Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 293
Filtrar
1.
Int J Mol Sci ; 21(24)2020 Dec 16.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33339441

RESUMEN

The discovery of clustered, regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and their cooperation with CRISPR-associated (Cas) genes is one of the greatest advances of the century and has marked their application as a powerful genome engineering tool. The CRISPR-Cas system was discovered as a part of the adaptive immune system in bacteria and archaea to defend from plasmids and phages. CRISPR has been found to be an advanced alternative to zinc-finger nucleases (ZFN) and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALEN) for gene editing and regulation, as the CRISPR-Cas9 protein remains the same for various gene targets and just a short guide RNA sequence needs to be altered to redirect the site-specific cleavage. Due to its high efficiency and precision, the Cas9 protein derived from the type II CRISPR system has been found to have applications in many fields of science. Although CRISPR-Cas9 allows easy genome editing and has a number of benefits, we should not ignore the important ethical and biosafety issues. Moreover, any tool that has great potential and offers significant capabilities carries a level of risk of being used for non-legal purposes. In this review, we present a brief history and mechanism of the CRISPR-Cas9 system. We also describe on the applications of this technology in gene regulation and genome editing; the treatment of cancer and other diseases; and limitations and concerns of the use of CRISPR-Cas9.


Asunto(s)
Sistemas CRISPR-Cas , Edición Génica/métodos , Animales , Epigénesis Genética , Edición Génica/ética , Edición Génica/normas , Terapia Genética/ética , Terapia Genética/métodos , Terapia Genética/normas , Humanos
3.
Clin Ter ; 171(5): e407-e411, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32901783

RESUMEN

The amazing and almost unimaginable advances that have unfolded over the past decades in biotechnologies (heritable germline editing in particular) have brought bioethical issues to the forefront, sparking public debate and increasing attention worldwide. Such mind-blowing progress has already resulted in major improvement and enhancements for humans, and holds the potential for even more. Technology and bioengineering have begun to take over in the life sciences industry. Man's capacity to genetically engineer the biological world is nothing short of mind-boggling in its current magnitude, and may even evolve, in a not too distant future, into attempts to fuse man and machine into a cohesive bioengineered entity; a "super human being", endowed with enhanced cognitive and physical capabilities and impervious to disease, may be not too far down the road. That will not come without caveats, however. In fact, scientific advancements at such an accelerated pace have already negatively affected our cultural, ethical, and legal values and our ability to harness the opportunities and face the dangers posed by such developments. As a matter of fact, science seems to consistently outpace public morals, ethics and policymaking, which calls for a high degree of caution and common answers.


Asunto(s)
Comienzo de la Vida Humana , Discusiones Bioéticas , Biotecnología/ética , Edición Génica/ética , Terapia Genética/ética , Humanos , Principios Morales , Formulación de Políticas
5.
PLoS One ; 15(9): e0238128, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32946484

RESUMEN

Genome-editing technology has become increasingly known in recent years, and the 2018 news of genome-edited twins in China had a particularly significant impact on public awareness. In the present study we investigate the effect of Japanese media coverage on public opinions of this technology. To identify the effects we employ a questionnaire survey method on a pre-registered sample from online research company Macromill. Our repeated survey from 2016 through 2019 reveal a generally supportive attitude toward the medical application of genome-editing methods. To see this we employed a multinomial logit analysis examining the determinants of negative and positive impressions of the technology. Results show that although editing for medical purposes remained mostly acceptable, its use in fertilizing human eggs was increasingly rejected, especially in 2019, the most recent sample year. The suggestion is that while genome-editing applications in general medical fields are publicly accepted, its use in human functionality enhancement is heavily increasingly resisted. News of the twin babies in China did raise public awareness of the methods but also damaged their reputation. It therefore is important for genome researchers to hold such concerns in mind, keeping the public informed of changing technology fundamentals. As a related question we inquire into the public acceptability of genome editing for animal and plant breeding, such as in agriculture and fisheries, as well. We find the Japanese public views the medical and breeding applications of this technology to be unconnected with each other, despite that awareness of both has risen significantly in recent years.


Asunto(s)
Actitud , Edición Génica , Gemelos , China , Edición Génica/ética , Humanos , Medios de Comunicación de Masas/estadística & datos numéricos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
6.
Am J Bioeth ; 20(8): 7-18, 2020 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32757931

RESUMEN

The distinction between germline and somatic gene editing is fundamental to the ethics of human gene editing. Multiple conferences of scientists, ethicists, and policymakers, and multiple professional bodies, have called for moratoria on germline gene editing, and editing of human germline cells is considered to be an ethical "red line" that either never should be crossed, or should only be crossed with great caution and care. However, as research on germline gene editing has progressed, it has become clear that not all germline interventions are alike, and that these differences make a significant moral difference, when it comes to ethical questions about research, regulation, clinical application, and medical justification. In this paper, I argue that, rather than lumping all germline interventions together, we should distinguish between revising, correcting, and transferring genes, and I assess the consequences of this move for the ethics of gene editing.


Asunto(s)
Edición Génica/ética , Terapia Genética/ética , Células Germinativas , Ética Clínica , Ética en Investigación , Humanos , Principios Morales , Políticas
7.
Rev. bioét. derecho ; (49): 77-91, jul. 2020.
Artículo en Español | IBECS | ID: ibc-192095

RESUMEN

El objetivo de este artículo es comprender cómo el CRISPR-Cas9 puede funcionar como una tecnología viable en la construcción del proyecto de parentalidad para promover el ejercicio de la libertad en el proceso de autonomía reproductiva. Sin embargo, a pesar de la posibilidad del uso en la línea germinal humana, se intentó investigar los límites y el alcance de esta percepción de libertad. Así, a través del uso de investigaciones documentales y bibliográficas, se buscaron datos sobre la viabilidad de la preservación del patrimonio genético como expresión de la diversidad en la humanidad. De esta forma, se percibió que es necesario superar pensamientos higienistas de limpiar "defectos", considerando que toda vida es digna de ser vivida


The scope of this paper was to understand how CRISPR-Cas9 can function as a viable technology in the construction of the parenting project in order to promote freedom in the process of procreative autonomy. However, regarding the possibility of its use to cause genetic manipulation in the human germline, we sought to ascertain the limits and scope of this perception of freedom. Thus, through the use of documentary and bibliographical method, data about the viability of the preservation of the genetic patrimony as an expression of the diversity in humanity was researched. Therefore, it was perceived as necessary to overcome the hygienist thoughts of cleaning up "defects", considering all life as worthy of being lived


L'objectiu del article era comprendre com CRISPR-CAS9 pot funcionar com una tecnologia viable en la construcció del projecte de parentalitat per promoure l'exercici de la llibertat en el procés d'autonomia reproductiva. No obstant això, tot I la possibilitat del seu ús en la línia germinal humana, es van intentar investigar els límits I l'abast d'aquesta percepció de llibertat. Així, a través de l'ús d'investigacions documentals I bibliogràfiques, es van buscar dades sobre la viabilitat de la preservació del patrimoni genètic com a expressió de la diversitat a la humanitat. D'aquesta manera, es va percebre que cal superar pensaments higienistes de netejar "defectes", considerant que tota vida és digna de ser viscuda


Asunto(s)
Humanos , Edición Génica/ética , Proteína 9 Asociada a CRISPR/genética , Bioética , Edición Génica/legislación & jurisprudencia , Derechos Humanos , Disentimientos y Disputas/legislación & jurisprudencia , Genoma Humano/genética , Genómica/ética , Personeidad
9.
Adv Exp Med Biol ; 1195: 177, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32468475

RESUMEN

In recent years, popular culture has been graced with countless news announcing novel developments in genome editing. While many experiments are still in their early stages, genome editing seems very promising. Often betraying a sensationalist and triumphant tone, news coverage focuses on the potentials that these developments will have for the advancement of the human species, i.e., the eradication of disease, the extension of life, the improvement of the body and its appearance, etc. The future looks hopeful and unproblematic according to these accounts. On the opposite end of the spectrum, some may wonder whether these developments pose a potential worsening of the human condition: Are these developments safe? What are the ethical implications? Who will benefit from these developments? Given today's social divisions and cultural conflicts, these voices predict a rather unpromising future and warn against the pursue of innovation at any cost.


Asunto(s)
Arte , Edición Génica/ética , Edición Génica/tendencias , Técnicas Reproductivas Asistidas/ética , Técnicas Reproductivas Asistidas/tendencias , Sistemas CRISPR-Cas , Humanos
13.
Gac Med Mex ; 156(1): 53-59, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32026884

RESUMEN

In this essay, the bioethical implications of the recent genetic manipulation in human embryos with CRISPR-Cas9 to eliminate the CCR5 gene and the birth of a pair of discordant twin girls are analyzed. The experiment was disseminated via social media. The main bioethical flaws identified include the justification of the model, the informed consent process and the lack of disclosure of evident conflicts of interest. The consequences of the experiment on the life of the twins that were born were not properly evaluated, such as the impact on their autonomy, the alleged benefits to be received and the future risks of harm during their lifetime. Having manipulated the germ cell line, the effects on their future offspring were not considered. This type of actions negatively affects the way society conceives science. Genetic engineering should be reserved to the basic experimental context or as clinical research for the correction of known serious diseases of genetic origin under strict regulatory and bioethical supervision and using a gradualist approach in accordance with the advances of gene editing techniques.


Asunto(s)
Sistemas CRISPR-Cas , Edición Génica/ética , Receptores CCR5/genética , Discusiones Bioéticas , China , Conflicto de Intereses , Femenino , Ingeniería Genética/clasificación , Ingeniería Genética/ética , Genoma Humano , Infecciones por VIH/prevención & control , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Edición/ética , Proyectos de Investigación , Inyecciones de Esperma Intracitoplasmáticas , Experimentación Humana Terapéutica/ética , Gemelos Dicigóticos
14.
Mayo Clin Proc ; 95(2): 330-338, 2020 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32029087

RESUMEN

In November 2018, the announcement that genetically edited human embryos had been used for reproductive purposes caused international uproar; many observers argued that editing the human germline was unethical, particularly given the early stage of the science and the absence of appropriate oversight. We provide an overview of the implications of these events, focusing on the relevant ethical considerations for physicians addressing patient questions and concerns. The editing of the human germline for reproductive purposes should be understood against an historic backdrop of clinical research in assisted reproduction, as well as other exemplars of translational investigation. An important question raised by our growing capacity to genetically alter human embryos is how to understand the implicit social contract between science and society. To ensure that translational research continues to enjoy the historic trust placed in scientists and research organizations, it is critical that scientific and health care institutions proactively engage governments, patient advocacy organizations, and the general public in the formation of policies that guide gene editing.


Asunto(s)
Edición Génica/ética , Genoma Humano , Células Germinativas , Técnicas Reproductivas/ética , Ética en Investigación , Humanos
15.
Nature ; 578(7794): 229-236, 2020 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32051598

RESUMEN

Genome editing, which involves the precise manipulation of cellular DNA sequences to alter cell fates and organism traits, has the potential to both improve our understanding of human genetics and cure genetic disease. Here I discuss the scientific, technical and ethical aspects of using CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) technology for therapeutic applications in humans, focusing on specific examples that highlight both opportunities and challenges. Genome editing is-or will soon be-in the clinic for several diseases, with more applications under development. The rapid pace of the field demands active efforts to ensure that this breakthrough technology is used responsibly to treat, cure and prevent genetic disease.


Asunto(s)
Anemia de Células Falciformes/genética , Anemia de Células Falciformes/terapia , Edición Génica/métodos , Edición Génica/tendencias , Genoma Humano/genética , Distrofia Muscular de Duchenne/genética , Distrofia Muscular de Duchenne/terapia , Sistemas CRISPR-Cas/genética , Edición Génica/ética , Edición Génica/normas , Mutación de Línea Germinal/genética , Humanos , Especificidad de Órganos/genética , Seguridad del Paciente , Globinas beta/genética
17.
Bioethics ; 34(3): 223-227, 2020 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31943263

RESUMEN

In July 2018, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics released the report Genome editing and human reproduction: Social and ethical issues, concluding that human germline modification of human embryos for implantation is not 'morally unacceptable in itself' and could be ethically permissible in certain circumstances once the risks of adverse outcomes have been assessed and the procedure appears 'reasonably safe'. The Nuffield Council set forth two main principles governing anticipated uses and envisions applications that may include health enhancements as a public health measure. This essay provides a critique of three aspects in the Nuffield Council's Report: its presumption of therapeutic efficacy, its inflation of parental rights to create a certain type of child, and its reliance on a specially commissioned report that appears to distort key definitions in international law.


Asunto(s)
Investigaciones con Embriones/ética , Células Germinales Embrionarias , Edición Génica/ética , Derechos Humanos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Comités Consultivos , Comités de Ética , Humanos , Informe de Investigación , Reino Unido
20.
PLoS One ; 15(1): e0228263, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31978192

RESUMEN

EU legislation prohibits clinical trials that modify germ line 'genetic identity'. 'Genetic identity' however, is left undefined. This study aims to identify the use of the term 'genetic identity' in academic literature, and investigate its relevance for debates on genetic modification. A total of 616 articles that contained the term were identified. Content analysis revealed that the term was used in various and contradicting ways and a clear understanding of the term is lacking. This review demonstrates that the EU legislation is open to interpretation, because of the diversity of meaning with which 'genetic identity' is currently used. Because of the diversity of meaning with which 'genetic identity' is used and understood, further reflection is needed. This requires further medical, legal, ethical and social debate and a coordinated response at both a European and a global level.


Asunto(s)
Edición Génica/ética , Mutación de Línea Germinal/ética , Bases de Datos Factuales , Unión Europea , Genoma Humano , Humanos , Identificación Social
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...