Gene-editing technologies, such as CRISPR/Cas9, are internationally ethically fraught. In the United States, policy surrounding gene-editing has yet to be implemented, while the science continues to speed ahead. However, it is not enough that policy be implemented: in order for policy to establish limits for the technology such that benefits are possible while threats are kept at bay, such policy must be ethical. In turn, the ethics of gene-editing is a culturally determined field of inquiry. This piece presents a proposal (...) for a study whose goal is to arrive at ethical policy recommendations for policymakers. To achieve this goal, this study proposes, what needs to be done is, first, to understand the full history and foundation of gene-editing by conducting a thorough legal, bioethical, and policy review for precedent assisted reproductive technologies and genetic reproductive technologies. Following this effort, an empirical study must be conducted involving careful surveys of key stakeholder groups on their knowledge and opinions of gene-editing. Such stakeholder groups must include bioethicists, medical geneticists, and lay persons, including those in the disability community. (shrink)

The ease and applicability of CRISPR/Cas9––a new and precise gene editing and reproductive technology––have garnered hype and heightened concern about its potential ‘unprecedented and horrific consequences’ and have led many scientific leaders to call for a moratorium on its research and use. CRISPR appears distinctly more controversial than previous technological innovations, with a greater reach and speed of human treatment and enhancement; however, we have seen similarly inflated hopes and fears in response to other medical innovations for well over a (...) century. One intervention that has both historically and recently incited alarm––vaccines––serves as a pertinent example of what could go wrong if a technology's reach is shortened due to inflated fears. By comparing the vaccine controversy and the CRISPR debate, we can help separate the hype from the realistic potential of these technologies. How our society grapples with such innovations will determine the extent to which their impact on our individual and collective health will be beneficial. We must recognise the need for a tempered approach to CRISPR conversation leading to regulation and ethical application. Although CRISPR's reach will continue expanding with ongoing research, thus requiring continuous evaluation, the lessons we have learned from the vaccine controversy demonstrate that our approach must not be to shut down regulation and application now, but to thoughtfully conjoin productive debate and action so that therapeutic gene editing can alleviate suffering as soon as possible without precipitating social outcomes we would belatedly deplore. (shrink)

Volume 19, Issue 7, July 2019, Page 41-43.