Safety of Germline Genome Editing for Genetically Related "Future" Children as Perceived by Parents.

The social acceptability of germline genome editing (GGE) depends on its perceived safety, as well as respect for reproductive autonomy. However, it is doubtful that prospective parents sufficiently understand the risks of GGE. In the future, the use of GGE in specific situations seems plausible, as it offers couples potential means to safeguard genetically related future children from a serious disease and overcome infertility due to a gene mutation. Should GGE fail, however, some couples may be obliged to abort affected fetuses, or give birth to adversely affected children, which would be a tragedy. Some children might develop diseases later in life due to overlooked off-target mutations. Compounding this, some parents are unlikely to inform their offspring about the details of conception, hampering necessary follow-up. Prospective parents, scientists and policy makers should carefully discuss the safety implications of GGE for genetically related future children.

Patentability of time-lapse monitoring has nothing to do with human dignity: A response to Alain Pottage.

In December 2017, Alain Pottage published an article denying the patentability of a technique called Time-Lapse Monitoring (TLM). His argument was that this procedure, like all other embryo selection procedures, fails to respect human dignity. Here, we argue that this statement is mistaken because assisted reproductive technologies (ART) require a scarce resource, namely a woman's uterus in the right physiological condition. Therefore, embryo selection using TLM is entirely appropriate, as it is not possible to guarantee that all of them will have access to the environment they need to develop. Hence, the use of techniques designed to maximize the number of live births and minimize the suffering of women who undergo failed embryo transfers is a moral obligation.