Academic literature on the topic 'Germline gene editing'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Germline gene editing.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Germline gene editing"
1
Sugarman, Jeremy. "Ethics and germline gene editing." EMBO reports 16, no. 8 (July 2, 2015): 879–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.15252/embr.201540879.
Full text
2
Mason, Veronica R. J. M. "Hurtling toward Germline Gene Editing." Ethics & Medics 44, no. 8 (2019): 1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/em201944811.
Full textAbstract:
Genetic enhancement runs up against several moral issues, perhaps the chief of which is the inevitable eugenic attitude it would foster and the associated inequality it would create between those who have the “proper” enhancements and those who do not. For simplicity’s sake, this analysis leaves aside questions related to genetic enhancement and considers only changes made for therapeutic purposes. Regardless, most of the censure of He Jiankui focuses on the results of human modification and often overlooks the prior question of how gene editing research itself conducted. Germline gene editing in humans is not safe or morally licit under current practices and technology, because of its reliance on technologies such as IVF, the danger to and destruction of the embryos used, and the unknown consequences of changing the germline.
3
Cartier-Lacave, Nathalie, Robin Ali, Seppo Ylä-Herttuala, Kazuto Kato, Bernard Baetschi, Robin Lovell-Badge, Luigi Naldini, and Adrian Thrasher. "Debate on Germline Gene Editing." Human Gene Therapy Methods 27, no. 4 (August 2016): 135–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/hgtb.2016.28999.deb.
Full text
4
Nalley, Catlin. "Germline Gene Editing for Deafness." Hearing Journal 73, no. 2 (February 2020): 28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.hj.0000654908.10936.e1.
Full text
5
Cwik, Bryan. "Intergenerational monitoring in clinical trials of germline gene editing." Journal of Medical Ethics 46, no. 3 (August 31, 2019): 183–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105620.
Full textAbstract:
Design of clinical trials for germline gene editing stretches current accepted standards for human subjects research. Among the challenges involved is a set of issues concerning intergenerational monitoring—long-term follow-up study of subjects and their descendants. Because changes made at the germline would be heritable, germline gene editing could have adverse effects on individuals’ health that can be passed on to future generations. Determining whether germline gene editing is safe and effective for clinical use thus may require intergenerational monitoring. The aim of this paper is to identify and argue for the significance of a set of ethical issues raised by intergenerational monitoring in future clinical trials of germline gene editing. Though long-term, multigenerational follow-up study of this kind is not without precedent, intergenerational monitoring in this context raises unique ethical challenges, challenges that go beyond existing protocols and standards for human subjects research. These challenges will need to be addressed if clinical trials of germline gene editing are ever pursued.
6
Gyngell, Christopher, Thomas Douglas, and Julian Savulescu. "The Ethics of Germline Gene Editing." Journal of Applied Philosophy 34, no. 4 (November 9, 2016): 498–513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/japp.12249.
Full text
7
Ranisch, Robert, Tina Rudolph, Hans-Joachim Cremer, and Nikolaus Knoepffler. "Ordo-Responsibility for Germline Gene Editing." CRISPR Journal 3, no. 1 (February 1, 2020): 37–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2019.0040.
Full text
8
Cwik, Bryan. "Designing Ethical Trials of Germline Gene Editing." New England Journal of Medicine 377, no. 20 (November 16, 2017): 1911–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/nejmp1711000.
Full text
9
Sharma, Akshay, Nickhill Bhakta, and Liza-Marie Johnson. "Germline Gene Editing for Sickle Cell Disease." American Journal of Bioethics 20, no. 8 (August 2, 2020): 46–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2020.1781970.
Full text
10
Koplin, Julian J., Christopher Gyngell, and Julian Savulescu. "Germline gene editing and the precautionary principle." Bioethics 34, no. 1 (June 27, 2019): 49–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12609.
Full textDissertations / Theses on the topic "Germline gene editing"
1
Svensson, Ellen. "CRISPR AND THETREATMENT/EN DISTINCTION : On Vagueness, Borderline Cases and Germline Genome Editing." Thesis, Umeå universitet, Institutionen för idé- och samhällsstudier, 2021. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-184615.
Full textAbstract:
In this thesis, I argue that the treatment/enhancement distinction that is central to the ethical debate concerning germline genome editing and CRISPR is too vague to be ethically and normatively guiding. The problem of vagueness is twofold, being both a semantic and epistemic issue. This vagueness creates borderline cases, cases that cannot be properly defined as either treatment or enhancement, I call this The Borderline Cases Argument. These borderline cases enable a slippery slope towards eugenic practices, radical enhancement and dangerous applications of CRISPR. The distinction therefore fails to be action guiding as it cannot distinguish treatment from enhancement as well as failing to correspond to what is genuinely morally problematic with germline genome editing and not, I call this The Argument of Missing the Point. In using the treatment/enhancement distinction we therefore risk losing control over how CRISPR is used and for what purposes.
2
BONOMELLI, SARA. "L'EDITING GENETICO GERMINALE UMANO, TRA PROBLEMI ETICI E QUESTIONI DI GOVERNANCE." Doctoral thesis, Università degli Studi di Milano, 2022. http://hdl.handle.net/2434/922688.
Full textAbstract:
The dissertation aims at identifying and analyzing the scientific, legal, and ethical issues raised by the perspective of intentional modification of human germline by the potential future use of gene editing techniques in the context of human reproduction.
Such a study makes it possible to formulate some critical considerations about human germline gene editing governance. The dissertation claims that the best option to regulate the use of this biotechnological innovation for reproductive purposes consists of a regulation on a state-by-state-basis, which should however be developed within an international governance framework. Several arguments are suggested to underpin this thesis, and some recent initiatives adhering to such governance pattern are examined.
The research is organized in three chapters.
The first chapter, which is introductive to the real research, focuses on the scientific and technical aspects of the thesis topic. More specifically, this chapter aims at laying the foundations for the subsequent discussion, by defining and explaining the notions of i) DNA, gene, chromosome; ii) genetic mutation and genetic disease; and iii) gene therapy and gene editing. Special attention is paid to this latter technology and especially to its potential use on the human germline. Such use is highly controversial, mainly – but not exclusively – since, unlike modifications made by somatic gene editing, those affecting germinal cells – namely, gametes and zygotes – are transmitted to descendants, and thus to next generations.
The second chapter is divided into two sections. The first section reconstructs and analyses the existing regulations in the field of human germline gene editing at international, supranational and national level, stressing their vagueness, fragmentation and lack of specificity. Given the impossibility of extensively examining all relevant domestic laws, guidelines and policies, those of four countries only – the USA, the UK, China and Italy – have been considered in detail. This choice is motivated by the geographical and cultural representativeness of their respective regulations, as well as by the fact that, except for Italy, those countries conducted nearly all the experiments carried out so far in the field of human germline gene editing. The second section of the chapter precisely focuses on these experiments – both for research and reproductive purposes. Jiankui He’s experiment – which resulted in the birth of the world’s first gene-edited babies in 2018 – and Denis Rebrikov’s germline gene editing clinical trial project are thoroughly described and analyzed.
The third and last chapter deals with the ethical issues raised by the perspective of the potential future implementation of germline gene editing interventions in the context of human reproduction. This chapter too is articulated into two sections. The first section provides the theoretical bases for the subsequent ethical analysis, by dividing the possible future uses of germline gene editing techniques into three categories: i) therapeutic interventions; ii) medical enhancement interventions; and iii) non-medical enhancement interventions. Such categorization is paramount, since the various ethical issues related to human germline gene editing do not always involve all three of these categories, and, even when they do, they tend to carry different connotations according to each category. This becomes clear in the second section of the chapter, which critically explores six main ethically problematic areas related to this biotechnological innovation and their numerous articulations.
Finally, the dissertation argues that the scientific, legal and ethical issues identified and examined throughout the research must be taken into account by proper germline gene editing governance mechanisms, which should be the result of parallel and complementary regulatory initiatives promoted both at national and international level.
3
Hedberg, Rickard. "Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and therapy in humans- Opportunities and risks." Thesis, Örebro universitet, Institutionen för medicinska vetenskaper, 2020. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-81532.
Full textAbstract:
IntroductionPreimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) was developed in the 1990s and has been used since to diagnose and discard embryos with genetic conditions or chromosomal abnormalities. CRISPR-Cas9 was discovered in 2012 and has been used in research, but has not become clinical practice on humans yet. CRISPR-Cas9 could potentially be applied to treat and prevent genetic disorders.AimThe aim was to investigate the ethical dilemmas of each method through a set of research questions. The ethics of applying PGD according to Swedish guidelines and applying CRISPR-Cas9 on humans was investigated.MethodologyThis was not a systematic literature review. Instead, articles have been selected based on their explanation of each method and uniqueness or volume of ethical arguments surrounding each method, that is of relevance for the discussed issues.ResultsArguments in favour of PGD addressed among other things the somatic and psychological health of future children and parents along with the economical benefits. Arguments against PGD addressed different dilemmas of discarding an embryo and thereby a future individual. Arguments against CRISPR-Cas9 addressed technical limitations, our limited knowledge of genetics and more. Arguments in favour addressed benefits in clinical medicine and research.ConclusionsPGD according to Swedish guidelines was found to be ethically acceptable, since its restrictive use that have not given room for ethically dubious applications. CRISPR-Cas9 was found not to be safe enough for human applications at this moment due to technical limitations. If these were to be solved, caution and restraint must be urged.
4
Botas, Bruna Patrícia Marques. "Edição Genética em Embriões Humanos - A Responsabilidade Civil Médica No Contexto da Terapia Génica Germinal." Master's thesis, 2021. http://hdl.handle.net/10316/97516.
Full textAbstract:
Dissertação de Mestrado em Direito apresentada à Faculdade de DireitoO mundo tem vindo a assistir grandes desenvolvimentos no domínio da genética e medicina reprodutiva, passando-se a falar da “Revolução GNR (Genética, Nanotecnologia e Robótica)”, capaz de promover a saúde e qualidade de vida humana, como nunca antes. O avanço que maior destaque tem tido na comunidade científica e que será aqui objeto de estudo, insere-se no contexto da Engenharia genética, com o surgimento da tecnologia CRISPR/Cas com potencialidade de corrigir, substituir e modificar o genoma humano, de forma rápida e precisa, visando o aprimoramento genético e/ou a prevenção e tratamento de doenças/malformações genéticas. Contudo, com ela surgem também riscos que colocam em dúvida a sua utilização no contexto da prática clínica, reclamando o debate público, a sua regulamentação e o estabelecimento de critérios a serem seguidos caso o seu uso venha a ser admitido. Não obstante, várias são as normas internacionais, supranacionais e nacionais, com princípios norteadores da investigação científica e prática clínica, no contexto da genética e da biomedicina, que iremos evidenciar. Com base nessa análise, passaremos para a consideração dos dilemas ético-jurídicos que surgem à volta da terapia génica germinal e que se prendem com direitos fundamentais do ser humano. E, sendo esta uma realidade cada vez mais próxima, importa a reflexão acerca da responsabilidade civil dos médicos, por danos que possam surgir no âmbito da terapia génica germinal, analisando os seus pressupostos, focando-nos no domínio privado, e na consequente propositura das wrong actions e surgimento das novas ações de wrongful genetic makeup. Neste caminho, refletimos ainda acerca do eventual surgimento de novos direitos e danos daí decorrentes, fazendo, por fim, breve reflexão sobre os prazos de prescrição, tendo em conta a incerteza e tardia manifestação desses danos. Concluímos defendendo a admissibilidade da terapia génica germinal, ainda que após debate público, reflexão sobre a responsabilidade civil dos profissionais de saúde pelas lesões que daí possam surgir, e regulamentação e fixação de critérios que garantam a segurança das técnicas.
The world has been witnessing great developments in the field of genetics and reproductive medicine, arising the “GNR (Genetics, Nanotechnology and Robotics) Revolution”, capable of promoting human health and quality of life like never before. The most prominent advance in the scientific community which will be the object of study here is part of the context of genetic engineering, which is the emergence of the CRISPR/Cas technology with the potential to correct, replace and modify the human genome, in a more precise and faster way, aiming at genetic enhancement and/or the prevention and treatment of genetic diseases/malformations. However, with it arises risks that cast doubt on its use in the context of clinical practice, demanding public debate, its regulation, and the establishment of criteria to be followed if its use is admitted. Nevertheless, there are several international, supranational and national norms, with guiding principles for scientific research and clinical practice, in the context of genetics and biomedicine, which will be highlighted.Based on this analysis, we will move on to the consideration of the ethical-juridical dilemmas that arise around germinal gene therapy and that relate to fundamental human rights. And, as this reality is ever closer, it is important to reflect on the civil liability of physicians, for damages that may arise in the context of germinal gene therapy, analyzing its assumptions, focusing on the private domain, and the consequent proposition of wrong actions and the emergence of new wrongful genetic makeup actions. On this path, we also reflect on the possible emergence of new rights and damages arising from these techniques, finally making a brief reflection on the limitation periods, considering the uncertainty and late manifestation of these damages. We conclude defending the admissibility of germinal gene therapy, only after a public debate, reflection on civil liability of health professionals for the damages that may arise from it, and fixation of criteria that guarantee the safety of the techniques.
Books on the topic "Germline gene editing"
1
de Melo-Martín, Inmaculada. Reprogenetic Technologies. Oxford University Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/med/9780190460204.003.0002.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter offers a brief description of the main reprogenetic technologies in use today as well as some of the most significant ones being developed. Because of their relevance in the field, particular attention is given to in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). The chapter discusses the differences between somatic and germline modifications, the most common uses of reprogenetic technologies today, and some possible and likely future uses. It also includes a description of recent technological advances such as mitochondrial transfer and gene editing techniques.
2
van Beers, Britta. Imagining Future People in Biomedical Law. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198795896.003.0007.
Full textAbstract:
Human genetic engineering and other human enhancement technologies bring about uncertainties and risks on both the physical and the conceptual and intangible levels. Much of the controversy surrounding these emerging technologies is due to the fact that categorical distinctions, such as between person and thing, and chance and choice, are blurred in radical ways. As a consequence, the emergence of biomedical technologies also entails, what could be called, metaphysical risks and symbolic uncertainties. This chapter explores the ways in which imaginings of the future of mankind and mankind itself have found their way into international legal regulation of biomedical technologies through an analysis of recent debates on the international ban on human germline genetic engineering. This prohibition, which is at the heart of international biolaw, is currently being questioned as recent scientific breakthroughs in the field of gene-editing are about to turn human genetic engineering into a reality.
3
Joyner, Alexandra, ed. Gene Targeting. Oxford University Press, 1999. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199637928.001.0001.
Full textAbstract:
Since the publication of the first edition of Gene Targeting: A Practical Approach in 1993 there have been many advances in gene targeting and this new edition has been thoroughly updated and rewritten to include all the major new techniques. It provides not only tried-and-tested practical protocols but detailed guidance on their use and applications. As with the previous edition Gene Targeting: A Practical Approach 2e concentrates on gene targeting in mouse ES cells, but the techniques described can be easily adapted to applications in tissue culture including those for human cells. The first chapter covers the design of gene targeting vectors for mammalian cells and describes how to distinguish random integrations from homologous recombination. It is followed by a chapter on extending conventional gene targeting manipulations by using site-specific recombination using the Cre-loxP and Flp-FRT systems to produce 'clean' germline mutations and conditionally (in)activating genes. Chapter 3 describes methods for introducing DNA into ES cells for homologous recombination, selection and screening procedures for identifying and recovering targeted cell clones, and a simple method for establishing new ES cell lines. Chapter 4 discusses the pros and cons or aggregation versus blastocyst injection to create chimeras, focusing on the technical aspects of generating aggregation chimeras and then describes some of the uses of chimeras. The next topic covered is gene trap strategies; the structure, components, design, and modification of GT vectors, the various types of GT screens, and the molecular analysis of GT integrations. The final chapter explains the use of classical genetics in gene targeting and phenotype interpretation to create mutations and elucidate gene functions. Gene Targeting: A Practical Approach 2e will therefore be of great value to all researchers studying gene function.
Book chapters on the topic "Germline gene editing"
1
Zaretsky, Adam. "Human germline gene editing is bioart." In Routledge Handbook of Art, Science, and Technology Studies, 450–64. London: Routledge, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429437069-34.
Full text
2
Sýkora, Peter. "Chapter 11 Germline Gene Therapy in the Era of Precise Genome Editing: How Far Should We Go?" In The Ethics of Reproductive Genetics, 157–71. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60684-2_11.
Full text
3
Ellison, Evan E., James C. Chamness, and Daniel F. Voytas. "Viruses as vectors for the delivery of gene-editing reagents." In Genome editing for precision crop breeding, 97–122. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.19103/as.2020.0082.28.
Full textAbstract:
A significant challenge for plant gene editing is the delivery of editing reagents to germline or regenerable cells to recover heritable genetic modifications. Reagent delivery using biolistics or Agrobacterium is only possible with a limited range of species and genotypes, and inefficient editing or lengthy tissue culture steps further limit throughput. Viruses are natural vectors for nucleic acids, and both DNA and RNA plant viruses have been engineered to extend or replace conventional vectors for delivery of gene editing reagents. Here, we review aspects of viral biology essential for engineering vectors, highlight landmark studies using viruses to overcome traditional limitations in gene editing, and outline important considerations for the use of viral vectors in new systems or for new targets. Motivated by fundamental differences in both their infection modes and utility as vectors, DNA and RNA viruses are treated separately.
4
Evans, John H. "Possible Barriers Further Down the Slope." In The Human Gene Editing Debate, 111–33. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197519561.003.0004.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter examines hypothetical barriers on the slope below where the somatic/germline and disease/enhancement walls once were. The first is the goals of medicine barrier, where any trait that the medical profession defines as a disease could be modified. The second is the family genes barrier, where people would be allowed to modify their children to any set of traits that the parents could in principle produce through sexual reproduction. The third is the boundary of humanity barrier, where any genes from outside of the human species are not allowed. Finally, the liberal eugenics barrier would allow any genetic modification that did not harm someone else.
5
Evans, John H. "The First Barriers in the Human Genetic Engineering Debate." In The Human Gene Editing Debate, 25–66. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197519561.003.0002.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter begins with a brief history of the eugenics debates up until the 1950s, when the human genetic engineering debate emerged. Midcentury genetic scientists wanted to make distinctions between themselves and the now vilified eugenicists, so they created two barriers: the somatic/germline and the disease/enhancement barrier. Above both was “somatic gene therapy,” which became ethically acceptable, and the subject of medical research. The chapter continues by showing how these barriers were weakened over the decades by both a change in our scientific knowledge and the dominant values used in the debate. By the end of the 20th century they remained standing on the slope, albeit in weakened form.
6
Evans, John H. "The CRISPR Era, the National Academies Report, and the Median Trait Barrier." In The Human Gene Editing Debate, 67–110. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197519561.003.0003.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter begins with the discovery of human gene editing, and how the immediate ethical response used the existing weakened barriers. The chapter then turns to a detailed analysis of how an influential report by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine advocated taking down the somatic/germline barrier. The replacement barrier proposed by the National Academies is deemed unstable, and in its place this chapter describes a strong barrier located at the median trait in a population. That is, people could modify their children to take them up to the median value on any trait but not above the median. This would satisfy the dominant contemporary value of justice or fairness, which would require the genetically disadvantaged to overcome their disadvantage, but not allow anyone to use genetics to gain advantage over others.
7
Hauskeller, Michael. "Editing the Best of All Possible Worlds." In Human Flourishing in an Age of Gene Editing, 61–71. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190940362.003.0005.
Full textAbstract:
It has been argued that we have a moral obligation to explore human germline modification in order to create the best possible children. In contrast, this chapter argues that in order to flourish as human beings we need to recognize that there are many different ways of being good and that the pursuit of happiness is most likely to succeed not in the extraordinary, the larger than life and better than human and beyond average, but in the ordinary life, which has enough scope and depth to provide us with all the happiness that a human life can possibly have.
8
Hochschild, Jennifer. "Who Should Govern?" In Genomic Politics, 186–219. Oxford University Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0008.
Full textAbstract:
Chapter 8 uses the GKAP surveys, expert surveys, and interviews to examine views about governance of genomics technologies. Experts collectively offer long lists of appropriate and inappropriate governing bodies; they show little convergence. Interview subjects also offer diverse views on genomics governance, but mostly agree that government actors and medical professionals are not suited to it. The public generally endorses forensic DNA databases and their governance, has mixed views on medical research involving genetics, and is cautious about gene editing, especially germline. Americans express little confidence in any potential governing actor, but they trust families and doctors somewhat more than community forums, clergy, or public officials. There is little partisan division, some racial division, and mostly division by quadrants of the basic framework.