So Derek, Kleiderman Erika, Touré Seydina B, Joly Yann
Centre of Genomics and Policy, Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, MontrealQC, Canada.
Front Genet. 2017 Apr 10;8:40. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2017.00040. eCollection 2017.
Recent gene editing experiments carried out in human embryos have raised the question of whether interventions like the introduction of a CCR5-Δ32 deletion, which could provide heritable resistance to HIV infection, ought to be considered enhancements. Many authors have used the term "enhancement" in different ways, some based on patients' biomedical outcomes and others on their social context. These classifications are often considered overly imprecise. Nevertheless, the concept of "enhancement" could affect the ways in which these applications are regulated in different jurisdictions, the availability of coverage by insurers or public health care, and the force of public opinion in shaping future policy on gene editing. In order to ethically situate resistance to communicable disease with reference to other techniques, this article provides an overview of its similarities and differences with disease gene therapy in embryos, gene therapy in consenting adults, and vaccination. In discussing key ethical features of CCR5-Δ32 deletion (including its frequency in various populations, biological mechanism, benefits for individuals, and use in previous clinical trials) we offer some potential guideposts for the continuing discussion on how to classify "enhancements" in the age of CRISPR gene editing.
像引入CCR5-Δ32缺失这样能够提供对HIV感染的遗传性抗性的干预措施,是否应被视为增强手段。许多作者对“增强”一词的使用方式各不相同,有些基于患者的生物医学结果,有些则基于其社会背景。这些分类通常被认为过于不精确。然而,“增强”这一概念可能会影响这些应用在不同司法管辖区的监管方式、保险公司或公共医疗保健的覆盖范围,以及公众舆论在塑造未来基因编辑政策方面的影响力。为了从伦理角度将对传染病的抗性与其他技术进行比较,本文概述了它与胚胎疾病基因治疗、成年受术者基因治疗以及疫苗接种的异同。在讨论CCR5-Δ32缺失的关键伦理特征(包括其在不同人群中的频率、生物学机制、对个体的益处以及在以往临床试验中的应用)时,我们为持续讨论如何在CRISPR基因编辑时代对“增强手段”进行分类提供了一些潜在的指导原则。