You kind of exposed yourself to higher risk there. If the basic, no-frills version of human reproduction comes to be seen as a form of careless parenting, it invites a callous parsing of who does and does not deserve their fate—and, by extension, who does and does not deserve resources and support. Laura Hercher is a genetic counselor and director of student research at the Joan H.
She has written broadly on ethical, legal and social issues related to genetic medicine. Hercher is the host of The Beagle Has Landed, a podcast for the clinical genetics community and other sci-curious individuals. Already a subscriber? Sign in. Thanks for reading Scientific American. Create your free account or Sign in to continue.
See Subscription Options. Go Paperless with Digital. Get smart. Sign up for our email newsletter. Sign Up. Support science journalism. Knowledge awaits. See Subscription Options Already a subscriber? Create Account See Subscription Options. Continue reading with a Scientific American subscription.
So, for now at least, genetically engineered babies will not be made in the US any time soon, no matter the motivation. Even among scientists and policy groups, genetic germline enhancements are strongly cautioned against. None of the statements or guidelines published in the last few years by major ethics groups or important research and medical academies recommend any forays into germline enhancements [14].
Not only is the regulatory landscape unfavorable for creating a super baby, the biology makes it difficult. The characteristics people tend to associate with designer babies — intelligence, height, and athletic ability — are not controlled by one or even a few genes. Take the seemingly simple trait, height.
For example, the hormone EPO is considered a performance-enhancing drug and is produced by a single gene. But the World Anti-Doping Agency already tests for performancen-enhancing gene therapies in athletes, and recently updated its ban to include all forms of gene editing [17], as hard as that may be to enforce.
Recent publication covers spotlight genetic enhancements. Despite the concerns over designer babies, many scientists and doctors are calling for a regulatory path forward to allow gene editing in human embryos for research []. The goal would be to understand basic human biology, and potentially, to prevent extreme cases of genetic disease. The World Health Organization estimates there are about 10, diseases known to be caused by a mutation in a single gene [21].
Many of these are extremely debilitating. For women who are already pregnant, prenatal genetic testing is now a relatively routine procedure. To complicate things even further, what counts as a disease worthy of eradication, and who gets to decide? While not a monogenetic disorder, it does have a genetic component [22]. My hands would bleed from the persistent washing and picking, and I constantly felt trapped in a hell of my own mind.
Luckily there are evidence-based treatments for my disorder, and I was able to get help, partly because my family was able to pay for it. A mild manifestation of my OCD is perfectionism. This has helped me become an excellent student and get into one of the best universities in the world to obtain my Ph.
It keeps me considering the many possible views and outcomes of any given situation, and thereby gives me strong analytical skills. I like to think I have something to offer the world, though that is up to the world to decide. Researchers around the world are conducting experiments in human embryos to fix harmful mutations. To me, the key issue will be deciding which diseases should be prevented by editing.
Deciding where the line between prevention and enhancement lies will also be necessary. Making sure we preserve societal infrastructure for those individuals who will continue to be born with genetic diseases will be critical. Perhaps most importantly, engaging those communities directly affected by this application is essential. As a scientific community, we need to seek broad public input and provide accurate information to help inform policy makers.
While societal consensus on ethical issues and policy decisions should be the goal, it may not always be obtainable, and in those circumstances, somebody will have to decide.
However, the practice is hugely controversial due to fears that it could be used to create "designer babies" whose genes have been edited for non-therapeutic purposes. In November Chinese scientist He Jiankui sparked outrage after announcing he had created the first genetically-modified babies in the world from embryos altered to make them resistant to HIV.
Read More. But Smith says their creation is ethically justifiable and would offer hope to parents at risk of transmitting serious genetic disease to their offspring, according to a statement. The scientist, the twins and the experiment that geneticists say went too far. From a "utilitarian standpoint" genetic modification is the "only conceivable way" to deal with multiple disease-associated genes in an embryo, according to Smith.
0コメント