Geneva: World Health Organization publishes many recommendations Monday about how to ensure research editing research is used for public good and does not come out of hand.
“When global research illustrates more in the human genome, we must minimize risk and take advantage of ways that science can encourage better health for everyone, everywhere,” said the Head of WHO Soumya Swaminathan scientist in a statement.
The gene editing has been revolutionized with the development of tools such as Crispr-CAS-9, which won the Nobel Chemical Co-Creator last year and which could change animal DNA, plants and microorganisms with extreme precision.
These developments bring great potential benefits for diagnosis, care and prevention of genetic disorders, but also have opened a Pandora box for possible unsafe and unethical use.
WHO assigned a group of experts to study the implications of the editing of the human gene in 2018 after a Chinese scientist contracted creating genetically edited babies in the world.
He announced Jiankui that he had changed the DNA of twin girls in South China by using molecular scissors, as if to prevent them from HIV contracts, causing a global counterattack.
Scientists warn that procedures that have not been tested are unethical and potentially dangerous.
And after Russian biologist Denis Rebrikov in June 2019 announced that he wanted to do the use of a similar crisppr, to help deaf parents have a child without defects, the UN health agency voiced alarm.
Who Head of Tedro Adhanom Ghebreyesus urges countries to limit the next work on what is called the Germline genome eden, which changes the human embryo genome and can be forwarded to the next generation, “until the technical and ethical implications have been considered well”.
The WHO expert group has now concluded that consideration, publishes two Monday reports more than two years of extensive consultation.
Among other things, it emphasizes the need for regulations and making databases to track all forms of genual manipulation, provide a full general picture, including pre-clinical research.
It also called for “whistleblower mechanism”, said Swaminathan, showing that this would allow people to remind whose if they had concerns about unethical and unsafe research in the editing of the genome.
Who can then demand that the country’s authority take action, he said.
The Expert Committee also requested national and regional authorities to simplify the task of supervising and finding alarming development in the editing of the genome by connecting keywords that are consistent with various types of research.
The committee also provides concrete recommendations for how authority must handle a very specific situation that might arise.
Among the scenarios presented are hypothetical clinical testing of the somatic human genome editing for sickle cell disease proposed to take place in West Africa.
Other scenarios include the proposed use of genome editing to improve the performance of athletics, and imaginary fertility clinics in a country with minimal supervision of editing the human genome researching that offers preditive genetic diagnosis services to international clients.
Experts also repeatedly highlight the importance of ensuring universal access to potential care and therapy that saves people who can arise from technology.
Tedro, who has repeatedly voiced anger for access that was dramatically unevenly to the Covid-19 vaccine around the world, also insisted that the potential benefits of gig editing technology must be learned.
“The editing of the human genome has the potential to advance our ability to treat and cure diseases,” he said in a statement.
“But the full impact will only be realized if we use it for the benefit of everyone, instead of triggering more healthy injustices between and within the country.”
Who detail the steps to ensure the editing of human genes is safe and ethical
