How many children are genetically engineered

Accordingly, doctors and scientists, as well as political and health authorities, should take care not to surrender to the understandable claims of the parents and allow genome-editing on embryos only in a few well-defined cases that involve the risk of death or of extremely disabling life conditions.

A day may come when we can all be genetically improved without incurring all the risks mentioned above. Only then I believe that it will be fair to do so. The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List Front Genet v. Front Genet. Published online Jun 7. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer.

Centro Universitario Internazionale, Arezzo, Italy. Received Jan 19; Accepted May Keywords: genetic engineering, social inequalities, ethics of reproductive medicine, genetic variety, human dignity and rights, eugenics. The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author s and the copyright owner s are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.

No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. The Ethical Debate From an ethical point of view, and in particular from the standpoint of the ethics of human reproductive genetic engineering Liao, , crossing this new threshold—i.

Author Contributions The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication. Conflict of Interest Statement The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References Akabayashi A. Gene editing: who should decide? Nature Synaptotagmin-3 drives AMPA receptor endocytosis, depression of synapse strength, and forgetting. Science :eaav New York, NY: Vintage. Gene editing: an ethical disruptor? Bioethics 33 The Telegraph. Cohen J. New call to ban gene-edited babies divides biologists. Chinese scientist claims to use Crispr to make first genetically edited babies. The New York Times. Nature , 13— Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry.

Nature , — Science Academies' action plan for germline editing. Attenuation and immunogenicity in mice of temperature-sensitive influenza viruses expressing truncated NS1 proteins. Privatizing procreative liberty in the shadow of eugenics.

Law Biosci. Parental genetic shaping and parental environmental shaping. Choosing Children: Genes, Disability, and Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press; The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Brief Answers to the Big Questions. New York, NY: Bantam. Human genome editing: ask whether, not how. Nature , Brave New World. London: Vintage Books. New York, NY: Knopf. But identifying those health effects could take years. He promised to follow up with the girls until they were 18 years old, but it is unlikely that the health ministry, which ordered He to stop doing science, will allow him to be involved in the evaluations.

Soon after He revealed his experiment, it became clear that he did not act alone or in secrecy. The responsibility of other researchers who were in the know became hotly debated.

The senior researcher with the most intimate knowledge of the work seems to be Michael Deem, a biophysicist at Rice University in Houston, Texas. What role he had is not clear. But they insist that Deem does not do human research, and did not do so for this project.

They say that he did not attend recruitment or informed-consent meetings, did not authorize the use of his name as an author on any human-gene-editing paper and was not a senior author on the paper. Other scientists have been chastised for doing nothing to raise alarms about the work. He Jiankui told many US-based academics about what he was doing, including three at Stanford University in California, and Craig Mello, a Nobel-prizewinning molecular biologist at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester, who was an adviser for a company founded by He.

Most of them say that they advised He against proceeding. Mello says He ambushed him during a break at an advisory board meeting to tell him of his plans and then notified him of the pregnancies by e-mail.

But Natalie Kofler, a molecular biologist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, argues that researchers who knew about this should have done more. The whole episode, she says, is evidence of a growing divide between the values scientists proclaim, and those they actually uphold. Others cite similar reasons. Alta Charo, who specializes in law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin—Madison, agrees that it was unclear how any of these individuals could have effectively blown the whistle.

But China has different values and opaque regulations. She says this could change if the scientific community follows through on plans mapped out at a gene-editing summit held in Hong Kong in November — the only scientific forum at which He has presented his work. The plans propose some kind of transnational advisory body and registry to identify common norms and differences of opinions between countries.

Other organizations are also considering measures. Earlier this month, for example, the World Health Organization announced the establishment of an international committee to devise guidelines for human gene editing. June He Jiankui launches a project to edit genes in human embryos, with the goal of a live birth. March He starts recruiting couples each with an HIV-positive father for the experiments. Early November Gene-edited twin girls are reportedly born, and a second pregnancy with a third gene-edited embryo is established.

January He is censured by the Guangdong health ministry and fired from his university. Four years ago, a team of scientists from Guangzhou published a paper 1 describing the use of gene-editing techniques in a human embryo. The researchers used embryos with a mutation that would prevent them from growing into fetuses. It was, nevertheless, an earthshaking study, and it triggered immediate questions about germline editing. Over the next two years, several groups — from China, the United States and the United Kingdom — published results 2 — 4 of similar experiments.

The studies went from using non-viable embryos to using ones that could conceivably be implanted. Some tested new gene-editing techniques or combined gene editing with cloning. The experiments triggered warnings. Although the scientists involved touted their work as careful basic research, many ethicists saw only one possible outcome: a clinical application not unlike what He has claimed to have done.

Following the fiasco with He, will those who are conducting embryo experiments face a backlash? Mitalipov is working on ways to repair mutated genes in human embryos, and hopes that the approach can one day be used to edit out heritable diseases.

The US government prohibits federal funding for such experiments, but Mitalipov and a handful of other US researchers have managed to find other grant money for the work.

Right now, Mitalipov is cautious. Some scientists have called for a global moratorium on all research that would tinker with the genes of human embryos, whether or not the embryos are subsequently implanted. The concern is that any such research could lead to other premature attempts. He argues that such attempts could taint other safe and ethical uses of gene editing, such as his efforts to correct mutations in adult cells, which would not alter the germ line.

Momentum has grown for some sort of international moratorium, and powerful figures such as Francis Collins, director of the US National Institutes of Health, have voiced support for one. Source: R. Isasi et al. Science , — Grobet, L. A deletion in the bovine myostatin gene causes the double-muscled phenotype in cattle. Nature Genetics 17 , link to article. Marteau, T. Effects of genetic screening on perceptions of health: A pilot study. Journal of Medical Genetics 29 , 24—26 McPherron, A.

Regulation of skeletal muscle mass in mice by a new TGF-beta superfamily member. Nature , 83—90 doi Tang, Y. Genetic enhancement of learning and memory in mice.

Nature , 63—69 doi Taylor, C. Long-term impact of Huntington disease linkage testing. American Journal of Medical Genetics 70 , — Wei, F.

Genetic enhancement of inflammatory pain by forebrain NR2B overexpression. Nature Neurosci ence 4 , — doi Well, D. Gene doping: The hype and the reality.

British Journal of Pharmacology , — doi Woolridge, E. The health orientation scale: A measure of feeling about sickle cell trait. Social Biology 35 , — Bioethics in Genetics. Genetic Inequality: Human Genetic Engineering. Questionable Prognostic Value of Genetic Testing. Human Subjects and Diagnostic Genetic Testing. Prenatal Screen Detects Fetal Abnormalities. Legislative Landmarks of Forensics: California v. Greenwood and Shed DNA.

Calculation of Complex Disease Risk. Gene Therapy. Personalized Medicine: Hope or Hype? Pharmacogenetics, Personalized Medicine, and Race. Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine. Medical Careers: Genetic Screening and Diagnostics. Citation: Simmons, D. Nature Education 1 1 As genetics allows us to turn the tide on human disease, it's also granting the power to engineer desirable traits into humans. What limits should we create as this technology develops?

Aa Aa Aa. Testing for Traits Unrelated to Disease. Building Better Athletes with Gene Doping. Figure 1: The double-muscled Belgian blue cow breed. The increased muscle is due to the fact that these animals have a mutation in a specific gene that normally is involved in muscular hypertrophy. A deletion in the bovine myostatin gene cuases the double-mustard phenotype in cattle. Nature Genetics 17, 71 All rights reserved. Creating Designer Babies.

References and Recommended Reading Baoutina, A. Nature Genetics 17 , link to article Marteau, T. Article History Close. Share Cancel. Revoke Cancel. Keywords Keywords for this Article. Save Cancel. Flag Inappropriate The Content is: Objectionable. Flag Content Cancel. Email your Friend.