[katieHaylor (OP)]

Tasman asks:

What is your opinion on germline gene therapy?

What do you think?

[chris]

First, to explain what the question means: germ line gene editing means making changes that will be inherited by future generations. Therefore there are two ethical issues rolled up into one:

First, one must ask, are we comfortable editing an individual's DNA code? Second we must ask whether we are comfortable editing the DNA code of that individual's future children, their children's children and their children's children's children, and so on?

Some people say that to edit the DNA code of an unborn individual is to "play God". Such interference might have unforeseen consequences that affect many, possibly via a latent effect that might not be unmasked for generations.

Others regard the correction of what are known to be genes linked to health-deleterious abnormalities as a perfectly reasonable form of preventative medicine. After all, what's the alternative? The couple have a child that is destined to die prematurely, or be robbed of a normal life? Or perhaps they might elect to do pre-natal, or even pre-implantation testing and decide not to proceed with a pregnancy that would result in an abnormality.

Another school of thought points out that removing genes from the gene pool, albeit ones that have a disease association, might come at a cost. Some genes, while deleterious in some situations are protective or health advantageous in others. The gene linked to sickle cell anaemia, for instance, also protects against malaria. The cystic fibrosis gene confers resistance to enteric infections like typhoid.

And then there are those who point out that they themselves are affected by some of the diseases that other parents might be electing in future to "fix" for their children. Their condition, these people argue, is part of their identity and their life would be emotionally and psychologically poorer were they not the way they are.

So it's far from straightforward. There are arguments on both sides, including sociological, ethical and genetic stand points. This is the reason why policymakers have proceeded cautiously and made no snap decisions while the science evidence catches up with human aspiration.