분자유전학실험실 (단국대학교 분자생물학과)

 이성욱 ( 2018-11-30 10:46:30 , Hit : 545
 Human Genome Editing Committee Urges Halt in Germline Editing Trials


Summit Closing Statement Says “Risks Too Great to Permit Clinical Trials of Germline Editing at This Time.”

By Kevin Davies -  
November 29, 2018

HONG KONG—The Day After. Two hundred and sixty accredited reporters had dwindled to about a dozen. A conference livestream that peaked at 1.8 million viewers worldwide had dwindled to a much, much smaller figure. And He Jiankui—the researcher at the center of a media and medical firestorm—was back in Shenzhen, China, facing an uncertain future.

Obliged to sum up the events of an extraordinary week, the organizing committee of the second Human Genome Editing summit issued a closing statement that criticized the unprecedented clinical work that has led to the reported birth of twins with an edited genome and called for a suspension of any further clinical trials of germline editing.

“The scientific understanding and technical requirements for clinical practice remain too uncertain and the risks too great to permit clinical trials of germline editing at this time,” was the major headline.

Nobel Laureate David Baltimore read out the statement on behalf of the 14 members of the committee, which includes CRISPR pioneer Jennifer Doudna (UC Berkeley), Robin Lovell-Badge (Crick Institute), Sir John Skehel (Royal Society), George Daley (Dean, Harvard Medical School), ethicist Alta Charro (University Wisconsin), and gene editing researchers Matthew Porteus (Stanford) and Jin-Soo Kim (Seoul National University).

The committee called the work of Dr. He on the birth of germline-edited twins “deeply disturbing” and called for an independent assessment “to verify this claim and to ascertain whether the claimed DNA modifications have occurred,” Baltimore said.

“Even if the modifications are verified, the procedure was irresponsible and failed to conform with international norms. Its flaws include an inadequate medical indication, a poorly designed study protocol, a failure to meet ethical standards for protecting the welfare of research subjects, and a lack of transparency in the development, review, and conduct of the clinical procedures.”

The concerns expressed in the statement have been buttressed by other leading figures in biomedical research industry, who reacted swiftly to the germline editing news.

The Director of the NIH, Francis Collins, issued a statement expressing deep concern about the reports: The NIH does not support the use of gene-editing technologies in human embryos. The reports exhibited “a deeply disturbing willingness by Dr. He and his team to flout international ethical norms. The project was largely carried out in secret, the medical necessity for inactivation of CCR5 in these infants is utterly unconvincing, the informed consent process appears highly questionable, and the possibility of damaging off-target effects has not been satisfactorily explored.”

Collins said the need for “a binding international consensus on setting limits for this kind of research…has never been more apparent. Without such limits, the world will face the serious risk of a deluge of similarly ill-considered and unethical projects. Should such epic scientific misadventures proceed, a technology with enormous promise for prevention and treatment of disease will be overshadowed by justifiable public outrage, fear, and disgust.”

In an interview with Biocentury, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said: “Governments will now have to react” taking into account that “the scientific community failed to convincingly assert, in this case, that certain conduct must simply be judged as over the line.”

“The response from the scientific community has been far too slow and far too tepid, and the credibility of the community to self-police has already been damaged,” Gottlieb said, although given that the entire community has only known of this clinical work for a few days, it’s not clear what the response should have been.

Deep Concerns

The HGE Committee statement said there were many lingering “deep concerns” over the science and ethics of germline genome editing, but noticeably did not call for a moratorium on genome-editing research.

“Concerns persist that changes may be made in only some cells of early-stage embryos, leaving unedited cells to perpetuate a disease. Germline editing could produce unintended harmful effects for not just an individual but also for that individual’s descendants. Changes to a particular trait may have unanticipated effects on other traits that could vary from person to person and in response to environmental influences.”

Germline genome editing could become acceptable in the future “if these risks are addressed and if a number of additional criteria are met. These criteria include strict independent oversight, a compelling medical need, an absence of reasonable alternatives, a plan for long-term follow-up, and attention to societal effects. Even so, public acceptability will likely vary among jurisdictions, leading to differing policy responses.”

The committee also stressed the need to formulate a translational pathway to germline editing. This would require “establishing standards for preclinical evidence and accuracy of gene modification, assessment of competency for practitioners of clinical trials, enforceable standards of professional behavior, and strong partnerships with patients and patient advocacy groups.”

The committee also called for “an ongoing international forum to foster broad public dialogue, develop strategies for increasing equitable access to meet the needs of under-served populations, speed the development of regulatory science, provide a clearinghouse for information about governance options, contribute to the development of common regulatory standards, and enhance coordination of research and clinical applications through an international registry of planned and ongoing experiments.”

Conferences such as CRISPRcon have performed a valuable function in expanding diversity. A couple of conference participants suggested that the United Nations should be involved in genome regulation, but the committee did not go that far.

A third Human Genome Editing summit will be held in London, it was announced, probably in 2021.

1267   CRISPR-Cas9 Inhibitors Found in Metagenomics Study  이성욱 2019/02/07 1570
1266   [바이오토픽] 변이가 많은 암일수록 면역요법에 잘 반응한다  이성욱 2019/01/15 1127
1265   Exosomes Linked to Cancer Spread from Chemoresistant Tumors in Mice  이성욱 2019/01/15 1111
1264   Top 10 RNA-Based Biopharmas of 2018  이성욱 2019/01/09 1227
1263   Fathers Can Pass Mitochondrial DNA to Children  이성욱 2018/12/26 1116
1262   Nonviral CRISPR Technology Developed for Faster, Cheaper T-Cell Engineering  이성욱 2018/12/13 1295
1261   Second CRISPR-Modified Pregnancy May Be Underway  이성욱 2018/11/30 550
  Human Genome Editing Committee Urges Halt in Germline Editing Trials  이성욱 2018/11/30 545
1259   [바이오토픽] 중국, 최초의 유전체편집 아기 탄생  이성욱 2018/11/27 608
1258   Keytruda Gets FDA Approval for Hepatocellular Carcinoma  이성욱 2018/11/14 514
1257   Novel Two-Pronged Method Targets Cancer Cells’ Telomerase and Chromosomes  이성욱 2018/11/03 519
1256   Expanding the reach of gene editing with a new CRISPR enzyme  이성욱 2018/10/26 547
1255   분자수준 인체 간세포 지도 처음 작성  이성욱 2018/10/24 542
1254   RNA-Based Gene Therapy Can Be Turned ON or OFF via Synbio Switches  이성욱 2018/10/18 507
1253   CRISPR Enhancement Cures Genetic Disease in Mice  이성욱 2018/10/10 534
1252   [바이오토픽] 구관이 명관, CRISPR가 만능은 아니다  이성욱 2018/10/08 701
1251   Checkpoint Inhibitor Generated by Synthetic DNA in Vivo  이성욱 2018/10/06 533
1250   Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith, and Gregory P. Winter share 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry  이성욱 2018/10/04 506
1249   Immunotherapy Pioneers Take 2018 Nobel Prize  이성욱 2018/10/02 532
1248   2018 Lasker Award Winners: Gene Expression Researchers, Propofol Discoverer, Pioneer for RNA Biology, and Women in STEM  이성욱 2018/09/12 837

1 [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]..[64] [다음 10개]

Copyright 1999-2022 Zeroboard / skin by ROBIN