Bioethics in Faith and Practice, Volume 1, Number 1

Bioethics in Faith and Practice ⦁ 2015 ⦁ Volume 1 ⦁ Number 1 5 From the Managing Editor A Call to Forward-Thinking Bioethics Heather G. Kuruvilla, Ph.D. Cedarville University It is said that hindsight is always 20/20. However, a reasoned approach to practical bioethics requires an awareness of developing technologies and their potential applications to clinical practice. As a recent example, the powerful gene editing technology, CRISPR/Cas 9 has been widely used in the laboratory both to repair genetic defects and to disrupt gene expression. When Liang et al . 1 published their study on April 18, which used CRISPR to edit non-viable human zygotes, a firestorm of debate ensued. The data obtained by Liang et al. indicate a low editing efficiency in the embryos, as well as a high number of off-target mutations. 2 As reported to Nature , one of the scientists in the study, Dr. Huang, noted, “That’s why we stopped [the research]. It [the technology is] is still too immature. ” 3 Other scientists remain convinced that such research on the human germline should not be allowed at present. For example, Lanphier and his colleagues, who use CRISPR to modify somatic cells, believe that using CRISPR on germ-line cells could have unpredictable, potentially harmful effects on future generations of human beings. 4 However, they cite several examples of CRISPR-based somatic cell therapies in various stages of development, including a treatment for β -thassalemia that is scheduled to begin phase I trials later this year. 5 While using genetically modified somatic cells certainly raises concerns of safety and efficacy, those concerns are limited to the individual being treated. Our current protocols for clinical trials are designed to address such questions. But the possibility of causing heritable genetic damage remains one of the major reasons that many nations, including the US, ban research that modifies the human germline. The technical difficulties encountered by Liang and colleagues open up the floor for meaningful bioethical discussion. Now is the time to address deep issues of what it means to be human. Are concerns about modifying the human germline simply limited to safety and efficacy? If so, such concerns will likely be resolved as technology improves. And the technology is likely to improve quickly, as other scientists continue this research and perfect their protocols. Nature news writer David Cyranoski noted in his March 18 th article that several research teams are nearing publication of work similar to the study published by Liang et al. 6 However, beyond the safety concerns lie deeper questions. Certainly the ability to edit the genome brings with it all kinds of therapeutic possibilities. At the same time, there is no reason why someone could not use this technology to modify the human species, with good or evil intent. Our genetics are an integral part of what make us human. We now hold tools which would allow modification of the human genome Bioethics in Faith and Practice vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-2. ISSN 2374-1597 © 2015, Heather Kuruvilla, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ )