Gene Editing in Human Embryos

Just one day after the WSJ ethical debate article was published, Scientific American published an article reporting that a second, separate lab in China has published a study using the CISPR/Cas9 technique to introduce a HIV-resistant mutation into embryos. While this too, seems like a great trait to introduce to a human embryo, there are still questions of ethics within the study. I was happy to find some explanation of the ethics within this second experiment, as provided by one of the co-authors, Yong Fan. Fan explained that there were 213 fertilized human embryos collected from 87 patients that were "unsuitable for implantation" with in vitro therapy and donated with consent of the egg donor. The reasoning that these embryos were considered "unsuitable" for the in vitro fertilization but adequately "abnormal" for embryonic research was due to an extra set of chromosomes. In contrast, other researchers working with human embryos sometimes opt for "normal" embryos. Kathy Niakan from the Francis Crick Institute in London will utilize "normal" or "viable" human embryos in research on in effects of the inactivation of certain developmental genes and their connection to miscarriages. In London, Niakan will use the CISPR technology as well, however she will be restrained by strict ethically motivated licencing requiring her to end all experiments within 14 days.

By the end of Fan's experiment, only 26 embryos were chosen to receive this modification and of the 26 only 4 were successful. With a high demand for 100% success rates in human embryological genetic studies, this study will certainly be under fire as well. A neuroscientist from Emory University notes in the Scientific American article that the high rates of failure highlight the difficulty in human studies, and perhaps studies of primate embryos would be more suitable fat this time to perfect gene editing techniques. I think that this could be an excellent idea to jump start future research without jeopardizing human embryos. With such low success rates in current published human embryo gene editing studies, and high rates of ethical concern, it is very reasonable to consider research with primates. While this will not completely eliminate ethical concerns, I believe it will give scientists a very similar model organism that can help fine tune embryonic gene editing techniques in mammals.

Genetically Modified Embryos Taking Science Too Far?

          Is science leading towards genetically modified babies? Kathy Niakan, a stem cell researcher of the Francis Crick Institute in the United Kingdom, recently applied to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for a license to allow her team to genetically modify human embryos. Under the licensure, Niakan would legally need to terminate the embryo after 14 days. The United States is currently prohibits genetic modification of humans embryos. Niakan and her team intend to research gene editing to discover the cause of repeated miscarriages in some women. Similar gene-editing techniques were used earlier this year in China.

         The editing of the human genome has been debated internationally. Niakan says "It is up to society to decide what is acceptable; science will merely inform what may be possible." The United States, however, stands firmly planted against the modification of human embryo DNA, following the precedent of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (1995) which "prohibits the use of appropriated funds...for research in which human embryos are destroyed". Approval for Niakan's licensure is still being contemplated.

          Although I believe the advancement of science is very important, this type of advancement worries me. Although the embryos are to be destroyed in 14 days, I think that the modification of human embryos is going to "open a can of worms", for lack of a better phrase. Although it begins with good intentions, there is no saying that someone can get hold of the gene-editing techniques and use it for negative purposes. I'm interested to see if Niakan's licensure is approved, although I'm not sure how I feel about this type of research. It seems like science like this is leading us more and more to a dystopian society seen in so many books from years past.