, Tobias Heinemann, Thomas |
author_sort | Schleidgen, Sebastian |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats-associated (CRISPR-Cas) technology may allow for efficient and highly targeted gene editing in single-cell embryos. This possibility brings human germline editing into the focus of ethical and legal debates again. MAIN BODY: Against this background, we explore essential ethical and legal questions of interventions into the human germline by means of CRISPR-Cas: How should issues of risk and uncertainty be handled? What responsibilities arise regarding future generations? Under which conditions can germline editing measures be therapeutically legitimized? For this purpose, we refer to a scenario anticipating potential further development in CRISPR-Cas technology implying improved accuracy and exclusion of germline transmission to future generations. We show that, if certain concepts regarding germline editing are clarified, under such conditions a categorical prohibition of one-generation germline editing of single-cell embryos appears not to be ethically or legally justifiable. CONCLUSION: These findings are important prerequisites for the international debate on the ethical and legal justification of germline interventions in the human embryo as well as for the harmonization of international legal standards. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7488432 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74884322020-09-16 Human germline editing in the era of CRISPR-Cas: risk and uncertainty, inter-generational responsibility, therapeutic legitimacy Schleidgen, Sebastian Dederer, Hans-Georg Sgodda, Susan Cravcisin, Stefan Lüneburg, Luca Cantz, Tobias Heinemann, Thomas BMC Med Ethics Debate BACKGROUND: Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats-associated (CRISPR-Cas) technology may allow for efficient and highly targeted gene editing in single-cell embryos. This possibility brings human germline editing into the focus of ethical and legal debates again. MAIN BODY: Against this background, we explore essential ethical and legal questions of interventions into the human germline by means of CRISPR-Cas: How should issues of risk and uncertainty be handled? What responsibilities arise regarding future generations? Under which conditions can germline editing measures be therapeutically legitimized? For this purpose, we refer to a scenario anticipating potential further development in CRISPR-Cas technology implying improved accuracy and exclusion of germline transmission to future generations. We show that, if certain concepts regarding germline editing are clarified, under such conditions a categorical prohibition of one-generation germline editing of single-cell embryos appears not to be ethically or legally justifiable. CONCLUSION: These findings are important prerequisites for the international debate on the ethical and legal justification of germline interventions in the human embryo as well as for the harmonization of international legal standards. BioMed Central 2020-09-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7488432/ /pubmed/32912206 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00487-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Debate Schleidgen, Sebastian Dederer, Hans-Georg Sgodda, Susan Cravcisin, Stefan Lüneburg, Luca Cantz, Tobias Heinemann, Thomas Human germline editing in the era of CRISPR-Cas: risk and uncertainty, inter-generational responsibility, therapeutic legitimacy |
title | Human germline editing in the era of CRISPR-Cas: risk and uncertainty, inter-generational responsibility, therapeutic legitimacy |
title_full | Human germline editing in the era of CRISPR-Cas: risk and uncertainty, inter-generational responsibility, therapeutic legitimacy |
title_fullStr | Human germline editing in the era of CRISPR-Cas: risk and uncertainty, inter-generational responsibility, therapeutic legitimacy |
title_full_unstemmed | Human germline editing in the era of CRISPR-Cas: risk and uncertainty, inter-generational responsibility, therapeutic legitimacy |
title_short | Human germline editing in the era of CRISPR-Cas: risk and uncertainty, inter-generational responsibility, therapeutic legitimacy |
title_sort | human germline editing in the era of crispr-cas: risk and uncertainty, inter-generational responsibility, therapeutic legitimacy |
topic | Debate |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7488432/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32912206 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00487-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schleidgensebastian humangermlineeditingintheeraofcrisprcasriskanduncertaintyintergenerationalresponsibilitytherapeuticlegitimacy AT dedererhansgeorg humangermlineeditingintheeraofcrisprcasriskanduncertaintyintergenerationalresponsibilitytherapeuticlegitimacy AT sgoddasusan humangermlineeditingintheeraofcrisprcasriskanduncertaintyintergenerationalresponsibilitytherapeuticlegitimacy AT cravcisinstefan humangermlineeditingintheeraofcrisprcasriskanduncertaintyintergenerationalresponsibilitytherapeuticlegitimacy AT luneburgluca humangermlineeditingintheeraofcrisprcasriskanduncertaintyintergenerationalresponsibilitytherapeuticlegitimacy AT cantztobias humangermlineeditingintheeraofcrisprcasriskanduncertaintyintergenerationalresponsibilitytherapeuticlegitimacy AT heinemannthomas humangermlineeditingintheeraofcrisprcasriskanduncertaintyintergenerationalresponsibilitytherapeuticlegitimacy |