Egenis, Centre for the Study of Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Byrne House, St German's Road, Exeter, EX4 4PJ, UK.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Aug;24(4):1077-1096. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9931-1. Epub 2017 Jun 26.
In 2015 scientists called for a partial ban on genome editing in human germline cells. This call was a response to the rapid development of the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a molecular tool that allows researchers to modify genomic DNA in living organisms with high precision and ease of use. Importantly, the ban was meant to be a trust-building exercise that promises a 'prudent' way forward. The goal of this paper is to analyse whether the ban can deliver on this promise. To do so the focus will be put on the precedent on which the current ban is modelled, namely the Asilomar ban on recombinant DNA technology. The analysis of this case will show (a) that the Asilomar ban was successful because of a specific two-step containment strategy it employed and (b) that this two-step approach is also key to making the current ban work. It will be argued, however, that the Asilomar strategy cannot be transferred to human genome editing and that the current ban therefore fails to deliver on its promise. The paper will close with a reflection on the reasons for this failure and on what can be learned from it about the regulation of novel molecular tools.
2015 年,科学家呼吁对人类生殖细胞中的基因组编辑进行部分禁令。这一呼吁是对 CRISPR-Cas9 系统快速发展的回应,该系统是一种分子工具,允许研究人员以高精度和易用性在活体生物中修改基因组 DNA。重要的是,禁令旨在建立信任,承诺一种“谨慎”的前进方式。本文的目的是分析禁令是否能兑现这一承诺。为此,重点将放在当前禁令所依据的先例上,即关于重组 DNA 技术的阿西洛马禁令。对这一案例的分析表明:(a)由于采用了特定的两步遏制策略,阿西洛马禁令取得了成功;(b)这两步方法对于实施当前禁令也至关重要。然而,将阿西洛马策略应用于人类基因组编辑是不可行的,因此当前禁令未能兑现其承诺。本文将最后反思这一失败的原因,以及从中学到的关于新型分子工具监管的经验教训。