London, England, Mar 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 in an ethical manner.
The group of scientists, in a March 13 editorial in the journal Nature, acknowledged that many people of religious belief find “the idea of redesigning the fundamental biology of humans morally troubling,” and that the practice could have serious societal consequences.
This practice of changing “heritable 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.
“Rather, we call for the establishment of an international framework in which nations, while retaining the right to make their own decisions, voluntarily commit to not approve any use of clinical germline editing unless certain conditions are met.”
The conditions for a nation to meet, the scientists say, should include giving public notice of its intention to engage in germline editing and consulting with other nations about “the wisdom of doing so,” as well as taking a suggested two years to ascertain whether there is “broad societal consensus” about whether germline editing is appropriate.
In addition, a coordinating body to provide information and reports about germline editing should be established, they say, possibly under the purview of the World Health Organization.
The call for a moratorium comes amid ethical questions surrounding a Chinese biophysicist who claims he created the first genetically modified babies late last year.
He Jiankui says his goal was to edit embryos to give them the ability to resist HIV infection by disabling the CCR5 gene, which allows HIV to enter a cell.
He says he used a technology known as CRISPR to edit sections of the human genome, performing the procedure on embryonic humans. The technology, which selectively “snips” and trims areas of the genome and replaces it 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 performed on animals.
In a letter signed by 120 Chinese scientists, He was condemned for ignoring ethical guidelines. The letter called the gene manipulation a “Pandora’s box,” and said, “The biomedical ethics review for this so-called research exists in name only. Conducting direct human experiments can only be described as crazy.”
At least three of the authors of the Nature article have connections to CRISPR-based gene-editing technologies.
The Nature scientists did not rule out germline editing for research purposes, as long as the study did not involve the transfer of an embryo to woman’s uterus; nor did their call for a ban apply to gene editing in non-reproductive cells in order to treat diseases, because modifications done on those cells can be done with the informed consent of adults providing the cells, and the modifications are not heritable, i.e. they cannot be passed on to offspring.
Around 30 nations worldwide, including the United States, already have laws to directly or indirectly ban the clinical use of germline editing. CRISPR research on embryos is currently banned from receiving federal funding, but can be conducted using private funding. The Food and Drug Administration prohibits gene modification on viable human embryos, which means any genetically modified human embryos must be destroyed, rather than brought to term.
The scientists called for a fixed period – perhaps five years – when no clinical uses of germline editing are allowed worldwide.
“As well as allowing for discussions about the technical, scientific, medical, societal, ethical and moral issues that must be considered before germline editing is permitted, this period would provide time to establish an international framework,” they wrote.
The scientists noted that here is broad scientific consensus that germline editing is not yet safe or effective enough to be considered for clinical use. They also highlighted the distinction between “genetic correction,” which involves working to edit out rare mutations, and “genetic enhancement,” or the attempt to improve human individuals and the species.
The Nature scientists noted that even efforts at genetic correction, when undertaken in order to cure a disease, can have unintended consequences. For example, a common variant of the gene SLC39A8 decreases a person’s risk of developing hypertension and Parkinson’s disease, but increases their risk of developing schizophrenia, Crohn’s disease, and obesity.
This is also true for the genes that He worked with in his research, as altering those genes could make the genetically modified babies more susceptible to certain viral infections.
“Its influence on many other diseases – and its interactions with other genes and with the environment – remains unknown,” the scientists wrote.
“It will be much harder to predict the effects of completely new genetic instructions – let alone how multiple modifications will interact when they co-occur in future generations. Attempting to reshape the species on the basis of our current state of knowledge would be hubris.”
In Dignitas personae, its 2008 instruction on certain bioethical questions, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that while somatic cell gene therapy is in principle morally licit, “because the risks connected to [germ line cell therapy] are considerable and as yet not fully controllable, in the present state of research, it is not morally permissible to act in a way that may cause possible harm to the resulting progeny.”
The instruction also warned against a “eugenic mentality” that aims to improve the gene pool, adding that there could be social stigmas and privileges applied to people with certain genetic qualities, when “such qualities do not constitute what is specifically human.”
CNA spoke to John DiCamillo, an ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, in early 2017. He explained that somatic cell gene editing may be morally legitimate when used for “a directly therapeutic purpose for a particular patient in question, and if we’re sure we’re going to limit whatever changes to this person.” He pointed to gene therapy trials for disorders such as sickle cell disease and cancer that show promise for treating difficult disorders.
Editing sperm, eggs, or early embryos, however, presents serious concerns, he said. Manipulating sperm and ova requires removing them from a person’s body; if conception is achieved with these cells, it is nearly always through in vitro methods. This practice of in vitro fertilization is held by the Church to be ethically unacceptable because it dissociates procreation from the integrally personal context of the conjugal act.
Scientists at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research and education arm of Susan B. Anthony List, reacted to the Nature scientists’ proposal by saying their suggested moratorium does not go far enough.
“This proposal for a temporary moratorium on implanting and gestating gene-edited embryos is disappointingly short-sighted,” said Dr. David Prentice, CLI’s vice president and research director.
“Scientifically unsound and ethically problematic experiments on human embryos, including creating gene-edited embryos in the lab and then destroying them, would still be allowed and even encouraged. We call instead for the full prohibition of gene-editing experiments on embryos or germ cells – not just a speed bump.”
[…]
From Bergoglio’s full text interview on the plane regarding Donatism:
“And to solve this there are two publications that I recommend: one that is an article by Gianni Valente in Vatican Insider where he talks about the Donatists. The danger of the Church today of becoming Donatist by doing all [with] human provisions, that which must be done, but only these, forgetting the other dimensions: prayer, penance, the accusation of one’s self, which we are not used to doing. Both! Because to overcome the spirit of evil is not ‘washing one’s hands,’ saying ‘the devil does it,’ no. We too must struggle with the devil, as we must struggle with human things.”
Please tell me how Bergoglio in any meaningful way defines, understands “Donatism”…or his previously wielded references to “Pelagian and semi-Pelagian?”
Is it just that Bergoglio grabs whatever he can to take on his enemies? Are we forgetting the “spiritual part?” Is that another way of saying we can get too focused on the human/ legal aspect of fighting the sexual scandal? Are we also Pharisees?
Laughable! In the news… It took how many years for Dolan in NY to finally suspend (March 19, 2019) Fr. Miqueli just recently though parishioners in filed a lawsuit (2016) accusing Miqueli of embezzling more than a $1 million dollars and being of being involved in homosexual prostitution and drug use. Check out Catholic NY March 28, 2019 for the noted suspension. Another priest was also recently suspended after an arrest for use/packaging of methamphetamines “along with a 27 year old male.”
Whether it’s the Archdiocese of NY, Chile or France: not much “donatism” really. No fear the sacraments will be made invalid by unworthy ministers (especially in seminaries)..and not much fear really that there is such a thing as receiving the Eucharist “unworthily.”
There’s “donationism” (to bankroll all the lawsuits) but not much “donatism.”
There’s no denying the spiritual dimension, the role of the Devil…but there’s no denying the need for prompt legal action…not simply what gets interpreted as the “canonical” or some imagined “more spiritual” process.
No, one mustn’t ignore the spiritual dimension; but while we’re waiting for the “prayer, penance, the accusation of one’s self” on the part of the abuser, possible future victims must be protected, and justice done on behalf of past victims.
Meanwhile, “child sexual abuse” is not the only, or even the main, problem. Homosexual behavior is.
En flight and at arrival in Rome according to the Pontiff’s somewhat cryptic allusions Am Hierarchy seeking to investigate McCarrick, purge homosexual enabling prelates had misplaced priorities. Apparently fundamentalists who refused to pray, be introspective, accuse themselves. Donatism, the heresy of invalidation of sinful clergy doesn’t fit the Am effort. The Am bishops never raised the question of sacramental validity. Two fundamental premises at play here were introduced in Amoris Laetitia and remain the deceptive solvents diminishing all Catholic doctrine. They are worship of individual conscience a take away by liberals from Vat II and Dignitatis Humanae. Authored by Avery Dulles SJ the progressive Jesuit never set limits in respect to conscientious rejection of the Deposit of Faith, which is always a responsible and fatal error, and the Church’s coercive authority on faith and morals. The other fundamental premise is merciful appeal to mitigating conditions. Mitigation is a reality fear, burden can impede freedom of will to some degree. Although it cannot absolve intrinsically evil acts like murder, killing the innocent, false witness, adultery. The error here is that conditions without universal evidence cannot absolve [allow the priest to validly absolve] manifest inherently evil acts. In respect to the latter conscience becomes the determinant although exceptions to the rule presumably exist [the first marriage of a D&R may have been invalid but lacking evidence]. Personally I cannot perceive how an exception to manifest sin can be determined without evidence. Cardinal Raymond Burke former Pontifical Signatura has consistently refuted the Pontiff’s proposal. And presuming there are such instances the Pontiff in Amoris and elsewhere by pronouncing his doctrine publicly makes it a universal premise [if presuming Amoris Laetitia or the Argentine exchange of letters in AAS are somehow binding though as held by Cardinal Gerhard Mueller they are not binding] obliging the priest to give benefit of the doubt based on the penitent’s conscience. The result has been as in Malta, Sicily, the Philippines and elsewhere dissolution of the commandment against adultery and by inference all other moral doctrine. Evil is not a mistaken priority. Evil is in the will.