Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:29:19.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gene Drives and Genome Modification in Nonhuman Animals: A Concern for Informed Consent?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2018

JOANNA SMOLENSKI
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

In recent years, CRISPR-Cas9 has become one of the simplest and most cost-effective genetic engineering techniques among scientists and researchers aiming to alter genes in organisms. As Zika came to the fore as a global health crisis, many suggested the use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives in mosquitoes as a possible means to prevent the transmission of the virus without the need to subject humans to risky experimental treatments. This paper suggests that using gene drives or other forms of genome editing in nonhumans (like mosquitos) for the purposes of disease prevention raises important issues about informed consent. Additionally, it examines the consequences this line of inquiry could have for the use of gene drives as a tool in public health and suggests that the guidance offered by informed consent protocols could help the scientific community deploy gene drives in a way that ensures that ongoing research is consistent with our ethical priorities.

Keywords

CRISPR-Cas9gene editinggene drivesinformed consentpublic healthgenetic engineeringgenome modificationZika
Type
Special Section: Genome Editing: Biomedical and Ethical Perspectives
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 93 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Smolenski, J. CRISPR/Cas9 and germline modification: New difficulties in obtaining informed consent. The American Journal of Bioethics 2015;15(12):35–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Splicing Life: A Report on the Social and Ethical Issues of Genetic Engineering with Human Beings. Washington, DC: President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research; 1982.

3. Lanphier, E, Urnov, F, Haecker, SE, Werner, M, Smolenski, J. Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature . 2015 Mar 12;519:410–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Riordan, SM, Heruth, DP, Zhang, LQ, Ye, SQ. Application of CRISPR/Cas9 for biomedical discoveries. Cell & Bioscience. 2015;5:33. doi: 10.1186/s13578-015-0027-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Ledford, H. CRISPR, the disruptor. Nature. 2015 Jun 3;522(7554):20–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Gootenberg JS, Abudayyeh OO, Lee JW, Essletzbichler P, Dy AJ, Joung J, et al. Nucleic acid detection with CRISPR-Cas13a/C2c2. Science 2017 Apr 13;356(6336):438–42.

7. Cohen J. New CRISPR tool can detect tiny amounts of viruses. Science; 2017 Apr 13; available at http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/new-crispr-tool-can-detect-tiny-amounts-viruses (last accessed 2 Jun 2018).

8. See note 3, Lanphier, et al. 2015 Mar 12:410–1.

9. Oye, KA, Esvelt, K, Appleton, E, Catteruccia, F, Church, G, Kuiken, T, et al. Regulating gene drives: Regulatory gaps must be filled before gene drives could be used in the wild. Science. 2014 Aug 8;345(6197):626–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Begley S. Malaria kills a half-million Africans a year: Gene-edited mosquitoes might stop it; 2015 Dec 7 [cited 2018 May 31]. Stat: In the Lab; available at https://www.statnews.com/2015/12/07/gene-edited-mosquitoes-stop-malaria/ (last accessed 2 June 2018).

11. See note 3, Lanphier et al. 2015 Mar 12:410–11.

12. Isasi RM, Nguyen TM, Knoppers BM. Centre de recherche en droit public. National Regulatory Frameworks Regarding Human Genetic Modification Technologies (Somatic and Germline Modification). Montreal, Quebec: The Genetics and Public Policy Center; 2006 Oct.

13. See note 11, Isasi, Nguyen, Knoppers 2006.

14. Baruch, S, Huang, A, Pritchard, D, Kalfoglou, A, Javitt, G, Borchelt, R, et al. Human Germline Genetic Modification: Issues and Options for Policymakers . Baltimore, MD: The Genetics and Public Policy Center, 2005 May.Google Scholar

15. See note 11, Isasi, Nguyen, Knoppers 2006.

16. See note 9, Oye et al. 2014 Aug 4:626–8.

17. See note 1, Smolenski 2015:35–7.

18. LaFraniere S. Chinese protesters accuse solar panel plant of pollution. The New York Times; 2011 Sep 18; https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/world/asia/chinese-protesters-accuse-solar-panel-plant-of-pollution.html (last accessed 28 Sept 2018).

19. Neuhaus CP. Community engagement and field trials of genetically modified insects and animals. Hastings Center Report. 2018;48(1):25–36.

20. Callaway E. Gene drives thwarted by emergence of resistant organisms; 2017 Jan 31 [cited 2018 May 31]. Nature; available at https://www.nature.com/news/gene-drives-thwarted-by-emergence-of-resistant-organisms-1.21397 (last accessed 2 June 2019).

21. See note 9, Oye et al. 2014 Aug 4:626–8.

22. Mosquito Life Cycle [cited 2018 Jun 1]; Available at https://www.epa.gov/mosquitocontrol/mosquito-life-cycle (Accessed 2 Jun 2018).

23. See note 9, Oye et al. 2014 Aug 4:626–8.

24. Corbyn Z. Crispr: Is it a good idea to ‘upgrade’ our DNA? The Guardian 10 May 2015 [cited 2015 Aug 6]; available at http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/10/crispr-genome-editing-dna-upgrade-technology-genetic-disease (last accessed 2 June 2018).