CRISPR Journal最新文献

The ethical issues of human heritable genome editing have been discussed at international summits held since 2015. In this Perspective, I consider how the discussions evolved over three summits held in Washington, DC (2015), Hong Kong (2018), and London (2023). The significance of safety and efficacy, meanings of a moratorium, and place of broad societal consensus are traced through publications produced surrounding these summits. Looking ahead, I highlight the difference between two fundamentally distinct ethical questions: Is human heritable genome editing ethical? Can human heritable genome editing be done ethically?

For the majority of the human community, the questions posed by heritable genome editing regarding the meanings of human life draw on various religious perspectives. Deliberations about genome editing would benefit from thinking about religious concerns in non-reductionist and non-instrumental terms. While it is often suggested that the scientific community is intolerant of religious views, it is often not the scientific community but those working in philosophy and religion who self-censor religious language. Rather than merely including people who are conversant in the language of religion or trying to derive an ethical Esperanto from generic religious beliefs, I advocate in this Perspective for the inclusion of people who voice their ethical commitments in the theological principles of their particular religious commitments.

Moving CRISPR-based therapies from discovery to dosing patients in clinical trials and ultimately to approval involves navigating a challenging terrain of highs and lows. In this interview, physician-scientist Kiran Musunuru and genome editor Fyodor Urnov reflect on the past 20 years of their nonclinical and clinical programs in the field, the current landscape of innovation, and what they see on the horizon.

The democratization of genomic technologies presents substantial opportunities for addressing rare genetic diseases, particularly in collaborations between the Global South and North. In this Perspective, we describe the current progress in gene therapy, including CRISPR, in India and see an upward trajectory of innovation. We propose the establishment of a rare disease platform in India and across the Global South designed to bridge scientific, clinical, and economic gaps, transforming untapped genetic diversity into shared opportunities for therapeutic innovation and health care equity. This platform would encompass a comprehensive data infrastructure capturing clinical, genomic, and biosample data, complemented by an artificial intelligence-powered analytics layer to enhance patient engagement and clinical trial matching, ultimately enabling cost-effective research and development (R&D) of novel therapies.

The cell and gene therapy/gene editing industry sits at the intersection of scientific research, technology development, regulation, ethics, and society. Hence, the biotechnology industry has a role in ensuring the inclusion of ethical considerations, diverse stakeholders, and assessments of medical progress, necessity, and realistic timelines for technological feasibility. The Alliance for Regenerative Medicine has sought to facilitate this role, fostering continued discussions of the scientific, ethical, and governance difficulties surrounding heritable human genome editing (HHGE), particularly in light of enormous advances in somatic gene therapies. The need for HHGE to address rare diseases is significantly diminished by the development of alternative approaches. Thoughtful deliberation about HHGE that takes into account the expertise and experience of the biotechnology industry is essential-as are guardrails to prevent unwarranted and irresponsible approaches to HHGE.

The organizing committee of the 2025 Global Observatory for Genome Editing conference proposes a Charter on Emerging Technologies and Human Dignity. The development of this Charter is guided by four principles: (1) begin with questions of human dignity and the common good; (2) reconsider current innovation systems and the consequences for the distribution of benefits and risks; (3) expand the range of questions for deliberation; and (4) reimagine the limits of research.

Ethically challenging areas of research raise the question of how science can proceed in an ethically reflective and careful way and what role ethical deliberative bodies at the local level play in this. Important lessons can be drawn from the experience of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Oversight Committees (ESCROs). ESCROs have evolved as reflective spaces in response to changes in the science, including research on "humanization" of experimental rodents, embryogenesis, and developing human germ cells. Institutional efforts can contribute to broader goals of open and democratic deliberation.

Technology must exist in the service of people, particularly those suffering from illness and disease. Drawing on decades of experience as the cofounder of a rare genetic disease research organization and my participation in the liberation theology movement of the Roman Catholic Church, in this Perspective, I discuss the high stakes of human heritable genome editing. Values forged in civil rights and social justice movements can inform how genome editing projects consider the vulnerable, the poor, and the voiceless. Those empowered in academia, biotech, philanthropy, and policy should understand that questions about genome editing entail responsibility for shaping the very concept of shared humanity.

Genomic medicines are transforming the landscape of human health-but their promise risks being confined to the few. While science has entered the 21^st century, most health systems remain unequipped to deliver one-time curative therapies. This essay calls for a global reckoning: what do we truly value in innovation, and how can we align systems, incentives, and ethics to democratize access? Drawing on real-world experience across four continents, it argues for a new social compact-embedding equity, rethinking value, and modernizing delivery-to ensure that the miracles of modern medicine become global, sustainable, and just.

The question of how law should regulate the manipulation of the human genome or germline is inflected by the interconnected, intersectional parrying among different systems of moral value. Contract law and constitutional law reflect two poles of interest: the transactional aspects of market valuation and the relational aspects of the web of life that acknowledge "pricelessness." In the decades from the initial decoding of the human genome in 2000 to the emergence of CRISPR technologies, powerful companies and powerful individuals now all but own the fate of our species and the health of our planet. The destructive effects of the realignments we are undergoing are still largely invisible (if not for long) and largely unresponsive to conventional checks.