New abuse allegations against Emmaus founder Abbé Pierre lead to organization’s name change – Catholic World Report

London, England, March 15, 2019 / 10:03 am (CNA).- A group of 18 scientists and bioethicists from seven countries has called for a global moratorium on the practice of editing human DNA to create genetically modified babies until the international community can develop a “framework” for how to proceed ethically.

The group of scientists wrote in a March 13 editorial in the journal Natureacknowledged that many people of religious persuasion “find the idea of ​​redesigning the basic biology of humans morally disturbing” and that the practice could have serious societal consequences.

This practice of altering “hereditary DNA” – found in human sperm, eggs or embryos – is known as “germline editing.”

“By ‘global moratorium’ we do not mean a permanent ban,” the group of scientists wrote.

“Instead, we call for the creation of an international framework in which countries, while retaining the right to make their own decisions, voluntarily commit not to approve any use of clinical germline editing unless certain conditions are met.”

The conditions a country would have to meet, the scientists say, would include making public its intention to engage in germline editing and consulting with other countries on “the wisdom of doing so.” It would also take the proposed two years to determine whether there is “broad societal consensus” on whether germline editing is appropriate.

In addition, a coordinating body should be established to provide information and reports on germline editing, they argue, possibly under the responsibility of the World Health Organization.

The call for a moratorium comes after ethical questions have emerged surrounding a Chinese biophysicist who claims to have created the first genetically modified babies late last year.

He Jiankui says his goal was to engineer embryos to be resistant to HIV infection by turning off the CCR5 gene, which allows HIV to enter a cell.

He says he used a technology called CRISPR to edit parts of the human genome, performing the procedure on embryonic humans. The technology, which selectively “cuts” and trims parts of the genome and replaces them with strands of desired DNA, has previously been used on adult humans and other species. CRISPR technology has only recently been used to treat deadly diseases in adults, and limited experiments have been done on animals.

In a letter signed by 120 Chinese scientists, he was condemned for flouting ethical guidelines. The letter called the gene manipulation a “Pandora’s box” and said: “The biomedical ethical review for this so-called research exists only in name. Conducting direct human experimentation can only be described as insane.”

At least three of the authors of the Nature articles relate to CRISPR-based gene editing technologies.

The Nature Scientists did not rule out germline editing for research purposes, as long as the research did not involve transferring an embryo to a woman’s uterus. Nor did their call for a ban apply to gene editing in non-reproductive cells to treat diseases. Modifications in those cells can be made with the informed consent of the adults who provide the cells. Moreover, the modifications are not heritable, meaning they cannot be passed on to offspring.

About 30 countries worldwide, including the United States, already have laws that directly or indirectly ban the clinical use of germline editing. CRISPR research on embryos is currently excluded from federal funding, but can be conducted using private funding. The Food and Drug Administration prohibits gene editing on viable human embryos, meaning that any genetically modified human embryos must be destroyed rather than carried to term.

The scientists called for a fixed period – perhaps five years – during which no clinical applications of germline editing would be allowed worldwide.

“In addition to allowing discussions about the technical, scientific, medical, societal, ethical and moral issues that need to be considered before germline editing is allowed, this period would provide time to establish an international framework,” they wrote.

The scientists noted that there is broad scientific consensus that germline editing is not yet safe or effective enough to be considered for clinical use. They also emphasized the distinction between “genetic correction,” which involves removing rare mutations, and “genetic enhancement,” or the attempt to improve human individuals and the species.

The Nature Scientists noted that even attempts at genetic correction, when undertaken to cure a disease, can have unintended consequences. For example, a common variant of the gene SLC39A8 lowers a person’s risk of developing hypertension and Parkinson’s disease, but increases the risk of developing schizophrenia, Crohn’s disease, and obesity.

This also applies to the genes he worked with in his research. By changing these genes, the genetically modified babies could become more susceptible to certain viral infections.

“Its influence on many other diseases – and its interactions with other genes and with the environment – ​​remain unknown,” the scientists wrote.

“It will be much harder to predict the effects of entirely new genetic instructions—let alone how multiple modifications will interact when they occur simultaneously in future generations. Trying to reshape the species based on our current state of knowledge would be arrogant.”

In Personal DignitiesIn its 2008 Instruction on Certain Bioethical Issues, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that while somatic cell gene therapy is in principle morally licit, “since the risks associated with (germ cell therapy) are significant and not yet fully controllable, in the current state of research, It is morally impermissible to act in a way that could cause potential harm to posterity.”

The instruction also warned against a “eugenic mentality” aimed at improving the gene pool, adding that social stigmas and privileges may be placed on people with certain genetic qualities, when “such qualities are not specifically human.”

CNA spoke with John DiCamillo, an ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, in early 2017. He explained that somatic cell gene editing can be morally legitimate when it’s used for “a direct therapeutic purpose for a specific patient in question, and we know for sure that we’re going to limit any changes to that individual.” He pointed to gene therapy trials for conditions like sickle cell disease and cancer that show promise for treating difficult conditions.

However, editing sperm, eggs or early embryos raises serious concerns, he said. Manipulating sperm and eggs requires removing them from a person’s body; if conception is achieved with these cells, it is almost always through in vitro methods. This practice of in vitro fertilization is considered ethically unacceptable by the Church because it detaches procreation from the integrally personal context of the marital act.

Scientists at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research and education arm of Susan B. Anthony List, responded to the Nature scientists deny the proposal, saying their proposed moratorium does not go far enough.

“This proposal for a temporary moratorium on the implantation and growth of genetically modified embryos is disappointingly shortsighted,” said Dr. David Prentice, Vice President and Director of Research at CLI.

“Scientifically unsound and ethically problematic experiments on human embryos, including creating genetically edited embryos in the lab and then destroying them, would still be permitted and even encouraged. We call instead for a complete ban on experiments with genetically edited embryos or germ cells – not just a threshold.”

(…)