Rubeis Giovanni, Steger Florian
Institute of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Ulm University, Parkstr. 11, 89073 Ulm, Germany.
Asian Bioeth Rev. 2018 Jul 16;10(2):133-141. doi: 10.1007/s41649-018-0056-x. eCollection 2018 Jul.
With the arrival of new methods of genome editing, especially CRISPR/Cas 9, new perspectives on germline interventions have arisen. Supporters of germ line genome editing (GGE) claim that the procedure could be used as a means of disease prevention. As a possible life-saving therapy, it provides benefits that outweigh its risks. Opponents of GGE claim that the medical and societal risks, especially the use of GGE for genetic enhancement, are too high. In our paper, we analyze the risks and benefits of GGE. We show that the medical risk on an individual level might be reduced by further research in the near future so that they may be outweighed by the benefits. We also show that the societal risks of the procedure, i.e. genetic enhancement, are manageable by establishing a regulative framework before the GGE is implemented. Since the effects of modifying genes for the genepool of a given population are extremely difficult to model, the medical risks on the population level might be too high.
随着基因组编辑新方法的出现，尤其是CRISPR/Cas 9的出现，对生殖系干预有了新的认识。生殖系基因组编辑（GGE）的支持者声称，该程序可作为疾病预防的一种手段。作为一种可能挽救生命的疗法，它带来的益处大于风险。GGE的反对者则声称，医学和社会风险，尤其是将GGE用于基因增强的风险过高。在我们的论文中，我们分析了GGE的风险和益处。我们表明，通过在不久的将来进行进一步研究，个体层面的医学风险可能会降低，从而益处可能会超过风险。我们还表明，该程序的社会风险，即基因增强，可以通过在实施GGE之前建立一个监管框架来加以控制。由于对特定人群基因库进行基因改造的影响极难建模，人群层面的医学风险可能过高。
