Who's Afraid of the Big Bad (Germline Editing) Wolf?

Germline genome editing has garnered dire predictions about its societal effects, but experience with other reproductive technologies should caution us about making extravagant claims. Amniocentesis was predicted to result in increased stigmatization of people born with Down syndrome, but in fact people with these conditions have been increasingly integrated into schools and workplaces. Artificial insemination by donor was predicted to result in women choosing to "optimize" their children, but in fact most women eschewed the offerings of the so-called "genius sperm bank," and when choosing among donors, have tended to look for those who most resemble their husbands and partners. IVF was predicted to cause parents to view children as commodities, but no such change has been evidenced. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis was predicted to become widespread and used for an ever-increasing range of conditions, including those unrelated to serious disease or shortened life span, but this has not happened either. Critics of germline genome editing have argued that even if it were safe and effective, it would inevitably be abused by prospective parents who wish to improve upon what is already predicted to be a healthy outcome, and that this practice would become sufficiently widespread among those able to afford it that we would be creating a new genetic caste system. Before developing policy around such predictions, it is important to learn from the past.

CRISPR Critters and CRISPR Cracks.

This essay focuses on possible nonhuman applications of CRISPR/Cas9 that are likely to be widely overlooked because they are unexpected and, in some cases, perhaps even "frivolous." We look at five uses for "CRISPR Critters": wild de-extinction, domestic de-extinction, personal whim, art, and novel forms of disease prevention. We then discuss the current regulatory framework and its possible limitations in those contexts. We end with questions about some deeper issues raised by the increased human control over life on earth offered by genome editing.

The need for a standard for informed consent for collection of human fetal material.

The ISSCR has developed the Informed Consent Standards for Human Fetal Tissue Donation and Research to promote uniformity and transparency in tissue donation and collection. This standard is designed to assist those working with and overseeing the regulation of such tissue and reassure the wider community and public.

Prenatal Somatic Cell Gene Therapies: Charting a Path Toward Clinical Applications (Proceedings of the CERSI-FDA Meeting).

We are living in a golden age of medicine in which the availability of prenatal diagnosis, fetal therapy, and gene therapy/editing make it theoretically possible to repair almost any defect in the genetic code. Furthermore, the ability to diagnose genetic disorders before birth and the presence of established surgical techniques enable these therapies to be delivered safely to the fetus. Prenatal therapies are generally used in the second or early third trimester for severe, life-threatening disorders for which there is a clear rationale for intervening before birth. While there has been promising work for prenatal gene therapy in preclinical models, the path to a clinical prenatal gene therapy approach is complex. We recently held a conference with the University of California, San Francisco-Stanford Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation, researchers, patient advocates, regulatory (members of the Food and Drug Administration), and other stakeholders to review the scientific background and rationale for prenatal somatic cell gene therapy for severe monogenic diseases and initiate a dialogue toward a safe regulatory path for phase 1 clinical trials. This review represents a summary of the considerations and discussions from these conversations.

Children by choice: reproductive technologies and the boundaries of personal autonomy.

Unlike other countries that regulate assisted reproduction, the US has largely left this field to the domain of professional self-regulation and market preferences. The reason lies both in the confused jurisprudence of reproductive liberty and the paralysing effect of the abortion debate on US politics. The debate surrounding cloning, however, has galvanized both activists and the government to revisit the question of regulation, and recent cases in the US Supreme Court suggest that if the political will to regulate this field is found, governmental authority to intervene in areas such as pre-implantation diagnosis, gamete donation and surrogacy might well be upheld, even in the face of constitutional challenges.

Guiding Ethical Principles in Engineering Biology Research.

Engineering biology is being applied toward solving or mitigating some of the greatest challenges facing society. As with many other rapidly advancing technologies, the development of these powerful tools must be considered in the context of ethical uses for personal, societal, and/or environmental advancement. Researchers have a responsibility to consider the diverse outcomes that may result from the knowledge and innovation they contribute to the field. Together, we developed a Statement of Ethics in Engineering Biology Research to guide researchers as they incorporate the consideration of long-term ethical implications of their work into every phase of the research lifecycle. Herein, we present and contextualize this Statement of Ethics and its six guiding principles. Our goal is to facilitate ongoing reflection and collaboration among technical researchers, social scientists, policy makers, and other stakeholders to support best outcomes in engineering biology innovation and development.

ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation: The 2021 update.

The International Society for Stem Cell Research has updated its Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation in order to address advances in stem cell science and other relevant fields, together with the associated ethical, social, and policy issues that have arisen since the last update in 2016. While growing to encompass the evolving science, clinical applications of stem cells, and the increasingly complex implications of stem cell research for society, the basic principles underlying the Guidelines remain unchanged, and they will continue to serve as the standard for the field and as a resource for scientists, regulators, funders, physicians, and members of the public, including patients. A summary of the key updates and issues is presented here.