Should we stop researching into gene-editing? This essay will explore the recent call for a moratorium on the use of germ-line gene editing, proposed by scientists and ethicists.
To a large extent, the controversy surrounding the birth of the first gene-edited babies in China late last year (2018) has acted as a catalyst for moratorium’s implementation. The birth of the two twin girls, Lulu and Nana, using CRISPR technology was widely condemned by experts and may result in charges against the lead scientist, He Jiankui.
The need for a moratorium is supported by two aspects which have been amplified by Prof. He’s work. Firstly, germline gene editing is far too risky and uncertain for practices to continue. Furthermore, the potential social impact and inherent controversial nature of human DNA alteration highlights the need to establish a “broad societal consensus” before proceeding.
A five-year pause to allow for increased scientific progress and public dialogue has been suggested in the moratorium. Following this, societies can choose to begin a path forward for gene editing, if risks are deemed acceptable and the process is fully transparent.
On the other hand, several scientists have argued against the call for a moratorium, notably including Jennifer Doudna, the pioneer of CRISPR related research. Through looking at various aspects, both legal and social, this essay will conclude that the moratorium is not a well-suited mechanism to control germ-line genetic editing research.
Where the proponents and antagonists agree:
The scientific and ethics communities agree that the world is not ready CRISPR babies right now. More scientific research is required in order to minimise risks like editing the wrong sections of DNA. Prof. He’s scientific work was clearly unethical for this as well as his failure to adhere to appropriate procedural guidelines, his lack of transparency, and flaws in informed consent.
There is also a consensus that we need to have a public conversation about gene editing before universally implementing it. This conversation will include questions such as: Do the risks of gene-editing outweigh the benefits? And, what should we use gene-editing for? Experts can only answer these questions to a limited extent. Instead, wider public engagement is needed to establish the public society’s view on gene-editing.
The relationship between already enforced legislation and a moratorium:
Already, over 30 countries prohibit gene editing, whether through laws, regulations or guidelines. For example, Germany’s Embryo Protection Act 1991[1]prohibits the use of embryos for general research, thus strictly limiting human germline experiments. Anyone found breaching the 1991 Act faces a imprisonment of up to five years.[2]As such, implementing a moratorium in nations which already enforce a ban on gene-editing would be redundant.
Furthermore, the enacting the moratorium could also cause confusion. There is the misleading implication that germline editing was permissible and unregulated if countries and scientific bodies suddenly announce a moratorium recommendation. The moratorium may also suggest that some countries’ bans on gene-editing have a five-year expiry date when in fact, none state a time-limited prohibition.
A moratorium is ‘arbitrary’:
Indeed, the moratorium could prove useful in countries that currently lack prohibitions on gene editing. Rogue scientists could potentially be prevented from seeking unregulated environments in pursuance of controversial experiments.(The Mexican ‘Three parent baby’ Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy is a useful demonstration of this.)
In addition, the moratorium is an efficient mechanism is which states could use five-year pause to reform and update their current laws or regulations.
However, there remains the concern that a moratorium is an arbitrary means of regulating a controversial new technology. Yes, we have seen that CRISPR technology is currently inappropriate for clinical use, but are we so certain that this will still be the case five years down the line? It is virtually impossible for the law to keep up with ever-changing medical advancements. A more flexible regulatory framework that steers clear of arbitrary timelines may be a more appropriate tool to align with rapid, scientific development and the resulting changes in public attitudes.
Lack of public deliberation in deciding we need more public deliberation?
Finally, there’s a lack of clarity with regards to the relationship between the democratic norms and the moratorium. Moratorium advocators are of the opinion germ-line gene editing should only proceed if there is broad societal consensus on how to do so. But should it not be that the moratorium itself stem from broad societal consensus?
There is an existing human right to benefit from science. By introducing blanket prohibitions, the scientific community will be significantly impacted, halting work they are currently undertaking. Consequently, the rest of society will be unable to access the benefits of such scientific research. Whether the moratorium is a justified infringement is something which requires more than just expert opinion. Society needs to be consulted to opine on this matter. Allowing experts to impose their own personal assessment of balancing risks and benefits in gene-editing is somewhat problematic. This is a fundamentally ethical issue in which no amount of scientific expertise can give a conclusive answer.
Some may argue that substantial individual risks and societal impact associated with future generation genome-editing warrant the presumption that society is against this area of science. However, this is a flawed presumption. The aforementioned societal risks are substantial only if the procedure quickly becomes widespread. Careful, democratic legislation is best-suited to address this instead of blanket prohibition.
Due to its arbitrariness, lack of societal input and potential violation of human rights, this essay has highlighted that a moratorium may not be the best means to achieve an agreement on the regulation of gene-editing. What is apparent from this analysis is, on both sides of the coin, there is a general consensus that we should seek greater public deliberation on the gene-editing. Questioned need to be asked about the permissibility of gene editing, and the appropriateness of a moratorium which will overall lead to the contentious issue on what sort of society we want to all live in.
2019-3-28-1553804521