uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Human germline gene editing: Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE
Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Research Institutes GROW and CAPHRI, Fac. of Health, Medicine and the Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Bioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Institute of Gene Technology/Microbiology, Faculty of Biology, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: European Journal of Human Genetics, ISSN 1018-4813, E-ISSN 1476-5438, Vol. 26, no 4, p. 445-449Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, first of all for somatic gene editing but in theory also for germline gene editing (GLGE). GLGE is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if GLGE would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique can help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. After consulting its membership and experts, this final version of the Recommendations was endorsed by the Executive Committee and the Board of the respective Societies in May 2017. Taking account of ethical arguments, we argue that both basic and pre-clinical research regarding GLGE can be justified, with conditions. Furthermore, while clinical GLGE would be totally premature, it might become a responsible intervention in the future, but only after adequate pre-clinical research. Safety of the child and future generations is a major concern. Future discussions must also address priorities among reproductive and potential non-reproductive alternatives, such as PGD and somatic editing, if that would be safe and successful. The prohibition of human germline modification, however, needs renewed discussion among relevant stakeholders, including the general public and legislators.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Nature Publishing Group, 2018. Vol. 26, no 4, p. 445-449
National Category
Medical Ethics
Research subject
Bioethics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-342732DOI: 10.1038/s41431-017-0076-0ISI: 000429542400001PubMedID: 29326428ISBN: 1476-5438 (Electronic) 1018-4813 (Linking) OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-342732DiVA, id: diva2:1186607
Available from: 2018-02-28 Created: 2018-02-28 Last updated: 2018-06-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29326428

Authority records BETA

Howard, Heidi C.

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Howard, Heidi C.
By organisation
Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics
In the same journal
European Journal of Human Genetics
Medical Ethics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 22 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf