I’d like to address an important topic where technology has surpassed ethical standards. While we haven’t reached the right consensus on how to proceed, it’s important that we keep the conversation going. The discovery and development of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing system has revolutionized genetic manipulation of genomes across species. The implications for medical applications are enormous, but there is an overwhelming need and desire to regulate this research and to engage multiple communities in the debate.
Concerningly, last year, He Jiankui announced the birth of gene-edited babies, which challenged all conventions of safety and research ethics. In response, an international group of ethicists and researchers including developers of the CRISPR-Cas9 system — and endorsed by Francis Collins, director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health — have called for a world-wide moratorium on clinical use of human germline editing.
“Until nations can commit to international guiding principles to determine whether and under what conditions such research should proceed […] an international moratorium should be put into effect immediately,” Collins said.
The ethical and moral issues surrounding germline editing extends beyond humans to include all animals, plants, and insects. Questions are being debated by the research community, the academies, the World Health Organization, religious organizations, and many others. What non-human basic research germline gene-editing studies are acceptable? How will they be ethically vetted? What are the long-term consequences on the world’s ecosystem?
Stakeholders must act now to reach a consensus. Institutions will need to monitor protocols at their inception and along the way. But who has the responsibility to establish a set of principles to which researchers will adhere? It is not clear how a global moratorium could be enforced without legal action by countries across the globe. The National Academies of countries around the world must take collective action by proposing consensus opinions.