Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

The ethics of publishing human germline research

Nature Biotechnology volume 33, pages 590–592 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

A Corrigendum to this article was published on 07 August 2015

This article has been updated

To the Editor:

A recent paper described the use of CRISPR-Cas9 to modify endogenous HBB, the gene that encodes b-globin, in single-celled, nonviable, triploid human zygotes—by-products of in vitro fertilization (IVF) created through fertilization of single eggs with two human sperm1. The research, published in the journal Protein & Cell, provoked a firestorm of controversy, reigniting old fears about gene therapy and raising new ethical concerns about human germline modification and 'designer babies'. With clearly stated therapeutic goals, the scientists targeted endogenous HBB, the mutated form of which causes b-thalassemia. The research also probed questions about safety and efficacy. The Chinese research team reported three major findings, all of which had been previously reported in animal studies: (i) low overall editing efficiency, with only 4 of 28 embryos repaired using the guide template; (ii) genetic mosaicism, resulting from embryonic cell division before the corrections were complete; and (iii) importantly, the detection of numerous off-target mutations1. Gene editing using the CRISPR-Cas9 system has been hailed as a major improvement on first-generation gene transfer technologies using viral vectors. Early gene transfer studies were inefficient, failed to persist in host cells, had short-lived transgene expression and suffered from off-target editing2. The HBB result suggests that dramatic improvements in gene targeting fidelity and specificity are needed before the CRISPR-Cas9 system can be used safely for therapies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Change history

  • 09 June 2015

    In the version of this article initially published, a name in the acknowledgments was spelled as Vittoria, rather than Vittorio, Sebastiano. The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

References

  1. Liang, P. et al. Protein Cell 6, 363–372 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Thomas, C.E., Ehrhardt, A. & Kay, M. Nat. Rev. Genet. 4, 346–358 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lanphier, E., Urnov, F., Haecker, S.E., Werner, M. & Smolenski, J. Nature 519, 410–411 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Baltimore, B.D. et al. Science 348, 36–38 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Society for Developmental Biology. Position statement from the Society for Developmental Biology on genomic editing in human embryos. http://www.sdbonline.org/uploads/files/SDBgenomeeditposstmt.pdf (24 April 2015).

  6. International Society of Stem Cell Research. The ISSCR statement on human germline genome modification. http://www.isscr.org/home/about-us/news-press-releases/2015/2015/03/19/statement-on-human-germline-genome-modification (19 March 2015).

  7. Zhang, X. Protein Cell 6, 313 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. The Hinxton Group. Science, ethics and policy challenges of pluripotent stem cell-derived gametes. http://www.hinxtongroup.org/consensus_hg08_final.pdf (11 April 2008).

  9. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Human Embryo Research. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/161.html (9 July 2012).

  10. Kaiser, J. & Normile, D. Science 348, 486–487 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

C.T.S. is grateful for support from the Stanford Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. C.T.S. was funded by a US National Institutes of Health CTSA grant (2U54TR000123). The authors thank Vittorio Sebastiano for his conceptual input.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arun Sharma is at the Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine and the Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford, California, USA.,

    Arun Sharma

  2. Christopher Thomas Scott is at the Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.,

    Christopher Thomas Scott

Authors
  1. Arun Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher Thomas Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Thomas Scott.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharma, A., Scott, C. The ethics of publishing human germline research. Nat Biotechnol 33, 590–592 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3252

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3252

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing