- Email: [email protected]
A chance to make amends
LEADER
RAMON ANDRADE 3DCIENCIA/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY
LOCATIONS UK 110 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6EU Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1200 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Australia Tower 2, 475 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, NSW 2067 Tel +61 2 9422 8559 Fax +61 2 9422 8552 USA 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451 Tel +1 781 734 8770 Fax +1 720 356 9217
Subscription Service For our latest subscription offers, visit newscientist.com/subscribe Customer and subscription services are also available by: Telephone +44 (0) 330 333 9470 Email [email protected] Web newscientist.com/subscribe Post New Scientist, Rockwood House, Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 3DH One year subscription (51 issues) UK £150 cONTACTS Contact us newscientist.com/contact Who’s who newscientist.com/people General & media enquiries Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202 [email protected] Editorial Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Picture desk Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Display Advertising Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1291 [email protected] Recruitment Advertising UK Tel +44 (0) 20 8652 4444 [email protected] UK Newsstand Tel +44 (0) 20 3148 3333 Newstrade distributed by Marketforce UK Ltd, 2nd Floor, 5 Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London E14 5HU Syndication Tribune Content Agency Tel +44 (0) 20 7588 7588 [email protected]
© 2015 Reed Business Information Ltd, England New Scientist is published weekly by Reed Business Information Ltd. ISSN 0262 4079. New Scientist (Online) ISSN 2059 5387 Registered at the Post Office as a newspaper and printed in England by Williams Gibbons (Wolverhampton)
A chance to make amends Timely conference on gene editing must learn from history ALL eyes may be on the Paris a temporary ban on “engineering climate talks, but there is another of the human germline, at least as high-level meeting this week that long as the safety and efficacy of will influence our future. The the procedures are not adequately International Summit on Human proven”. Early this year, a few Gene Editing in Washington DC is researchers went further, calling spending three days discussing for a temporary ban even on basic the science, ethics and governance research. of a revolutionary genetic The impulse to ban is engineering technique called understandable, but would be CRISPR – specifically its counterproductive. Basic genetic application to human beings. research on human embryos The symposium was called by already happens in many scientists, but will also hear from policy-makers, legal scholars and “The ethics of embryo research should always be bioethicists. Its aim is to discuss up for debate, but CRISPR what is acceptable, as well as hasn’t changed the terms” what is possible. This debate is timely, maybe countries. Stopping scientists overdue. In theory, we’ve had the from using CRISPR would deny ability to genetically engineer them access to the most powerful humans for decades. In practice, tool yet to do what they already the methods haven’t been good do. The ethics of embryo research enough. But CRISPR has changed the game completely (see page 32). should always be up for debate, but the existence of CRISPR has Everyone in the field agrees on one thing: it is too soon to try this not changed the terms. Some oppose basic research in people. Animals modified by because the possible end point is CRISPR appear perfectly normal, altering heritable DNA. That needs but it’s early days. Yet, there is a to be, and is being, discussed. But real danger that IVF clinics will banning CRISPR for that reason attempt to use it. In some seems unnecessarily cautious. countries, including the US, this “Possible” is not the same as would not be against the law. “inevitable” or “acceptable”. We So what should we do? The could clone humans, but nobody meeting is not the first call to does so, because there is an action. In October, a UNESCO international consensus that bioethics panel recommended
it is unethical. Engineering heritable germline DNA could be regulated the same way. In any case, many would argue that using germline engineering to prevent some diseases is acceptable. We already use gene therapy to fix faulty genes in children – why not intervene earlier and prevent them ever becoming ill? Critics argue that there could be unknown dangers. But that is precisely why we need basic research on embryos. It is also worth pointing out that although germline genome editing is often portrayed as permanent, there is nothing to stop us using the same technique to correct any mistakes. An even more controversial application of CRISPR is human enhancement, but the science is so far behind the hype that it is hardly worth worrying about. The summit will inevitably invite comparisons to the 1975 Asilomar conference, at which the pioneers of genetic engineering agreed a moratorium on some experiments until their safety was established. The verdict on Asilomar is mixed; some say the moratorium did more harm than good. Some of its movers and shakers are behind this week’s summit. Let’s hope they learned from the experience. n 5 December 2015 | NewScientist | 5
RAMON ANDRADE 3DCIENCIA/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY
LOCATIONS UK 110 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6EU Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1200 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Australia Tower 2, 475 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, NSW 2067 Tel +61 2 9422 8559 Fax +61 2 9422 8552 USA 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451 Tel +1 781 734 8770 Fax +1 720 356 9217
Subscription Service For our latest subscription offers, visit newscientist.com/subscribe Customer and subscription services are also available by: Telephone +44 (0) 330 333 9470 Email [email protected] Web newscientist.com/subscribe Post New Scientist, Rockwood House, Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 3DH One year subscription (51 issues) UK £150 cONTACTS Contact us newscientist.com/contact Who’s who newscientist.com/people General & media enquiries Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202 [email protected] Editorial Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Picture desk Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Display Advertising Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1291 [email protected] Recruitment Advertising UK Tel +44 (0) 20 8652 4444 [email protected] UK Newsstand Tel +44 (0) 20 3148 3333 Newstrade distributed by Marketforce UK Ltd, 2nd Floor, 5 Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London E14 5HU Syndication Tribune Content Agency Tel +44 (0) 20 7588 7588 [email protected]
© 2015 Reed Business Information Ltd, England New Scientist is published weekly by Reed Business Information Ltd. ISSN 0262 4079. New Scientist (Online) ISSN 2059 5387 Registered at the Post Office as a newspaper and printed in England by Williams Gibbons (Wolverhampton)
A chance to make amends Timely conference on gene editing must learn from history ALL eyes may be on the Paris a temporary ban on “engineering climate talks, but there is another of the human germline, at least as high-level meeting this week that long as the safety and efficacy of will influence our future. The the procedures are not adequately International Summit on Human proven”. Early this year, a few Gene Editing in Washington DC is researchers went further, calling spending three days discussing for a temporary ban even on basic the science, ethics and governance research. of a revolutionary genetic The impulse to ban is engineering technique called understandable, but would be CRISPR – specifically its counterproductive. Basic genetic application to human beings. research on human embryos The symposium was called by already happens in many scientists, but will also hear from policy-makers, legal scholars and “The ethics of embryo research should always be bioethicists. Its aim is to discuss up for debate, but CRISPR what is acceptable, as well as hasn’t changed the terms” what is possible. This debate is timely, maybe countries. Stopping scientists overdue. In theory, we’ve had the from using CRISPR would deny ability to genetically engineer them access to the most powerful humans for decades. In practice, tool yet to do what they already the methods haven’t been good do. The ethics of embryo research enough. But CRISPR has changed the game completely (see page 32). should always be up for debate, but the existence of CRISPR has Everyone in the field agrees on one thing: it is too soon to try this not changed the terms. Some oppose basic research in people. Animals modified by because the possible end point is CRISPR appear perfectly normal, altering heritable DNA. That needs but it’s early days. Yet, there is a to be, and is being, discussed. But real danger that IVF clinics will banning CRISPR for that reason attempt to use it. In some seems unnecessarily cautious. countries, including the US, this “Possible” is not the same as would not be against the law. “inevitable” or “acceptable”. We So what should we do? The could clone humans, but nobody meeting is not the first call to does so, because there is an action. In October, a UNESCO international consensus that bioethics panel recommended
it is unethical. Engineering heritable germline DNA could be regulated the same way. In any case, many would argue that using germline engineering to prevent some diseases is acceptable. We already use gene therapy to fix faulty genes in children – why not intervene earlier and prevent them ever becoming ill? Critics argue that there could be unknown dangers. But that is precisely why we need basic research on embryos. It is also worth pointing out that although germline genome editing is often portrayed as permanent, there is nothing to stop us using the same technique to correct any mistakes. An even more controversial application of CRISPR is human enhancement, but the science is so far behind the hype that it is hardly worth worrying about. The summit will inevitably invite comparisons to the 1975 Asilomar conference, at which the pioneers of genetic engineering agreed a moratorium on some experiments until their safety was established. The verdict on Asilomar is mixed; some say the moratorium did more harm than good. Some of its movers and shakers are behind this week’s summit. Let’s hope they learned from the experience. n 5 December 2015 | NewScientist | 5