Article Text
Abstract
Gyngell and colleagues consider that the recent Nuffield Council report does not go far enough: heritable genome editing (HGE) is not just justifiable in a few rare cases; instead, there is a moral imperative to undertake it. We agree that there is a moral argument for this, but in the real world it is mitigated by the fact that it is not usually possible to ensure a better life. We suggest that a moral imperative for HGE can currently only be concluded if one first buys into an overly deterministic view of a genome sequence, and the role of variation within in it, in the aetiology of the disease: most diseases cannot simply be attributed to specific genetic variants that we could edit away. Multiple, poorly understood genetic and environmental factors interact to influence the expression of diseases with a genetic component, even well understood ‘monogenic’ disorders. Population-level genome analyses are now demonstrating that many genetic ’mutations' are much less predictive than previously thought 1. Furthermore, HGE might introduce new risks just as it reduces old ones; or remove protections not yet clearly delineated.
- ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors Both authors wrote and revised this commentary.
Funding AML’s work is supported by funding from a Wellcome Trust collaborative award 208053/Z/17/Z.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Correction notice This article has been amended since it was first published online. This article has been changed from a Response to a Commentary article.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information:
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Moral reasons to edit the human genome: picking up from the Nuffield report
- Genome editing, Goldilocks and polygenic risk scores
- Future of global regulation of human genome editing: a South African perspective on the WHO Draft Governance Framework on Human Genome Editing
- Heritable human genome editing is ‘currently not permitted’, but it is no longer ‘prohibited’: so says the ISSCR
- We need to talk about imperatives
- Frailty, lifestyle, genetics and dementia risk
- Goldilocks and the two principles. A response to Gyngell et al
- Genomic basis of atrial fibrillation
- Genomics for paediatricians: promises and pitfalls
- A risk prediction algorithm for ovarian cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2, common alleles and other familial effects