When, in March 2001, it was announced that genetically altered babies were born, nobody appeared to be shocked. The US team of scientists involved confirmed and emphasized the fact that the babies were healthy. The news was not kept secret. In May 2001, the BBC announced the "Germline modification" on its homepage. Nor was it kept secret that germline modification was controversial. On its website, the BBC explained that in most countries this would be illegal and that the US government does not provide funding for any experiment that intentionally or unintentionally alters inherited genes. And yet, nobody was shocked. These announcements were not the beginning of an intensive national or worldwide debate.
REFERENCES
This statement is taken from an earlier contribution by Guido Van Steendam page 754 of
Guido Van Steendam et al. (2006) The Budapest Meeting 2005. Intensified Networking on Ethics of Science. The Case of Reproductive Cloning, Germline Gene Therapy and Human Dignity Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (4):731-793.
Available at:
http://www.embeddingethics.net/IMG/pdf/TheBudapestMeeting2005_SEE.pdf
Erik Parens and Eric Juengst were the first to draw our attention to this situation. See e.g.
Erik Parens and Eric Juengst (2001) Inadvertently Crossing the Germ Line Science 20 April 2001 292. (5516):. 397 DOI: 10.1126/science.292.5516.397
Available at
http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/292/5516/397
For the publication of the scientific work, see
Jason A Barritt, Carol A. Brenner, Henry E. Malter, and Jacques Cohen (2001) Mitochondria in human offspring derived from ooplasmic transplantation: Brief communication. Human Reproduction 16 (3): 513-516.
Available at:
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/16/3/513
For the announcement on the BBC website, see
Genetically altered babies born. BBC News, Friday, 4 May, 2001.
Available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1312708.stm
Ongoing.
Please read the terms of use for this discussion, to be found on the right.
Contributions
Changing the human genome--
Meredith Crosby - 01/12/2007
Postdoctoral Fellow
Yale University School of Medicine
Genomic changes have been occurring for quite some time... notice how different populations of people living in different areas of the world have different eye, hair, blood type, etc. These all resulted from adaptation to a particular environment. Even mechanisms of change on the genomic level exist from the point of DNA repair 'fidelity.' For example, as we breathe, are exposed to UV radiation and carcinogens, etc., we accumulate DNA damage in various forms; there are mechanisms that have adapted to handle the repair of DNA; some repair mechanisms are more adept at maintaining the fidelity of the genetic material than others.
Modifications can occur during this time; they may be passed on through generations. Perhaps the point is really about how fast this is done or by what; if it is done as a result of adapting to a particular environment, as opposed to having a particular locus changed in order to affect overall function?
From another stance, I can foresee that there may be an issue from the point that if IGM (Inheritable Genetic Modification) is employed, we may not be able to understand the differences between outcomes that result from the IGM versus others that may be attributable to changes in the environment (or how we contend with the environment)... (This is also important for understanding risk assessment.) This is especially the case when considering alternative splicing, molecular signaling pathways, or changes that at first may not result in a change of function, but could later in time.
Actually, I think that a very important point here is that DNA is not as rigid in its sequence as it might appear to be, as there are "(small) nucleotide polymorphisms" (SNPs) that occur in every individual. There are also regions of DNA that actually 'jump around' from one place in the genome to another, called transposons.
Please view:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/primer/snps.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposon
How fast and by whom?
Guido Van Steendam - 01/12/2007
IFB, Leuven, Belgium
Meredith, you remind us of a fundamental weakness of some environmental, social, ethical, legal arguments, more particularly of those that claim that science should not tamper with the DNA of species (let alone of men) because DNA should remain stable as it has always been. As you explain biologists know that DNA is not as stable as many people believe.
I think that you are right when you suggest that the more challenging discussions are about "how fast (a change of DNA) is done or by what". In this context, the arguments are often not based on the (wrong) assumption that DNA is stable. Here we find arguments that focus on e.g. safety considerations ("Genetic engineering of species may cause health problems... or endanger evolutionary processes"). Other arguments focus on social consequences ("Genetic engineering would give some people the power to determine the genetic structure of plants... or, even worse, of other people.")
In the 70s of last century many, including the best researchers, were wondering whether people should ever try to change the DNA of living organisms, including bacteria. In the meantime changing the genetic structure of bacteria, plants and animals has become routine practice. Many (though not all) people accept that, under certain conditions, there may be good reasons for doing so. In March 2001 it appeared that society was not "shocked" when the media announced that "genetically engineered" human babies were born. While we may not unconditionally accept this, while there may even be reasons to be against such practices, people appear to accept that, under certain conditions, there may be good reasons to do so.