Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
PERSPECTIVE
Abstract
The germline gene-editing field has several detailed preclinical research guidelines but lacks concise and plain-
language ethics statements on ultimate clinical uses. The general public deserves a clear vision of the future to
gauge the field’s ultimate intentions and have meaningful input and discussion about its progress. We propose
the identification of a core set of fundamental human values to frame, guide, and restrict clinical applications that
communities around the world can share and localize based on religious beliefs, culture, and public-health challenges.
*Address correspondence to: He Jiankui, Department of Biology, Southern University of Science and Technology, 1088 Xueyuan Boulevard, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518055,
P.R. China, E-mail: hejk@sustc.edu.cn
ª He Jiankui et al., 2018; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1
2 JIANKUI ET AL.
have not transpired. Clinicians have proven responsible coverage since the emergence of IVF in the 1970s,11
stewards of medical procedures that have helped fertility- with the prophesy of Huxley’s Brave New World,12,13
challenged couples raise more than eight million healthy rapid cultural extinction,14,15 and barcoded or discombob-
children.8 ulated babies serving as fallback tropes16–20 that many pa-
We believe the gene-editing research community tient groups would prefer not share equal footing with
therefore has a duty to speak more openly and plainly balanced reporting.21 Another fallback is the overused
to the public and lawmakers, despite this being an unfa- term ‘‘designer baby’’: this is an epithet aimed at invoking
miliar role for many scientists (including ourselves). disgust, which is a common mechanism behind hate.22,23
Our community should also address ethics more inclu- Parents hope to protect their newborn’s life from a known
sively, as others including Montoliu et al.9 and Jasanoff debilitating, familial disease. Call them ‘‘gene surgery
and Hurlbut have argued,10 by discussing and developing babies’’ if one must or better yet ordinary people who
guidelines in more cosmopolitan and inclusive venues have had surgery to save their life or prevent a disease.
that include affected families and public stakeholders.
Proactively educating journalists is crucial too. Core Principles
Likewise, science journalists and editors share a duty To help advance the constructive dialogue over the past
to translate research responsibly for the general public. 40 years that has ensured the ethical use of ART to help
Sensationalism has been an unfortunate part of media fertility-challenged couples conceive healthy children,
we suggest the medical and patient community identify a Author Disclosure Statement
core set of fundamental human values that clarify for the No competing financial interests exist.
public the clinical future of early-in-life genetic surgery
in plain terms and within a document as brief as possible. References
Lawmakers in countries wishing to permit clinical trials 1. Christianson AL, Howson CP, Modell B. March of Dimes Global
Report on Birth Defects: The Hidden Toll of Dying and Disabled
and eventual regulatory submissions could build on these Children. White Plains, NY: The March of Dimes Birth Defects
values to write cohesive rules that can still account for Foundation, 2006.
their country’s distinctive mix of religious beliefs, culture, 2. Brokowski C. Do CRISPR germline ethics statements cut it? CRISPR
J 2018;1:115–125. DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2017.0024.
and public-health challenges. (A preface to a final docu- 3. Pew Research Center. Public views of gene editing for babies depend
ment could also helpfully summarize the known risks, on how it would be used. Available online at www.pewinternet.org/
2018/07/26/gene-editing-for-babies-methodology/ (accessed
existing options such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, November 18, 2018).
how gene surgery/genome editing works, its limitations, 4. Chen L, Zhang Z. Chinese public attitudes on gene editing. Available
and example use cases.) online at http://scd.sysu.edu.cn/article/843 [in Chinese]; http://
scd.sysu.edu.cn/article/845 [English condensed report] (accessed
As our laboratory (at South University of Science November 18, 2018).
and Technology in Shenzhen, P.R. China) has studied 5. Reardon S. US Congress moves to block human-embryo editing. Nature
the feasibility and safety of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated ge- June 25, 2015. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2015.17858.
6. Rosemann A, Jiang L, Zhang XQ. The regulatory and legal situation
netic surgery in nonviable and viable human and monkey of human embryo, gamete and germ line gene editing research and
embryos for several diseases over the past several years, clinical applications in the People’s Republic of China. Commissioned
Background Paper. Available online at http://nuffieldbioethics
we have thought deeply about ethical foundations for .org/wp-content/uploads/Background-paper-GEHR.pdf (accessed
regulation in discussions between researchers, patients November 18, 2018).
and advocates, and ethicists both in China and abroad. 7. Wang YG. Chinese ethical views on embryo stem (ES) cell
research. In: Macer DRJ, Song S-Y, Koo Y-M (eds). Asian Bioethics
These discussions lead us to propose that, at a minimum, in the 21st Century. Christchurch, NZ: Eubios Ethics Institute, 2002,
five core principles should be addressed in a moderniza- pp. 49–55.
8. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. More
tion of Chinese regulations—and indeed any country’s than 8 million babies born from IVF since the world’s first in 1978.
guidelines or laws—permitting gene surgery for ART: Press Release. July 3, 2018. https://www.eshre.eu/ESHRE2018/
(1) a clear social purpose, (2) impermissible uses, (3) Media/ESHRE-2018-Press-releases/De-Geyter (accessed November
19, 2018).
rights after treatment, (4) the human spirit’s transcen- 9. Montoliu L, Merchant J, Hirsch F, et al. ARRIGE arrives: toward the
dence of DNA, and (5) a special duty to reduce economic responsible use of genome editing. CRISPR J 2018;1:128–129. DOI:
10.1089/crispr.2018.29012.mon.
inequality. We therefore propose five plain-language 10. Jasanoff S, Hurlburt JB. A global observatory for gene editing. Nature
principles as a first draft of an ethical foundation to 2018;555:435–437. DOI: 1038/d41586-018-03270-w.
guide and restrict the use of therapeutic ART (see Fig. 1). 11. Brown L, Powell M. Louise Brown: My Life as the World’s First Test-Tube
Baby. Bristol, United Kingdom: Bristol Books CIC, 2015.
Of note, we hold additional but less universal beliefs 12. Rorvik D. The embryo sweepstakes. New York Times, September
that further restrict the use of gene surgery, including 15, 1974.
the need to prioritize local population health needs and 13. Tingley K. The brave new world of three-parent IVF. New York Times, June
27, 2014.
focus only on treating disease via prevalent, natural ge- 14. Garber M. The IVF panic: ‘‘All hell will break loose, politically and morally,
netic variants. We expect other groups will also hold ad- all over the world’’. The Atlantic, June 25, 2012.
15. Editorial. By 2020 we won’t have sex to have babies—just IVF. Daily
ditional views beyond the principles outlined here Telegraph, May 17, 2010.
(Fig. 1). That diversity will make the world better. 16. Regalado A. Engineering the perfect baby. MIT Technology Review, March
We hope this call to action will help foster a more 5, 2015.
17. Nelson F. The return of eugenics. The Spectator, April 2, 2016.
frank and plain-language dialogue about the ethics of 18. Genetic Literacy Project. Should we worry about an era of ‘‘designer
gene surgery. In particular, we hope this approach may babies’’? March 23, 2017. Available online at https://genetic
literacyproject.org/2017/03/23/expect-era-genetically-modified-
provide an additional way to solicit meaningful collabo- designer-babies/ (accessed November 1, 2018).
ration with the millions of valued members of our society 19. Park A. A new technique that lets scientists edit DNA is transforming
who live with disabilities or serious medical conditions science—and raising difficult questions. TIME, July 4, 2016.
20. Silverman R. Designer babies: how far should science go to create the
and who deserve to have a key role in shaping any guide- perfect human? Daily Telegraph, July 22, 2018.
lines that direct this field’s future, whether that happens at 21. Genetic Alliance UK and Progress Educational Trust. Basic understanding
of genome editing: the report. Available online at https://
traditionally scientific conferences, in print, or elsewhere. pet.ultimatedb.net/res/org10/Reports/genomeediting_report.pdf
We also hope that the humanity of this debate is not (accessed November 10, 2018).
forgotten amid controversy. Many parents have lost 22. Liu Y, Lin W, Xu P, et al. Neural basis of disgust perception in racial prej-
udice. Hum Brain Mapp 2015;36:5275–5286. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.23010.
children to genetic diseases. While these families are 23. Curtis V. Why disgust matters. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
a minority, real lives and suffering are at stake. 2011;366:3478–3490. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0165.