"These techniques are already in broad use in biomedical research," the group wrote. "They may also enable wide-ranging clinical applications in medicine. At the same time, the prospect of human genome editing raises many important scientific, ethical, and societal questions."The statement, adopted at the International Summit on Human Gene Editing, doesn't have any force of law, but it will and should be considered by lawmakers and regulators around the world as they attempt to tackle the moral and ethical issues associated with genetic manipulation.So with that caveat out of the way, the broad strokes of the statement basically implore the human race (looking at you, Chinese scientists who have already tried to use CRISPR on human embryos) to please not fuck itself up before we actually know what we're doing."Once introduced into the human population, genetic alterations would be difficult to remove and would not remain within any single community or country"
Specifically, the community doesn't want a few bad apples around the world to screw up and create genetically modified humans that have, say, novel diseases or mutations not seen in the wild. That's a legitimate concern, but equally concerning is the very real possibility that we do manage to improve the human race using CRISPR—but that in the beginning, the modifications are so expensive that only the rich can afford them, creating an upper class of biologically superior super humans (who then pass their modified genes to their children). Seriously.The summit's organizers came to the conclusion that germline editing, which can be passed on to the next generation, would be "irresponsible" at the present considering that there are "safety and efficacy issues," a lack of understanding on "balancing of risks, potential benefits, and alternatives," and no clear consensus on the "appropriateness" of germline editing. The potential issues cited are quite heavy:"Permanent genetic 'enhancements' to subsets of the population could exacerbate social inequities or be used coercively"
This statement may seem to suggest that, if our scientific institutions prevail, we won't be editing humans anytime soon. That's not necessarily the case.The group decided that it is acceptable to edit human embryos and germline cells for the purpose of basic and preclinical research, so long as those embryos are not used to make a woman pregnant. It also determined that there is a clear and possibly safe path forward for somatic cell editing in adults, which would allow users to edit the DNA in particular body cells to fix or enhance them—like correcting sickle-cell anemia in blood cells, for instance—without passing the modified genes on to the next generation."Because proposed clinical uses are intended to affect only the individual who receives them, they can be appropriately and rigorously evaluated within existing and evolving regulatory frameworks for gene therapy, and regulators can weigh risks and potential benefits in approving clinical trials and therapies," the group wrote.No one is expecting this summit to be the end of the conversation about human genome editing. Even basic research on human genome editing is likely to be something that religious-minded lawmakers in the United States will vehemently oppose. But before this summit, there was no real international consensus among scientists about how to move forward. We've now got a starting point, at the very least."Germline editing poses many important issues, including:
(i) the risks of inaccurate editing (such as off-target mutations) and incomplete editing of the cells of early-stage embryos (mosaicism)
(ii) the difficulty of predicting harmful effects that genetic changes may have under the wide range of circumstances experienced by the human population, including interactions with other genetic variants and with the environment
(iii) the obligation to consider implications for both the individual and the future generations who will carry the genetic alterations
(iv) the fact that, once introduced into the human population, genetic alterations would be difficult to remove and would not remain within any single community or country
(v) the possibility that permanent genetic 'enhancements' to subsets of the population could exacerbate social inequities or be used coercively
(vi) the moral and ethical considerations in purposefully altering human evolution using this technology."