It has become known that several of the most famous people in the field of gene editing want to introduce a global moratorium on the editing of genes in cells that transmit changes to the next generation. Back in 2015, after the first International Summit on Human Gene Editing, organizers unanimously agreed that creating genetically modified children would be “irresponsible” unless we knew for sure that it was safe.
CRISPR: deny cannot be allowed
Last year, Chinese scientist He Jiankui edited the embryos to create two genetically modified babies. Other groups are also actively seeking ways to use this technology to improve people's lives.
This has prompted people with names in the field of gene editing (some of whom signed up to the 2015 statement) to call for a global moratorium on editing all human germ lines - editing sperm or hereditary oocytes.
In an open letter published in Nature this week, major players in the development of CRISPR, including Emmunuel Charpentier, Eric Lander and Feng Zhang, joined peers from seven different countries in calling for a complete ban on human germline editing until an international body agrees. on how to monitor it. They offered five years to consider this issue. The US National Institutes of Health also supported this call.
The signatories hope that a voluntary global moratorium will prevent the emergence of another Jiankui with an unwanted surprise.
Scientists believe that a five-year moratorium will give time to discuss "technical, scientific, medical, social, ethical and moral issues that need to be considered" before adopting CRISPR. Countries that decide to go further and allow germline editing should not only announce it publicly, but also participate in international consultations on the desirability of such a movement, as well as ensure “broad public consensus” in the country.
Promotional video:
The signatories also suggest that germ-line testing should be allowed if there is no intention to implant embryos and produce children. The use of CRISPR to treat diseases in unproductive somatic cells (when the changes will not be inherited) should also be acceptable, provided any participating adults provide their consent. Genetic enhancement should be prohibited and no clinical use should be made unless its "long-term biological consequences are sufficiently understood - for both humans and humans."
We still don't know what most of our genes do, so the risk of unintended consequences - good or bad - is enormous. For example, the loss of the CCR5 gene, which He arranged to protect children from HIV, was associated with an increase in the number of complications and deaths from certain viral infections.
Genome changes can have unintended consequences in future generations. “Trying to change a species based on our current level of knowledge would be a manifestation of pride,” the scientists said.
The proposed moratorium is designed for kind people and is unlikely to stop fraudsters. But an outright ban would be too “harsh”. Well, let's hope that we find a middle ground in this matter.
But what does the general public think, including you and me?
CRISPR benefits
Just this year, CRISPR has shown three powerful benefits of gene modification - and the study of the tool is just beginning.
Firstly, all the same genetically modified twins from China may have unintentionally improved their intelligence. The study found that the same change - the removal of the CCR5 gene - not only makes mice smarter, it also improves the brain's ability to recover from a stroke, and may also be associated with better school performance. The study was published in the journal Cell. Further research has already been initiated to investigate the association of CCR5 removal with stroke recovery.
Second, CRISPR is able to attenuate the body's immune response to stem cells, making the stem cells essentially "invisible" to defense responses. This made it possible to prevent the rejection of stem cell transplants. Scientists were the first to use CRISPR to remove two genes that are required for the proper functioning of a family of proteins known as the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) classes I and II.
When the researchers transplanted the altered mouse three-component stem cells into incompatible mice with normal immune systems, they saw no rejection. They then transplanted similarly engineered human stem cells into so-called humanized mice - in which immune systems are replaced by components of the human immune system - and again saw nothing.
This suggests that CRISPR can make the transplantation of at least pluripotent stem cells much more convenient, reduce the rate of rejection, and make it easier to get used to new tissues.
And even if we talk about the fact that CRISPR can be dangerous because it can accidentally cut non-target genes, scientists have already attended to the creation of a "switch" for the editing tool.
Earlier this month, a team at the University of California, Berkeley reorganized CRISPR into the programmable tool ProCas9, which hides quietly in cells until it is awakened by external factors such as a viral infection.
This "extra layer of security" limits CRISPR editing skills to a subset of cells "for precise cutting," says study author Dr. David Savage.
What's more, ProCas9 can potentially respond to boolean inputs such as "and" or "not," which means it will only be activated when a certain set of instructions are followed - for example, "this cell is cancerous" or "this cell is infected" to a “donate a cell” response, which activates CRISPR and instructs it to cut genes it needs to survive. The study was published in the prestigious journal Cell.
Obviously, outright banning of CRISPR editing can be extremely dangerous and throw science back - just imagine outright banning chemotherapy, vaccinations, or antibiotics. The potential of CRISPR has not yet been revealed even a few percent, but it is already clear how powerful this tool can be.