Not exact matches
A recent report on genome
editing from the National Academies did not call for a moratorium on
research into
germline editing, arguing that it might one day be a way for some parents to have healthy, biological children, such as when both mother and father carry genetic mutations that cause severe diseases.
«This type of
research should prove valuable for understanding the many complex issues around
germline editing,» adds Daley.
There is currently no reason to prohibit in vitro (outside of a living organism)
germline genome
editing research, with appropriate oversight and consent, or to prohibit public funding for such
research.
An international group of 11 organizations with genetics expertise has issued a policy statement on
germline genome
editing in humans, which recommends against genome
editing that culminates in human pregnancy; supports publicly funded, in vitro
research into its potential clinical applications; and outlines scientific and societal steps necessary before implementation of such clinical applications is considered.
«Cautious but proactive approach to gene
editing urged by multiple organizations: Medical,
research, and counseling groups issue statement on
germline genome
editing.»
The controversy led to the 2015 NAS summit, where organizers concluded that «it would be irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of
germline editing» without more
research on safety and societal discussion.
(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.