Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:55, 23 November 2024

This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (August 2023)

Human germline engineering (HGE) is the process by which the genome of an individual is modified in such a way that the change is heritable. This is achieved by altering the genes of the germ cells, which mature into eggs and sperm. For safety, ethical, and social reasons, the scientific community and the public have concluded that germline editing for reproduction is inappropriate. HGE is prohibited by law in more than 70 countries and by a binding international treaty of the Council of Europe.

In November 2015, a group of Chinese scientists used CRISPR/Cas9 to edit single-celled, non-viable embryos to assess its effectiveness. This attempt was unsuccessful; only a small fraction of the embryos successfully incorporated the genetic material and many of the embryos contained a large number of random mutations. The non-viable embryos that were used contained an extra set of chromosomes, which may have been problematic. In 2016, a similar study was performed in China on non-viable embryos with extra sets of chromosomes. This study showed similar results to the first; except that no embryos adopted the desired gene.

In November 2018, researcher He Jiankui created the first human babies from genetically edited embryos, known by their pseudonyms, Lulu and Nana. In May 2019, lawyers in China reported that regulations had been drafted that anyone manipulating the human genome would be held responsible for any related adverse consequences.

Techniques

CRISPR-Cas9

The CRISPR-Cas9 system consists of an enzyme called Cas9 and a special piece of guide RNA (gRNA). Cas9 acts as a pair of ‘molecular scissors’ that can cut the DNA at a specific location in the genome so that genes can be added or removed. The guide RNA has complementary bases to those at the target location, so it binds only there. Once bound Cas9 makes a cut across both DNA strands allowing base pairs to inserted/removed. Afterwards, the cell recognizes that the DNA is damaged and tries to repair it.

Although CRISPR/Cas9 can be used in humans, it is more commonly used in other species or cell culture systems, including in experiments to study genes potentially involved in human diseases.

Speculative uses

Genetic engineering is in widespread use, particularly in agriculture. Human germline engineering has two potential applications: prevent genetic disorders from passing to descendants, and to modify traits such as height that are not disease related. For example, the Berlin Patient has a genetic mutation in the CCR5 gene that suppresses the expression of CCR5. This confers innate resistance to HIV. Modifying human embryos to give the CCR5 Δ32 allele protects them from the disease.

An other use would be to cure genetic disorders. In the first study published regarding human germline engineering, the researchers attempted to edit the HBB gene which codes for the human β-globin protein. HBB mutations produce β-thalassaemia, which can be fatal. Genome editing in patients who have these HBB mutations would leave copies of the unmutated gene, effectively curing the disease. If the germline could be edited, this normal copy of the HBB genes could be passed on to future generations.

Designer babies

Eugenic modifications to humans yield "designer babies", with deliberately-selected traits, possibly extending to its entire genome. HGE potentially allows for enhancement of these traits. The concept has produced strong objections, particularly among bioethicists.

In a 2019 animal study with Liang Guang small spotted pigs, precise editing of the myostatin signal peptide yielded increased muscle mass. Myostatin is a negative regulator of muscle growth, so by mutating the gene's signal peptide regions could be promoted. One study mutated myostatin genes in 955 embryos at several locations with CRISPR/cas9 and implanted them into five surrogates, resulting in 16 piglets. Only specific mutations to the myostatin signal peptide increased muscle mass, mainly due to an increase in muscle fibers. A similar mice study knoced out the myostatin gene, which also increased their muscle mass. This showed that muscle mass could be increased with germline editing, which is likely applicable to humans because the myostatin gene regulates human muscle growth.

Research

HGE is widely debated, and more than 40 countries formally outlaw it. No legislation explicitly prohibits germline engineering in the United States. The Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2016 bans the use of US FDA funds to engage in human germline modification research. In April 2015, a research team published an unsuccessful experiment in which they used CRISPR to edit a gene that is associated with blood disease in non-living human embryos.

Scientists using CRISPR/Cas9 have run into issues when it comes to mammals due to their complex diploid cells. Studies in microorganisms have examined loss of function genetic screening. Some studies used mice as a subject. Because RNA processes differ between bacteria and mammalian cells, scientists have had difficulties coding for mRNA's translated data without RNA interference. Studies have successfully used a Cas9 nuclease with a single guide RNA to allow for larger knockout regions in mice.

Lack of international regulation

The lack of international regulation led researchers to attempt to create an international framework of ethical guidelines. The framework lacks the requisite international treaties for enforcement. At the first International Summit on Human Gene Editing in December 2015 scientists issued the first international guidelines. These guidelines allowed pre-clinical research into gene editing in human cells as long as the embryos were not used to implant pregnancy. Genetic alteration of somatic cells for therapeutic proposes was considered ethically acceptable in part because somatic cells cannot pass modifications to subsequent generations. However the lack of consensus and the risks of inaccurate editing led the conference to call for restraint on germline modifications.

On March 13, 2019 researchers Eric Lander, Françoise Baylis, Feng Zhang, Emmanuelle Charpentier, Paul Bergfrom and others called for a framework that did not foreclose any outcome, but included a voluntary pledge and a call for a coordinating body to monitor the HGE moratorium with an attempt to reach social consensus before furthering research. The World Health Organization announced on December 18, 2018 plans to convene an intentional committee on the topic.

He Jiankui

The He Jiankui genome editing incident is a scientific and bioethical controversy concerning the use of genome editing following its first use on humans by Chinese scientist He Jiankui, who edited the genomes of human embryos in 2018. He became widely known on 26 November 2018 after he announced that he had created the first human genetically edited babies. He was listed in Time magazine's 100 most influential people of 2019. The affair led to ethical and legal controversies, resulting in the indictment of He and two of his collaborators, Zhang Renli and Qin Jinzhou. He eventually received widespread international condemnation.

He Jiankui, working at the Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) in Shenzhen, China, started a project to help people with HIV-related fertility problems, specifically involving HIV-positive fathers and HIV-negative mothers. The subjects were offered standard in vitro fertilisation services and in addition, use of CRISPR gene editing (CRISPR/Cas9), a technology for modifying DNA. The embryos' genomes were edited to remove the CCR5 gene in an attempt to confer genetic resistance to HIV. The clinical project was conducted secretly until 25 November 2018, when MIT Technology Review broke the story of the human experiment based on information from the Chinese clinical trials registry. Compelled by the situation, he immediately announced the birth of genome-edited babies in a series of five YouTube videos the same day. The first babies, known by their pseudonyms Lulu (Chinese: 露露) and Nana (娜娜), are twin girls born in October 2018, and the second birth or the third baby born was in 2019, named Amy. He reported that the babies were born healthy.

His actions received widespread criticism, and included concern for the girls' well-being. After his presentation on the research at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing at the University of Hong Kong on 28 November 2018, Chinese authorities suspended his research activities the following day. On 30 December 2019, a Chinese district court found He Jiankui guilty of illegal practice of medicine, sentencing him to three years in prison with a fine of 3 million yuan. Zhang Renli and Qin Jinzhou received an 18-month prison sentence and a 500,000-yuan fine, and were banned from working in assisted reproductive technology for life.

Major studies of influence

• The first known publication of research into human germline editing was by a group of Chinese scientists in April 2015 in the Journal "Protein and Cell". The scientists used tripronuclear (3PN) zygotes, zygotes fertilized by two sperm and therefore non-viable, to investigate CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human cells, something that had never been attempted before. The scientists found that while CRISPR/Cas9 could effectively cleave the β-globin gene (HBB), the efficiency of homologous recombination directed repair of HBB was highly inefficient and did not do so in a majority of the trials. Problems arose such as off target cleavage and the competitive recombination of the endogenous delta-globin with the HBB led to unexpected mutation. The results of the study indicated that repair of HBB in the embryos occurred preferentially through alternative pathways. In the end only 4 of the 54 zygotes carried the intended genetic information, and even then the successfully edited embryos were mosaics containing the preferential genetic code and the mutation. The conclusion of the scientists was that further effort was needed in to improve the precision and efficiency of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing.

• In March 2017, a group of Chinese scientists claimed to have edited three normal viable human embryos out of six total in the experiment. The study showed that CRISPR/Cas9 is could effectively be used as a gene-editing tool in human 2PN zygotes, which could lead potentially pregnancy viable if implanted. The scientists used injection of Cas9 protein complexed with the relevant sgRNAs and homology donors into human embryos. The scientists found homologous recombination-mediated alteration in HBB and G6PD. The scientists also noted the limitations of their study and called for further research.

• In August 2017, a group of scientists from Oregon published an article in Nature journal detailing the successful use of CRISPR to edit out a mutation responsible for congenital heart disease.  The study looked at heterozygous MYBPC3 mutation in human embryos. The study claimed precise CRISPR/Cas9 and homology-directed repair response with high accuracy and precision. Double-strand breaks at the mutant paternal allele were repaired using the homologous wild-type gene. By modifying the cell cycle stage at which the DSB was induced, they were able to avoid mosaicism, which had been seen in earlier similar studies, in cleaving embryos and achieve a large percentage of homozygous embryos carrying the wild-type MYBPC3 gene without evidence of unintended mutations. The scientists concluded that the technique may be used for the correction of mutations in human embryos. The claims of this study were however pushed back on by critics who argued the evidence was overall unpersuasive.

• In June 2018, a group of scientists published and article in "Nature" journal indicating a potential link for edited cells having increased potential turn cancerous. The scientists reported that genome editing by CRISPR/Cas9 induced DNA damage response and the cell cycle stopped. The study was conducted in human retinal pigment epithelial cells, and the use of CRISPR led to a selection against cells with a functional p53 pathway. The conclusion of the study would suggest that p53 inhibition might increase efficiency of human germline editing and that p53 function would need to be watched when developing CRISPR/Cas9 based therapy.

• In November 2018, a group of Chinese scientists published research in the journal "Molecular Therapy" detailing their use of CRISPR/Cas9 technology to correct a single mistaken amino acid successfully in 16 out of 18 attempts in a human embryo. The unusual level of precision was achieved by the use of a base editor (BE) system which was constructed by fusing the deaminase to the dCas9 protein. The BE system efficiently edits the targeted C to T or G to A without the use of a donor and without DBS formation. The study focused on the FBN1 mutation that is causative for Marfan syndrome. The study provides proof positive for the corrective value of gene therapy for the FBN1 mutation in both somatic cells and germline cells. The study is noted for its relative precision which is a departure from past results of CRISPR/Cas9 studies.

Ethical and moral debates

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (October 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

As early in the history of biotechnology as 1990, there have been scientists opposed to attempts to modify the human germline using these new tools, and such concerns have continued as technology progressed. In March 2015, with the advent of new techniques like CRISPR, a group of scientists urged a worldwide moratorium on clinical use of gene editing technologies to edit the human genome in a way that can be inherited. In April 2015, researchers reported results of basic research to edit the DNA of non-viable human embryos using CRISPR, creating controversy.

A committee of the American National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine gave support to human genome editing in 2017 once answers have been found to safety and efficiency problems "but only for serious conditions under stringent oversight." The American Medical Association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs stated that "genetic interventions to enhance traits should be considered permissible only in severely restricted situations: (1) clear and meaningful benefits to the fetus or child; (2) no trade-off with other characteristics or traits; and (3) equal access to the genetic technology, irrespective of income or other socioeconomic characteristics."

Several religious positions have been published with regards to human germline engineering. According to them, many see germline modification as being more moral than the alternative, which would be either discarding of the embryo, or birth of a diseased human. The main conditions when it comes to whether or not it is morally and ethically acceptable lie within the intent of the modification, and the conditions in which the engineering is done.

Ethical claims about germline engineering include beliefs that every fetus has a right to remain genetically unmodified, that parents hold the right to genetically modify their offspring, and that every child has the right to be born free of preventable diseases. For parents, genetic engineering could be seen as another child enhancement technique to add to diet, exercise, education, training, cosmetics, and plastic surgery. Another theorist claims that moral concerns limit but do not prohibit germline engineering.

Consent

One issue related to human genome editing relates to the impact of the technology on future individuals whose genes are modified without their consent. Clinical ethics accepts the idea that parents are, almost always, the most appropriate surrogate medical decision makers for their children until the children develop their own autonomy and decision-making capacity. This is based on the assumption that, except under rare circumstances, parents have the most to lose or gain from a decision and will ultimately make decisions that reflects the future values and beliefs of their children. According to this assumption, it could be assumed that parents are the most appropriate decision makers for their future children as well. However, there are anecdotal reports of children and adults who disagree with the medical decisions made by a parent during pregnancy or early childhood, such as when death was a possible outcome. There are also published patient stories by individuals who feel that they would not wish to change or remove their own medical condition if given the choice and individuals who disagree with medical decisions made by their parents during childhood.

Other scientists and philosophers have noted that the issue of the lack of prior consent applies as well to individuals born via traditional sexual reproduction. Philosopher David Pearce further argues that “old-fashioned sexual reproduction is itself an untested genetic experiment”, often compromising a child's wellbeing and pro-social capacities even if the child grows in a healthy environment. According to Pearce, “the question of comes down to an analysis of risk-reward ratios – and our basic ethical values, themselves shaped by our evolutionary past.” Bioethicist Julian Savulescu in turn proposes the principle of procreative beneficence, according to which “couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information”. Some ethicists argue that the principle of procreative beneficence would justify or even require genetically enhancing one's children.

A relevant issue concerns “off target effects”, large genomes may contain identical or homologous DNA sequences, and the enzyme complex CRISPR/Cas9 may unintentionally cleave these DNA sequences causing mutations that may lead to cell death. The mutations can cause important genes to be turned on or off, such as genetic anti-cancer mechanisms, that could speed up disease exasperation.

Unequal distribution of benefits

The other ethical concern is the potential for “designer babies”, or the creation of humans with "perfect", or "desirable" traits. There is a debate as to if this is morally acceptable as well. Such debate ranges from the ethical obligation to use safe and efficient technology to prevent disease to seeing some actual benefit in genetic disabilities.

There are concerns that the introduction of desirable traits in a certain part of the population (instead of the entire population) could cause economic inequalities (“positional” good). However, this is not the case if a same desirable trait would be introduced over the entire population (similar to vaccines).

Another ethical concern pertains to potential unequal distribution of benefits, even in the case of genome editing being inexpensive. For example, corporations may be able to take unfair advantage of patent law or other ways of restricting access to genome editing and thereby may increase the inequalities. There are already disputes in the courts where CRISPR-Cas9 patents and access issues are being negotiated.

Therapeutic and non-therapeutic use

There remains debate on if the permissibility of human germline engineering for reproduction is dependent on the use, being either a therapeutic or non-therapeutic application. In a survey by the UK's Royal Society, 76% of participants in the UK supported therapeutic human germline engineering to prevent or correct disease, however for non-therapeutic edits such as enhancing intelligence or altering eye or hair color in embryos, there was only 40% and 31% support, respectively. There was a similar result in a study at the University of Bogota, Colombia, where students as well as professors generally agreed that therapeutic genome editing is acceptable, while non-therapeutic genome editing is not.

There is also debate on if there can be a defined distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic germline editing. An example would be if two embryos are predicted to grow up to be very short in height. Boy 1 will be short because of a mutation in his Human Growth Hormone gene, while boy 2 will be short because his parents are very short. Editing the embryo of boy 1 to make him of average height would be a therapeutic germline edit, while editing the embryo of boy 2 to be of average height would be a non-therapeutic germline edit. In both cases with no editing of the boys' genomes they would both grow up to be very short, which would decrease their wellbeing in life. Likewise editing both of the boys' genomes would allow them to grow up to be of average height. In this scenario, editing for the same phenotype for being of average height falls under both therapeutic and non-therapeutic germline engineering.

Current global policy

There is distinction in some country policies, including but not limited to official regulation and legislation, between human germline engineering for reproductive use and for laboratory research. As of October 2020, there are 96 countries that have policies involving the use of germline engineering in human cells.

Reproductive use

Reproductive use of human germline engineering involves implanting the edited embryo to be born. 70 countries currently explicitly prohibit the use of human germline engineering for use in reproduction, while 5 countries prohibit it for reproduction with exceptions. No countries permit the use of human germline engineering for reproduction.

Countries that explicitly prohibit any use of human germline engineering for reproduction are: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay, and the Vatican

Countries that explicitly prohibit (with exceptions) the use of human germline engineering for reproduction are: Belgium, Colombia, Italy, Panama, and the United Arab Emirates

Laboratory research

Laboratory research use involves human germline engineering restricted to in vitro use, where edited cells will not be implanted to be born. 19 countries currently explicitly prohibit any use of human germline engineering for in vitro use, while 4 prohibit it with exceptions, and 11 permit it.

Countries that explicitly prohibit any use of germline engineering for in vitro use are: Albania, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Germany, Greece, Lebanon, Malaysia, Malta, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, and the Vatican

Countries that explicitly prohibit (with exceptions) the use of germline engineering for in vitro use are: Colombia, Finland, Italy, and Panama

Countries that explicitly permit the use of germline engineering for in vitro use are: Burundi, China, Congo, India, Iran, Ireland, Japan, Norway, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States

See also

• Human genetic engineering
• Gene therapy
• Germinal choice technology
• Human genetic enhancement
• CRISPR
• Designer Baby

References

1. ^ McGee, Andrew (2019-10-15). "Using the therapy and enhancement distinction in law and policy". Bioethics. 34 (1): 70–80. doi:10.1111/bioe.12662. ISSN 0269-9702. PMID 31617223. S2CID 204738693.
2. ^ Caro-Romero, Henry David (2020-06-09). "Edición genómica heredable: un estudio exploratorio desde la perspectiva del principio bioético de la beneficencia". Revista Colombiana de Bioética. 15 (1). doi:10.18270/rcb.v15i1.2732. ISSN 2590-9452. S2CID 225804689.
3. ^ Baylis, Françoise; Darnovsky, Marcy; Hasson, Katie; Krahn, Timothy M. (2020-10-01). "Human Germline and Heritable Genome Editing: The Global Policy Landscape". The CRISPR Journal. 3 (5): 365–377. doi:10.1089/crispr.2020.0082. ISSN 2573-1599. PMID 33095042. S2CID 225053656.
4. Ma H, Marti-Gutierrez N, Park SW, Wu J, Lee Y, Suzuki K, Koski A, Ji D, Hayama T, Ahmed R, Darby H, Van Dyken C, Li Y, Kang E, Park AR, Kim D, Kim ST, Gong J, Gu Y, Xu X, Battaglia D, Krieg SA, Lee DM, Wu DH, Wolf DP, Heitner SB, Belmonte JC, Amato P, Kim JS, Kaul S, Mitalipov S (August 2017). "Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos". Nature. 548 (7668): 413–419. Bibcode:2017Natur.548..413M. doi:10.1038/nature23305. PMID 28783728. (This paper currently has an expression of concern, see doi:10.1038/nature23305, PMID 28783728,  Retraction Watch. If this is an intentional citation to a such a paper, please replace {{expression of concern|...}} with {{expression of concern|...|intentional=yes}}.)
5. Ormond KE, Mortlock DP, Scholes DT, Bombard Y, Brody LC, Faucett WA, et al. (August 2017). "Human Germline Genome Editing". American Journal of Human Genetics. 101 (2): 167–176. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012. PMC 5544380. PMID 28777929.
6. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Diana Raquel; Ramírez-Solís, Ramiro; Garza-Elizondo, Mario Alberto; Garza-Rodríguez, María De Lourdes; Barrera-Saldaña, Hugo Alberto (April 2019). "Genome editing: A perspective on the application of CRISPR/Cas9 to study human diseases (Review)". International Journal of Molecular Medicine. 43 (4): 1559–1574. doi:10.3892/ijmm.2019.4112. ISSN 1791-244X. PMC 6414166. PMID 30816503.
7. Cyranoski, David; Reardon, Sara (22 April 2015). "Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos". Nature: nature.2015.17378. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17378. S2CID 87604469.
8. ^ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24623.
9. Lock M, Nichter M (2003-09-02). New Horizons in Medical Anthropology: Essays in Honour of Charles Leslie. Routledge. ISBN 9781134471287.
10. Li, Ruiqiang; Zeng, Wu; Ma, Miao; Wei, Zixuan; Liu, Hongbo; Liu, Xiaofeng; Wang, Min; Shi, Xuan; Zeng, Jianhua; Yang, Linfang; Mo, Delin; Liu, Xiaohong; Chen, Yaosheng; He, Zuyong (February 2020). "Precise editing of myostatin signal peptide by CRISPR/Cas9 increases the muscle mass of Liang Guang Small Spotted pigs". Transgenic Research. 29 (1): 149–163. doi:10.1007/s11248-020-00188-w. ISSN 0962-8819. PMID 31927726. S2CID 255111445.
11. Professor, Apostolos Stergioulas, Ph D. (2021-02-04). "Gene doping in modern sport". Journal Biology of Exercise. 5. doi:10.4127/jbe.2009.0021. Retrieved 2022-12-06.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
12. Gonzalez-Cadavid, Nestor F.; Taylor, Wayne E.; Yarasheski, Kevin; Sinha-Hikim, Indrani; Ma, Kun; Ezzat, Shereen; Shen, Ruoqing; Lalani, Rukhsana; Asa, Sylvia; Mamita, Mohamad; Nair, Gouri; Arver, Stefan; Bhasin, Shalender (1998-12-08). "Organization of the human myostatin gene and expression in healthy men and HIV-infected men with muscle wasting". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 95 (25): 14938–14943. Bibcode:1998PNAS...9514938G. doi:10.1073/pnas.95.25.14938. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 24554. PMID 9843994.
13. Lanphier E, Urnov F, Haecker SE, Werner M, Smolenski J (March 2015). "Don't edit the human germ line". Nature. 519 (7544): 410–1. Bibcode:2015Natur.519..410L. doi:10.1038/519410a. PMID 25810189.
14. Cohen IG, Adashi EY (August 2016). "SCIENCE AND REGULATION. The FDA is prohibited from going germline". Science. 353 (6299): 545–6. Bibcode:2016Sci...353..545C. doi:10.1126/science.aag2960. PMID 27493171. S2CID 206651381.
15. Wang, Tim; et al. (2014). "Genetic screens in human cells using the CRISPR-Cas9 system". Science. 343 (6166): 80–4. Bibcode:2014Sci...343...80W. doi:10.1126/science.1246981. PMC 3972032. PMID 24336569.
16. "On Human Gene Editing: International Summit Statement". www8.nationalacademies.org. Retrieved 2019-04-18.
17. "Germline gene-editing research needs rules". Nature. 567 (7747): 145. March 2019. Bibcode:2019Natur.567..145.. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00788-5. PMID 30867612.
18. "WHO | Gene editing". WHO. Archived from the original on February 22, 2019. Retrieved 2019-04-18.
19. Greely, Henry T (2019). "CRISPR'd babies: human germline genome editing in the 'He Jiankui affair'". Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 6 (1): 111–183. doi:10.1093/jlb/lsz010. PMC 6813942. PMID 31666967.
20. Cyranoski, David (22 January 2019). "CRISPR-Baby Scientist Fired by University". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00246-2. S2CID 159097706. Archived from the original on 25 June 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2020.
21. Cyranoski, David; Ledford, Heidi (26 November 2018). "Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry". Nature. 563 (7733): 607–608. Bibcode:2018Natur.563..607C. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07545-0. PMID 30482929. S2CID 53768039.
22. "Scientist He Jiankui Among TIME'S 100 Most Influential". CodeBlue. 19 April 2019. Archived from the original on 4 July 2022. Retrieved 27 March 2022.
23. ^ "China Orders Investigation After Scientist Claims First Gene-Edited Babies". The New York Times. Reuters. 26 November 2018. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 26 November 2018.
24. Regalado, Antonio (25 November 2018). "Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 26 November 2018.
25. Bulluck, Pam (14 April 2019). "Gene-Edited Babies: What a Chinese Scientist Told an American Mentor". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 14 April 2019. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
26. Begley, Sharon; Joseph, Andrew (17 December 2018). "The CRISPR Shocker: How Genome-Editing Scientist He Jiankui Rose from Obscurity to Stun the World". Stat News. Archived from the original on 17 December 2018. Retrieved 17 December 2018.
27. Begley, Sharon (26 November 2018). "Claim of CRISPR'd baby girls stuns genome editing summit". Stat News. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 26 November 2018.
28. Gutierrez C., Nicolas (29 June 2022). "What's next for the gene-edited children from CRISPR trial in China?". New Scientist. Archived from the original on 9 January 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2023.
29. Begley, Sharon (28 November 2018). "Amid Uproar, Chinese Scientist Defends Creating Gene-Edited Babies". STAT. Archived from the original on 31 January 2019. Retrieved 28 November 2018.
30. Kolata, Gina; Belluck, Pam (5 December 2018). "Why Are Scientists So Upset About the First Crispr Babies? - Only because a rogue researcher defied myriad scientific and ethical norms and guidelines. We break it down". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 January 2019. Retrieved 5 December 2018.
31. The Editorial Board (28 January 2019). "Should Scientists Toy With the Secret to Life? - The gene-editing technology Crispr has the power to remake life as we know it. Questions about how to use it concern everyone". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 January 2019.
32. Regalado, Antonio (25 November 2018). "Exclusive: Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies - A daring effort is under way to create the first children whose DNA has been tailored using gene editing". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 26 November 2018.
33. Cyranoski, David (27 November 2018). "How the genome-edited babies revelation will affect research - Some scientists worry the startling claim will lead to knee-jerk regulations and damage the public's trust in gene editing". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07559-8. S2CID 158314199. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 27 November 2018.
34. Jiang, Steven; Regan, Helen; Berlinger, Joshua (29 November 2018). "China suspends scientists who claim to have produced first gene-edited babies". CNN News. Archived from the original on 29 November 2018. Retrieved 29 November 2018.
35. Yee, Isaac; Hollingsworth, Julia (30 December 2019). "Chinese gene-editing scientist jailed for 3 years". CNN News. Archived from the original on 30 December 2019. Retrieved 30 December 2019.
36. ""基因编辑婴儿"案贺建奎已释放，曾获刑三年". finance.sina.com.cn. 2022-04-07. Retrieved 2024-09-20.
37. "China convicts 3 researchers involved in gene-edited babies". AP NEWS. 20 April 2021. Archived from the original on 27 March 2022. Retrieved 27 March 2022.
38. Cohen, Jon (2 August 2019). "Inside the circle of trust". Science. 365 (6452): 430–437. Bibcode:2019Sci...365..430C. doi:10.1126/science.365.6452.430. PMID 31371593.
39. Yan, Sophia (28 November 2018). "China's 'Dr Frankenstein' says second woman in early pregnancy with gene-edited babies". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 3 April 2020. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
40. Low, Zoe (27 November 2018). "China's gene editing Frankenstein had dreams of being Chinese Einstein". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 10 January 2020. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
41. Marx, Vivien (24 November 2021). "The CRISPR children". Nature Biotechnology. 39 (12): 1486–1490. doi:10.1038/s41587-021-01138-5. PMID 34819659. S2CID 244653054. Archived from the original on 22 December 2021. Retrieved 13 January 2022.
42. Cyranoski, David (20 May 2019). "China set to introduce gene-editing regulation following CRISPR-baby furore - The draft rules mean that anyone who manipulates human genes in adults or embryos is responsible for adverse outcomes". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01580-1. PMID 32424191. S2CID 182604140. Archived from the original on 20 May 2019. Retrieved 20 May 2019.
43. Song, Lingqiao; Joly, Yann (2021). "After He Jianku: China's biotechnology regulation reforms". Medical Law International. 21 (2): 174–192. doi:10.1177/0968533221993504. S2CID 235473692.
44. "中华人民共和国刑法修正案（十一）_滚动新闻_中国政府网". www.gov.cn. Archived from the original on 31 May 2023. Retrieved 2024-09-20.
45. Liang P, Xu Y, Zhang X, Ding C, Huang R, Zhang Z, Lv J, Xie X, Chen Y, Li Y, Sun Y, Bai Y, Songyang Z, Ma W, Zhou C, Huang J (May 2015). "CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes". Protein & Cell. 6 (5): 363–372. doi:10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5. PMC 4417674. PMID 25894090.
46. Tang L, Zeng Y, Du H, Gong M, Peng J, Zhang B, Lei M, Zhao F, Wang W, Li X, Liu J (June 2017). "CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human zygotes using Cas9 protein". Molecular Genetics and Genomics. 292 (3): 525–533. doi:10.1007/s00438-017-1299-z. PMID 28251317. S2CID 16358211.
47. Ma H, Marti-Gutierrez N, Park SW, Wu J, Lee Y, Suzuki K, et al. (August 2017). "Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos". Nature. 548 (7668): 413–419. Bibcode:2017Natur.548..413M. doi:10.1038/nature23305. PMID 28783728. (This paper currently has an expression of concern, see doi:10.1038/nature23305, PMID 28783728,  Retraction Watch. If this is an intentional citation to a such a paper, please replace {{expression of concern|...}} with {{expression of concern|...|intentional=yes}}.)
48. Haapaniemi E, Botla S, Persson J, Schmierer B, Taipale J (July 2018). "CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response". Nature Medicine. 24 (7): 927–930. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0049-z. hdl:10138/303675. PMID 29892067. S2CID 47018050.
49. Zeng Y, Li J, Li G, Huang S, Yu W, Zhang Y, Chen D, Chen J, Liu J, Huang X (November 2018). "Correction of the Marfan Syndrome Pathogenic FBN1 Mutation by Base Editing in Human Cells and Heterozygous Embryos". Molecular Therapy. 26 (11): 2631–2637. doi:10.1016/j.ymthe.2018.08.007. PMC 6224777. PMID 30166242.
50. The Declaration of Inuyama: Human Genome Mapping, Genetic Screening and Gene Therapy. cioms.ch
51. Smith KR, Chan S, Harris J (October 2012). "Human germline genetic modification: scientific and bioethical perspectives". Archives of Medical Research. 43 (7): 491–513. doi:10.1016/j.arcmed.2012.09.003. PMID 23072719.
52. Reardon, Sara (14 February 2017). "US science advisers outline path to genetically modified babies". Nature: nature.2017.21474. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.21474.
53. Wade N (19 March 2015). "Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 March 2015. The biologists writing in Science support continuing laboratory research with the technique, and few if any scientists believe it is ready for clinical use.
54. Kolata G (23 April 2015). "Chinese Scientists Edit Genes of Human Embryos, Raising Concerns". The New York Times. Retrieved 24 April 2015.
55. Harmon A (2017-02-14). "Human Gene Editing Receives Science Panel's Support". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-02-17.
56. Committee on Human Gene Editing: Scientific, Medical, and Ethical Considerations. "Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance". nationalacademies.org. National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Medicine. Retrieved 21 February 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
57. "Scientists OK genetically engineering babies". New York Post. Reuters. 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2017-02-17.
58. "Ethical issues related to prenatal genetic testing. The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association". Archives of Family Medicine. 3 (7): 633–642. July 1994. doi:10.1001/archfami.3.7.633. PMID 7921302.
59. Cole-Turner, Ronald (2008). Design and Destiny: Jewish and Christian Perspectives on Human Germline Modification. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262533010.
60. Powell R, Buchanan A (February 2011). "Breaking evolution's chains: the prospect of deliberate genetic modification in humans". The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 36 (1): 6–27. doi:10.1093/jmp/jhq057. PMID 21228084.
61. Baylis F, Robert JS (2004). "The inevitability of genetic enhancement technologies". Bioethics. 18 (1): 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00376.x. PMID 15168695.
62. Evans J (2002). Playing God?: Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-22262-2.
63. Gene Therapy and Genetic Engineering. Archived 3 December 2013 at the Wayback Machine The Center for Health Ethics, University of Missouri School of Medicine. 25 April 2013.
64. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2002). "Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Integrating From the Nanoscale". Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 4 (4): 281–295. Bibcode:2002JNR.....4..281R. doi:10.1023/A:1021152023349. S2CID 136290217.
65. Allhoff, Fritz (2005). "Germ-Line Genetic Enhancement and Rawlsian Primary Goods". Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 15 (1): 39–56. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.566.171. doi:10.1353/ken.2005.0007. PMID 15881795. S2CID 14432440.
66. ^ Ishii T (August 2014). "Potential impact of human mitochondrial replacement on global policy regarding germline gene modification". Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 29 (2): 150–5. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.04.001. hdl:2115/56864. PMID 24832374.
67. Ranisch, Robert (2 December 2017). "Germline Genome Editing and the Functions of Consent". The American Journal of Bioethics. 17 (12): 27–29. doi:10.1080/15265161.2017.1388875. PMID 29148947. S2CID 10117287.
68. Vassena, R.; Heindryckx, B.; Peco, R.; Pennings, G.; Raya, A.; Sermon, K.; Veiga, A. (June 2016). "Genome engineering through CRISPR/Cas9 technology in the human germline and pluripotent stem cells". Human Reproduction Update. 22 (4): 411–419. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmw005. PMID 26932460.
69. Pearce, David (2017). "The Reproductive Revolution". In Vinding, Magnus (ed.). Can Biotechnology Abolish Suffering?. ASIN B075MV9KS2.
70. Savulescu, Julian (October 2001). "Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children". Bioethics. 15 (5–6): 413–426. doi:10.1111/1467-8519.00251. PMID 12058767.
71. Veit, Walter (2018). "Procreative Beneficence and Genetic Enhancement" (PDF). KRITERION - Journal of Philosophy. 32: 75–92. doi:10.1515/krt-2018-320105. S2CID 149244361. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 23, 2021.
72. Daws, Steven (6 October 2017). "Procreative Beneficence in the CRISPR World". Voices in Bioethics. 3. doi:10.7916/vib.v3i.6031.
73. Stock, Gregory (2003). Redesigning Humans: Choosing Our Genes, Changing Our Future. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 978-0618340835.
74. Wivel, Nelson A.; Walters, LeRoy (22 October 1993). "Germ-Line Gene Modification and Disease Prevention: Some Medical and Ethical Perspectives". Science. 262 (5133): 533–538. Bibcode:1993Sci...262..533W. doi:10.1126/science.8211180. PMID 8211180. Gale A14296431 ProQuest 213545041.
75. Darnovsky, Marcy (July 2013). "A slippery slope to human germline modification". Nature. 499 (7457): 127. Bibcode:2013Natur.499..127D. doi:10.1038/499127a. PMID 23846625. S2CID 4430248. ProQuest 1415758114.
76. Alanis-Lobato, Gregorio; Zohren, Jasmin; McCarthy, Afshan; Fogarty, Norah M. E.; Kubikova, Nada; Hardman, Emily; Greco, Maria; Wells, Dagan; Turner, James M. A.; Niakan, Kathy K. (June 2021). "Frequent loss of heterozygosity in CRISPR-Cas9–edited early human embryos". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (22): e2004832117. Bibcode:2021PNAS..11804832A. doi:10.1073/pnas.2004832117. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 8179174. PMID 34050011.
77. Johnson, Tess (3 December 2019). "Human genetic enhancement might soon be possible – but where do we draw the line?". The Conversation.
78. Newson, Ainsley; Wrigley, Anthony (2016). "Being human: The ethics, law, and scientific progress of genome editing". AQ - Australian Quarterly. 87 (1): 3–8. Gale A441491350 ProQuest 2046113711.
79. Greene, Marsha; Master, Zubin (2018-09-01). "Ethical Issues of Using CRISPR Technologies for Research on Military Enhancement". Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 15 (3): 327–335. doi:10.1007/s11673-018-9865-6. ISSN 1872-4353. PMID 29968018. S2CID 49640190.

Further reading

• Enriquez, Juan; Gullans, Steve (2015). Evolving Ourselves: How Unnatural Selection is Changing Life on Earth. One World Publications. ISBN 978-1780748412.
• Metzl, Jamie (2020). Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.
• "Special Issue: Human Germline Editing". Bioethics. 34 (1). 2020.
• Venter, Craig (2014). Life at the Speed of Light: From the Double Helix to the Dawn of Digital Life. United Kingdom: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0143125907.

• Genetics
• Genome editing
• Biotechnology in China
• 2010s in biotechnology