On August 3, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine posted online the slides and talks from its July 12 meeting to discuss public implications of the Human Gene-Editing Initiative. A total of four meetings plus a related workshop were held: an introductory discussion in December 2015, followed by three more substantial meetings plus the related workshop in February, April, and now July of 2016.
I’m still working through the materials, notably Francis Collins’ slide set from the July 12, 2016 meeting, addressing regulatory processes, in utero gene editing, and other topics. But what first caught my eye was a brief written statement from the same meeting, from Ron Cole-Turner of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. In it, he states that Christian opinions on human gene editing are not monolithic; that, far from being reflexively in opposition, those opinions are quite open to editing even of the human germline as long as safety concerns are addressed, embryos are not sacrificed in the process of research, and therapy rather than enhancement are in view.
I must say the statement disappointed me. The “safety argument” is the most prominent ethical concern raised in discussions of whether editing human genes in heritable ways is ethically permissible. We certainly want assurances that we would not put the “edited” individuals at risk, and we really would want some level of certainty that the downstream effects would not be disastrous. But of course, the latter may be impossible to assess, since adverse consequences could be subtle and might become apparent over many generations.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.