FEATURES
George Church is one of the researchers exploring the applications of CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Credit: Marie Wu.
proposed regulatory and technical solutions to another con- troversial CRISPR-enabled technology, gene drives, which essentially serve to push a genetic trait through a population in a non-Mendelian fashion (3,4). Among other things, gene drives could be used to control insect pest populations, for instance to reduce the incidence of malaria. One study dem- onstrating the efficiency of such a system in Drosophila was published alongside the Science per- spective in March (5).
Doudna, who organized the Napa
conference, says the impetus for the meeting and subsequent perspective article was “the appreciation of the power of the [CRISPR/Cas] technology and the desire to get out in front of that conversation to help people under- stand it … and decide on a consensus path forward, if possible.”
Lanphier’s team’s commentary
was driven by the recognition that ge- nome-editing technology—whether via CRISPR or some other methodology— is pushing life scientists ever closer to a “line in the biological sand.” Indeed, the line already has been crossed. A paper using CRISPR/Cas9 to modify human embryos was published in mid- April as this article was going to press. (See Reference 6 and “Breaking News: Germline Editing with CRISPR” follow- ing this article.)
Vol. 58 | No. 5 | 2015 History as a guide
Researchers have manipulated the germ lines of laboratory animals for decades, for instance to make transgenic mice. In 2014, a Chinese team even reported CRISPR modifica- tions in cyanomolgus monkey embryos,
“most likely in-
cluding the germline” (7). But when it comes to humans, genome engineering research has al- ways involved modification of somatic (that is, non-heritable) cells. Sangamo is running clinical trials that use zinc finger nucleases to engineer T-cells to be resistant to HIV infection by knock- ing out the CCR5 receptor, which the virus uses to enter the cells. Although such a treatment may render the re- cipient resistant to HIV, their children would still be vulnerable to the virus.
Though the Science and Nature
Edward Lanphier, CEO of Sangamo BioSci- ences, co-authored a commentary in the journal Nature calling for a moratorium on using CRISPR for human germline editing. Credit: Sangamo BioSciences.
224
articles agreed on the possible dan- gers of human germline modification, the two reach different conclusions about how to address these risks. Lanphier and his colleagues recom- mended an outright moratorium while the technical and ethical consider- ations are hashed out. “Let’s pause before we perfect and publish on the Internet a connect-the-dots perfected strategy for making a full human be- ing,” Lanphier says. “Let’s pause and
www.BioTechniques.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68