StemCell Therapy

In this photo provided by Oregon Health & Science University, taken through a microscope, human embryos grow in a laboratory for a few days after researchers used gene editing technology to successfully repair a heart disease-causing genetic mutation. The work, a scientific first led by researchers at Oregon Health & Science University, marks a step toward one day preventing babies from inheriting diseases that run in the family.(Oregon Health & Science University via AP)

By Johnny Kung

Mon., Aug. 21, 2017

Recently, an international team of scientists successfully corrected a disease-causing gene in human embryos, using a gene editing technique called CRISPR. This has led to much excitement about the prospects of curing debilitating diseases in entire family lineages.

At the same time, the possibility of changing embryos genes has renewed fear about designer babies. The hype in both directions should be tempered by the fact that both these scenarios are some ways off a lot more work will need to be done to improve the techniques safety and efficacy before it can be applied in the clinic.

And because a lot of diseases, as well as other physical and behavioural characteristics, are controlled by the complex interaction of many genes with each other and with the environment, in many cases simple genetic fixes may never be possible.

But while the technology is still in early stages, now is the time to have frank, open and societywide conversations about how gene editing should be moving forward and genetic medicine more broadly, including the use of advanced genetic testing and sequencing to diagnose disease, personalize medical treatments, screening babies, etc.

We must raise broad awareness of the health benefits as well as the personal, social and ethical implications of genetics. This is important for individuals both to understand their options when making decisions about their own health care, and to participate as informed citizens in democratic deliberations about whether and how genetic technologies should be developed and applied.

In the U.S., affordability and insurance coverage strongly influence access to genetic medicine. In Canada, the reality of strapped budgets means access is far from equal either. But our public health-care system means it is at least conceivable that these technologies will eventually be available to a higher proportion of people who need them.

For example, OHIP currently pays for genetic testing and counselling for a number of diseases, such as http://www.mountsinai.on.ca/care/mkbc/medical-services/genetic-testingBRCA testingEND for breast and ovarian cancer, for patients who satisfy certain eligibility criteria. It also covers a kind of genetic screening tests called non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for eligible pregnant women. Precisely because of this potential for widespread adoption, there is all the greater need for broad-based conversations about genetics.

Crucially, to ensure that the largest possible cross section of society will benefit from, and not be harmed by, advances in genetic technologies, these conversations must include the voices of all communities.

This is especially true for those who, for well-justified historical reasons, may harbour deep distrust of the biomedical establishment. In the U.S., for much of the 20th century, the eugenics movement had resulted in a range of sterilization programs, discriminatory policies and scientific abuses (such as the infamous Tuskegee syphilis trials) that disproportionately targeted the poor and, especially, racial minorities such as African Americans.

While the eugenics movement might have been less established in Canada, where it did occur (e.g., the sterilization program in Alberta or the Indian hospitals in B.C.) it had most heavily affected Indigenous communities. In both countries, this shameful history has led to lower trust and usage of the health-care system by the affected communities.

As genetic medicine advances, many scientists and health researchers are pointing out the importance of having the diversity of human populations represented in genetic studies in order to gain medical insights that can benefit everyone. If we fail to fully engage these under-represented communities and ensure that genetics is not just another way to exploit and discriminate against them, then we risk worsening this historical and ongoing injustice.

New genetic technologies, such as gene editing, also bring issues of disability rights into sharper focus. While designer babies may not be an immediate concern, even the possibility of selecting and changing our offsprings characteristics raises thorny questions.

For example, what conditions count as medically necessarily to treat how about deafness, dwarfism, autism, or intersex conditions? Ultimately, it is about what kinds of people get to live, and who gets to make those decisions. Many disability rights advocates (e.g., the Down syndrome community) are already voicing concerns about what these emerging technologies mean for how their communities are seen and valued today.

We must make sure that the conversations around genetics are not only about generalized notions of safety or effectiveness, or concerns of playing God. These conversations must also encompass questions of access and justice, and acknowledge that the benefits and harms of genetic technologies, like any new technologies, are not distributed equally.

And these conversations must involve all communities (be they of different racial or ethnic background, gender or sexuality, and physical or cognitive abilities) in a way that ensures their voices are respected and heard.

This is a task that will involve concerted efforts from scientists, funders and industry, to build trust with these communities and to genuinely listen and respond to their concerns. And it will need to be done in collaboration with many partners, including schools, community and faith groups, and the art/entertainment industry.

The ability to understand and, perhaps one day, change our genetics has huge potential to improve human well-being. Lets make sure that everyone will enjoy these benefits, and that no communities are left behind, or worse yet, harmed in the process.

Johnny Kung is the director of new initiatives for the Personal Genetics Education Project (www.pged.org ) at Harvard Medical Schools Department of Genetics.

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

Read more:
Designer babies the not most urgent concern of genetic medicine - Toronto Star

This entry was posted on August 21, 2017 at 12:43 pm and is filed under Genetic medicine. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |