Human Germline Genome Editing

Kelly E. Ormond, Douglas P. Mortlock, Derek T. Scholes, Yvonne Bombard, Lawrence C. Brody, W. Andrew Faucett, Nanibaa’ A. Garrison, Laura Hercher, Rosario Isasi, Anna Middleton, Kiran Musunuru, Daniel Shriner, Alice Virani, Caroline E. Young

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

54 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

With CRISPR/Cas9 and other genome-editing technologies, successful somatic and germline genome editing are becoming feasible. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in March 2017. The workgroup included representatives from the UK Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, International Genetic Epidemiology Society, and US National Society of Genetic Counselors. These groups, as well as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asia Pacific Society of Human Genetics, British Society for Genetic Medicine, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Professional Society of Genetic Counselors in Asia, and Southern African Society for Human Genetics, endorsed the final statement. The statement includes the following positions. (1) At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy. (2) Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research. (3) Future clinical application of human germline genome editing should not proceed unless, at a minimum, there is (a) a compelling medical rationale, (b) an evidence base that supports its clinical use, (c) an ethical justification, and (d) a transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)167-176
Number of pages10
JournalAmerican Journal of Human Genetics
Volume101
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 3 2017

Fingerprint

Human Genome
Medical Genetics
Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats
Financial Management
Research
Germ Cells
Gene Editing
Embryonic Structures
Nurses
Medicine
Tissue Donors
Technology
Pregnancy
Counselors

Keywords

  • CRISPR
  • ethics
  • eugenics
  • gene editing
  • gene therapy
  • genetics policy
  • genome editing
  • germline
  • human genome
  • society

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Genetics
  • Genetics(clinical)

Cite this

Ormond, K. E., Mortlock, D. P., Scholes, D. T., Bombard, Y., Brody, L. C., Faucett, W. A., ... Young, C. E. (2017). Human Germline Genome Editing. American Journal of Human Genetics, 101(2), 167-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012

Human Germline Genome Editing. / Ormond, Kelly E.; Mortlock, Douglas P.; Scholes, Derek T.; Bombard, Yvonne; Brody, Lawrence C.; Faucett, W. Andrew; Garrison, Nanibaa’ A.; Hercher, Laura; Isasi, Rosario; Middleton, Anna; Musunuru, Kiran; Shriner, Daniel; Virani, Alice; Young, Caroline E.

In: American Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 101, No. 2, 03.08.2017, p. 167-176.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Ormond, KE, Mortlock, DP, Scholes, DT, Bombard, Y, Brody, LC, Faucett, WA, Garrison, NA, Hercher, L, Isasi, R, Middleton, A, Musunuru, K, Shriner, D, Virani, A & Young, CE 2017, 'Human Germline Genome Editing', American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 167-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012
Ormond KE, Mortlock DP, Scholes DT, Bombard Y, Brody LC, Faucett WA et al. Human Germline Genome Editing. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2017 Aug 3;101(2):167-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012
Ormond, Kelly E. ; Mortlock, Douglas P. ; Scholes, Derek T. ; Bombard, Yvonne ; Brody, Lawrence C. ; Faucett, W. Andrew ; Garrison, Nanibaa’ A. ; Hercher, Laura ; Isasi, Rosario ; Middleton, Anna ; Musunuru, Kiran ; Shriner, Daniel ; Virani, Alice ; Young, Caroline E. / Human Germline Genome Editing. In: American Journal of Human Genetics. 2017 ; Vol. 101, No. 2. pp. 167-176.
@article{1517f4b5145240e38d00d5489f463627,
title = "Human Germline Genome Editing",
abstract = "With CRISPR/Cas9 and other genome-editing technologies, successful somatic and germline genome editing are becoming feasible. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in March 2017. The workgroup included representatives from the UK Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, International Genetic Epidemiology Society, and US National Society of Genetic Counselors. These groups, as well as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asia Pacific Society of Human Genetics, British Society for Genetic Medicine, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Professional Society of Genetic Counselors in Asia, and Southern African Society for Human Genetics, endorsed the final statement. The statement includes the following positions. (1) At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy. (2) Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research. (3) Future clinical application of human germline genome editing should not proceed unless, at a minimum, there is (a) a compelling medical rationale, (b) an evidence base that supports its clinical use, (c) an ethical justification, and (d) a transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.",
keywords = "CRISPR, ethics, eugenics, gene editing, gene therapy, genetics policy, genome editing, germline, human genome, society",
author = "Ormond, {Kelly E.} and Mortlock, {Douglas P.} and Scholes, {Derek T.} and Yvonne Bombard and Brody, {Lawrence C.} and Faucett, {W. Andrew} and Garrison, {Nanibaa’ A.} and Laura Hercher and Rosario Isasi and Anna Middleton and Kiran Musunuru and Daniel Shriner and Alice Virani and Young, {Caroline E.}",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "101",
pages = "167--176",
journal = "American Journal of Human Genetics",
issn = "0002-9297",
publisher = "Cell Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Human Germline Genome Editing

AU - Ormond, Kelly E.

AU - Mortlock, Douglas P.

AU - Scholes, Derek T.

AU - Bombard, Yvonne

AU - Brody, Lawrence C.

AU - Faucett, W. Andrew

AU - Garrison, Nanibaa’ A.

AU - Hercher, Laura

AU - Isasi, Rosario

AU - Middleton, Anna

AU - Musunuru, Kiran

AU - Shriner, Daniel

AU - Virani, Alice

AU - Young, Caroline E.

PY - 2017/8/3

Y1 - 2017/8/3

N2 - With CRISPR/Cas9 and other genome-editing technologies, successful somatic and germline genome editing are becoming feasible. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in March 2017. The workgroup included representatives from the UK Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, International Genetic Epidemiology Society, and US National Society of Genetic Counselors. These groups, as well as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asia Pacific Society of Human Genetics, British Society for Genetic Medicine, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Professional Society of Genetic Counselors in Asia, and Southern African Society for Human Genetics, endorsed the final statement. The statement includes the following positions. (1) At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy. (2) Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research. (3) Future clinical application of human germline genome editing should not proceed unless, at a minimum, there is (a) a compelling medical rationale, (b) an evidence base that supports its clinical use, (c) an ethical justification, and (d) a transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.

AB - With CRISPR/Cas9 and other genome-editing technologies, successful somatic and germline genome editing are becoming feasible. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in March 2017. The workgroup included representatives from the UK Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, International Genetic Epidemiology Society, and US National Society of Genetic Counselors. These groups, as well as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asia Pacific Society of Human Genetics, British Society for Genetic Medicine, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Professional Society of Genetic Counselors in Asia, and Southern African Society for Human Genetics, endorsed the final statement. The statement includes the following positions. (1) At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy. (2) Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research. (3) Future clinical application of human germline genome editing should not proceed unless, at a minimum, there is (a) a compelling medical rationale, (b) an evidence base that supports its clinical use, (c) an ethical justification, and (d) a transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.

KW - CRISPR

KW - ethics

KW - eugenics

KW - gene editing

KW - gene therapy

KW - genetics policy

KW - genome editing

KW - germline

KW - human genome

KW - society

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029548387&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029548387&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012

DO - 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012

M3 - Review article

C2 - 28777929

AN - SCOPUS:85029548387

VL - 101

SP - 167

EP - 176

JO - American Journal of Human Genetics

JF - American Journal of Human Genetics

SN - 0002-9297

IS - 2

ER -