University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Paper: Congress must clarify limits of gene-editing technologies

Newswise — CHAMPAIGN, Ill. --Genome editing of human embryos represents one of the most contentious potential scientific applications today. But what if geneticists could sidestep the controversy by editing sperm and eggs instead?

According to a new paper co-written by a University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign legal expert who studies the ethical and policy implications of advanced biotechnologies, how the next Congress decides to handle the issue will affect the science, ethics and financing of genome editing for decades to come.

Although there are a number of statutes and federal appropriation riders that take as their bioethical center the human embryo, none exist that govern the editing of "gametes" - that is, sperm and eggs, said Jacob S. Sherkow, a professor of law at Illinois.

"The current federal funding ban is predicated on a concept of bioethics that focuses on the embryo, and that's because there's widespread recognition in U.S. society that embryos have a certain moral salience that other biological components don't," he said. "But with advances in biotechnology, you can get around that. You can sidestep editing embryos by editing sperm and eggs, instead.

"Regardless of how one thinks about whether embryos should get special bioethical status in this context, you have to understand that the same technology can now be used on sperm and eggs. So federal funding bans on genetically editing embryos with technologies such as CRISPR may not extend to future generations of the technology - and those future generations are coming quickly."

In the paper, Sherkow and co-authors Eli Y. Adashi of Brown University and I. Glenn Cohen of Harvard Law School discuss how the editing of sperm and eggs differs from embryos from a bioethical and U.S. legal perspective.

"This is particularly timely for two reasons," he said. "One, genome-editing technology is getting more effective, cheaper and safer to use every day; and two, this is an election year. We're going to seat a new Congress in January, and whether to continue down this path is something that the new Congress is going to have to decide."

The main statute that prohibits the clinical use of heritable genomic editing is an annually renewed Congressional appropriations rider first put into law in 2015.

According to Sherkow and his colleagues, the rider was initially dropped into an appropriations bill with little discussion. The language was briefly removed last year, prompting a debate about whether it applied to certain mitochondrial-replacement therapies and ought to be reinserted.

"The debate was firmly centered on the editing of embryos, but no legislator considered whether the language also applied to the editing of sperm and eggs," Sherkow said. "And there are strong arguments to be made that the plain text of the rider does not apply to sperm and eggs."

If the appropriations rider doesn't apply to editing sperm and eggs, then those who believe that such editing is just as problematic as editing embryos "should seek to alter the rider to make it apply to sperm and egg editing, as well," Sherkow said.

"Some of the ethical concerns raised about editing embryos are applicable to editing sperm and eggs while others are not," he said. "Objections to embryonic gene editing due to the need to destroy human embryos in research and clinical applications are quite different for sperm and eggs."

Those who have opposed the destruction of embryos, including members of some religious communities, haven't raised similar objections to sperm and egg editing, Sherkow said.

"Proponents of embryonic personhood claims emphasize that the genetic code of the early embryo is set at the time when sperm and egg form a zygote. But sperm and egg editing occurs before that moment, toppling the claim that editing gametes alters 'a person,' and is really more analogous to selecting a sperm or egg donor."

At the same time, policymakers should be heartened by the notion that "we don't necessarily have to stop research on these technologies because now we have the ability to do it in gametes as opposed to embryos," said Sherkow, who also is an affiliate of the Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology.

"The new Congress that's seated in January should pay attention to the development of genome-editing technologies like these, and should be more attuned to the extent of what limits it wants to put on research, given that such research can proceed without some of the moral trappings that have jammed prior Congresses," he said. "For those who think that there are important differences between embryos and gametes, this may offer an opportunity to develop a different regulated pathway for sperm and egg editing."

###

The paper was published in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics.

SEE ORIGINAL STUDY

Filters close

Showing results

110 of 5676
Released: 20-Nov-2020 4:25 PM EST
Those darn property taxes! Insights from Texas tax protests
University of California, Berkeley Haas School of Business

Everyone loves to complain that their taxes are too high. Yet few people actually take the time to formally protest them. A recent deep-dive into property tax appeals in Texas offers new insights on what motivates people to protest or accept their tax obligations.

Newswise: Biden administration vs. COVID-19: U-M experts can discuss
Released: 19-Nov-2020 4:55 PM EST
Biden administration vs. COVID-19: U-M experts can discuss
University of Michigan

University of Michigan epidemiologists are available to discuss the challenges President-elect Joe Biden’s administration will face in combating the coronavirus when he takes the reins in January.To schedule an interview, contact Nardy Baeza Bickel at nbbickel@umich.edu or text 616-550-4531.Emily Toth MartinEmily Toth Martin, associate professor of epidemiology at the U-M School of Public Health, is an infectious disease epidemiologist who has been using COVID-19 public health data to help inform mitigation and policy.

Newswise: NEW: Youth vote up significantly in 2020; young people of color pivotal
Released: 19-Nov-2020 3:40 PM EST
NEW: Youth vote up significantly in 2020; young people of color pivotal
Tufts University

Presidential election turnout among young people ages 18-29 reached 52-55%, significantly higher than the 45-48% turnout of 2016, according to a new youth turnout estimate released today from CIRCLE at Tufts University’s Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life.

Newswise: Making the Best Decision: Math Shows Diverse Thinkers Equal Better Results
Released: 16-Nov-2020 2:55 PM EST
Making the Best Decision: Math Shows Diverse Thinkers Equal Better Results
Florida State University

A Florida State University researcher published a new study today that tackles how groups make decisions and the dynamics that make for fast and accurate decision making. He found that networks that consisted of both impulsive and deliberate individuals made, on average, quicker and better decisions than a group with homogenous thinkers.

Released: 16-Nov-2020 2:05 PM EST
Amid New COVID-19 Surge, PPE Must Be Top Priority Says Critical Care Societies Collaborative
American Thoracic Society (ATS)

In response to the reports of COVID-19 surges around the country, the Critical Care Societies Collaborative, comprising the American Association of Critical‐Care Nurses, American College of Chest Physicians, the American Thoracic Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, released the following statement:


Showing results

110 of 5676

close
1.44868