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.”
[…]
So the guy who made a vow of chastity is chosen superior because he tells everyone with whom he prefers to have sex. Go figure.
He did not say or admit to engaging in sexual matters. But on the other hand, then why be so open (or even proud) about one’s inclination? I am sure you agree that we are not allowed to judge the soul or position of another because that person may not have been given the same opportunity as we, or may have been born into a difficult situation, raised improperly, traumatized, etc. But neither should the Church promote homosexuality or any sex outside of marriage in any way. ———- I don’t know? I have had it trying to reconcile it all, even worse, observing the USA and the West become so disengaged with God, turn into hedonists and narcissists who make fun of those who champion morality, family, and holiness. It cannot be much longer before severe judgments befall this planet.
Why be so open? He explained why.
This seems to be the same kind of intentional thing that one sees when some Catholics at “Who am I to judge?” and don’t read the context. Also, this is a CWR pickup from CNA. No telling if the whole piece is here. Many media just hit the main paragraphs and keep the rest blog-short.
“Immorality in the Church” – 1 CORINTHIANS 5:12-13 – “After all it is none of my business to judge outsiders. God will juge them. But should you not judge the members of your own fellowship? As the scripture says, “Remove the evil person from your group.” – Reference: Good News Bible GNT
Bravo.
“Immorality in the Church” – 1 CORINTHIANS 5:12-13 – “After all it is none of my business to judge outsiders. God will judge them. But should you not judge the members of your own fellowship? As the scripture says, “Remove the evil person from your group.” – Reference: Good News Bible GNT
Bravo, bravo.
Yes, this is a CWR ‘pickup’ from CNA. (But is that correct editorial lingo?) You are certainly not clever if you cannot tell if CWR has put the ‘whole piece’ here. You may be correct in saying, “Many media just hit the main paragraphs and keep the rest blog-short.” You are definitely not correct to suggest that CWR has here engaged in editing for context according to an ideology. Look at and judge yourself. Be ‘open.’ Good luck.
“No telling if the whole piece is here. Many media just hit the main paragraphs and keep the rest blog-short.”
CWR never shortens or edits CNA pieces, except for the occasional and obvious typological errors.
Yes, he explained why, but it still doesn’t make him fit to be a priest, much less a superior. Plus he’s in favor of women being ordained. What’s scary is he was probably their best choice.
Perhaps that is why he is in favour of redefining celibacy. Mind you most gay clergy consider the celibacy rule not applicable to them.
Always the Germans. Why?
The spirit of Luther and of Hitler? Roger Scruton, British philosopher, wrote an interesting work on guilt and mourning of Germany which it may need to purge or resolve. Without this purgation, worse and more horrid distortions of the common good may manifest. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2022/10/the-work-of-mourning
PSALM 137
v.1:By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
“If I am gay myself, then I want to show that I can also be part of the Church in this ministry. That’s important because it’s not supposed to be like that in the Church. Unfortunately, there is too much institutional hypocrisy in our Church,” he said.
Interpreting the above, he’s saying that homosexuals are not supposed to be in ordained ministry, but yet he in fact “can” be, and there’s “too much hypocrisy in our Church.” Well, that’s for sure, but his solution is to disfigure the Bride of Christ by redefining Her, because, as with most homosexuals, he’s a narcissist, and so embracing his perverse orientation is far more important to him than embracing his cross.
What Church do you belong to? “Perverse orientation?” There’s nothing perverse about Gods children who have SSA.
I suspect he’s not the only one in that bunch.
See also :
“Fall of Father Dr. Wolfgang Rothe alias ‘Whisky-Vicar’ (…And he fell, and his fall was great – Mt 7,27)”:
https://www.salon24.pl/u/edalward/1290891,the-fall-of-father-dr-wolfgang-rothe
or :
https://gloria.tv/post/LUpCzi9KybgA23DjcZtZGjKNw
… and also see this:
“Counterattack by the Brotherhood of the nine commandments”
https://gloria.tv/post/oTHdAs9PPYuW1LkoVTSwsfjJm
Thank you
I await with anticipatory mirth Peter Beaulieu’s reference to diaper material when his creative urge churns at Furman’s saying: “a big change is imminent, and I want and must shape it together with the brothers.”
As for me and my children, we will play in our new and enclosed sandbox.
Coming out of the hidden closet is passé today. Now they’re bursting out with gusto. “Unfortunately, there is too much institutional hypocrisy in our Church” (Fr Fuhrmann). It appears to indicate more than an attraction to men. If not, then he’s in my prayers to remain chaste. If active I’ll still pray that he converts.
Fr Fuhrmann is not so much the issue in the Catholic Church. Rather it’s the normalization taking place within the ranks. We need acknowledge that the atmosphere for this normalization began to accelerate since 2013. His Holiness and associates, some elevated to ranking positions, are in unison.
Laity are either complacently accepting or devastated. Priests including bishops don’t seem inclined to address it as an issue, most prefer to stick to the Gospels on Sunday. Insofar as the devastated laity they also need understand that this change is occurring informally, meaning that there are no formal, definitive pronouncements to the universal Church – instead they’re informal words, suggestions, either by word, appointments [Hollerich SJ, Card Grech, Fr Martin SJ, Card McElroy, Archbishop Fernandez, on and increasingly on], and restructuring of the Curia.
The trend is spiritually unhealthy. A disease that infiltrates the Mystical Body, symptoms effeminate passivity, lack of commitment to the Gospels. Antidote, reigniting the fire of divine love.
Thinking of St. Francis, our attention is immediately turned to his love for all animals, large and small.
About such animals, take, for example, the two giraffes featured in part of the movie “Gladiator.” Says the gladiator trader before demanding his money back for giraffes that won’t mate, “you sold me queer giraffes!”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRe_x5CECQg
Now, regarding the Synods, Father Fuhrmann sticks his own neck out, or whatever.
A misunderstood issue among the faithful are the differences in papal teaching, that is, degrees of a binding nature, and as stated in Lumen Gentium 25 requirement to observe with religious reverence. Strictly speaking, that doesn’t mean binding understood as that which must be believed such as the Deposit of Faith left by Christ in the Gospels and the tradition of the Apostles.
For example, Amoris Laetitia falls under the category of observing with reverence, although it is not a formal, binding doctrine. It’s also subject to interpretation. Whereas Humanae Vitae is considered as a binding doctrine on the conjugal act and contraception [Card Ratzinger who wrote the Doctrinal Commentary on Ratio et Fides for John Paul II expressed that opinion] because of its serious wording, its definitive nature, representative of a long history of doctrine within the Church.
Pope Francis’ teaching on the death penalty does not change traditional Catholic doctrine because it doesn’t definitively condemn, it simply says it’s inadmissible. That suggests its admissibility.
Homosexuality has been condemned as intrinsically evil throughout the Bible. When I spoke about ‘commitment to the Gospels’ in my previous comment here, I was referring to the full import of the Gospels and the teaching of the Apostles. Not simply passing over its content absent of an in depth elocution. That in depth articulation with reference to the outstanding issues of the day, abortion, homosexuality is what’s too often missing. Obviously then, we have to get back to preaching as did the Apostles.