Article Text
Abstract
CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing can and has altered human genomes, bringing bioethical debates about this capability to the forefront of philosophical and policy considerations. Here, I consider the underexplored implications of CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives for heritable human genome editing. Modification gene drives applied to heritable human genome editing would introduce a novel form of involuntary eugenic practice that I term guerrilla eugenics. Once introduced into a genome, stealth genetic editing by a gene drive genetic element would occur each subsequent generation irrespective of whether reproductive partners consent to it and irrespective of whether the genetic change confers any benefit. By overriding the ability to ‘opt in’ to genome editing, gene drives compromise the autonomy of carrier individuals and their reproductive partners to choose to use or avoid genome editing and impose additional burdens on those who hope to ‘opt out’ of further genome editing. High incidence of an initially rare gene drive in small human communities could occur within 200 years, with evolutionary fixation globally in a timeframe that is thousands of times sooner than achievable by non-drive germline editing. Following any introduction of heritable gene drives into human genomes, practices intended for surveillance or reversal also create fundamental ethical problems. Current policy guidelines do not comment explicitly on gene drives in humans. These considerations motivate an explicit moratorium as being warranted on gene drive development in heritable human genome editing.
- Eugenics
- Genetic Engineering
- Biological Evolution
- Ethics
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Footnotes
Twitter @asherdcutter
Contributors AC conceived the idea for the article, performed the literature search, wrote the article, and is the guarantor.
Funding This study was funded by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2018-05098).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
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
- Future of global regulation of human genome editing: a South African perspective on the WHO Draft Governance Framework on Human Genome Editing
- Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and rational choice under risk or uncertainty
- The right not to know and preimplantation genetic diagnosis for Huntington’s disease
- Sex selection for social purposes in Israel: quest for the “perfect child” of a particular gender or centuries old prejudice against women?
- Just diagnosis? Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and injustices to disabled people
- Prenatal screening and prenatal diagnosis: contemporary practices in light of the past
- Britain’s new preimplantation tissue typing policy: an ethical defence
- Heritable human genome editing is ‘currently not permitted’, but it is no longer ‘prohibited’: so says the ISSCR
- An analysis of US fertility centre educational materials suggests that informed consent for preimplantation genetic diagnosis may be inadequate