SELECT MEDIA CONTRIBUTIONS
- Hamzelou, J. (29 Arp 2016). Let people most affected by gene editing write CRISPR rules. New Scientist.
- Baylis, F., & Rossant, J. (2016). This CRISPR moment: editing human DNA the way we edit test – are we ready?Walrus Magazine, April, 15-17.
SELECT IMPACT ETHICS BLOGS
- Baylis, F. (2 Aug 2017). Human genome editing: We should all have a say.Originally published inThe Conversation and reprinted inImpact Ethics as well as the National Post.
- Battle-Fisher, M. (26 May 2017). Radical technology, bodyhacking, & medicine. Impact Ethics.
- Johnston, J. (23 Jan 2017). The nebulous ethics of human germline gene editing.Impact Ethics.
- Baylis, F. (12 Feb 2016). Human gene editing: a global discussion.Impact Ethics.
- Leach Scully, J. (10 Dec 2015). Gene editing: a chance to think about diversity.Impact Ethics.
- Blankmeyer Burke, T. (8 Dec 2015). About us, without us: inclusion in the threat of eradication.Impact Ethics.
- Thompson, C.M. (4 Dec 2015). The human germline genome editing debate.Impact Ethics.
- Johnson, S.M. (26 Oct 2015). Pigs as spare (human) parts.Impact Ethics.
- Mariscal, C., & Petropanagos, A. (9 Oct 2015). Not your grandpa's biotechnology.Impact Ethics.
- Wolbring, G. (27 May 2015). Let's talk about the ethics of germline modification.Impact Ethics.
- Capps, B., Chadwick, R., Joly, Y., Mulvihill, J.J., Lysaght, T., & Zwart, H. (29 Aug 2017). Falling giants and the rise of gene editing: ethics, private interests and the public good. Human Genomics, 11(1):1-10.
- Guttinger, S. (26 Jun 2017). Trust in science: CRISPR-Cas9 and the ban on human germline editing. Science & Engineering Ethics. Doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9931-1. [Epub ahead of print].
- Mulvihill, J., Capps, B., Joly, J., Lysaght, T., Zwart, H., & Chadwick, R. The International Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) Committee of Ethics, Law, and Society (CELS). (1 Jun 2017). Ethical issues of CRISPR technology and gene editing through the lens of solidarity. British Medical Bulletin, 122(1), 17-29. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldx002.
- Hynes, R.O., Coller, B.S., & Porteus, M. (9 May 2017). Toward responsible human genome editing. JAMA, 317(18), 1829-1830.
- Baylis, F. (8 May 2017). Human germline genome editing and broad societal consensus. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0103. DOI: 10:1038/s41562-017-0103.
- Benston, S. Everything in moderation, even hype: learning from vaccine controversies to strike a balance with CRISPR. (4 May 2017). Journal of Medical Ethics. Doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103666. [Epub ahead of print].
- Simonstein, F. (2 Feb 2017). Gene editing, endhancing and women's role. Science & Engineering Ethics. Doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9875-5. [Epub ahead of print].
- Baylis, F. (2016). 'Broad societal consensus' on human germline editing. Harvard Health Policy Review, 15(2), 19-23.
- 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), 1304-1311.
- Mariscal, C., & Petropanagos, A. (Jun 2016). CRISPR as a driving force: the Model T of biotechnology. Monash Bioethics Review, 35(2), 101-116.
SELECT POLICY CONTRIBUTIONS
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
Updated September 2017