Heritable Genetic Modification
SELECT MEDIA ARTICLES
- Keshavan, M. (8 Sept 2017). He [Shoukhrat Mitalipov] edited a human embryo, with startling results. Now he’s toiling to understand just what happened. STAT News.
- Baylis, F., & Cattapan, A. (2 Oct 2017). Canada’s prohibition on altering the human genome. Impact Ethics.
- Baylis, F. (1 Oct 2017). Genome editing of human embryos broadens ethics discussion. The Conversation.
Baylis, F. (1 Aug 2017). Human gene editing: We should all have a say. The Conversation.
- Baylis, F. (17 Feb 2017). Human germline genome editing: An ‘impressive’ sleight of hand? Impact Ethics.
- Baylis, F. (12 Feb 2016). Human gene editing: A global discussion. Impact Ethics.
- Baylis, F. (3 Feb 2016). A cautious approach to mitochondrial replacement. Impact Ethics.
- Baylis, F., & McLeod, M. (2017). First-in-human phase 1 CRISPR gene editing cancer trials: are we ready? Current Gene Therapy, 17(4), 309-319. DOI: 10.2174/1566523217666171121165935
- Baylis, F. (2017). Human germline genome editing and broad societal consensus. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0103. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-017-0103
- Baylis, F. (2017). Human nuclear genome transfer (so-called mitochondrial replacement): clearing the underbrush. Bioethics, 31(1), 7-19. DOI:10.1111/bioe.12309
- Vasiliou, S.K., Diamandis, E.P., Church, G.M, Greely, H.T., Baylis, F., Thompson, C., & Schmitt-Ulms, G. (2016). CRISPR-Cas9 system: opportunities and concerns. Clinical Chemistry 62(10), 1304-11. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2016.263186
- Baylis, F. (2016) ‘Broad societal consensus’ on human germline editing. Harvard Health Policy Review, 15(2), 19-23.
- Baylis, F. (2016). Mitochondrial replacement techniques: ethical, social and policy considerations. RSC Reports from Abroad.
- Baylis, F. and Rossant, J. (2016). This CRISPR moment: Editing human DNA the way we edit text – are we ready? Walrus Magazine, April, 15-17.
- Organizing Committee for the International Summit on Human Gene Editing. (3 Dec 2015). On human gene editing: international summit statement. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine.
- Committee on Science, Technology, and Law Policy and Global Affairs. (Meeting in brief, 1-3 Dec 2015). International summit on human gene editing: a global discussion. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
SELECT POLICY CONTRIBUTIONS
- Petropanagos, A., & Mariscal, C. (20 Feb 2016). Response to genome editing: open call for evidence. Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
In August 2017, Shoukrat Mitalipov’s lab published a highly anticipated paper (Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos) on CRISPR gene editing of human embryos in Nature. The CRISPR target was the MYBPC3 mutation that is associated with a fatal type of heart defect. The study co-authors reported the discovery of a novel self-repair mechanism to correct this disease-causing mutation. (See relevant commentary by F. Baylis). A month later, Dieter Egli and colleagues have contested the key finding “that human embryos are capable of effectively repairing disease-causing mutations by using a normal copy of the gene from the second parent as a template.” They have suggested a number of alternative explanations for the observed phenomenon. Mitalipov and colleagues stand behind their original conclusion.