Nav: Home

Two from UW-Madison contribute to human gene editing report

February 14, 2017

MADISON, Wis. -- The National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine issued a 258-page report Tuesday (Feb. 14) focused on human genome editing. It lays out principles and recommendations for the U.S. government and governments around the globe grappling with how to handle rapid advances in human genome-editing technology as it applies to human health and disease.

Two University of Wisconsin-Madison experts served on the 22-member international committee that compiled the report: R. Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics who co-chaired the NAS panel alongside Richard Hynes, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Dietram Scheufele, a professor of life sciences communication at UW-Madison.

Other members of the committee -- hailing from Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States -- include scientists; experts in law, political science, and industry; and a patient advocate. "We wanted to bridge the worlds of government and academic experts with people who have disorders and may be affected," says Charo.

Human gene editing is not new, but with the emergence of technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 -- a tool that allows scientists to add, delete and alter the genome with unprecedented speed and precision at lower cost -- experts agreed in 2015 that a broad framework was needed to better understand the science and its implications for policy, ethics and society. The consensus committee was convened by the national academies to complete the task.

"One of the original developers of CRISPR-Cas9, Jennifer Doudna, recognized that the technology has tremendous potential to expand our capacities for genetic engineering far beyond what we have currently been doing," says Charo, who is scheduled to give a talk about the report on Friday, Feb. 17, at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "We took a real deep dive into the science and potential clinical applications, into the regulatory steps that need to be taken, into areas of public engagement and took a deep dive into the ethics."

The committee explored the current state of science, which Charo says was evolving even as they were writing the report; possible clinical applications; risks and benefits to human health; and the standards for addressing what are known as "off-target effects," which are unintended consequences associated with editing specific genes.

Additionally, the committee discussed issues of equity and access to the technology, to ensure people with disabilities and diseases, and members of other underrepresented groups, also have a voice.

"Some questions science can answer, some it cannot," says Scheufele. "As a result, public debates about human gene editing need to be absolutely transparent and they need to be inclusive."

The report sets recommendations for basic laboratory research, therapies that edit genes in somatic (non-heritable) cells like blood cells and cancer cells. Therapies that alter heritable traits (germline editing), and which are therefore passed from parents to offspring; editing that enhances human traits rather than treating or preventing disease; and opportunities for public engagement around gene editing were also addressed.

For example, the report authors found that gene editing in basic research is important to advance understanding of the links between genes and diseases like cancer, human fertility, and the progression of genetic diseases.

For use in somatic therapy -- for example, editing blood cells to treat sickle cell disease or cancer -- human gene editing should be approached carefully and only to treat and prevent disease, the report says. Existing regulation adequately manages responsible development of both basic science and the somatic (non-heritable) therapies for treatment or prevention of disease or disability, the report concludes.

The committee also determined any use of human gene editing for so-called enhancement (alterations to the genome intended to improve human traits but not treat or prevent disease) is inappropriate at this time.

With respect to heritable traits, experts predicted decades ago that science would eventually enable editing of the human germline, the sperm and egg cells that pass genes from parents to children. In 1975, nearly 150 scientists, physicians and legal experts gathered for what was called the Asilomar Conference to set guidelines for experiments using recombinant DNA, a new technology at that time that allowed changes to genes. Without weighing the pros and cons, Charo says, those experts determined heritable genome editing should be avoided.

"It's now been all these decades since Asilomar, when editing the human germline wasn't a real possibility, but now we're at the point where it is a realistic possibility," she says.

It carries potentially longer-term consequences since the changes made through germline editing -- typically applied to sperm or ova, but which could also apply to embryos -- alter the genetic destiny of a family. This means that along with the positive effects that cure a genetic disorder such as Huntington's disease, for instance, potentially unintended effects could accompany the change, and be passed to future generations.

The report authors conclude that, for the moment, far more research is needed before heritable editing could be safe enough to even consider using on humans. Going forward, heritable gene editing for any purpose other than improving human health -- and indeed, only to treat serious diseases -- should not be undertaken, the report concludes, and when it is there should first be extensive public input. For this, the report provides a basic roadmap. It would also require compelling needs, stringent oversight to limit its use to those needs, and long-term follow-up.

"Historically, what we are encountering with CRISPR-Cas9 is a tool that allows the scientific field to move quickly, with transformative applications that scientifically and medically raise ethical and political questions that really do require a broad societal debate," says Scheufele. "It's telling that the report has a whole chapter dedicated to public engagement."

Chapter 7, which spans 13 pages of background, practices and suggestions, represents "anticipatory thinking," according to Scheufele, because the committee recognized the need to involve people outside of science, academia, politics and policy.

"We want to bring in people even if they know little about the topic and get them to the point where they can engage in meaningful debate," says Scheufele, a social scientist who studies communication and public understanding of science. "Public debate will blur the lines between this issue and others but we want to move forward in a responsible fashion with the best available science and a meaningful understanding of the risks and benefits."

The report also established a set of broad governance principles with respect to human genome editing in the U.S. and elsewhere: promote well-being, transparency, due care, responsible science, respect for persons, fairness and transnational cooperation.

"Every country struggles with the same set of complexities but has a different regulatory system. So, we established larger principles that are applicable across different political or cultural contexts," says Scheufele. "We don't want to have regulatory safe havens for research." Because the issues, Charo adds, "are truly global."

"We want to make sure we are not creating problems that we didn't intend to create by maximizing the quality of research and regulation across the globe and protecting patients across the world," she says. "These are overarching principles any country can adopt."
Kelly April Tyrrell,, 608-262-9772

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Related Genome Articles:

Deciphering the walnut genome
New research could provide a major boost to the state's growing $1.6 billion walnut industry by making it easier to breed walnut trees better equipped to combat the soil-borne pathogens that now plague many of California's 4,800 growers.
Illuminating the genome
Development of a new molecular visualisation method, RNA-guided endonuclease -- in situ labelling (RGEN-ISL) for the CRISPR/Cas9-mediated labelling of genomic sequences in nuclei and chromosomes.
A genome under influence
References form the basis of our comprehension of the world: they enable us to measure the height of our children or the efficiency of a drug.
How a virus destabilizes the genome
New insights into how Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) induces genome instability and promotes cell proliferation could lead to the development of novel antiviral therapies for KSHV-associated cancers, according to a study published Sept.
Better genome editing
Reich Group researchers develop a more efficient and precise method of in-cell genome editing.
More Genome News and Genome Current Events

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Rethinking Anger
Anger is universal and complex: it can be quiet, festering, justified, vengeful, and destructive. This hour, TED speakers explore the many sides of anger, why we need it, and who's allowed to feel it. Guests include psychologists Ryan Martin and Russell Kolts, writer Soraya Chemaly, former talk radio host Lisa Fritsch, and business professor Dan Moshavi.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#537 Science Journalism, Hold the Hype
Everyone's seen a piece of science getting over-exaggerated in the media. Most people would be quick to blame journalists and big media for getting in wrong. In many cases, you'd be right. But there's other sources of hype in science journalism. and one of them can be found in the humble, and little-known press release. We're talking with Chris Chambers about doing science about science journalism, and where the hype creeps in. Related links: The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study Claims of causality in health news: a randomised trial This...