Germline genome editing: Moratorium, hard law, or an informed adaptive consensus?
Open Access
- 9 September 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLoS Genetics
- Vol. 17 (9), e1009742
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1009742
Abstract
With the development of practical means of human germline genome editing (HGGE) in recent years, there have been calls for stricter regulation and oversight over HGGE interventions with potential for heritable changes in the germline. An international moratorium has been advocated. We examine the practicality of such a proposal, as well as of a regulation through the “traditional” mechanisms of international and municipal laws. We argue that these mechanisms are unlikely to achieve their intended objectives and that the better approach is to engage the international community of stakeholders, researchers, scientists, clinicians, and other workers directly involved in the field in working toward the development of an “informed adaptive consensus”. We offer suggestions as to how this may be achieved and how existing indirect levers of regulation may be harnessed toward this end.Funding Information
- National Medical Research Council (NMRC/CBME/2016)
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Germline genome modification through novel political, ethical, and social lensesPLoS Genetics, 2021
- The Human Right to Science and the Regulation of Human Germline EngineeringThe CRISPR Journal, 2019
- Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editingNature, 2019
- Human Genome EditingPublished by The National Academies Press ,2017
- The ethics weathervaneBMC Medical Ethics, 2015
- When Structures Become Shackles: Stagnation and Dynamics in International LawmakingEuropean Journal of International Law, 2014
- HUGO—a UN for the human genomeNature Genetics, 2003
- Hugo Ethics Committee statement on benefit sharingClinical Genetics, 2000