It seems to be relatively recently (and more than forty years have already passed), when Lisa Brown was born in Great Britain - the first person conceived by the "in vitro" method. Today, in vitro fertilization (IVF) gives the joy of motherhood to millions of women, being quite an ordinary procedure.
The Crispr method of genetic editing of DNA, discovered six years ago, coupled with the decoding of the human genome, has given scientists and researchers a unique tool for correcting defective genes. But, under current UK law, genetic editing of the human embryo is currently only permitted up to 14 days and strictly for research purposes. Once edited, the embryo cannot be implanted into the uterus and must be destroyed.
The report of a group of influential scientists from the so-called. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has suggested it is "morally acceptable" for a future change to the law that would allow parents to use DNA editing to "influence the genetic characteristics of their child."
And although the idea is that the child does not inherit the genetic diseases of the parents, scientists, in particular, did not rule out cosmetic goals, such as increasing the height of the unborn child or even changing the color of his eyes or hair by making changes in DNA.
Of course, the scientists made a reservation: the use of "genome editing interventions" would be ethically acceptable only if they are designed to ensure the well-being of the future person and do not "increase disadvantages, do not introduce discrimination or division in society."
But Shukhrat Mitalipov, director of the US Center for Embryonic Cell and Gene Therapy, is full of hope. Last year, he used Crispr to target a mutation in nuclear DNA that causes hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a common genetic heart disease. This was the first time that scientists have successfully tested the Crispr method in a clinic.
In contrast, a whole group of researchers is against genetic editing for a variety of reasons. Dr. David King, director of Human Genetics Alert, an independent watchdog group, warned of a possible two-tiered system in which those who cannot afford genetic editing will suffer. Professor Robert Winston, a leading fertility expert, told Good Morning UK that “None of these procedures are guaranteed, they are not predictable, so if you change the DNA, you cannot predict what business will happen later - and the whole process will be irreversible."
Dusco Ilik, a stem cell scientist at King's College London, does not share the doubts about GM babies, but opposes genome editing before embryo implantation into the uterus for other reasons. “We don't know the consequences,” he warns, citing a recent study by the Wellcome Sanger Institute that showed the technology is far more dangerous than previously thought.
Promotional video:
In his opinion, this technique caused extensive mutations in DNA outside the editable region, which can lead to turning important genes on or off, causing serious problems.
The fears of European scientists are quite understandable - their psyche is still to some extent clouded by the horrors of genocidal eugenics of the 20th century and the Nazi desire for a "dominant race". So where should the boundaries be? After all, although the genetically modified embryo has not yet been implanted into the uterus, the first children with DNA from three people should appear already this year, after an intervention in which the DNA of the second woman was used to replace the faulty code of the first.
In the meantime, the dream of editing a host of genetic diseases looms vaguely on the horizon.
Serg kite