Un análisis ético de las nuevas tecnologías de edición genéticael CRISPR-Cas9 a debate

  1. de Miguel Beriain, Iñigo 1
  2. Armaza Armaza, Emilio 1
  1. 1 Universidad del País Vasco/EuskalHerrikoUnibertsitatea
Zeitschrift:
Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez

ISSN: 0008-7750

Datum der Publikation: 2018

Titel der Ausgabe: Bioética y Bioderecho

Nummer: 52

Seiten: 179-200

Art: Artikel

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez

Zusammenfassung

La aparición de las modernas técnicas de modificación genética (CRISPRCas9) ha abierto maravillosas expectativas en el campo de la biomedicina. Sin embargo, su aplicación sobre la línea germinal humana despierta todavía una fuerte oposición por parte de amplios colectivos. A menudo se aduce que factores como el riesgo que implica esta técnica, su propia futilidad, la amenaza implícita a la integridad del genoma humano, o la posibilidad de que acaben dando naturaleza a una nueva eugenesia justifican la necesidad de trazar una prohibición o, al menos, una moratoria sobre ellas. En este texto debatiremos la solvencia de cada uno de estos argumentos, concluyendo que, en realidad, no hay buenos motivos para oponerse a la técnica que nos ocupa.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Annas, G. (2005). American bioethics: Crossing human rights and health law boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Baltimore, D., Berg, P., Botchan, M., et al. (2015). A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germ line gene modification. Science, 348 (6230), 36-38.
  • Bartke, A., Brown-Borg, H., Mattison, J., Kinney, B., Hauck, S., Wright, C., et al. (2001). Prolonged longevity of hypopituitary dwarf mice. Exp. Gerontol. 36, 21-28. doi: 10.1016/S0531-5565(00)00205-9.
  • Bellver, V. (2016). La revolución de la edición genética mediante CRISPR-Cas9 y los desafíos éticos y regulatorios que comporta. Cuadernos de Bioética, XXVII.
  • British Medical Association (2007). Boosting Your Brain Power: Ethical Aspects of Cognitive Enhancements. London: British Medical Association.
  • Brock, D. W. (2013). Creating Embryos for Use in Stem Cell Research. Law, Science and Innovation: the embryonic stem cell controversy, 229-237.
  • Burgess, J. A. (1993). The great slippery-slope argument. Journal of Medical Ethics, 19(3), 169-174.
  • Callaway, E. (2016). UK scientists gain licence to edit genes in human embryos. Team at Francis Crick Institute permitted to use CRISPR–Cas9 technology in embryos for early-development research. Nature http://www.nature.com/ news/uk-scientists-gain-licence-to-edit-genes-in-human-embryos-1.19270.
  • Caplan, A. L., McGee, G., & Magnus, D. (1999). What is immoral about eugenics? Western Journal of Medicine, 171(5-6), 335-337.
  • Carroll, D. & Charo, R. A. (2015). The societal opportunities and challenges of genome editing. Genome Biology, 16, 242. En http://doi.org/10.1186/s13059015-0812-0.
  • Center for Genetics and Society (2015). About human germline gene editing. En http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=8711.
  • CGS Summary of Public Opinion Polls (2014). En http://www.geneticsandsociety. org/article.php?id=401.
  • Kim, D. et al. (2015). Digenome-seq: genome-wide profiling of CRISPR-Cas9 offtarget effects in human cells. Nature Methods. Doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3284.
  • Devolder, K. (2005). Creating and sacrificing embryos for stem cells. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(6), 366-370. http://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2004.008599.
  • Devolder, K. (2013). Killing discarded embryos and the nothing-is-lost principle. J Appl Philos. 30(4), 289-303. doi: 10.1111/japp.12033.
  • Douglas, T. (2015). The Harms of Enhancement and the Conclusive Reasons View. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(1), 23-36. Enhttp://doi. org/10.1017/S0963180114000218.
  • European Group On Ethics In Science And New Technologies, Statement on Gene Editing, 2015, https://ec.europa.eu/research/ege/pdf/gene_editing_ege_statement.pdf.
  • Farah, M.J. et. al. (2004). Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5(5), 421-425.
  • Feito, L. (2011). Ingeniería Genética. Voz. Enciclopedia de Bioderecho y Bioética. Comares-Cátedra Interuniversitaria de Derecho y Genoma Humano, 995-1002.
  • Feito, L. (2002). Los derechos humanos y la ingeniería genética: la dignidad como clave, Isegoría. 27, 151-165.
  • Foht, B. (2016). Experiments on Human Embryos Offer Little Hope for Curing Genetic Diseases, National Review, February 4, en: http://www.nationalreview. com/article/430771/genetic-modification-embryos-morally-wrong-still.
  • Frankel, M.S. & Hagen B. T. (2011) Germline therapies: Background paper. Accesible en: http://bit.ly/1wOL2wS.
  • Gómez-Tatay, L. & Mejías Rodríguez, I. (2016). La edición genética hoy. Su valoración bioética. Observatorio de Bioética de la Universidad Católica de Valencia. En: http://www.observatoriobioetica.org/2016/10/la-edicion-genetica-hoyvaloracion-bioetica/16526.
  • Habermas, J. (2003). The future of human nature. Malden: Polity.
  • Harris, J. (2016). How to be good. Oxford: Oxford Publishing Group.
  • Hayes, R. (2008). Is There an Emerging International Consensus On the Proper Uses Of the New Human Genetic Technologies?, Testimony of Richard Hayes, Ph.D., Executive Director, Center for Genetics and Society House Foreign Affairs Committee. Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade. USA.
  • Isasi, R., Knoppers, B. M. (2015). Oversight of human inheritable genome modification. Nat Biotechnol. 33, 454-455.
  • Isasi, R., Kleiderman, E., Knoppers B. M. (2016). Editing policy to fit the genome? Science, 337-339.
  • Ishii, T. (2015). Germ line genome editing in clinics: the approaches, objectives and global society. Brief Funct Genomics. Nov 27, 4-5.
  • Kang, X. et al. (2016). Introducing precise genetic modifications into human 3PN embryos by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. Volume 33, Issue 5, 581-588.
  • Kass, L.R. (2004). Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity. San Francisco: Encounter Books.
  • Lander Eric, S. (2015). What we don’t know, International Summit on Gene Editing. Commissioned papers. Washington, December 1-3, 20 and ff.
  • Lanphier, E., Urnov, F., Haecker, S. E., Werner, M., Smolenski, J. (2015). Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature, 519, 410-411.
  • Liang, P., Xu, Y., Zhang, X, et al. (2015). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell 6, 363-372.
  • Lunshof, J. E. (2016). Human germ line editing-roles and responsibilities. Protein & Cell. 7(1), 7-10.
  • Mecidine.net. Definition of the Human genome. En http://www.medicinenet.com/ script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3818.
  • Mehlman, M.J. (2012). Will directed evolution destroy humanity, and if so, what can we do about it? Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy, 3, 93-122.
  • Morar, N. (2015). An Empirically Informed Critique of Habermas’ Argument from Human Nature. Science and Engineering Ethics, vol 21 (1), 95-113.
  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2015). Identifying key developments, uses and questions relating to techniques of genome editing with engineered nucleases, UK,12 and ff.
  • Outka, G. (2009). The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the Principle of “Nothing is Lost”. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, vol. 9: Iss. 3, Article 7, 585-602.
  • Pennings, G. Van Steirteghem, A. (2002). The subsidiarity principle in the context of embryonic stem cell research. Human Reproduction 19 (2), 1060-1064.
  • Pollack, R. (2015). Eugenics lurk in the shadow of CRISPR. Science, 348(6237): 871.
  • Prieur, M. R., Atkinson, J., Hardingham, L. et al. (2006). Stem cell research in a Catholic institution: yes or no? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16(19), 73-98.
  • Regalado, A. (2016). Top US Intelligence Official calls gene editing a WMD Threat, MIT Technology Review. En: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600774/ top-us-intelligence-official-calls-gene-editing-a-wmd-threat/.
  • Rifkin, J. (1983). Algeny. New York: Viking.
  • Robertson, J. A. (1999). Ethics and Policy in Embryonic Stem Cell research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 109, 109-136.
  • Romeo Casabona, C. M. (2002). La genética y la biotecnología en las fronteras del derecho. Acta bioethica, 8(2), 283-297.
  • Santaló J. & Casado, M. (coord.) (2016), Documento sobre bioética y edición genómica en humanos. Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona. http://www. publicacions.ub.edu/refs/observatoriBioEticaDret/documents/08543.pdf.
  • Savulescu, J., Pugh, J., Douglas, T., & Gyngell, C. (2015). The moral imperative to continue gene editing research on human embryos. Protein & Cell, 6(7), 476479. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13238-015-0184-y.
  • Should Heritable Gene Editing Be Used on Humans? The medical potential is enticing, but the technology raises biological and ethical concerns, The Wall Street Journal, April 10 2016, en: http://www.wsj.com/articles/should-heritable-gene-editing-be-used-on-humans-1460340173.
  • Skerret, P. (2016). Is do-it-yourself CRISPR as scary as it sounds?STAT, en: https:// www.statnews.com/2016/03/14/crispr-do-it-yourself/#Lentzos.
  • The Hinxton Group (2015). Statement on Genome Editing Technologies and Human Germ line Genetic Modification. En: http://www.hinxtongroup.org/ hinxton2015_statement.pdf.
  • The Sunshine Project (2003). Emerging Technologies: Genetic Engineering and Biological Weapons. Accessible en http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/bk/bk12.Html.
  • Thomson, Charis (2015). The human germline genome editing debate. Impact Ethics, http://impactethics.ca/2015/12/04/the-human-germline-genomeediting-debate/.
  • Thompson, C. (2015). Governance, Regulation, and Control: Public Participation, International Summit on Gene Editing. Commissioned papers. Washington.
  • Wilson, J. (2007). Transhumanism and moral equality. Bioethics, 21(8), 419-425.
  • Zoloth L. (2002). Jordan’s Banks, a view from the first years of human embryonic stem cell research. American Journal of Bioethics 2 (1), 3-30.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet