CRISPR/Cas gene editing in the human germline.

The ease and efficacy of CRISPR/Cas9 germline gene editing in animal models paved the way to human germline gene editing (HGGE), by which permanent changes can be introduced into the embryo. Distinct genes can be knocked out to examine their function during embryonic development. Alternatively, specific sequences can be introduced which can be applied to correct disease-causing mutations. To date, it has been shown that the success of HGGE is dependent on various experimental parameters and that various hurdles (i.e. loss-of-heterozygosity and mosaicism) need to be overcome before clinical applications should be considered. Due to the shortage of human germline material and the ethical constraints concerning HGGE, alternative models such as stem cells have been evaluated as well, in terms of their predictive value on the genetic outcome for HGGE approaches. This review will give an overview of the state of the art of HGGE in oocytes and embryos, and its accompanying challenges.

Rewriting the genetic bond: Gene editing and our understanding of genetic parenthood.

One of the most prominent justifications for the use of germline gene editing (GGE) is that it would allow parents to have a "genetically related child" while preventing the transmission of genetic disorders. However, we argue that since future uses of GGE may involve large-scale genetic modifications, they may affect the genetic relatedness between parents and offspring in a meaningful way: Due to certain genetic modifications, children may inherit much less than 50% of their DNA from each parent. We show that the reduction in genetic relatedness between parents and offspring has three important social and legal implications. First, the desire for a genetically related child may end up not being the strong justification it is currently thought to be for the use of GGE. Second, prospective parents may be reluctant to use GGE because of a potential loss of genetic relatedness. Third, in some jurisdictions, parents who would not pass on "enough" DNA to their child may not be recognized as the child's legal parents. We further argue that the reduction in genetic relatedness challenges current conceptions of genetic parenthood that rely on the quantity of DNA shared with the child or on whether the child was directly derived from the parent's genes. We suggest that genetic parenthood should instead be determined based on the nature of the genetic modifications and whether the child's numerical identity has been preserved after the editing process.

Germline Gene Editing: The Gender Issues.

Human germline gene editing constitutes an extremely promising technology; at the same time, however, it raises remarkable ethical, legal, and social issues. Although many of these issues have been largely explored by the academic literature, there are gender issues embedded in the process that have not received the attention they deserve. This paper examines ways in which this new tool necessarily affects males and females differently-both in rewards and perils. The authors conclude that there is an urgent need to include these gender issues in the current debate, before giving a green light to this new technology.

Political Bioethics.

If bioethical questions cannot be resolved in a widely acceptable manner by rational argument, and if they can be regulated only on the basis of political decision-making, then bioethics belongs to the political sphere. The particular kind of politics practiced in any given society matters greatly: it will determine the kind of bioethical regulation, legislation, and public policy generated there. I propose approaching bioethical questions politically in terms of decisions that cannot be "correct" but that can be "procedurally legitimate." Two procedures in particular can deliver legitimate bioethical decisions, once combined: expert bioethics committees and deliberative democracy. Bioethics so understood can exceed bioethics as a moral project or as a set of administrative principles to regulate medical practice; it can now aspire to a democratic project that involves ordinary citizens as far as reasonably possible. I advance this argument in four steps: (1) using the example of human germline gene editing, (2) I propose a general understanding of proceduralism, and (3) then combine two types and (4) conclude with a defense of majoritarian proceduralism. I develop this argument in terms of one example: germline gene editing.

Clinical trials of germline gene editing: The exploitation problem.

The birth of the world's first genetically edited babies in 2018 provoked considerable ethical outrage. Nonetheless, many scientists and bioethicists now advocate the pursuit of clinical uses of human germline gene editing. Progress towards this goal will require research, including clinical trials where genetically edited embryos are implanted into a woman's uterus, gestated, and brought to term. This paper argues that such trials would likely conflict with the fundamental research ethical requirement of non-exploitation. This is because they would expose people who are in a vulnerable situation to risks and burdens that are substantial and not obviously offset by compensating benefits. I consider how the potential for exploitation in such trials might be mitigated, arguing that a feasible and justifiable approach is not easily found. If this analysis is correct, there is a significant ethical obstacle on the path towards clinical use of human germline gene editing.

Space bioethics: Why we need it and why it should be a feminist space bioethics.

Space philosophy offers rich insights in the future and is already well-developed new branch of philosophy. However, space philosophers still do not pay much attention to a number of bioethical issues that may occur in space. This paper aims to introduce space bioethics, as a new branch in space philosophy, space ethics and space policy, to the philosophical and bioethical discourse. The basic issues discussed in space bioethics include-but are not limited to-human reproduction in space and human enhancement for space. This paper concludes that the new space bioethics should be a feminist new bioethics that is free from many of the historical biases associated with a male-centred perspective in philosophy and bioethics. Bioethical issues in space have also impact on future political decisions related to objectives and nature of space missions.

Ante-natal counseling in phacomatoses.

OBJECTIVES: Phacomatoses are a group of neuro-oculo-cutaneous syndromes/ neurocutaneous disorders, involving structures arising from the embryonic ectoderm. Most of phacomatoses including the most common ones:, neurofibromatosis type I and type II (NF1, NF2) and tuberosclerosis complex (TSC), are autosomal dominant genetic disorders with full penetrance and variable expression. As no effective treatment exists, the only way to prevent the disease, is by prenatal genetic diagnosis (either chorionic villus sampling-CVS or amniocentesis-AC) and termination of pregnancy or performing preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). As the risk for an affected offspring is 50% in every pregnancy of an affected parent, prenatal, and preimplantation testing are of great importance. However, those procedures are associated with technical and ethical concerns. This chapter shortly reviews the common phacomatoses emphasizes their genetics and inheritance. We will review the common methods for prenatal and preimplantation diagnoses and discuss its use in common phacomatoses. CONCLUSION: Phacomatoses are common autosomal dominant genetic conditions with variable expression. Ante-natal genetic diagnosis is an appropriate approach for family planning in individuals affected by phacomatosis or parents of an affected child.

Islamic Perspectives on CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Human Germline Gene Editing: A Preliminary Discussion.

The recent development of CRISPR/Cas9 technology has rekindled the ethical debate concerning human germline modification that has begun decades ago. This inexpensive technology shows tremendous promise in disease prevention strategies, while raising complex ethical concerns about safety and efficacy of the technology, human dignity, tampering with God's creation, and human genetic enhancement. Germline gene editing may result in heritable changes in the human genome, therefore the question of whether it should be allowed requires deep and careful discussion from various perspectives. This paper explores Islamic perspectives on the concerns raised and highlights the ethical principles in Islam that should be taken into consideration when assessing the permissibility of CRISPR/ Cas9-mediated human germline gene editing. As argued in this paper, human germline gene editing would be considered lawful for medical purpose under certain conditions. It should not be applied on humans until the safety and efficacy issues are resolved. Robust ethical guidelines and strict regulations are necessary to preserve human dignity and to prevent premature and misuse of the technology. Maqasid al-shariah's principles of preservation of human life, lineage, and dignity and 'preventing harm takes precedence over securing benefit' are among the guiding principles in assessing the permissibility of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated human germline editing from an Islamic perspective. Further discussions are important to address the controversies as well as to explore the related ethical principles.

Germ-Inating Solutions or Gene-Rating Problems: An Islamic Perspective on Human Germline Gene Editing.

Human germline gene editing (hGGE) poses many questions for the Muslim community. They range from the scientific: is there sufficient evidence that hGGE is better than existing technologies? To the ethical: is the lack of consent an insurmountable hurdle? What is the moral status of the embryo? What effect would hGGE have on societal inequalities? And, most crucially, can hGGE be interdicted on the basis of preventing its ineluctable use in eugenic programming? This paper confronts these issues from a religious perspective basing its judgements and reasoning on traditional sources of Islamic jurisprudence. It concludes that, except in very few instances that must be individual and case-specific, hGGE is not congruent with the tenets of Islam.

Is selecting better than modifying? An investigation of arguments against germline gene editing as compared to preimplantation genetic diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Recent scientific advances in the field of gene editing have led to a renewed discussion on the moral acceptability of human germline modifications. Gene editing methods can be used on human embryos and gametes in order to change DNA sequences that are associated with diseases. Modifying the human germline, however, is currently illegal in many countries but has been suggested as a 'last resort' option in some reports. In contrast, preimplantation genetic (PGD) diagnosis is now a well-established practice within reproductive medicine. Both methods can be used to prevent children from being born with severe genetic diseases. MAIN TEXT: This paper focuses on four moral concerns raised in the debate about germline gene editing (GGE) and applies them to the practice of PGD for comparison: Violation of human dignity, disrespect of the autonomy and the physical integrity of the future child, discrimination of people living with a disability and the fear of slippery slope towards immoral usage of the technology, e.g. designing children for specific third party interests. Our analysis did not reveal any fundamental differences with regard to the four concerns. CONCLUSION: We argue that with regard to the four arguments analyzed in this paper germline gene editing should be considered morally (at least) as acceptable as the selection of genomes on the basis of PGD. However, we also argue that any application of GGE in reproductive medicine should be put on hold until thorough and comprehensive laws have been implemented to prevent the abuse of GGE for non-medical enhancement.

The need to set explicit goals for human germline gene editing public dialogues.

Given the potentially large ethical and societal implications of human germline gene editing (HGGE) the urgent need for public and stakeholder engagement (PSE) has been repeatedly expressed. However, the explicit goals of such PSE efforts often remain poorly defined. In this program report, we outline the goals of our Dutch project called De DNA dialogen (The DNA dialogues). We believe that setting explicit goals in advance is essential to enable meaningful PSE efforts. Moreover, it enables the evaluation of our engagement efforts. The following four goals, which result from intensive consultations among the transdisciplinary projects' consortium members and based on the literature, form the foundation for how we will engage the public and stakeholders in deliberation about HGGE: 1) Enable publics and stakeholders to deliberate on "what if" questions, before considering "whether" and "how" questions regarding HGGE, 2) Investigate agreement and disagreement in values and beliefs regarding HGGE in order to agree and disagree more precisely, 3) Involve diverse publics with various perspectives, with a focus on those that are typically underrepresented in PSE, 4) Enable societally aligned policy making by providing policymakers, health care professionals and legal experts insight into how values are weighed and ascribed meaning in the context of HGGE by various publics, and how these values relate to the principles of democratic rule of law and fundamental rights. The effort to describe our goals in detail may serve as an example and can inform future initiatives striving for open science and open governance in the context of PSE.

"What if" should precede "whether" and "how" in the social conversation around human germline gene editing.

Given the potential large ethical and societal implications of human germline gene editing (HGGE) the urgent need for public and stakeholder engagement (PSE) has been repeatedly expressed. In this short communication, we aim to provide directions for broad and inclusive PSE by emphasizing the importance of futures literacy, which is a skill to imagine diverse and multiple futures and to use these as lenses to look at the present anew. By first addressing "what if" questions in PSE, different futures come into focus and limitations that arise when starting with the "whether" or "how" questions about HGGE can be avoided. Futures literacy can also aid in the goal of societal alignment, as "what if" questions can be answered in many different ways, thereby opening up the conversation to explore a multitude of values and needs of various publics. Broad and inclusive PSE on HGGE starts with asking the right questions.

Multi-faceted CRISPR/Cas technological innovation aspects in the framework of 3P medicine.

Since 2009, the European Association for Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine (EPMA, Brussels) promotes the paradigm change from reactive approach to predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine (PPPM/3PM) to protect individuals in sub-optimal health conditions from the health-to-disease transition, to increase life-quality of the affected patient cohorts improving, therefore, ethical standards and cost-efficacy of healthcare to great benefits of the society at large. The gene-editing technology utilizing CRISPR/Cas gene-editing approach has demonstrated its enormous value as a powerful tool in a broad spectrum of bio/medical research areas. Further, CRISPR/Cas gene-editing system is considered applicable to primary and secondary healthcare, in order to prevent disease spread and to treat clinically manifested disorders, involving diagnostics of SARS-Cov-2 infection and experimental treatment of COVID-19. Although the principle of the proposed gene editing is simple and elegant, there are a lot of technological challenges and ethical considerations to be solved prior to its broadly scaled clinical implementation. This article highlights technological innovation beyond the state of the art, exemplifies current achievements, discusses unsolved technological and ethical problems, and provides clinically relevant outlook in the framework of 3PM.

Towards an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing: a call to synergistic action.

The CRISPR-Cas9 system has revolutionised the biotechnology of human genome editing. Human germline gene editing promises exponential benefits to many in Africa and elsewhere, especially those affected by the highly prevalent monogenic disorders - for which, thanks to CRISPR, a relatively safe heritable radical therapy is a real possibility. Africa evidently presents a unique opportunity for empirical research in human germline gene editing because of its high prevalence of monogenic disorders. Critically, however, germline gene editing has raised serious ethical concerns especially because of the significant risks of inadvertent and intentional misuse of its transgenerational heritability. Calls for due prudence have become even more pronounced in the wake of the 2018 case of He Jiankui's 'CRISPR'd babies'. Meanwhile, Africa is seriously lagging in articulating its position on human genome editing. Conspicuously, there has been little to no attempt at comprehensively engaging the African public in discussions on the promises and concerns about human genome editing. Thus, the echoing key question remains as to how Africa should prudently embrace and govern this revolutionary biotechnology. In this article, therefore, I lay the groundwork for the possible development of an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing and call upon all stakeholders to urgent synergistic action. I particularly highlight the World Health Organisation's possible leadership role in promptly establishing the requisite expert working group for this urgent need.

International Reporting Mechanism for Unethical Germline Gene Editing Experiments Is Needed.

Recent reporting found that a number of scientists internationally knew about the experiment resulting in the birth of the first gene-edited babies well before the news broke. Because scientists have a responsibility to reveal such activities, an international governance mechanism for reporting unethical gene editing experiments should be established.

Does human germline genome editing violate human dignity? An African perspective.

It has been variously claimed that alterations to the human genome for reproductive purposes ought to be prohibited on the basis that doing so is contrary to human dignity. This claim leads to the conclusion that germline genome editing (GGE) ought to be categorically banned in all states committed to upholding human dignity as a right recognized in international human rights documents, and which has been entrenched in the constitutions of many liberal democracies. But is it the case that the right to human dignity is necessarily opposed to GGE? This paper explores this question through critical examination of the concept of human dignity in international human rights, and how it has been interpreted by individual states. Recognizing that the interpretation of human dignity is shaped by cultural context, the paper explores an African perspective on this issue, using South African constitutional jurisprudence on human dignity as an example. It concludes that when viewed through the lens of the African ethic of Ubuntu, there is no justification for a categorical prohibition on GGE, on the grounds that it is contrary to human dignity. This illustrates the need for a global discourse on the regulation on genome editing to be sensitive to varying perspectives-specifically on value-laden questions such as the interpretation of human rights.

Rewriting the human genome, rewriting human rights law? Human rights, human dignity, and human germline modification in the CRISPR era.

In most legal orders, human germline modification is either prohibited or severely restricted. A recurring thought in these legal frameworks is that heritable genome editing would result in practices that are at odds with principles of human rights, such as dignity, justice, and equality. However, now that CRISPR is bringing heritable genome editing within human reach, the question has risen as to whether these human rights bans still make sense. The call is growing louder to lift the ban on heritable genome editing for therapeutic purposes as soon as the technology is safe for introduction in the clinic. This article critically examines these recent proposals from a human rights perspective. First, it examines the question as to how realistic the proposed distinction between the therapeutic and the nontherapeutic uses of human germline modification is in the CRISPR era. Second, it argues that these proposals rely on a one-dimensional understanding of the meaning of human rights for this issue. Finally, it suggests that this one-dimensional understanding paves the way for a regime of self-regulation by the scientific community that leaves little room for public debate on the question as to whether or how human germline modification fits in the long-term aspirations of society.

Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act: Pragmatic Reforms in Support of Research.

Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act is long overdue for Parliamentary review. We argue that the current regulation of research using human reproductive materials is not proportionate, not responsive to the uncertain threats posed to human and environmental health and safety, and is not considerate of diverse values in a democratic society. We propose tailored regulatory carve-outs for in vitro research for currently prohibited activities, such as gene editing, and for the exercise of Ministerial Discretion for access by Canadians to experimental in vivo interventions that are currently prohibited, such as mitochondrial replacement therapy. Our recommendations are bounded by constitutional constraints that recognize political and practical challenges in keeping oversight of this research under Federal jurisdiction, whether conducted in academic or private sectors. The proposed nuanced regulatory scheme should be overseen by a new national Agency, modeled on a blend of the Canadian Stem Cell Oversight Committee and Assisted Human Reproduction Canada.

The clinical application of gene editing: ethical and social issues.

Gene-editing techniques have progressed rapidly in the past 5 years. There are already ongoing human somatic gene-editing clinical trials for multiple diseases. And there has been one purported scenario of human germline gene editing in late 2018. In this paper, we will review the current state of the technology, discuss the ethical and social issues that surround the various forms of gene editing, as well as review emerging stakeholder data from professionals, the 'general public' and individuals and families dealing with genetic diseases potentially treatable by gene editing.

Experiments that led to the first gene-edited babies: the ethical failings and the urgent need for better governance.

The rapid developments of science and technology in China over recent decades, particularly in biomedical research, have brought forward serious challenges regarding ethical governance. Recently, Jian-kui HE, a Chinese scientist, claimed to have "created" the first gene-edited babies, designed to be naturally immune to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The news immediately triggered widespread criticism, denouncement, and debate over the scientific and ethical legitimacy of HE's genetic experiments. China's guidelines and regulations have banned germline genome editing on human embryos for clinical use because of scientific and ethical concerns, in accordance with the international consensus. HE's human experimentation has not only violated these Chinese regulations, but also breached other ethical and regulatory norms. These include questionable scientific value, unreasonable risk-benefit ratio, illegitimate ethics review, invalid informed consent, and regulatory misconduct. This series of ethical failings of HE and his team reveal the institutional failure of the current ethics governance system which largely depends on scientist's self-regulation. The incident highlights the need for urgent improvement of ethics governance at all levels, the enforcement of technical and ethical guidelines, and the establishment of laws relating to such bioethical issues.