Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Login
Advanced Search

Search for
BioNews

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook


The Fertility Show


 

Genome editing and CRISPR: what Washington needs to know

30 November 2015

By Dr Silvia Camporesi and Dr Lara Marks

Appeared in BioNews 830

Public engagement is an essential ingredient in building public trust and confidence, when it comes to decisions about the use of science and technology. It is important to recognise that the ways in which scientists and policymakers depict the potential benefits and hazards of a new technology can influence public debate and its parameters. That is why it is important to engage the public in the debate about genome editing as early as possible, and in a way that is as open as possible, to make sure that all possible voices are included.

We, a historian of medicine and a bioethicist, are currently attempting to do this through an online pilot survey. The survey is designed to gauge what members of the public think about the new genome-editing technology and how it should be applied.

More than 200 people have already responded – most of them from the UK and the USA, but also from China and elsewhere – and the survey is still ongoing. Respondents have identified themselves as academics, research and medical professionals, lay people, patients, students, policy professionals and industry experts. Their feedback highlights many of the issues that matter to the public, which should be considered at the International Summit on Human Gene Editing in Washington DC.

The importance of such an exercise is highlighted by one participant, a UK student, who argues: 'Policy should come from the public, not enforced on the public. [It is] extremely important to have open and anonymous forums like this. The hyperbolic assertions of the media in these matters are often very unhelpful in ensuring that the first impression of the technology in the public is one of fear. There needs to be unbiased education led by the public – they ask the questions they want to know the answers to – in an open (and un-pressurised) discussion with the scientific community.'

The survey asks participants to indicate what words come to mind when questioned about genome editing. Many of the words they list ring familiar bells, such as 'eugenics', 'designer babies', 'cure' and 'hope'. To some extent this reflects the way in which the technology has been portrayed to date. However, some participants are also using words such as 'power', a concept which has received relatively little consideration in relation to the technology so far.

Our survey is only a pilot study of what people think of genome editing, but it is a powerful way to learn what the public are thinking about the technology and what ethical issues they feel are important to address.

Preliminary results are already showing some interesting patterns. A significant proportion of respondents favour government and industry support for CRISPR, and believe that the technology will address significant health needs of patients. Yet they also voice concern about potential risks for the human genome and the environment. Not many, however, feel the need for greater government regulation.

Why is this the case? Some participants highlight a technological 'catch-22' voicing scepticism about the value of regulation because of the difficulty of enforcing it worldwide. One UK academic researcher also points out: 'We cannot restrict a potentially "game changing" technology simply because "someone" may misuse it. They will anyway.'

This is an important point that highlights the difficulty of engaging with a technology such as CRISPR, whose effects on the ecosystem and the planet are very difficult to predict or to contain within state borders. But we cannot duck our responsibility to engage with such questions and to bring them out into the open. The potential impact of CRISPR on the biosystem and biosphere demands a global approach.

So far, much of the debate in the UK and USA has focused on the potential effects of editing the human genome in the embryo. Yet the potential effect of this technology on future human generations is in fact more limited and manageable than the potential impact of releasing CRISPR-edited insects or crops into the environment, which could have a much wider effect. That is why it is of utmost importance for the debate to move beyond its current narrow focus on editing human embryos, which in itself can be seen as a strategy to elicit particular responses of fear and hope among the public, and start engaging the public in a wider debate about other potential applications of CRISPR.

Another issue raised by some of the participants is the question of priority setting and allocation of scarce resources. As one UK medical professional puts it when asked about the potential benefits of the technology: 'Hard to say. There are so many issues that need tackling before this – global issues of poverty and avoidable diseases in childhood in developing world, inequality, climate change.' One Romanian student feels that 'the biggest controversy' caused by the technology is its 'potential to further the inequality of our society'. A relative of a patient points out that one of the key issues will be what 'qualifies as a disability, both in terms of overall diseases and on a case-by-case basis in reference to a patient's severity of symptoms' - a point that has also been raised elsewhere.

We agree with a respondent who says that it may be impossible 'to get this genie back into the bottle'. But it may be, and should be, possible to get democratic public engagement in deciding what wishes to use with this genie. Such engagement should discuss what impact the technology could have on our society, and provide space to think through our values in terms of its applications. This can only be done based on questions in which the public has some input.

You can respond to our survey here. If you are interested in our project, please email us at or

The Progress Educational Trust's public conference 'From Three-Person IVF to Genome Editing: The Science and Ethics of Engineering the Embryo' is taking place in central London on Wednesday 9 December 2015. Find out more here.

SOURCES & REFERENCES

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

07 August 2017 - by Dr Greg Ball 
Research into human germline genome editing should continue, recommends an international group of 11 human genetics organisations...
12 September 2016 - by Dr Silvia Camporesi and Giulia Cavaliere 
By focusing all our attention on the ethics of human–animal hybrids, we may be overlooking non-technical solutions to the short supply of human organs for transplantation...
01 August 2016 - by Anneesa Amjad 
A survey has found that a majority of adults in the USA are worried about the potential use of genome-editing technologies to give children a reduced risk of disease...
18 January 2016 - by Antony Blackburn-Starza 
The CRISPR 'patent wars' have now officially kicked off in the USA, with formal proceedings to determine who controls key patents over the revolutionary genome-editing technology...
18 January 2016 - by Dr Jess Buxton 
We report from the third session of the annual conference of the Progress Educational Trust, titled 'Genome Editing and CRISPR: The Science of Engineering the Embryo', which discussed these new technologies and how they might be used in the future...

23 November 2015 - by Dr James Legg 
On 26 October this year the CRISPR/Cas patent wars truly began with the filing of European oppositions against what appears to be the first patent granted in Europe for this revolutionary gene-editing technology....
16 November 2015 - by Ari Haque 
A US biotechnology start-up co-founded by two pioneers of CRISPR technology intends to begin gene editing in humans as part of an experimental treatment to target a rare genetic eye disorder...
12 October 2015 - by Dr Silvia Camporesi and Dr Lara Marks 
The UNESCO International Bioethics Committee has released a statement reaffirming an earlier moratorium called by a group of US scientists on the use of CRISPR/Cas9 in human embryos. We argue that the current framing of the debate in terms of dystopic or imagined futures is too narrow and constrains the boundaries of the debate to germline applications...
14 September 2015 - by Kirsty Oswald 
The influential Hinxton group has said that the genetic modification of human embryos should be allowed...

HAVE YOUR SAY
Be the first to have your say.

You need to or  to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions


- click here to enquire about using this story.

Published by the Progress Educational Trust

CROSSING FRONTIERS

Moving the Boundaries of Human Reproduction

Public Conference
London
8 December 2017

Speakers include

Professor Azim Surani

Professor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge

Sally Cheshire

Professor Guido Pennings

Katherine Littler

Professor Allan Pacey

Dr Sue Avery

Professor Richard Anderson

Dr Elizabeth Garner

Dr Jacques Cohen

Dr Anna Smajdor

Dr Andy Greenfield

Vivienne Parry

Dr Helen O'Neill

Dr César Palacios-González

Philippa Taylor

Fiona Fox

Sarah Norcross


BOOK HERE

Good Fundraising Code

Become a Friend of PET HERE and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation