A ticking time bomb?
With gene-editing technology advancing at astonishingly fast rates, it becomes difficult to analyze the pros and cons of such a controversy. As the world witnessed through He Jiankui experiments, genetically editing human embryos is not an idea from the future, rather it is occurring today without much regulation or restriction. This article illustrates how science is quickly advancing and unless nations take a stance on this debate, this "ticking time bomb" will continue to pose threats.
Furthermore, Harvard University is initiating CRISPR research that has the potential to save the world from fatal diseases however, this research also runs the risk of permanent hereditary complications. In others words, scientists could potentially find the cure to countless diseases but, scientists could also create more genetic complexities that would be passed down from generation to generation. It is imperative that the international community reach a consensus about this field of study so that research efforts such as those of Harvard or He may be constructive.
A concept highly emphasized in the topic synopsis is that of a “slippery slope”. Keeping this concept in mind, I encourage you to read through this article and ask yourself: why would your respective country find this research ethical or unethical? What parameters (restrictions) would your country support in regards to research and experiments? What is the human population sacrificing by placing strict regulations? What is the human population vulnerable to if loose regulations are imposed?
Overall, your main focus when reading this article should be questioning your country’s idea of ethical research while keeping in mind the idea of the “slippery slope”. If you have any questions regarding this article, the topic of ethics in biological study, or really anything do not hesitate to email me.
Good evening!
ReplyDeleteBelgium believes that genetic engineering has an amazing potential to bring positive effects to the world and further supports private companies in their research, but also acknowledges the potential for ethical breaches that result in more harm than good, such as mosaicism and the accidental creation of hybrid organisms.
In regards to the concept of the slippery slope, Belgium believes that there is a need for a system of checks and balances within the scientific community in order to ensure that genetic experiments are carried out in a safe and ethical manner, and without advancing to a point that begins to cause more division rather than equity in the international community. We believe it is important to have a diverse panel of experts ranging from molecular biologists to experts in the social sciences to offer their opinions on any potential genetic experiments waiting to be started. Although we support the research done by private companies, there must be some regulations to ensure that procedures and applications of the experiments comply with standards of ethics as decided by a committee of scientific experts. Among the regulations set should be a quantified limit of acceptable effects that result from experiments, such as mosaicism and off target effects.
Belgium hopes that by establishing a steering committee comprised of scientific experts, research in genetic engineering may proceed in an ethical manner without being unnecessarily impeded. This is just one solution; we hope that this idea may spark more discussion among the international community later this week.
Thank you! We look forward to hearing more in committee.
The United States sees any type of germline editing or any editing related to human germ cells as dangerous. Germline editing has been stated by several experts as a process that lacks the medical necessity to pursue. However this does not mean that all forms of genetic editing is dangerous. Somatic editing, or editing that only applies to adult cells, are ethical and there is definitely a medical necessity with its development. Strict regulations must be placed on somatic editing until it is proven that this type of treatment is effective and safe. One somatic editing treatments have been fully developed, some regulations can be relaxed in order to facilitate and support growth within the private sector.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to policy and regulation making, the United States proposes the creation of the Genomic Medication Working Group (GMWG) which will function as a board of experts that help nations create genetic editing legislation that falls in line with global standards. This will help nations be able to create their own specifics on genetic editing while falling in line with the overall international opinion. Additionally, the GMWG will help identify and close any possible loopholes within legislation in order to prevent incidents such as He Jiankui’s experiment.
The United States hopes that other nations share the United States’ views on this issue and looks forward to working with other nations on this issue!
Japan believes that with each new advancement within the biomedical field, the ethical implications surrounding these practices will always recur; with the editing of the human germ-line being no exception. Due to the copious amounts of research gathered about the human genome, a multitude of opportunities are presented in order to assist countries in the understanding of disease mechanisms and create a viable solution to combat these issues. With the belief that genomic medicine, specifically for the use of altering the human germ-line, is the main gateway towards the eradication of multiple genetic diseases, Japan has actively worked towards the creation of regulatory guidelines to permit the practice of genome editing within the human embryo.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the restrictions placed on germ-line editing that many countries have imposed, the societal expense that these countries face while denying access to treatment for genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis and hemophilia influence the reasoning towards the justification of germ-line editing.
To address the ethical considerations of this practice, Japan has implemented the Research Unit of the ELSI (ethical, legal, social, and implications) of Genomics in an attempt to create future concrete policies for personal germ-line research. The Research Unit's research and collaboration further influenced Japan's efforts to provide informed consent forms for new and developing projects to avoid unprecedented incidents such as Mr. He Jiankui's.
Japan is looking forward to collaborating with everyone and discussing more ideas later this week!
Good evening! France believes the ethical disputes and implications brought upon by genetic editing are valid, but need to be taken into serious consideration. More steps need to be taken by governmental institutions and private institutions carrying out these gene editing clinical trials as the safety of the human genome is in the hands of those implementing genetic editing. France believes germline therapy would be a viable solution moving into the future of gene therapy, however, would like to focus on making calculated adjustments to existing gene therapy methods to ensure the safety of any subjects involved in the trial.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, as the general public of France is hesitant towards the implementation of gene therapy, France believes it is even more necessary to improve the efficiency of these gene editing techniques such as germline editing. Due to the fact that germline editing poses a huge danger to the fetus, the need to regulate the usage of this technology.
Specifically, France has created a national institution to regulate the usage of such controversial technology called the Agence Nationale de Securite de Medicament et des Produits de Sante (ANSM). Institutions that want to conduct clinical trials need to send a detailed report to ANSM. From there, ANSM conducts an evaluation process to determine if the clinical trial will aid the country in aiding those who suffer from genetic diseases. Finally, ANSM grants the clinical trial authorization in hand with France's Minister of Research. France would like to emphasize the need for other governmental bodies and institutions like the ANSM to resolve ethical disputes and to lessen the harmful ethical implications of many controversial clinical trials.
Thank you for such an insightful discussion topic and we look forward to caucusing with the rest of the delegations!