Es gibt wenig Reaktion auf den Vorschlag eines Registers oder eines Moratoriums,
ein paar Vorträge über den “He JK”- Vorfall, mehr nicht.
aber einen nicht unwichtigen Leserbrief in nature biotechnology
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics in the UK also issued a report in July 2018 “Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genome editing and human reproduction”. Notably, it concludes that germline genome editing could be permissible under certain circumstances. More strongly, it moves beyond the merely permissible to the ethically obligatory, saying in its final section (paragraph 5.2) that “there are moral reasons to continue with the present lines of research and to secure the conditions under which heritable genome editing would be permissible.” Here, we review the Nuffield Council report and show how its shortcomings are part of an increasingly permissive climate among elite scientists that may well have emboldened He. Without a robust and meaningful airing of the perils of human germline modification, these views are likely to encourage additional, more mainstream moves in the same dangerous direction.
The rending of garments by horrified scientists after Chinese researcher He Jiankui announced that he had altered the germline of two babies was heard around the world. But was the outrage sincere? An article in Nature Biotechnology by two prominent genetic engineering sceptics suggests that it was not. Donna Dickenson, of the University of London, and Marcy Darnovsky, of the Center for Genetics and Society, in Berkeley, California, point out that “the words and actions of key US and UK scientists” encouraged He to proceed. In particular, they point an incriminating finger at last year’s report on human germline editing from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, in the UK.
Und ein neues Buch gibt es: Hardt, Annika. Technikfolgenabschätzung des CRISPR/Cas-Systems. Über die Anwendung in der menschlichen Keimbahn. de Gruyter, 2019.