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.

What would responsible remedial human germline editing look like?

Subjects

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Anonymous Nat. Biotechnol. 3, 1 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Lander, E. S. et al. Nature 567, 165–168 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing: Continuing the Global Discussion: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief (National Academies Press, 2019); https://doi.org/10.17226/25343

  4. 4.

    Photopoulos, J. WHO expert panel paves way for strong international governance on human genome editing. BioNews (19 March 2019); https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_142093

  5. 5.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing. Projects & Activities https://www8.nationalacademies.org/pa/projectview.aspx?key=51725 (2019).

  6. 6.

    The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Human genetic engineering. http://apnorc.org/projects/Pages/Human-Genetic-Engineering.aspx (2018).

  7. 7.

    Steffann, J., Jouannet, P., Bonnefont, J. P., Chneiweiss, H. & Frydman, N. Cell Stem Cell 22, 481–482 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    US Food & Drug Administration. FDA regulation of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/P’s) product list. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/tissue-tissue-products/fda-regulation-human-cells-tissues-and-cellular-and-tissue-based-products-hctps-product-list (1 February 2018).

  9. 9.

    Adashi, E. Y. & McCoy, R. C. EMBO Rep. 18, 670–672 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Leaver, M. & Wells, D. Hum. Reprod. 26, 16–42 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Hajian, R. et al. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 3, 427–437 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Liang, B. et al. Fertil. Steril. 111, 753–762.e1 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Massie, A. B., Kucirka, L. M. & Segev, D. L. Am. J. Transplant. 14, 1723–1730 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance (National Academies Press, 2017); https://doi.org/10.17226/24623

  15. 15.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques: Ethical, Social, and Policy Considerations (National Academies Press, 2016); https://doi.org/10.17226/21871

  16. 16.

    US Congress. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Public Law 104-496 (1996); https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3103

  17. 17.

    Bobinski, M.A., Orentlicher, D., Cohen, I.G. & Hall, M.A. Bioethics and Public Health Law 4th edn, p. 144 (Wolters Kluwer, 2018)

  18. 18.

    Price, W. N. & Cohen, I. G. Nat. Med. 25, 37–43 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Mulder, C. L. et al. Hum. Reprod. 33, 784–792 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Dryzek, J. S. et al. Science 363, 1144–1146 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    The Royal Society. Evaluation of genetic technologies: public dialogue and opinion survey. Report to the Royal Society (2018); https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/gene-tech/genetic-technologies-public-dialogue-ursus-evaluation.pdf

  22. 22.

    Institute of Medicine. Society’s Choices: Social and Ethical Decision Making in Biomedicine (National Academies Press, 1995); https://doi.org/10.17226/4771

  23. 23.

    Ma, H. et al. Nature 548, 413–419 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Anzalone, A. V. et al. Nature 576, 149–157 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Araki, M. & Ishii, T. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 12, 108 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Cohen, I. G. & Adashi, E. Y. Science 353, 545–546 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eli Y. Adashi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

E.Y.A. serves as co-chair of the Safety Advisory Board of Ohana Biosciences, Inc.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adashi, E.Y., Cohen, I.G. What would responsible remedial human germline editing look like?. Nat Biotechnol 38, 398–400 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0482-7

Download citation

Further reading

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