Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 May;51(3):8-12. doi: 10.1002/hast.1249. Epub 2021 Apr 23.
This essay discusses the new report, Heritable Human Genome Editing, by the National Academy of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Royal Society. After summarizing the report, we argue that the report takes four quite bold steps away from prior reports, namely (1) rejecting an omnibus approach to heritable human genome editing (HHGE) in favor of a case-by-case analysis of possible uses of HHGE, accepting that HHGE is acceptable in some cases; (2) recognizing that the interest in having children who are genetically related to both would-be rearing parents is one that the regulation of HHGE should honor; (3) patterning a regulatory model for HHGE on the United Kingdom's approach to regulating mitochondrial replacement techniques; and (4) conveying skepticism that international regulation is possible while showing a strong preference for a default into national regulatory regimes for HHGE.
本文讨论了美国国家医学科学院、美国国家科学院和英国皇家学会发布的新报告《可遗传人类基因组编辑》。在总结该报告后，我们认为该报告采取了四项非常大胆的举措，与之前的报告相比有了明显的突破，具体内容如下：（1）报告摒弃了对可遗传人类基因组编辑的一概而论的方法，转而对其可能的用途进行逐个案例分析，承认在某些情况下可遗传人类基因组编辑是可以接受的；（2）认识到父母双方都与子女具有基因关系的这种意愿是可遗传人类基因组编辑的监管应予以尊重的；（3）以英国对线粒体替代技术的监管方法为蓝本，为可遗传人类基因组编辑的监管模式提供了一个模式；（4）对国际监管的可能性表示怀疑，同时强烈倾向于将可遗传人类基因组编辑的默认监管权交给国家监管机构。
